[Sparta]

While I do support the war against Saddam and the Axis of Evil, I do see the concerns of Ron Paul and the other more rational opponents about the future precedence of premption. While I disagree with the Honorable Mr. Paul on this issue, he at least makes some rational points when he opposes the war unlike this jackass and his Hollyweird/socialist lackeys and Harry Browne.

[ponytailedpatriot]

"Gregg Joey" gave us all a big dose of the dim-witted ignorance we expect from those who refuse to believe we are threatened by evil. I emailed NION LA with some choice words, basically, if you're so ashamed of America, get the F out of here!

[SwinneySwitch]

"He had his mic cut at least twice during the interview."

Sean is like that. Were they deep cuts?

[CFC__VRWC]

... he at least makes some rational points when he opposes the war unlike this jackass and his Hollyweird/socialist lackeys and Harry Browne.

That guy was a total a$$ clown. Obviously came onto H&C for the sole purpose of rattling off his little canned speech (doubtless prepared by his betters), with no dissent or comment tolerated. I was very glad to see his filibuster cut off again and again (even Colmes cut his mic off once!).

[Wondervixen]

I'm too busy watching Gloria Allred making an ass of herself on the same program, but yes, I saw it.

[kcar]

Yeah that was funny - even Colmes cut his mike - you could see him ranting and chanting without sound in the background. Hilarious.
But then they followed that with Dick Morris who said Bush is going to have a problem in '04 retaining the new swing voters - investors making between $50k and $100k/yr who lost alot of 401k / IRA money - because they're going to want it back and they know the Democrats will do that but the Republicans won't. Rats giving back lost market value to people making between $50k - $100k year...

So between the two the ranter made more sense.

[Balata]

What a jerk! He couldn't answer questions or carry on a dialogue. All he had were his talking points and, by God, he was going to get them in. I thought they should have cut his mike even earlier.

[weikel]

He wouldn't answer questions from Hannity or Colmes, accused Fox News of being a pro-war propaganda outlet, and accused Bush of wanting to conquor the world for all of its oil. He had his mic cut at least twice during the interview. I just want to know your opinions of the interview.

You sure it was Justin Raimondo?

[mombonn]

The only fool I saw was Sean kissing up to the Van Dam mother. I'm sorry, but this woman is trying to benefit from her daughter's death. Sean doesn't get it. He'd be doing the same for Susan Smith.

Yes, I know, Danielle's mom didn't do it, but she's disgusting nevertheless.

Sorry, in case anyone wants to disagree, I don't usually draw many replies. I'm about to go to bed, so if you reply and I don't answer, don't be offended.

[superfluousdude]

That segment gave me some college flashbacks.

[MissAmericanPie]

Typical socialist melt down, when confronted with facts or asked to answer hard questions they deteriorate into screaming monkeys.

[Doctor Raoul]

That guy is a good example of the scary left wingers who would impose a "one view, ours only" facist liberal state on everyone.

The guy wouldn't let anyone else speak and that's endemic to liberals. They wish they had the power to keep others from speaking. Just look at how worked up they are over Rush. They don't want liberal talk radio, what they want to do is silence Limbaugh, make NO mistake about it.

DEFUND NPR
Make Liberal Talk Radio Pay For Itself

[ibbryn]

For a brief moment they showed the clown jabbering on soundlessly after his mic was cut in a split screen shot next to his opposition only. Then they cut to a one shot of the other speaker only. I would have left the split screen shot up, as it was very funny to see him babbling with no sound coming out.

[Republic]

I watched him. Thought he was scary. Wondered if he had ever experienced one thoughtful moment in his life wherein he felt gratitude to the armed forces of this nation who have consistently kept our way of life alive. Wondered if he had ever had a moments contemplation of what it would be like to live in Iraq right now. Wondered if he would be the first to complain if Saddam shoved biological weapons to terrorists who deployed the same on our shores. Decided that that idiot doesn't have the capacity to go that far.

[VaBthang4]

Yeah I saw it....Sean cut off his Mic....twice. I think Colmes might've done the same. I'm not sure...I dont pay attention to Colmes.

Sean called him a "walking talking-point". ~Grin~

[tinamina]

It looked to me like he never realized his microphone was cut and just kept talking. It was cut at the end of the segment and his jaw was still flapping. Funny, but he was hateful.

[bushfamfan]

Who was it? Mike Farrell? Either way, you can see people like Sean Penn when he was on Larry King, not taking calls and Michael Moore with his repeated rhetoric shield themselves from the other view because they know they have no intelligence when it comes to facts and what they believe. And the Demonrats are protected by the liberal media networks when they face Republicans. He wasn't going to get away with his anti-war rhetoric on Hannity and Colmes so he refused to answer logical questions from the other side. They are such obvious failures and cowards.

[geege]

Yes we watched it last night and it prompted us to go to bed because the idiot wasn't answering the question's and Sean should have just cut him off......he was very annoying....

[ottersnot]

While I do support the war against Saddam and the Axis of Evil, I do see the concerns of Ron Paul and the other more rational opponents about the future precedence of premption. While I disagree with the Honorable Mr. Paul on this issue, he at least makes some rational points when he opposes the war unlike this jackass and his Hollyweird/socialist lackeys and Harry Browne.
Well spoken Sparta, but a very sound argument can also be made that any military action in Iraq or against other state sponsors of Terrorism is NOT premption. The term premption would suggest that we have evidence that Terrorist activity (perhaps state sponsored) might be likely against the United States. It is clear that Terrorist activity has happened on many occaisons against this Country.
The issue here is being purposefully blurred by those who oppose any type of action to defend this country (or others) from further Terrorism attacks. Clearly if a State is supporting Terror attacks then that State must be dissuaded from this activity. Of course Diplomacy is the preferred method from dissuading a "rogue" state from supporting Terror, but a Rogue state by "definition" is unlikely to respond to anything but force. Force might come in the form of sanctions, pressure from the world community, or punishment for their proven actions.
Don't expect proof of Saddams participation in Terrorist activity to be immediately provided. The nature of intelligence gathering does not allow access by the public to gathered intelligence. The intelligence failures leading up to 911 highlight the necessity to protect sources. If you don't protect your sources, your not gonna have any sources.
So working on the presumption that Iraq could or does have a history of supporting Terror, and Iraq has WMD's that could easily be adapted to Terror what would you do to protect yourself?. Is this premption if you are simply protecting yourself from past attacks?. No, in my opinion this is learning a lesson and applying this lesson to protecting the world from Terrorism, not premption.