The Democrat Thread

[mr_genius]

haha

 

nice thread name change

[HuskyCaucasian]

totally digging the thread name change.

[BearSox]

Ok, I've got to admit, the Washington Times actually impressed me on this one.

 

I don't get the big deal, who cares. I doubt they are secretly saying they want Obama's daughters killed. It's a picture of two girls who, guess what, were Chicago area students for a while!

 

It really is a non-issue. However, I'm sure you were quick to post articles out of disgust when newspapers, blogs, and news stations unfairly and maliciously attacked Bristol Palin.

[lostfan]

Total strawman, find me one person on this board that condoned the unfair treatment of Palin's family. Probably the worst thing I saw anybody say here was the fact that she used her family as a prop, or that it was ironic that Palin is a hardcore abstinence-only education type, and her daughter ends up pregnant.

[Balta1701]

Total strawman, find me one person on this board that condoned the unfair treatment of Palin's family. Probably the worst thing I saw anybody say here was the fact that she used her family as a prop, or that it was ironic that Palin is a hardcore abstinence-only education type, and her daughter ends up pregnant.

Actually there was one really interesting thing...the right kept saying that all these Democrats were attacking Palin for trying to go for the VP spot instead of caring for her 5 kids or however many she has at home, and then they could never produce an example of anyone actually doing that except for one vaguely related quote a few days afterwards from Carville.

[BearSox]

Total strawman, find me one person on this board that condoned the unfair treatment of Palin's family. Probably the worst thing I saw anybody say here was the fact that she used her family as a prop, or that it was ironic that Palin is a hardcore abstinence-only education type, and her daughter ends up pregnant.

No not really, just pointing out how Balta was so moved by those evil people at the Washington Times that he had to post it on here to show how evil conservative newspapers are.

 

However, I just doubt Balta was posting the articles of those people called journalists and how they viciously attacked a 15-16 year old girl. And Balta, if you did, I'm sorry.

[lostfan]

No not really, just pointing out how Balta was so moved by those evil people at the Washington Times that he had to post it on here to show how evil conservative newspapers are.

 

However, I just doubt Balta was posting the articles of those people called journalists and how they viciously attacked a 15-16 year old girl. And Balta, if you did, I'm sorry.

Eh, I really wasn't with the premise the blogger was going for but I found it kind of random and creepy myself. Why use their picture, of all pictures?

[Balta1701]

Eh, I really wasn't with the premise the blogger was going for but I found it kind of random and creepy myself. Why use their picture, of all pictures?

That's sort of the point. It totally doesn't match with the article at all. BS, if you can actually justify why that picture fits with that article, I'd love to hear it. The "They went to school in Chicago" that the Times uses just seems bizarre.

[BearSox]

Eh, I really wasn't with the premise the blogger was going for but I found it kind of random and creepy myself. Why use their picture, of all pictures?

Was pretty stupid to use their picture, but really isn't a big deal or a deal at all.

 

However, it is a picture of students in the chicago area going to school. I doubt AP has a bunch of images of students in chicago going to school, and with how popular Obama was, there was probably a ton of pictures of Sasha and Malia (I think I got it right this time) going to school and stuff like that.

[lostfan]

Was pretty stupid to use their picture, but really isn't a big deal or a deal at all.

 

However, it is a picture of students in the chicago area going to school. I doubt AP has a bunch of images of students in chicago going to school, and with how popular Obama was, there was probably a ton of pictures of Sasha and Malia (I think I got it right this time) going to school and stuff like that.

It's not a big deal at all. Just something that makes you go WTF.

[BearSox]

That's sort of the point. It totally doesn't match with the article at all. BS, if you can actually justify why that picture fits with that article, I'd love to hear it. The "They went to school in Chicago" that the Times uses just seems bizarre.

There was probably a deeper meaning to it, but I doubt it was meant in a sinister way.

[WilliamTell]

lol sweet name.

[bmags]

the wash times has no bias or ill intent. mooneys ftw

[lostfan]

I have noticed on multiple occasions that even when Obama does something the right agrees with, he still gets flamed for it. Hysterical.

[kapkomet]

I have noticed on multiple occasions that even when Obama does something the right agrees with, he still gets flamed for it. Hysterical.

I was wondering the reaction to the pictures thing. I haven't seen or heard a thing.

 

[lostfan]

I was wondering the reaction to the pictures thing. I haven't seen or heard a thing.

Normally I check out blogs and such but I haven't done it yet as far as the pictures go. But usually the reaction is 100% predictable. Completely disregarding the fact that in all likelihood he did something they agree with, or any other circumstances involved, they focus instead on him being a hypocrite or something else he may have said (or was perceived to have said), most likely in a completely different context. The couple of posts I saw in the Republican thread on this are kind of what I expect to see if I browsed some generic political sites.

 

Bottom line: people are more concerned with being right about something and/or finding fault than they are with reality itself.

Edited May 14, 2009 by lostfan

[bmags]

are we talking about pictures?

 

IMO, this is something I knew would happen. Something that is morally correct - open government correcting its wrongs - and the duties of leadership - compromising soliders.

 

I don't blame Obama for withholding them, and I think we, as a people, have a right to them. But perhaps not now, perhaps later, or perhaps years ago.

[kapkomet]

Normally I check out blogs and such but I haven't done it yet as far as the pictures go. But usually the reaction is 100% predictable. Completely disregarding the fact that in all likelihood he did something they agree with, or any other circumstances involved, they focus instead on him being a hypocrite or something else he may have said (or was perceived to have said), most likely in a completely different context. The couple of posts I saw in the Republican thread on this are kind of what I expect to see if I browsed some generic political sites.

 

Bottom line: people are more concerned with being right about something and/or finding fault than they are with reality itself.

The problem I have with Obama here and the whole "torture" issue (among others), is he says one thing - which gets all the far left people jizzing in their pants excited (YES! GET THAT EVIL BASTARD BUSH!!! or YES! EVIL ASSHOLE AIG f***ERS AND THEIR BONUSES or YES! GET THOSE RICH ASSHOLES MAKING TOO MUCH MONEY or you get the pattern) and then after two or three weeks, they quietly let the issue just sort of die off and they say they won't bring charges, or they won't tax 90% of AIG bonuses, or they won't be as pressing on compensation levels... they create this persona of placating the far left and let them get all excited only to quietly turn on that original word. Get some balls and stand for something up front instead of having the appearance of giving in to the left and then "giving in" to what is "right". It's like they want to see what the real reaction is and then they just sort of let these issues go.

[lostfan]

The problem I have with Obama here and the whole "torture" issue (among others), is he says one thing - which gets all the far left people jizzing in their pants excited (YES! GET THAT EVIL BASTARD BUSH!!! or YES! EVIL ASSHOLE AIG f***ERS AND THEIR BONUSES or YES! GET THOSE RICH ASSHOLES MAKING TOO MUCH MONEY or you get the pattern) and then after two or three weeks, they quietly let the issue just sort of die off and they say they won't bring charges, or they won't tax 90% of AIG bonuses, or they won't be as pressing on compensation levels... they create this persona of placating the far left and let them get all excited only to quietly turn on that original word. Get some balls and stand for something up front instead of having the appearance of giving in to the left and then "giving in" to what is "right". It's like they want to see what the real reaction is and then they just sort of let these issues go.

As far as the right-left argument on this goes, this article sums up how stupid it is on all fronts. Granted, I think Pelosi is full of s*** on the subject of what she knew or didn't know, but House Republicans are clearly more concerned with making her look bad than actually addressing any issue. Made crystal clear with these comments:

Shortly after Pelosi's remarks, House Minority Leader John Boehner said her comments "continue to raise more questions than provide answers."

 

"I've dealt with our intelligence professionals for the last 3½ years on an almost daily basis. And it's hard for me to imagine that anyone in our intelligence area would ever mislead a member of Congress," he said.

 

Asked about Pelosi's allegations that Republican policy was leading the country astray, Boehner said, "I think the problem is that the speaker has had way too many stories on this issue."

Mmmkay John. Nice way to completely deflect and derail the topic, that appears to be their official strategy. How about we actually talk about it?

[StrangeSox]

Obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate.

[Disco72]

The problem I have with Obama here and the whole "torture" issue (among others), is he says one thing - which gets all the far left people jizzing in their pants excited (YES! GET THAT EVIL BASTARD BUSH!!! or YES! EVIL ASSHOLE AIG f***ERS AND THEIR BONUSES or YES! GET THOSE RICH ASSHOLES MAKING TOO MUCH MONEY or you get the pattern) and then after two or three weeks, they quietly let the issue just sort of die off and they say they won't bring charges, or they won't tax 90% of AIG bonuses, or they won't be as pressing on compensation levels... they create this persona of placating the far left and let them get all excited only to quietly turn on that original word. Get some balls and stand for something up front instead of having the appearance of giving in to the left and then "giving in" to what is "right". It's like they want to see what the real reaction is and then they just sort of let these issues go.

 

Kap, I know you aren't a Bush supporter, but that's exactly what Bush did as well. I think it was especially true with his placating the religious right.

[Balta1701]

As far as the right-left argument on this goes, this article sums up how stupid it is on all fronts. Granted, I think Pelosi is full of s*** on the subject of what she knew or didn't know, but House Republicans are clearly more concerned with making her look bad than actually addressing any issue. Made crystal clear with these comments:

 

Mmmkay John. Nice way to completely deflect and derail the topic, that appears to be their official strategy. How about we actually talk about it?

See, this is why we need a full independent investigation. I don't have a clue if Pelosi is covering up something or not. I don't know what she was told, when she was told it, and what she was legally allowed to do after being told whatever she was told. A fully independent investigation would be able to answer those questions. If she broke the law to defend the torture program, she deserves to go to jail just as much as the rest of them. I like the "how about we actually talk about it?" idea you have. Somehow though, I wonder if the Republicans and the media would be willing to go along with that...

[kapkomet]

See, this is why we need a full independent investigation. I don't have a clue if Pelosi is covering up something or not. I don't know what she was told, when she was told it, and what she was legally allowed to do after being told whatever she was told. A fully independent investigation would be able to answer those questions. If she broke the law to defend the torture program, she deserves to go to jail just as much as the rest of them. I like the "how about we actually talk about it?" idea you have. Somehow though, I wonder if the Republicans and the media would be willing to go along with that...

Why so quick to "not be sure" what Pelosi knew, but yet, anyone from tbe Bush administration has to be wrong?

 

With that said, I agree with your premise that they should get to the bottom of Pelosi, but they won't, it will just die off in the waning days.

 

 

[kapkomet]

Kap, I know you aren't a Bush supporter, but that's exactly what Bush did as well. I think it was especially true with his placating the religious right.

I agree, it was/is one of the biggest problems I have with Bush as president for sure.

[lostfan]

See, this is why we need a full independent investigation. I don't have a clue if Pelosi is covering up something or not. I don't know what she was told, when she was told it, and what she was legally allowed to do after being told whatever she was told. A fully independent investigation would be able to answer those questions. If she broke the law to defend the torture program, she deserves to go to jail just as much as the rest of them. I like the "how about we actually talk about it?" idea you have. Somehow though, I wonder if the Republicans and the media would be willing to go along with that...

I truly and honestly don't really care what she knew though unless it was something blatant. I doubt if she actually approved torture and then flip-flopped on it although the House Republicans are trying to make it sound like that, but is their entire argument based around "she lied?" Wow, someone in Congress exaggerated, told a half-truth, or said something intentionally misleading. Welcome to Washington!