The Left is on the march; are you a bad enough dude to defend your country?

[Human Snorenado]

No, really.  Honestly.  Not kidding.

[Joe Molotov]

What's your username at the Hannity Forum?

[Flannel Boy]

I'm going to defend my country by hosting talk shows. 

[BlackMage]

that agent 86 dude reeks of white trash.

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

 

Should be renamed to :hannity

[Brehvolution]

It's sad that he talks under the guise of patriotism when all he does is hate on more than half of America.

[Kestastrophe]

I love all the bitching that has been going on today about the cut in marginal tax deductions (i.e. mortgage interest and charitable donations). the article in the wsj journal said somthing like the following:

Assuming $1,000 mortgage interest
$350 previously allowable deduction, assuming 35% tax bracket
$280 new allowable deduction

Wow. Might have to put off buying that n^th home or vehicle.

[ToxicAdam]

Do you think when Hannity dies he will have that look on his face in the coffin?




USA USA USA

[Eric P]

just a forum poll

we post some wacky shit too

[Eric P]

[youtube=560,345]r5Rj7gW0V8g[/youtube]

[Human Snorenado]

just a forum poll

we post some wacky shit too

Yeah, but we're not, you know, SERIOUS. 

Unless it's a poll about fucking Tauntaun.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

[Trent Dole]

[Cheebs]

Someone in that thread said Beck claimed we'll be paying 90-95% of our income in taxes by 2012 lol.

[Phoenix Dark]

Nah he was just bringing it up as a future nightmare scenario (lol) and wondering what the response would be

[Eric P]

Someone in that thread said Beck claimed we'll be paying 90-95% of our income in taxes by 2012 lol.

BECK?


Two Turn Tables and a Crushing Tax Debt

(where it's at)

[Brehvolution]

I'm not afraid of the dumb ass left.

They may have more guns but are too fat and lazy to get up and do anything about it. Just think if medicaid forsake them in their "uprising".

The left can't march for too long. Without oxygen at least.

[Bloodwake]

Why Republicans are more dangerous and stupid than Democrats:

When Democrats don't like America, they talk about moving to Canada

When Republicans don't like America, they talk about Civil War II and how many guns they have cached away.

[Flannel Boy]

Why Republicans are more dangerous and stupid than Democrats:

When Democrats don't like America, they talk about moving to Canada

When Republicans don't like America, they talk about Civil War II and how many guns they have cached away.

I wouldn't take a poll created by a user on a Hannity message board too seriously.

[Cheebs]

There's a difference between democrats and republicans? They are playing for the same team as far as I can see.

Because if Gore was elected in 2000 everything would have been pretty much exactly the same as when Bush won amirite?

[ShogunOfFear]

Well spending wise, yes pretty much.

[Cheebs]

The general direction would be pretty much the same I think.

I think it's unfair to try to say in retrospect how Gore would have responded to 9/11.

I think it's pretty fair to say he would have never responded by going into Iraq.

[Tauntaun]

just a forum poll

we post some wacky shit too

Yeah, but we're not, you know, SERIOUS. 

Unless it's a poll about fucking Tauntaun.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

 

spoiler (click to show/hide)

"How does that freedom taste lefty?"

[close]

[Human Snorenado]

Well spending wise, yes pretty much.

Yeah, but instead of 4k dead Americans and 100k+ dead brown skinned folks, we'd probably, you know, have SOMETHING USEFUL to show for all that money spent.  And probably would have caught or killed bin Laden by now. 

[Cheebs]

Well spending wise, yes pretty much.

Yeah, but instead of 4k dead Americans and 100k+ dead brown skinned folks, we'd probably, you know, have SOMETHING USEFUL to show for all that money spent.  And probably would have caught or killed bin Laden by now. 

I wouldn't go as far as to say bin laden would have been caught, but its pretty obvious those 100k+ arabs and the 4,000 Americans would still be alive today. Which is a pretty damn big difference.

[Cheebs]

What I'm trying to say Cheebs: the US like pretty much every other 'democracy' is heading in a certain way and no elected politician is going to change that.

I disagree, because a choice between a long expensive bloody war vs. no Iraq war is a HUUUUUGE difference.

[Flannel Boy]

What I'm trying to say Cheebs: the US like pretty much every other 'democracy' is heading in a certain way and no elected politician is going to change that.

That sounds Hegelian. 

[ShogunOfFear]

Well spending wise, yes pretty much.

Yeah, but instead of 4k dead Americans and 100k+ dead brown skinned folks, we'd probably, you know, have SOMETHING USEFUL to show for all that money spent.  And probably would have caught or killed bin Laden by now. 

I wouldn't go as far as to say bin laden would have been caught, but its pretty obvious those 100k+ arabs and the 4,000 Americans would still be alive today. Which is a pretty damn big difference.

We can play the what if game all day.  Foreign Policy would not be that different under Gore IMO, he was after all a Clinton guy.  Some choose to forget Clinton's views on Iraq.

Bill Clinton 1998 - “Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation’s wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them….I know I speak for everyone in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, when I say to Saddam Hussein, “You cannot defy the will of the world,” and when I say to him, “You have used weapons of mass destruction before. We are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again.”

[Cheebs]

We can play the what if game all day.  Foreign Policy would not be that different under Gore IMO, he was after all a Clinton guy.  Some choose to forget Clinton's views on Iraq.

Gore in 2002, in the lead up to the Iraq War gave an extremely powerful and angry speech in opposition to it. He wouldn't have gone to Iraq. He was 100% against it.

[Cheebs]

You got a point there on the war, ofcourse no war would have been a huge difference.

I'm talking beyond that.
 

The Iraq War defined the Bush administration and was the clearly the most important thing they did. Saying something like "well, other than than that they'd be the same" is like saying "well, other than the new deal and winning WWII Hoover and FDR were the same."

[Flannel Boy]

And Malek could you explain that? I have a degree in History but don't really see what you're getting at, there must be some Hegel influences in me no doubt though.

Though I'm befuddled by his obscurantism, I think he believes history "unfolds" through a "logic" or dialectic that, while amendable to some change, is heading in a certain direction. So, your belief that nations are ultimately heading in a certain direction that cannot be altered by heads of states is compatible with Hegel's views.

[Human Snorenado]

We can play the what if game all day.  Foreign Policy would not be that different under Gore IMO, he was after all a Clinton guy.  Some choose to forget Clinton's views on Iraq.

Gore in 2002, in the lead up to the Iraq War gave an extremely powerful and angry speech in opposition to it. He wouldn't have gone to Iraq. He was 100% against it.

Yeah, he had the luxury to be 100% against it since, you know, he wasn't the President and all.  It's easy to take a stand on principles when you're a fat guy with a beard and no real responsibilities, a little harder if you're the freaking President.

That's not to say that Gore would have gone to war in Iraq- he probably wouldn't have started out with a conclusion and then found a hypothesis to match, for instance.  Or cherry picked the intelligence info that reinforced his beliefs.  But saying that a President Gore would have never considered invading Iraq post 9/11 is, well, the sort of thing a stupid teenager from Michigan would say.  O WAIT.

[Tauntaun]

I'm going to oversimplify things now to get the point across so don't attack the analogy because as any analogy it can only be taken that far before falling apart:

Good cop, Bad cop.

Two different people, different methods, same goal, same team. They get things done together, even if they act seperate of each other. Bad cop does bad things, good cop cleans up.

Republicans, democrats. It really doesn't matter. Stuff needs to get done, so someone somehow will have to bite the bullet on some matter and be unpopular. Then the other steps in and 'cleans up'. Their common interest are served and by electing the good cop the public feels like it's actually in control. Then the proces repeats itself ad naseum.

See some people want to think that the good cop and bad cop are on different teams, but they are fucking partners.

Yep, BAS. 

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[youtube=560,345][/youtube]

[close]

[Flannel Boy]

See some people want to think that the good cop and bad cop are on different teams, but they are fucking partners.

The good cop and the bad cop conspire beforehand to attain the same goal--arrest and convict a perp. For the analogy to be apt, Democrats and Republicans must be actively conspiring to attain the same ends. While they are similar in a number of respects, they obviously have differently goals and values. And I really don't think they're conspiring, not even through acquiescence.

[ShogunOfFear]

We can play the what if game all day.  Foreign Policy would not be that different under Gore IMO, he was after all a Clinton guy.  Some choose to forget Clinton's views on Iraq.

Gore in 2002, in the lead up to the Iraq War gave an extremely powerful and angry speech in opposition to it. He wouldn't have gone to Iraq. He was 100% against it.

GORE: We have maintained the sanctions. I want to go further. I want to give robust support to the groups that are trying to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Some say they’re too weak to do it. But that’s what they said about those opposing Milosevic in Serbia.

Who is to say Gore's views would not have led to conflict with Saddam?  Again this debate is all what if and one could come up with a flow chart of scenarios.  Fact remains both party's foreign policies the past couple of decades were Saddam is bad/evil, we'd like to see him gone.

[Cheebs]

I'm going to oversimplify things now to get the point across so don't attack the analogy because as any analogy it can only be taken that far before falling apart:

Good cop, Bad cop.

Two different people, different methods, same goal, same team. They get things done together, even if they act seperate of each other. Bad cop does bad things, good cop cleans up.

Republicans, democrats. It really doesn't matter. Stuff needs to get done, so someone somehow will have to bite the bullet on some matter and be unpopular. Then the other steps in and 'cleans up'. Their common interest are served and by electing the good cop the public feels like it's actually in control. Then the proces repeats itself ad naseum.

See some people want to think that the good cop and bad cop are on different teams, but they are fucking partners.

There has been too many times over history where the parties had completely polar opposite goals that I just can't agree. Republicans wanted to end slavery back in the civil war, democrats totally against it and tried to stop it.

FDR entering WWII while Republicans wanted to remain completely isolated from it.

Democrats trying to give African Americans full civil rights in the 60's while southern dems and republicans did their all to try to stop and filibuster it.

etc...

[Ganhyun]

We can play the what if game all day.  Foreign Policy would not be that different under Gore IMO, he was after all a Clinton guy.  Some choose to forget Clinton's views on Iraq.

Gore in 2002, in the lead up to the Iraq War gave an extremely powerful and angry speech in opposition to it. He wouldn't have gone to Iraq. He was 100% against it.

Yeah, he had the luxury to be 100% against it since, you know, he wasn't the President and all.  It's easy to take a stand on principles when you're a fat guy with a beard and no real responsibilities, a little harder if you're the freaking President.

That's not to say that Gore would have gone to war in Iraq- he probably wouldn't have started out with a conclusion and then found a hypothesis to match, for instance.  Or cherry picked the intelligence info that reinforced his beliefs.  But saying that a President Gore would have never considered invading Iraq post 9/11 is, well, the sort of thing a stupid teenager from Michigan would say.  O WAIT.

 

[Flannel Boy]

I think any historian can identify some processes in retrospect that have shaped the world, in fact as you know our whole view of history is shaped by these processes (like 'Industrial Revolution' etc.).

Yes, but this is post-facto, after the events take place. And the events were conditional; that is, none of the events had to happen--things could have been different. Hegel, on the other hand, does not believe that events were conditional; he believes they had to unfold the way they did, following a certain logical progression. So I really don't think most historians have much in common with Hegel.

[brawndolicious]

The general direction would be pretty much the same I think.

I think it's unfair to try to say in retrospect how Gore would have responded to 9/11.

I think it's pretty fair to say he would have never responded by going into Iraq.

Didn't you say that you supported that at the time?

[Phoenix Dark]

I think it's more than fair enough to say Gore would not have relied on out dated intelligence, half-truths, and neocon advisers which ultimately lead to the war. I don't think we can definitively say he would NOT have attacked Iraq - but we can definitely say he wouldn't have lied to get us into Iraq

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

Depends on the political pressures of the time.  9/11 was going to change the way Americans wanted foreign policy for a few years and if Gore didn't comply to it to some extent, he would have been outed in 2004.  So I think he would have done something.  To the scale of Bush?  Probably not.

[Cheebs]

The general direction would be pretty much the same I think.

I think it's unfair to try to say in retrospect how Gore would have responded to 9/11.

I think it's pretty fair to say he would have never responded by going into Iraq.

Didn't you say that you supported that at the time?

Eh? I think that was PD. I was a hippie liberal by that point already. I supported Nader in 2000. 

[Phoenix Dark]

I never supported the war. It got me into politics

[Cheebs]

I never supported the war. It got me into politics

The 2000 recount is what got me into it. Memories.  :'(

[Phoenix Dark]

I payed attention to the election but really didn't get heavily into political stuff until the build up to the war. Wrote a paper about it (back when I was at WCC) and became more conscious of shit going on around me

[brawndolicious]

Eh? I think that was PD. I was a hippie liberal by that point already. I supported Nader in 2000. 

People are saying it is because of Bush's amazing and perfect Middle East "freedom" strategy. Afghanistan, Iraq, and now it is spreading. Does it seem to be working? Yes, yes it is.

(Image removed from quote.)
tsk tsk

it kinda sounded like it.

[TVC15]

There's a difference between democrats and republicans? They are playing for the same team as far as I can see.

Yeah, it's one of the reasons democracy doesn't work.  When everybody gets to have their voice heard, only the mediocre and most homogenized will rule.  Nobody with the gaul to put new ideas into effect will ever be elected.  Democracy dooms countries to having their lowest common denominators lead them.  Freedom in this case of civil duty is, as usual, a bad thing.

[Dickie Dee]

I fucking hate false equivalency, and I always hate this discussion. Though it might be partially Gore's fault for not leveling up to super-awesome Gore until several years after the election, anybody who actually believes the hypothetical Gore years would've resembled the Bush years is distinguished mentally-challenged.

[Cheebs]

I fucking hate false equivalency, and I always hate this discussion. Though it might be partially Gore's fault for not leveling up to super-awesome Gore until several years after the election, anybody who actually believes the hypothetical Gore years would've resembled the Bush years is distinguished mentally-challenged.

Gore was always the Gore he was after the election, it's just his political handlers made sure to keep it locked up while on the campaign trail. From what I read he really really wanted to talk about global warming, seeing how it was his passion issue and asked to do a policy speech about it in the month or two before the election but all his campaign managers did their best to shut him up on it.

If you look at his time as senator in the 80's and the book he wrote back then he was super-awesome environmental loving Gore he is today. Too bad he let his campaign handlers hide it though.

He may have won since it probably would have probably lead to Nader being far less of a factor.

[ToxicAdam]

Why do you assume Gore would be any better? He's just another rich-kid dolt like Bush.

That's my new motto in politics now. No more sons of influential or rich men. Give me someone that pulled themselves out of their situation and rised to the top.

[Phoenix Dark]

Why do you assume Gore would be any better? He's just another rich-kid dolt like Bush.

Seriously?

[Cheebs]

Why do you assume Gore would be any better? He's just another rich-kid dolt like Bush.

That's my new motto in politics now. No more sons of influential or rich men. Give me someone that pulled themselves out of their situation and rised to the top.

So you vote Obama then, and Clinton before him.  Because both are guys who came from nothing and pulled themselves to the top and ran against candidates from rich families.