When a network runs a caption box asking if one party is "declaring war" on America, they have lost all credibility as a "news" source.  They are now a 24/7 editorial service.

 

You won't see stuff like that on CNN, or the networks, or in any major newspapers (in their news sections, not editorials or columnists), against the GOP or any party.

Yes you will, and do.

Yes you will, and do.

You've seriously seen CNN or MSNBC say something like "Are the Republicans declaring war on America"? Man alive, you better be able to back that one up.

Yes you will, and do.

Please provide evidence.

Yes you will, and do.

Oh come on.

Link

 

    A subpoena in the case, issued this month to an Abramoff associate, says the US government is seeking information on Abramoff-related activities with ''any department, ministry, or office holder or agent of the Russian government."....

 

    Investigators have asked for any information about Abramoff's dealings with two top Naftasib executives, Alexander Koulakovsky and Marina Nevskaya. Senior Naftasib executives helped arrange a trip Abramoff took to Moscow in 1997 with former House majority leader Tom DeLay, a longtime Abramoff friend.

 

    The subpoena specifically requests information about dealings between the Abramoff associate receiving the subpoena and DeLay....

 

    The subpoena indicates that investigators want to establish what the Russians were trying to accomplish through Abramoff.

 

    It asks for records relating to Naftasib's interest in legislation, tax policy, and the International Monetary Fund.

 

    The IMF, which is financed partly by the US government, has provided billions of dollars in loans and loan guarantees to the Russian government.

 

    Geeslin [he ran the U.S. Family Network, the organization that the Russian money was funneled through] said he had been told that the money was aimed at influencing the vote of DeLay, the former House majority leader, on legislation that shored up the IMF's financing for Russia.

The newest Federal Reserve report on changes in family finances-- looking at changes from 2001 to 2004 -- highlights the decline in families with private retirement accounts for individuals.  While the news is dominated by employers eliminating defined benefit pensions, the fraction of families with individual retirement accounts also fell 2.5 percentage points in those years.

 

In fact, less than 50% of families have any kind of retirement account.

 

The hard reality is that employer pension funds are mostly being replaced by....nothing.

 

OH. MY. GOD.

 

OH.  MY.  GOD.

 

So ... what was said?

 

OH.  MY.  GOD.

In this case, I don't think it is necessarily a bad question. I mean, my answer is 'no', but there are valid arguments for 'yes' as well. I've heard some pretty convincing reasons why it might have been better to split Iraq into 2 or even 3 countries (Kurdistan, and then splitting the mostly Shi'ite south from the Sunni central and west).

In this case, I don't think it is necessarily a bad question.  I mean, my answer is 'no', but there are valid arguments for 'yes' as well.  I've heard some pretty convincing reasons why it might have been better to split Iraq into 2 or even 3 countries (Kurdistan, and then splitting the mostly Shi'ite south from the Sunni central and west).

I understand those arguments and think that there's a chance that given our current circumstances that's probably the best we could hope for...but on the other hand, It'd be very nice if somehow we could get to that point without a bloody full-scale civil war.

So ... what was said?

Presumably something akin to what we're discussing here. But that just seems like a really, really bad way to phrase the question. There is, IMO, no sense in which an actual civil war could be a good thing, because a ton of people would end up dead.

I understand those arguments and think that there's a chance that given our current circumstances that's probably the best we could hope for...but on the other hand, It'd be very nice if somehow we could get to that point without a bloody full-scale civil war.

I agree. There are better ways of getting there, most definitely. But if it needs to go there, and that is not being allowed... we may end up down that road.

If it's best to split the country, fine, just chop it up. There's no reason there has to be a civil war to accomplish that.

 

Turkey would f'n flip if there were any attempt to create a Kurdish nation, though.

I understand those arguments and think that there's a chance that given our current circumstances that's probably the best we could hope for...but on the other hand, It'd be very nice if somehow we could get to that point without a bloody full-scale civil war.

 

That's the best we can hope for? What about the possibility of the Iraqi leaders getting a handle on the situation and calm everybody down before it does erupt into civil war? Is that impossible in your opinion?

I agree.  There are better ways of getting there, most definitely.  But if it needs to go there, and that is not being allowed... we may end up down that road.

Well, as far as I'm concerned, a long and bloody civil war is the single worst possible outcome of our invasion there. So even if we're just delaying the onset...I'd say that efforts to prevent that outcome are justified, even if they only have a 1 in 10 trillion shot of working. You can't get much worse than a partitioning of that country and a civil war between the Sunnis and Shia, which would be almost certain to draw Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria directly into the conflict.

Presumably something akin to what we're discussing here.  But that just seems like a really, really bad way to phrase the question.  There is, IMO, no sense in which an actual civil war could be a good thing, because a ton of people would end up dead.

 

Did you watch? Or are you talking out your ass? Or did you just see an opporutnity to post one picture out of context to make Fox News look bad?

 

Good ol' Fox.

 

Too much!

That's the best we can hope for?  What about the possibility of the Iraqi leaders getting a handle on the situation and calm everybody down before it does erupt into civil war?  Is that impossible in your opinion?

No I don't think that's impossible. Which is why I said there's a chance that it's the best we could hope for, not that it's absolutely the best we could hope for.

Did you watch?  Or are you talking out your ass?  Or did you just see an opporutnity to post one picture out of context to make Fox News look bad?

Yeah, basically. Which is why it's in this thread.

Yeah, basically.  Which is why it's in this thread.

 

That speaks volumes about you and your objectiveness.

That speaks volumes about you and your objectiveness.

Well, I apologize for finding that to be a bit of a shocking way to frame it. If you'd like I'll delete the post.

Edited February 24, 200620 yr by Balta1701

Well, I apologize for finding that to be a bit of a shocking way to frame it.

 

Totally out of context, because you supplied no context. You didn't watch and really don't have a clue as to what was said, but you think this is worthy of posting just to reinforce you agenda based on a whole bunch of nothing.

Did you watch?  Or are you talking out your ass?  Or did you just see an opporutnity to post one picture out of context to make Fox News look bad?

 

YAS the Democrat, I like this. I guess you have finally seen the light Welcome aboard.

YAS the Democrat, I like this. I guess you have finally seen the light  Welcome aboard. 

 

Flaxx told me the party was one of inclusion. So here I am.