Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Why don't congressional Republicans authorize action against ISIS?
Comments
-
If you ever needed a measure of how FS and out in left field HondoFS is this is it...2001400ex said:
Your perception of reality is whatever your conservative news source tells you.HoustonHusky said:
HondoFS vs. reality:2001400ex said:
When Obama took over, he said our real problem is Afghanistan, and took care of business thereRaceBannon said:
Iraq was contained thanks to the surge Obama opposed. Of course not as many troops died there - Obama puled them out - the biggest mistake of his failed presidency.2001400ex said:
Why do you hate Iraq? Are you really the gullible? Or you trying to wooosh me?RaceBannon said:
Got a link? I clearly said I do not want any military action with Obama as CIC. He is CIC you know.2001400ex said:
Wait what? Obama killed more troops???RaceBannon said:Blame others for Obama failure #Script
I would vote against force with Obama making the rules of engagement. He's got more troops killed than W with his fucked up rules.
Besides that.... Ok, you don't like Obama's plan. Republicans and internet tough guys like you scream about Obama not going to war. What about this. Where's the Republican plan??? Why don't they agree and put forth a bill to Obama?
I don't recall FDR waiting around for a bill to be proposed. He went to Congress and asked for a declaration. Same way W laid out his case and got Congress to approve.
It's called leadership.
And yes, far more American troops in Afghanistan have been killed under Obama's watch than under W. Take the dick out of your mouth and get educated.
Are we done here?
So let me get this straight. You call Obama a pussy for doing nothing and not going to war against ISIS. I show you the bill he sent to Congress asking for authorization and an article with quotes by Republicans on why they won't.
Now..... You just moved the goal posts and said you don't want action under Obama. But.... For arguments sake, here's exactly what Obama has done as president:
Over the past 16 months, Kaine said, the United States has carried nearly 6,300 airstrikes, at a cost of $5 billion, or $11 million per day, to push Islamic State out of sections of Iraq and Syria.
You appear very uneducated right now.
Obama's rules of engagement have got far more American troops killed in Afghanistan. That's a fact.
That's why he is a pussy and why I don't want anymore troops sent under his command.
He's done such a great job against ISIS that they have gained two countries and are attacking in Europe. France did more damage this week.
and we all know Obama won't do anything without congress behind him
How big of a cock sucker do you have to be to write this shit hondo?
Rhetorical question
A Grim Decision on Afghanistan (if you are a Liberal who has lost the NYT editorial bored...)
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/opinion/a-grim-decision-on-afghanistan.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur&_r=0
— comes amid Taliban advances and other alarming changes in the region. While Mr. Obama’s shift is disturbing and may not put Afghanistan on a path toward stability, he has no good options.
How Obama Lost Afghanistan
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/05/how-obama-lost-afghanistan.html
Afghanistan today is much more violent than when Obama came into office. Fewer Americans may be dying. But many more Afghan civilians are being killed, according to U.N. statistics. More guns, more warlords, more militias—that’s Obama’s probable legacy. It’s what happens when you can’t deal with reality and commit one way or the other in wartime—you lose.
The NYTimes editorial board and the Daily Beast are now "conservative news source(s)".
Keep gurgling... -
You said Obama took care of business in Afghanistan. He didn't. He fucked it up just like he did in Iraq. ISIS ran the same fucking play.2001400ex said:
I never said they didn't have a foothold in Afghanistan. You could learn to use reading comprehension before you pop off.PurpleThrobber said:
I suggest you watch last night's version of Frontline before popping off.2001400ex said:
This was your quote, which is a lie:RaceBannon said:
Iraq was contained thanks to the surge Obama opposed. Of course not as many troops died there - Obama puled them out - the biggest mistake of his failed presidency.2001400ex said:
Why do you hate Iraq? Are you really the gullible? Or you trying to wooosh me?RaceBannon said:
Got a link? I clearly said I do not want any military action with Obama as CIC. He is CIC you know.2001400ex said:
Wait what? Obama killed more troops???RaceBannon said:Blame others for Obama failure #Script
I would vote against force with Obama making the rules of engagement. He's got more troops killed than W with his fucked up rules.
Besides that.... Ok, you don't like Obama's plan. Republicans and internet tough guys like you scream about Obama not going to war. What about this. Where's the Republican plan??? Why don't they agree and put forth a bill to Obama?
I don't recall FDR waiting around for a bill to be proposed. He went to Congress and asked for a declaration. Same way W laid out his case and got Congress to approve.
It's called leadership.
And yes, far more American troops in Afghanistan have been killed under Obama's watch than under W. Take the dick out of your mouth and get educated.
Are we done here?
So let me get this straight. You call Obama a pussy for doing nothing and not going to war against ISIS. I show you the bill he sent to Congress asking for authorization and an article with quotes by Republicans on why they won't.
Now..... You just moved the goal posts and said you don't want action under Obama. But.... For arguments sake, here's exactly what Obama has done as president:
Over the past 16 months, Kaine said, the United States has carried nearly 6,300 airstrikes, at a cost of $5 billion, or $11 million per day, to push Islamic State out of sections of Iraq and Syria.
You appear very uneducated right now.
Obama's rules of engagement have got far more American troops killed in Afghanistan. That's a fact.
That's why he is a pussy and why I don't want anymore troops sent under his command.
He's done such a great job against ISIS that they have gained two countries and are attacking in Europe. France did more damage this week.
and we all know Obama won't do anything without congress behind him
How big of a cock sucker do you have to be to write this shit hondo?
Rhetorical question
He's got more troops killed than W with his fucked up rules.
That being said. It's very clear you have no clue what happened in Afghanistan. You see, Bush didn't do much there and chased this shiny object in Iraq. When Obama took over, he said our real problem is Afghanistan, and took care of business there along with taking out bin ladin, something Bush said he wouldn't go into Pakistan to do.
Either way, you are very uneducated on the matter and like to believe the conservative blog post of the week.
ISIS has a strong foothold in Afghanistan.
pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/
THE SAME FUCKING PLAY.
That is Jonathan Smith level bubble screen stupidity.
-
ISIS can't lop your head off soon enough. I'll read about it from whatever news source I wish.2001400ex said:
Your perception of reality is whatever your conservative news source tells you.HoustonHusky said:
HondoFS vs. reality:2001400ex said:
When Obama took over, he said our real problem is Afghanistan, and took care of business thereRaceBannon said:
Iraq was contained thanks to the surge Obama opposed. Of course not as many troops died there - Obama puled them out - the biggest mistake of his failed presidency.2001400ex said:
Why do you hate Iraq? Are you really the gullible? Or you trying to wooosh me?RaceBannon said:
Got a link? I clearly said I do not want any military action with Obama as CIC. He is CIC you know.2001400ex said:
Wait what? Obama killed more troops???RaceBannon said:Blame others for Obama failure #Script
I would vote against force with Obama making the rules of engagement. He's got more troops killed than W with his fucked up rules.
Besides that.... Ok, you don't like Obama's plan. Republicans and internet tough guys like you scream about Obama not going to war. What about this. Where's the Republican plan??? Why don't they agree and put forth a bill to Obama?
I don't recall FDR waiting around for a bill to be proposed. He went to Congress and asked for a declaration. Same way W laid out his case and got Congress to approve.
It's called leadership.
And yes, far more American troops in Afghanistan have been killed under Obama's watch than under W. Take the dick out of your mouth and get educated.
Are we done here?
So let me get this straight. You call Obama a pussy for doing nothing and not going to war against ISIS. I show you the bill he sent to Congress asking for authorization and an article with quotes by Republicans on why they won't.
Now..... You just moved the goal posts and said you don't want action under Obama. But.... For arguments sake, here's exactly what Obama has done as president:
Over the past 16 months, Kaine said, the United States has carried nearly 6,300 airstrikes, at a cost of $5 billion, or $11 million per day, to push Islamic State out of sections of Iraq and Syria.
You appear very uneducated right now.
Obama's rules of engagement have got far more American troops killed in Afghanistan. That's a fact.
That's why he is a pussy and why I don't want anymore troops sent under his command.
He's done such a great job against ISIS that they have gained two countries and are attacking in Europe. France did more damage this week.
and we all know Obama won't do anything without congress behind him
How big of a cock sucker do you have to be to write this shit hondo?
Rhetorical question
A Grim Decision on Afghanistan (if you are a Liberal who has lost the NYT editorial bored...)
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/opinion/a-grim-decision-on-afghanistan.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur&_r=0
— comes amid Taliban advances and other alarming changes in the region. While Mr. Obama’s shift is disturbing and may not put Afghanistan on a path toward stability, he has no good options.
How Obama Lost Afghanistan
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/05/how-obama-lost-afghanistan.html
Afghanistan today is much more violent than when Obama came into office. Fewer Americans may be dying. But many more Afghan civilians are being killed, according to U.N. statistics. More guns, more warlords, more militias—that’s Obama’s probable legacy. It’s what happens when you can’t deal with reality and commit one way or the other in wartime—you lose. -
No matter the alleged political affiliations of its founders, the Daily Beast features identified conservative writers over identified liberals at a rate of 3-1 (maybe more; the political leanings of sports and celebrity writers are largely unknown).HoustonHusky said:
If you ever needed a measure of how FS and out in left field HondoFS is this is it...2001400ex said:
Your perception of reality is whatever your conservative news source tells you.HoustonHusky said:
HondoFS vs. reality:2001400ex said:
When Obama took over, he said our real problem is Afghanistan, and took care of business thereRaceBannon said:
Iraq was contained thanks to the surge Obama opposed. Of course not as many troops died there - Obama puled them out - the biggest mistake of his failed presidency.2001400ex said:
Why do you hate Iraq? Are you really the gullible? Or you trying to wooosh me?RaceBannon said:
Got a link? I clearly said I do not want any military action with Obama as CIC. He is CIC you know.2001400ex said:
Wait what? Obama killed more troops???RaceBannon said:Blame others for Obama failure #Script
I would vote against force with Obama making the rules of engagement. He's got more troops killed than W with his fucked up rules.
Besides that.... Ok, you don't like Obama's plan. Republicans and internet tough guys like you scream about Obama not going to war. What about this. Where's the Republican plan??? Why don't they agree and put forth a bill to Obama?
I don't recall FDR waiting around for a bill to be proposed. He went to Congress and asked for a declaration. Same way W laid out his case and got Congress to approve.
It's called leadership.
And yes, far more American troops in Afghanistan have been killed under Obama's watch than under W. Take the dick out of your mouth and get educated.
Are we done here?
So let me get this straight. You call Obama a pussy for doing nothing and not going to war against ISIS. I show you the bill he sent to Congress asking for authorization and an article with quotes by Republicans on why they won't.
Now..... You just moved the goal posts and said you don't want action under Obama. But.... For arguments sake, here's exactly what Obama has done as president:
Over the past 16 months, Kaine said, the United States has carried nearly 6,300 airstrikes, at a cost of $5 billion, or $11 million per day, to push Islamic State out of sections of Iraq and Syria.
You appear very uneducated right now.
Obama's rules of engagement have got far more American troops killed in Afghanistan. That's a fact.
That's why he is a pussy and why I don't want anymore troops sent under his command.
He's done such a great job against ISIS that they have gained two countries and are attacking in Europe. France did more damage this week.
and we all know Obama won't do anything without congress behind him
How big of a cock sucker do you have to be to write this shit hondo?
Rhetorical question
A Grim Decision on Afghanistan (if you are a Liberal who has lost the NYT editorial bored...)
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/opinion/a-grim-decision-on-afghanistan.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur&_r=0
— comes amid Taliban advances and other alarming changes in the region. While Mr. Obama’s shift is disturbing and may not put Afghanistan on a path toward stability, he has no good options.
How Obama Lost Afghanistan
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/05/how-obama-lost-afghanistan.html
Afghanistan today is much more violent than when Obama came into office. Fewer Americans may be dying. But many more Afghan civilians are being killed, according to U.N. statistics. More guns, more warlords, more militias—that’s Obama’s probable legacy. It’s what happens when you can’t deal with reality and commit one way or the other in wartime—you lose.
The NYTimes editorial board and the Daily Beast are now "conservative news source(s)".
Keep gurgling...
Although the Daily Beast portrays itself as centrist, you'll find a heavy concentration of right-leaning Yale, DoD, WSJ, National Review and Weekly Standard alumni in the contributing pool.
Check the conservative bona fides of Christopher Buckley, Michael Moynihan, David Frum, Meghan McCain, Les Gelb, Mark McKinnon, John Avlon, Lucinda Franks, Bruce Riedel, Lloyd Grove, Tunku Varadarajan, James Kirchick. Peter Beinart and Reza Aslan are two of only a few identified regulars.
Scribnia describes Daily Beast as "A news publication that sifts, sorts and curates information with a conservative twist." Many rightwing websites consider Daily Beast liberal, but that may be due to a difference in definition of terms. -
Why would Isis harm a brother in struggle?
Hondo is loyal to the cause. -
Why would we hurt a fellow jihadist?Doogles said:
ISIS can't lop your head off soon enough. I'll read about it from whatever news source I wish.2001400ex said:
Your perception of reality is whatever your conservative news source tells you.HoustonHusky said:
HondoFS vs. reality:2001400ex said:
When Obama took over, he said our real problem is Afghanistan, and took care of business thereRaceBannon said:
Iraq was contained thanks to the surge Obama opposed. Of course not as many troops died there - Obama puled them out - the biggest mistake of his failed presidency.2001400ex said:
Why do you hate Iraq? Are you really the gullible? Or you trying to wooosh me?RaceBannon said:
Got a link? I clearly said I do not want any military action with Obama as CIC. He is CIC you know.2001400ex said:
Wait what? Obama killed more troops???RaceBannon said:Blame others for Obama failure #Script
I would vote against force with Obama making the rules of engagement. He's got more troops killed than W with his fucked up rules.
Besides that.... Ok, you don't like Obama's plan. Republicans and internet tough guys like you scream about Obama not going to war. What about this. Where's the Republican plan??? Why don't they agree and put forth a bill to Obama?
I don't recall FDR waiting around for a bill to be proposed. He went to Congress and asked for a declaration. Same way W laid out his case and got Congress to approve.
It's called leadership.
And yes, far more American troops in Afghanistan have been killed under Obama's watch than under W. Take the dick out of your mouth and get educated.
Are we done here?
So let me get this straight. You call Obama a pussy for doing nothing and not going to war against ISIS. I show you the bill he sent to Congress asking for authorization and an article with quotes by Republicans on why they won't.
Now..... You just moved the goal posts and said you don't want action under Obama. But.... For arguments sake, here's exactly what Obama has done as president:
Over the past 16 months, Kaine said, the United States has carried nearly 6,300 airstrikes, at a cost of $5 billion, or $11 million per day, to push Islamic State out of sections of Iraq and Syria.
You appear very uneducated right now.
Obama's rules of engagement have got far more American troops killed in Afghanistan. That's a fact.
That's why he is a pussy and why I don't want anymore troops sent under his command.
He's done such a great job against ISIS that they have gained two countries and are attacking in Europe. France did more damage this week.
and we all know Obama won't do anything without congress behind him
How big of a cock sucker do you have to be to write this shit hondo?
Rhetorical question
A Grim Decision on Afghanistan (if you are a Liberal who has lost the NYT editorial bored...)
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/opinion/a-grim-decision-on-afghanistan.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur&_r=0
— comes amid Taliban advances and other alarming changes in the region. While Mr. Obama’s shift is disturbing and may not put Afghanistan on a path toward stability, he has no good options.
How Obama Lost Afghanistan
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/05/how-obama-lost-afghanistan.html
Afghanistan today is much more violent than when Obama came into office. Fewer Americans may be dying. But many more Afghan civilians are being killed, according to U.N. statistics. More guns, more warlords, more militias—that’s Obama’s probable legacy. It’s what happens when you can’t deal with reality and commit one way or the other in wartime—you lose. -
يمارس الجنس مع ديك و53 ثوانيsarktastic said:Why would Isis harm a brother in struggle?
Hondo is loyal to the cause. -
Halal_Dawg said:
يمارس الجنس مع ديك و53 ثوانيsarktastic said:Why would Isis harm a brother in struggle?
Hondo is loyal to the cause.
أنت لست شادي حقيقية. الذهاب سباق يمارس الجنس مع الحمار الغطاس القذرة . -
http://www.answers.com/Q/Is_The_daily_Beast_liberal_or_conservative2001400ex said:
No matter the alleged political affiliations of its founders, the Daily Beast features identified conservative writers over identified liberals at a rate of 3-1 (maybe more; the political leanings of sports and celebrity writers are largely unknown).HoustonHusky said:
If you ever needed a measure of how FS and out in left field HondoFS is this is it...2001400ex said:
Your perception of reality is whatever your conservative news source tells you.HoustonHusky said:
HondoFS vs. reality:2001400ex said:
When Obama took over, he said our real problem is Afghanistan, and took care of business thereRaceBannon said:
Iraq was contained thanks to the surge Obama opposed. Of course not as many troops died there - Obama puled them out - the biggest mistake of his failed presidency.2001400ex said:
Why do you hate Iraq? Are you really the gullible? Or you trying to wooosh me?RaceBannon said:
Got a link? I clearly said I do not want any military action with Obama as CIC. He is CIC you know.2001400ex said:
Wait what? Obama killed more troops???RaceBannon said:Blame others for Obama failure #Script
I would vote against force with Obama making the rules of engagement. He's got more troops killed than W with his fucked up rules.
Besides that.... Ok, you don't like Obama's plan. Republicans and internet tough guys like you scream about Obama not going to war. What about this. Where's the Republican plan??? Why don't they agree and put forth a bill to Obama?
I don't recall FDR waiting around for a bill to be proposed. He went to Congress and asked for a declaration. Same way W laid out his case and got Congress to approve.
It's called leadership.
And yes, far more American troops in Afghanistan have been killed under Obama's watch than under W. Take the dick out of your mouth and get educated.
Are we done here?
So let me get this straight. You call Obama a pussy for doing nothing and not going to war against ISIS. I show you the bill he sent to Congress asking for authorization and an article with quotes by Republicans on why they won't.
Now..... You just moved the goal posts and said you don't want action under Obama. But.... For arguments sake, here's exactly what Obama has done as president:
Over the past 16 months, Kaine said, the United States has carried nearly 6,300 airstrikes, at a cost of $5 billion, or $11 million per day, to push Islamic State out of sections of Iraq and Syria.
You appear very uneducated right now.
Obama's rules of engagement have got far more American troops killed in Afghanistan. That's a fact.
That's why he is a pussy and why I don't want anymore troops sent under his command.
He's done such a great job against ISIS that they have gained two countries and are attacking in Europe. France did more damage this week.
and we all know Obama won't do anything without congress behind him
How big of a cock sucker do you have to be to write this shit hondo?
Rhetorical question
A Grim Decision on Afghanistan (if you are a Liberal who has lost the NYT editorial bored...)
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/opinion/a-grim-decision-on-afghanistan.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur&_r=0
— comes amid Taliban advances and other alarming changes in the region. While Mr. Obama’s shift is disturbing and may not put Afghanistan on a path toward stability, he has no good options.
How Obama Lost Afghanistan
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/05/how-obama-lost-afghanistan.html
Afghanistan today is much more violent than when Obama came into office. Fewer Americans may be dying. But many more Afghan civilians are being killed, according to U.N. statistics. More guns, more warlords, more militias—that’s Obama’s probable legacy. It’s what happens when you can’t deal with reality and commit one way or the other in wartime—you lose.
The NYTimes editorial board and the Daily Beast are now "conservative news source(s)".
Keep gurgling...
Although the Daily Beast portrays itself as centrist, you'll find a heavy concentration of right-leaning Yale, DoD, WSJ, National Review and Weekly Standard alumni in the contributing pool.
Check the conservative bona fides of Christopher Buckley, Michael Moynihan, David Frum, Meghan McCain, Les Gelb, Mark McKinnon, John Avlon, Lucinda Franks, Bruce Riedel, Lloyd Grove, Tunku Varadarajan, James Kirchick. Peter Beinart and Reza Aslan are two of only a few identified regulars.
Scribnia describes Daily Beast as "A news publication that sifts, sorts and curates information with a conservative twist." Many rightwing websites consider Daily Beast liberal, but that may be due to a difference in definition of terms.
Wow...answers.com is your source? And you missed the next line...
Another View
"Conservative" - balderdash. The "Daily Beast" is decidedly liberal - founded by arch-liberal Tina Brown, former editor of liberal publications The New Yorker, Vanity Fair and Talk. Daily Beast merged with Newsweek, by far the most liberal of the three main American weekly news magazine. Daily Beast is liberal - not in rational dispute.
HondoFS... -
There's a hundred other sources that say the same thing. I'm lazy so fuck off.HoustonHusky said:
http://www.answers.com/Q/Is_The_daily_Beast_liberal_or_conservative2001400ex said:
No matter the alleged political affiliations of its founders, the Daily Beast features identified conservative writers over identified liberals at a rate of 3-1 (maybe more; the political leanings of sports and celebrity writers are largely unknown).HoustonHusky said:
If you ever needed a measure of how FS and out in left field HondoFS is this is it...2001400ex said:
Your perception of reality is whatever your conservative news source tells you.HoustonHusky said:
HondoFS vs. reality:2001400ex said:
When Obama took over, he said our real problem is Afghanistan, and took care of business thereRaceBannon said:
Iraq was contained thanks to the surge Obama opposed. Of course not as many troops died there - Obama puled them out - the biggest mistake of his failed presidency.2001400ex said:
Why do you hate Iraq? Are you really the gullible? Or you trying to wooosh me?RaceBannon said:
Got a link? I clearly said I do not want any military action with Obama as CIC. He is CIC you know.2001400ex said:
Wait what? Obama killed more troops???RaceBannon said:Blame others for Obama failure #Script
I would vote against force with Obama making the rules of engagement. He's got more troops killed than W with his fucked up rules.
Besides that.... Ok, you don't like Obama's plan. Republicans and internet tough guys like you scream about Obama not going to war. What about this. Where's the Republican plan??? Why don't they agree and put forth a bill to Obama?
I don't recall FDR waiting around for a bill to be proposed. He went to Congress and asked for a declaration. Same way W laid out his case and got Congress to approve.
It's called leadership.
And yes, far more American troops in Afghanistan have been killed under Obama's watch than under W. Take the dick out of your mouth and get educated.
Are we done here?
So let me get this straight. You call Obama a pussy for doing nothing and not going to war against ISIS. I show you the bill he sent to Congress asking for authorization and an article with quotes by Republicans on why they won't.
Now..... You just moved the goal posts and said you don't want action under Obama. But.... For arguments sake, here's exactly what Obama has done as president:
Over the past 16 months, Kaine said, the United States has carried nearly 6,300 airstrikes, at a cost of $5 billion, or $11 million per day, to push Islamic State out of sections of Iraq and Syria.
You appear very uneducated right now.
Obama's rules of engagement have got far more American troops killed in Afghanistan. That's a fact.
That's why he is a pussy and why I don't want anymore troops sent under his command.
He's done such a great job against ISIS that they have gained two countries and are attacking in Europe. France did more damage this week.
and we all know Obama won't do anything without congress behind him
How big of a cock sucker do you have to be to write this shit hondo?
Rhetorical question
A Grim Decision on Afghanistan (if you are a Liberal who has lost the NYT editorial bored...)
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/opinion/a-grim-decision-on-afghanistan.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur&_r=0
— comes amid Taliban advances and other alarming changes in the region. While Mr. Obama’s shift is disturbing and may not put Afghanistan on a path toward stability, he has no good options.
How Obama Lost Afghanistan
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/05/how-obama-lost-afghanistan.html
Afghanistan today is much more violent than when Obama came into office. Fewer Americans may be dying. But many more Afghan civilians are being killed, according to U.N. statistics. More guns, more warlords, more militias—that’s Obama’s probable legacy. It’s what happens when you can’t deal with reality and commit one way or the other in wartime—you lose.
The NYTimes editorial board and the Daily Beast are now "conservative news source(s)".
Keep gurgling...
Although the Daily Beast portrays itself as centrist, you'll find a heavy concentration of right-leaning Yale, DoD, WSJ, National Review and Weekly Standard alumni in the contributing pool.
Check the conservative bona fides of Christopher Buckley, Michael Moynihan, David Frum, Meghan McCain, Les Gelb, Mark McKinnon, John Avlon, Lucinda Franks, Bruce Riedel, Lloyd Grove, Tunku Varadarajan, James Kirchick. Peter Beinart and Reza Aslan are two of only a few identified regulars.
Scribnia describes Daily Beast as "A news publication that sifts, sorts and curates information with a conservative twist." Many rightwing websites consider Daily Beast liberal, but that may be due to a difference in definition of terms.
Wow...answers.com is your source? And you missed the next line...
Another View
"Conservative" - balderdash. The "Daily Beast" is decidedly liberal - founded by arch-liberal Tina Brown, former editor of liberal publications The New Yorker, Vanity Fair and Talk. Daily Beast merged with Newsweek, by far the most liberal of the three main American weekly news magazine. Daily Beast is liberal - not in rational dispute.
HondoFS...
