Support NeoGAF

[bishoptl]

fuck no, I've wasted enough time on this as it is

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Ruh roh! Looks like someone isn't aware that Republicans are joining her in calling for the release of the notes.

Oooh! There's more! I hope you're fired up about hearing what the Republican Minorty Leader of the House, John Boehner, had to say to Wolf Blitzer!

So, to wit:

Republicans saying the CIA lied to Congress - okay
Democrats saying the CIA lied to Congress - bad

Remind me why we should take your posts seriously again?

When did I say republicans are ok in saying CIA lied but not the dems? Please tell me when I said that? You also assume I am republican when I never said if I am or not. You are making accusations without even asking me the question you are accusing me of having a response to.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

LovingSteam
The Reason We Need Shining Beacons of White Guilt
(Today, 03:49 PM)
Reply | Quote



make it happen bish!

Do you think I am racist? Question.

 

[PantherLotus]

No, I really don't. I think you come from a place of earnest ignornance and not willful stupidity. However, I think your arguments here today are a funny counter point for that other guy's ridiculous "all white people are racist whether they know it or not" stance. It was just funny to me.

Again--I don't think you're racist. I think you're stupid.

When did I say republicans are ok in saying CIA lied but not the dems? Please tell me when I said that? You also assume I am republican when I never said if I am or not. You are making accusations without even asking me the question you are accusing me of having a response to.

If you don't know why you're a Republican, you're definitely a Republican.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

If you don't know why you're a Republican, you're definitely a Republican.

Again, you are making accusations as well without asking a question. Howabout you ask me a question instead of accusing me of saying or being something I never said or claimed to be.

 

[PantherLotus]

Again, you are making accusations as well without asking a question. Howabout you ask me a question instead of accusing me of saying or being something I never said or claimed to be.

So now being called a Republican is an accusation? How the mighty have fallen.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

No, I really don't. I think you come from a place of earnest ignornance and not willfull stupidity. However, I think your arguments here today are a funny counter point for that other guy's ridiculous "all white people are racist whether they know it or not" stance. It was just funny to me.

Again--I don't think you're racist. I think you're stupid.



If you don't know why you're a Republican, you're definitely a Republican.

Its interesting. I am open to changing my opinion, I have done so a few times here. I don't care who is right, me or you. I care what is right. So if what I come to find out about repubs/dems/racism show that my view was incorrect I have no problem adapting. I simply haven't seen the point you are trying to make here being supported by evidence. If you choose to say that I am purposely ignoring the facts, well, in order to purposely ignore any fact there must be a reason for me to do so, and honestly, there is no such reason.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

So now being called a Republican is an accusation? How the mighty have fallen.

It's an accusation since you are accusing me of being something without asking me. Me calling you a democrat without actually knowing if you are is an accusation as well as an assumption.

 

[charlequin]

Again, my whole point isn't to say republicans are innocent or democrats are guilty. It is to say both parties take part in the same banter.

If you can't agree that the Republican party has, over the course of recent history, engaged in an active policy of race-baiting politics that is not mirrored in any way by the Democratic party, then no, you do not understand US political history (or, less charitably, you do but are choosing to misinterpret it in order to spin.) There's really not any room for agreeing to disagree here; either you can acknowledge the factual backdrop I discussed and accept the natural conclusions thereof, or labor under a false equivalency.

(And, of course, none of this means that every person who votes Republican or identifies as a Republican is racist, or supports racism. We're talking about a party strategy and the actions of specific party political leaders here.)

Edited per your request. Also, I figured you would make a comment about the source rather than reading its contents first.

I read it, but I don't have anything to say about the article's content presented in a vacuum besides "this source sucks." What specific point are you trying to raise about the Ricci case here?

I suppose I should ignore any post that contains Huffingtonpost since I disagree with the way it leans rather than reading the contents?

Sure. I don't like HuffPo anyway.

But please be clear: my objection is to a site that runs disguised editorial that's shaped up like news articles, and that uses dog-whistle phrases about " fairly [presenting] all legitimate sides of a story" and "[putting] a higher premium on balance than spin" to present itself as a neutral, centrist observer when it's actually a right-wing advocacy site originally founded as the "Conservative News Service."

If you want to post news articles from a real news source (even Fox), or right-leaning editorials or blog posts, go right ahead.

 

[polyh3dron]

No matter who Obama picked, the GOP would be screaming "ACTIVIST JUDGE ZOMG". Just because you scream louder doesn't make you right.

 

[mckmas8808]

From my understanding they wanted the soldiers out YESTERDAY. Also realize that Obama will keep thousands of prisoners in Iraq longer than the 20 months. Al be it, far fewer than there are now (I agree with him)

Obama was for troops in Afgan however many are upset because they feel its a war we cannot win (just like Iraq) and want the troops out yesterday. I feel Obama did an amazing decision in the surge for Afghanistan and in fact many repubs gave him credit for doing so.

He didn't ban the photos but said that they will take it to the supreme court if need be which they weren't going to do originally. Again, I agree with him if will lead to more violence. What is interesting is that many who want the pictures shown, many in the media, are the same individuals that chose to not publish the Muhammad cartoons saying it would create violence. So in reality for these people freedom of the press and free speech are applicable when it applies to abuse by our soldiers but not when it comes to printing something that will offend religious folk. Again, agree with Obama.

Prisoners, I agree with him for the most part. I think its fascinating to watch a person go from senator/governor to Pres. They say many things before the inauguration and then go back on it. Why? Because they are given full access to intelligence that they didn't have access to before hand. Also Obama like Bush is fighting for immunity for the phone companies in terms of spying.

First of all Obama was always on the side of immunity for the phone companies in terms of spying. That pissed me and the rest of GAF off. But it wasn't a change.

And Obama was never for 100% all the time full transparacy. Who ever thought that was either young mentally about national security, wet behind the ears, or didn't understand Obama's stance on those type issues.

And according to the SOFA (status of forces agreement) all of our troops have to be gone on January 1st 2011. As far as I understand it.

 

[besada]

It's an accusation since you are accusing me of being something without asking me. Me calling you a democrat without actually knowing if you are is an accusation as well as an assumption.

So, are you a Republican? You're new here, but most of the people in thread know which way we voted in the last election. You have us at somewhat of a disadvantage.

By the way, you're welcome to call me a liberal. Even a socialist, if you like.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

First of all Obama was always on the side of immunity for the phone companies in terms of spying. That pissed me and the rest of GAF off. But it wasn't a change.

And Obama was never for 100% all the time full transparacy. Who ever thought that was either young mentally about national security, wet behind the ears, or didn't understand Obama's stance on those type issues.

And according to the SOFA (status of forces agreement) all of our troops have to be gone on January 1st 2011. As far as I understand it.

Correct and that will be about 24 months after his inauguration. However I wouldn't be surprised to find out that thousands of our troops will remain in some capacity in Iraq even after that date.

 

[reilo]

LovingSteam is just the new flavor of CoolTrick. Please don't take him too seriously. It's a hard sell trying to make so many disingenuous arguments as he has.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

You're right that I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt, because I don't tend to assume that people who have dedicated their lives to relatively quiet and underpaid public service in the judiciary are harboring secret dreams of racial superiority carefully concealed behind a mask of reasonableness.

No one is saying that she's a closet Hispanic supremacist. I just pointed out that what she said wasn't as limited as you claimed. I don't think she's a Hispanic supremacist, but she makes clear her hope that a Latina woman would come to a better conclusion than a white male. And she makes it without the caveats you're granting her. Let's not call it "racism," but "rooting for one's own team."

It's possible to make that argument when you abstract it enough, and you look at a single seat in a vacuum. It's very difficult to make the case, IMO, that a group of seven straight white male justices of relatively affluent backgrounds who attended a limited set of Ivy League law schools and who lived in the coastal regions would make equally just rulings across the board compared to a panel of justices who varied significantly on all of those factors and therefore were able to bring a perspective on a much broader cross-section of American life to the table in their rulings.

The supposed O'Connor quote specifies "wise" men and women. You're fighting against the definition of "wise."

Further, while I value a diverse opinion, especially in a body as important as the SCOTUS, I don't think an unbalanced body would be inherently unjust, and I think it's a little sad that you don't think people can rise above their labels for justice.

 

[PantherLotus]

Beware the Numbers

So what to make of the charge from the right that Judge Sotomayor has an allegedly high rate of reversals by the Supreme Court? Fox News' Major Garrett just raised it with Robert Gibbs at the daily White House press briefing. Here's the text of exchange (video here):

Garrett: Is a nominee's history of opinions and reversals a relevant factor for the public and the Senate?
Gibbs: Well, I think it is one of the many factors that likely will be picked over and weighed as we go through this.

Garrett: How does the White House evaluate Judge Sotomayor's record on this score?

Gibbs: Well, I think if one were to create 380 opinions and have 3 reversed.

Garrett: What's the Supreme Court ratio?

Gibbs: You tell me.

Garrett: 6 opinions, 3 reversals.

Gibbs: Well, Major, don't just judge, I wouldn't judge you on the stories I call you about, I might judge you on the full package of your repertoire. Whether or not you ultimately see fit to change any of the rhetoric on ...

Garrett: I am not a nominee for the Supreme Court, let the record reflect.

Gibbs: I would agree with that.​

So when outfits like the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network say that Sotomayor has a "terrible record of reversals by the Supreme Court," what they're referring to is the narrow and misleading issue of how the Supreme Court has ruled when it has gone so far as to accept the case on appeal. There does not appear to be any sort of unusually high number of her cases making it to the Supreme Court.

--David Kurtz

Watch for this talking point to be shot down rather quickly. Oh shit, it just was. Back to "hot blooded, unintelligent, tempermental, emotional latina," I guess.

 

[bishoptl]

When did I say republicans are ok in saying CIA lied but not the dems? Please tell me when I said that? You also assume I am republican when I never said if I am or not. You are making accusations without even asking me the question you are accusing me of having a response to.

You're calling out the Democrat Speaker of the House of Representatives who said the CIA lied to Congress.

You're willfully ignoring the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee who said the CIA lied to Congress.

I don't recall ever stating that you are a Republican. If I have, please quote/link to the post in question for all of us to see. Frankly, it's a valid assumption based upon the arguments you've been expressing, but to my recollection I never said it outright.

Nobody mentioned it here except for you. Funny how that works.

 

[mckmas8808]

Correct and that will be about 24 months after his inauguration. However I wouldn't be surprised to find out that thousands of our troops will remain in some capacity in Iraq even after that date.

I wouldn't either to be honest. :lol

But I hope we are completely gone by then.

 

[PantherLotus]

Well I called him a Republican, but I used it as an epithet.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

So, are you a Republican? You're new here, but most of the people in thread know which way we voted in the last election. You have us at somewhat of a disadvantage.

By the way, you're welcome to call me a liberal. Even a socialist, if you like.

Thanks for actually asking me the question. Hmm, on many issues I am but on some issues I am not.

I personally think Bush was one of the worst presidents for many reasons, but not his response to 9/11. I think his spending was atrocious. I think that he made so many statements such as "you are either with us or against us" that did massive damage. I feel that his policy regarding immigration was wrong. I don't think he is a bad man or evil (not that any of you here do) but simply isn't a good leader. I did vote for him in 2004 and with Kerry as his opponent I would do it again. That for me says more about my dislike for Kerry than my support for Bush. Also Bush' support of the stimulus bill I was against from day 1 and any bailout for the car industry.

Gay marriage, I support which most repubs don't. I also don't believe abortion should be made illegal which most repubs do believe. I believe that we need to work on our environment but I disagree with the extreme methods to do just that (cap and trade) or removing certain foods from menu's such as lamb.

So on some issues I stand more repub on others more democrat.
I w

 

[PantherLotus]

You're a Guiliani Republican, which is similar to a Hawkish Democrat, which incidently, I am!

 

[PhoenixDark]

why are we still hearing the "out of the mainstream/American values" line of attack in 2009? Most Americans are pro-choice and support for gay marriage is growing at a crazy rate. I haven't read everything about her positions yet but seriously, which one is uber radical?

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

You're calling out the Democrat Speaker of the House of Representatives who said the CIA lied to Congress.

You're willfully ignoring the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee who said the CIA lied to Congress.

I don't recall ever stating that you are a Republican. If I have, please quote/link to the post in question for all of us to see. Frankly, it's a valid assumption based upon the arguments you've been expressing, but to my recollection I never said it outright.

Nobody mentioned it here except for you. Funny how that works.

Correct, my bad for assuming that you were making assumptions. To be honest, I wasn't aware of the ranking republican also making an accusation. I have a problem with him saying that publicly as well. I have no problem with any congressman/woman believing and researching the CIA misleading, I have a problem with them voicing it to the world.

 

[besada]

I don't think he is a bad man or evil (not that any of you here do) but simply isn't a good leader.

Well, I think he's definitely a bad man, or at least a very weak one. But then again, I'm from Texas and I've voted against him twice as much as the average Democrat (which I am, although I'm decidedly more liberal than your average Democrat on some issues and less on others). I don't think he's evil. That's more Cheney's gig.

I notice you didn't mention who you voted for in the last election.

 

[PantherLotus]

why are we still hearing the "out of the mainstream/American values" line of attack in 2009? Most Americans are pro-choice and support for gay marriage is growing at a crazy rate. I haven't read everything about her positions yet but seriously, which one is uber radical?

Do you have different people type under the same name? I coulda swore just the other day you were arguing against both! Man I need to stop drinking.


But to answer the question, she has no uber radical positions. Just non-conservative leanings.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

You're a Guiliani Republican, which is similar to a Hawkish Democrat, which incidently, I am!

Here is the deal Panther, I have changed my opinion many times (abortion being illegal/ now I don't think it should be), (gay marriage against/ for gay marriage). I honestly don't have a bone to pick or am not trying to beautify any party of another as I am tired of both of them to be honest. I also have an issue making hasty statements (i.e. the activist part earlier) and then try and go back and correct it. While some here may think of my statements as a joke or ignorant or what have you, that is not my intent nor purpose. As I said, I could care less who is right but I am trying to find out what is right so if I need to adjust my views than I will have the information to do just that.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Well, I think he's definitely a bad man, or at least a very weak one. But then again, I'm from Texas and I've voted against him twice as much as the average Democrat (which I am, although I'm decidedly more liberal than your average Democrat on some issues and less on others). I don't think he's evil. That's more Cheney's gig.

I notice you didn't mention who you voted for in the last election.

Ahh sorry, McCain. My concern for Obama was the bigger govt (not him being an undercover muslim terrorist). Although to be honest I wasn't a fan of McCain either. I also supported Palin in the beginning but looking at her now, ughh. I just hope the Repubs don't pick her for 2012 and I don't think they will be that stupid. Obama has impressed me in some ways and disappointed me in others but I don't feel he is a man who wants to deceive. I believe he is doing what he believes is best, I just disagree with him on many issues.

 

[APF]

The fact that Lott was pushed into backpedaling - instead of realizing that what he said and the group he associated himself was political anathema - reinforces that his forced apology does not and should not carry the same weight.

At the same time, you're being willfully blind to the immense differences between what the two are apologizing for, which again is to your argument's disservice. Rather than have you stick doggedly to this tact, which I think is fairly insipid and hypocritical, I think you'd have a stronger position following what you brush past but never really hold onto, because you need to peg This One Guy as evil--namely, that Lott is an airhead who says things without thinking, and because of his involvement as a social conservative in the Republican party he repeatedly finds himself in the situation of accidentally voicing and appearing in support for Bad Actors. This speaks a lot stronger to a structural racism within the party that they've been rhetorically trying to distance from yet cannot.

 

[bishoptl]

I see the term "über radical" and immediately think

At the same time, you're being willfully blind to the immense differences between what the two are apologizing for, which again is to your argument's disservice. Rather than have you stick doggedly to this tact, which I think is fairly insipid and hypocritical, I think you'd have a stronger position following what you brush past but never really hold onto, because you need to peg This One Guy as evil--namely, that Lott is an airhead who says things without thinking, and because of his involvement as a social conservative in the Republican party he finds himself in the situation of accidentally voicing and appearing in support for Bad Actors. This speaks a lot stronger to a structural racism within the party that they've been rhetorically trying to distance from yet cannot.

I'm not too concerned on what you find hypocritical. I do appreciate your concern, however.

If it was a question of hanging all of the Republican party's ills around the neck of Trent Lott, that would be one thing. Thankfully there are more than enough examples available, which I've already pointed out.

The argument being made was that Byrd's presence on the Democratic side was somehow the equivalent of Lott's "indiscretion". One guy apologized, the other guy apologized, it's all the same - and the fact is, neither the apologies or approaches are remotely similar.

Unless you're being deliberately obtuse, which is a theory very much in play.

 

[charlequin]

No one is saying that she's a closet Hispanic supremacist. I just pointed out that what she said wasn't as limited as you claimed. I don't think she's a Hispanic supremacist, but she makes clear her hope that a Latina woman would come to a better conclusion than a white male. And she makes it without the caveats you're granting her. Let's not call it "racism," but "rooting for one's own team."

So your takeaway from reading the whole speech, in context, is that Sotomayor actually believes that Latinas are categorically smarter/wiser/better at judging than white men, across the board and in all circumstances?

The supposed O'Connor quote specifies "wise" men and women. You're fighting against the definition of "wise."

I'm not presuming that "wise" is a perfect descriptor like "unique" where it's either completely present or completely absent. I do actually believe that a demographically narrow group is going to be fighting against its own limited experience in adjudicating cases of civil rights and equality; I think there were plenty of white men in America's history who I would say could fairly be attributed wisdom yet who nonetheless agreed to compromises on civil rights that we would find unambiguously loathsome today.

Further, while I value a diverse opinion, especially in a body as important as the SCOTUS, I don't think an unbalanced body would be inherently unjust, and I think it's a little sad that you don't think people can rise above their labels for justice.

"Inherently unjust" is taking it a little further than my own position on the matter. I think individuals rise above their labels all the time, but that second-hand experience is also not a substitute for first-hand experience.

 

[besada]

I believe he is doing what he believes is best, I just disagree with him on many issues.

I feel the same way on certain issues, although I imagine we're coming from different directions on most of them.

 

[charlequin]

why are we still hearing the "out of the mainstream/American values" line of attack in 2009?

Because Republicans are still trapped in a "real America"/"fake America" mindset.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

I feel the same way on certain issues, although I imagine we're coming from different directions on most of them.

Very true.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Do you have different people type under the same name? I coulda swore just the other day you were arguing against both! Man I need to stop drinking.


But to answer the question, she has no uber radical positions. Just non-conservative leanings.

I rent out my account for $5 a post

 

[scorcho]

LovingSteam is just the new flavor of CoolTrick. Please don't take him too seriously. It's a hard sell trying to make so many disingenuous arguments as he has.

That's giving CoolTrick awesome levels of credit. I'm in awe of loving's staying power right now.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

That's giving CoolTrick awesome levels of credit. I'm in awe of loving's staying power right now.

Well i am happy i could entertain.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

I just got done reading the past few pages. HOLY CRAP. I think it's time for LovingSteam to take a break from this thread. Nothing but right wing talking points. Why do you include Nancy Pelosi being 3rd in line for the POTUS in your argument? Is that some kind of scare tactic? :lol

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

What right wing talking points have I made? Also, if there are right wing talking points are they simply ignored/false because they are made by conservatives? Also, I mention Nanci Pelosi because 1) She is the 3rd most powerful person, 2) If you have other nations hearing the 3rd most powerful person calling into question the validity of the CIA and their intelligence then that will cause problems for us later on. It's interesting to me because I have stated that I differ with the republicans on many issues, yet you and others have no problem categorizing me as right wing. But hey, if demonizing someone makes you feel that your argument is superior have at it.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

You're playing the boogeyman role by saying it's dangerous to imprison terrorists on U.S. soil when we already have over 50 terrorists locked up. Yes, you mentioned FBI director, but that still doesn't change the fact that it's still a scare tactic from the right. A small town in Montana would rather have terrorists locked up in their super-prison than pedophilers. It will also create jobs for their town, and I really doubt other nations around the world really care about what Nancy Pelosi says. When have they ever have? I've heard those two right-wing TPs on the news over the past weeks. Republicans are using Pelosi as a scapegoat and to advert attention away from the torture debacle.


Also, can you list the Democratic politicians who are against the focus on terrorism in Afghanistan?

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

You're playing the boogeyman role, by saying it's dangerous to imprison terrorists on U.S. soil when we already have over 50 terrorists locked up. A small town in Montana would rather have terrorists locked up in their super-prison than pedophilers. It will also create jobs for their town, and I really doubt other nations around the world really care about what Nancy Pelosi says. When have they ever have? I've heard those two right-wing TPs on the news over the past weeks. Republicans are using Pelosi as a scapegoat and to advert attention away from the torture debacle.

I am not doing this, sorry. I have a problem with Pelosi not voicing her discontent back in 2003 just as Jane Harmon did regarding the interrogation techniques. I also have a problem with her calling out the CIA as misleading just as I do with republicans doing it. In terms of having men in Guantanamo come here to the states? I do have a problem with that. Call me what you want, however I do have a problem with it. The reason I have an issue has nothing to do with Obama being the one to bring them here, as I have already said that I had many issues with Bush as well.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

So why do you have a problem with GITMO detainees being sent to U.S. prisons? What will happen? Will one of them mow your lawn? Deliver your mail? Babysit your neighbor's kids?

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

You're playing the boogeyman role, by saying it's dangerous to imprison terrorists on U.S. soil when we already have over 50 terrorists locked up. A small town in Montana would rather have terrorists locked up in their super-prison than pedophilers. It will also create jobs for their town, and I really doubt other nations around the world really care about what Nancy Pelosi says. When have they ever have? I've heard those two right-wing TPs on the news over the past weeks. Republicans are using Pelosi as a scapegoat and to advert attention away from the torture debacle.


Also, can you list the Democratic politicians who are against the focus on terrorism in Afghanistan?

Where did I say democrat politicians are against focus on terrorism in Afghanistan? I said that many democrats are upset with Obama for increasing troops in Afghanistan. I didn't mention democrat politicians. However here is an article that lists a few and their reasoning.

http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?id=19195

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

So why do you have a problem with GITMO detainees being sent to U.S. prisons? What will happen? Will one of them mow your lawn? Deliver your mail? Babysit your neighbor's kids?

One, as of now they are not given the reasoning and information as to their detention, i.e. access to files and intelligence. If they were to be brought to prosecution in the states they would have just that. Just as was shown with the Blind Sheikh after the WTC 91, the woman who defended the sheikh passed info to and from. Will lawyers for the GITMO detainee's do the same? Cannot say. However, where they are at currently is fine. If you would like to treat them as victims, that is your choice, I don't agree. Nor do I agree that they should be treated as soldiers/representatives of an actual govt caught on the battle field. I personally don't feel that Sheikh Muhammad should have access to an attorney and live in the US.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Where did I say democrat politicians are against focus on terrorism in Afghanistan? I said that many democrats are upset with Obama for increasing troops in Afghanistan. I didn't mention democrat politicians. However here is an article that lists a few and their reasoning.

http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?id=19195

Okay. Then do you have some kind of polling data or something that shows many Democrats are upset with Obama increasing troops in Afghanistan?

Also, nowhere in that article does it mention that McGovern is against Obama's troop surge in Afghanistan. He voted against the supplemental funding because there was no clear exit strategy. Another thing is that there is plenty of humanitarian aid being given to Afghanistan and even Pakistan.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Okay. Then do you have some kind of polling data or something that shows many Democrats are upset with Obama increasing troops in Afghanistan?

Also, nowhere in that article does it mention that McGovern is against Obama's troop surge in Afghanistan. He voted against the supplemental funding because there was no clear exit strategy. Another thing is that there is plenty of humanitarian aid being given to Afghanistan and even Pakistan.

No polling, I am going by what I hear on listening to radio such as Randy Rhodes, Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow and their listeners.

Also, regarding your second question:

Where did I say democrat politicians are against focus on terrorism in Afghanistan? I said that many democrats are upset with Obama for increasing troops in Afghanistan. I didn't mention democrat politicians. However here is an article that lists a few and their reasoning.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Yes, because we all know the media doesn't sensationalize. :lol :lol

EDIT-What second question? WTF are you talking about? When I hear the word Democrats, I think of politicians. You were just being vague, and again, your source doesn't say McGovern is necessarily against the surge. He just wants an exit strategy.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Yes, because we all know the media doesn't sensationalize. :lol :lol

Bro, if you want to keep :lol :lol at my responses fine. I clearly stated originally that I wasn't speaking about politicians having a problem. You asked the question of where I gathered that some dems have an issue and I told you from hearing their responses directly. If you want to say that they sensationalized THEIR OWN FEELINGS? Fine.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Yes, because we all know the media doesn't sensationalize. :lol :lol

EDIT-What second question? WTF are you talking about?

The second part of your question regarding McGovern.

Edit:

When I hear the word Democrats, I think of politicians. You were just being vague, and again, your source doesn't say McGovern is necessarily against the surge. He just wants an exit strategy.

For the third time I clearly said that it wasn't politicians that I was speaking about. I also clearly said that the article didn't say they were against the surge if you bothered to read. Apparently the only reason you are responding to me is to try and get more opportunities to :lol :lol :lol at my response.

Edit 2:

I guess you didn't care to read

Where did I say democrat politicians are against focus on terrorism in Afghanistan? I said that many democrats are upset with Obama for increasing troops in Afghanistan. I didn't mention democrat politicians. However here is an article that lists a few and their reasoning.
[/URL]

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Again, nowhere in that article does it imply that McGovern is against the surge in Afghanistan.

EDIT-Are you goddamn stupid? Here's what you said after you mentioned that you weren't talking about politicians:

However here is an article that lists a few and their reasoning.

Jesus Christ.

 

[tanod]

What the fuck happened to the PoliGAF Thread?