Sarah Palin resigns as Governor - Page 47 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-11-2010, 06:12 PM   #921
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 04:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post
Strongbow, maybe this will aid you just a bit:

The context of the discussion was that Bill O'Reilly was posing questions to Jon Stewart to get his views, in the way that one might be "vetted" in the lead up to the election. O'Reilly asked Stewart his thoughts on Iran, and whether we should be invading Iran because of their possession of nuclear weapons. Stewart made that statement, relating the Iran situation to Iraq because our basis for invading Iraq was the (misguided) belief that they possessed nuclear weapons.

It's not Afghanistan. Afghanistan was invaded because the Taliban was directly linked to al-Qaeda (unlike Saddam). It had nothing to do with guessing games about links or weaponry. Afghanistan was a target because of sound evidence and intelligence.

That's the main difference between the two conflicts: the context and rationale that led to the respective invasions.

In the qoute though, John Stewart was talking about "OUR STRATEGY FOR FIGHTING TERRORISM". He states that the strategy for fighting terrorism cannot involve the overthrow of governments and the deployment of 150,000 troops to stabilize the country in the aftermath.

But that is precisely what the United States has done in Afghanistan.

Based on this qoute, John Stewart does not support Obama's policy in Afghanistan.
__________________

Strongbow is offline  
Old 02-11-2010, 07:18 PM   #922
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 09:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluer White View Post
Baxter State Park rules !
On this we can completely agree.
__________________

martha is offline  
Old 02-11-2010, 07:19 PM   #923
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 09:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Sorry, but the Taliban did not exist in the 1980s. The taliban were formed in the border area's of Pakistan/Afghanistan in the early 1990s and supported by Pakistan because they opposed other militia groups in Afghanistan that had ties or were considered friendly with India. By 1996, the Taliban had succeeded in defeating all the other Afghan militia's except a small number of the Northern Alliance who were pushed into the far Northeastern corner of the country.

The US did not help place any government in power in Afghanistan during the 1980s or 1990s. It completely abondoned any aid to Afghan militia groups after the last Soviet troops left the country in February 1989.

The Soviet installed government on the other hand continued to receive aid from the Soviet Union as well as occasional air support in combating Afghan militia groups from 1989 through 1991. In 1991, the Afghan militia groups succeeded in overthrowing the Soviet backed government after which a civil war developed between the militia groups for power. It is during that Civil War that the Taliban was created in the Afghanistan/Pakistan border area and eventually, successfully conquered, most of the rest of the country by 1996.
Gimme a nice long post then about how the Taliban emerged from the groups the US was supporting.
martha is offline  
Old 02-11-2010, 07:21 PM   #924
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 08:43 PM
Quote:
Media boost Brown into GOP presidential mix
February 11, 2010 | 10:16 am

President Obama recently made a big thing about the “echo chamber” created by “a slash-and-burn” media and how that had helped poison the Washington political atmosphere.

But the big bullhorn of the media can create as well destroy, as seen in the case of the newest member of the Senate.

According to the latest Gallup poll, Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown ranks fourth of 11 possible presidential candidates named by Republicans and like-minded independents as the person they would most like to see as the GOP standard bearer in 2012.

Brown, who has been in the Senate just long enough to have been caught in two huge snowstorms, garnered 4%, a pittance that is about the same as the margin of error of the poll. With so little to show on his national record, the support is certainly name recognition from the blizzard of media attention that came with his surprise win of the Senate seat held for decades by the late Edward Kennedy.

Brown ranked behind two former governors, Massachusetts' Mitt Romney and Alaska’s Sarah Palin, with 14% and 11%, respectively,

for the top spots in the GOP race. Seven percent of those surveyed mentioned Sen. John McCain, the 2008 nominee, who is facing a tough re-election bid for his Arizona seat.

But Brown placed on a par with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, each with years of national politics behind them. They culled 3%.

To be sure, the GOP is far from unified right now, facing a conservative, angry anti-incumbent attack from the "tea party" movement.
The poll found that 42% said they did not have an opinion on whom they preferred for the GOP spot.

But the poll does have some meaning. Even without naming a possible candidate, registered voters split almost evenly on whether they would back President Obama for another term or would go to any Republican.

Forty-four percent of U.S. registered voters said they were more likely to vote for Obama and 42% picked the Republican candidate. The remaining 14% said they were undecided or would vote for another candidate.

The old political adage is that it takes a candidate to beat a candidate, so the polls will likely shift when a real person – as opposed to a generic Republican – is named to run against Obama.
.
deep is offline  
Old 02-11-2010, 07:25 PM   #925
Blue Crack Supplier
 
coolian2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hamilton (No longer STD capital of NZ)
Posts: 42,934
Local Time: 05:43 PM
we saw where palin chased those undecided voters last time.
coolian2 is offline  
Old 02-11-2010, 08:23 PM   #926
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: South Philadelphia
Posts: 19,218
Local Time: 12:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
No its not. Here is the qoute again:



What is John Stewart talking about here, "OUR STRATEGY FOR BATTLING TERRORISM". In fighting terrorism he says that you CAN'T invade and overthrow governments and commit 150,000 troops to stabilize the country.

BUT, that is precisely what the United States has done in Afghanistan!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
In the qoute though, John Stewart was talking about "OUR STRATEGY FOR FIGHTING TERRORISM". He states that the strategy for fighting terrorism cannot involve the overthrow of governments and the deployment of 150,000 troops to stabilize the country in the aftermath.

But that is precisely what the United States has done in Afghanistan.

Based on this qoute, John Stewart does not support Obama's policy in Afghanistan.
You're playing games with words again. Out of context, yes, he's talking about terrorism in general. But in the context, he wasn't talking about terrorism as a whole, he was talking about invasions into countries that have nuclear weaponry. He specifically said that Iran is no different from Pakistan or Russia, who also have nuclear weapons, and that we can't defend ourselves from them in the way we did Iraq.

I explained the context, and you insisted on taking it right back out of the context. For the third and fourth times. Right there.

That's dishonest.
PhilsFan is offline  
Old 02-11-2010, 08:24 PM   #927
Blue Crack Addict
 
mikal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Black Lodge
Posts: 26,925
Local Time: 11:43 PM
hey everyone, how's that changey and hopey workin out for ya? eh?
mikal is offline  
Old 02-11-2010, 09:19 PM   #928
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 09:43 PM
Pretty damn good, actually.
martha is offline  
Old 02-11-2010, 09:43 PM   #929
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 04:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post
You're playing games with words again. Out of context, yes, he's talking about terrorism in general. But in the context, he wasn't talking about terrorism as a whole, he was talking about invasions into countries that have nuclear weaponry. He specifically said that Iran is no different from Pakistan or Russia, who also have nuclear weapons, and that we can't defend ourselves from them in the way we did Iraq.

I explained the context, and you insisted on taking it right back out of the context. For the third and fourth times. Right there.

That's dishonest.

What you quoted was about the strategy for combating terrorism NOT a strategy for combating the proliferation of WMD.

He does not mention anything about a strategy for combating the proliferation of WMD in the quote you posted. He is talking about terrorism only in that quote.

You do understand that the proliferation of WMD among countries and terrorism and the strategy for dealing with terrorism are on the surface two different things?

Although the spread of WMD could effect the capabilities available to terrorist.

Quote:
he was talking about invasions into countries that have nuclear weaponry.
The United States has never invaded a country with nuclear weaponry.


Quote:
He specifically said that Iran is no different from Pakistan or Russia, who also have nuclear weapons, and that we can't defend ourselves from them in the way we did Iraq.
1. Iran does not have nuclear weapons, Pakistan and Russia do have nuclear weapons.

2. The Obama administration does consider Iran to be a different case than Pakistan or Russia. The Obama administration is not threatening sanctions against Pakistan or Russia because they have nuclear weapons. They are also not keeping the "military option" on the table because Pakistan and Russia have nuclear weapons.

3. The Obama administration has never ruled out the use of military force in protecting the country and the world from the spread of WMD.

4. So, not only does John Stewart not agree with the Obama administration on how to combat terrorism, he does not agree with the Obama administration on how to combat WMD proliferation or the nature of threat posed by countries such as Iran, Russia, and Pakistan.
Strongbow is offline  
Old 02-11-2010, 09:49 PM   #930
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 09:43 PM
There.
martha is offline  
Old 02-11-2010, 09:54 PM   #931
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: South Philadelphia
Posts: 19,218
Local Time: 12:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
What you quoted was about the strategy for combating terrorism NOT a strategy for combating the proliferation of WMD.

He does not mention anything about a strategy for combating the proliferation of WMD in the quote you posted. He is talking about terrorism only in that quote.

You do understand that the proliferation of WMD among countries and terrorism and the strategy for dealing with terrorism are on the surface two different things?

Although the spread of WMD could effect the capabilities available to terrorist.
I KNOW THAT THE QUOTE SAYS IT'S ABOUT COMBATING TERRORISM! THAT'S BECAUSE IT'S OUT OF CONTEXT, WHICH IS WHY I GAVE YOU THE CONTEXT!

This is the dishonesty I'm talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
The United States has never invaded a country with nuclear weaponry.
I'm aware. He was responding to a question posed about nuclear weaponry. He based his answer upon Iraq because Bush assumed Iraq had nuclear weapons or other similarly powerful weapons. Which is, as I said, completely different from Afghanistan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
1. Iran does not have nuclear weapons, Pakistan and Russia do have nuclear weapons.

2. The Obama administration does consider Iran to be a different case than Pakistan or Russia. The Obama administration is not threatening sanctions against Pakistan or Russia because they have nuclear weapons. They are also not keeping the "military option" on the table because Pakistan and Russia have nuclear weapons.

3. The Obama administration has never ruled out the use of military force in protecting the country and the world from the spread of WMD.

4. So, not only does John Stewart not agree with the Obama administration on how to combat terrorism, he does not agree with the Obama administration on how to combat WMD proliferation or the nature of threat posed by countries such as Iran, Russia, and Pakistan.
1. In the hypothetical O'Reilly posed, he assumed that Iran would complete the nuclear weapons he believes them to be capable of.

2. OK? I'm not disputing that.

3. I don't expect him to rule it out. But I also don't expect him to massively overreact like Bush did with Iraq.

4. All he said was that you can't invade a country simply because they potentially have nuclear weapons because he believes that those countries have, in his words, "a self-preservationist streak." Which I agree with.
PhilsFan is offline  
Old 02-11-2010, 10:05 PM   #932
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 04:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
Gimme a nice long post then about how the Taliban emerged from the groups the US was supporting.

US support for the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan ended when the last Soviet troops left the country in February 1989. The formation of the Taliban happened years later along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border area. There are some leaders in the Taliban that were apart of the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan fighting the Soviets in the 1980s and obviously benefited during the 1980s from US aid. But again, that aid ended in 1989, years before the Taliban started to form, and years before they were ever apart of it.

Some of the groups the US supported later became apart of the Northern Alliance. Others simply stayed or returned to their local areas. Then there were some that joined the Taliban as it grew in power. Its a tribal culture and what is in ones immediate best interest or survival often wins out.

You can't really argue that aiding the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan during the 1980s helped create the Taliban, but you could certainly argue that the US abandonment of Afghanistan after the Soviets left in 1989 played a role in creating the conditions or environment there that helped the Taliban come to power in Afghanistan.
Strongbow is offline  
Old 02-11-2010, 10:24 PM   #933
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 04:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post
I KNOW THAT THE QUOTE SAYS IT'S ABOUT COMBATING TERRORISM! THAT'S BECAUSE IT'S OUT OF CONTEXT, WHICH IS WHY I GAVE YOU THE CONTEXT!

This is the dishonesty I'm talking about.
The context is irrelevant given that preventing or combating the proliferation of WMD and combating terrorism are two different things!

No one is being dishonest here.

Quote:
I'm aware. He was responding to a question posed about nuclear weaponry. He based his answer upon Iraq because Bush assumed Iraq had nuclear weapons or other similarly powerful weapons. Which is, as I said, completely different from Afghanistan.
But in the quote he is not talking about nuclear weaponry. He is talking about a strategy for combating terrorism. Thats a different subject matter and applies directly to the situation in Afghanistan.

By the way, Bush never said Iraq had nuclear weapons. Bush used military force against Saddam's Iraq because of its failure to verifiably disarm of all WMD as required by multiple UN resolutions and the 1991 Gulf War ceacefire agreement.


Quote:
3. I don't expect him to rule it out. But I also don't expect him to massively overreact like Bush did with Iraq.
Bush did not overreact when it came to Iraq. Saddam was required to verifiably disarm of all WMD by the United Nations or face the use of military force to accomplish that goal.

Quote:
4. All he said was that you can't invade a country simply because they potentially have nuclear weapons because he believes that those countries have, in his words, "a self-preservationist streak." Which I agree with.
Well, the Obama administration has reserved to right to use military force in such situations.

Iraq by the way was required by multiple UN resolutions to verifiably disarm of all WMD or face military force to do that. The United Nations has in the past approved the use of military force in such situations. It approved the use of military force by the Clinton administration against Saddam during the 1990s because of his violations of the UN resolutions in regards to these matters and it approved the use of military force by the Bush administration as well when it came to Saddam and his failure to verifiably disarm of all WMD.
Strongbow is offline  
Old 02-11-2010, 10:30 PM   #934
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: South Philadelphia
Posts: 19,218
Local Time: 12:43 AM
O'Reilly: Now, Iran's building nuclear weapons over there, and if they get 'em, they might give 'em to some guy named Achmed, who might then take 'em to Cleveland and blow everything up. So, what are we gonna do with that?
Stewart: Well, doesn't Pakistan have nuclear weapons?
O'Reilly: Yes, they do.
Stewart: Couldn't they give it to somebody?
O'Reilly: I don't know. I don’t think-
Stewart: Doesn't Russia have nuclear weapons?
O'Reilly: Yes.
Stewart: Couldn't they give it to somebody?
O'Reilly: Yes.
Stewart: The problem isn't the country that gets them. The problem seems to be the weapon. I think the strategy of ... what we've done, and again, thank you guys for ratcheting up the fear on this-
O'Reilly: You're not afraid that Iran gets a nuclear weapon and they cause all kinds of havoc?
Stewart: There’s a lot of things to be afraid of in the world.
O’Reilly: You’re a Jewish guy, right? […] I believe the president of Iran wants to drive you and all the other Jewish people into the sea.
Stewart: I cannot control that. I cannot control what those things are.
O’Reilly: What we can control is … is, we can stop them!
Stewart: No. Here’s the thing: you might be able to stop them from having a nuclear weapon, but as technology grows and becomes more accessible to people, this is going to become an increasingly difficult problem, and here’s what we can’t do-
O’Reilly: Alright, what can’t we do?
Stewart: Our strategy for battling terrorism can’t be that you overthrow governments, and then make the United States military commit 150,000 troops to those lands until they can somehow stabilize the governments long enough so you can prevent 10 people from plotting destruction in a basement.
O’Reilly: I agree with that. It’s bankrupting the country
Stewart: It’s bankrupting the country. It’s the wrong-
O’Reilly: But you just don’t seem that concerned about Iran. You just don’t seem that concerned about it.
Stewart: Because Iran, like most of these other countries, has a self-preservationist streak. And I’m a firm believer that that self-preservationist streak keeps them … there’s no theory of mutual destruction with Iran. Let’s say they get one off. It would be tragic, they-
O’Reilly: How would we trace it? We’d never trace it.
Stewart: Oh, please. That’s absolutely wrong.
O’Reilly: They can’t even question the underwear bomber. They can’t get a guy with underwear and they can’t get the answers.
Stewart: See, even that, that’s a completely false narrative. Let’s look at the geniuses we’re up against. Richard Reid was the airplane bomber. He tried to take that explosive and put it in his shoes. It took them eight years, and the plan they came up with was, “Uh, let’s put it under that guy’s genitals.” That’s what they did in eight years! They moved from the guy’s shoes to the guy’s underwear.

Maybe now you'll understand.
PhilsFan is offline  
Old 02-11-2010, 10:34 PM   #935
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,663
Local Time: 11:43 PM
Pfan, it's not worth the effort.
Diemen is offline  
Old 02-11-2010, 10:43 PM   #936
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 04:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post
O'Reilly: Now, Iran's building nuclear weapons over there, and if they get 'em, they might give 'em to some guy named Achmed, who might then take 'em to Cleveland and blow everything up. So, what are we gonna do with that?
Stewart: Well, doesn't Pakistan have nuclear weapons?
O'Reilly: Yes, they do.
Stewart: Couldn't they give it to somebody?
O'Reilly: I don't know. I don’t think-
Stewart: Doesn't Russia have nuclear weapons?
O'Reilly: Yes.
Stewart: Couldn't they give it to somebody?
O'Reilly: Yes.
Stewart: The problem isn't the country that gets them. The problem seems to be the weapon. I think the strategy of ... what we've done, and again, thank you guys for ratcheting up the fear on this-
O'Reilly: You're not afraid that Iran gets a nuclear weapon and they cause all kinds of havoc?
Stewart: There’s a lot of things to be afraid of in the world.
O’Reilly: You’re a Jewish guy, right? […] I believe the president of Iran wants to drive you and all the other Jewish people into the sea.
Stewart: I cannot control that. I cannot control what those things are.
O’Reilly: What we can control is … is, we can stop them!
Stewart: No. Here’s the thing: you might be able to stop them from having a nuclear weapon, but as technology grows and becomes more accessible to people, this is going to become an increasingly difficult problem, and here’s what we can’t do-
O’Reilly: Alright, what can’t we do?
Stewart: Our strategy for battling terrorism can’t be that you overthrow governments, and then make the United States military commit 150,000 troops to those lands until they can somehow stabilize the governments long enough so you can prevent 10 people from plotting destruction in a basement.
O’Reilly: I agree with that. It’s bankrupting the country
Stewart: It’s bankrupting the country. It’s the wrong-
O’Reilly: But you just don’t seem that concerned about Iran. You just don’t seem that concerned about it.
Stewart: Because Iran, like most of these other countries, has a self-preservationist streak. And I’m a firm believer that that self-preservationist streak keeps them … there’s no theory of mutual destruction with Iran. Let’s say they get one off. It would be tragic, they-
O’Reilly: How would we trace it? We’d never trace it.
Stewart: Oh, please. That’s absolutely wrong.
O’Reilly: They can’t even question the underwear bomber. They can’t get a guy with underwear and they can’t get the answers.
Stewart: See, even that, that’s a completely false narrative. Let’s look at the geniuses we’re up against. Richard Reid was the airplane bomber. He tried to take that explosive and put it in his shoes. It took them eight years, and the plan they came up with was, “Uh, let’s put it under that guy’s genitals.” That’s what they did in eight years! They moved from the guy’s shoes to the guy’s underwear.

Maybe now you'll understand.
It just shows that Stewart jumped basically to a different topic. They started talking about Iran and nuclear weapons and the subject matter of the spread of WMD, then this qoute by Stewart:

Quote:
Stewart: Our strategy for battling terrorism can’t be that you overthrow governments, and then make the United States military commit 150,000 troops to those lands until they can somehow stabilize the governments long enough so you can prevent 10 people from plotting destruction in a basement.

That qoute is the opposite of what the Obama administration feels is the right strategy for combating terrorism.

The Obama administration is also focused on the country first and not the weapon. Nuclear weapons in the hands of the Russians is one thing, but in the hands of the Iranians is an entirely different situation because of that countries past behavior. John Stewart does not understand that, but so far the Obama administration does.
Strongbow is offline  
Old 02-11-2010, 10:46 PM   #937
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: South Philadelphia
Posts: 19,218
Local Time: 12:43 AM
You're an idiot. You're going on my ignore list. I hope never to speak to you on the board again.
PhilsFan is offline  
Old 02-11-2010, 11:06 PM   #938
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 04:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post
You're an idiot. You're going on my ignore list. I hope never to speak to you on the board again.
Here we go again. I discuss the issues, you don't like what I say about the issues and resort to childish name calling which has nothing to do with the issues.
Strongbow is offline  
Old 02-12-2010, 04:44 PM   #939
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,047
Local Time: 06:43 AM
the issue is that Palin is a wingnut
__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
Old 02-17-2010, 10:54 AM   #940
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 12:43 AM
By Becky Bohrer, Associated Press Writer

JUNEAU, Alaska — Sarah Palin is lashing out at the portrayal of a character with Down syndrome on the Fox animated comedy Family Guy. In a Facebook posting headlined "Fox Hollywood — What a Disappointment," the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee and current Fox News contributor said Sunday night's episode felt like "another kick in the gut." Palin's youngest son, Trig, has Down syndrome.

The episode features the character Chris falling for a girl with Down syndrome. On a date, he asks what her parents do.

She replies: "My dad's an accountant, and my mom is the former governor of Alaska."

Palin resigned as Alaska governor last summer.

Palin's oldest daughter, Bristol, also was quoted on her mother's Facebook page, calling the show's writers "heartless jerks."

"When you're the son or daughter of a public figure, you have to develop thick skin. My siblings and I all have that, but insults directed at our youngest brother hurt too much for us to remain silent," she is quoted as saying.

"If the writers of a particularly pathetic cartoon show thought they were being clever in mocking my brother and my family yesterday, they failed," Bristol Palin added in the Monday posting. "All they proved is that they're heartless jerks."

Palin wrote that she'd asked her daughter what she thought of the show and Bristol's reply was "a much more restrained and gracious statement than I want to make about an issue that begs the question: When is enough enough?"

This isn't the first time Palin has spoken out over an attack, real or perceived, on her family. Last year, she condemned a joke David Letterman made about her daughter, for which he later apologized.

A Family Guy publicist didn't immediately return an e-mail seeking comment.
__________________

MrsSpringsteen is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How Obama got elected....... boosterjuice Free Your Mind 200 12-01-2008 11:07 AM
2008 U.S. Presidential Campaign Discussion Thread-Part 11 purpleoscar Free Your Mind Archive 1010 11-04-2008 05:27 PM
The Rumor / FactCheck Thread Dreadsox Free Your Mind 25 10-21-2008 08:49 PM
so...Mike Huckabee. Harry Vest Free Your Mind Archive 493 02-06-2008 09:01 AM
AdamPorn elizabeth PLEBA Archive 63 12-12-2001 01:21 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×