Cactusboy

It would be traced back to them and they'd pay for it big time. That's why they wouldn't do that.

How about FMK for those 2 plus the US?? Now that's interesting....

Do you dislike the absolutes of everyone on the board or just those of certain people? Honest answer.... some people I have given up on, so I don't expect much. But I do from Carlfense, his posts are usually high quality and well thought out. And we are more often than not in agreement, which is why I questioned him on a potential double standard. That's it... the entire story. Just wondered, because you seem to ignore those of some people and not others. Thanks for the clarification. I encourage you to point out examples of everyone's hypocrisy and uses of absolutes....or if that's too much work, just mine.

So if it was proven that "Israel, the US, or another country" was going to strike Iran, that their pre-emptive strike would be justified? Yes the only pre-emptive war that would have any chance at being justifiable would be BY Iran. They are the ones being threatened on the reg. What? I'm definitely not in the Israel/US/etc. can do no wrong crowd but I'm also not in the Iran is totally innocent crowd. Strange stuff in this thread. I didn't say anyone was innocent. I was only commenting on who had a MORE legit reason to attack.

From what I know of him I think it'd be good for him to be back.

If they should get preferential hiring is debatable. I'm not sure if I agree w/ it or not. I'm more of the feeling that we shouldn't start illegal and immoral wars and then this probably wouldn't even have been proposed..or at least it shouldn't have.

The most glaring example of Republican obstructionism is their unprecedented number of filibusters against Obama's judicial appointees. Through the first two years of Obama's presidency he lagged far behind both Bush II and Clinton in appointments - not because he wasn't making any appointments, and not because there weren't any appointments to make, but because the Republican party simply blocked the appointments. At one point they had blocked nearly half, and I don't know where we sit today. Obama is being painted by the Republicans as some radical president, but the reality is that his views are largely moderate, and even Reagan-esque. It's just that the GOP has skewed so crazily to the right, and the Tea Party has tipped it even farther, that anything left of their position seems, to them, radically liberal. So they block it. Over and over and over and over. Their stated top priority is to not let Obama win a second term. They are so full of themselves that they don't even see how selfish that is. They are a desperate party that knows they are losing their influence in the country and one day will be on the outside looking in. So they go even further right and cling on harder and harder. I see the only way they win again is after the economy is good again..they settle down a bit...and people forget how crazy they are and how bad things get as a result of them being in power. I won't argue that some of it isn't childish and counterproductive obstructionism but, that doesn't mean all of it is. It just doesn't seem like there is any room anymore for the parties to have policy differences without the other side claiming any attempt to stop their plans is obstructionism. My original point was that, stating in a blanket fashion, all attempts to stop dem plans are not merely obstructionist. Some of the "No" answers are simply the result of very real differences of vision. Part, if not most, of our current problems are attributable to this mentality of not working together. But, it is not all coming from one side of the aisle. Fact is, if a plan (or judicial appointment) is bad, it should not be allowed to advance. I'm not claiming the repubs are any better than the dems but it seems some of you are trying to claim the opposite and I just don't see it. For every claim of the right getting further right it could be said the left is getting further left. I guess it just depends which way person tends to lean to begin with. I agree every time pubs say no doesn't mean they are just trying to be obstructionists. As far as compromise and who's moving farther to the left or right. Consider that Obama comprised and extended the Bush tax cuts when he had a majority in the house and senate. He didn't even mention single payer when doing HC reform and barely pushed for the public option....even though the majority of americans wanted BOTH over what he compromised with(Obama care). For many years the majority of americans have wanted single payer. The reason we don't have it is simply because of the power of the HC insurance industry....it sure isn't because of a love for democracy. These are just examples off the top of my head...I'm sure there are many other examples of Obama and the Dems compromising. Have there been any significant compromised from the Pubs since Obama became POTUS?

What? I had asked you a simple question, and you replied with evasive bullsh#t. But I will answer your question before you answer mine. Yes, but not when we do so for the economic dominance of our corporations, where there is no real threat to ourselves or our peaceful allies. I don't think he's trying to be evasive...I think he just didn't realize you flipped his question around.

So if it was proven that "Israel, the US, or another country" was going to strike Iran, that their pre-emptive strike would be justified? Yes the only pre-emptive war that would have any chance at being justifiable would be BY Iran. They are the ones being threatened on the reg.

read the entire article here http://www.republicreport.org/2012/xerox-lobbying/

My answer depends on why the Israelis are attacking Iran and how it would effect the US. What would be a scenario in which it would be ok w/ you? I don't see how it could not effect the US in a very negative way. Not just to you, but last I knew Israel wouldn't even be able to do it w/out our ok to use Iraqi air space. Even though I don't see how it's ours to give... I would only support it can be proven that Iran is going to strike Israel, the US, or another country. A true pre-emptive strike. Not one based only on vague platitudes and a nuclear weapons program that may or may not exist. Ok well even if Iran was to do that it wouldn't be for years. What everyone is talking about now is if they should strike Iran in the near future...like this year if not sooner w/ no proof they will even make a weapon.

and.... http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-february-13-2012/the-vagina-ideologues---sean-hannity-s-holy-sausage-fest The Vagina Ideologues - Sean Hannity's Holy Sausage Fest In response to the Obama administration's birth control coverage mandate, Christian conservatives equate themselves to victims of actual religious persecution.

http://www.thedailys...gina-ideologues The Vagina Ideologues The contraception debate gets heated as Rick Santorum and Catholic Church leaders object to the Obama administration's birth control health plan requirement.

My answer depends on why the Israelis are attacking Iran and how it would effect the US. What would be a scenario in which it would be ok w/ you? I don't see how it could not effect the US in a very negative way. Not just to you, but last I knew Israel wouldn't even be able to do it w/out our ok to use Iraqi air space. Even though I don't see how it's ours to give...

over 70% of americans say no...and I'm one of them.

The most glaring example of Republican obstructionism is their unprecedented number of filibusters against Obama's judicial appointees. Through the first two years of Obama's presidency he lagged far behind both Bush II and Clinton in appointments - not because he wasn't making any appointments, and not because there weren't any appointments to make, but because the Republican party simply blocked the appointments. At one point they had blocked nearly half, and I don't know where we sit today. Obama is being painted by the Republicans as some radical president, but the reality is that his views are largely moderate, and even Reagan-esque. It's just that the GOP has skewed so crazily to the right, and the Tea Party has tipped it even farther, that anything left of their position seems, to them, radically liberal. So they block it. Over and over and over and over. Their stated top priority is to not let Obama win a second term. They are so full of themselves that they don't even see how selfish that is. They are a desperate party that knows they are losing their influence in the country and one day will be on the outside looking in. So they go even further right and cling on harder and harder. I see the only way they win again is after the economy is good again..they settle down a bit...and people forget how crazy they are and how bad things get as a result of them being in power.

They actually have done a lot...but they've tried to do a lot more but the Pubs are nothing but obstructionists. Why is it considered obstructionist just because the republicans and their constituents don't like or want any part of most of the dems plans? I've never figured out this viewpoint of them just being obstructionist. Have you ever considered that maybe they think those dem plans would be bad for the country? I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the pubs on every item (I don't) but, as per one of your examples; more stimulus spending. I think it is a quite logical and rational position to not want to spend money you don't have. Characterizing them as the party of "No" only ignores the deep philosophical differences between the parties. In my mind, if the other guys are proposing something you don't like, the correct action is to block it, stall it, defeat it. that's not obstructionist, it's called representing your constituents. They do it on things that were/are pub ideas...but now since Obama wants it they are against it. There are more than 1-2 examples of this. and they hold up nominations in unreasonable ways big time too...just to spite. Also...I guarantee you McCain or any Pub outside of Ron Paul would have done the stimulus Obama did...they can huff and puff all they want, but fact is they would have been responsible for a big depression had they not. Maybe not a second one though. The stimulus should have been bigger and even the White House new this, but they pushed for a smaller amount because they knew the larger amount wouldn't be approved by congress. AND like 400 billion of the stimulus was tax cuts. They did that so it'd be easier for pubs to vote for it.

Oh and Dems have an agenda. They want to end Bush tax cuts...do a Buffet rule...invest in infrastructure/more stimulus... off top of my head

They actually have done a lot...but they've tried to do a lot more but the Pubs are nothing but obstructionists.

It doesn't say the results of what they think Dem agenda in Congress. I guess you have to have a subscription for that...? I'd think it'd be mentioned above if it was even close to 50%.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/february_2012/52_say_gop_agenda_in_congress_is_extreme here is how it was worded 4* Would it be more accurate to describe the agenda of Republicans in Congress as mainstream or extreme?

I don't think I've ever read an article from Aljazeera until this one last night. I thought I'd check it out after reading the thread on here about media outlet. Have to say I'm impressed. Way more Americans need to read articles like this so we can have a better informed public. here are some snips. read the entire article here http://www.aljazeera...9587120632.html

Exactly...like you pointed out a source from one of my paste jobs from wiki may be biased...so then I found another source. Maybe this will get through to walks now that too said it. Wiki is an excellent resource if used correctly.

Just saw this last night. It was good, but probably not for everyone. Produced by Ridley Scott

I saw Trees Lounge in college...it was worth watching. Steve Buscemi's first movie he wrote and directed. Limitless was good.