|
|
|
|
|
| Could it be any more negative?
Posted: 10/29/2009 9:30:09 PM | | ACE you can go to reddit.com and find the interview in full. Not sure what kind of site they are but if you take notice Frank is sitting in his office answering questions from the internet. They are advertising the interview on their site so I guess they are proud of it, so I am pretty sure it has nothing to do with the right. Its Barney Frank in his own words and far leftist dogma in full. He has never been shy about his agenda. | |
|
| |
| Could it be any more negative?
Posted: 10/30/2009 12:33:31 AM | I did not mean any disrespect nor offense and my post was not aimed at any one person, but at a prevalent mindset.
At the mindset itself, or at the mindset as it has been deliberaely mischaracterized by commentators like Rush, who are getting rich by poisoning the well?
I think you are reading way more into the post than was intended. One of the characteristics of satire is overstatement and exaggeration for the purpose of effect. The only motive is to encourage the reader to look at things from another perspective.
It didn't read that way. It read like you were reaffirming a prejudice that is already pervasive.
If you said, "All conservatives are thieves at heart" in the context of a joke or satire, then I am smart enough to not get offended because it is not a personal attack. If you called ME a thief, I would be offended. There is a difference.
All libs are X. I am a lib. Am I X in your opinion? How else am I and other liberals of good will supposed to take that? Substitute blacks or Jews and see if it's still something you'd find funny.
My personal opinion is that many are blind or asleep to what is happening to our economy and to our basic rights and freedoms. Political satire is SUPPOSED to have a shock effect to wake people up. It is not meant as the gospel.
Tell that to the dittoheads, who will take your "jokes" not as a shocking wake-up call, but as support for their derisive attitude.
Just watch Letterman, Leno, Conan or scan prevailing political cartoons. They overstate, take things out of context, and do not tell the whole story many times, all for the purpose of entertainment and to promote their own political viewpoint.
In their context, those jokes are funny because the setting indicates that it's meant to be taken lightly. In the midst of a discussion thread about a serious topic and all the heated discussion that has gone on before, the jokes came across as hostile. I'm glad to hear you didn't intend them that way, and I'm sorry that they did because I would have much peferred to feel that I was in on the joke. | |
|
| Could it be any more negative?
Posted: 10/30/2009 6:55:21 AM | LOL I'm older than Rush, I knew these things about liberals and lefties in thee 60's on college campus's, they were the one's easily led, self loathing, clueless and couldn't drive in the snow. Generally being educated beyond their capacity, and without a purpose for their own life except dreaming up offenses (easily insultable, touchy, annxious and irritable due to their general sense of not belonging in the universe), they want to force others into their belief system like JW's gone power mad.
Now they've given us a president without a past, no father, no family, no college records, no mentoring as a young man under other wise men he fell into the hands of the sharpton's, wright's, alinsky-lovers, whereupon he sprung full upon the land like some manchurian candidate repeating nonsense cliches that brought tears to the eyes of the people I described in para. 1.
Rush is late to the game, real people always knew what libs, commies and Democrats were about. | |
|
| Could it be any more negative?
Posted: 10/30/2009 12:13:13 PM | | GC, Can your heart be so cold, that it's not warmed by the thought we finally have a President whose Muslim roots allow him to be sympathetic to Muslims? I'm surprised every American can't see what a truly wonderful thing that is. Isn't it obvious to everyone that if we're just nice and understanding to all the people in the world who are different from us, they'll be nice and understanding in return? | |
|
| Could it be any more negative?
Posted: 10/30/2009 12:48:25 PM | Match you and I both know that Muslim countries, and our enemies for that matter, are run by "hard men". What do hard men think of soft men? They think they, and their country by extension, are prime for the taking. This idea one can sweet talk grown men out of their interests and bias's is clueless beyond comprehension. I'm sure it's true in a court case, it's true in business, it's true in a bar fight.
This entire presidency is some sort of Stockholm Syndrome sickness visited upon us by the clueless. | |
|
| Could it be any more negative?
Posted: 10/30/2009 1:21:55 PM | | I think T.R. had exactly the right approach to dealing with other countries: Speak softly--and carry a big stick. But then he, like Truman, and Eisenhower, and Kennedy, among others, had been in a few "bar fights." In Roosevelt's case, literally. He wrote that he once walked into a saloon to find a drunk waving a revolver around and forcing everyone to stay and buy him drinks. When he walked over to T.R. and made the same demand, he pretended to go along with it--but as the drunk looked away and let the muzzle drop, he put a right hand on his chin that knocked him cold. | |
|
| Could it be any more negative?
Posted: 10/30/2009 2:29:44 PM | Obama needs to invade a country fast. All this fighting two wars is borish and wuassified. What knid of leader wouldn't immediately attack another country? ***This just in...Pretty much all the the World's leaders aren't fighting two wars. Oh, "any" you say.*** Oh...well they're all sissies. We should test a nuke off their shores or egg their battleships and moon them as we laugh at them.
Some people in here are true war mongers who validate a leader by how many countries he invades. You should validate them by how many wars they win rather than how many they start. Oh but that would mean the guy who started these wars is pretty much skirt wearing nancy boy. | |
|
| Could it be any more negative?
Posted: 10/30/2009 2:35:30 PM | | This just in . . . this country has enemies who attacked it 8 years ago. What would you do, ask them to be nice to us? And if you want to see someone lose a war, just give this fool's fool a little more time. He will find a way to lose Afghanistan, and probably Pakistan in the process. God help us then. | |
|
| Peaceniks
Posted: 10/30/2009 2:43:03 PM | What is the story with all of these peaceniks? Cutting and running isn't much of an exit strategy. If let loose our dogs of war, this whole thing could be over in a month.
Our problem is that the politicians take the most effective actions off the table for generals.
In WWII there were more civilian fatalities than among soldiers, you can look it up.
These days we are tip toeing around like policemen instead of warriors. Sheesh! | |
|
| Could it be any more negative?
Posted: 10/30/2009 2:57:32 PM | No Match, I would do just as the President has been doing...allow the Generals to fight the war. The Bush failure/debacle/ fiasco was caused from the White House running the wars, which in my opinion was to secure as much profits off the wars. Because we all know Cheney has been a war profiteer for a long time now.
You seem as if you hope we lose Afghanistan just so you and you cohorts can don your NASCAR shirts, put some chaw in your mouths and laugh at the President. | |
|
| Could it be any more negative?
Posted: 10/30/2009 4:14:24 PM | Because we all know Cheney has been a war profiteer for a long time now.
Speak for yourself. I don't know any such thing. I doubt that you do, either--and I don't think much of calling someone a mass murderer and war criminal without some very sound evidence. Without it, all you're doing is spreading a very vicious, personal slander.
If you knew anything about this President's conduct of the war in Afghanistan, you'd know he formally announced on March 27--seven months ago--that after a thorough review, his administration had formulated a new policy on the war in Afghanistan. If so, what are they doing now, as our servicemen continue to die there for lack of support? He's lying. I suppose you also approve of Mr. Obama's plans to free the murderers being held at Gitmo--including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Or didn't you know about that, either?
Your comments about me and my cohorts--whatever you mean by that--say more about you, than anyone else. | |
|
| Could it be any more negative?
Posted: 10/30/2009 4:28:33 PM | | Hey, I did not know about Khalid Shaikh Mohammed opportunity to be freed. Where can I learn more about that Match? I looked him up and found out that he called Obama a "negative photographic image of Bush." | |
|
| Could it be any more negative?
Posted: 10/30/2009 4:48:11 PM | war profiteer is any person or organization that improperly profits from warfare or by selling weapons and other goods to parties at war.
This here is from wikipedia. You do know that Cheney was the vice president of Halliburton right? You know that Halliburton profits off of war right?
I keep looking for where I said that Cheney was a mass murderer or guilty of war crimes. You want to point that out for me please. Then you went to talk of me personally slandering Cheney. 
you'd know he formally announced on March 27--seven months ago--that after a thorough review, his administration had formulated a new policy on the war in Afghanistan. If so, what are they doing now
So if the conditions on the ground have channged over the past seven months, you would expect Obama to stick to the outdated plan from seven months ago. You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel to put down the president now.
Yeah Match, how about that source regarding the freeing of KSM? Should be an interesting read. Wait a minute, you get your information for Dousche Limbaugh. Nevermind. Keep your source. | |
|
| Could it be any more negative?
Posted: 10/30/2009 4:56:40 PM | Skooch I doubt that you'll be able to understand this, and that is a tragedy because i suspect there is a real guy somewhere inside of you, but the idea that Cheney, or Bush, or anyone would allow 4,000 plus men to die for 'profit' is so revolting, i doubt i could be around you.
To say such a thing, without proof beyond Cheney was an executive of a firm, is so dreadful, I'd use slander but it's lost it's punch through misuse, as to defy description. I think a lot of bad things about Obama, and Clinton, and others we could list, I would never ever imagine them changing life for profits. Sorry, I'm as cynical, and skeptical as they make men but the quid pro quo is revolting.
You really need to get ahold of your thinking, it's beneath you, it's beneath anyone speaking of another human without iron clad proof, and you offered the daily Kos looney tune day 1. | |
|
| Could it be any more negative?
Posted: 10/30/2009 5:08:08 PM | Why--do you maybe have a little bit of a thing for him? He fancies himself quite the ladies' man--or used to.
The best analysis of this I've seen comes from Andy Mc Carthy and a couple other top-notch former federal lawyers (Ed Whelan, for one) who contribute to National Review. Rather than try to explain it here, I'd suggest you check out what they've written. Go to nationalreview.com, click "search" at the upper right corner of the page, then "NRO Authors," and then "archive" for Mc Carthy. I recommend the articles from 7/11, 9/18, 9/21, and 10/23 in particular.
Mc Carthy, BTW, was the lead prosecutor in the federal trials of the jihadists who set off a 1,200 lb. bomb under the World Trade Center in 1993, almost causing 9/11 eight years earlier. Several of them now have their very own rooms in a place in Colorado called ADX Florence. He knows the legal details of all this very, very well. He also describes just what Mr. Obama and Mr. Holder, his slimy, jihadist-coddling AG, are up to. Gosh--surprising the news media haven't covered all this, isn't it? | |
|
| Could it be any more negative?
Posted: 10/30/2009 5:26:21 PM | I looked at an image of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed while learning that they are trying to move his case and others into federal courts. I did not find him attractive and I was in no way physically drawn to him either.
This ambiguity is a military issue, not a legal one. In our system, the conduct of war is a political exercise in which the judiciary has no proper role. Under separation-of-powers principles, a judge has no more business telling a field commander who the enemy is than a general has telling a judge how to rule on the validity of a contract. Unfortunately, our system has become over-lawyered, and our leaders lack the political will to tell judges to butt out — something Congress and the president have the power to do.
I get it. Federal district judges are not qualified to handle military issues. This is a mess, an absolute mess! And a shameful one at that. Off the cuff, give me a quick example of how WWII criminals were tried. Wait, Nuremberg won't work--but I liked the approach of using judges from several countries--maybe this method could have worked since this was an internationally active group. Anyway, give me some examples of how this is supposed to go Match.
Still reading...
Oh my, its sticky.
The trial of war criminals rested on the assumption that aggressive warfare was a crime, and on the still broader assumption that the principles of jurisprudence as developed in England and the United States applied to international relations as well. Yet many people objected that these principles were themselves disregarded in the trials. Thus it was charged that to try men for committing acts that were only later designated as crimes was to pass judgment ex post facto. The only answer to this was that the crimes of the Nazi leaders—the full magnitude of which became apparent only as the trials unfolded—were so horrible as to deserve, if not to demand, such punishment. Source: http://www.answers.com/topic/war-crimes-trials.
Did we make a mistake by not sticking with an internationally inspired formula Match? I'm sensing some incompetency in how all of this is being handled with respect to war criminals of the terrorism variety. | |
|
| Could it be any more negative?
Posted: 10/30/2009 5:33:14 PM |
Skooch I doubt that you'll be able to understand this
I know. No one is on your level of intelligence. You're the smartest man in the world and the most full of himself at the same time. Impressive combination.
Do you not know that when a company profits off of war they can be deemed 'war profiteers?' You may not like the term, but that doesn't change it's meaning. Cheney worked for such a firm after his tenure as the Secretary of Defense. He made for a great lobbyist don't you think?
Now, I'm trying to find where I said Bush and Cheney profitted off the death of 4000 soldiers. You're getting all hyperbolic on me now. I said my opinion is that they were profitting off the war itself. I don't think Bush/Cheney are in the casket business. You're being naive if you think the undrlying reason for the fiasco in Iraq didn't revolve around oil, and Bush and his cronies saw none of the profits. But, that's all anti-American propaganda right, because it's directed toward a Republican. | |
|
| Could it be any more negative?
Posted: 10/30/2009 5:45:09 PM | | Skotch, I mean Skooch. I'm not sure what's actually technically going on, but I try to stay out of extreme views about these matters. What if you are wrong? What if all of the oil/profit ties people are able to make are just remarkable coincidences? We think the world is a big one, but in business, the world remains rather small in my opinion, let's say with something like nine degrees of separation or something. The odds of being able to make connections between politicians and businesses are fairly good, yes? Isn't this also the case with Democrats? | |
|
| Could it be any more negative?
Posted: 10/30/2009 5:56:31 PM | | ^^^Iagree tha it would be just a remarkable coincedence if there was no money funneling back to Bush's cronies. The way the war was conducted just wreaks of conspiracy. I'm probably wrong about my opinions, but I'm by far not the only one. | |
|
| Could it be any more negative?
Posted: 10/30/2009 6:03:07 PM | Skooch let me help...if you're saying it's about oil, you have a case. America, the industrialized world, runs on oil. it would run on American oil were it not for democrats so any blood is on them.
Were you to analyze the profits of Hal v. the S&P, you'll be a little surprised, although for the lefties I've met the sun coming up is a surprise. if you take the incrmental profit of Hal, with and without Iraq, you might be surprised, see above.
Frankly the left's interpretation, understanding of the world, and how they mislead the pack of rabble who vote for them, makes one nearly tase last nights dinner, say nothing of lunch. You need to think a few times before saying such absolutely dim misinformation. | |
|
| Could it be any more negative?
Posted: 10/30/2009 6:06:07 PM |
I keep looking for where I said that Cheney was a mass murderer or guilty of war crimes.
When you accuse someone of urging a war for his personal profit, that's *exactly* what you're saying. He's using his influence to involve U.S. servicemen in combat, knowing that will cause some of them to be killed, strictly to make money. Anyone who really did that would be not just a crook, or a liar--but a dyed-in-the-wool fiend, right down there at the bottom of the cesspool with Saddam Hussein.
That person would be the murderer of the men who died, and as a result, also a war criminal. Yet you and many others who swallow propaganda whole continue to sling that accusation around--with no evidence except that he was once an executive with Halliburton--as if it were no more than calling Mr. Cheney a pompous jerk. George Schultz was CEO of Bechtel, too, before he was Secretary of State. So what? Just how many corporations in the world do you think are big enough to do jobs like Halliburton/KBR or Bechtel have done? Two? Three?
If those conditions *had*changed enough to make the plan Obama announced in March outdated, of course I wouldn't expect him to stick with it! You must imagine I'm like Mr. Cheney, but without even the saving grace of a profit motive--that I want to see our servicemen killed for nothing. Insult noted. If Obama's saying the comprehensive plan he announced then--which he said was arrived at after a very thorough, lengthy review--is outdated, I haven't heard it. Do you know that's the case? Or are you just making up an excuse out of thin air for his failure to do his duty as Commander in Chief?
It's nothing to me what you read, or don't. I only gave the citation because another poster asked. | |
|
| Could it be any more negative?
Posted: 10/30/2009 7:03:04 PM |
Did we make a mistake by not sticking with an internationally inspired formula
That was used mainly at Nurmberg. There were a lot of other tribunals held elsewhere in Europe that weren't international. I'm pretty sure the U.S. executed Nazi war criminals it convicted in its own tribunals, too. I know it did in the Far East Tribunals. The Americans, British, French, Chinese, and Dutch all held their own military trials of Japanese war criminals. The U.S. Navy took almost 1,000 of them to a prison not far from Tokyo, where it tried and hanged them. A good book's been written about it, and the records of the tribunals are also online.
It had been so long since the Navy had last hanged anyone that now one knew how. They had to bring in a British hangman from Hong Kong to do the job. Apparently this lad (who literally came from a long line of hangmen) had sort of a morbid sense of humor. He knew some of the weasels wanted to shout "Banzai!" three times on their way to the great beyond, so he'd wait until just the moment they said it the second time--and then drop them. In some cases, the sailors these people had tortured were allowed to see them hang. I saw a photo of one of them giving a big "thumbs up," just as the rope pulled taut on a sadistic guard he and the other Americans in the prison camp had dubbed "Slime." The real pity is that probably 10,000 more Japanese war criminals escaped justice. Two and three weeks after the formal surrender, guards were still beheading POW's at camps in Japan.
I'm sure, though, that if we'd only tried to talk nicely and reasonably with these folks, they would have been nice to us, too! I mean, gosh--aren't we all just the same, when you come right down to it? Don't we all want a nice world, where we humans all get along, with laughing children, and sunny meadows with little birds and bunnies and butterflies? But not us American cowboys. No--WE had to ruin things by making the Japanese mad. Oh yes, they'd already been raping and murdering Chinese by the hundreds of thousands for almost a decade by 1941, but none of us is perfect, and we shouldn't have been so judgmental! Anyway, as we all know now, Pearl Harbor was our own fault. Then, as now . . . America was to blame. We should all do penance for this country's awful sins, every single day. | |
|
| Could it be any more negative?
Posted: 10/30/2009 7:47:37 PM | And on that note, I wonder if its possible to rhyme without treason? I mean, reason?
Indeed, indeed, I cannot tell,
Though I ponder on it well,
Which were easier to state,
All my love or all my hate.
Surely, surely, thou wilt trust me
When I say thou dost disgust me.
O, I hate thee with a hate
That would fain annihilate;
Yet sometimes against my will,
My dear friend, I love thee still.
It were treason to our love,
And a sin to God above,
One iota to abate
Of a pure impartial hate.
--Henry David Thoreau
My country. My country. | |
|
| Could it be any more negative?
Posted: 10/30/2009 8:59:32 PM | Our sovereignty as a country is about to be sold down the river.
http://en.cop15.dk/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/03/the-copenhagen-treaty-draft-wealth-transfer-defined-now-with-dignity-penalty/
http://seekingalpha.com/article/167759-how-the-copenhagen-climate-treaty-will-affect-equity-markets | |
|
|
| Page 74 of 78
|
38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78 |
|
Home
login 
