Insane Columnist Chronicles: Friedman picks Cheney for Obama VP

hgc · 19th November 2007, 07:08 PM

Yes, in his most recent NY Times column, Thomas Friedman, of "suck on this" fame (in reference to the lesson we'll teach Iraqis) had this to say...

Quote:

I have no idea who is going to win the Democratic presidential nomination, but lately I’ve been wondering whether, if it is Barack Obama, he might want to consider keeping Dick Cheney on as his vice president.

No, he didn't appear to be joking, at least in what he senses to be Cheney's value to a future Dem president.

I challenge any sentient being to make heads or tails of this gibberish:

Quote:

Vice President Cheney is the hawk-eating hawk, who regularly swoops down and declares that the U.S. will not permit Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. Trust me, the Iranians take his threats seriously. But Mr. Cheney’s Dr. Strangelove imitation is totally wasted with President Bush and Secretary of State Condi Rice. Because the president and secretary of state have never been able to make up their minds as to what U.S. policy toward Iran should be — to bring about regime change or a change of behavior — it’s impossible to have any effective diplomacy.

If ever a pundit had his head so far up Joe Lieberman's ass that he can't find his way back to Earth, it's Suck-on-This Friedman.

JoeEllison · 19th November 2007, 07:13 PM

Yeah, that's the sort of "bow to the right-wing" retard that folks point to as a member of the "liberal media."

gtc · 19th November 2007, 07:21 PM

VP Cheney regularly re-iterates his intention to ensure that Iranian forces remain without access to nuclear weapons. His message is conveyed in such forceful terms that the Iranian government is not in any doubt as to VP Cheney's views. Unfortunately, the same can not be said for the Iranians understanding of the American government's aspirations regarding the future composition and structure of the Iranian government. This is in no small measure due to the vacillation displayed by the President and Secretary of State. Such vacillation serves to undermine the import that the Iranian government attaches to the forcefulness with which VP Cheney conveys his intentions.

Does this help?

gtc · 19th November 2007, 07:22 PM

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

Yeah, that's the sort of "bow to the right-wing" retard that folks point to as a member of the "liberal media."

Indubitably.

And yet, I remain eager to see some evidence that anyone accuses this man of being a member of the 'liberal media'.

hgc · 19th November 2007, 07:26 PM

Originally Posted by gtc

VP Cheney regularly re-iterates his intention to ensure that Iranian forces remain without access to nuclear weapons. His message is conveyed in such forceful terms that the Iranian government is not in any doubt as to VP Cheney's views. Unfortunately, the same can not be said for the Iranians understanding of the American government's aspirations regarding the future composition and structure of the Iranian government. This is in no small measure due to the vacillation displayed by the President and Secretary of State. Such vacillation serves to undermine the import that the Iranian government attaches to the forcefulness with which VP Cheney conveys his intentions.

Does this help?

Yes, it does. We're half way to Kookamunga now!

ravdin · 19th November 2007, 07:28 PM

It would take too long to write a sufficient reply to the article in full, so I'm going to write it in C:

for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
{
printf("HA ");
}

Darth Rotor · 20th November 2007, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

Yeah, that's the sort of "bow to the right-wing" retard that folks point to as a member of the "liberal media."

Friedman is a liberal? I had heard he is a moderate, and that he is a globalist shill, and a neocon butt boy, but I don't think I have ever heard of him being called a liberal.

DR

Charlie Monoxide · 20th November 2007, 01:49 PM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Friedman is a liberal? I had heard he is a moderate, and that he is a globalist shill, and a neocon butt boy, but I don't think I have ever heard of him being called a liberal.

DR

I gotta agree with you there, DR. Friedman just loves to sing the platitudes of the "new economy" (his book Flat Earth) and he's constantly supporting his support of Bush's adventure into Iraqiland.

When I first started reading his columns (about 2003), they seemed like a breath of fresh new ideas. Then you realize it is "idea" only, singular, not plural. After that he grows very tiring ....

Charlie (send Friedman to Fox) Monoxide

Darth Rotor · 20th November 2007, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by Charlie Monoxide

I gotta agree with you there, DR. Friedman just loves to sing the platitudes of the "new economy" (his book Flat Earth) and he's constantly supporting his support of Bush's adventure into Iraqiland.

When I first started reading his columns (about 2003), they seemed like a breath of fresh new ideas. Then you realize it is "idea" only, singular, not plural. After that he grows very tiring ....

Charlie (send Friedman to Fox) Monoxide

I started reading his stuff in 95. So, I developed a Friedman Filter.

DR

Brainster · 21st November 2007, 08:06 AM

This kind of "wouldn't it be great if we could have the best of both parties" noodling goes on every four years. See the ridiculous attempt by columnists to drum up interest in John Kerry selecting John McCain for the bottom half of the ticket. The only thing more absurd was that Kerry actually tried it.

It makes no sense because the Veep candidate gets nothing out of it. The only value in being VP is that it gives you the inside shot at becoming the presidential nominee down the road. But of course McCain wouldn't be the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination next year if he'd taken Kerry's offer, and he'd be dead in the water as far as the Republicans are concerned.

Kerberos · 21st November 2007, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by hgc

Yes, in his most recent NY Times column, Thomas Friedman, of "suck on this" fame (in reference to the lesson we'll teach Iraqis) had this to say...

No, he didn't appear to be joking...

Ehm,did you consider reading the next sentence?

"No, I personally am not a Dick Cheney fan, and I know it is absurd to even suggest, but now that I have your attention, here’s what’s on my mind:"

He's opening sugesting is explicitly not serious, but a provocative opening to his serious opinion that the Buhs administration fails to follow up it's posturing with negotiation and that Obama is failing to back up his his willingness to negotiate with posturing. I'm not sure how credible posturing is post-Iraq, but it's hardly a particuarly bizare point he makes.

JoeEllison · 21st November 2007, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by gtc

Indubitably.

And yet, I remain eager to see some evidence that anyone accuses this man of being a member of the 'liberal media'.

He's an employee of that unrelentingly "liberal" media source, the New York Times. I trust you don't need it spelled out for you in greater detail?

billydkid · 21st November 2007, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by hgc

Yes, in his most recent NY Times column, Thomas Friedman, of "suck on this" fame (in reference to the lesson we'll teach Iraqis) had this to say...

No, he didn't appear to be joking, at least in what he senses to be Cheney's value to a future Dem president.

I challenge any sentient being to make heads or tails of this gibberish:

If ever a pundit had his head so far up Joe Lieberman's ass that he can't find his way back to Earth, it's Suck-on-This Friedman.

You know how there are people in the world who seem so alien in their sensibility as to be of a different species and no matter how hard you might try you could never reach any mutual understanding with them about anything? Thomas Friedman is one of those people.

hgc · 22nd November 2007, 07:03 PM

Originally Posted by Kerberos

Ehm,did you consider reading the next sentence?

"No, I personally am not a Dick Cheney fan, and I know it is absurd to even suggest, but now that I have your attention, here’s what’s on my mind:"

He's opening sugesting is explicitly not serious, but a provocative opening to his serious opinion that the Buhs administration fails to follow up it's posturing with negotiation and that Obama is failing to back up his his willingness to negotiate with posturing. I'm not sure how credible posturing is post-Iraq, but it's hardly a particuarly bizare point he makes.

No, I didn't think that Friedman was actually seriouly suggesting that Obama choose Cheney. But he does appear to be a Cheney fan, and for the worst possible reason. He has in the past and to this day given a lot of value to the "Watch out! We're crazy!" school of foreign policy.

Loss Leader · 22nd November 2007, 07:26 PM

Originally Posted by hgc

No, he didn't appear to be joking, at least in what he senses to be Cheney's value to a future Dem president.

You know, the more things change ...

This is just the Reagan refrain repackaged. Back in 1980, pundits kept declaring that Carter didn't have any credibility in foreign relations (especially with Iran) and that we needed Reagan to scare the Iranians straight.

It was nonsense then and it's nonsense now.

Nancarrow · 22nd November 2007, 08:09 PM

Originally Posted by ravdin

It would take too long to write a sufficient reply to the article in full, so I'm going to write it in C:

for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
{
printf("HA ");
}

Nominated. Goes well with the avatar!

19th November 2007, 07:08 PM	#1
hgc Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 13,028	Insane Columnist Chronicles: Friedman picks Cheney for Obama VP Yes, in his most recent NY Times column, Thomas Friedman, of "suck on this" fame (in reference to the lesson we'll teach Iraqis) had this to say... Quote: I have no idea who is going to win the Democratic presidential nomination, but lately I’ve been wondering whether, if it is Barack Obama, he might want to consider keeping Dick Cheney on as his vice president. No, he didn't appear to be joking, at least in what he senses to be Cheney's value to a future Dem president. I challenge any sentient being to make heads or tails of this gibberish: Quote: Vice President Cheney is the hawk-eating hawk, who regularly swoops down and declares that the U.S. will not permit Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. Trust me, the Iranians take his threats seriously. But Mr. Cheney’s Dr. Strangelove imitation is totally wasted with President Bush and Secretary of State Condi Rice. Because the president and secretary of state have never been able to make up their minds as to what U.S. policy toward Iran should be — to bring about regime change or a change of behavior — it’s impossible to have any effective diplomacy. If ever a pundit had his head so far up Joe Lieberman's ass that he can't find his way back to Earth, it's Suck-on-This Friedman.
	__________________ Bowel-shaking earthquakes of doubt and remorse assail him and wail him with monster truck force. - Cake, The Distance Was there a second singer on the grassy Knowles? - Stephen Colbert Last edited by hgc; 19th November 2007 at 07:08 PM.

19th November 2007, 07:26 PM	#5
hgc Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 13,028	Originally Posted by gtc VP Cheney regularly re-iterates his intention to ensure that Iranian forces remain without access to nuclear weapons. His message is conveyed in such forceful terms that the Iranian government is not in any doubt as to VP Cheney's views. Unfortunately, the same can not be said for the Iranians understanding of the American government's aspirations regarding the future composition and structure of the Iranian government. This is in no small measure due to the vacillation displayed by the President and Secretary of State. Such vacillation serves to undermine the import that the Iranian government attaches to the forcefulness with which VP Cheney conveys his intentions. Does this help? Yes, it does. We're half way to Kookamunga now!
	__________________ Bowel-shaking earthquakes of doubt and remorse assail him and wail him with monster truck force. - Cake, The Distance Was there a second singer on the grassy Knowles? - Stephen Colbert Last edited by hgc; 19th November 2007 at 07:26 PM.

19th November 2007, 07:28 PM	#6
ravdin Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 3,568	It would take too long to write a sufficient reply to the article in full, so I'm going to write it in C: for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { printf("HA "); }
	Last edited by ravdin; 19th November 2007 at 07:29 PM.

20th November 2007, 11:34 AM	#7
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,279	Originally Posted by JoeEllison Yeah, that's the sort of "bow to the right-wing" retard that folks point to as a member of the "liberal media." Friedman is a liberal? I had heard he is a moderate, and that he is a globalist shill, and a neocon butt boy, but I don't think I have ever heard of him being called a liberal. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

20th November 2007, 01:49 PM	#8
Charlie Monoxide Wag Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: London, Ontario Posts: 2,761	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor Friedman is a liberal? I had heard he is a moderate, and that he is a globalist shill, and a neocon butt boy, but I don't think I have ever heard of him being called a liberal. DR I gotta agree with you there, DR. Friedman just loves to sing the platitudes of the "new economy" (his book Flat Earth) and he's constantly supporting his support of Bush's adventure into Iraqiland. When I first started reading his columns (about 2003), they seemed like a breath of fresh new ideas. Then you realize it is "idea" only, singular, not plural. After that he grows very tiring .... Charlie (send Friedman to Fox) Monoxide
	__________________ Major General Wag of JREF

19th November 2007, 07:13 PM	#2
JoeEllison Cuddly Like a Koala Bear Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 7,276	Yeah, that's the sort of "bow to the right-wing" retard that folks point to as a member of the "liberal media."

19th November 2007, 07:21 PM	#3
gtc Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: the downunderverse Posts: 7,114	VP Cheney regularly re-iterates his intention to ensure that Iranian forces remain without access to nuclear weapons. His message is conveyed in such forceful terms that the Iranian government is not in any doubt as to VP Cheney's views. Unfortunately, the same can not be said for the Iranians understanding of the American government's aspirations regarding the future composition and structure of the Iranian government. This is in no small measure due to the vacillation displayed by the President and Secretary of State. Such vacillation serves to undermine the import that the Iranian government attaches to the forcefulness with which VP Cheney conveys his intentions. Does this help?

19th November 2007, 07:22 PM	#4
gtc Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: the downunderverse Posts: 7,114	Originally Posted by JoeEllison Yeah, that's the sort of "bow to the right-wing" retard that folks point to as a member of the "liberal media." Indubitably. And yet, I remain eager to see some evidence that anyone accuses this man of being a member of the 'liberal media'.

20th November 2007, 07:20 PM	#9
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,279	Originally Posted by Charlie Monoxide I gotta agree with you there, DR. Friedman just loves to sing the platitudes of the "new economy" (his book Flat Earth) and he's constantly supporting his support of Bush's adventure into Iraqiland. When I first started reading his columns (about 2003), they seemed like a breath of fresh new ideas. Then you realize it is "idea" only, singular, not plural. After that he grows very tiring .... Charlie (send Friedman to Fox) Monoxide I started reading his stuff in 95. So, I developed a Friedman Filter. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

21st November 2007, 08:06 AM	#10
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 10,441	This kind of "wouldn't it be great if we could have the best of both parties" noodling goes on every four years. See the ridiculous attempt by columnists to drum up interest in John Kerry selecting John McCain for the bottom half of the ticket. The only thing more absurd was that Kerry actually tried it. It makes no sense because the Veep candidate gets nothing out of it. The only value in being VP is that it gives you the inside shot at becoming the presidential nominee down the road. But of course McCain wouldn't be the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination next year if he'd taken Kerry's offer, and he'd be dead in the water as far as the Republicans are concerned.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

21st November 2007, 10:02 AM	#11
Kerberos Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,608	Originally Posted by hgc Yes, in his most recent NY Times column, Thomas Friedman, of "suck on this" fame (in reference to the lesson we'll teach Iraqis) had this to say... No, he didn't appear to be joking... Ehm,did you consider reading the next sentence? "No, I personally am not a Dick Cheney fan, and I know it is absurd to even suggest, but now that I have your attention, here’s what’s on my mind:" He's opening sugesting is explicitly not serious, but a provocative opening to his serious opinion that the Buhs administration fails to follow up it's posturing with negotiation and that Obama is failing to back up his his willingness to negotiate with posturing. I'm not sure how credible posturing is post-Iraq, but it's hardly a particuarly bizare point he makes.
Kerberos Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,608	__________________ Bible code: A method for obtaining hidden messages from texts that contains none, for the purpose of predicting events after they happen. "When the facts are on you side, but the law is against you, stress the facts. When the law is on your side, but the facts are against you stress the law. When both the facts and the law is against you, pound the table and yell like hell". Laywer maxim

21st November 2007, 10:07 AM	#12
JoeEllison Cuddly Like a Koala Bear Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 7,276	Originally Posted by gtc Indubitably. And yet, I remain eager to see some evidence that anyone accuses this man of being a member of the 'liberal media'. He's an employee of that unrelentingly "liberal" media source, the New York Times. I trust you don't need it spelled out for you in greater detail?

21st November 2007, 10:18 AM	#13
billydkid Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Blanchester, OH Posts: 4,930	Originally Posted by hgc Yes, in his most recent NY Times column, Thomas Friedman, of "suck on this" fame (in reference to the lesson we'll teach Iraqis) had this to say... No, he didn't appear to be joking, at least in what he senses to be Cheney's value to a future Dem president. I challenge any sentient being to make heads or tails of this gibberish: If ever a pundit had his head so far up Joe Lieberman's ass that he can't find his way back to Earth, it's Suck-on-This Friedman. You know how there are people in the world who seem so alien in their sensibility as to be of a different species and no matter how hard you might try you could never reach any mutual understanding with them about anything? Thomas Friedman is one of those people.
	__________________ Wasting away in Blanchester.

22nd November 2007, 07:03 PM	#14
hgc Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 13,028	Originally Posted by Kerberos Ehm,did you consider reading the next sentence? "No, I personally am not a Dick Cheney fan, and I know it is absurd to even suggest, but now that I have your attention, here’s what’s on my mind:" He's opening sugesting is explicitly not serious, but a provocative opening to his serious opinion that the Buhs administration fails to follow up it's posturing with negotiation and that Obama is failing to back up his his willingness to negotiate with posturing. I'm not sure how credible posturing is post-Iraq, but it's hardly a particuarly bizare point he makes. No, I didn't think that Friedman was actually seriouly suggesting that Obama choose Cheney. But he does appear to be a Cheney fan, and for the worst possible reason. He has in the past and to this day given a lot of value to the "Watch out! We're crazy!" school of foreign policy.
	__________________ Bowel-shaking earthquakes of doubt and remorse assail him and wail him with monster truck force. - Cake, The Distance Was there a second singer on the grassy Knowles? - Stephen Colbert

22nd November 2007, 07:26 PM	#15
Loss Leader Opinionated Jerk Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: New York Posts: 11,885	Originally Posted by hgc No, he didn't appear to be joking, at least in what he senses to be Cheney's value to a future Dem president. You know, the more things change ... This is just the Reagan refrain repackaged. Back in 1980, pundits kept declaring that Carter didn't have any credibility in foreign relations (especially with Iran) and that we needed Reagan to scare the Iranians straight. It was nonsense then and it's nonsense now.
	__________________ Follow me on Twitter! @LossLeader This force is receiving all the right to vote through the use of magic. - Miernik Wieslaw <NEW> VOTE FOR ME JUST BECAUSE <NEW>

22nd November 2007, 08:09 PM	#16
Nancarrow Chelonian Overlord Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: London, UK Posts: 468	Originally Posted by ravdin It would take too long to write a sufficient reply to the article in full, so I'm going to write it in C: for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { printf("HA "); } Nominated. Goes well with the avatar!
	__________________ A mosquito was heard to complain That a chemist had poisoned his brain The cause of his sorrow Was paradichloro Diphenyltrichloroethane.