Sarah Palin dominated
Created on: September 11th, 2008
Sarah Palin dominated
None ( ._.)

Add a comment

Please login or register to comment.
September 11th, 2008
(0)
nice site you got here bro
September 12th, 2008
(0)
obamas a monkey
September 11th, 2008
(0)
not to defend palin by any means, but Gibson is a genuine f*cktard.
September 12th, 2008
(0)
Charlie FAILS at interview: -5. Palin doesn't let him get away with it: +OVER 9000!
September 11th, 2008
(0)
nice domain grab!
September 11th, 2008
(0)
i was expecting something more with whips and chains.... :)
September 12th, 2008
(0)
and a spiny gigantic black dildo
September 12th, 2008
(0)
me to I was greatly dissapointed
September 12th, 2008
(0)
I was expecting DP
September 12th, 2008
(0)
Well, it really depends on what your definition of the word "The" is
September 12th, 2008
(0)
where is bill clinton?
September 12th, 2008
(0)
And where in fact could I find this "Bush Doctorine"?
September 12th, 2008
(0)
I am depressed, scared and amused.
September 12th, 2008
(0)
It was fun watching palin parrot the "support israel" line over and over, unfortunately this ytmnd made no mention of that.
September 12th, 2008
(0)
Vote for the negro!
September 12th, 2008
(0)
But Bill Clinton isn't running
September 12th, 2008
(0)
His world view?
September 12th, 2008
(0)
..........................IN WHAT RESPECT, CHARLIE?
September 12th, 2008
(0)
charrrrrrleeee?
September 12th, 2008
(0)
CANDY MOUNTAIN CHARLIE
September 12th, 2008
(0)
God damn she's hot.
September 12th, 2008
(0)
1 star for biased interview and only one GOTCHA moment
September 12th, 2008
(0)
5 Star cause Palin is a dumbass and doesn't know anything about foreign policy
September 12th, 2008
(0)
since when is charlie rose biased?
September 12th, 2008
(0)
btw, that's charles gibson, not charlie rose.
September 12th, 2008
(0)
for her not to know this was so utterly pathetic. she was torn apart in this interview, she is so clearly a liar who doesn't even know what she is talking about with her own lies. it's just pathetic.
September 12th, 2008
(0)
It's the responsibility of the interviewer to define terms in questions, not to play leap-frop with the interviewee.
September 12th, 2008
(0)
This is a generally accepted term, such as the "Monroe Doctrine". Check again
September 12th, 2008
(0)
Bgbez, your knowledge on the subject is lacking. I refer you to google to resolve your deficiency.
September 12th, 2008
(0)
There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different. 1. Originally coined for Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol. 2nd use of this term came after 9/11 which was Bush's "You are either with us or you are against us".
September 12th, 2008
(0)
After Iraq, the Bush Doctorine came to mean "Preemtive War" and this is what Gibson THOUGHT it meant. The Bush Doctorine has currently come to mean "the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world." which came out of Bush's second inaugural address. So pretty much Gibson goofed, & Palin actually had it right.
September 12th, 2008
(0)
Even Charles Krauthammer, the guy who first coined the term "Bush Doctrine", says Palin got it right and Gibson is an assclown: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457_pf.html
September 12th, 2008
(0)
I am aware of the definition of "Bush doctrine." I am surprised you necessarily inferred that I was ignorant of the definition simply because I did not cite it. In any event, blarg. :-)
September 13th, 2008
(0)
42 year old comments
September 13th, 2008
(0)
directory, I think that's a RACIST comment about the comments, and I'm not gonna stand for it.
September 12th, 2008
(0)
Bush Doctrine = whatever journalists/hippies hate about America at the moment.
September 12th, 2008
(0)
Lol! I'd 5 this comment if I could.
September 12th, 2008
(0)
Torture, kidnapping of citizens, illegal wiretapping, unitary executive. These are funny. Pardon me while I masturbate onto a book I'm about to burn while sending all my money to the 700 club after my neighbors are arrested and tortured. :)
September 12th, 2008
(0)
How long did it take you to build the little world you live in? Just curious.
September 12th, 2008
(0)
Uh, no. Not quite. But good try.
September 12th, 2008
(0)
I'd FAV this comment, if I could.
September 13th, 2008
(0)
i wish i could five that comment as well, but the + will do.
September 13th, 2008
(0)
Press (-) to plug your ears and scream, "It could never happen here!" Continue doing it as more journalists are detained without probable cause, citizens hit with peppersrpay and beaten in the street, et cetera. Also c*cks.
September 14th, 2008
(0)
Before Bush you could block streets and burns cars without getting peppersprayed? Like Reagan said, "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so."
September 12th, 2008
(0)
I think Hitler needs to be President. I tired of having a bunch of child raping baptist as presidents. If you're baptist you're pretty guaranteed to win the election.
September 12th, 2008
(0)
Al Gore = Baptist. George W Bush = Methodist
September 12th, 2008
(0)
although that equation would debunk Bobdole23's comment at first glance, fuzzhammer, you did not take into account the fact that more people voted for Al Gore than they did for George W Bush. Therefore, Al Gore (baptist) = won election. George W Bush (methodist) = lost election, but decided to take the presidency anyway. So that could basically come down to methodist = tyranic f*ckheads and baptist = too pussy to push back?
September 13th, 2008
(0)
2000 Al Gore: no majority in popular vote, lost in the electoral college. 2004 George Bush: majority of popular vote, won the electoral college. Facts are facts -- Gore didn't win sh*t in 2000 and has been banished to pimping a sourceless PowerPoint presentation to college kids around America.
September 13th, 2008
(0)
^^^ Sorry that you don't know the rules, dipsh*t. Al Gore = never won nuthin'. Majority is required for a win, and he didn't have it in EITHER the popular vote or the electoral college.
September 13th, 2008
(0)
Gore won the popular vote. What the hell is this about Bush winning the majority in the popular vote? Sauce please?
September 13th, 2008
(0)
Bush won a majority of the popular vote in 2004 merely because no major third party had a candidate in the election. Winning with 49% or 50.01% is incosequential. He won with only a 2.5% edge, making his victory the closest incumbent presidential victory in the history of the US (Wilson won reelection in 1916 by 3.2%). He then claimed a sweeping mandate, then got to sit back and watch his policy proposals (ie. social security privatization) get roundly rejected by the public.
September 13th, 2008
(0)
And that's going by the incorrect "official" tally, where several hundred thousand legal, registered voters were purged for being in selected counties. It will happen again in 2008.
September 13th, 2008
(0)
derpallardie: "Winning with 49% or 50.01% is incosequential." Actually it's the basis of the entire electoral process, so you couldn't be more wrong if you tried. (Vicariously, it's also the reason there will only ever be two major political parties in America.) Maybe you shouldn't sleep through your American Government class next time. Unless you have 50% + 1 vote, you don't win jack sh*t. So Al Gore didn't win the popular vote, or more importantly, the electoral vote in 2000. Get over it.
September 13th, 2008
(0)
the8ball: Unless you have 50% + 1 vote, you don't win jack sh*t. By this logic W was not elected in 2000. Clinton was not elected in 92 or 96. Nixon was not elected in 68. I can go on. '50% +1 vote' is meaningless given third parties run for office. Example: New Mexico, 2000. Bush and Gore both won 48% of the vote, with the edge in total votes going to Gore. 4% of the vote was for other candidates. Gore, having the most votes, won New Mexico's 5 electoral votes.
September 13th, 2008
(0)
derpallardie: Okay, you clearly have sh*t for brains. Despite that, I'm not going to retype the facts again if you're too stupid to comprehend them. Please continue to not vote in the general election, because it's abundantly clear you've never been in a voting booth before.
(0)
so this is where humbaf*g left his last comment on YTMND?
September 12th, 2008
(0)
FIVED... in what respect, Charlie?
September 12th, 2008
(0)
IN WHAT RESPECT, CHARRRRLIE MURPHY?
September 12th, 2008
(0)
IGLOO LEADER ATTACKS WITH WHIPPING DUMBLOCKS.
September 12th, 2008
(0)
Americuh fuk yea
September 12th, 2008
(0)
YOUR RESISTANCE ONLY MAKES MY PENIS HARDER
September 12th, 2008
(0)
-Republican Party
September 12th, 2008
(0)
What do you think of the <insert liberal buzz word here>?
September 12th, 2008
(0)
liberal media
September 13th, 2008
(0)
Sorry, but Charlie Gibson is just about as liberal as Charlie the Tuna. See the ABC democratic primary debate he moderated earlier this year.
September 12th, 2008
(0)
I hate her smacking. F*CK!
September 12th, 2008
(0)
LOL also Sarah Palin. Her opinion = god's will.
September 12th, 2008
(0)
someone remind me, what's her qualification for second-in-command, besides having a f*ckable mouth?
September 12th, 2008
(0)
she believes dinosaurs roamed the earth around the time of the sumerians.
September 13th, 2008
(0)
She's perfectly capable of casting the tie-breaking vote in the Senate, which is all she's required to do. Plus she's a great gimmick pick, which is all a VP choice is anyway.
September 13th, 2008
(0)
John McCain's life expectancy is less than a presidential term. Methinks her presidential qualifications are an issue.
September 13th, 2008
(0)
So are Obama's credentials, but the stupid Democrats put him FIRST on the ticket. Methinks they should've rethought that one.
September 13th, 2008
(0)
the8ball: So are Obama's credentials, but the stupid Democrats put him FIRST on the ticket. Methinks they should've rethought that one. Nice straw man. Obama has identical experience to that of Lincoln in 1860. Given the competition, though, not voting with Bush 95% of the time might be the only credential he needs.
September 13th, 2008
(0)
derpallardie: Well I see you have your "Obama For Dummies" book handy. Lincoln wasn't black or a Socialist, so Obama's credentials are hardly "identical" to his. And you got your propaganda quote wrong, McCain claimed to vote with Bush 90% of the time, not 95%. Which is funny, since presidents DON'T VOTE in the legislature.
September 14th, 2008
(0)
Presidents don't vote, but they do often indicate their position on pending legislation. In cases where W has done so, McCain has been on his side 90%. There's also tape of McCain attesting to this, and using the construction "I voted with the President".
September 14th, 2008
(0)
Lincoln actually had less experience in national politics than Obama at the time of his election (one two-year term in the House and a losing U.S. Senate race) but more importantly, they both demonstrated courage and mental acuity, and therefore the readiness for the job of President, by opposing popular but boneheaded policies.
September 13th, 2008
(0)
Deer caught in the headlights
September 13th, 2008
(0)
Asking for clarification == domination? Gibson doesn't even get the doctrine correct.
September 13th, 2008
(0)
That was a trap question because Charlie didn't specify, that Bush Doctrine is not like the Monroe Doctrine where it has a 100% set meaning.
September 13th, 2008
(0)
Dominated, really? That's funny, cuz she answered the question correctly. The term "Bush Doctrine" is a vague, manufactured journalistic term that nobody uses to describe his view on foreign policy, i.e. his world view.
September 13th, 2008
(0)
A spectral projection of John McCain explains the Bush Doctrine to Sarah Palin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1lf1I4eFTw
September 13th, 2008
(0)
This comment wins.
September 26th, 2008
(0)
really? are you guys this f*cking stupid? The "Bush Doctrine" is a CONSERVATIVE term invented by Bush's STAFF that explains the various policies he undertook after 9/11. You are an idiot if you think this is a "manufactured journalistic" phrase. Fail at politics, fail at life, 8ball.
September 13th, 2008
(0)
Of course, she could've taken the WAY more intelligent and civil approach that Obama takes to interviewing: NO, NO, nononononononononononononononono
September 13th, 2008
(0)
George Bush hates black people
September 13th, 2008
(0)
Well actually you forgot Poland!
September 27th, 2008
(0)
...in what respect, Charlie?
September 13th, 2008
(0)
hey here's an idea, lets ban and burn books, then when were done with that let's regulate the internet, so no more YTMND. raped by brian peppers and now you have his baby, oh but abortion is illegal, so your life sucks now. oh and let's drill more offshore, because it sounds real nice, but it won't have an impact for at least 10 years.
September 13th, 2008
(0)
Did anyone notice how insanely f*cking close they are sitting together?? wtf
September 13th, 2008
(0)
He was tryin' to play footsie and spit some game before the clip