Huffington Post = Obama's New Pet!

[SUPDOG]

I didn't see the snake last night, but I heard he actually called on a reporter from, you guessed it- THE HUFFINGTON POST! WOW, what a goofball this clown of a "president' has become already. Can we impeach yet? :eek:


And then the question, which was worthy of a marxist loving, Stalinish web site like Huffington was about bringing charges against Bush!!! And the chump actually entertained the question! What an incredible diservice to Bush, and all presidents. Face it folks, Obama is a disgrace, just like i told you he would be!!!

He is a classless, gutless, and clueless clown, who is going spread his hate like an inferno. Just like I told you he would. You wait and see.

[Sgt.Slaughter]

I didn't see the snake last night, but I heard he actually called on a reporter from, you guessed it- THE HUFFINGTON POST! WOW, what a goofball this clown of a "president' has become already. Can we impeach yet? :eek:


And then the question, which was worthy of a marxist loving, Stalinish web site like Huffington was about bringing charges against Bush!!! And the chump actually entertained the question! What an incredible diservice to Bush, and all presidents. Face it folks, Obama is a disgrace, just like i told you he would be!!!

He is a classless, gutless, and clueless clown, who is going spread his hate like an inferno. Just like I told you he would. You wait and see.

Get a life...for 8 years nobody saw nothing wrong with who Bush called on his crooked policies. Obama has been in less than a month and conservative dummies like you are ready to jump on every little thing he does and says...

Just keep listening to Sean Hannity and his overly racist antics while working your $28,000 a year job hoping that you don't get laid off like the rest of American's.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Better than calling on a reporter from Fox....



.

[MonoxideChild]

Better than calling on a reporter from Fox....



.

lmao. By the way, why is he a snake? He answered questions from a member of the press that attended a quick press conference. If they weren't goin to be able to ask a question freely, what's thepoint of holding one?

[Gtrght77]

Obama *****slapped the GOP back into the minority again last night. :p

[SUPDOG]

Get a life...for 8 years nobody saw nothing wrong with who Bush called on his crooked policies. Obama has been in less than a month and conservative dummies like you are ready to jump on every little thing he does and says...

Just keep listening to Sean Hannity and his overly racist antics while working your $28,000 a year job hoping that you don't get laid off like the rest of American's.

Your first sentence does not make any sense.

Hannity is no where near a racist. You could not listen to him and make a comment like that. It is likely that you are a Huff. post guy, and that is where you get your "opinion." Either that or you are one of those types who label anyone a racist who doesn't see eye to eye with your marxist loving clown of a president.

Your Messianic president is much more racist than you know.

So are many of those who voted for him.

I own my own business and do quite well, thank you.

Pretty soon though, Obama will own my business too. Yay!:eek:


Anyway, the reality remains. A president, who fields questions from the Huffington post, does not comprehend the magnitude of the office. That would be your president. He is a classless and cluless political thug. End of story. Sorry to disappoint you.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Your first sentence does not make any sense.

Hannity is no where near a racist. You could not listen to him and make a comment like that. It is likely that you are a Huff. post guy, and that is where you get your "opinion." Either that or you are one of those types who label anyone a racist who doesn't see eye to eye with your marxist loving clown of a president.

Your Messianic president is much more racist than you know.

So are many of those who voted for him.

I own my own business and do quite well, thank you.

Pretty soon though, Obama will own my business too. Yay!:eek:


Anyway, the reality remains. A president, who fields questions from the Huffington post, does not comprehend the magnitude of the office. That would be your president. He is a classless and cluless political thug. End of story. Sorry to disappoint you.

pure hate based on absolutely nothing but partisan bias.

[theanalogkid]

Huh, he called on a reporter to answer their question so obviously now he likes there organization?

The logic does not follow period.

[SUPDOG]

pure hate based on absolutely nothing but partisan bias.

Exactly Nevada! That is why Huffington Post should be nowhere NEAR a Presidential press conference, let alone permit them to ask a question as if they have ANY respectabillity!

You can presume that the conferences are going to become a place for delusional left-wing hit jobs from here on out! Professionalism and respectability are all but lost already, and it was only ONE CONFERENCE!! It is an OUTRAGE!! Let us use common sense people.

OBAMA IS ALREADY TREATING THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT AS IF IT IS A JOKE!!!! :eek:

It is like Obama is running a circus. Respectability is going down the drain real quick- for those who can comprehend the magnitude anyway!

[JoeJGibbs]

lol Are you always this extreme and over the top?

[Nevada_Ballin]

Exactly Nevada! That is why Huffington Post should be nowhere NEAR a Presidential press conference, let alone permit them to ask a question as if they have ANY respectabillity!

You can presume that the conferences are going to become a place for delusional left-wing hit jobs from here on out! Professionalism and respectability are all but lost already, and it was only ONE CONFERENCE!! It is an OUTRAGE!! Let us use common sense people.

OBAMA IS ALREADY TREATING THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT AS IF IT IS A JOKE!!!! :eek:

It is like Obama is running a circus. Respectability is going down the drain real quick- for those who can comprehend the magnitude anyway!


man, you're more paranoid than i thought... lol

What has Huffington Post ever done to make you say they don't have any credibility as a news source?

[sanantonio]

lol Are you always this extreme and over the top?

Yes he is and it only get's better :D. Very entertaining!

[MonoxideChild]

You been hangin out with Rush and Haggerty or what?

[SUPDOG]

Yes he is and it only get's better :D. Very entertaining!

Everything I said stands, and is obviously true. I realize that many libs get their info/ lib talking points from the Huff., but I am sorry to inform you that Mike moore gets his info there as well.


They are the Enquirer of the internet.

Why not surf marxist sites instead?


I am glad to see you be courageous enough to come back. There are plenty of anti-socialist beat downs to come! ;)

[Sgt.Slaughter]

Everything I said stands, and is obviously true. I realize that many libs get their info/ lib talking points from the Huff., but I am sorry to inform you that Mike moore gets his info there as well.


They are the Enquirer of the internet.

Why not surf marxist sites instead?


I am glad to see you be courageous enough to come back. There are plenty of anti-socialist beat downs to come! ;)

Your an A S S...

Please tell me how Obama is treating the Presidency as a joke?

Are you talking about the closing of Gitmo? You know Gitmo which broke every article of the Geneva Convention...or are we talking about equal pay for women?

You know with alot of you Republican's you have castrated Obama before his 1st 100 days and you know why...your all running around scared because 1. he's black. 2 you actually thought Bush did a good job. 3 he actually has the overwhelming support of the American people. So pundits like Rush and Hannity claim him as the messiah...and you A S S hole's follow along.

Get a life...

[TheSphinx 2.0]

I actually agree with Sup on this one. Taking questions from Huff is like Bush taking question from Rush. This is a bad sign. Presidential press conferences are already staged with reporters being preselected to ask questions. It used to be that one could hope that your would actually get a hard question, but if we are just going to start picking partisan hacks to ask questions then what good is the press conference other than to espouse your talking points.

I voted for Obama and so far I am not exactly thrilled with his performance. It is early and he is still learning the position so I expect him to get better.

Even though I voted for him I will say that the stimulus package is an embarrassment. Loading me up with debt to fund some of this foolishness is beyond reckless. This belief that people should be bailed out for making bad decisions at the detriment of those who made good decisions is asinine.

People should really think about what we are about to do. If it doesn't work the the US is about to become a 2nd teir country and all of our lives will be worse off. I hope it works...

-TS

[resnor]

Your an A S S...

Please tell me how Obama is treating the Presidency as a joke?

Are you talking about the closing of Gitmo? You know Gitmo which broke every article of the Geneva Convention...or are we talking about equal pay for women?

You know with alot of you Republican's you have castrated Obama before his 1st 100 days and you know why...your all running around scared because 1. he's black. 2 you actually thought Bush did a good job. 3 he actually has the overwhelming support of the American people. So pundits like Rush and Hannity claim him as the messiah...and you A S S hole's follow along.

Get a life...

I should just disregard anything you have to say, judging from what's in your sig...you're obviously someone who doesn't care what Obama does...

However...

1. I don't believe the Geneva convention applies to these people that are being held in Gitmo. These scumbags aren't enemy combatants...they aren't following the Geneva convention. These murderers are operating outside of all societal rules. By the way, which part of closing Gitmo are you happy with: the part that has these dangerous people being shipped to the States to be put in jail, or the part tha has Obama using rendition to send these people back to their own countries (where they will probably be tortured and then murdered, WITHOUT ANY SORT OF TRIAL). Also, you guys act like Bush is the ONLY President to have done these things...a quick perusal of history shows that Lincoln suspended Habeous Corpus, Roosevelt authorized the internment of Japanese American citizens, etc, etc. Get off Bush's junk.

2. Equal pay for women? LOL. Yeah, we REALLY needed ANOTHER law about this. Wasn't it already against the law to discriminate against someone based upon their sex? Isn't paying a woman less than a man, simply because she's a woman, discriminating based on sex? The problem is, and I would assume STILL IS, how do you prove that a woman is receiving less money than a man, simply because she's a woman? Women are a bigger risk for companies for long term positions, for a number of reasons. That is a significant reason for women being paid less than men.

3. Ah yes, the race card. Wondered just who would be the first to play it in this thread. I can't stand Obama. I think he is terrible. However, it has nothing to do with his skin color. That may be why YOU voted FOR him, but it has nothing to do why I, or many of my fellow conservatives, did NOT vote for him. I guess it is easy to say that we hate black people, and ignore the fact that everything that Obama does sends us screaming towards the pit of socialism, which is the exact opposite of what we believe in. Keep thinking that it's just because he's black, though.:rolleyes: By the way, maybe you haven't seen in other threads in the past year, but I, and other conservatives on here, have voted for Alan Keyes in the past. I've actually voted for him twice. I wonder why Keyes, a genuine black man, never stood a chance...

4. Yes, I think that Bush did a good job. I don't think that he was perfect, but I believe that taking out Saddam was the right thing to do. I don't believe the Katrina had anything to do with Bush. I believe that he did a good job keeping the country together after 9/11.

5. He has the "overwhelming" support of the American people? Really? Maybe you should check into that...in an election year where the Republicans were SCREWED, Obama only won by what, 6%? There were still 50+ million Americans who did NOT WANT Obama to be their President. For the record, that means almost half the American voters didn't want Obama then, and it's not getting any better now, with Americans finding out about this craptastic pork bill he's behind.

6. He get's called the Messiah by Rush and Hannity because...THAT'S HOW OBAMA'S SUPPORTERS TREAT HIM. For crying out loud, Farakhan called him that. The Washington Post, I believe, had the headline "The Words Made Flesh" which is an OBVIOUS biblical reference, tying Obama to Jesus. There are many, many other examples of his supporters putting him on a Messiah-like pedastal.

7. Where are his campaign promises of "change you can believe in" and "transparency" of his government now? He has nominated, and gotted passed, tax cheats to some of the highest positions in our government. He has surrounded himself with Clinton era retreads. Nothing about him is change.

Get a grip, Slaughter. You obviously don't have a clue what other people in the country believe.

[SUPDOG]

Ouchy, now THAT was a beat-down!

And 100% true.

[Nevada_Ballin]

The hypocrisy:

the same person who incessantly gripes about the country heading towards socialism wants to control who can ask questions & report news on the government.

Personally i could care less about Huffington but i find the hypocrisy funny.

[SUPDOG]

The hypocrisy:

the same person who incessantly gripes about the country heading towards socialism wants to control who can ask questions & report news on the government.

Personally i could care less about Huffington but i find the hypocrisy funny.

The Silliness: ;)
No, no, no, my word twisting liberal friend, I won't let you get a way with a lie.

Be nice.

I would NEVER want to "control" who asked questions, however, if I were president, I would have enough respect for the Office, and those presidents before me, to not even consider permitting a reporter from a hate-filled website like Huffington to ask me a question. Obama doesn't care because he enjoys the pettiness, and classlessness of the MSM. They are best buds. That is why the MSM put him in office. You simply can't argue that reality.

And sure enough, the question was an over-the-top cheap shot at a president who kept YOU safe for the last 7 years. Have you done the right thing and thanked George Bush yet, nevada? Time to swallow your pride a bit, no?

Fairness Doctrine-- There is your "control". I am pretty certain you will find a way to explain how it will be "good for the country", while the clueless suck up the rhetoric and themes of how its "good change".

[Nevada_Ballin]

The Silliness: ;)
No, no, no, my word twisting liberal friend, I won't let you get a way with a lie.

Be nice.

I would NEVER want to "control" who asked questions, however, if I were president, I would have enough respect for the Office, and those presidents before me, to not even consider permitting a reporter from a hate-filled website like Huffington to ask me a question. Obama doesn't care because he enjoys the pettiness, and classlessness of the MSM. They are best buds. That is why the MSM put him in office. You simply can't argue that reality.

And sure enough, the question was an over-the-top cheap shot at a president who kept YOU safe for the last 7 years. Have you done the right thing and thanked George Bush yet, nevada? Time to swallow your pride a bit, no?

Fairness Doctrine-- There is your "control". I am pretty certain you will find a way to explain how it will be "good for the country", while the clueless suck up the rhetoric and themes of how its "good change".

it does not matter... if they have a legitimate press pass and are allowed access, then they have the right to ask any question they want.

As for Bush keeping me safe? I think his actions as President have put Americans in more jeopardy with his war antics. The number of unneccesary American troop deaths in Iraq - a war we should have never been in - is testimony to that. Yet, the war we SHOULD have been in, Aghanistan, is still out of control. Don't even get me going on Bush and the "safe" fallacy when American troops have died needlessly at his order. "Mission Accomplished"

[SUPDOG]

it does not matter... if they have a legitimate press pass and are allowed access, then they have the right to ask any question they want.

As for Bush keeping me safe? I think his actions as President have put Americans in more jeopardy with his war antics. The number of unneccesary American troop deaths in Iraq - a war we should have never been in - is testimony to that. Yet, the war we SHOULD have been in, Aghanistan, is still out of control. Don't even get me going on Bush and the "safe" fallacy when American troops have died needlessly at his order. "Mission Accomplished"

It does matter. You tried to twist my words and I called you out on it. My point from the get go was that Obama is disrespecting the office by calling on a well-known, conservative hating website. Classless.

However, this is something you can expect from an individual who is emotionally immature. It is awful that you and yours voted for such an individual to lead this great nation. Obama is proving himself to be no more than a left-wing blogger marxist chump.

We were not attacked since 9/11 (and no, you can't use the lefty famous "anthrax attacks"), and the military are people who volenteered to serve the nation in order to keep us safe. God bless them and those who lost their lives in order to oust an evil, terrorist supporting dictator, and help keep us safe over seas in the mean time.

I can see it now, when we are attacked again, it will be because "Bush made them mad", right?

Wow, Obama has got it made when the puppets just sit their and nod their heads.

I think you should hope he is just an Anti-Christ, and not the Anti-Christ. Otherwise, youu will be sporting a brand new tattoo on your forehead!

You and SGt Slaughter appear to be like this guy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjiKPWzN878

[sanantonio]

Everything I said stands, and is obviously true. I realize that many libs get their info/ lib talking points from the Huff., but I am sorry to inform you that Mike moore gets his info there as well.


They are the Enquirer of the internet.

Why not surf marxist sites instead?


I am glad to see you be courageous enough to come back. There are plenty of anti-socialist beat downs to come! ;)


I'm not back I just dropped in to do a mini-troll and pick at you :p.

[Nevada_Ballin]

It does matter. You tried to twist my words and I called you out on it. My point from the get go was that Obama is disrespecting the office by calling on a well-known, conservative hating website. Classless.

However, this is something you can expect from an individual who is emotionally immature. It is awful that you and yours voted for such an individual to lead this great nation. Obama is proving himself to be no more than a left-wing blogger marxist chump.

We were not attacked since 9/11 (and no, you can't use the lefty famous "anthrax attacks"), and the military are people who volenteered to serve the nation in order to keep us safe. God bless them and those who lost their lives in order to oust an evil, terrorist supporting dictator, and help keep us safe over seas in the mean time.

I can see it now, when we are attacked again, it will be because "Bush made them mad", right?

Wow, Obama has got it made when the puppets just sit their and nod their heads.

I think you should hope he is just an Anti-Christ, and not the Anti-Christ. Otherwise, youu will be sporting a brand new tattoo on your forehead!

You and SGt Slaughter appear to be like this guy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjiKPWzN878

i didn't twist anything, not only do you want to control WHO can ask the president questions, you want to control WHAT questions they ask.

Socialist.


.

[resnor]

Nevada...it is not that we want "control" over who can ask questions, and what kind of questions...it is that Obama should have enough sense not to call on a Huffington Post reporter to ask a question, asit legitimizes thei idiotic "news" agency. Unlike libs who want to shut down talk radio, I just think that a radical piece of trash like the Huffington Post should be a source that any President should stay away from.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Nevada...it is not that we want "control" over who can ask questions, and what kind of questions...it is that Obama should have enough sense not to call on a Huffington Post reporter to ask a question, asit legitimizes thei idiotic "news" agency. Unlike libs who want to shut down talk radio, I just think that a radical piece of trash like the Huffington Post should be a source that any President should stay away from.

I couldn't disagree more. There's no "legitimazation" attached to whether a President calls on someone to ask him a question. But if you see it that way then you are thinking in a socialist mindset - they aren't "qualified" in your mind to ask the President a question - it should not be allowed cuz they don't report the way you want them to. As far as I'm concerned, when the President has a press conference and opens himself up to questions, then everyone there is just as legitmate as the next guy to ask a question.

[Gtrght77]

I couldn't disagree more. There's no "legitimazation" attached to whether a President calls on someone to ask him a question. But if you see it that way then you are thinking in a socialist mindset - they aren't "qualified" in your mind to ask the President a question - it should not be allowed cuz they don't report the way you want them to. As far as I'm concerned, when the President has a press conference and opens himself up to questions, then everyone there is just as legitmate as the next guy to ask a question.

LOL Unless its a Gay Male Escort with a press pass from Bush. :D

[Nevada_Ballin]

LOL Unless its a Gay Male Escort with a press pass from Bush. :D

ouch! ..... lol

[Gtrght77]

ouch! ..... lol

Yeah I think that pretty much locked this thread. :p

[resnor]

I don't have a socialist mindset. It would be different if EVERY reporter present was able to ask a question. That is not how it works, however. Obama calling on a left wing kook "news" agency instead of on respected news agencies is not good. You can try to pretty it up however you want, but I expect my President to have better decision making skills than to call on a reporter from a fringe group publication for a question. Of course, it does tend to show Obama's true nature...that of a radical.

p.s.- I don't even know what you are talking about with the gay dude comment

[TheSphinx 2.0]

I still agree with Sup and Rensor on this one. Nevada I don't think you are looking at this in the long run. So if Obama starts taking questions from Huff and boxing out right-leaning sites then when the next Republican president gets in office he will do the same but this time let the right hacks get in and ban the left. This makes the news conference a puppet show and we as the American people don't get the true story. When the news flow is determined by a biased orginization we all lose. I look at Huff the same way I look at Hannity...biased...

We all should want to news conference to be impartial. We should all want reporters to ask fair, balanced and tough questions that demand serious and revealing responses. We should not think it is OK when our side doesn't follow that code but criticize the other side when the don't. Imagine if Bush would have had Hannity asking a question...or Ingram. The way it works now is that if you ask a question that they don't like you don't get called on the next time so people ask weak questions. So the press conferences are already watered down enough without putting blatantly biased people on the dockett.

Also I don't like treating obviously biased websites as"news" organizations. Just as I don't think Hannity should be allowed to ask a question, neither should Huff Po. We need to draw a gigantic bright line between news and opinion because if biased sites become thought of as mainstream news then we will never get the truth.

In the end I don't think it is a huge deal but it is somewhat disappointing to see Obama acting like every other President so far. I never believed in the idea that he would bring in "a different kind of politics" because I know politicians use that crap to trick naive people into voting for them. However I had hoped it wouldn't be so blatantly partisan so quickly.

He is early on and most presidents fumble a little at the start. His legacy is being built on this stimulus. He will either be the President that twarted the 2nd Great Depression or the one that sank us deeper into it. At the end of the day I don't think that Huff Post issue will matter.

-TS

[Gtrght77]

I don't have a socialist mindset. It would be different if EVERY reporter present was able to ask a question. That is not how it works, however. Obama calling on a left wing kook "news" agency instead of on respected news agencies is not good. You can try to pretty it up however you want, but I expect my President to have better decision making skills than to call on a reporter from a fringe group publication for a question. Of course, it does tend to show Obama's true nature...that of a radical.

p.s.- I don't even know what you are talking about with the gay dude comment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Gannon


James Dale Guckert (born 1957) posed as a conservative columnist who worked under the pseudonym Jeff Gannon as a White House reporter between 2003 and 2005, representing the fake news organization Talon News. Gannon first gained national attention during a presidential press conference on January 26, 2005, when he asked United States President George W. Bush a question that some in the press corps considered "so friendly it might have been planted."[1] Gannon routinely obtained daily passes to White House briefings, attending four Bush press conferences and appearing regularly at White House press briefings. Although he did not qualify for a Congressional press pass, Gannon was given daily passes to White House press briefings "after supplying his real name, date of birth and Social Security number."[2] Gannon came under public scrutiny for his lack of a journalistic background prior to his work with Talon[3][4] and his involvement with various homosexual escort service websites using the professional name "Bulldog". Gannon resigned from Talon News on February 8, 2005. Continuing to use the name Gannon, he has since created his own official homepage and worked for a time as a columnist for the Washington Blade newspaper, where he admitted to being gay after he was outed as a homosexual prostitute.[5]

Currently, Gannon operates JeffGannon.com, a blog where he criticizes those who exposed him, the "Old Media" and the "Angry Gay Left", accusing them of promoting a double standard.[6] He recently published a book titled The Great Media War.

Guckert first attended a White House press conference on February 28, 2003, and there asked a question of then White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer. At this time Gannon had never had an article published, and was not associated with any kind of news organization (Talon News had not yet been created[2]). However, Gannon states that he was editor of his high school student newspaper, as proof of having some journalistic experience. [8]

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan later said that there was no breakdown in security and no one intervened on Guckert's behalf to ensure his access, despite the fact that he had been able to get a press pass for the White House using an assumed name. Gannon's response was that the alias Jeff Gannon was a professional name used for convenience, saying that his "real last name is hard to spell and pronounce," and that the Secret Service was aware of his identity.[2]

Journalists have said that it can take weeks to get the kind of clearance Guckert received. He was issued one-day press passes for nearly two years, avoiding the extensive background checks required for permanent passes, and sidestepping his inability to gain the necessary Congressional press pass. He applied for a Congressional press pass in April 2004 but was denied one by The Standing Committee of Correspondents, a group of congressional reporters who oversee press credential distribution on Capitol Hill, on the grounds that Talon did not qualify as a legitimate independent news service.[9] On his resume Gannon said he is a graduate of the Leadership Institute Broadcast School of Journalism, a two day seminar for "conservatives who want a career in journalism."[10]

[SUPDOG]

I couldn't disagree more. There's no "legitimazation" attached to whether a President calls on someone to ask him a question. But if you see it that way then you are thinking in a socialist mindset - they aren't "qualified" in your mind to ask the President a question - it should not be allowed cuz they don't report the way you want them to. As far as I'm concerned, when the President has a press conference and opens himself up to questions, then everyone there is just as legitmate as the next guy to ask a question.

Load of garbage..........................

[Gtrght77]

Load of garbage..........................

SUPDOG is a big fan of Gannon... :p


Him and Ted Haggerty hang out all the time. :p

[SUPDOG]

SUPDOG is a big fan of Gannon... :p


Him and Ted Haggerty hang out all the time. :p

How come you haven't commented on the Thread I started for you? ;)

[Nevada_Ballin]

so let me get this straight - without noticing anyone else he called on during that press conference except for the HP reporter, all of the sudden Obama is "boxing out" right wing reporters? Who else did he call on during that press conference, can anyone name them all?

And let's look at the actual question that was asked:

Question: Thank you, Mr. President. Today, Sen. Patrick Leahy [D-Vermont] announced that he wants to set up a truth and reconciliation committee to investigate the misdeeds of the Bush administration. He said that, before you turn the page, you have to read the page first. Do you agree with such a proposal? And are you willing to rule out right here and now any prosecution of Bush administration officials?

I don't see anything wrong with this question, considering that Leahy made that announcement earlier that day.

Btw, the next person called on to ask a question was by Mara Liasson, a national political correspondent for National Public Radio, and a regular panelist on Special Report with Brit Hume and Fox News Sunday ............

http://www.inquisitr.com/17762/obama-press-conference-video-2/

[resnor]

He asked a question that is a politically motivated smear job. Also, as I understand it, Bush can't be tried for war crimes. He could have been impeached, bur, any actions against him would have had to have been done while he was still in office.

Oh, and what a surprise, he called on an NPR reporter also. They're REALLY impartial and unbiased, and non-left-wing leaning in their reporting...

[TheSphinx 2.0]

so let me get this straight - without noticing anyone else he called on during that press conference except for the HP reporter, all of the sudden Obama is "boxing out" right wing reporters? Who else did he call on during that press conference, can anyone name them all?

And let's look at the actual question that was asked:

Question: Thank you, Mr. President. Today, Sen. Patrick Leahy [D-Vermont] announced that he wants to set up a truth and reconciliation committee to investigate the misdeeds of the Bush administration. He said that, before you turn the page, you have to read the page first. Do you agree with such a proposal? And are you willing to rule out right here and now any prosecution of Bush administration officials?

I don't see anything wrong with this question, considering that Leahy made that announcement earlier that day.

Btw, the next person called on to ask a question was by Mara Liasson, a national political correspondent for National Public Radio, and a regular panelist on Special Report with Brit Hume and Fox News Sunday ............

http://www.inquisitr.com/17762/obama-press-conference-video-2/


The only point I am making is that when obviously biased "news" organizations get legitimized it hurts the entire process. Just like Hannity and Rush the Huff Post is not an credible outlet (in my oipinion). They are all very biased and they shade the "truth" to support their viewpoint. A clearly biased organization should not be able to ask any question of our President. I would say the same thing (even louder) it is was Bush taking questions from Michelle Malkin. Even if Obama was to then take a question from a Malkin type (which he never will) I would still have an issue. Two biased viewpoints on the opposite side don't = balanced.

In the end all I want is fair, balance and strong questions. What are the odds of the Huff post ever asking Obama something critical. IMO, this is why we are having these troubles now...because the media wasn't tough after 9/11...because the media wasn't tough when the wheels starting falling off the economy...because the media wasn't tough when TARP I was passed. We as citizens should demand no less than a fair, balanced and ferociously persistent media. Biased organzation will never be that because they will only get attention when their side is in power. And when it becomes acceptable (even as little as one question) what recourse will you and I have to get the truth.

While the Huff Post is still hardup for Pres Bush we are about to embark on the biggest expansion of government in the history of the world. Every question should be scutinizing every penny in that bill.

We will probably not agree on this...(which is a good thing). Debate is the foundation of the political system. Since I have left he country and have had a chance to look at the US political system from the outside I realize what a farse it is. When I see the President taking questions from a biased organization who will most likely never criticizm him while we are literally playing with the future of the US economy it just upsets me. I voted for Obama and I knew I was getting a politician so I will crticize him when he does politician type things.

-TS

[Nevada_Ballin]

The only point I am making is that when obviously biased "news" organizations get legitimized it hurts the entire process. Just like Hannity and Rush the Huff Post is not an credible outlet (in my oipinion). They are all very biased and they shade the "truth" to support their viewpoint. A clearly biased organization should not be able to ask any question of our President. I would say the same thing (even louder) it is was Bush taking questions from Michelle Malkin. Even if Obama was to then take a question from a Malkin type (which he never will) I would still have an issue. Two biased viewpoints on the opposite side don't = balanced.


-TS


Here's where we disagree though... i feel any reporter should be able to ask the President any question they want, no matter how they lean. I think Obama is showing he isn't afraid to answer questions from them either by calling on the far left HP and then immediately following that with a question from someone who is from the far right. It isn't about Obama validating to biased viewpoints to be balanced, it's about him not avoiding them and saying "hey, i understand you have a question for me, ok go ahead."

IMO it is the president's responsibility to answer questions from all sides if he's opening himself up to questions in a press conference.

.

[SUPDOG]

Here's where we disagree though... i feel any reporter should be able to ask the President any question they want, no matter how they lean. I think Obama is showing he isn't afraid to answer questions from them either by calling on the far left HP and then immediately following that with a question from someone who is from the far right. It isn't about Obama validating to biased viewpoints to be balanced, it's about him not avoiding them and saying "hey, i understand you have a question for me, ok go ahead."

IMO it is the president's responsibility to answer questions from all sides if he's opening himself up to questions in a press conference.

.


So are you comparing FOX news (the number 1 news agency on television), to the Enquirerish Huffington Post?

Come on Nevada, if you want to have a realistic conversation about this.......

[Milwaukee]

So are you comparing FOX news (the number 1 news agency on television), to the Enquirerish Huffington Post?

Come on Nevada, if you want to have a realistic conversation about this.......

What makes Fox News #1? Just wondering...do you mean #1 in ratings or what?

Regardless LOLZ at you trying to seem like they don't lean to the right.....

[SUPDOG]

What makes Fox News #1? Just wondering...do you mean #1 in ratings or what?

Regardless LOLZ at you trying to seem like they don't lean to the right.....

You apparentely did not read my post properly.

Either that, or you are trying to twist it.

Either way, your response is not worth much of a responce.

Re-read, and then get back to me. Thanks.

[Milwaukee]

You apparentely did not read my post properly.

Either that, or you are trying to twist it.

Either way, your response is not worth much of a responce.

Re-read, and then get back to me. Thanks.

You said Fox News in the #1 news agency. I ask what do you base that off of? Ratings or what? What are they #1 in? It certainly can't be reputation or fairness/balance lol.

[SUPDOG]

Almost every news agency in the MSM leans left. Please do not try and dispute this with me, for it is silly/pointless to do so. FOX does lean right when it comes to opinion based programs (e.g. Hannity), but reports news from a balanced perspective. Cnn, NBC, MSnbc? Please tell me your aren't blinded that much to see the reality.

Anyway, my point is this: Logically speaking, it is elementary to compare the Huffington Post to FOX news in regards to legitimacy. That is what NB is trying to do. It would be like stating that the Detroit Lions and the Pittsburgh Steelers are equals in talent, for the "fact" that they both play in the NFL. Get it?

The Huffington post is a left wing kooky site. Even NB says he doesn't give it much respect, and he is likely the most left wing i know. Yet he is attempting to paint Huff. and FOX with the same brush. The reality is that it is a feeble attempt to deflect the reality that Obama is treating the Office of the Presidency like it is a game.

Little girls "play house"--- Obama is "playing president". Truth.


Fox's 80 month dominace:

LINK (http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/august_ratings_fnc_most_watched_for_80_months_9370 8.asp)

[Milwaukee]

Okay, so you mean they are number 1 in ratings. I was just curious.

[Nevada_Ballin]

So are you comparing FOX news (the number 1 news agency on television), to the Enquirerish Huffington Post?

Come on Nevada, if you want to have a realistic conversation about this.......

I'm not making any comparisons outside of the one i made between you and socialist ideology :) And gimme a break about having a "real" conversation .... you're having a difficult time with this one as it is. You're a natural divider, you can't help it. It's a contant "us vs. them" mentality with you.

I'm talking about a constituional right to ask the President a question if one is given the opportunity. It should never matter where the questioner stands politically nor should their place of employment matter either.... unless you have a problem with the 1st amendment which covers freedom of the press:

In Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938), Chief Justice Hughes defined the press as, "every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion."

Just because you may not agree with their style of reporting or the opinions they take, that does not mean they should not have the right to ask questions. That's like me saying Fox News shouldn't be allowed to ask questions because i think they are garbage. Not fair is it?

[Nevada_Ballin]

What do you base their reputation off of? What left wingers think about Fox News? What people in the MSM think of Fox News? It says alot that Fox News is #1 in ratings...it tells you what Americans, who actually follow news, and vote on other things other than race and rhetoric, think about Fox News vs the other news outlets.

Sure, Fox has a right wing lean in their editorial shows. But, I think that they do a better job than CNN, MSNBC, and the others in balancing their actual news broadcasts.

Sorry but CNN is the most unbiased news channel on TV. They've come a long way in the past 2 years to get to that point. CNN 1,000 X's better than any ther news channel.


.

[SUPDOG]

I'm not making any comparisons outside of the one i made between you and socialist ideology :) And gimme a break about having a "real" conversation .... you're having a difficult time with this one as it is. You're a natural divider, you can't help it. It's a contant "us vs. them" mentality with you.

I'm talking about a constituional right to ask the President a question if one is given the opportunity. It should never matter where the questioner stands politically nor should their place of employment matter either.... unless you have a problem with the 1st amendment which covers freedom of the press:

In Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938), Chief Justice Hughes defined the press as, "every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion."

Just because you may not agree with their style of reporting or the opinions they take, that does not mean they should not have the right to ask questions. That's like me saying Fox News shouldn't be allowed to ask questions because i think they are garbage. Not fair is it?


No, me thinks you are the one having difficulty understanding what I am saying.

I love free speech and the freedom of press. I am interested to see how you flip-flop when your president starts attacking it.


"Well, we really need progress, and those like Hannity and Limbaugh are stunting the growth of the country with their negative rhetoric, I really think we should call their speech what it is......hate speech".

This will be you in the future.

Free speech won't be as important to you when it "betters the country", right?


Anyway, my point is valid and makes yours pale in comparison. No president who has any respect for the office, would ever consider calling on a reporter from a left wing kook site. Obama is playing president like little children play cops and robbers.

Am I divided from Obama and his bots? You betcha. Everyone who has a moral code would be opposed to this snake.

You see, you and people like you live in left wing marxist land. You see evil as good. You see kookiness as normallcy. This is why Fox seems extreme, when in reality they are "the norm". This is why you can't comprehend what an outrage it is to:
#1. Call on kooky kooks at huff and making them seem "legit.

#2 Not verbally thrash them when they take a cheap shot, and talk left wing kooky nonsense about a president who is more of a man than Obama will likely ever be.

There is more, but I don't have the time.

[resnor]

Yeah, CNN is REALLY unbiased and impartial. They had this guy on Anderson Cooper's show...his name was Michael Malone. Anyway, this guy said that Rush Limbaugh is more dangerous to America than Osama bin Laden because Rush is opposed to Obama's stimulus plan.

Sounds like the ezact sort of guest that an unbiased station would have on their show.

[Sgt.Slaughter]

I should just disregard anything you have to say, judging from what's in your sig...you're obviously someone who doesn't care what Obama does...

However...

1. I don't believe the Geneva convention applies to these people that are being held in Gitmo. These scumbags aren't enemy combatants...they aren't following the Geneva convention. These murderers are operating outside of all societal rules. By the way, which part of closing Gitmo are you happy with: the part that has these dangerous people being shipped to the States to be put in jail, or the part tha has Obama using rendition to send these people back to their own countries (where they will probably be tortured and then murdered, WITHOUT ANY SORT OF TRIAL). Also, you guys act like Bush is the ONLY President to have done these things...a quick perusal of history shows that Lincoln suspended Habeous Corpus, Roosevelt authorized the internment of Japanese American citizens, etc, etc. Get off Bush's junk.

2. Equal pay for women? LOL. Yeah, we REALLY needed ANOTHER law about this. Wasn't it already against the law to discriminate against someone based upon their sex? Isn't paying a woman less than a man, simply because she's a woman, discriminating based on sex? The problem is, and I would assume STILL IS, how do you prove that a woman is receiving less money than a man, simply because she's a woman? Women are a bigger risk for companies for long term positions, for a number of reasons. That is a significant reason for women being paid less than men.

3. Ah yes, the race card. Wondered just who would be the first to play it in this thread. I can't stand Obama. I think he is terrible. However, it has nothing to do with his skin color. That may be why YOU voted FOR him, but it has nothing to do why I, or many of my fellow conservatives, did NOT vote for him. I guess it is easy to say that we hate black people, and ignore the fact that everything that Obama does sends us screaming towards the pit of socialism, which is the exact opposite of what we believe in. Keep thinking that it's just because he's black, though.:rolleyes: By the way, maybe you haven't seen in other threads in the past year, but I, and other conservatives on here, have voted for Alan Keyes in the past. I've actually voted for him twice. I wonder why Keyes, a genuine black man, never stood a chance...

4. Yes, I think that Bush did a good job. I don't think that he was perfect, but I believe that taking out Saddam was the right thing to do. I don't believe the Katrina had anything to do with Bush. I believe that he did a good job keeping the country together after 9/11.

5. He has the "overwhelming" support of the American people? Really? Maybe you should check into that...in an election year where the Republicans were SCREWED, Obama only won by what, 6%? There were still 50+ million Americans who did NOT WANT Obama to be their President. For the record, that means almost half the American voters didn't want Obama then, and it's not getting any better now, with Americans finding out about this craptastic pork bill he's behind.

6. He get's called the Messiah by Rush and Hannity because...THAT'S HOW OBAMA'S SUPPORTERS TREAT HIM. For crying out loud, Farakhan called him that. The Washington Post, I believe, had the headline "The Words Made Flesh" which is an OBVIOUS biblical reference, tying Obama to Jesus. There are many, many other examples of his supporters putting him on a Messiah-like pedastal.

7. Where are his campaign promises of "change you can believe in" and "transparency" of his government now? He has nominated, and gotted passed, tax cheats to some of the highest positions in our government. He has surrounded himself with Clinton era retreads. Nothing about him is change.

Get a grip, Slaughter. You obviously don't have a clue what other people in the country believe.

I just don't understand why conservatives feel that everything they do is so right and the liberals are so wrong.

In response to your statements:

1. The Geneva Convention clearly states in Articles 27 clearly states that all prisoner's of war "shall in all circumstances be treated humanely." - I believe that having a beating them like a dog and taking pictures to show your family back home isn't humane...
http://www.truthdig.com/images/eartothegrounduploads/punch_gitmo.JPG

http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/images/gitmo-prisoners02.jpg

http://reidreport.com/images/iraqabuse7.jpg

I am impartial about what they do with Gitmo but if they bring the prisoners to the states they will get a speedy trial and be placed in jail foreve on taxpayers money...im not for it. Having them go back to where ever country does not sit well with me either.

But if they are prosecuted by the International Criminal Courts, who currently do not prosecute for suspected terrorist, then I would support that.

Note: The ICC has been looking into possible war crimes against the United States for actions in Gitmo, in regards to the Geneva Convention. But i'm sure the conservative media is telling that side of the story as well in regards to the shutting down of Gitmo. right?

2. You are clearly sexist. I believe the only way a woman would know she is if some miraculous mistake were to happen like Lilly Ledbetter getting her male co-workers check, who she was managing, and realized he was making $15, 000/year more than her. but thats cool because in the long run she's just a liability to the company, right Resnor?

3. I voted for Bush in 2004 because Kerry clearly didn't fit the bill. But i voted in 2008 for Obama because McCain/Palin just didn't do it for me. McCain is a well respected individual but I just didn't like where he was taking the country. Just like Hannity and Rush didnt like the direction he had for the country...oh you forget...Yes, they initially were supporting Romney, the mormon, at the beginning of the presidential race all the way up until Romney dropped out/suspended his campaign. Google It!!!

But Race didn't play an affect in my vote. I was actually supporting Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee and other's before they became bandwagon bound McCain supports, well not Paul but the other candidates and conservative media.

4. I don't think any President does a horrible job but Bush didn't do anything much to help it...Note: There was no way to brace or prepare for Katrina. That was Mother nature. But for him not to acknowledge the thousands of african-american's stranded in the city at the Superdome and the one's displaced. That is where he was wrong.

Short-term:
1. 9/11 - he was great and exactly what the country needed and he had the overwhelming support of the nation and the world.
2. The economy and US Stock market saw booms in his 3rd-6th year as President.

Long-term:
1. The economy and US Stock market saw the biggest drops and worst downturn under Bush's Presidency.
2. 9/11 - we will never forget but we have to remember 1 thing. OSAMA BIN LADEN from AFGHANISTAN ATTACKED us. SADDAM HUSSEIN from IRAQ DID NOT attack us.
- Bush even acknowledged that Hussein had nothing to do with the attacks...http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm
(and last i checked the BBC isn't biased towards any American political party)

So why are we at war with Iraq? All Obama wants to do is go after Bin Laden...you know Bin Laden who attacked America on September 11, 2001.

5. It's payback for you cheating conservatives let your 50 million be mad for the next 4 hopefully 8 years just like the 51 million who voted for Al Gore in 2000 were mad that George Bush with his 50.4 million votes won the election.

Paybacks a B I T C H and we're gonna enjoy every minute of it.

6. You just quoted Louis Farakhan...:confused: black people don't even quote Louis Farakhan. You FAIL!!!

7. Something about Obama is change but you can't change a struggling economy, a stuggling nation or a struggling people in less than 1 month. I guess you conservatives thought that everything would change over-night, huh. Dumb A S S !!!

[Sgt.Slaughter]

Oh and just in case you wanted to read the Geneva Convention i found it here for u Res...http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Human_Rights/geneva1.html

[McMadden]

I didn't see the snake last night, but I heard he actually called on a reporter from, you guessed it- THE HUFFINGTON POST! WOW, what a goofball this clown of a "president' has become already. Can we impeach yet? :eek:


And then the question, which was worthy of a marxist loving, Stalinish web site like Huffington was about bringing charges against Bush!!! And the chump actually entertained the question! What an incredible diservice to Bush, and all presidents. Face it folks, Obama is a disgrace, just like i told you he would be!!!

He is a classless, gutless, and clueless clown, who is going spread his hate like an inferno. Just like I told you he would. You wait and see.Bush is a classless, gutless, and clueless clown, who is going spread his hate like an inferno. Just like I told you he would. You wait and see. Yup, I know exactly where you are coming from. Been there done that. Now it's your turn for the next 4 years and hopefully a total of eight! LOL, this is going to be good!:D Just wait and see!

[Sgt.Slaughter]

Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!Obama...7 MORE YEARS!!!

[resnor]

Hey, Nevada, I thought that there was no name calling anymore...I was called a "dumb A S S" up there...

By the way, TERRORISTS ARE NOT ENEMY COMBATANTS, AND ARE THEREFORE NOT PRISONERS OF WAR.

[Sgt.Slaughter]

Hey, Nevada, I thought that there was no name calling anymore...I was called a "dumb A S S" up there...

By the way, TERRORISTS ARE NOT ENEMY COMBATANTS, AND ARE THEREFORE NOT PRISONERS OF WAR.

Out of everything I said thats the only thing you could pull out...You FAIL!!!

and my Dumb A S S statement wasn't directed towards you just your idiotic view point.

The sad part is that you talk about enemy combatants like you actually know what it is.

Do you feel its justified for 55 children aged 7-13 to be detained at GITMO as Enemy combatants?

These enemy combatants you speak of are "suspected terrorist". Gitmo has been holding "suspected terrorist" and only 6 members from the 9/11, and USS Cole attacks since it was reopened.

and you might want to do your history young man. These Enemy Combatants are still safe under the Geneva Convention under Common Article 3. It's only former-President Bush's policy which tries to create a distinction between "Prisoner's of war" and "enemy combatants"...POW protected under Geneva Convention. "Enemy Combatants" protected under Geneva Convention. So what are you saying?

something you will never hear from your Conservative media garbage is that Bush ordered 80 "enemy combatants/suspected terrorist" release without charge on December 30, 2008.

and another history lesson dude. out of the 755 individuals who were held at Gitmo 420 were released back to their country under President Bush and less than 3%, according to the Department of Defense and CIA, have returned to these suspected terrorist acts.

in 2005, 173 prisoners were released without any charge and 61 were released back to their countries. less than 1% are categorized as suspected terrorist.

So if President Obama does the same thing that was done under President Bush then why are you in such a hoopla over it?

The U.N., Amnesty International, EU, and the Org of American States have all said that everything thats happened at GITMO is against every rule of war and want GITMO shut down. They have said this since 2003...and all these organizations together make up 90% of the world population. so 90% of the world wants GITMO shut down because of inhumane rights and violations of the Geneva convention and you sit here and let Hannity and Rush tell you some crap and you don't even do your research to back it up.

Once again Res, YOU FAIL!!!

P.S. for you information less than 200 "suspected terrorist" remain at Gitmo and only 61 of the 200 have any ties to terrorist activities.

[resnor]

I'm sorry, but nothing you can say will make me believe that someone who masterminds terrorist attacks, and kills innocent civilians, is to be protected under the Geneva Convention.

As to the UN, and Amnesty International, and other foreign groups...where were they were Saddam was toturing, raping, gassing, murdering, and imprisoning hundreds of thousands of his own people?

I'm not against letting people go from Gitmo, if they are proven to be a non-threat. My issue is, sending people who haven't been proven to not be a threat back to their own countries, or to our own.

LOL @ the "conservative media garbage." As if your liberal, left-wing kooks are better.

7. Something about Obama is change but you can't change a struggling economy, a stuggling nation or a struggling people in less than 1 month. I guess you conservatives thought that everything would change over-night, huh. Dumb A S S !!!

Looks like you called me a Dumb A S S. I'd like to see the proper warning given out. I mean, seriously, someone with my viewpoint was given a warning for saying that someone was "ignorant."

You can sit back, and take this lacksadaisical view of terrorism, but that doesn't make it right. I'm not saying that Gitmo is the best solution, but just setting these people free isn't the right solution, either.

[Sgt.Slaughter]

I'm sorry, but nothing you can say will make me believe that someone who masterminds terrorist attacks, and kills innocent civilians, is to be protected under the Geneva Convention.

As to the UN, and Amnesty International, and other foreign groups...where were they were Saddam was toturing, raping, gassing, murdering, and imprisoning hundreds of thousands of his own people?

I'm not against letting people go from Gitmo, if they are proven to be a non-threat. My issue is, sending people who haven't been proven to not be a threat back to their own countries, or to our own.
LOL @ the "conservative media garbage." As if your liberal, left-wing kooks are better.



Looks like you called me a Dumb A S S. I'd like to see the proper warning given out. I mean, seriously, someone with my viewpoint was given a warning for saying that someone was "ignorant."

You can sit back, and take this lacksadaisical view of terrorism, but that doesn't make it right. I'm not saying that Gitmo is the best solution, but just setting these people free isn't the right solution, either.



1. Are you serious? Yes these same parties were fighting against Saddam as well and they prosecuted him in his crimes against humanities. You forget that Saddam had a trial and was ordered to die as a result of his actions, the only problem is that it took so long because you cannot indicit someone who is President of a nation over crimes against humanities, you have to prosecute the one's caught, when he was overthrown and captured thats when they charged him for it.

2. Thats the biggest thing to me that disturbs me when i listen to Hannity and Limbaugh they talk about closing the GITMO and where to place the prisoners. Well the Dept of Defense and CIA clearly state that out of the approx 180 detainee's only 61 have committed terrorist acts. 61!!! So we should prosecute the 61 in the International Courts and execute them from their.

I had no idea from your previous statements that you felt impartial about the release of detainee's if they were innocent. And the problem occurs where the innocent detainee's are tortured as "prisoner's of war" or "enemy combatants" when they have no tie's to terrorism at all but they have Muslim faith and names. Thats the biggest problem with GITMO...

3. I never have a lackadasical view on terrorism but fighting terrorism isn't invading Iraq and going after militia that had nothing to do with the actions of why we went to war - 9/11.

If we were in Afghanistan from the beginning and were fighting the Taliban and Al-quaida (spl?) then the war would be heavily supported and we would put an end to these acts of terrorism. but that hasn't happened.

These terrorist have been captured and there is enough evidence to convict them just like they did Saddam so I don't believe they will just willy-nilly go back to Afghanistan or where ever and start again...But listening to conservative media lets you believe that this is what Obama plans to do. NO!!! they need to be prosecuted just like Saddam but for America to have a sanctioned area where we commit crimes against humanity isn't right or justified. Because if the Taliban started gathering US Soldiers, God forbid, and started touturing them, waterboarding, etc., then we would have our panties in a bunch and we would be ready to drop bombs on all arabs and muslims throughout the world. vice-versa of how they feel about us...

[resnor]

Dude, you can't have it both ways. You can't say that you are against the war in Iraq, but on the same hand say that the international organizations did their job by trying him after he was caught. HE WAS CAUGHT BECAUSE WE INVADED IRAQ!!! Had we not invaded Iraq, Saddam would still be controlling it today. My point was, even the UN, after Saddam violated 18 or so sanctions by them, REFUSED to do anything, other than give him more sanctions. It wasn't working. So, we invaded, and took care of him. Once we had him, he was able to be tried...but we had to invade first.

[Gtrght77]

Saddam was a puts and wasnt even a threat.

[Sgt.Slaughter]

Dude, you can't have it both ways. You can't say that you are against the war in Iraq, but on the same hand say that the international organizations did their job by trying him after he was caught. HE WAS CAUGHT BECAUSE WE INVADED IRAQ!!! Had we not invaded Iraq, Saddam would still be controlling it today. My point was, even the UN, after Saddam violated 18 or so sanctions by them, REFUSED to do anything, other than give him more sanctions. It wasn't working. So, we invaded, and took care of him. Once we had him, he was able to be tried...but we had to invade first.


So your saying that we invaded Iraq because of Saddam REFUSED to do anything about sanctions from the UN and various world organizations.

YOU FAIL AGAIN!!!

We invaded Iraq looking for Weapons of Mass Destruction we were not trying to be the world police, "Saddam, you didn't take those sanctions serious so we are coming to arrest you." NO!!!

We invaded Iraq because President Bush told the American people that the Iraqui Government, Saddam Hussein, had Weapons of Mass Destruction and was looking to get more so he can attack neighboring countries and possibly the United States.

Truth be told before we invaded Iraq we knew Saddam didn't have WMD. In the Operation Iraqi Freedom documents this was pulled out:

Repeatedly in the transcripts, Saddam and his lieutenants remind each other that Iraq destroyed its chemical and biological weapons in the early 1990s, and shut down those programs and the nuclear-bomb program, which had never produced a weapon.

"We don't have anything to hide, so we're giving you all the details," said top weapons program official Amer Mohammed Rashid as he describes his conversation with U.N. weapons inspector Rolf Ekeus.

Saddam Hussein addressing the U.N. in 1998 "We cooperated with the resolutions 100 percent and you all know that, and the 5 percent they claim we have not executed could take them 10 years to (verify). Don't think for a minute that we still have WMD. We have nothing."

[Nevada_Ballin]

Yeah, CNN is REALLY unbiased and impartial. They had this guy on Anderson Cooper's show...his name was Michael Malone. Anyway, this guy said that Rush Limbaugh is more dangerous to America than Osama bin Laden because Rush is opposed to Obama's stimulus plan.

Sounds like the ezact sort of guest that an unbiased station would have on their show.

And CNN also has plenty of right wing input.... PLENTY. You can't sit there and pick out one guest and slam the network if you don't account for the rest....

.

[Nevada_Ballin]

No, me thinks you are the one having difficulty understanding what I am saying.

I love free speech and the freedom of press. I am interested to see how you flip-flop when your president starts attacking it.


"Well, we really need progress, and those like Hannity and Limbaugh are stunting the growth of the country with their negative rhetoric, I really think we should call their speech what it is......hate speech".

This will be you in the future.

Free speech won't be as important to you when it "betters the country", right?


Anyway, my point is valid and makes yours pale in comparison. No president who has any respect for the office, would ever consider calling on a reporter from a left wing kook site. Obama is playing president like little children play cops and robbers.

Am I divided from Obama and his bots? You betcha. Everyone who has a moral code would be opposed to this snake.

You see, you and people like you live in left wing marxist land. You see evil as good. You see kookiness as normallcy. This is why Fox seems extreme, when in reality they are "the norm". This is why you can't comprehend what an outrage it is to:
#1. Call on kooky kooks at huff and making them seem "legit.

#2 Not verbally thrash them when they take a cheap shot, and talk left wing kooky nonsense about a president who is more of a man than Obama will likely ever be.

There is more, but I don't have the time.

there you go with your irrelevent ramblings that have absolutely nothing to do with what i said - simply more incessant finger pointing and quoting things that I myself never said..... typical supdog post.

get back to me after you've groomed yourself out of the socialist mindset you are in by wanting to shutup certain media that do not agree with your own ideologies.

[resnor]

So your saying that we invaded Iraq because of Saddam REFUSED to do anything about sanctions from the UN and various world organizations.

YOU FAIL AGAIN!!!

We invaded Iraq looking for Weapons of Mass Destruction we were not trying to be the world police, "Saddam, you didn't take those sanctions serious so we are coming to arrest you." NO!!!

We invaded Iraq because President Bush told the American people that the Iraqui Government, Saddam Hussein, had Weapons of Mass Destruction and was looking to get more so he can attack neighboring countries and possibly the United States.

Truth be told before we invaded Iraq we knew Saddam didn't have WMD. In the Operation Iraqi Freedom documents this was pulled out:

I can use big fonts too. I can also use colors. Example:

YOU FAIL!!!

Dude, WMD's was NOT the only reason for invasion of Iraq. Apparently, you've watched too much tv or something. There were many reason for invading Iraq, and the WMD's was ONE of them. Also, yes, Saddam's continued flouting of the UN sanctions was one of the reasons for our invasion.

My point still stands...you can't be against the war in Iraq, and then also say this:

1. Are you serious? Yes these same parties were fighting against Saddam as well and they prosecuted him in his crimes against humanities. You forget that Saddam had a trial and was ordered to die as a result of his actions, the only problem is that it took so long because you cannot indicit someone who is President of a nation over crimes against humanities, you have to prosecute the one's caught, when he was overthrown and captured thats when they charged him for it.

The two don't go together. The bottom line is, if you wanted Saddam to be tried for his crimes, and for his violation of UN sanctions, HE HAD TO BE REMOVED FROM POWER. That's what the U.S. did.

[Sgt.Slaughter]

I can use big fonts too. I can also use colors. Example:

YOU FAIL!!!

Dude, WMD's was NOT the only reason for invasion of Iraq. Apparently, you've watched too much tv or something. There were many reason for invading Iraq, and the WMD's was ONE of them. Also, yes, Saddam's continued flouting of the UN sanctions was one of the reasons for our invasion.

My point still stands...you can't be against the war in Iraq, and then also say this:



The two don't go together. The bottom line is, if you wanted Saddam to be tried for his crimes, and for his violation of UN sanctions, HE HAD TO BE REMOVED FROM POWER. That's what the U.S. did.

Actually i didn't care about Saddam Hussein, you know why...because he didn't organized the attacks on America (9/11)...Osama Bin Laden did. I don't think that anyone gave a flying phuck about Saddam in that whole attack especially when he was ruled out as a conspirator to the attacks.

The UN violations have been adding up since 1992. What you fail to realize is that The United States of America is not the governing body for the United Nations sanctions and violations of treaties such as the Geneva Convention.

The same treaties that the US is in violation of with Gitmo.

The United States knew that WMD were not being housed in Iraq and that Bush Sr. and Clinton made sure that Hussein was not able to get access to those WMD again. However, we went looking for them knowing that we were not going to find anything. This war in Iraq was waged over Oil. you know it. The Conservative base knows it and everyone in the World know's it.

We are bombarding the Iraqi oil to sell it to China and other neighboring countries.

Res, I want to see Osama Bin Laden tried for his crimes against humanity. I want to see justice for all the innocent people who lost their lives on that dreaded day. I want justice for the American people and I hope that going to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban and Al-Queda will bring Bin Laden down and we either kill him or he gets prosecuted the same way Saddam was. What I didn't want is the American soldiers to have the highest casualty rate in this war...but that has happened.

We were told this War was going to be swift and easy. It would only be a couple of months and then we would start working on Afghanistan, the Taliban and Al-Queda. It's been 5 maybe 6 years and we are still in Iraq. This war has not been swift and easy but hard, grueling and one of the main contributors as to why our economy is suffering so much.

You cannot have a struggling economy and continue to War with a country and then blame all the economic crisis on the US Housing Market and credit crunch. Don't you think that if we put that $11 Billion into the US Economy and help American's.

I don't see how you Conservatives look at one part of the equation (Freddie and Fannie) and try to put the whole economic crisis on the Democrats. The Conservatives were the one's pushing this War in Iraq.

The Conservatives fooled the American people into believing that Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were working together in the attacks on America and that Hussein had WMD.

The Conservatives have had power of the Presidency for 8 years House and Senate for the last 16 and we now blame the liberals for everything they have put forward to help ease the mess the Conservatives left.

The Conservatives always try to find the flaw in the liberal system but they tend to forget the last 8 years in less than 1 month. They tend to belittle the ideals of another party although the Dems have went along with almost everything for the past 16 years in Congress.

The Conservatives just try scare tactic after scare tactic to boost their party but they FAIL. RESNOR YOU FAIL!!!

Obama may not be the best President. You don't have to like him or possibly vote for him in 2012. But you have yet to name one thing thats so great that Bush has done over his 8 years as President besides put this country in the biggest deficit since the Great Depression. But then again you believe its the Dem's fault that we are in this mess to begin with.

YOU FAIL!!!

[SUPDOG]

there you go with your irrelevent ramblings that have absolutely nothing to do with what i said - simply more incessant finger pointing and quoting things that I myself never said..... typical supdog post.

get back to me after you've groomed yourself out of the socialist mindset you are in by wanting to shutup certain media that do not agree with your own ideologies.

Naw, I was right on point again, and you are living on a different planet where you make your own reality, and then move the goal posts after somone points out the reality is in lala.

Again, Obama made a mockery of his first press conference by calling on a kooky kook site. He is already an embarrasment to the office. Something that most of us who understand "the real world" predicted.

It is interesting how holding your marxist Messiah's feet to the fire seems to rub you the wrong way though. Anyway, this conversation turned out just like I thought it would with you. Little substance, or reasonable rebuttals from you, but rather in the end, "Supdog is a Socialist". Credibility rating......plummets. Again.

I think you are better suited for the Sports Bar NB. ;)

[SUPDOG]

Actually i didn't care about Saddam Hussein, you know why...because he didn't organized the attacks on America (9/11)...Osama Bin Laden did. I don't think that anyone gave a flying phuck about Saddam in that whole attack especially when he was ruled out as a conspirator to the attacks.

The UN violations have been adding up since 1992. What you fail to realize is that The United States of America is not the governing body for the United Nations sanctions and violations of treaties such as the Geneva Convention.

The same treaties that the US is in violation of with Gitmo.

The United States knew that WMD were not being housed in Iraq and that Bush Sr. and Clinton made sure that Hussein was not able to get access to those WMD again. However, we went looking for them knowing that we were not going to find anything. This war in Iraq was waged over Oil. you know it. The Conservative base knows it and everyone in the World know's it.

We are bombarding the Iraqi oil to sell it to China and other neighboring countries.

Res, I want to see Osama Bin Laden tried for his crimes against humanity. I want to see justice for all the innocent people who lost their lives on that dreaded day. I want justice for the American people and I hope that going to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban and Al-Queda will bring Bin Laden down and we either kill him or he gets prosecuted the same way Saddam was. What I didn't want is the American soldiers to have the highest casualty rate in this war...but that has happened.

We were told this War was going to be swift and easy. It would only be a couple of months and then we would start working on Afghanistan, the Taliban and Al-Queda. It's been 5 maybe 6 years and we are still in Iraq. This war has not been swift and easy but hard, grueling and one of the main contributors as to why our economy is suffering so much.

You cannot have a struggling economy and continue to War with a country and then blame all the economic crisis on the US Housing Market and credit crunch. Don't you think that if we put that $11 Billion into the US Economy and help American's.

I don't see how you Conservatives look at one part of the equation (Freddie and Fannie) and try to put the whole economic crisis on the Democrats. The Conservatives were the one's pushing this War in Iraq.

The Conservatives fooled the American people into believing that Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were working together in the attacks on America and that Hussein had WMD.

The Conservatives have had power of the Presidency for 8 years House and Senate for the last 16 and we now blame the liberals for everything they have put forward to help ease the mess the Conservatives left.

The Conservatives always try to find the flaw in the liberal system but they tend to forget the last 8 years in less than 1 month. They tend to belittle the ideals of another party although the Dems have went along with almost everything for the past 16 years in Congress.

The Conservatives just try scare tactic after scare tactic to boost their party but they FAIL. RESNOR YOU FAIL!!!

Obama may not be the best President. You don't have to like him or possibly vote for him in 2012. But you have yet to name one thing thats so great that Bush has done over his 8 years as President besides put this country in the biggest deficit since the Great Depression. But then again you believe its the Dem's fault that we are in this mess to begin with.

YOU FAIL!!!

Easy on the adreneline skipper. I will send you some antacids if you send me your home address.

Tell me about the terrorists, or um, I mean soldier's uni's?

Your pics above are rather cheap no? Show me you proof where any of those who beat up the "soldiers" were taking direct orders from Bush?

Sometimes bad people do bad things. It does not mean you should close down Gitmo. Those who perpetrated those deeds were punished accordingly, like they should have been. Also, understand that this was when tensions were high. 9/11, the Iraq war starting, etc., people do stupid and evil things. Only someone who is not thinking correctly, or has an over zealous hate Bush agenda would think Pres. Bush would actually approve of this sorts of action.

However, let us make sure we understand what "real" torture is, okay? Torture is when people cut off fingers with a butter knife, and then continue to burn your eyelids off, in order to get what they want. NOT WATERBOARDING!

Your pics are far from "torture", but you label it as such in order to have a left wing hissy fit.

Anyway, after the info is exctracted through unspeakable pain after each and every toe is cut off, they REAL TERRORISTS then cut off the head. Get it?

I will provide a link as opposed to making it into a drama theater.

Click here toughguy. (http://www.hyscience.com/photos/beheading_2.jpg)


And below is a picture of a little girl who was wounded by a terrorsit bomb. Take your Geneva convention garbage and stick it! You have an Obama fever AND THAT IS ALL!!!

Link to the photo of a little girl killed by a cowarly terrorist you want to call a soldier!! (http://lh5.ggpht.com/_ECSkOuRgJfs/RxR2rx3pwDI/AAAAAAAAAGg/vDUjpTwkjuo/carrying+child.jpg)

[Sgt.Slaughter]

Easy on the adreneline skipper. I will send you some antacids if you send me your home address.

Tell me about the terrorists, or um, I mean soldier's uni's?

Your pics above are rather cheap no? Show me you proof where any of those who beat up the "soldiers" were taking direct orders from Bush?

Sometimes bad people do bad things. It does not mean you should close down Gitmo. Those who perpetrated those deeds were punished accordingly, like they should have been. Also, understand that this was when tensions were high. 9/11, the Iraq war starting, etc., people do stupid and evil things. Only someone who is not thinking correctly, or has an over zealous hate Bush agenda would think Pres. Bush would actually approve of this sorts of action.

However, let us make sure we understand what "real" torture is, okay? Torture is when people cut off fingers with a butter knife, and then continue to burn your eyelids off, in order to get what they want. NOT WATERBOARDING!

Your pics are far from "torture", but you label it as such in order to have a left wing hissy fit.

Anyway, after the info is exctracted through unspeakable pain after each and every toe is cut off, they REAL TERRORISTS then cut off the head. Get it?

I will provide a link as opposed to making it into a drama theater.

Click here toughguy. (http://www.hyscience.com/photos/beheading_2.jpg)


And below is a picture of a little girl who was wounded by a terrorsit bomb. Take your Geneva convention garbage and stick it! You have an Obama fever AND THAT IS ALL!!!

Link to the photo of a little girl killed by a cowarly terrorist you want to call a soldier!! (http://lh5.ggpht.com/_ECSkOuRgJfs/RxR2rx3pwDI/AAAAAAAAAGg/vDUjpTwkjuo/carrying+child.jpg)


The second link didn't work...

First off do your homework you ignorant, idiotic conservative Bush defended all things done at Gitmo...

First of all, whatever we have done was legal and whatever decision I will make will be reviewed by the Justice Department to determine whether or not the legality is there...

and just in case here's the link... http://factbeat.com/get_story.php?id=223

and it was proven that Waterboarding is not only listed as torture and illegal (according to the Geneva Convention) but also inhumane...http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1356870

The above pictures caused a stir because they are torture and it's not a hissy fit...its inhumane.

And those pictures are pretty light however what if it were a US Soldier who was being beaten and humiliated like that. Would you and Resnor be so passive then? Here are some images I googled just for you...subject line "torture at guantanemo bay"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/abu-ghraib-carrying-box.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_K8piqd16GZY/SGtbTnC_WJI/AAAAAAAAHb0/JTGjOXtolOM/s320/251005AbuGhraib.jpg

http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200712/r211085_810672.jpg

http://www.daily-nonsense.com/Blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/detainees-cuffed-with-panties-.jpg

And you can't say that Bush didn't know or sign off on the torture in Gitmo...Susan Crawford, one of Bush's top official's even said that they tortured in Gitmo...http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2009-01/15/content_7398608.htm

And im pretty sure that if a top official in the Bush Administration knew about the torture and approved it then im sure Bush knew and approved it too...actually here is a snipit of an article from the Washington Post from January 2009...

The American people have heard President Bush and his spokespeople say many times that the U.S. government does not engage in torture.

Whether Bush was believed or not is another story especially in light of the photographic evidence of the abuse of prisoners in Abu Ghraib. Its understood that many of the photos are too sadistically graphic to be made public.

Still, the official U.S. denials of torture continued until earlier this month when Bush acknowledged in an interview with ABC-TV that he knew about and approved enhanced interrogation of detainees, including waterboarding or simulated drowning.

As a matter of fact, Bush added, "I told the country we did that. And I told them it was legal. We had legal opinions that enabled us to do it."

The president added, "I didnt have any problems at all trying to find out what Khalid Sheik Mohammed knew."

"He was the person who ordered the suicide attack I mean, the 9/11 attacks," Bush said. "And back then, there was all kind of concern about people saying, Well, the administration is not connecting the dots. You might remember those that period." Bush said.

Bush also said in the interview that he had been aware of several meetings his national security advisers held to discuss enhanced interrogation methods.

Surely he is aware of the U.S. commitment to international treaties barring cruel and inhumane treatment of prisoners.

What is startling is that he feels no remorse about the cruel image he has created for us and the damage done to our credibility and probity.

In referring to the legality of torture, Bush apparently was thinking of a 2002-2003 memo by John Yoo, a Justice Department official who argued military interrogators could subject detainees to harsh treatment as long as it didnt cause death, organ failure or permanent damage. The memo was rescinded.

Bush, who has insisted we do not torture, also recently vetoed legislation that explicitly banned torture. Sen. John McCain, whose whole political persona has been defined by the fact that he had been tortured while a prisoner of war during the Vietnam era, supported Bushs veto.

For both Bush and McCain, I recall the words of Joseph Welch, the special counselor for the Army during the 1954 Army-McCarthy hearings when Welch asked Sen. Joseph McCarthy, R-Wis.: Sir, have you no sense of decency?

We expected the usual cast of characters including Vice President Dick Cheney to be in on the sinister torture-planning sessions.

But it came as a shock that Gen. Colin Powell, then secretary of state, sat in on the meetings and went along with the planning. Powell had been on record warning against U.S. torture policies on the basis that if we mistreat our prisoners, foreign countries will feel no qualms about abusing American captives in wartime.

Once revered for his integrity, Powell has lost his halo.

Now we have this weeks testimony of Air Force Col. Morris Davis, a former chief prosecutor, who took the witness stand at Guantanamo Bay on behalf of a prisoner. Davis told how top Pentagon officials had pressured him on sensitive prosecutorial decisions for political reasons. He said he was told that the charges against well-known detainees could have real strategic value and that there could be no acquittals.

Davis also testified Brig. Gen. Thomas Hartmann reversed a decision he made and insisted prosecutors proceed with evidence they obtained through waterboarding and other methods of torture.

Davis also testified he was told to speed up the cases to give the system legitimacy before a new president takes over in January.

Is Congress so cowed that it accepts the statements of a president who has little regard for the truth?

Is there no lawmaker who is appalled about the tarnishing of our image in world opinion? And where are the voices of the other presidential candidates who will inherit the Bush legacy of torture? Why the silence?

I count on the American people to refuse to be shamed any more.


So Bush basically knew about the torture knowing that he can be held liable for crimes against humanity. You know the same crimes that Saddam Hussein was hung for. The same crimes that he should have been impeached for but hey I'm just a liberal who has the facts while your an ignorant conservative just belting out garbage...

and you know what the sad part is. Your congressman probably doesn't even care or know who you are so your voicing your opinions to liberals who are happy that we've got your idiotic, ignorant, pathetic party out of the White House.

SupDog your an idiot. Do some research before you try and just bring your bulls**t and spread it like its actually facts, your just like your conservative media, biased with no facts but state profusely that your not biased.

(Hey I'll do like Florida State and report my actions to the moderator and hope for a lesser fine. Sorry NB i might have violated the rules here but SupDog deserves it to an extent. I know I could get a 3-day ban but since I am apologizing to you can I go ahead and get a 1-day so I can bust their heads open when I get back?)

[resnor]

Uh, Slaughte, are you REALLY going to make me go and pull out ALL the quotes from Bill (and Hillary) Clinton where he talks about Saddam, and what a threat he was to the world because of his desire to acquire more WMD's, and the fact that he believed him to have them already? Clinton thought he had WMD's...Bush thought he had WMD's...Britain thought it...EVERYONE thought it...only the U.S. had the balls to do something.

Maybe if the U.S. had had the balls to step in and stop Hitler when he took the Sudentland WWII could have been avoided...

[Sgt.Slaughter]

Uh, Slaughte, are you REALLY going to make me go and pull out ALL the quotes from Bill (and Hillary) Clinton where he talks about Saddam, and what a threat he was to the world because of his desire to acquire more WMD's, and the fact that he believed him to have them already? Clinton thought he had WMD's...Bush thought he had WMD's...Britain thought it...EVERYONE thought it...only the U.S. had the balls to do something.

Maybe if the U.S. had had the balls to step in and stop Hitler when he took the Sudentland WWII could have been avoided...

Please find those quotes, statements, over exaggerations or whatever because everything I have stated has been backed up by facts while some of yours have just been rhetoric...

and please include links. thanks.

And I agree with the second part about WWII but all those neighboring countries who knew this was going on didn't want to step in (Britain, China, France, etc.) but the US has to come in and save the day. I don't agree with that logic but I do agree with your statement.

[resnor]

No, Slaughter, Im not going to waste my time doing a Google search, and cutting a pasting quotes that you could search and read yourself. The dact is, WMD's was onle ONE of the reasons for the invasion. However, libs jumped on the WMD's because we didn't find them...of course, that doesn't mean that they didn't exist, it just means that they weren't in Iraq by the time we got there.

Still waiting on his warning...

[Gtrght77]

WMDs were the reason Bush got approval to strike.

[resnor]

No, it was ONE reason. Go reread his speeches where he laid out the reasons for invasion. It was only one of them.

[Sgt.Slaughter]

No, Slaughter, Im not going to waste my time doing a Google search, and cutting a pasting quotes that you could search and read yourself. The dact is, WMD's was onle ONE of the reasons for the invasion. However, libs jumped on the WMD's because we didn't find them...of course, that doesn't mean that they didn't exist, it just means that they weren't in Iraq by the time we got there.

Still waiting on his warning...

So you set the basis of your argument but have no facts, or want to look for facts, to back and support your argument...I understand tho, conservatives just love to see things the way they want and not understand what really happened.

On that note Reggie Bush is the best Running Back in NFL History. Better than Jim Brown, Emmitt Smith, Barry Sanders, Earl Campbell, LT, AP, D-Mac and ever other running back who ever played the sport. You know why because thats the way it is and no supporting stats or facts you post will ever change the fact that Reggie Bush is the best running back in NFL History!!!

Oh yea...Warn Deez Nuts F A G!!!

[Sgt.Slaughter]

WMDs were the reason Bush got approval to strike.

Thank you, someone who actually remembers...

[resnor]

So you set the basis of your argument but have no facts, or want to look for facts, to back and support your argument...I understand tho, conservatives just love to see things the way they want and not understand what really happened.

On that note Reggie Bush is the best Running Back in NFL History. Better than Jim Brown, Emmitt Smith, Barry Sanders, Earl Campbell, LT, AP, D-Mac and ever other running back who ever played the sport. You know why because thats the way it is and no supporting stats or facts you post will ever change the fact that Reggie Bush is the best running back in NFL History!!!

Oh yea...Warn Deez Nuts F A G!!!

Yeah, you SHOULD have received a warning days ago, and SHOULD have received a ban for these continuing insults. Now you're allowed to call me F A G? Seriously, this is getting ridiculous.

I haven't had time to post any links. I've been posting from my phone most of the day...it's a real pain to cut and paste and all that stuff from my phone.

You have zero, ZERO, justification for saying that the ONLY reason for the invasion of Iraq was the WMD's. It just shows that you haven't actually seen or read any of Bush's speeches concerning the justification for the war in Iraq. There were several that jump readily to my mind: WMD's was one, Saddam's human rights violations was another, Saddam's destabilization of the region was another, Saddam's ignoring of the UN sanctions was another, and one more was Saddam's resistance of the UN weapons inspectors. I'll post some links to that stuff later. Maybe tonight, maybe tomorrow.

[Sgt.Slaughter]

Yeah, you SHOULD have received a warning days ago, and SHOULD have received a ban for these continuing insults. Now you're allowed to call me F A G? Seriously, this is getting ridiculous.

I haven't had time to post any links. I've been posting from my phone most of the day...it's a real pain to cut and paste and all that stuff from my phone.

You have zero, ZERO, justification for saying that the ONLY reason for the invasion of Iraq was the WMD's. It just shows that you haven't actually seen or read any of Bush's speeches concerning the justification for the war in Iraq. There were several that jump readily to my mind: WMD's was one, Saddam's human rights violations was another, Saddam's destabilization of the region was another, Saddam's ignoring of the UN sanctions was another, and one more was Saddam's resistance of the UN weapons inspectors. I'll post some links to that stuff later. Maybe tonight, maybe tomorrow.


I understand i hate posting from my iphone too...

The human rights and destabalization of the region have been going on since the first Bush...
The resistance to UN weapons inspectors, i can't remember if Saddam allowed the inspectors to come or if he was stopping them from entering the country. But if u find a link please post it, i would love to be corrected...

sorry bout the insults but when i start i can't seem to stop...