• MSNBC's Scarborough: Call to attack Iran ‘neoconservatism on crack’
    62 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;25977891]Sounds good to me. I strongly believe we should cut our funding to the UN and focus on our own domestic problems.[/QUOTE] Dude....why not just cut our own budget, NATO would support us in case of invasion, they would have too. We're like Athens in Ancient Greece, we help fund the majority of their operations.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;25977192]I prefer to think of the UK as our asshole neighbor thats full of himself.[/QUOTE] but english people dislike english people and england
Lindsay Graham is widely considered to be an idiot amongst all political circles. [editline]11th November 2010[/editline] And MSNBC is just as bad as FOX. [editline]11th November 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Swilly;25988463]Dude....why not just cut our own budget, NATO would support us in case of invasion, they would have too. We're like Athens in Ancient Greece, we help fund the majority of their operations.[/QUOTE] The US military is like 80% of NATO's strength
[QUOTE=Ridge;25988939] And MSNBC is just as bad as FOX.[/QUOTE] Funny, I don't recall Fox having regulations in regards to donating to candidates.
[QUOTE=starpluck;25989118]Funny, I don't recall Fox having regulations in regards to donating to candidates.[/QUOTE] Funny, I don't remember MSNBC not editorializing everything, just like FOX. That dipshit Olbermann would have had no trouble making his donations, except he compromised MSNBC's perceived integrity by bragging about it on his show.
[QUOTE=Ridge;25989130]Funny, I don't remember MSNBC not editorializing everything, just like FOX.[/QUOTE] Seeing as MSNBC has more rules regarding donations/bias/whatever in general, I'd say they are more credible then Fox, seeing as they suspended their "star" Keith Olbermann. [quote]That dipshit Olbermann would have had no trouble making his donations, except he compromised MSNBC's perceived integrity by bragging about it on his show.[/QUOTE] Bragging? Where did that get shit from? He privately donated then it but it was later discovered on Nov. 2. He never mentioned it on his show. Watch the video below:[URL="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677//vp/40099422#40099422"] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677//vp/40099422#40099422[/URL]
[QUOTE=starpluck;25989218]Seeing as MSNBC has more rules regarding donations/bias/whatever in general, I'd say they are more credible then Fox, seeing as they suspended their "star" Keith Olbermann. Bragging? Where did that get shit from? He privately donated then it but it was later discovered on Nov. 2. He never mentioned it on his show. Watch the video below:[URL="[URL]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677//vp/40099422#40099422[/URL]"] [URL]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677//vp/40099422#40099422[/URL][/URL][/QUOTE] Ugh, I got 30 seconds. That guys is the left leaning Glenn Beck. He looked like he was about to bust into tears...
To add onto what I previously sad. Fox would never suspend Glenn Beck. [QUOTE=Ridge;25989268]Ugh, I got 30 seconds. That guys is the left leaning Glenn Beck. He looked like he was about to bust into tears...[/QUOTE] Why would you compare the two? Sure Keith is biased but he always backs up his arguments and views if you ever seen him on TV. He's not nowhere near batshit insane as Glenn Beck, does Keith make weird bizarre conspiracy theories, such as "Obama hates white people!" Did Keith ever attack Sarah Palin's retarded child for her intellectuality capacity? However, Glenn has (to Obama's daughter).
[QUOTE=starpluck;25989451]To add onto what I previously sad. Fox would never suspend Glenn Beck. Why would you compare the two? Sure Keith is biased but he always backs up his arguments and views if you ever seen him on TV. He's not nowhere near batshit insane as Glenn Beck, does Keith make weird bizarre conspiracy theories, such as "Obama hates white people!" Did Keith ever attack Sarah Palin's retarded child for her intellectuality capacity? However, Glenn has (to Obama's daughter).[/QUOTE] Keith did say that Scott Brown supported violence against women because Scott did not refute some random guy in a crowd saying they should shove a curling iron up Martha Coakley's butt... And who on the left DIDN'T mock Sarah Palin's family?
[QUOTE=Ridge;25989595]Keith did say that Scott Brown supported violence against women because Scott did not refute some random guy in a crowd saying they should shove a curling iron up Martha Coakley's butt...[/quote] Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. Scott Brown [I]is[/I] a racist homophobe to begin with. [quote]And who on the left DIDN'T mock Sarah Palin's family?[/QUOTE] We're talking about Keith but sure, we can bring the whole Left. And to answer your question, none AT ALL mocked Sarah's family.
[QUOTE=Ridge;25989595]And who on the left DIDN'T mock Sarah Palin's family?[/QUOTE] Well she was all about family values, she did make it part of her political position [editline]11th November 2010[/editline] Also I don't ever remember MSNBC using some dirtbag like Breitbart as a source for a story.
Too bad she was a moose banging yokel from Alaska that didn't know shit about running a country Oh wait
[QUOTE=Devodiere;25988304]A direct military assault on Iran is a stupid idea. Doesn't mean there aren't other ways to do something about it.[/QUOTE] Hey starpluck, mind giving me a reason why you disagree with this? Intervening in Iran in general is stupid or there aren't any ways other than military invasion or do you just like disagreeing with things regardless of the logic invovled?
[QUOTE=Devodiere;25989734]Hey starpluck, mind giving me a reason why you disagree with this? Intervening in Iran in general is stupid or there aren't any ways other than military invasion or do you just like disagreeing with things regardless of the logic invovled?[/QUOTE] [quote]Intervening in Iran in general is stupid[/quote] Simple, end of story. That shouldn't be to hard to understand. [editline]11th November 2010[/editline] Intervening via the use of military force or through "other means" is bad. Seeing as the U.S. already took the alternative route (Jundallah) which is causing just as bad harm/repercussions.
[QUOTE=starpluck;25989831]Simple, end of story. That shouldn't be to hard to understand.[/quote] Alright then, another question. Would you prefer a different government formed by the people over the current one? If they were yo have another revolution and bring in a government by themselves, would you support that? [quote]Intervening military or not is bad. Seeing as the U.S. already took the altertnative (Jundallah) which is causing just as bad harm/repercussions.[/QUOTE] There are a million different factors involved in intervening. Jundallah isn't the only option and it seems like they are more of a strategic piece rather than an actual plan. Not to say it isn't stupid what they are doing but they aren't placing all their hopes on them.
[QUOTE=Devodiere;25989903]Alright then, another question. Would you prefer a different government formed by the people over the current one? If they were yo have another revolution and bring in a government by themselves, would you support that?[/QUOTE] If it was formed and created from the Iranian people why would I care? As long it was brought by themselves as you said. there is nothing wrong with it. [quote]There are a million different factors involved in intervening. Jundallah isn't the only option and it seems like they are more of a strategic piece rather than an actual plan. Not to say it isn't stupid what they are doing but they aren't placing all their hopes on them.[/quote]It's a powerful strategic piece if it wasn't the sole piece. And I've yet to see evidence of other methods. [editline]11th November 2010[/editline] I condemn all forms of CIA covert foreign regime changes.
[QUOTE=starpluck;25989923]If it was formed and created from the Iranian people why would I care? As long it was brought by themselves as you said. there is nothing wrong with it. It's a powerful strategic piece if it wasn't the sole piece. And I've yet to see evidence of other methods. [editline]11th November 2010[/editline] I condemn all forms of CIA covert foreign regime changes.[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone[/url] Pretty much what I'm thinking of. Something sets off the people so they want to fight for themselves. If they have no means to fight, it is provided by other countries. Given the very authoritarian stance the Iranian government is taking, not hard to see them needing a bit of support. It is fully brought about by the people with no outside influences, outside influences however take sides in the conflict assisting those they prefer.
[QUOTE=Devodiere;25990023][URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone[/URL] Pretty much what I'm thinking of. Something sets off the people so they want to fight for themselves. If they have no means to fight, it is provided by other countries. Given the very authoritarian stance the Iranian government is taking, not hard to see them needing a bit of support. It is fully brought about by the people with no outside influences, outside influences however take sides in the conflict assisting those they prefer.[/QUOTE] That's a bit different though. That rarely happens for revolutions; it's mainly as a tool for a proxy war. The reason why I wouldn't support a U.S. funded revolution is a few reasons: Why would the U.S. care? How would it benefit them? The U.S. would not support a revolution unless it somehow benefited the U.S. which would be bad as we know where that will lead to. For example: [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_sponsored_regime_change#Iran_1953[/URL] They'd have to establish some sort of puppet government or something for the U.S. I'm also sure the U.S. will set conditions that the people did not want initially. The only instance I can think of where something like Cyclone happened was this ([URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_Panama_from_Colombia[/URL]). That's an example of the U.S. supporting something like that only because it benefited them (The Panama canal).
[QUOTE=starpluck;25990148]That's a bit different though. That rarely happens for revolutions; it's mainly as a tool for a proxy war. The reason why I wouldn't support a U.S. funded revolution is a few reasons:[/quote] I know. The US has hopefully learned from it though and don't really have a reason to be as rash as they were in the Cold War. [quote]Why would the U.S. care? How would it benefit them? The U.S. would not support a revolution unless it somehow benefited the U.S. which would be bad as we know where that will lead to.[/quote] Iran was providing plenty of weapons to Shia groups during the Iraqi Insurgency and is one of the major influences in the anti-American militant community. They are also a potentially Nuclear country that can threaten several of their allies. It also fits really well with their mission statement of "Spreading Freedom" and if all goes well, they get a nice new Democratically elected Leader. Not to mention the boost with the Iranian-American community. [quote]For example: [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_sponsored_regime_change#Iran_1953[/URL] They'd have to establish some sort of puppet government or something for the U.S. I'm also sure the U.S. will set conditions that the people did not want initially. [/quote] For this type of revolution, the US are merely the arms dealers. They have little to no influence beyond giving who they like weapons and if the terms are not to their liking, they have the right to tell them to fuck off. Puppet governments are not really a big thing any more and even in Iraq and Afghanistan they are sticking to their principles, also given the sentiment most Iranians have towards the US it's unlikely that they would need to set up a puppet government when you can just as easily have an ally. [quote]The only instance I can think of where something like Cyclone happened was this ([URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_Panama_from_Colombia[/URL]). That's an example of the U.S. supporting something like that only because it benefited them (The Panama canal).[/QUOTE] How about Cyclone itself? Karzai was shit but he wasn't a puppet. It doesn't have to be an imperialistic benefit either; all Afghanistan did was fuck over the USSR and they were happy with that.
Why do you so blindly support Iran but condemn Israel Starpluck? I support all sanctions against Iran and agree with them on nothing. The Iranian people need to revolt and we need to support it.
[QUOTE=Strider*;25996101]Why do you so [B]blindly [/B]support Iran but condemn Israel Starpluck?[/quote] [quote]I support all sanctions against Iran and agree with them on nothing. [/QUOTE] ok [editline]11th November 2010[/editline] You're obviously using 'blindly' in the wrong place. Blindly supporting Iran would entail me to support Iran but without arguments. Not blindingly supporting Iran would entail me supporting Iran WITH arguments to back up my statement. Go figure.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;25989699]Well she was all about family values, she did make it part of her political position [editline]11th November 2010[/editline] Also I don't ever remember MSNBC using some dirtbag like Breitbart as a source for a story.[/QUOTE] Keith Olbermann = Glenn Beck Andrew Breitbart = Ariana Huffington
Ariana Huffington doesn't edit video footage to show something completely different does she?
[QUOTE=Habsburg;25997586]Ariana Huffington doesn't edit video footage to show something completely different does she?[/QUOTE] You mean like the time that protestors with AR-15's slung on their back were protesting Obama, but they cut off the footage so you could not see the rifle owner was black?
When was that?
[QUOTE=Habsburg;25998070]When was that?[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvBQDHqdCck[/media]
Well shame on MSNBC
fuck yeah im moving to arizona
Hey, we already tried regime change in Iran and look where that got us!
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;25977891]Sounds good to me. I strongly believe we should cut our funding to the UN and focus on our own domestic problems.[/QUOTE] Nationalist idiot, there was a time when the US did that and the result wasn't very pretty. [QUOTE=starpluck;25989831] [editline]11th November 2010[/editline] Intervening via the use of military force or through "other means" is bad. Seeing as the U.S. already took the alternative route (Jundallah) which is causing just as bad harm/repercussions.[/QUOTE] Funny because Jundallah is just as bad as the far-right Islamists in Iran.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.