Alan Baker

In article
<94e02989-c0c3-48a5-a3e2->,
The_Professor <> wrote:

> On Sep 25, 3:17 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <e31b751d-a268-4b2f-9f12-24e48d798...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  The_Professor <d...@att.net> wrote:
> > > On Sep 25, 3:06 pm, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote:
> > > > "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > >news:...
> >
> > > > > "William A. T. Clark" <cl...@nospammatsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in
> > > > > message
> > > > >news:clark-...
> > > > >> In article <nnDCk.1227$Jw....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
> > > > >> "Stapler" <stap...@tmp.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > >>> William Clark wrote:
> > > > >>> > In article <48DADA61.9C862...@att.net>, The Professor
> > > > >>> > <D...@att.net>
> > > > >>> > wrote:
> >
> > > > >>> >> So Dem VP Joe Biden is on national TV talking about President
> > > > >>> >> Roosevelt's TV address during the 1929 stock crash. What's he
> > > > >>> >> gonna
> > > > >>> >> do next, tell a guy in a wheelchair to stand up? Or has he done
> > > > >>> >> that
> > > > >>> >> already too?
> >
> > > > >>> >> What if Sarah Palin had done either of these things?
> >
> > > > >>> > There's no possibility of that - Sarah Palin doesn't even know
> > > > >>> > who
> > > > >>> > Roosevelt was.
> >
> > > > >>> Fuckhead.
> >
> > > > >> Another stellar contribution to informed debate.
> >
> > > > > Informed debate?  You claim Palin does not know who Roosevelt was?
> > > > >  How is
> > > > > that informed debate?
> >
> > > > She didn't even know what the Bush Doctrine is.  Any junior high school
> > > > kid
> > > > who studies Civics knows that.
> >
> > > > Gimme a break.
> >
> > > > randy- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > Show me a  statement, and statement Bush issued as a doctrine. Good
> > > luck! Post the URL. I am not interested in some policy statement a
> > > commentator like Chuckie Gibson would call a doctrine...either the
> > > Bush Whitehouse isssued a doctrine, calling it such, or they didn't.
> > > Seems to me they didn't and Chucko was dipping a little too much into
> > > the absinthe when he imagined this doctrine!
> >
> > "doctrine |?d?ktrin|
> > noun
> > a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party,
> > or other group : the doctrine of predestination.
> > € a stated principle of government policy, mainly in foreign or military
> > affairs : the Monroe Doctrine.
> > ORIGIN late Middle English : from Old French, from Latin doctrina
> > ‘teaching, learning,1 from doctor ‘teacher,1 from docere ‘teach.1"
> >
> > <http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/>
> >
> > --
> > Alan Baker
> > Vancouver, British Columbia
> > <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>- Hide quoted
> > text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> What a lame response. You can cut and paste from an online dicrioanry.
> Problem with going general is that by that standard, there are dozens
> of Bush Doctrines, so the issue beciomes which one. The Chuckster did
> not articulate anything (as he did as moderator of a debate...he
> articulated the specific Bush Doctrine his mind conjured up).

That was what the official Whitehouse link was for, "Professor"...

>
> You should be concerned about the Canadian election though. I think
> it's important to elect someone who will take even more money from
> people who work and give it to people who don't want to work. It's
> what government in Canada is all about! Keep that "progressive"
> tradition going!

I agree that's a bad idea, "Professor". See what you get for assuming
you know what my politics are?

Alan Baker

In article <>,
"MNMikeW" <> wrote:

> ""R&B"" <> wrote in message
> news:...
> > "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote in message
> > news:...
> >>
> >> "William A. T. Clark" <> wrote in
> >> message
> >> news:clark-...
> >>> In article <nnDCk.1227$>,
> >>> "Stapler" <> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> William Clark wrote:
> >>>> > In article <>, The Professor <>
> >>>> > wrote:
> >>>> >
> >>>> >> So Dem VP Joe Biden is on national TV talking about President
> >>>> >> Roosevelt's TV address during the 1929 stock crash. What's he gonna
> >>>> >> do next, tell a guy in a wheelchair to stand up? Or has he done that
> >>>> >> already too?
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> What if Sarah Palin had done either of these things?
> >>>> >
> >>>> > There's no possibility of that - Sarah Palin doesn't even know who
> >>>> > Roosevelt was.
> >>>>
> >>>> Fuckhead.
> >>>
> >>> Another stellar contribution to informed debate.
> >>
> >> Informed debate? You claim Palin does not know who Roosevelt was? How
> >> is that informed debate?
> >
> >
> > She didn't even know what the Bush Doctrine is. Any junior high school
> > kid who studies Civics knows that.
> >
> > Gimme a break.
> >
> > randy
> >
> The so-called "Bush Doctrine" was actually three different things.

Really?

What do you claim they were, these three things?

William Clark

In article <>,
"MNMikeW" <> wrote:

> ""R&B"" <> wrote in message
> news:...
> > "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote in message
> > news:...
> >>
> >> "William A. T. Clark" <> wrote in
> >> message
> >> news:clark-...
> >>> In article <nnDCk.1227$>,
> >>> "Stapler" <> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> William Clark wrote:
> >>>> > In article <>, The Professor <>
> >>>> > wrote:
> >>>> >
> >>>> >> So Dem VP Joe Biden is on national TV talking about President
> >>>> >> Roosevelt's TV address during the 1929 stock crash. What's he gonna
> >>>> >> do next, tell a guy in a wheelchair to stand up? Or has he done that
> >>>> >> already too?
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> What if Sarah Palin had done either of these things?
> >>>> >
> >>>> > There's no possibility of that - Sarah Palin doesn't even know who
> >>>> > Roosevelt was.
> >>>>
> >>>> Fuckhead.
> >>>
> >>> Another stellar contribution to informed debate.
> >>
> >> Informed debate? You claim Palin does not know who Roosevelt was? How
> >> is that informed debate?
> >
> >
> > She didn't even know what the Bush Doctrine is. Any junior high school
> > kid who studies Civics knows that.
> >
> > Gimme a break.
> >
> > randy
> >
> The so-called "Bush Doctrine" was actually three different things.

And she didn't know any one of them.

Bar

"R&B" wrote:
> "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote in message
> news:...
>> "William A. T. Clark" <> wrote in
>> message
>> news:clark-...
>>> In article <nnDCk.1227$>,
>>> "Stapler" <> wrote:
>>>
>>>> William Clark wrote:
>>>>> In article <>, The Professor <>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> So Dem VP Joe Biden is on national TV talking about President
>>>>>> Roosevelt's TV address during the 1929 stock crash. What's he gonna
>>>>>> do next, tell a guy in a wheelchair to stand up? Or has he done that
>>>>>> already too?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What if Sarah Palin had done either of these things?
>>>>> There's no possibility of that - Sarah Palin doesn't even know who
>>>>> Roosevelt was.
>>>> Fuckhead.
>>> Another stellar contribution to informed debate.
>> Informed debate? You claim Palin does not know who Roosevelt was? How is
>> that informed debate?
>
>
> She didn't even know what the Bush Doctrine is. Any junior high school kid
> who studies Civics knows that.
>
> Gimme a break.

Can you specifically identify what the Bush doctrine? As described by
Bush himself?

Carbon

On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 19:54:35 -0400, BAR wrote:
> "R&B" wrote:
>> "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>> "William A. T. Clark" <> wrote in
>>> message
>>> news:clark-...
>>>> In article <nnDCk.1227$>, "Stapler"
>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>> William Clark wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> There's no possibility of that - Sarah Palin doesn't even know who
>>>>>> Roosevelt was.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fuckhead.
>>>>
>>>> Another stellar contribution to informed debate.
>>>
>>> Informed debate? You claim Palin does not know who Roosevelt was?
>>> How is that informed debate?
>>
>> She didn't even know what the Bush Doctrine is. Any junior high school
>> kid who studies Civics knows that.
>>
>> Gimme a break.
>
> Can you specifically identify what the Bush doctrine? As described by
> Bush himself?

You're assuming Bush understands what the Bush Doctrine is. Why? As you
know, questions like this are normally answered by one of the many Neocon
ideologues on his staff. Bush has more important things to do, like set
the record for Presidential vacation days.

Alan Baker

In article <>,
BAR <> wrote:

> "R&B" wrote:
> > "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote in message
> > news:...
> >> "William A. T. Clark" <> wrote in
> >> message
> >> news:clark-...
> >>> In article <nnDCk.1227$>,
> >>> "Stapler" <> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> William Clark wrote:
> >>>>> In article <>, The Professor <>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> So Dem VP Joe Biden is on national TV talking about President
> >>>>>> Roosevelt's TV address during the 1929 stock crash. What's he gonna
> >>>>>> do next, tell a guy in a wheelchair to stand up? Or has he done that
> >>>>>> already too?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What if Sarah Palin had done either of these things?
> >>>>> There's no possibility of that - Sarah Palin doesn't even know who
> >>>>> Roosevelt was.
> >>>> Fuckhead.
> >>> Another stellar contribution to informed debate.
> >> Informed debate? You claim Palin does not know who Roosevelt was? How is
> >> that informed debate?
> >
> >
> > She didn't even know what the Bush Doctrine is. Any junior high school kid
> > who studies Civics knows that.
> >
> > Gimme a break.
>
> Can you specifically identify what the Bush doctrine? As described by
> Bush himself?

"For much of the last century, America's defense relied on the Cold War
doctrines of deterrence and containment. In some cases, those strategies
still apply. But new threats also require new thinking. Deterrence --
the promise of massive retaliation against nations -- means nothing
against shadowy terrorist networks with no nation or citizens to defend.
Containment is not possible when unbalanced dictators with weapons of
mass destruction can deliver those weapons on missiles or secretly
provide them to terrorist allies.

We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. We
cannot put our faith in the word of tyrants, who solemnly sign
non-proliferation treaties, and then systemically break them. If we wait
for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long.

Homeland defense and missile defense are part of stronger security, and
they're essential priorities for America. Yet the war on terror will not
be won on the defensive. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt
his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge. In the
world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action.
And this nation will act.

Our security will require the best intelligence, to reveal threats
hidden in caves and growing in laboratories. Our security will require
modernizing domestic agencies such as the FBI, so they're prepared to
act, and act quickly, against danger. Our security will require
transforming the military you will lead -- a military that must be ready
to strike at a moment's notice in any dark corner of the world. And our
security will require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute,
to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty
and to defend our lives. (Applause.)"

<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020601-3.html>

"To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the
United States will, if necessary, act preemptively in exercising our
inherent right of self-defense."

<http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/nss2006.pdf>

Specific enough for you? Too bad you can't slough it off by attacking
the source, huh?

R&B

"BAR" <> wrote
>
> Can you specifically identify what the Bush doctrine? As described by Bush
> himself?


Well, given the inherant limitations of the inarticulate nature with which
President Bush expresses himself, yes I can.

"We're fightin' 'em over there so we don't have to fight 'em here."

The Bush Doctrine, as most any Civics student in junior high school can tell
you, is, in essence, the doctrine of pre-emptive war, something for which
there was no precedent in America prior to our invasion of Iraq. Bush was
the first American president to invade a soverign nation without first being
attacked by them.

Randy

R&B

"Carbon" <> wrote
>
> You're assuming Bush understands what the Bush Doctrine is.


Actually these sorts of things are usually left to historians to apply a
name to.

It's just that Bush became history even before leaving office.

Randy

Bar

"R&B" wrote:
> "BAR" <> wrote
>> Can you specifically identify what the Bush doctrine? As described by Bush
>> himself?
>
>
> Well, given the inherant limitations of the inarticulate nature with which
> President Bush expresses himself, yes I can.
>
> "We're fightin' 'em over there so we don't have to fight 'em here."
>
> The Bush Doctrine, as most any Civics student in junior high school can tell
> you, is, in essence, the doctrine of pre-emptive war, something for which
> there was no precedent in America prior to our invasion of Iraq. Bush was
> the first American president to invade a soverign nation without first being
> attacked by them.

There was no precedent for the Monroe Doctrine are you against it too?

The_Professor

On Sep 25, 6:06 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> In article
> <94e02989-c0c3-48a5-a3e2-dc259122a...@k7g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>  The_Professor <d...@att.net> wrote:
> > On Sep 25, 3:17 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <e31b751d-a268-4b2f-9f12-24e48d798...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > >  The_Professor <d...@att.net> wrote:
> > > > On Sep 25, 3:06 pm, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote:
> > > > > "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > >news:...
>
> > > > > > "William A. T. Clark" <cl...@nospammatsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in
> > > > > > message
> > > > > >news:clark-...
> > > > > >> In article <nnDCk.1227$Jw....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
> > > > > >> "Stapler" <stap...@tmp.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > >>> William Clark wrote:
> > > > > >>> > In article <48DADA61.9C862...@att.net>, The Professor
> > > > > >>> > <D...@att.net>
> > > > > >>> > wrote:
>
> > > > > >>> >> So Dem VP Joe Biden is on national TV talking about President
> > > > > >>> >> Roosevelt's TV address during the 1929 stock crash. What's he
> > > > > >>> >> gonna
> > > > > >>> >> do next, tell a guy in a wheelchair to stand up? Or has he done
> > > > > >>> >> that
> > > > > >>> >> already too?
>
> > > > > >>> >> What if Sarah Palin had done either of these things?
>
> > > > > >>> > There's no possibility of that - Sarah Palin doesn't even know
> > > > > >>> > who
> > > > > >>> > Roosevelt was.
>
> > > > > >>> Fuckhead.
>
> > > > > >> Another stellar contribution to informed debate.
>
> > > > > > Informed debate?  You claim Palin does not know who Roosevelt was?
> > > > > >  How is
> > > > > > that informed debate?
>
> > > > > She didn't even know what the Bush Doctrine is.  Any junior high school
> > > > > kid
> > > > > who studies Civics knows that.
>
> > > > > Gimme a break.
>
> > > > > randy- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Show me a  statement, and statement Bush issued as a doctrine. Good
> > > > luck! Post the URL. I am not interested in some policy statement a
> > > > commentator like Chuckie Gibson would call a doctrine...either the
> > > > Bush Whitehouse isssued a doctrine, calling it such, or they didn't.
> > > > Seems to me they didn't and Chucko was dipping a little too much into
> > > > the absinthe when he imagined this doctrine!
>
> > > "doctrine |?d?ktrin|
> > > noun
> > > a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party,
> > > or other group : the doctrine of predestination.
> > > € a stated principle of government policy, mainly in foreign or military
> > > affairs : the Monroe Doctrine.
> > > ORIGIN late Middle English : from Old French, from Latin doctrina
> > > ‘teaching, learning,1 from doctor ‘teacher,1 from docere ‘teach.1"
>
> > > <http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/>
>
> > > --
> > > Alan Baker
> > > Vancouver, British Columbia
> > > <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>- Hide quoted
> > > text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > What a lame response. You can cut and paste from an online dicrioanry.
> > Problem with going general is that by that standard, there are dozens
> > of Bush Doctrines, so the issue beciomes which one. The Chuckster did
> > not articulate anything  (as he did as moderator of a debate...he
> > articulated the specific Bush Doctrine his mind conjured up).
>
> That was what the official Whitehouse link was for, "Professor"...
>

Fine, where the word "doctrine" Why couldn't CharlieO ask about The
national Security Strategey", which is the title of the document you
gave me a llink to? If Chuckeroo that inarticulate? Obviously!? And
given that, how is anyone supposed to know he is referring to the
National Security Strategy when he mentions this Bush Doctrine? Maybe
she answers about the security strategy and chuckolo comes back and
says, nope, that's not the Bush Doctrine, and rants on about some
other policy statement?

I'd also be willing to bet that if asked, Palin would know that hoover
was POTUS in 1929, and there were no national TV broadcasts in those
days.
>
> > You should be concerned about the Canadian election though. I think
> > it's important to elect someone who will take even more money from
> > people who work and give it to people who don't want to work. It's
> > what government in Canada is all about! Keep that "progressive"
> > tradition going!
>
> I agree that's a bad idea, "Professor". See what you get for assuming
> you know what my politics are?- Hide quoted text -

Like I said, you should be concerned, but apparently you wrry more
about US elections, which are none of your concern.