“God love you Lieberman, my favorite democrat. Keep fighting the good fight!!”
damnadamson on Jun 9, 2009 at 18:12:39
“actually he's a republicrat or as some say for short ... a rat !!!”
SpecOpsGuy1963 on Jun 9, 2009 at 18:09:46
“Both are good men. I don't care what their party is...when people do the right thing, they get my support. When they screw it, they get the opposite. So good to see some good happening in DC for a change.”
“A modern state cannot function without hypocrisy. For instance, candidate Obama opposed military tribunals, state secrets involving the war on terror, wire taps, U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, email intercepts, and drone "assassinations" of terrorists. But, thankfully, President Obama has seen the light and is tolerating these hypocrisies to protect American lives.
Do you honestly believe that our behavior (good, bad, or indifferent) has some sway over Kim Jong Il and the ghoulish state of N. Korea? The link below tells you all you need to know about this leader and his country. We could be as pure as the driven snow and there would be no change in how this madman runs this hellstate.
I can live with our sins. We “torture” with letters of permission from DOJ, doctors and nurses nearby in case someone get’s hurt, and pictures to document the act. Unlike Kim Jung Il, our supreme leader takes orders from the Supreme Court, which is why Boumediene was released.
Incidentally, there’s not a single detainee who we have released from Gitmo who did not claim complete innocence, many of whom were killed or recaptured trying to kill us in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.”
goodforme on Jun 9, 2009 at 12:23:21
“sign the bloody non-aggression treaty with NK,
and keep your promise for once.”
mushmouth on Jun 8, 2009 at 20:05:27
“Also that was 1 of 7 (most of which cannot be named), which means more than likely 6 of 7 were innocent.”
mushmouth on Jun 8, 2009 at 20:03:44
“I would guess that we should be detaining Scott Roeder indefinitely without trial, and subject him to torture, due to the fact that he plans on, and knows of plans to bomb and kill more OBGyn's who are following the law. It's a ticking time bomb excuse.”
“While we're in there, let's get the Constitution and Bill of Rights out as well!
If you honestly believe that every one of the abortions this doctor performed were on Trisomy 21 children, you have been lied to.
He was paid very well to do abortions that MOST abortionists find morally repellent.
It is nearly impossible with modern medicine for a mother's life to be in jeopardy by carrying a pregnancy to term when she is already in the third trimester. (In the rare cases where this is true, I and many other pro-lifers would support the abortion.)
According to the Constitution and Roe V Wade, late-term children (deformed or not, and many were perfectly healthy who were terminated in Wichita), have the same rights as all of us: LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Gidster on Jun 4, 2009 at 16:48:31
You have been lied to.
Only fetuses with significant defects, dead fetuses, and fetuses that endanger the life of the mother are taken this late.
Only in the case of young children, being the victims of rape or incest is a possible viable fetus aborted this late.
What kind of monster are you to demand that the progeny of that heinous act be forced upon a young girl to suit your version of morality?”
“I would be if, like you, I equated the innate value of a Big Mac to exist with that of an unborn human. But I have this odd incongruity that I share with about half of the population of the U.S. and billions of others around the world: I don't.”
“As a pro-lifer, I have no problem saying that all life is sacred, except the cheeseburger on my plate and the rapist who just broke into my house. I'll eat the burger the shoot the rapist and sleep with a clear conscious and firm commitment of the sanctity of human life.”
swift goat pet for truth on Jun 3, 2009 at 10:44:01
“So forcing a woman who discovers late terms the fetus has a severe deformity and will die shortly after birth, to carry that fetus to term, knowing it will die, is cool with you.
In fact, you will apply the force of law to make her do so.
clevelandchick on Jun 3, 2009 at 07:27:13
“Then you are not pro-life. You are pro-deciding for others what life is sacred. And you are not qualified to do that.”
wdw505 on Jun 3, 2009 at 01:33:34
“as a anti-abortion person, I have no problem saying that no life is sacred as i am not religious. i'll eat the burger the shoot the rapist and sleep with a clear conscious and firm commitment in the castle doctrine.....
just a couple minor changes”
iridium53 on Jun 3, 2009 at 01:05:37
“You mean anti-choice, right?
Only you get to choose for everyone.”
“As a pro-lifer who condemns the murder of Tiller and as an O'Reilly fan, I have to admit that I finally agree with Keith. We are talking about death! In the words of R-v-W, abortion is legal to the "point at which the fetus becomes viable." which is defined as potentially able to live outside the mother's womb with medical intervention. This is when abortion becomes murder, according to this legendary SCOTUS ruling. What about that death? Can I expect a special comment lamenting the loss of these lives on tomorrow's Countdown?”
cinesimon on Jun 2, 2009 at 22:10:55
“In other word, you know nothing about the work DrT Tiller did, but you wish to be righteous anyway - even if it promotes your cause as the most ignorance short of NAMBLA.”
Jun 2, 2009 at 14:36:43
“I'm pro-life and know hundreds of others who hold the same conviction. None of them celebrate this murder or condone violence to promote our cause.
The one difference between yoor experience and those performed by Tiller is that he aborted thousands of children who were either viable or very, very near viability.
If you support R- v- W, then you know that this ruling says these children are protected by the Constitution.”
katielady on Jun 2, 2009 at 17:40:10
“I disagree with you...
1. The leading cause of death among pregnant women is murder by the father of the baby.
2. no woman blithely decides one day to make this heartwrenching decision. Dr Tiller did not judge the choice a woman felt she had to make.. He offered her the best medical care available. Unless you walk in the shoes of one who felt there was no choice, don't judge.
I am a nurse and saw many who felt there was no choice. If you have a belief in a God, then you can only love the person and show compassion.”
JonShank on Jun 2, 2009 at 17:18:44
“How do you know that he aborted fetuses that were "either viable or very, very near viability"?”
sonshine on Jun 2, 2009 at 17:08:48
“The facts are not supported by what you are saying. Tiller only performed the risky abortions that he did when the mother was in need because her life was at risk or the child would not survive if born. You need to do your research and don't substitute your decision-making for a mother and her doctor. Pro-life is pro controlling the bodies of others. It is wrong.”
thinkagain2 on Jun 2, 2009 at 16:28:34
“And how exactly do you KNOW about the viability of these pregnancies?? It has been disproved in court and by the very fact the Tiller was a compassionate and responsible doctor. No assumptions to the contrary, no matter how often they are repeated, have been proven or even make any since.
You know nothing of the truth of what happens at an abortion clinic, and that is as it should be.”
RumiSouth on Jun 2, 2009 at 15:42:46
“Sorry, but a child about to be born with no brain is not "viable." It's a carcass. Forcing a woman to give birth to a carcass is the disgusting act of a tyrant; there's nothing "pro-life" about it, and certainly nothing "moral."”
Feesister on Jun 2, 2009 at 15:38:05
“This is simply not true. Dr. Tiller only performed these procedures when the situations were dire. And think about what this argument says about the women who go through this. As if they would do this casually. As women, I have no doubt this happens with great emotional distress. Dr. Tiller didn't drag anybody off the street, nor did the women do this because they were having a bad day. Its disgusting to say otherwise.”
liviapeacock on Jun 2, 2009 at 15:33:09
“That is just NOT TRUE Lockean Liberal, and when people like you describe late term abortions as being performed on "viable" or "nearly Viable" (whatever that means) it is a genuine lie told by people to scare and mislead those who can not think or educate themselves.
Stop attempting to pass off hearsay and right wing talking points as truth.
You are dangerous.”
cvarner on Jun 2, 2009 at 15:14:34
“And what you're saying about 'viability' is not true. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, even though you use the "pro-life" label, and suggest you actually look at some of the real case histories. Born with a (mostly) missing brain? That fits your definition of 'viable'.
Also, many of the people -- MANY -- of them are, in fact, condoning violence. They've preached it for years. They've said, for years, that it's justified. They've said that it is, in fact, God's work, for years. Perhaps you don't know these people directly, but if you carry the "pro-life" flag, you are supporting them.
If you're really against abortion, as in you would like to see fewer abortions, then you must logically disassociate yourself with the vast majority of "pro-life" groups who oppose birth control. Support comprehensive sex education and ready availability of contraception. Those two simple steps decrease abortion rates.”
Marcospinelli on Jun 2, 2009 at 15:07:12
“Late term abortion is very rare and not performed on a whim.
Typically the mother's health and life is in question, and the fetus is either deformed or disabled in a way that it's not going to live much beyond birth.
The world would be a much better place if people would stick their noses back into their own lives and not presume to make decisions for others whose lives have no connection to theirs.”
“It seems that Abu Ghraib supports Bush administration legal memos and Cheney's recent comments about enhanced interrogations. Water boarding, one of the sanctioned methods, was not used at Abu Ghraib. None of those convicted for these crimes was found guilty of perpetrating them in the course of interrogation. Sadly, much of this was done for retribution or for "fun," which reflects the military's lack of training and preparedness in the face of the insurgency and the chaos that ensued among poorly trained and supervised troops during an occupation outsourced to contractors.”
senseandnonsense on Apr 27, 2009 at 07:47:08
“You really haven't been following this too closely, have you?”
Rogan on Apr 27, 2009 at 06:49:37
“The guards at Abu Ghraib maintain(ed) they were acting on orders. And CIA interrogators did torture Abu Ghrain inmates - that's just not who took the pictures we've all seen. Watch the Errol Morris documentary Standard Operating Procedure.”
SharpDressedMan on Apr 27, 2009 at 00:10:51
“Spoken like a Bush sympathizer. Thanks but no thanks.”
“So when we make nice, hostilities will cease? So how do you explain 911. The entire time that attack was being plotted, Bill Clinton sent Maddy Albright around the world to grovel and to show our softer side. That didn't work out to well. Same goes for post WWI. The world superpowers, the U.S. and UK said enough to war following the War to End all Wars. We disarmed and sent a very dangerous message to those who were more than willing to fill the power gap. They did, caught us off guard, and tens of millions died.
You make my point for me. Your idea of geopolitics is informed by Oprah and the self esteem movement, which is incredibly dangerous.”
“The handshake alone would be forgivable, but in the context of apologies to every world leader he meets, bows to an oligarch, and his apparent agreement with every global grievance about the U.S., he is reintroducing America to Presidential malaise and sowing the seeds for a powerful GOP challenge in 2012. Thank you, President O! Don't come home. Keep the USA Acts of Contrition Tour on the road! Better yet, bring Oprah or Dr. Phil along with you and pay some oafish actor in a stained sleeveless T-shirt to personify a sullen US. Dr. Phil could mediate an intervention between brutish pre-Obama USA and Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il, Daniel Ortega, and the mayors of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. At the end, Brute USA would break down and say sorry, as Dr. Phil explains that those who were molested as children often “act out” in aggressive and inappropriate ways, followed by a big group hug and extreme makeover for Brute USA. That’s good TV!”
incognito-ergo-sum on Apr 21, 2009 at 19:30:02
“Lockean. Someone in school should have told you that it reduces your writing to a childish level when you use universal terms: every world leader he meets, every global grievance or all, each, none always, never etc.
No one, with a brain, (see how I modified that word play 'no one')? should ever read your stuff again.”
JustLucky on Apr 21, 2009 at 13:01:33
“This is appalling. For one thing, he absolutely did not go around apologizing to every world leader, although we certainly have enough to apologize for. It wouldn't have mattered to you what he had done - you clearly had an attitude about him long before he took office.”
sansego2000 on Apr 21, 2009 at 12:49:07
“When will you get it? You don't go at every situation with the show of power and aggression, especially when you are the more powerful. That is how you keep enemies and hard feelings and nothing gets done, it is just anti-pruductive to always act in a superior way. People are tired of the republican ways of making enemies of most people and countries around the world. It is a bitter pill to speak the truth about your own mistakes and wrong doings, but takes a bigger man to own up to them, instead of blaming everyone else like the republicans do. Also Obama is not agreeing with every grievance about the U.S., don't try to spout your opinions as facts, that is what Fox News does.”
obmark on Apr 21, 2009 at 12:48:01
“Captain Cuckoo Bananas, I presume?”
4akinderworld on Apr 21, 2009 at 12:36:11
“You haven't a clue what is being said. Only what news sources tell you. Link me to a quote where he has offered an actual apology.”
cltclt on Apr 21, 2009 at 12:34:30
“He didn't run from Chavez as Bush used to. I remember coverage of Chavez making the "devil just left this room and it still smells like sulfer" comment. President Bush wasn't there to get up and walk out because he'd already run out. Or as you guys like to say "cut and run". President Obama knows what the saying "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer". There is footage of another interaction between the President and Chavez, but Fox is not showing that because it doesn't fit into what they are selling.”
NYCMami on Apr 21, 2009 at 12:34:19
“Is this some sort of weird screenplay you wrote or do you have a comment?”
chicagurl on Apr 21, 2009 at 12:28:28
“Okay, so are you saying that George Bush was molested as a child, which is why he acted out so aggressively against Suddam Hussein? Hmmmm, and all this time I thought it was because he was too much of a coward to serve in Vietnam. Why hasn't anyone gone after George Sr. and Babs for molesting their children? Oh, maybe it's because you're the only one coming up with this theory??”
sviolette on Apr 21, 2009 at 12:27:13
“You are supposed to be laying down when you dream. When you have had the Bush administration war criminals in charge for 8 years you should be apologize to the rest of the world. Most people believe war criminals belong in jail.”
“After all of the anger and hostility you expressed about Bush, I don't remember you ever accusing him of being duplicitious. You may not have liked what he said, but at least Bush was true to his word. Obama, on the other hand, says everything you want to hear but does whatever is expedient.
It all reminds me the great CSNY song:
Her harlequin hovers nearby
Awaiting a word
Gasping at glimpses
Of gentle true spirit
He runs, wishing he could fly
Only to trip at the sound of good-bye
He waits by the window
At the empty place inside”
“You make some good points. We all dissemble to one degree or another, some more so than others. For example, R-v-W extends civil liberties to babies in the third trimester. In reality, this right has never existed and we pro-lifers have had to fight to restore it, making only minor inroads in preventing cases of the most barbaric forms of termination of viable kids. One would think that common ground would be easily achieved on this topic, but we struggled for decades and now Obama may undo even this small progress.
You make a staggering comment in your exchange above: "…studies show that the more religious a woman is the harder struggle she has with it (post-abortion grief). So possibly, it's the culture she's in that creates guilt with her decision."
Isn't the same true for stealing, lying, incest, pedophilia, and murder? We would absolutely reduce guilt if we just killed the taboos against these behaviors has well.”
unitron on Apr 19, 2009 at 00:20:30
“"...this right has never existed and we pro-lifers have had to fight to restore it..."
How exactly does one go about restoring that which has never existed?
Are you misinformed as to the meaning of the word "restore"?”
rejoiceinit on Apr 17, 2009 at 19:47:43
“Your post is a great example of the "unbending culture warriors" this article is all about. Keep throwing your money into highway billboards while we do the real work; as usual.”
“History of terror, Part 2
These stats come from Center for Defense Info and include only attacks targeting US interests with fatalities.
This is not a winning resume for a counter-terrorism strategy and it certainly reflects badly on Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II. Rather than trying to indict each others favorite presidents, let’s instead look at attacks based on the prevailing counter-terrorism strategy at the time. All of these attacks occurred when the strategy was non-preventive, response-oriented, and looked at acts of terror as crimes rather than as acts of war.
When the strategy became focused on prevention using the military, rather than police to investigate after the fact, attacks against the U.S. domestically and abroad came to a screeching halt.
Our new president wants to go back to the old strategy because the strategy that works makes us unpopular.”
ObjectiveRealist on Apr 10, 2009 at 13:08:13
“Why do you include attacks on military personnel abroad before 11 September 2001 but not afterward? Al Qaeda attacks on soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq between 2002 and the present must also be included in any honest "history of terror against the U.S. over the last 25 years." Such honest accounting disproves your militarist assertions.
All of these attacks occurred when the strategy was non-preventive, response-oriented, and looked at acts of terror as crimes rather than as acts of war.
When the strategy became focused on prevention using the military, rather than police to investigate after the fact, attacks against the U.S. domestically and abroad came to a screeching halt.
Unless you count "al Qaeda in Iraq" as terrorists and their use of IEDs as terrorism, as Cheney/Bush/Rumsfeld often did in defense of their invasion of Iraq.”
“Here is a breif history of terror against the U.S. over the last 25 years:
Sept. 11, 2001 – WTC, Pentagon, Shanksville approximately 3,000 deaths
Oct. 12, 2000 - USS 17 sailors killed
Aug. 7, 1998 - U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, 291 killed
July 27, 1996 - Atlanta Olympic games , one death.
June 25, 1996 - Dhahran, Saudi Arabia (Khubar Towers). 19 U.S. military killed
Nov. 13, 1995 - Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 7 killed (5 US military)
Apr. 19, 1995 - Murrow Federal Building in Oklahoma City, 168 killed
Feb. 1993 – First WTC attack, 6 killed.
Dec. 21, 1988 - Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. 259 killed
Apr. 1986 - TWA flight explosion in Athens, Greece. Four killed
Apr. 1986 - Berlin disco bombing kills 2.
Dec. 1985 -Rome and Vienna international airports. 16 people are killed in the two attacks..
Nov. 1985 - Egyptair flight hijacked. All 60 aboard killed.
Oct. 1985 - Achille Lauro. American Leon Klinghoffer is killed.
Aug. 1985 - Frankfurt, Germany US based car bomb kills two.
June 1985 - In San Salvador, El Salvador, 13 people are killed in a machine gun attack including four U.S. Marines and two American businessmen.
Apr. 1985 - A bomb at U.S. air base in Madrid, Spain, killing 18.
Nov. 1984 - U.S. embassy Bogota, Colombia bombing kills one.
Oct. 1983 - U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut attack, 241 US servicemen lost.
Apr. 1983 - U.S. embassy in Beirut bombing kills 63 (17 Americans).”
“Your statement "Those of us who regard Hersh as one of the greatest journalists of our generation tend to believe him," is telling. Why voluntarily defend his credentials? Unless you feel he needs defending. In which case, you are correct. Many of his books, including the Dark Side of Camelot and Price of Power, have raised serious questions about his reporting. More recently, Hersh reported that Don Rumsfeld sanctioned the sexual humiliation of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. In 2000, he accused Gen Barry McCaffrey of murdering unarmed Iraqis--still yet to be proved. There are these and other reasons to doubt the reporting of Sy Hersh. Why should we believe him now?”
madisonhack on Apr 8, 2009 at 08:43:58
“McCaffrey...the guy who is on the FOX payroll? That guy? No, he wouldn't do a thing like that.”
“"Safer" has become a strangely ambiguous term. Recognizing that the U.S. was not attacked domestically or abroad since 911 2001, if we are safer under Obama/Biden, how will we know?”
KillgoreTrout43 on Apr 7, 2009 at 21:28:37
“We were attacked everyday abroad, in Iraq. More people died under bush and cheney's orders than those that died on 9/11. Not to mention over 40,000 maimed and wounded. Not to mention over HALF A MILLION Iraqi deaths.”
whosyourdaddy on Apr 7, 2009 at 21:13:49
“Whether we are attacked or not.”
KillgoreTrout43 on Apr 7, 2009 at 21:03:03
“How do you know you were safe under bush? No serious terror plot was ever uncovered under bush.”
Pleneras on Apr 7, 2009 at 20:45:33
“In all seriousness, do you actually think after an attack like that Al-Qaeda is in a hurry to do another one? They can sleep for 10, 15, 20 years and their happy as an Isamic fanatic in heaven with 88 wives or whatever number it is. What they did was start-kick the government's economic system crumbling down knowing Bush was going to empty the treasury and mismage it all on behalf of Halliburton, Blackwater, Bush & Cheney, because that's what idiots do when it comes to war. History tells you all fallen governments cause was because they WASTED the money of the people.”
monoxboogie on Apr 7, 2009 at 20:14:20
“The Republicans have said repeatedly that the US has not been attack by terrorists in 9/11. Here are some facts regarding terrorist attacks after 9/11.
2001-10–16: Anthrax mailings in US. (NY Times)
2002-07-04: Egyptian kills two Israelis at El Al ticket counter at the Los Angles International Airport. (NY Times)
2002 October: Beltway Sniper (NY Times)
2006- 03-6: Man drives jeep through crowd at university. (NY Times)
2006-08-30: Man terrorizes San Francisco with SUV, kills one. (SF Chronicle)
2006-09-12: Gunmen attack US Embassy in Syria (NY Times)”
NickConrad on Apr 7, 2009 at 19:51:19
“Safer was never ambiguous, it was disingenuous from the start. Al-Qaeda attacks the WTC in 1993, and then (according to Bush-era GOPers) we did absolutely nothing but sit on our hands. Unfettered, they took 8 years to hit the same target. According to Bush-era GOPers, we then proceeded to go to town on terrorism (you'd think slowing down their efforts); however, after just 7 years they're fawning all over themselves for how we're safer.
If I assign you a term paper, and several weeks before it's due give you an F, you don't praise me for it.”
AngelaQuattrano on Apr 7, 2009 at 19:50:57
“We had multiple domestic terrorist incidents in that time.”
jjgg5 on Apr 7, 2009 at 19:42:58
“We were attacked in 2001 under the Bush/Cheney regime.”
“I really wouldn't worry about it. By gutting our missile defense, joining the UN in-Human Rights Commission, and promising to reduce our nuclear stockpile, President Obama has added a weapon to our arsenal that Kim Jung Ill simply cannot ignore: "Moral Authority." Imagine all of the pressure he'll be under at the next annual convention of homicidal deranged autocrats: "KJ I, under Barack Obama, the United States is really nice now! There is no more need for you to hold hostage your population, to torture children for the dissent of their parents, and to seek weapons of mass destruction. Now let me buy you another apple-tini."”
TryToBeFlexible on Apr 6, 2009 at 08:48:30
“Yes, I guess having one or 2 jury rigged missiles capable of delivering dud bombs to somewhere near an Alaska island will greatly outweigh our 10,000 hydrogen bomb tipped accurate ballistic missiles, fully capable of reaching North Korea. I can see why this would constitute American surrender, in the fevered mind of a Republican.”
All in All on Apr 6, 2009 at 00:20:10
I just typed the same type of statement a moment ago, then when I pressed refresh and read Your statement I realized that was the case.”