Gibson's "Bush Doctrine" Gaffe - according to the man who coined the term! - Page 2

Calminian · #11 (**permalink**) 09-12-2008, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frodly

Again, conservatives are trying to defend her by saying Gibson was wrong too. Well, he is not running for VP, so I don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*). She had no idea what the bush doctrine was. And she is running for VP, so I do care about her not knowing.

I don't think you get what he was wrong about. Implicit is his question was the idea that there is a right answer. Turns out, there isn't which means Palin was right to ask for clarification. The Bush Doctrine is very broad and open and includes her answer. Now do you get it?

Calminian · #12 (**permalink**) 09-12-2008, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J.Anderson

She clearly had no clue what the Bush Doctrine was. End of story.

Nor does anyone here, nor do all of our politicians, nor does it matter one bit.

Calminian · #13 (**permalink**) 09-12-2008, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMS

no. forget about it simply being a logical fallacy. for you to have to even create the illusion of a logical fallacy means you have absolutely not credibility. the guys an absolute joke.

You sound really confused. Perhaps you rushed in a little too quick and got caught with a hook.

J.Anderson · #14 (**permalink**) 09-12-2008, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Nor does anyone here, nor do all of our politicians, nor does it matter one bit.

Is this guy serious? In the common lexicon, the "Bush Doctrine" is the notion of preemptive war. This isn't rocket science. Your argument is absurd.

Calminian · #15 (**permalink**) 09-12-2008, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMS

lol, you really need to be up to speed with the web before you try and manipulate it to suit your needs. my link doesnt say? yeah, thats the point. the link doesnt say. exactly. this guy claims authority over the subject by citing the fact that wiki attributes the term to him, yet this wasnt the case before the interview. the entry was modified recently. last edited today, in fact.

You just killed your own case. He simply stated that the wiki article said it, he didn't cite it as his source or proof. You should have paced yourself. You seem like an otherwise, fairly bright guy.

frodly · #16 (**permalink**) 09-12-2008, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calminian

I don't think you get what he was wrong about. Implicit is his question was the idea that there is a right answer. Turns out, there isn't which means Palin was right to ask for clarification. The Bush Doctrine is very broad and open and includes her answer. Now do you get it?

No, she would have been right, if she had said. "Well, that term means a few different things, what part of the bush doctrine are you referring to?" She didn't say that, she said what some one says when they have no idea what is going on.

Calminian · #17 (**permalink**) 09-12-2008, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J.Anderson

Is this guy serious? In the common lexicon, the "Bush Doctrine" is the notion of preemptive war. This isn't rocket science. Your argument is absurd.

Oh man, he's repeating the Gibson gaffe. This is getting too funny.

J.Anderson · #18 (**permalink**) 09-12-2008, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Oh man, he's repeating the Gibson gaffe. This is getting too funny.

Ok, stack of brains, there is clearly no reasoning with you.

Calminian · #19 (**permalink**) 09-12-2008, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frodly

No, she would have been right, if she had said. "Well, that term means a few different things, what part of the bush doctrine are you referring to?" She didn't say that, she said what some one says when they have no idea what is going on.

She didn't say that was the Bush Doctrine, she said that was one of Bush's main goals. She didn't pretend to know exactly the right definition and the truth is, there isn't one. It's all speculation and interpretation. Do you really think anyone in the country (save Palin haters) are going to care?

All that's happened is that Gibson has become the next Dan Rather.

Calminian · #20 (**permalink**) 09-12-2008, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J.Anderson

Ok, stack of brains, there is clearly no reasoning with you.

Look, just read the article dumb dumb. Then come back and we'll reason.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Obumble the human gaffe machine mangles "Nittany Lions"	JLB	Elections & Campaigns	22	09-05-2008 02:54 PM
A science fiction story - The term "inbred" is an understatement	danarhea	Off-Topic Chat	0	05-19-2008 11:33 PM
"Fairness Doctrine"-Bush Primises to Veto if it comes up.	DuH2	Media & Commentators	140	04-01-2008 02:15 PM
What does the term "national interest" mean to you?	Zoe	Political Opinions & Beliefs	9	03-22-2006 08:17 PM
Hillary coined term =' fraudulent inacucracies'	f100supersabr	Current Events	2	08-30-2004 08:43 PM