Once again, Stewart nails it. His genius is only matched by Stephen Colbert and Bill Maher. God bless them all. Nobody can deny that they are all brilliant men. Kudos, boys!

I agree…I wasn’t impressed with the factual proven lies Obama spewed last night either!!

He also needs to get that teleprompter re-programmed!!

The left have been questioning this war incessantly for the last 2 weeks. I could give many examples.
It’s nice to see that kind of critical thinking of their own president, something you never saw from the right.

Good job, Jon.

Eveybody can now agree that O-Bomb-A is finished as a president. When even Jon Stewart falls out of love with the commander-in-debt you know the game is over. Let us all pray that he will leave office without doing any more harm to this country or kills any more American soldiers.

So was this supposed to be with the clown nose on or off ?

Stewart has the easiest job on the planet . He can go to work and be serious or pretend to be, either way, he is to be void of all criticism .

Just curious : Has Mediaite EVER ran a negative or critical critique of Jon Stewart ?

Dem4Ever said:
Let us all pray that he will leave office without doing any more harm to this country or kills any more American soldiers.

How many American soldiers has Obama killed?

Dem4Ever said:
Eveybody can now agree that O-Bomb-A is finished as a president. When even Jon Stewart falls out of love with the commander-in-debt you know the game is over. Let us all pray that he will leave office without doing any more harm to this country or kills any more American soldiers.

I thought the same thing about the Bush presidency. A lot of soldiers died in the Bush Doctrine.

the real john t said:
How many American soldiers has Obama killed?

Google is your friend. Quite a number of our soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan since O took over. And we don’t officially tally the number of civilians killed by predator drones in Pakistan. A couple of months ago six of our soldiers were killed in Iraq.

slickerwick said:
Google is your friend. Quite a number of our soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan since O took over.

Does it match up to Bush’s numbers?

Colorado_Conservative said:
I agree…I wasn’t impressed with the factual proven lies Obama spewed last night either!!

He also needs to get that teleprompter re-programmed!!

Neither was AP! :)

the real john t said:
Does it match up to Bush’s numbers?

Booooooooooooooooooooooosh.

John Michael said:
Once again, Stewart nails it. His genius is only matched by Stephen Colbert and Bill Maher. God bless them all. Nobody can deny that they are all brilliant men. Kudos, boys!

I’m sure their respective writers & producers would wholeheartedly agree . Also your own use and understanding of political satire is uncanny.

WCinWI said:
Booooooooooooooooooooooosh.

AWWWW!!! Are you going to start crying now little girl since I mentioned your Lord and saviour?

the real john t said:
Does it match up to Bush’s numbers?

Actually in exceeds them. http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/more-us-troops-die-afghanistan-under-obama-under-bush

Not that this is a contest but I do recall Obama being the anti-war prez.. He’s not the anti-Bush the left was hoping for.

The AP wasn’t impressed. They did a fact check on his speech and pointed out all the spin and distortions.

slickerwick said:
The AP wasn’t impressed. They did a fact check on his speech and pointed out all the spin and distortions.

Indeed they did.

BFD said:
The left have been questioning this war incessantly for the last 2 weeks. I could give many examples.It’s nice to see that kind of critical thinking of their own president, something you never saw from the right. Good job, Jon.

Well, I haven’t noticed the thousands of anti-war protesters marching in the streets. Have you? Have they been calling Obama a war criminal? Where are all the No Blood for Oil signs? The most they’ve done is call him Bush III. Pretty tepid stuff. Code Pink and Cindy Sheehan haven’t been kicking up a ruckus, either. Or if they have, the media isn’t covering it. Wonder why?

the real john t said:
AWWWW!!! Are you going to start crying now little girl since I mentioned your Lord and saviour?

You can stop your sexist attitude and start commenting on sites from your own country. :) I don’t know what a saviour is, perhaps someone in the UK would know. :)

slickerwick said:
Not that this is a contest but I do recall Obama being the anti-war prez..

Maybe Fox didn’t inform you but Obama was for the war in Aghanistan but not the one in Iraq.

BFD said:
The left have been questioning this war incessantly for the last 2 weeks. I could give many examples.
It’s nice to see that kind of critical thinking of their own president, something you never saw from the right.

Good job, Jon.

Really? I haven’t seen a single “leftist” questioning this war just cheering it.

the real john t said:
Maybe Fox didn’t inform you but Obama was for the war in Aghanistan but not the one in Iraq.

Are we out of Iraq now? How about that whole boots on the ground in Libya? What’s next….Syria? Somalia?

Robert Stephenson Hearts Mark Schultz said:
Really? I haven’t seen a single “leftist” questioning this war just cheering it.

You seriously can’t make up the hypocrisy. Did you see Halperin’s review? It was beyond atrocious.

In other news:

http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2011/03/29/ratings-for-obama-speeches-continue-to-drop/

WCinWI said:
Are we out of Iraq now? How about that whole boots on the ground in Libya?

There are no US boots on the ground in Libiya you dumbass.

the real john t said:
There are no US boots on the ground in Libiya you dumbass.

From my understanding, in order to run an airstrike, you have to have boots on the ground. :) Try again.

WCinWI said:
You can stop your sexist attitude and start commenting on sites from your own country.

WOW! I hit an extra button when I typed savior. You can take your sexist attitude BS and shove it where the sun don’t shine. Maybe you should just stay on the porch with the pups instead of trying to run with the big dogs.

WCinWI said:
From my understanding, in order to run an airstrike, you have to have boots on the ground.

What in the hell does that even mean. I’ll tell you what it means, you have no clue as to what you’re talking about. You just babble on with stupid comments.

the real john t said:
Maybe Fox didn’t inform you but Obama was for the war in Aghanistan but not the one in Iraq.

Then why are we still in Iraq? And now in Libya? So what you’re saying is that you don’t count the soldiers killed in Afghanistan? Originally you were asking how many soldiers Obama killed.

slickerwick said:
Then why are we still in Iraq? And now in Libya?

Combat troops have been pulled out of Iraq. We are not on the ground in Libiya. Are you as dumb as WCin WI?

the real john t said:
What in the hell does that even mean. I’ll tell you what it means, you have no clue as to what you’re talking about. You just babble on with stupid comments.

Per Wiki: In close air support, air strikes are usually controlled by trained observers for coordination with friendly ground troops in a manner derived from artillery tactics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airstrike

the real john t said:
There are no US boots on the ground in Libiya you dumbass.

Who calls in the coordinates?

WCinWI said:
From my understanding, in order to run an airstrike, you have to have boots on the ground. :) Try again.

Zactly.

Every time I hear New Yorkers condescendingly laugh at someone like Sarah Palin it just wants makes me want to vote for her just to spite them. Just a simple case of misspeaking draws the knowing roaring laughter of these superior people who love to call a conservative woman a “dumb twat”.

Let me be clear. O-Bomb-A is a war crimminal.

“Jon Stewart Was NOT Impressed With President Obama’s Libya Speech”
If Jon is not happy then we are not happy.
So say the collective.

the real john t said:
What in the hell does that even mean. I’ll tell you what it means, you have no clue as to what you’re talking about. You just babble on with stupid comments.

Uh, sounds like boots on the ground to me. Fort LeJeune marines are now being deployed to Libya.

“…The 22nd is a Marine, air and ground task force. Some are trained for aviation combat, others for ground combat.”

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=8039326

Robert Stephenson Hearts Mark Schultz said:
Who calls in the coordinates?

Batman silly. ;)

the real john t said:
Combat troops have been pulled out of Iraq. We are not on the ground in Libiya. Are you as dumb as WCin WI?

No troops in Iraq???? Oh that’s right. They are now called peace keeping humanitarian engineers now!

illusive man said:
Batman silly. ;)

Did you just want to call Biden a joker? Doubtful – that’s too easy. :)

WCinWI said:
Per Wiki: In close air support, air strikes are usually controlled by trained observers for coordination with friendly ground troops in a manner derived from artillery tactics.

Did you even understand that bit about “friendly ground troops” ?
\

Robert Stephenson Hearts Mark Schultz said:
Who calls in the coordinates?

Why don’t you RWers do some research into it and quit spouting off nonsence. You are about the dumbest bunch of people I have ever read on a blog.

the real john t said:
Combat troops have been pulled out of Iraq. We are not on the ground in Libiya. Are you as dumb as WCin WI?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/15/world/main7249359.shtml

January 2011. Three US soldiers killed in Iraq in January of this year. Guess Obama didn’t pull them all out, did he? Who’s the dumb one here? Or shall I be kind and simply call you uninformed?

the real john t said:
Did you even understand that bit about “friendly ground troops” ?
\

Why don’t you RWers do some research into it and quit spouting off nonsence. You are about the dumbest bunch of people I have ever read on a blog.

I wouldn’t call someone dumb when you can’t even spell nonsense. :)

It’s too bad that O-Bomb-A doesn’t hate America’s enemies as much as he hates America. Hopefully, he will cease to be president before he has a chance to kill any more American soldiers.

slickerwick said:
Uh, sounds like boots on the ground to me. Fort LeJeune marines are now being deployed to Libya.

Do you know where those Marines are at? On an aircraft carrier to rescue any pilot that goes down. You do know aircraft carries have helicopters on them don’t you?

the real john t said:
Did you even understand that bit about “friendly ground troops” ?
\

Why don’t you RWers do some research into it and quit spouting off nonsence. You are about the dumbest bunch of people I have ever read on a blog.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/03/nato-chief-opens-the-door-to-libya-ground-troops/

slickerwick said:
Guess Obama didn’t pull them all out, did he?

Where did I say Obama pulled out ALL the troops.

The real john t can’t back up his assertions with facts so he simply calls people names.

Let me give it to you again. Google is your friend.

More troops have died in Afganistan under Obama than under Bush.
The marines have been deployed to Libya (marines who serve as both air and ground combat.)
Obama has pulled some troops out of Iraq, not all. In January of this year 3 US soldiers were killed in Iraq.

I know you want desperately to keep worshipping at the shrine of O and holding him to a different standard than you do Bush. But you’re going to have to do a better job of it because so far you’re coming across as a mindless kool-aid drinker. Or as someone who gets his news from the primetime pundits at msnbc. I’m done with you.

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/africa/NATO-Commander-Says-Libya-May-Need-Foreign-Stabilization-Force-118864814.html

WCinWI said:
I wouldn’t call someone dumb when you can’t even spell nonsense. :)

Nor did he tell us who calls in the coordinates. He called US dumb, though.

slickerwick said:
The real john t can’t back up his assertions with facts so he simply calls people names.

Let me give it to you again. Google is your friend.

More troops have died in Afganistan under Obama than under Bush.
The marines have been deployed to Libya (marines who serve as both air and ground combat.)
Obama has pulled some troops out of Iraq, not all. In January of this year 3 US soldiers were killed in Iraq.

I know you want desperately to keep worshipping at the shrine of O and holding him to a different standard than you do Bush. But you’re going to have to do a better job of it because so far you’re coming across as a mindless kool-aid drinker. Or as someone who gets his news from the primetime pundits at msnbc. I’m done with you.

What should have been done is:

A) We used forceful rhetoric, along with resolutions, to get Gadhafi ousted weeks ago, while having researched or put into place the networks for democracy reforms. Rumor is that it’s a lot of terrorist loving folks amongst the liberals. Or….

B) Stayed out period!

Robert Stephenson Hearts Mark Schultz said:
Nor did he tell us who calls in the coordinates. He called US dumb, though.

TOTUS shall be fun in 2012. That’s for sure. :)

WCinWI said:
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/africa/NATO-Commander-Says-Libya-May-Need-Foreign-Stabilization-Force-118864814.html

Did you even read that article? It doesn’t say a word about US having ground troops in Libyia.

WCinWI said:
What should have been done is:

A) We used forceful rhetoric, along with resolutions, to get Gadhafi ousted weeks ago, while having researched or put into place the networks for democracy reforms. Rumor is that it’s a lot of terrorist loving folks amongst the liberals. Or….

B) Stayed out period!

I meant rebels, not liberals. I was merely thinking of liberals….haha.

murf said:
Just curious : Has Mediaite EVER ran a negative or critical critique of Jon Stewart ?

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart-reactionary/
It sucks though

the real john t said:
Did you even read that article? It doesn’t say a word about US having ground troops in Libyia.

Where is Libyia? I have read on comment boards, from people in the service or tied to military/naval service, that if you have an airstrike, you have boots on the ground (think people in costume). This is coming from the numerous posters on a reputable site.

The “schumer hot mic” tape is funny! OOOOPS!

WCinWI said:
Where is Libyia? I have read on comment boards, from people in the service or tied to military/naval service, that if you have an airstrike, you have boots on the ground (think people in costume). This is coming from the numerous posters on a reputable site.

T thinks we just fly around dropping bombs. T believes everything Obama tells him, too.

WCinWI said:
Where is Libyia? I have read on comment boards, from people in the service or tied to military/naval service, that if you have an airstrike, you have boots on the ground (think people in costume). This is coming from the numerous posters on a reputable site.

And I should include AF in the areas of service too.

WCinWI said:
Where is Libyia? I have read on comment boards, from people in the service or tied to military/naval service, that if you have an airstrike, you have boots on the ground (think people in costume). This is coming from the numerous posters on a reputable site.

So you get all your information from other bloggers on other sites? Shows how stupid you are.

the real john t said:
So you get all your information from other bloggers on other sites? Shows how stupid you are.

Her sources are CLEARLY better than yours cause she’s right and you have no clue.

the real john t said:
So you get all your information from other bloggers on other sites? Shows how stupid you are.

Yes – I call that experience. I don’t have military experience. However, if there is a GOOD consensus that X is really X, then I’m going to also think that X is X. Man, you’re not the brightest bulb.

And please differentiate between bloggers and those that comment. Sheesh.

Robert Stephenson Hearts Mark Schultz said:
T thinks we just fly around dropping bombs. T believes everything Obama tells him, too.

Then why don’t you prove me wrong with a credible source? And I don’t want what some other bloogers told you.

T, are you drunk?

the real john t said:
Then why don’t you prove me wrong with a credible source? And I don’t want what some other bloogers told you.

Obama will be arming the Libyan people with rifles, etc and you’re worried about war being called a war? Doesn’t make sense. Ask your military buddies if they can operate airstrikes purely from the air.

the real john t said:
Then why don’t you prove me wrong with a credible source? And I don’t want what some other bloogers told you.

Boots on the ground call in the coordinates before any bombs are dropped. You are clueless and you should just go back to bed.

First, Obama has announced that in no circumstances will the United States introduce ground troops into Libya. Even if the United States was not planning to take that step, it was an unpardonable mistake for the president to have said so publicly. As simple international bargaining theory demonstrates, the threat of escalating a conflict by a party with superior resources should lead to a more favorable settlement. The threat of invasion might have convinced Qaddafi to leave power or his generals to take matters into their own hands. Obama’s announcement to the contrary can only have strengthened Qaddafi’s resolve to hang on. Taking the option of ground troops off the table at the very outset of hostilities helpfully informed an enemy of U.S. limits and undercut the coalition’s position.

Furthermore, if America’s strategic goal is — as Obama proclaims — the overthrowing of the Libyan regime, it may well need to introduce ground forces to do that, especially if NATO’s use of air power remains highly circumscribed. (NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen has said that the alliance “will implement all aspects of the U.N. resolution. Nothing more, nothing less.”) Air power is useful to a point: It can disrupt Qaddafi’s logistics and prevent the movement of his forces across the vast desert spaces between Libya’s cities. But it cannot take and hold ground. Air power is far more likely to succeed if combined with significant military operations on land — as it was in the two Iraq wars. NATO’s air power did not bring down Slobodan Milosevic in the Kosovo war. It may have forced his withdrawal from Kosovo, but even there it was supported by the land forces of the Kosovo Liberation Army. Without the use of significant land forces — whether provided by better armed and trained rebels, more defectors from Qaddafi’s side, NATO, or the United States — stalemate rather than regime change seems the likely result. As Director of National Intelligence James Clapper warned, the meager forces fielded by the rebel government alone cannot overcome the superior firepower of the Qaddafi military.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/03/29/mission_not_accomplished

WCinWI said:
Obama will be arming the Libyan people with rifles, etc and you’re worried about war being called a war? Doesn’t make sense. Ask your military buddies if they can operate airstrikes purely from the air.

Obama is arming al qaeda!

Robert Stephenson Hearts Mark Schultz said:
Boots on the ground call in the coordinates before any bombs are dropped. You are clueless and you should just go back to bed.

My head hurts from John. Off to bed. :) Keep up the good fight…haha

WCinWI said:
Man, you’re not the brightest bulb.

I’m not the brightest bulb? There you are believing everything someone tells you on some RW idiot site. You know this is the internet and people can say whatever they want without ever backing it up with facts. DAMN you are dumb.

Robert Stephenson Hearts Mark Schultz said:
Obama is arming al qaeda!

2012 will by far be the most entertaining election thus far. $600 million a week ads will not be a good visual.

Robert Stephenson Hearts Mark Schultz said:
Boots on the ground call in the coordinates before any bombs are dropped. You are clueless and you should just go back to bed.

Just where did you get your military expertise?

WCinWI said:
2012 will by far be the most entertaining election thus far. $600 million a week ads will not be a good visual.

Nite my friend!

Dem4Ever said:
Eveybody can now agree that O-Bomb-A is finished as a president. When even Jon Stewart falls out of love with the commander-in-debt you know the game is over. Let us all pray that he will leave office without doing any more harm to this country or kills any more American soldiers.

Everybody? You must be referring to the voices that inhabit the vacuum within your skull. You people have to challenge him with someone.,,,remember? Last I checked, the left was split on Libya and so was the right. The country is pretty much split in 1/2. So, to infer he’s “finished” for adopting a position/policy supported by 1/2 of Americans is dubious.

the real john t said:
Just where did you get your military expertise?

RW idiot sites. ;)

Robert Stephenson Hearts Mark Schultz said:
Obama is arming al qaeda!

He’s learning from Pres. Ronald Reagan I suppose.

Gasket said:
He’s learning from Pres. Ronald Reagan I suppose.

Typical diversion.

Robert Stephenson Hearts Mark Schultz said:
Typical diversion.

Typical denialism.

WCinWI said:
I meant rebels, not liberals. I was merely thinking of liberals….haha.

We understand your mind can not process even simple terms. That’s ok.

WCinWI said:
Obama will be arming the Libyan people with rifles, etc and you’re worried about war being called a war? Doesn’t make sense. Ask your military buddies if they can operate airstrikes purely from the air.

What do you think they have been doing for the past 10 days?

Robert Stephenson Hearts Mark Schultz said:
Boots on the ground call in the coordinates before any bombs are dropped. You are clueless and you should just go back to bed.

Boots on the ground are not necessary to call in air strikes. We have really good satellites and drones that can pretty much read the big print on your newspaper if needed. This is not the 50′s.

Robert Stephenson Hearts Mark Schultz said:
RW idiot sites.

That’s what I figured.

Gasket said:
This is not the 50’s.

OH! But Robert thinks it is. He probably isn’t aware that Desert Storm was run by a Military Command Center in Tampa FL.

jdubbleu said:
man, this john t dude can’t spell his way out of a wet paper sack. must be one of those illiterate union types.

You do know that after a period you should capitalize the M in Must. So before you give lessons on grammar or spelling you should check your own.

Plus when you start a sentence out it should be capitalized.

jdubbleu said:
man, this john t dude can’t spell his way out of a wet paper sack. must be one of those illiterate union types.

LOL…giving lessons after typing like a jackass.

jdubbleu said:
wow you are a real genius. my lack of capitalization is intentional. you calling people a dumbass when you can’t even spell is hilarious…

Tell me what I spelled wrong teacher. And yours’s is not intentional, it’s because you’re an idiot.

jdubbleu said:
maybe you are skyfet’s retarded twin since you anal fu*ks are so concerned with capitalization and yet you both failed to capitalized your own names.

And look who’s concerned about someone’s spelling. Can you say HYPOCRITE?

jdubbleu said:
maybe you are skyfet’s retarded twin since you anal fu*ks are so concerned with capitalization and yet you both failed to capitalized your own names. failure comes natural to you doesn’t it? lol

Grammar fail! Poor sentence structure and improper use of tense. So, how’s the teacher doing so far? LOL.

jdubbleu said:
jdubbleu says:

Did you capitalize your name HYPOCRITE?

the real john t said:
Did you capitalize your name HYPOCRITE?

I think he’s done shooting himself in the foot for tonight haha!

Gasket said:
I think he’s done shooting himself in the foot for tonight haha!

No, he’s to stupid to quit now. He’ll wait til he thinks whey’re gone.

the real john t said:
to stupid

too stupid

Thought I’d better fix that before the grammar cop came back.

the real john t said:
You know this is the internet and people can say whatever they want without ever backing it up with facts

Insert your own “real john t joke” here______________________

jdubbleu said:
nonsense

You are the one worried about someone’s spelling on a blog. Why don’t you grow up and get a life?

the real john t said:
Tell me what I spelled wrong teacher. And yours’s

There you go

the real john t said:
He’ll wait til he thinks whey’re gone.

2 more

jdubbleu said:
anal retentive f*ck

You have a thing about anal, don’t you? Maybe you should seek some help to deal with that.

jdubbleu said:
you anal fu*ks

jdubbleu said:
you are the anal retentive f*ck

No, I think you’re the one with the problem.

jdubbleu said:
maybe you should look up “anal retentive”.

No need to. You keep using the word “anal” like you’re obesessed with it. I don’t even want to think about what you’re doing at the computer while you keep typing about it.

jdubbleu said:
now i’m just starting to feel sorry for you, like watching those special olympic kids run the hurdles…

Damn, you keep blabbering about a bunch of nothing. Did you ever try coming on here and discussing the topic of the thread or are you too stupid?

Yes I’m sure the POTUS cried his pillow in sadness of Stewarts’ non-approval!

LMAO! that was hilarious.

it took me a few beats to figure out *squirmish*.
that was one funny bit!

I love you Barack Hussein Obama the reason you are so awesome is cause you are so much like my favorite President in history George W. Bush. Love you guys. kiss.

jdubbleu said:
now i’m just starting to feel sorry for you, like watching those special olympic kids run the hurdles…

My son happens to run the hurdles in the Special Olympics and your reference is both offensive and childish. Here’s hoping you suffer a serious head injury and my son one day gets to beat your ass on those hurdles. Lowlife!

Haughty elite pipe-smoking Libs like Obamo are nothing BUT angry when they are ‘forced’ outside of their ‘faculty-lounge’ environment. Happily, this whole Libya thing has caused people to hate Obamo even more, so that’s a positive.

Most people in America are NOT Impressed with either Jon Stewart or President Obama’s Libya Speech! Just Saying.

The entire world knows our President has not advanced past the duties of a local Community Organizer, certainly NOT a military commander.

And Most of the World has NO idea who Jon Stewart is.

The brilliance of this satire is that it is so multi-layered. It is, without doubt, being critical of President Obama for being “selective” in aiding countries in crisis. It’s a fair criticism, of all Presidents, as the clips that Stewart uses to illustrate that fact.

But, in the end, it’s all about the punch-line. This was a bigger dig at Palin than it was at President Obama. Stewart, basically, was telling President Obama that he’s acting just like all of the other Presidents in our history, some of them famous. In Palin’s case, Stewart was telling America that the country would be crazy to elect someone that doesn’t know the difference between a war, and a “squirmish”.

PRESIDENT PALIN: Prime Minister Putin, the only difference between me, and a pitbull, is the lipstick. Don’t make me bring a squirmish to your country.

PUTIN: Please again? You vant to bring worms to my country?

Bill O’rielly actually had the best defense of BO and it was quite suttle. I cant quote it word for word but it was basically about how we CAN be selective about where we go and who we help. Thats all.

This isn’t about Obama, it’s about Palin. You missed that Mediaite.

TangledThorns said:
This isn’t about Obama, it’s about Palin. You missed that Mediaite.

Precisely. Stewart was saying that [every] President is selective in their choices for foreign involvement. But, if you think that President Obama has made a mistake with this “selection”, and kinetic action, what the heck’s going to happen if we get a pitbull in the White House, with “squirmishes” bouncing around in her head? The idea scares the crap out of me, and I’m a nine foot tall indestructable alien robot.

Obama’s war is a Squirmish……

the real john t said:
Tell me what I spelled wrong teacher. And yours’s is not intentional, it’s because you’re an idiot.

Thanks for the laughs’s, john.

sarainitaly said:
LMAO! that was hilarious.

it took me a few beats to figure out *squirmish*.
that was one funny bit!

it’s very refreshing to see that good humor is appreciated no matter of political leaning.

Going Rabid: How Obama’s war on Libya became a squirmish…..

Gort said:
Precisely. Stewart was saying that [every] President is selective in their choices for foreign involvement. But, if you think that President Obama has made a mistake with this “selection”, and kinetic action, what the heck’s going to happen if we get a pitbull in the White House, with “squirmishes” bouncing around in her head? The idea scares the crap out of me, and I’m a nine foot tall indestructable alien robot.

i shutter to think is mccain had got the nod, would we have already bomb-bomb-bomb-bombed iran.

idesign said:
Going Rabid: How Obama’s war on Libya became a squirmish…..

it would make a good t-shirt.

ChiliPeppersFan said:
i shutter to think is mccain had got the nod, would we have already bomb-bomb-bomb-bombed iran.

If you want to shudder just wait till Iran finally has nukes.

TangledThorns said:
This isn’t about Obama, it’s about Palin. You missed that Mediaite.

I’m not saying your wrong about it being about Palin, I didn’t see the clip. But if thats true, how can it be about her? She didn’t do anything.

Gasket said:
He’s learning from Pres. Ronald Reagan I suppose.

he hasn’t acted like reagan yet in that he hasn’t sold arms to the rebels and used the money in another “squirmish” and then lied to the american people about it until he was caught red handed.
so yeah, no reagan there.

Steve_27 said:
I’m not saying your wrong about it being about Palin, I didn’t see the clip. But if thats true, how can it be about her? She didn’t do anything.

there’s a little ‘play’ button you can click on and it will play the clip. in fact, here’s a link where they have the clip.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart-was-not-impressed-with-president-obamas-libya-speech/comment-page-5/#comment-387700

I wonder if Obama will send any ‘Corpse-men’ into Libya……

ChiliPeppersFan said:
there’s a little ‘play’ button you can click on and it will play the clip. in fact, here’s a link where they have the clip.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart-was-not-impressed-with-president-obamas-libya-speech/comment-page-5/#comment-387700

sorry…woke up on the ‘wise-ass’ side of the bed this morning.

Stewart is only criticizing Obama because he doesn’t like having a black man in the White House.

WCinWI said:
B) Stayed out period!

Certainly an option. And if we had I’d bet a lot of conservatives, pundits and guests on Fox would be hammering Obama for being weak and allowing all those poor innocent freedom seeking people in Libya to be killed. Likely a lot of people in this thread who are now finding fault with our presence there.

Personally I’m very gratified to finally see more conservatives speaking out against American military intervention. I have to wonder if it’s the same people who defended our invasion in Iraq and our continued military presence there and in Afghanistan. I’m also glad to see people acknowledging oil and financial interests as a primary motive. I was told I and other liberals were idiots for claiming that about Iraq.
I can only hope that we continue to be smarter about what our elected officials are up to and how to deal with it. I’d hate to see fellow citizens completely flip attitudes and justify and defend long term military intervention as soon as a member of their team is in the WH.

I can easily tolerate the mocking of so called ” liberal hypocrisy” less than two weeks into our limited involvement in Libya. I remember how liberals were called unpatriotic for protesting the war in Iraq. My guess is that liberal patriots will not accept long term escalating involvement and I promise if protests begin, I’ll be out there on the street rather than making some shallow partisan defense. The problems in this country are not divided along party and idealogical lines, but more along the lines of corruption vs public service.

writer said:
Stewart is only criticizing Obama because he doesn’t like having a black man in the White House.

Well, if he was black and Jewish that would be okay. Too bad Sammy Davis Jr, isn’t around to run.

Although that reminds me. I forgot to criticize Jon for being a liberal hack who is only a lapdog mouthpiece for this admin. The evidence keeps piling up doesn’t it?

I guess only Janeanne Garofalo is allowed to say that.

ChiliPeppersFan said:
he hasn’t acted like reagan yet in that he hasn’t sold arms to the rebels and used the money in another “squirmish” and then lied to the american people about it until he was caught red handed.
so yeah, no reagan there.

I loved the idea at the time that Regan didn’t know what his underlings was doing, as if it was a plausible excuse. It’s certainly possible that your staff could be carrying out a complex illegal operation right under your nose without the president knowing, …but that kinda paints you as incredibly incompetent doesn’t it?

ChiliPeppersFan said:
sarainitaly said:
LMAO! that was hilarious.
it took me a few beats to figure out *squirmish*.
that was one funny bit!
it’s very refreshing to see that good humor is appreciated no matter of political leaning.

I often find Stewart quite funny. My issue with him is that he is not more even in his criticisms. Lord knows there is plenty to laugh at on both sides of the aisle, he just chooses to go after one side WAY more often than the other.

My other issue is that people view his show as a representation of facts. It isn’t, and it isn’t news, it is comedy. He edits, cuts and pastes for the laugh. If you view it purely as comedy, it is funny. When people try to hold him up as some truth telling news guy, that’s when it jumps the shark.

You have to laugh at things like *squirmish* it is FUNNY. The problem is the attacks on her have been so nasty that it is hard for many to laugh at this. Also because Obama makes these gaffes ALLLLL the time, and rarely do you hear Stewart going after them, with the same fervor he does Palin.

It’s like the old Letterman *Great Moments in Presidential Speeches*. That was funny. What makes it *unfunny* now is that he refuses to do the same with Obama.

Steve_27 said:
it was basically about how we CAN be selective about where we go and who we help. Thats all.

And as Jon points out, we have been exactly that historically for those Americans interested in looking at reality through less partisan shaded glasses. Republican intervention good, Democrat intervention bad, or vice versa, is a childish approach.

CosmosDan said:
Republican intervention good, Democrat intervention bad, or vice versa, is a childish approach.

That’s why it’s such a good idea to get Congress on board beforehand.

CosmosDan said:
we have been exactly that historically for those Americans interested in looking at reality through less partisan shaded glasses.

good thing obama didn’t run on *change* and *transparency*, otherwise we would have reason to call him a hypocrite for acting like past presidents.

sarainitaly said:
I often find Stewart quite funny. My issue with him is that he is not more even in his criticisms. Lord knows there is plenty to laugh at on both sides of the aisle, he just chooses to go after one side WAY more often than the other.

My other issue is that people view his show as a representation of facts. It isn’t, and it isn’t news, it is comedy. He edits, cuts and pastes for the laugh. If you view it purely as comedy, it is funny. When people try to hold him up as some truth telling news guy, that’s when it jumps the shark.

You have to laugh at things like *squirmish* it is FUNNY. The problem is the attacks on her have been so nasty that it is hard for many to laugh at this. Also because Obama makes these gaffes ALLLLL the time, and rarely do you hear Stewart going after them, with the same fervor he does Palin.

It’s like the old Letterman *Great Moments in Presidential Speeches*. That was funny. What makes it *unfunny* now is that he refuses to do the same with Obama.

of course stewert is comedy, hence being on the ‘comedy channel’ and people who use him for fact are easily dismissive.
but there is an arguement that he skirts the line(s) between comedy, news, and current events like in the case of the republicans voting against health care for 9/11 workers and when someone like shep smith takes up the cause it can be considered news.
as far as his editing, cutting, and pasting it is no more than you would find on a glen beck episode.
jon stewart’s attack on conservatives is no big surprise because he never tried to hide is progressive liberalism. i understand how you could want a more even-handed attacks, but for me i still enjoy the humor of dennis miller even with his change of political sidings.
wow…after breaking it down like this, it’s not so funny.
nevermind. (said in a rosanne, rosanna-danna accent)

*dismissed

sarainitaly said:
My other issue is that people view his show as a representation of facts. It isn’t, and it isn’t news, it is comedy.

i could be wrong, but i’ve seen more accusations of this than i’ve seen examples of people using him as fact.

sarainitaly said:
My other issue is that people view his show as a representation of facts. It isn’t, and it isn’t news, it is comedy. He edits, cuts and pastes for the laugh. If you view it purely as comedy, it is funny. When people try to hold him up as some truth telling news guy, that’s when it jumps the shark.

The truth telling isn’t in the news. It’s in the truth behind the satire. It’s amazing to me that because of his commitment to comedy and wanting to make the satire work, he is sometimes more right on than the folks on the news channels.

ChiliPeppersFan said:
i could be wrong, but i’ve seen more accusations of this than i’ve seen examples of people using him as fact.

The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart has been selected, in an online poll conducted by Time Magazine, as America’s Most Trusted Newscaster, post-Cronkite.
http://www.timepolls.com/hppolls/archive/poll_results_417.html

read the comments
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/22/time-magazine-poll-jon-st_n_242933.html

Stewart’s show was once dubbed the ‘fake news,’ but these days it’s become our youths’ most trusted source of information, and its host the most trusted man in America.”
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20436997,00.html

not to mention the groups on FB called I get all my news from Daily show, my friends on FB proudly stating they get all their news from Daily Show, and all the comments i have read on sites, of people admitting they get all of their news from Daily Show. it’s scary.

he’s funny. he’s not news. dennis miller is funny, too!

CosmosDan said:
The truth telling isn’t in the news. It’s in the truth behind the satire. It’s amazing to me that because of his commitment to comedy and wanting to make the satire work, he is sometimes more right on than the folks on the news channels.

but it’s not when you edit, or take things out of context to get the laugh, and people think it is actually truthful.
And he does that ALL the time. It is funny, but then people hold up his bit as some sort of factual piece of news. i can’t tell you the number of times i have seen him do that with clips from FOX, careful editing to make it appear like something it wasn’t – just to get the laugh.

Obama is having a squirmish in his head….

ChiliPeppersFan said:
jon stewart’s attack on conservatives is no big surprise because he never tried to hide is progressive liberalism. i understand how you could want a more even-handed attacks, but for me i still enjoy the humor of dennis miller even with his change of political sidings.

i think when you are dealing with the majority of comedy shows out there, then throw in the MSM, and even TV shows, like Glee, or Good Wife, attacks on Conservatives, for example on Sarah Palin, go beyond being funny, to just being downright mean and nasty. It makes it a whole lot harder to laugh when you are constantly bombarded with what has become full on viscous attacks.

Now, we are starting to see the Late Nights (leno and jimmy fallon) taking jabs at Obama, and some sprinklings from Stewart, and SNL, its beginning to not feel so lopsided. Still a far way from being *fair and equal* but it helps.

Miller is funny, and most likely you don’t have issues with his comedy because he isn’t out there calling Michelle O or Hillary c*nts, and tw*ts, or Obama a *retarded dick* and he doesn’t have the full weight of the late night comedy channels, SNL, and the MSM on his side, joining in.

sarainitaly said:
good thing obama didn’t run on *change* and *transparency*, otherwise we would have reason to call him a hypocrite for acting like past presidents.

Sara, is that really a revelation? I, like many others who voted for him, are disappointed that he hasn’t kept his promises. Jon S. did a bit on this as well , contrasting with clips what Obama is saying now, vs. what he said during the campaign. He ended with “I’m sure sure who I’m more upset with. You for saying those things, or us for believing you”
I think as citizens we hope each new president might be the great leader who leads us to our vision of America, but one thing Obama has made clear to me is that hope doesn’t match reality. President or not, one man cannot govern and be responsible for everything without cooperation and support from other elected officials and the citizens. We’ve spent decades getting ourselves here and allowing corruption and less than honorable foreign policy to get a foothold. It won’t change in a year or two without some serious involvement by citizens. We’ve ignored the few who tried to warn us because we’re too dam comfortable. It took two more long term wars and the a financial crisis where average citizens are screwed by the financial giants who got rich gambling with other people’s money, to finally get people to even begin to wake up. Now we still see posters eager to embrace partisan lines of separation.
IMO it’s a corruption issue and maintaining a balance of power, kinda like our Constitution was designed to do.
We have to address the buying and selling of influence in DC whether it’s coming from the Unions or giant multinationals.

Jon shows his racism.

sarainitaly said:
The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart has been selected, in an online poll conducted by Time Magazine, as America’s Most Trusted Newscaster, post-Cronkite.
http://www.timepolls.com/hppolls/archive/poll_results_417.html

Which is far more a commentary on what a lousy job the official news is doing.

sarainitaly said:
Stewart’s show was once dubbed the ‘fake news,’ but these days it’s become our youths’ most trusted source of information, and its host the most trusted man in America.”
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20436997,00.html

not to mention the groups on FB called I get all my news from Daily show, my friends on FB proudly stating they get all their news from Daily Show, and all the comments i have read on sites, of people admitting they get all of their news from Daily Show. it’s scary.

Yeah, I think there’s a lot of people adult and youth alike that don’t want to spend a lot of time really looking things up and digging for enough facts. It’s a complicated busy world. We can’t be in the know about everything.
As far as superficial information, Jon does that okay, even for fake news.

Pablo said:
That’s why it’s such a good idea to get Congress on board beforehand.

like we did for grenada or nicaruagua?

ChiliPeppersFan said:
there’s a little ‘play’ button you can click on and it will play the clip. in fact, here’s a link where they have the clip.http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart-was-not-impressed-with-president-obamas-libya-speech/comment-page-5/#comment-387700

I couldn’t open it with the pc I have. Ever cross your mind? It was a simple question, thats all. Not trying to make you work harder but i’m guessing this link wouldn’t answer my simple question anyway. Could you?

CosmosDan said:
And as Jon points out, we have been exactly that historically for those Americans interested in looking at reality through less partisan shaded glasses. Republican intervention good, Democrat intervention bad, or vice versa, is a childish approach.

We are on opposite sides of the isle but I didnt give you a thumbs down here, just saying. Your post was short simple and right, I had no problem with it.

sarainitaly said:
but it’s not when you edit, or take things out of context to get the laugh, and people think it is actually truthful.
And he does that ALL the time. It is funny, but then people hold up his bit as some sort of factual piece of news. i can’t tell you the number of times i have seen him do that with clips from FOX, careful editing to make it appear like something it wasn’t – just to get the laugh.

Jon is more a big picture larger point kinda guy. No doubt he’s gotten some things wrong but usually his larger point is right on. Which IMO is why viewers trust him. Again, it’s his commitment to the craft of satire, and making the larger point be honest.
I remember when he went after some financial talking head for slamming homeowners , and was criticized for getting some details wrong. He admitted he had some details wrong , corrected them, which only emphasized his larger point.
It’s like someone saying “The president , dressed in a yellow shirt, addressed the nation, and was less than honest about our involvement in Libya”
And the rebuttal is ” They’re wrong, he wasn’t wearing a yellow shirt, they are totally discredited as a reliable source”
Well yah, they were wrong about that detail, but does it matter?

Nationman said:
ke we did for grenada or nicaruagua?

Those were wrong as well. Just because one administration ignores the US Constitution doesn’t mean that it’s just fine and dandy for others.

the real john t said:
What in the hell does that even mean. I’ll tell you what it means, you have no clue as to what you’re talking about. You just babble on with stupid comments.

DIdn’t your mother tell you that when you don’t know something reacting with bluster shouts your ignorance while asking about the something you don’t know indicates your intelligence?

Smart bombs and air cover require forward air support observers on the ground. These are usually special operators in situations like lybia.

CosmosDan said:
Sara, is that really a revelation? I, like many others who voted for him, are disappointed that he hasn’t kept his promises. Jon S. did a bit on this as well , contrasting with clips what Obama is saying now, vs. what he said during the campaign. He ended with “I’m sure sure who I’m more upset with. You for saying those things, or us for believing you”

My issue is that I, and many others, saw the truth BEFORE he was elected.

There was enough in his short background to see that he was not going to keep those promises, that it was just a bunch of empty suited hype and drivel, with lofty colorful campaign speeches, that all started to sound the same. he had plenty of present votes, and a lack of accomplishments, and a plethora of flip flops and denials that were proven false with youtube. he even flip flopped on the iraq war, he said different things to different audiences. he was inexperienced, and *made* a US senator, despite not having accomplished anything. he had a bunch of questionable relationships and dealings, and lack of successes in Chicago, as witnessed and experienced by his constituents, that clearly painted who he was and who he would be, as President.

And ALL of us who pointed it out were dismissed as racists.

sorry it took you and many others so long to figure it out, but I saw it three+ years ago.

slickerwick said:
Uh, sounds like boots on the ground to me. Fort LeJeune marines are now being deployed to Libya. “…The 22nd is a Marine, air and ground task force. Some are trained for aviation combat, others for ground combat.” http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=8039326

Camp LeJune.

sarainitaly said:
i think when you are dealing with the majority of comedy shows out there, then throw in the MSM, and even TV shows, like Glee, or Good Wife, attacks on Conservatives, for example on Sarah Palin, go beyond being funny, to just being downright mean and nasty. It makes it a whole lot harder to laugh when you are constantly bombarded with what has become full on viscous attacks.

Limbaugh has made a fortune from mocking liberals for years and applauded by conservatives for it. Not to mention the regular mocking , exaggerated, comments that works it’s way into Fox news on a regular basis.
Palin decided to make a fortune from being a media celebrity. No criticism , but it was her own choice and there’s a down side to getting paid to go on a speaking tour criticizing the president and the Democrats. That doesn’t excuse particularly vicious attacks , but I don’t think those are all that common.

Unfortunately he is just another pawn in a much larger game.

CosmosDan said:
Well yah, they were wrong about that detail, but does it matter?

you tell me.

How Obama Got Elected… Interviews With Obama Voters

What Do Barack Obama Voters Know?

Howard Stern Interviews Obama Supporters

How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Targeted trailer

A Group of Obama Supporters Cannot Name A Single Obama Accomplishment

When asked about Obama’s accomplishments…

CosmosDan said:
Limbaugh has made a fortune from mocking liberals for years and applauded by conservatives for it. Not to mention the regular mocking , exaggerated, comments that works it’s way into Fox news on a regular basis

one vs. how many on the left?

sarainitaly said:
My issue is that I, and many others, saw the truth BEFORE he was elected.

There was enough in his short background to see that he was not going to keep those promises, that it was just a bunch of empty suited hype and drivel, with lofty colorful campaign speeches, that all started to sound the same. he had plenty of present votes, and a lack of accomplishments, and a plethora of flip flops and denials that were proven false with youtube. he even flip flopped on the iraq war, he said different things to different audiences. he was inexperienced, and *made* a US senator, despite not having accomplished anything. he had a bunch of questionable relationships and dealings, and lack of successes in Chicago, as witnessed and experienced by his constituents, that clearly painted who he was and who he would be, as President.

And ALL of us who pointed it out were dismissed as racists.

sorry it took you and many others so long to figure it out, but I saw it three+ years ago.

Respectfully, I reject that he’s an empty suit or that those details indicated anything we’re seeing now. I think the issue is the left and others expected too much from any one person given the decades we’ve spent getting here, and the right was too eager to jump all over him and play politics rather than truly try to solve problems. The President is not really the decider. There is an interplay of power and influence that makes policy that is out of whack. Heaping it onto one person or ideology is unrealistic IMO. Admittedly I was far more hopeful and far less realistic than I should have been. Disappointed that Gitmo isn’t closed and we haven’t been told why, or that we are still fighting in Afghanistan. I’m disappointed that the too big to fail companies have so much power and influence in DC, but sure didn’t start with Obama, or the liberals. It goes way beyond political ideology.

Bush pretty much screwed it for the GOP and conservatives by being a horrible president, and the final nail was the bad alternative offered by the GOP when Obama ran. What seems made apparent by Obama’s presidency is just how very limited the president’s power really is. That won’t change when the presidency changes. Citizens have to get more involved than superficial partisan sniping. We have to come together to change the way power is distributed and take the blows that will come with it, when those who have power fight to keep it.

Steve_27 said:
We are on opposite sides of the isle but I didnt give you a thumbs down here, just saying. Your post was short simple and right, I had no problem with it.

Thanks. FTR; I rarely if ever even notice the thumbs up or down and don’t care about them at all. They’re meaningless.

More Liberty5 said:
Those were wrong as well. Just because one administration ignores the US Constitution doesn’t mean that it’s just fine and dandy for others.

I’m glad at least you are consistent.

sarainitaly said:
one vs. how many on the left?

glenn beck, oreilly, hannity, michael savage, there’s a lot more, i’ll go into them if you like.

sarainitaly said:
one vs. how many on the left?

Um, considering what goes on at Fox it’s a long way from one. Honest, I’m not interested in a running tally of who’s the meanest. It’s not mean spirited criticism for me to say I don’t think Palin is capable of in depth intellectual analysis. It’s an honest opinion based on observation.

kinda sorta related question; I don’t like the C word that Maher used but in thinking about I wonder what the difference was in calling someone that, or calling a guy a Prick. It occurred to me that the P word is thrown around pretty liberally and few people are as outraged.

CosmosDan said:
Um, considering what goes on at Fox it’s a long way from one. Honest, I’m not interested in a running tally of who’s the meanest. It’s not mean spirited criticism for me to say I don’t think Palin is capable of in depth intellectual analysis. It’s an honest opinion based on observation. kinda sorta related question; I don’t like the C word that Maher used but in thinking about I wonder what the difference was in calling someone that, or calling a guy a Prick. It occurred to me that the P word is thrown around pretty liberally and few people are as outraged.

I also wonder why there wasn’t more outrage on the right about beck joking about killing michael moore and pelosi.

Nationman said:
glenn beck, oreilly, hannity, michael savage, there’s a lot more, i’ll go into them if you like.

CosmosDan said:
Um, considering what goes on at Fox it’s a long way from one.

I was chatting with my mom on the phone when I replied to you – when you said Rush mocking, I was comparing him as a comedian mocking like we were talking about comedians on the left mocking Conservatives.

If we are talking about right vs. left, then I can still say *one vs. how many on the left* wrt FOX vs. left MSM.

But, I was distracted, so I took your comments about Rush mocking to mean in a humorous manner, because we had been discussing comedians, which is why I said *one vs. how many*. so, that was confusing, my bad.

sarainitaly said:
you tell me.

How Obama Got Elected… Interviews With Obama Voters

What Do Barack Obama Voters Know?

Howard Stern Interviews Obama Supporters

How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Targeted trailer

A Group of Obama Supporters Cannot Name A Single Obama Accomplishment

When asked about Obama’s accomplishments…

Do you really consider that proof of anything? It’s a sad fact that the bulk of American voters would fail the US citizenship test given to immigrants. I agree that Obama had little in the way of credentials in his run. I’d also say that history has shown us that there is no preparation that insures a good, or successful president.
. I was actually hoping Hillary would take it. Although I’m not a huge fan of the Clintons I thought she /they had the political savvy to fight and get some things done, leaving Obama to gain experience in the Senate or some other public service. Still, none of that matters if we don’t address corruption which exists on both sides of the aisle. It’s completely unrealistic IMO to look at where we are as a nation and try to pin it on a man who’s been in office for just over two years.

sarainitaly said:
But, I was distracted, so I took your comments about Rush mocking to mean in a humorous manner, because we had been discussing comedians, which is why I said *one vs. how many*. so, that was confusing, my bad.

NP, I understand. Chris Matthews isn’t a comedian and neither is Hannity and neither of them offer much more than mocking the opposition. I was only noting that there are plenty of media folks who make their money that way, and are supported by both sides.

Pablo said:
That’s why it’s such a good idea to get Congress on board beforehand.

I completely agree he should have gone to Congress. He could have been doing that while a no fly zone was being discussed. Seems to me it would have protected him politically as well, either way.

Nationman said:
I also wonder why there wasn’t more outrage on the right about beck joking about killing michael moore and pelosi.

because that kind of stuff is just ridiculous faux outrage – i don’t like that kind of crap on either side. it’s like outrage for wussy’s. calling someone a c word or the n word is unacceptable. people and politicians joke about stupid crap like the instances you are referring to all the time. it has become a stupid outrage contest. does anyone really think that he’s going to go out and really kill them? just like it was faux outrage going after palin for the target map, especially after years of Dems using target imagery, and sites in their own ads.

there are things that are said that are outrageous, and should be called out, and there are other things that are just stupid faux outrage.

i don’t approve of someone calling Michelle Obama a fat ape or Palin a twat. But this hypocritical phony outrage over Obama as the Joker or Hitler or witch doctor, after EIGHT years of Bush as the Joker or Hitler or witch doctor is total BS. And that goes for the phony outrage when Beck joked about Michael Moore, after EIGHT years of people calling for the death of Bush.

MM lives to create stupid faux outrage hype. MSNBC lives for it. They LIVE to create outrage to silence the opposition.

Nationman said:
I also wonder why there wasn’t more outrage on the right about beck joking about killing michael moore and pelosi.

meh, it’s Beck. I’m pretty tired of trumped up outrage over minor bullshit. I’m far more annoyed with the networks that decide to use it, rather than real reporting.

CosmosDan said:
Do you really consider that proof of anything? It’s a sad fact that the bulk of American voters would fail the US citizenship test given to immigrants. I agree that Obama had little in the way of credentials in his run. I’d also say that history has shown us that there is no preparation that insures a good, or successful president.
. I was actually hoping Hillary would take it. Although I’m not a huge fan of the Clintons I thought she /they had the political savvy to fight and get some things done, leaving Obama to gain experience in the Senate or some other public service. Still, none of that matters if we don’t address corruption which exists on both sides of the aisle. It’s completely unrealistic IMO to look at where we are as a nation and try to pin it on a man who’s been in office for just over two years.

yes, it is proof that the MSM is a joke, and that a good portion of those people were getting their *news* from SNL, Daily Show, or MSNBC.

2008 was not about Dem vs. Rep. It was about which Dem would be president. After 8 years of Bush, no one thought a Repub would win (did they?) Clinton should have won, and Obama should have stayed in the senate and accomplished something, and gained some experience, and got his sh*t together. he could have run in 2016. But no. He was anointed and presented as the *savior*, and hillary was tossed under the bus.

“Respectfully, I reject that he’s an empty suit or that those details indicated anything we’re seeing now.”

Respectfully, I think he is a fraud, and an empty suit. There are SO many more things I cold add, but grew tired. I think he revealed a lot about who he was, his supporters just chose to ignore it. He is who I thought he would be, and who he seemed to be during his short career.

it’s so funny on how much we usually agree, yet we never agree. hahaha

i think it is fully acceptable to place blame on him. he is now in charge. that’s how it works. bush took it all for what happened under Clinton and it’s now Obama’s turn. And I think he has done enough damage on his own, since taking office.

i agree there is corruption on both sides, and issues on both sides. Which is why I am an indy, and not happy with most of them, on either side. But of course, I am always called a right wing racist teabagger…. go figure.

CosmosDan said:
meh, it’s Beck. I’m pretty tired of trumped up outrage over minor bullshit. I’m far more annoyed with the networks that decide to use it, rather than real reporting.

ok, you said it in a lot fewer words…. spot on.

sarainitaly:
CosmosDan:

Maybe you shouldn’t watch. Maybe you should stay with MSNBC, or some other Liberal nonsense news-show that might reward your “in the box” imagination? The Truth, can be emotionally dangerous to Liberal Progressives, and for your own metal stability, I’d suggest you stay with the entitlement-pablum those like Maddow, and Matthews regurgitate.

Who can believe or trust anything Erkle in a suit says. The an has lost all credability

sarainitaly said:
My issue is that I, and many others, saw the truth BEFORE he was elected. There was enough in his short background to see that he was not going to keep those promises, that it was just a bunch of empty suited hype and drivel, with lofty colorful campaign speeches, that all started to sound the same. he had plenty of present votes, and a lack of accomplishments, and a plethora of flip flops and denials that were proven false with youtube. he even flip flopped on the iraq war, he said different things to different audiences. he was inexperienced, and *made* a US senator, despite not having accomplished anything. he had a bunch of questionable relationships and dealings, and lack of successes in Chicago, as witnessed and experienced by his constituents, that clearly painted who he was and who he would be, as President. And ALL of us who pointed it out were dismissed as racists. sorry it took you and many others so long to figure it out, but I saw it three+ years ago.

Great post, Sarah! You speak for many of us who saw OB for what he really was! And guess what? They are still calling us racists. Loved your link yesterday to “Awesome Obama” .

caconservative said:
sarainitaly:
CosmosDan:

Maybe you shouldn’t watch. Maybe you should stay with MSNBC, or some other Liberal nonsense news-show that might reward your “in the box” imagination? The Truth, can be emotionally dangerous to Liberal Progressives, and for your own metal stability, I’d suggest you stay with the entitlement-pablum those like Maddow, and Matthews regurgitate.

What a joke. sara is actually conservative and more often doesn’t agree with me. We’re just able to disagree without insulting each other. Guess you didn’t notice in your pursuit of Truth.

sarainitaly said:
yes, it is proof that the MSM is a joke, and that a good portion of those people were getting their *news* from SNL, Daily Show, or MSNBC.

And a good portion get there’s from Beck ORielly and Hannity. As I said, the sad truth about American citizens.

sarainitaly said:
2008 was not about Dem vs. Rep. It was about which Dem would be president. After 8 years of Bush, no one thought a Repub would win (did they?) Clinton should have won, and Obama should have stayed in the senate and accomplished something, and gained some experience, and got his sh*t together. he could have run in 2016. But no. He was anointed and presented as the *savior*, and hillary was tossed under the bus.

I also think Hillary might have been the better choice, but when you think of it. She ran and won a Senate seat in a State she really didn’t live in. Her bid for the presidency was based in large part on her time as first lady. I just happen to think that her political experience after years with Bill, might have helped her fight back more successfully against dirty politics.

sarainitaly said:
i think it is fully acceptable to place blame on him. he is now in charge

certainly as president he can’t escape blame. I just think we have to be realistic about how our government works, especially if we do want to make things better.

caconservative said:
sarainitaly:
CosmosDan:

Maybe you shouldn’t watch. Maybe you should stay with MSNBC, or some other Liberal nonsense news-show that might reward your “in the box” imagination? The Truth, can be emotionally dangerous to Liberal Progressives, and for your own metal stability, I’d suggest you stay with the entitlement-pablum those like Maddow, and Matthews regurgitate.

you’re not talking to me are you?

CosmosDan said:
might have helped her fight back more successfully against dirty politics.

i think her hands were tied because everything she did, every attempt she made, was called racist. Her life long supporters turned on her, in favor of the shiny new guy.

CosmosDan said:
certainly as president he can’t escape blame. I just think we have to be realistic about how our government works, especially if we do want to make things better.

kind of hard to do when he ran on attacking everything Bush/Republican, and is now confronted with those same difficulties, ie gitmo, trials, wiretapping, transparency, iraq, etc.

he wasn’t realistic when he was attacking them.

Georgia999 said:
Loved your link yesterday to “Awesome Obama” .

i don’t care. obama is awesome.

aahaha i loved that!

sarainitaly said:
i think her hands were tied because everything she did, every attempt she made, was called racist. Her life long supporters turned on her, in favor of the shiny new guy. kind of hard to do when he ran on attacking everything Bush/Republican, and is now confronted with those same difficulties, ie gitmo, trials, wiretapping, transparency, iraq, etc. he wasn’t realistic when he was attacking them.

That is not really fair. Gitmo is a legal and moral problem that was created by the Bush administration. President Obama has tried to solve the problem but has been blocked by conservatives in Congress.

I’m not impressed either, because it’s pretty obvious why we’re there; oil. But at least he was FAR more intelligent about getting the hell out far earlier so that the rest of the Western powers can work on securing the oil in that region.

Now what could the Teleprompter in Chief said about his war of choice that might have upset Stewart?

The thing that disturbs me the most is that so many people could not see through the empty platitudes and lies our incompetent community organizer was spewing when he was campaigning and even more disturbing is that many of those same people still cannot see through empty platitudes and lies…..good grief!!

Should people have to pass a intelligence test before being allowed to vote so this kind of fiasco never happens again? I’m beginning to think the answer is YES!!

I seriously don’t think this Country will survive another 4 yrs of this embarrassing fool!

John Stewart interviewed this guy who can put this wired metal cap thingy on your head that lets you control stuff. Maybe this is what America needs to deprogram the DemoKKKrupts.

Jon Stewart should study the follow idea. Is it a Joke or is it Comon senxe?
COMMON SENSE IDEAS FOR PEOPLE WITH COMMON SENSE.
If you have a few million people in a game of life and a couple trillion dollars to play the game, and a few billionaires hoarding most of the money, the game of Life can become a game near death for lack of money to keep in circulation. This would be caused by insufficient funds to keep the game going.
If Merv Griffin,” the great game wizard”, were alive today, I would vote for him for President because he
Would understand how much money is needed to play the Game of Life with billions upon billions of people involved in our present day Global Family of Players. Today, Merv would say we have too many players for the amount of money we are trying to play with, in this Global Family of Players. The bias between rich and poor is causing opinions to surface, to quit spending money when the problem is too many players for the amount of trillions needed for the entire Global Family of Players to participate, not to mention the hoarding going on, complicating the fact that we don’t have enough money to play the game with considering the amount of people presently involved.
Merv would see, 50 or 60 years ago, the ratio between the amount of money and the number of players involved were mostly in American, since then billions upon billions of people entered the Global Family of Players. The money hoarders, along with Drug Cartels, Oil Cartels and Military Weapon Cartels draining the money out of the World Economy has left very little money to sustain the life of the average (producer-player). More money is needed in this Global Family of Players or this Game Of Life being played as it is, will soon come to an end. There is no other logical answer.
If Merv were alive today, and designed a game to mimic “Today’s World Economy of Players”, he would change one thing. He would take the Federal Reserve and print enough money to pay off all the loans to the 7G Nations so as these investors would never get hurt since these (lenders to many nations), did so in a fiduciary relationship. To do this with the Federal Reserve would be like getting a new lease on life for the whole world. After this, legislators could have a field day trying to keep the Profiteers form going wild and causing a debt problem all over again. One other thing—for this to end intelligently, the Federal Reserve would need to forgive the taxpayers the debt they owe the Federal Reserve, this would be similar to the forgiveness of debt the Bible refers too. This way, no one get hurt.
These are thoughts for you to ponder and maybe even come up with a workable idea.

sarainitaly said:
yes, it is proof that the MSM is a joke, and that a good portion of those people were getting their *news* from SNL, Daily Show, or MSNBC. 2008 was not about Dem vs. Rep. It was about which Dem would be president. After 8 years of Bush, no one thought a Repub would win (did they?) Clinton should have won, and Obama should have stayed in the senate and accomplished something, and gained some experience, and got his sh*t together. he could have run in 2016. But no. He was anointed and presented as the *savior*, and hillary was tossed under the bus. “Respectfully, I reject that he’s an empty suit or that those details indicated anything we’re seeing now.” Respectfully, I think he is a fraud, and an empty suit. There are SO many more things I cold add, but grew tired. I think he revealed a lot about who he was, his supporters just chose to ignore it. He is who I thought he would be, and who he seemed to be during his short career. it’s so funny on how much we usually agree, yet we never agree. hahaha i think it is fully acceptable to place blame on him. he is now in charge. that’s how it works. bush took it all for what happened under Clinton and it’s now Obama’s turn. And I think he has done enough damage on his own, since taking office. i agree there is corruption on both sides, and issues on both sides. Which is why I am an indy, and not happy with most of them, on either side. But of course, I am always called a right wing racist teabagger…. go figure.

You are at the very least a teabagger.

Dhulnun said:
You are at the very least a teabagger.

and you are, at the very least, irrelevant.

TheEagle said:
That is not really fair. Gitmo is a legal and moral problem that was created by the Bush administration. President Obama has tried to solve the problem but has been blocked by conservatives in Congress.

If I’m not mistaken, didn’t Obama sign an executive order his first week in office to close it within one year? His problem has been finding other nations willing to take prisoners, deciding how to put others on trial and figuring out what to do with those deemed too dangerous to try.

And didn’t the Dems control Congress for his first two years in office?

Like I said, Obama ran for office, attacking everything Bush/Republican, and is now confronted with those same difficulties, ie gitmo, trials, wiretapping, transparency, iraq, etc. he wasn’t realistic when he was attacking them. Bush repeatedly said he would like to close gitmo, but there were too many legal issues.
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/may/26/colin-powell/colin-powell-bush-cheney-gitmo-differences/

Obama has since realized that.

TheEagle said:
That is not really fair. Gitmo is a legal and moral problem that was created by the Bush administration. President Obama has tried to solve the problem but has been blocked by conservatives in Congress.

That’s bullshit and you know it. President Obama hasn’t done shit but run his ignorant mouth. He popped off in campaign mode and when the rubber met the road……..he couldn’t get ‘er done.

He found out a little problem many encounter when they run their yaps about the “boss’s job” and how much better they could do it right up to the moment their dumb asses hit the big chair.

Then they have to stop talking and start doing and they are fuc*ed.

Obama’s problem with Gitmo is of his own making. He used it as a club to bash Bush and Cheney with with such glee he certainly couldn’t allow for it to stay open yet…….EXACTLY like Lybia……he had no exit strategy. He didn’t know where to take these people…….NOBODY wants them……….he pimped the idea that tribunals were bad yet now fires them up anew……..he floated the idea that he would simply roll them into court in NYC and everyone would see how multiculturally sensitive he was and everyone would love him for it.

WHOOPS!!! Did that ever turn into a shit sammie fast!!!

But just like every other promise…….he’s found out much to his chagrin….talkng about shit is waaaaaaay easier than doing something about it.

That’s what leaders do and his hasn’t told him how to yet.

Maybe this summer…….

sarainitaly said:
If I’m not mistaken, didn’t Obama sign an executive order his first week in office to close it within one year? His problem has been finding other nations willing to take prisoners, deciding how to put others on trial and figuring out what to do with those deemed too dangerous to try. And didn’t the Dems control Congress for his first two years in office? Like I said, Obama ran for office, attacking everything Bush/Republican, and is now confronted with those same difficulties, ie gitmo, trials, wiretapping, transparency, iraq, etc. he wasn’t realistic when he was attacking them. Bush repeatedly said he would like to close gitmo, but there were too many legal issues.http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/may/26/colin-powell/colin-powell-bush-cheney-gitmo-differences/ Obama has since realized that.

The big fact that you are ignoring is that the Bush Administration created most of those problems in the first place. Bush said he would like to close Gitmo but did nothing to do so. President Obama tried to but was blocked by conservatives.

Dhulnun said:
You are at the very least a teabagger.

You sure? Had her nuts squated on your chin?

Or just wishful thinking on your part?

TheEagle said:
The big fact that you are ignoring is that the Bush Administration created most of those problems in the first place. Bush said he would like to close Gitmo but did nothing to do so. President Obama tried to but was blocked by conservatives.

How did conservatives stop him?

VoiceofReason said:
How did conservatives stop him?

i think we’ll be waiting a while for that explanation…

TheEagle said:
The big fact that you are ignoring is that the Bush Administration created most of those problems in the first place.

the big fact you are ignoring is that we were attacked on 9/11 and some of those people were responsible, or buds of those responsible. and you are ignoring that obama is continuing those *problems*.

Ma-Her is a MENTAL MIDGET full of HATE & INTOLERANCE!!!

and so Stewed Wart.

VoiceofReason said:
How did conservatives stop him?

From the site Sara linked to earlier: http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/177/close-the-guantanamo-bay-detention-center/

sarainitaly said:
i think we’ll be waiting a while for that explanation… the big fact you are ignoring is that we were attacked on 9/11 and some of those people were responsible, or buds of those responsible. and you are ignoring that obama is continuing those *problems*.

I don’t ignore 9/11. But that doesn’t excuse the Bush Administration for creating this problems. And if you think they were justified, I don’t understand why you’re now attacking President Obama about them. Unless your goal is just to attack the President.

TheEagle said:
From the site Sara linked to earlier: http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/177/close-the-guantanamo-bay-detention-center/

where in there does it say Republicans blocked Obama from closing Gitmo within his first (or even second) year, or even now?

TheEagle said:
I don’t ignore 9/11. But that doesn’t excuse the Bush Administration for creating this problems. And if you think they were justified, I don’t understand why you’re now attacking President Obama about them. Unless your goal is just to attack the President.

it was needed, i believe. we were/are at war. they were trying to find the terrorists responsible for 9/11.

“kind of hard to do when he ran on attacking everything Bush/Republican, and is now confronted with those same difficulties, ie gitmo, trials, wiretapping, transparency, iraq, etc.
he wasn’t realistic when he was attacking them.”

I’m criticizing Obama for his attacks on bush, that were nothing but empty campaign promises, and I stated that he promised a whole lot, and is now realizing the difficulties associated with governing. I think that is more than fair criticism. And I am addressing his hypocrisy, and his empty promises. I have no problem with Gitmo remaining open, or some of the things they are doing to keep the country safe. It is the hypocritical campaign attacks and promises that I don’t like.

sarainitaly said:
where in there does it say Republicans blocked Obama from closing Gitmo within his first (or even second) year, or even now? it was needed, i believe. we were/are at war. they were trying to find the terrorists responsible for 9/11. “kind of hard to do when he ran on attacking everything Bush/Republican, and is now confronted with those same difficulties, ie gitmo, trials, wiretapping, transparency, iraq, etc.he wasn’t realistic when he was attacking them.” I’m criticizing Obama for his attacks on bush, that were nothing but empty campaign promises, and I stated that he promised a whole lot, and is now realizing the difficulties associated with governing. I think that is more than fair criticism. And I am addressing his hypocrisy, and his empty promises. I have no problem with Gitmo remaining open, or some of the things they are doing to keep the country safe. It is the hypocritical campaign attacks and promises that I don’t like.

If you go back and read what I said, you’ll see I never said republicans. I said conservatives which includes consevative democrats. Read the articles on the linked site and they show how the President was blocked.

I don’t believe that gitmo was needed. We were able to defeat the nazies and win the cold war without resorting to such measures that compromise our long help principles, but that is another discussion.

As far as broken campaign promises, President Bush promised no nation building, showing respect for our allies and a balenced budget. And how did privatizing work out for him? All politicians make promises that they sometimes can’t keep due to circumstances or political opposition. That’s how our system works. Fair-minded people realize that.

TheEagle said:
If you go back and read what I said, you’ll see I never said republicans. I said conservatives which includes consevative democrats. Read the articles on the linked site and they show how the President was blocked.

so now you’re saying Democrats were the ones who blocked Obama?

I looked through that whole page, and no where did I see that Conservatives STOPPED Obama from closing Gitmo. There was opposition, but no where did I see that he was STOPPED by Conservatives.

sarainitaly said:
so now you’re saying Democrats were the ones who blocked Obama? I looked through that whole page, and no where did I see that Conservatives STOPPED Obama from closing Gitmo. There was opposition, but no where did I see that he was STOPPED by Conservatives.

No I’m the one who said he was stopped by conservatives, both Democrats and Republicans.