What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Rover said:
I'm going to give you credit for spending only half your time in fantasyland in this post Opie! I've often been on Obama's case for not sending you to that gulag you so richly deserve to reside in, but I must complement you on the self realization that you're a weird, unpleasant, smelly old geezer. So, kudos to you...I guess...:D ;)
Click to expand...

I have to say I will regret the day they move Pio over to the dementia unit. He writes well, has an extensive, though dated, fund of knowledge, is an inventive name-caller, and disagrees with just about everything I've ever thought or written.

So I cherish these last days.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Kepler said:
I do not think this is true. I don't have a scorecard, but I think there are a bunch of liberals here who take Congressional approval of acts of war seriously and want to see the Executive hamstrung unless it is a case of defense against immediate, specific danger. One of Obama's many failing in my eyes is he campaigned on the understanding that Unitary Executive Theory is unconstitutional and hugely dangerous and should be tossed onto the ash heap of history. No doubt he would argue that in the absence of a functioning Congress he has no choice. I disagree. I think by continuing the trend of usurping legislative prerogatives he has emboldened the cynics in the GOP caucus, since they can both have their cake (not take potentially embarrassing actions) and eat it too (blame him if it goes wrong; say he should have acted sooner if it goes right; sue him for the usurpation of power in either case). For that matter, he's also let a lot of Dem Members off the hook who don't want to risk making their own version of Hillary's Iraq vote.

The presidency is far, far too strong as has been so since WW2. Every subsequent president, of both parties, has made it worse. The incumbent party is always tempted to use this power "for good," particularly when the other party controls Congress, but that's not the way our government is supposed to work. Even if it is too much to ask for a president to "unilaterally disarm" in the face of a opposing Congress, I hope that someday the fever breaks and, perhaps during a period of hat trick rule, the branches come back into alignment.
Click to expand...

I was referring only to our colleagues who post here.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

unofan said:
Why is it the people who scream the most about free speech know the least about the first amendment or what it actually means?
Click to expand...

They may not be cheap ambulance chasers, graduates of third tier law schools, evicting old ladies and getting drug dealers and kiddie diddlers off, but they have some understanding of the concept of free speech. A concept which many liberals, including some who post here, think should be "flexible." As in: I and the people who agree with me have free speech rights. They and the ones who disagree with me probably don't.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

I also would like to see a Congressional vote to approve this war on ISIS and other terrrorist groups. Not only for Constitutional reasons, but also as an expression of national will. If we want to rally allies to participate in this fight, let's show them we are serious.

and for budgetary reasons, how about a serious conversation about how it will be funded?



It's been said that partisan politics (of the party vs party variety I mean, not the isolationists in each party vs the realists in each party) ends at the nation's borders. Time to see that again.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
Meh. Soft targets.
Click to expand...

True, though 29% of the country listens to the Fox 24/7 attack ad and thinks it's "news."

Granted -- not one of those people is ever going to see TDS, and even if they did it would be way over their heads.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Kepler said:
True, though 29% of the country listens to the Fox 24/7 attack ad and thinks it's "news."

Granted -- not one of those people is ever going to see TDS, and even if they did it would be way over their heads.
Click to expand...

You'd be surprised how many of us "old" FNC-luvin' conservatives also watch TDS on a regular basis -- and get it. Most nights I laugh my arse off at Stewart. His writers are good at skewering both sides. Other nights I want to reach through the TV and strangle the SOB.

I suppose that's how "the ladies of the chorale" (to borrow a phrase :rolleyes:) feel most nights about the likes of Hannity & O'Reilly. ;)
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

SteveP said:
You'd be surprised how many of us "old" FNC-luvin' conservatives also watch TDS on a regular basis -- and get it.
Click to expand...

I doubt you have illusions about FNC's orientation. I sometimes listen to the Pacifica Network, but I'm under no illusions that I'm getting anything other than an informercial for one side.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Kepler said:
I doubt you have illusions about FNC's orientation. I sometimes listen to the Pacifica Network, but I'm under no illusions that I'm getting anything other than an informercial for one side.
Click to expand...

Sure, FNC leans to the right, but you have to admit that there are more left-leaning commentators (Carville, Bechel, Combes, Powers and Greta come immediately to mind) than on MSNBC, which has simply fallen off the left side of the cliff and has zero credibility as "news" network.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

SteveP said:
Sure, FNC leans to the right, but you have to admit that there are more left-leaning commentators (Carville, Bechel, Combes, Powers and Greta come immediately to mind) than on MSNBC, which has simply fallen off the left side of the cliff and has zero credibility as "news" network.
Click to expand...


Seriously?

LOL
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Difference between Stewart & Colbert and O'Reilly & Hannity is that two of them are on Comedy Central while the other two are on a "News" channel.

An apt comparison is Faux and MSNBC. They are yin and yang.

And you have to be kidding if you think Faux isn't as far to the right as MSNBC is to the left.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

SteveP said:
Sure, FNC leans to the right, but you have to admit that there are more left-leaning commentators (Carville, Bechel, Combes, Powers and Greta come immediately to mind) than on MSNBC, which has simply fallen off the left side of the cliff and has zero credibility as "news" network.
Click to expand...

Not sure if serious.

Are you saying you think FNC is a news source with a slant? It is very clear to me that Fox News, on political issues, has no "news" element at all. It is a propaganda arm for the GOP, which it was explicitly designed to be by Roger Ailes. That's not a slant -- it's the actual mission statement. MSNBC is its mirror image for the Dems.

Understandably, people like to hear their opinions validated, so Fox and MSNBC each have legions of viewers who like to marinate in their own juices. All fine and dandy -- what else is reading a site like Kos or Red State than that same self-indulgence? But it isn't "news." News is the coverage of an event. What Fox and MSNBC do is use events as a pretext to reiterate a pre-set opinion.

This isn't a matter of degree but of kind -- it's the whole distinction between the news stories and the editorial pieces in a newspaper.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

I've actually taken to watching Al Jazeera for world news...

W T F?
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Gurtholfin said:
I've actually taken to watching Al Jazeera for world news...

W T F?
Click to expand...

AJ is great for everything except Israel (AJ on Israel is like watching FNC on Obama -- they're not even trying to hide it) and Qatar (obviously, since AJ is an arm of the Qatar royal family).

AJA sucks, though -- it's dumbed down to the point where you think you're watching CNN or one of the networks.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

The unfortunate part about MSNBC is that they used to actually try and only lean left instead of what they have become.

I remember when Matthews used to skewer Dems as gleefully as he does GOPs. Scarborough had a show in prime time. The dude with the bow tie had a show. Pat Buchannan used to be on quite a bit.

Then they saw that they really had no niche and decided to fill the void as an unapologetic voice for the left.

Can't blame them as survival and being profitable is important.

I miss the MSNBC of 10 - 15 years ago though.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Gurtholfin said:
Difference between Stewart & Colbert and O'Reilly & Hannity is that two of them are on Comedy Central while the other two are on a "News" channel.
Click to expand...

But how many younger viewers get their "news" and opinion/commentary from Stewart & Colbert? Probably a lot more than those getting the same from FNCCNNMSNBCABCCBSNBC
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top