PDA

View Full Version : ESPN yanks Hank Williams for comparing Obama to Hitler


Atlanta Dan
10-03-2011, 06:29 PM
WTF?

Hank Williams Jr., the voice famous asking millions of football fans whether they’re ready for some football, has been pulled from tonight’s broadcast of “Monday Night Football” over a comment he made on Fox News this morning.

Williams, who sings the lead-in song to the game each week, criticized the president for his golf summit with House Speaker John Boehner this summer.

“It would be like Hitler playing golf with (Israeli leader) Benjamin Netanyahu,” Williams told “Fox & Friends.”

http://www.politico.com/blogs/onmedia/1011/ESPN_yanks_Hank_for_comapring_Obama_to_Hitler.html ?showall

Well I suppose he will always be welcome to post those thoughts over at Steelers Universe:chuckle:

Buddha Bus
10-03-2011, 06:33 PM
WTF?

Hank Williams Jr., the voice famous asking millions of football fans whether they’re ready for some football, has been pulled from tonight’s broadcast of “Monday Night Football” over a comment he made on Fox News this morning.

Williams, who sings the lead-in song to the game each week, criticized the president for his golf summit with House Speaker John Boehner this summer.

“It would be like Hitler playing golf with (Israeli leader) Benjamin Netanyahu,” Williams told “Fox & Friends.”

http://www.politico.com/blogs/onmedia/1011/ESPN_yanks_Hank_for_comapring_Obama_to_Hitler.html ?showall

Well I suppose he will always be welcome to post those thoughts over at Steelers Universe :chuckle:


:rofl:

Just got done posting this article at another site. Ohhhh, Hank! :doh:

caplovestroyp43
10-03-2011, 07:09 PM
I have NEVER EVER been a fan of HWJ but this is the first time the man actually said something that was OH SO VERY TRUE!!!

Good for you Hank!! ICAM!!

:applaudit::applaudit::applaudit::tt02::tt02::thum bsup::thumbsup:

Wallace108
10-03-2011, 07:28 PM
It cracks me up when liberals, who champion free speech, get all butt hurt and try to shut down speech they don't agree with.

Liberals will fight to their death for your right to agree with them.

Even so, Hank wasn't comparing Obama to Hitler. He was making an analogy to show the absurdity of "enemies" golfing together. Obama golfing with Boehner is like Hitler golfing with Netanyahu.

It would be no different if he said, "It would be like Roger Goodell playing golf with James Harrison."

Would that mean he's comparing Obama to Goodell? :doh:

cloppbeast
10-03-2011, 07:42 PM
It cracks me up when liberals, who champion free speech, get all butt hurt and try to shut down speech they don't agree with.

Liberals will fight to their death for your right to agree with them.

Even so, Hank wasn't comparing Obama to Hitler. He was making an analogy to show the absurdity of "enemies" golfing together. Obama golfing with Boehner is like Hitler golfing with Netanyahu.

It would be no different if he said, "It would be like Roger Goodell playing golf with James Harrison."

Would that mean he's comparing Obama to Goodell? :doh:

I don't know WTF is wrong with this country. I can't believe our reading comprehension is poor enough to think he was comparing Obama to Hitler. This is sad...........

This came a week after Michael Vick apologized for being "too candid". lol. It's so sad when we start apologizing for being too honest. Unbelievable.

Atlanta Dan
10-03-2011, 08:27 PM
It cracks me up when liberals, who champion free speech, get all butt hurt and try to shut down speech they don't agree with.

Liberals will fight to their death for your right to agree with them.

Even so, Hank wasn't comparing Obama to Hitler. He was making an analogy to show the absurdity of "enemies" golfing together. Obama golfing with Boehner is like Hitler golfing with Netanyahu.

It would be no different if he said, "It would be like Roger Goodell playing golf with James Harrison."

Would that mean he's comparing Obama to Goodell? :doh:

Nice try

Told by anchor Brian Kilmeade that he didn't understand the analogy, Williams said: "I'm glad you don't, brother, because a lot of people do. They're the enemy." Asked who, Williams said: "Obama. And Biden. Are you kidding? The Three Stooges."...

Williams has been critical of Obama in the past. He campaigned for Sen. John McCain and running mate Sarah Palin in 2008, even changing the words of one of his songs, "Family Tradition," to blast Obama and the Democrats for the financial crisis the country was facing prior to that year's election.

http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/7056003/espn-pulls-hank-williams-jr-ready-opening-mnf


Williams, who typically sings "are you ready for some football?" during the lead-in to ESPN's NFL football telecast, has previously suggested he is interested in running for U.S. Senate in Tennessee as a Republican.

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/10/03/hank_williams_jr_monday_night_football_espn_drops_ country_singer.html

ESPN did not shut Williams down because it is run by "liberals" - it regards being associated with an idiot as bad for business

harrison'samonster
10-03-2011, 08:52 PM
It cracks me up when liberals, who champion free speech, get all butt hurt and try to shut down speech they don't agree with.

Liberals will fight to their death for your right to agree with them.

Even so, Hank wasn't comparing Obama to Hitler. He was making an analogy to show the absurdity of "enemies" golfing together. Obama golfing with Boehner is like Hitler golfing with Netanyahu.

It would be no different if he said, "It would be like Roger Goodell playing golf with James Harrison."

Would that mean he's comparing Obama to Goodell? :doh:

why does Hank getting pulled have to be the doing of liberals? usually if somebody does something that can be seen as controversial, business people back away and make sure there isn't going to be any backlash.

I wouldn't mind seeing Harrison walk off onto a golf course with Goodell. I have a feeling on of them isn't coming back.

MasterOfPuppets
10-03-2011, 10:07 PM
It cracks me up when liberals, who champion free speech, get all butt hurt and try to shut down speech they don't agree with.

Liberals will fight to their death for your right to agree with them.

Even so, Hank wasn't comparing Obama to Hitler. He was making an analogy to show the absurdity of "enemies" golfing together. Obama golfing with Boehner is like Hitler golfing with Netanyahu.

It would be no different if he said, "It would be like Roger Goodell playing golf with James Harrison."

Would that mean he's comparing Obama to Goodell? :doh:
this is hardly limited to liberals. remember the dixie chicks and bush ?
Dixie Chicks pulled from air after bashing Bush
Station managers said their decisions were prompted by calls from irate listeners who thought criticism of the president was unpatriotic.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Music/03/14/dixie.chicks.reut/

so do you believe those were liberals calling in defending georgies honor and stifling freedom of speech ? :nono:

Renegade
10-03-2011, 10:46 PM
Nice try

Told by anchor Brian Kilmeade that he didn't understand the analogy, Williams said: "I'm glad you don't, brother, because a lot of people do. They're the enemy." Asked who, Williams said: "Obama. And Biden. Are you kidding? The Three Stooges."...

Williams has been critical of Obama in the past. He campaigned for Sen. John McCain and running mate Sarah Palin in 2008, even changing the words of one of his songs, "Family Tradition," to blast Obama and the Democrats for the financial crisis the country was facing prior to that year's election.

http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/7056003/espn-pulls-hank-williams-jr-ready-opening-mnf


Williams, who typically sings "are you ready for some football?" during the lead-in to ESPN's NFL football telecast, has previously suggested he is interested in running for U.S. Senate in Tennessee as a Republican.

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/10/03/hank_williams_jr_monday_night_football_espn_drops_ country_singer.html

ESPN did not shut Williams down because it is run by "liberals" - it regards being associated with an idiot as bad for business

Hank Williams Jr. is hardly an idiot. If he was an idiot, he never would have become a country legend like he is. First of all, the comments made by Williams were not on ESPN, they were on a different network. Was the choice of words by Williams the best? No. Make no mistake about it, Obama sucks...I think he hates America...but the Hitler thing while taken out of context, still was not a good idea.

Regardless Williams should not lose his job over this. When I see an ancient like Bill Maher who is a homosexual get away with his sexist hatred towards Sarah Palin and still have a job, then IMO, Williams should still have his job as well. The vile hate coming from Maher is far more intense than anything coming from Williams.

Wallace108
10-03-2011, 11:12 PM
Nice try

Told by anchor Brian Kilmeade that he didn't understand the analogy, Williams said: "I'm glad you don't, brother, because a lot of people do. They're the enemy." Asked who, Williams said: "Obama. And Biden. Are you kidding? The Three Stooges."...
Dan, you proved my point. Hank didn't call Obama Hitler or compare him to Hitler as is being suggested. He made an analogy about "enemies" golfing together. To make his analogy, he used Hitler and the prime minster of Israel.

ESPN did not shut Williams down because it is run by "liberals" - it regards being associated with an idiot as bad for business

ESPN isn't run by liberals? :huh:
Regardless of what you think about Hank's politics, how is he an idiot for what he said? He made a perfectly legitimate analogy, at least according to his politics. And he has always been outspoken about his politics. The only difference is that now his words are being taken out of context. I'd be willing to bet both my left nut and my right nut that if he had made the same comment about Sarah Palin or Rick Perry, he wouldn't have been pulled from MNF. :hatsoff:

why does Hank getting pulled have to be the doing of liberals? usually if somebody does something that can be seen as controversial, business people back away and make sure there isn't going to be any backlash.
I agree. But Hank didn't say anything controversial. It's a complete overreaction by butt hurt executives, who I'm guessing aren't conservatives.

this is hardly limited to liberals. remember the dixie chicks and bush ?

so do you believe those were liberals calling in defending georgies honor and stifling freedom of speech ? :nono:
Good point, MoP. But I don't think we can compare the two. Hank made an analogy on a morning talk show. The Dixie Chicks blasted the American president while on foreign soil during a time of war. Completely different situations.

SteelersinCA
10-04-2011, 12:07 AM
Why are we even discussing free speech? Just because you can say what you want doesn't mean a company has to let you use their airwaves to broadcast it. ESPN didn't say Hank can't say it, they said if you say things like that you won't be associated with us. Everyone is exercising their rights nicely here.

tony hipchest
10-04-2011, 12:19 AM
Good point, MoP. But I don't think we can compare the two. Hank made an analogy on a morning talk show. The Dixie Chicks blasted the American president while on foreign soil during a time of war. Completely different situations.so if one is on safari in africa, or on a beach in costa rica they cant blast the president, but as long as they are on american soil it is fair game to take a shot at the president in a time of war?

anyone remember bush's war on terrorism? yeah, we're still in it. just ask the troops in afghanistan.

heres your free pass, hankie pankie.

BTW becomming a legend in country music is no evidence of brilliance (although willie does earn points for toking a joint at the white house)-

Hank Williams Jr. is hardly an idiot. If he was an idiot, he never would have become a country legend like he is

2lOW2IjpM-4

Wallace108
10-04-2011, 12:24 AM
Why are we even discussing free speech? Just because you can say what you want doesn't mean a company has to let you use their airwaves to broadcast it. ESPN didn't say Hank can't say it, they said if you say things like that you won't be associated with us. Everyone is exercising their rights nicely here.

It's not really a matter of free speech. Of course companies can do what they want. It's a matter of hypocrisy. If Hank had been on CNN and made the same comments about Sarah Palin, would he have been pulled from MNF?

Everyone should know where Hank stands politically. I'm not sure why this is an issue other than his comments have been taken out of context.

Wallace108
10-04-2011, 12:32 AM
so if one is on safari in africa, or on a beach in costa rica they cant blast the president, but as long as they are on american soil it is fair game to take a shot at the president in a time of war?

anyone remember bush's war on terrorism? yeah, we're still in it. just ask the troops in afghanistan.]

The Dixie Chicks weren't on safari in Africa or on a beach in Costa Rica. They were standing in front of a huge foreign audience and criticizing the president on the war.

And yeah, there's a difference between criticizing the American president here among other Americans as opposed to criticizing him in front of a foreign audience.

tony hipchest
10-04-2011, 12:49 AM
If Hank had been on CNN and made the same comments about Sarah Palin, would he have been pulled from MNF?
. ESPN or MNF isnt stoopid. do you think they would let ANYONE (despite political preference) insult, isolate, or exclude HALF of its viewing audience? :tap: its all about the money and ratings, and the network/product isnt about to lose even a micro-portion of either.

The Dixie Chicks weren't on safari in Africa or on a beach in Costa Rica. They were standing in front of a huge foreign audience and criticizing the president on the war.

And yeah, there's a difference between criticizing the American president here among other Americans as opposed to criticizing him in front of a foreign audience.foreign soil is foreign soil. making a comment to a physical gathering or the WWW media is just the same.

would you care to elaborate on the difference?

Wallace108
10-04-2011, 01:00 AM
ESPN or MNF isnt stoopid. do you think they would let ANYONE (despite political preference) insult, isolate, or exclude HALF of its viewing audience? :tap: its all about the money and ratings, and the network/product isnt about to lose even a micro-portion of either.
Other than stating his political views, which we already knew, what did Hank say that was controversial? He didn't make controversial statements like Mendy did. :noidea:
And if ESPN is concerned with not wanting to isolate its viewing audience, then it shouldn't have pulled Hank, since, according to the polls, more than half the country agrees with him.

foreign soil is foreign soil. making a comment to a physical gathering or the WWW media is just the same.

would you care to elaborate on the difference?
No, I think it speaks for itself. :wink02:

tony hipchest
10-04-2011, 01:33 AM
Other than stating his political views, which we already knew, what did Hank say that was controversial? He didn't make controversial statements like Mendy did. :noidea:
And if ESPN is concerned with not wanting to isolate its viewing audience, then it shouldn't have pulled Hank, since, according to the polls, more than half the country agrees with him.


No, I think it speaks for itself. :wink02:if nfl viewers are concerned with the polls, then they can tune into reuters. i am almost certain people dont tune into the nfl for a political agenda.

sports and politics have absolutely no reason to mix. it is a big reason this board almost went to hell and an even bigger reason why SUcks.

hank williams jr is a huge steelerfan, which is cool, but i could give a damn about his opinion of our teams owner being a member of obamas cabinet (and if rooney were a member of bush's cabinet, i would think it was just as cool and a position to be proud of) :thumbsup::drink:

speaking of the tides being turned, if 50 cent were rapping the mnf pregame show every week, and supporting obama on daily morning news shows, the wacky tea baggers and palin supporters woulda shot him already.

Wallace108
10-04-2011, 01:44 AM
if nfl viewers are concerned with the polls, then they can tune into reuters. i am almost certain people dont tune into the nfl for a political agenda.

sports and politics have absolutely no reason to mix. it is a big reason this board almost went to hell and an even bigger reason why SUcks.

hank williams jr is a huge steelerfan, which is cool, but i could give a damn about his opinion of our teams owner being a member of obamas cabinet (and if rooney were a member of bush's cabinet, i would think it was just as cool and a position to be proud of) :thumbsup::drink:

I get what you're saying tony. I agree that fans don't tune into the NFL for a political agenda. That's the kind of thing that got Limbaugh fired from ESPN (although I'm not sure why they hired him in the first place). Had Hank made his comments on ESPN during a game, I'd definitely agree with you. But his comments were made on Fox News, which had nothing to do with the NFL. And I agree that he can be held accountable for comments he makes away from ESPN, but his comments were taken out of context. It was a knee jerk reaction by ESPN. Simple as that.

And for the record, I've always thought that Hank was an idiot. But I don't think he said anything worthy of being pulled from MNF.

tony hipchest
10-04-2011, 01:54 AM
I get what you're saying tony. I agree that fans don't tune into the NFL for a political agenda. That's the kind of thing that got Limbaugh fired from ESPN (although I'm not sure why they hired him in the first place). Had Hank made his comments on ESPN during a game, I'd definitely agree with you. But his comments were made on Fox News, which had nothing to do with the NFL. And I agree that he can be held accountable for comments he makes away from ESPN, but his comments were taken out of context. It was a knee jerk reaction by ESPN. Simple as that.

And for the record, I've always thought that Hank was an idiot. But I don't think he said anything worthy of being pulled from MNF.i hate this age of political correctness but television ratings are the golden egg that the nfl wont risk ANYONE ****ing with.

not a chance in hell a polarizing figure such as limbaugh, mahr, or even dennis miller, would even sniff a job with espn today.

not saying its right... just saying thats how it is and will continue to be.

late wall, im out. :drink:

SteelCityMom
10-04-2011, 07:10 AM
Hank Williams Jr. is hardly an idiot. If he was an idiot, he never would have become a country legend like he is. First of all, the comments made by Williams were not on ESPN, they were on a different network. Was the choice of words by Williams the best? No. Make no mistake about it, Obama sucks...I think he hates America...but the Hitler thing while taken out of context, still was not a good idea.

Regardless Williams should not lose his job over this. When I see an ancient like Bill Maher who is a homosexual get away with his sexist hatred towards Sarah Palin and still have a job, then IMO, Williams should still have his job as well. The vile hate coming from Maher is far more intense than anything coming from Williams.

As others have pointed out, being a country legend (or any kind of legend) is not a qualifier for being smart.

Nobody said he made the comments on ESPN. ESPN employed him as a spokesman, didn't like his comment and decided to drop him. That's it. And yes, it was taken WAY out of context...but that's ESPN's business I guess.

Bill Maher (who I guess I didn't know was gay, since he's been banging Playboy girls and models for years lol...they could be beards I guess), gets paid to be controversial. HWJ got paid to sing, play guitar and dance a little. You are comparing apples to oranges.

Atlanta Dan
10-04-2011, 07:11 AM
Hank Williams Jr. is hardly an idiot. If he was an idiot, he never would have become a country legend like he is. First of all, the comments made by Williams were not on ESPN, they were on a different network. Was the choice of words by Williams the best? No. Make no mistake about it, Obama sucks...I think he hates America...but the Hitler thing while taken out of context, still was not a good idea.

Regardless Williams should not lose his job over this. When I see an ancient like Bill Maher who is a homosexual get away with his sexist hatred towards Sarah Palin and still have a job, then IMO, Williams should still have his job as well. The vile hate coming from Maher is far more intense than anything coming from Williams.

Hank Williams is a very talented musician - if he was making an observation on the skills of other country musicians he would be speaking within his field of expertise - i guess I missed the section of his bio where Hank Jr. spent several years working at Goldman Sachs and has some particular expertise for bliaming the rotten economy excluisvely on Obama and the Dems

He has no more credibiity with regard to political observations than his counterparts on the liberal end of the spectrum (Barbara Steisand/Matt Damon) who make comparably clueless statements

As MOP notes, if some lefty musician sang the intro to Monday Night Football and used the words Hitler and a senior GOP politician in the same sentence that person would not be singing the intro either - advertisers hate controversy and advertisers pay the bills for ESPN nd other broadcasters

Being a celebrity does not give anyone a free ticket to know everything about every subject

On another point, what does Maher's sexuality have to do with anything (or are you just throwing "homosexual' out there as a slam without knowing whether Maher is gay or not?)

Atlanta Dan
10-04-2011, 07:20 AM
Dan, you proved my point. Hank didn't call Obama Hitler or compare him to Hitler as is being suggested. He made an analogy about "enemies" golfing together. To make his analogy, he used Hitler and the prime minster of Israel. .

The Fox News folks called him on it and this was his response

Later in the Fox interview with Williams, anchor Gretchen Carlson told Williams he used the name of one of history's most hated men to describe the President.

"Well that's true. But I'm telling you like it is," Williams said.

http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/7056003/espn-pulls-hank-williams-jr-ready-opening-mnf

There were lots of public officials he couls have used as comparators to Obama and used Hitler - he knew exactly what he was saying

ESPN isn't run by liberals? :huh:.

This was your previous post .

It cracks me up when liberals, who champion free speech, get all butt hurt and try to shut down speech they don't agree with.

ESPN was the organization that "shut down" Hank, Jr. - it was a fair reading that you were contending ESPN pulled the Williams intro because it has a "liberal" bias

When it comes to political expertise Hank Wiliams, Jr. and his counterpart celebrities on the left need to stick to their day jobs
:drink:

floodcitygirl
10-04-2011, 06:16 PM
Dan, you proved my point. Hank didn't call Obama Hitler or compare him to Hitler as is being suggested. He made an analogy about "enemies" golfing together. To make his analogy, he used Hitler and the prime minster of Israel.



ESPN isn't run by liberals? :huh:
Regardless of what you think about Hank's politics, how is he an idiot for what he said? He made a perfectly legitimate analogy, at least according to his politics. And he has always been outspoken about his politics. The only difference is that now his words are being taken out of context. I'd be willing to bet both my left nut and my right nut that if he had made the same comment about Sarah Palin or Rick Perry, he wouldn't have been pulled from MNF. :hatsoff:


I agree. But Hank didn't say anything controversial. It's a complete overreaction by butt hurt executives, who I'm guessing aren't conservatives.


Good point, MoP. But I don't think we can compare the two. Hank made an analogy on a morning talk show. The Dixie Chicks blasted the American president while on foreign soil during a time of war. Completely different situations.For what it's worth, I agree with you on this topis Wallace. Now does this mean I have to go to SU??? :doh:

Atlanta Dan
10-04-2011, 06:32 PM
For what it's worth, I agree with you on this topis Wallace. Now does this mean I have to go to SU??? :doh:

If you want to post pictures of Obama wearing a Nazi brown shirt with a Hitler mustache one of the so-called moderators over there has done that so anyone else presumably can do that at SU as well - being anti-Obama covers a lot of folks who in good faith disagree with him but the Hitler comparisons fortunately are limited to the fringe

floodcitygirl
10-04-2011, 07:51 PM
If you want to post pictures of Obama wearing a Nazi brown shirt with a Hitler mustache one of the so-called moderators over there has done that so anyone else presumably can do that at SU as well - being anti-Obama covers a lot of folks who in good faith disagree with him but the Hitler comparisons fortunately are limited to the fringeI have no idea what the hell a mod at SU posted has to do with what I said, nor do I care. I've never been on that site. I didn't see any pics like that posted here, and the person I agreed with said nothing outrageous, in my opinion. By some of the tone I'm hearing here, I'm wondering how acceptable it is to have a differing opinion on this site? I'm just asking...

ricardisimo
10-04-2011, 08:26 PM
Hearing right-wingers wave the H-word around is always quite amusing, always off-color and always completely off the mark. Is Williams criticizing Obama's tyrant-like embrace of domestic spying and extra-judicial assassinations? Of course not. Is he criticizing his aggressive, hawkish foreign policy? Hell, no. How about his continued use of torture, torture camps and extraordinary rendition... or any of several dozen tyranical abuses of power handed down to him from his predecessors and zealously continued by his administration?

Absolutely not. Williams has no issue with any of these things (or so we can surmise by the fact that he had no issue with "his president" doing all of these things). The Hitler comment was simply meant to be inflammatory. It worked, it inflamed, and he got the boot.

I have no idea what the hell a mod at SU posted has to do with what I said, nor do I care. I've never been on that site. I didn't see any pics like that posted here, and the person I agreed with said nothing outrageous, in my opinion. By some of the tone I'm hearing here, I'm wondering how acceptable it is to have a differing opinion on this site? I'm just asking... What the hell are you talking about? :huh: Amazing. Anything less than resounding agreement is somehow an unacceptable stifling of debate. Whatever.

SteelCityMom
10-04-2011, 08:37 PM
I have no idea what the hell a mod at SU posted has to do with what I said, nor do I care. I've never been on that site. I didn't see any pics like that posted here, and the person I agreed with said nothing outrageous, in my opinion. By some of the tone I'm hearing here, I'm wondering how acceptable it is to have a differing opinion on this site? I'm just asking...

Naa...it's always cool to disagree here. And you can disagree with Dan all you want, no one will complain (except maybe Dan :chuckle: ).

It's just a reference to the old mods here, nothing else...and yes, before the "fallout" there were a bunch of pics like that posted here (albeit mostly in the offseason when political debates fired up more).

The tone of political debates is always a snarky one (myself included sometimes), hope you don't take it too personal.

Atlanta Dan
10-04-2011, 08:53 PM
I have no idea what the hell a mod at SU posted has to do with what I said, nor do I care. I've never been on that site. I didn't see any pics like that posted here, and the person I agreed with said nothing outrageous, in my opinion. By some of the tone I'm hearing here, I'm wondering how acceptable it is to have a differing opinion on this site? I'm just asking...

I was the one who started the thread and noted that if you want to compare Obama to Hitler it is acceptable behavior at SU - one of the mods over there has done so and if you look at a number of the threads posted here before the alums departed to SU there is a recurring theme of Obama/Hitler comparisons , featuring charming images such as this (it did not take long to find one here)

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_z3zLnwZeL3o/SOK0t9NBkzI/AAAAAAAAAKo/Th_8QfoYhKQ/s1600/obama%2Byouth.jpg

In your post wondering whether you needed to go to SU since you agreed with Wallace 108, you apparently believe my point was that anyone who does not support Obama needs to go to SU - that was not my point and I attempted to clarify that - so much for that attempt

Where Wallace108 and I did disagree was that Williams was not comparing Obama to Hitler. If you have not watched the video clip decide for yourself - the shellshocked reaction of the hosts on Fox (no hot bed of Obama support) certainly indicates they thought Williams was making the comparison and going beyond taking he normal partisan shots

1eF6vCv13bw

Where Wallace108 and I also disagreed was that Williams was some sort of political martyr who was having his free speech suppressed by "the liberals." I replied that ESPN is in the business of making money - political controversy does not advance that goal - ESPN banned Williams last night because it was bad for business, not because Chris Berman is heading up Obama's re-election campaign

With all due respect, if you are contending that anyone who takes exception to what Hank Williams said is thereby intolerant of anyone who disagrees with Obama (there are lots of good reasons to not support Obama) I apologize if I left that impression

:drink:

tony hipchest
10-04-2011, 10:35 PM
good post dan...

I have no idea what the hell a mod at SU posted has to do with what I said, nor do I care. I've never been on that site. I didn't see any pics like that posted here, and the person I agreed with said nothing outrageous, in my opinion. By some of the tone I'm hearing here, I'm wondering how acceptable it is to have a differing opinion on this site? I'm just asking...

i have been posting mates with you and dan for a number of years now, and i can assure you to not take his remark personally.

since you havent visited SU, i can attest that it has become a pro republican site with a political agenda as much as anything else. most of the "regulars" actually spend more time posting in the political forum as they do discussing the steelers. it has been that way since its inception and thats the way they like it over there.

"birds of a feather...."

i can almost guarantee that hank williams jr is being worshipped over there right now. they are probably holding cybercandlelight vigils and passing around internet petitions to re-instate williams and impeach hitl...errr obama.

im sure that was dans only (spot on ) point.

over here, it is quite different. while i am confident obama supporters are still outnumbered 2:1, our membership is 1/10th as politically obsessed as it was before the exodus/colon cleanse.

personally i dont like my football served with politics as im sure most people dont, which perfectly explains why ESPN canned williams tired pre-game jingle.

why dont i like it? a perfect example is i used to associate with a steelerfan who probably thought of dan rooney as the greatest team owner in all of sports, who now, probably regards him as an ignorant piece of shit because of his vote cast, and support of obama.

that way of thinking is rediculous.

Wallace108
10-05-2011, 12:53 AM
For what it's worth, I agree with you on this topis Wallace.
I wouldn't broadcast that if I was you. I'm rarely ever right. http://r28.imgfast.net/users/2815/14/51/45/smiles/3798349058.gif

Where Wallace108 and I did disagree was that Williams was not comparing Obama to Hitler. If you have not watched the video clip decide for yourself - the shellshocked reaction of the hosts on Fox (no hot bed of Obama support) certainly indicates they thought Williams was making the comparison and going beyond taking he normal partisan shots
I agree that the hosts reacted as if he had compared Obama to Hitler. But they were hearing it live, which didn't give them much time to think about what he said.

Here's what he said later:
"Working-class people are hurting -- and it doesn't seem like anybody cares. When both sides are high-fiving it on the ninth hole when everybody else is without a job -- it makes a whole lot of us angry. Something has to change. The policies have to change."

In saying Obama playing golf with Boehner is like Hitler playing with Netanyahu, all he was saying is that they're polar opposites, that they won't ever agree. He never said that Obama is like Hitler. As someone jokingly said on another board, how do we know he wasn't referring to Boehner as Hitler. :wink02:

Where Wallace108 and I also disagreed was that Williams was some sort of political martyr who was having his free speech suppressed by "the liberals."
You're putting words in my mouth now. :sofunny:
I never said anything about Hank being a "political martyr." What I said is that his words were taken out of context.

And I never said his free speech was being suppressed by "the liberals." What I said is that his comment pissed off some liberal exec. And for the record, I could be wrong about that ... it's just my opinion.

I replied that ESPN is in the business of making money - political controversy does not advance that goal -
Then why did they hire Limbaugh? For his expert football analysis? Controversy can bring in ratings. But he went overboard with his African American quarterback rant, and the backlash was too much. People weren't protesting in the streets and threatening boycotts over Hank's comment. It wasn't even an issue yet until ESPN made it an issue.

I realize that them hiring Limbaugh seems to poke a big hole in my earlier argument, but not necessarily. Do we know who made the decision on Hank? Was it ESPN? Was it ABC? Who specifically?

I don't know if I'm right or wrong about the political motivation behind pulling Hank, but I do know that politics sometimes does factor in to how entertainment companies run their businesses and the decisions they make. And it goes both ways. Even if Hank did compare Obama to Hitler, I don't think the country-music industry would blackball him the way it did the Dixie Chicks.

When it comes to political expertise Hank Wiliams, Jr. and his counterpart celebrities on the left need to stick to their day jobs
:drink:
On that, you and I both agree. :drink:

ricardisimo
10-05-2011, 02:31 AM
If anyone - including Hank Williams, Jr. - wants to discuss actual reasons to compare Hitler and Obama:

Assassinating Awlaki
The Day America Died (http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/10/04/the-day-america-died/)

by PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
Many expected President Obama to re-establish the accountability of government to law. Instead, he went further than Bush/Cheney and asserted the unconstitutional power not only to hold American citizens indefinitely in prison without bringing charges, but also to take their lives without convicting them in a court of law. Obama asserts that the US Constitution notwithstanding, he has the authority to assassinate US citizens, who he deems to be a “threat,” without due process of law.
In other words, any American citizen who is moved into the threat category has no rights and can be executed without trial or evidence.
On September 30 Obama used this asserted new power of the president and had two American citizens, Anwar Awlaki and Samir Khan murdered. Khan was a wacky character associated with Inspire Magazine and does not readily come to mind as a serious threat.
Awlaki was a moderate American Muslim cleric who served as an advisor to the US government after 9/11 on ways to counter Muslim extremism. Awlaki was gradually radicalized by Washington’s use of lies to justify military attacks on Muslim countries. He became a critic of the US government and told Muslims that they did not have to passively accept American aggression and had the right to resist and to fight back. As a result Awlaki was demonized and became a threat.
All we know that Awlaki did was to give sermons critical of Washington’s indiscriminate assaults on Muslim peoples. Washington’s argument is that his sermons might have had an influence on some who are accused of attempting terrorist acts, thus making Awlaki responsible for the attempts.
Obama’s assertion that Awlaki was some kind of high-level Al Qaeda operative is merely an assertion. Jason Ditz on antiwar.com concluded that the reason Awlaki was murdered rather than brought to trial is that the US government had no real evidence that Awlaki was an Al Qaeda operative.
Having murdered its critic, the Obama Regime is working hard to posthumously promote Awlaki to a leadership position in Al Qaeda. The presstitutes and the worshippers of America’s First Black President have fallen in line and regurgitated the assertions that Awlaki was a high-level dangerous Al Qaeda terrorist. If Al Qaeda sees value in Awlaki as a martyr, the organization will give credence to these claims. However, so far no one has provided any evidence. Keep in mind that all we know about Awlaki is what Washington claims and that the US has been at war for a decade based on false claims.
But what Awlaki did or might have done is beside the point. The US Constitution requires that even the worst murderer cannot be punished until he is convicted in a court of law. When the American Civil Liberties Union challenged in federal court Obama’s assertion that he had the power to order assassinations of American citizens, the Obama Justice (sic) Department argued that Obama’s decision to have Americans murdered was an executive power beyond the reach of the judiciary.
In a decision that sealed America’s fate, federal district court judge John Bates ignored the Constitution’s requirement that no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law and dismissed the case, saying that it was up to Congress to decide. Obama acted before an appeal could be heard, thus using Judge Bates’ acquiescence to establish the power and advance the transformation of the president into a Caesar that began under George W. Bush.
Attorneys Glenn Greenwald and Jonathan Turley point out that Awlaki’s assassination terminated the Constitution’s restraint on the power of government. Now the US government not only can seize a US citizen and confine him in prison for the rest of his life without ever presenting evidence and obtaining a conviction, but also can have him shot down in the street or blown up by a drone.
Before some readers write to declare that Awlaki’s murder is no big deal because the US government has always had people murdered, keep in mind that CIA assassinations were of foreign opponents and were not publicly proclaimed events, much less a claim by the president to be above the law. Indeed, such assassinations were denied, not claimed as legitimate actions of the President of the United States.
The point isn’t that the government killed people. The point is that never prior to President Obama has a President asserted the power to murder citizens.
Over the last 20 years, the United States has had its own Mein Kampf transformation. Terry Eastland’s book, Energy in the Executive: The Case for the Strong Presidency, presented ideas associated with the Federalist Society, an organization of Republican lawyers that works to reduce legislative and judicial restraints on executive power. Under the cover of wartime emergencies (the war on terror), the Bush/Cheney regime employed these arguments to free the president from accountability to law and to liberate Americans from their civil liberties. War and national security provided the opening for the asserted new powers, and a mixture of fear and desire for revenge for 9/11 led Congress, the judiciary, and the people to go along with the dangerous precedents.
As civilian and military leaders have been telling us for years, the war on terror is a 30-year project. After such time has passed, the presidency will have completed its transformation into Caesarism, and there will be no going back.
As wars of aggression or imperial ambition are war crimes under international law, such wars require doctrines that elevate the leader above the law and the Geneva Conventions, as Bush was elevated by his Justice (sic) Department with minimal judicial and legislative interference.
Illegal and unconstitutional actions also require a silencing of critics and punishment of those who reveal government crimes. Thus Bradley Manning has been held for a year, mainly in solitary confinement under abusive conditions, without any charges being presented against him. A federal grand jury is at work concocting spy charges against Wikileaks’ founder Julian Assange. Another federal grand jury is at work concocting terrorists charges against antiwar activists.
“Terrorist” and “giving aid to terrorists” are increasingly elastic concepts. Homeland Security has declared that the vast federal police bureaucracy has shifted its focus from terrorists to “domestic extremists.”
It is possible that Awlaki was assassinated because he was an effective critic of the US government. Police states do not originate fully fledged. Initially, they justify their illegal acts by demonizing their targets and in this way create the precedents for unaccountable power. Once the government equates critics with giving “aid and comfort” to terrorists, as they are doing with antiwar activists and Assange, or with terrorism itself, as Obama did with Awlaki, it will only be a short step to bringing accusations against Glenn Greenwald and the ACLU.
The Obama Regime, like the Bush/Cheney Regime, is a regime that does not want to be constrained by law. And neither will its successor. Those fighting to uphold the rule of law, humanity’s greatest achievement, will find themselves lumped together with the regime’s opponents and be treated as such.
This great danger that hovers over America is unrecognized by the majority of the people. When Obama announced before a military gathering his success in assassinating an American citizen, cheers erupted. The Obama regime and the media played the event as a repeat of the (claimed) killing of Osama bin Laden. Two “enemies of the people” have been triumphantly dispatched. That the President of the United States was proudly proclaiming to a cheering audience sworn to defend the Constitution that he was a murderer and that he had also assassinated the US Constitution is extraordinary evidence that Americans are incapable of recognizing the threat to their liberty.
Americans have overwhelming evidence from news reports and YouTube videos of US police brutally abusing women, children, and the elderly, of brutal treatment and murder of prisoners not only in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and secret CIA prisons abroad, but also in state and federal prisons in the US. Power over the defenseless attracts people of a brutal and evil disposition.
What do Americans think will be their fate now that the “war on terror” has destroyed the protection once afforded them by the US Constitution? If Awlaki really needed to be assassinated, why did not President Obama protect American citizens from the precedent that their deaths can be ordered without due process of law by first stripping Awlaki of his US citizenship? If the government can strip Awlaki of his life, it certainly can strip him of citizenship. The implication is hard to avoid that the executive branch desires the power to terminate citizens without due process of law.
Governments escape the accountability of law in stages. Washington understands that its justifications for its wars are contrived and indefensible. President Obama even went so far as to declare that the military assault that he authorized on Libya without consulting Congress was not a war, and, therefore, he could ignore the War Powers Resolution of 1973, a federal law intended to check the power of the President to commit the US to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress.
Americans are beginning to unwrap themselves from the flag. Some are beginning to grasp that initially they were led into Afghanistan for revenge for 9/11. From there they were led into Iraq for reasons that turned out to be false. They see more and more US military interventions: Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan and now calls for invasion of Pakistan and continued saber rattling for attacks on Syria, Lebanon, and Iran. The financial cost of a decade of the “war against terror” is starting to come home. Exploding annual federal budget deficits and national debt threaten Medicare and Social Security. Debt ceiling limits threaten government shut-downs.
War critics are beginning to have an audience. The government cannot begin its silencing of critics by bringing charges against US Representatives Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. It begins with antiwar protestors, who are elevated into “antiwar activists,” perhaps a step below “domestic extremists.” Washington begins with citizens who are demonized Muslim clerics radicalized by Washington’s wars on Muslims. In this way, Washington establishes the precedent that war protestors give encouragement and, thus, aid, to terrorists. It establishes the precedent that those Americans deemed a threat are not protected by law. This is the slippery slope on which we now find ourselves.
Last year the Obama Regime tested the prospects of its strategy when Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence, announced that the government had a list of American citizens that it was going to assassinate abroad. This announcement, had it been made in earlier times by, for example, Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan, would have produced a national uproar and calls for impeachment. However, Blair’s announcement caused hardly a ripple. All that remained for the regime to do was to establish the policy by exercising it.
Readers ask me what they can do. Americans not only feel powerless, they are powerless. They cannot do anything. The highly concentrated, corporate-owned, government-subservient print and TV media are useless and no longer capable of performing the historic role of protecting our rights and holding government accountable. Even many antiwar Internet sites shield the government from 9/11 skepticism, and most defend the government’s “righteous intent” in its war on terror. Acceptable criticism has to be couched in words such as “it doesn’t serve our interests.”
Voting has no effect. President “Change” is worse than Bush/Cheney. As Jonathan Turley suggests, Obama is “the most disastrous president in our history.” Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate who stands up for the Constitution, but the majority of Americans are too unconcerned with the Constitution to appreciate him.
To expect salvation from an election is delusional. All you can do, if you are young enough, is to leave the country. The only future for Americans is a nightmare.


P.S. - I'm not entirely convinced that voting is pointless, as the author suggests. I just think the two-party system is worse for you than eating your own feces.

floodcitygirl
10-05-2011, 04:32 PM
What the hell are you talking about? :huh: Amazing. Anything less than resounding agreement is somehow an unacceptable stifling of debate. Whatever.Geesh...a little reactionary, don't ya think??? I asked what I considered to be a legitimate question. Thankfully it was well answered by others. I appreciate the responses everybody.

And yes, on most issues I'm going to fall on the side of "right wing" conservatives. And even worse.....I'm a Christian! :jawdrop: Although like most Americans, I'm not terribly happy with either political party right now.

I don't have much time to spend online but want to be able to comment and contribute when I feel I have something to say. Glad to know it's acceptable here. I'm not up for a bunch of internet drama. That's why I didn't post here for a long while.

Here's to my fellow Steeler fans. Hoping for a better season than we've had! :drink:

Atlanta Dan
10-06-2011, 06:13 PM
No surprise here

Hank Williams Jr. and his iconic theme song will not return to ESPN's "Monday Night Football," the network announced Thursday.

In the wake of Williams using an analogy involving Adolf Hitler and President Barack Obama to make a political point on the Fox News Channel, Williams' "All My Rowdy Friends" will no longer be part of the MNF opening.

But this sounds like bull**it

On his own website, Williams said he was the one who made the decision.

"After reading hundreds of e-mails, I have made MY decision," he wrote. "By pulling my opening Oct 3rd, You (ESPN) stepped on the Toes of The First Amendment Freedom of Speech, so therefore Me, My Song, and All My Rowdy Friends are OUT OF HERE. It's been a great run."

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7066449/espn-hank-williams-jr-theme-song-return-monday-night-football

Yep - Hank decided to bail out of that cash flow because ESPN offended him:toofunny:

Wallace108
10-06-2011, 10:35 PM
Yep - Hank decided to bail out of that cash flow because ESPN offended him:toofunny:

Typical liberal ... thinking money is more important than principles. :chuckle:



In all seriousness, this debacle provided for a fun debate. :drink:

tony hipchest
10-06-2011, 11:08 PM
good riddance. his act was tired anyways.

they need to get american icons metallica to do the new intro song. eff all this effaith hill country shit.

i dislike country music mixed in with my football about as much as politics.

but they can mix in all the beer, food, and hadbanging metal they want. :guitar::pizza: :jammin::football: :tt03::chicken:

Atlanta Dan
10-07-2011, 11:35 AM
In all seriousness, this debacle provided for a fun debate. :drink:

Agreed
:drink:

ricardisimo
10-07-2011, 07:42 PM
good riddance. his act was tired anyways.

they need to get american icons metallica to do the new intro song. eff all this effaith hill country shit.

i dislike country music mixed in with my football about as much as politics.

but they can mix in all the beer, food, and hadbanging metal they want. :guitar::pizza: :jammin::football: :tt03::chicken:
I'd prefer some old school New York punk. Are enough of the Ramones still alive to take over this gig?

tony hipchest
10-07-2011, 07:55 PM
I'd prefer some old school New York punk. Are enough of the Ramones still alive to take over this gig?more like "are ANY of the ramones still alive". just one... not enough to cut it.

looks like it'd have to be some old school new jersey punk.

yCOGYBHAk44&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL2E3E212F523D25CD

7QXy5hr1VS8&feature=related

:toofunny: wtf???

floodcitygirl
10-07-2011, 08:36 PM
good riddance. his act was tired anyways.

they need to get american icons metallica to do the new intro song. eff all this effaith hill country shit.

i dislike country music mixed in with my football about as much as politics.

but they can mix in all the beer, food, and hadbanging metal they want. :guitar::pizza: :jammin::football: :tt03::chicken:Oh Lord.....I forgot to mention....I like country music too. :wink02:

tony hipchest
10-07-2011, 10:12 PM
Oh Lord.....I forgot to mention....I like country music too. :wink02: i guess im not scoring many points with you, huh? :footinmou:

i like cute little fuzzy puppies....


and pinacoladas!

BsZ5a5UQvrs&feature=list_related&playnext=1&list=AVGxdCwVVULXeZFEH19H83QM8wgDtnPljD

:hug:

Steelboy84
10-08-2011, 08:50 PM
this is hardly limited to liberals. remember the dixie chicks and bush ?


so do you believe those were liberals calling in defending georgies honor and stifling freedom of speech ? :nono:



Seems Mr. "Wallace108" has nothing to say of this. Clown probably voted for Bush twice. How did those WMDs work out for ya? lol :rofl:

Wallace108
10-08-2011, 10:14 PM
Seems Mr. "Wallace108" has nothing to say of this. Clown probably voted for Bush twice. How did those WMDs work out for ya? lol :rofl:

Mr. Wallace did address Mr. Puppets' comments. Mr. Steelboy probably needs to work on his reading comprehension. Oh, and how's that hope and change working out for ya? :hatsoff:

therocksteeler
10-09-2011, 08:10 PM
He can skin a buck, he can run a trout line.............um.......you go hank!

:tt02:

SteelersinCA
10-10-2011, 12:03 AM
and pinacoladas!



:hug:

Only if it has whipped cream and a cherry on top!

hicksfan
10-11-2011, 03:22 PM
He can skin a buck, he can run a trout line.............um.......you go hank!

:tt02:

trotline, he can run a trotline.

Steelboy84
10-11-2011, 08:42 PM
Mr. Wallace did address Mr. Puppets' comments. Mr. Steelboy probably needs to work on his reading comprehension. Oh, and how's that hope and change working out for ya? :hatsoff:


*yawn*

I'd avoid the topic too if I fell for such a lie like Iraq. :rofl:

Wallace108
10-11-2011, 11:43 PM
*yawn*

I'd avoid the topic too if I fell for such a lie like Iraq. :rofl:

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

First of all, I'm beginning to wonder if you're delusional. As I said (and you could see if you took the time to read the entire thread), I responded to MoP's comment, and then me and hipchest debated it further. Would you care to explain how you equate that with me avoiding the topic? And why do you keep bringing up Iraq and WMDs? It doesn't have anything to do with this thread and does nothing to refute any of my arguments.

And just so you know, I'm a conservative, but I don't have a whole lot of love for most Republicans. I didn't vote for Bush and I disagreed with a lot of the things he did. But feel free to keep bringing up Iraq and WMDs if it makes you feel smarter.

Me and everyone else here kind of agreed to disagree and moved on respectfully. But if you want to debate anything I said in this thread, I'm game.

tony hipchest
10-12-2011, 12:57 AM
And just so you know, I'm a conservative, but I don't have a whole lot of love for most Republicans. I didn't vote for Bush and I disagreed with a lot of the things he did.

Me and everyone else here kind of agreed to disagree and moved on respectfully. But if you want to debate anything I said in this thread, I'm game.

i can confirm for a fact, that wally voted for Buddha Bus.

"bu...bu...bu.. bus, the magic bus!"

Wallace108
10-12-2011, 01:35 AM
i can confirm for a fact, that wally voted for Buddha Bus.

"bu...bu...bu.. bus, the magic bus!"

President Buddha? :toofunny:

I guarantee the first two things he would do is put Tim Lumber on the terrorist watch list and declare war on the state of Maryland. :chuckle:

But knowing him as I do, he's more qualified to be Commander in Chef. :wink02:

Buddha Bus
10-12-2011, 03:32 AM
i can confirm for a fact, that wally voted for Buddha Bus.

"bu...bu...bu.. bus, the magic bus!"

President Buddha? :toofunny:

I guarantee the first two things he would do is put Tim Lumber on the terrorist watch list and declare war on the state of Maryland. :chuckle:

But knowing him as I do, he's more qualified to be Commander in Chef. :wink02:

And I can't believe I didn't win either! I felt I was running on a solid platform. :hunch:

1) Bomb M&T Bank Stadium
2) A return to prohibition....... for Busch Light. :wink02:
3) The relaxation of the definition of "obese" for healthcare purposes
4) Build a fence around Cleveland
5) Pro-Choice (mostly for Ravens fans)
6) Economic plan? If we need it bad enough, we go into Canada, give them a wedgie, shove them in a locker and take their lunch money!
7) LEGALIZE IT!

As a matter of fact, I will now announce my candidacy for President of the United States in 2012!

My only new issues I'd like to address for my platform would be a strict "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy for Tom Brady in the NFL and all state executions will, going forward, be carried out by Stlrtruck.

BUDDHA 2012!!!!! For a fatter America. http://r28.imgfast.net/users/2815/14/51/45/smiles/2480670802.gif

Wallace108
10-12-2011, 07:12 AM
And I can't believe I didn't win either! I felt I was running on a solid platform. :hunch:

1) Bomb M&T Bank Stadium
2) A return to prohibition....... for Busch Light. :wink02:
3) The relaxation of the definition of "obese" for healthcare purposes
4) Build a fence around Cleveland
5) Pro-Choice (mostly for Ravens fans)
6) Economic plan? If we need it bad enough, we go into Canada, give them a wedgie, shove them in a locker and take their lunch money!
7) LEGALIZE IT!

As a matter of fact, I will now announce my candidacy for President of the United States in 2012!

My only new issues I'd like to address for my platform would be a strict "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy for Tom Brady in the NFL and all state executions will, going forward, be carried out by Stlrtruck.

BUDDHA 2012!!!!! For a fatter America. http://r28.imgfast.net/users/2815/14/51/45/smiles/2480670802.gif

http://media.nowpublic.net/images//23/d/23d386c190918dfde4bc1c01c0e96025.jpg

And I've got your campaign theme song. :chuckle:

XtMy5IBmX7E&ob=av2e

Buddha Bus
10-12-2011, 02:17 PM
Wally, that song lost me when it started singing about drinking Bud Light. :puke:

I think one of these songs better suits me.:thumbsup:



t2mU6USTBRE

or


ZcJjMnHoIBI&feature=relmfu

ricardisimo
10-12-2011, 03:08 PM
You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

First of all, I'm beginning to wonder if you're delusional. As I said (and you could see if you took the time to read the entire thread), I responded to MoP's comment, and then me and hipchest debated it further. Would you care to explain how you equate that with me avoiding the topic? And why do you keep bringing up Iraq and WMDs? It doesn't have anything to do with this thread and does nothing to refute any of my arguments.

And just so you know, I'm a conservative, but I don't have a whole lot of love for most Republicans. I didn't vote for Bush and I disagreed with a lot of the things he did. But feel free to keep bringing up Iraq and WMDs if it makes you feel smarter.

Me and everyone else here kind of agreed to disagree and moved on respectfully. But if you want to debate anything I said in this thread, I'm game.
I can vouch for you Wally. You're good peeps. I don't care what everyone is always saying about you (and they are always saying it about you...) You're OK by me! :thumbsup:

Buddha Bus
10-12-2011, 03:22 PM
I can vouch for you Wally. You're good peeps. I don't care what everyone is always saying about you (and they are always saying it about you...) You're OK by me! :thumbsup:

Not me. He's a fence-straddling, pot stirring asshole IMHO. :popcorn:

MasterOfPuppets
10-12-2011, 03:25 PM
Not me. He's a fence-straddling, pot stirring asshole IMHO. :popcorn:
you forgot "shitty beer drinkin" .... :noidea:

http://www.woosk.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/underage-drinkers.jpg

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTrrGIba2DywOXlmGh9nLagIzEcP3ktv wZ50Jek64jlzn9Pgts3

Buddha Bus
10-12-2011, 03:46 PM
you forgot "shitty beer drinkin" .... :noidea:

http://www.woosk.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/underage-drinkers.jpg

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTrrGIba2DywOXlmGh9nLagIzEcP3ktv wZ50Jek64jlzn9Pgts3

It goes without saying. :wink02:

What I should have added was he's an unfortunate dresser. Wally, that makeup, fairy wings and magic wand only help you look a tiny bit more like a man when drinking light beer. :sofunny:

vasteeler
10-12-2011, 04:14 PM
And I can't believe I didn't win either! I felt I was running on a solid platform. :hunch:

1) Bomb M&T Bank Stadium
2) A return to prohibition....... for Busch Light. :wink02:
3) The relaxation of the definition of "obese" for healthcare purposes
4) Build a fence around Cleveland
5) Pro-Choice (mostly for Ravens fans)
6) Economic plan? If we need it bad enough, we go into Canada, give them a wedgie, shove them in a locker and take their lunch money!
7) LEGALIZE IT!

As a matter of fact, I will now announce my candidacy for President of the United States in 2012!

My only new issues I'd like to address for my platform would be a strict "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy for Tom Brady in the NFL and all state executions will, going forward, be carried out by Stlrtruck.

BUDDHA 2012!!!!! For a fatter America. http://r28.imgfast.net/users/2815/14/51/45/smiles/2480670802.gif

you got my vote on #7 alone:thumbsup:

Buddha Bus
10-12-2011, 04:36 PM
you got my vote on #7 alone:thumbsup:

Thank you, kind sir! :wink02:

ricardisimo
10-12-2011, 04:41 PM
You do realize, I hope, that by "legalize it" he's talking about forced sodomy of light beer drinkers, which is currently prohibited by our puritanical laws.

Buddha Bus
10-12-2011, 04:45 PM
You do realize, I hope, that by "legalize it" he's talking about forced sodomy of light beer drinkers, which is currently prohibited by our puritanical laws.

They're like women without periods. :hunch:

Although they do get a little surly after 35 or so cans of that pisswater and start acting like they're real beer drinkers. :heha:

Wallace108
10-12-2011, 04:51 PM
I can vouch for you Wally.
Isn't that kind of like Hitler vouching for Obama? :noidea: :chuckle:

Now I need hipchest here to vouch for my beer. So until then, the rest of you are on ...

















http://www.socialstrategy1.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Ignore-Button-and-Social-Media-Monitoring.jpg

Buddha Bus
10-12-2011, 04:56 PM
Isn't that kind of like Hitler vouching for Obama? :noidea: :chuckle:

Now I need hipchest here to vouch for my beer. So until then, the rest of you are on ...
















http://www.socialstrategy1.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Ignore-Button-and-Social-Media-Monitoring.jpg



Hipchest vouching for your taste in beer only serves to taint his own legacy.


Hee hee.... I said "taint". :heha:

ricardisimo
10-12-2011, 04:59 PM
So until then, the rest of you are on ...

http://www.socialstrategy1.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Ignore-Button-and-Social-Media-Monitoring.jpg
3YmMNpbFjp0

And here I thought we'd never get rid of him.

Buddha Bus
10-12-2011, 05:39 PM
3YmMNpbFjp0

And here I thought we'd never get rid of him.

He really should be using this button to get some actual beer. :chuckle:


http://a2.mzstatic.com/us/r1000/048/Purple/86/30/e5/mzl.jrdnssbt.320x480-75.jpg

Steelboy84
10-13-2011, 08:40 PM
You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

First of all, I'm beginning to wonder if you're delusional. As I said (and you could see if you took the time to read the entire thread), I responded to MoP's comment, and then me and hipchest debated it further. Would you care to explain how you equate that with me avoiding the topic? And why do you keep bringing up Iraq and WMDs? It doesn't have anything to do with this thread and does nothing to refute any of my arguments.

And just so you know, I'm a conservative, but I don't have a whole lot of love for most Republicans. I didn't vote for Bush and I disagreed with a lot of the things he did. But feel free to keep bringing up Iraq and WMDs if it makes you feel smarter.

Me and everyone else here kind of agreed to disagree and moved on respectfully. But if you want to debate anything I said in this thread, I'm game.


" I didn't vote for Bush"

Well, many people do deny it. lol Can't say I blame them. I wouldn't admit to it either.

Wallace108
10-13-2011, 09:46 PM
" I didn't vote for Bush"

Well, many people do deny it. lol Can't say I blame them. I wouldn't admit to it either.

You also probably wouldn't admit to being a douche. But sometimes the facts speak for themselves. Now get to bed ... you've got school in the morning. :coffee:

Wallace108
10-14-2011, 12:17 AM
[And here I thought we'd never get rid of him.

Well, you did.

ricardisimo
10-14-2011, 01:12 AM
Well, you did.
Did I imagine that, or did you actually disappear for a day or two? Don't tell me you're prioritizing work over us. :nono:

cubanstogie
10-15-2011, 01:23 PM
" I didn't vote for Bush"

Well, many people do deny it. lol Can't say I blame them. I wouldn't admit to it either.
voting for Obama once for his change is understandable for libs, but a second time would be ignorance. Blast Bush all you want but Hussein Obama is the worst or second worse President ever. Change my arse.

thebus36idf
10-15-2011, 10:46 PM
why does Hank getting pulled have to be the doing of liberals? usually if somebody does something that can be seen as controversial, business people back away and make sure there isn't going to be any backlash.

I wouldn't mind seeing Harrison walk off onto a golf course with Goodell. I have a feeling on of them isn't coming back.

somehow I don't think Goodell would make it. Dennis Miller said the same thing. It was all about the pocketbook of ESPN.

thebus36idf
10-15-2011, 11:09 PM
No surprise here

Hank Williams Jr. and his iconic theme song will not return to ESPN's "Monday Night Football," the network announced Thursday.

In the wake of Williams using an analogy involving Adolf Hitler and President Barack Obama to make a political point on the Fox News Channel, Williams' "All My Rowdy Friends" will no longer be part of the MNF opening.

But this sounds like bull**it

On his own website, Williams said he was the one who made the decision.

"After reading hundreds of e-mails, I have made MY decision," he wrote. "By pulling my opening Oct 3rd, You (ESPN) stepped on the Toes of The First Amendment Freedom of Speech, so therefore Me, My Song, and All My Rowdy Friends are OUT OF HERE. It's been a great run."

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7066449/espn-hank-williams-jr-theme-song-return-monday-night-football

Yep - Hank decided to bail out of that cash flow because ESPN offended him:toofunny:

I heard him on some talk radio program, and he didn't say it was his idea, boasted about the decision, and said he could care a less. He then went home recorded a song about it put it on the internet, and is making a fortune on it, and by the way I don't know why but he bashes fox and friends in the song.

thebus36idf
10-15-2011, 11:15 PM
good riddance. his act was tired anyways.

they need to get american icons metallica to do the new intro song. eff all this effaith hill country shit.

i dislike country music mixed in with my football about as much as politics.

but they can mix in all the beer, food, and hadbanging metal they want. :guitar::pizza: :jammin::football: :tt03::chicken:

Metallica opening for MNF!! Awesome idea!! MOP/ MNF could work nicely

ricardisimo
10-15-2011, 11:19 PM
voting for Obama once for his change is understandable for libs, but a second time would be ignorance. Blast Bush all you want but Hussein Obama is the worst or second worse President ever. Change my arse.
Agreed. And yet they'll vote for him again, because "the alternative is so much worse." Of course it is. Republicans use the same logic, and they're right too. Unfortunately, the mistake they're all making isn't voting for Bush twice or voting for Obama twice. It's voting for either major party ever again in their lifetimes at any level.

There will be no reform, no end to the corporate welfare, the wars, the civil rights abuses, no end to any of it so long as either of these two parties is in office. Completely worthless from top to bottom. You can throw a dart at a list of 3rd parties and make a better, more informed choice. Grow up, people!

Steelboy84
10-16-2011, 09:54 AM
You also probably wouldn't admit to being a douche. But sometimes the facts speak for themselves. Now get to bed ... you've got school in the morning. :coffee:


Someone's upset. lol Need a tissue?

Steelboy84
10-16-2011, 09:56 AM
voting for Obama once for his change is understandable for libs, but a second time would be ignorance. Blast Bush all you want but Hussein Obama is the worst or second worse President ever. Change my arse.



Ah, still slobbering Bush I see. Let me guess: you were in that 22% that still stood by the captain while the ship went under?

SteelCityMom
10-16-2011, 11:26 AM
Why is Bush being brought up? Just because he sucked as a president doesn't mean Obama is a good one. Bush sucked then. Obama sucks now. Both parties suck in general, so why fight about it?

And Steelboy...Wallace didn't avoid the topic you tried to say he avoided. In fact, he had a couple of pages worth of conversation with a couple others on it lol. There really wasn't any need to bring how much Bush sucked, as a liberal defensive into this. Sorry, but that defense just doesn't hold any water.

MasterOfPuppets
10-16-2011, 11:32 AM
Agreed. And yet they'll vote for him again, because "the alternative is so much worse." Of course it is. Republicans use the same logic, and they're right too. Unfortunately, the mistake they're all making isn't voting for Bush twice or voting for Obama twice. It's voting for either major party ever again in their lifetimes at any level.

There will be no reform, no end to the corporate welfare, the wars, the civil rights abuses, no end to any of it so long as either of these two parties is in office. Completely worthless from top to bottom. You can throw a dart at a list of 3rd parties and make a better, more informed choice. Grow up, people!

http://typophile.com/files/applause1234363884_5474.gif

Ron Paul 2012 !!! .... his party hates him ...the opposition hates him... the media ignores him ... he must be the right guy...:thumbsup:

Steelboy84
10-16-2011, 12:10 PM
Why is Bush being brought up? Just because he sucked as a president doesn't mean Obama is a good one. Bush sucked then. Obama sucks now. Both parties suck in general, so why fight about it?

And Steelboy...Wallace didn't avoid the topic you tried to say he avoided. In fact, he had a couple of pages worth of conversation with a couple others on it lol. There really wasn't any need to bring how much Bush sucked, as a liberal defensive into this. Sorry, but that defense just doesn't hold any water.


Bush was horrible. Absolutely horrible. 78% of America agrees with me. It holds PLENTY of water. I apologize for not slobbering over him. :coffee:

SteelCityMom
10-16-2011, 12:13 PM
Bush was horrible. Absolutely horrible. 78% of America agrees with me. It holds PLENTY of water. I apologize for not slobbering over him. :coffee:

Dude...nobody is slobbering over him. Saying that Obama sucks does not mean that someone thinks Bush was good. I think Obama is a horrible president. I also think Bush was a horrible president.

It holds NO water to try to use the argument that since Bush sucked, that means Obama must be good (or better). Completely false logic.

Now back to the game lol.

cubanstogie
10-16-2011, 02:49 PM
Dude...nobody is slobbering over him. Saying that Obama sucks does not mean that someone thinks Bush was good. I think Obama is a horrible president. I also think Bush was a horrible president.

It holds NO water to try to use the argument that since Bush sucked, that means Obama must be good (or better). Completely false logic.

Now back to the game lol.

hellova debater insn't he. BBBBBBut BBBBBBush sucks. Ignore the question, what has OBama done and why would you vote for him again. And just bash Bush. My guess is he has no assets which would have been wiped out with this presidents term and probably needs free health care. No other reason to vote for Hussein unless looking for handouts.

Wallace108
10-16-2011, 04:57 PM
There will be no reform, no end to the corporate welfare, the wars, the civil rights abuses, no end to any of it so long as either of these two parties is in office. Completely worthless from top to bottom. You can throw a dart at a list of 3rd parties and make a better, more informed choice. Grow up, people!

I agree, ric.

Americans have been divided, and it wasn't by accident. Republican vs. Democrat. When the Tea Party first started, the liberals ridiculed them. Now with the Wall Street protesters, conservatives are ridiculing them. But they're both bitching about the same thing, essentially. That the average, hard-working American is getting screwed. If only the Tea Party and the Wall Street protesters could realize that they share the same enemy and unite. They could work out their differences later.

And Steelboy...Wallace didn't avoid the topic you tried to say he avoided. In fact, he had a couple of pages worth of conversation with a couple others on it lol.

Thanks, Mom. I'm glad SOMEONE other than me stepped up to point this out to this mental midget. :drink:

http://typophile.com/files/applause1234363884_5474.gif

Ron Paul 2012 !!! .... his party hates him ...the opposition hates him... the media ignores him ... he must be the right guy...:thumbsup:
Amen!!!! I've been a huge Ron Paul supporter for a while now, even though I don't agree with all of his social views. But his chances of winning the Republican nomination, much less the presidency, are slim and none. Like you alluded to, MoP ... I've noticed for a while that CNN marginalizes him, and Fox News marginalizes him. The major media outlets, which are all owned by large corporations, don't want Ron Paul's message getting out. They'd prefer that Americans buy into what Obama and Romney are saying.

hellova debater insn't he.
lol .. I've yet to see him debate anything. But he's a helluva troll. :chuckle:

Atlanta Dan
10-16-2011, 07:50 PM
Agreed.!

WTF:noidea:

Obama is worse than Buchanan, Grant, Harding Nixon and W?

Glad I only check in here for opinions on the NFL

SteelCityMom
10-16-2011, 08:47 PM
WTF:noidea:

Obama is worse than Buchanan, Grant, Harding Nixon and W?

Glad I only check in here for opinions on the NFL

Who can even tell anymore? Really? You make a valid point...there have been many terrible presidents over the course of US history. But in topics like this, you kind of have to assume that people are discussing more recent trends...not presidents from the 1800's.

And despite Watergate, Nixon was a much better president than Obama.

ricardisimo
10-16-2011, 10:24 PM
Who can even tell anymore? Really? You make a valid point...there have been many terrible presidents over the course of US history. But in topics like this, you kind of have to assume that people are discussing more recent trends...not presidents from the 1800's.

And despite Watergate, Nixon was a much better president than Obama.
Indeed. Despite his (deserved) demonization by liberals, Nixon was ironically the last liberal president. Of course, his downfall was over something really serious like Watergate and not for, oh, I don't know... murdering a million innocent people in Southeast Asia and other silly stuff like that.

Atlanta Dan
10-17-2011, 04:31 PM
Who can even tell anymore? Really? You make a valid point...there have been many terrible presidents over the course of US history. But in topics like this, you kind of have to assume that people are discussing more recent trends...not presidents from the 1800's.

And despite Watergate, Nixon was a much better president than Obama.

Chinese premier Chou En Lai was reportedly once asked what he thought was the historic impact of the French Revolution. After considering the question for a moment he replied as follows: "It's too soon to tell."

Given that Obama is 2 & 1/2 years through his term, it may be .... premature to say where he fits in among some of the lesser lights who have lived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

As for Nixon, if you regard Watergate as a nothing burger, consider the possibility that the President who encouraged the emergence of China from its isolation may in centuries to come be regarded as the President who helped to unleash the rival that replaced the U.S. as the dominant power in the world - not exactly what the leader of a nation would want on his resume

ricardisimo
10-17-2011, 07:21 PM
Chinese premier Chou En Lai was reportedly once asked what he thought was the historic impact of the French Revolution. After considering the question for a moment he replied as follows: "It's too soon to tell."

Given that Obama is 2 & 1/2 years through his term, it may be .... premature to say where he fits in among some of the lesser lights who have lived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

As for Nixon, if you regard Watergate as a nothing burger, consider the possibility that the President who encouraged the emergence of China from its isolation may in centuries to come be regarded as the President who helped to unleash the rival that replaced the U.S. as the dominant power in the world - not exactly what the leader of a nation would want on his resume
Barack Obama announced that he was issuing assassination orders on a US citizen - two of them, actually: Anwar Awlaki and Samir Khan - and they were really assassinated. US citizens. These are firsts for a US president, and rather inglorious firsts. Combine that with the steady continuation and even expansion of Bush's illegal wars, as well as the record-setting financial sector bailout for billionaires... why exactly do I have to wait before passing judgment? What's to wait for? Is he going to develop the cure for cancer?

I suppose we can wait for even worse than him. Maybe the next guy is literally going to be loading blacks and Latinos onto trains bound for work and/or extermination camps. :noidea: That would save Obama's reputation, for sure.

SteelCityMom
10-17-2011, 07:35 PM
Chinese premier Chou En Lai was reportedly once asked what he thought was the historic impact of the French Revolution. After considering the question for a moment he replied as follows: "It's too soon to tell."

Given that Obama is 2 & 1/2 years through his term, it may be .... premature to say where he fits in among some of the lesser lights who have lived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

As for Nixon, if you regard Watergate as a nothing burger, consider the possibility that the President who encouraged the emergence of China from its isolation may in centuries to come be regarded as the President who helped to unleash the rival that replaced the U.S. as the dominant power in the world - not exactly what the leader of a nation would want on his resume

I never said Nixon was a great president...just a better one. And I wasn't trying to downplay Watergate...but we're talking about politicians here. Nearly 100% of them have had their hands in something dirty at one time or another.

And I have no problems with him setting up ties with China. At the time, it wasn't necessarily a bad thing...it just turned into something worse than it should have been. If I'm going to be pissed at Nixon for anything, it's going to be the EPA.

Atlanta Dan
10-17-2011, 08:05 PM
Barack Obama announced that he was issuing assassination orders on a US citizen - two of them, actually: Anwar Awlaki and Samir Khan - and they were really assassinated. US citizens. These are firsts for a US president, and rather inglorious firsts. Combine that with the steady continuation and even expansion of Bush's illegal wars, as well as the record-setting financial sector bailout for billionaires... why exactly do I have to wait before passing judgment? What's to wait for? Is he going to develop the cure for cancer?

I suppose we can wait for even worse than him. Maybe the next guy is literally going to be loading blacks and Latinos onto trains bound for work and/or extermination camps. :noidea: That would save Obama's reputation, for sure.

There have been lots of inglorious firsts for lots of Presidents - my point is that ranking Presidents while they are still in office as if it is some equivalent of Peter King's weekly rankings in his MMQB column of the top 15 teams in the NFL is folly

I think the "record-setting financial sector bailout for billionaires" was passed in the fall of 2008 when Obama had not yet been sworn in, but maybe you are referring to another bailout:noidea:

And with regard to the illegal wars and unilateral actions by Presidents, that ship sailed no later than the Korean War under Truman (who was widely viewed as a "failure" when he left office and now is regarded as a "success") as the national security garrison state under which we have lived since that time got up and running. Only President who really warned about where that could go and needing to keep the "military-industrial complex" under control since that time was, go figure, General/President Eisenhower. If you want to read what Ike had to say on the subject check out his farewell address

Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/dwightdeisenhowerfarewell.html

Hard to lay all of that has gone down over the past 60 years at at Obama's feet. There has not been a declaration of war by Congress since December 8, 1941, and there have been a few wars after that date that pre-dated January 20, 2009.

Mediocrity (see, e.g, James Earl Carter) or mendacity (see, e.g. William Jefferson Clinton) does not equal world class awfulness - it takes true criminal cunning for personal gain (Nixon) or a body of work that does damage to the economy, civil liberties, and foreign affairs rather than one particular incident that sets you on edge (Bush the Younger) to contend for worst President of modern times

:drink:

ricardisimo
10-17-2011, 09:41 PM
I think the "record-setting financial sector bailout for billionaires" was passed in the fall of 2008 when Obama had not yet been sworn in, but maybe you are referring to another bailout:noidea:

http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/27/news/bigger.bailout.fortune/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123371119661046143.html

Mediocrity (see, e.g, James Earl Carter) or mendacity (see, e.g. William Jefferson Clinton) does not equal world class awfulness - it takes true criminal cunning for personal gain (Nixon) or a body of work that does damage to the economy, civil liberties, and foreign affairs rather than one particular incident that sets you on edge (Bush the Younger) to contend for worst President of modern times

So what's worse: Bush's "body of work that does damage to the economy, civil liberties, and foreign affairs rather than one particular incident that sets you on edge", or continuing upon that same legacy pretty much in exact detail, and even expanding upon it? It's interesting to me that Nixon commissioning a break-in and subsequent cover-up in some acts of clumsy political gamesmanship constitutes "true criminal cunning for personal gain", while assassinating US citizens outright doesn't merit your attention or comment.

Atlanta Dan
10-17-2011, 10:14 PM
So you are citing this January 27 2009 article?

While the Obama administration hasn't asked Congress for more money yet, some experts warn that government spending on support for struggling financial services companies will ultimately reach into the trillions of dollars
http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/27/news/bigger.bailout.fortune/

And this February 4, 2009 article?

Team Obama is wrestling internally over the bank bailout supposedly to be introduced next week. We naturally are on the edge of our seats.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123371119661046143.html

Hate to break the news to you (this article actually ran this year)

Surprise! The big bad bailout is paying off

The U.S. government's often maligned $14 trillion intervention not only staved off global collapse - but is making money.

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/07/08/surprise-the-big-bad-bailout-is-paying-off/

As for Obama being worse than Nixon - you may not have lived through it, but Nixon's conduct involved multiple felonies to hold on to personal power - I find that to be more objectionable than an exercise of power that is not directed to personal gain

In closing, you want a comment on the killing of al-Alwaki- OK - you got it - to be the worst at something you really need to be present at the creation.

Obama did not create the national security state - he inherited it - just because you may have voted for voted for him in the hope he might have ended all that and now are disappointed life is now not one endless day at the beach IMO does not make him the worst President in history unless killing a terrorist who was an American citizen is somehow far more reprehensible than, let's say, sending Japanese-Americans who engaged in absolutely no hostile act against their country to camps for the duration of World War II for no reason other than their race

Just sayin'

:drink:

ricardisimo
10-18-2011, 05:39 AM
I don't know what to tell you. I'm looking at the bailouts from the ground floor, and they ain't making money for me or anybody I know, nor anyone I'm ever gonna know. Fortune did not come and interview me for that article. Can't think why. :noidea: I do find it interesting that your intellectual discipline allows you to seamlessly shift gears from "this was Bush's bailout" to "Surprise! It's working!" Rest easy... you are a good American.

Let's see if I get this straight: it's OK, or at least preferable, to have people - US citizens actually, who are guaranteed certain rights by the US constitution - assassinated without trial, so long as the claim is that they were terrorists; that is, I repeat, preferable to engaging in "multiple felonies" for personal gain? Selfless murder is less objectionable than breaking into a hotel room and lying to Congress about it numerous times in numerous ways? Think about that question for a few seconds and then respond.

The two fellows in question may or may not have been "terrorists", but even Timothy McVeigh got a trial. Are you one of those folks who think the government could have saved us all a lot of time and trouble with a few discreet bullets or magic potions? For the record, there is less than full consensus on exactly who and what these guys were before being killed:
Khan was a wacky character associated with Inspire Magazine and does not readily come to mind as a serious threat.
Awlaki was a moderate American Muslim cleric who served as an advisor to the US government after 9/11 on ways to counter Muslim extremism. Awlaki was gradually radicalized by Washington’s use of lies to justify military attacks on Muslim countries. He became a critic of the US government and told Muslims that they did not have to passively accept American aggression and had the right to resist and to fight back. As a result Awlaki was demonized and became a threat.
All we know that Awlaki did was to give sermons critical of Washington’s indiscriminate assaults on Muslim peoples. Washington’s argument is that his sermons might have had an influence on some who are accused of attempting terrorist acts, thus making Awlaki responsible for the attempts.
Obama’s assertion that Awlaki was some kind of high-level Al Qaeda operative is merely an assertion. Jason Ditz on antiwar.com concluded that the reason Awlaki was murdered rather than brought to trial is that the US government had no real evidence that Awlaki was an Al Qaeda operative.


http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/10/04/the-day-america-died/


Obama may have inherited a mess, but his mantra was hope and change. His MO has been anything but hope and change, however. It has been "Keep the Titanic on course!" and there is little hope for anyone on board except the few rich folks already on the life rafts.

And no, mine is not a case of voter's regret. I haven't voted for a Democrat since Clinton's first term. "Fool me once..." and all that. I religiously "waste my vote" on folks who actually believe the words that come out of their mouths. The sooner everyone does this the sooner we'll all be much, much better off.

BigRick
10-18-2011, 07:49 PM
How many of you have been to a Hank Jr concert? He spouts a lot of bullshit. It's a know fact he doesn't like Obama. It's also ESPN's right to dump his ass. Put politics aside if you don't believe both sides lie like hell, I' ve got some prime beach property in Flordia I'd like to sell. Let's get back to foot ball. And yes, I'm a Hank Jr fan and go to his concerts frequently. But, let's face it if not for his daddy he wouldn't matter.:tt03::tt03:

tony hipchest
10-18-2011, 09:53 PM
now suzanne sarandon is taking heat for calling the current pope a nazi. not as bad as calling him hitler, and of course he WAS a nazi youth, but still...

the evil leftist media can dish it out to the evil leftists as well. the only difference is she doesnt currently have a high profile job to be fired from.

:noidea: just sayin.

Atlanta Dan
10-19-2011, 04:21 PM
II religiously "waste my vote" on folks who actually believe the words that come out of their mouths. The sooner everyone does this the sooner we'll all be much, much better off.

Who might that be, given that the standard line about politicians is that the way you tell if they are lying is that their lips are moving?

Of course maybe your preferred candidates are special:chuckle:

With regard to the bailout, you were the one who seemed to be tagging Obama with that endeavor even though it did not pass on his watch - the articles to which you referred were speculative pieces that were not passed into law. As for whether the 2008 bailout was a good thing, having to throw a $750 billion slug of cash into the economy to stop the bleeding is never a good thing, but neither is having to pay a hefty medical bill if you are in the process of dying - the question is what the cost of the alternative course of action would be. We will not know what the alternative might have been if the dominoes were just allowed to keep falling after Lehman Brothers - the consensus is it would have been fairly brutal and that the plunge would have been much worse, but since folks like Bernanke and Krugman do not post here I realize they have no credibility

In closing, is your point on the death of Mr. Awlaki that since he is an American citizen he needs to be arrested before he can face punishment even if he has joined up to take on an operational role in terrorist activities and is not hanging around in the States to await exercise of the full spread his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights? I know you disagree with the rationle but some folks did take some time to think through what was done - perhaps they are tools of the oppressor state and know not what they do, but then again maybe not:noidea:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/world/middleeast/secret-us-memo-made-legal-case-to-kill-a-citizen.html?pagewanted=all

Believe it or not I do respect the thought that goes into your arguments - we just disagre on a lot of this :drink:

ricardisimo
10-19-2011, 04:31 PM
Who might that be, given that the standard line about politicians is that the way you tell if they are lying is that their lips are moving?

Of course maybe your preferred candidates are special:chuckle:

In closing, is your point on the death of Mr. Awlaki that since he is an American citizen he needs to be arrested before he can face punishment even if he has joined up to take on an operational role in terrorist activities and is not hanging around in the States to await exercise of the full spread his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights?
I vote Green or other independent, and I've started to see my candidates doing good work at local levels. Who knows if the planet will exist long enough to see a non-corporate party take a national seat?

As for Mr. Awlaki, that's exactly my point. It's also happens to be the law of the land. Not that it matters, but he appears to have been little more than a mouthpiece, probably along the lines of what Jane Fonda did during the Vietnam War. Should Nixon have been allowed to bomb Jane Fonda's home? Is your point that the Constitution is clearly meaningless now, so Obama can do whatever he wants?

As for the New York Times, they exist solely for the purpose of state propaganda. You don't need to quote them unless you're trying to get a gauge of what stunt the powers that be are trying to pull.

MasterOfPuppets
10-19-2011, 04:31 PM
i'm not up to speed on the"effectiveness" of the wall street bailouts , but here's the fruit of the government giving our tax dollars to GM....
GM offshore outsourcing U.S. jobs

Submitted by Robert Oak (http://www.economicpopulist.org/users/robert-oak) on Sat, 05/09/2009 - 13:21
Glad you supported GM getting U.S. taxpayer dollars? Want to see GM survive, prattling on how America needs an auto industry?
Instead we get this (http://www.detnews.com/article/20090509/AUTO01/905090337/1025/GM-plans-to-shift-overseas-production), GM plans to shift overseas production:
General Motors Corp. will shift more production of vehicles bound for the U.S. market to China, Mexico, South Korea and Japan, but will keep total imports at roughly one-third of all sales here.
In a confidential 12-page presentation to members of Congress, obtained by The Detroit News on Friday, GM said it will boost U.S. sales of vehicles built in those four countries by 98 percent -- or about 365,000 vehicles -- while shrinking production in Canada, Australia and European countries by about 130,000 vehicles.
GM also disclosed it will start importing vehicles made in China in 2011, reaching 51,546 vehicles in 2014. Imports from South Korea to the United States will jump from 36,967 vehicles in 2010 to 157,126 in 2014.
The automaker said it is canceling expansion projects in Russia, India and Mexico.
GM's plan to import more vehicles from low-wage countries raises questions about whether it should beef up its foreign operations as it is relying on federal money to stay afloat. It also puts the automaker at odds with the United Auto Workers, which is trying to protect U.S. jobs amid a dramatic restructuring of the domestic auto industry.
GM has faced strong protests from the union that its turnaround plan unfairly targets U.S. workers and plants for cuts. GM plans to trim 21,000 hourly workers and close 13 of its 47 U.S. plants by the end of 2010 as part of a tougher recovery plan sought by President Obama's auto task force. It will close three more U.S. plants by 2014.
UAW legislative director Alan Reuther wrote a letter (http://www.uaw.org/auto/pdf/Chrysler_GM_Restructuring.pdf) to Congress:
Unfortunately, the latest restructuring plan put forward by the company calls for the closing of 16 manufacturing facilities in this country, including four assembly plants. This will result in the direct loss of 21,000 jobs.
The ripple effect at suppliers, dealers, and other businesses will cost tens of thousands of additional jobs, devastating numerous communities across the United States.
Incredibly, between 2010-2014 GM's restructuring plan also calls for a 98% increase in the number of vehicles it will be importing into the United States from Mexico, Korea, Japan and China, with the number of imports from these countries increasing from 371,547 to 736,743. As a result, the share of GM’s sales in the U.S. market that will be imported from these countries will increase from 15.5% to 23.5%. The overall number of vehicles GM will be importing in 2014 represents the production of four assembly plants, the same number that GM plans to close in the United States.
Who else says **** 'em? Let them be liquidated in bankruptcy, save the UAW pensions and health care and let's be done with this Benedict Arnold corporation. Why are we pouring U.S. taxpayer money into some labor arbitraging behemoth? Let's just kill this globalization that just bit them but they want to do it again monstrosity and start over.
Here's William Greider (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090525/greider3) at The Nation:
So this is how the auto bailout will work. American taxpayers pump tens of billions into rescuing General Motors from bankruptcy. Then GM pays us back by shipping more jobs overseas--the equivalent of four assembly plants. The federal money will directly subsidize more imports from abroad, enabling GM to double its car production in Mexico, South Korea and China and selling the cars into the US market.
Can someone explain how this is in our national interest? If that is the best deal Obama's auto czars can come up with, then this angry taxpayer says: laissez-faire--let GM go down. Better to settle for bankruptcy court than provide public financing to further the destruction of US manufacturing.
Oh yeah, GM's claim they are not using taxpayer funds is pure bullshit. Without those funds they would already be in bankruptcy. T
Brazil (http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/gm-using-bail-out-money-invest-brazil).
http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/gm-offshore-outsourcing-us-jobs

Atlanta Dan
10-19-2011, 07:19 PM
I vote Green or other independent, and I've started to see my candidates doing good work at local levels. Who knows if the planet will exist long enough to see a non-corporate party take a national seat?

As for Mr. Awlaki, that's exactly my point. It's also happens to be the law of the land. Not that it matters, but he appears to have been little more than a mouthpiece, probably along the lines of what Jane Fonda did during the Vietnam War. Should Nixon have been allowed to bomb Jane Fonda's home? Is your point that the Constitution is clearly meaningless now, so Obama can do whatever he wants?

As for the New York Times, they exist solely for the purpose of state propaganda. You don't need to quote them unless you're trying to get a gauge of what stunt the powers that be are trying to pull.

My point is you have not cornered the market on defining what is regarded as constitutional or "the law of the land" - but if you really regard Alwaki's demise to have been in retalition for conduct "along the lines of what Jane Fonda did during the Vietnam War" your distrust of The Power apparently is to a point where I can see why any justification that is articulated is going to be regarded skeptically

As for the NYT, several Presidents going back to Nixon (Pentagon Papers) and Bush the Younger (blowing the whistle on NSA data mining of domestic communications post 9-11) might disagree that the NYT is purely a state propaganda tool. Of course it may be that the people who really run the country were telling the Sulzberger family to publish stories that reflected unfavorably on the Government so they could discredit the incumbent office holders

:drink:

ricardisimo
10-20-2011, 07:21 AM
This isn't rocket science or magic. I'm not trying to spin anything. US citizens have rights guaranteed to them by the US constitution, and nowhere does it say "except if they preach things we don't like" or even "unless they are working for foreign terrorists". I doubt very much that you would have approved of such a thing if Bush had done it, but Obama did it and so the logic machines start a-churnin'. Should the US government have simply "taken out" Timothy McVeigh?

And continuing poor behaviors and policies inherited from one's predecessors does not excuse it. If anything, it makes it worse. Obama had to know that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were immoral and illegal, and furthermore he had zero personal investment in them and could have withdrawn forces on his first day in office. Instead he expanded into Pakistan and Libya.

The New York Times is a propaganda tool. That they occasionally publish things of merit should not be surprising. This isn't the Soviet Union, and these things aren't impenetrable, monolithic. Stuff gets through. We live in a free society despite the best efforts of the folks up top. But I think back to all of the "softening" pieces that came out of the NYT leading up to both wars, or the bizarre voodoo and child sacrifice stories preceding our deposition of Aristide in Haiti, or the constant barrage against Chavez or any of a thousand other cases... their role in US foreign (and domestic) policy is clear. That anyone is fooled at this point is a testament to the intellectual discipline of the American mind.

Steelboy84
02-02-2012, 04:52 PM
I agree, ric.

Americans have been divided, and it wasn't by accident. Republican vs. Democrat. When the Tea Party first started, the liberals ridiculed them. Now with the Wall Street protesters, conservatives are ridiculing them. But they're both bitching about the same thing, essentially. That the average, hard-working American is getting screwed. If only the Tea Party and the Wall Street protesters could realize that they share the same enemy and unite. They could work out their differences later.



Thanks, Mom. I'm glad SOMEONE other than me stepped up to point this out to this mental midget. :drink:


Amen!!!! I've been a huge Ron Paul supporter for a while now, even though I don't agree with all of his social views. But his chances of winning the Republican nomination, much less the presidency, are slim and none. Like you alluded to, MoP ... I've noticed for a while that CNN marginalizes him, and Fox News marginalizes him. The major media outlets, which are all owned by large corporations, don't want Ron Paul's message getting out. They'd prefer that Americans buy into what Obama and Romney are saying.


lol .. I've yet to see him debate anything. But he's a helluva troll. :chuckle:



:flipoff:

Wallace108
02-03-2012, 06:23 PM
:flipoff:

Dude, I'm like totally impressed. It took you only four months to come up with that witty response. But really, you need to move on and get over this little crush you have on me.