Search results

nope he only added that after the fact. you just can't seem to get the story straight. but then again you believe in change, changing your story.

yes he did. he commited to pulling all troops out by the end of his first term and then backslid. just like on the surge. now he likes the surge and was surprised it was working. i guess when you don't talk to general patreous and haven't been there in 3 urs that would make you out of touch.

tell me what new information obama offered please. just because he had never published something called 'my plan for victory in iraq' doesn't mean there is any new information. don't confuse the dressing with the content. just because john mccain used a counterpoint approach in his editorial...

how was it a smear? all mccain did is use quoted material from obama. mccain gave his plan. did you not read it? his plan was to push for the majority of the troops out by the end of his first term w/it being conditional on actual ground assesments. that is not true. you are confused...

they were editing content, they asked for specific timetables. that is editing content since john mccain would not put a definite defeatism timetable like obama. you are confusing the job of an editor when they are editing something home grown that they are liable for. remember the editorial...

when did savage speak for all conservatism? only in your biased little stereotypes i suppose...

actually the editorial page is exactly where free speech requires protection the most. it's not in the news section... they made specific suggestions to change the content of the speech, not the style. adding specific timetables is changing content, not style. editors should not be editing...

yes i am saying obama was not held to the same criteria. there was no new information in the obama speech. not a single thing that wasn't known years ago. i can't say if the obama piece wasn't edited but that is not what this spinster was asking for. he wanted timetables for withdrawl which...

actually we do know. al-sadr came out of his truce and got soundly trounced by iraqi forces. forces that were trained during the surge. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/world/middleeast/20iraq.html?fta=y

i understand that but it is newsworthy for a presidential candidate to write an editorial detailing his iraqi plan. it has been clearly shown the editor has selective and biased criteria he only applies to conservatives. if you support him you do not support free speech.

yes he is the best of them all. tom hartman isn't bad but it gets vry bad after that. there is a reason air america crashed.

and people know that going into his show. the NYT does not say that. they profess to be equal to all viewpoints and strong supporters of free speech. all other conservative talk radio hosts i can think of routinely have liberal guests on (if they will come). michael medved is a shiniging...

ok so you admit that you can't provide what i asked for, which was required for your point to be valid. the ACLU does not unilaterally speak for all Americans on the defense of free speech. there are many groups that do similar things as well. sorry this is a free country and conservatives...

i'll say this again. supporting the ACLU financially is not a prerequisite for allowing them to say what they want. show me how conservatives have prevented one lawsuit or brief from being filed in a public court.

not sure how that connects to what i said. the ACLU isn't prevented by conservatives from saying whatever they want. just because they don't donate money to the ACLU (because of thousands of frivolous lawsuits for example) doesn't mean we don't want people to hear how ridiculous their...

absolutely. show me an instance where a conservative media source did not show liberal viewpoints? all the conservative talk media invite liberals on all the time. not many show up because they don't have a leg to stand on argument wise. but they are invited.

Bottom line here: - NYT is a liberal rag with selective 'journalistic' standards - conservatives want all views to be heard. liberals want their views to be heard i like when liberals speak their mind, it helps show the inherent flaws with the philosophy.

what a bunch of unsupported opinion by you. you haven't even read the editorial...

actually democrats introduced nothing to help energy prices. you can't obstruct something that does not exist.

i'll bet you a dollar it won't.