Posted on 01/30/2015 5:51:43 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
You say "Jeb Bush," Thomas Roberts says "the Kouachi brothers."
It's got to be one of the strangest political Rorschach test results of all time. MSNBC's Roberts believes that Jeb Bush would have a "big onus" around his neck if he runs for president "because if we hear 'Bush' we're automatically going to go to people bringing up the Kouachi brothers and their photos of Abu Ghraib that radicalized them about Iraq."
View the video here.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Two words: Terri Schaivo. I will never vote for Jeb. NEVER!
Thomas Roberts’ Rorschach test is truly bizarre. Ping to Today show list.
Whatever it means, though, Jeb's STILL better off that Mr. Robert's, who has a big anus around his neck (i.e. he has his head up his ass).
Using similar logic: Thomas Robert is “gay”, Thomas Roberts is incapable of reason, “gays” are incapable of reason. Or,
Thomas Roberts is “gay”, Thomas Roberts was molested by another “gay” as a teen, Thomas Roberts is “gay” because he is sexually confused due to being molested by another “gay” as a teen.
Never mind. Both of those examples (particularly the second) make a lot more sense than what Mr. Hipster Glasses is suggesting about Bush and Abu Ghraib.
It is a reach, to tie Jeb Bush to Dubya on policies that are national in nature.
Now Jeb has his own set of liabilities, and those do not in any manner rub off on Dubya, or to Daddy Bush.
For an analogy - does the big commotion surrounding Herself, Madame Benghazi, the Cold & Joyless, have ANYTHING to do with Bill consorting with underage females on an island retreat? No. These separate incidents exist in and of themselves. Bill also had NOTHING to do with the events of 19 September 11, 2012, at the US Consulate in Libya.
Abu Ghraib was a ROGUE operation. It was NOT Policy!
But, Jeb should go home regardless.
Tinfoiled Again!
To be fair when I hear the name Clinton I think sex crimes against women.
Nothing to do with the content of this piece, but I am curious about grammar in the headline. Part of the headline says “Because Abu Ghraib” instead of “Because of Abu Ghraib”.
I have been seeing such construction a lot lately, e.g., “because science” instead of “because of science”. Is that some sort of internet meme? Why is the word “of” dropped?
Good question.
“It’s a usage, in other words, that is exceptionally bloggy and aggressively casual and implicitly ironic.”
Aggressively casual, huh? I guess I am just too old and uncool. Probably the same school of stupid-as-I-want-to-be that has reduced the spelling of “probably” to “prolly”.
Thanks for the link. I always learn so much from FReepers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
