Libs Want To Bring Back The Unfairness Doctrine

[red states rule]

Much to the dismay of libs, Fox News continues to crush CNN and MSNBC

Rush Limbaugh is still the most listened to radio talk show host. Also, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly are adding stations and listeners in huge numbers

Air America is all but dead

This is the main reason why space cadet Dennis Kucinich wants to bring back the Unfairness Doctrine

Sinc elibs cannot compete with conservatives in these areas, the libs want to silenc them

And I thought libs were for free spech - of course only when it s liberal speech

[avatar4321]

That is why Political correctness exists. People dont want to listen to others opinions if they dont like them. So they try to silence them.

[red states rule]

Will libs ever learn people will not listen to a bunch of whinbing, crying, hate filled, anti American nuts?

You see how badly Air America failed. Meanwhile Rush, Sean, and O'Reilly thrive

CNN and MSNBC are a joke with their constant and nonstop left wing bias

Meanwhile Fox News, where you can see alot of liberals giving their opinions, bury them in the ratings

[stephanie]

Will libs ever learn people will not listen to a bunch of whining, crying, hate filled, anti American nuts?


Of course they won't...
They, of course can't understand, how those conservative radio host can be SO SUCCESSFUL........
They can't believe how WE the stupid one's out there who might listen to these people..
ARE NOT on their side...

As long as they have a chance to force it on us, they see that, as being FAIR..:pee:

[red states rule]

Of course they won't...
They, of course can't understand, how those conservative radio host can be SO SUCCESSFUL........
They can't believe how WE the stupid one's out there who might listen to these people..
ARE NOT on their side...

As long as they have a chance to force it on us, they see that, as being FAIR..:pee:



Libs will always support your right to choose, as long they approve of your choice

After all, to libs, the masses are to stupid to understand the complexity of the issues without them explaining them to us

[stephanie]

Libs will always support your right to choose, as long they approve of your choice

After all, to libs, the masses are to stupid to understand the complexity of the issues without them explaining them to us

But, uaaa..
ya dude, duh...
Whad you just say??:uhoh:

[red states rule]

But, uaaa..
ya dude, duh...
Whad you just say??:uhoh:

If I were John "I served in Viet Nam" Kerry I would think you were in the US military

[stephanie]

If I were John "I served in Viet Nam" Kerry I would think you were in the US military

Yeah.......And I'd tell him.......go @@#$ yourself...:wink2:

[red states rule]

Yeah.......And I'd tell him.......go @@#$ yourself...:wink2:

Well, since he lost in 04, and not running for Pres in 08, he willl not be able to &^%$ all of us at the same time

[stephanie]

Well, since he lost in 04, and not running for Pres in 08, he willl not be able to &^%$ all of us at the same time

Thank Goodness...:lmao::laugh: ;)

[red states rule]

Now he just does it to his wife's checking account balance

[stephanie]

Now he just does it to his wife's checking account balance

I'm gonna miss, Terazzzzzzaaaa....(sniff):wink2:

[red states rule]

Being a liberal, John "I served in Viet Nam" he made his money the old fashioned way - he married it

[stephanie]

Being a liberal, John "I served in Viet Nam" he made his money the old fashioned way - he married it

Well good grief...
How else would the french looking one make it.??

BRAINS???:uhoh:

[red states rule]

Well good grief...
How else would the french looking one make it.??

BRAINS???:uhoh:

He could always be a foreign correspondent for CNN. They both have the same opinion of the US and the US military

[red states rule]

Back to the topic at hand, here is a perfect example of the liberal bias in the media. The media that needs fairness


AP Celebrates: Democrats 'Cleared Away The Financial Mess' of GOP
Posted by Tim Graham on February 1, 2007 - 05:51.
Jonah Goldberg at The Corner noticed the Associated Press covered the budget process with more attitude than objectivity with this introduction from reporter Andrew Taylor:

"The House passed a $463.5 billion spending bill Wednesday that covers about one-sixth of the federal budget as Democrats cleared away the financial mess they inherited from Republicans."

Cleared away the financial mess, all in one spending bill? That's not just editorializing, it's bald-faced partisan rhetoric, not fact. Just paragraphs later, Taylor suggests the Democrats are still a lot like Republicans:

"Despite GOP complaints about how the bill came together, it generally is a Republican-leaning measure that keeps to the same overall cap that Bush and congressional Republicans insisted on last year — before Democrats won control of Capitol Hill in the November elections."

"Spending levels for most agencies and programs are the same as in last year's budget."

http://newsbusters.org/node/10540

[Dilloduck]

Back to the topic at hand, here is a perfect example of the liberal bias in the media. The media that needs fairness


AP Celebrates: Democrats 'Cleared Away The Financial Mess' of GOP
Posted by Tim Graham on February 1, 2007 - 05:51.
Jonah Goldberg at The Corner noticed the Associated Press covered the budget process with more attitude than objectivity with this introduction from reporter Andrew Taylor:

"The House passed a $463.5 billion spending bill Wednesday that covers about one-sixth of the federal budget as Democrats cleared away the financial mess they inherited from Republicans."

Cleared away the financial mess, all in one spending bill? That's not just editorializing, it's bald-faced partisan rhetoric, not fact. Just paragraphs later, Taylor suggests the Democrats are still a lot like Republicans:

"Despite GOP complaints about how the bill came together, it generally is a Republican-leaning measure that keeps to the same overall cap that Bush and congressional Republicans insisted on last year — before Democrats won control of Capitol Hill in the November elections."

"Spending levels for most agencies and programs are the same as in last year's budget."

http://newsbusters.org/node/10540

With all due respect, isn't complaining about media bias a bit like complaining that ice is cold or rocks are hard ?

[Nienna]

Wow... my eyes hurt... my retinas(ae) are burning! The GLARE of the bias...

[red states rule]

With all due respect, isn't complaining about media bias a bit like complaining that ice is cold or rocks are hard ?

The point is it is the left who wants to silence the outlets that disagree with them

For many years, the liberal media could shape, present, and slant the news anyway they wanted

Then talk radio and the internet came along and folks got the other side. People have choosen to listen to talk radion and watch Fox News

That is what the left wants to stop

[Dilloduck]

The point is it is the left who wants to silence the outlets that disagree with them

For many years, the liberal media could shape, present, and slant the news anyway they wanted

Then talk radio and the internet came along and folks got the other side. People have choosen to listen to talk radion and watch Fox News

That is what the left wants to stop

And the right wants the left to shut up too as far as I can tell.

[Nienna]

With all due respect, isn't complaining about media bias a bit like complaining that ice is cold or rocks are hard ?

Yeah, but they're not even PRETENDING any more.

[Dilloduck]

Yeah, but they're not even PRETENDING any more.

and the problem is?

[red states rule]

And the right wants the left to shut up too as far as I can tell.

Is that why Fox News (the right wing network) has more libs on then even CNN and MSNBC?

[Nienna]

And the right wants the left to shut up too as far as I can tell.

The RIGHT did not have, as the first item on their Senate agenda, a bill to cut free speech.

[Dilloduck]

Is that why Fox News (the right wing network) has more libs on then even CNN and MSNBC?

Sure they have them on--and when they get on they do what they can to make them look wrong.

[CockySOB]

And the right wants the left to shut up too as far as I can tell.

Actually, we on the right enjoy watching the libs making total fools of themselves every time they open their mouths.

[red states rule]

Sure they have them on--and when they get on they do what they can to make them look wrong.

They do not need any help in that area

Of cousre libs sneer how they are not "real" liberals.

Fox News has alot of libs on. However, you see few Conservatives on CNN or MSNBC. When you do they are outnumbered by at least a three to one ratio

To libs, that is fair and balanced

[Dilloduck]

Actually, we on the right enjoy watching the libs making total fools of themselves every time they open their mouths.

The media in America is privately owned and it's sole purpose is to make money. Any conservative is just as free as any liberal to purchase a media outlet and project the message they think will make em the most money. If they already have enough money they can use it to twist the minds of anyone who will listen.

[red states rule]

The media in America is privately owned and it's sole purpose is to make money. Any conservative is just as free as any liberal to purchase a media outlet and project the message they think will make em the most money. If they already have enough money they can use it to twist the minds of anyone who will listen.

The Unfairness Doctrine is intended to restore the libs to what they believe
is their birthright. To say what they want, when they want, with no rebuttle from anyone who has the gall to disagree with them

With the rise of talk radio and Fox News, libs do not like it when they people choose to listen/watch them.

They might actually get the facts

[Dilloduck]

The Unfairness Doctrine is intended to restore the libs to what they believe
is their birthright. To say what they want, when they want, with no rebuttle from anyone who has the gall to disagree with them

With the rise of talk radio and Fox News, libs do not like it when they people choose to listen/watch them.

They might actually get the facts

Because I'm ancient I remember being taught in elementary school that all the media in Russia was contolled by the state to control the minds of it's citizens. Now I see rich Americans trying to do the same thing in here. Both whine about the spin coming from the "other" side. Isn't whining symptomatic of someone who is losing and frustrated ?

[red states rule]

Because I'm ancient I remember being taught in elementary school that all the media in Russia was contolled by the state to control the minds of it's citizens. Now I see rich Americans trying to do the same thing in here. Both whine about the spin coming from the "other" side. Isn't whining symptomatic of someone who is losing and frustrated ?

Unlike in Russia, we have a choice. Libs are pissed because a growing number of people are making the choice they want them to make

[Dilloduck]

Unlike in Russia, we have a choice. Libs are pissed because a growing number of people are making the choice they want them to make

And conservatives are pissed at the MSM.

[red states rule]

And conservatives are pissed at the MSM.

We are not pissed. We are beating them and they are pissed

[Dilloduck]

We are not pissed. We are beating them and they are pissed

Really? Is that why more and more Americans are ready to retreat in Iraq ?

[Nienna]

And conservatives are pissed at the MSM.

The conservatives are not ticked off at the MSM. Conservatives took ACTION against the MSM, by creating their own venues. What ticks off conservatives is that the liberals want to take away/silence those venues. Conservatives are ticked off bc liberals attempt to limit their speech and mold their thoughts. Liberals are ticked off simply bc people think differently.

[red states rule]

Really? Is that why more and more Americans are ready to retreat in Iraq ?

Polls show they are willing to give the surge a chance. Again, libs see a failure in Iraq a loss for Bush and not America

[Dilloduck]

The conservatives are not ticked off at the MSM. Conservatives took ACTION against the MSM, by creating their own venues. What ticks off conservatives is that the liberals want to take away/silence those venues. Conservatives are ticked off bc liberals attempt to limit their speech and mold their thoughts. Liberals are ticked off simply bc people think differently.

Conservatives aren't ticked off at the MSM ??? What have you been reading?

[red states rule]

Conservatives aren't ticked off at the MSM ??? What have you been reading?

The MSM is pissed at conservatives. Mostly because we point out theri liberal bias


Like this................


The New York Times caught this bit of lefty incivility at Saturday's protest against the occupation of Iraq …

There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq …

... as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back. Capitol police made the antiwar protestors walk farther away from the counterprotesters. "These are not Americans as far as I'm concerned," Mr. Sparling said.

The Washington Post characterized Sparling's participation like this:

At least one veteran from the Iraq war tried to bridge the divide between the groups. Cpl. Joshua Sparling, 25, from Port Huron, Mich., who lost his right leg below the knee in an 2005 explosion in Ramadi, spoke to both groups.

[Nienna]

Conservatives aren't ticked off at the MSM ??? What have you been reading?

Not really. Conservatives may hate the lies spread around by the MSM, but they are still willing that the MSM have their free speech. Conservatives are ticked off at the LIBERALS who want to silence conservative free speech and make the MSM the only venue.

[red states rule]

Not really. Conservatives may hate the lies spread around by the MSM, but they are still willing that the MSM have their free speech. Conservatives are ticked off at the LIBERALS who want to silence conservative free speech and make the MSM the only venue.

Like this?


AP: Forgets to Mention Al Franken is Liberal in Senate Run Announcements
Posted by Warner Todd Huston on January 31, 2007 - 21:21.
This is amusing for it's total ridiculousness. In the AP story about upcoming Senate campaign of Al Franken, the soon to be ex-Air America ranter and supposed comedian, AP seems to have forgotten to mention he is a liberal.

The short AP blurb doesn't mention it at all: Short AP Version.

And the long piece gives no hint of Franken's leanings until the last line of the report: Long AP Version

And even the long piece does not state Franken's leftist positioning as a fact, but couches it as the claim of a political science professor. And they don't even introduce the label until the very last paragraph of a ten paragraph story.

Franken faces major challenges, said Larry Jacobs, a political science professor at the University of Minnesota. Besides needing to establish himself as a serious candidate, Franken has staked out left-wing policies that make it questionable whether he can win independent voters, Jacobs said.

Here is how the piece starts (in the short version)

WASHINGTON (AP) - Comedian Al Franken has decided to run for the U.S. Senate in Minnesota in 2008, challenging incumbent Republican Norm Coleman, a senior Democratic party official said Wednesday.

No mention of Franken's leftist proclivities there.

Now let's contrast that with how the AP worded the first segments of several of their stories on Republicans who have recently announced they are running for office. (Bold emphasis mine)

Mike Huckabee Announcement

(First section) WASHINGTON -- Conservative Republican Mike Huckabee, seeking to repeat the success of another former governor from Hope, Ark., said Sunday he is taking the first step in what he acknowledged is an underdog bid for the White House in 2008.

Duncan Hunter Announcement

(Fourth section) The 14-term conservative from California, who has made no secret of his White House aspirations, set up a presidential exploratory committee earlier this month.

Brownback Announcement

(First section)TOPEKA, Kan. -- Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback figures he has an edge with Republican voters that other presidential rivals don't - unquestioned conservative credentials.

About campaign of Sam Brownback and Duncan Hunter

(First section) WASHINGTON -- Two of the Republicans' most conservative presidential hopefuls promised anti-abortion activists on Monday that if elected, they would work to overturn the Supreme Court decision legalizing the procedure.

Lots of mentions of "conservative" leanings in their reports of Republican announcements for candidacy. So, why not mention Franken's leftism especially since it isn't just an incidental fact with Franken himself saying he is loudly and proudly a leftist?

Yet, AP won't even accede to the candidate's own self-labeled positioning.

Why can't the AP force themselves to identify liberal candidates as such?

http://newsbusters.org/node/10534

[Dilloduck]

The MSM is pissed at conservatives. Mostly because we point out theri liberal bias


Like this................


The New York Times caught this bit of lefty incivility at Saturday's protest against the occupation of Iraq …

There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq …

... as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back. Capitol police made the antiwar protestors walk farther away from the counterprotesters. "These are not Americans as far as I'm concerned," Mr. Sparling said.

The Washington Post characterized Sparling's participation like this:

At least one veteran from the Iraq war tried to bridge the divide between the groups. Cpl. Joshua Sparling, 25, from Port Huron, Mich., who lost his right leg below the knee in an 2005 explosion in Ramadi, spoke to both groups.

Politicos from the right AND left are fightng for power and media is the method that both use to achieve these ends. They are selling a product. It's time Americans wake up an realize they are being bought and not expect to hear the truth from advertising agents.

[Nienna]

Politicos from the right AND left are fightng for power and media is the method that both use to achieve these ends. They are selling a product. It's time Americans wake up an realize they are being bought and not expect to hear the truth from advertising agents.

Very true. And time Americans wake up and realize that ONE of the sellers is trying to slash the other's tires.

[red states rule]

Politicos from the right AND left are fightng for power and media is the method that both use to achieve these ends. They are selling a product. It's time Americans wake up an realize they are being bought and not expect to hear the truth from advertising agents.

So libs now have no problem spitting on war vets. At leats now they are openly showing their contempt instead of lying how they support the military

[Dilloduck]

So libs now have no problem spitting on war vets. At leats now they are openly showing their contempt instead of lying how they support the military

What does that have to do with the price of eggs ?

[red states rule]

What does that have to do with the price of eggs ?

How the liberal media spins how a peace loving anti war peace nik shows his love and admiration toward a wounded Iarq war vet

Perhaps if talk radio and Fox News did not exist it would be something like this......


Babykilling Fascist Spits on Peace Activist
You can "support the troops", but not the war. And if in the process of "supporting the troops" you succeed in encouraging those they are fighting against, well then that's their own damn problem. So it was in that spirit that thousands of peace activists converged on the nation’s capitol last weekend in what future poets will one day describe as an "overflowing septic tank of love". In contrast, about three counter-protesters showed up to antagonize the crowd by making disparaging remarks about the beautiful and talented Jane Fonda. One of those freeper brownshirts was none other than our old friend Josh “Can’t Take a Joke” Sparling, a wounded war criminal and brainwashed propagandist for the Bush Junta.

While the American Hero Ehren Watada will likely spend the rest of his life at Gitmo for having the courage to abandon his fellow soldiers on the field of battle, Sparling has become a jingoist poster boy for the military-industrial complex. A glutton for media attention, he's been selling his bull on every morning talk show for the past week, taking valuable air time away from Mother Cindy and the Joisey Grrlz. He obviously has no shame. Yet when a peace activist hocked a wad of soul-cleansing loogie in his general direction, Sparling actually returned fire.

Thankfully, the Nazi was too slow on the draw. The nimble-footed protester had already vanished in a cloud of marijuana smoke and patchouli, perhaps off to graffiti the Washington Monument in the hopes of beefing up his arrest record for a future teaching job at Berkeley. The right-wing media has been fixated on the story all week, using the incident to paint peace activists in a bad light and perpetuate the myth that we all hate the babykilling troops. However, it was Sparling’s vicious attack that betrayed a fundamental lack of respect for the millions of brave men, womyn, and transgendered progressives who fight every day to end the war and bring our tots home in shame and defeat before they can mishandle any more Qurans.

As for the valiant protester who supposedly spat at but not on Sparling (there’s a difference), he gave up a day of playing Gears of War on his Xbox 360 to take a stand against violence and aggression. Instead of whining about a little good-natured ribbing, Sparling should get down on his good knee and thank him for his noble sacrifice.

http://blamebush.typepad.com/

[Dilloduck]

How the liberal media spins how a peace loving anti war peace nik shows his love and admiration toward a wounded Iarq war vet

Perhaps if talk radio and Fox News did not exist it would be something like this......


Babykilling Fascist Spits on Peace Activist
You can "support the troops", but not the war. And if in the process of "supporting the troops" you succeed in encouraging those they are fighting against, well then that's their own damn problem. So it was in that spirit that thousands of peace activists converged on the nation’s capitol last weekend in what future poets will one day describe as an "overflowing septic tank of love". In contrast, about three counter-protesters showed up to antagonize the crowd by making disparaging remarks about the beautiful and talented Jane Fonda. One of those freeper brownshirts was none other than our old friend Josh “Can’t Take a Joke” Sparling, a wounded war criminal and brainwashed propagandist for the Bush Junta.

While the American Hero Ehren Watada will likely spend the rest of his life at Gitmo for having the courage to abandon his fellow soldiers on the field of battle, Sparling has become a jingoist poster boy for the military-industrial complex. A glutton for media attention, he's been selling his bull on every morning talk show for the past week, taking valuable air time away from Mother Cindy and the Joisey Grrlz. He obviously has no shame. Yet when a peace activist hocked a wad of soul-cleansing loogie in his general direction, Sparling actually returned fire.

Thankfully, the Nazi was too slow on the draw. The nimble-footed protester had already vanished in a cloud of marijuana smoke and patchouli, perhaps off to graffiti the Washington Monument in the hopes of beefing up his arrest record for a future teaching job at Berkeley. The right-wing media has been fixated on the story all week, using the incident to paint peace activists in a bad light and perpetuate the myth that we all hate the babykilling troops. However, it was Sparling’s vicious attack that betrayed a fundamental lack of respect for the millions of brave men, womyn, and transgendered progressives who fight every day to end the war and bring our tots home in shame and defeat before they can mishandle any more Qurans.

As for the valiant protester who supposedly spat at but not on Sparling (there’s a difference), he gave up a day of playing Gears of War on his Xbox 360 to take a stand against violence and aggression. Instead of whining about a little good-natured ribbing, Sparling should get down on his good knee and thank him for his noble sacrifice.

http://blamebush.typepad.com/

You can't get it through your head that we're all slaves to what less than reputable people tell us in the media, can you?

[red states rule]

Slaves only if the Dems get their way

That is what we are fighting against

[Dilloduck]

Slaves only if the Dems get their way

That is what we are fighting against

I doubt there is a person here who can live without submitting to the will of others.

[red states rule]

The examples of liberal bias are endless


ABC Shows President Bush Hitting CEO Pay, But Not Defending Tax Cuts
Posted by Ken Shepherd on February 1, 2007 - 17:38.
Yesterday, President Bush became the second sitting president to ever take a stroll on the New York Stock Exchange floor (Ronald Reagan was the first to do so). Bush also gave a speech at Federal Hall in which he defended his tax cuts, as well as No Child Left Behind, and his policy initiatives in general. But his policy remarks got no attention last night on the evening newscasts, which instead hyped his talking points on CEO pay and income inequality, two liberal themes.


I wrote more about that here. Here's an excerpt:


...network reporters downplayed the good economic news – particularly ABC’s Betsy Stark, who highlighted liberal-sounding applause lines in the president’s Wall Street speech on the “state of the economy” while leaving out the president’s defense of his tax cuts.

CBS’s Katie Couric and NBC’s Brian Williams both briefly addressed the economy’s strong growth rate and the president’s speech, but ABC’s "World News" was the only program among the three New York-based newscasts to offer viewers a fully packaged story on Bush’s "state of the economy report."

"It’s hard to imagine a warmer reception" than how stock exchange traders greeted Bush on the floor of the NYSE, ABC’s Stark conceded. But, she added, "his message to the nation’s leading capitalists was laced with tough love" as he warned corporations to pay executives based on merit and performance.

Following Bush’s remarks on CEO pay, which sounded similar to the media’s usual shock and awe at corporate salaries, Stark said, "For the first time in a high profile way," Bush "acknowledged that not everyone has shared equally in the recent economic prosperity."


But while the clip Stark aired featured the president saying "income inequality is real," Bush immediately added that "the question is whether we respond to the income equality we see with policies that help lift people up or tear others down."

Yet rather than informing her audience of the policies the president favors related to income, Stark turned her attention to casting doubt on the economy’s overall health.

The new GDP number “bolstered the perception of economic success,” she said, but “for now, though, a majority of Americans have another view” as “most say they disapprove of his management of the economy, despite these good numbers.”

http://newsbusters.org/node/10556

[TheSage]

which republicans are on the record as being opposed to the fairness doctrine?

The neocons will be for censorship too, now that their globalist agenda is too obvious to deny.

McCain has been against free speech ever since the McCain feingold abomination.

[red states rule]

which republicans are on the record as being opposed to the fairness doctrine?

The neocons will be for censorship too, now that their globalist agenda is too obvious to deny.

McCain has been against free speech ever since the McCain feingold abomination.

Most republicans are opposed to the Unfairness Doctrine. When there is free speech, the libs lose everytime

This is the reason libs need the Unfainess Doctrine, they need to silence conservatives so only the liberal message will get through

[TheSage]

Most republicans are opposed to the Unfairness Doctrine. When there is free speech, the libs lose everytime

This is the reason libs need the Unfainess Doctrine, they need to silence conservatives so only the liberal message will get through

WHich elected republican is even talking about this?

[red states rule]

WHich elected republican is even talking about this?

Since the space cadet Dennis Kucinich has not btought it to the floor, none. But when Dennis the Menace does you will here from them

[TheSage]

Since the space cadet Dennis Kucinich has not btought it to the floor, none. But when Dennis the Menace does you will here from them


We'll see. Neocons are not really for free speech anymore now that their anti-american globalist plan are laid bare for all to see.

[red states rule]

We'll see. Neocons are not really for free speech anymore now that their anti-american globalist plan are laid bare for all to see. You can see this on our very own board where the so called conservatives ban people for telling the truth.

It seems it is the libs who want to shut down free speech.

Unless of course it is liberal free speech

Dennis the Menace is calling this "Media Reform". Sounds like the old Soviet Union

[TheSage]

It seems it is the libs who want to shut down free speech.

Unless of course it is liberal free speech

Dennis the Menace is calling this "Media Reform". Sounds like the old Soviet Union

And it seems the refuglies are willing to go along with it.

Where is bush on this? Isn't he willing to stretch the limits of presidential power on this one? No. He'll only do that join the U.S. with mexico and canada and erase our borders.

[red states rule]

And it seems the refuglies are willing to go along with it.

Where is bush on this? Isn't he willing to stretch the limits of presidential power on this one? No. He'll only do that join the U.S. with mexico and canada and erase our borders.


Pres Bush has more important things to do then deal with Dennis the Menace

Libs own 99% of the media, and yet they fell they must silence Rush, Sean, and O'Reilly

The NY Times ran 12 front page stories on Air America BEFORE it went on the air. Now, it is all but dead because people choose not to listen to their rants

Libs cannot compete on a level playing field with conservatives, so now Dennis the Menace wants to change the rules

It seems you have no problem with the liberal media having total control and slanting the news to their viewpoints

[TheSage]

Pres Bush has more important things to do then deal with Dennis the Menace

Libs own 99% of the media, and yet they fell they must silence Rush, Sean, and O'Reilly

The NY Times ran 12 front page stories on Air America BEFORE it went on the air. Now, it is all but dead because people choose not to listen to their rants

Libs cannot compete on a level playing field with conservatives, so now Dennis the Menace wants to change the rules

It seems you have no problem with the liberal media having total control and slanting the news to their viewpoints

It seems you're in denial about the actual priorities of republicans. When bush REALLY wants something, he makes it so. Free speech is just not really something he cares about. This is not about dennis kucinich. Look how you're willing to downplay the issue now that you're trying to reconcile the obvious unwillingness of people you respect to do something about it. You brainwash yourself so your handlers don't have to. A real automaton you turned out to be.

[red states rule]

Why not enlighten us. What are the "real priorities" of Republicans?

[Dilloduck]

Pres Bush has more important things to do then deal with Dennis the Menace

Libs own 99% of the media, and yet they fell they must silence Rush, Sean, and O'Reilly

The NY Times ran 12 front page stories on Air America BEFORE it went on the air. Now, it is all but dead because people choose not to listen to their rants

Libs cannot compete on a level playing field with conservatives, so now Dennis the Menace wants to change the rules

It seems you have no problem with the liberal media having total control and slanting the news to their viewpoints

Are you under the impression that politicians care what people really think or want?

[red states rule]

Are you under the impression that politicians care what people really think or want?

I hope the Republcians will learn from the last election to go back to Reagan conservatism. This is what the people want

[Dilloduck]

I hope the Republcians will learn from the last election to go back to Reagan conservatism. This is what the people want

How do you know that?

[red states rule]

How do you know that?

You lok at the new Dems in the House, they could have run as Republicans. The minimum wage bill was passed with TAX CUTS to off set the expense to corporations

The Dems could not run kook libs like Dennis the Menace, Pelosi, Rangal, or Frank in those areas

[Dilloduck]

You lok at the new Dems in the House, they could have run as Republicans. The minimum wage bill was passed with TAX CUTS to off set the expense to corporations

The Dems could not run kook libs like Dennis the Menace, Pelosi, Rangal, or Frank in those areas

I doubt seriously that any of the "new" Dems were elected because of thier stance on the minimum wage issue.

[red states rule]

I doubt seriously that any of the "new" Dems were elected because of thier stance on the minimum wage issue.

Their stance on taxes, no impeachment, not cutting and running from Iraq

Of cousre, Pelosi said one thing to get elected but once in power, did the opposite on several things

These moderate Dems have banded together (like the Gang of 14 in the Senate last year) and will be a pain to old guard libs

Kennedy was having a stroke over the tax cuts. It was fun to watch

[TheSage]

Why not enlighten us. What are the "real priorities" of Republicans?

This.






http://www.threeworldwars.com/new-world-order.htm



"We will have a world government whether you like it or not. The only question is whether that government will be achieved by conquest or consent." (February 17, 1950, as he testified before the US Senate).

Their intention is to effect complete and total control over every human being on the planet and to dramatically reduce the world's population by two thirds. While the name New World Order is the term most frequently used today to loosely refer to anyone involved in this conspiracy, the study of exactly who makes up this group is a complex and intricate one. For further research sources, please see the side bar on the left.

In 1992, Dr John Coleman published Conspirators Hierarchy: The Story of the Committee of 300. With laudable scholarship and meticulous research, Dr Coleman identifies the players and carefully details the New World Order agenda of worldwide domination and control. On page 161 of the Conspirators Hierarchy, Dr Coleman accurately summarizes the intent and purpose of the Committee of 300 as follows:

"A One World Government and one-unit monetary system, under permanent non-elected hereditary oligarchists who self-select from among their numbers in the form of a feudal system as it was in the Middle Ages. In this One World entity, population will be limited by restrictions on the number of children per family, diseases, wars, famines, until 1 billion people who are useful to the ruling class, in areas which will be strictly and clearly defined, remain as the total world population.

There will be no middle class, only rulers and the servants. All laws will be uniform under a legal system of world courts practicing the same unified code of laws, backed up by a One World Government police force and a One World unified military to enforce laws in all former countries where no national boundaries shall exist. The system will be on the basis of a welfare state; those who are obedient and subservient to the One World Government will be rewarded with the means to live; those who are rebellious will simply be starved to death or be declared outlaws, thus a target for anyone who wishes to kill them. Privately owned firearms or weapons of any kind will be prohibited."



Of course now the discussion will be derided and shut down, the thread closed or moved. The truth hurts too much.

[red states rule]

This.





Of course now the discussion will be derided and shut down, the thread closed or moved. The truth hurts too much.

Your tin foil hat is on way to tight

[Dilloduck]

This.





Of course now the discussion will be derided and shut down, the thread closed or moved. The truth hurts too much.

Point of Order !!!!

The dems want the same thing !!

[red states rule]

Back to the topic at hand.............

The Un-Fairness Doctrine: Unevening the Playing Field, by Law
By David Limbaugh
Friday, January 19, 2007



Beware of liberals using such words as "fairness." In resurrecting the "Fairness Doctrine," liberals are trying to kill conservative talk radio and restore their media monopoly. Period. The doctrine would selectively stifle free political discourse, which is essential for our representative government.

The Fairness Doctrine, an FCC regulation in force from 1949 to 1987, required broadcasters to present "both sides" of controversial issues. During that time, liberals had a virtual monopoly on the media.

Since the rule was repealed, conservative talk radio has exploded -- Rush Limbaugh launched his syndicated radio show in 1988 -- and other media outlets multiplied: the Internet, including blogs, cable and satellite TV and satellite radio, among others. The conservative viewpoint has fared quite well in the new media.

This is not to say that the government's elimination of the regulation discriminated against the liberal message. The liberal viewpoint still dominates the mainstream media, cable TV, except for Fox News, and the overwhelming number of major print media outlets. Liberals also have equal access to new media outlets, though they've had enormous difficulty competing in the marketplace of ideas.

It's instructive to remember that while conservatives grew hoarse complaining about the monolithic liberal message, they didn't advocate suppression of liberal speech. Their remedy, instituted -- fittingly -- in the Reagan years, was to open up, not constrict or regulate the media market.

The results have been dramatic, with conservatives finally having a significant voice in the media, albeit mostly in the new media, though a singular liberal message still prevails in the old media, not to mention public broadcasting.

Liberals can't stand the competition. Democratic Congressman Maurice Hinchey is sponsoring the "Media Ownership Reform Act," whose proposed reforms include the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. Hinchey denies wanting to muzzle conservative hosts. But, "This will ensure that different views will also be heard. People are being prevented from getting the right information." Really? Latest polls show 60 percent of Americans are opposed to the Iraq war. Will Hinchey not be satisfied until it's 90 percent?

This is nothing but abject sophistry. Different views are already heard -- and not just in the mainstream media. There have never been more media choices. Nothing -- except consumer resistance -- precludes liberal entry into the talk radio market. But the First Amendment doesn't require people to listen to and support your message.

Liberals had no interest in balance before the advent of conservative talk radio. They don't have any interest in balance now; indeed we're finally approaching a balance: new media versus old media. But to them "balance" means dominance, just like "bipartisanship" means Republican capitulation.

With the Fairness Doctrine liberals would use government to micromanage the content of talk radio, realizing that they simply can't compete on an equal playing field in that medium. Notably, they aren't advocating balancing the messages of the major print or broadcast media giants.

The reason liberals can't compete in talk radio, besides their hosts being boring, oppressively cynical and pessimistic, is that their would-be audience is already fed through the mainstream media.

Conversely, conservative talk has been successful, not just because it is more entertaining, professional and optimistic, but because conservative audiences were starved for a likeminded message.

The liberals' goal is not balance, but to destroy conservative talk radio by requiring that each nano-segment of every show contain the counterbalancing liberal viewpoint, instead of relying on other shows or other media to deliver that viewpoint. What will they demand next: that political candidates present both sides of every issue to ensure balance?

Such draconian hyper-monitoring would destroy those programs. Besides, there is no fair, sensible or practicable way to regulate content. Objectivity is impossible over such subjective matters.

What do the paternalistic proponents of the regulations mean by the representation of "all sides?" Would the terrorist viewpoint deserve equal time? Don't laugh, many believe that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and liberals routinely sympathize with tyrannical dictators like Fidel Castro and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

What is truly scary is that liberals believe that media outlets predominately presenting their viewpoint are not biased. To them, the liberal viewpoint is objectively correct -- the only proper way to view the world -- and the conservative one, aberrant and reality-challenged, not even deserving of First Amendment protection. Perhaps a slight exaggeration, but not much.

This arrogant mindset is what has troubled conservatives for years. It's not just that the mainstream media has presented a monolithic liberal message; it's that they denied their bias and purported to be completely objective in their selection and reporting of the news and commentary. At least with conservative talk, the hosts admit their bias and are honest about when they are editorializing.

The Fairness Doctrine must be stopped again, dead in its tracks.


David Limbaugh, brother of radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, is an expert in law and politics and author of Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=the_un-fairness_doctrine_unevening_the_playing_field,_by_ law&ns=DavidLimbaugh&dt=01/19/2007&page=2

[Dilloduck]

Back to the topic at hand.............

The Un-Fairness Doctrine: Unevening the Playing Field, by Law
By David Limbaugh
Friday, January 19, 2007



Beware of liberals using such words as "fairness." In resurrecting the "Fairness Doctrine," liberals are trying to kill conservative talk radio and restore their media monopoly. Period. The doctrine would selectively stifle free political discourse, which is essential for our representative government.

The Fairness Doctrine, an FCC regulation in force from 1949 to 1987, required broadcasters to present "both sides" of controversial issues. During that time, liberals had a virtual monopoly on the media.

Since the rule was repealed, conservative talk radio has exploded -- Rush Limbaugh launched his syndicated radio show in 1988 -- and other media outlets multiplied: the Internet, including blogs, cable and satellite TV and satellite radio, among others. The conservative viewpoint has fared quite well in the new media.

This is not to say that the government's elimination of the regulation discriminated against the liberal message. The liberal viewpoint still dominates the mainstream media, cable TV, except for Fox News, and the overwhelming number of major print media outlets. Liberals also have equal access to new media outlets, though they've had enormous difficulty competing in the marketplace of ideas.

It's instructive to remember that while conservatives grew hoarse complaining about the monolithic liberal message, they didn't advocate suppression of liberal speech. Their remedy, instituted -- fittingly -- in the Reagan years, was to open up, not constrict or regulate the media market.

The results have been dramatic, with conservatives finally having a significant voice in the media, albeit mostly in the new media, though a singular liberal message still prevails in the old media, not to mention public broadcasting.

Liberals can't stand the competition. Democratic Congressman Maurice Hinchey is sponsoring the "Media Ownership Reform Act," whose proposed reforms include the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. Hinchey denies wanting to muzzle conservative hosts. But, "This will ensure that different views will also be heard. People are being prevented from getting the right information." Really? Latest polls show 60 percent of Americans are opposed to the Iraq war. Will Hinchey not be satisfied until it's 90 percent?

This is nothing but abject sophistry. Different views are already heard -- and not just in the mainstream media. There have never been more media choices. Nothing -- except consumer resistance -- precludes liberal entry into the talk radio market. But the First Amendment doesn't require people to listen to and support your message.

Liberals had no interest in balance before the advent of conservative talk radio. They don't have any interest in balance now; indeed we're finally approaching a balance: new media versus old media. But to them "balance" means dominance, just like "bipartisanship" means Republican capitulation.

With the Fairness Doctrine liberals would use government to micromanage the content of talk radio, realizing that they simply can't compete on an equal playing field in that medium. Notably, they aren't advocating balancing the messages of the major print or broadcast media giants.

The reason liberals can't compete in talk radio, besides their hosts being boring, oppressively cynical and pessimistic, is that their would-be audience is already fed through the mainstream media.

Conversely, conservative talk has been successful, not just because it is more entertaining, professional and optimistic, but because conservative audiences were starved for a likeminded message.

The liberals' goal is not balance, but to destroy conservative talk radio by requiring that each nano-segment of every show contain the counterbalancing liberal viewpoint, instead of relying on other shows or other media to deliver that viewpoint. What will they demand next: that political candidates present both sides of every issue to ensure balance?

Such draconian hyper-monitoring would destroy those programs. Besides, there is no fair, sensible or practicable way to regulate content. Objectivity is impossible over such subjective matters.

What do the paternalistic proponents of the regulations mean by the representation of "all sides?" Would the terrorist viewpoint deserve equal time? Don't laugh, many believe that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and liberals routinely sympathize with tyrannical dictators like Fidel Castro and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

What is truly scary is that liberals believe that media outlets predominately presenting their viewpoint are not biased. To them, the liberal viewpoint is objectively correct -- the only proper way to view the world -- and the conservative one, aberrant and reality-challenged, not even deserving of First Amendment protection. Perhaps a slight exaggeration, but not much.

This arrogant mindset is what has troubled conservatives for years. It's not just that the mainstream media has presented a monolithic liberal message; it's that they denied their bias and purported to be completely objective in their selection and reporting of the news and commentary. At least with conservative talk, the hosts admit their bias and are honest about when they are editorializing.

The Fairness Doctrine must be stopped again, dead in its tracks.


David Limbaugh, brother of radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, is an expert in law and politics and author of Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=the_un-fairness_doctrine_unevening_the_playing_field,_by_ law&ns=DavidLimbaugh&dt=01/19/2007&page=2


Apparently the Fairness Doctrine has as many teeth as my grandma if the liberals can run the media without a peep out of conservatives. It's silly , unenforceabe and doesn't stand a chance of getting past a supreme court challenge.

[red states rule]

But it shows how the left fears an open debate. Talk radio shows the insanity of the left. That is why I say, if Republicans get back to the principals of Reagan, they will sweep the elections in 08

[retiredman]

Polls show they are willing to give the surge a chance. Again, libs see a failure in Iraq a loss for Bush and not America


oh really?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-01-08-gallup-poll_x.htm

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Dailies/January%202007/TroopSurge.htm

http://www.pewtrusts.com/ideas/ideas_item.cfm?content_item_id=3922&content_type_id=18&issue_name=Public%20opinion%20and%20polls&issue=11&page=18&name=Public%20Opinion%20Polls%20and%20Survey%20Res ults

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/14350

http://www.pollster.com/mystery_pollster/iraq_polls_surge_and_diverge.php

it would appear that polls do not show what you suggest they do.

[red states rule]

oh really?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-01-08-gallup-poll_x.htm

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Dailies/January%202007/TroopSurge.htm

http://www.pewtrusts.com/ideas/ideas_item.cfm?content_item_id=3922&content_type_id=18&issue_name=Public%20opinion%20and%20polls&issue=11&page=18&name=Public%20Opinion%20Polls%20and%20Survey%20Res ults

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/14350

http://www.pollster.com/mystery_pollster/iraq_polls_surge_and_diverge.php

it would appear that polls do not show what you suggest they do.

Most Americans want to succeed in Iraq (except the kook left) and war is not run by polls

[red states rule]

The War in Iraq


Guidance for Lawmakers
Most Americans support the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, but there is only limited support for an immediate withdrawal (there is also only limited support for increased troop levels).
Americans are divided on whether the United States should institute a timetable for withdrawal, or stay until it has achieved all its goals. When asked, Americans seem to prefer keeping troops for only about another year, but they expect troops to be there longer than that.

In general, public support for the war is generally divided; however, since the summer of 2005, opponents have tended to outnumber supporters.

Fine Print
Opinions on the war have been sensitive to the news out of Iraq. Opinions grew more positive after Saddam Hussein's capture in December 2003 and after the first elections in Iraq in late January 2005. They grew more negative when George W. Bush asked for more money to fight the war in September 2003, after insurgents killed U.S. troops in Fallujah, and when U.S. troops were found to have abused Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib in the spring of 2004.

Context
Most Americans believe the United States can win the war in Iraq, but less than half believe it will. That could be an indictment of Bush's handling of the war; his approval ratings on the Iraq issue have been in the 40% range for the better part of the past year.

Though overall support for the war is divided, most Americans believe the war is not going well for the United States and believe the United States is not winning. This has been the view since September 2003, though there have been a few exceptions following positive news out of Iraq.

Urgency: Overall Importance as Political Issue
Iraq typically ranks at or near the top of the list when Americans are asked to assess the importance of various issues to their votes.

Along with the economy, Iraq consistently ranks at the top of Gallup's open-ended "most important problem" question.


Impact on 2006 Vote
Given its high salience with the public, there is reason to believe Iraq will be a dominant issue in the 2006 midterm elections.

Democrats are now seen as better on the issue, which is notable because Republicans typically have an edge on international issues, and had been seen as better on the issue at the beginning of the war.


Key Subgroup Differences
Views of the Iraq war are extremely partisan. Republicans overwhelmingly support the war; Democrats overwhelmingly oppose it. Independents tend to be more opposed than in favor of the war.

Support for past U.S. wars -- including Vietnam -- was not as polarized along party lines as the current war.

The Bottom Line
The war is an extremely high-priority issue for Americans and is likely to be one of the top issues in this year's elections. Americans are divided on the war, largely along partisan lines. Despite sentiment that the war is not going well for the United States, only about one in five favors an immediate withdrawal of troops. Most do support a gradual withdrawal of troops, preferably within a year, but close to half may be willing to keep troops there longer to achieve U.S. goals.

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=1633

[Dilloduck]

The War in Iraq


Guidance for Lawmakers
Most Americans support the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, but there is only limited support for an immediate withdrawal (there is also only limited support for increased troop levels).
Americans are divided on whether the United States should institute a timetable for withdrawal, or stay until it has achieved all its goals. When asked, Americans seem to prefer keeping troops for only about another year, but they expect troops to be there longer than that.

In general, public support for the war is generally divided; however, since the summer of 2005, opponents have tended to outnumber supporters.

Fine Print
Opinions on the war have been sensitive to the news out of Iraq. Opinions grew more positive after Saddam Hussein's capture in December 2003 and after the first elections in Iraq in late January 2005. They grew more negative when George W. Bush asked for more money to fight the war in September 2003, after insurgents killed U.S. troops in Fallujah, and when U.S. troops were found to have abused Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib in the spring of 2004.

Context
Most Americans believe the United States can win the war in Iraq, but less than half believe it will. That could be an indictment of Bush's handling of the war; his approval ratings on the Iraq issue have been in the 40% range for the better part of the past year.

Though overall support for the war is divided, most Americans believe the war is not going well for the United States and believe the United States is not winning. This has been the view since September 2003, though there have been a few exceptions following positive news out of Iraq.

Urgency: Overall Importance as Political Issue
Iraq typically ranks at or near the top of the list when Americans are asked to assess the importance of various issues to their votes.

Along with the economy, Iraq consistently ranks at the top of Gallup's open-ended "most important problem" question.


Impact on 2006 Vote
Given its high salience with the public, there is reason to believe Iraq will be a dominant issue in the 2006 midterm elections.

Democrats are now seen as better on the issue, which is notable because Republicans typically have an edge on international issues, and had been seen as better on the issue at the beginning of the war.


Key Subgroup Differences
Views of the Iraq war are extremely partisan. Republicans overwhelmingly support the war; Democrats overwhelmingly oppose it. Independents tend to be more opposed than in favor of the war.

Support for past U.S. wars -- including Vietnam -- was not as polarized along party lines as the current war.

The Bottom Line
The war is an extremely high-priority issue for Americans and is likely to be one of the top issues in this year's elections. Americans are divided on the war, largely along partisan lines. Despite sentiment that the war is not going well for the United States, only about one in five favors an immediate withdrawal of troops. Most do support a gradual withdrawal of troops, preferably within a year, but close to half may be willing to keep troops there longer to achieve U.S. goals.

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=1633

and this has something to do with supporting a return to Reagan policy ?

[red states rule]

and this has something to do with supporting a return to Reagan policy ?

We learned when Reagan pulled out after the Marine barracks attack, if you show weakness to terrorists (as we did during the eight years of Clinton) they will keep coming at you

Libs seem to think if the US runs away from Iraq, the terrorists will change their ways and become law abiding citizens

[retiredman]

Most Americans want to succeed in Iraq (except the kook left) and war is not run by polls

Look...you were the one who said that polls showed a willingness to give the surge a chance...I dispute that assertion. I certainly think that nearly ALL Americans want us to succeed in Iraq..... it is in the definition of "success" that there is a lack of unanimity.

[red states rule]

Look...you were the one who said that polls showed a willingness to give the surge a chance...I dispute that assertion. I certainly think that nearly ALL Americans want us to succeed in Iraq..... it is in the definition of "success" that there is a lack of unanimity.

Liberals do NOT want success in Iraq. Libs see a lossin Iraq as a defeat for Pres Bush. They are to blinded by their hate to see it is a loss for America and a huge win for the terrorists

[red states rule]

Fox News has released a poll that proves once again that Democrats either don’t want us to win in Iraq, or at the very least “don’t know” if they do, which is just as bad (emphasis added):

Do you personally want the Iraq plan President Bush announced last week to succeed?

Overall: 63% Yes 22% No 15% Don’t Know

Democrats: 51% Yes 34% No 15% Don’t Know

Republicans: 79% Yes 11% No 10% Don’t Know

Independents: 63% Yes 19% No 17% Don’t Know
I noted another poll which documented the Dem’s desire for the President to fail in Iraq in this post last September, but some people complained that the question, which read “would you say you want President Bush to succeed or not?” was ‘too vague’ because it didn’t specifically mention Iraq, even though we all know that Iraq is the issue and has been since even before the war started. In any event, there’s no mistaking it now: 34% of Dems want us to fail in Iraq, and 15% “don’t know” which to me is the same thing, because if you have to even consider whether or not you want the President to fail in Iraq, then you haven’t taken hoping for failure off the table.

What other tidbits did we find out from the latest Fox poll?

16. If you were a member of Congress, how would you vote specifically on increasing U.S. troop levels in Iraq — would you vote for or against funding the increase in troops?

Overall: 38% For 57% Against 5% Don’t know
Democrats: 17% For 79% Against 4% Don’t know
Republicans: 64% For 32% Against 4% Don’t know
Independents: 39% For 52% Against 9% Don’t know
That’s not really that surprising though, but this one should be (emphasis added):

17. Regardless of how you would vote on sending more troops to Iraq — If you were a member of Congress, would you vote to continue funding the current level of U.S. troops in Iraq or would you vote against funding the war altogether to try to force a troop withdrawal?

Overall: 52% Yes 41% No 6% Don’t know
Democrats: 33% Yes 59% No 8% Don’t know
Republicans: 77% Yes 19% No 4% Don’t know
Independents: 53% Yes 43% No 4% Don’t know
Got that? 59% of Democrats say they would vote against funding the current level of US troops in Iraq in order to try and force a troop withdrawal and 8% “don’t know” (uh huh).

Bbbbut they support the troops.

Right?

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/011807_foxnewspoll.pdf

[retiredman]

Liberals do NOT want success in Iraq. Libs see a lossin Iraq as a defeat for Pres Bush. They are to blinded by their hate to see it is a loss for America and a huge win for the terrorists

that is not the case. President Bush is not running for election again.... I have no desire to see American troops sacrificed for a stupid stupid war, but I do not want America to EVER fail. You do yourself a disservice by restating that inflammatory and inaccurate position.

[CockySOB]

This is the reason libs need the Unfainess Doctrine, they need to silence conservatives so only the liberal message will get through
Ot's not so much that the libs want to silence conservatives as it is the libs want to force people to listen to them. Left to consumer choice, we have seen how few people will actually listen to the libs on their own, and we know that conservatives tend to be able to attract a willing audience fairly easily.

Why do you think the libs are so unwilling to revamp the education system here in America? It's because they have a captive audience for their brainwashing, errr... re-education.

It's the same thing on a different platform.

[red states rule]

that is not the case. President Bush is not running for election again.... I have no desire to see American troops sacrificed for a stupid stupid war, but I do not want America to EVER fail. You do yourself a disservice by restating that inflammatory and inaccurate position.

The why do libs block everything Pres Bush wants to do to fight the terrorists?

At the Pro Terrorist Rally in DC last Sat, I saw alot of anti Bush, anti war, and anti military signs

I did not see ONE anti terrorist sign

[red states rule]

Ot's not so much that the libs want to silence conservatives as it is the libs want to force people to listen to them. Left to consumer choice, we have seen how few people will actually listen to the libs on their own, and we know that conservatives tend to be able to attract a willing audience fairly easily.

Why do you think the libs are so unwilling to revamp the education system here in America? It's because they have a captive audience for their brainwashing, errr... re-education.

It's the same thing on a different platform.

It seems libs are willing to let the folks make a choice as long as the left approves the choice made

[retiredman]

The why do libs block everything Pres Bush wants to do to fight the terrorists?



because many liberals, myself included, believe very fervently, very strongly, that nearly everything that Bush has done or wants to do to fight terrorists has been counterproductive to that cause and has only served to make us poorer, fewer, less safe, and more despised.

I am a patriot. I love my country. I want nothing more than to see America revered and respected in the world and for Americans to be safe and secure at home. I honestly believe that the path George Bush is taking us down will NOT lead to that result.

[retiredman]

and as a veteran, I know full well that it is very possible to be PRO-military and ANTI-Iraq war. I know full well that the military's job is to go wherever the suits in DC tell them to go and do what they are told to do to the very best of their ability.... I KNOW that they are doing exactly that.

I happen to disagree with the mission the administration has sent them on...that has no impact whatsoever on my support and affection and pride in our brave men and women trying to accomplish that mission.

[TheSage]

So which republican is upset about the fairness doctrine? I think the globalist neocons too are happy that freedom of speech will be shut down even more, considering that their agenda is too obvious to deny anymore.

[red states rule]

because many liberals, myself included, believe very fervently, very strongly, that nearly everything that Bush has done or wants to do to fight terrorists has been counterproductive to that cause and has only served to make us poorer, fewer, less safe, and more despised.

I am a patriot. I love my country. I want nothing more than to see America revered and respected in the world and for Americans to be safe and secure at home. I honestly believe that the path George Bush is taking us down will NOT lead to that result.

Si if we are less safe, why have we not had another attack on US soil?

Why do libs want to run away from the terrorists in Iraq?

Why do libs want to grant US Constitutional right to foreign terrorists?

Why do libs want to have terrorists tried in Federal Courts?

Why do libs want to stop the NSA from doing it's job?

[retiredman]

So if we are less safe, why have we not had another attack on US soil?

I think the reason we have not had another attack on US soil has little to do with our actual, long term, strategic safety. It has been five years since 9/11 and you think we are safe because we have not had attacks here, yet more Americans have died in Iraq since March of '03 than died in the attacks of 9/11. I think the world is a more dangerous place today because of our invasion/conquest/occupation of Iraq.... the Iranians are stronger because we don't do anywhere near as good a job as Saddam did in keeping a lid on their regional hegemony.... and our preoccupation in Iraq has meant that we have NOT placed the diplomatic emphasis on Iran... their surrogate in Lebanon, Hezbollah is stronger and their influence over the region has increased as much as ours has waned....Norht Korea is stronger and effectively bitchslapped us by testy firing a ballistic missile on our birthday and then setting off a nuke a few months later and we can't do SHIT about that because the entire focus of this sophomoric foreign policy team is Iraq 24/7. Osama is still right where he was on 9/11 and we have still been unable to track him down or mute his influence. The world IS a much less safe place to be...the fact that we have not had another attack on our soil notwithstanding.

Why do libs want to run away from the terrorists in Iraq?

the terrorists in Iraq are Iraqis fighting each other. I got no reason to give a shit about sunnis killing shiites and shiites killing sunnis. I have no dog in that fight at all...but wait...I DO have a dog in that fight: I've got 130 thousand of my countrymen getting killed by sunnis AND shiites and for WHAT? THe whole fucking world has terrrorists all over the place. I think we should concentrate on whupping up on the terrorists who want to do US harm and leave those that only want to do harm to their rival sect of Islam alone!

Why do libs want to grant US Constitutional right to foreign terrorists?

I don't. I certainly want to make sure that in our efforts to FIGHT the scum that attacked us, we do not sink to their level...but I have never suggested that foreign terrorists get CONSTITUTIONAL rights...they certainly should have HUMAN rights and we certainly should follow appropriate treaties that, once signed by our government, do, in fact, become the LAW of the LAND.... treaties like theConvention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. And if you want to bitch about detainees being afforded rights under the Geneva Convention, I suggest you talk to your cowboy pResident. He was the one who gave them THAT.

Why do libs want to have terrorists tried in Federal Courts?

I don't. I just want to make sure that whenever anyone is brought to the bar of justice by this country, that it not be a kangaroo court. I have never espoused federal courts for terrorists

Why do libs want to stop the NSA from doing it's job?

I don't. But I want them to NOT violate my constitutional rights or any other citizen's constitutional rights when they do it.

any more questions?

[red states rule]

So when we are not attackes no credit given to Pres Bush and the security forces for doing their job. But if we are hit again libs will blame Pres Bush

How did NK get nukes? Clinton and Halfbright. They took the word of the fat dog eater and were shocked when he lied to them. (The missle you ranted about crashed in the sea)

Terrorists are in Iraq so libs want us to leave. Or as Motor Mouth Murtha said redeploy to Okinawa where the real terorists are. There is a winning plan - leave the enemy where they are and go where they are not

So what is torture. I have heard libs rant how screaming at them is torture. No sleep or food for 24 hours is torture/ Lives are at stake and libs want to coddle the killers

Terrorists should go before a military court. Libs forget their idol FDR did that and they cheered. Of course, libs had a spine during WWII

Unless you are a terrorist, your rights are not being harmed. If you posted your views in other countries you would be dead by now

[5stringJeff]

So which republican is upset about the fairness doctrine? I think the globalist neocons too are happy that freedom of speech will be shut down even more, considering that their agenda is too obvious to deny anymore.

I don't agree that Republicans are all neo-con globalists, but I will agree that none of the current GOP elected officials is worth their salt.

Newt Gingrich 2008!!

[Gaffer]

mfm said:

I think the reason we have not had another attack on US soil has little to do with our actual, long term, strategic safety. It has been five years since 9/11 and you think we are safe because we have not had attacks here, yet more Americans have died in Iraq since March of '03 than died in the attacks of 9/11. I think the world is a more dangerous place today because of our invasion/conquest/occupation of Iraq.... the Iranians are stronger because we don't do anywhere near as good a job as Saddam did in keeping a lid on their regional hegemony.... and our preoccupation in Iraq has meant that we have NOT placed the diplomatic emphasis on Iran... their surrogate in Lebanon, Hezbollah is stronger and their influence over the region has increased as much as ours has waned....Norht Korea is stronger and effectively bitchslapped us by testy firing a ballistic missile on our birthday and then setting off a nuke a few months later and we can't do SHIT about that because the entire focus of this sophomoric foreign policy team is Iraq 24/7. Osama is still right where he was on 9/11 and we have still been unable to track him down or mute his influence. The world IS a much less safe place to be...the fact that we have not had another attack on our soil notwithstanding.

More Americans have died, but over a period of four years as opposed to one hour. And most were combat related deaths. As opposed to innocent civilians going about their business.

What exactly do you (MFM) propose we do about iran? They are the main reason for all the fighting and insurgency in iraq. Leaving iraq now just gives them the opportunity to move in and take over.

NK showed the world how well they can be trusted. Slick Willie gave them everything they needed. He also gave china the means to launch missiles into space and knock out satelites. What do you propose we do about NK?

bin laden, I believe, is in iran. But if not he's definately in pakistan. How do you propose we go after him? pakistan won't let us go in even after high ranking taliban and al queda.

[retiredman]

what do I propose we do about Iran? Now that Bush has fucked everything up? I would certainly not propose that we go it alone like some macho cowboy, that is for sure. I realize that sending young americans over to die in combat gives most of your conservatives big woodies, but I really am not that insecure in my sexuality that I need to sacrifice young americans in order to feel manly.

I propose that we join with our allies (do we even HAVE any of them anymore?) and bring economic sanctions to bear against Iran. There are already signs that the radical's hold on power there is anything but solid...there is rising dissent within the country that will only grow louder if the economy is hurt and the message is clearly sent to them that it is their extremist leadership that has brought this upon them.

We talked all tough and blustery to North Korea and sternly warned them they better damned well not be testing any ballistic missiles....and our international credibility is SO damaged by the chimp that not only did they IGNORE our blustery warnings, they tested their ballistic missiles ON THE FOURTH OF JULY!!!!!! and we are so marginalized in the world that we just let that little prick slap us right across the cheek and did nothing about it... and then he tested a fucking NUKE..and we STILL did nothing about it.... and you want to continue to say that the war in Iraq has not marginalized our ability to respond to issues anywhere ELSE in the world? The folks all over the far east are laughing at us...Kim Jong Il bent George Bush over a stump, pulled his pants down and spanked him in front of the world and we did NOTHING!

you say:


bin laden, I believe, is in iran. But if not he's definately in pakistan. How do you propose we go after him? pakistan won't let us go in even after high ranking taliban and al queda.

First...why in the world would a sunni arab hide out in shiite persian Iran is beyond me and the mere fact that you would suggest such an absurdity is proof of your total ignorance about the nature of our enemies...but then, pakistan won't LET us go after him? Do you think that Bill Clinton asked PERMISSION from the Taliban before he ordered cruise missile strikes against Osama? Pakistan won't LET us? And you claim that democrats are pussies? LOL!!!!! ANd here I thought that Bush has called Pakistan one of our staunchest allies in the war on terror! What the fuck????? Grow a set... find him and kill him... and don't worry about what Pakistan will do!

[Dilloduck]

what do I propose we do about Iran? Now that Bush has fucked everything up? I would certainly not propose that we go it alone like some macho cowboy, that is for sure. I realize that sending young americans over to die in combat gives most of your conservatives big woodies, but I really am not that insecure in my sexuality that I need to sacrifice young americans in order to feel manly.

I propose that we join with our allies (do we even HAVE any of them anymore?) and bring economic sanctions to bear against Iran. There are already signs that the radical's hold on power there is anything but solid...there is rising dissent within the country that will only grow louder if the economy is hurt and the message is clearly sent to them that it is their extremist leadership that has brought this upon them.

We talked all tough and blustery to North Korea and sternly warned them they better damned well not be testing any ballistic missiles....and our international credibility is SO damaged by the chimp that not only did they IGNORE our blustery warnings, they tested their ballistic missiles ON THE FOURTH OF JULY!!!!!! and we are so marginalized in the world that we just let that little prick slap us right across the cheek and did nothing about it... and then he tested a fucking NUKE..and we STILL did nothing about it.... and you want to continue to say that the war in Iraq has not marginalized our ability to respond to issues anywhere ELSE in the world? The folks all over the far east are laughing at us...Kim Jong Il bent George Bush over a stump, pulled his pants down and spanked him in front of the world and we did NOTHING!

you say:



First...why in the world would a sunni arab hide out in shiite persian Iran is beyond me and the mere fact that you would suggest such an absurdity is proof of your total ignorance about the nature of our enemies...but then, pakistan won't LET us go after him? Do you think that Bill Clinton asked PERMISSION from the Taliban before he ordered cruise missile strikes against Osama? Pakistan won't LET us? And you claim that democrats are pussies? LOL!!!!! ANd here I thought that Bush has called Pakistan one of our staunchest allies in the war on terror! What the fuck????? Grow a set... find him and kill him... and don't worry about what Pakistan will do!


Nice little package---blow up bin laden in Pakistan--withdraw from Iraq---get our allies to put the squeeze on Iran and -----do what about Korea again ?

[retiredman]

good question.... with so many foreign policy blunders committed by this chimp, it will take some doing for ANYONE to be able to unfuck all that he has fucked up.

Clearly, we cannot send an armed force into North Korea with their large standing army - we can barely make rotations of troops in Iraq as it is, without having to muster up a force to take on a million man standing army in NK.... we need to reassert ourselves diplomatically, but before that, we need to regain some credibility with the world community in order to exert any pressure on anyone to do anything...

getting the chimp OUT of the white house and a democrat IN will go along ways towards rebuilding that credibility, imho.

[Dilloduck]

good question.... with so many foreign policy blunders committed by this chimp, it will take some doing for ANYONE to be able to unfuck all that he has fucked up.

Clearly, we cannot send an armed force into North Korea with their large standing army - we can barely make rotations of troops in Iraq as it is, without having to muster up a force to take on a million man standing army in NK.... we need to reassert ourselves diplomatically, but before that, we need to regain some credibility with the world community in order to exert any pressure on anyone to do anything...

getting the chimp OUT of the white house and a democrat IN will go along ways towards rebuilding that credibility, imho.

A mere democrat in the white house will go a long way to restore our credibilty ? Why is that? What is so different about them and why does the rest of the world prefer them ?

[retiredman]

A mere democrat in the white house will go a long way to restore our credibilty ? Why is that? What is so different about them and why does the rest of the world prefer them ?

I take umbrage at your use of the word "mere".

I think, whether we deserve the reputation or not, the rest of the world looks upon democrats as more able to communicate with the rest of the world...and that impression is made all that much easier by the juxtaposition of the hamfisted Bush administration.

After Bush, any democrat will be given a chance to prove that they can indeed play like grownups on the world stage...something the chimp has been unable to do.... much of the world would LOVE to respect America... they will bend over backwards to give a new administration the chance.

[Gaffer]

First of all you want us to kiss the ass of the rest of the world. Fuck that.

Secondly sanctions against iran would work great if the rest of the world did too. But tell me how your going to get the russians, the french and china to join in that? Just kiss their asses and tell them how wonderful their little communist countries are?

Bush is talking to NK, because that's what the socialist...I mean democrats want him to do. He should talk and talk and talk and talk....

Everything is talk. We nned to take down iran, wipe out every militia group in iraq and then head for NK with only two words "YOUR NEXT".

Talk and sanctions don't work with the likes of iran, islamists and NK. To have them work takes everyone working together and the other countries are too greedy and self interested to do that.

[Dilloduck]

I take umbrage at your use of the word "mere".

I think, whether we deserve the reputation or not, the rest of the world looks upon democrats as more able to communicate with the rest of the world...and that impression is made all that much easier by the juxtaposition of the hamfisted Bush administration.

After Bush, any democrat will be given a chance to prove that they can indeed play like grownups on the world stage...something the chimp has been unable to do.... much of the world would LOVE to respect America... they will bend over backwards to give a new administration the chance.

Why would they give a democrat more of a chance than a republican other than Bush.
(This suddenly is appearing to be phase 938692762206 of the "anyone but Bush" strategy)

[red states rule]

I take umbrage at your use of the word "mere".

I think, whether we deserve the reputation or not, the rest of the world looks upon democrats as more able to communicate with the rest of the world...and that impression is made all that much easier by the juxtaposition of the hamfisted Bush administration.

After Bush, any democrat will be given a chance to prove that they can indeed play like grownups on the world stage...something the chimp has been unable to do.... much of the world would LOVE to respect America... they will bend over backwards to give a new administration the chance.

I am sure any Dem can accomplish as much as Bill and Halfbright did with the fat dog eater in NK

Peace at Last!


Pop open a bottle of bubbly and drink a toast to Bill Clinton, because the seeds of peace he planted in North Korea have finally come to fruition. Now that the tiny island nation has joined the small but growing club of nuclear-armed states, the chances that the imperialist aggressor Bush will invade North Korea are now slim to none. Thus, six years after leaving office, Bill Clinton has assured a brand of peace with North Korea that the Shrub couldn't achieve during his entire stolen peeResidency.

Granted, this peace didn’t come about exactly as we had planned. When our last elected President sent his only begotten Secretary of State riding into Pyongyang on the back of a donkey with a radioactive hunk of cheese wedged between her butt cheeks, it was hoped that Kim Jong Il would be so moved by our gesture of trust that he would forever refrain from developing nuclear weapons - or at least keep it on the low-low so we wouldn’t look like complete jackasses. But no matter how Bill Clinton achieved the peace, it's the outcome that is important.

That's not to say that a nuclear-armed PDRK is without any drawbacks. Make no mistake, Kim Jong Il is a dangerous lunatic. Sure, the Supreme Leader was a sweet little man who could be trusted to abide by a non-proliferation pact when Bill Clinton was president, but it only took six years for Bush to drive him completely nuts. It wasn't just the "Axis of Evil" remark, either. When the Shrub blew the lid off North Korea's secret nuclear weapons program, he forced the proud nation to brazenly continue what it had been doing discreetly under Bill Clinton for years. Our only hope is that a Democrat will be in the White House in two years, so that Kim Jong-Il will once again be a misunderstood yet reasonable man ready to sit down at the bargaining table with his American friends.

I don't expect Bush to thank Bill Clinton for Winning the Peace in North Korea. But Clinton should at least get the credit he deserves for insuring that no Americans will ever have to die on North Korean soil, but rather in the comfort of their own homes as long as they live within the blast radius.
http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/2006/10/index.html

[red states rule]

I take umbrage at your use of the word "mere".

I think, whether we deserve the reputation or not, the rest of the world looks upon democrats as more able to communicate with the rest of the world...and that impression is made all that much easier by the juxtaposition of the hamfisted Bush administration.

After Bush, any democrat will be given a chance to prove that they can indeed play like grownups on the world stage...something the chimp has been unable to do.... much of the world would LOVE to respect America... they will bend over backwards to give a new administration the chance.

The rest of the world loves Dems. They know they are towers of Jello and will never stand up to them. Libs would rather talk and reason while our enemies shoot and kill.

How libs believe love and compassion will melt their bombs and bullets is insane. That is why after the election, the terrorist websites and al Jazeera were giddy over the election

They know they are safer and we are more vulnerable

They were so upset Pres Bush won in 04. They fully supported John "I served in Viet Nam" fighting a more sensitive war

As a vet did how do fight a more sensitive war?

[retiredman]

First of all you want us to kiss the ass of the rest of the world. Fuck that.



can I ever expect you raise the level of debate above this schoolyard taunting stuff? I have never suggested that America kiss ANYONE's ass....

now if you'd like to talk about ways of dealing with the threats that have been allowed to accumulate whilst we fiddled and diddled in Iraq, I would enjoy having such a discussion.... but if all you want to do is accuse me of wanting to kiss ASS, then I really have no time for it all.

How's that work for ya?

[retiredman]

The rest of the world loves Dems. They know they are towers of Jello and will never stand up to them. Libs would rather talk and reason while our enemies shoot and kill.

How libs believe love and compassion will melt their bombs and bullets is insane. That is why after the election, the terrorist websites and al Jazeera were giddy over the election

They know they are safer and we are more vulnerable

They were so upset Pres Bush won in 04. They fully supported John "I served in Viet Nam" fighting a more sensitive war

As a vet did how do fight a more sensitive war?

same basic deal for you.... wanna discuss policy options, I am there. Wanna hurl insults, I really will find other discussions.

Up to you.

[red states rule]

same basic deal for you.... wanna discuss policy options, I am there. Wanna hurl insults, I really will find other discussions.

Up to you.

I am not hurling insults - they are facts. America's enemies are giddy over the Dems win, because they know how "strong" libs will be against terrorists as I do

Facts to a liberal are insults. I know how libs feel it is unfair to remind them of their past and lax attitude toward terrorism. However, get used to it and get over it

[Gaffer]

can I ever expect you raise the level of debate above this schoolyard taunting stuff? I have never suggested that America kiss ANYONE's ass....

now if you'd like to talk about ways of dealing with the threats that have been allowed to accumulate whilst we fiddled and diddled in Iraq, I would enjoy having such a discussion.... but if all you want to do is accuse me of wanting to kiss ASS, then I really have no time for it all.

How's that work for ya?

Well since you never have anything to say. Other than we need to get the world on our side and the fact that you hate Bush. I'm not worried about our further discussions. if you don't have time for this, please feel free to go somewhere else.

[retiredman]

The rest of the world loves Dems. not a fact They know they are towers of Jello not a fact - but an insultand will never stand up to them. not a factLibs would rather talk and reason while our enemies shoot and kill.not a fact

How libs believe love and compassion will melt their bombs and bullets is insane. not a factThat is why after the election, the terrorist websites and al Jazeera were giddy over the election.I'd love for you to explain to me how you know the rationale behind the moods of terrorists

They know they are safer and we are more vulnerablenot a fact -but an insult

They were so upset Pres Bush won in 04. They fully supported John "I served in Viet Nam" fighting a more sensitive warnot a fact - but an insult

As a vet did how do fight a more sensitive war?nonsensical question...what are you trying to say here?

[retiredman]

Well since you never have anything to say. Other than we need to get the world on our side and the fact that you hate Bush. I'm not worried about our further discussions. if you don't have time for this, please feel free to go somewhere else.


do us both a big favor then... you refrain from replying to my posts and I will return the favor....how's that work for ya?

[red states rule]

do us both a big favor then... you refrain from replying to my posts and I will return the favor....how's that work for ya?

My, libs have the same strategy on message boards as they do with Iraq.

If they can't win - they try for a truce - then they want to turn tail and run

[retiredman]

My, libs have the same strategy on message boards as they do with Iraq.

If they can't win - they try for a truce - then they want to turn tail and run
wow... you are really "on your game" this afternoon, aren't you?

I don't turn tail and run from anyone or anything... I would LOVE te debate the policies surrounding our war in Iraq, and how it has made us less safe and more despised worldwide.... but I really get the idea that you really aren't all that interested in such discussion, but rather just mud hurling.

Here is a little tip for you: this past november, the country took one set of car keys away from your party, and in november of next year, they will take the other set of keys away and then you and your party will be sent away to sit in the corner facing the wall for a long and well-deserved timeout. You can brag and bluster your way all the way to the chair in the corner if you chose....but your timeout IS coming... and then America won't even HAVE to listen to you.

[red states rule]

wow... you are really "on your game" this afternoon, aren't you?

I don't turn tail and run from anyone or anything... I would LOVE te debate the policies surrounding our war in Iraq, and how it has made us less safe and more despised worldwide.... but I really get the idea that you really aren't all that interested in such discussion, but rather just mud hurling.

Here is a little tip for you: this past november, the country took one set of car keys away from your party, and in november of next year, they will take the other set of keys away and then you and your party will be sent away to sit in the corner facing the wall for a long and well-deserved timeout. You can brag and bluster your way all the way to the chair in the corner if you chose....but your timeout IS coming... and then America won't even HAVE to listen to you.

We debated one point on Iraq - should US troops have to know before entering homes where terrorists are held up?

So far the Dem candidates are good for laughs, but so far no substance. I will love watching libs attacking each other and I do hope you go with the Red Queen

[retiredman]

We debated one point on Iraq - should US troops have to know before entering homes where terrorists are held up?

So far the Dem candidates are good for laughs, but so far no substance. I will love watching libs attacking each other and I do hope you go with the Red Queen

that is not the point we debated at all....

it was MY assertion that sending in American GI's in the dead of night into the homes where we SUSPECT insurgents to be holed up only serves to scare the shit out of innocent women and children and that that task is not such a complex military maneuver that Iraqi troops, who speak the language, would not be able to do it as well as we could TODAY and not scare the hell out of innocent women and children - or if they DID scare them, at least be able to quickly communicate with them and assuage their fears.

And you can laugh at the democratic candidate all you like... whoever we nominate at our convention will be the next president. then....you won't need to turn up your hearing aid to hear ME laughing.

[red states rule]

that is not the point we debated at all....

it was MY assertion that sending in American GI's in the dead of night into the homes where we SUSPECT insurgents to be holed up only serves to scare the shit out of innocent women and children and that that task is not such a complex military maneuver that Iraqi troops, who speak the language, would not be able to do it as well as we could TODAY and not scare the hell out of innocent women and children - or if they DID scare them, at least be able to quickly communicate with them and assuage their fears.

And you can laugh at the democratic candidate all you like... whoever we nominate at our convention will be the next president. then....you won't need to turn up your hearing aid to hear ME laughing.

In the liberal world, the troops must first go to the ACLU and obtain a warrent. Then they muct walk up and knock on the door. The troops must wait at least 2 minutes between knocks.

Then if they have to enter the home, they must announce such entry at least three times before croosing the threshold

Next from the left........

If they should find any alleged terrorists (or freedom fighters per Howie Dean) they must be read their Miranda rights and have a lawyer present

They must be taken before a bail bondsmen with 2 hours

[retiredman]

In the liberal world, the troops must first go to the ACLU and obtain a warrent. Then they muct walk up and knock on the door. The troops must wait at least 2 minutes between knocks.

Then if they have to enter the home, they must announce such entry at least three times before croosing the threshold

Next from the left........

If they should find any alleged terrorists (or freedom fighters per Howie Dean) they must be read their Miranda rights and have a lawyer present

They must be taken before a bail bondsmen with 2 hours

are you capable of carrying on a rational discussion without this flamboyant heated hyperbolic rhetoric?

or is this just you working up the guts to take this to Open Mike Night at the local redneck comedy club?

[red states rule]

are you capable of carrying on a rational discussion without this flamboyant heated hyperbolic rhetoric?

or is this just you working up the guts to take this to Open Mike Night at the local redneck comedy club?

If libs could right the Terrorists Bill of Rights it would be there

After all libs want to grant terrorists protection under the GC

[retiredman]

If libs could right the Terrorists Bill of Rights it would be there

After all libs want to grant terrorists protection under the GC

libs want to grant terrorist protection under the Geneva Convention? Bush did that....



but hey...the idiot rednecks at the comedy club won't know that, so I would definitely keep that cute oneliner in your routine.

[Gaffer]

that is not the point we debated at all....

it was MY assertion that sending in American GI's in the dead of night into the homes where we SUSPECT insurgents to be holed up only serves to scare the shit out of innocent women and children and that that task is not such a complex military maneuver that Iraqi troops, who speak the language, would not be able to do it as well as we could TODAY and not scare the hell out of innocent women and children - or if they DID scare them, at least be able to quickly communicate with them and assuage their fears.

And you can laugh at the democratic candidate all you like... whoever we nominate at our convention will be the next president. then....you won't need to turn up your hearing aid to hear ME laughing.

when the Americans troops bust into a house you can be sure there is an interpreter with them. At least one, probably more. The American troops will have certain iraqi words they are familiar with to say and listen for.

Anyone in the house is going to be shocked and terrified. It goes along with the raid. It's done on the same level as a police DEA raid here in the states.

[retiredman]

when the Americans troops bust into a house you can be sure there is an interpreter with them. At least one, probably more. The American troops will have certain iraqi words they are familiar with to say and listen for.

Anyone in the house is going to be shocked and terrified. It goes along with the raid. It's done on the same level as a police DEA raid here in the states.

that is not true. there were many reported instances of troops breaking into homes with no arabic speaker in the unit.

And the POINT is: that effort would have been much more effectively handled by some of the 150K trained Iraqi troops...don't you agree?

[red states rule]

that is not true. there were many reported instances of troops breaking into homes with no arabic speaker in the unit.

And the POINT is: that effort would have been much more effectively handled by some of the 150K trained Iraqi troops...don't you agree?

I am glad you are no longer in the military. I am sure the terrorists would welcome you returning and showing us how to fight a PC war

[Dilloduck]

Why would they give a democrat more of a chance than a republican other than Bush.
(This suddenly is appearing to be phase 938692762206 of the "anyone but Bush" strategy)

I read through the whole thing again and didn't see an answer to ths question.

[retiredman]

I am glad you are no longer in the military. I am sure the terrorists would welcome you returning and showing us how to fight a PC war

and I am glad you never WERE in the military if you would prefer to send Americans in to do a job that could be done BETTER by Iraqi troops.

Pretty brave sitting there behind the monitor, eh?

[red states rule]

and I am glad you never WERE in the military if you would prefer to send Americans in to do a job that could be done BETTER by Iraqi troops.

Pretty brave sitting there behind the monitor, eh?

How do you know I wasn't?

Or do libs have the power to see all and know all? Oh, libs include that in their resumes. I forgot

[Gaffer]

that is not true. there were many reported instances of troops breaking into homes with no arabic speaker in the unit.

And the POINT is: that effort would have been much more effectively handled by some of the 150K trained Iraqi troops...don't you agree?

"many reports" from where? The AP? rueters? ABC? al jezera? stringers?

when you have intell you act on it. If there's no interpreter available that's too bad. Women and children will be treated the same whether there is an interpreter there or not.

Your just trying to demonize the troops through the back door.

[red states rule]

"many reports" from where? The AP? rueters? ABC? al jezera? stringers?

when you have intell you act on it. If there's no interpreter available that's too bad. Women and children will be treated the same whether there is an interpreter there or not.

Your just trying to demonize the troops through the back door.

He is from the Keery school of troop support, They are terrorists and are uneducated

MFM feels they are losers and unable to win this war. So to save time and money (that be spent better on government handouts) bring them home now so they can be tried and convicted of war crimes

[retiredman]

He is from the Keery school of troop supprit, They are terrorists and are uneducated

MFM feels they are losers and unable to win this war. So to save time and money (that be spent better on government handouts) bring them home now so they can be tried and convicted of war crimes

that one will work too, at the comedy connection.... all you are is an insult machine.

[red states rule]

that one will work too, at the comedy connection.... all you are is an insult machine.

more like a truth detector - it drives libs nuts (though it is a short drive for them)

[retiredman]

more like a truth detector - it drives libs nuts (though it is a short drive for them)


you don't know how to speak the truth.... you only know how to insult with gross generalization...it really is like you're kind of a one-trick pony.... that's all you ever do and it really gets lame after the twentieth time

[retiredman]

more like a truth detector - it drives libs nuts (though it is a short drive for them)
oh...I forgot...ba-dum-bump **rimshot**

[red states rule]

oh...I forgot...ba-dum-bump **rimshot**

A guy walks into a DC curio shop. While browsing he comes across an exquisite brass rat. "What a great gag gift" he thinks to himself. After dickering with the shop keeper over the price, the man purchases the rat and leaves. As he's walking down the street, he hears scurrying noises behind him. Stopping and looking around, he sees undreds, then thousands of rats pouring out of the alleys and stairwells into the street behind him. In a panic he runs down the street with the rats not far behind. The street ends at a pier; he runs to the end of the pier and heaves the brass rat into the Potomac. All of the rats scurry past him into the river where they drown. After breathing a sigh of relief and wiping his brow, the man heads back to the curio shop, finds the shop keeper and asks, "Do you have any brass Democrats?"

[retiredman]

A guy walks into a DC curio shop. While browsing he comes across an exquisite brass rat. "What a great gag gift" he thinks to himself. After dickering with the shop keeper over the price, the man purchases the rat and leaves. As he's walking down the street, he hears scurrying noises behind him. Stopping and looking around, he sees undreds, then thousands of rats pouring out of the alleys and stairwells into the street behind him. In a panic he runs down the street with the rats not far behind. The street ends at a pier; he runs to the end of the pier and heaves the brass rat into the Potomac. All of the rats scurry past him into the river where they drown. After breathing a sigh of relief and wiping his brow, the man heads back to the curio shop, finds the shop keeper and asks, "Do you have any brass Democrats?"

that's too long.... it barely held my interest...for your comedy club routine, you'll need crisper material.... and remember....you're going after the redneck conservative crowd, so dumb it down.

[red states rule]

that's too long.... it barely held my interest...for your comedy club routine, you'll need crisper material.... and remember....you're going after the redneck conservative crowd, so dumb it down.

Oh I am going for the PC liberal crowd. So I only have to say what a great nation the US is, and the libs meltdown

For three years, the young Democrat took his vacations at a country inn. He had an affair with the innkeeper's daughter. Looking forward to an exciting few days, he dragged his suitcase up the stairs of the inn, then stopped short. There sat his lover with an infant on her lap! "Why didn't you write when you learned you were pregnant?" he cried. "I would have rushed up here, we could have gotten married, and the child would have my name!" "Well," she said, "when my folks found out about my condition, we sat up all night talkin' and talkin' and we finally decided it would be better to have a bastard in the family than an Democrat."

[Dilloduck]

Mr. MFM-----when you can take a break could you respond to this, please ?


Originally Posted by Dilloduck
Why would they give a democrat more of a chance than a republican other than Bush.

[retiredman]

Mr. MFM-----when you can take a break could you respond to this, please ?


please refresh my memory as to the identify of "they"...

[Grumplestillskin]

you don't know how to speak the truth.... you only know how to insult with gross generalization...it really is like you're kind of a one-trick pony.... that's all you ever do and it really gets lame after the twentieth time

Which is why I ignore him permenantly. He's nothing but a troll. An immature one at that. You'd be advised to do the same...Unfortunately, he doesn't go away...

[Dilloduck]

please refresh my memory as to the identify of "they"...

the "rest of the world"

[Grumplestillskin]

the "rest of the world"

Because the rest of the civilised world think more along the lines of the democrats than repubs...

[retiredman]

I think that the skunk stench of Bush's arrogance and ineptitude permeates the world's opinion of his political party.... much as I think that same stench will permeate the top of the republican ticket in '08 from the perspective of the American voter.

[Grumplestillskin]

I think that the skunk stench of Bush's arrogance and ineptitude permeates the world's opinion of his political party.... much as I think that same stench will permeate the top of the republican ticket in '08 from the perspective of the American voter.

It's his ineptitude more than anything...

[Dilloduck]

I think that the skunk stench of Bush's arrogance and ineptitude permeates the world's opinion of his political party.... much as I think that same stench will permeate the top of the republican ticket in '08 from the perspective of the American voter.


Why should we be so concerned about world opinion ? America is always hated by someone. Or are you ready to sacrifice our soveriegnty too?

[retiredman]

Why should we be so concerned about world opinion ? America is always hated by someone. Or are you ready to sacrifice our soveriegnty too?

your question was

Why would they give a democrat more of a chance than a republican other than Bush.

I did not take that to mean that their opinion would influence our vote, but more like "I don't give the Bears much of a chance in the superbowl".

I do NOT think we should be concerned what the world thinks, nor do I think that world opinion of any American presidential candidate would tip any election either way.

However, I think it makes sense to chose a president that does not immediately alienate the rest of the world by his statements. For example... if a presidential candidate from either party were to say. "Fuck the rest of the world...I could give a shit what THEY think!"...I might suggest that such an arrogant and antagonistic attitude might not be conducive to good foreign policy

[Dilloduck]

your question was

Why would they give a democrat more of a chance than a republican other than Bush.

I did not take that to mean that their opinion would influence our vote, but more like "I don't give the Bears much of a chance in the superbowl".

I do NOT think we should be concerned what the world thinks, nor do I think that world opinion of any American presidential candidate would tip any election either way.

However, I think it makes sense to chose a president that does not immediately alienate the rest of the world by his statements. For example... if a presidential candidate from either party were to say. "Fuck the rest of the world...I could give a shit what THEY think!"...I might suggest that such an arrogant and antagonistic attitude might not be conducive to good foreign policy

Odd that when someone tries to protect America first it gets interpreted as " fuck the rest of he world ".

[retiredman]

Odd that when someone tries to protect America first it gets interpreted as " fuck the rest of he world ".

don't put words in my mouth.... that is not what I said at all...I was speaking rhetorically.... or is that something you don't "get"?

[Dilloduck]

don't put words in my mouth.... that is not what I said at all...I was speaking rhetorically.... or is that something you don't "get"?

I get it--you think Bush alienated other countries. America regularly alienates other countries by just existing ( not that we haven't done our share of meddling). I just think we have a right to protect ourselves and a duty to defend our sovereignty. If you think Bush is doing a bad job of it I would like to hear alternative ways of accomplishing that without turning into Europe. Tancredo is the only candidate that I've heard come close to offering any alternatives.

[Grumplestillskin]

Odd that when someone tries to protect America first it gets interpreted as " fuck the rest of he world ".

If only he was trying to protect America first.

[retiredman]

I get it--you think Bush alienated other countries. America regularly alienates other countries by just existing ( not that we haven't done our share of meddling). I just think we have a right to protect ourselves and a duty to defend our sovereignty. If you think Bush is doing a bad job of it I would like to hear alternative ways of accomplishing that without turning into Europe. Tancredo is the only candidate that I've heard come close to offering any alternatives.

no...you don't "get it".... let's go back and reread my sentence, shall we?

"For example... if a presidential candidate from either party were to say. "Fuck the rest of the world...I could give a shit what THEY think!"...I might suggest that such an arrogant and antagonistic attitude might not be conducive to good foreign policy."

Do you see the word "Bush" in that sentence???

[Dilloduck]

no...you don't "get it".... let's go back and reread my sentence, shall we?

"For example... if a presidential candidate from either party were to say. "Fuck the rest of the world...I could give a shit what THEY think!"...I might suggest that such an arrogant and antagonistic attitude might not be conducive to good foreign policy."

Do you see the word "Bush" in that sentence???

no I don't---and I don't recall anyone saying "fuck the rest of the world" either yet you claim that his actions somehow implied it.

[retiredman]

no I don't---and I don't recall anyone saying "fuck the rest of the world" either yet you claim that his actions somehow implied it.


do you understand the concept of "rhetorical"? I have NEVER said that Bush, or anyone else, for that matter has ever said that...

I have only said that, while I don't think we should, as Americans, be slaves to the opinions of the rest of the world, we should be sensitive to the idea of electing leaders (unnamed... future leaders...leaders mentioned, not for their actual identity, but rather for their rhetorical characteristics....GET IT?) who wold be so fucking jingoistic and faux-patriotically macho that they would tell the rest of the world to fuck off might not be in our best interests.

YOu really need to take a class in english comp and learn what the entire idea of "rhetorical" means.

[Dilloduck]

good question.... with so many foreign policy blunders committed by this chimp, it will take some doing for ANYONE to be able to unfuck all that he has fucked up.

Clearly, we cannot send an armed force into North Korea with their large standing army - we can barely make rotations of troops in Iraq as it is, without having to muster up a force to take on a million man standing army in NK.... we need to reassert ourselves diplomatically, but before that, we need to regain some credibility with the world community in order to exert any pressure on anyone to do anything...

getting the chimp OUT of the white house and a democrat IN will go along ways towards rebuilding that credibility, imho.

Is this a rhetorical comment or were you actually referring to a real person ?

[retiredman]

Is this a rhetorical comment or were you actually referring to a real person ?
so what is your point? that I make comments based upon reality sometimes... GUILTY AS CHARGED...or that I speculate rhetorically at other times.... GUILTY AS CHARGED...... or that you are too fucking dense to discern the difference? (if you were honest, you would say " guilty as charged")

[Dilloduck]

so what is your point? that I make comments based upon reality sometimes... GUILTY AS CHARGED...or that I speculate rhetorically at other times.... GUILTY AS CHARGED...... or that you are too fucking dense to discern the difference? (if you were honest, you would say " guilty as charged")

Right now my point is that it's difficult to engage in a discussion with someone who makes a comment about a person and conveniently flops it into a "rhetorical" comment when challeged.
I'll play for real or rhetorical----just pick one and try to stick with it.
I can discern the difference quite easily as I was the one pointed out your flip-flopping between the two so I'll plead honestly innocent.

[retiredman]

one comment was made about bush..and clearly indicated as such...the other was rhetorical...and clearly indicated as such...I am sorry you have such a reading comprehension deficit. I'll dumb it WAY down for you in the future. I promise.

[Dilloduck]

one comment was made about bush..and clearly indicated as such...the other was rhetorical...and clearly indicated as such...I am sorry you have such a reading comprehension deficit. I'll dumb it WAY down for you in the future. I promise.

nice try

[retiredman]

nice try


no trying needed. YOur reading comprehension skills are clearly at a rather elementary level. I am sorry - I did not know that. Had I known, I would have dumbed it all down to a Dick and Jane/My weekly Reader level. I am sorry.

[Dilloduck]

no trying needed. YOur reading comprehension skills are clearly at a rather elementary level. I am sorry - I did not know that. Had I known, I would have dumbed it all down to a Dick and Jane/My weekly Reader level. I am sorry.

Ramp it up all you want Mr. Intellectual but I do take off points for waffling and ad hominems. What got you all bent out of shape about a simple question anyway? I thought you might have had something going there for ya for a little while but you snapped.

[Insein]

no trying needed. YOur reading comprehension skills are clearly at a rather elementary level. I am sorry - I did not know that. Had I known, I would have dumbed it all down to a Dick and Jane/My weekly Reader level. I am sorry.

Of course MFM attended Harvard Grammar School and was a member of the Snooty-House Fraternity.

http://www.gotfuturama.com/Multimedia/FrameGrabs/1ACV11/Grabs/pic00111.jpg

[retiredman]

I am not trying to turn this into a pissing contest...I think that I clearly distinguished between my comments about the current administration, and my rhetotical comments about any candidate's need, in my opinion, to not piss off the world from the git-go.

[retiredman]

Of course MFM attended Harvard Grammar School and was a member of the Snooty-House Fraternity.

http://www.gotfuturama.com/Multimedia/FrameGrabs/1ACV11/Grabs/pic00111.jpg


I know I am new to this board, but it sure seems like sniping from the peanut gallery is much more prevalent here than other places I have been.

[Insein]

I know I am new to this board, but it sure seems like sniping from the peanut gallery is much more prevalent here than other places I have been.

Well i just jumped in when the argument turned to a debate on grammar and speaking. Thats usually already at the peanut gallery level.

[Dilloduck]

I am not trying to turn this into a pissing contest...I think that I clearly distinguished between my comments about the current administration, and my rhetotical comments about any candidate's need, in my opinion, to not piss off the world from the git-go.

Which I what I wanted to discuss with you in the first place. Sometimes you just can't make the whole world happy. Radical Islam apparently wasn't real happy with the US before Bush ever took office. So unhappy in fact that they killed many soldiers and citizens.

[retiredman]

Which I what I wanted to discuss with you in the first place. Sometimes you just can't make the whole world happy. Radical Islam apparently wasn't real happy with the US before Bush ever took office. So unhappy in fact that they killed many soldiers and citizens.

I have never suggested that we even bother to TRY to make the whole world happy.

I happen to believe there is a better way than the confrontational arrogant path chosen by the current administration.

[CockySOB]

I have never suggested that we even bother to TRY to make the whole world happy.

I happen to believe there is a better way than the confrontational arrogant path chosen by the current administration.

Would the negotiations between WJC and KJI be an example of such non-confrontational, non-arrogant path?

[Insein]

Of course MFM attended Harvard Grammar School and was a member of the Snooty-House Fraternity.

http://www.gotfuturama.com/Multimedia/FrameGrabs/1ACV11/Grabs/pic00111.jpg

stupid website not letting me post its stupid pics.

[Dilloduck]

I have never suggested that we even bother to TRY to make the whole world happy.

I happen to believe there is a better way than the confrontational arrogant path chosen by the current administration.

I hope you're right---I just haven't ever seen it work with this bunch and while we pussy footed around they murdered us. I got tired of watching that.

[Grumplestillskin]

Which I what I wanted to discuss with you in the first place. Sometimes you just can't make the whole world happy. Radical Islam apparently wasn't real happy with the US before Bush ever took office. So unhappy in fact that they killed many soldiers and citizens.

You know Dillo, you do exactly the same thing with me. You take absolutely inane positions, or parts of a post, that are totally irrelevent and go off on tangents. And when these things are explained to you, you get all pernicky and go off on other tangents. When people finally lose patience, you get this "what did I do?" crap going. I used to think you were a wind up merchant, but on second thoughts maybe you're just not the brightest bulb in the socket..:dunno: That may seem like an ad hominem, but it's been building...

[Dilloduck]

You know Dillo, you do exactly the same thing with me. You take absolutely inane positions, or parts of a post, that are totally irrelevent and go off on tangents. And when these things are explained to you, you get all pernicky and go off on other tangents. When people finally lose patience, you get this "what did I do?" crap going. I used to think you were a wind up merchant, but on second thoughts maybe you're just not the brightest bulb in the socket..:dunno: That may seem like an ad hominem, but it's been building...

you gotta go with the flow, Grump. I'll answer any direct question you wanna ask me.

[retiredman]

I hope you're right---I just haven't ever seen it work with this bunch and while we pussy footed around they murdered us. I got tired of watching that.

I hope I am too.

[Grumplestillskin]

you gotta go with the flow, Grump. I'll answer any direct question you wanna ask me.

I thought MFM was being pretty up front...:dunno: That being said, your subsequent post re Islam re Bush would have been the best starting point instead of the other nonsense. That aside, I thought Clinton dealt with it best he could. And if you look at the number of deaths on his watch compared to Bush, they don't even compare. That being said, I blame the radicals than either president in that they caused the actions. What I find more interesting is the "why?"

[Dilloduck]

I thought MFM was being pretty up front...:dunno: That being said, your subsequent post re Islam re Bush would have been the best starting point instead of the other nonsense. That aside, I thought Clinton dealt with it best he could. And if you look at the number of deaths on his watch compared to Bush, they don't even compare. That being said, I blame the radicals than either president in that they caused the actions. What I find more interesting is the "why?"

The subject wasn't even Islam when this discussion started so it really would have been a pretty stupid place to start.

Why what?----why do radicals hate us?

[Grumplestillskin]

The subject wasn't even Islam when this discussion started so it really would have been a pretty stupid place to start.

Why what?----why do radicals hate us?

It would have been better than a dozen posts of you guys deciding what or wasn't rhetorical.

Why do radicals hate you, yes...

[Dilloduck]

It would have been better than a dozen posts of you guys deciding what or wasn't rhetorical.

Why do radicals hate you, yes...

errrrr thanks for the pointer !!!

Isamic radical hate me ?----You got me by the short hairs. I guess it's a religious thingy.

[KarlMarx]

Much to the dismay of libs, Fox News continues to crush CNN and MSNBC

Rush Limbaugh is still the most listened to radio talk show host. Also, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly are adding stations and listeners in huge numbers

Air America is all but dead

This is the main reason why space cadet Dennis Kucinich wants to bring back the Unfairness Doctrine

Sinc elibs cannot compete with conservatives in these areas, the libs want to silenc them

And I thought libs were for free spech - of course only when it s liberal speech
Yes, not only is Kucinich sponsoring this bill, but my rat fink Congressman, Maurice Hinchey....

I sent him a pretty nasty email, asking him what his problem was... I told him that at least Fox News and Rush Limbaugh got to be successful without government coercion and didn't have to steal from any childrens' charities to boot.

I told him that if he knew better, he should be embarrassed to attach his name to a piece of legislation that was clearly a violation of the First Amendment..

Poor widdle wiberals, the big bad conservatives are too much for them, so now they have to cwy for their mommy! BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!!!!

Fucking "A"... they have to be cry babies about everything!!!! When they don't get their fucking way, we all have to live through another temper tantrum!!!!!


http://picturebook.chattablogs.com/archives/images/06_02_11.jpg


"Mommy! Rush Limbaugh's been saying nasty stuff about me again!"

[Grumplestillskin]

Isamic radical hate me ?----You got me by the short hairs. I guess it's a religious thingy.

See, this is why it is pointless trying to debate you...

[stephanie]

Yes, not only is Kucinich sponsoring this bill, but my rat fink Congressman, Maurice Hinchey....

I sent him a pretty nasty email, asking him what his problem was... I told him that at least Fox News and Rush Limbaugh got to be successful without government coercion and didn't have to steal from any childrens' charities to boot.

I told him that if he knew better, he should be embarrassed to attach his name to a piece of legislation that was clearly a violation of the First Amendment..

Poor widdle wiberals, the big bad conservatives are too much for them, so now they have to cwy for their mommy! BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!!!!

Fucking "A"... they have to be cry babies about everything!!!! When they don't get their fucking way, we all have to live through another temper tantrum!!!!!


http://picturebook.chattablogs.com/archives/images/06_02_11.jpg


"Mommy! Rush Limbaugh's been saying nasty stuff about me again!"


:lol: Exactly

[Insein]

:lol: Exactly

Actually, it's more like "we can't let the mindless dolts start thinking for themselves. We need to shut up all points of view that don't reinforce our dominance over these morons."

[stephanie]

Actually, it's more like "we can't let the mindless dolts start thinking for themselves. We need to shut up all points of view that don't reinforce our dominance over these morons."

They know that the one thing they haven't been able to control has been talk radio....
Think about it......20 million listen to Rush....How many listen to Hannity...How many WOMEN listen to Laura Ingram........Figure it out....

So now that is what their going after....

their just thinking of THE PEOPLE...??
It's for our betterment......They know....!!

But really..Their just a bunch of scum sucking freedoms takers.......And disguise it as......whats Fair is Fair...

Their just a bunch of chickenshits...
Socialist
Borderline Communist....


Gawd ..........I hope the American People WAKE UP........Before it's too late....:mad:

[Dilloduck]

See, this is why it is pointless trying to debate you...

Grump--you askd me why radical islam hates me----I said I don't know but it might be a religious thing. What in the hell is so confusing about that ???

[red states rule]

Grump--you askd me why radical islam hates me----I said I don't know but it might be a religious thing. What in the hell is so confusing about that ???

There are places where if you do not go to prayer 5 times per times - you are beheaded

Would that count as a reason to wipe out radical Islam?

[KarlMarx]

They know that the one thing they haven't been able to control has been talk radio....
Think about it......20 million listen to Rush....How many listen to Hannity...How many WOMEN listen to Laura Ingram........Figure it out....





Have any of you listened to Laura Ingraham? She is hilarious!!!! Ann Coulter and her ought to pair up and be a comedy team... honest to goodness!

[red states rule]

Here is why libs hate Fox News. They report what libs say, want, and do


One U.S. State May Soon Prohibit You From Doing This in Your Car
Friday, February 09, 2007

By Brit Hume

Now some fresh pickings from the Political Grapevine:

Bribery Accusations

Last week, London newspapers published a story accusing the American Enterprise Institute, or AEI, of taking contributions from Exxon Mobil and, "attempting to bribe climate scholars" with $10,000 to dispute the findings of the U.N.'s climate change panel. The panel recently reported that it is now 90 percent certain humans are creating global warming.

But The Wall Street Journal found that AEI had only invited leading climate scientists of varying views to debate policy changes to address whatever warming there is. Then yesterday, Senators Bernie Sanders, Patrick Leahy, Dianne Feinstein and John Kerry, assuming the London reports were accurate, complained to AEI, saying, "does your donors' self-interest trump an honest discussion over the well-being of the planet?"

But AEI says no one ever contacted them about the truth of the reports. And Exxon, which contributes a relatively small amount to AEI, hadn't even HEARD of the project until they read about it in the London newspapers. They're demanding a retraction.

Openly Gay Kicked Out

Representative Marty Meehan plans to reintroduce the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, a bill that would repeal the Pentagon's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy — enacted during the Clinton Administration. It prevents gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military.

Meehan is trying to round up votes by pointing to an overextended military, saying the policy has robbed it of, "11,000 able-bodied, capable and willing soldiers, sailors, and airmen and women" who were kicked out of the military for their sexual orientation.

He originally introduced the bill last year, but it was blocked in committee.

Not Just Cell Phones

Vermont legislators want drivers to keep their eyes on the road. They're considering a ban not just on cellphones... but also on eating, drinking, smoking, reading, writing, personal grooming, playing an instrument, or interacting with pets or cargo while driving. Violators would face a fine of up to $600.

Representative Thomas Koch, who sponsored the bill, drew from his own experience, saying, quote, "...somebody opposite me was trying to navigate around the corner with a cell phone... in one hand and a cigarette in the other , and she wasn't doing very well."

If the bill passes, you won't be able to comb your hair, pet your dog, or drink coffee... much less play the flugelhorn... while driving.

Restroom Equality

Female lawmakers are pushing for equality in congressional restrooms. A Politico.com reporter found Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz measuring the Speaker's lobby to look into having a women's restroom installed nearby.

Wasserman Schultz said, "we have an inequitable situation here," and argued that with the extended workweek and an increased number of votes, there should be another women's room near the House floor.

FOX's own reporter checked it out ... and says it takes about ten seconds for male legislators to get to the closest men's room, which is just off the House floor, while it takes women just a little more — about thirty seconds to get to their closest restroom.

—FOX News Channel's Martin Hill contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251241,00.html

[Hobbit]

Only in a Democrat controlled congress can a bill forcing you to spend your own money on views you don't espouse be called "Fair."

[red states rule]

To libs you are to stupid to make the correct choice, so they have to make it for you

That is being "fair"