nowhereman

Its funny how you never specifically criticize any "left wingers" only in generalities. Its because you agree with them while trying to remain a populist.

Ummm did I single anyone out here? Yes you are one of the people I am talking about... all about rhetoric, ignorance & finger pointing but when it comes to backing up your opinions with fact you fall flat on your face. However you completely glossed over the fact that I have defended former President Bush, Sarah Palin & others when they were attacked on a personal level even though both are terrible politicians IMO. Can you or anyone else from the right wing peanut gallery say the same thing about President Obama?

As for my political views they are moderate compared to Americans as a whole but yea they seem left of center on VJ because quite frankly most of the VJers on the right are far right. Heck according to you Bill O'Reilly is a "lib". B)

Politics has always been a dirty contact sport. It's a myth that it was ever anything different.

True, but if someone resorts to the same empty rhetoric & personal attacks then they become part of the problem. Most of the OT trolls are guilty of this on a consistent basis... they demonize the other end of the spectrum (left or right) for the same ####### they are engaging in.

No, but I never approved of anyone acting like this towards W or any other President.

You don't have to like him, don't have to like his policies, and for sure you didn't vote for him. Celebrating obnoxious and disrespectful behavior towards this particular President, as this OP does, is classless.

I agree 100%. I have voiced my disapproval about former President Bush's policies many times & I will continue to do so, but I have also defended him against stupid & inappropriate comments that you see numerous times a day in the OT forum about President Obama. Apparently for some patriotism & respect for the Presidential office only applies if the President happens to be from your own political party.

Bash the decisions & policies, but respect the office... the two are not mutually exclusive.

There were already several strategic U.S. footholds in the the region prior to the Iraq War. U.S. bases in Kuwait, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Then there's Israel and Diego Garcia also. There were also airbases in Saudi Arabia built by the U.S. decades before Iraq.

Now we have bases all over Iraq and Afghanistan so we're much better off and we aren't stretched at all with our personnel or equipment? This is the master plan?

I didn't say Bush & his administration planned or executed his game plan very well (in fact they royally screwed up both IMO).

I think it is wonderful that Democrats are in denial. PLEASE continue. I suggest that Obama change nothing and Democrats pay NO attentiuon to the polls until, at least, mid-November 2012.

That's exactly what Bush did... he spit on public opinion & stuck to his (misguided) principles. There IS a middle ground b/w making political decisions based on public opinion & being inflexible. Whichever party can find a balance between the two will have the most success.

A subordinate unit of mine has been alerted & is on the way.

kinda like those that oppose the democrats are rethuglicans?

Ignorance and silly rhetoric goes hand in hand with the far left & far right.

This election illustrates something that I've been saying for a long time: The opinions & votes of the Independent voter is key. There is a lot of animosity b/w the Republicans & Democrats and regardless of the candidate they will vote along party lines. However the Independents are not loyal to either party & tend to vote on the merits of the candidate vs. being loyal to a respective party. I know very little about the candidates in this race but I do know that Independents favor the Republican candidate 2-1.

Bush's approval ratings were over 80% shortly after 9/11 and they hovered around 30% during the last two years he was in office. Conversely Reagan's numbers were below 50% after his first year & he is now regarded as one of the best Presidents we've had (while Bush is considered one of the worst).

My point? Approval ratings can change drastically over the course of a President's tenure & what really matters are the approval ratings near election time & of course the opinions of a President after they leave office. Obama's current approval ratings are merely a snapshot & say very little about his Presidency (only history will tell).

REAlly this is a bunch of hind-sight silliness.

Had nothing been done and Sadam did have WDMS and they were then passed on to hostile groups which of course used them.... you would be singing a whole nuther tune.

I have asked many times before and I have yet to have one person show me one credible person who claimed Sadam did not have WMDS before we went in.

You are snipping over the wrong point of the matter.

The more relevant and useful question is: If Sadam or Iran has such weapons and we believe they or someone else will eventually use them to attack us... what do we do about it?

The question is whether or not Bush & company actually believed Iraq still had WMDs or it was used as an excuse to start a war on knowingly trumped up intel. I firmly believe that the Bush administration used WMDs as an excuse to start the war in Iraq, with the goal of establishing a strategic foothold in the middle east. Opinions are strong & emotions run deep about what the truth is & the best thing to do is agree to disagree on what the truth actually is (we may never know for sure).

This sucks.

Fox Business used to be a half decent channel until they gave Huckabee his own show,

replaced Alexis Glick with that moron, Imus.... and now Palin?

CNN should get Paris Hilton to do a show & run it against Palin... fight fire with fire (or in this case fight fluff with fluff).

For sure, this thread is testament to that.

I caught a sound bite from Palin on O'Reilly's show when she was explaining why she is so controversial & basically she said the "libs" don't like her common sense, conservative approach. I guess all the dumb, uninfomed comments she has made & blaming the media for the fallout has nothing to do with the controversy B)

Whether you like or dislike Palin we can all agree she sure does attract attention & controversy.

What quality newscast would you recommend?

I recommend getting news from a variety of sources & mixing in good old common sense in to figure out what the truth probably is.

####### is a handle? I play a lock, DK & priest on the horde side.

Not everyone on Fox News is prejudice or ignorant just because they are right wing. They are right wing- and some people like it and some ppl despise it. There are some contributors that are not right wing on there too.

We mostly watch CNN though for the actual news getting part. Commentary on most of the News channels annoys me, EVERYONE is so obviously biased left or right. I'd like to hear more independent views.

Polls show that although Fox's viewers are predominately from the right a significant percentage of moderates & even some liberals watch as well. As for independent views they all claim to be unbiased (e.g. Fox's fair & balanced motto) which of course isn't the case.

I'm not surprised by this at all & it's entertaining to watch all of the right wing nuts turn this into a "lib" bashing opportunity. I know for myself I despise Palin because she comes across as a phony & a hypocrite. It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Palin is a woman or even that she is a Republican (I have praised Republicans such as Gingrich & Reagan on many occasions).

Democrats that make stupid statements should be praised by Republicans and kept in place as long as possible in the hopes they will continue to run their mouths. Thank you Harry Reid. Give that man a microphone...please!

Republicans & Democrats make stupid statements on a consistent basis, so like a football game with penalties on both sides they tend to cancel each other out.

Yes, some groups can be expected to vote a certain way depending on their race.

Obama wasn't elected due to being black? Ok, then what made him that much more qualifed than the other candidates to be president? He wasn't part of good ole network of Democrats that backpedaled on their Iraq War votes so they voted for a fresh face vs. some old guy. That was level of voting in 2008 so now we are stuck with a training wheels president who never voted on a war no one cares about anymore.

The bulk of elected officials in America historically were white so its no mystery they made up all the presidents prior to Obama. No president was elected based on being white as their were no white no major non-white to elect as an alternative. It's unlikely the bulk of voters will base their votes in 2012 on race as the Obama novelty factor will have worn wafer thin by then and he'll have to defend his record. He's screwed.

Obama got elected because he's charismatic, his campaign was exceptionally well run & people were sick of Bush. Sure if he looked & talked like Kanye West he wouldn't be electable but then again if McCain looked & talked like a redneck he wouldn't have been electable either. Reid's comment did have some truth to it but nonetheless the way he said it was clumsy & well just kinda dumb.

I think that's a very different issue. A public official cannot discriminate against individuals based on gender, race, or religion.

How does that compare with Reid making a very accurate point, however clumsily?

If anything, his words highlight the latent, passive prejudice most people hold, whether they want to admit it or not.

Reid's comments weren't racist IMO but they were just plain stupid. Do people generally vote along racial lines? From what I've heard yes. Does that mean that Obama was elected due to being black? I would say that's like saying all the other white Presidents were elected because they were white.

Summary: Reid made a dumb comment & several VJ posters made even dumber remarks.

Are you volunteering to leave?

It's simple enough, if you do not agree with my very weird way of thinking or in my stupid opinions based on heresay, you are an idiot. Don't have to back anything up with facts, either you agree with me, or you are an idiot.

Oh, and I feel very safe hidden behind my keyboard so I can say anything I want to.

QFT- You see this numerous times a day in the OT forum & the most illogical posters are almost always the most outspoken.

they just need to enforce the ban on driving while on a mobile phone - that will balance the budget

I agree 100%. The douchebags driving slowly in the left lane while talking on a cell phone are the problem, not people exceeding the speed limit (within reason of course).

Anybody notice that in the beginning when it shows the Colonel's boots and then the camera pans up--he has his gun and holster on backwards!

I don't know if it was purposeful or if Cameron really is a tree-huggin' Libby who know's nothing about firearms.

Other than that I enjoyed the movie.

Movies screw up military uniforms & rank all the time. For example they screw up the wearing of berets about 90% of the time.