PDA

View Full Version : Hey Republicans...


The Patriot
02-26-2009, 07:03 PM
Why does your next presidential candidate sound like he's talking to 4 years olds? :sofunny:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QFK8aTpYAmg&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QFK8aTpYAmg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

tony hipchest
02-26-2009, 07:05 PM
that dude was freaking horrible after the current presidents address.

ohiosteelerfan20
02-26-2009, 07:08 PM
Jindal/Palin 2012 :chuckle:

Stlrs4Life
02-26-2009, 07:37 PM
Wonder if he is Muslim?

HometownGal
02-26-2009, 07:37 PM
Why does your next presidential candidate sound like he's talking to 4 years olds? :sofunny:



Well - basically he is. He wants to make sure the Democrats who are viewing this video can understand simple English. :chuckle:

The Patriot
02-26-2009, 07:44 PM
Well - basically he is. He wants to make sure the Democrats who are viewing this video can understand simple English. :chuckle:

"Hey there, neighbor."

http://ddisbored.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/mr-rogers.jpg

KeiselPower99
02-26-2009, 08:36 PM
Put on mustache on him and he reminds me of Apu from the Simpsons.

steelwall
02-26-2009, 11:24 PM
Well it is becoming more apparent to me that should not be a big deal. Because as I listen to our current president everything sounds GREAT and then when I take the time to do due dilligence and look at his bills/ideas/budgets I realize I had been fooled by a smooth speaker with a silver tounge. He can sound great all he wants, I would rather have someone whose ideas look as good on paper and in the real world.


Hit the nail on the head:thumbsup:

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
02-27-2009, 12:16 AM
Hey Democrats, your President makes Dan Quayle look like Einstein. :flap:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ThEAO0lt4Dw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ThEAO0lt4Dw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ap2Cg_FDRy4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ap2Cg_FDRy4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/K5R6kVry4_c&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/K5R6kVry4_c&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Crushzilla
02-27-2009, 12:43 AM
Hey Democrats, your President makes Dan Quayle look like Einstein. :flap:

All politics aside... No one could ever make Quayle look like Einstein...

Preacher
02-27-2009, 12:47 AM
All politics aside... No one could ever make Quayle look like Einstein...

All politics aside, the creation of that image was about 95 percent press, including setups.

MACH1
02-27-2009, 01:05 AM
Hey Democrats, your President makes Dan Quayle look like Einstein. :flap:


The current VP doesn't do to bad a job either. http://dygytalworld.ehost-services139.com/forums/images/smilies/cheesy%20smile.gif

tony hipchest
02-27-2009, 01:15 AM
I would rather have someone whose ideas look as good on paper and in the real world.
then bobby jindal is your man!

"Jindal in '12" :usa:

:rofl:

good luck with that.

tony hipchest
02-27-2009, 01:28 AM
Hey Democrats, your President makes Dan Quayle look like Einstein. :flap:





i would suggest just a little bit more of a mild cheese to take that bitter, sour grape wine taste out of your mouth. :drink:

you loved quayle, didnt you?

(its OK, youre amongst friends, and able to admit it w/o ridicule.)

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
02-27-2009, 02:09 AM
i would suggest just a little bit more of a mild cheese to take that bitter, sour grape wine taste out of your mouth. :drink:

you loved quayle, didnt you?

(its OK, youre amongst friends, and able to admit it w/o ridicule.)

lol... No wine for me thank you, I'm a beer and liquor man myself :drink: :alcohol:

steelwall
02-27-2009, 02:32 AM
i would suggest just a little bit more of a mild cheese to take that bitter, sour grape wine taste out of your mouth. :drink:

you loved quayle, didnt you?

(its OK, youre amongst friends, and able to admit it w/o ridicule.)

Nice way to not commit to denouncing your party. But.....then again you have proven to be much the crafty one at that.

AGAIN Toney.... I don't care elephant or mule, what you say is what matters. How you say it also matters in the eyes of some, but in the eye of someone open minded you would seek content over delivery.

GBMelBlount
02-27-2009, 11:23 AM
Well - basically he is. He wants to make sure the Democrats who are viewing this video can understand simple English. :chuckle:

LOL!!!!!! :rofl:


Unfortunately, a good message will be lost because sadly, the entire focus will be on the poor delivery, not the validity of the content.

Godfather
02-27-2009, 01:22 PM
Jindal has never been good with delivery. He's best known in Louisiana for talking way too fast, especially when he's rattling off a wonkish list of facts and figures.

I didn't see this speech because I missed the lead-in )Obama's address). I can't stand to listen to Obama give a speech. Plus, I found the LSU-Florida game and watched it instead. Apparently even the Republicans don't think Jindal did well.

steelreserve
02-27-2009, 02:20 PM
Why does your next presidential candidate sound like he's talking to 4 years olds? :sofunny:

R-Louisiana.

7SteelGal43
02-27-2009, 02:30 PM
Why does your next presidential candidate sound like he's talking to 4 years olds? :sofunny:



sounds like he's taken public speaking lessons from Al Gore if you ask me.:noidea:

revefsreleets
02-27-2009, 06:15 PM
Jindal is "out there" for one reason only: It shows the diversity of the GOP. It's just posturing...

Preacher
02-27-2009, 06:29 PM
Jindal is "out there" for one reason only: It shows the diversity of the GOP. It's just posturing...

With the new head of the GOP... it is going to be real interesting.

HometownGal
02-27-2009, 06:30 PM
Jindal is "out there" for one reason only: It shows the diversity of the GOP. It's just posturing...

Yeppers. Nothing more.

silver & black
02-27-2009, 08:30 PM
Why does your next presidential candidate sound like he's talking to 4 years olds? :sofunny:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QFK8aTpYAmg&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QFK8aTpYAmg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

So all the Democrats can understand? :noidea:

Dino 6 Rings
02-28-2009, 10:14 AM
As long as the Republicans get back to basics, and undo the horrible run they had where they lost their Conservative values, and Fiscal Responsiblity, whoever they put up in 2012, should have a chance of winning.

I personally like Tom Coburn out of Oklahoma. He's a legit Man. If he was a Democrat, Independent or Green party guy, I'd still be a fan of his.

Dino 6 Rings
02-28-2009, 10:21 AM
Jindal is "out there" for one reason only: It shows the diversity of the GOP. It's just posturing...

Actually I think its a little more than that. Jinal is a conservative and his actions in Louisiana have actually helped to turn that economy around. Louisiana has been nothing but a cesspool of corruption for years, the has actually turned that around and brought back fiscal responsibility and government stability to that state.

There is a serious power play going on in the Republican Party. The McCain loss proved one thing, that is that a Moderate Republican can not win the White House these days. Bush didn't run as a Moderate, "Compassionate Conservatism" is what got him in over Gore (Please don't bring up Florida Bush haters, I'm just pointing out Political Stategy) McCain tried to "cross the aisle" and brought a real Dem with him in Leberman over to the GOP Convention and if anything, that showed Weakness to the Conservative Base, and they Stayed Home.

I believe had Hillary won the Dem nomination, the Conservative Base would have came out in force because she had a alot of people that would have voted against her. Obama didn't have that. Sure some Redneck haters come out against him, but mostly, the real conservatives just stayed home. Even with Palin on the ticket, it wasn't enough to get everyone to the polls.

I argue, had the ticket been Romney/Palin, or Romney + Anyone, as the financial meltdown was going on, Romney would have been the winner big over Obama, he knows Finances and would have owned the Economy. But since McCain knocked Romney out so early, too early in my opinion, it became the Economy + Obama vs Moderate McCain.

No Good for the GOP.

revefsreleets
02-28-2009, 03:05 PM
I've heard that theory before...I thought the changing political climate might precipitate a different outcome, but the election kind of spoke for itself. I think this country was going to vote Democratic no matter what, though...

hindes204
02-28-2009, 03:28 PM
It was all about timing, the economy going downhill at the time that it did gave the democratic party a HUGE shot of confidence....anything that was different than Bush was going to win, and Obama rode the "change" slogan all the way to the white house

devilsdancefloor
02-28-2009, 05:10 PM
I've heard that theory before...I thought the changing political climate might precipitate a different outcome, but the election kind of spoke for itself. I think this country was going to vote Democratic no matter what, though...

:iagree:

and dont forget the savior poops rainbows:wink02:

HometownGal
02-28-2009, 05:58 PM
It was all about timing, the economy going downhill at the time that it did gave the democratic party a HUGE shot of confidence....anything that was different than Bush was going to win, and Obama rode the "change" slogan all the way to the white house

You are spot on, hindes. People wanted "change" and they're getting it, though most likely not the change they anticipated.

I'm with revs - "Don't Blame Me - I Voted McCain". :chuckle:

Preacher
02-28-2009, 11:28 PM
I just find it interesting. . .

The economy is as much a game as psychology as it is actual dollars.

When it gets talked down for about 8 years for political reasons. . . is anyone surprised by where we are at now?

You tell a child he or she is a bad person long enough. . . sooner or later they beleive you.-♠

tony hipchest
02-28-2009, 11:45 PM
I just find it interesting. . .

The economy is as much a game as psychology as it is actual dollars.

When it gets talked down for about 8 years for political reasons. . . is anyone surprised by where we are at now?

You tell a child he or she is a bad person long enough. . . sooner or later they beleive you.-♠so what youre saying is that the financial crisis is all in our heads, that americans are just a bunch of whiners, and that anyone who voted democrat is childish? :noidea:

sorry, but that mccain camp theory has already been debunked.

:coffee:

BrandonCarr39
03-01-2009, 12:18 AM
FYI-Jindal voted for The Patriot Act, Military Commission Act of 2006, and the RealID Act when he served in Congress, and not to mention too he's a Rhodes Scholar ala Bill Clinton, Wesley Clark, and Rachel Maddow.

Conservative? So what? Like with Obama, Clinton, and other past Presidents, he's nothing more than a NWO puppet. Regardless of who's in the White House, the statos quo will always remain the same.

Preacher
03-01-2009, 12:25 AM
so what youre saying is that the financial crisis is all in our heads, that americans are just a bunch of whiners, and that anyone who voted democrat is childish? :noidea:

sorry, but that mccain camp theory has already been debunked.

:coffee:


Wow. I guess one thread isn't enough for having fun with specious argumentation.

I could walk you step by step through my arguments showing the logical flow and the resultant logical answers both in agreement and disagreement,

but you didn't pay your tuition the last time class was in session :nono:

Gotta pay first now!

tony hipchest
03-01-2009, 12:35 AM
Wow. I guess one thread isn't enough for having fun with specious argumentation.

I could walk you step by step through my arguments showing the logical flow and the resultant logical answers both in agreement and disagreement,

but you didn't pay your tuition the last time class was in session :nono:

Gotta pay first now!being that i pay my cable bill, i could get the same "lesson" (essentially for free) by watching FOX news.

thanks anyways. :yawn:

Preacher
03-01-2009, 12:36 AM
being that i pay my cable bill, i could get the same "lesson" (essentially for free) by watching FOX news.

thanks anyways.


Interesting....

Since I haven't watched fox news in years.

Do they now have logic lessons as part of the programming?

tony hipchest
03-01-2009, 12:40 AM
Interesting....

Since I haven't watched fox news in years.

Do they have logic lessons on there too now?♠it doesnt matter.

why dont you use your logic to convince people their financial turmoil is all in their heads. :noidea:

you know, like when a 60 year old see's half of their retirement evaporate....

just tell em its 'psychological" :thumbsup:

:coffee:

SteelCityMan786
03-01-2009, 12:40 AM
You are spot on, hindes. People wanted "change" and they're getting it, though most likely not the change they anticipated.

I'm with revs - "Don't Blame Me - I Voted McCain". :chuckle:

Hopefully in 2012 we'll be able to say

Don't blame me (Republican Candidate's name here) won.

Preacher
03-01-2009, 01:00 AM
it doesnt matter.

why dont you use your logic to convince people their financial turmoil is all in their heads. :noidea:

you know, like when a 60 year old see's half of their retirement evaporate....

just tell em its 'psychological" :thumbsup:

:coffee:


You really need those logic lessons....

See, I was speaking metaphysics, and you are talking epistemology. . . Oh wait.. pay first!


Or maybe this will do. . .


"I see words in peoples mouths"

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q23/shortyshane_2006/movie_i_see_dead_people.jpg



:rolleyes: where the HELL did you get that from?

:coffee: [/I]

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
03-01-2009, 01:16 AM
The blame for the financial crisis can fall onto A) consumers buying on credit that they couldn't pay back, B) bangs loaning money to people who they knew couldn't pay it back, and C) President Carter signing the Community Reinvestment Act that allowed A and B to take place.

BrandonCarr39
03-01-2009, 01:19 AM
The blame for the financial crisis can fall onto A) consumers buying on credit that they couldn't pay back, B) bangs loaning money to people who they knew couldn't pay it back, and C) President Carter signing the Community Reinvestment Act that allowed A and B to take place.

Greenspan also did alot of damage too. His and Clinton's fiscal policies(i.e. housing bubble) didn't take effect right away, but the damage we've seen recently have been b/c of just that.

devilsdancefloor
03-01-2009, 01:26 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM




you know everytime i see a locker room thread and preacher and tony are in it this comes to mind. and depending on the subject rolls are reversed :wink02::sofunny:

Preacher
03-01-2009, 01:42 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM




you know everytime i see a locker room thread and preacher and tony are in it this comes to mind. and depending on the subject rolls are reversed :wink02::sofunny:

So you think we are both british comedy blokes :hunch:

:chuckle:

devilsdancefloor
03-01-2009, 12:31 PM
So you think we are both british comedy blokes :hunch:

:chuckle:

honestly it is comedic gold sometimes between you two. :tt03::tt03:

Preacher
03-01-2009, 12:50 PM
honestly it is comedic gold sometimes between you two. :tt03::tt03:

Often times. . . that is probably the only point too.

revefsreleets
03-01-2009, 03:32 PM
Unfortunately, consumer confidence is a HUGE factor in emerging from a recession.

There is almost nothing the current administration or congress are doing that will do anything to bolster that confidence in any segment of society that has (or will have) enough spending power to change that.

We're going to be stuck in this mess for a LONG time.

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
03-01-2009, 03:34 PM
Unfortunately, consumer confidence is a HUGE factor in emerging from a recession.

There is almost nothing the current administration or congress are doing that will do anything to bolster that confidence in any segment of society that has (or will have) enough spending power to change that.

We're going to be stuck in this mess for a LONG time.

What really sucks is I am a commissioned appliance salesmen at Lowes and a starving college student. My yearly wages have been cut in half :mad:

tony hipchest
03-01-2009, 03:44 PM
Often times. . . that is probably the only point too.

:wink02:

in the name of funny, i aim to please...:laughing:

of course not everyone shares my same twisted sense of humor. :drink:

tony hipchest
03-01-2009, 03:48 PM
What really sucks is I am a commissioned appliance salesmen at Lowes and a starving college student. My yearly wages have been cut in half :mad:ive hired 2 people away from lowes in the past 6 months. from what ive seen, theyre a pretty crappy employer (on the lines of wal-mart) that is more concerned with their big buck sponsorship deals and advertising as opposed to giving employees 40 hrs a week and typical benefits.

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
03-01-2009, 03:52 PM
ive hired 2 people away from lowes in the past 6 months. from what ive seen, theyre a pretty crappy employer (on the lines of wal-mart) that is more concerned with their big buck sponsorship deals and advertising as opposed to giving employees 40 hrs a week and typical benefits.

Very true. I am a part time employee, but this week I was cut back to 10 hours. No idea how I can pay my bills, let alone eat, on hours like that. The only reason I am still there is because when everything picks back up, I will be able to make pretty good money part time. Before the whole economy tanked, I was making around 25,000 only working 20 ish hours a week.

tony hipchest
03-01-2009, 04:04 PM
Very true. I am a part time employee, but this week I was cut back to 10 hours. No idea how I can pay my bills, let alone eat, on hours like that. The only reason I am still there is because when everything picks back up, I will be able to make pretty good money part time. Before the whole economy tanked, I was making around 25,000 only working 20 ish hours a week.
from what i understand, just about everybody there is classified as part time. i used to have about 30 (the majority) of my employees at 34 hrs/week to maintain "part time" status, and ultimately save the co. on sick and vacation pay. however once the economic hard times rolled in (and we were lucky enough to gain more work) i elevated everyone to full time status as opposed to getting a few new part time people.

sort of a reward for hard work and loyalty.

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
03-01-2009, 04:07 PM
Hard work and loyalty mean nothing to LOWES. I have been with them for 4 years, am certified of every piece of equipment in the store, cross-trained in 5 departments, and I get the least hours of any employee in the store. Luckily though, a guy I trained when he was hired will be my manager in a few weeks. Maybe I can call in some favors.

Dino 6 Rings
03-01-2009, 05:21 PM
My place of employment is starting to ask for people to volunteer to take a week off without pay during the year. Right now its Voluntary but there are chances it will become a "want to keep you job?" type of thing.

Also, another trucking company has frozen all pay increases and stopped matching 401 K funds. They save money but that kills the markets. More money not being put into the market, means less investment, means trouble in the long term.

Rough Times for all, regardless of party affiliation. I did see a joke though, about a Company that was going to lay people off, the CEO of the company had to lay off 30 people, so he went to the parking lot, and wrote down the cars of all the employees with Obama stickers, then he laid them all off, figured, "You voted for charge, now you get change."

I found that joke pretty funny, have to laugh, or I'd cry.

Stlrs4Life
03-01-2009, 06:40 PM
You republicans cn spin anything. You spin more than a Top does.

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
03-01-2009, 06:52 PM
You republicans cn spin anything. You spin more than a Top does.

please explain...

hindes204
03-01-2009, 06:54 PM
You republicans cn spin anything. You spin more than a Top does.

i can say the same thing about libs.....have you read the new york times....they spin everything and anything in order to push their left wing agenda

Godfather
03-02-2009, 10:37 AM
Greenspan also did alot of damage too. His and Clinton's fiscal policies(i.e. housing bubble) didn't take effect right away, but the damage we've seen recently have been b/c of just that.

Another reason for the housing bubble was the stock market couldn't maintain the pace of the 1990s and the bond market sucked (low interest rates), meaning all that investment money had to go somewhere.

Securitization was a big problem too. If the banks couldn't dump risky loans onto other people they wouldn't have made them. F-A-C-T. And don't forget the idiotic leverage ratios firms like Bear Stearns took.

The housing bubble happened in the past decade. The tech bubble happened under Clinton.

revefsreleets
03-02-2009, 10:45 AM
But the housing bubble was what REPLACED the tech bubble. Rather than have a "day of reckoning", we simply transferred the problem, put it off for later, and ultimately made it worse...

devilsdancefloor
03-02-2009, 10:47 AM
You republicans cn spin anything. You spin more than a Top does.


:rofl::coffee:

Godfather
03-02-2009, 12:06 PM
But the housing bubble was what REPLACED the tech bubble. Rather than have a "day of reckoning", we simply transferred the problem, put it off for later, and ultimately made it worse...

And then the TARP program turned out to be a disaster that limited our ability to respond to the crisis :banging:

But we went ahead and passed a bad stimulus bill anyway :banging:

Dino 6 Rings
03-02-2009, 12:17 PM
here's a link to Rush's speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference this past weekend.

CPAC is its short name, and word is that Romney won the straw poll. Interesting how his Mormon religion doesn't seem to matter now that we are STILL in an economic crisis.

Anyway, whether or not you like or hate Rush Limbaugh, its a good read, its very long so get a cup of coffee and some time and just give it a read or listen to it on one of the media links.

This after all is a "Hey Republicans" Thread.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_030209/content/01125106.guest.html

DanGraham
03-02-2009, 12:28 PM
I've never seen a republican talk so much trash on their own party! IT WAS AWESOME. I took a drink every time he talked smack on republicans and i think i blacked out somewhere between failed Katrina efforts and crumbling economy.:drink:

Dino 6 Rings
03-02-2009, 12:34 PM
I've never seen a republican talk so much trash on their own party! IT WAS AWESOME. I took a drink every time he talked smack on republicans and i think i blacked out somewhere between failed Katrina efforts and crumbling economy.:drink:

Well he calls himself a Conservative, not a Republican. So he can get away with it.

RunWillieRun
03-02-2009, 12:49 PM
I've never seen a republican talk so much trash on their own party! IT WAS AWESOME. I took a drink every time he talked smack on republicans and i think i blacked out somewhere between failed Katrina efforts and crumbling economy.:drink:


So glad you decided to sign up here to post this...we are so grateful that you did. :doh:

Preacher
03-02-2009, 04:46 PM
You republicans cn spin anything. You spin more than a Top does.


He musta just come back from a union meeting.


:chuckle:

The Patriot
03-02-2009, 05:21 PM
i can say the same thing about libs.....have you read the new york times....they spin everything and anything in order to push their left wing agenda

Please. Everyone has an opinion -- even journalists -- so, no doubt, political articles will be slanted one way or the other. The NYT may be "to the left" but nobody is force-feeding you their paper. The reader should be able to distinguish the information from the columnist's interpretation of that information. News Papers don't have political agendas. Their only "agenda" is to stay afloat and, these days, most are failing to do so. Headlines have been reading little white lies and skewed facts for the past century because controversy sells! This whole "liberal media" conspiracy was spurred by the ousted GOP who feared that their constituents were being swayed by the unsympathetic media. Hopefully, their qualms don't do you justice.

Preacher
03-02-2009, 06:49 PM
Please. Everyone has an opinion -- even journalists -- so, no doubt, political articles will be slanted one way or the other. The NYT may be "to the left" but nobody is force-feeding you their paper. The reader should be able to distinguish the information from the columnist's interpretation of that information. News Papers don't have political agendas. Their only "agenda" is to stay afloat and, these days, most are failing to do so. Headlines have been reading little white lies and skewed facts for the past century because controversy sells! This whole "liberal media" conspiracy was spurred by the ousted GOP who feared that their constituents were being swayed by the unsympathetic media. Hopefully, their qualms don't do you justice.

Nice try.

[CENTER]How the Media Vote
The Media Elite (1964-1976) (http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp#The%20Media%20Elite) • White House Reporters (1976-1992) (http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp#White%20House%20Reporters) • Major Newspaper Reporters (1980) (http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp#Major%20Newspaper%20Reporters) • U.S. Newspaper Journalists (1984) (http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp#U.S.%20Newspaper%20Journalists) • The Media Elite Revisited (1988-1992) (http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp#The%20Media%20Elite%20Revisited) • Washington Bureau Chiefs and Correspondents (1992) (http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp#Washington%20Bureau%20Chiefs%20and %20Correspondents) • Newspaper Editors (1992-1996) (http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp#Newspaper%20Editors) • Campaign Journalists (2004) (http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp#Campaign%20Journalists) • TV and Newspaper Journalists (2004) (http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp#TV%20and%20Newspaper%20Journalists )
The Media Elite

In 1981, S. Robert Lichter, then with George Washington University, and Stanley Rothman of Smith College, released a groundbreaking survey of 240 journalists at the most influential national media outlets — including the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS — on their political attitudes and voting patterns. Results of this study of the “media elite” were included in the October/November 1981 issue of Public Opinion, published by the American Enterprise Institute, in the article “Media and Business Elites.” The data demonstrated that journalists and broadcasters hold liberal positions on a wide range of social and political issues. This study, which was more elaborately presented in Lichter and Rothman’s subsequent book, The Media Elite (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0803893507/qid=1122322726/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-2494461-6406459), became the most widely quoted media study of the 1980s and remains a landmark today.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/images2005/MBBChart1A.jpg
KEY FINDINGS:


81 percent of the journalists interviewed voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in every election between 1964 and 1976.



In the Democratic landslide of 1964, 94 percent of the press surveyed voted for President Lyndon Johnson (D) over Senator Barry Goldwater (R).



In 1968, 86 percent of the press surveyed voted for Democrat Senator Hubert Humphrey.



In 1972, when 62 percent of the electorate chose President Richard Nixon, 81 percent of the media elite voted for liberal Democratic Senator George McGovern.



In 1976, the Democratic nominee, Jimmy Carter, captured the allegiance of 81 percent of the reporters surveyed while a mere 19 percent cast their ballots for President Gerald Ford.



Over the 16-year period, the Republican candidate always received less than 20 percent of the media elite’s vote.



Lichter and Rothman’s survey of journalists discovered that “Fifty-four percent placed themselves to the left of center, compared to only 19 percent who chose the right side of the spectrum.”



“Fifty-six percent said the people they worked with were mostly on the left, and only 8 percent on the right — a margin of seven-to-one.”





http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.aspContinued on next post

Preacher
03-02-2009, 06:51 PM
continued White House Reporters
In 1995, Kenneth Walsh, a reporter for U.S. News & World Report, polled 28 of his fellow White House correspondents from the four TV networks, the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, USA Today, Washington Post, Copley, Cox, Hearst, Knight-Ridder, plus Newsweek, Time and U.S. News & World Report, about their presidential voting patterns for his 1996 book Feeding the Beast: The White House versus the Press (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0679442901/qid=1122323203/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-2494461-6406459?v=glance&s=books). Walsh found that his colleagues strongly preferred Democrats, with the White House press corps admitting a total of 50 votes for Democratic candidates compared to just seven for Republicans.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/images2005/MBBChart1B.jpg
KEY FINDINGS:


In 1992, nine of the White House correspondents surveyed voted for Democrat Bill Clinton, two for Republican George H. W. Bush, and one for independent Ross Perot.



In 1988, 12 voted for Democrat Michael Dukakis, one for Bush.



In 1984, 10 voted for Democrat Walter Mondale, zero for Ronald Reagan.



In 1980, eight voted for Democrat Jimmy Carter, four for liberal independent John Anderson, and two voted for Ronald Reagan.



In 1976, 11 voted for Carter, two for Republican Gerald Ford.



Walsh wrote of the White House press corps members he surveyed: “Even though the survey was anonymous, many journalists declined to reveal their party affiliations, whom they voted for in recent presidential elections, and other data they regarded as too personal — even though they regularly pressure Presidents and other officials to make such disclosures.”



“Those who did reply seemed to be representative of the larger group. Seven said they were Democrats, eleven were unaffiliated with either major party, and not a single respondent said he or she was a registered Republican (although some might have been but were not willing to say so).”

Major Newspaper Reporters
In 1982, scholars at the California State University at Los Angeles asked reporters from the fifty largest U.S. newspapers for whom they voted in 1980. In that election, Republican Ronald Reagan won with 50 percent of the vote, compared with 41 percent for Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter and 8 percent for liberal Republican-turned-independent John Anderson.
KEY FINDING:


51 percent of big city reporters cast a ballot for Democratic President Jimmy Carter, 24 percent for liberal independent candidate John Anderson, and 25 percent for the Republican winner, Ronald Reagan.

U.S. Newspaper Journalists
In 1985, the Los Angeles Times conducted one of the most extensive surveys of journalists in history. Using the same questionnaire they had used to poll the public, the Times polled 2,700 journalists at 621 newspapers across the country. They found that by a margin of two-to-one, reporters had a negative view of then-President Ronald Reagan and voted, by the same margin, for Walter Mondale in 1984.
KEY FINDINGS:


When asked how they voted in the 1984 election, more than twice as many newspaper journalists chose liberal Walter Mondale (58 percent) over the conservative incumbent Ronald Reagan (26 percent), even as the country picked Reagan in a 59 to 41 percent landslide.



Times staff writer David Shaw expounded: “When asked ‘How would you describe your views on most matters having to do with politics?’ 55 percent of the newspaper journalists say they’re liberal (12 percent say ‘very liberal,’ and 43 percent say ‘somewhat liberal’), and only 23 percent of their readers say they’re liberal (five percent say ‘very liberal,’ and 18 percent say ‘somewhat liberal’).



“Sometimes the readers and journalists take diametrically opposed positions — as on the question: ‘Are you in favor of the way Ronald Reagan is handling his job as President?’ Journalists say ‘No’ by a 2-1 margin; readers say ‘Yes’ by about the same margin.”

The Media Elite Revisited
In 1995, Stanley Rothman and Amy E. Black “partially replicated the earlier Rothman-Lichter” survey of the media elite described above. “The sample of journalists mirrors that from the earlier study, including reporters and editors at major national newspapers, news magazines and wire services,” the authors wrote in a Spring 2001 (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0377/is_2001_Spring/ai_73368520) article for the journal Public Interest. When it came to voting habits and ideology, the authors found the media elite maintained their liberal bent, providing strong majority support for Democrats Michael Dukakis in 1988 and Bill Clinton in 1992.
KEY FINDINGS:


More than three out of four “elite journalists,” 76 percent, reported voting for Michael Dukakis in 1988, compared to just 46 percent of the voting public.



An even larger percentage of top journalists, 91 percent, cast ballots for Bill Clinton in 1992. That same year, only 43 percent of voters picked Clinton, who nevertheless won a three-way race.

Washington Bureau Chiefs and Correspondents
In April 1996, the Freedom Forum (http://www.freedomforum.org/) published a report by Chicago Tribune writer Elaine Povich titled, “Partners and Adversaries: The Contentious Connection Between Congress and the Media.” Buried in Appendix D was the real news for those concerned about media bias: Based on the 139 Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents who returned the Freedom Forum questionnaire, the Washington-based reporters — by an incredible margin of nine-to-one — overwhelmingly cast their presidential ballots in 1992 for Democrat Bill Clinton over Republican incumbent George Bush.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/images2005/MBBChart1C.jpg
KEY FINDINGS:


89 percent of Washington-based reporters said they voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. Only seven percent voted for George Bush, with two percent choosing Ross Perot.



Asked “How would you characterize your political orientation?” 61 percent said “liberal” or “liberal to moderate.” Only nine percent labeled themselves “conservative” or “moderate to conservative.”



Fifty-nine percent dismissed the Republican’s 1994 Contract with America “an election-year campaign ploy.” Just three percent considered it “a serious reform proposal.”

Preacher
03-02-2009, 06:53 PM
Newspaper Editors
In January 1998, Editor & Publisher, the preeminent media trade magazine, conducted a poll of 167 newspaper editors across the country. Investor’s Business Daily reporter Matthew Robinson obtained complete poll results, highlights of which were featured in the MRC’s February 1998 MediaWatch (http://www.mrc.org/mediawatch/1998/watch19980201.asp#3).
KEY FINDINGS:


In 1992, when just 43 percent of the public voted Democrat Bill Clinton for President, 58 percent of editors surveyed voted for him.



In 1996, a minority (49 percent) of the American people voted to reelect Clinton, compared to a majority (57 percent) of the editors.



When asked “How often do journalists’ opinions influence coverage?” a solid majority of the editors (57 percent) conceded it “sometimes” happens while another 14 percent said opinions “often” influence news coverage. In contrast, only one percent claim it “never” happens, and 26 percent say personal views “seldom” influence coverage.

Campaign Journalists
New York Times columnist John Tierney surveyed 153 campaign journalists at a press party at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston. Although it was not a scientific sampling, Tierney found (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/01/politics/campaign/01points.html?ex=1249099200&en=11800ba25496a8cc&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland) a huge preference for Democratic Senator John Kerry over incumbent Republican President George W. Bush, particular among journalists based in Washington, D.C. He found that journalists from outside Washington preferred Kerry by a three-to-one margin, while those who work inside the Beltway favored Kerry’s election by a 12-to-1 ratio.
KEY FINDINGS:


Tierney found a strong preference for the liberal Kerry: “When asked who would be a better president, the journalists from outside the Beltway picked Mr. Kerry 3 to 1, and the ones from Washington favored him 12 to 1. Those results jibe with previous surveys over the past two decades showing that journalists tend to be Democrats, especially the ones based in Washington.”



To see why journalists preferred Kerry, “we asked our respondents which administration they’d prefer to cover the next four years strictly from a journalistic standpoint.” More than half the journalists thought Bush was the better news subject: “The Washington respondents said they would rather cover Mr. Kerry, but by a fairly small amount, 27 to 21, and the other journalists picked Bush, 56 to 40....The overall result was 77 for Bush, 67 for Mr. Kerry.”



“We tried to test for a likeability bias. With which presidential nominee, we asked, would you rather be stranded on a desert island? Mr. Kerry was the choice of both groups: 31 to 17 among the Washington journalists, and 51 to 39 among the others. ‘Bush's religious streak,’ one Florida correspondent said, ‘would drive me nuts on a desert island.’”

TV and Newspaper Journalists
In March and April 2005, the University of Connecticut’s Department of Public Policy surveyed 300 journalists nationwide — 120 who worked in the television industry and 180 who worked at newspapers and asked for whom they voted in the 2004 presidential election. In a report released May 16, 2005 (http://www.uconn.edu/newsmedia/2005/may05/rel05033.html), the researchers disclosed that the journalists they surveyed selected Democratic challenger John Kerry over incumbent Republican President George W. Bush by a wide margin, 52 percent to 19 percent (with 1 percent choosing far-left independent candidate Ralph Nader). One out of five journalists (21 percent) refused to disclose their vote, while another six percent either didn’t vote or said they did not know for whom they voted.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/images2005/MBBChar1D.jpg
KEY FINDINGS:


More than half of the journalists surveyed (52%) said they voted for Democrat John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election, while fewer than one-fifth (19%) said they voted for Republican George W. Bush. The public chose Bush, 51 to 48 percent.



When asked “generally speaking, do you consider yourself a Democrat, Republican, an Independent, or something else?” more than three times as many journalists (33%) said they were Democrats than said they were Republicans (10%).



While about half of the journalists said they were “moderate,” 28 percent said they thought of themselves as liberals, compared to just 10 percent who said they were conservative.



One out of eight journalists (13%) said they considered themselves “strongly liberal,” compared to just three percent who reported being “strongly conservative,” a four-to-one disparity.



When asked about the Bill of Rights, nearly all journalists deemed “essential” the right of a fair trial (97%), a free press (96%), freedom of religion (95%) and free speech (92%), and 80 percent called “essential” the judicially-derived “right to privacy.” But only 25 percent of the journalists termed the “right to own firearms” essential, while 42 percent called that right “important but not essential,” and 31 percent of journalists rejected the Second Amendment as “not important.”



I think the research speaks to a distinct liberal bias.

tony hipchest
03-02-2009, 07:07 PM
well looky there. the red is gaining ground in the media vote. far cry from how bad the ribs paint it out to be.

looks like 21% even refused to admit they voted for bush. :chuckle:

Preacher
03-02-2009, 07:35 PM
well looky there. the red is gaining ground in the media vote. far cry from how bad the ribs paint it out to be.

looks like 21% even refused to admit they voted for bush. :chuckle:


Lookie there... 21% are afraid of answering because they recognize the fact the are being exposed as bias.

According to most liberals... the red represents fox news. Since that isn't a "real news source" according to 'em, well, I guess the red really isn't gaining now is it.

Wow, this playing with arguments without facts and logic can be fun!!

revefsreleets
03-02-2009, 08:08 PM
Wow, isn't it ironic that the same thread in which the GOP is accused of spinning, we are getting shot off on wild tangents by the Democrats?

Spin indeed...

The Patriot
03-02-2009, 08:14 PM
well looky there. the red is gaining ground in the media vote. far cry from how bad the ribs paint it out to be.

looks like 21% even refused to admit they voted for bush. :chuckle:

Man, do you know how to get to them.

:laughing:

Preacher
03-02-2009, 09:35 PM
Wow, isn't it ironic that the same thread in which the GOP is accused of spinning, we are getting shot off on wild tangents by the Democrats?

Spin indeed...

Well, you see rev., since they are always in the right, it is ok for them to do the very thing they accuse conservatives of doing.

Because after all, the end justifies the means, until they are the recipients.

revefsreleets
03-03-2009, 10:24 AM
Just another question here: How is substantially increasing taxes on gas and oil companies NOT a regressive tax? Does Obama believe that these companies will just absorb the taxes?

What this means is we will see direct cost increases (passing the expense along) at the pump and in home energy costs. Only the people at the very top (who don't care about piddly expenses like gas and heating) and the very bottom (who already get it for free, although the government will still be footing the increased costs for these people) will be spared the expense.

Everyone else will pay...

GBMelBlount
03-03-2009, 10:31 AM
Just another question here: How is substantially increasing taxes on gas and oil companies NOT a regressive tax? Does Obama believe that these companies will just absorb the taxes?

What this means is we will see direct cost increases (passing the expense along) at the pump and in home energy costs. Only the people at the very top (who don't care about piddly expenses like gas and heating) and the very bottom (who already get it for free, although the government will still be footing the increased costs for these people) will be spared the expense.

Everyone else will pay...

LOL! Gas is $2.00 / gallon. $1.50 + $.50 (a 33% government tax) = $2.00. We are getting fleeced at the pumps....by the government!

And don't forget folks, you are paying that 33% tax with AFTER tax dollars. But who cares, as long as the evil greedy corporations get punished for exploiting U.S. workers...... :chuckle:

Who is John Gault?

revefsreleets
03-03-2009, 10:34 AM
It's all, of course, George Bush's fault...

Preacher
03-03-2009, 11:48 AM
It's all, of course, George Bush's fault...

Oh come on . . .

Some of it is Reagan's fault too!! You should know that!

Hammer67
03-03-2009, 11:55 AM
so what youre saying is that the financial crisis is all in our heads, that americans are just a bunch of whiners, and that anyone who voted democrat is childish? :noidea:

sorry, but that mccain camp theory has already been debunked.

:coffee:

Actually, yes, to the first sentence...ignore the rest of the politico stuff you said. The economy and the various exchange markets are linked to speculation. If investors "feel" good about something then it does well. That's why a news story can blow stock out of the water or make it shine.

Hammer67
03-03-2009, 11:55 AM
LOL! Gas is $2.00 / gallon. $1.50 + $.50 (a 33% government tax) = $2.00. We are getting fleeced at the pumps....by the government!

And don't forget folks, you are paying that 33% tax with AFTER tax dollars. But who cares, as long as the evil greedy corporations get punished for exploiting U.S. workers...... :chuckle:

Who is John Gault?


www.fairtax.org (http://www.fairtax.org)!!!!


WOOT!!

Dino 6 Rings
03-03-2009, 01:34 PM
Just think the dow was at 14,000+ In October of 2007. Then the Dems and Pelosi took control of congress.

How nice.

steelwall
03-04-2009, 12:42 AM
Just think the dow was at 14,000+ In October of 2007. Then the Dems and Pelosi took control of congress.

How nice.

Wheww hows that for a slice of fried gold....:thumbsup:

tony hipchest
03-04-2009, 01:06 AM
Just think the dow was at 14,000+ In October of 2007. Then the Dems and Pelosi took control of congress.

How nice.just think 4000+ troops had their lives, and another 20,000+ werent maimed by bullets and shrapnel (and still had their limbs) in january of '01.

then the reps took control of the whitehouse.

how nice.

(see how that works?) :wink02:


:popcorn:

steelwall
03-04-2009, 01:22 AM
just think 4000+ troops had their lives, and another 20,000+ werent maimed by bullets and shrapnel (and still had their limbs) in january of '01.

then the reps took control of the whitehouse.

how nice.

(see how that works?) :wink02:


:popcorn:

And our force is an all volunteer force and they make no bones about the dangers we as vets or active service men face. Don't talk about things you really have no idea about.

xfl2001fan
03-04-2009, 05:53 AM
just think 4000+ troops had their lives, and another 20,000+ werent maimed by bullets and shrapnel (and still had their limbs) in january of '01.

then the reps took control of the whitehouse.

how nice.

(see how that works?) :wink02:


:popcorn:

And our force is an all volunteer force and they make no bones about the dangers we as vets or active service men face. Don't talk about things you really have no idea about.

The top post sucked. Own it.

The Patriot
03-04-2009, 06:34 AM
The top post sucked. Own it.

Haha, a cruel irony.

xfl2001fan
03-04-2009, 07:09 AM
Haha, a cruel irony.

He'll get over it...or he won't. It's whatever.

Dino 6 Rings
03-04-2009, 08:30 AM
just think 4000+ troops had their lives, and another 20,000+ werent maimed by bullets and shrapnel (and still had their limbs) in january of '01.

then the reps took control of the whitehouse.

how nice.

(see how that works?) :wink02:


:popcorn:

Have you included the totals of the soldiers that have died Since Obama took over? Just curious, cause the Troops Aren't Home Yet that I've seen.

devilsdancefloor
03-04-2009, 10:22 AM
just think 4000+ troops had their lives, and another 20,000+ werent maimed by bullets and shrapnel (and still had their limbs) in january of '01.

then the reps took control of the whitehouse.

how nice.

(see how that works?) :wink02:


:popcorn:

wow you like baiting people to get banned dont ya! Well get over yourself and you know that for 8 freaking years all the republicans heard was how bad everything was. Now that the shoe is on the other foot you cry like a little girl waaaaaa its not fair grow up man.

SCSTILLER
03-04-2009, 10:49 AM
just think 4000+ troops had their lives, and another 20,000+ werent maimed by bullets and shrapnel (and still had their limbs) in january of '01.

then the reps took control of the whitehouse.

how nice.

(see how that works?) :wink02:


:popcorn:


And how many democrats voted for the war? How many kept voting for funding? Quite a few of them!

Like Steelwall said, everyone in the military volunteered for it!

revefsreleets
03-04-2009, 11:18 AM
And how many democrats voted for the war? How many kept voting for funding? Quite a few of them!

Like Steelwall said, everyone in the military volunteered for it!

Well, lets's see.

First they voted for it. Then they voted against it. Then they tried to vote for it, but vote against actually funding it. Then they decided they were just 100% against it because it was "Bush's War" (even though almost all of them voted for it originally). Now it's Obama's war, and since things are actually going okay, they'll probably start voting for it again, which I GUESS is sort of okay because they originally DID vote for it in the first place. But then again, how can it be Obama's war since HE voted AGAINST it originally, and campaigned against it, although now he's extending the war that he vowed to end and added a bunch of money to keep it going? But I do know one thing. Even though they all hated it and voted against it at one point or another, they'll fall all over themselves to take whatever credit they can for whatever successes the war ultimately yields.

Ah, the joys of hypocrisy!

tony hipchest
03-04-2009, 08:15 PM
my my my.... look at all the ribs who suddenly got pissy after 1 post.

i get it. you guys yuk it up after somebody blames and posts the dow jones dropping on democrats taking over congress, but get all butthurt if someone flips it on ya and notes the military bodies that were dropping after the republicans took over the white house.

this must be the hypocricy revs is CONSTANTLY bitching about.

And our force is an all volunteer force and they make no bones about the dangers we as vets or active service men face. Don't talk about things you really have no idea about.i'll talk about whatever the hell i please, thank you. sorry, but the US military being and all volunteer force isnt a top secret reserved only for those who have enlisted. i know damn well about the dangers that are faced, and have always appreciated them.

The top post sucked. Own it.i will own it, and do so proudly, because it perfectly illustrated a point and got the reaction i expected to further hammer home said point.

now your post, really, really sucked (so do the browns). own that.

Have you included the totals of the soldiers that have died Since Obama took over? Just curious, cause the Troops Aren't Home Yet that I've seen.

actually i thought i had, but woulda gladly written 4000+, 20,000+ and counting...
(not that it changes anything)

wow you like baiting people to get banned dont ya! Well get over yourself and you know that for 8 freaking years all the republicans heard was how bad everything was. Now that the shoe is on the other foot you cry like a little girl waaaaaa its not fair grow up man.if i havent been banned for baiting people yet, i feel pretty safe with what i posted in this thread. :coffee:

looks like you bit the cheese, and are now following it up with a nice tall glass of whine.

And how many democrats voted for the war? How many kept voting for funding? Quite a few of them!

Like Steelwall said, everyone in the military volunteered for it!


and finally the dow jones is part of a capitalistic free market system. its not like people are drafted to put their money there.

democrats voted to rid iraq of wmd, saddam hussein, and find bin laden in afghanistan/pakistan. this is true. 2 of the 3 were accomplished LONG ago. 1 seemed to be a farce and the other seems to have been ignored.

osama bin laden had a dream.

it was to strike the 2 grandest symbols of our financial strenghth and the symbols of our governmental might. he wildly dreamed that he could draw us into a never ending war, cripple our economy, divide us from within, and bring us to our knees.

and people wanna simply blame democrats being elected in 07 while ignoring the casualties of war. what a shame.

i feel for those who lost their life savings just as i feel for those who lost their lives and limbs.

and im the one crying? get focking real.

SCSTILLER
03-04-2009, 08:33 PM
Hey Tony, didn't a country in Africa want to give Bin Laden to America and Clinton at one point in time. I beleive it was Sudan, wasn't it. Now, why did we not get him then, I am sure that you have an answer. I will even bet you will put a smiley face with it too!

Also, those two towers would probably be standing if Clinton would have went after the terrorists in the first place, instead of interns in the White House. How many terrorist attacks happened on Clinton's watch that he responded to by sending the FBI? HMMMMMM, Embassies in Africa, First WTC bombing, Bombing of USS Cole, did I miss any? What was his response, send two cruise missiles into Afghanistan and Sudan the day he was to be on the stand for the stained dress. The democrats hands are just as dirty as the republicans hands when it comes to Bin Laden.

I will agree with you on what he wanted to do with our country by attacking us and tearing us down from the inside. But, it should not have gotten to that point! He should have been in custody long before the Evil Republicans and Bush got in office.

devilsdancefloor
03-04-2009, 08:54 PM
my my my.... look at all the ribs who suddenly got pissy after 1 post.

i get it. you guys yuk it up after somebody blames and posts the dow jones dropping on democrats taking over congress, but get all butthurt if someone flips it on ya and notes the military bodies that were dropping after the republicans took over the white house.

this must be the hypocricy revs is CONSTANTLY bitching about.

i'll talk about whatever the hell i please, thank you. sorry, but the US military being and all volunteer force isnt a top secret reserved only for those who have enlisted. i know damn well about the dangers that are faced, and have always appreciated them.

i will own it, and do so proudly, because it perfectly illustrated a point and got the reaction i expected to further hammer home said point.

now your post, really, really sucked (so do the browns). own that.



actually i thought i had, but woulda gladly written 4000+, 20,000+ and counting...
(not that it changes anything)

if i havent been banned for baiting people yet, i feel pretty safe with what i posted in this thread. :coffee:

looks like you bit the cheese, and are now following it up with a nice tall glass of whine.




and finally the dow jones is part of a capitalistic free market system. its not like people are drafted to put their money there.

democrats voted to rid iraq of wmd, saddam hussein, and find bin laden in afghanistan/pakistan. this is true. 2 of the 3 were accomplished LONG ago. 1 seemed to be a farce and the other seems to have been ignored.

osama bin laden had a dream.

it was to strike the 2 grandest symbols of our financial strenghth and the symbols of our governmental might. he wildly dreamed that he could draw us into a never ending war, cripple our economy, divide us from within, and bring us to our knees.

and people wanna simply blame democrats being elected in 07 while ignoring the casualties of war. what a shame.

i feel for those who lost their life savings just as i feel for those who lost their lives and limbs.

and im the one crying? get focking real.

need a tissue:coffee:

tony hipchest
03-04-2009, 09:04 PM
What was his response, send two cruise missiles into Afghanistan and Sudan the day he was to be on the stand for the stained dress. The democrats hands are just as dirty as the republicans hands when it comes to Bin Laden.


ahhh yes.... the rush limbaugh led (they even gave him a tv show to lead it) republican witch hunt.

poor bill. he musta been distracted by such trivial nonsense. anyways, bill dropping the ball on that has pretty much already been debunked.


infact bill left plans and intelligence on the oval office table for bush to attack (in order not to grandstand him in dec.00-jan.01) and they were pretty much ignored and shitcanned.

looks like GW shoulda adopted 1 or 2 more of clintons policies... :popcorn:

xfl2001fan
03-05-2009, 07:30 AM
i will own it, and do so proudly, because it perfectly illustrated a point and got the reaction i expected to further hammer home said point.So far, while you got an expected reaction, you haven't done a lot point-hammering.

now your post, really, really sucked (so do the browns). own that. My post was done in jest. I even got a laugh out of it...and it wasn't my own. Not that my team affiliation has anything to do with this particular thread...or even this entire section of the forum...but I do own up to who my team is. There should be no doubt in anyone's mind at all that I'm not a bandwagon fan. Eventually, Lerner will sell the team...and hopefully the next owner will have enough football sense to bring in a real front office. Until then, my team will continue to suck...and I'll continue to be a real fan. Own that.


and im the one crying? get focking real.

I wouldn't use the term crying...but there's a certain amount of spoiled petulance involved.

Dino 6 Rings
03-05-2009, 08:28 AM
Hey Tony, in regards to the troop total Deaths....I believe in the Cause they are fighting for, I believe a Democracy in Iraq will be a good thing for my children, I believe getting rid of Saddam was a Good thing. I believe our soldiers are doing an excellent job and are fighting the good fight against Terrorism and Wahhabism and fighting against a religion and enemy that has flawed thinking and beliefs at its foundation. I am saddened to think of the families who lost loved ones, but am proud of them, and of their sons and daughters, for keeping us Americans safe from the maniacs that want to kill us for being Americans.

So, if those soldiers and deaths are on me, so be it. I was in the 3rd Infantry Division when I served, and I know when I saw my boys tearing down that statue of Saddam I felt overwhelming pride that my boys were getting the job done.

The war against Islamic Radicals won't be one in just one battle, on one front, and it may take a Generation to get that flawed thinking out of their heads.

We didn't kill Every single Nazi in WWII or every single Japanese Soldier either. However, after an Entire Generation of New Thinking, people from either nation aren't still trying to kill us. That's what I believe this war is. A long term fight to change an entire way of thinking.

As long as those Fools preach, "Blow yourself up and go get 77 Virgins" They are wrong and need fought against.

But that's just how I think. I'm sure you Disagree and I respect that.

HometownGal
03-05-2009, 08:36 AM
Hey Tony, in regards to the troop total Deaths....I believe in the Cause they are fighting for, I believe a Democracy in Iraq will be a good thing for my children, I believe getting rid of Saddam was a Good thing. I believe our soldiers are doing an excellent job and are fighting the good fight against Terrorism and Wahhabism and fighting against a religion and enemy that has flawed thinking and beliefs at its foundation. I am saddened to think of the families who lost loved ones, but am proud of them, and of their sons and daughters, for keeping us Americans safe from the maniacs that want to kill us for being Americans.

So, if those soldiers and deaths are on me, so be it. I was in the 3rd Infantry Division when I served, and I know when I saw my boys tearing down that statue of Saddam I felt overwhelming pride that my boys were getting the job done.

The war against Islamic Radicals won't be one in just one battle, on one front, and it may take a Generation to get that flawed thinking out of their heads.

We didn't kill Every single Nazi in WWII or every single Japanese Soldier either. However, after an Entire Generation of New Thinking, people from either nation aren't still trying to kill us. That's what I believe this war is. A long term fight to change an entire way of thinking.

As long as those Fools preach, "Blow yourself up and go get 77 Virgins" They are wrong and need fought against.

But that's just how I think. I'm sure you Disagree and I respect that.

http://www.sodacraze.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/standing-ovation-0907-lg.jpg

SteelCityMom
03-05-2009, 12:36 PM
Hey Tony, didn't a country in Africa want to give Bin Laden to America and Clinton at one point in time. I beleive it was Sudan, wasn't it. Now, why did we not get him then, I am sure that you have an answer. I will even bet you will put a smiley face with it too!

Also, those two towers would probably be standing if Clinton would have went after the terrorists in the first place, instead of interns in the White House. How many terrorist attacks happened on Clinton's watch that he responded to by sending the FBI? HMMMMMM, Embassies in Africa, First WTC bombing, Bombing of USS Cole, did I miss any? What was his response, send two cruise missiles into Afghanistan and Sudan the day he was to be on the stand for the stained dress. The democrats hands are just as dirty as the republicans hands when it comes to Bin Laden.

I will agree with you on what he wanted to do with our country by attacking us and tearing us down from the inside. But, it should not have gotten to that point! He should have been in custody long before the Evil Republicans and Bush got in office.

It's possible 9/11 wouldn't have happened if Clinton had dealt with Bin Laden, but it may have still happened, who knows. I wish he had dealt with him, but it's very possible that we'd just be looking for someone else.

It could be said that if the US had just minded it's own business in the late 70's and early 80's and stayed out of the civil war between Afghanistan and communist Russia that this whole mess may have been avoided. Remember, we did train them to fight and supply them with weapons to battle communist Russia (that ended up collapsing in '89 anyway).

I also find it very fishy that the government was previously putting up a 25 million dollar reward for the whereabouts of Bin Laden (it has since been upped to 50 million) and NO ONE has had any conclusive information for 8 years. It's just odd that one man with such a high reward on his head cannot be tracked down by thousands of people. We're not dealing with a rocket scientist here, we're dealing with a terrorist that hides out in caves and surely does have or has had ties with people that would be willing to give him up for a fortune. I don't know, just something that makes me go hmmm.

IMO, the ball was dropped so many times regarding this situation that it's hard to point blame at just one person or administration. The best way I can see dealing with this now is to just worry about securing and defending our nation and staying the hell out of other nations military business. In essence, become Switzerland lol.

SCSTILLER
03-05-2009, 03:37 PM
It's possible 9/11 wouldn't have happened if Clinton had dealt with Bin Laden, but it may have still happened, who knows. I wish he had dealt with him, but it's very possible that we'd just be looking for someone else.

It could be said that if the US had just minded it's own business in the late 70's and early 80's and stayed out of the civil war between Afghanistan and communist Russia that this whole mess may have been avoided. Remember, we did train them to fight and supply them with weapons to battle communist Russia (that ended up collapsing in '89 anyway).

I also find it very fishy that the government was previously putting up a 25 million dollar reward for the whereabouts of Bin Laden (it has since been upped to 50 million) and NO ONE has had any conclusive information for 8 years. It's just odd that one man with such a high reward on his head cannot be tracked down by thousands of people. We're not dealing with a rocket scientist here, we're dealing with a terrorist that hides out in caves and surely does have or has had ties with people that would be willing to give him up for a fortune. I don't know, just something that makes me go hmmm.

IMO, the ball was dropped so many times regarding this situation that it's hard to point blame at just one person or administration. The best way I can see dealing with this now is to just worry about securing and defending our nation and staying the hell out of other nations military business. In essence, become Switzerland lol.

SCMom, I wasn't trying to put blame on any one person. I am just sick and tired of everyone blaming Bush for the towers collapsing when this started a long time ago and we had chances to get him. Yes, you are right, more than likely another person would have stepped up in his place, but who knows. We still should have grabbed him when we had the chance for all the terrorist acts committed against the US. Also, I think we should have stayed around after the Russian invasion of Afghanistan and helped them rebuild instead of cutting and running. Might have worked out, might not have. But the Afghani's felt forgotten about after the war.

As for the isolationist comment, that worked out well for us pre-WW2, didn't it.

And Tony, I should have responded to my post for you! I find it funny that anytime someone questions Bill Clinton, Obama, or anyother democrat, the first thing the left comes up with is that the person listens to Rush Limbaugh. Guess what, i don't listen to Rush, I read history books. And the history of Clinton dealing with Al Qaeda and Osama was, well, less than stellar. But thank you for making the typical argument, it was expected.

HMMM, how long did Clinton have the information before he dumped it into GW's lap? I bet the reason he didn't attack is he didn't want to get his hands dirty. He did not want to have to stand up to the American people and explain why things went wrong, if they would have. Clinton was perfectly happy to ride out the presidency. He was known as a cut and run president, see Somalia (that is a small country in the Horn of Africa if you are curious to remember the past)!

Sorry if my argument sounded too Rush like for you, I will start listening to him so as not to repeat anything he says. Maybe I will listen Al Franken if I start listening to talk radio.

SteelCityMom
03-05-2009, 04:17 PM
SCMom, I wasn't trying to put blame on any one person. I am just sick and tired of everyone blaming Bush for the towers collapsing when this started a long time ago and we had chances to get him. Yes, you are right, more than likely another person would have stepped up in his place, but who knows. We still should have grabbed him when we had the chance for all the terrorist acts committed against the US. Also, I think we should have stayed around after the Russian invasion of Afghanistan and helped them rebuild instead of cutting and running. Might have worked out, might not have. But the Afghani's felt forgotten about after the war.

As for the isolationist comment, that worked out well for us pre-WW2, didn't it.

No, I know where you're coming from. I get tired of all the finger pointing as well. I agree as well with your statement about helping the Afghani's rebuild, I feel like the US just cutting and running like it did was the main reason for their animosity towards the US and Americans in general. I just feel like we would have been better off not even butting in with their affairs to begin with.

I know being purely isolationist would never work, that was more jokingly. I know we never could or would go to the extreme that Switzerland has at this point, but it seems that the US has gone to the completely opposite extreme of getting involved in foreign affairs when it's not really necessary.

tony hipchest
03-05-2009, 05:02 PM
SCMom, I wasn't trying to put blame on any one person. I am just sick and tired of everyone blaming Bush for the towers collapsing when this started a long time ago and we had chances to get him. Yes, you are right, more than likely another person would have stepped up in his place, but who knows. We still should have grabbed him when we had the chance for all the terrorist acts committed against the US.

And Tony, I should have responded to my post for you! I find it funny that anytime someone questions Bill Clinton, Obama, or anyother democrat, the first thing the left comes up with is that the person listens to Rush Limbaugh. Guess what, i don't listen to Rush, I read history books. And the history of Clinton dealing with Al Qaeda and Osama was, well, less than stellar. But thank you for making the typical argument, it was expected.

.yeah, i hardly ever play the rush limbaugh card because i know it is rather insulting since he is essentially the republican version of michael moore. i just started doing it the past few days because i get a kick out of rubbing your alls noses in the fact that the hillbilly heroin junkie is now being called your defacto leader.

HMMM, how long did Clinton have the information before he dumped it into GW's lap? I bet the reason he didn't attack is he didn't want to get his hands dirty. He did not want to have to stand up to the American people and explain why things went wrong, if they would have. Clinton was perfectly happy to ride out the presidency. He was known as a cut and run president, see Somalia (that is a small country in the Horn of Africa if you are curious to remember the past)!

Sorry if my argument sounded too Rush like for you, I will start listening to him so as not to repeat anything he says. Maybe I will listen Al Franken if I start listening to talk radio

i wouldnt place too much money on that bet. you say you read history...so im sure you will find this bit from factcheck quite interresting-

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2006/osama_bin_missing_whos_tried_hardest_to.html

Osama Bin Missing: Who's Tried Hardest to Tackle Top Terrorist?
October 3, 2006

Clinton interview on Fox News leads to spitting match over which President did most to bring Bin Laden down.

Summary
In an extraordinary interview with Fox News Sunday's Chris Wallace on Sept. 24, former President Bill Clinton took on critics who have questioned why he didn't do more during his time in the White House to eliminate Osama bin Laden. Wallace raised the question because, he said, viewers had demanded that he do so, and Clinton let loose. His responses were a mix of assertions about what his Administration did to rid the world of bin Laden and blasts at conservatives who have criticized his efforts as insufficient. He took a few shots at his host in the process.

cut n run president?


Clinton: They were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993 the next day after we were involved in 'Black Hawk down,' and I refused to do it and stayed six months and had an orderly transfer to the United Nations...There is not a living soul in the world who thought that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with Black Hawk down or was paying any attention to it or even knew Al Qaeda was a growing concern in October of '93.

True: Clinton is correct that there was a Republican effort to bring U.S. forces home immediately after a US helicopter was shot down in Mogadishu. His view prevailed, with the withdrawal date set for March 31, 1994.

According to the 9/11 Report, the intelligence community didn't learn that bin Laden's organization was linked to the Black Hawk shoot-down until 1996-97 (p. 341).


Clinton: [The Bush Administration] downgraded [Richard Clarke] and the terrorist operation. . . . He said we took vigorous action after the African embassies.

Mostly true. Clarke served every president beginning with Reagan and in Clinton's final years had the title of National Counterterrorism Coordinator. He had run the cabinet-level principals committee meetings on counterterrorism, briefing cabinet secretaries on the subject. When Condoleezza Rice became Bush's National Security Advisor, she kept him and his title but downgraded the position, taking away his right to run or even participate in principals meetings. Clarke saw it as a personal slight and also as an indication of where counterterrorism stood in the new Administration's list of priorities, although the latter is a judgment call and is strongly denied by the Bush team.


Clinton: The country never had a comprehensive anti-terror operation until I came there.

True. It is also true that a broad-scale terrorist threat wasn't perceived until the mid-to-late1990s. Until then, the government wasn't set up to address it. (pps. 94-95)



Clinton: After the [attack on the USS] Cole, I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and launch a full-scale attack search for bin Laden. But we needed basing rights in Uzbekistan, which we got after 9/11. The CIA and the FBI refused to certify that bin Laden was responsible. . . . So that meant I would've had to send a few hundred Special Forces in helicopters and refuel at night.

True: Clinton did draw up plans as he described, and was indeed frustrated by the reluctance of the CIA and FBI to pin blame for the attack squarely on bin Laden.

...

Clinton told the 9/11 Commission, according to its report, that he was frustrated "he couldn't get a definitive enough answer to do something about the Cole attack" (p. 193). Former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger concurred, telling the panel that the intelligence agencies had strong suspicions, but reached "no conclusion" by the time Clinton left office that the ship bombing was definitively the work of bin Laden.


....much more in link on actual battle plans.

tony hipchest
03-05-2009, 05:14 PM
oh, and to answer your question in bold...

"They Did Not Try"

Clinton: They did not try. I tried. . . . When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke, who got demoted.

Exaggeration: It's not true that the Bush Administration "did not try" to address the al Qaeda threat before 9/11, though how hard is open to debate. It unquestionably got off to a sluggish start. The first principals' meeting on terrorism didn't take place until Sept. 4, 2001. :doh: That doesn't mean nothing was happening, though. In March, 2001, Rice asked the CIA to draw up a new set of authorities for covert action in Afghanistan. It drafted two documents, including one that permitted greater use of lethal force in a variety of circumstances. However, CIA Director George Tenet argued to the Deputy Director of the National Security Council that the Administration should make some larger decisions about policy before deciding on final language, and the draft was put on hold (p. 210). Also in March, Bush expressed frustration to Rice about not being able to get bin Laden. "I'm tired of swatting at flies," he told her, according to the 9/11 Report (p. 202). Bush told the Commission that he was frustrated with catching terrorists one-by-one or cell-by-cell, though he understood that it took time to mesh diplomatic, financial and military measures into a coherent policy (p. 202).There was also a great deal of discussion in the spring and summer of 2001 about the ongoing development of an armed Predator – a pilotless drone that could launch Hellfire missiles when it found its target (p. 211).

Still, the pace was slow, and extremely frustrating to Clarke:dang: (p. 203). Rice told the 9/11 Commission she had told Bush "that she and his other advisers thought it would take three years or so for their al Qaeda strategy to work." (p. 213).

Because of several questions by Bush in 2001 about whether the al Qaeda threat was aimed at the U.S., the CIA produced an article in the Aug. 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." But the Commission found no evidence that Bush discussed the article or the threat to the U.S. with any of his top advisers before Sept. 11, nor did the article prompt any meetings at the National Security Council. Tenet visited Bush in Crawford, Tex., on Aug. 17, and participated in daily intelligence briefings with Bush from Aug. 31-Sept. 10; he told the Commission that the subject wasn't raised (pp. 260-262).


Clinton did leave an anti-terror strategy, put together by Clarke and his staff in apaper entitled "Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of al Qida: Status and Prospects." It was completed just as Clinton's time as President was coming to a close. (p. 197) It was conveyed to the incoming Bush Administration in January 2001. (p. 201)

It's certainly plausible to say that Clarke was "the best guy in the country" on al Qaeda, although a word like "best" is almost always a matter of opinion. There's no denying that he was extremely well-versed on the subject, and many of his warnings proved prescient. And Clarke was demoted, in effect, by Rice (see above).




Clinton: There's been a serious disinformation campaign . . . The people on my political right who say I didn't do enough spent the whole time I was President saying "Why is he so obsessed with bin Laden? That was 'Wag the Dog' when he tried to kill him."

At least partly true. Whether there has been a "disinformation campaign" is a matter of opinion. However, the conservative punditocracy – including sources like The Washington Times editorial page and Fox News host Bill O'Reilly – has certainly blamed Clinton for not getting bin Laden. Clinton is probably including the ABC miniseries when he refers to a "campaign" (see above).

...

When Clinton, who was embroiled in the Monica Lewinsky scandal, launched airstrikes on bin Laden camps in Afghanistan and a factory in Sudan in August, 1998, "[s]ome Republicans in Congress raised questions about the timing of the strikes," the 9/11 Report recalls (p. 118). "Much public commentary turned immediately to scalding criticism that the action was too aggressive."


and now the kicker-Rice Responds

The day after Clinton's interview on Fox, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in a meeting with writers and editors at The New York Post , said the idea that the Bush Administration took no action on terrorism pre-9/11 was "flatly false," calling the Bush efforts "at least as aggressive" as what Clinton had done, and denied Clinton's claim that the Bush team had been left a plan by the previous Administration.

Rice: We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda.

False: Rice's statement is not supported by the 9/11 Report, which describes the plans Clarke drew up and says they were conveyed to Bush's aides, as we noted earlier. The 9/11 Report says that as the Clinton Administration drew to a close in December 2000, Clarke and his staff developed a policy paper on eliminating the al Qaeda threat, "the first such comprehensive effort" since a 1998 plan known as Delenda (p. 197). The Report also says (p. 201): "After Rice requested that all senior staff identify desirable major policy reviews or initiatives, Clarke submitted an elaborate memorandum on January 25, 2001. He attached to it his 1998 Delenda Plan and the December 2000 strategy paper."

Clarke is emphatic about the matter, telling interviewer Charlie Rose on Sept. 28, 2006:

Clarke: The Clinton Administration in the last month, in December of 2000, asked us to develop a comprehensive plan that we could hand off to the Bush Administration that had a military attack plan, that had an intelligence attack plan. It had diplomatic steps. It had economic steps. It was a comprehensive plan.





Rice also denied that Clarke had been demoted, saying "Richard Clarke was the counterterrorism czar when 9/11 happened." Technically true, in that Clarke's title didn't change, but effectively false, since she cut him out of key meetings and lessened his authority.

The 9/11 Report says that problems pinpointing bin Laden's location continued. In 2000, military operations in Afghanistan were planned, but were "limited by the same operational and policy concerns encountered in 1998 and 1999. Although the intelligence community sometimes knew where bin Laden was, it had been unable to provide intelligence considered sufficiently reliable to launch a strike." (p. 188)

Preacher
03-05-2009, 05:27 PM
Of course we have to ask a few other questions.

I guess those plans were part of the classified documents Sandy Berger shoved down his pants and left with.

Or maybe it was the plans for invading Iraq.

After all, He was SUCH a good leader, maybe Clinton had him take the plans away to make the following presidents look better?

Its so hard to tell with him.

Dino 6 Rings
03-05-2009, 06:09 PM
Tony, check it out...

THE SOMALIA MISSION: Overview; CLINTON DOUBLING U.S. FORCE IN SOMALIA, VOWING TROOPS WILL COME HOME IN 6 MONTHS
By DOUGLAS JEHL,
Published: Friday, October 8, 1993
Sign In to E-Mail
Print
Single-Page

Reprints
ShareClose
LinkedinDiggFacebookMixxMy SpaceYahoo! BuzzPermalinkPresident Clinton said today that he was doubling the size of the United States ground forces in Somalia to protect American troops there, and he promised to have all forces out in six months.

Between now and March 31, he said in a television address, the troops would try to lay a foundation for stability in the anarchic country.

Faced with growing public and Congressional concern, Mr. Clinton outlined a narrow mission for the forces and made it plain that the reinforcements were intended to allow United States troops to chart a more independent course from the United Nations operation, which has been bogged down in a bloody and futile search for the fugitive faction leader Mohammed Farah Aidid.

Mr. Clinton said the troops would wind up their mission by March 31. 4,700 Growing to 20,000

"Let us finish the work we set out to do," Mr. Clinton said. "Let us demonstrate to the world, as generations of Americans have done before us, that when Americans take on a challenge, they do the job right." [ Transcript, page A15. ]

He said 1,700 soldiers would be dispatched to Mogadishu and 3,600 marines to ships offshore, backed up by the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln.

In addition, a new force totaling about 10,000 sailors and airmen are to be stationed offshore on the Abraham Lincoln and other ships. No American ships are currently stationed off Somalia.

Thus, the number of United States forces involved in Somalia will rise to about 20,000, from 4,700.

Members of Congress praised the announcement, and it appeared likely to buy time for an operation whose setbacks have contributed to mounting opposition. 'Finish It in the Right Way'

The unexpectedly large size of the force cheered military officials, who have complained that the 4,700 United States troops in Somalia as part of the United Nations operation have become increasingly vulnerable.

After a week in which 14 Americans have been killed and scores more wounded, Mr. Clinton warned that to withdraw now would relegate Somalia to the violence and starvation that the Bush Administration had vowed to avert when it sent troops there 10 months ago.

But Mr. Clinton's advisers made clear that the United States no longer intended to make General Aidid the principal target, as he has been since June in the operations led by the United Nations. And in his first comprehensive statement on the United States mission, Mr. Clinton acknowledged that there was no guarantee of success.

"We started this mission for the right reasons and we are going to finish it in the right way," he said. "If we stay a short while longer and do the right thing, we have a reasonable chance of cooling the embers."

As a sign of his determination to press ahead on a political track, Mr. Clinton today appointed an experienced diplomat, Robert B. Oakley, as his special envoy to Somalia. He also sent messages to African leaders, including those of Egypt, Ethiopia and Eritrea, asking them to set up a peace conference that would include all the major political actors in Somalia.

By promising to depart by March, however, Mr. Clinton may merely give anti-American forces an incentive to lie low until the Americans depart. And while the President said he would put pressure on other countries to fill the void left by the United States, Administration officials said the promise of an American withdrawal was bound to leave other nations less willing to contribute to the United Nations force that is to stay behind.

But Mr. Clinton and his advisers made clear both in public and in private that they have no appetite for a longer or more ambitious involvement, or for the nation-building efforts sketched out for Somalia in a United Nations resolution last month.

Secretary of State Warren Christopher made it plain that the United States would pull out even if there was no functioning government in Somalia. Most strikingly, he left open the possibility at a White House briefing tonight that General Aidid could be part of an African-sponsored peace conference.

"We're looking to the African leaders to find an African solution to an African problem," he said.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE7DB163BF93BA35753C1A9659582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

Dino 6 Rings
03-05-2009, 06:10 PM
Hey Republicans, 1417 more days for you guys to stress.

tony hipchest
03-05-2009, 06:54 PM
So far, while you got an expected reaction, you haven't done a lot point-hammering.

I wouldn't use the term crying...but there's a certain amount of spoiled petulance involved. it was really a simple point to hammer. :noidea:

i perfectly illustrated how blaming the financial crisis on 07 dem congress holds much less water than blaming the war in iraq on the 00 rep white house. (and look how many were offended by the mere suggestion). either way, its not that cut and dry.

My post was done in jest. I even got a laugh out of it...and it wasn't my own. Not that my team affiliation has anything to do with this particular thread...or even this entire section of the forum...but I do own up to who my team is. There should be no doubt in anyone's mind at all that I'm not a bandwagon fan. Eventually, Lerner will sell the team...and hopefully the next owner will have enough football sense to bring in a real front office. Until then, my team will continue to suck...and I'll continue to be a real fan. Own that. as was mine to you... relax. i got a laugh out of it too (although it was my own.) :chuckle:

Hey Tony, in regards to the troop total Deaths....I believe in the Cause they are fighting for, I believe a Democracy in Iraq will be a good thing for my children, I believe getting rid of Saddam was a Good thing. I believe our soldiers are doing an excellent job and are fighting the good fight against Terrorism and Wahhabism and fighting against a religion and enemy that has flawed thinking and beliefs at its foundation. I am saddened to think of the families who lost loved ones, but am proud of them, and of their sons and daughters, for keeping us Americans safe from the maniacs that want to kill us for being Americans.

So, if those soldiers and deaths are on me, so be it. I was in the 3rd Infantry Division when I served, and I know when I saw my boys tearing down that statue of Saddam I felt overwhelming pride that my boys were getting the job done.

The war against Islamic Radicals won't be one in just one battle, on one front, and it may take a Generation to get that flawed thinking out of their heads.

We didn't kill Every single Nazi in WWII or every single Japanese Soldier either. However, after an Entire Generation of New Thinking, people from either nation aren't still trying to kill us. That's what I believe this war is. A long term fight to change an entire way of thinking.

As long as those Fools preach, "Blow yourself up and go get 77 Virgins" They are wrong and need fought against.

But that's just how I think. I'm sure you Disagree and I respect that.

you might be suprised.

i was a huge fan of getting the job done (and done right) the 1st time around, and have stated plenty of times on this board, im about as pro-hawk as it gets.

while i didnt like the ruse to get us in there, (or the misconceptions of getting us out) i did enjoy pounding them mf'ers into the sand (and watching sadaam crawl like a bum outta that barnyard spider hole.

The Patriot
03-05-2009, 07:40 PM
Tony, you're vastly outnumbered. Trust me, nothing is worth arguing for more than a month. People will just get angry.

I suggest a retreat to farcical witticism. :stickout:

Preacher
03-05-2009, 08:30 PM
Tony, you're vastly outnumbered. Trust me, nothing is worth arguing for more than a month. People will just get angry.

I suggest a retreat to farcical witticism. :stickout:

That's not a retreat for Tony. . . he lives there!

tony hipchest
03-05-2009, 08:34 PM
Tony, you're vastly outnumbered. Trust me, nothing is worth arguing for more than a month. People will just get angry.

I suggest a retreat to farcical witticism. :stickout:

how long until football starts? is it one month or 2? :wink02:

That's not a retreat for Tony. . . he lives there!

:chuckle:

The Patriot
03-05-2009, 09:30 PM
how long until football starts? is it one month or 2? :wink02:
:chuckle:

It's going to be a long eight years. :wink02:

Stlrs4Life
03-05-2009, 09:40 PM
my my my.... look at all the ribs who suddenly got pissy after 1 post.

i get it. you guys yuk it up after somebody blames and posts the dow jones dropping on democrats taking over congress, but get all butthurt if someone flips it on ya and notes the military bodies that were dropping after the republicans took over the white house.

this must be the hypocricy revs is CONSTANTLY bitching about.

i'll talk about whatever the hell i please, thank you. sorry, but the US military being and all volunteer force isnt a top secret reserved only for those who have enlisted. i know damn well about the dangers that are faced, and have always appreciated them.

i will own it, and do so proudly, because it perfectly illustrated a point and got the reaction i expected to further hammer home said point.

now your post, really, really sucked (so do the browns). own that.



actually i thought i had, but woulda gladly written 4000+, 20,000+ and counting...
(not that it changes anything)

if i havent been banned for baiting people yet, i feel pretty safe with what i posted in this thread. :coffee:

looks like you bit the cheese, and are now following it up with a nice tall glass of whine.




and finally the dow jones is part of a capitalistic free market system. its not like people are drafted to put their money there.

democrats voted to rid iraq of wmd, saddam hussein, and find bin laden in afghanistan/pakistan. this is true. 2 of the 3 were accomplished LONG ago. 1 seemed to be a farce and the other seems to have been ignored.

osama bin laden had a dream.

it was to strike the 2 grandest symbols of our financial strenghth and the symbols of our governmental might. he wildly dreamed that he could draw us into a never ending war, cripple our economy, divide us from within, and bring us to our knees.

and people wanna simply blame democrats being elected in 07 while ignoring the casualties of war. what a shame.

i feel for those who lost their life savings just as i feel for those who lost their lives and limbs.

and im the one crying? get focking real.


tony give up. These Repukliprofanityfilterprofanityfilterprofanityfilt erprofanityfilters have no clue. You're wasting your time. They are just totally agitated that Obama has done more work in a month and a half than there boy did in 8 years.

Preacher
03-05-2009, 09:48 PM
tony give up. These Repukliprofanityfilterprofanityfilterprofanityfilt erprofanityfilters have no clue. You're wasting your time.

Oh please, give me a clue...

A clue to how Obama accepting most of Bush's "wrong-headed policies" somehow make them right headed.

A clue to how giving tax cuts "to the rich" is bad, but throwing another almost TRILLION dollars at the rich is ok.

A clue to how denigrating the war in Iraq, but then being in virtual agreement with BUSH's timetable for pullout is Obama creating "change".

A clue?

Last time the democrats had a clue, they elected JFK. Amazing, he lowered taxes and stood up to the Soviets in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Today, he would be labeled a Republican.

The Patriot
03-05-2009, 10:20 PM
Last time the democrats had a clue, they elected JFK. Amazing, he lowered taxes and stood up to the Soviets in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Today, he would be labeled a Republican.

Which is why the liberal media had him taken out! The pieces are falling into place...


Anyhoo, I'd prefer Franklin D. Roosevelt and the G.I. Bill which stimulated the economy by providing people with jobs and affordable homes. Face it, in order for a capitalistic society to function, people have to buy crap, and when people stop buying crap you have to buy it for them. It's happened plenty of times throughout our history, but we don't call it that. We call it a "stimulus package".

Preacher
03-05-2009, 10:40 PM
Which is why the liberal media had him taken out! The pieces are falling into place...


Anyhoo, I'd prefer Franklin D. Roosevelt and the G.I. Bill which stimulated the economy by providing people with jobs and affordable homes. Face it, in order for a capitalistic society to function, people have to buy crap, and when people stop buying crap you have to buy it for them. It's happened plenty of times throughout our history, but we don't call it that. We call it a "stimulus package".

:rofl:

I thought it was the CIA Mafia connection!

Providing people with "affordable homes" is exactly what got us into this mess, because the homes were not really affordable. When the govt. interferes, the economy screws up, then the government has to interfere again to try and straighten it out, but it usually makes a bigger mess.

BTW, don't confuse my use of "gov't" with justice. I am talking about policy and politics, not oversight.

xfl2001fan
03-06-2009, 06:36 AM
tony give up. These Repukliprofanityfilterprofanityfilterprofanityfilt erprofanityfilters have no clue. You're wasting your time. They are just totally agitated that Obama has done more work in a month and a half than there boy did in 8 years.

Damn right he's worked harder. Do you realize how much effort is involved in flip-flopping from your campaign, taking on the hated Republican's "failed" policies (which he constantly and consistently blasted) and not getting torn up by the media? That is a job of epic logistical proportions!

HometownGal
03-06-2009, 08:17 AM
tony give up. These Repukliprofanityfilterprofanityfilterprofanityfilt erprofanityfilters have no clue. You're wasting your time. They are just totally agitated that Obama has done more work in a month and a half than there boy did in 8 years.

Please tell me what "work" Obama has done in a month and a half and we'll go from there. :drink:

Dino 6 Rings
03-06-2009, 08:30 AM
Pretty sure JFK was killed by the Italian Mafia, after all, they blamed him for the death of Marylin Monroe, and if there is one thing you don't do, its kill a Gangsters Honey.

Marylin liked Italians. Its all very clear to me.

As for the Hey Republicans thread...saw a very funny photo today of the Bozo in Charge, its an Urkel photo of B.O. standing in front of the Stock Market saying "did I do that"

it can be found on this link.

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03/05/the-steve-urkel-ization-of-the-economy/

Stlrs4Life
03-06-2009, 09:45 PM
Please tell me what "work" Obama has done in a month and a half and we'll go from there. :drink:



You answered it in your own question, your boy did nearly nothin in 8 years.

7SteelGal43
03-06-2009, 09:52 PM
Pretty sure JFK was killed by the Italian Mafia, after all, they blamed him for the death of Marylin Monroe, and if there is one thing you don't do, its kill a Gangsters Honey.

Marylin liked Italians. Its all very clear to me.

As for the Hey Republicans thread...saw a very funny photo today of the Bozo in Charge, its an Urkel photo of B.O. standing in front of the Stock Market saying "did I do that"

it can be found on this link.

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03/05/the-steve-urkel-ization-of-the-economy/

First off, the cartoon is funny as anything :toofunny: and too true.
As for the JFK hit, yeah, I'm pretty sure it was mob related. Our own government would never assasinate our own pressident (well, I"m reasonabaly sure) and Castro wouldn't have had the testicles to kill a US president, so that leaves the mob, right ? right.

7SteelGal43
03-06-2009, 09:55 PM
It's going to be a long eight years. :wink02:

Can we survive the next 4 years ? YES WE CAN ! See, I'm just full of hope and optimism :chuckle:

Any longer than that, and I'll be like :banging:

HometownGal
03-07-2009, 08:45 AM
You answered it in your own question, your boy did nearly nothin in 8 years.

Dom - you're deflecting. I asked a simple question which you still haven't answered. I asked NOTHING about GWB - my question was in response to a direct statement you made.

I'll ask again.

What "work" has Obama done in the past month and a half?

cubanstogie
03-07-2009, 02:34 PM
Dom - you're deflecting. I asked a simple question which you still haven't answered. I asked NOTHING about GWB - my question was in response to a direct statement you made.

I'll ask again.

What "work" has Obama done in the past month and a half?

Obama has "worked" on breaking every promise he made during the election, thats what work he has done. He is doing a hell of job at that. I hope these kool aid drinkers will wake up and smell the coffee.

MACH1
03-07-2009, 02:47 PM
Dom - you're deflecting. I asked a simple question which you still haven't answered. I asked NOTHING about GWB - my question was in response to a direct statement you made.

I'll ask again.

What "work" has Obama done in the past month and a half?

He has worked very hard at running this country into the ground for the next hundred years.

Dino 6 Rings
03-07-2009, 07:58 PM
Here We Go Folks...well at least, Republicans who are in this Hey Republicans Thread with the idea of either attacking, making fun, or pointing out flaws in the current White House...

Its official Obama is in Over His Head

Freaking Amateur Hour

A well-connected Washington figure, who is close to members of Mr Obama's inner circle, expressed concern that Mr Obama had failed so far to "even fake an interest in foreign policy".

A British official conceded that the furore surrounding the apparent snub to Mr Brown had come as a shock to the White House. "I think it's right to say that their focus is elsewhere, on domestic affairs. A number of our US interlocutors said they couldn't quite understand the British concerns and didn't get what that was all about."

The American source said: "Obama is overwhelmed. There is a zero sum tension between his ability to attend to the economic issues and his ability to be a proactive sculptor of the national security agenda.

"That was the gamble these guys made at the front end of this presidency and I think they're finding it a hard thing to do everything."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4953523/Barack-Obama-too-tired-to-give-proper-welcome-to-Gordon-Brown.html

Um...ok...what's the plan when something REALLY BAD Happens? Like a Hurricane? Or a Volacano? Or Earthquake in California? Or some fools that want to kill us actually get the chance and relase poison in a subway? or attack hotels like they did in India? Or worse?

Can't deal with the Economy...how are you going to deal with Russia? North Korea? Iran? Venezuala? China? Indonesia? Pakistan? India? Sudan? Syria? Bosnia? or any other country out there?

Muppet13
03-07-2009, 08:56 PM
"Hey there, neighbor."

http://ddisbored.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/mr-rogers.jpg

Don't make fun of Mr. Rogers. His show is classic and it was bassed in Pittsburgh which makes it even better.:chuckle:

Dino 6 Rings
03-08-2009, 08:26 PM
And here we go...

N. Korea warns intercepting 'satellite' will prompt counterstrike+

PYONGYANG/BEIJING, March 9 (AP) - (Kyodo)—North Korea warned Monday that any move to intercept what it calls a satellite launch and what other countries suspect may be a missile test-firing would result in a counterstrike against the countries trying to stop it.
"We will retaliate (over) any act of intercepting our satellite for peaceful purposes with prompt counterstrikes by the most powerful military means," the official Korean Central News Agency quoted a spokesman of the General Staff of the Korean People's Army as saying.

If countries such as the United States, Japan or South Korea try to intercept the launch, the North Korean military will carry out "a just retaliatory strike operation not only against all the interceptor means involved but against the strongholds" of the countries, it said.

"Shooting our satellite for peaceful purposes will precisely mean a war," it added.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96Q4L200&show_article=1

So lets see how our new Administration responds to this.

devilsdancefloor
03-08-2009, 08:31 PM
http://img02.picoodle.com/img/img02/3/3/8/gumby12001/f_headinsandm_844da64.jpg

joe bieden is on it!

HometownGal
03-08-2009, 09:23 PM
http://img02.picoodle.com/img/img02/3/3/8/gumby12001/f_headinsandm_844da64.jpg

joe bieden is on it!

Joe's busy looking for that bottle of JD hidden in the sand. :alcoholic: :chuckle:

SteelShooter
03-08-2009, 09:43 PM
Well - basically he is. He wants to make sure the Democrats who are viewing this video can understand simple English. :chuckle:

:sofunny: :bouncy: :point: LMAO!!!!!!!!!!! :rofl: :point: :toofunny:

Dino 6 Rings
03-08-2009, 10:56 PM
What a Leader folks :applaudit:

Obama hails 25 new jobs amid huge losses By Sam Youngman
Posted: 03/06/09 01:03 PM [ET]
President Obama traveled to Columbus, Ohio, on Friday to hail the swearing-in of 25 new police officers who had been told after their training that the city did not have enough money to hire them.

But the good news was overshadowed by the bad as the day brought word that another 651,000 jobs were lost last month and the unemployment rate jumped to 8.1 percent.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-hails-25-new-jobs-amid-huge-losses-2009-03-06.html

tony hipchest
03-08-2009, 11:02 PM
What a Leader folks :applaudit:

Obama hails 25 new jobs amid huge losses [I]By Sam Youngman
Posted: 03/06/09 01:03 PM [ET]
President Obama traveled to Columbus, Ohio, on Friday to hail the swearing-in of 25 new police officers who had been told after their training that the city did not have enough money to hire them.



what a bad guy.... :rolleyes:

:offtopic:

Dino 6 Rings
03-08-2009, 11:11 PM
what a bad guy.... :rolleyes:

:offtopic:

Its not off topic! Its right on topic. This is the Hey Republicans thread where those who are not fans of the current POTUS or Congress can come in and razz and give a hard time to those who are fans of the current Admin...

Right?

Dino 6 Rings
03-08-2009, 11:12 PM
what a bad guy.... :rolleyes:

:offtopic:

Isn't praising these 25 jobs kind of like telling someone who's house is on fire that "hey, you have a nice lawn."

Just saying.

tony hipchest
03-08-2009, 11:32 PM
Its not off topic! Its right on topic. This is the Hey Republicans thread where those who are not fans of the current POTUS or Congress can come in and razz and give a hard time to those who are fans of the current Admin...

Right?

and here i thought this thread was about bobby jindal and razzing the republcan"s wannabe "next" admin...

:hunch: my bad. :busted:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QFK8aTpYAmg&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QFK8aTpYAmg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

The Patriot
03-09-2009, 12:03 AM
and here i thought this thread was about bobby jindal and razzing the republcan"s wannabe "next" admin...

:hunch: my bad. :busted:


You should start a thread about that. :grin:

SteelersinCA
03-09-2009, 12:39 AM
Just remember everyone, it could be much much much worse, #2 & #3 in line are Biden and Pelosi. I'll take Obama any day and twice on Sunday over those ignorant schmucks.

xfl2001fan
03-09-2009, 06:19 AM
Just remember everyone, it could be much much much worse, #2 & #3 in line are Biden and Pelosi. I'll take Obama any day and twice on Sunday over those ignorant schmucks.

Who do you think has the most influence over him?

Dino 6 Rings
03-09-2009, 12:38 PM
Oh, so this isn't the Bash Obama thread?

Ok, I'll start that thread officially then.

revefsreleets
03-09-2009, 01:02 PM
Jindal and Steele as RNC are token moves, that's all.

But it's fun to watch people go crazy in the meantime over all kinds of tangential nonsense...