Um...huh? (Duck, Fred, it's politicopunctuation...)
 

Doesn't _anybody_ on _either_ side actually _read_ the crap they puke forth unto
the 'net...?

OK, so a lot of the limpdick beckerheads are in a tizzy:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...rpower-like/4/

because they claim Obama said:

"It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these
conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military
superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into
them," Obama said. "And that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both
blood and treasure."

Er, OK...so what's the big deal, you might ask? The left-wingnuts are defending
it by saying that the "like it or not" bit goes not with being
"...a...superpower," but with the getting pulled into conflicts and the costs of
being so pulled. OK, fair enough, seems correct, and the quote above, as cited
by the right-wingers themselves, would support that defense of Obama. OTOH, all
of the left-wingnuts I've seen have used this version:

"It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these
conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military
superpower. And when conflicts break out, one way or another, we get pulled into
them."

which would tend to support the beckerhead criticism of the remarks.

So, what did he actually say? The WH release uses the right-wingnut version and
the actual speech itself tends to support the WH release pretty clearly.

So what started the whole silly flap? Apparently, it started when a beckerhead
and an Obamaniac got into it on some cable news show and the only part addressed
or mentioned was, "Whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military
superpower." (sic), with the BH calling such a remark "un-American" (which it
would have tended to be had it been remotely accurate) and the OM basically
defending it by saying that many in the US don't want the US to be "a dominate
military superpower" (likely true enough, but there is no indication that Obama
wants to be included in or in any way supports that "many" and IAC, is
immaterial in this context) and neither of them OR the "news" staff checked out
the whole thing. And apparently, none of the above-mentioned has bothered to
check it out since OR even read their own "analysis" of it all.

Sheesh,
R

Um...huh? (Duck, Fred, it's politicopunctuation...)
 

On Apr 15, 12:32*pm, wrote:
Doesn't _anybody_ on _either_ side actually _read_ the crap they puke forth unto
the 'net...?

OK, so a lot of the limpdick beckerheads are in a tizzy:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...a-superpower-l...

because they claim Obama said:

"It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these
conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military
superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into
them," Obama said. "And that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both
blood and treasure."

Er, OK...so what's the big deal, you might ask? *The left-wingnuts are defending
it by saying that the "like it or not" bit goes not with being
"...a...superpower," but with the getting pulled into conflicts and the costs of
being so pulled. *OK, fair enough, seems correct, and the quote above, as cited
by the right-wingers themselves, would support that defense of Obama. *OTOH, all
of the left-wingnuts I've seen have used this version:

"It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these
conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military
superpower. And when conflicts break out, one way or another, we get pulled into
them."

which would tend to support the beckerhead criticism of the remarks.

So, what did he actually say? *The WH release uses the right-wingnut version and
the actual speech itself tends to support the WH release pretty clearly. *

So what started the whole silly flap? *Apparently, it started when a beckerhead
and an Obamaniac got into it on some cable news show and the only part addressed
or mentioned was, "Whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military
superpower." (sic), with the BH calling such a remark "un-American" (which it
would have tended to be had it been remotely accurate) and the OM basically
defending it by saying that many in the US don't want the US to be "a dominate
military superpower" (likely true enough, but there is no indication that Obama
wants to be included in or in any way supports that "many" and IAC, is
immaterial in this context) and neither of them OR the "news" staff checked out
the whole thing. *And apparently, none of the above-mentioned has bothered to
check it out since OR even read their own "analysis" of it all.

Sheesh,
R

Imbecile.

g.

Um...huh? (Duck, Fred, it's politicopunctuation...)
 

I will not read this.... I will not read this....
I will NOT read this

Fred

Um...huh? (Duck, Fred, it's politicopunctuation...)
 

On Apr 17, 3:05*pm, "Fred" wrote:
I will not read this.... I will not read this....
I will NOT read this

Fred

Maybe not. But you will respond, nevertheless.

Idiot.

g.

Um...huh? (Duck, Fred, it's politicopunctuation...)
 

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 20:05:52 GMT, "Fred" wrote:

I will not read this.... I will not read this....
I will NOT read this

Fred

Aw, dude, it probably wouldn't have made yer head explode...well, much,
anyways...

TC,
R

Um...huh? (Duck, Fred, it's politicopunctuation...)
 

On Apr 18, 11:30*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 20:05:52 GMT, "Fred" wrote:
I will not read this.... I will not read this....
I will NOT read this

Fred

Aw, dude, it probably wouldn't have made yer head explode...well, much,
anyways...

TC,
R

Idiot.

g.