U S Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, a Democrat, shot at public appearance!!

[PhilsFan]

Thank God for Rush Limbaugh, guys!

 

[deep]

It's been a week already

things are getting back to normal in Pima County.

 

[purpleoscar]

So which is it? You can tell by looking at what they say or they just say things to the electorate? You're constantly contradicting yourself.

It's about what they believe. So if Obama says he wants to shut down coal plants you have a clue right there.

You honestly don't know why you call Obama radical, do you? Just falling in step, once again.

Cap and trade, and a single payer healthcare system to ME is far left. I'm sure to Democrats it's Centre right.

Do you have a link to these Dems that have made fun of Anchor Babies?

It was on youtube and she was making fun of Michelle Malkin as a way to bash her for her tough stance on immigration. She wasn't making fun of anchor babies but was using the term against Malkin. The point is if it's so offensive then she wouldn't be able to get away with it even when making fun of a Republican.

YouTube - Michelle Malkin Is An Anchor Baby! Stephanie Miller

How many Republicans have you seen use this term regarding Canadians?

They don't have the same problem as with Mexico. If Canadians were doing this at a high rate (I don't know how with our small population) they probably would. Speaking of Canada we have a problem with people marrying Canadians just to get citizenship then they quickly divorce and bring over their real loved one from the home country. Maybe I should call them "anchor spouses".

And why was it used to describe Salma Hayek's baby by Fox News?

I don't know I'm not familiar. Looking it up I see Penelope Cruz not Salma Hayek and Latino Republicans are calling them out on it.

Fox News Should Apologize for Using “Anchor Baby” | NewsTaco

Specifically, and maybe even the last straw, came when a Fox commentator referred to the child of actors Penelope Cruz and Javier Bardem as an anchor baby. Somos Latinos fired-off a letter to Fox demanding an apology.

My own objections to the term go deeper than Hollywood notoriety. As a writer and communicator I’m sensitive to the use of words and the purpose of specific word choice. In that sense I object to the dehumanizing effect of ”anchor babies.” The term makes it too easy to dismiss the baby’s humanity – they are, after all, not babies, not human beings, but inanimate objects that create a problem for the real citizens. It’s the same reason that I refuse to use “illegal alien.” Alien things are not human, they are “other.” The illegal part is ridiculous; no human being can be illegal, being human is not a criminal act. But if we frame a group of people within terms that render them other-than-human it becomes easier to paint them as unwanted and problematic.

Anchor baby follows that same logic.

There has been no word if fox plans to apologize.

I think they should just apologize and get it over with and there will be a precident so everyone knows the new rules. Instead of anchor baby they'll have to say "those who have babies in the U.S. for the purpose of gaining citizenship", instead. Is that better?

The black writer from the LA Times was using a reference to an old 70's saying. Not in parody. Since Jay-Z uses the word ****** you would defend Rush if he made a parody about Obama using a Jay-Z song and calling Obama a '******'?

Once again, why is Obama's skin color being referenced by RUSH?

Boring topic!!!

YouTube - Juan Williams Responds To Being Told To Go "Back To The Porch"

Get over it!

Says the man that still uses Ayer's references and labels people communist and socialist as much as you can.

Well when Van Jones and Anita Dunn are hired in the government what is one to do? I've met instructors that like communism. They exist. Do I fear a communist takeover? No, I don't think the population is at that point but why is it that NAZIS are so intolerable in key positions but Communists are tolerable? Is it because they mean well?

I've just found over the years that you are fairly detached and clueless about race issues, which is why you were able to post an extremely racist article before. Not because you're racist but because I think you're fairly sheltered and incapable of that sort of empathy. I think this is a problem with many. I think you have your flat out racists and then you have those that are unable to recognize it and allow it to exist, and that's still a big problem with the right in this country.

Yeah Mona Charen is now a racist too. You're too sensitive and prove my point that if any Republicans point out abuse of the system they will be considered racists immediately. Could anyone point out failures of multiculturalism to you without being branded as a racist? "Anchor babies" don't have to be from Mexico but if Mexico is the main problem with illegal immigration (which everyone knows) then pointing out any tactics that are used you will say "Why did they mention XXXX when talking about illegal immigration?" to stifle legitimate debate. Why not remove any terms like "inalienable rights". Why is a non-U.S. citizen an illegal alien. Then we should ban Sting's song Englishman in New York for using "alien". Where does it end?

 

[purpleoscar]

Absolutely despicable.

I can see absolutely no rational defense of his statement. This is the kind of extreme rhetoric we've been talking about, purpleoscar. This is the kind of deplorable misinformation and divisive propaganda that throws a wrench in your "he's a media watchdog" claim.

the Democrat party is attempting to find anybody but him to blame.

Media Matters. He's speaking from the point of view of Jared the lunatic. "If I was Jared....etc" When the shooting happened it was despicable what the MSM did to collectively blame the Tea Party and Sarah Palin as incitement for what he did. This Jared already disliked Giffords in 2007.

Limbaugh: The Democratic Party Supports Alleged AZ Shooter And Is "Attempting To Find Anybody But Him To Blame" | Media Matters for America

 

[Diemen]

It's about what they believe. So if Obama says he wants to shut down coal plants you have a clue right there.

Do you really not see the contradiction? How can you tell if what he's saying is what he actually believes or, as you said earlier, what politicians say to their constituents to keep in power?

Do you get to decide which is which?

It was on youtube and she was making fun of Michelle Malkin as a way to bash her for her tough stance on immigration. She wasn't making fun of anchor babies but was using the term against Malkin. The point is if it's so offensive then she wouldn't be able to get away with it even when making fun of a Republican.

sat·ire
   /ˈsætaɪər/ [sat-ahyuhr]
–noun
1.
the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.

It's plainly obvious that she was being satirical. It's plainly obvious that FoxNews was being absolutely serious when they used the term.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Apparently Arizona has some sort of law that states that anyone can file a petition to try to have someone evaluated for mental illness. Doesn't even have to be a relative. I don't know all the details about the law and how it works, but it's a shame that was never done if it could have been.

 

[purpleoscar]

Do you really not see the contradiction? How can you tell if what he's saying is what he actually believes or, as you said earlier, what politicians say to their constituents to keep in power?

Do you get to decide which is which?

Because they are obviously unpopular positions.

sat·ire
   /ˈsætaɪər/ [sat-ahyuhr]
–noun
1.
the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.

It's plainly obvious that she was being satirical. It's plainly obvious that FoxNews was being absolutely serious when they used the term.

I wasn't saying she wasn't being satirical? Stop changing the subject. The term "anchor babies" is satirical too. If a term is being used over and over again and there hasn't been a groundswell to remove it from public speech we will need a groundswell for it to be removed. It doesn't change the fact that what "anchor babies" represents will still be criticized whether the term is used or not.

 

[Diemen]

Media Matters. He's speaking from the point of view of Jared the lunatic.

Oh BS. He is not speaking of Jared as if he's a lunatic. He's speaking of Jared as if he's in on some wicked game, that "he understands he's got a political party doing everything it can, plus a local sheriff doing everything that they can to make sure he's not convicted of murder - but something lesser."

That is a completely unfounded lie, full stop. It is not imaginary play time in the mind of a lunatic, it is a direct accusation that the Democratic party is interested in blaming others over having the accused receive his proper punishment. And it is utterly reprehensible, both as a journalist and as, you know, a decent and moral human being, to lay out such an accusation with absolutely no basis for or evidence to support it.

So let me ask you: do you find what he said perfectly acceptable?

Oh, by the way, can you name even one prominent Democrat (not some random celebrity, blogosphere member or random leftie) who tried to pin the blame for this on Sarah Palin?

 

[BVS]

It's about what they believe. So if Obama says he wants to shut down coal plants you have a clue right there.

I didn't think you could answer it with concrete evidence. You've already contradicted yourself about what politicians say. You can't have it both ways.

Cap and trade, and a single payer healthcare system to ME is far left. I'm sure to Democrats it's Centre right.

This is what I tought your middle is way too skewed.

It was on youtube and she was making fun of Michelle Malkin as a way to bash her for her tough stance on immigration. She wasn't making fun of anchor babies but was using the term against Malkin. The point is if it's so offensive then she wouldn't be able to get away with it even when making fun of a Republican.

So first it was multiple, now it's just one, and she's not actually making fun of real "anchor babies". Multiple fail.

They don't have the same problem as with Mexico. If Canadians were doing this at a high rate (I don't know how with our small population) they probably would. Speaking of Canada we have a problem with people marrying Canadians just to get citizenship then they quickly divorce and bring over their real loved one from the home country. Maybe I should call them "anchor spouses".

Adults have a choice, children don't. But these are the laws of the land. You really just don't get this.

I think they should just apologize and get it over with and there will be a precident so everyone knows the new rules. Instead of anchor baby they'll have to say "those who have babies in the U.S. for the purpose of gaining citizenship", instead. Is that better?

These are not "new rules" human decency and racism are not new.

Boring topic!!!

Get over it!

This is what I thought, sometimes it's difficult to defend a hero when your hero's a douchebag that's sexist and often uses race baiting to cater to his audience.

Well when Van Jones and Anita Dunn are hired in the government what is one to do? I've met instructors that like communism. They exist. Do I fear a communist takeover? No, I don't think the population is at that point but why is it that NAZIS are so intolerable in key positions but Communists are tolerable? Is it because they mean well?

And what about those in interference? You forgot about all those you called names too, eh?

Yeah Mona Charen is now a racist too. You're too sensitive and prove my point that if any Republicans point out abuse of the system they will be considered racists immediately. Could anyone point out failures of multiculturalism to you without being branded as a racist? "Anchor babies" don't have to be from Mexico but if Mexico is the main problem with illegal immigration (which everyone knows) then pointing out any tactics that are used you will say "Why did they mention XXXX when talking about illegal immigration?" to stifle legitimate debate. Why not remove any terms like "inalienable rights". Why is a non-U.S. citizen an illegal alien. Then we should ban Sting's song Englishman in New York for using "alien". Where does it end?

You're convoluting too many issues here, hence why I think you don't get it. Multiculturism and illegal immigration are not one in the same.

It's not the pointing out abuse of the system that is racist. I've told you this 100s of times. So I'm just going to back out until you stop playing the I read what I want to game.

 

[Diemen]

Because they are obviously unpopular positions.

Depends entirely on the audience he was speaking to.

I wasn't saying she wasn't being satirical? Stop changing the subject. The term "anchor babies" is satirical too.

I'm not changing the subject, I'm adding context. FoxNews was not using it satirically. At all. You were pointing fingers at liberals for using it, too, but the context in which they used it is decidedly different than the context in which it was used on Fox, so the "but you did it too" defense doesn't quite fly here.

It doesn't change the fact that what "anchor babies" represents will still be criticized whether the term is used or not.

Because the term and what it represents is misleading at best, and hardly reflects reality. The term (and the discussion around it back when it was big) implies that it's a deceptively easy process. Pop over the border, have a kid, and boom, you're on the fast track to citizenship! What was often left out of the discussion was the inconvenient fact that even if the child has US citizenship by birth, the parents could not apply for citizenship, welfare, etc, until, at the very earliest, the child turns 21. Hardly the fast track! But "anchor baby" sounds like a trend that could catch on quick and overwhelm us if we don't do something drastic!

Again, overblown rhetoric.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Huffington Post

A feud has broken out between Rush Limbaugh and the so-called "All Star Panel" on Fox News' "Special Report" over the panel's praise for President Obama's speech at the memorial for the Arizona shooting victims. Speaking on his radio show Thursday, Limbaugh slammed the panelists--which, on the night of the speech, were Brit Hume, Charles Krauthammer and Chris Wallace--for their positive comments.

"They were slobbering over it for the predictable reasons," he said. "It was smart, it was articulate, it was oratorical. It was, it was all the things the educated, ruling class wants their members to be and sound like."

On Thursday night's "Special Report," host Bret Baier played the Limbaugh clip and asked Krauthammer--who had called the speech "quite remarkable and extremely effective"--for his reaction.

"As one of the three slobberers...I find it interesting that only the ruling class wants a president who is smart articulate and oratorical in delivering a funeral oration," Krauthammer said. "It's an odd and rather condescending view of what the rest of America is looking for in their president.

 

[maycocksean]

Absolutely despicable.

Worst Thing Said This Week: Rush Limbaugh Wins in This Category



(bold emphasis mine)

I wish he were a nutcase. I really do. It would make rationalizing his comments so much easier. But he's not. He's an opportunist, in it not for the sake of his country, but for the fattening of his wallet and his ego.

You got that right.

What amazes me is that it seems to be so difficult for purpleoscar to simply say, "Yeah that comment was way out of line. . ."

 

[VintagePunk]

"As one of the three slobberers...I find it interesting that only the ruling class wants a president who is smart articulate and oratorical in delivering a funeral oration," Krauthammer said. "It's an odd and rather condescending view of what the rest of America is looking for in their president.

Awesome.

 

[Knuckle]

No commentary, just something else to put out there...

YouTube - Chris Rock - Gun Control

Not long after the Columbine disaster, crime, tragedy, or whatever it was.

 

[maycocksean]

Obama's speech was amazing!

(Sorry, I know that's old news, but I just saw it).

 

[dazzledbylight]

Hell, even a stronger push for lowering Medicare to age 55 would have been mildly progressive.

Obama is a moderate, but I knew that before I voted for him.

I perccieve President Obama as a moderate with some liberal aspects. Still happy to vote for him.

When Medicare was conceived the person who did a lot of the work on it, along with President Lyndon Johnson actaully had the idea that each decade the age for Medicare would drop by 10 years.

Amazing, huh ?!?

 

[PhilsFan]

Barack Obama is not for gay marriage. Barack Obama is not for abolishing the death penalty.

Barack Obama is not far left enough.

 

[dazzledbylight]

Cap and trade, and a single payer healthcare system to ME is far left. I'm sure to Democrats it's Centre right.

No I don't consider it to be Cernter-Right. I consider it to be a Liberal position.
Good Health Care should be a Right, as it is in every other Industrialized Democracy First World Country.
It's so sad that you would deny that to people.

(paraphrased)
<apostles> When did we feed or clothe you, Lord?
<Jesus> When you did for the least of these, you did for me

Boring topic!!!

Boring?
Maybe one day you'll understand the term "white-skin privilege", and that it is still too true in many cases sometimes very overt, often more subtle, sometimes not ( as another posted said similarly) realized -because we as white people are like fish swimming in water we are not the ones affected.

among amore reccent study:

According to the New York Times, a college degree doesn’t always help when it comes to race. “The unemployment rate for black male college graduates 25 and older in 2009 has been nearly twice that of white male college graduates — 8.4 percent compared with 4.4 percent.”

If African American applicants with a college degree are having problems, imagine how hopeless it must feel to anyone with a criminal record. Devah Pager, Sociology Professor and author of Marked: Race, Crime and Finding Work in an Era of Mass Incarceration studies the problems ex-convicts face when looking for a job. Pager randomly assigned young, articulate, attractive and capable men criminal records then sent them looking for jobs. Ex-offenders received less than half of the callbacks of equally qualified applicants without criminal backgrounds. She also found that it is easier for a white person with a criminal record to get a job than for a black person with no criminal record.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Do I fear a communist takeover? No, I don't think the population is at that point but why is it that NAZIS are so intolerable in key positions but Communists are tolerable? Is it because they mean well?

What...the...?

(Also, if you're not thinking a Communist takeover is imminent anytime soon, then what the hell are you worried about, exactly?)

And as for the health care thing, well, gee, let's see, I've got a part time job and I won't have much in the way of decent health care benefits, if anything at all. So better hope that nothing serious happens to me health-wise anytime soon, otherwise, I'm kind of screwed. I'd be lucky to even be able to properly afford a regular checkup that I'm supposed to get every so often to make sure everything's working okay. But hey, why bother trying to let people like me get affordable health care? As long as we keep the country from becoming some evil, socialist empire, that's the most important thing, right?

I really don't get why this is so hard for people to understand.

But there are moments when civility prevents us from serving and protecting the truth. Mendacity, ignorance, provocation -- sometimes these must be called out by name.

YES.

I don't see how anyone could defend Rush's comments. I honestly don't want to hear another word about the idiot shooter. I think he's a despicable excuse for a human being and he is first and foremost responsible for what happened that day and he deserves to be punished as harshly as possible for his crime. To hear Rush suggest that Democrats, or those who support that party, would feel otherwise is deeply, DEEPLY insulting. And flat out wrong.

Oh, and the fact that he had to try and find something to criticize about Obama's speech doesn't speak well for him, either. Can't just let a tribute at a memorial service be that, no, he's got to try and find something to criticize (and I fail to see how "slobbering" over a speech that has that kind of description is a bad thing. Yeah, heaven forbid we have somebody speak and sound intelligent doing so).

Angela

 

[dazzledbylight]

Oh, I'm sure there are some left (and far-left) people and organizations in the USA. But I don't see them in the political arena. They aren't in the Congress (of course not the organizations, with the 2 party system, but are there left people in the Congress?), they aren't visible when there are elections, etc. That's what I mean with there not being any left in the political spectrum of the USA. How influential are Brian Moore and Ralph Nader nowadays?

PopM

Actaully we now have (he was a Representitive for ?8 terms < 2 yrs each> ) Senator Bernie Sanders (in '08 election) of Vermont who is a Socialist. H's a really cool guy. Been listening to a live Q&A he does once week on the radio.

He with some help from another Senator filebustered the old-fashion ( Mr Smith goes to Washington <film>) way for 7 hours before the Tax cuts bill .
Unfortunatley either because another story eclipsed it, OR the uber-coperate most major media media just didn't report it...it's the first time in a lon time any Senator has done filebustering this way.

He'llbe around for at least another 4 years in the Senate!

 

[dazzledbylight]

Angela

I don't think ( remembering last nights look) Bono looked very happy in the foto with Beck.

 

[purpleoscar]

Oh BS. He is not speaking of Jared as if he's a lunatic. He's speaking of Jared as if he's in on some wicked game, that "he understands he's got a political party doing everything it can, plus a local sheriff doing everything that they can to make sure he's not convicted of murder - but something lesser."

That is a completely unfounded lie, full stop. It is not imaginary play time in the mind of a lunatic, it is a direct accusation that the Democratic party is interested in blaming others over having the accused receive his proper punishment. And it is utterly reprehensible, both as a journalist and as, you know, a decent and moral human being, to lay out such an accusation with absolutely no basis for or evidence to support it.

So let me ask you: do you find what he said perfectly acceptable?

Oh, by the way, can you name even one prominent Democrat (not some random celebrity, blogosphere member or random leftie) who tried to pin the blame for this on Sarah Palin?

He does look at Jared as a lunatic. He's making fun of the Democrats trying to use him for political purposes. He's not stating that factually that Jared thinks this already but if he wanted to he could. Remember he has to make a defense. BTW bashing the Tea Party for heated rhetoric by associating them with a killer is not going to work. All you have to do is watch the news and how it was covered. Just by mentioning Sarah Palin and stupid targets (that Democrats used as well) and the Tea Party as incitement is reporting as if guilty by association. I know the game: Make associations then back off as if it never happened. I'm on to you guys.

What...the...?

(Also, if you're not thinking a Communist takeover is imminent anytime soon, then what the hell are you worried about, exactly?)

And as for the health care thing, well, gee, let's see, I've got a part time job and I won't have much in the way of decent health care benefits, if anything at all. So better hope that nothing serious happens to me health-wise anytime soon, otherwise, I'm kind of screwed. I'd be lucky to even be able to properly afford a regular checkup that I'm supposed to get every so often to make sure everything's working okay. But hey, why bother trying to let people like me get affordable health care? As long as we keep the country from becoming some evil, socialist empire, that's the most important thing, right?

I really don't get why this is so hard for people to understand.

First I never said that there was an imminent Communist takeover. That's BVS's exagerration. The reality is that many ideas of the left the Communists also support (Worldwide Cap and Trade w/ tradebarriers for countries that don't sign on, single payer healthcare systems a la Canada). Those two areas by themselves would constitute a large portion of the economy. When a government hires communists like Anita Dunn and Van Jones and when Democrats infight with themselves over a left-wing agenda you know that Obama is far-left. I don't worry because of what just happened in the last election.

When it comes to healthcare I don't like the U.S. status quo but I still want as much competition in healthcare as possible. There are problems with a government runned health care system you know. Having universal access to a lineup is not what many Americans are used to. Even Michael Moore agrees with the lineups because it bothers him less than the current system. Many Americans don't agree with that. Maybe the U.S. could afford more for healthcare if they spent less on military but since they are the major superpower to defend Democracy you would need Canadians and Europeans to spend less on their social programs so they could increase their military might to allow the U.S. to draw down. Until I see that happening in actual international deals it's just a dream. I don't think Europe would or even could do that quickly. It would take years and political infights in their own countries to take up that responsibility.

I didn't think you could answer it with concrete evidence. You've already contradicted yourself about what politicians say. You can't have it both ways.

I'm not trying to have it both ways. If a politician wants to do something he likes but is unpopular and then he does something else to keep popularity it's not rocket science which is which. That's why Obama had to tell tell the far left to back off of criticism because he had to compromise.

This is what I tought your middle is way too skewed.

Exactly and I'm sure each person will debate their own middle road and each culture will have a different middle of the road.

So first it was multiple, now it's just one, and she's not actually making fun of real "anchor babies". Multiple fail.

That had nothing to do with my point. What I've seen so far people have been using this term for a while and now that there is some outrage that bubbling and we'll probably see a new normal. Fox News isn't going to shut down because of it, (though I'm sure you would wish it).

Adults have a choice, children don't. But these are the laws of the land. You really just don't get this.

I agree and the adults are the reason why it's a problem. When you have illegal immigration and different tactics are used you don't throw up your hands and say "well that's the law" and let the social programs be abused. Mexico is almost a failed state. The U.S. can't afford to take on everything. I'm sure if it was a small problem they would let it go but once people find that border security and immigration laws are easy to manuver, abusers won't take that country seriously.

These are not "new rules" human decency and racism are not new.

Again the reason why you target this as racist is because Mexico is the major problem with U.S. and illegal immigration. If Canada had a larger population and was using the same tactic "anchor babies" as a term couldn't be racial then.

This is what I thought, sometimes it's difficult to defend a hero when your hero's a douchebag that's sexist and often uses race baiting to cater to his audience.

I simply agreed to disagree. That video shows there's nothing to see here. You just don't like his satire because it's right wing instead of left-wing.

And what about those in interference? You forgot about all those you called names too, eh?.

Everybody uses politicized labels in this forum including you, especially when you try and convince people that Rush is racist.

You're convoluting too many issues here, hence why I think you don't get it. Multiculturism and illegal immigration are not one in the same.

It's not the pointing out abuse of the system that is racist. I've told you this 100s of times. So I'm just going to back out until you stop playing the I read what I want to game.

I think they're intertwined. If people move into a country, learn the language and get jobs I would like them to have citizenship even if they're illegal. If they go on welfare and stick to their culture ONLY and don't learn the language then it's a problem. Then when you get large amounts of illegals doing just that you find the two issues aren't conflated. Try getting a job not knowing English.

 

[BVS]

The sad thing is, I think you're serious... If so there is no room for discussion.

Yes some people jumped too quickly to associate this event to the rhetoric from the right(and they were wrong, but I'm glad that it opened up a much needed conversation in this country), but there is no defending what Rush said.

Do you have any links to Dems using the targets?

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

the us needs to defend democracy? from who? i haven't heard of anyone threatening to overthrow our government.

 

[purpleoscar]

The sad thing is, I think you're serious... If so there is no room for discussion.

Yes some people jumped too quickly to associate this event to the rhetoric from the right(and they were wrong, but I'm glad that it opened up a much needed conversation in this country), but there is no defending what Rush said.

Do you have any links to Dems using the targets?

I linked Roger Ailes who talked about them in that interview that I posted. Sarah Palin mentioned it in her speech and no one denied her.

the us needs to defend democracy? from who? i haven't heard of anyone threatening to overthrow our government.

Well lets say that the U.S. decides to draw down a large portion of their military (still keeping good levels of nuclear weapons) what if China decides to invade an ally like Taiwan or any dictatorship invading a U.S. ally? Realpolitik is happening all the time. It doesn't stop simply because of an absence of a "hot war".

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

Well lets say that the U.S. decides to draw down a large portion of their military (still keeping good levels of nuclear weapons) what if China decides to invade an ally like Taiwan or any dictatorship invading a U.S. ally?

i suppose anything could happen, but i personally don't think it would. it's a moot point anyway, i'm sure cutting back on military spending (enough to fund universal healthcare, at least) would never happen.

 

[BVS]

I linked Roger Ailes who talked about them in that interview that I posted. Sarah Palin mentioned it in her speech and no one denied her.

Which interview, help me out here... Who did Sarah mention?

Or is this like the "several Dems attacked Republicans who were anchor babies thing"?

 

[deep]

Well lets say that the U.S. decides to draw down a large portion of their military (still keeping good levels of nuclear weapons) what if China decides to invade an ally like Taiwan or any dictatorship invading a U.S. ally? Realpolitik is happening all the time. It doesn't stop simply because of an absence of a "hot war".

Wake up and smell the coffee,
Taiwan will be main-streamed into China, much like Honk Kong.

This is taking place now, and the concept of an invasion is just silly.

 

[deep]

there has been a lot of talk about what Palin (blood libel) said

and a lot about the President's very good speech.

the senior Senator from Arizona should not be over-looked

After the shootings, Obama reminds the nation of the golden rule

By John McCain
Sunday, January 16, 2011;

President Obama gave a terrific speech Wednesday night. He movingly mourned and honored the victims of Saturday's senseless atrocity outside Tucson, comforted and inspired the country, and encouraged those of us who have the privilege of serving America. He encouraged every American who participates in our political debates - whether we are on the left or right or in the media - to aspire to a more generous appreciation of one another and a more modest one of ourselves.

The president appropriately disputed the injurious suggestion that some participants in our political debates were responsible for a depraved man's inhumanity. He asked us all to conduct ourselves in those debates in a manner that would not disillusion an innocent child's hopeful patriotism. I agree wholeheartedly with these sentiments. We should respect the sincerity of the convictions that enliven our debates but also the mutual purpose that we and all preceding generations of Americans serve: a better country; stronger, more prosperous and just than the one we inherited.

We Americans have different opinions on how best to serve that noble purpose. We need not pretend otherwise or be timid in our advocacy of the means we believe will achieve it. But we should be mindful as we argue about our differences that so much more unites than divides us. We should also note that our differences, when compared with those in many, if not most, other countries, are smaller than we sometimes imagine them to be.

I disagree with many of the president's policies, but I believe he is a patriot sincerely intent on using his time in office to advance our country's cause. I reject accusations that his policies and beliefs make him unworthy to lead America or opposed to its founding ideals. And I reject accusations that Americans who vigorously oppose his policies are less intelligent, compassionate or just than those who support them.

Our political discourse should be more civil than it currently is, and we all, myself included, bear some responsibility for it not being so. It probably asks too much of human nature to expect any of us to be restrained at all times by persistent modesty and empathy from committing rhetorical excesses that exaggerate our differences and ignore our similarities. But I do not think it is beyond our ability and virtue to refrain from substituting character assassination for spirited and respectful debate.

Public life has many more privileges than hardships. First among them is the satisfying purpose it gives our lives to make a contribution to the progress of a nation that was conceived to defend the rights and dignity of human beings. It can be a bruising business at times, but in the end its rewards are greater than the injuries sustained to earn them.

That doesn't mean, however, that those injuries are always easy to slough off and bear with perfect equanimity. Political leaders are not and cannot reasonably be expected to be indifferent to the cruelest calumnies aimed at their character. Imagine how it must feel to have watched one week ago the incomprehensible massacre of innocents committed by someone who had lost some essential part of his humanity, to have shared in the heartache for its victims and in the admiration for those who acted heroically to save the lives of others - and to have heard in the coverage of that tragedy voices accusing you of complicity in it.

It does not ask too much of human nature to have the empathy to understand how wrong an injury that is or appreciate how strong a need someone would feel to defend him or herself against such a slur. Even to perceive it in the context of its supposed political effect and not as the claim of the human heart to the dignity we are enjoined by God and our founding ideals to respect in one another is unworthy of us, and our understanding of America's meaning.

There are too many occasions when we lack that empathy and mutual respect on all sides of our politics, and in the media. But it is not beyond us to do better; to behave more modestly and courteously and respectfully toward one another; to make progress toward the ideal that beckons all humanity: to treat one another as we would wish to be treated.

We are Americans and fellow human beings, and that shared distinction is so much more important than the disputes that invigorate our noisy, rough-and-tumble political culture. That is what I heard the president say on Wednesday evening. I commend and thank him for it.

The writer, a senator from Arizona, was the 2008 Republican nominee for president.

 

[Canadiens1131]

Well lets say that the U.S. decides to draw down a large portion of their military (still keeping good levels of nuclear weapons) what if China decides to invade an ally like Taiwan or any dictatorship invading a U.S. ally? Realpolitik is happening all the time. It doesn't stop simply because of an absence of a "hot war".

Which would be a lot easier to handle strategically if the U.S. didn't have a huge amount of military resources trying to smear that sweet, sweet democracy love all over the middle east.

Just because we have a strategic interest in Israel because they buy tons of super cool tanks, planes, and ammo from us. That, and the fact that the U.S. intelligence community still looks like a bunch of idiots for not being able to track down Bin Laden in Pakistan after 10 years.

Also, this may be hard to see from a very North American-centric viewpoint, but China has the most interest out there to keep southeast Asia at peace. They're on pace to becoming an economic/military superpower; the last thing they would want to do is invade anything at this point and draw the West's ire.