The Politics Thread - please direct all related posts here..

[mugzi]

I expect them to make decisions based on the CONSTITUTION. That little piece of paper which founded the govt and your president continues to ignore. Libya is an illegal war done without congressional approval and a genius like Pelosi says oh theres no boots on the ground so its ok. I would laugh nonstop at your leaders if they werent so dam dangerous.

[HarthorneWingo]

I expect them to make decisions based on the CONSTITUTION. That little piece of paper which founded the govt and your president continues to ignore. Libya is an illegal war done without congressional approval and a genius like Pelosi says oh theres no boots on the ground so its ok. I would laugh nonstop at your leaders if they werent so dam dangerous.

Well, isn't this the pot calling the kettle black. You say this to me after the Iraq war? Are you fcking kidding me mugzi? We have a full NATO coalition, the support of the EU and the Arab states on Libya. And no ground troops.

Please explain the difference to me between the two.

Maybe you missed this:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d75ba2a6-9ad4 ... z1PmWzG0e7

Hawks attack Republican isolationism
By Richard McGregor
Published: June 20 2011 03:42 | Last updated: June 20 2011 03:42

Republican hawks have launched a concerted pushback against what they call a “growing isolationist” trend within their party and its candidates competing to win the nomination to run for the White House in 2012.

Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, as well as Liz Cheney, the former vice-president’s daughter and a one-time state department official, raised concerns on Sunday at the direction of Republican foreign policy.

Their attacks on their colleagues underscore how dramatically the foreign policy debate in the US is being changed by the country’s domestic economic problems.

The senators were responding to statements by aspiring presidential candidates Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman and Michele Bachmann, and also a demand by the Republican House that Barack Obama, the president, win congressional approval for the operation in Libya.

“There’s always been an isolationist strain in the Republican party ... but now it seems to have moved more centre stage,” said Mr McCain.

-more-

[mugzi]

You are such a partisan hack/globalist its comical. You may not have agreed with Iraq, but in case you forgot congressional approval IN ACCORDANCE with the law was sought and given.

And since when is the UN or NATO, Arab states- yeah they're real allies or the EU the U.S. govt??They are not. This country is not beholden to them yet, nor should ever be despite your desire to see our sovereignty erased and a one world govt created.

So spending a billion dollars a month in air strikes bombing Libya isn't an act of war???? Oh theres no ground troops, guess thats the only way as defined by this president that a war can be waged. Im sure it would be a war according to you under the last president. But this one has a D next to his name so its ok, good liberal logic. {oxymoron}

This is the danger and the highway to fascism. When the constitution isn't adhered to, congress is disregarded and SEMANTICS are being used by a lawyer who changes or ignores the meaning of words to suit his own agenda, thats A WTF moment for you. And it aint an acronym for Winning the future. What is the threat being posed by Libya to the U.S.? Do you even have any clue that many of the people we've been fighting in Iraq came from Libya? Do you have even a scintilla of logic here that tells you that maybe we're assisting our enemies in Libya instead of these freedom fighters the MSM calls them? And btw assisting an enemy in air strikes we're simultaneously fighting in another war isn't only a WTF moment, its treason.

And don't post crap like Mc Cain and Graham two of the biggest RINO's there are acting as if they're conservatives chastising others for an isolationist policy that won't ever be followed by either party.

Let's talk about the latest Muslim to be arrested in the U.S. for suspicion of terrorism, lets talk about an economy that is mired in neutral because of INEPTITUDE, LACK OF LEADERSHIP, OR OUTRIGHT SABOTAGE by its "leaders" or lets talk about the myriad of other problems in this country that democrats have no solutions for. They're the real party of NO. No leadership, no vision, no honor and most of all no hope for re-election next year. Despite your delusions of grandeur Rassumussen's latest poll has your boy down to a no-name GOP candidate and his approval ratings are where they should be, low and going lower.

[ewingxmanstarks]

I expect them to make decisions based on the CONSTITUTION. That little piece of paper which founded the govt and your president continues to ignore. Libya is an illegal war done without congressional approval and a genius like Pelosi says oh theres no boots on the ground so its ok. I would laugh nonstop at your leaders if they werent so dam dangerous.

Well, isn't this the pot calling the kettle black. You say this to me after the Iraq war? Are you fcking kidding me mugzi? We have a full NATO coalition, the support of the EU and the Arab states on Libya. And no ground troops.

Please explain the difference to me between the two.

Maybe you missed this:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d75ba2a6-9ad4 ... z1PmWzG0e7

Hawks attack Republican isolationism
By Richard McGregor
Published: June 20 2011 03:42 | Last updated: June 20 2011 03:42

Republican hawks have launched a concerted pushback against what they call a “growing isolationist” trend within their party and its candidates competing to win the nomination to run for the White House in 2012.

Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, as well as Liz Cheney, the former vice-president’s daughter and a one-time state department official, raised concerns on Sunday at the direction of Republican foreign policy.

Their attacks on their colleagues underscore how dramatically the foreign policy debate in the US is being changed by the country’s domestic economic problems.

The senators were responding to statements by aspiring presidential candidates Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman and Michele Bachmann, and also a demand by the Republican House that Barack Obama, the president, win congressional approval for the operation in Libya.

“There’s always been an isolationist strain in the Republican party ... but now it seems to have moved more centre stage,” said Mr McCain.

-more-

Why was the war in Iraq illegal? Was the War in Afghanistan illegal?
There has only been a few times in our history when congress declared war...When the legislative branches vote to go to war, isn't that then enough?

Why does the EU, or Nato, or Arab states have a voice, and not congress?

In saying that, my feelings on the war in Libya is there must be some kind of strong intelligence that leads us to believe we are doing the right thing over there....I'm a skeptic, but Obama is the commander in chief, and I trust our involvement is for the better...Dumb liberals will make it out that Obama is looking to kill innocent people, and he's evil because he has us in another war...After were done lets grab some of Libya's oil before France does...


The candidates are just going along with American sentiment...Everyone is sick of war...We are never fully withdrawing our troops from Iraq or Afghanistan....I've believe that part of the reason for Iraq was to have a base there, so we can eventually go to war with Iran...The more military bases we have near the Arab Persian world, the safer we are, and safer the world is...


Lets be truthful about one thing, the party of isolationism is the Dems.

[ewingxmanstarks]

I don't need to read the huffington post spin...I saw it...Stewart got killed.

I didn't read the HuffingtonPost "spin" as you call it. I just watched the video. You think Stewart "got killed." I got to hear this. And please explain in sufficient detail so that even I can understand it.

The question you should be asking is how did he not get killed? Then I would have to think long and hard.....You can call it sabotage journalism if you want, but Stewart thought just because he won a stupid meaningless debate against O'reily, on a dumb issue, he could waltz around and spit his nonsense to a pro like Wallace...


Wallace, proved to him the biases in the liberal mainstream media....one example he used was when the Arizona law was a hot topic issue...Wallace showed a clip of a CBS ancore describe the law incorrectly.....She claimed that law allows officers to stop anyone, without reason to inquire about citizenship...Which is an obvious lie....that's not even bias, that's straight up corruption..Stewart's response was it was "lasy" journalism...c'mon....the new york times asking their readers to help the dissimenate Sara Palins Emails...Have there ever been a stronger case of a News Agency looking to smear someone? that's indefensible


Wallace also called out Stewart for hiding behind the veil of a "comedian"....Stewart asked Wallace if he thinks he's and activist, Wallace appropriately said yes....Stewart's response is your nuts...That's was a brilliant rebuttal...


Wallace was also brilliant in calling him out on, by liberal standards racist mocking of Herman Cain in jest...his response was i make fun of Chinese people all the time....that's not the point, he doesn't mock Obama in such a way....He doesn't like Herman Cain, because he doesn't like his views, so he made fun of his race...


Stewart, admitted that Wallace was a tough interviewer...went on to say its not you a have a problem with....He got exposed.


If Bill Mahr and Stewart are just "comedians" then why do they have distinguished politic ans on their show, like i don't know, president Obama?

Also if there only "comedians", why do you bring them up in a thread about politics?

[ewingxmanstarks]

Lol...I already told you why I didn't join the military.

Why do you think I didn't?

That would require me to read over all of our recent replies, which is much to painful. So, what was the reason?

My family didn't want me to go, be my guest if you want to make issue of that..

[Pharmcat]

stewart forced some good answers from him: wallace acknowledged fox shows the other side
(which goes against the fair and balance)

stewart said lazyness and sensationalism was the goal of the media, and he is totally right (especially on the sensationalism)...that weiner example was gold

it wasnt a political comment, he was comparing the technique of commercials (regarding that palin commercial), stewart was right on that


jon stewart DESTROYED the media in general with that coverage of pelosi news conference

stewart brought up the most misinformed viewers is fox, and wallace changed the subject (stewart win)

wallace tried hard, i give him credit, but stewart did great

[ewingxmanstarks]

stewart forced some good answers from him: wallace acknowledged fox shows the other side
(which goes against the fair and balance)

stewart said lazyness and sensationalism was the goal of the media, and he is totally right (especially on the sensationalism)...that weiner example was gold

it wasnt a political comment, he was comparing the technique of commercials (regarding that palin commercial), stewart was right on that


jon stewart DESTROYED the media in general with that coverage of pelosi news conference

stewart brought up the most misinformed viewers is fox, and wallace changed the subject (stewart win)

wallace tried hard, i give him credit, but stewart did great

Are you kidding me? CBS LYNING about the Arizona law was lazy? Do you agree with that?

He didn't admit there is liberal bias....which was the heart of the debate...Wallace gave him numerous examples.

I don't remember what commercial your talking about.

Stewart claims fox views are the most uniformed...He has no proof...What do you want Wallace to say, no their not.

[ewingxmanstarks]

As a genral rule....Just because someone wins a debate doesn't mean they are right in he disscusion....It can mean they bested the other in language....In the Stewart and Wallace case...Stewart was not only wrong, but he lost the debate


Thats why Wallace had a confident, i got you smile, the whole time.....Stewart was visibly angry, and he praised Wallace while conceding his mistakes in the past...He even said I've made mistakes in mischaracterizing the other side....that's what the debate was about

[Pharmcat]

stewart forced some good answers from him: wallace acknowledged fox shows the other side
(which goes against the fair and balance)

stewart said lazyness and sensationalism was the goal of the media, and he is totally right (especially on the sensationalism)...that weiner example was gold

it wasnt a political comment, he was comparing the technique of commercials (regarding that palin commercial), stewart was right on that


jon stewart DESTROYED the media in general with that coverage of pelosi news conference

stewart brought up the most misinformed viewers is fox, and wallace changed the subject (stewart win)

wallace tried hard, i give him credit, but stewart did great

Are you kidding me? CBS LYNING about the Arizona law was lazy? Do you agree with that?

He didn't admit there is liberal bias....which was the heart of the debate...Wallace gave him numerous examples.

I don't remember what commercial your talking about.

Stewart claims fox views are the most uniformed...He has no proof...What do you want Wallace to say, no their not.

reports have said that they are the misinformed ones, wallace knows it, thats why he changed the subject instead of challenging him on that statement

[ewingxmanstarks]

and what "reports" are those?

[Pharmcat]

As a genral rule....Just because someone wins a debate doesn't mean they are right in he disscusion....It can mean they bested the other in language....In the Stewart and Wallace case...Stewart was not only wrong, but he lost the debate


Thats why Wallace had a confident, i got you smile, the whole time.....Stewart was visibly angry, and he praised Wallace while conceding his mistakes in the past...He even said I've made mistakes in mischaracterizing the other side....that's what the debate was about

stewart doesnt have a beef with wallace (nor do I), its the other partisan hacks on that show (like hannity), stewart has made that clear b4

[ewingxmanstarks]

As a genral rule....Just because someone wins a debate doesn't mean they are right in he disscusion....It can mean they bested the other in language....In the Stewart and Wallace case...Stewart was not only wrong, but he lost the debate


Thats why Wallace had a confident, i got you smile, the whole time.....Stewart was visibly angry, and he praised Wallace while conceding his mistakes in the past...He even said I've made mistakes in mischaracterizing the other side....that's what the debate was about

stewart doesnt have a beef with wallace (nor do I), its the other partisan hacks on that show (like hannity), stewart has made that clear b4

Stewart is constantly bashing fox news...when he bashes fox news, he dosen't say except Chris wallace.....He was complementary in defeat....During a heated exchange he said to Wallace, are you trying to say i'm just like you?


There is BS in fox news, but from my vantage point its, in the very least just as bad as other cable networks....Fox news also is mostly opinions....Some of the contributors like Charles Krauthammer are truly brilliant people worth listening to...

[Pharmcat]

and what "reports" are those?

google it, a quick one shows:

http://thinkprogress.org/default/2007/0 ... knowledge/

but if it was a false assertion, why didnt wallace challenge it? he changed the subject, simply b/c he knows it to be true also

[Pharmcat]

As a genral rule....Just because someone wins a debate doesn't mean they are right in he disscusion....It can mean they bested the other in language....In the Stewart and Wallace case...Stewart was not only wrong, but he lost the debate


Thats why Wallace had a confident, i got you smile, the whole time.....Stewart was visibly angry, and he praised Wallace while conceding his mistakes in the past...He even said I've made mistakes in mischaracterizing the other side....that's what the debate was about

stewart doesnt have a beef with wallace (nor do I), its the other partisan hacks on that show (like hannity), stewart has made that clear b4

Stewart is constantly bashing fox news...when he bashes fox news, he dosen't say except Chris wallace.....He was complementary in defeat....During a heated exchange he said to Wallace, are you trying to say i'm just like you?


There is BS in fox news, but from my vantage point its, in the very least just as bad as other cable networks....Fox news also is mostly opinions....Some of the contributors like Charles Krauthammer are truly brilliant people worth listening to...

masquerading under the word "news" ...thats the point many make

stewart also bashes CNN, msnbc, among others...its all out there on youtube

[ewingxmanstarks]

and what "reports" are those?

google it, a quick one shows:

http://thinkprogress.org/default/2007/0 ... knowledge/

but if it was a false assertion, why didnt wallace challenge it? he changed the subject, simply b/c he knows it to be true also

Thinkprogress....No such claim has been proven fact...It may be your opinion....I for one would like to have a broader view of samples out before agreeing with you....

Wallace didn't Chalenge a petty unproven claim....showing he was above meaningless dialog....furthermore it was Stewart who Changed the topic by making the obnoxious claim.

[Pharmcat]

and what "reports" are those?

google it, a quick one shows:

http://thinkprogress.org/default/2007/0 ... knowledge/

but if it was a false assertion, why didnt wallace challenge it? he changed the subject, simply b/c he knows it to be true also

Thinkprogress....No such claim has been proven fact...It may be your opinion....I for one would like to have a broader view of samples out before agreeing with you....

Wallace didn't Chalenge a petty unproven claim....showing he was above meaningless dialog....furthermore it was Stewart who Changed the topic by making the obnoxious claim.

did y ou even read the article, its not their survey

wallace knows it to be true, or else he'd be defending it and blaming the main stream media, he didnt b/c he knows what the surveys said

[ewingxmanstarks]

I get it you don't like fox...You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts....Saying something is proven is a strong statement....I read it, its crap..


understand that the intelligence of the viewership of different cable news networks is a different debate all in itself

[yaboynyp]

Fox “News” should change it’s name to Sly Fox “News"

[MF Doom]

Do people really think the media is Liberal?