goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: 06wildcat on July 20, 2010, 06:14:06 PM
-
Interesting read on how Republican foreign policy has changed, or not changed, since before World War II.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/07/16/end_of_the_establishment (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/07/16/end_of_the_establishment)
-
Interesting read on how Republican foreign policy has changed, or not changed, since before World War II.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/07/16/end_of_the_establishment (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/07/16/end_of_the_establishment)
I ALMOST made it three paragraphs :dunno:
Question: why is an MTV VJ (or possibly Rachel Maddow) dictating an article on foreign policy???
Seriously, is this the sh*t that passes for journalism these days? The writer is all over the place in less than 3 paragraphs, a deaf, dumb and blind schizophrenic, with ADHD stands a better chance at winning a pulitzer than this bad person.
I'm truly embarrassed for the poster that linked this, I mean good god, where do you find this drivel? :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
Mods please remove for the sake of humanity. 06Wildcat if you don't get a f*cking clue soon, I'll be more than willing to sell you one.
-
Interesting read on how Republican foreign policy has changed, or not changed, since before World War II.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/07/16/end_of_the_establishment (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/07/16/end_of_the_establishment)
I ALMOST made it three paragraphs :dunno:
Question: why is an MTV VJ (or possibly Rachel Maddow) dictating an article on foreign policy???
Seriously, is this the sh*t that passes for journalism these days? The writer is all over the place in less than 3 paragraphs, a deaf, dumb and blind schizophrenic, with ADHD stands a better chance at winning a pulitzer than this bad person.
I'm truly embarrassed for the poster that linked this, I mean good god, where do you find this drivel? :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
Mods please remove for the sake of humanity. 06Wildcat if you don't get a f*cking clue soon, I'll be more than willing to sell you one.
Since you didn't make it past the subhead, I'll take the above post as a compliment. And yes, this is what long-form journalism is. They use big, scary and elitist sounding words.
-
Interesting read on how Republican foreign policy has changed, or not changed, since before World War II.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/07/16/end_of_the_establishment (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/07/16/end_of_the_establishment)
I ALMOST made it three paragraphs :dunno:
Question: why is an MTV VJ (or possibly Rachel Maddow) dictating an article on foreign policy???
Seriously, is this the sh*t that passes for journalism these days? The writer is all over the place in less than 3 paragraphs, a deaf, dumb and blind schizophrenic, with ADHD stands a better chance at winning a pulitzer than this bad person.
I'm truly embarrassed for the poster that linked this, I mean good god, where do you find this drivel? :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
Mods please remove for the sake of humanity. 06Wildcat if you don't get a f*cking clue soon, I'll be more than willing to sell you one.
Since you didn't make it past the subhead, I'll take the above post as a compliment. And yes, this is what long-form journalism is. They use big, scary and elitist sounding words.
Sugar Dick must be a poor reader.
-
Interesting read on how Republican foreign policy has changed, or not changed, since before World War II.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/07/16/end_of_the_establishment (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/07/16/end_of_the_establishment)
I ALMOST made it three paragraphs :dunno:
Question: why is an MTV VJ (or possibly Rachel Maddow) dictating an article on foreign policy???
Seriously, is this the sh*t that passes for journalism these days? The writer is all over the place in less than 3 paragraphs, a deaf, dumb and blind schizophrenic, with ADHD stands a better chance at winning a pulitzer than this bad person.
I'm truly embarrassed for the poster that linked this, I mean good god, where do you find this drivel? :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
Mods please remove for the sake of humanity. 06Wildcat if you don't get a f*cking clue soon, I'll be more than willing to sell you one.
Since you didn't make it past the subhead, I'll take the above post as a compliment. And yes, this is what long-form journalism is. They use big, scary and elitist sounding words.
Pfft. Thank you for confirming my assumptions. You are one dumb sonofabitch
-
This actually explains a lot
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the Slate Group, a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC
All contents ©2009 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. All rights reserved.
Newsweek :lol: :lol:
-
Interesting read on how Republican foreign policy has changed, or not changed, since before World War II.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/07/16/end_of_the_establishment (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/07/16/end_of_the_establishment)
I ALMOST made it three paragraphs :dunno:
Question: why is an MTV VJ (or possibly Rachel Maddow) dictating an article on foreign policy???
Seriously, is this the sh*t that passes for journalism these days? The writer is all over the place in less than 3 paragraphs, a deaf, dumb and blind schizophrenic, with ADHD stands a better chance at winning a pulitzer than this bad person.
I'm truly embarrassed for the poster that linked this, I mean good god, where do you find this drivel? :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
Mods please remove for the sake of humanity. 06Wildcat if you don't get a f*cking clue soon, I'll be more than willing to sell you one.
It's awesome how Sugar Dick never puts forward an argument, just a bunch of name calling. Sign of low intelligence.
-
Interesting read on how Republican foreign policy has changed, or not changed, since before World War II.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/07/16/end_of_the_establishment (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/07/16/end_of_the_establishment)
I ALMOST made it three paragraphs :dunno:
Question: why is an MTV VJ (or possibly Rachel Maddow) dictating an article on foreign policy???
Seriously, is this the sh*t that passes for journalism these days? The writer is all over the place in less than 3 paragraphs, a deaf, dumb and blind schizophrenic, with ADHD stands a better chance at winning a pulitzer than this bad person.
I'm truly embarrassed for the poster that linked this, I mean good god, where do you find this drivel? :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
Mods please remove for the sake of humanity. 06Wildcat if you don't get a f*cking clue soon, I'll be more than willing to sell you one.
It's awesome how Sugar Dick never puts forward an argument, just a bunch of name calling. Sign of low intelligence.
The argument is in the quote you posted. :facepalm:
:signoflowintelligence:
-
Interesting read on how Republican foreign policy has changed, or not changed, since before World War II.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/07/16/end_of_the_establishment (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/07/16/end_of_the_establishment)
I ALMOST made it three paragraphs :dunno:
Question: why is an MTV VJ (or possibly Rachel Maddow) dictating an article on foreign policy???
Seriously, is this the sh*t that passes for journalism these days? The writer is all over the place in less than 3 paragraphs, a deaf, dumb and blind schizophrenic, with ADHD stands a better chance at winning a pulitzer than this bad person.
I'm truly embarrassed for the poster that linked this, I mean good god, where do you find this drivel? :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
Mods please remove for the sake of humanity. 06Wildcat if you don't get a f*cking clue soon, I'll be more than willing to sell you one.
It's awesome how Sugar Dick never puts forward an argument, just a bunch of name calling. Sign of low intelligence.
The argument is in the quote you posted. :facepalm:
:signoflowintelligence:
There's no argument in there, dick for brains.
In logic, an argument is a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences (or "propositions") known as the premises along with another meaningful declarative sentence (or "proposition") known as the conclusion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument
-
Interesting read on how Republican foreign policy has changed, or not changed, since before World War II.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/07/16/end_of_the_establishment (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/07/16/end_of_the_establishment)
I ALMOST made it three paragraphs :dunno:
Question: why is an MTV VJ (or possibly Rachel Maddow) dictating an article on foreign policy???
Seriously, is this the sh*t that passes for journalism these days? The writer is all over the place in less than 3 paragraphs, a deaf, dumb and blind schizophrenic, with ADHD stands a better chance at winning a pulitzer than this bad person.
I'm truly embarrassed for the poster that linked this, I mean good god, where do you find this drivel? :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
Mods please remove for the sake of humanity. 06Wildcat if you don't get a f*cking clue soon, I'll be more than willing to sell you one.
It's awesome how Sugar Dick never puts forward an argument, just a bunch of name calling. Sign of low intelligence.
The argument is in the quote you posted. :facepalm:
:signoflowintelligence:
There's no argument in there, dick for brains.
In logic, an argument is a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences (or "propositions") known as the premises along with another meaningful declarative sentence (or "proposition") known as the conclusion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument
Let me dumb it down for you: This is an objectively poor piece of journalism, in fact its so bad I failed to finish reading it.
I guess you're right, I didn't make an argument, just pointed out how bad the writer is. In my opinion, you shouldn't link bad writing because its indicative of poor journalism, therefore a poor article. Which is why I continue to be embarrassed by the poster that linked it.
Sorry, from now on I'll be sure to argue with you and others. :dunno:
-
Let me dumb it down for you: This is an objectively poor piece of journalism, in fact its so bad I failed to finish reading it.
I guess you're right, I didn't make an argument, just pointed out how bad the writer is. In my opinion, you shouldn't link bad writing because its indicative of poor journalism, therefore a poor article. Which is why I continue to be embarrassed by the poster that linked it.
Sorry, from now on I'll be sure to argue with you and others. :dunno:
:facepalm:
Incredibly, you succeeded in dumbing it down.
-
Let me dumb it down for you: This is an objectively poor piece of journalism, in fact its so bad I failed to finish reading it.
I guess you're right, I didn't make an argument, just pointed out how bad the writer is. In my opinion, you shouldn't link bad writing because its indicative of poor journalism, therefore a poor article. Which is why I continue to be embarrassed by the poster that linked it.
Sorry, from now on I'll be sure to argue with you and others. :dunno:
:facepalm:
Incredibly, you succeeded in dumbing it down.
It's awesome how Sugar Dick never puts forward an argument, just a bunch of name calling. Sign of low intelligence.
-
This article makes no sense on a number of levels.
This is all this liberal has to say about Ronald Reagan when discussing the end of an establishment?
"Ronald Reagan entered office by bringing on board a host of movement conservatives, but ended up relying on his cautious secretary of state, George Shultz, and winding down the Cold War, much to the consternation of the true believers. The right felt, once again, that it had been sold out by its own leadership."
I remember the Liberals going nuts over what Reagan was saying to the Commies. I don't remember any consternation with "true believers" and I have no idea who they are? If I am one of them, I am a conservative, then I don't remember being sold out by Reagan, but felt proud when that wall fell. I wanted the defeat of communism, as it's responsible for over 100 million dead and counting.
There is also no specifics in the article on Mitt's actual opinion on the START Treaty. Specifically Mitt's first point:
"New START does limit U.S. missile-defense options. First, New START’s preamble not only references missile defense, it accedes to Russia’s insistence that there is an interrelationship between strategic offensive weapons and missile defense. While the Bush administration steadfastly refused to accept this Russian position, the Obama administration bows to it. The statement of interrelationship in the preamble, in addition to the specific missile-defense measures in the body of the treaty, amount to a major concession to Russia."
Sounds like a conservative position to me and one that Ike/Reagan/Bush/Bush would have.
The author is incoherent in his points and has no logical arguments to support his conclusion. Of course it is a left-wing rag, which he probably got his talking points from Journolist.
Of course facts usually get in the way of these authors.
-
Now Russia comes out against Iranian sanctions. We give and give and get nothing. Great policy Obama.
-
This article makes no sense on a number of levels.
This is all this liberal has to say about Ronald Reagan when discussing the end of an establishment?
"Ronald Reagan entered office by bringing on board a host of movement conservatives, but ended up relying on his cautious secretary of state, George Shultz, and winding down the Cold War, much to the consternation of the true believers. The right felt, once again, that it had been sold out by its own leadership."
I remember the Liberals going nuts over what Reagan was saying to the Commies. I don't remember any consternation with "true believers" and I have no idea who they are? If I am one of them, I am a conservative, then I don't remember being sold out by Reagan, but felt proud when that wall fell. I wanted the defeat of communism, as it's responsible for over 100 million dead and counting.
There is also no specifics in the article on Mitt's actual opinion on the START Treaty. Specifically Mitt's first point:
"New START does limit U.S. missile-defense options. First, New START’s preamble not only references missile defense, it accedes to Russia’s insistence that there is an interrelationship between strategic offensive weapons and missile defense. While the Bush administration steadfastly refused to accept this Russian position, the Obama administration bows to it. The statement of interrelationship in the preamble, in addition to the specific missile-defense measures in the body of the treaty, amount to a major concession to Russia."
Sounds like a conservative position to me and one that Ike/Reagan/Bush/Bush would have.
The author is incoherent in his points and has no logical arguments to support his conclusion. Of course it is a left-wing rag, which he probably got his talking points from Journolist.
Of course facts usually get in the way of these authors.
This is Foreign Policy magazine. They are assuming you read Mitt's op-ed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/05/AR2010070502657.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/05/AR2010070502657.html)
And Sugar, if you think that the Foreign Policy writer's first paragraphs were rambling, you'll love Romney's opener.
-
There's what's in the treaties and then there's reality.
Some day you young'uns will understand that the U.S. gives up nothing in these things until we've already moved on to the next paradigm shift in weapon technology.
In addition, the U.S. (and Russia) will work every loophole . . . be it ship based ABM systems, Prompt Global Strike, ground/space/ship based laser systems . . . Raytheon is already shooting aircraft out of the sky using lasers mounted to a standard Navy Phallanx anti missile system, they are already successfully shooting ICBM's out of the sky using lasers . . . the treaties are nothing but window dressing for the useful idiot "peace" movement. At the end of the day War Inc. just keeps marching on.
-
This article makes no sense on a number of levels.
This is all this liberal has to say about Ronald Reagan when discussing the end of an establishment?
"Ronald Reagan entered office by bringing on board a host of movement conservatives, but ended up relying on his cautious secretary of state, George Shultz, and winding down the Cold War, much to the consternation of the true believers. The right felt, once again, that it had been sold out by its own leadership."
I remember the Liberals going nuts over what Reagan was saying to the Commies. I don't remember any consternation with "true believers" and I have no idea who they are? If I am one of them, I am a conservative, then I don't remember being sold out by Reagan, but felt proud when that wall fell. I wanted the defeat of communism, as it's responsible for over 100 million dead and counting.
The wall didn't fall until Bush was president. The bigger point is that the Right DID feel sold out when Reagan entered into conversations and arms treaties with Gorbachev. Schultz convinced Reagan that Gorbachev was a man he could work with, and Reagan went along with this realpolitik approach. (You saw exactly the opposite approach during the Bush II presidency and in the 2008 election, when Republicans said it would be a betrayal to even speak with enemies such as Iran, etc.)
-
This article makes no sense on a number of levels.
This is all this liberal has to say about Ronald Reagan when discussing the end of an establishment?
"Ronald Reagan entered office by bringing on board a host of movement conservatives, but ended up relying on his cautious secretary of state, George Shultz, and winding down the Cold War, much to the consternation of the true believers. The right felt, once again, that it had been sold out by its own leadership."
I remember the Liberals going nuts over what Reagan was saying to the Commies. I don't remember any consternation with "true believers" and I have no idea who they are? If I am one of them, I am a conservative, then I don't remember being sold out by Reagan, but felt proud when that wall fell. I wanted the defeat of communism, as it's responsible for over 100 million dead and counting.
There is also no specifics in the article on Mitt's actual opinion on the START Treaty. Specifically Mitt's first point:
"New START does limit U.S. missile-defense options. First, New START’s preamble not only references missile defense, it accedes to Russia’s insistence that there is an interrelationship between strategic offensive weapons and missile defense. While the Bush administration steadfastly refused to accept this Russian position, the Obama administration bows to it. The statement of interrelationship in the preamble, in addition to the specific missile-defense measures in the body of the treaty, amount to a major concession to Russia."
Sounds like a conservative position to me and one that Ike/Reagan/Bush/Bush would have.
The author is incoherent in his points and has no logical arguments to support his conclusion. Of course it is a left-wing rag, which he probably got his talking points from Journolist.
Of course facts usually get in the way of these authors.
This is Foreign Policy magazine. They are assuming you read Mitt's op-ed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/05/AR2010070502657.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/05/AR2010070502657.html)
And Sugar, if you think that the Foreign Policy writer's first paragraphs were rambling, you'll love Romney's opener.
Romney's OpEd has structure, the structure is so obvious you could insert subtitles as he transitions.
The foreign policy "writer's" article lacks a scentilia of structure, its a rant. He's trying to fool the average moron into thinking he's smart by mixing in a bunch of words nobody ever uses (basically, he owns a thesaurus). Dave Wooderson hit the nail on the head.