Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

January 31, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

THE WAR ON TERROR....In the Boston Globe today, James Carroll asks about the elephant in the room:

Here is the embarrassing question: Is America actually at war? We have a war president, war hawks, war planes, war correspondents, war cries, even war crimes but do we have war?

....Iraq is not a war, because, though we have savage assault, we have no enemy. The war on terrorism is not a war because, though we have an enemy, the muscle-bound Pentagon offers no authentic means of assault.

It would be easy to dismiss this as pedantry if it weren't for one thing: it seems as though the Pentagon pretty much agrees. In this year's Quadrennial Defense Review there are no terminations of major weapons programs and, apparently, no serious changes planned in the way the military operates. InsideDefense, which has seen the QDR and spoken to a senior defense official who was one of its architects, reports that instead of offering concrete changes to respond to the war on terror, we're mostly getting Dilbert-style happy talk:

The misguided game in town is: Give me the programmatics, show where the money is going and that will tell me where the department is going, the senior defense official said. I think that would be a misreading of whats happened, because what the QDR did was to get us to start to work differently, in a much more collaborative, horizontal fashion.

....A refined force planning construct...implies the previous force planning construct is about right. I think the programming thats occurred to date, too, is about right. And what were seeing here are refinements of that.

Thats not to say theres not some changes in there, the military official acknowledged. But the [services] were on a pretty good vector and the QDR helped make some adjustments to those vectors. Thats why theres not going to be [any major weapon system terminations].

So 9/11 didn't really change anything after all. We just need a few tweaks here and there and we'll be fine.

So where's Osama?

Kevin Drum 3:31 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (253)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

"So where's Osama?"

Iran, of course. Didn't you get the memo?

Posted by: MJ Memphis on January 31, 2006 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINK

Osama bin Laden, lives across the sea...
Duyba can catch everybody, but he can't catch he.

Posted by: Darryl Pearce on January 31, 2006 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK

The CIA is keeping him alive as long as Rove needs him. As Uncle Walt. He'll tell you.

Posted by: rdw on January 31, 2006 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK

Osama is dead. Only a shithead or a shitstain, like Drum, doesn't know that.

Posted by: Chaufist on January 31, 2006 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

While we're admitting that "war" does not describe what we're in, can we also stop using "homeland" instad of "domestic?" It's always been very creepy.

Posted by: DanM on January 31, 2006 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

The contradiction between the constant rhetoric of war and bravery contrasted with the reality is every striking.

Americans really are fighting the Iraq War very much like it did in all little interventions in Latin America and the Phillipines. We aren't sacrificing nor making any hard choices.

And it is very glaring to the rest of the world how the Americans panic at each terrorist attack. Wimpy Europeans just don't cancel all their vacations at once.

But despite that the US has lost another war in Iraq - and it appears partly because it never put any real effort into winning it.

Posted by: Samuel Knight on January 31, 2006 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

I see. So now it's "pedantry" if someone bothers to ask what kind of a war we're fighting?

Posted by: Wonderin on January 31, 2006 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINK

Of course it's not a war. What was Reagan's number one initiative in 1984? Answer: The so-called "war on terror". It wasn't a war then and it isn't a war now. Terror is an emotion, not an enemy. If Bush were really a Christian (which he clearly is not), he would declare war on a really ugly emotion: GREED!

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on January 31, 2006 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINK

"But despite that the US has lost another war in Iraq."
Hussien is on trial, all the violence is in two of the fourteen provinces. 70% of the Iraqies are optimistic for the future.
So shithead Samuel Knight, how did we lose this war?
Specifics please?
God, you liberals are really dumb.

Posted by: Chaufist on January 31, 2006 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINK

Ummmm, Chaufist? It's Iraqis not Iraqies

Posted by: cq on January 31, 2006 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINK

Hussein not Hussien

Posted by: cq on January 31, 2006 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

You can't fault the Pentagon. For all the propaganda about the "Global War on Terror," there is very little for an army, air force, or navy to do.

For all the bedwetting Republicans terrified of brown-skinned Muslims, it's still 100% law enforcement at home. All the bullshit militant rhetoric is just that, rhetoric, on the home-front. Any terrorists in our borders are criminals, not soldiers.

That's just reality.

Of course, since the Bushies aren't interested in law enforcement methods to catch terrorists (that's wimpy), it means in the end we aren't doing a damn thing to catch terrorists. Go figure.

Posted by: teece on January 31, 2006 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK

Shithead! Shithead! Shitheeeeeaaaaadddd!

Posted by: Chaufister on January 31, 2006 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK

Iraq is not a war, because, though we have savage assault, we have no enemy. The war on terrorism is not a war because, though we have an enemy, the muscle-bound Pentagon offers no authentic means of assault.

Wrong on both counts. There is an enemy in Iraq. Where collaboration is permitted (Afghanistan, Somalia, Philippines) the employees of the Pentagon are having considerable effect.

There remains the serious problem of joint Afghan-US-Pakistani frustration in the mountainous border region of Afghanistan/Pakistan. I don't think that there would be much gained from organizing the whole military around that problem.

Posted by: contentious on January 31, 2006 at 4:03 PM | PERMALINK

Teece is right. This has always been a law enforcement issue both domestic and international. It requires law enforcement, securing borders and ports, and international cooperation and diplomacy. All of which were soundly ridiculed by the Republican no-nothings. And none of which interests Bush in the least cause it ain't flashy and he can't blow shit up to prove he's "doing" something.

Posted by: ckelly on January 31, 2006 at 4:03 PM | PERMALINK

The "war on terror" is a hoax for domestic consumption, to help the Bush regime maintain and increase its power by keeping citizens in a state of fear.

And effectively fighting terrorism has little or nothing to do with the military.

What the USA is actually preparing for militarily is fight a world war for control of the earth's dwindling reserves of oil. That is in fact what the USA is already doing in Iraq.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on January 31, 2006 at 4:04 PM | PERMALINK

How about every time we declare war we have to reinstate the draft? How many wars do you think the Repubs would be willing to declare? And if Congress then refused to declare war for this reason, then none of those "war powers" could be assumed by the President.

Posted by: Ken in MS on January 31, 2006 at 4:05 PM | PERMALINK

Didn't anyone watch Fahrenheit 911? There is no terrorism, there is no Bin Laden. There is only Bush and Bush's Brain who will turn America into a Nazi dictatorship.

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on January 31, 2006 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK

"How about every time we declare war we have to reinstate the draft? How many wars do you think the Repubs would be willing to declare?"

How about every time we declare war, we just cut to the chase and declare defeat?

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on January 31, 2006 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINK

There is an enemy in Iraq...
Ah yes, when one country invades another country it encounters a resistance (i.e. insurgency) -go figure. And of course it had nothing to do with Bush's little war on Terrah or 9/11 and to which 5% foreign fighters joined the fray.

Very productive.

Posted by: ckelly on January 31, 2006 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINK

Chaufist, dumb is as dumb does. With respect to Iraq, we invaded a country with no big scary weapons and no links to the attacks that took place on our soil, with the result that the Iraqis have elected a parliament that will be led by Islamists, who will be closely allied to Iran. And Iran is doing what? Possibly attempting to develop nukes, is it? And if the Iranians succeed, how likely do you think it will be that some of that knowledge may seep across the border to their bosom buddies in Iraq? Um, does that mean that we'll have to go back? Assuming we ever leave?

I dunno, I guess that phrases like "long term security of our country" are lost on the Chaufists of this world...

Posted by: Wonderin on January 31, 2006 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

Not only that, but shouldn't a war sort of, you know, show up in the budget somewhere? Well, it's not mentioned in the budgets Bush has proposed to Congress since the start of, er, whatever it is we're doing in Iraq.

Posted by: Roddy McCorley on January 31, 2006 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

How about every time we declare war, we just cut to the chase and declare defeat?

How about every time you post, you just cut to the chase and beat that strawman.

Oh. You do.

Posted by: ckelly on January 31, 2006 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

"For all the bedwetting Republicans terrified of brown-skinned Muslims, it's still 100% law enforcement at home."

Actually, blacks should be terrified of Moslems, who are very eager to slaughter or enslaving them.

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on January 31, 2006 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINK

Of course we are not at "war." We are only at "war" when it is useful to the Bush administration to proclaim it. Terrorism was around long before 9/11, yet there was no WOT. Did Carter declare a "War on Terror" when the hostages were taken? Did Reagan declare a WOT in response to terrorist attacks? You respond to terrorism the way you respond to raging inferno, you put it out and don't pour gasoline on it.

Posted by: greg wirth on January 31, 2006 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINK

I think the War on Terror is already lost. We're spending $400B/yr to fight the imagined enemies of McDonnell/Douglas, Boeing et al. while a small group of Saudis made terrified fools of all of us with 39-cent box cutters. Osama runs free, and all the wingnuts can do is foam at the mouth and yell obscenities.

This country is no longer worth defending.

Posted by: a_retrogrouch on January 31, 2006 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK


if we are not at war...bush is claiming we are safer...

you can see by the fact that in the more 1400+ days the color coded terror alert system has been around...

its

never

been on green or blue...

and for more than 9-years...al-qaeda has only hit inside the u-s once

on 9-11....


not that americans care about real perspective...

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on January 31, 2006 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK

"This country is no longer worth defending."

You mean Liberals at one time would actually defend this country?

I apologize for having to keep beating on strawmen, but they seem to pop up on lefty blogs with such regularity.

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on January 31, 2006 at 4:20 PM | PERMALINK

WHAT no war,What about all these dam t-shirts I bought.I went to war in Iraq and all I got was this T-Shirt.

Posted by: pssst on January 31, 2006 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINK

Chaufist's assertion of facts are reminders of Vietnam, lots of citing of dubious statistics to "prove" that no we're winning.

And of course, the other example of "freedom fighter" is that old classic: Liberals just want to lose.

BS - liberals wanted to plan and win World War II and the cold war. Liberals wanted to win Vietnam - and they blew it. And Nixon blew it again, just to make sure.

Liberals want to keep this country safe and recognize you don't do that by deluding yourself about reality. You don't do it by ticking off the rest of the world. And you don't do it by hitting the panic button.

And no matter what policy choice you make, you have to put in the hard work and make the hard choices necessary.

That's what Kevin was getting at: all we have now is rhetoric and not the hard stuff. In other words if we're really at war: why the heck aren't we acting like it?

Posted by: Samuel Knight on January 31, 2006 at 4:23 PM | PERMALINK

During the 'Cold War' we were not actually said to be at war, yet then were in far more danger. Also, where are the sacrifices always deemed necessary during a proper war?

What about the 'War on Drugs?' Were we at war then, too?

Posted by: Hedley Lamarr on January 31, 2006 at 4:23 PM | PERMALINK

You mean Liberals at one time would actually defend this country?
Truman, FDR, there was actually a time, long ago, when Democrats would defend this country. They were not always the party of Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 31, 2006 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINK

"BS - liberals wanted to plan and win World War II and the cold war. Liberals wanted to win Vietnam - and they blew it. And Nixon blew it again, just to make sure."

LOL! I guess the way liberals express their desire to win is to proclaim America is not worth defending.

Kinda makes one wonder which side the liberals are on.

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on January 31, 2006 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK

It's only a war when it suits Bush administration's purposes.

Higher military spending? Yes. We're at war.

Higher taxes? No. We're not at war.

Send soldiers into harm's way? Yes. We're at war.

Reinstate the draft? No. We're not at war.

Commander-in-Chief? Yes. We're at war.

Congressional declaration of war? No. We're not at war.

Torture? Abu Ghraib? Guantanemo Bay? Yes. We're at war.

Geneva conventions? No. We're not at war.

Warrantless searches? Violating the constitution? Yes, of course. Didn't I mention? We're at war.

Conservation of resources? Good gracious, no. We're not at war.

Be very afraid? Yes. We are at war.

Choose a president with some military experience? Don't even suggest it, you commie pinko. We're not at war or anything.

Posted by: Oregonian on January 31, 2006 at 4:29 PM | PERMALINK

There are registered Democrats in Iraq right now wearing the uniform of the U.S. military. My father, a decorated USAF fighter pilot whose flying boots CN and FF aren't worthy to clean, was a registered Democrat. Tim Haskett is a registered Democrat. Al Gore has the courage of a hundred wingnuts and a hundred times the patriotism for daring to speak up about global warming. John Kerry is a decorated vet with a chestful of medals he earned defending the U.S.

I'll personally beat to death any wingnut who steps onto my property. I'm sick of being attacked for being a Democrat. You fuckers are playing with fire, and you're going to get it back in spades.

Posted by: a_retrogrouch on January 31, 2006 at 4:31 PM | PERMALINK

You chickhawks crack me up. You sound like my dear departed great uncle. He was a tank commander in an SS panzer division. Big difference he was in a war.

Posted by: Neo on January 31, 2006 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

"War" is a special word should be reserved for the gravest state of national affairs.

It is significant that it has been cheapened by recent regimes to popularize political agendas.

First the "War on Poverty", then "War on Terror I" then the "War on Drugs", and now the
"War on Terror II").

As part of these campaigns, the American poeple have been systematically conditioned to accept one-man dictatorial leadership (Remember the introduction of the various drug "Czars"?).

And the drumbeat goes on as the people are stampeded into the next one.

The founders of this nation very wisely wrote a constitution that included specific language as to what was necessary to enter a state of 'War'.

It's time somebody calls the current regime on this.

Questions that should be asked.. right up front.

How many Al-Quaeda terror wing operatives were there? About 700 worldwide.

How many significant "terror" attacks have there been in the USA in the last 50 years? (can t hink of 4, maybe 5 by counting Puerto Rican Separatists, Oklahoma City, etc.)

How many people have been involved in these attacks... well, maybe a hundred.

And this is a "War"???

Posted by: Buford on January 31, 2006 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, what a thick infestation of trolls this poor thread has. Fetch the DDT!

But I do savor the irony of conspiracy nut when he says: Truman, FDR, there was actually a time, long ago, when Democrats would defend this country. They were not always the party of Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry.

Wow. Just... wow. Hey, troll, you are aware that those men you disparaged actually took up arms and risked their lives in the service of this nation? Unlike, say, George Bush? Or Dick Cheney?

It's almost, but not quite, enough to make me believe he actually isn't that jaw-droppingly stupid and is really just having us on.

Posted by: S Ra on January 31, 2006 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

...there was actually a time, long ago, when Democrats would defend this country. They were not always the party of Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry.

Nevermind that Kerry truly defended his country by fighting in Vietnam while Bush defended Texas air space. Part time. Till he got bored and quit.

Posted by: ckelly on January 31, 2006 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINK

We had a war, it lasted about 10 days, and we "won." Ever since then, we have had an occupation.

I guess "Vote for me, I support the Occupation on Terror" doesn't have quite the same ring.

But that's where we are. Russia/Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine, Indonesia/Timor, and US/Iraq. Let's call a spade a spade.

Posted by: craigie on January 31, 2006 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, that's not really a wise subquoting of Carroll's screed. The second paragraph you subquoted makes much more sense when you read the paragraph before it.

Posted by: Jimm on January 31, 2006 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

Upthread, a spittle flecked post claimed that violence is isolated to two Iraqi provinces, with the obvious intent of making the carnage appear to be under control.

Sure.

Watch this counter of combat deaths, especially during the last year, and see if you think the violence is limited.

Of course, any serious student of current events knows that the Sunni population centers have exploded with increased violence. But I suppose the lack of death in empty desert is something for the war-pornographers to be proud of.

Posted by: Pacific John on January 31, 2006 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, a_, what do you expect with statements like this:
This country is no longer worth defending.

Whatsamatter? Your team lost the election and now you want to stop the game? Grow the hell up or pout quietly in your corner.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 31, 2006 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK

Name someone in this adm.that went to war.Done already,Now name someone who was to chickenshit to fight in a war.

Posted by: pssst on January 31, 2006 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK

Two Pentagons, the one at war and the one at peace. The pentagon at peace generally just rolls along because we really do not get into existential wars. The Pentagon at war just goes off budget and gets what it needs for the current battles.

Maybe we should have more, smaller wars, just keep the troops tuned up. Where is that Canadian plan?

Posted by: Matt on January 31, 2006 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK

They were not always the party of Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry.

Three veterans.

Posted by: Davis X. Machina on January 31, 2006 at 4:41 PM | PERMALINK

Kiss my ass, Conspiracy Nut. YOU aren't worth defending. Get your sorry ass over to Iraq if you think it's such a glorious operation. They need more bodies to stuff into all those flimsy Humvees the Pentagon never seems to find the money to armor.

Posted by: a_retrogrouch on January 31, 2006 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINK

What about the 'War on Drugs?' Were we at war then, too?

We were, but the Drugs won.

Posted by: Stefan on January 31, 2006 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINK

I just checked and Commander Codpiece, is not, I repeat, is not concerned with OBL at this hour.

However depending on a change in security threat (note this is a threat to the Republican party's image) Dubya's concern can rise to panic status in seconds.

Stay tuned for further reports.

Posted by: j swift on January 31, 2006 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINK

The Swifties were veterans, too.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 31, 2006 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINK

While we're admitting that "war" does not describe what we're in, can we also stop using "homeland" instad of "domestic?" It's always been very creepy. Posted by: DanM

Word! Way too close to the Fatherland and the Motherland of Nazi and Soviet useage.

Posted by: Jeff II on January 31, 2006 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK

Get your sorry ass over to Iraq if you think it's such a glorious operation.
But then, who would defend the US from people like you? If it's so sorry living here, you know where the borders are.

This country is no longer worth defending.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 31, 2006 at 4:52 PM | PERMALINK

"John Kerry is a decorated vet with a chestful of medals he earned defending the U.S."

I thought he threw them away? Or did they belong to someone else?

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on January 31, 2006 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINK

"let's call a spade a spade"
I dunno craigie - I'd rather call it a fucking shovel.

Posted by: kenga on January 31, 2006 at 4:56 PM | PERMALINK

Shhh lets just let the next three months pass.All the people that make up the new R-party are all indicted lets just let the courts deal with them and whatch them eat there own.

Posted by: pssst on January 31, 2006 at 4:56 PM | PERMALINK

At least he had them to throw away,No one in this party even knows what a medal is.

Posted by: pssst on January 31, 2006 at 4:58 PM | PERMALINK

the swifties were also dishonorable liars as well.

Posted by: mudwall jackson on January 31, 2006 at 4:58 PM | PERMALINK

I thought he threw them away?
Naw, gave them to the North Vietnamese while he was hobnobbing with them in Paris, wasn't it?

All the veterans were there.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 31, 2006 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

a_retrogrouch: Kiss my ass, Conspiracy Nut.

conspiracy nut is unworthy of kissing your ass.

He is, however, worthy to lick Bush's boots, which he does constantly, while whimpering pleas for Bush to grind the heel ever harder into his face.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on January 31, 2006 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK
While we're admitting that "war" does not describe what we're in, can we also stop using "homeland" instad of "domestic?" It's always been very creepy.

I dunno. In one sense, its better than sugar coating the tools of authoritarian control.

Posted by: cmdicely on January 31, 2006 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK

Bush lied over 2000 died.

Posted by: pssst on January 31, 2006 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK

the swifties were also dishonorable liars as well
Ah ha, so we see that "veteran" and "dishonorable liar" are not mutually exclusive.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 31, 2006 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK

"They need more bodies to stuff into all those flimsy Humvees the Pentagon never seems to find the money to armor."

Didn't your decorated war veteran John Kerry voted against that $87 billi...

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on January 31, 2006 at 5:01 PM | PERMALINK

Vet = Dem Dishonorable= Rep. Hey your right.

Posted by: pssst on January 31, 2006 at 5:02 PM | PERMALINK

Greg and the Oregonian have it right.It's a war when it needs to be a war and it's not when it's inconvenient.
The bad part is that when it is a war the incompetents are running it. How can anyone review the Section 2207 reports from the DoD,the State Dept. USAID or the SIGIR and think the administration has a clue to what they're doing?
They can't find the money (SIGIR),the #of attacks per day has doubled over the last year,the Iraqi Security Forces are suffering 62 casualties/day and they have to use donated Warsaw Pact weapons, trucks and armor.
The electricity in Baghdad is averaging about 3 hours/day,oil production is still way below pre-war levels,the # of projects to be completed is continually reduced because of the lack of security.
The terrorists/insurgents are blowing up the infrastructure as fast as it can be fixed,467 contractors have been killed in the last 3 years,(think worker comp premiums for coal mine companies are bad?)and gobs of money are missing.
The capper though is the Secretary of State has now been charged with the reconstruction in Iraq.This is the same woman who was completely taken aback by Hamas' victory in Palestine. Do you think she's aware of the Shia running the Ministry of the Interior in Iraq?
I can put up with the politicization of issues,the judge,health care et al. But it frosts me to see the utter incompetence of the people GWB allows to stay around despite their apparent inability to get the job done. Heckuva a job: Brownie/Rummy/Condi/Dick/Alberto/

Posted by: TJM on January 31, 2006 at 5:02 PM | PERMALINK

While we're admitting that "war" does not describe what we're in, can we also stop using "homeland" instad of "domestic?" It's always been very creepy.

Posted by: DanM on January 31, 2006 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

We would rather send women to fight then fight ourselves.

Posted by: GOP liar on January 31, 2006 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINK

"..who are very eager to slaughter or enslaving them."

English as a troll second language.

Then FactFree Fucker, who as we established has never put on a uniform more impressive than that of a Girl Scout, opines:

"You mean Liberals at one time would actually defend this country?"

Many of the regular posters on this site (myself included) served in the US military while you pissed yourself under the bed. It would be amusing if any of you 4Ffreepers would actually say these things to the face of a liberal veteran.

And Nutless, you, as usual, add nothing to the conversation other than fodder for making fun of your witlessness.

Posted by: solar on January 31, 2006 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINK

What solar said!

BOOM! The Hammer comes down!!!

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on January 31, 2006 at 5:06 PM | PERMALINK

"Many of the regular posters on this site (myself included) served in the US military while you pissed yourself under the bed."

I find that rather hard to believe. Considering lefties would only support the troops if they shot their officers.

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on January 31, 2006 at 5:08 PM | PERMALINK

And Nutless, you, as usual, add nothing to the conversation
This was a conversation? My apologies then, it looked like a feces flinging contest so I thought I'd get a few throws in myself.

It's apparent, however, that you have a low threshold for calling something a conversation.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 31, 2006 at 5:08 PM | PERMALINK

So where's Osama?

Laughing at Bush, along with his lieutenants, and congratulating themselves on getting Bush to further their agenda and do what they themselves didn't have the resources or power to do: recruit tens of thousands of new terrorist allies, divert American military and law enforcement resources towards irrelevant and insignificant targets, and slowly drain America's financial health.

There is a cancer on America and its name is Bush.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 31, 2006 at 5:08 PM | PERMALINK

Considering lefties would only support the troops if they shot their officers.
They liked that sergeant that blew up some fellow grunts, too, didn't they?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 31, 2006 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINK

"Laughing at Bush, along with his lieutenants"

Well according to the liberal definition of winning or losing, then Osama is obviously the big winner. After all the Al Qaida victories in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, etc...

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on January 31, 2006 at 5:12 PM | PERMALINK

"I find that rather hard to believe. Considering lefties would only support the troops if they shot their officers."

I could be wrong- perhaps you never progressed beyond Brownie.

However, I renew my offer. Post the address of your mama's trailer where you live, and I will show up with my DD-214 and ...persuade you to apologize. C'mon freepergirl- here's your chance to defend your country against people like me.

Posted by: solar on January 31, 2006 at 5:15 PM | PERMALINK

I apologize for having to keep beating on strawmen, but they seem to pop up on lefty blogs with such regularity.

Pardon me, but ... *snicker* *gasp* HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Our brave D. Marcos, Freedom Fighter extraordinaire [sic], reveals the depths of his remarkable mind again.

This is one of the best wingnut comments ever.

Posted by: Alek Hidell on January 31, 2006 at 5:15 PM | PERMALINK

I was sure they supported that sergeant, here's the picture: linky

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 31, 2006 at 5:17 PM | PERMALINK

"However, I renew my offer. Post the address of your mama's trailer where you live, and I will show up with my DD-214 and ...persuade you to apologize. C'mon freepergirl- here's your chance to defend your country against people like me."

Why don't you post your address and I'll come over and give you a chance to persuade me to apologize?

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on January 31, 2006 at 5:18 PM | PERMALINK

"C'mon freepergirl- here's your chance to defend your country against people like me."

Why are liberals so misogynistic? Why do you hate women and brown people?

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on January 31, 2006 at 5:21 PM | PERMALINK

In recent months the Bush-bootlickers who post here, like conspiracy nut for example, have been getting steadily more inane, stupid, and ignorant. There are fewer and fewer comments posted in support of Bush that are even remotely substantive. Most of them, like conspiracy nut's and Freedom Fighter's comments, are pure content-free drivel, obviously the product of brain-dead idiots who have nothing to do but post deliberately obnoxious bullshit in the hope -- yes, the hope -- that they will receive abuse and insults in response.

I think this says something about the state of Bush's support in general, which is, it is increasingly only really stupid people who support him.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on January 31, 2006 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINK

Wow. This really got under the wing-nuts skin, didn't it!

It's very entertaining to watch them stomping around, spittle flying from their frothing mouths.

Posted by: dasher on January 31, 2006 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINK

Animist
You're still pissed about the brocolli thing, aren't you? But the reason only brain-dead idiots come out here to type is because there are only brain-dead idiots here to type at.

If there was any kind of reasoned opposition, you could get some reasoned righties. You know what they say: you get mostly what you deserve. And you deserve me.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 31, 2006 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINK

Wow. Kevin questions the War On Terror, and here come the 101st Fighting Keyboarders! Of course we're winning! Look at all the dead brown-skinned followers of a pagan god we've racked up! The War On Sand N****rs- ER- Terror is going just fine for them!

(Just as long as they don't have to fight it themselves. The Army, surprisingly, won't spring for a constant supply of Depends.)

Posted by: Dustbin Of History on January 31, 2006 at 5:31 PM | PERMALINK

A helpful hint to trolls and wingnuts--
using lots of extra vowels and exclamation points to insult others does not win arguments. What you have to do is CAPITALIZE! That showcases your insults in such a way that they are accepted without question. No facts or logic required.

Posted by: cowalker on January 31, 2006 at 5:33 PM | PERMALINK

"Why don't you post your address and I'll come over and give you a chance to persuade me to apologize?"

Ah, the coward writes again.

The answers, in no particular order:

1. You would never show up.

2. My address would be posted on all the troll blogs immediately (since this is what you do instead of working for a living). None of the other nutjobs would be man enough to show up either, but I'm sure they would sneak around at night and burn crosses in my yard. You know, the kind of things piss-soaked cowards like you do?

3. I live in a pretty exclusive neighborhood. I'm fairly certain that fat, illiterate, unemployed crossdressers such as yourself would be turned away at the gate.


As to this:

"Why are liberals so misogynistic? Why do you hate women and brown people?"

You are neither female nor brown. You are, however, an effeminate male freeper, who talks tough about things (like war) that you know nothing about and have taken pains to avoid. In short, a mincing coward.

Posted by: solar on January 31, 2006 at 5:33 PM | PERMALINK

You know, I can see I'm amongst real men here, men who fought valiantly alongside the insurgency to drive the hated Americans from Iraq. Men who are willing to stand up for what they believe in. Men who don't believe in just words, but in action!

I'm truly humbled.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 31, 2006 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINK

If it's a war, how do we win?

Serious question: what, exactly, is our objective? When is it OVER?

The Revolution ended with our independence. The Civil War when we preserved the Union by ending slavery. World War One, with the Armistice; World War Two, with the unconditional surrender of the Axis.

Korea never did end, exactly -- but there is this bright line across the whole peninsula that has a certain reality to it.

If this is a "war" on terror (which is an emotion, after all), how do we end it?

Posted by: theAmericanist on January 31, 2006 at 5:44 PM | PERMALINK

Nutless, I fought in Iraq (in the last war) against Iraqis- back when they still had an army. You, on the other hand, were too busy being trying on mommy's dresses to suck it up and serve. I guess posting here is the closest you'll ever come to being a man (or at least your puerile defintion of one).

Enjoy your stupid posts. In your black heart, even you know you are a coward.

Posted by: solar on January 31, 2006 at 5:45 PM | PERMALINK

Cn what would you do if a task force of soviet T-74's rumbled into your neighborhood? Shower them with chocolates and flowers?

Posted by: Neo on January 31, 2006 at 5:46 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut, you are not only a brain-dead idiot, but a narcissistic, self-infatuated, self-flattering brain-dead idiot.

Lots of people, of every political persuasion, post substantive, thoughtful commentary here, and post witty satire and even clever insults as well -- including rightwingers and Bush supporters. You are not one of them. You're just an asshole.


Posted by: SecularAnimist on January 31, 2006 at 5:50 PM | PERMALINK

BTW -- I'm no fan of Senator Kennedy, but those who dis his patriotism, particularly on matters military and regarding sacrifice, would do well to recall that his oldest brother was KIA, his next oldest commanded a boat that was sunk, with fatal casualties, and that the family has had two assassinations in public service.

Granted, the Kennedy's are sui generis, but SHOW me a conservative of similar prominence with a similar record of sacrifice in the family, if only in the military: a Republican Senator with a KIA brother, and another sunk in combat? A governor? Any of Bush's cabinet? Anybody in Congress?


Posted by: theAmericanist on January 31, 2006 at 5:50 PM | PERMALINK

WOW Mr. Drum posts something that slams the Bush facists and states the truth then all sorts of trolls show up.

To: FF, CNut and this new kid, something 'fist'

It's time to stop bugging the adults. Get out of your mom's basement. Get some fresh air away from FOX news. Go down to the park, take a walk in the woods, just get out of your mom's basement for at least an hour a day.
Then later this week voluteer at your church or the Y or join the Boyscouts or something but step away from FOX news and your computer for a few hours each day.
I'd tell you to try dating but you all sound so young and stupid that you're not likely to know yet what gender you find sexually attractive.

And boys after you get some perspective by living a bit then maybe you can join an adult conversation. Who knows you may even be able to disagree with people without sounding like spoiled little boys.

Posted by: CJ in Wisconsin on January 31, 2006 at 5:53 PM | PERMALINK

solar
Nutless, I fought in Iraq (in the last war) against Iraqis
Well, two things. First, we established earlier this thread that being a veteran does not imply noble actions in later life. Second, what the hell point do you think you have?

Neo
Cn what would you do if a task force of soviet T-74's rumbled into your neighborhood?
Throw the local lefties under the treads to gum 'em up.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 31, 2006 at 5:53 PM | PERMALINK

Statement #14 in conspiracy nut's exceptionally limited repertoire of 22 Sentences Bleated Over and Over and Fucking Over is, of course, "I used to be reasonable. But U R 2 dum to appreciate me. So now I don't even try."

It's the argument of a thwarted sixth-grader, but what the hell, I decided to try and find out just where he got the impression that his contributions were ever reasoned, reasonable or effective. So, inspired by a Pale Rider post of earlier today, I took a look at the old CalPundit archives of several years ago.

I know you guys aren't going to believe this, but conspiracy nut's posts (under all his handles) were every bit as idiotic as they are now. Yes, it's true; conspiracy nut has never had any redeeming value.

I'll give you guys a little time to get over the shock.

Posted by: shortstop on January 31, 2006 at 5:54 PM | PERMALINK

Pat, shameless is the word. Sadly, the projection technique works just as well as the blame-the-victim technique.

Posted by: shortstop on January 31, 2006 at 5:56 PM | PERMALINK

Freedom F*cker: Why don't you post your address and I'll come over and give you a chance to persuade me to apologize?

How, by whining in person?

Why don't you post your own address so Bush can come over and give you the chance you've always wanted, to give him a bj.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 31, 2006 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK

but conspiracy nut's posts (under all his handles) were every bit as idiotic as they are now
Great, with all that research, you can tell me what name I used first (and for quite a while).

Don't worry about it when you don't respond to this, I already know it ain't gonna happen.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 31, 2006 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK
If this is a "war" on terror (which is an emotion, after all), how do we end it?

When the last American stops cowering in fear and being willing to hand over their fundamental freedoms in exchange for an illusion of security, then the "war" on terror will be over.

Posted by: cmdicely on January 31, 2006 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINK

The American military machine, like the American healthcare system, is prohibitively expensive and offers little value for the money.

Posted by: bob h on January 31, 2006 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINK

We are not at war.

A superior force quickly defeated the Iraqi army with weapons that made the war extremely one-sided. Like the Pittsburgh Steelers playing the worst junior high school team in the country. Very embarrassing that the game would be played. It was a foregone conclusion that made a joke out of the claim that Iraq was a threat in the first place.

However, we now have a 51st state that does not want to be our 51st state. Iraq is a state so red that it scares our red-stators. Iraq is a state so red that, had the legal state addition process been followed, it would surely have been voted down.

So now we have a civil unrest, people committing act of terror. Bush does not have the courage to admit a mistake and we all must pay. Some subsequent President of the United States may be elected on a platform to allow Iraqi succession from the United States, but it is not going to be pretty.

Posted by: little ole jim from red country on January 31, 2006 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK

Here a little video everyone should see.

http://www.ericblumrich.com/thanks.html

Posted by: vampire77666 on January 31, 2006 at 6:05 PM | PERMALINK

In a recent poll, 27% of Americans believe that Democrats have learned the lessons of 9/11, and 66% do the same for Repubs.

In an another survey, it was found that 66% of Americans think that Saddam was reponsible for 9/11, and that Santa and the Tooth Fairy were married in Alaska in 2005.

Posted by: lib on January 31, 2006 at 6:06 PM | PERMALINK

The march of freedom is becoming as it always was, the march of the black veil or radical Islam. Courtesy of elections, which Bush confuses as a synoymon for democracy, we can declare 'the war on terror' over when we have left a sufficient number of new fundamentalist Islam republics in our wake. Then, we can go back to fighting the same finatical men only more enraged and in uniform. Not a great prospect. To get us out of this mess, what ever happened to old discredited diplomacy (and not the megaphone ultimata diplomcay) as practiced by Bush?

Posted by: Steve Crickmore on January 31, 2006 at 6:08 PM | PERMALINK

So where's Osama?

he's been living in crawford, down the road from the bush's.
shaved his beard, changed his name to ben liden. herds sheep.
nice quite guy. has several u.s. flags. fits right in.

Posted by: mestizo on January 31, 2006 at 6:13 PM | PERMALINK

Good Stuff Vampire77666

http://www.ericblumrich.com/thanks.html

Posted by: Neo on January 31, 2006 at 6:14 PM | PERMALINK

When the last American stops cowering in fear and being willing to hand over their fundamental freedoms in exchange for an illusion of security, then the "war" on terror will be over.

Sort of. The part about not handing over freedoms to obtain a false safety is critical, of course.

But it's okay to still be afraid. Some people are always going to be afraid (though usually not, interestingly, those of us who live in cities that are actually, you know, potential targets). I think the war will be over when we shrink that unreasonable public fear to a reasonable, I-can-live-with-it size...small enough to drown in a bathtub, perhaps.

Someone made a great post some time back that compared the risk of terrorism to the risk of driving a car. We all know what can happen to us behind the wheel. We choose to take the measured risk because the benefits outweigh the potential for harm, and because we know that while we can reduce the frequently of car crashes, we can't ever completely eradicate them.

That's a very sensible view to take of the risk of terrorism, and one that most countries which have actually lived with this stuff for years have already internalized.

Posted by: shortstop on January 31, 2006 at 6:19 PM | PERMALINK

Congress has not declared war, therefore we are not at war.

So even IF Bush and his lickspittle lackies were correct and he had these expanded powers due to him as a war president.

He still wouldn't.

We are not at war unless and until Congress declares it. Oh, and declarations of "all necessary means" is not a declaration of war. A declaration must specifically state that the United States is at war with a specific enemy.

Congress has not issues any such declarations.

Posted by: Dr. Morpheus on January 31, 2006 at 6:22 PM | PERMALINK

shortstop
On your vehicle accident analogy; you say we can reduce the frequency of car crashes (and presumably should). Don't you think that applies to terrorism? Shouldn't we take steps to reduce the frequency of that?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 31, 2006 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, the drinking must have started pretty quick after the confirmation vote...

Posted by: tbrosz on January 31, 2006 at 6:29 PM | PERMALINK

Samuel Knight posted, "Liberals want to keep this country safe and recognize you don't do that by deluding yourself about reality. You don't do it by ticking off the rest of the world. And you don't do it by hitting the panic button. "

What the hell are you talking about shitstain?
Reality, Hussein was supporting terrorists. Reality, the UN was worse then worthless and was helping them get away with it.
What do mean by "ticking off the rest of the world." China is not a democracy and so is most of the rest of the world. How many countries broke off diplomatic relations with us? Barred direct travel with us? Imposed a trade embargo?

"hitting the panic button"? Explain that faggot?
Typical liberal schmuck. Talk utter nonsense.
Go do what you do best and stick something up your ass dip.

Posted by: Chaufist on January 31, 2006 at 6:30 PM | PERMALINK

shortstop wrote: I know you guys aren't going to believe this, but conspiracy nut's posts (under all his handles) were every bit as idiotic as they are now.

I don't know why you would think that anyone wouldn't believe that. conspiracy nut's comments are not only consistently idiotic, but extremely repetitive.

All of conspiracy nut's comments are stupid, but the stupidest ones are those in which he claims that he's really really smart, but only pretending to be stupid.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on January 31, 2006 at 6:31 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: Don't you think that applies to terrorism? Shouldn't we take steps to reduce the frequency of that?

You might suggest that idea to your buddy George W. Bush, because since 9/11/2001 he has consistently taken steps to increase the frequency of terrorist attacks -- with great success according to the State Department, which reports that in 2005 terrorist attacks were at an all-time high.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on January 31, 2006 at 6:34 PM | PERMALINK

but the stupidest ones are those in which he claims that he's really really smart, but only pretending to be stupid.
Don't worry, I understand your need to lash out, and I want you to know that I'm not offended.

But I never claimed smart, only that I was well-behaved when with well-behaved company. But with you moonbats, I get to try out my talents as a jerk so I can fit in. How am I doing?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 31, 2006 at 6:34 PM | PERMALINK

Like the Pittsburgh Steelers playing the worst junior high school team in the country. Posted by: little ole jim from red country

However, little ole jim from red country, if that's your real name, the Seahawks ain't the worst junior high school team in the country!

I'd like to see you shake your gold and black towel at that one.

Posted by: Jeff II on January 31, 2006 at 6:35 PM | PERMALINK

SA: I don't know why you would think that anyone wouldn't believe that.

I don't know why you would miss the bright shining sarcasm I was employing! But you did, hon.

Posted by: shortstop on January 31, 2006 at 6:35 PM | PERMALINK

Well, since we're all back to being jerks, shortstop. I'll point out that your inability to answer my 5:58 PM is not surprising. Moonbats frequently make shit up that they can't support.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 31, 2006 at 6:38 PM | PERMALINK

Will everyone please lay off the insults to CN. It is hard for him/her to type with one hand, while frantically looking for her/his DD-214 with the other.

Just two more hours until "Ernest goes to Washington".

Posted by: stupid git on January 31, 2006 at 6:39 PM | PERMALINK

Conspiracy nut, by his own admission, comes here to say things to provoke a reaction, or in his words to "yank your chain". Ditto "Freedom Fighter". The behavior of these two define what a troll is: pure insults, outrageous statements deliberately calculated to drive the discussion so that it is all about them. Let's see...

When "Freedom Fighter" said

"You mean Liberals at one time would actually defend this country?"

He is clearly not interested in any discussion.

cn fantasizes about throwing liberals under tank treads.

Ignore these cretins.

Posted by: Marc on January 31, 2006 at 6:40 PM | PERMALINK

cn fantasizes about throwing liberals under tank treads.
What do you expect me to do? You lefties have prevented my owning any weapons that would be useful against a tank. A man has to improvise when a man has to improvise.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 31, 2006 at 6:43 PM | PERMALINK

Ignore these cretins.

Have done. Usually do. Advise others to. Will continue to do in future.

(I still think Freedom Fighter is a parody, though. That stuff is often pure comedy gold.)

Posted by: shortstop on January 31, 2006 at 6:44 PM | PERMALINK

Marc,

Thanks for your thoughts on our beloved little cretin, "Fighter of Freedom".

Posted by: stupid git on January 31, 2006 at 6:45 PM | PERMALINK

GOP Grand Old Pussies

Posted by: GOP liar on January 31, 2006 at 6:45 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy, you are nuts! certifiable! looney tunes! the swifties may have honorably served their country; unlike you with gore, kerry et al, i won't baselessly challenge that. but they did lie -- either about the events at the time or during the 2004 election, take your pick. and that's what's despicable. too many republicans love war as long as they don't have serve. perhaps the difference with democrats is they know war first hand (murtha, kerry, gore, rangel, clark), know the toll it takes and know enough to take it seriously. there are serious republicans as well, but their voices are subdued by chickenhawks like you. braaaawk! braaaawk! braaaawk!!!

Posted by: mudwall jackson on January 31, 2006 at 6:46 PM | PERMALINK

mudwall
I assume that you, too, have just returned from fighting alongside the insurgency in Iraq. Instead of merely talking about driving the hated Americans from Baghdad, you have been putting your actions where your words are. Standing up for what you believe in.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 31, 2006 at 6:49 PM | PERMALINK

freedom fool is just another typical loser boy who cant get a date, like his hero Rush, so he probably wears a tie to school. Mommy likes to dress him funny.

And why on earth does anyone pay constipated nutjob any attention? That is exactly what it wants, considering it is an adult version of freedom fool and no wonder they are so bitter.

They come here to draw attention to themselves, attention they aren't getting anywhere else and since it's online, they can talk so tough like they are manly but in reality, just another group of overweight middle managers who never got laid in college.

Posted by: Jarrett on January 31, 2006 at 6:50 PM | PERMALINK

That Anal Cist that kepy Rush out of VN,We found it and named it CN.

Posted by: GOP liar on January 31, 2006 at 6:51 PM | PERMALINK

Well Jarrett, for someone who came out here online to hurl insults themselves; please, tell me more...

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 31, 2006 at 6:52 PM | PERMALINK

Still looking for that DD-214, Nut?

Posted by: thethirdPaul on January 31, 2006 at 6:58 PM | PERMALINK

There's nothing to say to a bitter aging loser like you con nut. Nothing. Go back to your empty home, and empty life. But keep coming back here, I can only imagine what kind of zero you are, as you thrive on the attention and shit disturbing. I know it makes you feel tough and manly, considering nothing in your waking hours can do that.

Man are all right wing dickheads as bitter at the world as you? No wonder you losers hate Bill Clinton so much, as he represented everything you will NEVER be, that is smart, successful, admired, and smooth with the ladies.

Posted by: Jarrett on January 31, 2006 at 6:58 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks for sharing Jarrett.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 31, 2006 at 6:59 PM | PERMALINK

It seems every time the conservatives win a big victory (Alito confirmation) they get angrier than they were the day before. You'd think they would be happy. They solidly control all 3 branches of the government and they are still pissed as hell. Do they have low self esteem or something? Why to hell are they still pissed? Is it because deep down they realize what a terrible job of governing they are doing? Can anyone explain?

Posted by: cq on January 31, 2006 at 7:03 PM | PERMALINK

I doubt CN, FF or cfister have any idea what a DD-214 is.

Posted by: cq on January 31, 2006 at 7:04 PM | PERMALINK

Oh yes, con nut, please share with us your macho military stories. What outfit did you serve with again? Forgot your AFSC again? Fucking lying loser.

Posted by: Mar de Rouge on January 31, 2006 at 7:04 PM | PERMALINK

Why to hell are they still pissed? Is it because deep down they realize what a terrible job of governing they are doing? Can anyone explain?

No, the anger protects them from having to think about the terrible job of governing they're doing. Today's Republicans thrive on anger, fear, loathing. It energizes them and gives them purpose.

Instead of being glad for the battles they've won, they focus on being enraged that anyone dares to oppose them on anything they want.

They find excitement, meaning and importance in a perpetual state of war: in the boardroom, in Congress and in invading other countries.

Creepy as hell, aren't they?

Posted by: shortstop on January 31, 2006 at 7:10 PM | PERMALINK

con nut, typical lying sack of shit who runs away as soon as people call him on his lies.

Posted by: Mar de Rouge on January 31, 2006 at 7:12 PM | PERMALINK

What outfit did you serve with again?
The Fighting Beer Guzzlers from the Outback Tavern. The stories are too gory for you weak kneed lefties.

And cq, I'm happy. First the Alito confirmation, and then watching moonbats strew spittle all over their monitors insulting me. And controlling all 3 branches of government is not nearly as cool as watching this crowd and realizing that we're going to keep controlling all 3 branches of government. My future's so bright I gotta wear shades.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 31, 2006 at 7:13 PM | PERMALINK

as soon as people call him on his lies
What lies were those? I'll be happy to correct any.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 31, 2006 at 7:14 PM | PERMALINK

cq,

Yeah, but they all went to a Young Republican "Rambo" film festival together - As they were walking out, CN said to FF and widdleFist, ala George Costanza, "Well, I always wanted to pretend to be Rambo" and FF replied, "Geez, I always just wanted to pretend to be a man".

Posted by: thethirdPaul on January 31, 2006 at 7:15 PM | PERMALINK

WE are an occupational army trying to demonize 1.6 billion people.

Some of those people are saying NO.

AND some of those people think that if we carpet bomb a village because there were bad guys there last week... then it's okay to put arsenic in the DC water system?

hey, it makes sense to me.

If I were a Palestinian mother who lost her baby at a checkpoint, I would be asking where to sign up to kill Jews.

Buenos Aires? no problemo.

I'd be killin em AND their backers - where ever I could get my hands on em.

When we see all those kids named Osama? -- it's as popular as Bill and John in Turkey and Tunis.

We are at war with a people. 1.6 billion of them.

And for what? -- or should I say whom?

No - I say throw Israel overboard. They are as much a theocracy as Iran -- beanies instead of wraps. Pigtails instead of beards.

We don't have a horse in this race. This isn't and shouldn't be our fight.

there are more mormons than Jews in America. If Mormons had 10 senate seats and more in the House we would be having an ideological crisis on cable news -- asking

What if these scary Mormons want to pass polygamy laws to favor their base?

Influential minorities are scary. And you don't have to be a jew hater to see that this particular minority is running the country toward nuclear war - to save a murderous theocracy.

It's just THEIR murderous theocracy. so that makes it okay.

Posted by: Ashley on January 31, 2006 at 7:15 PM | PERMALINK

Fighting beer guzzlers? Hahahahahahahaaaaaa!

Somehow that sounds accurate, con job. I picture some fat slob who spends all his time at the local watering hole to escape his meaningless, mundane life with other drunk losers who talk about how cool they were in 1983.

Thanks for being alive, con nut. Ain't it too bad it passed you by?

Posted by: Mar de Rouge on January 31, 2006 at 7:16 PM | PERMALINK

cq, i was simply reading through the various silliness here when i got to your very important question: what is it that explains the centrality of anger to the modern right wing?

i'm hard-pressed to say with certainty, but on the face of it, i'd say the primary explanation is that they are small-minded bullies and haters, and anger is what they live on to distract themselves from how limited their world view is (see our new best friend forever, the supremely moronic chaufist).

i'm open to other explanations, though.

Posted by: howard on January 31, 2006 at 7:18 PM | PERMALINK

Wipe the spittle off your monitor, Mar. Still waiting on those lies.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 31, 2006 at 7:18 PM | PERMALINK

well, i see that shortstop and i have the same basic theory as to right-wing anger, so it must be true!

Posted by: howard on January 31, 2006 at 7:19 PM | PERMALINK

Howard
I'm not aware of any anger. Maybe you can help me out there.

It's true that the Repubs aren't laying down, they continue to push for what they want (which makes laying down look like the better option). But I'm not aware of any anger.

Or are you judging from the wingnuts that come out here to play with the moonbats?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 31, 2006 at 7:22 PM | PERMALINK

No wonder you had no friends as a child, con job. You never improved on those irritating social manners. Tsk tsk. Does involunatary celibacy really anger you that much? There's always hookers, they certainly don't care how ugly you are...

Posted by: Jarrett on January 31, 2006 at 7:26 PM | PERMALINK

I swear, the rightwing troll are getting dumber by the minute. When you meet them in person they must act like black holes of ignorance, sucking intelligent thought out of everyone around them and making it disappear. And I'm not even a fifth of the way through the posts.

Posted by: serial catowner on January 31, 2006 at 7:28 PM | PERMALINK

"kids named Osama"

Ashley, if you keep posting with that name, there will be a ton of "Ashley"s in this country rushing to their local courts to have their name changed.

Sure, Sen(s) Gordon Smith, Hatch and his partner from Utah, Kyl, the Sens from Idaho are just chomping at the bit waiting for just a handful more Mormons, so they can introduce Polygamy - You, STUPID, person - The Mormons control the government in Utah and they do NOT practice polygamy. There are a few sects who are not affliated with the Church in Salt Lake and practice polymany, but they are neither sanctioned by the church nor by the state.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on January 31, 2006 at 7:28 PM | PERMALINK

It's good of you to keep coming back, Jarrett; we all appreciate your input.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 31, 2006 at 7:29 PM | PERMALINK

Finally, someone asks the question- "Is he actually a war-time president?" Not when I think of WWII, Korea & Vietnam! He certainly wasn't in the sixties or seventies.

Posted by: TC McC on January 31, 2006 at 7:37 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, the chances that the Mormons would let their fundy polygamists run the show are just about as good as Washington DC letting a bunch of born-again Christians take over.

Ooops!

Posted by: serial catowner on January 31, 2006 at 7:37 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut, ol' pal, as you know, unlike many of my colleagues here i think you're an ok guy, but surely you jest: you're not aware of "any" anger? just what is it that you think that ann coulter, john podhoretz, michelle malkin, little green footballs, charles krauthammer, rush limbaugh, michael savage, bill o'reilly, and their fellow travellers and imitators specialize in? just what is it that you think made ol' zell miller such a hit at the rnc convetion in 2004? just how is it that you would characterize the response on the right to harriet miers?

one could go on....

Posted by: howard on January 31, 2006 at 7:42 PM | PERMALINK

"Well, I always wanted to pretend to be Rambo" and FF replied, "Geez, I always just wanted to pretend to be a man".

Why do you liberals hate women, brown people, and gays so much?

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on January 31, 2006 at 7:46 PM | PERMALINK

"I swear, the rightwing troll are getting dumber by the minute."

You mean like how your buddy Jarret likes to call people ugly? That's liberal intelligence for ya.

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on January 31, 2006 at 7:48 PM | PERMALINK

Go to any conservative blog and you won't hear a discussion of how great they are doing governing their country, you will hear them piss and moan about Democrats and 'liberals'. The Democrats and liberals have NO power in this government, so why to hell are you pissed at them?

Posted by: cq on January 31, 2006 at 7:50 PM | PERMALINK

Those who choose to TWIST my metaphor and ignore the substance are the abusers here.

DEAL WITH THE FACTS - when the Olympics were going to be held in Salt Lake - the fucking press was apoplectic... asking "will they evangelize the tourists?"...

SO DO NOT TELL ME THAT IF THIS MINORITY HAD THE SAME INFLUENCE AS JEWS - WITH RELATIVELY THE SAME NUMBERS THAT WE WOULDN'T BE WRINGING OUR HANDS ABOUT THEIR DISPROPORTIONATE INFLUENCE.

We dont have that conversation about the possible ethnocentric interests of Jews -- becuase of FEAR and an impossibly PC atmosphere for all things Jewish.

Deal with the substance - You took the metaphor for ignoring the elephant in the room and completely ignored the substance of my charge.

How intellectually dishonest.

But then any honest discussion of overrepresentation by Americans with dual passports is what? - a non issue?

Posted by: Ashley on January 31, 2006 at 7:54 PM | PERMALINK

Fighter of Freedom,

I', twoooly sorry to have offended you - Meant to post that you would say, "Geez, I always wanted to pretend to be a human being."

Shortstop, you were correct - Ashley/TJ/Wenn?Gallegos could not go one day without slamming Isreal and Jews.

I would love to see every Senator who happens to be Mormon, voted out of office and replaced by a Democratic Senator - However, that day in Utah, Idaho and Arizona is a long ways off. Hope we get the chance in Oregon to send Smith back to the ranch. But, Ashley was over the top in her polygamy comment.

Just one more hour until Beavis and Butthead walk into Congress.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on January 31, 2006 at 8:00 PM | PERMALINK

Which one is Butthead?

Posted by: cq on January 31, 2006 at 8:02 PM | PERMALINK

cq: Go to any conservative blog and you won't hear a discussion of how great they are doing governing their country, you will hear them piss and moan about Democrats and 'liberals'.

That's because what is today called "conservatism" in the USA is nothing but a cult of hate, founded in a psychology of victimhood.

Rush Limbaugh is the prime example of the bought-and-paid-for corporate shill who incessantly propagandizes his listeners that everything that's wrong in their lives is because they are victims of "Democrats and liberals" and that therefore they must hate those people.

Limbaugh and his ilk are really following the Nazi propaganda playbook almost exactly. The Nazis constantly told the German people that everything wrong in their lives was the result of their victimization by Jews, so they should hate the Jews. Substitute "Democrats and liberals" for "Jews" and you've got Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, etc.

All of this is necessary because Dick Cheney, his simpering sock puppet George W. Bush, and the rest of their criminal gang are looting, pillaging and raping the country and thereby making the lives of people like Rush Limbaugh's listeners miserable, so they absolutely need to misdirect their anger at somebody else. Otherwise their game is over and they'd probably quickly wind up swinging from lamp posts like Mussolini.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on January 31, 2006 at 8:04 PM | PERMALINK

HI freedom little boy fighter. Love how you single out one person, me, and then make it seem like every one who posts here fits your silly stereotype. No, let my fellow posters off the hook, and focus on me you little twerp.

I guess you are con nut in the making, huh? Did everything you were told your whole life? I'm sorry to hear about your propensity to obey authority. It will make you very very bitter once you start hitting prostate cancer age, like con nut.

Maybe you will end up like your hero Jonah goldburg, attending a womens college, and you still cant get laid.

Posted by: Jarrett on January 31, 2006 at 8:05 PM | PERMALINK

Ah yes, the old Puppet or Puppeteer question.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on January 31, 2006 at 8:08 PM | PERMALINK

Are you angry because so many of us question ethnocentric bias in politics?

If I have company - THANK [small g] god for big favors.

I am usually very much alone.

I stand by my thesis... there are just as many Mormons as Jews in America.

If Mormons ever held as much power, in government, media or academia - there would be 24/7 handwringing over their perceived disproportionate influence.

True or false?

If Muslims had even proportionate influence - there would be calls to have them deported.
Y
Yet American Jews use their influence to advance the Israeli interests - and nobody says a word.

Nobody even makes NOTE of the intrinsic ethnic bias of Jews. Yet every other demographic is fair game.

See -- that we do not speak of ethnocentric bias in Jews that is noteworthy.

WE speak so frequently of that same bias in Christians, Muslims, blacks, hispanics, gays,

anybody else????

but not Jews. To even Identify a Jew as a Jew makes me what? -- a drooling hater?

this is funny if not pathetic.

Posted by: Ashley on January 31, 2006 at 8:16 PM | PERMALINK

I've often wondered just what this "war" talk was all about. I, along with many others, predicted the insurgency type fight we would wind up in.

I was in the local Barnes and Noble a couple of days ago and they have the video "The Battle of Algiers", but I cannot afford the $45+ right now, but I think next week I'm gonna pick it up. We, as a nation, seem to have a huge problem with learning from history!

My feeling has always been that we lost the "Iraq War" just as soon as we invaded.

Posted by: fred on January 31, 2006 at 8:17 PM | PERMALINK

Freedom Fighter, conspiracy nut:

Please describe the actions Bush took to defend the country from the threat of aircraft hjack by Muslim extremists between August 6 and September 11, 2001. Thanks in advance.

Posted by: Gregory on January 31, 2006 at 8:18 PM | PERMALINK

Shortstop, you were correct - Ashley/TJ/Wenn?Gallegos could not go one day without slamming Isreal and Jews.Posted by: thethirdPaul

I hate to disagree with a former Washingtonian, but Ashley is spot on. Read the various blogs written by American Jews, Eric Alterman's in particular, when the topic of Israel vs. Jews comes up. It is entirely possible to hate what the state of Israel does without being anti-Semitic.

It's well understood in American politics that you can't be too critical of the Jewish lobby, regardless of the lengths it can sometimes go to defending Israel, without being labeled an anti-Semite. But the fact remains that for the better part of 50 years Israel has been given a pass (and boat loads of financial and military aid) by the U.S. government not because all Americans love Jews (just ask the Klan), but because Israel was (erroneously) thought to be a useful bulwark to Soviet influence in the region during the Cold War.

The charge that much of what motivates Jewish neo-cons is this belief that Israel must continue to dominate the region is valid as well. To assure this we (the U.S.) must control or at least have significant influence with the Islamic regimes of the region. Read what the idiots at the New American Century write about this.

Posted by: Jeff II on January 31, 2006 at 8:20 PM | PERMALINK

Jeff II: It is entirely possible to hate what the state of Israel does without being anti-Semitic.

Of course it is. I do it frequently myself.

But if you take a closer look at the recent posts of Tj/Ashley/Arsenia/wenn/Karen/etc., you'll see that she/he/it's making no such distinction. Its posts are rife with references to the old Jewish secret cabal of world domination crap.

Posted by: shortstop on January 31, 2006 at 8:36 PM | PERMALINK

Ashley is absolutely correct - Geez, I never saw the light before - I lived in Salt Lake City and Cedar City for almost two years, and I really wondered who had the power there - Now, I know, it was those Jews who controlled everything - the banks, the government - no wonder they called it the "Temple".
And throughout this land - Want to play golf, say. Well, if you didn't know someone Jewish, how would you be able to belong to the LA Country Club, or the Jonathan Club, or the University Club in LA? Or even swim at the Balboa Bay Club - Just try to play Augusta or Pebble Beach without knowing a Jewish member - Ever try to join the Kansas City Club without being Jewish. They first took over the Country Clubs of this land, then all of the banks, hell, if your weren't Jewish, how would you ever have been a Chairman of the Board at any major business? Oh, you could always join the gentiles in the movie industry, or run a clothing store, but to really make it big, to hang with old money, then you either had to be Jewish or have them sponsor you - of course, as a gentile, you would be marked, maybe a "Gentlemen's Agreement" could be arranged.

Dang it all, Ashley/Patton/Wenn/TJ/Alice/Gallegos, I had you all wrong - You are not only a racist and a bigot, but a really wonderful piece of human excrement as well.

Next time, let the "Good Bile Flow".

Posted by: thethirdPaul on January 31, 2006 at 8:40 PM | PERMALINK

"HI freedom little boy fighter."

Why do liberals hates women, brown people, gays, and now children? Does it have anything to do with your position on abortion?

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on January 31, 2006 at 8:41 PM | PERMALINK

"Please describe the actions Bush took to defend the country from the threat of aircraft hjack by Muslim extremists between August 6 and September 11, 2001. Thanks in advance."

Whatever he could have done would have been fought aginst tooth and nail, but you terrorist sympathizers.

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on January 31, 2006 at 8:44 PM | PERMALINK

Dang, Paul, that was some speech. I could see Gregory Peck in that fedora looking all grave and handsome and earnest.

Good job!

Posted by: shortstop on January 31, 2006 at 8:48 PM | PERMALINK

Jeff II,

I certainly have no truck with Wolfowitz and many of the neo-cons - Even saying neo-con has brought charges of anti-semetism from Victor Davis Hansen and David Brooks - I also believe that Isreal has gone much too far with the settlements. However, I defer to our impeccable Defensive Whiz in the infield - Ashley etal, goes over the line - let her rant and the secret socities and cabals come out. If she/he were Turkish, Itsie would be saying the same about Armenians. On the movie thread, Itsie is posting about the influence in the movie industry - same garbage.
I agree that the Isreali lobby is very strong, but the Ashites of the World, paint with a VERY broad brush.

And up thread, don't believe the Steeler analogy had anything to do with the 'Hawks. Could have used the same analogy about the 'Hawks playing a JuCo team.

As a Chiefs fan, I am staying neutral - Cowher used to be our top asst coach - but Nolan Cromwell, the 'Hawks receivers coach used to play for the Jayhawks - Am torn.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on January 31, 2006 at 9:01 PM | PERMALINK

The only reason nobody will argue the substance of what I say is because there is no defense.

Ethnocentric bias is a given when speaking of blacks, hispanics, and Muslims [of course

yet I am made out to be some fiendish nazi because I am sick of the invisible hand of Jews.

And it IS invisible. Nobody dares name it. AND even those who agree with me must distance themselves...

muttering that I'm right but ... no I'm not right... well, I'm kinda right, but still a hateful bigot... and no shei's not right at all!!

look at the other things she says!!!

yes. quite.

look at all that I've said on the subject.

And it seems I have company.

We must address the issue of dual loyalty. We certainly discuss is about Hispanics, and Muslims... why not Jews?

they are a costly bunch... and bordering on treason.

Posted by: Ashley on January 31, 2006 at 9:07 PM | PERMALINK

Jeff II: yes, I should have said the Seahawks againt the worst junior high team in the country since I am actually picking Seattle to win next weekend.

Posted by: little ole jim from red country on January 31, 2006 at 9:10 PM | PERMALINK

ANd as to that BROAD brush... which broad brush is that... the one you folks use on Mormons?

Christians? Muslims?

heterosexuals who dont want to see brokeback mountain?

which broad brush is that?

I am speaking very clearly... about a very REAL problem.

Israel is a demonic theocracy. No better than Iran.. and certainly more murderous.

YET - we are not allowed to speak of the dual loyalty of powerful American Jews who paint themselves as ordinary white Americans... but their loyalty is to Israel.

This is a costly bit of crypsis, no?

Posted by: Ashley on January 31, 2006 at 9:10 PM | PERMALINK

And another thing... you guys really pissed me off now... because I am NOT a jew hating nazi.

Justin Raimondo gets the same treatment... vilified by left and right .. because he speaks the truth about the genocidal maniacs who are shaping our foreign policy.

Islam is not the EVIL empire. They just happen to be in the way.

And when people bring it up.. the big guns come out.... and then when we try to defend the obvious we are told we are 'obsessing'.... we get lots of diagnoses... and few answers.

Anybody who is thin skinned about being called a jew hater because they question the questionable influence of powerful Israeli first American Jews... gets just a little testy after awhile...

then we are told we are single issue haters...

it becomes a single issue... just like with Raimondo... because you come under assault for noticing that enormous elephant in the room, smoking a cigar, selling influence and congressional seats...

These people ruin the careers of any and all who question 3 billion to Israel when New Orleans is still a pile of rubble.

We hear about Palestinian rock throwers and nary a word about all thos kids taken out for target practice.

So who's blowin snoke up whose ass?

Posted by: Ashley on January 31, 2006 at 9:18 PM | PERMALINK

"who paint themselves as ordinary white Americans"?? Your sheet is showing, there, sweetie.

Posted by: Pat on January 31, 2006 at 9:32 PM | PERMALINK

What sheet?

Ordinary white Americans>... is there something wrong with that statement... it doesn't advocate for anything white or average...

Average White Americans usually don't enjoy protected status as a minority - nor are they accused of shilling for Israel.

Jews don't identify themselves as Jews lobbying for Jews... and here again... because I must parse my words to the extreme...

there is simply no way to point out the pitifully obvious.

When Bill Kristol advocates for war on Islam... most AMericans don't even know he has an ethnic bias. It's not identified. He is just another white guy who hates Muslims, right?

yeah --

Posted by: Ashley on January 31, 2006 at 9:36 PM | PERMALINK

Hey! Easy, there, killer. I'm with you. Don't you guys hate it when those jews try to impersonate "ordinary white Americans?" I sure do. Drives me crazy! My hands shake so bad when I think about it I can barely light a cross on fire!

Posted by: Pat on January 31, 2006 at 9:43 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, your point is the crux of the problem. In the war against terror, terror is a tactic. It's no different than declaring a war against flanking manuevers.

Posted by: William Jensen on January 31, 2006 at 10:02 PM | PERMALINK

Ashetal,

Don't you just love the feel of a freshly washed sheet right out of the dryer - That warm feeling as you pull it over your head - that clean, fresh smell, the warmth it gives to your body. As you look out of the eye holes towards you comrades, what a wonderful spasm of joy must pass through you as you seek the "Final Solution".

Posted by: thethirdPaul on January 31, 2006 at 10:04 PM | PERMALINK

Whoa,

Who let Ashley out of the Klan meeting?

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 31, 2006 at 10:21 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz: Wow, the drinking must have started pretty quick after the confirmation vote...

You have a pretty exaggerated sense of liberals' belief that Alito would not be confirmed.

That is consistent with your bizarre view of reality and willingness to spew forth GOP talking points without regard to the truth.

-------------

Hey, Freedom F*cker, you removed your lips from and peeked out from behind Bush's ass yet?

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 31, 2006 at 10:39 PM | PERMALINK

You know precisely what I mean.

Jews don't reveal their ethnic bias. Period. THAT IS THE REALITY>

Jews are not - nor do they consider themselves ordinary white Americans. The jews on this would never define themselves as White in any survey.

They are Jews. FIRst foremost and forever.

Unless they are commenting on Islam... then they are just us white guys...no bias here... my names MOORE...

Posted by: Ashley on January 31, 2006 at 10:43 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, Golly, Advocate!

What would the Grand Wizard say about such language?

And you, thethirdPaul--

What would the Grand Wizard say about your love of International Jewry? For shame, for shame.

Poor Ashley is merely here to 'enlighten' us.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 31, 2006 at 10:44 PM | PERMALINK

Pale Rider,

Don't know for sure, but me thinks that Ash got her teeth caught in the foreskin.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on January 31, 2006 at 10:48 PM | PERMALINK

They are Jews. FIRst foremost and forever.

What a filthy shill. What filth spreads when you open your heart and start typing on this poor, poor blog thread.

Enjoy spreading hate and lies? What did they do to you? Someone more talented and pretty get something you thought you deserved? So much easier to hate when you can't think your way out of a dead end life, isn't it?

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 31, 2006 at 10:49 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Ash, love, just heard that your machette is ready for your new job as a Moyel.

Posted by: stupid git on January 31, 2006 at 10:51 PM | PERMALINK

PttO,

You can almost smell the fear and flop sweat oozing out of these losers, can't you?

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 31, 2006 at 10:53 PM | PERMALINK

This has all come a ways from cq's question.

I never thought to question why all the "liberal" hatred before. Mostly you wouldn't think someone who wants to be free would be such a threat.
But he is. "Don't tread on me" says it all. There is a difference between self-confidence and a compulsive need to identify with pack power structure.
We've all known bullies. Worthless sacks of shit all of them. The most insecure of them all rule the roost in the U.S. now.
There seems a good reason for Bush to hate Saddam : can't stand to see someone so much like himself.
I know that seems harsh. You'd better hope it is.
Why am I so outspoken ? Perhaps I don't see much difference between the tactics of one mass murderer and another.
You lot seem to have passed over the idea that Cheney should be tried at the Hague for war crimes , torture, etc. It's no secret now that the White House deliberately framed Iraq for destruction.
Who was responsible ? We know where the buck stops.

Posted by: opit on January 31, 2006 at 11:05 PM | PERMALINK

Bush's response to new Canadian Prime Minister's lawful assertion of sovereignty in Arctic: "U.S. troops shoot at Cdn. diplomats' car in Iraq" Canadians take warning. You are now being used for target practice.

Posted by: murmeister on January 31, 2006 at 11:32 PM | PERMALINK

murmeister,

Strange listening to US Ambassador to Canada, David Wilkins talking to the Canadian press this weekend. He was telling them that the US does not recognize the rights of the Canadians to the Northwest Passage. Wilkins is a former State Rep from South Carolina. He once visited Canada for a few days when he was in the US Army Reserve. Therefore, he has a lot of qualifications to be the Ambassador. Of course, he did raise over $200,000 for Twig. Anyway, what was strange was hearing his southern accent coming over the Canadian system. First time, I really did not know who was talking.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on January 31, 2006 at 11:48 PM | PERMALINK

thethirdPaul: That three days represented more knowledge than Bush had of Canada when he entered the White House. He wasn't even sure where it was.

Posted by: murmeister on February 1, 2006 at 12:15 AM | PERMALINK

Why haven't more liberals picked up on the obvious connection between the evil regimes recently elected in Iran and Palestine and Bush's war. Can't anyone look at a map? The Christian USA is attacking a Muslim country right next door to these Muslim countries. Isn't it just possible that reaction against Christian imperialism provided the margin of victory to these new governments? Seems damn obvious to me. We have no one to blame for our troubles but ourselves.

Posted by: James of DC on February 1, 2006 at 12:28 AM | PERMALINK

James of DC: The American involvement in Iraq is the principal recruiting drive for El Qaeda these days. They call the Americans the new Christian Crusaders. Americans have no one to blame but Bush and Cheney and the Industrial-military war machine that Eisenhower warned about in his Farewell Address and that Americans of the day laughed at.

Posted by: murmeister on February 1, 2006 at 12:35 AM | PERMALINK

James in DC,

This is part of Twig's hunger for expanding knowledge throughout the world. His educational guru, Emil Faber, once said, "Knowledge is Good". So Twig is providing the impetus for his No Terrorist Left Behind OJT Program. It has become quite successful in Iraq. There, new recruits are rapidly learning how to assemble and deploy IEDs. Stay tuned for developments in Iran and Palestine.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on February 1, 2006 at 12:50 AM | PERMALINK

New TV show: Bush Trek: Iran - where no man has dared go before. Follow the endless repeating adventures of Georgie Bush as he sends thousands of American boys to die to create democracies in countries that neither want nor believe in democracies and in fact find them to be against their religion. No summer repeats. One episode repeats endlessly. Rave reviews from Georgie and Dickie and other share holders of the military industrial war stocks (held in trust of course).

Posted by: murmeister on February 1, 2006 at 12:59 AM | PERMALINK

From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tipoli, war is always made to profit the war pigs. War in Iraq? It was always a colonial action. Did Belgium wage war in the Congo? Fuck no. We moved in under the guise of Napoleonic liberation. It was a sham to enrich the energy corps. and defense contractors, just like Leopold, but with better propaganda.

Posted by: on February 1, 2006 at 1:24 AM | PERMALINK

There is no 'white' ethnicity. Even the term caucasian is suspect. It is true that Nazis killed the Jews of Europe, but the Slavs were next on the list, and than another race, and so on. Most people who subscribe to racial politics would not 'genetically' survive their own ideology, especially the virulent Nazi strain, where most Americans who assume they are 'white' would find they are from Eastern or Southern Europe and really part of the races who require extermination.

Posted by: on February 1, 2006 at 1:36 AM | PERMALINK

thethirdPaul: That three days represented more knowledge than Bush had of Canada when he entered the White House. He wasn't even sure where it was.

C'mon Murm, he knew all about Prime Minister Poutine. What are you on about?

Posted by: snicker-snack on February 1, 2006 at 6:52 AM | PERMALINK

poutine, heh heh. It doesn't choke him as much as pretzels.

Posted by: shortstop on February 1, 2006 at 8:54 AM | PERMALINK

just what is it that you think that ann coulter ...
Same thing that Michael Moore, Kos, et al, engage in. Do they make you consider the left to be swathed in anger?

just what is it that you think made ol' zell miller such a hit at the rnc convetion in 2004?
He was a hit for me because he prompted the one and only good flame I've ever seen by a lefty (which kind of indicates that the anger was on your side). I think for others he was a hit because, being a Dem, he was able to take it to Dems harder than Repubs could (without them looking petty). And he took it to you pretty hard, but he looked more driven by disappointment than by anger to me.

And I think he has cause to be disappointed, his party has thrown all the conservatives overboard. He was the last surviving conservative Dem. We still have Chafee and Snow, and righties have recently been sympathizing with them over their options on the Alito vote. We aren't throwing our liberals out.

just how is it that you would characterize the response on the right to harriet miers?
Now that irritated them, and rightly so. She was not Supreme Court material, she was strictly Bush crony. Bush put her up there because she would "rule the right way", and that my friend, is the definition of judicial activism. She was a poor enough choice to get angry over. And you know that.

So I reject your first set because those people exist on both sides, your second is marginal at best, and the third is anger in good cause. I don't see where you have enough to claim wholesale anger from righties.

Anyway, I will now reproduce that fine Zell flame:

If there is a hell, and most likely Zell Miller believes in such a thing, then Democratic Senator Zell Miller is going to burn in it. Spin hotly on a giant griddle. For something close to eternity.
Oh yes, siree. He is going to burn in hell.
And the chances of hell existing have just skyrocketed, because if God exists then he's no kind of God unless he quickly fashions a hell for Democrat Senator Zell Miller to burn in.
That last paragraph makes the flame, that's good work.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 1, 2006 at 9:10 AM | PERMALINK

Please describe the actions Bush took to defend the country from the threat of aircraft hjack by Muslim extremists between August 6 and September 11, 2001. Thanks in advance.
He did everything the anti-war lefties would let him do. You're welcome.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 1, 2006 at 9:13 AM | PERMALINK

As CN slowly works his way through his file cabinet looking for his DD-214, I believe he is currently in the "C" section looking at coverup, coward, cowardly and cower (from the ter-ristos). Keep looking youngin'.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on February 1, 2006 at 9:37 AM | PERMALINK

And if there any ChiSox fans still out there, thanks for letting the A's borrow Frank Thomas for the year.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on February 1, 2006 at 10:22 AM | PERMALINK

Ashley, whoever you are, go away and don't come back.

Posted by: Ace Franze on February 1, 2006 at 10:53 AM | PERMALINK

cn is absolutely frantic, isn't he?

Posted by: Ace Franze on February 1, 2006 at 10:54 AM | PERMALINK

thanks for letting the A's borrow Frank Thomas for the year.

He'll be lucky to have 100 AB by the All Star break.

Poor guy should have packed it in and retired. He's no Julio Franco.

Posted by: Pale Rider on February 1, 2006 at 11:02 AM | PERMALINK

cn is absolutely frantic, isn't he?
Yep, I'm shaking like a man on a caffeine high. The devastating wit and logic of you moonbats has me ready to buckle under the load.

You won't be interested in this:
Tasting Victory, Liberals Instead Have a Food Fight
Boy, reading stuff like that makes me pissed as hell, must be my low self-esteem.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 1, 2006 at 11:23 AM | PERMALINK

Freedom F*cker: Why do liberals hates women, brown people, gays, and now children? Does it have anything to do with your position on abortion?

Why do conservatives hate our troops by supporting a president who has abused them at every turn, hate real democracy which they have opposed at every turn in favor of faux democracy, hate freedom of speech for the mothers of our soldiers, hate our children by denying them health care and subjecting them to environmental poisons, hate America by pissing on its Constitution, hate women by forcing them to risk their lives to carry dead or dying fetuses to term, and hate the truth by lying?

Does it have anything to do with your overwhelming sense of self-love or your lemming-like devotion to conservative presidential tyranny?

Maybe it has something to do with your narrow world view point confined to the outlines of Bush's butt-cheeks.

Maybe it is all of the above.

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 1, 2006 at 11:25 AM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: . . . must be my low self-esteem.

Not even close.

Conservatives are never in short supply of self-esteem.

Which is why they can rationalize their own lying, cheating, stealing, murdering, and torturing while condemning it in others.

It is the conservative arrogance that believes that they, being the morally and ethnically superior beings that they think they are, are above the law, above the Constitution, above the truth, and can therefore justify any means employed to obtain and keep power over those who they believe to be their inferiors.

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 1, 2006 at 11:41 AM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: The devastating wit and logic of you moonbats has me ready to buckle under the load.

Better a moonbat than a butt-kissing, sh*t-faced, mendacious, and criminal conservative lemming who goosesteps to the beat of Bush's self-absorbed drumming.

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 1, 2006 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

Damn, AfG, don't you just pity me, wallowing in all my hatred? Just spouting off personal attacks because I can't get past my anger to think clearly.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 1, 2006 at 11:52 AM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: Damn, AfG, don't you just pity me, wallowing in all my hatred?

Yes, I do.

I especially pity your pretense that making personal attacks via euphemism and other indirect methods is not making personal attacks.

Sort of like Barbara Bush pretending she didn't call Ferraro a bitch simply because she didn't use the word "bitch" or Bush 43 pretending he didn't say the threat from Saddam was imminent simply because he didn't use that exact word.

Seems like a pretty standard modus operandi among conservatives, to deny their own personal attack methodology or mendacity through such pretenses.

So, yes, I pity you for you inherent incapacity to even be honest about your own comments and intentions, not to mention basic factual matters.

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 1, 2006 at 12:08 PM | PERMALINK

Whatever he could have done would have been fought aginst tooth and nail, but you terrorist sympathizers.

You didn't answer the question, FF. What did he do? From your pathetic dodge of an response, I suspect you know the answer as well as I do.

Posted by: Gregory on February 1, 2006 at 12:19 PM | PERMALINK

He did everything the anti-war lefties would let him do.

c.n., please describe exactly what Bush attempted to do and what you claim the so-called "anti-war lefties" tried to prevent him from doing. Thanks in advance.

Posted by: Gregory on February 1, 2006 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

Bush 43 pretending he didn't say the threat from Saddam was imminent simply because he didn't use that exact word
Actually, he said we needed to something before it became imminent, so you be pretty much dead wrong there.

But it's true, my oblique personal abuse shows such a higher level of hatred than merely spewing bile all over the place. But I'm doing well in my anger management classes.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 1, 2006 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

And if there any ChiSox fans still out there, thanks for letting the A's borrow Frank Thomas for the year.

Oh, you're more than welcome, my friend.

Posted by: shortstop on February 1, 2006 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

We lost the war in Iraq the second it started. It's illegal and we've gained nothing while losing many American soldiers, journalists and billions of dollars.

So, if we've won, then why can't we come home?

We've bashed the Taliban, Al Qaeda, the Republican Guards, captured Saddam Hussein, proved there were no nukes in Iraq and now we're safe. So, when can we come home?

Oh, also, are there American military bases in Iraq (or being built there) which will remain (for the forseeable future) after the bulk of our forces leave?

Posted by: MarkH on February 1, 2006 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, what a Trolletariat infested thread. Obviously this topic scares the dickens out of the American movement conservatives that sponsor our Trolletariat and give them a platform from which to pretend they are offering actual sound rebuttals and coherent arguments defending these atrocities done in America's name. Nor the reality that Bush is not a wartime President according to the American Constitution because Congress did not issue a state of war declaration as already noted in this thread. That while he is all for Americans sacrificing their civil rights in the name of the "War on Terror", Americans cannot be asked to sacrifice any of their sweet sweet tax cuts despite the reality that in time of war it is appropriate and usually necessary to raise taxes to have sufficient resources to fight the war. Instead though Bushco is quite willing to run the American credit card well into the red rather than ask that sacrifice.

I would have thought that of the two it would be less offensive to Americans to sacrifice their tax dollars/income rather than their civil rights, but thanks to the fear and smear campaigning of Bushco as directed by Karl Rove among others that does not appear to be the case.

When presented with factual information that shows that this isn't a war, that the military is not reforming itself to meet this new threat one hears about constantly that requires fighting in a new way, and many other examples of this not truly being treated as a real war by the Administration, then the Trolletariat infestation really gets severe. One cannot be allowed to pull back the curtains on the Great Oz (Bush/GOP), otherwise all that power of Bushco and the GOP on national security issues will vanish just as they did for OZ himself.

America has made matters far worse for itself and the rest of the free world with its actions since the beginnings of the push to invade Iraq. Terrorist incidents and deaths have continued to rise globally in the last several years, not reduce, which is one of the yardsticks for success that America is failing miserably with, which is why Bushco stopped issuing the stats on this a couple of years ago because it disproved one of their main claims for success. The American military has not only been shown to be absurdly easy to defeat in urban/guerilla combat, it has also been so severely stressed by this occupation that it is near the breaking point. So far from strengthening American and her reputation for military might it has done the exact opposite.

There have been more than a few times when I have looked at Bushco and the GOP leadership and wondered whether they were in the pay of foreign enemies, because it is hard to imagine how anyone could do this much damage to American power unintentionally. Far from weakening America's enemies Bushco has strengthened them while weakening American power across the board from military to economic to moral authority and credibility. However, this is exactly what the Trolletariat wishes to prevent being discussed and recognized by Americans, because they know that the day that happens is the day that Bushco and the GOP will be repudiated and worse, branded as incompetent on national security, something they have gleefully enjoyed seeing the Democrats branded as. The last thing they want to see happen is that be reversed, yet thanks to the actions of Bushco and the GOP that potential is not only there it is growing. Sooner or later the propaganda front of the Right in America will fail, and the backlash when Americans realize how badly they were duped and how weakened they have become in the process will be well deserved and a quite fitting punishment.

Posted by: Scotian on February 1, 2006 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

Ya Scotian, and don't forget that only 53% of children graduate high school, too.

You know it's true, John Kerry said it. Never mind what the facts are, just pay attention to what the echo chamber feeds you.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 1, 2006 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

Mr. Nut,

Kerry was obviously wrong and gave out the statistic in error. No doubt, he will correct the information when asked to clarify or simply state the correct statistic if asked about it in the future.

Now, the difference here is, if Kerry gives out bad information, the nation does NOT have to go to war over it.

If Bush puts out information that is obviously in error, the GOP pisses itself covering for him while the nation is led into a land war in Asia as the eternal campaign continues.

I wish someone would seriously address this issue--the Republicans cannot govern. They campaign, endlessly, and cannot administer, lead, or legislate in a responsible manner.

Posted by: Pale Rider on February 1, 2006 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

They campaign, endlessly
Come on, Mr Rider, what do you think Kerry was doing when he called for that filibusted?

As for the Dems abilities to administer, lead, or legislate in a responsible manner, how do you suppose Repubs came to be in charge?

And as for the 53%, how much of Scotian's post was the same kind of non-fact driven drivel?

Shall I start with the the military is not reforming itself to meet this new threat and point you here? And as for this America has made matters far worse for itself and the rest of the free world with its actions since the beginnings of the push to invade Iraq, to start with, we increased the size of the free world. Second, Muslims don't agree with his assessment even if the French do. And here's a goodie which is one of the yardsticks for success , and since it's the only bad one, it's the only one the left brings up.

I'm tired already, and I haven't got to the bulk of the problems. That thing is so riddled with BS it'd take a man that likes to shovel a whole lot more than I do to take the whole thing on.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 1, 2006 at 2:55 PM | PERMALINK

As for the Dems abilities to administer, lead, or legislate in a responsible manner, how do you suppose Repubs came to be in charge?

After 40 years of dominating Congress, the arrogance and corruption caught up with them -- as with StampGate, for instance.

In contrast, within a mere 12 years, the Republicans have demonstrated arrogance and corruption on a scale the Democrats never even dreamed of.

Posted by: vetiver on February 1, 2006 at 3:22 PM | PERMALINK

how much of Scotian's post was the same kind of non-fact driven drivel?

If either you or I were half as eloquent as Scotian, we wouldn't be slumming here.

Posted by: Pale Rider on February 1, 2006 at 3:27 PM | PERMALINK

PR:

Thanks for the props, but you aren't that bad a writer yourself from my observations. As for CN though, he has his uses as the classic example of the GOP Troll in action. I think I irritate him because I generally ignore him and refuse to be diverted by his deflections and attempts to change the topic of conversation. Of course he will have some sort of wild charge about how I am a long winded lefty moron that doesn't know the first thing about what I am talking about, but since I know that my work actually does speak for itself in terms of quality and accuracy that critique of his never bothers me.

What is really sad though is just how far into delusions and propaganda the Trolletariat will go to while all the time saying it is the other side doing so. When facts are brought in to support the argument they then start with the personal insults in a vain attempt to anger the person presenting the facts so as to divert them. What they never present is a reasoned, coherent, non-contempt/bile/venom filled comment. Indeed, it is the level of bile and contempt that is a norm in their writing which helps identify someone as a member in good standing of the Trolletariat. CN of course is a charter member at this blogsite.

Posted by: Scotian on February 1, 2006 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

"The only thing harder than getting a new idea into the military mind is getting an old one out"

Lindell-Hart, circa 1922

Posted by: R.E.Nagle on February 1, 2006 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK

Honestly, I think that both sides are making fools of themselves. All I can say is that I am glad Presidents are limited to two terms. By the time he left, I was sick of Clinton, now I'm sick of Bush.

IMO there is no point in comparing Bush and Kerry now, since we have now way of proving how Kerry would have acted had he been elected.

Instulting people who you don't agree with won't make things any better. Most people learn that lesson by 9th grade. I guess I just made a mistake and wandered into a "politics for teens" discussion.

Posted by: Middle Man on February 1, 2006 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

If either you or I were half as eloquent as Scotian, we wouldn't be slumming here.
True that, but if Scotian would concentrate on non-fiction it would help.

And Scotian, most people don't grade by weight.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 1, 2006 at 4:00 PM | PERMALINK

Second, Muslims don't agree with his assessment even if the French do

Muslims do agree with Scotian's assessment, and you repeating otherwise doesn't make it any less the utter bullshit it was the last time you said it and you were showed the statistics that disproved it.

And the CIA and other intelligence agencies also agree with the assessment that going into Iraq has both increased worldwide terrorism and made the U.S. more likely to be attacked.

The more devastasting and factual a rebuttal to your argument is, the more you carp about how lefties are just ridiculous.

Defense mechanisms much?

Posted by: Windhorse on February 1, 2006 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK

All I can say is that I am glad Presidents are limited to two terms.
Oh come now, you were tired of watching the righties melting down after a mere 8 years? And now you're tired of watching the lefties meltdown after a mere 5?

Gosh, kids these days need more staying power. A good group meltdown never gets old.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 1, 2006 at 4:03 PM | PERMALINK

No, actually I find that I get sick of most polititions faster than that, regardless of their party.

I have to admit that one thing I really liked about Clinton's first term was how well the two parties kept each other checked. I think that having congress dominated by the oposite party of the Whitehouse helps keep thins checked the way the founding fathers intended.

Posted by: Middle Man on February 1, 2006 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

Windhorse
Pray do tell, what the hell does opposing the WoT have to do with whether things in general are better?

This may come as a shock to you, but there are more goings on in the world than the WoT. Iraqis, for example, have a bright outlook on their future, so their world looks looks a lot better. Kerry was defeated, so my world looks a lot better.

And the CIA and other intelligence agencies also agree with the assessment...
The CIA and other intelligence agencies told you there were WMDs in Iraq, and they told you that there weren't in India. But I understand, they're saying something you want to hear so this one must be hard fact, so let's look at it.

You're saying that the CIA was unable to ignore the fact that terrorists attacks have gone up. That's a start. And they've noticed that when you stir hornet's nests up you're more apt to get stung. I can agree with that. But that doesn't mean the hornet's nest didn't need taken down.

Now, about your fact filled rebuttal. Was that the only point you wanted to pick on? Shall we dissect the rest of Scotian's comment? Want to talk about Kerry's 53% (I kind of like that one).

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 1, 2006 at 4:23 PM | PERMALINK

I think that having congress dominated by the oposite party of the Whitehouse helps keep thins checked the way the founding fathers intended.
No doubt, and one need look no further than our current government to realize the wisdom of that. But it also requires principled opposition. Newt and crew had a plan, it was called the Contract with America. Now I'll agree that the current Dems have a plan, it's called "Oppose Bush"; whatever he does is wrong and whatever he fails to do is of vital importance.

You can check point one easily, find one of the mouth breathers here and ask them to list the things that Bush has done right. The man was re-elected, you cannot support a position that he has done nothing right.

Then recall that Kerry and Kennedy are posting on Kos, Michael Moore is invited to sit next to Jimmy Carter, Cindy "I used my son's death to make me famous" Sheehan is invited to the SOTU by some congresscritter. There is no separation between the Dem politicians and the mouth breathers out here in blogland.

And that is why I am not terribly concerned that Dems have no control: they have nothing of value to offer right now.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 1, 2006 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: Actually, he said we needed to something before it became imminent, so you be pretty much dead wrong there.

No, he said the threat was imminent, as did Rumsfeld, so you are pretty much just lying and proving my point about redefining words to absolve Bush of any responsiblity for his public claims.

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 1, 2006 at 5:09 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: . . . you cannot support a position that he has done nothing right.

Preaching fear and winning on it is succeeding, but not doing something right, in the sense of morally, ethically, and factually right.

But then, Saddam won some elections too, so I guess he must have done as much "right" as Bush, at least according to your logic.

Cindy "I used my son's death to make me famous" Sheehan is invited to the SOTU by some congresscritter.

And yet more proof of the type of defamation methodology used by conservatives who pretend they don't spew forth vomit as their leading political tactic.

And that is why I am not terribly concerned that Dems have no control: they have nothing of value to offer right now.

Fascists like you will never find anything offered from the Democrats because they won't give you what you want: a world view, foreign and domestic policies, and political philosophy based on hatred and fear and violence.

. . . the current Dems have a plan, it's called "Oppose Bush"; whatever he does is wrong . . .

Lies flow from your keyboard like water off Niagra Falls.

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 1, 2006 at 5:15 PM | PERMALINK

No, he said the threat was imminent

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.
[source] [emphasis added]
But hey, thanks for playing.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 1, 2006 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: But hey, thanks for playing.

After months of saying that the threat was imminent, supported by similar claims from Rumsfeld and Cheney, he makes one statement to the contrary and this is your proof?

All it proves is that Bush wanted to have it both ways.

And, btw, he's also calling Rumsfeld and Cheney liars with this statement.

But, hey, thanks for cheating in your playing by cherrypicking isolated quotes.

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 1, 2006 at 5:33 PM | PERMALINK

After months of saying that the threat was imminent
No problem, back your claim up. Or else, thanks for playing.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 1, 2006 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINK

Backed Up

And, btw, even if there wasn't abundant proof that Bush himself claimed that the threat was imminent, as that word is defined, McClellan, Rumsfeld, and Cheney, as Bush's agents spoke for him and the evidence that their claims were that the threat was imminent is crystal clear.

A failure to immediately counter their public claims and to require those agents to clarify or issue retraactions in and of itself would constitute implicit adoption of those claims as Bush's own.

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 1, 2006 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINK

Backed Up

And, btw, even if there wasn't abundant proof that Bush himself claimed that the threat was imminent, as that word is defined, McClellan, Rumsfeld, and Cheney, as Bush's agents spoke for him and the evidence that their claims were that the threat was imminent is crystal clear.

A failure to immediately counter their public claims and to require those agents to clarify or issue retraactions in and of itself would constitute implicit adoption of those claims as Bush's own.

You and Bush's other lemming defenders merely want to redefine "imminent" to mean something other than what the rest of the world understands it to mean so you can continue to lie about Bush's clear and unequivocal claims.

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 1, 2006 at 5:52 PM | PERMALINK

Backed up by a bad link? I can do better than that.

Furthermore, these Bush administration defenders accurately point out that neither President Bush nor any of his aides ever outright described Iraq as an "imminent threat." [source]

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 1, 2006 at 5:54 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry about that, the link wasn't working when I tried it first. But I've seen that page before, a long list of Bush quotes about Iraq being a threat, but not a one about it being an imminent threat.

There is a difference between "threat", and "imminent threat".

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 1, 2006 at 5:59 PM | PERMALINK

BTW, thanks for playing.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 1, 2006 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINK

Scotian,

This is a better place when you add your thoughts to the discussion.

Mr. Nut,

Did you win your little game of 'imminent' with the good people here? Are you proud of yourself? Well, thank goodness he never said it and thank goodness we never went to war to make certain there were no WMD of the nuclear variety being developed in Iraq. Thank goodness the POTUS didn't give a flawed SOTU address and thank goodness...oh, wait. Let me go read a few newspapers.

Whoa.

Crap!

Insurgency in the last throes?

OK, well, no. He never said imminent. He also never said greatgooglymoogly. Which one do you think he implied by beating the war drums?

Posted by: Pale Rider on February 1, 2006 at 9:30 PM | PERMALINK

movie,film,电影

map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map

Posted by: movie on February 2, 2006 at 8:00 AM | PERMALINK

歌手,singer,hot actor,star
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here

Posted by: singer,actor,hot,star on February 2, 2006 at 8:02 AM | PERMALINK

Mr Rider
Did you win your little game of 'imminent' with the good people here? Are you proud of yourself?
You know, the left has many things that they believe that simply are not true. That's one of them. Tell me how the hell the left and right are supposed to have a reasonable discussion about events when the left willfully uses lies as facts.

And here's the sad part. Tommorrow, or next week, AfG will be back with the same "Bush said imminent" bullshit. I've slapped down the "Bush lied" lie about once every other month for the last 2 years. And it keeps popping it's head back up. Pretty pathetic, if you want to know what I think.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 2, 2006 at 8:51 AM | PERMALINK

AfG isn't pathetic at all.

He hits you guys so hard you don't know which way to pop back up.

May we just agree that Bush had his hair on fire when he gave the speech? May we just agree that, rather than lie, the poor man had no idea what the truth really was and was confused by the puppet show Dick and Karl put on?

Posted by: Pale Rider on February 2, 2006 at 9:44 AM | PERMALINK

I'll agree AfG spews bile violently, so in his own way he is hard hitting.

And Bush is a politician, so of course the speech was full of lies. We elect whichever politician tells the lies the most of us want to hear. I still think H. L. Mencken had the most apt description:

The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 2, 2006 at 9:55 AM | PERMALINK

Cnut, you're despicable -- and thus quoting Mencken pretty much proves it, though Lord knows no more proof was necessary.

A more clever way to make Mencken's point is that 'a republic robs from the rich to give to the poor, then robs from the poor when the rich need more.'

Except -- that ain't so.

Haven't you noticed the Interstate Highway System? Medical research? Hell, Tang?

Perhaps the defeat of Hitler and the collapse of Communism ring a bell. The abolition of Jim Crow? The creation and development, and then (sponsored by Al Gore) the deregulation of the medium you're ON?

It is utterly despicable and the opposite of American patriotism to sneer at the very idea of self-government, to insist that those who run for office can only be motivated by greed and sloth and mendacity.

It is also, simply, false.

The Republican Party has made a curious bargain between its cynics and libertarians, resulting in Jack Abramoff. Since the sole purpose of government is to steal, and since Republicans control the government, it naturally follows that Republicans should use the government to steal.

Do that with your own money, Cnut: not mine.

Do that with the lives of your own family who serve in harm's way: not mine.

It ain't that representative government is EASY, mind: but an asshole like Cnut, and the political culture he so easily exemplifies, shows why we should take him at his word: if you don't believe in it, and don't know how to do it, STOP, and get out of the way of those of us who DO believe in the American system of self-government, of checks and balances, and can make it work.

.

Posted by: theAmericanist on February 2, 2006 at 11:13 AM | PERMALINK

Americanist:

Godwin's Law!

Posted by: Pale Rider on February 2, 2006 at 11:18 AM | PERMALINK

Nice rant, Americanist. Here's mine.

Let's look first at Mencken. As for the thought that these people have no special talent for governing, let's recall the recent committee hearings for Alito. Look at either party you want, the thing was a farce. And this from members of the Senate Judicial Committee. I think the observation that politicians have no particular skill for governing was well illustrated there.

And if you haven't noticed that "9 times out of 10" promises are worthless, well I can only shake my head because you ain't paying much attention. Does the phrase "broken campaign promise" ring any bells?

As for the robbing A to give to B. How many examples do you want? Here, I won't even pick on the obvious wealth transfer programs the gov't runs, I'll pick on Bush's tax cuts that his base panted and pined for. He robbed from future generations to give to us.

On to your defense of government. First, you'll notice from the Abramoff scandal that Repubs are not above corruption. Agreed? Basically they are using their position of power to exercise their position of power (if not to just line their pockets).

Now you'll recall that one of the reasons that Newt and crew swept into the House in '94 was Democratic corruption. So no claim that this is one-sided stands up to a cursory examination.

You'll also notice that incumbents are generally safe for a variety of reasons; some of those reasons are from laws that (surprise, surprise) incumbents made.

The old adage that "power corrupts" is pretty much in evidence.

And by the way, I don't insist that those who run for office can only be motivated by greed and sloth and mendacity, I only insist that those who run for office are motivated by greed for power. And I agree with Mencken, that they have the ability to tell us lies we want to hear to get elected.

There will be a handful motivated by the desire to serve, I would question whether they can maintain that. But the bulk are motivated by ego and power, and even our Founding Fathers recognized that because, in case you never noticed, the US Constitution is designed as a limit on Federal government. Limit the power, limit the corruption.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 2, 2006 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

Bullshit.

What Abramoff pled guilty to, was selling influence strictly for his personal gain to the tune of millions of dollars, e.g., charging some African head of state $9 million for face time with the President. He paid ostensibly Christian lobbyists money to fight for one casino against another: no principle whatsoever, except greed. (The wonder is how easily such folks prostituted themselves.)

The "corruption" that helped the Democrats lose their majority in 1994 was... overdrawn personal bank accounts on the House bank? I think the biggest was $6,000.

The national Democratic party has out of touch issues, sure. But the fact is, what beat 'em in 1994 was first, they failed to deliver on Clinton's health care plan (cuz he should have gone for welfare reform first: but they ARE both connected, since lots of low wage jobs don't offer insurance), and second, the Republican support for racial gerrymandering that tripled the Congressional Black Caucus and cost 24 moderate white Southern Democrats their seats.

Cnut, you're a fool, all the more foolish because, now and again, you show flashes of misguided intelligence.

You're one of these guys who is shocked, shocked to discover that it is PRECISELY because people are, you know, human? that self-government takes work in the first place.

You're taking a free ride, laughing at those of us who WORK at it. Fuck you.

I used to know a CIA agent, who explained to me that all humans are motivated by some combination of three factors (the old CIA was very Jesuit): we're all moral, carnal, or venal.

What folks who win elections do, particularly those who work in legislatures (successful executives have a different set of skills, which is one reason so few legislators become President), is manipulate those motivations.

Some are good at it (and often, virtually unknown), some aren't.

But let's just illustrate what an ignorant asshole you are, for fun: the single worst instance of corruption by a Democrat before the Republican takeover in 1994, was Danny Rostenkowski, who went to jail for a real felony involving a fairly small amount of money. Yet before his last re-election campaign, he had a MILLION dollars in old campaign money that, under the law at the time, all he had to do was retire: and it was HIS.

He decided to give up that million, and keep on earning a low 6 figure salary. Some corruption.

You may not think much of a guy like Rosty -- but I'd suggest you stand beside him to measure his size: what achievements in YOUR life compare to, say, Medicare? Sure, it's got troubles -- it's forty years old.

But how many millions of older Americans lived longer, healthier, happier lives cuz of how he helped build it in the first place? Or the Social Security deal he cut in 1983?

Those "corrupt" Democrats you're laughing at -- for all their sins -- pretty much created the American middle class, and turned what had been the poorest chunk of the population, the elderly, into the wealthiest. They did it with NATIONAL initiatives, which can't be done by a weak gummint.

A guy like you, Cnut, is simply a sucker -- worse, in the best Barnum tradition, you want to laugh when OTHER people fall for what cons you.

The Constitution limits Federal power? No shit, did you ever notice which direction the sun comes up? Cuz, I'd like to know.

Virtually every significant advance in our freedom and prosperity has a nation, has been a major advance for our unity as a nation: Federal power. The Louisiana Purchase? Preserving the Union? Abolition? Female suffrage? One person, one vote?

"limit the power, limit the corruption" God, even you're not that stupid. TR would have kicked your ass all over the schoolyard -- reflexively limit the power of the Federal government as if that is a cosmic virtue, and you wind up with dead rats in canned corned beef. You get laudenum in baby formula. You get Jim Crow.

We're ONE nation, Cnut. Perhaps you should think on that, which is NOT the mendacious habit you consider to be thoughtful.

Posted by: theAmericanist on February 2, 2006 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINK

I see the "I'm holier than thou" attitude is getting pretty deep around here.

Your argument about Dem corruption is: "But mommy, they did it more?" There isn't any sense in me pointing out all the stuff you've missed, because anyone holding the attitude that their shit don't stink is kinda hard to argue with. Fortunately, about 75% of people realize what I told you is true: both parties are corrupt.

And your defense of wealth transfer programs is touching. But you might want to remember something: the government has no money. Everything it gives to people, it had to take from people first. I happen to believe that people can take care of themselves, and they don't need mommy government doing it for them.

Those "corrupt" Democrats you're laughing at -- for all their sins -- pretty much created the American middle class
Here's your first clue: bullshit, we had a fine middle class before the New Deal. Here's your second clue: FDR is so damn far from you lefties today it's pathetic. And here's my proof: I'll happily return to 1945 spending levels for social programs, how about you? Don't be thinking current lefties are out of the same mold as FDR (he actually had the stones to defend the country, too).

and you wind up with dead rats in canned corned beef
Right, and government protects us from all that, never happens now. You not old enough to remember the Tylenol tampering? You probably think government regulation is needed for airline safety, too. Did the government prevent the crash of that plane in the swamp? What was the name of that airline? Nobody remembers because nobody ever flew on them again. That's more damn incentive for airline safety than a few inspections from the government. Once again, I happen to believe that people are actually capable of taking care of themselves.

God, even you're not that stupid.
At least I'm not stupid enough to work toward central government control, the USSR showed how well that shit works. But maybe you can explain how our Constitution, being a limit on government power, is such a failure.

We're ONE nation, Cnut.
Maybe so, but you seem to be trying hard to separate us. And you also seem to a pretty low opinion of your fellow man, here's your clue: they don't need babysitting as bad as you apparently do.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 2, 2006 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly