>> ^Psychologic:
Even though Palin says some funny (and inaccurate) things, you can't really fault her on not knowing what the "Bush Doctrine" is. It has meant multiple things throughout the years, so no one can really claim that it only means one specific idea.

I will politely disagree with this assessment, as the word "doctrine" (or "dogma") has a clear meaning in the realm of politics - specifically foreign policy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine#Foreign_policy_of_Doctrine

As you can see, there have been numerous doctrines throughout the years, i.e. the Monroe Doctrine, the Eisenhower Doctrine, the Nixon Doctrine, and Bush Doctrine. It is fairly obvious that Gibson is referring to this definition of doctrine, and Palin should know what is meant by "Bush Doctrine" as a candidate for 2nd in command of a superpower. She doesn't, just going by her response, "In what respect, Charlie?"

I agree that Bush has all kinds of retarded ideas, beliefs, and policies, but using the word "doctrine" really only specifies foreign policy. And I know of no other foreign policy of Bush other than minimal diplomacy and maximum warmongering.

Uhh, elitist as though it's a bad thing. Fucking idiots.

They say "Hamas would prefer Obama" IS THAT A BAD THING!? They want war as little as the rest of us regular people. The only fucking warmongering, invasion hungry people in the US are the non-elites: all the morons. "I'll shoot Osama with me pistol, yeehaaaw"

Yeah, we've all seen this before.

The extreme warmonger lies our country into an immoral war of choice, which sets the middle east on fire, pisses off everyone around the planet, rapes our treasury, enriches his corporate buddies, and in the process shreds our constitution and forces over 1million Iraqi children, exiled, thrown into the disgusting underground industry of child-prostitution.

Oh yeah, and we've killed a few hundred thousand innocent people in the process.

All built on a pack of lies.

We've all seen this before.

I'm not so sure they're liberal edged, they take Obama to task pretty hard at times, though they do somewhat buy into the "neocons are crazy warmongers" thing, but IMO that's just the truth.

The guy they're interviewing for this series on US/Russia relations is actually from the American Conservative magazine, which sounds like a funny name for a liberal rag to me. They say he's one of their big donors, too.

TRN is entirely funded by donations, BTW.

In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
^ It's web only. http://www.therealnews.com/


Ahh thanks. They seem to always have kinda a liberal edge, and im more a libritarian. But I remembering watching an interview on BBC and liked the idea of it being non-big business funded. Makes me wonder where they money is coming from though.

I'm going to offend some people here but I have to.

This guy has it all, pro choice and anti 2nd amendment.

Just because I support the 2nd amendment does not make me a religious conservative. I support the constitution, what does that make me?

And know I wont explain it to you naysayers out there, this guy is just the same as the other guy if not worse. He is "A peace loving decoy ready for retaliation." (-Dirty harry gorillaz).

He says he is pro gun, yet he supports the ban in Chicago, and in the District of Columbia even though they struck it down. Yet it is still illegal to own any automatic or semi auto gun? That's every gun except revolvers and lever actions and pump shot guns. Not to mention the class 3 weapons, that are classified assault. That usually means any weapon with a "bayonet lug", recoil suppressors, or heat plating (commonly seen on shotguns particularly the Spas series.)

http://www.popandsports.com/?p=1118

"Barack Obama's Gun-Related Votes The U.S. Senate Debated:
Obama
Voted:
Supporting concealed carry for citizens10
Anti-gun
Banning many common semi-automatic firearms11
Anti-gun
Disallowing self-defense in towns where guns are banned12
Anti-gun
Imposing one handgun a month restrictions13
Anti-gun
Requiring lock up your safety trigger locks14
Anti-gun
Protecting gun dealers from frivolous lawsuits15
Anti-gun
Outlawing gun confiscations during a national emergency16
Pro-gun
Squelching the free speech rights of gun owners17
Anti-gun
Restricting the interstate sales of firearms18
Anti-gun
Repealing the gun ban in Washington, DC19
Anti-gun

4 James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins, "Court to hear gun case," Chicago Tribune, November 20, 2007.
5 Illinois State Senate, vote on SB 2165 (41-16), May 25, 2004.
6 Obama says, "National legislation will prevent other states' flawed concealed-weapons laws from threatening the safety of Illinois residents." David Mendell, "Democratic hopefuls vary a bit on death penalty," Chicago Tribune, February 20, 2004.
6 Obama says, "National legislation will prevent other states' flawed concealed-weapons laws from threatening the safety of Illinois residents." David Mendell, "Democratic hopefuls vary a bit on death penalty," Chicago Tribune, February 20, 2004.
7 See the Gun Owners of America fact sheet at http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm.
8 John Chase, "Keyes, Obama are far apart on guns; Views on assault weapons at odds," Chicago Tribune, September 15, 2004.
9 Senators Chuck Schumer and John Kerry had both cosponsored S. 1431 in 2003, a bill that would have banned any semi-auto shotgun that also contained a pistol grip, which the bill defined as "a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip." According to that definition, just about any semi-automatic shotgun would be banned.
10 See supra note 6.
11 About the so-called "assault weapons" ban, Obama says, "I believe we need to renew -- not roll back -- this common sense gun law." See supra note 8.
12 See supra note 5.
13 As a state senator, "Obama regularly supported gun-control measures, including a ban on semiautomatic 'assault weapons' and a limit on handgun purchases to one a month." "Obama Record May be Gold Mine for Critics," Associated Press, January 17, 2007.
14 On July 28, 2005, Senator Obama voted for a provision requiring gun dealers to include the sale of a lock-up-your-safety device with every handgun sold. The amendment, offered by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI), passed by a vote of 70-30. The provision amended the gun makers' protection act (S. 397).
15On July 29, 2005, Senator Obama voted against S. 397, a bill that was designed to put an end to the frivolous lawsuits that were threatening to put many gun dealers out of business. While an argument could be made that a pro-gun Senator might vote against this bill because it contained a lock-up-your-safety provision (see supra note 14), the fact that Obama voted in favor of that trigger lock amendment (but against the overall bill) indicates his real animus against helping gun dealers protect themselves from the anti-gun lawsuits that were aimed at driving them into bankruptcy.
16 On July 13, 2006, Sen. Obama voted for Emergency Powers language that saw only 16 of the most ardent anti-gun senators vote against it. The amendment provides that no money can be used by federal agents to confiscate firearms during a declared state of emergency. The amendment was added to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill (HR 5441).
17 On January 18, 2007, Senator Obama voted against a pro-gun amendment to strike language in S. 1 that would infringe upon the free speech rights of groups like Gun Owners of America. The amendment, which passed, struck requirements that would have required GOA to monitor and report on its communications with its members, and could easily have led to government demands for GOA's membership list (a.k.a. registration).
18 Obama has frequently made statements which indicate that he would restrict the interstate sale of firearms. For example, he told the NAACP that, "We've got to make sure that unscrupulous gun dealers aren't loading up vans and dumping guns in our communities, because we know they're not made in our communities. There aren't any gun manufacturers here, right here in the middle of Detroit." Senator Barack Obama, at the NAACP Presidential Primary Forum, July 12, 2007.
19 See supra note 4. " Quoted from a (I Know absolutely conservative site ).

http://www.gop.com/images/research/062608Research2.pdf (this is a PDF) - its hard to find stuff that isn't blatantly republican.

All i am saying is do a little digging on this. I don't want warmongering republican or a lair democrat for president.

I have know problem with commonsense law, but don't lie about your record. I support background checks and the tests needed to get a CCW.

Get this, in some states all you need is hunters education can get a CCW.

This argument has nothing to do with pro choice or pro life in which case I am indifferent.

^ Yep, no difference.

One talks about timetables for withdrawal from Iraq, and turning over the country's defense to local security, and the other wants permanent bases for 100 years.

When Russia invades Georgia, one is just a hair short of demanding we send troops to Georgia, while the other stresses the need for diplomacy.

When Iran has no nuclear program, one says we have to attack now to prevent them from getting one, the other just says we need to work with the U.N. with diplomacy and possibly economic sanctions to prevent it.

I can see why you can't tell the difference, they're like totally identical in that they both have different responses to all three foreign policy questions in the U.S., because one responds all-military all the time, and the other is pretty close to all-diplomacy all the time.

People who try to encourage this "they're both the same" meme, knowingly or not, is aiding this warmongering moron get elected. I want more from Obama than he's promising too, but he's better than anyone else who's going to be on the ballot.

After all, the same kind of fool pushed the "they're both the same" meme with Bush and Gore, and I don't think anyone thinks they'd have been the same today.

>Please America, don't elect this warmongering fascist. Do the rest of the world a favor for once.

Do yourself a favor for once and stop cow-towing to american
imperialism. Stand up to the bully. The rest of the world has the power right now to stop america: stop trading in dollars, stop buying our debt. China alone could probably trigger a collapse of our economy.

Shit, I hadn't seen the "other wars" statements before... and "we're in a struggle that's gonna be with us for the rest of the century"

SHIT.

Please America, don't elect this warmongering fascist. Do the rest of the world a favor for once.

so you think that helping a person off the floor is more important than publicising the injustice that has taken place to thousands or millions?

maybe we should train 10000 war photographers and send them to disaster zones, where they can all take a couple of pictures and then get on with the "real" work of helping people who have cuts and broken limbs. If they miss a few shots while helping someone, if they get distracted and can't do their job properly, well that's ok because grandma is comforted by a guy who has no training.

i am just amazed that there is so much shock about a photographer doing his job, whereas the people who bombed a helpless village are not discussed in the same breath. Even if you think the photographers are a bit bad, the warmongers are the real problem here, not the photographers.

I disagree with you both.

They should take pictures then take any one injured to a hospital, where they can get a more drastic effect with their photography.

Most of the staunch warmongers will wilt when they see what it actually is.

What we have here is the genovese effect, only responsibility is diluted through the use of the camera. Thoughts: "I don't have to help any one, because I'm media."

Diffusion of responsibility comes in many forms, the photographers are no less a problem then the bombs.

Movie: We were Soldiers, the photographer was a bystander until responsibility fell on him personally.

PS: This guy in the video is a helluva photographer.

The talking head is trying to isolate and discredit Iran. His aim is to discredit and confuse anything Iran says.

These warmongering mf'ers (chickenhawks) have nothing to lose from starting a new war. Meanwhile Nancy Pelosi does still not have a spine. She had an excellent argument for finding her spine, in a congressional investigation, but she delegated that to her aides, who may or may not find the spine after they get done blowing lobbyists. LOL.

I'll just hold my breath for a couple weeks and see if the war with Iran turns nuclear. TBH, if you look at the relevant legislation in the USA, we are virtually at war with Iran now.

The description to this video is just FUD. He has never supported preemptive wars. He voted against the Iraq war and said the troops should have stayed in Afghanistan to finish off Bin Laden and the Taliban. Unlike Iraq, Most of Afghanistan WANTS more troops to help fight a resurgent Taliban (and thereby defend their basic freedoms from those fundamentalist nutjobs who would have women accused of adultery beheaded) Once we've fucked up a country with war we have an obligation to help rebuild it, if that's what you mean by "nation building".

"United Nations, NATO, and the World Bank"
Aside from the World Bank's usury, why show such contempt for international cooperation? One world government is not necessarily a bad thing.

"From the cave-spotted mountains of northwest Pakistan, to the centrifuges spinning beneath Iranian soil, we know that the American people cannot be protected by oceans or the sheer might of our military alone."
Iran actually DOES have centrifuges for enriching fuel for power plants, and such equipment could easily be reallocated to weapons production if Iran wanted to do so. Nothing about that statement is inaccurate, only your FUD interpretation of it is inaccurate. Obama has never supported attacking Iran. Apparently you think acknowledging the existence of a threat we might face is equivalent to advocating war. Irishman makes the same mistake. Obama is not warmongering, he is trying to build international cooperation. Counterterrorism does not require starting any new wars. He has said we will GTFO of Iraq by 2010 and just finish the job in Afghanistan.

"join overwhelming military force with sound judgment"
That's not saying we should start any new wars. The only war he's advocating is finishing the job in Afghanistan.

Let's take stock of the republican platform planks that self-ascribed republican "values voters" support:

1. Anti-homosexuality
2. Warmongering foreign policy
3. Pro-censorship of "obscenity"
4. Abstinence-only sex "education" that does not include information about contraceptives.
5. Cutting funding from all kinds of government programs aimed at helping the poor.
6. Official government support of monotheism over all other forms of religious belief via school prayer, the pledge of allegiance, "in god we trust", etc.
7. Complaining about their tax dollars going to fund abortion while at the same time forcing atheists to fund monotheism with their tax dollars.


"Values Voters" are morally bankrupt.

^NordlichReiter:
I'll let someone else tear you a new one. This makes me wish we had a mandatory military like germany. It would really open your eyes to the respect your taught to give everyone even your enemies. Go to a recruiting station for any branch and tell them you want to shoot people and that's the reason you want to join. Please do so and tell me what they say. I think you'll be surprised.

Of course, no one in his right mind (i.e. not mentally ill) would say that he likes to kill people to anyone, army recruiter or not. You'll have to revise your 12th grade pop psychology and look up "subtility", "concealment", "repressed desire" and "uncounscious desire". Man is a machine with a big and powerful nervous system (yes, that last bit means essentially "powerful brain") and it would be idiotic to think everyone is always open about their feelings to others and even to themselves, or that they even know about their true feelings, emotions or beliefs. This may go against your christian-centric "freedom of will and everything else" worldview, but science doesn't care about you or religious ideology­.

On another note, I too would like for mandatory military service, like Switzerland (they provide for a much better political and economical model than Germany at present), but obliviously for different reasons than your warmongering american ones. There is value in defending one's life and the lives of your kin (which, in my book, should a priori include every human being in the world), but essentially your right to do so stops where the right of the others to defend themselves begins. This may be a cliché, but it is a useful one nevertheless. Of course, where to draw the line in real situations is difficult, but the principle should be remembered. When you are invading a whole country with the pretense of defending yourself, in this case Afghanistan and Iraq, you have to ask yourself some big and important questions, and the answers should be as strong as your claim is: that you somehow have the right to invade someone else for your own protection as a defensive action. Now, you may think, and probably many americans do, that you have the right to bully and push around anyone else you may want to just because of the fact that you exist: that's called "survival of the fittest" thinking (or "being a dick" for short), and as game theory shows, it won't take you far in the long run.

If you can't be a dick and your freedom to defend yourself is restricted, why would you want a military, let alone a mandatory military service? Two big reasons: one, you sometimes do need to actually defends yourself against "I-have-a-bigger-dick-than-you-so-do-my-dad-and-I'll-show-you-why" type of idiots, who either don't know, don't understand or couldn't give a fuck about game theory if their lives somehow depended on it (yes, military officers know about it, but your COMMANDER-IN-FUCKING-CHIEF, the supposed equal of George Washington, has got not even a hint of the most little clue) and they are best dealt with a quick and impressive show of actual or what seems like actual force, not bombastic military parades though these can serve to frighten some kinds of idiots. Two, being in an actual conflict, even and perhaps especially on a peacekeeping mission, can sometimes have a calming effect on trigger-happy or shoot-first-ask-later kind of young men and women. This effect is of course not guaranteed since every one is different (another useful cliché, in moderation).

As an aside, a corps of able and ready young people can be useful in humanitarian situations. Military training can also provide useful skills that some might not want or be able to get elsewhere (navigation, survival, basic weapon and self-defense, etc.). If not misused, a military can be a boon, like everything else in life.

Sorry for the long posts, but even with this (or maybe because of it? The internets are not used to reading long, thoughtful and rhetoric- and logic-filled discourses, especially not this abstract) many don't get what I'm trying to say, so imagine if I just said "EXCUSE THE FUCK OUT OF ME?". That could be deviously misconstrued as rock throwing if I was former military personnel, proud of my time of duty, responding to an anti-military statement!

P.S. I never said everyone in the military is lowlife scum or that everyone is joining to protect their country. From what I said would follow that in the worst case, half of everyone would be lowlife scum, and the other half would join to defend their country (in the case of the present american army stationed in Iraq at least). Of course I do not think it is so clear-cut, that was rhetoric. But far worse and damaging rhetorically is the typically american FOX-Newsy "misunderstanding" (conscious or not) of quoting me as saying they were all lowlife, or that they were all joining to defend their country. These are statistically very improbable situations, to say the least! There are also those who join because they need money they can't get otherwise, those who want to make their daddy proud, those who want to continue a familial tradition, those who are planning their political careers, etc. But they are not the focus of this discussion since I believe they form a minority, all the more so when you look at the true, hidden motives.

Not trying to trample on Carlin's grave or anything, but... how can something 1 minute before exiting the womb and one minute after be the difference between having no rights and having rights? Life has to be defined at conception. Obviously, killing doctors is stupid extremism, but there's a good argument against abortion and it has nothing to do with "crazed religious people." It's kind of like saying free speech should be abolished because the KKK in the USA is a huge advocate of it. Guilt by association is a terrible debate tactic. I'm atheist and I happen to think it's murder out of inconvenience. Didn't want the kid? Why did you have unprotected sex?

Oh, and as for the argument that conservatives are the only warmongers and want to keep the children so they can send them to pointless wars and die, remind me: what party started the interventions in Korea, Vietnam, and Kosovo? Oh yeah, it was the Democrats. Too bad we have the long-term memory of drugged up lemmings in this country or we'd have a libertarian president by now.

By the way, I still love some of Carlin's rantings against religious stupidity and tax-exempt churches, but this one doesn't have much rationality behind it.