Hillary Clinton says no

[lamboguy]

she says no 4 times in an interview with wolf blitzer of cnn, she says she will not be the secretary of state for another term. that speaks large words coming from a person of very strong character like her. it says to me that there is something deeply wrong with this admistration running the country now. i am sure she is not to proud of the way the events of libya have been handled.

[Let's Roll]

she says no 4 times in an interview with wolf blitzer of cnn, she says she will not be the secretary of state for another term. that speaks large words coming from a person of very strong character like her. it says to me that there is something deeply wrong with this admistration running the country now. i am sure she is not to proud of the way the events of libya have been handled.
She may or may not believe the administration is running the country well or be happy with the Libya situation. What she is saying, loudly and clearly, is that she does not think there will be a second term.
This is the beginning of the end for bho.

[Greyfox]

She's tired of Mr. Dithers inability to make decisions.

[mostpost]

Hillary Clinton for Supreme Court Justice after we impeach Clarence Thomas.
:jump: :jump: :jump:

[prospector]

Hillary Clinton for Supreme Court Justice after we impeach Clarence Thomas.
:jump: :jump: :jump:
maybe in her confirmation hearing she'll tell us how those law firm records "appeared" on a coffee table in her quarters when people were looking everywhere for them for years..send her to prison..

[bigmack]

Hillary Clinton for Supreme Court Justice after we impeach Clarence Thomas.
Your good buddy has a high opinion of Hil'ry. She can go after Thomas like she did BO.

By the way, what would be the impeachable offense of CT? :D

DLNFsl130_Y

[mostpost]

Your good buddy has a high opinion of Hil'ry. She can go after Thomas like she did BO.

By the way, what would be the impeachable offense of CT? :D

DLNFsl130_Y

First, he committed perjury in his confirmation hearings when he denied sexually harrassing Anita Hill. A number of witnesses have since come forward supporting Hill's version of events. In fact there were witnesses available at the time who were not called.

Secondly, Clarence Thomas failed to declare his Wife's income on his financial statements for five years. Income that totaled $600K. Even more egregious, was the fact that Virginia Thomas earned that income working for organizations which had cases before the Supreme Court. Thomas should have recused himself in those cases. He did not.

Hiding the income was a legal failure. Not recusing himself was a moral failure.

Do I actually think Thomas will be impeached? Not a chance!

[bigmack]

First, he committed perjury in his confirmation hearings when he denied sexually harrassing Anita Hill. A number of witnesses have since come forward supporting Hill's version of events. In fact there were witnesses available at the time who were not called.
Attn World: According to a man in Suburban Illinois, Clarence Thomas commited perjury. His decision has been made. Go and think likewise. :lol:

You and your comrades are simply bigots because you object to Mr. Thomas being in a interracial marriage. Perhaps you'd like to do to him as one of your ilk said, "String him up."

Truly amazing how you're able to lap-up every drop of drivel coming from your camp and yet continue to deliver 1994 material as in whining about Fox.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...You and your comrades are simply bigots because you object to Mr. Thomas being in a interracial marriage. Perhaps you'd like to do to him as one of your ilk said, "String him up." ...

Hmmm... I had this exact thought.

This sounds a lot like it's about hating a black man in the Supreme Court. That is racism straight up.


:sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping:

[mostpost]

Attn World: According to a man in Suburban Illinois, Clarence Thomas commited perjury. His decision has been made. Go and think likewise. :lol:

You and your comrades are simply bigots because you object to Mr. Thomas being in a interracial marriage. Perhaps you'd like to do to him as one of your ilk said, "String him up."

Truly amazing how you're able to lap-up every drop of drivel coming from your camp and yet continue to deliver 1994 material as in whining about Fox.
Once again you provide a reply with zero value. Your ridiculous allegation does not hide that fact.

[mostpost]

Hmmm... I had this exact thought.

This sounds a lot like it's about hating a black man in the Supreme Court. That is racism straight up.


:sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping:
Hope things are well there in Oppositeland. :rolleyes:

[bigmack]

Your ridiculous allegation does not hide that fact.
The unfortunate situation for you is that in pointing fingers of blame and certainty of guilt, as you so readily do, a similar finger is now pointing at you with clear evidence of your bigotry, racism & hatred for a Black man.

Like it or not, until you prove yourself otherwise you are guilty as charged.

[hcap]

Truly amazing how you're able to lap-up every drop of drivel coming from your camp and yet continue to deliver 1994 material as in whining about Fox.Do I detect a severe case of "Mother ship Envy"?

Considering the asinine antics of your boys, and peaking with the lame antics of Beck and Limpbag, your feelings of inadequacy are understandable.

Btw, anything new on the Obama Youth/Death Camp Conspiracy?

[bigmack]

Do I detect a severe case of "Mother ship Envy"?
Considering the asinine antics of your boys, and peaking with the lame antics of Beck and Limpbag, your feelings of inadequacy are understandable.
Btw, anything new on the Obama Youth/Death Camp Conspiracy?
Careful, mosty is starting to bring a better game than you. And that's not saying much. You should recruit my ass. You duds are horrible.

Thing about you loons, you lack original, creative thought. Anything that comes out of your computers is straight from the usual sites. Makes for one boreass debate.

Then again, you believe CO2 drives weather. :lol: :lol:

augWGYU_Av4

[boxcar]

First, he committed perjury in his confirmation hearings when he denied sexually harrassing Anita Hill. A number of witnesses have since come forward supporting Hill's version of events. In fact there were witnesses available at the time who were not called.

That's highly debatable because when it comes down to brass tacks, this was a war of words, at least according to how Time saw it:

Sex, Lies and Politics: He Said, She Said

Now, I tell ya, Mosty, I had to refresh my memory banks on these confirmation hearings and the scandalous accusations, etc. This spread from Time has served me well. And for the most part, the magazine was right -- it was indeed a "He said, She said" war of words. But being the super sleuth that I am, I believe I have unearthed a few weak links in Hill's testimony inconsistencies in her accounts and abnormalities in her decisions to stay in contact with Thomas when she could have severed ties with this habitual "sexual harasser". And just one weak link is enough to compromise the strength of the strongest chain, but when you have two or more...well...things get looking quite suspicious.

So, Mosty, I'm going to pull a Sherlock Holmes -- by defending someone I think was really the good guy in this "battle of words". You like to think of yourself as a Holmes or a Perry Mason type, etc., but in reality whenever you go to defend Evil, you wind up with a lot of egg on face. :D So, sit back and watch a real master at work. ;)

After three years of alleged harassment by Thomas, this is what she said before the Senate:

"The most moving aspect of Hill's testimony was the vivid portrait she painted of the vulnerability, humiliation and frustration she experienced while working under such conditions. "It wasn't as though it happened every day," Hill explained. "But I went to work during certain periods knowing that it might happen." She spoke of her fear of being squeezed out of good assignments, losing her job, maybe even not being able to find any job at all within the Reagan Administration if she continued to resist Thomas' alleged overtures. At one point, she said, the stress she experienced from the tension of her relationship with Thomas caused her to be hospitalized for five days with acute stomach pains."

So, on one hand, she felt vulnerable and humiliated -- BUT (her "but) apparently not enough to get away from her oppressor -- even though she knew that "it might happen" again...and again...and again? Just from this account, I see a woman with psychological problems at bare minimum. Why would anyone in their right mind want to stay in the presence of a tormentor? Oh...because she felt she could be "squeezed out of good assignments"? This well educated, refined woman apparently didn't have very much confidence in herself, did she? It appears she had a serious self-esteem problem, otherwise, she would not have been concerned about her career -- certainly not over personal safety issues. She clearly subordinated her personal safety to her career -- even being concerned that Reagan might eliminate the Dept. of Education, etc. But let's move on. But from this point on, we know that Career concerns trumped Personal Safety issues.

The second weak link does have to do with an inconsistency. During her FBI interview, she told the Feds that she had told only one other person about "Thomas the Tyrant". Yet, during the Senate hearings, she wound up finding a second witness (surprise, surprise!). Just like that. If one witness is good, then two should be doubly better, right? Now, read carefully how she tries to mitigate/defend this inconsistency:

"If you start to look at each individual problem, then you won't be satisfied that it's true," she said. "But the statement has to be taken as a whole." Then she added forcefully, "There is no motivation to show I'd make up something like this."

Wow, what an Einstein she was. :D What she's saying here is that you can't really look at all the details to her allegations and how they have now come before the Senate. Instead, she saying (by implication) just look at the bigger picture and if you do, you'll see I'm being truthful. :bang: :bang:

Her second line of defense for this inconsistency was her supposed lack of motivation (or motive) for making up this story about Thomas. But I submit to you that she did have motive! Her own words earlier were condemning. She clearly told the Senate (to paraphrase) that she feared for her future -- for her career -- for a secure future. And this concern or fear, if you will, trumped any fear she had over her personal safety whenever she with Thomas. I submit to you, therefore, that she clung to Thomas' coattails and followed him everywhere he went because she was a very insecure person. She probably never learned to really stand on her own two feet in life, and so she used Thomas as her personal "security blanket".

Therefore, her insecurity over her future -- over her earnings' capability -- over job security, etc. could have provided her with all the motive she needed to conspire with the dark forces of liberalism to bring Thomas down and ruin his career once and for all. Who knows what her co-conspirators could have offered her in exchange for her testimony? Maybe enough money to offset her insecurities? Enough money to allay fears about an insecure future without Thomas in the picture?

Then we have the character question. A woman of high moral character, of high moral fiber, of high moral principle would not tolerate putting herself in a position of possible harm, in a place of constant vulnerability, humility, etc. She would want to extricate herself from that kind of situation which must have caused angst, uneasiness and discomfort. That would be a normal person's reaction, I think. And remember: We're talking about an educated and experienced person in the workforce. We're not talking about some under or uneducated school janitor, making six bucks an hour!

She claims no motive. I claim that her own testimony about her own insecurities provided the motive for a fabricated story-- but all the senators were either too dumb or too PC to see it and pick it apart. (And don't be misled by the fact that staff members of various Senators were the ones who approached Hill. This is what wolves do when on the hunt for prey! These wolves were looking to tear and devour Thomas anyway they could! Anyway!)

Then we come to this part in the Times piece:

The only moment when Hill seemed at all evasive came during an exchange with Specter over an Oct. 9 account in USA Today. In it, Keith Henderson, an old friend of hers who is also a former Senate Judiciary staff member, is quoted as saying Hill was advised by Senate staff members that her FBI affidavit would be the instrument that "quietly and behind the scenes" would force Thomas to withdraw, without her name ever becoming public. Specter pressed her to recall discussing such a scenario with anyone. First she demurred that she did not recall that specific comment. Pressed again, she allowed, "There might have been some conversation about what could possibly occur." On Saturday Specter quickly attacked Hill's change in testimony as "flat-out perjury."

Wolves, especially those in sheep's clothing, have no problem lying . And apparently that's what they did to allure her into their conspiracy. But she was dumb enough to believe them!? She bought into their false promises and assurances? (Maybe now we can understand why she was such an insecure person.) Note that Specter leveled the charge of perjury on Hill after she changed her story!

In conclusion, then, what was the real story behind these accusations? The "He said, She said" war of words? I can't say for certain, so I won't. But I think I can say with certainty that these three weak links provide enough room for reasonable doubt. She failed to make her case and to take it to the point of "beyond a reasonable doubt". And the onus was on her and her Dem henchmen to prove their case against Thomas. One scatterbrain Senator even tried to put the onus on Thomas, but Thomas rightfully refused the dumb challenge, by asking (to paraphrase), "How does one prove a negative?"

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,974096-1,00.html

I rest my case, Mr. Mosty. As far as the rest of your post, I'll let some other able-minded conservative tackle your other points if he wants.

Boxcar

[fast4522]

maybe in her confirmation hearing she'll tell us how those law firm records "appeared" on a coffee table in her quarters when people were looking everywhere for them for years..send her to prison..

I agree with that, but we are a people split in how we define character in our elected and appointed officials in politics. A very interesting read is Hillary Rodham’s senior honors thesis in political science, entitled " ‘There Is Only the Fight...’: An Analysis of the Alinsky Model. Illegal but obtainable and floating around the net prior to becoming a sealed document.

[hcap]

And that's not saying much. You should recruit my ass. You duds are horrible. I thought all along we were debating your ass.

[boxcar]

I thought all along we were debating your ass.

You are one sad, sorry sack if you don't even know what it is you've been debating. :D

Boxcar

[PaceAdvantage]

The unfortunate situation for you is that in pointing fingers of blame and certainty of guilt, as you so readily do, a similar finger is now pointing at you with clear evidence of your bigotry, racism & hatred for a Black man.

Like it or not, until you prove yourself otherwise you are guilty as charged.I'd say he's got you there mosty. The only reason you think Clarence Thomas should be impeached is because he is black...and worse, married to a white woman.

This is 2011. I thought we put all of this horrible bigotry behind us. Instead of admiring what this man has accomplished against all odds, you want to tear him down simply because of the color of his skin.

Shame on you. And shame on that racist Democrat Party.

(how am I doing?)

[JustRalph]

(how am I doing?)

you're now qualified to be a moderator at DU

[mostpost]

I'd say he's got you there mosty. The only reason you think Clarence Thomas should be impeached is because he is black...and worse, married to a white woman.

This is 2011. I thought we put all of this horrible bigotry behind us. Instead of admiring what this man has accomplished against all odds, you want to tear him down simply because of the color of his skin.

Shame on you. And shame on that racist Democrat Party.

(how am I doing?)

You're doing satire, right? I hope you're doing satire.

[Greyfox]

You're doing satire, right? I hope you're doing satire.

Me too. Otherwise, there can be no more criticism of Obama ever again on this board.

[PaceAdvantage]

You're doing satire, right? I hope you're doing satire.Satire? More like imitating your ilk whenever anyone dared to display any sort of negativity towards Obama...especially in the early days...

See how silly you all sounded?

I've got you guys looking at yourselves in the mirror on two fronts now. Here and in the Libya threads. It's not a pretty sight, is it?

[mostpost]

Satire? More like imitating your ilk whenever anyone dared to display any sort of negativity towards Obama...especially in the early days...

See how silly you all sounded?

I've got you guys looking at yourselves in the mirror on two fronts now. Here and in the Libya threads. It's not a pretty sight, is it?

Well, then I'm sorry to say that you have it wrong. Again.

When someone writes that Obama is not the President, because he is not a natural born citizen, I take that as an appeal to prejudice. When someone calls him a community organizer, I see that as a code word. And when someone calls me a racist, I know that they are trying to deflect attention from their own racism.

I realize that much of the opposition to Obama is based on his policies, but I also see that some of it is based on his race.

If you want to go back and read my contributions here (Sounds exciting to me) I think you will find they are based on policy and fact. I argue in favor of Obama's policies without regard to his race.

Likewise, my opposition to Clarence Thomas is based on his ideology and his actions. The Anita Hill situation was never adjudicated. The Senate heard testimony any voted to confirm. Some of them surely voted for him in spite of the testimony. And some of them surely voted against him for reasons not at all related to the testimony.

As for his wife's earnings. She clearly made the money. He obviously did not declare it when he should have. Not only is that a violation in terms of taxes and financial disclosure; it is an ethics violation in terms of which cases he should have recuesed himself from.

Those are reasons to impeach. Whether a conviction could be obtained is up to the evidence.

I also do not like Thomas because of his judicial decisions, but that is not a reason to impeach.

[GameTheory]

When someone writes that Obama is not the President, because he is not a natural born citizen, I take that as an appeal to prejudice.Why? Why can't it be just about where he was born?

When someone calls him a community organizer, I see that as a code word.This one really is a stretch, because unlike the birther issue, he *was* a community organizer. That's his whole experience -- but we aren't even allowed to talk about that because that's a code word?

And when someone calls me a racist, I know that they are trying to deflect attention from their own racism.But when you do it, it is not? What's so special about you that you get to call racism all you want, decide what is and isn't a "code word" or an "appeal to prejudice", but if anyone else calls your own actions suspicious than that must be psychological projection? Can you really hold all this BS in your brain at one time?

[rastajenk]

Yes!He!Can!

:D

[boxcar]

Yes!He!Can!

:D

:lol: :lol: :lol: Good thing I wasn't holding my hot cup of java in my hand.

Boxcar

[bigmack]

when someone calls me a racist, I know that they are trying to deflect attention from their own racism.
As mentioned, until you prove yourself otherwise it's clear you are one bigoted, hate-filled, redneck. The hatred you have for Mr. Thomas is solely based on the color of his skin.

You know it, I know it and the American people know it. Try and prove differently.

[boxcar]

Well, then I'm sorry to say that you have it wrong. Again.

When someone writes that Obama is not the President, because he is not a natural born citizen, I take that as an appeal to prejudice.

And I would interpret your reaction willful blindness to the facts.

When someone calls him a community organizer, I see that as a code word.

By his own admission he was, so what is your problem?

And when someone calls me a racist, I know that they are trying to deflect attention from their own racism.

But when you call someone a racist, it is what? And why?

I realize that much of the opposition to Obama is based on his policies, but I also see that some of it is based on his race.

How do you tell the diff oh, Omniscient One?

If you want to go back and read my contributions here (Sounds exciting to me) I think you will find they are based on policy and fact. I argue in favor of Obama's policies without regard to his race.

Nothing personal but...what you consider to be "contributions", I would consider to be barf bag filler. :D

Boxcar

[mostpost]

As mentioned, until you prove yourself otherwise it's clear you are one bigoted, hate-filled, redneck. The hatred you have for Mr. Thomas is solely based on the color of his skin.

You know it, I know it and the American people know it. Try and prove differently.
Hundreds of posts defending and praising Barack Obama proves differently. Or do I just hate blacks who are Supreme Court justices? Your whole theory has no merit and is stupid beyond belief.

[bigmack]

Hundreds of posts defending and praising Barack Obama proves differently. Or do I just hate blacks who are Supreme Court justices? Your whole theory has no merit and is stupid beyond belief.
Get off your high horse. You praised & defended the white half of him. Michael Jackson was more Black than BO.

Instead, you harbor hatred for a Black man who was a descendant of slaves growing up in the deep south.

You're a bigot and you can't change the minds of those of us who think you are.

[mostpost]

Why? Why can't it be just about where he was born?

Because it is repeated endlessly in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. A copy of the birth certificate. (all that is required under Hawaiian law)
An announcement in a contemporary newspaper. (Contemporary to the time). The only purpose for saying these things is to influence those who want to believe it's true. And the reason those people want to believe it is they do not want a black president.

This one really is a stretch, because unlike the birther issue, he *was* a community organizer. That's his whole experience -- but we aren't even allowed to talk about that because that's a code word?


First, Thank you for admitting the birther issue is a fraud.
Obama was a community organizer. I think that is a noble thing to be. When the term is used here it is used as a pejorative. "Obama's the President? He is nothing but a community organizer." When there was the big flap about Obama talking to the students, lsbets was on television saying "I don't want my kids to grow up to be little community organizers" As if helping people was a bad thing. Of course it was not his whole experience. He was a lawyer,he was a state senator, he was a United States senator. The community organizer gig was just a part of his life and I think it was a part that prepared him to govern much more than working in a corporate environment, because it gave him the chance to see other sides of issues.

But when you do it, it is not? What's so special about you that you get to call racism all you want, decide what is and isn't a "code word" or an "appeal to prejudice", but if anyone else calls your own actions suspicious than that must be psychological projection? Can you really hold all this BS in your brain at one time?

I don't think you will find me calling someone a racist very often. You may find me saying that some people who don't like Obama, don't like him because of his race. Deny that that is true. I think I have tried to keep my discussions on the basis of the issues and my opinions of those issues.

In this particular case BigMack has repeatedly accused me of racism because I do not like Clarence Thomas. He has done this in spite of the fact that I clearly and carefully pointed out the factual basis for my disapproval of Mr Justice Thomas.

Surely you understand Big's modus Operandi. He does not argue facts. He bullies and makes accusations. He tries to get a person so involved in defending themselves against spurious charges that they forget to argue the facts. That works with some; not with me.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...Surely you understand Big's modus Operandi. He does not argue facts. He bullies and makes accusations. He tries to get a person so involved in defending themselves against spurious charges that they forget to argue the facts. That works with some; not with me.

Nonsense. Big Mack's modus operandi is to demonstrate for people like yourself, Space Monkey, Jeneane Garafolo and the others that submit as their default rebuttal to criticisms of the President that his detractors are simpleton racists. It wasn't even close to bullying or avoiding debate, it was a spoonful of medicine ordinarily prescribed to those wearing the other shoe.

If you can't see that - the repeated characterizations of Obama's detractors as racists, despite the same pleas that you make throughout this post - then I have to think you are being disingenuous at best.

That said, you are a little unfairly caught in the crosshairs in this one as the recipient, as you don't even come close to others in making those asinine insults towards people that disagree with policy issues. I even used Mzzzz. Garafolo's "quote" in my post in this thread so that it would be crystal clear. It's hard to imagine that you don't see the point that Dems can be stoically opposed to black men because race doesn't mean anything, while non-Dems are merely racists.

[bigmack]

Nonsense. Big Mack's modus operandi is to demonstrate for people like yourself, Space Monkey, Jeneane Garafolo and the others that submit as their default rebuttal to criticisms of the President that his detractors are simpleton racists. It wasn't even close to bullying or avoiding debate, it was a spoonful of medicine ordinarily prescribed to those wearing the other shoe.

If you can't see that - the repeated characterizations of Obama's detractors as racists, despite the same pleas that you make throughout this post - then I have to think you are being disingenuous at best.

That said, you are a little unfairly caught in the crosshairs in this one as the recipient, as you don't even come close to others in making those asinine insults towards people that disagree with policy issues. I even used Mzzzz. Garafolo's "quote" in my post in this thread so that it would be crystal clear. It's hard to imagine that you don't see the point that Dems can be stoically opposed to black men because race doesn't mean anything, while non-Dems are merely racists.
You read me like a book. :ThmbUp:

Too bad mosty blinked with this little gem. It says a bundle.

And when someone calls me a racist, I know that they are trying to deflect attention from their own racism.

[GameTheory]

Because it is repeated endlessly in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. A copy of the birth certificate. (all that is required under Hawaiian law)
An announcement in a contemporary newspaper. (Contemporary to the time). The only purpose for saying these things is to influence those who want to believe it's true. And the reason those people want to believe it is they do not want a black president.Ok, you had me up to the last sentence. Birthers are birthers because they don't want a black president. That is one humongous leap. Birthers don't like Obama for whatever reason, that's true (I don't think there are too many birthers that are actually pro-Obama but would just like to be sure of his legitimacy, but there ARE some.), but what is your evidence that it is mainly his blackness that is the problem? That is a wild and unfounded assumption. Recall that there was also a movement to challenge McCain's legitimacy should he have won (being born on a military base on foreign soil was the issue there), and although I wouldn't put it past the media to not mention such a thing, I don't think it was a group of racist non-whites ready to harp on that. So still wondering how you jump from "want to see proof of Obama's birth status" to "don't want no black prez".


First, Thank you for admitting the birther issue is a fraud.
Obama was a community organizer. I think that is a noble thing to be. When the term is used here it is used as a pejorative. "Obama's the President? He is nothing but a community organizer." When there was the big flap about Obama talking to the students, lsbets was on television saying "I don't want my kids to grow up to be little community organizers" As if helping people was a bad thing. Of course it was not his whole experience. He was a lawyer,he was a state senator, he was a United States senator. The community organizer gig was just a part of his life and I think it was a part that prepared him to govern much more than working in a corporate environment, because it gave him the chance to see other sides of issues. That's all very nice, and totally irrelevant. Again, how do you make the jump to it being a "code word"? You think the experience of community organizer is so impressive and just such an awesome achievement that when we look at the experience of the guy and find it a bit lacking to be LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD, hand-on-the-nuclear-button, commander-in-chief of the world's most powerful military, at at time when the economy is in ruins, etc etc that it *just has to be* a racist code word? I mean, he was a f'ing COMMUNITY ORGANIZER, right? Why did we even bother with debates and all that? Who could dare question his qualifications when he had already reached the absolute plateau of human achievement: community organizing!

Is that really your line of thought? If not, again, how to do get from, "Ehh, seems like a lightweight" to "don't want no black prez"?



I don't think you will find me calling someone a racist very often. You may find me saying that some people who don't like Obama, don't like him because of his race. Deny that that is true. I think I have tried to keep my discussions on the basis of the issues and my opinions of those issues.That's all very nice too, and again irrelevant. You are here accusing others of racism, but if someone accuses you (or faux accuses in this case, apparently you couldn't understand what Mac was doing even though it was painfully obvious, which in itself says a lot) then they must be "deflecting their own racism". The obvious question there is, what is so special about your (unfounded as they are) accusations? Why should we not believe you are merely deflecting your own racism? Seems a fair question since you brought it up as a thing people do.

Surely you understand Big's modus Operandi. He does not argue facts. He bullies and makes accusations. He tries to get a person so involved in defending themselves against spurious charges that they forget to argue the facts. That works with some; not with me.I do understand his MO, but you have totally missed it. See above post by johnhannibalsmith -- he is merely giving you libs a taste of your own medicine, and I think it was over-the-top enough that it should have been obvious to you. (Although I also agree that putting all that onus on you in particular wasn't quite fair, but still you get the point now I hope.)

[Robert Goren]

Arguing with bigmack is like dealing with a 7 yo who say "WHY" to everything you say. It is never ending because he refuse to accept any proof that you might offer and says over and over again prove it even after you have a dozen times over.

[hcap]

A whole bunch of racists reside here.
There is a wink and a nod about New Orleans whenever someone discovers a lack of looting during natural disasters involving non Blacks. The rent banter about Japan comes to mind.

'Those people" are refereed to as welfare queens frequently. How many times did we see someone post Obama with a bone in his hair? Please, the anti Obama knee jerk reaction, although mostly political has its racial overtones. I might add the prejudicial anti Muslim attitude of PA off topic. You gentlemen have a tin ear when it comes to your own.

No one has said anything racial about Thomas.
An attempt to project the bias of many in the right wing camp over onto the left.

Very much like the pseudo ju-jitso comparing Libya with Iraq.

[GameTheory]

Arguing with bigmack is like dealing with a 7 yo who say "WHY" to everything you say. It is never ending because he refuse to accept any proof that you might offer and says over and over again prove it even after you have a dozen times over.Even after it was explained twice (and confirmed by Mac), you still don't get it? Mac was not arguing; he was "arguing", playing a part. Hello?

[johnhannibalsmith]

.... How many times did we see someone post Obama with a bone in his hair? ...

I'm aware of one - the guy that pops in randomly seemingly interested in plugging his website or whatever he's hawking with strange pictures of whatever - and on that specific occassion with the "bone" image, I took him to task for it.

Are there more examples?

[mostpost]

That said, you are a little unfairly caught in the crosshairs in this one as the recipient, as you don't even come close to others in making those asinine insults towards people that disagree with policy issues. I even used Mzzzz. Garafolo's "quote" in my post in this thread so that it would be crystal clear. It's hard to imagine that you don't see the point that Dems can be stoically opposed to black men because race doesn't mean anything, while non-Dems are merely racists.

Before I start, I can't find a Garafalo quote in any of your postings in this thread. Am I blind?

Your first sentence encapsulates the whole problem here. I am being unfairly accused of something here. It does not matter if some other liberals make the same accusation against conservatives in lieu of logical argument.
I presented good arguments for the impeachment of Clarence Thomas. Arguments based on what he did, not what he is. Big was free to refute those arguments. Instead he decided to make baseless accusations. Explain to me how that advances the discussion.

[GameTheory]

No one has said anything racial about Thomas.
An attempt to project the bias of many in the right wing camp over onto the left.Uhh, we are talking about a black guy the right has embraced and the left would like to get rid of, right?

Very much like the pseudo ju-jitso comparing Libya with Iraq.When the Libya situation turns out to be not-so-easy-after-all, we will see this, trust me. And we'll see it from people that supported this move so far.

[bigmack]

Even after it was explained twice (and confirmed by Mac), you still don't get it? Mac was not arguing; he was "arguing", playing a part. Hello?
Some are a tad slow. Some will never get it. Goren is a far cry from the character he uses in his moniker.

Trust me (both you & JWSmith) I felt sheepish about laying it on so thick with mosty, both because he doesn't play that card as much as some and it leaves a bad taste for me to point such an accusatory finger. I trust with the points you, JWS & I made, mosty just might get it. Although I have to question his reverse finger pointing maneuver. :rolleyes:

But look at what we have here. hcap has arrived to not only NOT get the bit I was playing but to start some serious finger pointin'. :lol:

That is as rich as it gets! This played out beautifully.

[mostpost]

I do understand his MO, but you have totally missed it. See above post by johnhannibalsmith -- he is merely giving you libs a taste of your own medicine, and I think it was over-the-top enough that it should have been obvious to you. (Although I also agree that putting all that onus on you in particular wasn't quite fair, but still you get the point now I hope.)

Yeah, I did miss it. Maybe I missed it because it was so out of place. If I had said or even implied that Thomas should be impeached because he was black, Mack might have had legitimacy for his comments. Mack is the one who brought up Thomas' race and used it to make a point...a false point. Let me be clear. I am not accusing Big of being a racist. I am saying he used race to win an argument and used it improperly.

[bigmack]

I am saying he used race to win an argument and used it improperly.
Have you gone completely crackers? Win an argument. I did it to illustrate a point. You mean you still can't see that?

[mostpost]

Arguing with bigmack is like dealing with a 7 yo who say "WHY" to everything you say. It is never ending because he refuse to accept any proof that you might offer and says over and over again prove it even after you have a dozen times over.
But he isn't a seven year old. He should know better.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Before I start, I can't find a Garafalo quote in any of your postings in this thread. Am I blind?

...This sounds a lot like it's about hating a black man in the Supreme Court. That is racism straight up...

... It's about hating a black man in the White House. That is racism straight up...


Your first sentence encapsulates the whole problem here. I am being unfairly accused of something here. It does not matter if some other liberals make the same accusation against conservatives in lieu of logical argument.
I presented good arguments for the impeachment of Clarence Thomas. Arguments based on what he did, not what he is. Big was free to refute those arguments. Instead he decided to make baseless accusations. Explain to me how that advances the discussion.

You are profoundly correct. Please help us out in the future when criticisms of the President are met with insults accusing people of racism.

[GameTheory]

Yeah, I did miss it. Maybe I missed it because it was so out of place. If I had said or even implied that Thomas should be impeached because he was black, Mack might have had legitimacy for his comments. Bringing it up out-of-the-blue was kinda part of the point too, just as I find your "appeal to prejudice" and "code word" comments to be out-of-the-blue. This is what anyone who wants to criticize Obama (less so now that everyone is turning on him, but certainly around election time) has to deal with -- a chorus of people telling them they are racist for no reason whatsoever. This is what anyone sympathetic to the Tea Party message of less government, lower taxes has to listen to over and over -- that they are racist racist racist! This is what anyone disagreeing with the liberal line on anything at all has to hear -- racist racist racist. And they've had to listen to that BS for DECADES. It is gets to be a bit much after a while, you'll understand.

[hcap]

When the Libya situation turns out to be not-so-easy-after-all, we will see this, trust me. And we'll see it from people that supported this move so far.Saddam slaughtered his own, when he was OUR dictator. We did very litttle then during a republican administration. Now that Qadaffi is killing civilians, a broad international effort to curtail him is underway in real time. Not an invasion based on exaggerated evidence or excuses dreamt up by a group of oil men, defying UN agreements.

Oil was a major motivation then. At the time Iraq had huge oil fields closed off to western interests. On the order of 20 or 30x what is in Libya. Bush launched a full fledged invasion unlike judicious cruise missile strikes on Libya today. Libya is on par with Grenada or going after Noriega. You gentlemen jumped on this as some sort of Obamas' Iraq fiasco. Pure nonsense. As though they are comparable.

B.M. somehow trying to shift the racist tendencies of the right wing onto the left is laughable. It is not a teaching moment of "see you did it to us now here is your COMPARABLE turn to get it back", is just more nonsense, just like the Libyan action is no Iraq. Just like there is no major oil for blood going on now VERSUS a secret meeting with western oil interests by Cheney, ex CEO of Haliburton just before the full scale and disastrous war launched in Iraq.

Just like the calling out Thomas for political and factual political reasons is not on par with the rampant anti-black, anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, anti-brown skin and anti- OTHER crap that is spewed out here regularly.

[GameTheory]

Saddam slaughtered his own, when he was OUR dictator. We did very litttle then during a republican administration. Now that Qadaffi is killing civilians, a broad international effort to curtail him is underway in real time. Not an invasion based on exaggerated evidence or excuses dreamt up by a group of oil men, defying UN agreements.I'm not making any argument about Iraq or Libya. All I'm saying is that people (liberals) who are now supporting this action against Libya will turn against it when it gets long and messy, and THEY will start comparing it to Iraq, etc. You can bet on it.

[Mike at A+]

Saddam slaughtered his own, when he was OUR dictator. We did very litttle then during a republican administration. Now that Qadaffi is killing civilians, a broad international effort to curtail him is underway in real time.
Oh cut the bullshit. Qadaffi is doing the exact same thing Obama would be doing if the Tea Party showed up at the White House with guns trying to depose him. And there would be no "coalition" restraining Obama from directing his forces to slaughter those who want him gone. We're interfering with a sovereign nation trying to quell a revolution by force. Will Obama start bombing Bahrain? Syria? Iran? China? Nope - none of those would be the slam dunk Libya is. Markets up. Approval rating about to go up. Michael Moore and Dennis Kucinich pissed off. Life goes on.

[cj's dad]

You are profoundly correct. Please help us out in the future when criticisms of the President are met with insults accusing people of racism.

Learn to deal with it JHS on this site. Any criticism of Black Americans is met with the racist label. You have now become a racist for expressing an opinion. It's a convenient out for those with a lack of a solid argument aka liberals.

1) inner cities in decay ??
2) prisons overpopulated w/ blacks ??
3) teen pregnancies disproportional with the Black population ??
4) Black murder rate by % is disproportional to the murder rate in general.
5) Welfare and food stamps recipients are predominantly Black by %

These realities of life in the USA are hard to swallow if you are a lib. Pointing these facts out do not make one a racist. It does however lend one to being labeled a racist.

[elysiantraveller]

Here, I will fill you in a bit...

Saddam slaughtered his own, when he was OUR dictator. We did very litttle then during a republican administration. Now that Qadaffi is killing civilians, a broad international effort to curtail him is underway in real time.

This whole argument about killing civilians to a load of BS. There is absolutely no evidence of this mass civilian deaths. Qadaffi is fighting a war against rebels in his own country who just happen to reside in cities. Secondly, civil wars are typically fought by civilians, hence the name. This isn't a humanitarian mission to save the poor innocent people of Libya from death in despair, in fact, this is one of those really nasty two word things Bush Jr. became popular for: Regime Change.

Not an invasion based on exaggerated evidence or excuses dreamt up by a group of oil men, defying UN agreements.

Perhaps you should go back and re-read Resolution 1441, it provided the United States legal right to pursue military action in Iraq. To boot, it was a helluva lot less ambigious than 1973, our current one, as I'm sure you haven't read it.

Oil was a major motivation then. At the time Iraq had huge oil fields closed off to western interests. On the order of 20 or 30x what is in Libya.

Apparently you don't remember the Oil For Food Program... You should look it up.

Bush launched a full fledged invasion unlike judicious cruise missile strikes on Libya today. Libya is on par with Grenada or going after Noriega. You gentlemen jumped on this as some sort of Obamas' Iraq fiasco. Pure nonsense. As though they are comparable.

They aren't comparable and for the most part I don't think they will be but only in terms of scale... We'll have ground forces, or should I say UN Peacekeepers there, in short while.

Hell, it is on CNN as I type this. Michael Hayden, fmr NSA saying this isn't a humanitarian mission, this isn't a no-fly zone, this is the United States getting directly involved in a Libyan Civil War and picking a side.

[Mike at A+]

Here, I will fill you in a bit...



This whole argument about killing civilians to a load of BS. There is absolutely no evidence of this mass civilian deaths. Qadaffi is fighting a war against rebels in his own country who just happen to reside in cities. Secondly, civil wars are typically fought by civilians, hence the name. This isn't a humanitarian mission to save the poor innocent people of Libya from death in despair, in fact, this is one of those really nasty two word things Bush Jr. became popular for: Regime Change.



Perhaps you should go back and re-read Resolution 1441, it provided the United States legal right to pursue military action in Iraq. To boot, it was a helluva lot less ambigious than 1973, our current one, as I'm sure you haven't read it.



Apparently you don't remember the Oil For Food Program... You should look it up.



They aren't comparable and for the most part I don't think they will be but only in terms of scale... We'll have ground forces, or should I say UN Peacekeepers there, in short while.

Hell, it is on CNN as I type this. Michael Hayden, fmr NSA saying this isn't a humanitarian mission, this isn't a no-fly zone, this is the United States getting directly involved in a Libyan Civil War and picking a side.
BINGO - Somebody else gets it. Obama's all in for 2012. This may even create some private sector jobs.

[bigmack]

the rampant anti-black, anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, anti-brown skin and anti- OTHER crap that is spewed out here regularly.
My friend, you have more need to find potential hatred among others than anyone I've ever encountered. And you're always so at the ready to play that card.

- Have a problem with people entering the country illegally? You're a xenophobic, racist, hater.

- IF you criticize ANYONE of minority, for ANYTHING, you are racist, hater.

You see all the code words and secret meanings behind everything. :eek: Nothing can be debated honestly. My little play was certainly lost on you.

Can I use "blood libel" ?

[hcap]

Mr elysiantraveller
With 35 Posts

We have thru this crap 100x before
There was no UN approval.
You are re-writing history

The U.N. Security Council's had refused to approve the resolution proposed by the United States, Britain and Spain (the apex of the Bush's lame "Coalition of willing"). In other words the weapons inspection process initiated by Security Council Resolution 1441 had to have been permitted to continue and show evidence before military action could be authorized.

The weapons inspections were evidently short circuited by Bush/Blair because there were no WMDs. I might add that IF the inspectors had been allowed to continue, WMDs as an excuse, particularly the threat of an impending "musheoon clouds", would have been seen for what it was worth. Nothing

Kofi Annan said it was illegal and a host of international jurists agreed. Washington, Britain, and Spain decided to pull their proposed resolution from consideration by the Security Council in the face of almost-certain defeat by a majority of members, including the threat of vetoes cast by permanent Council members France and Russia. Remember "Freedom fries" and the anti German stuff the administration spewed? Why? Because the administration was pissed off seeing certain defeat of the resolution legally needed to invade.

The gist of Bush's argument was that the U.S. needed to expand the concept of self-defense to include preventive attacks against states based on potential future threats The stupid imminent crap rap that was bandied about by administration spokespeople on all the sunday morning talking heads shows. The dumb "Bush Doctrine" and Cheneys 1 percent drivel.
And of course after they got caught invading on false grounds and trumped up evidence they even denied they ever said imminent.

I have had with the remnants of the Bush was the Man crowd. I no longer wish to debate this with another or the rest of the throwbacks trying to equate Libya with Bush's failed disaster. Buh Bye

[NJ Stinks]

That is as rich as it gets! This played out beautifully.

One day your smugness will suffocate you. :rolleyes:

[elysiantraveller]

Mr elysiantraveller
With 35 Posts

We have thru this crap 100x before
There was no UN approval.
You are re-writing history

The U.N. Security Council's had refused to approve the resolution proposed by the United States, Britain and Spain (the apex of the Bush's lame "Coalition of willing"). In other words the weapons inspection process initiated by Security Council Resolution 1441 had to have been permitted to continue and show evidence before military action could be authorized.

The weapons inspections were evidently short circuited by Bush/Blair because there were no WMDs. I might add that IF the inspectors had been allowed to continue, WMDs as an excuse, particularly the threat of an impending "musheoon clouds", would have been seen for what it was worth. Nothing

Kofi Annan said it was illegal and a host of international jurists agreed. Washington, Britain, and Spain decided to pull their proposed resolution from consideration by the Security Council in the face of almost-certain defeat by a majority of members, including the threat of vetoes cast by permanent Council members France and Russia. Remember "Freedom fries" and the anti German stuff the administration spewed? Why? Because the administration was pissed off seeing certain defeat of the resolution legally needed to invade.

The gist of Bush's argument was that the U.S. needed to expand the concept of self-defense to include preventive attacks against states based on potential future threats The stupid imminent crap rap that was bandied about by administration spokespeople on all the sunday morning talking heads shows. The dumb "Bush Doctrine" and Cheneys 1 percent drivel.
And of course after they got caught invading on false grounds and trumped up evidence they even denied they ever said imminent.

I have had with the remnants of the Bush was the Man crowd. I no longer wish to debate this with another or the rest of the throwbacks trying to equate Libya with Bush's failed disaster. Buh Bye

First of all there was nothing in my post to insinuate I am a Bush was the man follower. If you don't want to continue fine, take your ball and go home, enjoy the Regime Change.

[Boris]

'War Party' ideas and plans for an attack on Lybia had been 'in preparation far in advance of this week, and when President Obama was looking for a new front,' the neolibs 'put their precooked meal in front of him. And Obama dug into it.'

When Obama attacks:

How many children will be at nutritional risk?
How many pregnant and lactating women will be displaced?
How many people will be without treated water or sanitation facilities?

How many Lybian terrorists is Obama willing to make? He is handing them the perfect recruiting tool.

This war preznit is pushing us to the edge. Let the UN inspectors do their job!

[bigmack]

One day your smugness will suffocate you.
The beautiful part is that everyone fit their roles to a T.

mosty labored with more detail than was necessary. GameT brought his usual adroit insight. jhSmith viewed it all without bias or jade. Mackie played the brash, devil-may-care. Goren hadn't a clue about a thing. hcap furthered the absurd. And you slid in a laconic quip.

Tidy affair. I say we take it to Broadway.

[PaceAdvantage]

How many times did we see someone post Obama with a bone in his hair?Not once. Should I add filthy liar to your resume?

If I'm wrong, show me the post with the picture.

And if it ever did exist, it was taken down immediately. I don't allow that kind of crap here and you know it. But keep painting me as some sort of person that I'm not.

I no longer wish to debate this with another or the rest of the throwbacks trying to equate Libya with Bush's failed disaster. Buh ByeI see now that you are running away from the debate, because in fact you know you've lost. You are looking more and more like a hypocrite by the hour with this Libyan BLOOD FOR OIL move by Obama and his BIG OIL cronies (look up how much BP contributed to Obama...more than they ever gave to GWB).

Thank me very much.

[GameTheory]

Not once. Should I add filthy liar to your resume?

If I'm wrong, show me the post with the picture.

And if it ever did exist, it was taken down immediately. I don't allow that kind of crap here and you know it. But keep painting me as some sort of person that I'm not.I think JHS was right about that -- I think xtb posted a pic like that -- one of his posts to get people to click on his sig, no doubt.

[boxcar]

I'm not making any argument about Iraq or Libya. All I'm saying is that people (liberals) who are now supporting this action against Libya will turn against it when it gets long and messy, and THEY will start comparing it to Iraq, etc. You can bet on it.

What's even more amazing is that our very own resident peacenik extraordinaire has yet to rail against the macho, tough talkin' "you-bring-a-knife, I'll-bring-a-gun" Warlord-in-Chief. I guess it all depends on who is wielding the sword. 'cap's zero tolerance for war or aggression doesn't require "long and messy".

Boxcar

[johnhannibalsmith]

Not once. Should I add filthy liar to your resume?

If I'm wrong, show me the post with the picture.

And if it ever did exist, it was taken down immediately. I don't allow that kind of crap here and you know it. But keep painting me as some sort of person that I'm not...

You are far closer to the truth than is Hcap, but to be fair, such a photo was posted. It was amidst a montage of useless, insulting Obama photos posted by 'XFile'(?), I believe, one day. The thread got one response, a distinctly negative one that addressed the picture that Hcap is talking about... and the response wasn't his.

The thread was gone quickly and rightfully so.

(edited to apologize for being redundant, missed GT's post while waiting on lag)

[PaceAdvantage]

See how disingenuous Hcap is. He will cite Xfile, a guy who NEVER partakes in political discussions here in off-topic as an example of this phantom rampant racism here from the "PA Boys." **** HIM.

That thread and photo was removed as soon as I saw it...and he knows this...

I guess Donald Trump is a racist now too:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/17/trump-says-he-has-doubts-about-obama%E2%80%99s-birth-place/

[JustRalph]

Hell, it is on CNN as I type this. Michael Hayden, fmr NSA saying this isn't a humanitarian mission, this isn't a no-fly zone, this is the United States getting directly involved in a Libyan Civil War and picking a side.

this is dead on. A no fly zone this is not. Obammy sat on his hands for a month and Hillary threatening to quit got him to start throwing missiles.

What is it with the Clinton's? Every time it gets hot in the kitchen a Clinton starts throwing Tomahawks into another country?

Wagging the Dog keeps our mind off the economy too..........

[GameTheory]

You are far closer to the truth than is Hcap, but to be fair, such a photo was posted. It was amidst a montage of useless, insulting Obama photos posted by 'XFile'(?), I believe, one day. The thread got one response, a distinctly negative one that addressed the picture that Hcap is talking about... and the response wasn't his.

The thread was gone quickly and rightfully so.

(edited to apologize for being redundant, missed GT's post while waiting on lag)Oh right, XFile. Apologies to xtb...

[bigmack]

shift the racist tendencies of the right wing onto the left is laughable.
Capt. Sunshine spreading more feces around the joint with his deep hatred and old fashioned view of things. Like 'The Right' being the only potential racists in the room. What a laugh.

hcap adheres to long gone beliefs as pathetically as a Byron De La Beckwith.

"You cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian Accent."
-Senator Joe Biden

'Hymies.' 'Hymietown.' -- Jesse Jackson's description of New York City while on the 1984 presidential campaign trail.

"The white race is the cancer of human history." -- Susan Sontag

"The Jews don't like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that's a good name. Hitler was a very great man. He rose Germany up from the ashes." -- Louis Farrakhan (1984) who campaigned for congresswoman Cynthia McKinney in 2002

"You f*cking Jew b@stard." -- Hillary Clinton to political operative Paul Fray. This was revealed in "State of a Union: Inside the Complex Marriage of Bill and Hillary Clinton" and has been verified by Paul Fray and three witnesses.

[JustRalph]

"You f*cking Jew b@stard." -- Hillary Clinton to political operative Paul Fray. This was revealed in "State of a Union: Inside the Complex Marriage of Bill and Hillary Clinton" and has been verified by Paul Fray and three witnesses.[/FONT][/INDENT]

I forgot about that one :lol: :lol:

Now we know why Obama n Hill have been treating Netanyahu like a Step child for the last few years......... :lol:

[BlueShoe]

The hatred you have for Mr. Thomas is solely based on the color of his skin.
Leftists cannot stand it when a member of a racial minority is not as liberal as they are and does not vote a straight Democratic ticket. In particular, they go ballistic when a Black conservative becomes prominent. In their minds the Black vote belongs to them, and that leaving the liberal ranks is somehow akin to desertion and treason.

[boxcar]

Capt. Sunshine spreading more feces around the joint with his deep hatred and old fashioned view of things. Like 'The Right' being the only potential racists in the room. What a laugh.

hcap adheres to long gone beliefs as pathetically as a Byron De La Beckwith.

"You cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian Accent."
-Senator Joe Biden

'Hymies.' 'Hymietown.' -- Jesse Jackson's description of New York City while on the 1984 presidential campaign trail.

"The white race is the cancer of human history." -- Susan Sontag

"The Jews don't like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that's a good name. Hitler was a very great man. He rose Germany up from the ashes." -- Louis Farrakhan (1984) who campaigned for congresswoman Cynthia McKinney in 2002

"You f*cking Jew b@stard." -- Hillary Clinton to political operative Paul Fray. This was revealed in "State of a Union: Inside the Complex Marriage of Bill and Hillary Clinton" and has been verified by Paul Fray and three witnesses.

You forgot Reid's remark about how Obama was a "light skinned black" and can speak with a "Negro dialect" when he wants to.

To be sure, there's no shortage of bigots in the Dems' ranks.

Boxcar

[Mike at A+]

You can also add Obama's "typical white person" comment he made during the campaign. Also, the Cambridge incident and the Philadelphia New Black Panther incident support the notion that both he and Eric Holder are racists. And how about the comments made about Colin Powell (the "house ni99er") and Condi Rice? Every time someone on the left plays the race card, I really have to laugh.

[BlueShoe]

Btw, anything new on the Obama Youth/Death Camp Conspiracy?
The Hitler Jugend, the new HJ Hitler Youth program seems to have been pushed into the background, at least for now, as has been the Civilian Defense Force, which was to have been the new Sturmabteilung, the modern SA. But do not worry, a new facist force is coming soon. The administration plans to hire 5000 more IRSS agents to goose step into our affairs. Just be patient, the Brownshirts are just around the corner. :rolleyes:

[Greyfox]

Libya is not a "Civil War."
It was a civil protest and civil disobedience at worst.
Gadhaffi brought in foreign mercenaries and turned it into a blood bath, targeting his fellow countrymen.
He's got to be hauled before an International Court for crimes against humanity.

[elysiantraveller]

Libya is not a "Civil War."
It was a civil protest and civil disobedience at worst.
Gadhaffi brought in foreign mercenaries and turned it into a blood bath, targeting his fellow countrymen.
He's got to be hauled before an International Court for crimes against humanity.

Are you kidding me?

Please explain to me how this isn't an open conflict. The rebels are operating aircraft against Qadaffi's forces. Hell they shot down one of their own planes mistaking it for a Libyan Air Force jet. How is that not open warfare on the side of the rebels?

[Greyfox]

Are you kidding me?

Please explain to me how this isn't an open conflict. The rebels are operating aircraft against Qadaffi's forces. Hell they shot down one of their own planes mistaking it for a Libyan Air Force jet. How is that not open warfare on the side of the rebels?

To refresh your memory, this started peacefully over 1 month ago.
Gadhaffi felt threatened and started his bombardments.
That goes beyond "crowd control" limits.
The protesters, to protect themselves, took over his weaponry in Benghazi.
Of course it is open conflict NOW.
Gadhaffi should be tried for "Crimes against humanity."

[elysiantraveller]

To refresh your memory, this started peacefully over 1 month ago.
Gadhaffi felt threatened and started his bombardments.
That goes beyond "crowd control" limits.
The protesters, to protect themselves, took over his weaponry in Benghazi.
Of course it is open conflict NOW.
Gadhaffi should be tried for "Crimes against humanity."

So then just checking... this is a Civil War right? Okay... thanks for coming out.

[Greyfox]

So then just checking... this is a Civil War right? Okay... thanks for coming out.

:rolleyes: A War started by an unpopular transvestite psychotic despot who seized rule himself from a King in an army coup, once upon a time.
It would be a stretch to call it a "Civil War" when Libyans are fighting foreign mercenaries for their own lands, directed by a leader who has betrayed them.

[elysiantraveller]

:rolleyes: A War started by an unpopular transvestite psychotic despot who seized rule himself from a King in an army coup, once upon a time.
It would be a stretch to call it a "Civil War" when Libyans are fighting foreign mercenaries for their own lands, directed by a leader who has betrayed them.

Please name one other Civil War within the past 100 years that wasn't fought along the same set of lines.

Vietnam, October Revolution, Korea, Spanish Civil War, etc. etc...

Actually I'll go one further name one Civil War EVER! that wasn't fought along those lines. The American Civil is the only exception I can find and that was't a Civil War in the traditional sense it was a war of Secession.

Also I don't really care who "started" it, we aren't 5th graders. Violence is a tool used by those in power to remain in power...

Go on, name one...

[boxcar]

Libya is not a "Civil War."
It was a civil protest and civil disobedience at worst.
Gadhaffi brought in foreign mercenaries and turned it into a blood bath, targeting his fellow countrymen.
He's got to be hauled before an International Court for crimes against humanity.

I don't get it, Greyfox: All the good Colonel has been doing is following the Obama Doctrine on Confrontation: The Libyans brought a knife to the fight, whereas Col. Q brought a big gun. Do you really think for a nanosecond that Obama wouldn't crush a large group of TP demonstrators into the ground if they they were to march to D.C. in force and demand their own version of Change? Even Calypso Louie sees through Obama's hypocrisy!

This is a civil war. Plain and simple. In fact, in speeches our Hypocrite-in-Chief gave years ago, he essentially said that the U.S. shouldn't be involved in any action that didn't present a clear and imminent threat to our national security. How in the world does Libya pose such a threat!? :bang: :bang:

Boxcar

[Greyfox]

Please name one other Civil War within the past 100 years that wasn't fought along the same set of lines.
.

Sorry...I'm not going to play Trivia Pursuit with you.
Call the war whatever you want. You seem to be insistent on that anyways.
Get it straight - Libyans are fighting an army that basically consists of
foreigners making $1,000 a day.
The Libyans are fighting for their country.
The Gadhaffi forces are fighting for the pay they receive.
Gadhaffi should be tried for "Crimes against humanity."

[elysiantraveller]

Sorry...I'm not going to play Trivia Pursuit with you.
Call the war whatever you want. You seem to be insistent on that anyways.
Get it straight - Libyans are fighting an army that basically consists of
foreigners making $1,000 a day.
The Libyans are fighting for their country.
The Gadhaffi forces are fighting for the pay they receive.
Gadhaffi should be tried for "Crimes against humanity."

So what you are now saying is that this situation isn't UNIQUE compared to any other war of self-determination ever fought...? So you are wrong about it not being a Civil War... okay...

Also in terms of spending by sides in the conflict right now I wouldn't despair over the Rebels... They now have, fighting for them, the most powerful military force in the world, the Armed Forces of the United States and we are spending a lot more than Gadaffi is on foreigners (whose role in this you are way overemphasizing).

:jump:

[Greyfox]

Do you really think for a nanosecond that Obama wouldn't crush a large group of TP demonstrators into the ground if they they were to march to D.C. in force and demand their own version of Change?
Boxcar

No. "Crowd control" and "arrests" yes. No American President would bomb his own citizens.

If calling it a "Civil War" makes you feel good, you can call it that.
I call it citizens fighting back against a wingnut despot who is spending millions to kill them.

[Greyfox]

So what you are now saying is that this situation isn't UNIQUE compared to any other war of self-determination ever fought...?
:jump:

:rolleyes: Where did I ever say that? :rolleyes:
Sorry. I'm not going to give "reading comprehension" lessons along with my opinions.
I'm moving on. Ta ta.

[elysiantraveller]

:rolleyes: Where did I ever say that? :rolleyes:
Sorry. I'm not going to give "reading comprehension" lessons along with my opinions.
I'm moving on. Ta ta.

So it is a Civil War? Or is it Unique? Either/or

Have fun with your ball...

[elysiantraveller]

No. "Crowd control" and "arrests" yes. No American President would bomb his own citizens.

If calling it a "Civil War" makes you feel good, you can call it that.
I call it citizens fighting back against a wingnut despot who is spending millions to kill them.

I'm just pointing out this isn't a unique situation... if it makes you feel any better we are spending billions right now to kill them. :p

[ArlJim78]

It's not often that people engaging in civil disobedience also have an army which can take over cities and bring down jet fighters.

[elysiantraveller]

:rolleyes: Where did I ever say that? :rolleyes:

Right here...

Libya is not a "Civil War."

Felt strongly enough about it to even put it in BOLD.

[Greyfox]

Right here...



Felt strongly enough about it to even put it in BOLD.

You're still having "reading comprehension problems."
I wouldn't say any new situation isn't unique.
Your comment was:
"So what you are now saying is that this situation isn't UNIQUE ...."

I never said that. Your interpretation is a downward assimilation. Sorry.

[boxcar]

No. "Crowd control" and "arrests" yes. No American President would bomb his own citizens.

If calling it a "Civil War" makes you feel good, you can call it that.
I call it citizens fighting back against a wingnut despot who is spending millions to kill them.

No, probably not. But would Obama hesitate to use force to quell what he might perceive as a "popular uprising"? I don't think so. In fact, I believe he would welcome the opportunity, so that he could declare martial law and in the process forestall elections, which would certainly work to his advantage.

And it is a civil war because he also has a fair percentage of people who sympathize with him and support him.

The U.S. should not be in the business of being the world's Cop. Nor should we be in the business of overtly and aggressively exporting our value system (freedom) around the world.

Boxcar

[Greyfox]

No, probably not. But would Obama hesitate to use force to quell what he might perceive as a "popular uprising"? I don't think so. In fact, I believe he would welcome the opportunity, so that he could declare martial law and in the process forestall elections, which would certainly work to his advantage.


Boxcar

I dislike Obama. He is the weakest President in my lifetime (and I didn't like Bush either).
Would he welcome the opportunity to declare martial law?
Highly, highly doubtful.

[NJ Stinks]

But would Obama hesitate to use force to quell what he might perceive as a "popular uprising"? I don't think so. In fact, I believe he would welcome the opportunity, so that he could declare martial law and in the process forestall elections, which would certainly work to his advantage.


Boxcar

Where do you get this garbage?

Did Obama do one damn thing to Tea Party members when they were screaming bloody murder at Town Hall meetings before the healthcare bill passed?

You really need to turn off the radio. :rolleyes:

[elysiantraveller]

You're still having "reading comprehension problems."
I wouldn't say any new situation isn't unique.
Your comment was:
"So what you are now saying is that this situation isn't UNIQUE ...."

I never said that. Your interpretation is a downward assimilation. Sorry.

Its either a Civil War or its unique in some way is the point I am making that you are glossing over. You are telling people on here it isn't a civil war and I am asking you to elaborate on how it isn't.

Also, not to take sides here but in a armed conflict no one is absolved of their sins. Like him or hate him Gadaffi is fighting for his life just as much as those rebels are.

Our involvment in this conflict when it was about to draw to a close is because we have a side we want, we want his regime gone. Lets face it, without foreign support this civil war would have ended this week sometime with the side we wanted losing. So we are now intervening in a Civil War to ensure the side we want to win does.

Gadaffi isn't hated enough by his own people to remove him from power but don't worry the west will do it anyway.

[Mike at A+]

Where do you get this garbage?

Did Obama do one damn thing to Tea Party members when they were screaming bloody murder at Town Hall meetings before the healthcare bill passed?

You really need to turn off the radio. :rolleyes:
Obama didn't have to do a thing because there was no violence by Tea Party members which is just the opposite of how his followers usually behave. Besides, Obama has the press in his pocket so they did the hit job on the Tea Party for him. The proof that Tea Party people have much more class than his bootlickers do is looking at the condition of the grounds after rallies. His thugs are vandals and slobs. I just wish that the 14 year old kid who was terrorized in his own home by bussed in SEIU scumbags had an automatic weapon and the training to use it.

[boxcar]

Where do you get this garbage?

Did Obama do one damn thing to Tea Party members when they were screaming bloody murder at Town Hall meetings before the healthcare bill passed?

You really need to turn off the radio. :rolleyes:

You don't read too swell, do you?. What part of the "popular uprising" in a previous post of mine didn't you understand!? I don't believe we can equate Town Hall meetings to a "popular uprising" -- or to a national strike, etc. If the TP movement gains more momentum (and I think it's possible as more and more "independents" see Obama for what he is), and they demand that he step down (for any number of good reasons), he would not stand for that kind of challenge to his authority.

But I don't think we have to worry too much about this scenario. The commie union thugs and their henchman are already plotting and planning and scheming on ways to destroy this nation from within -- using the Van Jones method.

Boxcar

[hcap]

But would Obama hesitate to use force to quell what he might perceive as a "popular uprising"? I don't think so. In fact, I believe he would welcome the opportunity, so that he could declare martial law and in the process forestall elections, which would certainly work to his advantage.

.....But I don't think we have to worry too much about this scenario. The commie union thugs and their henchman are already plotting and planning and scheming on ways to destroy this nation from within -- using the Van Jones method.
Certifiable. And I thought your take on religion was the worst. Was I mistaken.

[dylbert]

Did I miss something here? What if new Republican President doesn't want Clinton as his/her Secretary of State?

[bigmack]

Certifiable.
Can you tell us all again how bigotry exists only in a certain camp?

[boxcar]

Certifiable. And I thought your take on religion was the worst. Was I mistaken.

You didn't see the The Blaze vid on the union "overthrow" of the country, and their plan to crash the economy? Oh wait...you saw it, but didn't believe it, right. It was a vast right wing conspiracy to portray the poor innocent angles on the left as Dem(on)s from Hell, right? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar
P.S. Trust me: The Right doesn't have to do that. The Dem(on)s are the real deal.

[hcap]

Can you tell us all again how bigotry exists only in a certain camp?

I said it exists here in off topic, and your unfounded accusation of modtpost, is an example of how you gentlemen falsely claim a comparable degree of bigotry on both sides. Not true in your wildest dreams.

I also pointed out a similar line of babble once again attempting a false equivalence between Iraq and Libya. No matter what your opinion is about whether or not we should get involved, Obama is no g w bush, and the case for oil equivalence is absurd as is the notion that georgie had broad international support.

[bigmack]

I said it exists here in off topic, and your unfounded accusation of modtpost, is an example of how you gentlemen falsely claim a comparable degree of bigotry on both sides. Not true in your wildest dreams.
Bullshit. What you said was:
B.M. somehow trying to shift the racist tendencies of the right wing onto the left is laughable.

Guess what, Chump? You are the didactic bigot here.

When I said you adhere to long gone notions as that of Byron De La Beckwith, I'm not sure I went far enough.

Your thoughts are positively Neanderthal.

[hcap]

Ans?

Of course I said it exists on the right to a much greater degree than left. How is my above statement contradictory? My min point being PA off topic was a perfect example of bigoted rightie philosophy and your absurd accusation of mostpoast reflected general rightie K Rovian tactics shifting blame when none exists. I pointed to the blood for oil equivalence bull and the overall fallacy of Libya=Iraq.

Anything else chump?

[bigmack]

Of course I said it exists on the right to a much greater degree than left.
Of course you did. Because you pigeonhole folk, like the aforementioned redneck.

What a stereotypical, jaded view you have on the world.

Do you still want to kill Palin for using "blood libel" because she's not Jewish?

Do you still want to accuse others of gay bashing because they dare use an innocuous line about tool belts?

Do you want to say this joint is filled with xenophobic racists because they question illegal immigration?

So many rules to obey in your world of chosenness.

You act as if you're dealing with fools.

[bigmack]

Hate to double post but I gotta fly...

Tell ya what ya do... Get back to me with a colorful graph or some poll that supports your backwards notion of one camp being more racist than another.

Until then, your mind is as limited as the worst redneck of all time.

Live with that.

[hcap]

Do you still want to kill Palin for using "blood libel" because she's not Jewish?

Only when she opens her mouth to speak. Rest of the time mild torture will do.

Do you still want to accuse others of gay bashing because they dare use an innocuous line about tool belts?

Innocous? What is that some sort of rightie sexual deviance?

Do you want to say this joint is filled with xenophobic racists because they question illegal immigration?

Illegal is not the operative word here. Hispanic is. Some of you gentlemen use them interchangeably. Both with contempt.

You act as if you're dealing with fools.
Nah, many not all.

[boxcar]

Hcap:

Illegal is not the operative word here. Hispanic is. Some of you gentlemen use them interchangeably. Both with contempt.

You could prove this statement very easily by providing examples of how conservatives have expressed their racist, xenophobic fears, through the political process, with other races or ethnic groups outside the immediate context of the current illegal immigration crisis.

Boxcar

[Mike at A+]

My two cents: Too many people confuse racism and bigotry with partisanship. I believe that racism and bigotry have to be "accross the board", that is, if you dislike Obama but like Alan West, you're not a racist. There are other things to consider. Someone who likes Obama but previously called Condi Rice "the house ni99er" or Colin Powell an "Uncle Tom" is not necessarily a racist. It's more likely that it's a case of double standard entitlement mentality.

For me personally, I love to call Obama a "chimp" and watch as liberals call me a racist. But when I confront them with the fact that "chimp" was commonly used by liberals to describe George W. Bush, they squirm and revert back to their double standard security blanket.

In the sick little world of hard core liberals, conservatives are not allowed to dislike (for ANY reason) someone who belongs to some "protected" group like blacks or Hispanics, gays, women. In those cases, they simply revert to their favorite "cool" words like racist, bigot, xenophobe, homophobe and misogynist. And of course when they express their dislike of people in any of those groups, it's all about issues and nothing else. :bang: :bang: :bang:

[lamboguy]

My two cents: Too many people confuse racism and bigotry with partisanship. I believe that racism and bigotry have to be "accross the board", that is, if you dislike Obama but like Alan West, you're not a racist. There are other things to consider. Someone who likes Obama but previously called Condi Rice "the house ni99er" or Colin Powell an "Uncle Tom" is not necessarily a racist. It's more likely that it's a case of double standard entitlement mentality.

For me personally, I love to call Obama a "chimp" and watch as liberals call me a racist. But when I confront them with the fact that "chimp" was commonly used by liberals to describe George W. Bush, they squirm and revert back to their double standard security blanket.

In the sick little world of hard core liberals, conservatives are not allowed to dislike (for ANY reason) someone who belongs to some "protected" group like blacks or Hispanics, gays, women. In those cases, they simply revert to their favorite "cool" words like racist, bigot, xenophobe, homophobe and misogynist. And of course when they express their dislike of people in any of those groups, it's all about issues and nothing else. :bang: :bang: :bang:not that this really matters, but the dmocratic party was a racist and a conservetive party for many many years. remember guys like george wallace and leser maddix.both democrats. bottom line both partys suck big time. i am an equal opportunity hater, i have hated both parties for years and i am not a bigot

[PaceAdvantage]

I pointed to the blood for oil equivalence bull and the overall fallacy of Libya=Iraq.What do you make of the massive contributions BP made to Obama (more than GWB)? And now Obama is attacking one fairly large oil nation.

Why?

Is Libya somehow threatening US National Security anymore than Iraq was?

What exactly is the point of this act of aggression upon a sovereign nation? I thought you didn't like being the policeman of the world. I thought you condemned the United States interfering with other nations that have not directly threatened or attacked us.

Let me give you the floor and prepare to enjoy the two-stepping that is about to ensue.

[mostpost]

What do you make of the massive contributions BP made to Obama (more than GWB)? And now Obama is attacking one fairly large oil nation.

Why?

Is Libya somehow threatening US National Security anymore than Iraq was?

What exactly is the point of this act of aggression upon a sovereign nation? I thought you didn't like being the policeman of the world. I thought you condemned the United States interfering with other nations that have not directly threatened or attacked us.

Let me give you the floor and prepare to enjoy the two-stepping that is about to ensue.

Exactly how much money did BP give to Obama? My research says $87,000.
Out of $650M. 1% So Obama is going to turn Libya over to BP because they contributed 1% of his campaign funds?

Doesn't BP stand for British Petroleum? Is the United States going to physically invade Libya? Not likely since we are already working to turn command of the operation over to others.

Libya: Operation initiated by European nations with approval from Arab states.
United States a participant but not a leader.
Motivation: to save a civilian population from immediate and severe danger.
If Khadafi is overthrown all the better.

Irag: Operation initiated by United States based on faulty, false and manufactured intelligence. Supported by few. Opposed by most European states and strongly opposed by Arab states.

That is what you call false equivalence just as Hcap said.

[lsbets]

First off - I am in favor of action in Libya. Our goal should be regime change, not the half assed goals we have now. Obama is once again demonstrating that he is not up to the task of being President.

That being said, our coalition in Iraq was twice as large as the shaky coalition in Libya - fact.

Bush went to Congress and got approval for action in Iraq - fact.

Dance all you want mosty, Obama bungled this just as he has bungled almost everything since he took office, but the smart ones among us knew that was going to happen. That is the consequence when you elect someone with zero qualifications for the job.

[mostpost]

What do you make of the massive contributions BP made to Obama
I know you guys love Mediamatters so:
http://mediamatters.org/research/201006100021

Far from receiving massive contributions from BP, Obama received nothing for his Presidential campaign from BP.
Excerpt.
CRP: Money donated to Obama in 2008 election was entirely from BP employees, not the corporation; employees donated about $70,000 -- not $750 million. Contrary to Kilmeade's claim, $750 million is reportedly the amount Obama raised overall during the 2008 campaign, not what he received from BP. Moreover, the BP-linked donations came exclusively from BP employees -- not the corporation itself. In an email exchange with Media Matters for America, a spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics confirmed that "the $71,051 that Obama received during the 2008 election cycle was entirely from BP employees. ... Obama did not accept contributions from political action committees, so none of this money is from BP's PAC."


Here is a link to the Open Secrets page on Obama contributions from BP employees.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/search.php?cid=N00009638&name=%28all%29&employ=BP&state=%28all%29&zip=%28any+zip%29&submit=OK&amt=a&so

Open Secrets is an arm of the Center For Responsive Politics.
There are four pages of individual donors.

Your whole theory is worthless.

[bigmack]

Your whole theory is worthless.
Only if you suck on the tailpipe of the usual sites you visit.

Politico ain't exactly neutral either.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/bpobama.png

[hcap]

How soon they forget. The Iraqi War was by prosecuted by an administration heavily populated by oil industry participants.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1138009.stm

BBC 29 January, 2001

"What makes the new Bush administration different from previous wealthy cabinets is that so many of the officials have links to the same industry - oil.

The president, vice-president, commerce secretary and national security adviser all have strong ties to the oil industry.

Vice-President Dick Cheney amassed some £50m-$60m while he was chief executive of Haliburton oil company.

Commerce Secretary Donald Evans held stock valued between $5m and $25m in Tom Brown Inc, the oil and gas exploration company he headed.

National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice was a director of Chevron.

The concentration of energy connections is so pronounced that some critics are calling the Bush government the "oil and gas administration".

There are also questions about how energy policy decisions may be affected by the private financial interests of so many senior cabinet members."

.................................................. ....

I am somewhat reluctant about the US getting involved in another military action. But compared to the Iraq war the present humanitarian action in Libya is a flea on Saddam's' dog. And the false equivalence that you gentlemen have postulated on all fronts as of recently, is just that FALSE. And the absurdity of B.M.s racist attack on mostpost hoping to teach us libs a "lesson" is pure unadulterated bull. No equivalence in war and none in racist remarks. This site abounds with bigotry, and not from the left.

[bigmack]

That is the consequence when you elect someone with zero qualifications for the job.
HELLO! Earth to ls.

Try and stay aware.

NgzN35Mht6I

This site abounds with bigotry, and not from the left.
What a creep. Your hatred usurps any I've ever seen.

[PaceAdvantage]

I am somewhat reluctant about the US getting involved in another military action. But compared to the Iraq war the present humanitarian action in Libya is a flea on Saddam's' dog.So there was no humanitarian aspect in Iraq? Man, how do you type this shit with a straight face...

Saddam wasn't slaughtering his own people? Come on man...

Should I trot out that video where all the powerful DEMOCRATIC politicians pledged their support for the Iraq invasion, telling us how dangerous Saddam is to the United States?

You're right, there is no moral equivalence. Iraq was a much more justifiable military engagement...with that said, like lsbets, I too am in favor of action in Libya, just like I supported action in Iraq. Unlike you, I am not a hypocrite.

[hcap]

The killing of Saddam's own people was done overwhelmingly years earlier when Reagan/Bush senior was in bed with Saddam. We did not do anything then. We invaded Iraq on trumped up charges of WMDs, The humanitarian cry was a dozen years too late, and the WMDs was a manipulated lie.

[bigmack]

We invaded Iraq on trumped up charges of WMDs, The humanitarian cry was a dozen years too late, and the WMDs was a manipulated lie.
Supported by all.

Cwqh4wQPoQk

[mostpost]

Only if you suck on the tailpipe of the usual sites you visit.

Politico ain't exactly neutral either.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/bpobama.png

Bill Gates and I are worth 56 billion and a several thousand dollars. Do you think I am worth $28B?
That is what the Politico story is trying to convince us.
Accusation: "Obama and members of congress have taken millions from BP."
Implication: "Obama has taken millions from BP.
Fact: Obama has received under $100,000 from BP with all but $1000 (for his Senate campaign in 2004) coming from BP employees.

Accusation: BP and its employees have contributed over 3.5 million to the campaigns of federal candidates over the past twenty years with the largest chunk of the money going to Obama.
Implication: Obama has received as much as all other candidates.
Fact: Obama has received more than any single candidate, but there are good reasons for that. First you are comparing a presidential candidate with Senatorial and Congressional candidates. It stands to reason that a national candidate would need and receive more money. Second, on the national level, Obama was a much more viable candidate than McCain. Third, the money did not come from corporate BP. It came from BP employees. Also know as workers. Also known as the kind of people who supported Obama.

Accusation: During his time in the Senate and while running for President, Obama received $77K from the oil giant and is the top recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past twenty years.
Implication: Obama sold his soul to BP.
Fact: Zero percent of the money Obama received for his presidential campaign came from a BP PAC or from any PAC. It was all contributed by individual employees. In the case of BP it amounted to .o1percent.

[hcap]

Supported by all.

Cwqh4wQPoQk
No, most of the house dems disagreed.
The bush administration fed the congress the same trumped up evidence that it fed the American people. I seem to remember Powell recanting, don't you?

[riskman]

From the NY Times today.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/us/politics/24congress.html?_r=1&hp


"Mr. Boehner suggested in his letter that the administration had consulted more closely with the United Nations and the Arab League than with Congress. He said the administration had called for Colonel Qaddafi to be removed from office while backing a United Nations resolution that does not call for regime change.

“Because of the conflicting messages from the administration and our coalition partners, there is a lack of clarity over the objectives of this mission, what our national security interests are, and how it fits into our overarching policy for the Middle East,” Mr. Boehner said.

Looks like Obama and Hillary are not on the same page as the UN resolution.

[bigmack]

No, most of the house dems disagreed.
Should we drag out the vote record?

Have you heard anything about Bush saying he was wrong and the intelligence was wrong since he left office?

How long would you like to harbor your hate? Would you like a one-way ticket to Crawford to give him a piece of your mind to get an end to it?

[rastajenk]

Why was there no stomach for regime change in Sudan for most of the last decade or more? Why now? All of these situations going on where old-school dictators, kings, presidents-for-life are being threatened must be assessed on their own merits. Some situations may present themselves as low-hanging fruit, others like North Korea are much too complicated to barge in and shake things up.

I don't know where Libya is on that scale. But with things simmering all over the region, right now strikes me as an injudicious moment to use force. I got no qualms in principle about seeing Kadaffy go, but the way it's been presented to us has hardly been convincing.

[hcap]

Supported by all......

Should we drag out the vote record?

No, most of the house dems disagreed.
The bush administration fed the congress the same trumped up evidence that it fed the American people. I seem to remember Powell recanting, don't you?OK the vote record.....

126 (61%) of 208 Democratic Representatives voted against the resolution

You know what is worse than being arrogant is being wrong and arrogant

[hcap]

Have you heard anything about Bush saying he was wrong and the intelligence was wrong since he left office?Ok, I take it back. Worse than than being arrogant and wrong is being arrogant, wrong, and dumb as a doorknob

[ArlJim78]

I see now we're adivsed by the White House that the 200+ tomahawks we fired into Libya does not mean we're at war. I'm sure if some country bombarded us with the same number of missiles, we wouldn't consider it an act of war?:rolleyes:

no this one is a "time limited, scope limited, kinetic military action"

[johnhannibalsmith]

Its really getting nauseating the lengths these fools will go to use doublespeak and out-and-out lies to avoid admitting that running the country often makes it difficult to run a campaign.

[bigmack]

126 (61%) of 208 Democratic Representatives voted against the resolution

Oh, I thought you were talking about the Senate where 58% voted yes.

[hcap]

Oh, I thought you were talking about the Senate where 58% voted yes.
Really? You quoted me saying:

Originally Posted by hcap
No, most of the house dems disagreed.
Amazing that you MISUNDERSTOOD one simple sentence. No wonder anything more gets you totally confused. And no wonder you were taken in by the Bush administration lying about WMDs.

[bigmack]

no wonder you were taken in by the Bush administration lying about WMDs.
You knew all along. :rolleyes:

[hcap]

Many of us. The McClathy newspapers ran thorough investigatory pieces. Both Powell and Rice a year earlier wrote pieces saying Saddam was of little threat. And most of all there was enough doubt in our minds to insist the UN inspectors be allowed to finish. The maneuvering by bush/blair to circumvent the UN was the clincher.

[PaceAdvantage]

If Saddam was of little threat, what does that make Colonel Gadfly?

[hcap]

Little threat to us. Certain;y not enough yo launch a full scale invasion based on WMDs. Qudafy much less of a threat. Therefore much less of a threat to us and therefore NO full scale trumped up war. Why didn't Reagan/GWBUSH stop him when he was bombing Iraqi Kurds and other Iraqi citizens 10 years earlier?.

Clinton intervened in Bosnia and Obama is intervening in Libya now. Republicans bitch about things they don't and should do, or launch disastrous full scale global wars that they shouldn't.

[fast4522]

Well,
We are moving right along now, another Kenyan power move?

[hcap]

Typical nonsense from the anti-Obama camp

http://www.bartcop.com/dither-transplant.gif

http://www.bartcop.com/rw-dithers.gif

[boxcar]

Nice to see that you're coming around to Reality by abandoning your dovish position on wars, hostilities and acts of aggression.. Who knows where this transformation will lead: Full blown chicken hawk, maybe? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[hcap]

Nice to know you have abandoned most Christian understandings and will invade and bomb at the drop of the hat

[boxcar]

Nice to know you have abandoned most Christian understandings and will invade and bomb at the drop of the hat

Funny how you always rely on the old, tired saw of "consensus", especially since mainstream Christendom is MOSTLY apostate!

Matt 7:13
13 "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.
ESV

Boxcar

[PaceAdvantage]

Typical nonsense from the anti-Obama camp

http://www.bartcop.com/dither-transplant.gifCould that elephant mask look any more like an inverted Klansman hood? Disgusting and despicable, but I wouldn't expect anything less from the kind of media that turns on hcap.

[rastajenk]

Is it too much for the puny liberal mind to accept that "dithering" and "recklessness" are not mutually exclusive? It is not only possible to take too much time to select one of several options (due mainly to a lack of underlying principles) and then act with complete disregard for the consequences; with this administration it is highly probable.