Liberals and conservatives created this system and then they scream about how awful it is. People such as Cenk and Jane are responsible for this situation of business paying everybody to pass bills that are favorable to the. Cenk and Jane have their own bias on who should be favored or not.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Why would anyone want to listen to all this liberal garbage? They're all full of shit. Do nothing no good scum bags. I mean it's obvious there parasitic leaches and perverts. You liberals need to wash your hands after your queer sex and using the toilet so to protect the rest of us.You shouldn't have to be told! I know most of you guys never do.
Well loon, thank God you don't find me attractive, I would hate to see you get another "hard on" over it. She chewed no ass, she interrupted and exposed herself for the kook that she is.
@topcat42 Alright, the "hard on" was a joke. Some guys like a strong woman. That is more valuable than a bangin' body. You're also right about the ass chewing, there was none. It was POLITICAL MUAY THAI! So what if she interrupted this greedy fuck that resorts to ad hom attacks? Her points remain valid.
@topcat42 One definition of Ad Hominem: attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his/her argument.
(This is what he did when he brought her past actions into the discussion.)
"She had no point because he said her accusations were lies." Please forgive me if I don't believe everyone when they say they weren't lying.
I don't really feel like sitting here and listing the charges she levels against him and stating proof for each point. Why should I do the work for you?
@topcat42 He brought her past actions into play to show her character flaws. Yes, flaws that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.
Please forgive me if you believe every accusation someone says. Accusations that she then backed up by presenting connections between companies that stand to profit from a bill he is backing and the law firm in which he is a partner. Connections she could back up with the senate lobbying database.
@topcat42 Personally, I have no documentation showing that his firm is getting paid by big pharma, but arent lobbyists usually paid by those whom they represent? Its damn suspicious.
Lobbying is a very strange beast. A double-edged sword, if you would. It helps certain groups get their voices heard, which can be good. But if said group has deep pockets, they can basically own congress. In effect making the electorate powerless. Big Pharma = deep pockets.
@topcat42 He has given people enough reasons to question his motives. (That is neither here nor there, but it affects peoples opinions nonetheless.) Granted, Jane Hamsher has messed up in the past, but Lanny Davis is no angel either. He has no moral high ground here.
Do you guys like big money running our congress and then being put on T.V to tell everyone how great it is,without the media telling the viewers the conflict of interest? that's what that sell out is paid to do and you defend him and trash the person who call's him out? you remind me of the Teaparty "you work for us" crap when they are actually funded by the very people they claim to oppose.
I don't care what the subject is. When 2 people are on a show to debate and the first person makes their case without being interrupted and then this person interrupts the next guy while he makes his case, then I have a problem with it. No class he at all by this lady thus it ruins any point she tried to make. You remind me of a loon.
@topcat42, it's funny you overlook his personal's attacks that have nothing to do with topic and hand which to me is the main problem with the media, but complain because she may have interupted him from spewing his nonsense, you should be happy she's exposing the big money whore that he is. I guess unless the person has a calkboard it's not relavent.
@topcat42 You say she has no class for interupting, as opposed to a guy being paid to lie and do the shilling of big buisness while at the same time never revealing his conflict of intrest?
Well show me the proof. I'm no Davis fn in the least as you know. However he did act much better than this lady and like I said, her actions in this debate took away from her cause.
@topcat42 You want me to show you proof? here's a thought why don't you type in google and his name and find out for yourself like the rest of us. You said he acted much better than Jane.....oh I get it, you don't mind lies and distorting the fact's as long as there respectful, but I'm still wondering, why is her "rudeness" more important then one of the biggest problem's in the media today? which is the lack of discloser from pundits.
No you still don't get it. I will dumb it down even further for you. When you act rude and like a complete child while trying to make your point, your point get's lost as did this one. There was a mediator in this case and he had two guests on, one that controlled himself and another that couldn't.
Here's a thought, why don't you show the proof or is it too tough a task for you?
@topcat42 And you still don't get it, you can look up his conflict of intrest yourself, why should I have to do it for you? and you just answered my question, despite her tactics she was right and had a factual and valid point, her interupting him is not the problem at hand, but the practice of people being paid to effect policy's by lieing and distorting is.
Knock knock anyone home? AGAIN, her demonstration out here in this video took away from any point she was trying to make. If she could have controlled herself then maybe she would have been taken seriously.
@topcat42 forget Jane for a minute, can we agree that people with conflict's of intrest should be disclosed when they go on T.V as pundits, why aren't you concerned about this problem in the media?
I have made numerous comments out here about Davis being a scum bag as far as I'm concerned. The reason he lost his election in Maryland is because he lied about his own academic record at Yale Law School. I know what he is but Jane did a miserable job in trying to point it out.
@topcat42 I'm glad that you see him for the tool that he is, I was just perplexed why you were so upset about her conduct and not about the substance of the debate?
@TheDalinkwent, I KNEW IT, you just lost all credibilty, you were so outraged because Jane interupted the stooge, but now you tell me your a fan of Fox news, a sation that is notorious for the same thing Jane did but even worse. and no I'm not a fan of MSNBC they have the same problems other outlets have, distortion of news and idiots going unchalleged.
LOL you knew it because you looked at my profile, genius. Fox News is known for having opposing views on where debates can get heated, they don't allow the shit that this loon Jane tried to pull. Face it pal, your girl made an imbecile of herself.
@topcat42 By the way I didn't need to look at your profile, that's why I asked you if you were. Your talkingpoints and false logic made it quite clear that you were a Fox fan.
Come on dude you looked at my profile, we both know that. I looked at yours and I see you are a Young Turks fan, and you have the balls to talk about Fox?
@topcat42 your calling me spoon fed, when you actually watch Fox for news, the same news station that actually won a court case saying they were free to lie and distort the news? by the way what's your favorite Fox show?
I watch all news. I watch that loon Olbermann cry every night about O'Reilly and Republicans yet never having the nerve to debate a Republican. I have seen ED Shultz, Couric, Rhodes, and on and on. Fox is the closest thing to being fair in the media today, do they lean right, yes but not nearly as much as the above mentioned lean left.
@topcat42 Never mind my question about your favorite show, it's Bill'O, now this time I did look at your profile, how can you call Jane rude, but like Bill'O he cut's mic's with people he disagree with, insults with chilish names, and most of all interupts his guest at the drop of a hat.
@topcat42 How the hell should I know the exact number in 13 years? but ive personally seen him use this method 5 different times. Man you need to wake up and stop following people just because you agree with them or they reinforce your world view, that's why I watch TYT, though there liberal's they don't ignore or cover up Obama's lie's and sometimes horrible policy decsion's.
Well you brought it up like it is some regular occurrence. Wow 5 times in 13 years. Let's break it down shall we? O'Reilly has at least person on every show to debate him. that would be over 200 per year and over 2,600 in 13 years. You came up with 5 out of 2,600. Man you gotta get a clue and start using better examples as to why you hate Fox. You are using talking points right out of the far left loony playbook.
@topcat42 I told you in the reply it was from personal viewing, meaning ill only counted the one's Ive seen, but it's funny you overlook years of Bill'O rude methods, but denounce Jane after one debate, and the mic cut's were only part of my problems with Fox News, it's funny you call me a "left wing loon" than say i'm using talking points out of the liberal playbook lol
Well I can tell you It's no more than 6. So you use 6 times out of 2,600 as an example, well you fail miserably.
Bill has head on head debates without a moderator, do you not see the difference with Jane? Would you like me to dumb it down for you?
Anyone who subscribes to The Young Turks is a loon. They are so far left that they are off the charts. Show me one vid where they ever agreed with Bush on anything.
@topcat42, weren't you the one crying about debate ethic's, the simple fact is O'Reilly engages in the same tactics that you denounced Jane for doing, just because it's Bill doing it, that was the whole point of my argument.
You just don't get it do you, or are you just playing dumb? Ok I will dumb it down for you. If Bill was invited on Larry King to debate Jane and After Bill made his case Larry King then asked Jane to make her case but Bill then kept jumping in not letting her make a point then I would have a problem with Bill. Get it?
Bill has guests on his show for head on debates with him and things get heated on BOTH SIDES from time to time. You just see the ones fed to you from loon sites.
@topcat42 Why the hell doe's the format of the debate matter? being rude is being rude, and since you bring it up, ounce on a show hosted by Tim Russert, Bill'O was on debating Paul Krugman, in which he bullied, insulted and interupted Paul at every turn, so doe's that count?
The format matters because each person was given a chance to make their case, Jane made hers without ONE interruption yet she couldn't stop cutting in on Larry. She is a far left kook.
I saw the O'Reilly Krugman piece many times. They had a back and forth discussion, show me where he was bullied. It's not Bills fault the guy is a wuss. Show me where he was interrupted at every turn, they both insulted each other but you are too blinded by ideology to see that.
@topcat42, so because O'Reilly is in a diffrent format and debates his guest "head on" it's ok to use those tactics? you don't make any sense, and honestly I don't understand your point or what make's it any different. You just admitted that they insulted each other, yet you don't have problem with it.
Use what tactics? If you are talking about interrupting or shouting then yes. BOTH sides do it with O'Reilly so I have no problem with it, however if one person is being polite and the other is just interrupting then I have a problem with it. Krugman was being just as insulting as OReilly so they are both fair game yet you only see OReilly being insulting because you wear liberal shaded glasses, pretty simple.
@topcat42 WHAT? so if one side is being rude and the other is not then it's bad, but if both side's do it then it's fine? that is a childish way of thinking and the main problem with politics today, you are the one blinded by partisan shaded glasses.
That's right, If one side is being polite while the other is not then It's bad. If both sides are going t it then let it fly, it makes for a great debate thus the reason O'Reilly's ratings are so high. How am I being bias when I admit BOTH sides do it, you can't admit that.
@topcat42, your logic make's no sense, I know both sides do it, ive seen many case's where Bill'O was the only agressive one, remember when he debated Jeremy glick? he even cut his mic and kicked him out of the studio, so is Bill'O wrong then?
Yes in the Glick case I believe O'Reilly was wrong. I believe he should have let this loon Glick continue to spew his loony views. I don't believe he was wrong for kicking him out of the studio afterwards, It's his show.
@topcat42, so O'Reilly get's another chance, but Jane has no class from one debate? not to metion that O'Reilly used Glicks dead father to score a cheap shot, and why is Glick a loon? because he dared question some of the aspects of 9/11 and the U.S policy's that might have played a role in there blowback?
It's the one debate that I saw her in. I have seen O'Reilly in HUNDREDS of them so yes he is cut slack considering his debates are head on head without a moderator.
Glick is a loon because he calls the terrorists "alleged" terrorists.
@topcat42, he's said alleged in response to who the masterminds were, the Hijackers were saudi's, but everyone kept talking about invading Iraq and Afgan. Irag had nothing to do with 9/11, and Afgan was only a safe haven, the real threat (was) in saudi arabia.
Glick stated Bush got elected illegitimately by neglecting the voices of African Americans.
He also said "the alleged assassination and murder of his father" he didn't say the alleged masterminds who murdered his father, you just threw that in and hoped it would stick.
Al Qaeda trained the terrorists in Afghanistan, they had terrorist camps set up there or did you not realize this?
@topcat42, Bush was elected illegitimately, he was appointed by the supreme court which he had many ties too, and they did purge votes by useing a system called voter caging which mainly targeted African Americans and college kids, he was not voted in by the people, but by his buddies in washington. I do realize that Al Qaeda trained the terrorist's, but remember we also armed and gave money to these same people which then lead to them being our enemies because of broken promise's by Bush 41.
Why is it you loons can't take your beatings like men, you always have excuses. Was Bush also elected Illegitimately in 04?
So they attacked us because of broken promises? Is that what Bin laden said? Why did they attack other countries, more broken promises? Did the terrorists ever do anything wrong in your world or is it big bad America's fault?
@topcat42 actually it was our aid to Isreal, Bush promised Osama he would stop Isreal from expanding the settlements on the gaza strip, but then went back on his word, and started giving Isreal weapons to bomb's the very people he promised to help. that whole "they hate us for our freedoms crap" is nonsense.
@topcat42, didn't you notice that most of the country's they target are also U.S allie's, that's kind of why they attack the U.K so much because they know there one of our biggest allie's.
Most of the countries they attack because they are friends with us??? That truly is a hoot. Ok how about the countries they attack that aren't our allies? Do you really believe half the stuff you say? They re attacking the UK because of the United States?
@topcat42 the main reason they hate the U.S is because of our aid to Isreal no matter what they do, and getting involved in there war and taking side's.
Yes they hate the United States for helping countries defend themselves that did nothing wrong. . So we should sit back and let Iran develop nukes so they can blow Israel off the map?
@topcat42, man what a tired strawman, because I choose to read up on current event's and know the actual fact's as opposed to what the T.V tell's me, I side with the terrorist? let's get this strait what those coward's did was horrible, but the U.S need's to understand, they can not get invloved in these situation's and not expect blowback.
@topcat42 are you kidding me? Fox News is everything that is wrong with the media, these clowns actually tried to use the show "24" as a justification for torture. this same station that doctered video's to make teaparty rally's seem bigger, the constant distortions and double stander's. TYT has admitted there a liberal station, but they have been holding Obama to the fire more than the MSM, did Fox ever in 8 year's hold Bush to the fire?
Really now? Show me the vid where Fox used 24 as a justification for using torture. It best not be from your hero's The Young Turks.
Yes I have seen Fox News disagree with Bush over the 8 years. Maybe if you stopped getting spoon fed info from far left stations and websites you could learn some FACTS.
@topcat42 I saw the segment on Fox n Freinds, when the torture debate became news worth, and Doocy actually said "if Jack did it to save lives why can't we" and Bill'O also joined in on the fun, showing a clip of Jack torturing a suspect, then asked his guest " you wouldn't do that to save lives?" TYT is not my only source of info, and like I said ,Cenk has been really hammering Obama on many issues, I would love to see Hannity taking Bush to task.
I'm sure Doocey was saying it in jest but you read it off some Media Matters report and took it seriously. Bauer does some things that Im sure has been done to terrorists and I say BRAVO. I know to you putting a bug in a cell is torture but not to most level headed human beings.
@topcat42 I'm afraid not, there was actually a debate after the 24 clip, and they were really using Jack as a template to what we should do, it's not about level headed humans, it's about what america stands for and keeping our ideals even when things are hard, and besides it's ILLEGAL, we killed our enemy's for using the same methods on our soldiers.
Again, Jack does things that I and most normal people would have problem with if it could save lives.
I wonder why you're not out here all pissed off at terrorists for cutting American heads off, musn't be a biggy to you but heaven forbid if a terrorist is waterboarded or has a bug put in his cell then you loons come out in full force.
@topcat42 the things Jack doe's are NOT REAL it's a T.V show, the ticking time bomb crap can never happen do to the complexities of setting up a REAL terroist plot. you don't fight evil by stooping to there level, because then were no better than that, and like I said it's illegal. You do realise that they use Gitmo and torture as recruiting tools for more radicals right? why should we keep helping them make there mark?
@topcat42 The fact that it's not real was my whole point, you responded with the comment, "most people would agree with what Jack is doing if it saved lifes" and that's just it, what he's doing and the reasons he's doing them are not real, which negate's using them as a reason's for real world choices.
Yes IF it was real, I didn't know you had to be told it wasn't really real. You cry about the terrorists being waterboarded, why don't you cry that the Government also waterboards It's own people if you think It's torture? You don't have a problem with the Government waterboarding It's own people but you cry when they do it to 3 known terrorists?
@topcat42 We actually did much more than waterboarding, we buried one of them alive in egypt to make him confess the Iraq connection(which was false) there's also 64 confirmed murder's of prisoners from our own Gov't, waterboarding was the least of it.
Where did you get this info from? Put the link out here where the Government ordered people to bury a man alive and the murder of 64 suspected terrorists.
@topcat42 Why don't you try the Wash Post or the A.P, or ounce in awhile catch C-SPAN, there was senate hearing's about these findings, and they were from first hand acounts of people who were involved or found the memo's of these horrible acounts, you need to get of the Fox news wagon and really question everybody including both parties.
Care to put up a link or a you tube vid showing this? I mean if the United States ordered the death of 64 terrorists and the burying of one man alive it should be pretty easy to find in internet land, no?
I just find it hard to believe that the Gocernment ordered the killings of 64 terrorists and the burrying of one alive yet you can provide no proof of this even though you saw it. (gasp)
@topcat42 ,if the media did it's job then it wouldn't be hard to believe, If a Gov't would lie to get us into a war, then murder is not so hard to beleive, beside's they kidnapped and tortured innocent men they found on the battle field, and then imprisoned them without trial. Like I said before if the Gov't comit's crimes there going to make the evidence scarce (duh) but many of the Bush memo's that were released uncovered these acts.
Maybe the media knows what you seem to think happen is hogwash, just like the loons that think 9/11 was an inside job (duh).
The Bush memo's that were released proved nothing. Again, show me your proof, show me the video, the link, the documents, anything other than your fantasies.
@topcat42 yea the same media that told you that there was a link between 9/11 and Iraq, or that there was WMD's? becuase both of those were "hogwash" and yet the media reported them as fact, and to this day many idiots still beleive these falsehoods to be true. The thing is I could give you many links to these story's but most of them are considered "left-wing" sites to you, so your not going to bother, so why should I?
Everyone thought Hussein had WMD's even the democrats. Hussein said he had them, he wasn't letting inspectors in so now he's at the end of a rope. BRAVO.
LOL of course they're considered left wing sites because they ARE! That's why your embarrassed to post them.
@topcat42 but the whole point was Hussein was not responsible for 9/11 so why were we even worried about what he had in the first place? Hussein actually agreed to let the inspector's in, but it was Bush who refused to let the inspectors investigate, they new there was no WMD's and the weapons he did have were old and couldn't possible be used for anything due to the shelf life, britsh and russian intel stated over and over the assertions of WMD's were false, and Bush ignored them.
We were worried because it was right after 9/11 and we weren't going to take any chances. He stated he had WMD's and he wasn't allowing the inspectors in to see. If Hussein had them and sold them to terrorists than the loons would have blamed Bush for not going in to Iraq. It wasnt Bush who refused to let the inspectors in it was Hussein, are you for real or what? Clinton, and every other Democrat stated he had them, not just Bush. The French, UK and many other countries stated he had them.
@topcat42, But you keep forgetting the most important fact, HUSSEIN WAS NEVER INVOLVED WITH 9/11, and the whole problem we had with Bush was his invasion of Iraq, so why would we blast him for not invading and starting a pointless war? just becasue Clinton and democrat's thought so,doesn't change anything, they were still wrong, just like Obama is wrong about staying in the current pointless war.
So what? He said he had WMDs and we weren't taking any chances on another attack. Should we have waited for another attack before we went after him? If Hussein had told the truth and said he didn't have them and let the inspectors in he wouldstill be alive today.
Yeah I know, according to you loons we shouldn't have done a thing after 9/11 except offer the terrorists milk & cookies and ask them to pretty please stop with sugar on top.
@topcat42 the only reason you considered them left wing sites is because your buddies on Fox convinced you that any media outlet that dare's question republicans must be biased, yet these same "left wing" sites have wrote many damning articles about Obama, and even praised MaCcain for his stance on Wall Street reform. it's ironic that Fox being the Obama hater's they are, don't report some of the actual scandel's of Obama because there trying to protect the big money agenda.
@topcat42, how about the Huffingtonpost, or the A.P, and how about a suggestion, instead letting google tell you it's left wing, why don't you actually go to the site and read things for your self? and as far as Bush in 04, to be honest it's hard to say because he used the same methods as 2000, but there were many other factors that could have led to the outcome.
Well wouldn't you say Wikedpedia is fair?I have been there numerous times and they are left of Chavez. The Huffington Post, lol man you are a trip. Let's see what Wikipedia says ok? Lol this is their FIRST sentence:
The Huffington Post (often referred to as HuffPo[2]) is an American liberal news website.
@topcat42, Man your like talking to a wall, I would rather build a wall then talk to one, at least in building one I make progress. It was great debating you, but i have to move on now.
Excuse me for not believing what The Huffington Post feeds you. You used them as an example of being fair, that is amazing. This is what I got you to admit.
1. Huffington Post is your source for legit news.
2. Bush cheated in 200 and 04 to get elected.
3. You believe we should sit back and let countries fend for themselves.
4. We shouldn't attack any country no matter what they do to us.
5. You believe the Government ordered the murder of 64 terrorists and to bury one alive.
I know I shouldn't feed an obvious troll like you, but what the hell...
opcat42 (5 days ago) Show Hide -2 Marked as spam Reply | Spam Well wouldn't you say Wikedpedia is fair?I have been there numerous times and they are left of Chavez
I know I shouldn't respond to a brain dead liberal but hey, why not.
Maybe if you learned how to READ you would see I was talking about the Huffington Post being left of Chavez and Wikipedia being fair but I know you were probably indulged in your coloring book while you were reading the posts in here.What a retard.
Never answered the questions! No Facts, and always Irrelevant topics, title might be Democrat but sure smells, thinks, talk, act and projects as a Right Wing Corporate PUPPET!!! I.F.M!!!!!
Anyone who wants this bill to pass has been fooled by people who are going to make millions off this bill. The people who are going to pay these people millions are going to make billions. Cent and Ana are finally seeing the truth. Its a power grab for corporations to control the government.
@MLadyAzzera If poor blacks can march to Washington DC to demand equal rights, then the 70% of the Americans who want health reform can get rid of lobbyist and get universal health care.
Here are TWO stupid people giving commentary something that they just don't get. Davis wants to debate the merits of the bill, not get into personal attacks. Liberals cannot debate anything because they are married to emotion, not facts.
What difference does it make who pays who? The truth is still the truth.
@exweez I'm not saying you're right about Hamsher, as you conservatives do have a tendency to lie. However, if she is a communist, so what? The US is a free nation, and she's allowed that viewpoint! Are you fascist enough to deny her her own viewpoint?
shes allowed to say what she wants and i am allowed to point out that she advocates a system that has enslaved and murdered millions of people.are you fascist enough to deny me my own viewpoint?hypocrite
That's the stupidest twisting of logic I've heard in a while. I won't deny you the right to free speech, nor will I defend your attempts to shut her up.
These are not the same thing. Come back when you want to think things through.
instead of bothering me open up a book,and maybe you could make sense of a simple concept.your problem is you posted something stupid and are now attacking me to cover your own stupidity.grow up.look in the mirror and say oops i was wrong.pathetic
@exweez How is what I posted stupid? All I said was that Jane Hamsher has the right to her own beliefs, despite what you conservatards want to FORCE on everyone.
You are not defending your freedom of speech. You are here, on a VERY liberal website, trying to ram your opinion down the throat of people who don't agree with you. So, stop playing the victim card, and think about what you're doing.
I have absolutely no idea who Jane Hamsher is, I don't know what party she's in or what her job is, I'm just saying that she has a point about that asshole sellout.
Also I forgot that the 'Conservatives' are called 'Republicans' in America as I am from England
they arent. repubs are repubs. Ron Paul is a repub but also a conservative. I know it is confusing but most people in our government are just corporatists who's political orientation's are for sale.
Ahhhahahaha ! " Dave the stoner" Boy that sounds like a real brain trust. Australia must be accepting the criminally insane again. Duh, try sobering up and then commenting chump. Maybe then you can manage more than a one word post ?
MP3.KLIPYONLINE.PL <-- Wyszukiwarka Mp3 Zapraszam!
vixen1233 1 year ago
I LOVE seeing his smile sliding down his face when she starts DROPPING the BOMBS.
MTWEmperor 1 year ago
Liberals and conservatives created this system and then they scream about how awful it is. People such as Cenk and Jane are responsible for this situation of business paying everybody to pass bills that are favorable to the. Cenk and Jane have their own bias on who should be favored or not.
ftsmallwood 1 year ago
Excellent analysis. Thanks.
piwacket33 1 year ago
I love Jane, the fake Liberals on DU hate her, makes me love her even more.
starkweather444 1 year ago
Rawwww ownage by Jane, Cenk and Anna.
geordieppp 1 year ago
ownage
rushindulen 1 year ago
Cenk just had an orgasm at 2:10 from Jane's onslaught.
frankystein12 2 years ago 8
@frankystein12 I think I just had an orgasm from Jane's onslaught
afr0disiac 1 year ago
Bout Time! Lannie Davis/ Joe Lieberman are
right wingers and liberals when convenience. Both
can play indignant and offended when it's convenient.
Like conservatives would say..."U R
being "divisive" and "mean spirited". Mean spirited?
As if to say they are inherently more polite & civilized. Off camera? They go straight to daddy the lawyer
or the producer. Better yet they'll have someone at
the DNC make the call.
danger0usknowledge 2 years ago
@danger0usknowledge right wingers? Neocons yes, but not conservatives.
calimar28 2 years ago
Regarding Foreign policy, Lieberman/ Davis are
hawkish neocons. The republican party has blurred the line between neocon and their own version of conservative. When Connecticut insurance companies
feel threatened Lieberman turns very conservative
and very republican.
danger0usknowledge 2 years ago
Great video!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
maxamillion1011 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Why would anyone want to listen to all this liberal garbage? They're all full of shit. Do nothing no good scum bags. I mean it's obvious there parasitic leaches and perverts. You liberals need to wash your hands after your queer sex and using the toilet so to protect the rest of us.You shouldn't have to be told! I know most of you guys never do.
ISUCN 2 years ago
@ISUCN hey man as long as your not saying were wrong. No really...how much anal queer sex one needs to have to void an argument?
restlys 2 years ago
dude I gotta look this Jane broad up, she gave me a hard on when she chewed his ass, LOL!
handofnergal 2 years ago
@handofnergal
Mn you better get some glasses if this skank gave you a hard on.
topcat42 2 years ago
@topcat42
moron, it wasn't her face that gave me a hard-on, it was her chewing ass, and it was a joke
she still looks better than your ugly ass
handofnergal 2 years ago
Well loon, thank God you don't find me attractive, I would hate to see you get another "hard on" over it. She chewed no ass, she interrupted and exposed herself for the kook that she is.
topcat42 2 years ago
@topcat42 Alright, the "hard on" was a joke. Some guys like a strong woman. That is more valuable than a bangin' body. You're also right about the ass chewing, there was none. It was POLITICAL MUAY THAI! So what if she interrupted this greedy fuck that resorts to ad hom attacks? Her points remain valid.
ThisClownis2in1 2 years ago
What ad hom attacks? She had no point because he said her accusations were lies. Do you have proof of what she said was correct?
topcat42 2 years ago
@topcat42 One definition of Ad Hominem: attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his/her argument.
(This is what he did when he brought her past actions into the discussion.)
"She had no point because he said her accusations were lies." Please forgive me if I don't believe everyone when they say they weren't lying.
I don't really feel like sitting here and listing the charges she levels against him and stating proof for each point. Why should I do the work for you?
ThisClownis2in1 2 years ago
He brought her past actions into play to show her character flaws. He then answered her question (when ED finally told her to shut up).
Please forgive me if you believe every accusation someone says.
Her point doesn't remain "valid" (like you claimed) if you have no proof that It's true. Get a clue.
topcat42 2 years ago
@topcat42 He brought her past actions into play to show her character flaws. Yes, flaws that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.
Please forgive me if you believe every accusation someone says. Accusations that she then backed up by presenting connections between companies that stand to profit from a bill he is backing and the law firm in which he is a partner. Connections she could back up with the senate lobbying database.
(She explained this in the video.)
ThisClownis2in1 2 years ago
Lines that should have quotations...
" He brought her past actions into play to show her character flaws."
"Please forgive me if you believe every accusation someone says."
ThisClownis2in1 2 years ago
Back back back. That's what happens when you type while angry. (My vocabulary is severely stunted when I'm mad. Sorry for the redundant post.)
ThisClownis2in1 2 years ago
@ThisClownis2in1 I just dropped my elbow from the sky to smack your fat ugly pus! BAM! Right in your butt-ugly face! Damn, you're stupid.
Keep running, coward. You're a known blocker and you delete comments. Nothing says sweeter than you running from a debate every time.
You also blow.
You get a "hard on" around buffets.
teabaggingtoppy1 2 weeks ago
@teabaggingtoppy1 You raise many valid points, teabaggingtoppy1.
ThisClownis2in1 1 week ago
@teabaggingtoppy1 It's really kinda lame that you came back after two years to stir up shit on this old conversation, topcat.
ThisClownis2in1 1 week ago
@topcat42 Personally, I have no documentation showing that his firm is getting paid by big pharma, but arent lobbyists usually paid by those whom they represent? Its damn suspicious.
Lobbying is a very strange beast. A double-edged sword, if you would. It helps certain groups get their voices heard, which can be good. But if said group has deep pockets, they can basically own congress. In effect making the electorate powerless. Big Pharma = deep pockets.
ThisClownis2in1 2 years ago
For some reason, my apostrophes disappeared.
ThisClownis2in1 2 years ago
@topcat42 He has given people enough reasons to question his motives. (That is neither here nor there, but it affects peoples opinions nonetheless.) Granted, Jane Hamsher has messed up in the past, but Lanny Davis is no angel either. He has no moral high ground here.
ThisClownis2in1 2 years ago
Do you guys like big money running our congress and then being put on T.V to tell everyone how great it is,without the media telling the viewers the conflict of interest? that's what that sell out is paid to do and you defend him and trash the person who call's him out? you remind me of the Teaparty "you work for us" crap when they are actually funded by the very people they claim to oppose.
TheDalinkwent 2 years ago
I don't care what the subject is. When 2 people are on a show to debate and the first person makes their case without being interrupted and then this person interrupts the next guy while he makes his case, then I have a problem with it. No class he at all by this lady thus it ruins any point she tried to make. You remind me of a loon.
topcat42 2 years ago
@topcat42, it's funny you overlook his personal's attacks that have nothing to do with topic and hand which to me is the main problem with the media, but complain because she may have interupted him from spewing his nonsense, you should be happy she's exposing the big money whore that he is. I guess unless the person has a calkboard it's not relavent.
TheDalinkwent 2 years ago
@topcat42 You say she has no class for interupting, as opposed to a guy being paid to lie and do the shilling of big buisness while at the same time never revealing his conflict of intrest?
TheDalinkwent 2 years ago
Well show me the proof. I'm no Davis fn in the least as you know. However he did act much better than this lady and like I said, her actions in this debate took away from her cause.
topcat42 2 years ago
@topcat42 You want me to show you proof? here's a thought why don't you type in google and his name and find out for yourself like the rest of us. You said he acted much better than Jane.....oh I get it, you don't mind lies and distorting the fact's as long as there respectful, but I'm still wondering, why is her "rudeness" more important then one of the biggest problem's in the media today? which is the lack of discloser from pundits.
TheDalinkwent 2 years ago
No you still don't get it. I will dumb it down even further for you. When you act rude and like a complete child while trying to make your point, your point get's lost as did this one. There was a mediator in this case and he had two guests on, one that controlled himself and another that couldn't.
Here's a thought, why don't you show the proof or is it too tough a task for you?
topcat42 2 years ago
@topcat42 And you still don't get it, you can look up his conflict of intrest yourself, why should I have to do it for you? and you just answered my question, despite her tactics she was right and had a factual and valid point, her interupting him is not the problem at hand, but the practice of people being paid to effect policy's by lieing and distorting is.
TheDalinkwent 2 years ago
Knock knock anyone home? AGAIN, her demonstration out here in this video took away from any point she was trying to make. If she could have controlled herself then maybe she would have been taken seriously.
topcat42 2 years ago
@topcat42 forget Jane for a minute, can we agree that people with conflict's of intrest should be disclosed when they go on T.V as pundits, why aren't you concerned about this problem in the media?
TheDalinkwent 2 years ago
I have made numerous comments out here about Davis being a scum bag as far as I'm concerned. The reason he lost his election in Maryland is because he lied about his own academic record at Yale Law School. I know what he is but Jane did a miserable job in trying to point it out.
topcat42 2 years ago
@topcat42 I'm glad that you see him for the tool that he is, I was just perplexed why you were so upset about her conduct and not about the substance of the debate?
TheDalinkwent 2 years ago
Because as I was watching this video I was getting more pissed t Jane than I was Lanny for not letting him react to what she said.
topcat42 2 years ago
I am use to seeing the loony hosts on MSNBC act that way.
topcat42 2 years ago
@topcat42 With all your talk about the proper way to conduct a debate, don't tell me your a Fox news fan?
TheDalinkwent 2 years ago
Yes I sure am. With all you talk about corruption, don't tell me you're a MSNBC fan?
topcat42 2 years ago
@TheDalinkwent, I KNEW IT, you just lost all credibilty, you were so outraged because Jane interupted the stooge, but now you tell me your a fan of Fox news, a sation that is notorious for the same thing Jane did but even worse. and no I'm not a fan of MSNBC they have the same problems other outlets have, distortion of news and idiots going unchalleged.
TheDalinkwent 2 years ago
LOL you knew it because you looked at my profile, genius. Fox News is known for having opposing views on where debates can get heated, they don't allow the shit that this loon Jane tried to pull. Face it pal, your girl made an imbecile of herself.
topcat42 2 years ago
@topcat42 By the way I didn't need to look at your profile, that's why I asked you if you were. Your talkingpoints and false logic made it quite clear that you were a Fox fan.
TheDalinkwent 2 years ago
Come on dude you looked at my profile, we both know that. I looked at yours and I see you are a Young Turks fan, and you have the balls to talk about Fox?
topcat42 2 years ago
@topcat42 your calling me spoon fed, when you actually watch Fox for news, the same news station that actually won a court case saying they were free to lie and distort the news? by the way what's your favorite Fox show?
TheDalinkwent 2 years ago
I watch all news. I watch that loon Olbermann cry every night about O'Reilly and Republicans yet never having the nerve to debate a Republican. I have seen ED Shultz, Couric, Rhodes, and on and on. Fox is the closest thing to being fair in the media today, do they lean right, yes but not nearly as much as the above mentioned lean left.
topcat42 2 years ago
@topcat42 Never mind my question about your favorite show, it's Bill'O, now this time I did look at your profile, how can you call Jane rude, but like Bill'O he cut's mic's with people he disagree with, insults with chilish names, and most of all interupts his guest at the drop of a hat.
TheDalinkwent 2 years ago
Really, how many mic's has Bill cut off since his show aired 13 years ago, answer that one.
topcat42 2 years ago
@topcat42 How the hell should I know the exact number in 13 years? but ive personally seen him use this method 5 different times. Man you need to wake up and stop following people just because you agree with them or they reinforce your world view, that's why I watch TYT, though there liberal's they don't ignore or cover up Obama's lie's and sometimes horrible policy decsion's.
TheDalinkwent 2 years ago
Well you brought it up like it is some regular occurrence. Wow 5 times in 13 years. Let's break it down shall we? O'Reilly has at least person on every show to debate him. that would be over 200 per year and over 2,600 in 13 years. You came up with 5 out of 2,600. Man you gotta get a clue and start using better examples as to why you hate Fox. You are using talking points right out of the far left loony playbook.
topcat42 2 years ago
@topcat42 I told you in the reply it was from personal viewing, meaning ill only counted the one's Ive seen, but it's funny you overlook years of Bill'O rude methods, but denounce Jane after one debate, and the mic cut's were only part of my problems with Fox News, it's funny you call me a "left wing loon" than say i'm using talking points out of the liberal playbook lol
TheDalinkwent 2 years ago
Well I can tell you It's no more than 6. So you use 6 times out of 2,600 as an example, well you fail miserably.
Bill has head on head debates without a moderator, do you not see the difference with Jane? Would you like me to dumb it down for you?
Anyone who subscribes to The Young Turks is a loon. They are so far left that they are off the charts. Show me one vid where they ever agreed with Bush on anything.
topcat42 2 years ago
@topcat42, weren't you the one crying about debate ethic's, the simple fact is O'Reilly engages in the same tactics that you denounced Jane for doing, just because it's Bill doing it, that was the whole point of my argument.
TheDalinkwent 2 years ago
You just don't get it do you, or are you just playing dumb? Ok I will dumb it down for you. If Bill was invited on Larry King to debate Jane and After Bill made his case Larry King then asked Jane to make her case but Bill then kept jumping in not letting her make a point then I would have a problem with Bill. Get it?
Bill has guests on his show for head on debates with him and things get heated on BOTH SIDES from time to time. You just see the ones fed to you from loon sites.
topcat42 2 years ago
@topcat42 Why the hell doe's the format of the debate matter? being rude is being rude, and since you bring it up, ounce on a show hosted by Tim Russert, Bill'O was on debating Paul Krugman, in which he bullied, insulted and interupted Paul at every turn, so doe's that count?
TheDalinkwent 2 years ago
The format matters because each person was given a chance to make their case, Jane made hers without ONE interruption yet she couldn't stop cutting in on Larry. She is a far left kook.
I saw the O'Reilly Krugman piece many times. They had a back and forth discussion, show me where he was bullied. It's not Bills fault the guy is a wuss. Show me where he was interrupted at every turn, they both insulted each other but you are too blinded by ideology to see that.
topcat42 2 years ago
@topcat42, so because O'Reilly is in a diffrent format and debates his guest "head on" it's ok to use those tactics? you don't make any sense, and honestly I don't understand your point or what make's it any different. You just admitted that they insulted each other, yet you don't have problem with it.
TheDalinkwent 2 years ago
Use what tactics? If you are talking about interrupting or shouting then yes. BOTH sides do it with O'Reilly so I have no problem with it, however if one person is being polite and the other is just interrupting then I have a problem with it. Krugman was being just as insulting as OReilly so they are both fair game yet you only see OReilly being insulting because you wear liberal shaded glasses, pretty simple.
topcat42 2 years ago
@topcat42 WHAT? so if one side is being rude and the other is not then it's bad, but if both side's do it then it's fine? that is a childish way of thinking and the main problem with politics today, you are the one blinded by partisan shaded glasses.
TheDalinkwent 2 years ago
That's right, If one side is being polite while the other is not then It's bad. If both sides are going t it then let it fly, it makes for a great debate thus the reason O'Reilly's ratings are so high. How am I being bias when I admit BOTH sides do it, you can't admit that.
topcat42 2 years ago
@topcat42, your logic make's no sense, I know both sides do it, ive seen many case's where Bill'O was the only agressive one, remember when he debated Jeremy glick? he even cut his mic and kicked him out of the studio, so is Bill'O wrong then?
TheDalinkwent 2 years ago
Yes in the Glick case I believe O'Reilly was wrong. I believe he should have let this loon Glick continue to spew his loony views. I don't believe he was wrong for kicking him out of the studio afterwards, It's his show.
topcat42 2 years ago
@topcat42, so O'Reilly get's another chance, but Jane has no class from one debate? not to metion that O'Reilly used Glicks dead father to score a cheap shot, and why is Glick a loon? because he dared question some of the aspects of 9/11 and the U.S policy's that might have played a role in there blowback?
TheDalinkwent 2 years ago
It's the one debate that I saw her in. I have seen O'Reilly in HUNDREDS of them so yes he is cut slack considering his debates are head on head without a moderator.
Glick is a loon because he calls the terrorists "alleged" terrorists.
topcat42 2 years ago
@topcat42, he's said alleged in response to who the masterminds were, the Hijackers were saudi's, but everyone kept talking about invading Iraq and Afgan. Irag had nothing to do with 9/11, and Afgan was only a safe haven, the real threat (was) in saudi arabia.
TheDalinkwent 2 years ago
Do you also have selective hearing?
Glick stated Bush got elected illegitimately by neglecting the voices of African Americans.
He also said "the alleged assassination and murder of his father" he didn't say the alleged masterminds who murdered his father, you just threw that in and hoped it would stick.
Al Qaeda trained the terrorists in Afghanistan, they had terrorist camps set up there or did you not realize this?
topcat42 2 years ago
@topcat42, Bush was elected illegitimately, he was appointed by the supreme court which he had many ties too, and they did purge votes by useing a system called voter caging which mainly targeted African Americans and college kids, he was not voted in by the people, but by his buddies in washington. I do realize that Al Qaeda trained the terrorist's, but remember we also armed and gave money to these same people which then lead to them being our enemies because of broken promise's by Bush 41.
TheDalinkwent 2 years ago
Why is it you loons can't take your beatings like men, you always have excuses. Was Bush also elected Illegitimately in 04?
So they attacked us because of broken promises? Is that what Bin laden said? Why did they attack other countries, more broken promises? Did the terrorists ever do anything wrong in your world or is it big bad America's fault?
topcat42 2 years ago
@topcat42 actually it was our aid to Isreal, Bush promised Osama he would stop Isreal from expanding the settlements on the gaza strip, but then went back on his word, and started giving Isreal weapons to bomb's the very people he promised to help. that whole "they hate us for our freedoms crap" is nonsense.
TheDalinkwent 2 years ago
Really, then why are they also bombing so many other countries, fill me in.
topcat42 2 years ago
@topcat42, didn't you notice that most of the country's they target are also U.S allie's, that's kind of why they attack the U.K so much because they know there one of our biggest allie's.
TheDalinkwent 2 years ago
Most of the countries they attack because they are friends with us??? That truly is a hoot. Ok how about the countries they attack that aren't our allies? Do you really believe half the stuff you say? They re attacking the UK because of the United States?
topcat42 2 years ago
@topcat42 the main reason they hate the U.S is because of our aid to Isreal no matter what they do, and getting involved in there war and taking side's.
TheDalinkwent 2 years ago 2
Yes they hate the United States for helping countries defend themselves that did nothing wrong. . So we should sit back and let Iran develop nukes so they can blow Israel off the map?
topcat42 2 years ago
Did Bush win illegitimately in 04?
Have the terrorists done anything wrong in your mind?
topcat42 2 years ago
@topcat42, man what a tired strawman, because I choose to read up on current event's and know the actual fact's as opposed to what the T.V tell's me, I side with the terrorist? let's get this strait what those coward's did was horrible, but the U.S need's to understand, they can not get invloved in these situation's and not expect blowback.
TheDalinkwent 2 years ago
You KNOW the actual facts? Well where did you get your FACTS from? Did you go to Afghanistan and talk to Bin Laden? Where did you get your FACTS from?
Did Bush get elected illegitimately in 04?
topcat42 2 years ago
You are a fan of The Young Turks, no more needs to be said.
topcat42 2 years ago
@topcat42 are you kidding me? Fox News is everything that is wrong with the media, these clowns actually tried to use the show "24" as a justification for torture. this same station that doctered video's to make teaparty rally's seem bigger, the constant distortions and double stander's. TYT has admitted there a liberal station, but they have been holding Obama to the fire more than the MSM, did Fox ever in 8 year's hold Bush to the fire?
TheDalinkwent 2 years ago
Really now? Show me the vid where Fox used 24 as a justification for using torture. It best not be from your hero's The Young Turks.
Yes I have seen Fox News disagree with Bush over the 8 years. Maybe if you stopped getting spoon fed info from far left stations and websites you could learn some FACTS.
topcat42 2 years ago
@topcat42 I saw the segment on Fox n Freinds, when the torture debate became news worth, and Doocy actually said "if Jack did it to save lives why can't we" and Bill'O also joined in on the fun, showing a clip of Jack torturing a suspect, then asked his guest " you wouldn't do that to save lives?" TYT is not my only source of info, and like I said ,Cenk has been really hammering Obama on many issues, I would love to see Hannity taking Bush to task.
TheDalinkwent 2 years ago
I'm sure Doocey was saying it in jest but you read it off some Media Matters report and took it seriously. Bauer does some things that Im sure has been done to terrorists and I say BRAVO. I know to you putting a bug in a cell is torture but not to most level headed human beings.
topcat42 2 years ago
@topcat42 I'm afraid not, there was actually a debate after the 24 clip, and they were really using Jack as a template to what we should do, it's not about level headed humans, it's about what america stands for and keeping our ideals even when things are hard, and besides it's ILLEGAL, we killed our enemy's for using the same methods on our soldiers.
TheDalinkwent 2 years ago
Again, Jack does things that I and most normal people would have problem with if it could save lives.
I wonder why you're not out here all pissed off at terrorists for cutting American heads off, musn't be a biggy to you but heaven forbid if a terrorist is waterboarded or has a bug put in his cell then you loons come out in full force.
topcat42 2 years ago
@topcat42 the things Jack doe's are NOT REAL it's a T.V show, the ticking time bomb crap can never happen do to the complexities of setting up a REAL terroist plot. you don't fight evil by stooping to there level, because then were no better than that, and like I said it's illegal. You do realise that they use Gitmo and torture as recruiting tools for more radicals right? why should we keep helping them make there mark?
TheDalinkwent 2 years ago
Who said it was real? How are we stooping to their level? Are you now trying to compare chopping heads off to waterboarding?
topcat42 2 years ago
@topcat42 The fact that it's not real was my whole point, you responded with the comment, "most people would agree with what Jack is doing if it saved lifes" and that's just it, what he's doing and the reasons he's doing them are not real, which negate's using them as a reason's for real world choices.
TheDalinkwent 2 years ago
Yes IF it was real, I didn't know you had to be told it wasn't really real. You cry about the terrorists being waterboarded, why don't you cry that the Government also waterboards It's own people if you think It's torture? You don't have a problem with the Government waterboarding It's own people but you cry when they do it to 3 known terrorists?
topcat42 2 years ago
@topcat42 We actually did much more than waterboarding, we buried one of them alive in egypt to make him confess the Iraq connection(which was false) there's also 64 confirmed murder's of prisoners from our own Gov't, waterboarding was the least of it.
TheDalinkwent 2 years ago
Where did you get this info from? Put the link out here where the Government ordered people to bury a man alive and the murder of 64 suspected terrorists.
topcat42 2 years ago
@topcat42 Why don't you try the Wash Post or the A.P, or ounce in awhile catch C-SPAN, there was senate hearing's about these findings, and they were from first hand acounts of people who were involved or found the memo's of these horrible acounts, you need to get of the Fox news wagon and really question everybody including both parties.
TheDalinkwent 2 years ago
Care to put up a link or a you tube vid showing this? I mean if the United States ordered the death of 64 terrorists and the burying of one man alive it should be pretty easy to find in internet land, no?
topcat42 2 years ago
@topcat42 Yea because most people who break international laws leave easy to find evidence for the public consumption(sarcasm).
TheDalinkwent 2 years ago
Still waiting for your proof. (no sarcasm)
topcat42 2 years ago
YOU stated that you saw it on c-span so there must be a link or video of this, where is it?
topcat42 2 years ago
@topcat42 I saw the C-Span coverage live, and like I said, instead of waiting for me, why don't you (gasp) look it up your self.
TheDalinkwent 2 years ago
I did look and It's no where to be seen, (gasp) sorry if your word isn't good enough for me.
topcat42 2 years ago
I just find it hard to believe that the Gocernment ordered the killings of 64 terrorists and the burrying of one alive yet you can provide no proof of this even though you saw it. (gasp)
topcat42 2 years ago
@topcat42 ,if the media did it's job then it wouldn't be hard to believe, If a Gov't would lie to get us into a war, then murder is not so hard to beleive, beside's they kidnapped and tortured innocent men they found on the battle field, and then imprisoned them without trial. Like I said before if the Gov't comit's crimes there going to make the evidence scarce (duh) but many of the Bush memo's that were released uncovered these acts.
TheDalinkwent 2 years ago
Maybe the media knows what you seem to think happen is hogwash, just like the loons that think 9/11 was an inside job (duh).
The Bush memo's that were released proved nothing. Again, show me your proof, show me the video, the link, the documents, anything other than your fantasies.
topcat42 2 years ago
@topcat42 yea the same media that told you that there was a link between 9/11 and Iraq, or that there was WMD's? becuase both of those were "hogwash" and yet the media reported them as fact, and to this day many idiots still beleive these falsehoods to be true. The thing is I could give you many links to these story's but most of them are considered "left-wing" sites to you, so your not going to bother, so why should I?
TheDalinkwent 2 years ago
Everyone thought Hussein had WMD's even the democrats. Hussein said he had them, he wasn't letting inspectors in so now he's at the end of a rope. BRAVO.
LOL of course they're considered left wing sites because they ARE! That's why your embarrassed to post them.
topcat42 2 years ago
@topcat42 but the whole point was Hussein was not responsible for 9/11 so why were we even worried about what he had in the first place? Hussein actually agreed to let the inspector's in, but it was Bush who refused to let the inspectors investigate, they new there was no WMD's and the weapons he did have were old and couldn't possible be used for anything due to the shelf life, britsh and russian intel stated over and over the assertions of WMD's were false, and Bush ignored them.
TheDalinkwent 2 years ago
We were worried because it was right after 9/11 and we weren't going to take any chances. He stated he had WMD's and he wasn't allowing the inspectors in to see. If Hussein had them and sold them to terrorists than the loons would have blamed Bush for not going in to Iraq. It wasnt Bush who refused to let the inspectors in it was Hussein, are you for real or what? Clinton, and every other Democrat stated he had them, not just Bush. The French, UK and many other countries stated he had them.
topcat42 2 years ago
@topcat42, But you keep forgetting the most important fact, HUSSEIN WAS NEVER INVOLVED WITH 9/11, and the whole problem we had with Bush was his invasion of Iraq, so why would we blast him for not invading and starting a pointless war? just becasue Clinton and democrat's thought so,doesn't change anything, they were still wrong, just like Obama is wrong about staying in the current pointless war.
TheDalinkwent 2 years ago 2
So what? He said he had WMDs and we weren't taking any chances on another attack. Should we have waited for another attack before we went after him? If Hussein had told the truth and said he didn't have them and let the inspectors in he wouldstill be alive today.
Yeah I know, according to you loons we shouldn't have done a thing after 9/11 except offer the terrorists milk & cookies and ask them to pretty please stop with sugar on top.
topcat42 2 years ago
@topcat42 the only reason you considered them left wing sites is because your buddies on Fox convinced you that any media outlet that dare's question republicans must be biased, yet these same "left wing" sites have wrote many damning articles about Obama, and even praised MaCcain for his stance on Wall Street reform. it's ironic that Fox being the Obama hater's they are, don't report some of the actual scandel's of Obama because there trying to protect the big money agenda.
TheDalinkwent 2 years ago
Well give me a site you got your info from and I will google it in Wikedpedia and let them decide if It's left wing or not, fair enough?
Give me ONE.
topcat42 2 years ago
@topcat42, how about the Huffingtonpost, or the A.P, and how about a suggestion, instead letting google tell you it's left wing, why don't you actually go to the site and read things for your self? and as far as Bush in 04, to be honest it's hard to say because he used the same methods as 2000, but there were many other factors that could have led to the outcome.
TheDalinkwent 2 years ago 2
Well wouldn't you say Wikedpedia is fair?I have been there numerous times and they are left of Chavez. The Huffington Post, lol man you are a trip. Let's see what Wikipedia says ok? Lol this is their FIRST sentence:
The Huffington Post (often referred to as HuffPo[2]) is an American liberal news website.
Shall I go on?
topcat42 2 years ago
@topcat42, Man your like talking to a wall, I would rather build a wall then talk to one, at least in building one I make progress. It was great debating you, but i have to move on now.
TheDalinkwent 2 years ago 7
Excuse me for not believing what The Huffington Post feeds you. You used them as an example of being fair, that is amazing. This is what I got you to admit.
1. Huffington Post is your source for legit news.
2. Bush cheated in 200 and 04 to get elected.
3. You believe we should sit back and let countries fend for themselves.
4. We shouldn't attack any country no matter what they do to us.
5. You believe the Government ordered the murder of 64 terrorists and to bury one alive.
topcat42 2 years ago
wikipedia is not liberal. it's factual.
conservapedia is full of lies.
baronmorris 2 years ago
who said wikipedia was liberal? Put the crack pipe down and pay attention.
topcat42 2 years ago
I know I shouldn't feed an obvious troll like you, but what the hell...
opcat42 (5 days ago) Show Hide -2 Marked as spam Reply | Spam Well wouldn't you say Wikedpedia is fair?I have been there numerous times and they are left of Chavez
baronmorris 2 years ago
I know I shouldn't respond to a brain dead liberal but hey, why not.
Maybe if you learned how to READ you would see I was talking about the Huffington Post being left of Chavez and Wikipedia being fair but I know you were probably indulged in your coloring book while you were reading the posts in here.What a retard.
topcat42 2 years ago
learn to fucking punctuate, illiterate troll.
baronmorris 2 years ago
Learn to fucking READ, brain dead loon.
topcat42 2 years ago
learn to disambiguate your equivocation, mental dwarf.
baronmorris 2 years ago
So you can't even admit Bush won in 04, did Obama win illegitimately in 08?
topcat42 2 years ago
She did a good job of destroying his credibility but I'll always look at Jane sideways for that Blackface incident. so fuck both of them
Unforgivableblak 2 years ago
1:01-1:02
simonesimone2 2 years ago
The guys @ TYT need to update Jane's picture, She looks much older than I thought and not as sexy either.
ebertnroeper 2 years ago
Never answered the questions! No Facts, and always Irrelevant topics, title might be Democrat but sure smells, thinks, talk, act and projects as a Right Wing Corporate PUPPET!!! I.F.M!!!!!
DC5boiThung 2 years ago
That was like white on white crime right there. LOL!!!
tonysoprano216 2 years ago
Did the whore guy ever answer the question?
DillonX 2 years ago
wow, that was elbaow from the sky.
I am gload that these fu%*ing DINOS are exposed. We need a lot more of that.
JerezJulio 2 years ago
4:38 (Jaw drops)
bballadante 2 years ago
WOW!
ralf5387 2 years ago
Anyone who wants this bill to pass has been fooled by people who are going to make millions off this bill. The people who are going to pay these people millions are going to make billions. Cent and Ana are finally seeing the truth. Its a power grab for corporations to control the government.
MyGrassroots 2 years ago
Why is she old?
devourerofbabies 2 years ago
Screw healthcare reform. The only way we'll get any true reform is if we first get lobbyist reform. Too bad it will never happen...
MLadyAzzera 2 years ago 3
@MLadyAzzera If poor blacks can march to Washington DC to demand equal rights, then the 70% of the Americans who want health reform can get rid of lobbyist and get universal health care.
bluenote71 2 years ago
Pwned.
aquaknot 2 years ago
She's awesome.
sexysadie1977 2 years ago 2
Ambush!!!
OnWisconsin42 2 years ago
Here are TWO stupid people giving commentary something that they just don't get. Davis wants to debate the merits of the bill, not get into personal attacks. Liberals cannot debate anything because they are married to emotion, not facts.
What difference does it make who pays who? The truth is still the truth.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
Don't even say its just a liberal thing because conservatives make more "personal attacks" than any other party
ListenSilently 2 years ago
conservatives are not a party.jane is not a liberal.she is a straight up communist.if you choose to apoligize for her that speaks volumes about you.
exweez 2 years ago
@exweez I'm not saying you're right about Hamsher, as you conservatives do have a tendency to lie. However, if she is a communist, so what? The US is a free nation, and she's allowed that viewpoint! Are you fascist enough to deny her her own viewpoint?
johnedwards1968 2 years ago
shes allowed to say what she wants and i am allowed to point out that she advocates a system that has enslaved and murdered millions of people.are you fascist enough to deny me my own viewpoint?hypocrite
exweez 2 years ago
@exweez
That's the stupidest twisting of logic I've heard in a while. I won't deny you the right to free speech, nor will I defend your attempts to shut her up.
These are not the same thing. Come back when you want to think things through.
johnedwards1968 2 years ago
lol is that it? you get called out on your hypocracy,and your come back is some snarky passive agressive insult? really? is that it? weak
exweez 2 years ago
@exweez Passive aggressive??? LOL
Instead of trying to be a psyhcoanalysyt, try making sense instead. All I did was call you on your bullshit, nothing more.
johnedwards1968 2 years ago
instead of bothering me open up a book,and maybe you could make sense of a simple concept.your problem is you posted something stupid and are now attacking me to cover your own stupidity.grow up.look in the mirror and say oops i was wrong.pathetic
exweez 2 years ago
@exweez How is what I posted stupid? All I said was that Jane Hamsher has the right to her own beliefs, despite what you conservatards want to FORCE on everyone.
You are not defending your freedom of speech. You are here, on a VERY liberal website, trying to ram your opinion down the throat of people who don't agree with you. So, stop playing the victim card, and think about what you're doing.
Talk about pathetic.
johnedwards1968 2 years ago
@exweez
I have absolutely no idea who Jane Hamsher is, I don't know what party she's in or what her job is, I'm just saying that she has a point about that asshole sellout.
Also I forgot that the 'Conservatives' are called 'Republicans' in America as I am from England
ListenSilently 2 years ago
they arent. repubs are repubs. Ron Paul is a repub but also a conservative. I know it is confusing but most people in our government are just corporatists who's political orientation's are for sale.
qualityrkc 2 years ago
you didn't forget,your just ignorant of the difference between republicans and conservatives.look it up. they are not the same.
exweez 2 years ago
You need to do your research, if you had actually read my comment you would have seen I said "In England"
In England, Conservatives ARE AN ACTUAL PARTY and they share the same basic principles as Republicans in America
ListenSilently 2 years ago
And "who pays who" makes a massive difference, some people are paid a lot of money to lie, many liberals and conservatives are paid to lie
ListenSilently 2 years ago
@CommonSenseJoe
It goes to who's bought by whom? Do you pay any attention to politics? If not, why are you commenting?
If someone's paying me to do a job, odds are I'll do it! Use some common sense Joe! lol
johnedwards1968 2 years ago
It does not change the validity of their arguments.
EVERYONE has a lobbyist in Washington.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
GET RID OF THESE GEICO ADS
bheemabhagawan 2 years ago
@bheemabhagawan
I totally agree....not just Geico, but ALL...get on my nerves.....
adrian42583 2 years ago
Liberals eating Liberals on a faggot liberals show. How amusing, guess I was wrong TYT is entertaining after all. Ahhhhahahaha !
hobo59 2 years ago
heaumeau
realbram 2 years ago
Faggot!
davethestoner 2 years ago
Ahhhahahaha ! " Dave the stoner" Boy that sounds like a real brain trust. Australia must be accepting the criminally insane again. Duh, try sobering up and then commenting chump. Maybe then you can manage more than a one word post ?
hobo59 2 years ago