arma virumque cano (et alia)
The Daily ShowGet More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook,Daily Show Video Archive
Hypocrisy on this issue (and some others), sure. Bout the same amount as is always on MSNBC where they've switched positions with Fox since the White House has changed hands. Heck, MSNBC is trying to outdo them by using different segments of the same programs to talk about how evil and power hungry Cheney was, and then turn around and praise Obama's decisive leadership. Partisans are partisan? Who knew.As for the real news other than latte-gate, Congress is disgusting, and so is the President. He campaigned by decrying Bush's abuse of executive authority, then has proceeded to take it further on all fronts.Now, between Obama's thumbing his nose at the War Powers Act over Lybia and now claiming authority to bomb Iraq and Syria, and the Congress' cowardice in pushing any discussion until after the election or maybe even until the new year, both parties are establishing a horrible precedent for future presidents of both parties to star whatever war they want.Congrats all you Move On people who voted for Hope and Change. Didn't know that it was "Hope he'll keep his promises" and "Nope, he'll Change all his principles," did ya?And as for the "small government, pro-constitutional limitation" Republicans supporting this, like Rubio in the clip, you've shown your true colors and need to be removed as much as the Democrats.Is ISIS a threat? Sure. But rather than amassing more power in the executive branch, the cowardly politicians (but then I repeat myself) ought to be yanking Obama's chain short, and then actually declaring war on ISIS.
First of all, MSNBC cannot hold a candle to Fox News when it comes to grinding axes and pushing their biased agenda. Did you see the latest episode of Sons of Anarchy? The Fox Obama hate is such a recognizable joke it makes it into Hollywood TV scripts.Secondly, you idiotic Obama haters are incapable of admitting any good out of his administration. When we were embroiled in perpetual wars you guys were attacking Obama for perpetuating the same failed programs as Bush. Now that he's successfully keeping ground troops out of harm's way, you have a problem with that. He's weak, he's indecisive. Remember in the beginning of the air strikes about a month ago, maybe six weeks, all the conservative Obama haters were using the expression "pin pricks," claiming that they'll do no good at all. Well, as more and more countries have joined the coalition, and the strikes are doing serious damage to ISIS, the biased idiots stopped using that stupid expression. But no one is taking them to task for having been wrong.The fact is, Obama is doing a masterful job at keeping our young Marines safe while drumming up tremendous support among our allies. The ISIS threat is being contained in this way and I predict this will be one of the best successes of the administration, not that you blind biased haters will admit it.
MSNBC can't hold a candle to Fox? Please, what world are you living in? And your proof is what? That Hollywood, which is predominantly liberal, includes jabs at Fox in its scripts? You don't say! MSNBC has become such a recognizable joke that it makes its way into jokes on talk radio all the time. Oh, and it gets picked on by the Daily Show too, so even libs can see it.Regarding the rest of your screed, it's entertaining that you are attacking me as an "idiotic Obama Hater" when my comment was disapproving of him, Bush, and both the Democrats and Republicans in Congress. You accuse me of bias and not calling out hypocrisy, totally ignoring my reference to some of the Republicans' hypocrisy in claiming to be for small government and constitutional fidelity.Meanwhile, you defend Obama as doing a masterful job, totally ignore his power grab in this case, and yet complain about the concept of Bush's "perpetual wars." If you actually looked past your pro-Obama bias and examined the issue, you would see that what he is doing has done nothing but pave the way for future perpetual wars.Hell, he's admitted that he's committed us to what he expects to be as much as a 10 year war against ISIS--a war that the next president will have to engage in. So much for all the complaining about Bush not having a strategy to get in and out in less than ten years...And don't drag this down into a complaint about how Bush caused ISIS. His idiotic idea, pushed hard in his second inaugural address, of bringing democracy to the world was motivated by the same unrealistic optimism that led to Obama's haphazard strategy with the Arab Spring. Yes, Bush bears responsibility for what he did in Iraq. Obama bears some too for how he pulled out--we broke it, we should have done more to fix it than just tossing the keys to Malaki (who we knew was on some level a puppet of Iran) and bugging out.As for the success you project for Obama's stragegy, I hope it works out that well. If it does, I'll have no problem admitting it, though that still won't change my mind on the propriety of how it has been done (the blame for which lies at the feet of the administration and the cowards in Congress who refuse to do their job).However, I don't have such a rosy expectation for the future of these airstrikes. Yes, it's quite an accomplishment that he has the Saudis and Emirates taking part. Kudos for that. But I don't think that air power alone will win this. There are too many reports of us blowing up ISIS installations and only killing a few of them because they quickly evacuate and hide among their Yazidi and Christian captives, and among the other civilians of the region.When you strike from the air, you either avoid shooting at them when they're using human shields, thus cutting the effectiveness of your strikes, or you shoot at them anyway and get all the flack Israel gets every time it shoots back at Hamas in Gaza. Even when you try to not kill the human shields, you still accidentally kill civilians, and I don't see this campaign going on for ten years without causing some major blowback as we start to see more and more civilians killed (even if ISIS has to kill them themselves and drop them into the bomb sites).Are you so biased in favor of Obama and against the use of ground forces that you can't see these potential problems?
My proof that MSNBC cannot hold a candle to Fox News is not the TV script joke I mentioned, nice try. My opinion is based on having watched both. "it's entertaining that you are attacking me as an "idiotic Obama Hater" when my comment was disapproving of him, Bush, and both the Democrats and Republicans in Congress."You should reread your first comment. It's almost all about Obama.
"He campaigned by decrying Bush's abuse of executive authority, then has proceeded to take it further on all fronts."Obama has not ordered 150,000 troops to any country for any purpose. Your exaggeration is typical gun loon dishonesty. Obama used the same act Bush did to order his attacks. None of the bombings Obama has ordered equals the "Shock and Awe" show Bush attacked Iraq with.All economic and unemployment numbers Obama has reached are far superior to the numbers Bush left office with after his 8 year term. Again your over exaggeration about how bad Obama is, is just a blatant lie. Do you lie because you hate democrats, or maybe you lie because you hate a black president.
That's right. As a recent comment pointed out, just about all Obama criticism is motivated by racism.
You know, when Chris Matthews is agreeing with me that Obama is setting dangerous precedents for any future Republican presidents and your two's only reaction is that I must be a "racist", your blindness and stupidity are glaringly visible to all.
And seriously, Mike? "Just about all" Criticism of him? I lay out a detailed case above and all you can say is that I must be a racist?You've been warned before that your compatriots were rubbing off on you, but you didn't listen. Now you've gone Full Jadegold. Man, you never go full jadegold!
Sorry to thwart your theory about me but I was calling inexplicable Obama-hate racism before I knew Jadegold.
Anonymous used 1000 words to explain the problems he/she has with Obama, and levied the similar criticisms against Bush. Do you know what the word “inexplicable” means?
Yes Mike, that RECENT comment was by Sandra, the gal SS says hasn't commented here in a year.
TS, what is wrong with you? Do you come to the defense of anyone who opposes me?The entire comment was about Obama with one little mention of Bush, "by decrying Bush's abuse of executive authority."I know what inexplicable means, and in my opinion, it perfectly defines Obama haters like this anonymous.
There was mention of Bush laying the groundwork; there was calling out of Congress--and of both parties in it. There was even explicit calling out of Republican Hypocrisy and of Rubio, someone I liked when first elected, by name.Your constant denials of this and claims of racism show what a joke you are.
If the entire comment was explaining the policies of Obama that lead to this conclusion, then it is not inexplicable. It is explained quite well, you just disagree with it. So... "racist!"Though I must add, I don't think you even disagree with it all that much, as I've seen you criticize Obama for the same foreign policy decisions. But you must fight anyone who might be pro-gun. Inexplicable Anonymous hate can only mean one thing...
You do have a point about my having criticized Obama myself. But in the recent problems with ISIS, I find his handling of it to be masterful. The Fox Obama haters started out calling the air strikes pin pricks, but that stopped when the air strikes started to work and when so many other countries joined in, now even Muslim countries. Not sending in the Marines to combat a problem that is, at least so far, not ours, is what we all wanted during the Iraq and Afghanistan operations. But, suddenly, Obama is weak and indecisive and refusing to listen to his war-hawk advisors.These guys are guilty of inexplicable Obama hate even when they offer weak explanations for their opinions. And, yes, underneath is racism. What else could it be?
MikeB: "And, yes, underneath is racism. What else could it be?"Umm... politics.What you are saying is that if Bill Clinton did the same thing, all the Republicans would fully support him (just like they always did).