Rolling politics thread...

by **Woody** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 08:33:53

pacino wrote:Bill O'Reilly loses his mind(and his voice towards the end) on his show:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0Gwz-2qB7o[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HoUW8QAmnk[/youtube]

by **dajafi** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 13:05:57

Disco Stu wrote:And that was one of his more sane arguments of the week since it didn't concern controversial politician, Rosie O'Donnell.

I think Rosie's a freakin' idiot too, and I wish she'd shut up and go away, but it amazes me how much mindspace the righties have for hating on her. Last week some right-wing troll came to carpetbagger.com, one of the political websites I enjoy, ripped on all of us for awhile, then totally unprompted started raging against Rosie. It was like the hate spilled over into another topic.

by **pacino** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 13:38:01

OK...so STAGING a news opinion show is probably even worse

by **swishnicholson** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 16:47:26

pacino wrote:Bill O'Reilly loses his mind(and his voice towards the end) on his show:

Ahhhh! Me on the side of Geraldo Rivera. I feel dirty.

by **Disco Stu** » Fri Apr 13, 2007 01:44:44

Fox News:

Real quote: "I think that nobody wants to play chicken with our troops on the ground."

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Fri Apr 13, 2007 04:03:41

Disco Stu wrote:Fox News:

Stu, you misspelled "Faux News".

by **Disco Stu** » Fri Apr 13, 2007 05:04:40

Phan In Phlorida wrote:
Disco Stu wrote:Fox News:

Stu, you misspelled "Faux News".

Yeah yeah...

by **uncle milt** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 14:26:57

damn immigrants!

"The Italians who have recently come in such vast numbers to our shores do not constitute a desirable element of the population, either socially or politically . . . Does the Italian come because the Irishman refuses to work in ditches and trenches, in gangs; or has the Irishman taken this position because the Italian has come? . . . If the administrators of Baron Hirsh’s estate send to us two millions of Russian Jews, we shall soon find the Italians standing on their dignity, and deeming themselves too good to work on streets and sewers and railroads. But meanwhile, what of the republic? What of the American standard of living? What of the American rate of wages?

The immigrant of former times came almost exclusively from western and northern Europe . . . Only a short time ago, the immigrants from southern Italy, Hungary, Austria and Russia together made up hardly more than one percent of our immigration. Today the proportion has risen to something like forty percent and threatens soon to become fifty of sixty percent, or even more. The entrance into our political, social, and industrial life of such vast masses of peasantry, degraded below our utmost conceptions, is a matter which no intelligent patriot can look upon without the gravest apprehension and alarm. These people . . . are beaten men from beaten races.

Within the decade between 1880 and 1890 five and a quarter millions of foreigners entered our ports!...The problems which so sternly confront us today are serious enough without being complicated and aggravated by the addition of some millions of Hungarians, Bohemians, Poles, south Italians, and Russian Jews."

- Francis A.Richards. June 1896, Atlantic Monthly

by **pacino** » Sun Apr 22, 2007 14:34:06

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IBvZlRqOTw[/youtube]

by **Disco Stu** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 15:41:49

This may be the most ridiculous play the victim cry I have ever read.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Pla ... -Soros.wmv

BO should be sued.

by **pacino** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 16:00:02

O'Reilly recently said that Alec Baldwin was 'done' because he was caught on tape saying nasty things to his daughter.

As opposed to someone that works for him...

BTW, after I saw the clip I must say that at least Bill really got both/all sides of the story. A right-wing radio host and a right-wing author talking about evil Soros. And for chrissakes, isn't FOX News considered part of the 'mainstream media' by now?! Why does O'Reilly keep using this talking point?

by **Stay_Disappointed** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 13:44:44

Senate passes Iraq bill

The $124.2 billion bill requires troop withdrawals to begin Oct. 1, or sooner if the Iraqi government does not meet certain benchmarks. The House passed the measure Wednesday by a 218-208 vote.

Republicans labeled the timetable a “surrender date.”

I guess that is a problem?

“Al-Qaida will view this as the day the House of Representatives threw in the towel,” said Rep. Jerry Lewis of California, ranking Republican on the House Appropriations Committee

You know, the one thing about this whole war is the fact that the republicans (and Lieberman) keep telling us how very important this war is, and how much sacrifice will be needed to win it. Yet I look back to World War II where you couldn't even use metallic Christmas tree ornaments to today where people get hysterical if gas prices go above $3 a gallon. Well, I mean if they really want to prove how important this war is then prove it! Have a draft and send about 500,000 - 1,000,000 troops over there. Raise taxes to fund the increased expense. Properly equip and train the troops. Tell everyone to make sacrifices in their daily lives that will lead to increased success of our forces. I think people would be more willing to take all this rhetoric seriously if the adminsitration treated the war the same way they talked about it. [/quote]

by **Disco Stu** » Fri Apr 27, 2007 04:28:12

ROFL Russert...IRAK!

http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Pla ... 070425.WMV

That is one where you just know people will never let you live it down.

Oh, and everyone hates the war.

by **Goomeister** » Fri Apr 27, 2007 04:48:54

Disco Stu wrote:ROFL Russert...IRAK!

.

DS, that was funny. I can understand that kind of slip-of-the-tongue since that is how you would spell Iraq phonetically. I can picture myself making this kind of mistake.

by **dajafi** » Fri Apr 27, 2007 10:00:26

Warszawa wrote:You know, the one thing about this whole war is the fact that the republicans (and Lieberman) keep telling us how very important this war is, and how much sacrifice will be needed to win it. Yet I look back to World War II where you couldn't even use metallic Christmas tree ornaments to today where people get hysterical if gas prices go above $3 a gallon. Well, I mean if they really want to prove how important this war is then prove it! Have a draft and send about 500,000 - 1,000,000 troops over there. Raise taxes to fund the increased expense. Properly equip and train the troops. Tell everyone to make sacrifices in their daily lives that will lead to increased success of our forces. I think people would be more willing to take all this rhetoric seriously if the adminsitration treated the war the same way they talked about it.

This is one point that I think is totally valid, and not pushed enough in the public discourse.

The other is this: WHAT THE HELL WOULD "VICTORY" LOOK LIKE?

Think about it. One can view the Democrats' push for "benchmarks" as, among other things, an attempt to make the war about something more tangible than "freedom" and "terror." Is there a level of violence below which we're prepared to accept? Does it have to do with Iraqi oil revenues? Getting the electricity on for more than X number of hours in the day? A certain level of employment or economic activity? One government staying in power for some length of time?

I really have no idea, and I don't think anybody does. I don't know exactly what's in the proposed "benchmarks," but at least it pegs the sacrifice--the highly focused sacrifice to which Warszawa refers--to something more tangible than the war supporters' evidently unbearable fear that we'll be exposed as wimps should we leave.

At least, I think that was Michelle Malkin's point here.

by **TheDude24** » Fri Apr 27, 2007 15:04:23

I'd rather be thought a wimp than a bully. At least when you are thought a wimp you can justify it by saying you are outsmarting your enemies instead of outfighting them, or leaving because the war is too expensive and want to budget more money to improving things at home.

by **Houshphandzadeh** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 11:14:11

Immigration is the devil's work.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_5762668

by **dajafi** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 12:05:23

I have two questions about the Iraq War:

1) How will we know we've "won"? Is it when the incidence of violence drops below a certain level? When the power is on for more than a given number of hours in a day? Some political resolution to what looks and evidently feels like a civil war? Economic measures (jobs, oil revenues, Iraqi GDP)?

2) Assuming victory can be defined, do supporters of the war believe that there is any price, in lives or money or time or "opportunity cost" (i.e., forces committed there can't be used elsewhere), that's too great to justify it?

by **Houshphandzadeh** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 13:08:11

I think less murders per day than Philadelphia would be a good starting goal.

by **Stay_Disappointed** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 13:59:43

dajafi wrote:I have two questions about the Iraq War:

1) How will we know we've "won"? Is it when the incidence of violence drops below a certain level? When the power is on for more than a given number of hours in a day? Some political resolution to what looks and evidently feels like a civil war? Economic measures (jobs, oil revenues, Iraqi GDP)?

2) Assuming victory can be defined, do supporters of the war believe that there is any price, in lives or money or time or "opportunity cost" (i.e., forces committed there can't be used elsewhere), that's too great to justify it?

1) I think its just a matter of the next president taking office and ending this fiasco so that George Bush can say "I didn't lose". Then they'll just spew some nifty catch phrase about 8 billion times until even they believe it themselves (see: "Cut and Run")

2) I think the most of the country who do support the war want something for nothing. Are there people actually still supporting this war?

Actually, after thinking about it, even if there was a war effort on par with the World Wars, Korea, and Vietnam (if they really thought this war was the big "good vs evil" showdown of our generation) I don't know if there would be a point where we could truly say the war was "won". I mean you can put 500,000 people over there and completely clear out everybody who has a devious look on his face. You can then station a true occupational force, with bases and everything. You could then use Iraq as a launching point for the invasion Syria and Iran and subjugate those people too. I imagine with a large enough force and lots of funding you could accomplish all of these things, but I also imagine the outcome would probably fall short of widespread middle-eastern democracy and eventually would create a whole new generation of terrorists.

Archived

Rolling politics thread...