O'Reilly on Romney: "He's got the jaw going on, the little gray thing in there. And I think that means a lot in America"
On the May 30 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly said: "[Y]ou can't get more presidential-looking than [former Massachusetts Gov.] Mitt Romney [R]." O'Reilly continued: "[I]f you were to make up a guy, this would be the guy, you know, that looks presidential. He's got the jaw going on, the little gray thing in there." O'Reilly concluded that Romney's "presidential" looks bode well for his electoral prospects, saying, "I think that means a lot in America."
As Media Matters for America has documented, numerous other media figures have praised Romney's appearance or asserted that he looks like a president, including Republican pollster Frank Luntz, Newsweek senior writer and political correspondent Jonathan Darman and assistant managing editor Evan Thomas, MSNBC host Chris Matthews, Politico chief political columnist Roger Simon, former Time magazine White House correspondent (now chief political correspondent for The Politico) Mike Allen, NBC Today co-host Matt Lauer, and NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert.
From the May 30 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: But he's got a very -- how important in this world is Romney's appearance? Which, I mean, you can't get more presidential looking than Mitt Romney.
I mean, look, if you were to make up a guy, this would be the guy, you know, that looks presidential. He's got the jaw going on, the little gray thing in there. And I think that means a lot in America.
DENNIS MILLER (comedian): Well, I do, too. But when you back it up with the fact that he's competent, too. He ran a pretty tight Olympics. And you know, this is the guy who invented Staples. And I think he understands a step-by-step business plan. And I think the Staples thing is going to come out as adversaries best keep their head up, because it will be death by a thousand paper cuts with Romney. It will be a very --
O'REILLY: Staples, the Staples department store? Is that what you're saying?
MILLER: Staples office stores. I think --
O'REILLY: Yeah, the office stores.
MILLER: Romney was there at the beginning of that.
O'REILLY: Mm-hmm. OK.
MILLER: So, I mean, he's as pretty savvy guy. Not only does he look good. He's good at what he does.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Sadly, he may be right. The intelligence of an electorate that would twice elect Numbnuts Bush is...well....questionable.
But I thought the red peeps preferred a good ol' cowboy to an elitist northeasterner. I'll bet Romney drinks green tea and has been to France !!
"He's got the jaw going on, the little gray thing in there..."--Bill O'Reilly.
Perhaps Bill is closer to Romney than we realized.
Do you think Bill was holding a Loofah under his desk?
Or maybe a little gray thing!
Oh I just threw up a little bit in my mouth.
that happens to me when I listen to baby bushs "word salad" speaches and picture barb bush in a thong. Thank god that is not that often.
There are websites for people w/your fantasies.
What are those sites??
Suggested caption for that O'Reilly photo: "Even with a double dose of the Viagra, Doctor..."
Suggested caption for that O'Reilly photo: "Even with a double dose of the Viagra, Doctor..."
Millers response; "Seems normal to me."
Without my glasses miller looks like sadam.
He's right.
I'm not sure why Media Matters even posted this. Appearance sometimes can be a factor in becoming president whether we want to admit it or not. Look at the Kennedy Nixon debate.
I think Media Matters is displaying the instance in which it's okay to be superficial about a politician's appearence (you're a Republican) and when it's not (you're a Democrat).
Another great instance of that darn conservative "misinformation."
If you were going to have someone play the president on TV, one could easily see Romney or a look alike fitting that role.
Another futile attempt to marginalize O'reilly but all it really does is call into question MMFA's judgment. Perhaps they're reporters don't know what misinformation means? Perhaps they don't know what their own mission statement is.
Change your name to "BAsh republicans and the right and all their supporters and anyone who speaks favorable of any of them" .
I know it's harder to abbreviate nut we wouldn't want to misinform or mislead anyone. Right?
I thought that Republicans were mostly rich according to you guys. If that's the case, then how can all these rich people be unintelligent?
Nerzog didn't write "Republicans". He was writing about the "electorate". Can you read or are you just pathetically unaware of the difference between the two?
The majority of the people who voted for Bush were Republicans. Get a clue.
Thank you for providing evidence to support Nerzog's original assertion.
Thank you for providing evidence that you're not really "open minded" after all.
And what's up with Dennis Miller? Did he take a bath in the Right-Wing Koolaid, or what?
Dennis is working for them. He always treats his employer's with respect. Ask HBO, I don't think he ever did a joke about HBO, and he worked for them for years.
Like many of us, Dennis woke up after 9/11.
By "woke up," I assume you mean he reverted to the emotional stability of an eight-year-old and bought into the"War On MOMMY_I'M_SO_SCARED_SAVE_ME_FROM_THE_SCARY_PEOPLE!!."
Yeah, I noticed that, too.
Actually, by "wake up," I think he meant that people started realizing that the enemies of America are serious about killing us and have demonstrated the ability to do so. Therefore, as a country we need to go after them and kill them before they can do us any more harm.
Then maybe we should have done that instead of invading a country that had nothing to do with that.
So, being in Iraq and killing the terrorist insurgents there translates to "not going after the enemy?" I'm not following something here.
Those insurgents weren't there when we invaded. So had we stuck with going after terrorists we would be well ahead of the game by now.
You people are hopeless. Wherever we are/were, you'd blame Uncle Sam. You're not fooling anybody.
You seem to confuse blaming a policy of the current president with blaming America. Do President Bush's policies = America to you? Are we allowed to critique them without being against our own beloved country in your mind?
Don't you think it is self-serving and insecure to frame your argument so dishonestly?
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when they deserve it Mark Twain.
Ignorance is not knowing the difference. solon
Going after the terrorist insurgents that we created by our presence, instead of the ones who attacked us, is not "going after the enemy".
baby bush should have stayed in that classroom and finished "my pet goat". I am sure he would still be reading it and we wouldn't be talking about Iraq.
With your inability to reason (i.e., one's ability to defend himself), you will call insurgents, terrorists (or anybody honked off at the U.S.) etc. justified in their actions.
You do not have the discernment to defend yourself. In your hesitation and neurosis, you are easy prey.
He never said terrorists were justified.
Lemoc 0, Logic 1
I'd have to agree, your not getting somthing(s) here. Per the firedoglake blog, so far there's well over 600,000 Iraq dead in our little occupation. Thats very impressive, not that we killed them all. How far do we have to depopulate and ravage that country, that was not a threat to us, before we can declare victory and a wasteland created symitaneously.
This jingoistic crap scares me worse than any terrorist. Do these idiots realize just how stupid this is: "We have to kill them all before they kill us"? Do they even have a clue what causes people to become terrorists? Is their view of the world that utterly simplistic, that they think the "good vs. evil" rhetoric is anything but political manipulation of the weak-minded?
Here's a clue for the troglodytes...terrorists are made, not born. The more stomping around we do in the Middle East, the more terrorists there will be. WE CAN'T KILL THEM ALL. If we are to win the "War on Terrorism", it will be done with law enforcement, intelligence, and judicious use of military special forces. If we try to do it with tanks and bombs and battleships, we'll just ignite Armageddon. Oh, yeah, that's what these NeoClowns are hoping for....never mind.
This jingoistic crap scares me worse than any terrorist. Do these idiots realize just how stupid this is: "We have to kill them all before they kill us"?
It's even more ridiculous when you apply it to animals, since most only attack when provoked. For instance: You spot a hive of honeybees in the tree next to your house. Oh no, you have a beesting allergy! But those nasty ol' bees won't get you, cuz you'll KILL 'EM ALL! You get some spray and fire it right into the hole! Oh no! BEES! THOUSANDS OF BEES COMING AT YOU OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD!
Now you're dead from a million bee stings. Smooth move, Ex-Lax.
"The more stomping around we do in the Middle East, the more terrorists there will be"
Hmmm. Maybe you should support Ron Paul for President, since you both seem to agree that the United States was responsible for 9-11.
Hm. "since you both seem to agree that the United States was responsible for 9-11."? Let's correct that.
"...since you both seem to have a firm grasp of the effects of the US Government's foreign policy on already unstable regions." There! Fixed that for ya!
Terrorists are made how sir?
Could it be that the extremist ideology they're taught from an early age has something to do with it? I guess you haven't seen the Hamas Mickey...but then to you, Israel's probably responsible for that.
Some people are naive and I'd suggest you're one of them, The only answer to people like these extremists is to kill very one of them Period! They can't be reasoned with. They won't honor treaty's. You need to review their GOALS. You want to understand the terrorists great. I'd say you have a long way to go.
Of course an "extremist ideology" has something to do with it, but that is not "everything" to do with it, by definition, and so other factors like U.S. foreign policy also have a major influence on terrorists and their actions.
Islam in general is not "extremist" any more than Christianity is. Every religion has extremists, and if it were Christians in the situation in the Middle East you can bet the farm that people like Pat Robertson would be on television every week evoking God and Jesus in the name of violence.
That's a great source. You should rely on them for all of your stats.
Ofcourse, Iraqi sources and the UN disagree.
but Rosie agrees with you...so you're in good coompany.
"I'm not following something here." (john174541842)
You’ve got that right, johnny boy! If you think that the insurgents in Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, you aren’t following. Uncurl from that fetal position that you’ve been cowering in since 9/11 and you’d know that it is our occupation of Iraq that has created and fueled the insurgents there. The Iraqis weren't our enemies until we invaded and dismantled their country. Sure, a small number of terrorists (that catch-all label for Al Qaeda, AQ wannabes and any other bogeymen the post-9/11-craven see lurking behind every tree and beard) have taken advantage of the situation we created in Iraq — hey, even terrorists can recognize an opportunity when they see one! — but we have no one to blame but ourselves.
carpet bombing 24/7 for the next 10 years might solve the problem
No, that would just spread it, unless you plan on destroying the entire earth in order to weed out the insurgents/terrorists/wordoffearfortheday.
How much will that cost and how do we pay for it?
I get it. Flood the Middle East markets with carpets and it will destroy the demand for Persian rugs. Genius!
You can come out from under the bed now.
You have a strange definition of the term: wake up. How ironic that conservatives have accused liberals of having a mental disorder, then display this type of reasoning.
Sure there are enemies who want to kill us--always have been, and probably always will be. Your answer is kill them first, become more like them, throw away our civility, go after the ones who MIGHT do us harm. If we all follow your advice, some day in the distant future when the fighting has finally ended, there will be one person standing. Great idea!
So you would accept suicide bombings every day in America and do nothing about it, because killing our enemy lowers us? Please. Its not like our troops are suicide bombing innocent people on public transit, we do our best to target only the enemy. Maybe when somebody you love gets killed by a dirty stinking Islamofascist who drove one of our planes into our towers, you will see the need to hand out some punishment.
And enter into another cycle of violence. Thank you I have a nephew who spends time with the USN over there.
Shapespear did a whole play The Merchant of Venice on the bogusness of an eye for an eye mentality.
If I have a chioce between getting back the pain or working towards elimination of the source of the pain, I'll take the latter.
Standing by for your next attack. Though response may take some time. In the meantime do some reading on this site.
Working towards elimination of the source of pain. I like that, and I think it can be done with a lot less bloodshed. Let's wiretap all the mosques in America for sure, and as many as we can abroad; and do a better job spying on terrorist training camps. When a threat is identified, eliminate it. Basically, I'm saying that we need to monitor the religion of Islam so we can pick out and eliminate the radical factions of it.
Are you willing to apply the same treatment to american christianity so we can root out the Tim McVeigh's as well, or is this not an option?
What a foolish statement. Liberals love to associate Christianity with McVeigh, which couldnt be more incorrect. McVeigh was not a Christian. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that he was an “avowed agnostic.” Author Dan Herbeck had a number of conversations with McVeigh about afterlife, and state that McVeigh, “told us that when he finds out if there is an afterlife, he will improvise, adapt, and overcome, just like they taught him in the army.” Those are clearly not the beliefs of a Christian man.
And I would like to add that he certainly did not commit his crimes in the name of christianity with specific beliefs about a reward in the afterlife for his actions, like muslim terrorists do.
Skirting the subject again. I use the name as a generalization, you decide to make it only about the person and then dismiss the argument based on what you know about him (but I see you forgot to mention he had a nice Roman Catholic service at his execution. How unchristian...)
But hey, here's something else for you to chew on, this study points out that most american born terrorist cells exist on the right. Don't let that fact dissuade you from only wanting to bug non-christian religions!
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/193420.pdf
And you'll love this one too: Since Oklahoma City, more than 30 plots by US terrorists have been uncovered, including attacks on oil refineries, politicians and army bases.
http://www.thememoryhole.org/memoryblog/archives/000033.html
but hey, let's only bug non-christian religions, because going after a handful of extremists that may be here is far more important than going after a handful of extremists that are here.
Interesting facts, I won't deny that. But don't misinterpret me by thinking that I would not support the elimination of non-muslim terrorists just as much as I support elimination of muslim ones. I beleive radical Islamic terrorists are a much bigger threat to America than non-muslim terrorists, but we may never agree on that.
The only MAJOR thing I find lacking in your provided sources is solid evidence that these white people were planning on carrying out their attacks in the name of Christianity (or that they were even Christians). They were white, American, right-wing extremists. There was no mention of religion/christianity/God/bible/church in either of your sources. Find me white Americans that attempt to commit acts of terror in the name of Christianity. Find me Christian churches that promote acts of terror or violence against certain people or cultures.
Which of the thousands of forms of christianity ( is it the snake handlers or the sect that talks in tongues) are you refering to? There are various acts of physical and psychological terror perpetrated every day in the name of christianity in the USA. I believe if Jesus were alive today, or came back, he would be very upset. I am inclined to accept that Jesus studdied Budism during the thirteen years he was absent. Yet , If I built a Budist Temple here in this grease, sugar, bleached white flour and bible belt town, It would be burned down in short order. If I don't "believe" I will go to hell. This is a form of psychological terror based on intollerance, fear, superstition and mind control.
This one's quite juicy too!
http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/Christian_Identity.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=4&item=Christian_ID
You posted this less than a minute before I replied to your previous comment, so it does fill in what was lacking in your previous links. I'll just repeat...I would like to see any group that preaches intolerance, hate, and acts of terror locked up or killed.
Now you're being consistant across the board. That's what now makes your position supportable by libs like me!
Timothy McViegh was raised Catholic, asked for the last rites at his execution and told Time journlist Patric Cole he believed in God. The evidence really isnt all that clearcut one way or another he seemed to be agnostic sometimes and Catholic other times. Its not flat out wrong to claim he was Christian. I dont know any other reason he would ask for last rites at his execution
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/06/11/mcveigh.03/index.html
McVeigh, who made no final statement before his execution, was offered a priest by Terre Haute Federal Prison Warden Harley Lappin. McVeigh said he would consider the offer.
After a 15-minute meeting with Nigh, McVeigh agreed to see the priest and take the final sacraments of the Catholic faith.
"Let's wiretap all the mosques in America"--john
Great idea. It is well known that terrorists are strangely incapable of using phones that aren't located in a mosque.
Well, after all, they can't find the United States. They have to wait until we withdraw our troops from Iraq and then follow them over here.
We can hope terrorists are like ants - when the last American soldier comes home, he can lay a stick behind him, and cut off the scent trail from the terrorists following him over. If we're lucky, all the terrorists will get lost and end up in Amsterdam.
Try McGovern's and Polk's "Out of Iraq", several good suggestions in it.
You had until I saw "dirty sticking Islamofacists".
Name calling? This isn't the third grade. C'mon let's elevate the conversation a little here.
I think you meant to say: Let's make the conversation more politcally correct. Isalamofascist terrorists (or any terrorist of any religious background) are dirty, stinking, sub-human animals that deserve no respect. Or are you one of those people who see them as "brave freedom fighters" for their cause?
No, I don't think they meant to say that at all - they were simply pointing out that namecalling when discussing serious political issues is the primary sign of a failing argument. I'll even give you Islamofascists, as trite as that moniker may be, but "dirty, stinking.."? That would be namecalling, and that is cheapening the discussion more than necessary.
Why would a bunch of religious zealots with guns want to harm a group of people that worship their savior every sunday then go out and poison the temple of their soul with grease, sugar and bleached white flour then come down with obesity, diabetes while driving home in their gas guzzlers to watch porn while at the same time exporting this way of life around the world and professing that anybody that does not believe in our way will go to hell. Why would anybody hate a group of people that worships tractor pulls, baseball caps, moster trucks, hot dogs, apple pie, potato chips, pot bellies, divorce, marital infidelity, porn, pedophilia, monster trucks, pork chop sandwiches and beer as much as their savior? Why would anybody hate a group of people that have learders that lie to their citizens in order to export this way of life while controlling their natural resources at gun point? It is a clash of: cultures, religious dogmaand egos. " a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still"
OOOOKAAAAAY, Reverend Jasper.
I was being sardonic. Some of American culture should not be exported. And other cultures don't want it. Look what fast food has done to the escimos. Ron Paul was correct about "blow back" as a result of meddling in other nations governmental affairs. Our government is now "negotiating" with fighters in Iraq when just months ago told the world "we don't negotiate with terrorist. I like the old sayig: "keep your friends close and your enemies even closer"> Bill Mahr nailed it when he said: "bush has made one mistake after the other" Anything built on negative principles will collapse under its own negative weight. Interjecting religious dogma in decision making with respect to ANY policy will not work no more so than using a oweji board, reading tea leaves, or praying on it will work. Flipping a coin would be a better way. bush said he does not believe in nation building (during campaign against Kerry. This administration has done so much damage geopolitically Biden says it will take ten years for the world to regain respect for the USA. It is really going to be an interesting political landscape in this country in 09. How long does it take a group of politicians to forget being called America haters, Troop "haters", surrendercrats,and on and on. If the Democrats let that slide I won't respect them either. I want to see criminal charges filed, prison terms handed down and exposure of the machinations of the republicans from 2000-08 in the mass media. I hope to see one day a 2 party system consisting of the Democrats and the Libertarians. bush has "thrown a teaspoon of sand in the movement of a fine Swiss mechanical watch" He is a "skid mark on the briefs of life" He will go down as the most corrupt, malfeasent, incompetent president ever and it will take many, many generations for a President to even come close.
If you lost a loved one in the towers feel for you. However, there is a difference between justice and revenge. Going into Afghanistan was appropriate. They were supporting Bin Laden and had a direct hand in 911. Iraq was not the same issue. We were not going after the people that attacked us. Sadam was not an eminent threat to us and therefore we should not have attacked him. We should have finished the job in Afghanistan instead of spreading our military thin. Now Iraq is becoming the new land of terrorism and Afghanistan is going back to the way it was before we invaded. It seems to me you should be angry at Bush for not finishing what he justly started.
Believe me, I am angry with him, I think over 80% of the country is. Iraq is a stupid place for us to be now. Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia would have been all better choices than Iraq.
Yeah, but Saudi Arabia owns our Vice President.
You have been seen at gasoline stations. Therefore Saudi Arabia owns YOU.
Is that supposed to be a point of some sort?
WOW! Nice peice mind reading you did on me. Problem is, I never said any of these things.
Would I accept suicide bombers every day and do nothing about it? Did I say that our troops were suicide bombers and were not doing their best to target only the enemy? Did I say that people who fly planes into our buildings were not deserving of punisment? The answer is NO-NO-NO!
Now, go back and read what I wrote, then try harder to understand what it was I said. Your knee jerk reaction to disagreement does not mean that I said or implied any of the above statements you attempted to insert into my dialog.
Ok, I went back and read your original post. You say that we become more like the terrorists when we go and kill them. You leave it open ended after this, with no idea for a solution. I made my interpretation of your comments based on this logic: If we don't respond to acts of terror on America by wiping out our enemy, what will America be doing? Answer: Sitting around doing nothing...maybe trying to understand the radicals and attempt to come up with a way we can persuade them to practice peace and tolerance through negotiation. IMPOSSIBLE! You can't change people who are radical practitioners of their religion through negotiation!
I do however, have a solution that might be able to significantly help us without killing them. America needs to press 98-99% of "moderate" muslims out there to weed out these extremists, throw out their radical imams, shut down mosques that preach intolerance and hate, consistantly expose radicals to the world so they have nowhere to hide. Until moderate muslims step up to the plate and start making strides to clean up factions of their religion that they supposedly do not support, I do not see a peaceful end to this.
"IMPOSSIBLE!"
Why?They are humans, they are capable of some form of reason, but convincing them that America is not the Great Satan their brainwashers are saying we are will never happen as long as we are practicing war on innocents, encouraging the settlement of arab lands by subsidizing war against the largely unarmed, etc. We can't practice these horrible foreign policies and then pretend that these terrorists have been unprovoked, and we can't expect more of the same actions on OUR part to change THEIR minds.
You are a moronic dolt if you think we went to war with the objective of killing innocent people. I believe the objective was to eliminate the WMD threat, overthrow Saddam and instill democracy, whether you believe that or not doesn't matter, but those were the reasons. And please stop blaming America for creating terrorists, the religion of peace, Islam, creates terrorists. Maybe you should vote for republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, you seem to have a lot in common when it comes to blame America.
How did Islam create the guy who killed the Archduke, the killing that started WW I?
How did Islam create the Olympics bomber?
How did Islam create the guys who released Sarin gas in Japan?
It didn't. Look to the root causes of terrorism and you won't find religion there.
It's only your jingoistic fear that makes you delusional and makes you think you can find it there.
YOU are calling someone ELSE a dolt? YOUR ignorance is almost as monumental as your bigotry. When Jews were the worlds worst terrorists, it was understood that Judaism wasnt to blame rather the political dynamics of them wanting a homeland.
August 20, 1937 - June 29, 1939. During this period, the Zionists carried out a series of attacks against Arab buses, resulting in the death of 24 persons and wounding 25 others.
November 25, 1940. S.S.Patria was blown up by Jewish terrorists in Haifa harbour, killing 268 illegal Jewish immigrants (see below).
November 6, 1944. Zionist terrorists of the Stern Gang assassinated the British Minister Resident in the Middle East, Lord Moyne, in Cairo.
July 22, 1946. Zionist terrorists blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, which housed the central offices of the civilian administration of the government of Palestine, killing or injuring more than 200 persons. The Irgun officially claimed responsibility for the incident, but subsequent evidence indicated that both the Haganah and the Jewish Agency were involved.
June 1947. Letters sent to British Cabinet Ministers were found to contain bombs.
December 13,1947. Zionist terrorists, believed to be members of Irgun Zvai Leumi, killed 18 Arabs and wounded nearly 60 in Jerusalem, Jaffa and Lydda areas. In Jerusalem, bombs were thrown in an Arab market-place near the Damascus Gate; in Jaffa, bombs were thrown into an Arab cafe; in the Arab village of Al Abbasya, near Lydda, 12 Arabs were killed in an attack with mortars and automatic weapons.
December 30,1947. A mixed force of the Zionist Palmach and the "Carmel Brigade" attacked the village of Balad al Sheikh, killing more than 60 Arabs.
January 4, 1948. Haganah terrorists wearing British Army uniforms penetrated into the center of Jaffa and blew up the Serai (the old Turkish Government House) which was used as a headquarters of the Arab National Committee, killing more than 40 persons and wounding 98 others.
January 5, 1948. The Arab-owned Semiramis Hotel in Jerusalem was blown up, killing 20 persons, among them Viscount de Tapia, the Spanish Consul. Haganah admitted responsibility for this crime.
January 16, 1948. Zionists blew up three Arab buildings. In the first, 8 children between the ages of 18 months and 12 years, died.
December 13, 1947 -- February 10, 1948. Seven incidents of bomb-tossing at innocent Arab civilians in cafes and markets, killing 138 and wounding 271 others, During this period, there were 9 attacks on Arab buses. Zionists mined passenger trains on at least 4 occasions, killing 93 persons and wounding 161 others.
March 31, 1948. The Cairo-Haifa Express was mined, for the second time in a month, by an electronically-detonated land mine near Benyamina, killing 40 persons and wounding 60 others.
April 9, 1948. A combined force of Irgun Zvai Leumi and the Stern Gang, supported by the Palmach forces, captured the Arab village of Deir Yassin and killed more than 200 unarmed civilians, including countless women and children. Older men and young women were captured and paraded in chains in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem; 20 of the hostages were then shot in the quarry of Gevaat Shaul.
April 16, 1948. Zionists attacked the former British army camp at Tel Litvinsky, killing 90 Arabs there.
and many more see link
When the IRA was the worst terrorist band in the world no one blamed Catholicism. Yet when the same kinf of political dynamics make unstable and evil MUSLIMS become terrorists its Islams fault. Stop the bigotry the problem isnt Islam. These evil people are a threat, lets take care of them WITHOUT turning it into a Holy War.
Solon,
I've read a lot of your posts and I rarely agree with you. But the above post is disgusting and shameful. You find some garbage like that on a nothing website, don't second source and post it as fact.
Are you a jew hater? I don't see how you post that crap without being anti-semtic.
Let's not fail to mention that the link-through to the above material is full of 9/11 conspiracy crap.
I try real hard not to name call, but you sir, are as dumb as they come. If you were here, standing in front of me now, you'd have to explain that post or take a hard smack in the face.
For those of you that will say I'm advocating violence, I say, "just a little." There are some word worth fighting over.
The Jews are the terrorists. Just amazing.
I hope that expresses just how strongly I fell about it.
Ehuh?.. you do not get it... Solon was showing how *radical* jewish people used violence to get their way- just like *radical* muslim people... And if you REALLY don't think that jews in Israel do not use *terrorist* techniques to keep their lot in the sand, then you have not talked politics OR religion with any devout jewish people...
When I become HALF as stupid as you are post after post I will immediatly commit supuku. Those are historical events. Look them up yourself. Have you never heard of the King David Hotel bombing? In those days there were many acts of Jewish terrorism that is a simple fact, YOUR ignorance isnt MY fault.
In 1943, current Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir wrote an article entitled "Terror" for the journal of the terrorist organization he headed (Lehi) in which he proposed to "dismiss all the 'phobia' and babble against terror with simple, obvious arguments." "Neither Jewish morality nor Jewish tradition can be used to disallow terror as a means of war," he wrote, and "We are very far from any moral hesitations when concerned with the national struggle." "First and foremost, terror is for us a part of the political war appropriate for the circumstances of today, and its task is a major one: it demonstrates in the clearest language, heard throughout the world including by our unfortunate brethren outside the gates of this country, our war against the occupier."
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199112--02.htm
As for me being a Jew hater I am MARRIED TO A JEW YOU MORON. The point wasnt meant to denigrate the Jewish people which it doesnt only those who were responsible for those acts my point was WHEN it happened we aknowleged WHILE condemning it that it was a political situation and didnt blame it on Judaism. Again it isnt my fault you are too stupid to GET the point. Try getting a six year old to explain a post to you next time or someone with some level of reading comprehension beyond that of a ball of lint.
"I made my interpretation of your comments based on this logic: If we don't respond to acts of terror on America by wiping out our enemy, what will America be doing? Answer: Sitting around doing nothing..."
You then go on to forward your solution for wiping out the enemy without killing them. But what was it you said in your original post?
"Therefore, as a country we need to go after them and kill them before they can do us any more harm."
It's fascinating that your "logic" hinged on a binary "kill-them-or-do-nothing" choice, while at the same time you already understood there was a third option. Why is it that nobody else could have comprehended a similar notion as you had, and must instead be advocating "sitting around"?
I'm curious why you didn't object to your own comment to begin with. After all, there is another solution, right?
"suicide bombings every day in America"
Are you stupid? That will never happen buddy... I thought you were supposed to be "awake" or something... seems like you might be awake... in BIZARRO WORLD.
You're right, but tell me WHY that would never happen. HINT: it wont have anything to do with "understanding" the perpetrators. ANSWER: There would be the biggest man hunt in history, and the perpetraors would be killed faster than you can say Al Queda, sending a strong message to any future bombers.
Actually "understanding the enemy" plays a major role, but I will give YOU a hint, ITS NOT BECAUSE THE TROOPS ARE "FIGHTING THEM THERE" IN IRAQ "SO WE DON'T HAVE TO FIGHT THEM HERE". In fact, if that were true, what exactly would be the point of "Homeland Security" in the first place?
BTW,
Do you enjoy answering your own questions??
Just curios...
I am referring to the crowd of people who want to be sensitive to cultural differences and understand and talk about things instead of taking any forceful action. Of course you need to understand your enemy to a certain extent: Radical Islamic terrorists have been indoctrinated to fight for their religion and be against the west. We cannot change the way they think or what they believe through negotiation.
And I do not believe in the phrase "we fight them over there so we dont have to over here." That catch phrase should be abolished, especially after the Ft. Dix incident, we clearly are fighting them over here.
"I am referring to the crowd of people who want to be sensitive to cultural differences and understand and talk about things instead of taking any forceful action"
So exactly what is SO wrong with understanding cultural differences? What does that have to do with the "why suicide bombings won't happen in america" topic we were discussing? Are you afraid of other cultures? Why don't you try unraveling yourself from the fetal position and remove the thumb from your mouth. Also, please define "forceful action" as that is pretty vague. In fact, that entire statement is vague. Try harder.
"We cannot change the way they think or what they believe through negotiation"
DUH!!! First of all, thats NOT what "negotiation" is used for. And who is the "they" you are referring too? Again very vague, you need to try harder.
One correction, I see what you were referring to as "they" meaning, but again, thats not what negotiation is used for. You can't negotiate someone into changing their core beliefs. However, you can negotiate, money, detainees/prisoners, cease fires, etc.... You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what negotiation is used for.
There are some cultural differences we don't need to understand. If I'm on an island with cannibals I don't care why they're cannibals. I care about the fact I'm wearing a steak around my neck.
Yes but we arent talking about cannibals are we nor are we talking about ANY cultural differences comparable to cannabalism. That is unless you are a really moronic bigot we arent.
Point me to a single person who advocates that we talk to the people who are terrorists or who might become terrorists and doesn't advocate also punishing terrorists, and I'll straighten them out.
Until you find one, you have no point.
You'll never have a point, because there are no people that stupid. All the stupid people think that some people don't want to do anything about terrorism except talk to people. That'd be you, numbskull!
"So you would accept suicide bombings every day in America and do nothing about it, because killing our enemy lowers us?"
EH?! Please tell me about these suicide bombings we, as Americans, are dealing with on domestic soil. I seem to have missed that in the news.
People get killed by cobras sometimes, but we don't react by trying to wipe cobras from the face of the Earth, do we?
Wow, what a meaningless comparison. Get back to me when cobra snakes start killing people based on radical religious beliefs, comtempt for western culture and foreign policy.
John, just wanted to let you know that I appreciate your acknowledgement in answer to my post that started out "WOW." Fact is, (since you asked) I don't have a solution. I believe with my entire being that what we're doing now is certainly the wrong approach. Perhaps better intelligence working closely with defense would be an excellent place to start.
But, I have to ask, how can we possibly find a solution for a problem that we don't understand? As misguided as their reasoning is or may have been, these people must have thought they were justified. You and I don't agree with them. But, great strides have been made in law enforcement by studying and documenting the criminal mindset.
I believe in eliminating weeds at their roots instead of chopping off their flowers.
Everything changed on 9/11 (for those who were completely ignorant on 9/10)
Some of us woke up on 9/11 (the rest of us weren't in a stupor for our entire lives through 9/10)
They woke up and promptly stuck their heads in the sand.
We don't have to go after those who "might" do us harm.
But how bout the ones that say up front they want to harm us? The ones that have already taken action to harm us?
And I'm tired of hearing how Iraq had nothing to do w (/11. That's true and we all know it. But so what? Saddam violated his cease fire agreement with us over and over. We didn't need any additional justification to eliminate him. Bush original premise after 9/11 is that we'd make no distinction between the terrorists and those who support them. Too bad we're not MORE consistent with this, but Saddam certainly supported terrorism.
And killing killers doesn't make you the same as the them. That's a simple minded argument. To not kill them puts your family and my family at risk. If you've chosen to blow up women and children then you've picked your path. Hopefully, we'll be there to "pick you off" while you walk on it.
Ehuh?- thank you for acknowledging that our president and vice president completely lied to us or are so bleeping stupid they should not hold their positions... and if you are just going to be LAZY and say you are TIRED about worldly affairs, then, please, do not interact with people outside of your 10 foot radius.. and you are concerned about Saddam *violating* a *cease fire* when OUR PRESIDENT GAVE HIM WEAPONS?!?!... I realize this is another pandora's box for you- happy realization day!
OK, how is it precisely that you're going to determine who is going to harm us when you want to "kill them all" as you said in a previous post? It seems to me that this would require an enormous amount of investigation, infiltration, intelligence...police methods, in other words. It would seem that starting a war with a country that supported terrorism against Israel would undermine the efforts you believe are necessary, taking resources and creating an environment where reasonable Muslims lose motivation to be cooperative with us.
And speaking of Israel, they've violated UN resolutions too, last time I checked. They use terrorist methods too, as you've been informed already. So when America is under attack, why on earth do you believe we should invade a country that supports terrorism against a different country which has a checkered history of its own? Doesn't that seem a little low on the list of priorities, when we have such a pressing matter of "killing them all" at hand?
about fake patriotism i am i bouncer (crap job i know ) i used to work in a dueling piano bar , when they played the national anthem a few poeple stood and sang yet when they played proud to be an american by lee greenwood the entire bar stood up. me being a disgusting immigrant taking all your jobs and women making your kids stupid and running over little girls in virginia beach i was very confused .
I think it's because Lee Greenwoods song has a better beat.
Lee's song also doesn't reach up into the top range that much. I love watching people try to sing the anthem and making faces when it starts climbing.
If by "woke up after 9/11" you mean assumed the fetal position and cowered in fear, I think you may be right!
O'Reilly's got the dumb...
And he's got an ass...
That means a lot at Fox Noise.
I see, Edwards gets criticized for his vanity, but for Romney, well his look is just natural. No expensive haircut or makeup required!
Romney goes to Supercuts...
When he really gets worked up after watching Billdo in action, he uses the garden shears.
SuperCuts, the SuperCuts department store? Is that what you're saying?
This is getting un-freakin' believable.
When a party's agenda implodes and starts ticking more and more people off, they have to bring appearance to the forefront to sell their candidates.
I'd be happy with a freakin' Gelgamek for a president, so long as he's a good leader with good ideas.
Rosie for President.
Wasn't Stalin also considered handsome in his day?
He did have that "little gray thing" going for him too in addition to having one hell of a mustache.
I also hear that women swooned in the presence of Hitler, their dashing young fuhrer.
They were all left frustrated. Dolfy was given information that one grandparent was both praternal and maternal. He lost any desire for chidren at this point.
Don't forget Hitler was a one nut wonder. Obviously that frustration, then, also came from being testicularly impaired.
Ah yes, the first Hitler comparison of the day. I was wondering how long it would take.
I guess you have low standards for the definition of "comparison".
Where is the Hitler comparison? The comments only stated that Stalin and Hitler were also considered handsome.
No one compared anyone to Hitler. The premise of this thread is that O'Reilly and Miller think Romney looks presidential. What does that mean? I have a book opened before me which has either a picture or painting of each of our presidents and there are very few handsome men depicted. So to say that someone looks presidential because they're handsome is ridiculous.
Nixon was not pretty.
He was even uglier inside. I shook his hand in 1960 and I'm still trying to wash off any residue. It will not come clean.
Oh everyone loooved Stalin, Churchill and Truman and Roosevelt especially!
I guess he had the "daddy" persona!
In the legal profession, the saying is: If the law's against you, argue the facts. If the facts are against you, argue the law. If both the law AND the facts are against you, pound the table.
In political punditry, it's about the same: If conditions and reality are against you, argue ideology. If the ideology is against you, argue conditions and "reality". If BOTH ideology and conditions are against you (GOP), talk about appearance, looks, and haircuts.
Wow... that sums it up right there. I've never heard that. I'm in journalism, we're taught: "If there's smoke, there's fire."
We're the original ambulance chasers.
"In the legal profession, the saying is: If the law's against you, argue the facts. If the facts are against you, argue the law. If both the law AND the facts are against you, pound the table."
Actually, there are several alternative endings for the quotation. The one I was most familiar with, being in the profession, is "quote the Bible." However, I have found the most popular ending is "attack your opponent," followed next by "yell like hell." I find these endings applicable to political punditry as well.
So running Staples is his major qualification for President. I guess those wars with Office Max is his foreign policy background But maybe we'd be better off firing paper clips with rubber bands than firing missles and rocket
Dennis, you need a lobotomy.
Hey, y'all prepare yourselfFor the Rubberband manYou never heard a soundLike the rubberband manYou're bound to lose controlWhen the Rubberband starts to jam
(Sorry, couldn't resist...)
I think his problem is that he had one!
I think those wars with _________??? Speak volumes about Obama's background with foreign policy.
What was Bush's background in foreign policy prior to taking office?
Oil business, HAHA!
Seriously though, I don't support Bush, never have.
I disagree. You are soaking in it.
Ahhhhh, Junior got a war. It's too damn bad that he stared a war with the WRONG COUNTRY!
Geez, do we need any more proof that the party of moral values values looks over morals?
And O'Reilly finally proves that he is a racist:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/31/preserving-the-white-christian-male-power-structure/#comments
1: I guess he temporarily forgot to use code speak and basically speeled out wha he's all about.
2: Why isn't this on MMFA's front page and why is he getting a pass on this?
3: Is McCain too dumb to realize he basically just agreed with BO that "That this is the white man's country and we can't let the brown people take over!"
O'Reilly is exactly right here. Romney does look very Presidential looking. Even many on the left agree with that. His looks should help him a lot, especially with women voters. He's also very articulate and very impressive overall. And it's not a partisan thing at all. I would say the same about Bill Clinton. He was very Presidential looking as well, very articulate, and very impressive overall. There's nothing wrong with pointing out the obvious. This isn't "conservative misinformation" in any way.
I look forward to the day when O'Reilly goes on and on about how "handsome" and "presidential" John Edwards looks, and how that should help his election chances...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Oh wait. Edwards' good looks make him look like a "pretty boy" and unserious about terrorism over at Fox News. I guess you have to just be the exact right amount of handsome for Bill O'Reilly (i.e. a Republican). Good stuff
"His looks should help him a lot, especially with women voters"
==========================================
Stop projecting, women are not that superficial, thank you. Furthermore Romney isn't my type. His JIB is too contrived for my taste and that flippity floppity sound is annoying.I agree with Lynn. Women are not that shallow. Another meme spewed by the right. They said the same thing about Dan Qualye.
If a woman has a choice between two candidates, and likes each one an equal amount based on their viewpoints/values, but one is a big fat ugly slob and the other is fit, handsome and tall...I think both men and women are superficial enough to vote for the good looking candidate.
John,
with the stark differences between most of the candidates, and especially the parties right now, that is not going to happen.
I agree with you John, that is how JFK got elected. The problem here is that the right says it's great for Romney but bad for Edwards.
Dear John, that's not the point. Singling women out as more shallow than men is the point. We are not going to vote for some handsome guy just 'cause he's handsome and we're women. It's a ridiculous assertion. Not really offensive, just stupid - reflecting on the person who makes said comment.
I agree whole heartedly. The women in my family are at least as well informed if not more so than most of the men. They would be insulted if accused of voting for someone because of their appearance.
If it makes you feel any better, I remember watching the election returns on CNN last November. Bill Scnieder was commenting on the VA Senate race. He was saying that exit polls showed that women voted for Jim Webb because they liked his policies and what he stood for. The men, on the other hand, voted for George Allen because his father was a former coach of the Washington Redskins.
I think that voting for someone for their looks is pretty shallow, but voting for someone because his father was a football coach is just plain weird.
And watching CNN for non-biased news and meaningful stories is just plain retarted. Build up the women as intellects and cut down the men as inferior/bad/stupid people....sounds like CNN to me!
What news outlet are you watching? Maybe Fox News. Now that is retarded. I'm sure you believe the Fair and Balanced lie.
WTF?
Did it ever occur to you that in order to get up to date info on a non local election in the middle of the night you've only got two choices, CNN or Fox?
Are you trying to say that fox is "fair and balanced"?
And, there are many people who don't like name calling using euphemisms for mental retardation. You need to grow up and to learn how to spell before denigrating someone else's mental capability.
Projection accusing someone of actions that are retarded then mispelling the word is luaghably ironic. Do a lot of time on the shortbus did you? So in your world of whack delusion its ok for YOU to denigrate women for being superficial but if someone does it to men its 'retarted' (sic) man you are gone. Let me help you just a bit. Pretending that getting anything but propaganda from FOX is stupid. Getting information from CNN is about par for the course not much better or worse than any except FOX which is almost worthless.
Thank you for the mind-reading everyone...despite the fact that I take FOX news about as serious as I do CNN. I get my news through online sources. For example, I did not listen to any news outlets about the terrorist attempt on Ft. Dix a few weeks back, I read the actual FBI case that was submitted to the courts. If everyone would just inform themselves directly from the source of the news, we would have a lot less "misinformation" from the conservative or liberal side.
Solon, thanks for calling me out on the "retarded" misspelling. I would have jumped all over anyone who did something that stupid as well, haha.
Normally I dont take ANYONE to task for mispelling especially since I am a terrible speller myself it was the IRONY I was pointing out and the HYPOCRISY of attacking another poster for talking about the superficiality of male voters with SOME backup right after YOU commented on the superficiality of female voters with NO backup
Julia, thanks for asserting your radical feminism, we all got it after your first post. We know you are high strung because Rosie left the View, its going to be ok. We are just talking about stupid hair and looks here, not about policy that is going to affect your life.
I agree with friedberg and skeptical on this one...there a huge problem with building up Romney on the same things you cut Edwards down with. Again, hair and looks are a stupid thing to waste television time on, no matter who it attacks.
John, I didn't think it possible for you to sound any dumber. But Iwas wrong.
Julia,
Sometimes I think these your'e a wild eyed feminist guys just can't get dates so hey it's the fault of radical feminism and not the fault of them being obnoxious jerks.Oh, and btw the way John, I was talking about the pundits saying stupid stuff, not you. But you have exposed yourself. I'm surprised that in your overwrought hyperbole, you didn't accuse me of having my "aunt flo" in town.
heh heh. "aunt Flo". My girl says "Bill's here"
Wow John. You do know you are an idiot right? Julia said nothing within the same galaxy as radical feminist. She may be and it certainly wouldnt scare me the way it has obviously scared you but man you just pulled that directly out of your ass without even a hint of connection to reality.
Ah, Solon, don't be too hard on the young laddie. The bibee was just "project"ile vommiting on me.
Consider this: If I was sticking up for the integrity of white males, theres a good chance I would be labled a racist or bigot even though I'm not. So when someone sticks up for the integrity of women, I'll feel free to call them a feminist even though they aren't. Additionally, when we are talking about something as stupid as the looks of presidential candidates, I think most of us have already put logic and reasoning on the back burner.
Your attempt at backpedaling is amusing. Such a shame you've apparently hit a wall.
"If I was sticking up for the integrity of white males, theres a good chance I would be labled a racist or bigot even though I'm not."
Where? Certainly not here. Please head over to the men's rights pity party website, which is down the hall - be sure to take a hard, sharp Right.
You accused women of being shallow, were told you were wrong, and then created a strawman of a claim that if it had been said about males - no, wait, the ever-persecuted WHITE male - you'd be called a bigot. That's a flat-out falsehood. Can't you just be a man, be an adult, own up to your lie about women and apologize?
The white, christian male is currently under persecution in America, in my opinion. It was also my opinion that I smelled a hint of feminism in that comment, so I stated my opinion, which I stand by. If this were some kind of fact that I got wrong, I would apologize, but it's not, and I don't apologize to anyone for my own opinion.
If you have a mother, a sister or a daughter and you're not a feminist, then there's something wrong with you.
The problem, Johnny, is you have an opinion based on no facts. Calling someone a radical anything is hyperbole. There's no merit in it. But you've been busted and can't be white, Christian and male enough to admit it.
You have indicted many posters here in attacking the use of superlatives...it would come back to haunt you, but those same posters have pitifully short memories...
...and you indict yourself w/that last post...are you the bigot as you seem to sound?
Ok I guess I wont appologize for MY opinion that you molest small furry animals which I just pulled directly out of my ass just like YOU pulled yours accusing JJ of being a radical feminst out of YOURS. Your first assertion in the post I am answering is laughably delusional. There has never in the history of the WORLD been a more priveleged class of non royalty than white American, Christians and I say that AS a white American Christian.
So your guilt, wherever from derived, must be inflicted upon everyone else.
Well, that IS consistent with a genuine sense of community.
What guilt? I can easily believe YOU are stupid enough to feel guilty about things you have no control over and did nothing to bring about but I am NOT as dumb as you so I dont have such delusions of grandeur. I dont support policies that would maintain the obvious privilege I am talking about so my concience is clear. Would twere your logic were the same.
Pointing out that you've simplified the American female voter into a Presidential Beauty Contest is wrong is... radical feminism? Jesus. I didn't think your 'argument' could come across as any more pathetic.
John,
That's because you're a man, and we men are superficial.
Women aren't.
its misinformation if your not sexually attracted to romney i hear he is very popuar with housewives and mexican construction workers
"This is not conservative misinformation"
Uhhh, nobody said it was... MISSION STATEMENT NAZI. However, IT IS rightwing double standard and bias. That counts too.
If We the People can possibly elect a person based on his or her looks, then surely we get the government we deserve. I recall learning that in 1920 the nonentity Warren Harding was elected president, and the fact that he "looked like a president" was his single greatest political asset.
How superficial have we become, anyway? Could George Washington (powdered wig, false teeth), John Adams (fat, bald), Thomas Jefferson (stammer), or James Madison (short) possibly have succeeded in an environment like ours? And then you have Abraham Lincoln, who, in addition to being homely, tall, and gangly, actually broke with tradition and grew a beard while campaigning! How horrifying! Just imagine a 19th century version of Fox News dealing with that one.
O'Reilly used to get highlighted here when he insulted Democrats, now it's when he's complimenting Republicans. I imagine he will be ignored only if he insults Republicans and compliments Democrats.
These are two rightwing commentators offering up their opinions on a candidate's looks, something which has been focused on and dissected at length at least since Kennedy/Nixon. Nothing new.
Doesn't BO'R still advertise his show as the no-spin zone?
He advertises that, but it's hardly living up to that description.
... and that's why he's here. Thanks, Tommy, for finally getting the point! Your free toaster will arrive shortly.
These are two rightwing commentators offering up their opinions on a candidate's looks, something which has been focused on and dissected at length at least since Kennedy/Nixon. Nothing new.
That is sadly the truest statement yet. The moral majority puts a higher value on looks than they do on substance. How greatly have they regressed.
"Looks" are valued by nearly everyone. The "moral majority" doesn't value looks more than anyone else. If you want to say it's an American cultural weakness, then fine. But don't pin it on one group.
You read too much into my statement. I said the right is putting more value on looks than on morals, not that the right is the only group valuing looks. I think that is dead on, you hear more discussion on substance on the democratic side than on the republican side.
Songwriters get the most votes in the Donkey camp.
And morons get the most in the Elephant camp
Why are these 2 morons wasting air time discussing how Romney looks and not his platform? Why are you (Tommy) trying to use a status quo argument to defend this idiotic political commentary?
Oh please, where have you been? Looks and image are always going to be bantered around and discussed when it comes to candidates, if you think otherwise, you are either naive or disingenuous.
The candidates know it full well and play to it as much as they can, why else would Edwards, for example, pay a car payment for one haircut, think about it?
"Looks and image are always going to be bantered around and discussed when it comes to candidates"
I'm not sure what part of this your not getting Tommy. Yes the comment above is a true statement, but the question is why is that the case when it isn't relevant to making a decision on who to pick for the next president. Do you want people to choose the next president based off of his looks or off of his platform? We already know how un-informed most Americans are when it comes to our political system and politicians. Why would you defend something that only contributes to that downward trend in political knowledge with a status quo argument?
I would expect political commentary of this nature on the View.
You continue to not get it. You think because I am giving you what is the reality, you think I am somehow condoning it. No, I am simply saying that is the way it is.......you can live in a fantasy world about how things should be if you'd like. The fact is, people do vote based on looks or other irrelevant reasons all the time, that is reality. Do I wish they wouldn't? Of course, but you can wish it all day long doesn't make it so.
I'm glad that many people do not share your jaded view point.
Just because something is doesn't make it right and many people would like things like to have this type of commentary removed from serious political discourse.
Have you ever thought that maybe the reason this type of discourse is acceptable and doesn't bother the average American is because much of the MSM has made a mockery out of real news?
I would not disagree with you there. The news is tabloid-y these days and nothing but in your face graphics and one minute stories. But look at everything, sports on TV for example - we have a very short attention span anymore.........we agree on the detoriation of TV news, for sure.
I guess my main hope would be that instead of accepting our MSM, politicians, and political process as is more of the American people would let them know that we've had it and aren't going to put up with it anymore.
IMO apathy is the main reason that we're in our current situation.
Looks and image are just as important as religious background.
I'm just curious as to when 60 minutes is going to ask Harry Reed (a Mormon) if he had premarital sex.
Well, if the conversation with Harry Reid goes something like this
Mitt and Ann fell in love in high school in Bloomfield Hills. She converted from Episcopal to Mormon while Mitt did missionary work in France for over two years. But later he joined her at Brigham Young University. And while he was away, Mitt says, he was terrified that he’d lose her to somebody else. "You get all these Mormons out there with strict prohibition against premarital sex. They’re young and they’re attractive, the hormones work very well and people decide it’s time to get married," Romney says.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/10/60minutes/main2787426_page2.shtml
I would have no issue with that question being posed to Reid. Romney brought the subject up.
How about a similar question to candidates that profess to be pro-choice "Have you ever had an abortion in your family?"
Okay, I'll play your game. Let's see how that goes.
Mitt and Ann fell in love in high school in Bloomfield Hills. She converted from Agnostic to Atheist while Mitt did every girl he could hit on in France for over two years. But later he joined her at Berkley. And while he was away, Mitt says, he was terrified that she'd get pregnant by somebody else. "You get all these people out there with strict prohibition against abortions. They’re young and they’re horny, and the egg and the sperm work very well and people decide it’s time to get married instead of choosing to have an abortion," Romney says.
If that conversation happened, I would have no problem with a candidate being asked "did you ever have an abortion, or did your partner ever have an abortion, or did you consider having one?" It would seem like the appropriate question to ask after that spiel by the pro-choice candidate.
Go read the first transcript again, NTG. Romney stated (paraphrased, I don't copy/paste)"Because of the prohibition of premarital sex, they decide to get married." He has stated (as I read it), he would be against premarital sex, and yet Wallace asks the question. Don't have a problem with that as long as the abortion question is posed to those that profess to be pro-choice. And the whole reason the exchange came up in the "60 Minutes" interview is because a similar question was posed to Romney earlier, around the debate time (or maybe during the debates).
That's not what happened.
Too bad you don't copy or paste, or apparently read either.
I did a fine job of extrapolating from the original to the fictional and stayed true to it.
I'd have no problem with a candidate talking about how important that issue was in his life then being asked if he was personally affected by that issue!
Give Wallace a break. Asking questions about sex is as close as he's gotten to it in 40 years.
...and the appropriate question would be: how many inconvenient masses of tissue have been killed by your family members in the last 30 years?
"These are two rightwing commentators"
Not really. O'Reilly is conservative on some issues and liberal on others. Overall, he certainly leans to the right, but he's not a right wing partisan the way Limbaugh and Hannity are. He's usually pretty independent in his analysis. Also, Miller is more of a libertarian than a conservative. He's pro choice and pro gay marriage, but he's conservative on economic issues and foreign policy issues.
Rino,
Rightwing as opposed to leftwing. Actually, for accuracy, O'Reilly is a Bush suckup, and Miller is an opportunistic comedian whose found new life on Fox.
Neither one offers me anything, personally speaking.
Ditto Tommy !
Pretty good analysis I would say tommy
They're startin' to like ya, Tommy...
Again not accurate. I have ALWAYS liked tommy. That doesnt mean I take it easy on him and I am sure he doesnt expect that but stubborn as he can be I respect tommy and think him to be consistant and overall an asset to the site
What is O'Reilly left on, the new immigration bill? Also, Miller seems to be opportunistic more than political. I think you should re-examine your looks remark in the context of women voters. You have offended a few women here.
O'Reilly is pro choice, pro civil unions for gays, pro gun control, believes in global warming and wants the government to take steps to combat it, supports increasing the minimum wage, believes the oil companies are price gauging, and is against the death penalty.
My point about Romney is that there are SOME women who will vote for him because of his looks and because of his likability. I didn't mean to imply that ALL women will vote for him because of that. Like it or not, many people vote for certain candidates because they like them personally and not because of their views on the issues.
He certainly had a funny way of showing his pro-choice views when he published the names and doctors in Kansas last year:
http://www.alainsnewsletter.com/s/spip.php?article274
"Referring to Tiller’s late-term abortion business, O’Reilly said, “Is this what we want in America? Is it? This is the kind of stuff that happened in Mao’s China, Hitler’s Germany, and Stalin’s Russia. The American people cannot turn away from this – cannot ignore it. This kind of stuff simply cannot be tolerated in a civilized society.”
He supports "some" gun control, but I have never seen him explain that.
He wants more welfare reform, but would raise the minimum wage a buck.
He does have some moderate views, but on the whole, whichever way Bush blows, O'Reilly follows.
O'Reilly opposes all late term abortions, but he supports a general right to an abortion. He has stated that he doesn't believe that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. He supports abortion rights in the first two trimesters. He also supported some gun control laws after the Virginia Tech incident, such as more thorough background checks and a longer waiting period to buy guns.
Perhaps you missed the way good looks happen to be a plus for Romney and a liability for Edwards to these pundits. Keep pretending that both sides are being treated the same its nowhere in the reality based universe but its amusing.
That's because Edwards is as fake and phony as they come. He talks like he's just a good old southern boy, when in actuality he's just another elitest liberal. He doesn't impress me in the least. It blows my mind how anybody could actually vote for him. This is the same guy who said that Christopher Reeve would get out of his wheelchair and walk if John Kerry was elected President. Obama, on the other hand, is very Presidential looking, very articulate, and very impressive overall. I hope that he won't be the Democratic nominee, because he's by far the best candidate you guys have. He's the real deal. The media realizes that too, and they've praised him over and over again. They've talked about his good looks and his eloquent speaking style. You're insistence that the media has a conservative bias is absurd and is only shared by a VERY SMALL percentage of the American people. About 22% compared to 63% who believe that it's liberal.
You only wish that you could portray Edwards as fake.
He never said what you claim he said about Chris Reeve.
The fact that many in America think that the media is liberally biased only goes to show how good a job the right did with their propaganda. It's not evidence that the media is in fact liberal!
Are you really this stupid that you think that because many Americans think something is true, the actual truth is unimportant?
"He never said what you claim he said about Chris Reeve"
Did you not watch the Vice President debate in 2000?
Duh.
"If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve will get up out of that wheelchair and walk again," Edwards said.
Edwards did not say that Reeve would walk again. He said that if Kerry were elected, people like Reeve would get out of wheelchairs and walk again.
He was talking about the expansion of embryonic stem cell research with new lines funded by the federal government that Bush banned.
As Edwards's spokesman said, "Yes, breakthrough research often takes time, but that's never been a reason to not even try -- until George Bush."
Edwards was pointing out one of the many differences between Kerry and Bush. Kerry would have re-opened that federal funding of embryonic stem cell research and allowed new lines to be examined. He was not saying that Christopher Reeve would walk again.
I told you that Edwards never said that. I was not wrong.
Media Matters debunked this 2 1/2 years ago. http://mediamatters.org/items/200410130006
I think RINO owes you an apology.
I think, just for fun, I'll hold my breath, waiting for him to do it, because he's such a good sport.
Good grief. Talk about parcing words. Sorry that I wasn't "technically" correct. I left out one word. LIKE. Edwards said that if John Kerry were elected President people LIKE Christopher Reeve would get out of their wheelchairs and walk again. I'm sorry about leaving out that one word, which makes absolutely no difference at all. He had the same point either way.
You left out two words, actually, and there is a stark difference between saying "This man in front of me WILL WALK!!" and saying that with research, men LIKE that man will be able to walk. It's entirely possible that Edwards was wrong about the statement and that even if Kerry had the opportunity to advance an agenda that prioritizes stem cell research that it would never help even one parapalegic, but it's far more likely that advancing this research WILL do great good towards curing these ills.
Your sputtering about Edwards is meaningless, and his point was correct.
Hey, Edwards has zero chance of becoming President, so who cares about him, or john kerry. I'll be back in January 2009 when Edwards is NOT being inaugurated.
Is that intended to be some kind of dig? Will you count it as some kind of silly \/\/1|\| if in 2009 Edwards is not being sworn in?
Or are you promising to stay away for two years? :D
Parsing words?
Delusional.
"This is the same guy who said that Christopher Reeve would get out of his wheelchair and walk."
Edwards never said what you claimed he said. He never said, nor ever meant, that Reeve would walk again. When he said this, Reeve had just died! Edwards knew he had just died. There's no way he literally meant that. You claimed he did literally mean that with your statement. I said Edwards never said that, and numbskull that you are, rather than verify that I was right or verifying that you were right, you asserted that you were right, and unfairly smeared me!
Delusional people do that kind of stuff. People interested in reality don't.
RINO,
You're entire world is interpreted through Republican colored glasses and under the influence of that delicious kool-aid that Republicans like you lap up. You said yesterday that you support Romney for president. You also said that Romney PRETENDED to be a moderate to survive politically in MA. So Romney PRETENDED to be pro-choice, in favor of Gay rights, and pro gun control to win votes. An honest AUTHENTIC man would have held true to his principles correct? Romney did not do that according to your own assessment, yet you have the audacity to call Edwards a phony, and you proudly proclaim your endorsement of a phony for president. Why? Is it the cut of his jib or is it because he's a Republican and you obviously hold Republicans to a different standard and that standard is pretty low. Reading the book "What's The Matter with Kansas” gives me some understanding of what’s behind your obvious Republican Party worshipping. Kansas isn't just a conservative state it's a Republican state and apparently Republism is tantamount to a religion there. You did say that you would support illegal immigration if you thought the people would vote Republican? You’re an interesting fellow."You did say that you would support illegal immigration if you thought the people would vote Republican"
No. I never said that I supported illegal immigration. I just said that I would accept a majority hispanic population if they would vote Republican. I would never support illegal immigration under any circumstances. I'm just saying I wouldn't have any problem with whites losing the majority and their power status if the people who replaced them were conservative and Republicans as well. As far as Romney goes, I believe that most of his changes in positions were authentic. His change of belief on the abortion issue is very similar to Reagan's conversion, and he had a very pro life record as Governor of Massachusetts. I don't care what the guy said thirteen years ago. That's irrelevant. Edwards, on the other hand, changed his mind on a crucial issue within the past few years. He supported the Iraq War early on and even claimed that Suddam had WMD's, and now he blasts Bush for going to Iraq and lying about the WMD's, when Edwards himself unequivically stated that Suddam had WMD's. Romney has never changed his mind on an issue of FACT, only on a few ideological social issues. That's the difference.
RINO: I don't care what the guy said thirteen years ago.
Oh, good. Then I'm sure this is the last time we'll hear about Chris Matthews working for Jimmy Carter, much less the whole Robert Byrd in the KKK repititia.
By defanging the Right of some of their most tiresome talking points, you, RINO, have provided a great service to legitimate discourse. Just remember to spread the word among your fellows.
Probably not because you opened that can of worms again. It now becomes fair game for discussion. If you believe Byrd has had a change of heart over the years, it is fair to assume that others can also. If you believe Chrissy has evolved over the years, it is ok to think that others could also.
You're insistence that the media has a conservative bias is absurd and is only shared by a VERY SMALL percentage of the American people. About 22% compared to 63% who believe that it's liberal.- RINO Hunter
If that's true, it's scary.Do you have a source for that?
Here you go:
http://www.zogby.com/News/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1262
My numbers were slightly off. It's actually 64%-28%.
"...97% of Republicans surveyed said the media are liberal..."
I think the zombies may have skewed this poll a bit.Still, it's interesting as far as "perception" goes.
I'm a zombie? How long have I been dead?
..how long have you been Republican???
Per Zogby's disclaimer +/- 4% (or was it +/-2.4%). Sure the hard right sees a left skew in the media, just as the hard left sees a right skew. According to the survey, 2/3 of independents think the skew is to the left. The media has some PR work to do (or rely on websites like this to do it for them).
In wingnutville, truth is determined by the number of people who believe something is true, like significant quantities of WMD in Iraq. Oh wait. Maybe that was a bad example.
: (
...like the MOMENTUM that gathers in a mania such as believing that climate can be manipulated if you get enough people wishing that it could be...
Or, as John Carpenter put it... 'In the Mouth of Madness'... if the masses agreee, it is what is... I will fight the fight... 2007!!
Or pretending Global Warming will cease to exist like tinkerbell coming back to life if enough people just keep SAYING it isnt so.
OK that is YOUR take here is MINE. You missed the point because you are a MORON. YOUR hatred of anything left of Attilla the Hun in no way mitigates the FACT that good looks are treated differently by O'falafel when they are worn by a Democrat like Edwards than when they are worn by a Republican like Mitt.
"O'Reilly used to get highlighted here when he insulted Democrats, now it's when he's complimenting Republicans"
You know Tommy,
Those two items are not exactly mutually exclusive... in fact they go hand in hand, which is you know... THE POINT.
You can choose to ignore my post, because I know your AFRAID to debate me... I used to respect you, but now think your nothing more than a mission statement/"nothing to see here, move along..." nazi.
He looks like Dudley Dooright to me. Lets make him a Canadian Mountie.
Woah, Horse!
Is it just me or is O'Reilly showing Dennis how big his thingy is?
Hilarious MMFA picture edit of Bill O’Cutoffhismic. Well done. I think we can fill in the blanks as to what he’s measuring with his fingers. I just saw an old repeat of Dennis "the rightwing Mennis" Miller on HBO a few days ago. Wasn’t sure of the date but I recall him getting a lot of audience flak for a sarcastic joke about then presidents Reagan’s lack of attention to the AIDS epidemic. That was it as far as anything directly political but the rest of his gags were classic Miller observations and funny as hell. What a shame that Bushco, and his great uniters, have co-opted a once keen "everyman" observer of the human condition.
Hahaha !!!! I didn't notice that til you mentioned it !! I guess he's doing a bit of self-assessment in that capture ....
This conversation between O'Reilly & Miller, concerning Romney's *look*, daffy as it is... is harmless.
To many Romney probably fits some sort of image they have as to what a President might look like. It's an image right out of Hollywood.
Mmmmm...
I meant the conversation was daffy--not Romney's *look*
Thought I'd better clarify that ;-)
Darn, that quacks me up! No ducking that one, eh?
You're quick today snoop!
:-)
Sure it seems harmless. But if it leads to "DOUBLING GUANTANAMO," is that harmless? It harms the Constitution futher than it has already been harmed.
"But if it leads to "DOUBLING GUANTANAMO," is that harmless"
Ya, I would say so. The only thing that would be harmful is closing down Club Gitmo and letting all of the terrorists go, which is what many of you want. I believe that we need to keep the terrorists off of US soil and keep them in a secluded place. Doubling Club Gitmo sounds like a pretty good idea to me. I'm not sure what you have against Muslim resorts.
I disagree with you on two things. On the torture issue: IT AIN'T NO CLUB. There is torture happening there and they are major violations of the the Geneva Conventions.
The other issue is that the detentions themselves violate not only the Geneva Conventions, but the Constitution.
You somehow believe that I want terrorists to get away. That makes no more sense as someone believing that you want innocent people to be imprisoned and tortured.
If we let all of them go free then the terrorists will definitely get away. If we imprison and torture all suspects, no terrorist will get away, but many many innocent people will be seriously harmed. The answer is somewhere in the middle and the best answer to the question presently is to abide by the law. If we don't, we move closer to being like the terrorists ourselves who don't have any respect for law.
Why is it that there are many conservatives that claim that there is no torture happeningj but then argue for how much we need to torture?
If you think playing loud rap music and changing room temperatures is torture, then I guess I can't really change your mind. To me it sounds like an average night in a dorm on a college campus. The prisoners at Gitmo receive a free Koran and prayer rug when they get there, three big meals a day, an air conditioned facility, an outdoor basketball court and volleyball court where they can play all day, etc. These terrorists are living a lot better life than they were before they got to Gitmo. In my opinion, we're treating them much better than they actually deserve. Also. if we close down Gitmo like many on the left want, then what would we do with the terrorists? Also, it's not unconstitutional to hold the terrorists at Gitmo. Even the liberals on the Supreme Court have ruled that it's legal to hold the terrorists there.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/05/31/fourth-suicide-at-gitmo/
You take a good look at that photo. If that is not torture, and they actually live in a resort, name one resort or even an American prison where this happens.
The photo is pretty vague. It doesn't provide any context of what's going on. There's no story and no caption. The prisinor in the article died from suicide, not torture or murder.
Yeah I'm sure he committed suicide because they were treating him SO well, and everything was peachy keen in his life. What's wrong with you?
I'm trying to contain my anger here, so all i'll say is "SHUT UP."
Gitmo prisoners are treated fine, any news out there to say otherwise is extremely biased against the US military. Remeber the panties-on-the-head "torture" at abu-ghraib? If that is how our media defines torture, then we should send some of our sexual deviants there to get off, theres got to be plenty of people with a panty fetish that would love it. Look at REAL torture of those capured by Al-Queda, and explain to me why the media has not reported on the good work our military has done in iraq by saving these victims of REAL torture: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0524072torture1.html
"I'm trying to contain my anger here, so all i'll say is "SHUT UP.""
Well, then. I see our debate skills are finely tuned in here this week.
No one is arguing that our enemy doesn't torture. We're arguing that OUR standards are higher, or should be, because we're supposed to be the good guys. By the way, the very LAST thing you need to do in this conversation is bring up Abu-nakedguys, which WAS full of torture, as proof that... we don't torture?
By the way, if no one is reporting all the good thing we're doing over there, how do you know about it? Psychic powers? Perhaps you're sitting in on briefings? You know about it precisely because it IS reported. Don't get pissy because it doesn't get the coverage you think it ought to - to be quite frank, there are far bigger things going on in this war and the American public would be woefully misinformed if chickenhawks like yourself had their way and the news was filled with little Abu getting a chocolate bar, or about the Army enginners finishing a school (despite the fact that the last school they erected is in near ruins because it was immediately targeted by the ever-growing enemy).
We do not share your rose colored glasses, the media (by the urging of the public) has ceased wearing those ridiculous glasses, and if you want to continue pretending everything's hunky dory, you can find somewhere else to read your news.
"By the way, the very LAST thing you need to do in this conversation is bring up Abu-nakedguys, which WAS full of torture, as proof that... we don't torture?" -- I'm sorry, I failed to see sever lashings and burnings on the "abu-nakedguys" or Gitmo prisoners. That was extreme humiliation and degradation, not torture. If I was a prisoner of the enemy, and they did that to me, I would be thanking God that they DID NOT torture me.
Additionally, thesmokinggun.com is not a news source that the public should have to navigate to to find out about a story of this magnitude. But, since it might shed muslims in a negative light once again, and our military in a positive light, media outlets will run stories about Lindsey Lohan taking drugs instead.
Have you brought these concerns to the military?
If there was no abuse of prisoners, then why are so many enlisted men in jail?
There most definitely was abuse. Prisoners were tortured and killed and there were a number of violations of the UCMJ. Those responsible disgraced their uniform and their nation.
"That was extreme humiliation and degradation, not torture." --john
What about the ones who died? Should they be thankful they weren't tortured, but merely humiliated and degraded to death?
They should be happy that they got to spend time at Club Gitmo before descending into hell.
I have to love how sure of yourselves you fundies are.
Maybe while the suspect is down in hell, you, Rush and Duncan Hunter can give him some rice pilaf and declare hell itself to be a "resort".
Leftopians should endorse a doubling of Gitmo. The additional employment of Cuban nationals will give a payroll boost and the consequent enhancement to the Workers' Paradise's image --always a good thing.
Rightfascists keep saying incredibly stupid things like that in the hopes people will BELIEVE they make sense
Perhaps they will be thankful for the company WHEN YOU JOIN THEM
So you're putting me on the same level as murderous terrorists who murder innocent women and children. Nice.
And your evidence that they murdered ANYONE is WHAT? Oh it doesnt exist? You pulled it directly out of your ASS because if it WERE true it would be convienient for your argument? Imagine my suprise. You are denigrating people who were beaten to DEATH. And you have NO reason to believe they were guilty of ANYTHING other than being in the wrong country at the wrong time
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4944094/
GENEVA - Intelligence officers of the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq estimated that 70 percent to 90 percent of Iraqi detainees were arrested by mistake, the Red Cross said in a report that was disclosed Monday
The point is YOU DONT CARE. You dont care if they were innocent you dont care if they were tortured you dont care if they were raped and murdered. They are THEM, so you will just DECLARE they are terrorists so you can put your head in the sand, like I said propaganda isnt meant to convince people who know what is going on but to give cover to moral cowards who WANT attrocities to take place so they can FEEL safer without admitting it is wrong.
And also, quit falsely claiming that we murdered the terrorists who committed suicide. Like John said, they could've committed suicide so they wouldn't have to give us useful information about other terrorist cells. I don't know why you're always so quick to blame the military without even knowing all the facts.
Wrong again. I was referring to the homicides that have occured at these US detention centers.
Still committed to the LIES huh? You are either really dumb or brainwashed beyond belief.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/07/iraq.abuse.main/index.html
"The American public needs to understand we're talking about rape and murder here. We're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience," Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told reporters after Rumsfeld testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
"We're talking about rape and murder -- and some very serious charges."
Rumsfeld told Congress the unrevealed photos and videos contain acts "that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhuman."
STOP LYING ABOUT THIS.
"STOP LYING ABOUT THIS"
Stop hating and denigrating the United States military.
See you DONT CARE that the rightwing propaganda you spew is true or not so you put out this weak strawman. Is what I said Wrong? Is there anything you can show to dispute the absolute FACTS here? No you dont even try, thats because YOU DONT CARE. This is a bad thing, bad enough to make you mad yet you dont GET MAD at those who are responsible no you get mad at ME for intruding reality into your sick and perverted world of comfortable delusion. You LOVE to be lied to. You PREFER the lies that allow you, a moral coward to support policies of torture rape and murder, with the pretense of a clear concience. My father was a 20 year marine. I am concerned about the effects both on those who are being tortured AND those who are torturing. THIS IS POLICY, it also makes me angry that WHEN the policy is uncovered as the article I cited pointed out, then those DOING what they are told become scapegoats. You dont care about them either. YOU only care about your Bush idolotry and supporting this adminstration no matter WHAT. You think your brainwashed servile ignorance is helping the military? Do you think they dont WANT to uphold the standards that once had the US held to a standard of universal respect? I think it is YOU that hates our military and anyone else that gets in the way of your stupid lying rightwing propaganda
The next time you hear about some local corrupt cop who gets convicted of dealing drugs or murder, I want you to blast anyone who talks about it for "denigrating our heroes in the police department".
Does that help you understand the idiocy you just posted?
You are simply terribly misinformed. You need to read this article from Time and this one from MSNBC. There are some more links from both articles to other stories about US involvement of abuse/torture. For the love of God, please educate yourself.
I'm glad there are plenty of military-hating media outlets to make you liberals happy. I support the military and whatever they feel they need to do to gain intelligence that will in turn protect innocent American life. Dentainees at Gitmo have no rights, they simply have a mind that can be broken and provide us with intelligence needed to fight terrorism.
So you choose to attack the media outlets ad hominem instead of addressing the issues they brought up? No argument from you then?
I support the military, and WILL NEVER sympathize with terrorist detainees.
Who was asking for your sympathy? You seem to be under the wrong impression that educating yourself is somehow abetting the enemy.
Well, because of his love of ignorance, his support of torture which degrades our whole culture, and his suggestion that people who support learning about our enemies also don't believe in doing anything active to punish those who are terrorists, he is "the enemy"!
People like him, if allowed to flourish, will ruin our nation. They are the enemy. He is the enemy.
And the evidence you have they are TERRORISTS IS WHAT??? Oh you dont have any? Imagine my suprise. Seek professional help immediatly. Also you probably havent thought of this but the one BEING tortured isnt the only victim. The ones doing the torturing might be caught up in the moment, in the feeling of necessity but lets for a moment consider what if they ARENT like you that is without a shred of decency or humanity. What they do NOW in the illusion of legitimacy could haunt them the rest of their lives. The psychological trauma THEY recieve might be something you want to consider after all THEY arent brownskinned OTHER people like Muslims
If we agree on nothing else, lets try to reach clarity/agreement here. The prisoners we take at Gitmo are taken because we have received some kind of intelligence that the individual was involved or connected to terrorist activity. Our troops dont just go to the market on saturday afternoon and randomly pick innocents by tossing a football into the crowd and whoever catches it is the unlucky new prisoner. So, we have prisoners who, through some form of intelligence, we know to have have been linked to terrorism. Can we be clear on that, or agree on that?
"Some form of intelligence" is not an acceptable standard to hold people indefinitely or to assume they are guilty. Any government can always claim they have intelligence to support any action, that in itself does not justify the action. It has to be revealed and evaluated. As far as we know, the intelligence is simply one person's testimony, even if they have personal or financial reasons for getting the suspect out of the way.
If you were being held for a crime and all you were told was "we have our reasons to believe you're guilty", maybe you'd get it.
How about getting some clarity by having some dim idea what you are talking about. Many of the detainees were SOLD to us by bounty hunters
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-11-03-gitmo-detainees_x.htm
Human rights advocates say many detainees were not fighting the United States, but were captured in the chaos of war or sold to U.S. forces by bounty hunters. According to court papers, Hassan, 25, says his capture was "a mistake" that occurred in a college dorm in Pakistan, not on a battlefield in Afghanistan.
Apparanly you forgot about the Uigers.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/23/AR2005082301362_pf.html
In late 2003, the Pentagon quietly decided that 15 Chinese Muslims detained at the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, could be released. Five were people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, some of them picked up by Pakistani bounty hunters for U.S. payoffs.
Can we at least agree that all you are doing is spewing rightwing talking points without the slightest idea if they are true or not?
Do you support the military with just your mouth like many of the leaders and talkers from the right?
no, I support them out of my pocket as well. I recently donated to the marine defense fund because george bush enjoys court martialing our marines for doing their jobs.
Oh, I thought you might have put your ass on the line at one time.
Not sure which Marines you're speaking about, but the only Marines I know that have been put on trial, have been charged, tried and in some cases convicted by the USMC, not the president.
Bush is commander in chief and ultimately responsible for what happens with the military. He also has the power to pardon. Why are you arguing chain of command?
Bush has no say over who is arrested or charged with violations of the UCMJ.
I do agree that Bush is responsible for what happens with the military.
He should be charged himself with what he's done to our military and for what they've been prevented from doing by going into the quagmire in Iraq.
You mean like THIS?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/09/AR2006070900178.html
BAGHDAD, July 9 -- Military investigators brought charges against four more American soldiers accused of taking part in the rape and murder of an Iraqi girl and the killing of three members of her family, the U.S. military said Sunday.
The four active-duty soldiers from the Army's 502nd Infantry Regiment of the 4th Infantry Division are accused of conspiring with Steven D. Green, a former private, who was charged with rape and murder in federal court earlier this month.
According to military officials and court documents, the soldiers entered the family's home, took the girl to another room and raped her. They then reportedly shot her and killed her mother, father and 7-year-old sister and tried to set a fire to cover up the crimes. The killings were initially reported as an insurgent attack.
Just doing their jobs like THAT? You are sick. Please seek the help of a mental health professional immediatly
NEWSFLASH! ATROCITIES HAPPEN IN WAR!!!
Hooda thunk it? First time it ever happened.
Can't wait to see the Leftoid version of a military, if you ever get a chance.
Minister of Duh-fence will be Rosie O'Donell.
Yes attrocities happen and when they DO what do you do about it? Do you get to the bottom of it? Punish those who do wrong or say well we just joined the evil doers club but we arent as bad as the other guys. The post I responded to was about how horrible it was that Marines were being prosecuted for DOING THEIR JOBS. Well here are some of the Marines being prosecuted. I guess when you dont have a shred of human decency you just shrug things like this off like you just did. Attrocities happen like the rain oh well. If Rightfascists like YOU had their way the Surgeon General would be Dr Mengele
Well at least you have outed yourself as admittedly not having a shred of human decency. Exactly WHAT useful information are they going to have after FIVE YEARS? Do you KNOW they are all guilty of anything terrible? The DOD isnt even CLAIMING all of them are. We got many of them by offering a bounty. EVERY HUMAN BEING HAS RIGHTS. Anyone who says what you did is several rungs below pondscum on the evolutionary ladder.
The types of interrogaton described in these articles are only mild forms of coercive interrogation and not torture. We didn't cut off arms and limbs, electricute, drill holes, etc. THAT IS TORTURE! That's what the terrorists do to their captives. We don't engage in that brutality. One of the "torture techniques" described in the article was "sexual humiliation." That basically means that a female interrogator comes in and flashes them or does something like that. If that's torture, I'd gladly be tortured any day.
"The types of interrogaton described in these articles are only mild forms of coercive interrogation and not torture. We didn't cut off arms and limbs, electricute, drill holes, etc. THAT IS TORTURE!" --rino hunter
"Torture" is a legal distinction that is avoided often by reporters. It also appears you have your own self-serving definition. Nonetheless, the "mild forms of coercive iterrogation" as you call them have been called torture and "tantamount to torture" by our own State Department, the International Committee for the Red Cross and many human rights organizations.
The list of "tactics" from the first article I cited included: sleep deprivation, prolonged isolation, sensory deprivation (visual and auditory), sexual humiliation, nudity, exploiting prisoners phobias (notably fear of dogs) exposure to extremes of cold, stress positions, water-boarding and threats against family members. Other articles I have cited include beatings, mock executions, hooking up prisoners to electrodes, &c.
Each year the United States State Department produces a report called the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. The State Department has explicitly condemned the above practices as torture when they have been perpetrated by other countries:
Iran:
Egypt:
Jordan:
Turkey:
There are many more examples of the State Department specifically calling these methods "torture". You can check them out on the main link above.
The ICRC has also publicly called what has transpired at Gitmo "tantamount to torture" - which is quite remarkable considering they usually prefer to keep things as low key and confidential as possible.
One of the "torture techniques" described in the article was "sexual humiliation." That basically means that a female interrogator comes in and flashes them or does something like that. If that's torture, I'd gladly be tortured any day.--rino hunter
There are many different ways to "sexually humiliate" someone. I don't think you would be quite as enthusiastic about a naked man-pyramid as the example you cited above. Then again, maybe you would be. Whatever floats your boat.
; )
Your link didn't work. I assume you're talking about what happened at Abu-Grab. If that's the case, what you're talking about hasn't actually happened since then, and what happened at Abu Grab wasn't condoned by the military leaders.
You are merely speculating. There is evidence that contradicts your claim.
RAPE AND MURDER according to REPBLICAN Senator Lindsey Graham. You are a liar. Appologies for torture make my skin crawl
And sympathy for terrorists make me sick!
You ARE sick you need professional help you are a sick disgusting sociapath that keeps responding with LIES to salve your concience for not having a shred of human decency. I have already cited a report that says our OWN INTELLIGENCE says between 70 and 90% of those at Abu Ghraib were taken in sweeps and by mistake and were not even ACCUSED of any wrongdoing. YOU. DONT. CARE. All you care about is the cover a moral coward like you needs to support torture rape and murder without feeling bad about it and denigrating anyone who would dare to intrude upon your carefully constructed LIES with REALITY. You are disgusting. So your projection is to project your self loathing onto me pretending that even though I have already SHOWN that all these guys arent terrorists I am showing sympathy to terrorists. Either cough up some evidence like I have done, to support your contention that ALL these guys are terrorists or admit you are a lying piece of garbage not fit to call yourself a human being.
For your own good, I hope you keep a lot of good friends around you at all times.
While you're worrying about whether you've hurt some mugger's feelings, you'll be a perfect victim for him.
For YOUR own good I hope you keep nurses around you at all times besides being so stupid you are bound to just forget to breathe someday you are a sick, depraved, souless, piece of garbage and need the help of a mental health professional desperatly. I see massive doses of antipsychotics in your future
I am trying to contain MY anger BITE ME YOU MORON. Your ignorance and lack of humanity are all well and good. Good luck with them. FACTS are FACTS. I have already linked to a site that described a beating and incurred BRAIN INJURY to an American just POSING as an Arab at GITMO. Also the the ACLU site that has memos from an FBI agent describing torture techiniques at GITMO. Feel free to be as ignorant as you want. I understand you WANT to be lied to. You BEG for lies that will conform to your delusional fantasies. You cross the line however when you demand WE not tell YOU any inconvienient FACTS. Stew in your ignorance. Keep your narrow world focused on the lies and propaganda but those of us who prefer the REALITY BASED UNIVERSE will NOT conform to you demanding LIES YOU MORON. People like you are bad for America. You WANT to be lied to and I get that. Propaganda isnt meant to convince informed people its meant to give cover to moral cowards like YOU. So you dont have to stand up to power and say THIS ISNT WHAT AMERICA IS. We demand you uphold the values we associate with our good country. No you demand the LIES. Faced with FACTS and REALITY you get mad not at those who DID the things that make you mad to hear about no at those who state FLAT OUT FACTS. You demand your fantasies. The TRUTH isnt biased and THAT is what you dont like. Feel free to demand gallons of koolaid and lies by the truckload but dont expect us to take you seriously nor to take laying down your DEMAND that we serve you ONLY the LIES you prefer. Grow up. These FACTS are not our dirty little secret. THAT is being kept ONLY from the American public. Which of course is how you want it.
I guess they didn't get an extravagant enough desert. Also, how can you have so much sympathy for these murderous scumbag terrorists when you have no such sympathy for innocent unborn babies who are murdered everyday?
Exactly. I often see liberals in here chastising conservatives for not being consistant, and you just pointed out their hypocrisy. It's ok to choose to kill innocent babies, but it's not ok to detain terror suspects to get information from them.
I have never seen a liberal even once approve of "kill[ing] innocent babies". Not once.
You on the otherhand apparently think it is fine to abuse, torture or possibly even murder mere suspects of crimes without trial.
Wrong. Most liberals approve of killing unborn babies. Otherwise, they wouldn't fight so hard to keep it legal. Liberals care about "human rights" for terrorists but not for unborn babies. That's the simple truth. They can't grasp the difference between innocence and guilt. And no, I don't support torture and murder. The United States government has never used torture or murder. We use some mild forms of coercive interrogation to get information from terrorists that could potentially save thousands of lives. We don't cut off arms and limbs, electricute people, drill holes in them, etc. like the Muslim extremists do to their captives.
Fetuses are not unborn babies.
There's no such thing as an unborn baby. Before a baby is born, it's an embryo and then a fetus. It's not a baby til it's born.
An abortion doesn't kill an unborn baby. It allows a woman to control her own body, rather than the fetus to control her body. An abortion removes a fetus from a woman's body, not a baby.
Exactly. Rino Hunter is just using a form of Rightwing political correctness. Liberals don't advocate for anything other than the choice be the mother's. I personally do not like abortion and I have often counseled against it when I am asked my opinion.
What rino hunter wants is for everyone to legally abide by his own particular metaphysical opinion on the matter.
Do you have any idea how stupid you sound, approving of killing a baby that is HALF BORN (or more), making its way out of the womb, would be crying in a coupla minutes if not killed first?
At least have a brain about THAT kind of abortion. Your ostrich act is truly pitiful.
Some torture is undeniably worse than other forms of torture.
That simple fact doesn't mean that what some US citizens did to suspected terrorists was not torture.
Why are such simple things so hard for you to grasp? Oh, that's right, it's because you're a numbskull.
"We use some mild forms of coercive interrogation to get information from terrorists that could potentially save thousands of lives. We don't cut off arms and limbs, electricute people, drill holes in them, etc. like the Muslim extremists do to their captives." --rino hunter
By your self-serving definition, John McCain wasn't tortured by the NVA:
...
McCain came back with all of his limbs, there was no mention of him being electrocuted and he didn't have any holes drilled into him. There was an awful lot of the "etcetera" apparently. Whatever you meant by that.
If you believe McCain was indeed tortured, then you need to throw away your silly definition, because it appears at best inconsistent with what happened to him.
If you somehow believe McCain wasn't tortured, then you are consistent, but you are also marginalizing your argument to the point of complete irrelevance.
Getting your arms broken and getting beaten constitutes torture as well. I don't believe there is any PROOF that our military has actually beaten the terrorists. If there was, then I would definetely call that torture and say that it should only be used in a very rare ticking time bomb situation.
Then as usual you are grossly misinformed and there is no excuse for it the Taguba report SPECIFICALLY cites beatings with broomhandles and chairs. Not to mention sodomizing detainees with chemical lights. Then there is Bagram Air force base where prisoners were beaten to DEATH.
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/05/10/040510fa_fact
Taguba’s report listed some of the wrongdoing: detainees; pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape; allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell; sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick,
http://action.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/102405/
This last shows the AUTOPSIES by the DOD showing at least two beating deaths, cause of death blunt force trauma and ruled homocides by the coroner and one STRANGULATION at Nasriya base in IRAQ
Get your head out of the sand people are being horribly abused and tortured sometimes to DEATH.
"We don't cut off arms and limbs, electricute people, drill holes in them, etc. like the Muslim extremists do to their captives." --rino hunter
There is a guy at Abu Ghraib named Ali Shalal, who disagrees with that statement. I don't know how credible he is, but he claims to be a guy from the famous Abu Ghraib photo. He also claims to have been raped/sodomized and electrocuted while at Abu Ghraib Prison.
You do know that there is an Al-Quaeda handbook which tells them that they should always claim to be tortured. Don't you? It's nothing more than propaganda from Al-Quaeda, and it's sad that you believe an evil terrorist over our own military.
You do know we have PHOTOS that Lindsey Graham say depict RAPE AND MURDER. That even Donald Rumsfeld describe as sadistic cruel and inhuman????? You MAY be brainwashed but we arent. FACTS ARE FACTS.
"That even Donald Rumsfeld describe as sadistic cruel and inhuman"
If that's the case then it obviously wasn't condoned by the higher up people.
Right because they would just admit it and go quietly to jail. Are you kidding me? Seymour Hersch probably Americans most respected and pre-eminent investigative reporters says this program came right out of Rumsfelds office called operation Copper Green. I already cited another article which said this was policy
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/05/24/040524fa_fact
The roots of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal lie not in the criminal inclinations of a few Army reservists but in a decision, approved last year by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to expand a highly secret operation, which had been focussed on the hunt for Al Qaeda, to the interrogation of prisoners in Iraq. Rumsfeld’s decision embittered the American intelligence community, damaged the effectiveness of élite combat units, and hurt America’s prospects in the war on terror.
According to interviews with several past and present American intelligence officials, the Pentagon’s operation, known inside the intelligence community by several code words, including Copper Green, encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners in an effort to generate more intelligence about the growing insurgency in Iraq. A senior C.I.A. official, in confirming the details of this account last week, said that the operation stemmed from Rumsfeld’s long-standing desire to wrest control of America’s clandestine and paramilitary operations from the C.I.A.
The people assigned to the program worked by the book, the former intelligence official told me. They created code words, and recruited, after careful screening, highly trained commandos and operatives from America’s élite forces—Navy seals, the Army’s Delta Force, and the C.I.A.’s paramilitary experts. They also asked some basic questions: “Do the people working the problem have to use aliases? Yes. Do we need dead drops for the mail? Yes. No traceability and no budget. And some special-access programs are never fully briefed to Congress.” (Why do you think this needed to be so secret?)
Fewer than two hundred operatives and officials, including Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were “completely read into the program,” the former intelligence official said. The goal was to keep the operation protected. “We’re not going to read more people than necessary into our heart of darkness,” he said. “The rules are ‘Grab whom you must. Do what you want.’ ”
You keep tossing these rightwing talking points out there and I keep swatting them away with FACTS. When are you going to GET that you are completely WRONG on this issue? Completely lied to and repeating LIES?
JOHN:
Fundamentalist Muslims treat their women exactly as you would have America treat HER women: Forced to carry a pregnancy to term at the muzzle of a state gun. You would deny American women the RIGHT to CHOOSE.
Similarly, you wish to apply RELIGIOUS SPECIFIC definitions to medical conditions. A fetus, to you, should by our law be defined as a "baby", and thus treated as if born with full citizenship rights. In a Theocracy, such as Iran, such religious specific definitions ARE the LAW, and once again you wish our nation to become like our enemies.
One of the rationalizations given by the rightwing to promote torture is that our enemies will not be following the Geneva Conventions, so we should abandon them as well. Once again, we are behaving exactly as our enemies.
Bush and his supporters are fond of saying, "9/11 changed everything." Who knew that this meant that the NeoCons wished to change America from a freedom loving and principled and ethical nation, into a mirror of the most brutal and controlling of our terrorist enemies? What Americans are turning AGAINST these days, is the notion that Bush wishes to abandon America's greatness and good morality, and become dictatorial intolerant brutal monsters (in response to 9/11).
I'm reminded of the saying in VietNam, "We must destroy the village to save the village." It is so wrongheaded: we must fight to PRESERVE America, not destroy it from within ... because we are scared, or mad, or because of the ambitions of evil men who desire unfettered power. We CANNOT abandon our greatness, or the terrorists will have truly won.
It disturbing to hear that you are happy that our country is short millions and millions of lives because women had their "right to choose." Perhaps one of those millions of aborted lives was destined to cure cancer or aids, on the other hand, perhaps one of them could have stood up and started a movement that would shut down Gitmo forever. You never know.
All I know is that any information we get from terrorists is good. The terrorists in Gitmo are their for a reason, they were involved in terrorism somehow. It's like catching a robber beat a store clerk to death on video tape...I'm sure you think he is innocent until a court finds him guilty. Legally, thats true, but common sense tells you the man is guilty from the second the crime was committed. Stop sticking up for the terrorists. These sub-humans couldnt be put through enough torture to punish THEIR crimes against humanity.
"The terrorists in Gitmo are their for a reason, they were involved in terrorism somehow. It's like catching a robber beat a store clerk to death on video tape...I'm sure you think he is innocent until a court finds him guilty. Legally, thats true, but common sense tells you the man is guilty from the second the crime was committed." --john
You didn't read the above article I provided. If you had, you would know how ignorant your remarks are:
Outside of your "guilty because we say they're guilty" fallacious argument, your facts are ignorant as well. Please do some reading the next time it is suggested to avoid making such a complete fool of yourself.
Again, can't wait to see your "sensitive" military if you Utopians get the chance.
Sorry to interrupt your rightwing violent fantasies, but the interrogators themselves mostly agree that "rapport building" is more effective than other forms of interrogation.
The only reason to behave as it appears you prefer is utter sadism.
I cant wait to see the Police if you Fascists get your way. We will probably be torturing children in two years to get them to confess to truancy
No its NOT like that, it isnt anywhere NEAR like that. Its like the police SAYING we THINK this guy beat a store clerk to death often because we have someone SAYING SO. Prove they are terrorists and then you can treat them like guilty people. Accused is NOT guilty. Many of them were SOLD to us by bounty hunters with a monetary incentive to make them out to be terrorists. I think your willingness to accept any self serving statement from this administration is laughably niave. IF they are terrorists we ought to be able to show that. WHEN that is done fine. YOU want to be able to treat them like criminals without establishing that they ARE criminals.
"Fundamentalist Muslims treat their women exactly as you would have America treat HER women"
Then they're actually right on one issue. Most religions teach that human life is sacred and should be protected. It's mostly just liberal atheists who don't want any protections for the unborn at all. Also, terrorists at Gitmo have no rights. They aren't US citizens and aren't entitled to the same Constitutional protections that we are. They fight for no country, where no uniforms, and haven't signed onto the Geneva Conventions, and thus they aren't entitled to them.
As one of the Geneva Conventions signatory nations, the United States is bound by the agreements. We have always abided by our commitment to the Geneva Conventions and generations of Americans have proudly fought and sometimes died knowing that the country whose uniform they wore was a signatory to the Geneva Conventions.
Section 4 provides protections for those who take up arms against an occupying force.
Section 5 provides protection and says that anyone whose status has not been determined by a tribunal must be accorded prisoner of war status.
I'd suggest you learn a little about the things you try to argue.
Please provide a source so I can see the exact language and not your paraphrasing. Thanks.
Do your own research.
Maybe you'll be able to use the same source you used yesterday where you found the information that you used to dishonor every man who's ever been drafted into service of his country.
Like I suspected, you have no source and simply made up your information. I also see that you like to distort what other people say. Saying that an all volunteer army is more effecient than an army that was drafted isn't degredation, it's a fact. Every military commander will tell you that. I never said that everybody that was drafted was a bad fighter and didn't want to be there. That's an outright lie. Do you really deny that there were SOME Americans who were drafted who didn't really want to fight in the war?
Here are your first words on the subject.
"If you had a draft, you would obviously have a lot of people fighting that didn't want to be there, and they wouldn't be very good fighters."
While the first part could be true, the last part is not. You stated that because someone was drafted "they wouldn't be very good fighters."
I never claimed you said that everyone who was drafted was a bad fighter.
I did say that the above sentence dishonors every man who's ever been drafted.
I haven't distorted anything. I'm just trying to make you see how insensitive I, and other draftees find your comment.
I'm sorry if you were offended. My point was simply that in a draft there are going to be SOME people who don't want to be there. If these people didn't want to be there, don't you think they would perform more poorly than those who actually believed in the mission? I'm sure that you and your father served heroically in the war. I'm not claiming that you didn't. I'm sure that MANY draftees were great fighters who believed in the cause. I was simply pointing out that when you have a draft, there are SOME who don't want to be there who drag everybody else down. I think that an all volunteer army is a good thing and we should stick with it. Most Americans agree.
I don't know most Americans.
I do know that even if a person is drafted and sent to war, by the time he's involved, there's no turning back. Once there it's a matter of survival. Only someone with a death wish would slack off in combat.
*YAWN*
No argument about torturing suspects who aren't provided the most basic of the human rights we supposedly hold dear, so we pull up a tired cliche about abortion. Boy! Couldn't have smelled that way out a mile away.
Salon.com has a whole load of pictures of torture vics from Abu Ghraib if you want to salivate over them, Johnny. Your overwrought hyperbole makes you sounds very immature and exposes you as someone who has little grasp of facts and logic. I don't know why you want to take everything that makes this country great and throw it into the sewer. We liberals love our country more than that. We are true patriots who dissent when our leaders are taking us into bad places. We beleive in the rule of law even though it's sometimes frustrating and inconvenient.
I've seen the pictures thousands of times. Did you know the media ran over 6,000 stories about the abu-ghraib non-torture? They painted the American military as the bad guys, and the terrorists as the victims, thats fact. Please just tell me why no other media outlet besides FOX and CNN run stories on this: [link to www.thesmokinggun.com]
Would it show the American military as being the good guys, or being successful? Would it cast muslim extremists in an even more sub-human disgusting light? Please tell me why you think this REAL torture has not been shown to the American public at least as much as the abu-ghraib junk.
Is it painful to think in black-n-white?
Just because terrorists are bad, we don't get to torture them.
Just because American soldiers are people we should support, that doesn't mean we should ignore it or excuse it when they fail to honor their commitments and our treaties.
The fact that good people sometimes do bad things escapes your notice? The fact that even bad people are people escapes your notice? How is that possible?
Everything escapes this nitwits notice. So many righty talking points, conflations, stawmen, distractions, lies and deceptions.....so little time. He's probably one of those authoritarian follower types, so sad. Because we don't support Bush's erroneous policies and torture, we somehow hate the troops. This guy is a load of crap.
Hey dude, torture doesn't work. Quit watching 24. If you are of military age, sign up and see what real war is like. It's not pretty.
Dodging the question. Why won't the majority of media outlets run a story that shows our troops as compassionate life-savers? I understand they alsa do bad things sometimes, but thats not what I asked you about. Is is so painful to admit our troops are overwhelmingly outstanding people doing great things?
And why are you all labeling me as a Bush supporter? I have already stated in here that I do not support him, or this war of his. I support our military action against terrorists, and think we should spread out into other nations that harbor terrorists.
Who is not admitting that our soldiers are overwhelmingly good people doing good things? So because the vast majority of soldiers are good, we should ignore torture, or what?
What the hell do you imagine your point is, exactly?
"Also, how can you have so much sympathy for these murderous scumbag terrorists when you have no such sympathy for innocent unborn babies who are murdered everyday?" --Rino Hunter
These people are suspects. You are aware of that aren't you? Are you also aware that we have little to no evidence to backup your assertions about these suspects?
That's what we have military tribunals for, but the left doesn't even want that.
Here are your first words on the subject.
"If you had a draft, you would obviously have a lot of people fighting that didn't want to be there, and they wouldn't be very good fighters."
While the first part could be true, the last part is not. You stated that because someone was drafted "they wouldn't be very good fighters."
I never claimed you said that everyone who was drafted was a bad fighter.
I did say that the above sentence dishonors every man who's ever been drafted.
I haven't distorted anything. I'm just trying to make you see how insensitive I, and other draftees find your comment.
These tribunals are NOT a court of law. Yours is a sham argument, and from what I can gather, just a lame attempt to smear liberals. You are not influencing anyone here. Do you go home at night and hit your head against a wall, while yelling senseless epithets at "liberals". Just wondering.
Actually, the Bush Administration doesn't want trials of any kind. Much of the evidence against the detainees would not hold up in any non-kangaroo variety "court" as it was largely gained illegally or is often entirely circumstantial.
That link to the MSNBC story earlier spells out the way the administration predictably painted themselves into a legal corner regarding the possibility of ever successfully bringing these suspects to trial.
Of course, this could never really be a conservative's fault. Could it? The administration will likely blame all of their court losses on an out of control liberal judiciary in order to salvage political points from their loyal barney-bloc of supporters and other clueless people.
The point to me is a FAIR trial. One I would be ok with if my son were facing it from the other side. The basics of common law being administered. As long as that is done I am not concerned whether they are military or not.
I cannot believe your lack of humanity and basic decency. What if it were YOUR son sodomized, Beaten, raped, MURDERED? You are sick and sickening. Your making light of this with your desert comment shows you are subhuman. These people have NOT been shown to be guilty of ANYTHING yet you condone their torture rape and murder. You need help. Try to retrieve your soul before it is too late. I am ashamed to be the same species as you much less from the same country. Americans like YOU make America look bad.
Or perhaps he committed suicide because he had information about his terrorist group that he did not want to accidentally let slip. Why would you make a definative conclusion about why someone committed suicide from a picture?
You mean people commit suicide without it being somebody else's fault?
Impossible.
You're right. Perhaps it was Halloween and they were all dressing up like tortured prisoners of war.
Good one. But seriously, where's the torture? Like John said, the real torture is what Al-Quaeda does to their prisoners on a regular basis. What we do is nowhere close to being torture. It's simply mild forms of coercive interrogation that are necessary to get information from terrorists that will stop future terrorist attacks and save thousands or maybe millions of lives. I don't know about you, but I would rather put a murderous terrorist through a little discomfort than have thousands of dead Americans.
I don't know about you, but I'd rather live in a country that values human rights than one that will do anything it pleases because it claims it's in the national interest. I suppose if I really enjoyed living in a country that is hostile to human rights, I could move to Iran or China and practice in their state worship, but I'd rather live in a country that is supposed to be the land of the free, home of the brave, and a shining example of opportunity and equality.
So yeah, when the government decides that none of that is important, I'll use my right to be upset - while I have that right, that is.
I guess locking up terrorists that are a threat so the safety of civilians in every country in the world is bad for human rights, and must strip us of the title "land of the free, home of the brave." I want to take a trip down memory lane to when FDR suspended the constitution in order to detain all japanese people in America because we didnt know who was a spy and who wasn't. Good thing people like you and other supporters of this website didn't exist in large numbers back then. Knowing that our homeland remained safe and secure throughout WWII, was it wrong to detain those who might have compromised that safety. I know you will say yes, but after the war America became greater and more powerful than it ever had been...and we didn't become a dictatorship like you think Bush is trying to do now. Matter of fact since then we have done more for human rights than has ever been done in history.
"I guess locking up terrorists that are a threat so the safety of civilians in every country in the world..."
And they're all terrorists according to whom?
"I want to take a trip down memory lane to when FDR suspended the constitution in order to detain all japanese people in America because we didnt know who was a spy and who wasn't. Good thing people like you and other supporters of this website didn't exist in large numbers back then."
Most people would admit that suspending the core legal principles of our nation would be a bad thing. But the ends apparently justify any means, even if it violates our very foundation, in your mind.
"Knowing that our homeland remained safe and secure throughout WWII, was it wrong to detain those who might have compromised that safety."
Yes! By your logic we could shoot Muslims in the street at random, as long as the homeland remained safe and secure. Also, what is the evidence that the detention camps had an effect on our safety? That's called "post hoc ergo propter hoc" (sp?), and it's a logical fallacy.
"I know you will say yes, but after the war America became greater and more powerful than it ever had been...and we didn't become a dictatorship like you think Bush is trying to do now."
Post hoc again, and the ends again justify the means. As if we wouldn't have become great and powerful if we hadn't detained innocent citizens.
Funny, but the argument that doing something wrong is acceptable if the results turn out a certain way sounds like moral relativism. People like you and Rino go ballistic when people point out that abortion reduces crime and poverty. Wrong is wrong, right? But God looks the other way for Japanese internment or rendition because they might help secure the homeland, supposedly.
The concept that you and most liberals can't seem to grasp is the difference between innocence and guilt. Unborn babies are completely innocent and should be protected by law and welcomed into life. Terrorists kill innocent women and children and deserve the death penalty. The Bible clearly differentiates between good and evil. That's one of the main themes of the whole Bible. You and your fellow liberals often try to protect the guilty and leave the innocent to be slaughtered. Conservatives, on the other hand, try to protect the innocent and bring the guilty to justice.
Fetuses are innocent.
That does not deny the women carrying those fetuses to control their own bodies! If those fetuses could be born without imposing on the women and denying those women the right to control their own bodies, you might have a point.
As it is, your only point is the one on the top of your numbskull head.
If men could get pregnant there would be drive through abortion clinics with a free oil change to boot on every other street corner in every state in the Union. Oh how we love to control our women folk.
"...there would be drive-through abortions..."
And that would make it right.
"Terrorists kill innocent women and children and deserve the death penalty." --rino hunter
I agree. The problem you have is that you apparently automatically assume all of the guys in Gitmo are guilty, when they are only suspects at this point. You do not seem to be very open to the idea that at least some of these guys (maybe even most of them) might actually be innocent. You don't seem to care much about killing an innocent man, but you are obsessed with fetuses.
The concept you refuse to grasp, as has been cited twice above, is between a baby and a fetus. A pregnancy is a potential human, not an instant citizen.
The thing that makes life valuable is the willingness and ability to maintain it. If we had 100 billion people on the planet, would that make life better, because there was so much more of it? Probably not! What makes an innocent life worthy of protection is the commitment to birth, not the potential of a baby itself. At that point, the mother is committing herself to raising that child, and society grants rights and protections to that child as well.
Since the opposition to abortion is clearly idiotic on a societal level, it must rest on a belief in the God-given rights to a soul. As I've asked before, what do we expect to happen to the "soul" of an aborted fetus? Do they go to hell? Do they go to heaven? Do they "get back in line" for their earthly journey? The latter two options don't seem to be much cause for great concern. If you believe God sends month-old souls to eternal damnation, all I can say is good luck in your efforts to appease an insane deity. I prefer to believe life makes a little more sense than that, personally.
And that's the difference between aborting a fetus and killing a four-year old child, for instance. In the latter, people and society both have an investment in and a commitment to that child. That makes sense on a personal and a societal level, without dealing in faith in souls or God or anything else. Similarly, that's what dictates that we treat people humanely and give them their due trials, even if you do suspect them of being a terrorist. That's what a sane and just society does, and people who understand humanity realize that.
I understand the difference between guilt and innocence perfectly well, that's why I want everyone accused of a crime to be proven guilty or not guilty, so that troglodytes like you can't lump all suspects of crimes together as evil people who deserve whatever happens to them.
Incidentally, I have no problems with the death penalty under certain circumstances. Terrorists deserve it, yes, along with serial killers and mass murderers. The burden of proof should be high, though, since there is no possible reprieve, unlike the way it's done now where unreliable eyewitness testimony can sentence someone to death.
Conservative often lie to themselves in order to justify any attrocity and take away rights of anyone who doesnt seem WORTHY to them. Making up excuses out of whole cloth whether or not they make sense in order to pretend they are not the souless ignorant hatemongers that they really are.
You never generalize.
A shining example of Leftoid bigotry. Go ahead, fill the page with your redundancies.
Of course I generalize when responding to braindead rightwing propaganda generalizations. It makes the point. However please continue to fill the pages with your incredible moronity and excellent examples of abject stupidity. It is very amusing
YOU are a LIAR and I have already shown it several times.
YOU are a WANNA-BE academic who supports the liberal mindset of FORCING the will of the MINORITY on the MAJORITY. YOU live in a CENTER-RIGHT country and YOU must HATE that. But according to YOUR "logic" the MAJORITY of AMERICA is made up of mislead, stupid, minority-hating conservatives who are wrong no matter what the say or think. On the other hand, conservatives like myself can recognize right and wrong...such as womens rights movements in the early 1900's and civil rights movements for blacks....those were TRUE liberal movements that were right and everyone could stand behind them. The REAL liberals have long been dead. YOU are a PHONEY who wants nothing more than to push unpopular ideas on America. And YES, all my CAPITALIZATION in this post is making a PARODY of YOU and YOUR INABILITY to post in lower case letters like a NORMAL, LEVEL-HEADED person.
A wannabe academic? Why because I actually know what I am talking about? You actually ought to try it instead of your incredibly ignorance and knee jerk attempts at higher brain function which are obviously far beyond your capacity to accomplish. Its not my fault you are stupid and cannot even come close to answering the FACTS I put up here showing there WAS torture, rape, and murders. Detainees WERE abused to the point of DEATH. Since you cant refute that or really ANYTHING. In your abject stupidity you rail on incoherently. It must suck to be as ignorant and brainwashed as you are.
If it's in print, then it's FACT--right, Solon?
It is a fact that it was reported. That is some evidence. What evidence is the other side producing? NONE? Oh thats right. I wasnt an eye witness and neither were you. So if your standard is absolute proof NONE OF YOUR RIGHTWING POSTS passes muster either. In fact no one here would have ANYTHING to say. Could you possibly have made a stupider non point? I can think of a few but it takes effort.
You disgust me. You make my skin crawl AND you are a liar.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/02/60II/main652953.shtml
Baker, a National Guardsman, was working last year as a military policeman in the Guantanamo Bay prison when other MPs injured him during a training drill. It was a drill during which Baker was only obeying orders. "I was assaulted by these individuals," says Baker. "Pure and simple." "'We’re going to put you in a cell and extract you, have their IRF team come in and extract you. And what I’d like you to do is go ahead and strip your uniform off and put on this orange suit,'" says Baker, who was ordered to wear an orange jumpsuit, just like the ones worn by the detainees at Guantanamo. "And when I said the word ‘Red,’ he forced my head down against the steel floor and was sort of just grinding it into the floor. The individual then, when I picked up my head and said, ‘Red,’ slammed my head down against the floor,"
Baker started having a seizure that morning and was whisked to the Naval Hospital at Guantanamo. "[He looked like] he'd had the crap beat out of him. He had a concussion. I mean, it was textbook," says Riley. "[His face} was blank. You know, a dead stare, like he was seeing you, but really looking through you." Baker was airlifted to the Portsmouth Naval Medical Center in Virginia, where doctors determined he had suffered an injury to the right side of his brain.
What kind of DORM did YOU live in?
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/18769prs20041220.html
Another e-mail, dated December 2003, describes an incident in which Defense Department interrogators at Guantánamo Bay impersonated FBI agents while using "torture techniques" against a detainee. The e-mail concludes "If this detainee is ever released or his story made public in any way, DOD interrogators will not be held accountable because these torture techniques were done [sic] the 'FBI' interrogators. The FBI will [sic] left holding the bag before the public."
The June 2004 "Urgent Report" addressed to the FBI Director is heavily redacted. The legible portions of the document appear to describe an account given to the FBI's Sacramento Field Office by an FBI agent who had "observed numerous physical abuse incidents of Iraqi civilian detainees," including "strangulation, beatings, [and] placement of lit cigarettes into the detainees ear openings."
Dig deep. Find some humanity in that shriveled place that used to house your soul.
Man you show more ignorance than I ever thought anyone could hold in one body post after post. Muslim RESORT? Where an FBI agent described what HE CALLED TORTURE TECHNIQUES? Where an AMERICAN posing as an Arab got a VERIFIED BRAIN INJURY? I wish YOU could spend a few years there then you could come back and tell us what FUN you had. Of course no one is even CLAIMING that all of those in GITMO are actually terrorists. Many we PAID the Afghanis to turn in. For all we know they were cab drivers who made somone mad. In fact we KNOW at least one guy was we let him go and SAID SO. Your world is SOOO simple. Just CALL them terrorists then it doesnt matter what we do to them. What if it were YOUR son in Gitmo. Being subjected to torture techniques, no charges ever brought against him no finding of fact he had EVER done anything wrong. I guess that would be ok to you. You wouldnt mind because it was in the name of fighting terrorism. You are sick. You need professional help. Your soul has crumbled into ash and blown away that is unless it is long gone haveing said it was SO out of there the first time you tortured a small animal to death.
There is a certain resemblance to Martin Sheen (and he was the second most popular President in recent history, as I have heard).
Well now... isn't that SPEEEEECIAL?!?!?!
For being such allegedly masculine wingnuts, Miller and O'Reilly have lapsed into full-on "Man-Crush Theater" here...
All they need to do is sigh on camera about how dreamy they think Romney is and write things like "Bill O'Romney" and "Dennis Romney" iover and over again n big flowery cursive letters in their respective notebooks
These are the people who dare to try and shape our political discourse and all they can do is fawn over the guy's looks like a pair of ditzy little Heathers.
what a joke.
Chris Matthews better keep an eye on these trollops.Might be a cat fight.
i almost feel bad for them that it is a couple of weeks or so too late for any of them to ask Mitt to the prom, though we learned from the drooling and slurping that we heard on Codpiece Day 2003 that Chrissy puts out like nobody's business
He, he. That's funny HBL. The family values crowd loves a good cat fight. Wonder if it'd be trollup O'reilly's bra or trollup Dennis' bra that would accidentally would come off first? Then no matter what was in the news for the next two weeks, the cable channels would rebroadcast it over and over again.
I saw this clip last night. Before they started to talk about Romney, they were bashing John Edwards.
Something tells me that they hate Edwards for no reason and worship Romney for no reason.
Please, somebody, find reason somewhere in this clip. (Find the O'Reilly clips section and click on "Miller Time.")
http://www.foxnews.com/video/0,4861,4,00.html
That was so offensive I had to click off of it twice because I got so pissed off.
It's clear that all Americans don't have the same opportunities to improve their lives. The fact that some do greatly improve their lives doesn't mean that it's fair and just for all. The fact that John Edwards spent money on a big house doesn't mean that he cannot be sympathetic to those who live in a trailer park. He is better able to sympathize with them than the people running who didn't pull themselves up by the bootstraps!
You'll bitch and moan next time you get a medical bill, not realizing it is the more huge because JohnBoy (and his fellow travelers) was just "pulling himself up by the bootstraps" by putting a gun to the head of insurance companies, cheered on by juries that spend most of their time watching soap operas.
Get a life, and while you're at it, get an economics education.
Yeah and by that logic we would never hold corporations of any kind accountable for anything because it would cost us more money for their services. Just tell that woman here in Phoenix whose child DIED because an HMO wouldnt authorize the hospital to treat her kid and demanded they put her in an ambulance and take her to another hospital even though the Doctor TOLD them he needed to stabalize her first, the child died in the ambulance but hey lets not hold them accountable because it might cost someone more money.
Wait a minute, what's up with the Staples connection ? I had not heard this before. Miller and O'Blabbermouth make it sound like he was a founder or CEO. According to what I found on the 'net, Romeny's only involvement with Staples was as a venture capitalist.
Maybe he was the guy who came up with the "easy button".
He was "there" wasn't he? He didn't do squat, but he was "there."
Sort of like Giuliani being in NY on 911 and somehow that makes him an expert in terrorist apprehension.
Skip, you don't do all the manual labor where you work.
Therefore you don't do didly-squat.
There once was a poser named Bill
He and Dennis got riled by the thrill
Of Mitt's manly jaw
The two were in awe
Things substantive, talked about nil
BRAVO!!!
Do these guys have a "mancrush" on Mitt? Does Matthews?
I agree, although I think there has been a lot of good done in Iraq that we rarely hear about...schools, hospitals, no more saddam, etc. Anyway, in addition to Afghanistan, we should have hunted terrorists in Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia. That would be time and money much better spent.
Back on topic, hair and jawlines? Is it possible the republicans are turning gayer than MMFA? Two grown men talking about another man's sex appeal...it's the homosexual agenda hard at work. I'm half serious, half sarcastic.
sorry, posted this comment in the wrong place.
John is setting up some good jokes with that last sentence.
Johns a pretty funny guy. Should I? Oh yes I should. John are you in the military?
Like, he's Bi-Serious?
I was thinking that he might be half dumb, half dumber. But as usual you're funnier than me. The list is endless.
Well, well, most of us here are in denial of a simple fact of life. The criteria behind the cliche "He/she looks the part" DOES exist in our everyday lives; especially in today’s media/tv obsessed society. Looks, though they may, and can, be deceiving, the fact remains that one’s appearance can be an important influence and contributing factor in certain areas. Presidential elections are no different. And when we say "looks/appearance", we do not just refer to the candidate’s facial features - mannerisms, posture, eloquence, etc., are all elements of the appearance factor. All of us have this "image" - stereotyped and archived - somewhere in our imaginations and whether a consensus may be lacking as to the complete ideal image, we still, at least individually, have fashioned our own caricature for the President. Amazingly, however, our individual images share a lot of commonalities which, in turn, construct an agreeable and acceptable mental image of the President that causes us to say: "He/She looks presidential!"
By the way, the "look presidential" claim on Romney becomes more valid and convincing when spouses are considered for the "first couple" category! Mitt and Ann look the best as "First Couple"!
Good luck with that narrative. But we need real help in getting out of the unmitigated mess we're in due to Bushco. I wouldn't care if we had somebody that looked like Godzilla or the Loch Ness monster so long as we get some help to get our country back on the right track. Ken and Barbie can go to he!!. Or Gitmo.
Mitt and Ann vs. Hillary and Bill.....Pay-per-View 89.95..Can Bill get Ann to slip away with him or will Mitt be the catcher for Hillary?
I did not write this..
Prince, you must keep your doggy away from the keyboard.
Arrgg!!
Somehow the idea an evening gown competition for the GOP candidates has occured to me after reading all this. To be fair Obama and Edwards can do it to. I just don't think they could be anywhere as funny. America's Mayor might have an unfair advantage here as well. Perhaps he and Ms. Clinton could be designated coaches and graded on that.
I'm willing to accept partial credit/blame for this, just not all of it.
Giuliana says, "Been there, done that."
Dennis Miller & Bill O'Reilly on Screen at The Same Time?
I'm confused. Which one is the comedian?
So, Dumbill, Under your criteria, Abraham Lincoln was too ugly to be 'Presidential' . Gee, how phony and superficial can you get?
Talk about form over substance! Can you immagine this type of commentary from the Huntley-Brinkley Report or Walter Chronkite? But, I am dating myself. I think An Assault On Reason by Al Gore should be required reading.
Benjamine Disrale once said that "People get the government they deserve." He was referring to Russia at the time, but I think we are at that point. If the American people do not demand quality news coverage and accountable, responsible leadership, then we too will be getting exactly what we deserve.
<>Television news and cable news are beholden to the advertisers. The shallow celebrity oriented newscasts and shallow inanane (and often mean and deliberately misleading) commentaries are selling or they would not be so prevalent. We can vote with out dollar. We can let the advertisers know that we are fed up.
<> It is up to the public to take a stand in great enough numbers to make a difference. Laziness and indifference has brought us here. Enlightened self interest can get us out of it. <>Ya just can't forget how the nation trusted Cronkite because of how he READ THE NEWS.
Boy, if that won't make ya trust somebody, what will?
That seemed like a pretty reasonable and well-stated opinion, yet you feel you have to respond with some non-point about Cronkite.
Are you trying to come off as a brainless troll now? You're doing a hell of a job.
During the 1996 Democratic National Convention, the New York Times quoted a woman saying this about Bill Clinton: "Sure, he has his problems. But look how good-looking he is."
People, especially Democrat women, do vote according to looks.
What took you so long? I was wondering where you would be with your "Clinton did it too" nonsense.
Horse teeth are popular again...a Kennedy will win something.
Well morons are not popular so dont dust off that mantlepiece for any trophies YOU hope to win
"People, especially Democrat[sic] women, do vote according to looks."--kevin
So you are basing your generalization on a single 12 year old anecdote as well? Impressive reasoning.
Can I fairly generalize about conservatives based on your post that you all have a strange and unhealthy obsession with Bill Clinton AND you are apparently unable to make cogent reasonable arguments as a group?
It's the Pillsbury Doughboy advertising pushed down people's throat for so long. When Clinton appeared, masses of people thought it was "him"(strikingly similar physique--but it's the hair that wins the day).
Since Shrek is popular maybe YOU ought to run for office
"And I think that means a lot in America."
It's hilarious to imagine O'reilly thinking about anything.
Well, at least keeping Rhino dude and John boy on this thread has kept them off of most others. Now that's a good thing.
Scanning through the posts, they got a litte (?) off topic, but an interesting few minutes on a Saturday afternoon before heading back out into the sunshine.
Hey, KO, 347 posts, maybe Bull OhReally? and Dennis the Menace deserve to share a "Worse, Worser, Worst" Award for their comments.