I love how the Right is just having a fit about how to go after the president on this.

FIrst, they said he took too long….now they’re saying he didn’t think it through??

Half the party is saying he shouldn’t have gone in at all….the other half is saying he should have gone in 4 weeks ago.

LOL

Both Buchanan and Michael Scheuer (CNN interview yesterday) are right. This is a botched “kinetic” action.

Wonderful article it is, and thanks for sharing this information, i am quite impressed with it..
http://superacai1200.com/

Same as it ever was with the Obama administraion. F – TROOP, back to normal.

Wingnut Tormentor said:
I love how the Right is just having a fit about how to go after the president on this. FIrst, they said he took too long….now they’re saying he didn’t think it through?? Half the party is saying he shouldn’t have gone in at all….the other half is saying he should have gone in 4 weeks ago. LOL

Yeah and there are those on the left want to impeach BHO, now that’s funny. LOL The lemmings don’t know which way to run, cliff or fire? Which way to re-election?

Wingnut Tormentor said:
I love how the Right is just having a fit about how to go after the president on this. FIrst, they said he took too long….now they’re saying he didn’t think it through?? Half the party is saying he shouldn’t have gone in at all….the other half is saying he should have gone in 4 weeks ago. LOL

This IS still America you know. We can think and or say whatever we like. Besides, NO matter how you call it, Barack the boy blunder is lost and screwing everything up…….again……..I mean still.

Wingnut Tormentor said:
I love how the Right is just having a fit about how to go after the president on this.

FIrst, they said he took too long….now they’re saying he didn’t think it through??

Half the party is saying he shouldn’t have gone in at all….the other half is saying he should have gone in 4 weeks ago.

LOL

Yeah they don’t know what to do about it, kinda fun to watch. And why does MSNBC employ a Holocaust denier?

Barack Must Go said:
This IS still America you know. We can think and or say whatever we like. Besides, NO matter how you call it, Barack the boy blunder is lost and screwing everything up…….again……..I mean still.

Just called our first black president “boy”, stay classy.

This Libyan Odyssey is a disaster…
Military action can not be led by proxy…
Let’s see how the Fourth Estate covers for the WH incompetence…

Color Me Badd said:
Just called our first black president “boy”, stay classy.

Ding, ding ding…..winner, winner chicken dinner. I love the libs, way to not disappoint. LMAO.

“I find it impossible to defend Pat Buchanan against the charge that what he did and said during the period under examination amounted to anti-Semitism, whatever it was that drove him to say and do it: most probably, an iconoclastic temperament.”-William F. Buckley

Penguin60 said:
Ding, ding ding…..winner, winner chicken dinner. I love the libs, way to not disappoint. LMAO.

Chicken dinner? was your boy Obama eating it? You people can’t not be racist can you? You don’t have it in you.

“responsibility to protect” “doctrine” is nothing more than a justification for unicorns and rainbows- watch out who Obama and the Left uses it against next. Ask George Clooney how interested we’ve been in Darfur- not!

It all depends on which party holds the presidency:
From the Media Research Center:

“This intervention could wind up being Barack Obama’s finest hour. His intentions are pure — this is a humanitarian mission, not blood for oil. We’ve got a coalition with us, the United Nations, the Arab League. And the diplomacy has truly been masterful — future military planners will surely use Obama’s Libya template as a guide.”

— NBC chief foreign correspondent Andrea Mitchell on Meet the Press, April 1.

VS

“It’s terrible that Saddam Hussein is butchering his people, but the United States simply cannot send in the Marines to take on every dictator. And, while the Bush administration likes to brag about the 30 nations in their coalition, it will be the United States that does most of the fighting in Iraq. I fear this is the wrong war at the wrong time and in the wrong place.”

— Mitchell talking about the Iraq war on Meet the Press, April 1, 2003.

Color Me Badd needs to go back to Media Matters where he can throw his Race-Baiting Bombs amongst friends…

Wait! COLOR me Badd; that sounds like a racial slur…

Color Me Badd said:
Chicken dinner? was your boy Obama eating it? You people can’t not be racist can you? You don’t have it in you.

Could you please post a complete list of “racist” words so that the rest of us can go to the thesaurus?

Color Me Badd said:
Chicken dinner? was your boy Obama eating it? You people can’t not be racist can you? You don’t have it in you.

lol

Barry: “Gaddafi must go.”

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs-of-Staff on Gaddafi remaining in charge in Libya: “”Certainly, I recognize that’s a possibility.”

Eric Holder: ” Gaddafi presence in Libya must end.”

Barry: “This is about humanitarian aid, not regime change.”

Pat, isn’t that clear as day?

Color Me Badd said:
Chicken dinner? was your boy Obama eating it? You people can’t not be racist can you? You don’t have it in you.

Bwaaaaaaaa, you lemmings really should take it on the road. 2 shows a night. Guess you never saw Tin Cup? BWAAAAAAAAAA ROTFLMAO, yeah that’s it racist, bigots BWAAAAAAAAAA.

Penguin60 said:
Bwaaaaaaaa, you lemmings really should take it on the road. 2 shows a night. Guess you never saw Tin Cup? BWAAAAAAAAAA ROTFLMAO, yeah that’s it racist, bigots BWAAAAAAAAAA.

Disgusting racists teabaggers and it isn’t even 9am.

Color Me Badd said:
Disgusting racists teabaggers and it isn’t even 9am.

lol

Color Me Badd said:
Disgusting racists teabaggers and it isn’t even 9am.

sorry, you do it to yourself

Racial Slur Me Badd is confused by logic…

Obama thought it through enough – but from the point of view of getting a group like the Muslim Brothers to run things. There is not too much talk about democracy or normal freedom. Heck, Obama doesn’t talk about that stuff for us!!

Color Me Badd said:
Disgusting racists teabaggers and it isn’t even 9am.

Again? BWAAAAAAAAA, yeah that’s it, keep repeating after me ….racist, teabaggers, racist….you really don’t have a clue, do you? LOL Ignorance is bliss in your camp, enjoy!

Racial Slur Me Badd might be one of the Media Matters 86…

Color Me Badd said:
Disgusting racists teabaggers and it isn’t even 9am.

Son, do you get paid by the number of times you write “racists?”

You are a complete failure and a racist one at that!

Penguin60 said:
Yeah and there are those on the left want to impeach BHO, now that’s funny. LOL The lemmings don’t know which way to run, cliff or fire? Which way to re-election?

Who, besides Dennis Kucinich??

Wingnut Tormentor said:
Who, besides Dennis Kucinich??

“A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.”

Color Me Badd said:
Just called our first black president “boy”, stay classy.

I didn’t even mention Clinton, so I have no idea what you’re talking about blunder boy.

notsofast said:
“A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday. Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.”

I would add Nader, who certainly wouldn’t be considered a right winger.

Penguin60 said:
I would add Nader, who certainly wouldn’t be considered a right winger.

Hey add the ever popular Michael Moore!

notsofast said:
“A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.

(Do you think they are serious?) Answer: They’re not serious. This is so they can say they were consistent. Their conference calls will go right back to hating American values, Western Civilization, freedom, Palin, conservatives, etc.

Alz said:
(Do you think they are serious?) Answer: They’re not serious. This is so they can say they were consistent. Their conference calls will go right back to hating American values, Western Civilization, freedom, Palin, conservatives, etc.

So when do we know when they are serious? I though words matter. I remember the President telling us that. I guess they don’t in this case.

Wingnut Tormentor said:
I love how the Right is just having a fit about how to go after the president on this. FIrst, they said he took too long….now they’re saying he didn’t think it through?? Half the party is saying he shouldn’t have gone in at all….the other half is saying he should have gone in 4 weeks ago. LOL

The left is saying the same thing. Actually, the polls how that more Repubs than Dems support this war.

Alz said:
(Do you think they are serious?) Answer: They’re not serious. This is so they can say they were consistent. Their conference calls will go right back to hating American values, Western Civilization, freedom, Palin, conservatives, etc.

You got me there.

A lib’s words mean zero; too bad America didn’t realize that in November 2008.

I knew it! When Batman was calling Robin ‘the boy wonder’, he meant it as a slur.

writer said:
I knew it! When Batman was calling Robin ‘the boy wonder’, he meant it as a slur.

And think of the racism carved into Roy Hobb’s bat, Wonderboy”!

obama backed the wrong horse on this one, but didn’t think it through? doubtful. how could he not think of the disaster the previous war criminal (allegedly)…er, president unleashed on the world? he even said as much on monday.
plus you have hillary possibly telling him of her feelings on what happened in rwanda…hell, he probably thought of every action/non-action in the last 250 years. one thing he can’t be accused of is lack of thought…good decisions?(there’s a softball for ya)…yeah, he’s made a few and i think this is one of them.
i mean, how the hell are theses guys gonna overthrow kadahfi when they can’t even fire a rocket in the right direction.
and what happens if they do? this has the makings of a huge mess.

writer said:
I knew it! When Batman was calling Robin ‘the boy wonder’, he meant it as a slur.

What did Skipper mean by “little buddy” ? I was always suspicious.

CosmosDan said:
What did Skipper mean by “little buddy” ? I was always suspicious.

Yes, they originally met in the restroom at an Exxon station in Maryland. The rest is history.

CosmosDan said:
writer said:
I knew it! When Batman was calling Robin ‘the boy wonder’, he meant it as a slur.
What did Skipper mean by “little buddy” ? I was always suspicious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEAYcR8w_tE

ChiliPeppersFan said:
this has the makings of a huge mess.

Totally agree.

Buchanan has a point, we didn’t get the months of misrepresented intelligence that we got before. Where’s the respect?

Yes. It’s best to go in with no intelligence.

Penguin60 said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEAYcR8w_tE

I saw the link and thought OH OH , now what? Funny!

writer said:
Yes. It’s best to go in with no intelligence.

Bada boom! Good one!

ChiliPeppersFan said:
obama backed the wrong horse

not the wrong horse…a big, fat cow that does’t know how to fire a rocket.

I can’t wait for the Defense Department to quietly require that all combat troops start wearing running shoes so that when the USA inserts troops, Barry can say with a straight face to the American people, “I clearly said there would be no American boots on the ground. and there aren’t any.”

Always great seeing Mika get bend out of shape over someone saying the President isn’t always right

Everyday a new person is emboldened to come out against our racist President. The times they are a changing! Buh Bye Demoncrits…you over-reached in so many ways and the price you will pay will make 2010 look like a garden party.

“Wait a minute. I think it’s unfair to say he didn’t think it through. I think they sat there and thought and thought, we don’t want to start a war, and we certainly don’t want to start a war alone.”

Shouldn’t this have read……

“Wait a minute. I HAVE A TEXT MESSAGE COMING IN FROM THE WHITE HOUSE…VALERIE IS SAYING… I think it’s unfair to say he didn’t think it through. SHE WHANTS ME TO TELL YOU … I think they sat there and thought and thought, we don’t want to start a war, and we certainly don’t want to start a war alone.”

TillieGlockenspiel said:
Both Buchanan and Michael Scheuer (CNN interview yesterday) are right. This is a botched “kinetic” action.

A quagmire so to speak…

There is a certain word that describes Mika perfectly. As of the moment it escapes me, I think It ryhmes with the word used when a footbal team elects not to continue their drive after 3 downs. What is it? It has kind of a hard K sound. Weird, I can’t think of it. Wait, she’s a Runt. No that’s not it either.

BatBoy said:
“Wait a minute. I think it’s unfair to say he didn’t think it through. I think they sat there and thought and thought, we don’t want to start a war, and we certainly don’t want to start a war alone.”

Shouldn’t this have read……

“Wait a minute. I HAVE A TEXT MESSAGE COMING IN FROM THE WHITE HOUSE…VALERIE IS SAYING… I think it’s unfair to say he didn’t think it through. SHE WHANTS ME TO TELL YOU … I think they sat there and thought and thought, we don’t want to start a war, and we certainly don’t want to start a war alone.”

Triple thumbs up dude. Exactly. “The caucus would prefer you to say…”

Eruptor75 said:
There is a certain word that describes Mika perfectly. As of the moment it escapes me, I think It ryhmes with the word used when a footbal team elects not to continue their drive after 3 downs. What is it? It has kind of a hard K sound. Weird, I can’t think of it. Wait, she’s a Runt. No that’s not it either.

make it easier on yourself and just think of her as a Liberal Hack or a Shill for the Radical Left Agenda

If you’re going to feature a clip as the main article, you might want to make sure that the clip actually works. Both yours and MSNBC’s doesn’t work. Work that tech issue out.

In other news, when clicking on MSNBC, they had the most glaring print of the current jobs report. I had to laugh at this. DNC talking points.

MSNBC should stop relying on Pat Buchanan — a retread from the Nixon admin, for heaven’s sake — as their conservative spokesman. If they can’t handle a smart, articulate vibrant conservative from the current ranks, they should just admit it. But to set up poor old Pat on screen as an easy target is disgraceful. Yet that’s the modus operandi at MSNBC — they don’t really want to present any honest debate in which conservative views figure.

Mike couldn’t even say her propaganda with a straight face.

Eruptor75 said:
There is a certain word that describes Mika perfectly. As of the moment it escapes me, I think It ryhmes with the word used when a footbal team elects not to continue their drive after 3 downs. What is it? It has kind of a hard K sound. Weird, I can’t think of it. Wait, she’s a Runt. No that’s not it either.

Paging Bill Maher. You’re requested on Line 2.

tatboy said:
Mike couldn’t even say her propaganda with a straight face.

But she runs so it’s all ok.

felixw said:
MSNBC should stop relying on Pat Buchanan — a retread from the Nixon admin, for heaven’s sake — as their conservative spokesman. If they can’t handle a smart, articulate vibrant conservative from the current ranks, they should just admit it. But to set up poor old Pat on screen as an easy target is disgraceful. Yet that’s the modus operandi at MSNBC — they don’t really want to present any honest debate in which conservative views figure.

I actually don’t mind him on MSNBC. Granted, he loves Palin so I’m impartial…haha. But having him go against Deutsch or Matthews is just plain fun to watch.

Hunk said:
A quagmire so to speak…

Or a squirmish.

WCinWI said:
Paging Bill Maher. You’re requested on Line 2.

Bill Maher can also be described by that word that still eludes me.

Of course, let’s not forget about Mr. “I Was for it before I was against it” Gingrich.

Wingnut Tormentor said:
I love how the Right is just having a fit about how to go after the president on this. FIrst, they said he took too long….now they’re saying he didn’t think it through?? Half the party is saying he shouldn’t have gone in at all….the other half is saying he should have gone in 4 weeks ago. LOL

What is your point? Should everyone on the right be in lock step? I guess you’d like us to do as Senator Shummer, D-NY, and get out talking points and then propagate them? Is that what you want?

Wingnut Tormentor said:
Of course, let’s not forget about Mr. “I Was for it before I was against it” Gingrich.

Is this article about Gingrich? No.

Wingnut Tormentor said:
Of course, let’s not forget about Mr. “I Was for it before I was against it” Gingrich.

No, that’s john ‘go to my website’ kerry.

WCinWI said:
Is this article about Gingrich? No.

He’s a troll and that’s what trolls do.

Color Me Badd said:
Just called our first black president “boy”, stay classy.

If the President were a woman, especially, if she was member of your affiliation, I am sure, you would cheer her saying: You go, GIRL!

And probably would not consider it sexist.

notsofast said:
“A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.”

Not to mention that a couple of his soul brothers, Louis Farakhan and Malik Zulu Shabazz called him rather unflattering names.

Old Pat needs to gets some serious rest, he looks like he’s been in a war of dried up tired out wrinkles, and his face lost!

jerrybobphil said:
Always great seeing Mika get bend out of shape over someone saying the President isn’t always right

The eye rolling, the facial grimacing, the mouth contortions….it’s all good. How does anyone take her seriously?

felixw said:
MSNBC should stop relying on Pat Buchanan — a retread from the Nixon admin, for heaven’s sake — as their conservative spokesman. If they can’t handle a smart, articulate vibrant conservative from the current ranks, they should just admit it. But to set up poor old Pat on screen as an easy target is disgraceful. Yet that’s the modus operandi at MSNBC — they don’t really want to present any honest debate in which conservative views figure.

I’ve always wonder why he is still on TV. Pat has had his ideas rejected from Conservatives for well over 15 years now. Must be a very nice guy off air because his views don’t match with any party at this time.

writer said:
Yes. It’s best to go in with no intelligence.

Exactly! Either some that was provided by agencies, surveillance, etc., or the one that God allegedly gave you.

Penguin60 said:
I would add Nader, who certainly wouldn’t be considered a right winger.

Where has Nader said anything about Libya? I can’t to find.

RichS said:
Should everyone on the right be in lock step?

You folks usually are in lockstep. That’s why this is so amusing.

Nacho said:
Where has Nader said anything about Libya? I can’t to find.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/03/21/ralph_nader_obama_impeachment

Wingnut Tormentor said:
You folks usually are in lockstep. That’s why this is so amusing.

When you’re a Party that stands for something, instead of beating someone down, that tends to be the case.

skoorbekim said:
Racial Slur Me Badd is confused by logic…

LMAO!

Republican Party Motto: “Damned if he does, damned if he don’t”

WCinWI said:
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/03/21/ralph_nader_obama_impeachment

Nader wasn’t talking about Libya. He was talking about Iraq and Afghanistan. That clip of Nader was recorded before a bomb was ever drop or a missile was ever fired on Libya. It’s funny, they even quote Mediaite, like almost all the hits I got in my Nader Libya Google search. It looks like Mediaite was responsible for a huge misinformation push on the internets.

I would really like to hear what Nader has to say about Libya

Nacho said:
Nader wasn’t talking about Libya. He was talking about Iraq and Afghanistan. That clip of Nader was recorded before a bomb was ever drop or a missile was ever fired on Libya. It’s funny, they even quote Mediaite, like almost all the hits I got in my Nader Libya Google search. It looks like Mediaite was responsible for a huge misinformation push on the internets.

I would really like to hear what Nader has to say about Libya

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ralph-nader-obama-should-be-impeached-for-committing-war-crimes/

Nacho said:
Nader wasn’t talking about Libya. He was talking about Iraq and Afghanistan. That clip of Nader was recorded before a bomb was ever drop or a missile was ever fired on Libya. It’s funny, they even quote Mediaite, like almost all the hits I got in my Nader Libya Google search. It looks like Mediaite was responsible for a huge misinformation push on the internets.

I would really like to hear what Nader has to say about Libya

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2011/03/dennis-kucinich-ralph-nader-urge-president-obama-impeachment-over-libya-strike

Obama = Boooooooooooosh.

The Tea Weasel® said:
Republican Party Motto: “Damned if he does, damned if he don’t”

that sounds more like a Democratic Party Motto.

Joe Scarface: “You don’t go in [ a war] until you know when you ‘re going to come out. ”

Really, Joe? And just which war has ever been started with combatants saying when the war was going to end? I didn’t hear the Revolutionary War patriots give a time line, nor Madison give one for the war of 1812, nor Lincoln for the Civil War. Wilson gave one for WWI and FDR gave one for WWII? Surely not the Korean or Vietnam war, Joe.

But one thing Obama did do was give Gaddafi part of his his war plan. He said there would be no ground troops.

Thank God Barry wasn’t the president in 1942; he would have said I won’t tell ya where we will strike in Europe, but it won’t be at the Pas-de-Calais.

WCinWI said:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ralph-nader-obama-should-be-impeached-for-committing-war-crimes/

What? Nader wasn’t talking about Libya. That Democracy Now! clip was from the 18th.

Nacho said:
Nacho says:
April 1, 2011 at 12:36 pm Nacho(Quote)

Sure, son, whatever you say.

From that article:

“Although some Democrats and Republicans have criticized the recent air strikes and no-fly zone against Libya, Kucinich and Nader are the only two pols to suggest Obama should be impeached.

Nader compared Obama to former President George W. Bush.

“The Obama administration is committing war crimes, and if Bush should have been impeached, Obama should be impeached,” the former Green Party presidential candidate told the anti-war group Democracy Now.

Nacho said:
What? Nader wasn’t talking about Libya. That Democracy Now! clip was from the 18th.

He didn’t mention Libya, he has jumped on the impeachment bandwagon.

WCinWI said:
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2011/03/dennis-kucinich-ralph-nader-urge-president-obama-impeachment-over-libya-strike

Obama = Boooooooooooosh.

“Although some Democrats and Republicans have criticized the recent air strikes and no-fly zone against Libya, Kucinich and Nader are the only two pols to suggest Obama should be impeached.

Nader compared Obama to former President George W. Bush.

“The Obama administration is committing war crimes, and if Bush should have been impeached, Obama should be impeached,” the former Green Party presidential candidate told the anti-war group Democracy Now.”

_________________
They are referring to the same Democracy Now! clip that aired on 3/18 a day before the Libya squirmish began.

Misinformation. I haven’t found anything that Nader has said about Libya. Just these false headlines.

notsofast said:
Sure, son, whatever you say.

From that article:

“Although some Democrats and Republicans have criticized the recent air strikes and no-fly zone against Libya, Kucinich and Nader are the only two pols to suggest Obama should be impeached.
.

The article was wrong, Nader was talking about Iraq and Afghanistan, not Libya.

Nacho said:
“Although some Democrats and Republicans have criticized the recent air strikes and no-fly zone against Libya, Kucinich and Nader are the only two pols to suggest Obama should be impeached.

Nader compared Obama to former President George W. Bush.

“The Obama administration is committing war crimes, and if Bush should have been impeached, Obama should be impeached,” the former Green Party presidential candidate told the anti-war group Democracy Now.”

_________________
They are referring to the same Democracy Now! clip that aired on 3/18 a day before the Libya squirmish began.

Misinformation. I haven’t found anything that Nader has said about Libya. Just these false headlines.

HAHAHAHAHA I love that you just used a Palin created word. :)

Nacho said:
The article was wrong, Nader was talking about Iraq and Afghanistan, not Libya.

Nader was saying that Obama was acting in the same manner that Bush did with Iraq and Afghanistan. He has no endgame. That’s what was implied/pretty implicitly stated by Nader.

jerrybobphil said:
So when do we know when they are serious? I though words matter. I remember the President telling us that. I guess they don’t in this case.

Since these types of liberals, Modern Liberals/Progressives DO NOT subscribe to morals or ethics, we will never know when they are serious. The only thing to do is to watch what they DO, not what they say, and then try to extrapolate outward.

WCinWI said:
Nader was saying that Obama was acting in the same manner that Bush did with Iraq and Afghanistan. He has no endgame. That’s what was implied/pretty implicitly stated by Nader.

That’s rich. Did you watch the Democracy Now! clip? He straight out says that since Obama is continuing the wars that Bush started illegally, Obama is committing the same war crimes Bush did and therefore should be impeached like Bush should have been.

“Endgame” Nader never implied anything about an “endgame” that’s just the new Libya talking point.

Go watch the clip.

WCinWI said:
When you’re a Party that stands for something, instead of beating someone down, that tends to be the case.

Wow what a laughable assertion. Your party may stand for some things, but they most certainly “beat down” people who don’t march in lockstep with them.

How many consistent conservatives got beaten in primaries by Teabaggers last year because they weren’t far enough to the right?

Nevermind that people like Bob Bennett and others who got defeated were pro-life and have consistently voted with Republicans. Now Orrin Hatch and Dick Lugar are next. The purge continues.

Nacho said:
Nacho says:
April 1, 2011 at 12:52 pm Nacho(Quote)

But, son, he still believes BHO should be impeached.

Nacho said:
That’s rich. Did you watch the Democracy Now! clip? He straight out says that since Obama is continuing the wars that Bush started illegally, Obama is committing the same war crimes Bush did and therefore should be impeached like Bush should have been.

“Endgame” Nader never implied anything about an “endgame” that’s just the new Libya talking point.

Go watch the clip.

If that’s how Nader thinks about Bush, how is what he said about Obama wrong? Did Obama approach the Congress? You might want to revisit conditional statements as applied to Nader’s assessment on Libya. If you wish to argue such a small point, so be it. I find that silly. I actually respect people like Kucinich and Nader for actually being Progressives/Liberals. They’re consistent.

notsofast said:
But, son, he still believes BHO should be impeached.

Are you sure about that?

Wingnut Tormentor said:
Wow what a laughable assertion. Your party may stand for some things, but they most certainly “beat down” people who don’t march in lockstep with them.

How many consistent conservatives got beaten in primaries by Teabaggers last year because they weren’t far enough to the right?

Nevermind that people like Bob Bennett and others who got defeated were pro-life and have consistently voted with Republicans. Now Orrin Hatch and Dick Lugar are next. The purge continues.

How is voting for the candidate of your choice a “beatdown”? Last I checked, that was democracy of our Republic in action. I don’t need oppression in my Party of choice. That would be a Democratic tenet.

WCinWI said:
If that’s how Nader thinks about Bush, how is what he said about Obama wrong? Did Obama approach the Congress? You might want to revisit conditional statements as applied to Nader’s assessment on Libya. If you wish to argue such a small point, so be it. I find that silly. I actually respect people like Kucinich and Nader for actually being Progressives/Liberals. They’re consistent.

Ralph Nader said that on Friday, March 18th.

Obama began his “illegal war on Libya” Saturday, March 19th.

Do you think Nader has some secret insider that knows more than the clueless unaware Congress that weren’t approached?

Sue Lowden? Defeated by a Teabagger

Bob Bennett (86% lifetime conservative rating)? Defeated by a Teabagger

Lisa Murkowski (70% lifetime conservative rating) ? Defeated by a Teabagger

All because they were not extreme enough.

I’m sure Lieberman would wholeheartedly agree. LOL

Penguin60 said:
I’m sure Lieberman would wholeheartedly agree. LOL

The difference: Lieberman endorsed a Republican for president. I’d say that’s fair grounds for not considering him to be a Democrat.

Wingnut Tormentor said:
All because they were not extreme enough.

Ah, a recipient of the DNC memo. LMAO.

WCinWI said:
How is voting for the candidate of your choice a “beatdown”? Last I checked, that was democracy of our Republic in action. I don’t need oppression in my Party of choice. That would be a Democratic tenet.

For you to vote for a candidate of your choice is fine….but when your own party throws a loyal member under the bus (Even when they would have won the general election) is telling.

Penguin60 said:
Ah, a recipient of the DNC memo. LMAO.

Let’s call a duck a duck. Teabaggers are extremists.

Penguin60 said:
I’m sure Lieberman would wholeheartedly agree. LOL

Haha. Let’s see how well Republicans would tolerate it if one of their own endorsed Obama for re-election.

This last election showed that people were frustrated, but it was not an endorsement of Teabagger beliefs.

Look at the high profile races where the GOP nominated Teabaggers and were defeated:

Nevada Senate
Colorado Gov
Delaware Sen.
Alaska Sen.
Colorado Sen
West Va. Sen.

Wingnut Tormentor said:
The difference: Lieberman endorsed a Republican for president. I’d say that’s fair grounds for not considering him to be a Democrat.

Former Dem VP running mate, yep he’s not a Democrat. Doesn’t seem anything like you are demeaning Republicans for?

Penguin60 said:
Former Dem VP running mate, yep he’s not a Democrat. Doesn’t seem anything like you are demeaning Republicans for?

Personally, I don’t care if Lieberman wants to be independent. But I don’t think the Dems have the same track record of forcing out moderates. They do sometimes….but not nearly as much as Republicans recently.

If you can name a Republican who endorsed Obama and got re-nominated by the Republicans I’d like to hear it.

Hell, Charlie Crist just appeared in a photo with Obama and he got abandoned by his party.

Wingnut Tormentor said:
Let’s call a duck a duck. Teabaggers are extremists.

Ah, nope. Ever been to a TEA Party? Have you ever interviewed or asked questions to a TEA Party individual? Don’t let the DNC do your thinking for you.

Wingnut Tormentor said:
Wingnut Tormentor says:
April 1, 2011 at 1:13 pm Wingnut Tormentor(Quote)

Yes, son- the Repubs did so, so poorly in 11/2010, the a certain person said the following:

“A pensive and introspective President Obama said Wednesday the election was a “shellacking” and took responsibility for his party’s disastrous showing, saying that in the rush to get things done, they forgot to make good on their promise to change the way Washington works.”

If anyone like Ben Nelson, Joe Manchin or Mary Landrieu were in the Republican party, they would have been primaried a long time ago.

notsofast said:
Yes, son- the Repubs did so, so poorly in 11/2010, the a certain person said the following:

“A pensive and introspective President Obama said Wednesday the election was a “shellacking” and took responsibility for his party’s disastrous showing, saying that in the rush to get things done, they forgot to make good on their promise to change the way Washington works.”

Yep, we all know that the Repubs won the House.

But I find it telling that they could have won the Senate but DIDN’T.

When the GOP doesn’t get to rely on gerrymandered districts and can only run statewide races (like for the Senate) they don’t do as well.

Penguin60 said:
Ah, nope. Ever been to a TEA Party? Have you ever interviewed or asked questions to a TEA Party individual? Don’t let the DNC do your thinking for you.

You guys do plenty of speaking for yourselves on sites like this….who needs to rely on the DNC when we can read what you really think when you get to speak anonymously.

Going Rancid: How Obama’s war in Libya became a squirmish……..

There were enough competitive seats in play that the GOP could have won the Senate…but they didn’t because the over-reached and nominated ‘baggers in some key races.

That wasn’t berry nice,-stop pickin on Barry. He’s a nice man and… and…well– he gives nice speeches– and he’s good at picking winners at sport stuff.
(Cue the guy crying- stop pickin on Obama).

Wingnut Tormentor said:
Joe Manchin

Joe Manchin ran as a Republican with a D after his name.

Wingnut Tormentor said:
You guys do plenty of speaking for yourselves on sites like this….who needs to rely on the DNC when we can read what you really think when you get to speak anonymously.

Yeah, that’s what I thought.

Wingnut Tormentor said:
But I find it telling that they could have won the Senate but DIDN’T.

Ah, how many seats in the Senate did the Dims pick up? What? What was that you said?

They lost 6? LOL

And how many Governorships did they pick up? What? They lost 12! LOL

Captain Obvious.

Nacho said:
Ralph Nader said that on Friday, March 18th.

Obama began his “illegal war on Libya” Saturday, March 19th.

Do you think Nader has some secret insider that knows more than the clueless unaware Congress that weren’t approached?

You wouldn’t think a little ,”whoops , you’re right I was mistaken” would be that hard would ya?

notsofast said:
Ah, how many seats in the Senate did the Dims pick up? What? What was that you said?

They lost 6? LOL

And how many Governorships did they pick up? What? They lost 12! LOL

But wait — there’s more! “Republicans took control of at least 19 Democratic-controlled state legislatures Tuesday and gained more than 650 seats, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The last time Republicans saw such victories was in 1994, when they captured control of 20 state legislatures.

Republicans haven’t controlled as many state legislatures since 1928.

Across the country, the map for state legislatures has turned noticeably red as Republicans now control 55 chambers, with Democrats at 38 and the remaining yet to be decided. At the beginning of this week, Democrats controlled 60 of the country’s state legislative chambers and Republicans 36.

Obimbo didn’t think it through? How about the sheeple that voted for this idiot?! Not only didn’t they think it through, they didn’t think at all!!

Nacho said:
Ralph Nader said that on Friday, March 18th. Obama began his “illegal war on Libya” Saturday, March 19th. Do you think Nader has some secret insider that knows more than the clueless unaware Congress that weren’t approached?

Obviously people did not do their homework. Here is what really happen

“On March 1, the U.S. Senate approved by unanimous consent a resolution in regards to Libya”

“urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory”

That all it would have taken under this law is for one senator to ask for a vote and not one did. I’m sorry if we are so unfortunate to have member of the House or Senate that do not understand what this means.

Somebody keep a close eye on Mika…I think she’s ‘roiding. Carrying all that water for PrezBO…might wind up on the roof with an (illegal) assault rifle and plenty of targets. ;)

Buchanan has HUGE balls. Where was he when Dub’ya went into Iraq with erroneous or made up intel?! Hypocrite.

In addition
The senate passed this resolution – by unanimous consent. Rand Paul is a US Senator and totally contradict­ed his claims in the GOP response.

It’s as much blatant hypocrisy as Newt, et al.

There is plenty of precedent for use of US military in recent history:

The Iran hostage rescue attempt (1980)
Military exercises in Honduras (1983)
U.S. marines in a multinatio­­nal force in Lebanon (1982–1983­­)
Invasion of Grenada (1983)
Bombing of Libya (1986)
Invasion of Panama (1989)
No-fly zone post Gulf War (1991)
Humanitari­­an mission to Somalia (1992–1994­­), and
Bombing of Kosovo (1999)

In all of these cases, members of Congress have complained that the president had not fully complied with the War Powers Resolution­­.

Truth said:
Obviously people did not do their homework. Here is what really happen

“On March 1, the U.S. Senate approved by unanimous consent a resolution in regards to Libya”

“urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory”

That all it would have taken under this law is for one senator to ask for a vote and not one did. I’m sorry if we are so unfortunate to have member of the House or Senate that do not understand what this means.

That’s very interesting. I’m wondering why this wasn’t more widely reported as Obama gets hammered for not getting approval from congress. Where did you here it?

CosmosDan said:
That’s very interesting. I’m wondering why this wasn’t more widely reported as Obama gets hammered for not getting approval from congress. Where did you here it?

Found it easily> It’s the kind of thing the NEWS ought to be reporting more to keep false memes from spreading.

And Hitleresque Buchanan knows all about such thing. The wise GOPster mind in evidence once more.
Intellectually, morally, ethically weightless. Their vision limited by the curb height. Playing the “:Patriotic Card.” Duhh.

CosmosDan said:
Found it easily> It’s the kind of thing the NEWS ought to be reporting more to keep false memes from spreading.

So basically it doesn’t mean a thing. Urging NATO to establish a no fly zone vs sending troops into harms way.

http://nationaljournal.com/congress/senate-passes-resolution-calling-for-no-fly-zone-over-libya-20110301?page=1

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/angry-lawmakers-grill-gates-on-libya-and-war-powers-act.php#

The only thing ohummer thinks thru are: his next foreign trip with the girls and Big M. Tee times at Andrews, round ball games with his posse, and of course the NCAA bracket picks.

CosmosDan said:
That’s very interesting. I’m wondering why this wasn’t more widely reported as Obama gets hammered for not getting approval from congress. Where did you here it?

One reason is the Senate past it. It was not put up for vote in the House. I’m not sure how the laws read relative to the House. Whether in case like this they only need Senate apptoval I am not sure. If it would have had to go to the House we for sure would have had a lot of dead Libyans.

Penguin60 said:
So basically it doesn’t mean a thing. Urging NATO to establish a no fly zone vs sending troops into harms way. http://nationaljournal.com/congress/senate-passes-resolution-calling-for-no-fly-zone-over-libya-20110301?page=1 http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/angry-lawmakers-grill-gates-on-libya-and-war-powers-act.php#

What do you mean it doesn’t mean anything?

Truth said:
What do you mean it doesn’t mean anything?

“The resolution, offered by Sens. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., and Mark Kirk, R-Ill., has no force of law. And its symbolic impact on U.S. posture toward Libya is uncertain.”

Penguin60 said:
So basically it doesn’t mean a thing. Urging NATO to establish a no fly zone vs sending troops into harms way.

It means that every Rep and Dem in the Senate agree to the action taken!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now whether they are so stupid they did not know what they were agreeing to then the old saying there ain’t no cure for stupid applys

Truth said:
It means that every Rep and Dem in the Senate agree to the action taken!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now whether they are so stupid they did not know what they were agreeing to then the old saying there ain’t no cure for stupid applys

That’s the Senate and it’s a dog with no teeth. There is no binding effect, there is no money allocated, it’s thrust upon the UN. Now, granted, we are the UN. But I don’t believe that you can construe this as the President going to Congress.

Penguin60 said:
That’s the Senate and it’s a dog with no teeth. There is no binding effect, there is no money allocated, it’s thrust upon the UN. Now, granted, we are the UN. But I don’t believe that you can construe this as the President going to Congress.

Obama didn’t need anything else, but worst you got the Ron Pauls of Senate whining that I didn’t agree to anything. In my opinion, it shouldn’t have been a surprise to anyone. Regardless, I think we all agree this had to be done. I think the only thing that concerns us all is if this turns into another Iraq or at least that is my concern.

Buchanan’s opinion is as irrelevant as Sarah Palin’s or Beck and Limbaugh’s.

Nonsense! It’s called “Smart Diplomacy”

The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of
what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.

X-3 said:
The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of
what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.

That is the best articulation of the danger that exists in this country. I’ve never read it better written!

Truth said:
Obama didn’t need anything else

Need to check out the War Powers Act 1973. I think your statement might be challenged.

Penguin60 said:
War Powers Act 1973

See below are we not we talking a similar situation and in the case of Libya and we are acting in behalf of the UN. As it related to Iraq there was no UN just US:

The surge had been developed under the working title “The New Way Forward” and it was announced in January 2007 by Bush during a television speech.[2][3] Bush ordered the deployment of more than 20,000 soldiers into Iraq, five additional brigades, and sent the majority of them into Baghdad.[2] He also extended the tour of most of the Army troops in country and some of the Marines already in the Anbar Province area.[2] The President described the overall objective as establishing a “…unified, democratic federal Iraq that can govern itself, defend itself, and sustain itself, and is an ally in the War on Terror.”[3] The major element of the strategy was a change in focus for the US military “to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security”.[2] The President stated that the surge would then provide the time and conditions conducive to reconciliation among political and ethnic factions.[3]

Bush did not “mother may I” with Congress.

I don’t like war no matter whose in charge especially when it is used as a political weapon and I feel that is what this Libyan activity has turned into.

Truth said:
Bush did not “mother may I” with Congress.

Do you think using a “Bush did it too” is a valid argument? I don’t know if once he got permission, there is anything but “information sharing” required. I never believed Iraq was a good idea. “Mother may I” is a great idea if we are not in imminent danger. I don’t believe Libya fits in that category.

Truth said:
I don’t like war no matter whose in charge especially when it is used as a political weapon and I feel that is what this Libyan activity has turned into

That’s why staying out was a viable option.

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/03/29/world/how-war-powers-act-works.html

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/war-powers.php

“Conceptually, the War Powers Resolution can be broken down into several distinct parts. The first part states the policy behind the law, namely to “insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities,” and that the President’s powers as Commander in Chief are exercised only pursuant to a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization from Congress, or a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States (50 USC Sec. 1541).”