• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Whoopi Goldberg's Uncomfortable Question To Ann Romney (VIDEO)

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
29,240
9,443
136
Except he told an obvious lie...and you decided to believe the obvious lie he told.
Who are you? Oh you are that guy that makes claims but refuses to back them up with facts.

The answer to my question is: you a waste of time.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
0
0
I guess you don't know the difference do you. Good try though.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, an anti-war liberal, said in a statement that the lawsuit filed by him and nine other House members is designed to "challenge the executive branch's circumvention of Congress and its use of international organizations such as the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to authorize the use of military force abroad, in violation of the Constitution."
Too bad Rep.Kucinich didn't know the difference either.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/06/obama-team-to-defend-legality-of-libyan-operation/1#.UITm5mdSR7g


‘Today I authorized the Armed Forces of the United States to begin a limited military action in Libya in support of an international effort to protect Libyan civilians.”

That’s how President Barack Obama opened Saturday’s briefing announcing his decision to launch a war in North Africa.
Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/03/what-authority-did-obama-start-military-action-libya#ixzz2A0UCRtzq

http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/03/what-authority-did-obama-start-military-action-libya

You lose you tool, thanks for playing.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
29,240
9,443
136

God, it's like I'm arguing with a moron! What part of not putting American lives in danger do you not understand?

When you are the president you have to make decisions that go against your beliefs, Obama doesn't like war and won't send american lives into battle unless he has to and he sure as shit isn't going to saber rattle and stir up shit just to "get tough" like Romney thinks we need to do.

Again, what troops did Obama send to libya? He didn't so so how many soldiers lives did he put in jeopardy.

The fact that you don't see the hypocrisy of a guy that supports a war but isn't willing to serve nor have his sons serve is pretty telling.

You are indeed a fucking idiot!


Just another righty with a gut for a brain.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
chucky2, are you pretending you don't know what a chickenhawk is? Are you claiming such behavior is excusable, even desirable? How do you possibly equate such vile hypocritical behavior as the same as arguing about marginal tax rates? To quote wresting magnate/GOP politician Linda McMahon's favorite debating line, have you no shame?
Oh, I know exactly what a chickenhawk is, and it sounds like by your dodgy answer, you do too. You want others to pay for what you want? You're a budget chickenhawk.

Ante up (thousands more than you are obligated to pay), or STFU.

Chuck
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
0
0
God, it's like I'm arguing with a moron! What part of not putting American lives in danger do you not understand?

When you are the president you have to make decisions that go against your beliefs, Obama doesn't like war and won't send american lives into battle unless he has to and he sure as shit isn't going to saber rattle and stir up shit just to "get tough" like Romney thinks we need to do.
/snip....... lies and bullshit
Military action is not limited to troops on the ground, you want to define it as only troops, but sorry you don't get to pick and choose your own facts and the fact is that Obama got the U.S. militarily involved in Libya and violated the War Powers Act by doing so. The White House of course disagrees. Obviously so do you.
I don't

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/15/white-house-libya-war-powers-act-congress_n_877749.html
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
29,240
9,443
136
Military action is not limited to troops on the ground, you want to define it as only troops, but sorry you don't get to pick and choose your own facts and the fact is that Obama got the U.S. militarily involved in Libya and violated the War Powers Act by doing so. The White House of course disagrees. Obviously so do you.
I don't

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/15/white-house-libya-war-powers-act-congress_n_877749.html
You clearly don't get the point so continue arguing a point I didn't make.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
11,880
1,214
126
Oh, I know exactly what a chickenhawk is, and it sounds like by your dodgy answer, you do too. You want others to pay for what you want? You're a budget chickenhawk.

Ante up (thousands more than you are obligated to pay), or STFU.

Chuck
I feel very sorry for you. First, you falsely assume I "want others to pay for what I want" without the SLIGHTEST bit of evidence. If you disagree, please publically state here (a) what my effective federal tax rate is and (b) what it is I want others to pay for that I want.

Secondly, and most importantly, I feel sorry for you that you are so misguided that you equate lives with a few bucks.

As I essentially said earlier, chickenhawks are the lowest scum in my opinion, regardless of what party they come from. Romney, with his demonstrating FOR the Vietnam War but somehow never finding the motivation to actually serve, coupled with his family history, coupled with his wholesale adoption of the Bush-Cheney foreign policy crew (17 of 24) seems to be among the worst of the worst in this regard.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
Reading this thread is enlightening.

Here we have a rabid Obama toady posing a clown question to a candidate's wife and all of our similarly toady Obama sycophants are nodding in sync like bobble heads.

Most, if not all of these toadys have not served a day in the military themselves and they certainly would not even consider enlisting, no not them. But these toads are puffed up so full of themselves that they believe they can righteously draw a distinction between the different types of service people choose to do.

Fact is, and here I am speaking as a 12 year vet, it is a privilege to serve and it really doesn't matter one bit what someone chooses that service to be.

I don't care if someone chooses to be a missionary or in the Peace Corps or an Airborne Ranger. I DO want to see politicians make an early choice to not be self-centered assholes, but how they do this is wide open insofar as I am concerned.

And I certainly do not believe everyone is cut out to be in the military. Those who have been and are, know exactly what I mean.

The idea of a chickenhawk is ludicrous. Used to be everyone served time in the military because there was a universal draft. It might have made a difference in WWII. Since draft exemptions were made available to so many by the politicians since then I don't see much point in criticizing those who took them up on it. Look at Clinton if you want an example of someone who avoided the draft - I do not see Whoopie and the toadies here jumping up and down using him as a whipping boy.

As we transitioned into the modern era of a volunteer military there has been much less need for large manpower contingents and thus a much lesser percentage of the population has that cred. Are those who have not been in the military then to be disenfranchised from subsequent public office?

Don't get me wrong, I do believe military service, especially in combat arms, is an invaluable crucible for developing leadership. But I also believe that leadership can and should be formed outside of the military. Having gained the requisite seasoning elsewhere does not invalidate anyone's opinions or ability to lead.

We have always had civilian leadership of our military. If that leadership has demonstrated self-sacrifice for others outside of the particular rigors of military service, that is good enough for me. And by self-sacrifice I do not mean passing the bong on for a round in the Choom Gang.

 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
26,721
12,055
136
well i wonder why she was even asked such shit. she is the wife nto the president. Ask him.

same with Michelle.
Cause Mitt was a no show. Can't handle all those "sharp-tongued women"

BTW - I love how Mitt's sons are such tough guys. "I want to punch the President" Yet none of them would signup for the military.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
False equivalence there bozack and Ducati, Obama did not avoid a draft.

America did ask certain Republican elites (Romney *cough* Cheney *cough) to serve their country, and they kindly gave America the finger.

But go ahead, rationalize away.
Did the last two Democratic Presidents serve in the military.

They ask people to go to war and be killed; yet they themselves have never even attempted to get placed in service.

Is it that hard to volunteer to serve your country; especially when there is not large conflicts going on?
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
26,721
12,055
136
Reading this thread is enlightening.

Here we have a rabid Obama toady posing a clown question to a candidate's wife and all of our similarly toady Obama sycophants are nodding in sync like bobble heads.

Most, if not all of these toadys have not served a day in the military themselves and they certainly would not even consider enlisting, no not them. But these toads are puffed up so full of themselves that they believe they can righteously draw a distinction between the different types of service people choose to do.

Fact is, and here I am speaking as a 12 year vet, it is a privilege to serve and it really doesn't matter one bit what someone chooses that service to be.

I don't care if someone chooses to be a missionary or in the Peace Corps or an Airborne Ranger. I DO want to see politicians make an early choice to not be self-centered assholes, but how they do this is wide open insofar as I am concerned.

And I certainly do not believe everyone is cut out to be in the military. Those who have been and are, know exactly what I mean.

The idea of a chickenhawk is ludicrous. Used to be everyone served time in the military because there was a universal draft. It might have made a difference in WWII. Since draft exemptions were made available to so many by the politicians since then I don't see much point in criticizing those who took them up on it. Look at Clinton if you want an example of someone who avoided the draft - I do not see Whoopie and the toadies here jumping up and down using him as a whipping boy.

As we transitioned into the modern era of a volunteer military there has been much less need for large manpower contingents and thus a much lesser percentage of the population has that cred. Are those who have not been in the military then to be disenfranchised from subsequent public office?

Don't get me wrong, I do believe military service, especially in combat arms, is an invaluable crucible for developing leadership. But I also believe that leadership can and should be formed outside of the military. Having gained the requisite seasoning elsewhere does not invalidate anyone's opinions or ability to lead.

We have always had civilian leadership of our military. If that leadership has demonstrated self-sacrifice for others outside of the particular rigors of military service, that is good enough for me. And by self-sacrifice I do not mean passing the bong on for a round in the Choom Gang.

Question:

Would it be an issue with you if someone protested in favor of the war yet refused to join military?
 

nextJin

Golden Member
Apr 16, 2009
1,848
0
0
Mormons can, and historically have, gone to war:


http://www.lds.org/topics/war?lang=eng

War is to be a last resort, with peace the far preferred method. Those who are angry about Bush's wars and therefor logically must also be angry about Obama's wars, should vote for Romney since he has a far lower chance of taking us to war than Obama does.
You are batshit insane if you believe we have a better chance of going to war under Obama than Romney.
 

Theb

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
3,533
8
76
I've never understood Whoopi's appeal. She was ok in Star Trek: TNG, but other than that I don't enjoy watching her at all.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,145
9
81
Cause Mitt was a no show. Can't handle all those "sharp-tongued women"

BTW - I love how Mitt's sons are such tough guys. "I want to punch the President" Yet none of them would signup for the military.
again who cares? this was the WIFE of the person running. you ask them asinine idiotic questions. you don't ambush them with shit like this.

and who cares what his sons say? i don't give a shit what the kids of the politicians say or do. that has nothing to do with the guy running.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
Question:

Would it be an issue with you if someone protested in favor of the war yet refused to join military?
Isn't this the argument that the other toads are making in this thread?

Advocating in favor of a war implies that the person believes that a particular war is fought for good reason. Defense against foreign invaders, against totalitarianism, against genocide - all can be seen as worth the cost of lives and worth speaking up about. You don't have to be in the military to believe such.

Refusing to join the military, in the context of the toads or not, needs to be qualified -

In times of war,

1. Refusal to join for conscientious objection - does not apply here as there is clear support for a war that Romney believes was just and worth the cost, ie allowed democracy to establish a foothold, fought godless communism, whatever. BTW, a good reference on the human life cost of communism in Vietnam, and a justification for fighting communism in Vietnam and elsewhere, can be found here -Statistics of Vietnamese Democide

2. Refusal to join for reasons of personal responsibility - single parent, sole surviving child of family that has lost all other children - doesn't apply here, but perfectly legitimate and almost always government policy anyway.

3. Refusal to join for other reasons - cowardice, no interest, interest in other career paths, whatever. Here you make fine distinctions after the fact and impune reputations based on incomplete and misunderstood information. You would exempt someone for one motivation, but not another. This is not Sparta, we actually do value non-military occupations and interests, so you might jump down that rabbit hole, but don't expect that you will come out whole.

In times of peace,

4. All of the above and more apply. Military service is selective, you have to be qualified to get in and you have to volunteer for selection. Good for you if you make it, if you don't for reasons beyond your control, props anyway.

Now we get to government policy in times of war, which is what really applies here...

5. Applicable exemption by government definition - completion of education and/or religious obligations (ie freedom to practice religion) - this is a government choice of national priorities and anyone who falls into these categories cannot be held personally for taking such exemptions. Can also be considered the same as taxes - obligation to pay only what is due after government allowed exemptions, no obligation to pay more than is due.

Drafts are not volunteering. You are obligated by the government but the U.S. has never had universal conscription so there have always been broad exceptions to military service. If you are not drafted, and you prefer to do something, anything else, you are free to do so.

Did Romney and Clinton refuse to be drafted? No, in both cases. They each had access to educational and religious exemptions offered by the government. We can argue the merits of the exemptions vs universal service requirements but there were no obligations that were not fulfilled by either person.

Let me further comment as a former infantry (mech and airborne) officer -

I believe, in general, that military service is best suited to those who volunteer for it. They are willing to subject themselves to what it takes to become professionals in a very difficult occupation.

Draftees are much more likely to be in for too short a period in advance of deployments and to be subject to too little training to be worth nearly the same as a volunteer that goes in for 4+ years. Anyone who has been in for 3+ years, however, is likely to be on an equal footing, no matter how they got in in the first place. Hence, the effectiveness of our Reserve and National Guard troops (also volunteers) with the current operational tempo relative to Vietnam era draftees that had to OJT in jungle warfare.

We are well past the stage of needing cannon fodder. I believe that long and hard training is an absolute requirement to have highly effective soldiers and cohesive units, and draft armies just don't have the resources to take their soldiers to professional competence levels. This absolute focus on training is the reason the U.S. military has completely dominated every conflict they have been engaged in since they went full volunteer.

Should we get into a war of massive attrition and the volunteer ranks are decimated, we will again need a draft army. Until that time comes, if it ever comes, I would always prefer to wage war with those who choose to be there and have made the sacrifices necessary to be professionals at it.
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
NOBODY wan'ts to send there children into harms way.

Now was the same question asked of Obama when he was on the view? no.

BUT anyone that knows Goldberg KNOWS she is hard core Democrat. She is going to do anything in her power to get them to win. I think it was a cheap shot to ambush Romney's wife.
Well the right has Fox News for softballs and they go on it far more often. So boo f'ing hoo that Whoopee nailed you guys. The question was valid and you just attack the messenger. Obama is not a chickenhawk, so the question is not really a good fit for him.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
Obama is not a chickenhawk, so the question is not really a good fit for him.
Has Obama ever served in the military?

Did he even volunteer for anything except organizing anti-capitalist activities?

Isn't he always on about how he is killing enemies by remote control, ie drone strikes?

Does Obama's chest thumping impress you that much?
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
You are batshit insane if you believe we have a better chance of going to war under Obama than Romney.
Obama already proved he is more than willing to send our troops to kill people in northern Africa. We have his proven track record of engaging in warfare as our guide.

I realize you love to pretend your chosen messiah is a peaceful man - but the Libyans he ordered killed by our troops show otherwise. The US Citizen he ordered executed without a trial shows otherwise as well.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Well the right has Fox News for softballs and they go on it far more often. So boo f'ing hoo that Whoopee nailed you guys. The question was valid and you just attack the messenger. Obama is not a chickenhawk, so the question is not really a good fit for him.
Whoopi makes Moonbeam look sane and makes [removed due to overly sensitive kooks] look non-partisan. She is more partisan than the combined effort of the DU and less rational than them by far.
 
Last edited:

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,414
616
126
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivwshane View Post
Usually it's best not to saber rattle and threaten military action and commit American troops to harm when you wouldn't fight or send your own kids into battle.
Actually, it takes an act of Congress to declare war. You should ask them.
war yes. to send troops in for short conflicts no.
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,414
616
126
Cause Mitt was a no show. Can't handle all those "sharp-tongued women"

BTW - I love how Mitt's sons are such tough guys. "I want to punch the President" Yet none of them would signup for the military.

if you base your vote on what a candidates kid says then please dont vote.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
I feel very sorry for you. First, you falsely assume I "want others to pay for what I want" without the SLIGHTEST bit of evidence. If you disagree, please publically state here (a) what my effective federal tax rate is and (b) what it is I want others to pay for that I want.

Secondly, and most importantly, I feel sorry for you that you are so misguided that you equate lives with a few bucks.

As I essentially said earlier, chickenhawks are the lowest scum in my opinion, regardless of what party they come from. Romney, with his demonstrating FOR the Vietnam War but somehow never finding the motivation to actually serve, coupled with his family history, coupled with his wholesale adoption of the Bush-Cheney foreign policy crew (17 of 24) seems to be among the worst of the worst in this regard.
Evidence? If I go back through all your past postings, you're telling me I won't find you're firmly in the Dem camp?

I'm sorry you feel so bad about yourself that you can't accept what you are: A budget chickenhawk. Rather than talk about going to war, encourage it to happen, and then wanting others to go fight it, you talk about spending, encourage it to happen, and then want others to pay for it.

That is, you're a budget chickenhawk. You are what you seem to hate most.

So back to my question: You're committing to voluntarily send into the Fed, and heck, State too, I'm sure they need the $$$$, a few thousand more than you need to, correct? Don't be a budget chickenhawk now, ante up...

:thumbsup:

Chuck
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY