Another little tidbit the biased left wing media forgot to mention

[Jesster]

If the media had a "liberal bias" they'd have covered Bernie way more in the primaries and they would cover Jill Stein a lot more than they do. And instead of only asking people who want free healthcare for all "how do you afford it?" they'd also ask the warmongers "can you afford more war and/or increasing military spending?". They're not consistent.

Even if some media outlets do appear to show a biased towards Hilary, I would certainly not call her a "liberal". She loves crony capitalism. Plus she's proud to have the support Henry Kissinger, a war criminal. If Hilary was actually left-wing they'd treat her as badly as they do Jill Stein.

Do we agree on something political? I think we do. This right here is why I'm a liberal, but not a democrat.

[ReptilianPeon]

Armenia is so far to the right that even if you're a "centrist" by rest of the world standard you get branded as "far left". The Democratic Party, supposedly "left wing" and "Communist" is currently so far to the right that they make to Conservative Party in the UK look "liberal" by comparison. Although there are competing factions with widely different ideas in each party, given the cruel nature of a "first past the post" election system.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

https://aminewswire.com/stories/51100760...vacationed

I seems Obama could not be bothered to be wakened on his va-ca golfing to green light an operation to save two English teachers (one American and one Australian) It seems the hostages held in Afghanistan were confirmed and a seal team was mobilized, but the generals are under strict orders not to move with out obama's word (I guess he needs more photos of him infront of a monitor while real men do their jobs on his word.) So of course, by the time he did give the green light (24 hours later) to move the hostages were gone. One of the seal team fighters was wounded in the fight.

Why wasn't this on the news? why when you google  this story nothing comes up but right wing news sources??

Do you guys really think that the major news media outlets are not biased? That they do not hold back certain stories and focus on other ones that support one political agenda over another?

Where was this outrage all the years OBL was lurking in Pakistan and Dubya didn't do a thing?

Can you link to a post you made then about how lazy and ineffective Bush was?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

I think that's an unfair comparison.  All Obama doing was the odd round of golf, whereas Bush - a positive fiend for recreation - was busy throwing horseshoes at fish from his golf cart.

Boru

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

So, if you throw a rock at me, then I have the moral right to blow up your house and kill your family?

Boru

It is merely an expression. If Hamas want to play big boys games against Israel, then that is fine, I hope Israel obliges them each and every time. I mean, let us face facts, Israel could have wiped them off the face of the earth if they wanted to. So, would I ever support Palestine, not even if my life depended on it no.

I know it's an expression, slackwit - try to keep up. I'll re-phrase the question without resorting to metaphors that seem to strain you:

When a group of 10 Palestinian teens throw rocks at Israeli soldiers for 20 minutes, does Israel then have the moral right to conduct 5 days of shelling, bombing and strafing in the name of 'retaliation'? (I'm making this as easy an I can for you, so I won't link to the actual incident. Try a search engine, do your own homework.)

Now, try to understand what I'm asking. Not is Israel able to do this, but do they have the moral right to do it? Bear in mind that this isn't a case of national security, or the preservation of the state of Israel. There is no 'existential threat' involved. This is rock-throwing kids being answered with five days of mechanized retaliation, that resulted in the death of just over 20 Palestinians who - as far as can be determined - did not throw the rocks.

Idiot.

Boru

[Minimalist]

Not is Israel able to do this, but do they have the moral right to do it?

You see, a long time ago a bunch of people who were not Palestinians killed a lot of jews causing them to vow "never again."  What they meant of course is "never again to us."  They have no problem with mass murder as long as they are on the correct side of the gun.

[abaris]

You see, a long time ago a bunch of people who were not Palestinians killed a lot of jews causing them to vow "never again."  What they meant of course is "never again to us."  They have no problem with mass murder as long as they are on the correct side of the gun.

And yet it's not state doctrine. It's a shitty administration doing it. One of the last great men of Israel is probably dying right now. There has been a different Israel and the Netanjahu racket isn't Israel. They will be gone at some time and we can only hope that something better ensues.

[Cyberman]

"Those who throw rocks shouldn't live in glass houses", is an expression around my way. If they don't want shit, stop giving it.

So, if you throw a rock at me, then I have the moral right to blow up your house and kill your family?

Boru

Don't be silly.

You blow up the house and kill the family before they get the chance. Get your retaliation in first.

[Minimalist]

It's the doctrine of the bunch that keeps winning the elections, Abs.  At some point in a democracy the people ARE responsible.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

So, if you throw a rock at me, then I have the moral right to blow up your house and kill your family?

Boru

Don't be silly.

You blow up the house and kill the family before they get the chance. Get your retaliation in first.

'I thought he was going to hit me, so I hit him back first.' - Attila the Hun, aged 4.

Boru

[Cyberman]

Also, why "tidbit" and not "titbit"? That's always puzzled me.