democrats

[Just Wondering]

http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv

[A/B roll]

wow that totally opened my eyes. I've been so blind all along! Thanks to the Republican National Committee for producing that completely accurate and forthcoming ad.

[f11vid]

Do Republicans respond equally to shiny objects?

[McFly]

wow that totally opened my eyes. I've been so blind all along! Thanks to the Republican National Committee for producing that completely accurate and forthcoming ad.

I detect sarcasm! :eek:

Are you saying that the video has been manipulated and that the people in it did NOT say what they said?

[A/B roll]

Video hasn't been manipulated, just the context of the statements. People had a much different opinion on Iraq before they found out they were "misiformed" by the US admin.

[Tapeape]

http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv

Soooo. . . . .. Who sent ya? O'Reilly, or Limbaugh?

[Wideangle]

Wow, I was so misinformed by the liberal media. So I guess this means
that the last seven years were really the democrat's fault...Amazing.
It's that Truman line in reverse. Instead of the buck stopping here,
you just pass it....back ten years. By the way, Steve Winwood should sue!
I love that song and now it's been trashed!

[Frank McBride]

Everyone on this board knows the power of editing and how important what is NOT shown can be.

Since you brought it up, Just Wondering, do you think differently now than before the current war began? I know I do. I assumed that our reasons were solid and would be revealed in time. On that level I feel mislead.

Would we be better off if Al Gore had won? (He really did lose, by the way). I doubt it. Both parties represent American corporations rather than the people, and wars are great for business.

FMc

[McFly]

Video hasn't been manipulated, just the context of the statements. People had a much different opinion on Iraq before they found out they were "misiformed" by the US admin.

How was the context manipulated?

And because the war is no longer favored by the majority, that makes the politician's comments null and void?

[AKinDC]

As a Democrat, I will freely admit that all those people were wrong about the threat that Iraq posed. Intelligent people have the ability to change their opinion when they realize they are wrong though. It's not about waffling, it's not about being inconsistant, it's about having a brain. When confronted with the new facts, most Democrats changed their thoughts about Iraq...as well they should have. President Bush and the neo-cons are stubbernly sticking with their decisions, even though the facts supporting those decisions have changed considerably. That's just moronic.

[pre-set]

Wait a minute here!!!!!

WTF is Sandy Berger talking about?

What does he MEAN by "Iraq has USED WMD's 10 times since 1983"?



I thought Iraq didn't HAVE WMD's!!!!! That's what we've been told all this time by MoveOn and every other left wing crank - that there "never were" any WMD's in Iraq.


So, in Feb of 1998, the National Security Advisor KNEW of TEN examples of Iraq not only POSSESSING but USING WMD's?



Why hasn't this been reported since? Then where did those WMD's go then? If Sandy Berger says they used some, where did the rest of these weapons go?

[Baltimore Shooter]

Lest we forget, the REPUBLICANS were admonishing Clinton for his interlude w/ Lewinsky. And if you remember, it was Gingrich in particular who led the charge. But what was he doing? yep, that's right, having...[gasp] an affair!

But before you conservatives say that was just a lie concocted by the "liberal media", you may want to read this: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070309/ap_on_go_co/gingrich_affair

Gingrich had affair during Clinton probe
By BEN EVANS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich acknowledged he was having an extramarital affair even as he led the charge against President Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair, he acknowledged in an interview with a conservative Christian group.

"The honest answer is yes," Gingrich, a potential 2008 Republican presidential candidate, said in an interview with Focus on the Family founder James Dobson to be aired Friday, according to a transcript provided to The Associated Press. "There are times that I have fallen short of my own standards. There's certainly times when I've fallen short of God's standards."

Gingrich argued in the interview, however, that he should not be viewed as a hypocrite for pursuing Clinton's infidelity.

"The president of the United States got in trouble for committing a felony in front of a sitting federal judge," the former Georgia congressman said of Clinton's 1998 House impeachment on perjury and obstruction of justice charges. "I drew a line in my mind that said, 'Even though I run the risk of being deeply embarrassed, and even though at a purely personal level I am not rendering judgment on another human being, as a leader of the government trying to uphold the rule of law, I have no choice except to move forward and say that you cannot accept ... perjury in your highest officials."

Widely considered a mastermind of the Republican revolution that swept Congress in the 1994 elections, Gingrich remains wildly popular among many conservatives. He has repeatedly placed near the top of Republican presidential polls recently, even though he has not formed a campaign.

Gingrich has said he is waiting to see how the Republican field shapes up before deciding in the fall whether to run.

Reports of extramarital affairs have dogged him for years as a result of two messy divorces, but he has refused to discuss them publicly.

Gingrich, who frequently campaigned on family values issues, divorced his second wife, Marianne, in 2000 after his attorneys acknowledged Gingrich's relationship with his current wife, Callista Bisek, a former congressional aide more than 20 years younger than he is.

His first marriage, to his former high school geometry teacher, Jackie Battley, ended in divorce in 1981. Although Gingrich has said he doesn't remember it, Battley has said Gingrich discussed divorce terms with her while she was recuperating in the hospital from cancer surgery.

Gingrich married Marianne months after the divorce.

"There were times when I was praying and when I felt I was doing things that were wrong. But I was still doing them," he said in the interview. "I look back on those as periods of weakness and periods that I'm ... not proud of."

Gingrich's congressional career ended in 1998 when he abruptly resigned from Congress after poor showings from Republicans in elections and after being reprimanded by the House ethics panel over charges that he used tax-exempt funding to advance his political goals.
-------------------------------

I find it interesting how the Republicans always seem to blame Democrats for something they are actually doing themselves. Talk about hypocricy!

Warren

[AKinDC]

Err...it's commen knowledge that Saddam gassed the Kurds many times back in the 80's and 90's, and many asssumed we'd find stockpiles of chemical weapons in Iraq. We didn't, and it seems that they hadn't manufactured any for years. It's been reported many, many times.


Wait a minute here!!!!!

WTF is Sandy Berger talking about?

What does he MEAN by "Iraq has USED WMD's 10 times since 1983"?



I thought Iraq didn't HAVE WMD's!!!!! That's what we've been told all this time by MoveOn and every other left wing crank - that there "never were" any WMD's in Iraq.


So, in Feb of 1998, the National Security Advisor KNEW of TEN examples of Iraq not only POSSESSING but USING WMD's?



Why hasn't this been reported since? Then where did those WMD's go then? If Sandy Berger says they used some, where did the rest of these weapons go?

[Baltimore Shooter]

And let's not forget who gave a hell of a lot of weapons AND financial aid to Iraq in their war against Iran...the REPUBLICANS (Ronald "I can't remember" Reagan).

Warren

[Frank McBride]

Hey, Just Wondering, your avatar changed since this thread started. What is the new one?

FMc

[Tapeape]

Wait a minute here!!!!!

WTF is Sandy Berger talking about?

What does he MEAN by "Iraq has USED WMD's 10 times since 1983"?



I thought Iraq didn't HAVE WMD's!!!!!


Come on man, you're a journalist. I know you can think better than this! "has USED" indicates something in the past. As in, in the 80's, Saddam had WMD's. No one's arguing that - hell the USA supplied him with some of them. But those WMD's were gone, both because they'd already been used and because the rest had been destroyed, by the time we went in "to get the WMD's."

[Terry E. Toller]

I heard a dem on talk radio a couple of nights ago who explained Mrs. Clinton's take on Iraq. He kept going on about how stupid Republicans are because they just can't get it. He said, "All we need is a little luck and for the people in Iraq to quit killing eachother and the war would be over". Well, actually, that is the FIRST thing I have ever heard from a dem that comes close to truth or making sense. Of course, we can't rely on luck and those islamic maniacs have been killing each other forever... but, if the quit, we could come home...

[texshooter]

I have not seen the piece in question here yet, but there are a couple of observations I'd like to make.

1. Libs accuse this guy of cherry picking facts, taking things out of context and manipulating quotes, therefore his arguements are not valid. But Michael Moore is a spot on genius for doing the same thing?

2. New Gingrich may be a jerk, but Bill Clinton did not get in trouble because he cheated on his wife, he got in trouble because he cheated on his wife, (in violation of federal sexual harrassment laws that he supported) then lied about it in sworn statements to a federal judge and grand jury, suborned perjury and obstructed justice in an attempt to deny an American citizen her day in court in a federal civil rights lawsuit.

3. A tactic I have noticed to be prevalent among some on the left is attack the messenger, when attacking the message fails, ie, someone who is not convinced that the science on global warming is absolute or conclusive is a tool of "big oil".

4. Whenever anyone quotes a source from an organization with conservative ties, their message gets attacked as "more lies from the neo-cons". So an organization like Tenessee Center for Policy Research is branded "right wing nut-case", while moveon.org, the Brady Campaign and PETA are oracles of truth.

5. Whenever anyone questions a liberal, instead of engaging the arguement, you get things like "Soooo. . . . .. Who sent ya? O'Reilly, or Limbaugh?", responding to questions about Al Gore with "I suppose it's easier for republicans to talk about Al Gore's utility bills than it is for them to discuss the war in Iraq, the treatment of our wounded soldiers at Walter Reed, the possible illeagal firing of Federal Prosecuters, failed foreign policy, failed education policy, Scooter Libby, etc., etc., etc.:
Oh, by the way:
5a: War in Iraq: We could go on all day about this, but the fact is we are there now, and you would have us cut and run?
5b: Walter Reed: This is what happens when you let unfireable civil service employees run things.
5c: Firings of Federal Prosecuters: All US Attorneys work at the pleasure of the President of the United States, they can be fired at any time. President Clinton fired ALL 93 US Attorneys in 1993. Most likely to get rid of the US Attorney in Little Rock investigating Whitewater, and the one in Chicago investigating Dan Rostenkowski. The ones canned in this case (with the exception of one who was quitting anyway) were dragging their feet on voter fraud investigations.
5d: Failed foriegn policy? I don't think getting hosed by the UN and being loved by the French is all that admirable of a foriegn policy goal.
5e: Failed education policy? How, US schools were turning out legions of morons before George W. Bush ever dreamed of running for office. I am not a big fan of the President on education either, considering he let Teddy the Secretary Slayer write the biggest education bill of his presidency.
5f: Scooter Libby: There was no crime commited in any discussion of Valerie Plame, it was not Libby who revealed her name anyway, it was Richard Armitage (and Patrick Fitzgerald knew this 2 years ago). Libby was prosecuted for misremembering what he told some reporter months earlier about why a moron househusband, sometimes ambassador, full time DNC operative was sent to Africa and came back and made his report (in which he lied about what he found), not to the Vice President, not to the CIA, and not to congress, but in an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times. BTW, Joe Wilson's testimony where it counted, (sworn) in front of the Senate Foriegn Relations Committee and the 9/11 commission CONFIRMED the British Intel, that Iraq had sought to increase trade with Niger. Niger only has ONE export product-yellowcake uranium.

6. Ronald Reagan said it best "Liberals will defend to the death your right to agree with them".

[servo]

The only difference between Democrats and Republicans is the speed of their knees hitting the floor when Corporation knocks on the door.

[itsjusttvnews]

Excellent reply, Texshooter.

[A/B roll]

1. Libs accuse this guy of cherry picking facts, taking things out of context and manipulating quotes, therefore his arguements are not valid. But Michael Moore is a spot on genius for doing the same thing?

Just because I can spot propaganda dosen't make me a "Lib." I'm able to recongize that Michael Moore is a spin machine as well. Botom line is that I don't like people tring to manipulate me or even worse... manipulating the week-minded, on either side of the fence.

[Tom Servo]

2. Newt Gingrich may be a jerk, but Bill Clinton did not get in trouble because he cheated on his wife, he got in trouble because he cheated on his wife, (in violation of federal sexual harrassment laws that he supported) then lied about it in sworn statements to a federal judge and grand jury, suborned perjury and obstructed justice in an attempt to deny an American citizen her day in court in a federal civil rights lawsuit.

This may be true, however, did that really justify impeachment? I would submit there would be a stronger argument that it did, if Bush and Cheney were being impeached right now. After all, I would say lying to the country about the reasons for a war, committing war crimes in the execution of a war, and perhaps even treason (Plame case) are certainly impeachable offenses, and I would submit far more serious impeachable offenses than lying about screwing around on one's wife.

3. A tactic I have noticed to be prevalent among some on the left is attack the messenger, when attacking the message fails, ie, someone who is not convinced that the science on global warming is absolute or conclusive is a tool of "big oil".

The left certainly does not hold a monopoly on this tactic.

4. Whenever anyone quotes a source from an organization with conservative ties, their message gets attacked as "more lies from the neo-cons". So an organization like Tenessee Center for Policy Research is branded "right wing nut-case", while moveon.org, the Brady Campaign and PETA are oracles of truth.

I'd be interested if you'd point out a message on here in which someone judged PETA to be an oracle of truth.

5. Whenever anyone questions a liberal, instead of engaging the arguement, you get things like "Soooo. . . . .. Who sent ya? O'Reilly, or Limbaugh?"

Well, yes, if someone posts idiotic propaganda they're probably going to get some derisive remarks.

responding to questions about Al Gore with "I suppose it's easier for republicans to talk about Al Gore's utility bills than it is for them to discuss the war in Iraq, the treatment of our wounded soldiers at Walter Reed, the possible illeagal firing of Federal Prosecuters, failed foreign policy, failed education policy, Scooter Libby, etc., etc., etc.:

Sounds logical to me. Or are you suggesting that Al Gore's energy bill is more important than these other issues?

Oh, by the way:
5a: War in Iraq: We could go on all day about this, but the fact is we are there now, and you would have us cut and run?

that's really a topic for a thread on its own, but the short answer is that we must ask ourselves if we can do any good by staying. We should also bear in mind that the same "oh my we can't cut and run!" argument was used to keep us needlessly embroiled in Vietnam.

5b: Walter Reed: This is what happens when you let unfireable civil service employees run things.

1) the people who were running things at Reed have already been fired, which debunks your argument.
2) This is what happens when you play army and don't really give a damn about the soldiers you're playing army with.
3) This is what happens when you subcontract oversight of Walter Reed to a Haliburton subsidiary, thereby further enriching the Vice President (who still hasn't gotten around to getting rid of his Haliburton stock that creates an inherent conflict of interest with his current position).

5c: Firings of Federal Prosecuters: All US Attorneys work at the pleasure of the President of the United States, they can be fired at any time. President Clinton fired ALL 93 US Attorneys in 1993.

1) This is the famous "But Clinton" defense. Let's get one thing straight. Just because Clinton did something does not justify Bush doing it. It does not remove Bush from culpability, although the Republicans seem to think it does.
2) Yes, Clinton replaced the prosecutors at the beginning of his term and no one blinked an eye because that's routine, and is how the system is set up. No one blinked an eye when Bush's dad did the same thing when he took office either. The difference here is that Bush Jr did it for purely political reasons, which is unprecedented.

5d: Failed foriegn policy? I don't think getting hosed by the UN and being loved by the French is all that admirable of a foriegn policy goal.

We went from having the sympathy of the world to enduring the wrath of the world. The day after 9/11 even Iranians marched in the street in support of us. Then Bush started the foreign policy failures by naming Iran as a part of the "axis of evil." And were I you I really wouldn't bring up France - first off they were right about the war as we can now all see, and second, surely you're embarrassed by the kindergarten "freedom fries" tactic.


5e: Failed education policy? How, US schools were turning out legions of morons before George W. Bush ever dreamed of running for office. I am not a big fan of the President on education either, considering he let Teddy the Secretary Slayer write the biggest education bill of his presidency.

Because No Child Left Behind is a complete flop. He mandated it but refused to fund it. Now schools are having to cancel programs in order to pay for this junk, that doesn't even work. Teachers are now required to teach to the test, which is really good if we're trying to turn out a crop of mindless automatons or factory workers (psst. Hey. We are) but not so good if we want citizens who can actually think for themselves.


5f: Scooter Libby: There was no crime commited in any discussion of Valerie Plame

And he wasn't accused of that. He was accused of perjury.

BTW, Joe Wilson's testimony where it counted, (sworn) in front of the Senate Foriegn Relations Committee and the 9/11 commission CONFIRMED the British Intel, that Iraq had sought to increase trade with Niger. Niger only has ONE export product-yellowcake uranium.

You're not really going there are you? The CIA itself told Bush for months before that SOTU address that the yellowcake story was bunk, but he went with it anyway.


6. Ronald Reagan said it best "Liberals will defend to the death your right to agree with them".


Again acting as though liberals have the corner on that market. I seem to recall neo-conservatives telling us that anyone who disagreed with them or anything they did (such as the war) was unpatriotic. If liberals advocate bringing the troops home (where they stand a much better chance of living and not being mutilated) is "not supporting the troops."

[natspop]

http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv

Demoncraps, now what ?

[pre-set]

Why are you trying to use logic against an illogical opponnet? It simply can't be done. When you try to argue with idiots, it makes it hard to tell you apart from them.


You simply cannot argue with a commited leftist because they are ideologially prohibited from seeing any point, regardless of how accurate or legitimate, that doesn't fit their narrow, dull-witted world view.

That video will mean NOTHING to them..... Some will even claim it's fake. It doesn't matter. You cannot have an understanding or consensus with these folks about anything.... They simply have to be ignored or defeated....

[texshooter]

An excellent reply Tom Servo, thank you for the reasoned debate. I don't feel like playing the embedded quote game, so I'll take on a few of your points in the limited time I have this afternoon.

"This may be true, however, did that really justify impeachment? I would submit there would be a stronger argument that it did, if Bush and Cheney were being impeached right now. After all, I would say lying to the country about the reasons for a war, committing war crimes in the execution of a war, and perhaps even treason (Plame case) are certainly impeachable offenses, and I would submit far more serious impeachable offenses than lying about screwing around on one's wife."

How exactly did Bush and Cheney lie about the reasons for the war? There were several reasons, including the argument made by EVERYONE, including Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and many others going back to 1998 about Saddam's WMD aspirations. It is a fact that he used WMD on his own people and the Iranians in the 1980-88 war. He was in violation of 17 different UN resolutions, and was refusing access to his facilities, which he agreed to in 1991. He overplayed his hand, but I would have preferred not to have been proven right with a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv or New York.

Even if you can prove that President Bush lied (defined as deliberate dissemination of information known to be untrue), and you can't. That is not an impeachable offense. Perjury, subornation of perjury, witness tampering and obstruction of justice are. If President Clinton had come out and said, "Yeah I got a BJ from her, whatcha gonna do about it", that would have made him a jerk, but not a criminal. What treason in the Plame case. If there was any crime in the revealing of her identity, Patrick Fitzgerald would have sought indictments for that crime. No crime, no treason.

"The left certainly does not hold a monopoly on this tactic."

Please cite examples of this from the right.

"I'd be interested if you'd point out a message on here in which someone judged PETA to be an oracle of truth."

Touche on that point, I was being somewhat sarcastic.

"Well, yes, if someone posts idiotic propaganda they're probably going to get some derisive remarks"

The ad-hominem attack is a favorite tactic of the left, If you can cite examples from the right (I'll give you Ann Coulter), I'd love to hear them. BTW, I did glance at the link in the original post, It appears to be throwing the democrats own words back at them. You might not like it, but that does not make it idiotic propaganda. Al Gore's movie, however, IS idiotic propaganda.

"Sounds logical to me. Or are you suggesting that Al Gore's energy bill is more important than these other issues?"

Al Gore's engery bill is not, but his his hippocracy (sp?) is a subject for debate and discussion. His attitude is typical of the "do as I say, not as I do" attitude of the limosine liberal left. (A favorite quote from the late Richard Jeni, "Limosine Liberals, they live in mansions with 20 rooms that are heated, nobody goes in 'em. They have swimming pools that are heated, nobody swims in 'em. They fly 20 seat jets BY THEMSELVES, clear across the country so they won't be late for that conference on energy conservation").

"that's really a topic for a thread on its own, but the short answer is that we must ask ourselves if we can do any good by staying. We should also bear in mind that the same "oh my we can't cut and run!" argument was used to keep us needlessly embroiled in Vietnam."

We are doing good by staying. 14 of 18 provences in Iraq are stable. The reinforcements in Baghdad are improving the tactical situation there. We are fighting Al Queda there instead of Kansas. If we were to pack up and leave, the terrorists will have won, and we WILL be fighting them in Kansas, they have said as much. As far as Vietnam goes, we WERE winning there, the military won EVERY battle. Tet was a stratigic and tactical disaster for the North Vietnamese army and the Viet Cong. It was the Lyndon Johnson and Walter Cronkite that lost Vietnam for us. Linebacker I and II had devastated the North militarily, and forced them back to the negotiating table. When we withdrew in 1973, it was with the assurance that we could comeback if the North violated the Paris Peace accords, which they did, almost immediately, moving through Cambodia and Laos. The Democrat controlled congress refuused to fund President Ford's request to keep our obligations to the South, leading to communist takeovers in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. Pol Pot is conservatively estimated to be reponsible for 1.5-2 million deaths. Cutting and running in Iraq will lead to the same thing.

"1) This is the famous "But Clinton" defense. Let's get one thing straight. Just because Clinton did something does not justify Bush doing it. It does not remove Bush from culpability, although the Republicans seem to think it does.
2) Yes, Clinton replaced the prosecutors at the beginning of his term and no one blinked an eye because that's routine, and is how the system is set up. No one blinked an eye when Bush's dad did the same thing when he took office either. The difference here is that Bush Jr did it for purely political reasons, which is unprecedented."

The left like to say "oh, the old Clinton did it too defense", my point was, It was not illegal for Bill Clinton, It was not illegal for George Bush. Please provide some evidence that it was purely political, other than moveon.org talking points.

"We went from having the sympathy of the world to enduring the wrath of the world. The day after 9/11 even Iranians marched in the street in support of us. Then Bush started the foreign policy failures by naming Iran as a part of the "axis of evil." And were I you I really wouldn't bring up France - first off they were right about the war as we can now all see, and second, surely you're embarrassed by the kindergarten "freedom fries" tactic."

Sorry, I missed the "Iranians marching in support of us", I was busy that day, flying blood and medical supplies from Hanscom AFB to JFK airport. I would call, the current leader of Iran, who has called for the destruction of Israel and America "evil". France and Germany's only concern was keeping their deal with Saddam and their culpability in the oil for food scandal a secret. Their interest was financial and political, not moral. The simple fact is, it's time we stopped kowtowing to the rest of the world ala President Clinton. Europe hates President Bush because he doesn't kiss their butts. Let's be like Europe, oh boy, with their double digit unemployment and 90% tax rates. We are not Europe, we are America, the greatest country on the face of the earth. And I am sick and freakin' tired of pansie-a$$ liberal commie America haters blaming us for all the evils of the world. America always has, and always will be (unless you guys get your way) the greatest force for good the world has ever known. America feeds the world, defends it from tyranny (Nazism, Communism, Islamic Terrorists). Don't like it here, Delta is ready when you are, non-stop to France.
(Ok, rant over, sorry)

"Because No Child Left Behind is a complete flop. He mandated it but refused to fund it. Now schools are having to cancel programs in order to pay for this junk, that doesn't even work. Teachers are now required to teach to the test, which is really good if we're trying to turn out a crop of mindless automatons or factory workers (psst. Hey. We are) but not so good if we want citizens who can actually think for themselves."

Agree with much of what you said, but like I said, US schools have been turning out morons for decades. (look across the cubicle at the nearest reporter, most likely a product of government education). I believe President Bush should have pushed more for vouchers, so people who do not have John Kerry's wife's money can get their kids out of those crapholes.

"And he wasn't accused of that. He was accused of perjury."

President Clinton was not accused of cheating on his wife. He was accused of perjury.

"You're not really going there are you? The CIA itself told Bush for months before that SOTU address that the yellowcake story was bunk, but he went with it anyway."

They did not say it was bunk, they said it was currently unconfirmed. Also, the CIA has been working against President Bush from the beginning, as has much of the State Department. Remember, these are career bureaucrats, who don't like change, President Bush brought change. Also, it was a Democrat, President Clinton's appointee George Tenant, who called Saddam's WMD program "a slam dunk". Also, the British stood by their conclusions, and it was proven to be correct, in testamony before the Senate Select Committee on Intellegence and the 9/11 Commission.

"Again acting as though liberals have the corner on that market. I seem to recall neo-conservatives telling us that anyone who disagreed with them or anything they did (such as the war) was unpatriotic. If liberals advocate bringing the troops home (where they stand a much better chance of living and not being mutilated) is "not supporting the troops."

Disagreeing with me is not un-patriotic. but "supporting the troops", means supporting their mission. They are there by choice, every single man and woman in uniform today volunteered, and the vast majority support the reasons they are there. Supporting them means supporting their mission, not bringing them home in defeat, ala Vietnam.

ps, see how I manage to refer to Bill Cinton, whom I consider to be a disasterous President, has "President Clinton". I wish the left could manage the same courtesy.

[Foxwood]

I can't count how many Bush pep rallys I covered where he pledged to, "Restore honor and integrity to the White House."

How's that working out?

[Baltimore Shooter]

HAHAHAHA!!!! Good one Foxwood!

Warren

[texshooter]

I know I'm wasting my time here, hatred of this President has reached pathological proportions. But please show me where a court of law has determined that this President as committed a crime. (Granted, Scooter Libby, but that case has so many flaws, it's sure to be overturned on appeal). But back to the President. Where has he commited a crime? You disagree with his policies, fine. That is your right. But the fact is, he is hated because he sticks to his principles, even those I disagree with. In some cases, the federal courts have disagreed with his administration, in those cases he has changed policy to gain court approval. That's the way the system works. I feel sorry for you, I really do. All that hate must be burning you up, and it's making you irrational.

[texshooter]

I can't count how many Bush pep rallys I covered where he pledged to, "Restore honor and integrity to the White House."

How's that working out?

Just fine thank you.

[f11vid]

What's a Leftist?

[A/B roll]

I follow the "political veiws are like farts, yours are fine but everyone eles's stink" philosophy. I think it's funny how people on both ends of the spectrum will stick up for an entire group of people who share SOME of the same beleifs. People with defined politcal affilation seem to have a "if youre not with us, youre against us." point of veiw.

The video in question IS propaganda, because it's one sided and produced with an agenda. So are Michael Moore's and Al Gore's movies. Just because you agree with the video, those movies dosen't mean they're legitamate.

People get in these lame arguments and they lose sight of the truth (left and right). Everyone does good somtimes. Videos like the one posted are just political bull shi* meant to get people fired up or give people validation for the political affiliation that they chose, same with the left. Bottom line; any extreme is stupid. We're journalists for god sake.

[pre-set]

You cannot mention the word "God". That is politically incorrect, and offensive to those who don't believe in a "God". You shouldn't force your morals onto others...


Try substituting "Fred" for "God".

Example..."We're journalists for Fred's sake".







Mmmmm. This Kool-Aide is yummy!

[A/B roll]

youre right. how 'bout

"were journalist for f**k sake" :)

I don't beleive in fred.

[A/B roll]

BTW pre-set. Do you like Kool-Aid because its so easy to make?:)

[Tom Servo]

I know I'm wasting my time here, hatred of this President has reached pathological proportions. But please show me where a court of law has determined that this President as committed a crime.

You need to read up on your American history. A court of law will not find that a president has committed a crime because the president won't appear in court. He has what's called absolute immunity (this was affirmed, btw by the Supreme Court in Nixon v. Fitzgerald 457 U.S. 731) which means that generally speaking, the court system can't touch the president. That's why it's up to Congress to impeach him, and that option is, after all, still on the table.

[texshooter]

You need to read up on your American history. A court of law will not find that a president has committed a crime because the president won't appear in court. He has what's called absolute immunity (this was affirmed, btw by the Supreme Court in Nixon v. Fitzgerald 457 U.S. 731) which means that generally speaking, the court system can't touch the president. That's why it's up to Congress to impeach him, and that option is, after all, still on the table.

True enough, but the court held in President Clinton's case (sorry, don't know the cite off hand) that the President CAN be sued for actions not related to Presidential actions, ie Paula Jones. It was in this context that he committed perjury. He did not get in trouble for the "I never had sex with that woman" lie, he got in trouble for saying that in a sworn affidavit to a federal judge. Show me the equivilent in President Bush's case.

[pre-set]

BTW pre-set. Do you like Kool-Aid because its so easy to make?:)



Damn right!!! Once you have some, you can just stop thinking!!!

[Wideangle]

Damn right!!! Once you have some, you can just stop thinking!!!

So that explains the last two elections. The red states get all the Kool-Aid! And
Texas, from what I'm reading here, is where it must be manufactured...

[pre-set]

Nah.... It's "blue" Kool-Aide if ya know what I'm sayin'.....

[Wideangle]

Wow, what a come back.....you sure got me on that one......NOT!

[pre-set]

"NOT"?


Are you 12?

Is this 1989?

Huh?

[rocky1138]

bottom line, for the majority of the country we're a purple nation.
unfortunately it seems as though human nature doesn't get excited talking about all the things we agree on, only all the things we hate. & thus is why we hear so much about blue & red states.

imho, many politicians = hipocrytes. & to stir the flame of red & blue...

During a debate with then-Vice President Al Gore on Oct. 11, 2000, in Winston-Salem, N.C., Bush said: "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. . . . I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have a kind of nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not."

& I know the response is going to be, 'we're in a post 9-11 world.' which I'll say, no we aren't. we had terrorists in this world on 9-10-01, & we had terrorists in this world on 9-12-01. the only thing that changed in this country is that John-Q-public started paying attention.

a lot of the iraq war public opinion is that we've gone back to the black hawk down era & can't stomach seeing dead US soliders on TV. we've forgotten how easily we forget.

537

it still bugs me, but nearly everyone else has forgotten. google doesn't even remember what "537" is until you add "florida" into the que.

0.000009161032006% is the lead that Bush had over Gore when the court declared a winner.

it says a lot about the country we live in when must people see that as a Bush v Gore argument. & not an argument about lawyers, $$$, judges & the right for every common person to vote & have their vote counted.

we live in a purple country. we agree on 99% of the same things. the last 1% has some big differences in it, but it is still 1%.

[pre-set]

Yep, and that 1% will be the un-doing of us. And I'm not so sure that would be an entirely bad thing, either... Maybe we have "outgrown" for lack of a better word, each others company. I would be tempted to cut off my fingers before I lived in a liberal stronghold state (aisde from the one I had the misforture of being born in). I'm not suggesting we take up muskets against each other ala 1861... but perhaps a gradual shift in demographics across the country will sort things out in few generations.

[Tom Servo]

True enough, but the court held in President Clinton's case (sorry, don't know the cite off hand) that the President CAN be sued for actions not related to Presidential actions, ie Paula Jones. It was in this context that he committed perjury. He did not get in trouble for the "I never had sex with that woman" lie, he got in trouble for saying that in a sworn affidavit to a federal judge. Show me the equivilent in President Bush's case.

I'm not sure where you're going on this one. So far all of Bush's crimes (that we know of) have related to his presidency, and therefore Nixon still applies.

[A/B roll]

Yep, and that 1% will be the un-doing of us. And I'm not so sure that would be an entirely bad thing, either... Maybe we have "outgrown" for lack of a better word, each others company. I would be tempted to cut off my fingers before I lived in a liberal stronghold state (aisde from the one I had the misforture of being born in). I'm not suggesting we take up muskets against each other ala 1861... but perhaps a gradual shift in demographics across the country will sort things out in few generations.

Wow. How can you be so sure of yourself? How could you be so intolerant of others?

I cover state politics exclusively and one thing I've noticed is that (at least in state) the sterotypes of democrates and republicans don't really apply. Lots of republicans have environmental policies and lots of dems want streamline the budget (cut taxes). The world just isn't that black & white. I feel sorry for you that you can't appriciate what's outside of your box. I've never tried the Kool-aid, but I hope it's worth never tasting any other beverage again.

Your name even says it all. Pre-set, 5600K or 3200K nothing in between.

[Foxwood]

Preset......so ya don't have to do a lot of thinkin' for yourself.

[Baltimore's Finest Fotog]

Bill Maher for President...

[Wideangle]

Preset, sounds like you need to head to Idaho. You'd be right at home up there fending off the black helicopters with your trusted red rider
bb gun. Cheney can teach you how to shoot!

[Buck Satan]

Just as an aside, I am wondering how the people here that consider themselves "journalists" balance thier supposed objective nature of thier jobs with their unbending political affiliations...

[Wideangle]

Buck Satan...Do you mean how would you cover a gun-control story
when you openly list guns as your "interest"? I don't know, you'd have to answer that one yourself...

[Buck Satan]

WA
"Gun Control" is hitting your target :D

All kidding aside, just because I profess an interest in something does not make it my "new religion". I would probably aproach the story the same way I would a "screwdriver control" story. I was merely posing the question to those whose beliefs have entered the realm of "dogma" rather than "fact"

[Wideangle]

It's not a matter of dogma, or fact or professed interest. It's whether or not you can do a balanced, NONBIASED story despite
your personal slant. As a photographer, if someone or something looks bad or out of place, then it refects directly on me and my work. I still have my personal beliefs. Just not going to allow them to enter the work area.

[Frank McBride]

Bill Maher for President...

...of Venezuela. He seems their type.

FMc

[pre-set]

It's not a matter of dogma, or fact or professed interest. It's whether or not you can do a balanced, NONBIASED story despite
your personal slant. As a photographer, if someone or something looks bad or out of place, then it refects directly on me and my work. I still have my personal beliefs. Just not going to allow them to enter the work area.



Whatever, dude.... Do actually expect ANYONE here to beleive that? Do you realize that in almost the same breath you accused HIM of being biased while covering a hypothetical gun control story DURING a thread where YOU expouse your own liberal views...

Gawd, you really ARE a hypocrite.... And an oblivious one, too.



And yeah, I wouldn't mind living in Idaho or some other place with people who think the same way and beleive the same things I do. What's wrong with that? Liberals have plenty of places like that... NYC, DC, SF, LA..... why shouldn't conservatives? Why do you feel the childish need to make fun of that? Black helicopters? Red Ryder BB guns? Is that supposed to be witty?

[Wideangle]

I'm only a hypocrite if my ACTIONS AT WORK show that you moron.
That was the point that is so lost on you. I guess the Kool Aid
worked!
As for you going to Idaho, that why I picked it for you. That were the neo-nazis hang out so you should fit right in.

[pre-set]

Okay dude, that's fawkin' wrong, and quite frankly, extraordinarily offensive.

You're calling me a gawdamn Neo Nazi?

WTF?

You've never even MET me. All you know about me is that I'm an opinionated, unapologetic Conservative who isn't one to back down from a sprited, frequently outnumbered, discussion of politcs with my Liberal counterparts.


And for THAT you call me a fawkin' Neo Nazi??????????

Again, WTF??????

What is WRONG with you? That's like something a child - a STUPID child, that is - would say.... You get frustrated during a discussion so you just start calling names. Is that it?

Neo Nazi???? Huh????

Do I advocate rounding up Jews and killing them? Bombing black churches? Killing gays and lesbians? Cause that's what they're about... And that's what you're calling me.


So please explain. Don't bother apologizing - just explain WHY you would call someone you've never even met that term.


Ya know, we DO work in the same town... Yeah, it's a big place, but we MIGHT meet one day. If that ever happens.... I hope you'll be able to restrain yourself. You sure as Hell can't in writing.....

[Wideangle]

Preset...So you're upset because someone called you something without any idea as to who you really are or what your history is?
Imagine that....almost like calling someone a hypocrite when you
know nothing about them or their personal history or actions....
How ironic...makes you wonder who really is a hypocrite...Kind
of like the old saying about people in glass houses....For the record though,
I don't think you're a neo-nazi. Just said that to make a point about
labeling someone without any facts to back it up...Hopefully it might make you think
next time before you call someone a name...:D

[Just Wondering]

Clocks in Heaven - A man died and went to heaven. As he stood in front of St. Peter at the Pearly Gates, he saw a huge wall of clocks behind him. He asked, "What are all those clocks?" St. Peter answered, "Those are Lie-Clocks. Everyone on Earth has a Lie-Clock. Every time you lie, the hands on your clock will move.""Oh," said the man, "whose clock is that?" "That's Mother Teresa's. The hands have never moved, indicating that she never told a lie." "Incredible," said the man. "And whose clock is that one?" St. Peter responded, "That's Abraham Lincoln's clock. The hands have moved twice, telling us that Abe told only two lies in his entire Life.""Where's Hillary Clinton's clock?" asked the man. "Hillary's clock is in Jesus' office. He's using it as a ceiling fan."

[freedom]

I wonder if Mike Wallace calls his son a neo-nazi?
Bill Clinton just about did.

[Baltimore Shooter]

I wonder if Mike Wallace calls his son a neo-nazi?
Bill Clinton just about did.

Shut up and go away...NOW

Warren

[freedom]

Shut up and go away...NOW

Warren

That's FUNNY!!!! Thanks for the laugh.

[Eaglewolf]

Shut up and go away...NOW

Warren

sounds like the perfect mission statement for the dems........

[Wideangle]

sounds like the perfect mission statement for the dems........


Wolfeagle...err..Eaglewolf...I'm sure you're just loving the status quo with the Neo-cons in control...Billions going overseas to a country that could care less while you'll be paying $4.00 a gallon for gas
by the end of summer. In South Carolina that's going to cost you pretty much most of your pay check to fill up the pick-up truck.
Yep, sure don't want the dems messing with that logic...

[Buck Satan]

And here we are fighting over which colored shackles look prettier.

[freedom]

W/A
The recent spike in gas prices are a result of the refinery fires that have lowered our capacity to make gas. Even ABC acknowledged that in a report.

[Wideangle]

W/A
The recent spike in gas prices are a result of the refinery fires that have lowered our capacity to make gas. Even ABC acknowledged that in a report.

Follow the money my nieve friend...It hasn't lowerd the capacity
of the oil companies profits. When you're dealing with a supply and demand issue, why would the oil companies want to produce
more when they can make a hell of a lot more profit producing less.

[Baltimore Shooter]

Follow the money my nieve friend...It hasn't lowerd the capacity
of the oil companies profits. When you're dealing with a supply and demand issue, why would the oil companies want to produce
more when they can make a hell of a lot more profit producing less.

Exactly. All aided by the Bush administration. remember when gas prices weren't redicoulsly high? Remember when gas prices started going down just before the election in 2004? What happened right after the election? That's right, prices went back up. This is a total sham where the oil companies are making record profits every year.

I just can't wait for 1/20/09.

Warren

[freedom]

Then why did gas prices drop so far & so fast early this year? Oh, I know, it was a consipracy by the oil companies to fool people into thinking it wasn't the oil companies. They're so clever.
As a percentage of our income, gas prices were at their highest during Jimmy C's reign. He must be in bed with halliburton too! They're everywhere!
Gas prices came down when Reagan took over. Must be another plot to fake out everybody. They were lowest during Bush 1, we know he's a halliburton stooge, they're incredibly devious.

[Foxwood]

Freedom,

You may want to read this......or not.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/node/7332

[Foxwood]

Freedom,

As far as your statement that gas prices were lowest when "Reagan took over," CNN begs to differ.

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/05/poll-most-americans-expect-gas-prices.html

[Wideangle]

Great articles there Foxwood. Goes to the center of the issue...
that we now have a monopolistic oil industry that can pretty much do as they please as long as they have allies in the White House.

[Buck Satan]

You seem to miss the point that the oil companies can do whatever they want even if they have enemies in the WH. You got politicians on both sides sucking the big oil well head. Like any good crack whore, they do it for the money (and, well, crack too.)...:)

[Wideangle]

You got politicians on both sides sucking the big oil well head.

Do you honestly think that the oil industry is evenly contributing
to the campaigns of both republicans and democrats? There's a
big difference between taking a sip and jumping in bed with them.
Given what we have in power now, it's more like incest.
Come 2009, let's see what the oil industry does when they no longer have
one of their own in the White House.

[Buck Satan]

I have a problem with any politician taking one ****ing red cent from any special interest group. They are supposed to be serving their constituents, the people, not big oil or GLAD or the NRA or the Sierra club. But every political glad-hander out there is locked in a vicious cycle where they need to serve a different master to retain their power. You people are arguing on who's the cuter rapist...