Gotta love Hannity & Colmes these days...Classic Republicratism

derek2034

Member
Jan 30, 2003
149
0
0
I was watching it like two nights ago for about 10 minutes...and was forced to turn it off. Normally The shallow back and forth debate is bad, but this was a new standard.

I'll summarize in satirical form:

Hannity "Democrat X said this in 1998, he says this now. So does democrat Y. Completely unamerican. Clinton was horrible and you should all be ashamed of yourselves."

Colmes "What about Republicans A, B, and C who criticized Clinton for the 1998 attacks as a mere distraction from his impeachment proceedings?"

Hannity&Colmes"YOU SUCK!" - "No, you and the Republicans do!" - "Kill Clinton!" - "Kill Bush!"

It's pointless...I guess when both parties only care about the polls, their own re-election, politicizing everything, and keeping their Sheeples in their court this is the only nonsense we will be able to watch.

Comon now, how can people not be looking at the Libertarians when you see this complete and utter garbage?

 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Wasn't Howard Stern going to run on the Libertarian ticket?

And, yeah, Hannity is way too bombastic but Colmes comes off too often as a wuss.
 

derek2034

Member
Jan 30, 2003
149
0
0
That would be a new one to me...Would certainly be interesting. A big name is just what the libertarians need. I wish Neal Boortz would run for senator when Zell leaves but he says it won't happen.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
"fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction."

The president's warnings are firm. "If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." The stakes, he says, could not be higher. "Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."

These are the words not of President George W. Bush in September 2002 but of President Bill Clinton on February 18, 1998.



never would be heard on conservative radio.

republicans tied clintons hands with their fools errands. and now we pay.
 

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator CPU Forum Mod and Elite Member
Super Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
31,757
31,734
146
Originally posted by: derek2034
I was watching it like two nights ago for about 10 minutes...and was forced to turn it off. Normally The shallow back and forth debate is bad, but this was a new standard.

I'll summarize in satirical form:

Hannity "Democrat X said this in 1998, he says this now. So does democrat Y. Completely unamerican. Clinton was horrible and you should all be ashamed of yourselves."

Colmes "What about Republicans A, B, and C who criticized Clinton for the 1998 attacks as a mere distraction from his impeachment proceedings?"

Hannity&Colmes"YOU SUCK!" - "No, you and the Republicans do!" - "Kill Clinton!" - "Kill Bush!"

It's pointless...I guess when both parties only care about the polls, their own re-election, politicizing everything, and keeping their Sheeples in their court this is the only nonsense we will be able to watch.

Comon now, how can people not be looking at the Libertarians when you see this complete and utter garbage?
You just described the essence of every political discussion that's taken place in this country in the last 2yrs. Every political thread here, every debate show, every editorial section reflect the same rhetorical dem vs rep. discussion so stop trying to twist things to promote your own bullsh*t agenda and get down off your high horse before you break your neck when you fall off ;)
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
speaking of Neal Boortz

THEN VS. NOW. THE DEMOCRATS FULL-TIME CAMPAIGN

I thought I would include a few quotes for you today from our Democratic leaders. Note the dates. Funny how their opinions change based on whether or not there's a Democrat in the White House, isn't it?

I hope Saddam Hussein and those who are in control of the Iraqi government clearly understand the resolve and determination of this administration and this country. This may be a political year, . . . but on this issue there can be no disunity. There can be no lack of cohesion. We stand united, Republicans and Democrats, determined to send as clear a message with as clear a resolve as we can articulate: Saddam Hussein's actions will not be tolerated. His willingness to brutally attack Kurds in northern Iraq and abrogate U.N. resolutions is simply unacceptable. We intend to make that point clear with the use of force, with the use of legislative language, and with the use of other actions that the president and the Congress have at their disposal.
Tom Daschle ? September 1996

"Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so? . . . The answer is, we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily."
Tom Daschle ? February, 1998

"Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so? ... The answer is, we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily."
Tom Daschle, March, 2003

I don't know what purpose it serves by attacking one another at this point. I mean, if ever there was a time for us to present a unified front to Iraq, this ought to be it. . . . Let's not . . . send all kinds of erroneous messages to Iraq about what kind of unity there is within the community.
Tom Daschle, March, 1998, responding to criticism of Trent Lott of Kofi Annan

To those who would doubt the necessity of the actions by the president, one should pose the question as to what the consequences would be in the face of American inaction. First, clearly, no other country would take the lead. The signature of the current era is such that response to aggression will not be taken up by other powers in the absence of American leadership, unfortunately. This was the case in the invasion of Kuwait. It was the case in Bosnia when, after several years of Western inaction in the face of ethnic atrocities in Bosnia, only the United States, only the United States, could bring about a credible, effective implementation of peace in that sorry part of Europe. . . . It is American leadership which is decisive to the peace in these regions, and I commend President Clinton for his decisive action. It was necessary to weaken the Iraqi leader's ability to intimidate his neighbors, and to make it clear that he will pay a price for his aggression.
Senator Robert Byrd, September 1996

"Today I weep for my country. No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. ... Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned. We flaunt our superpower status with arrogance. After war has ended the United States will have to rebuild much more than the country of Iraq. We will have to rebuild America's image around the globe."
Senator Robert Byrd, March, 2003

"None of us knows why Saddam decided to test us now," Kerry said on September 5, 1996. "But if the history of the last six years has taught us anything, it is that Saddam Hussein does not understand diplomacy, he only understands power, and when he brandishes power in a manner that threatens our interests or violates internationally accepted standards of behavior, we must be prepared to respond--and with force if necessary." [emphasis added] Such force, Kerry went on, might well be used unilaterally: "The United States under President Bush and then President Clinton, led these earlier efforts to contain Saddam. Whereas some of our allies in the region are constrained from acting on this occasion, we are not."
Senator John Kerry, September, 1996.

?Rush to war.? ?Hasty war talk.? ?Erratic unilateralism and reluctant engagement.?
Senator John Kerry, March, 2003
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Oh Daschle is one of the biggest hyprocrits I've ever seen. His actions during the election of 2000 and now this? I have not one iota of respect for the man.