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

March 8, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

OVERSIGHT WATCH....Senate Republicans, who were dangerously close to showing some spine as recently as a week ago, have decided that a genuine investigation of the NSA's domestic spying program would simply be too painful, so they've decided instead to simply let George Bush do whatever he wants. They have no interest in serious oversight at all. Laura Rozen rounds up the sorry story here and here.

Kevin Drum 1:18 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (242)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Which president was it that said "If your plan relies on moderate Republicans, bring me another plan"?

It's hard not to feel like we are really on the downward side of history now. My dad was right - I should have learned Chinese.

Posted by: craigie on March 8, 2006 at 1:22 AM | PERMALINK

Jay Rockefeller, who is usually serene, was livid when he spoke on TV after the session. He accused the Republicans in his committee of having taken direct orders from the White House. There was a lot of drama.

Posted by: JS on March 8, 2006 at 1:30 AM | PERMALINK

The concept of separation of powers has been turned upside down. It will be worse when a case comes before the compliant and supplicant SCOTUS judges.

It will take a few decades before people realize what has happened.

Posted by: lib on March 8, 2006 at 1:34 AM | PERMALINK

Cheney fires another one without looking...

Posted by: JS on March 8, 2006 at 1:35 AM | PERMALINK

I imagine Cheney sitting in his room, with eyes bright and wide, like a Japanese comic character. "Yay!" he claps his hands.

When he does this in public, people move further back into the elevator. But he's harmless. Quite mad, ever since the accident, but harmless.

Posted by: craigie on March 8, 2006 at 1:42 AM | PERMALINK

No Ethics, No Oversite, and No Laws pertain to them, unless you happened to be a poor SAP that Joined the military and became a ScapeGoat.

from Jurist News;
DOJ asks court to dismiss detainee torture lawsuit against Rumsfeld
Jeannie Shawl at 8:45 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] US government lawyers on Monday asked a federal court to dismiss a lawsuit [PDF complaint; JURIST report] filed by two rights groups against US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld [official profile] over detainee abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan. The American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights First [advocacy websites] filed the suit on behalf of nine former detainees [ACLU profiles], alleging that Rumsfeld and other top military officials bear direct responsibility for torture and abuse committed by US personnel and their actions violate the US Constitution and international law.

The DOJ argues that Rumsfeld is entitled to immunity under the Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act of 1988, 28 US Code 2679 [text; DOJ backgrounder], barring civil lawsuits against federal officials for conduct performed within the scope of employment.

Posted by: one eye buck tooth [X^B on March 8, 2006 at 1:45 AM | PERMALINK

Well, if I'm so "mad", stop responding to me then, craigie.

Who said that? Anybody there?

Posted by: craigie on March 8, 2006 at 1:48 AM | PERMALINK

Cheney, in case the above was too subtle -- Rockefeller is already a Democrat. This is from his statement:

For the past three years, the Senate intelligence committee has avoided carrying out its oversight of our nations intelligence programs whenever the White House becomes uncomfortable with the questions being asked.

The very independence of this committee is called into question as we are continually prevented from having a full accounting of pre-war intelligence on Iraq, the CIAs detention, interrogation, and rendition program, and, now, the NSAs warrantless surveillance and eavesdropping program.

If we are prevented from fully understanding and evaluating the NSA program, our committee will continue its slide into irrelevance.

Posted by: JS on March 8, 2006 at 1:51 AM | PERMALINK

The DOJ is ASKING the Federal JUDGES to DROP the CASE Mr Cheney

Its not been Decided YET if Rummy is or isn't immune. Its still just an Argument as the Post states.

Posted by: one eye buck tooth [X^B on March 8, 2006 at 1:56 AM | PERMALINK

I find it troubling that Government Lawyers are meddling in a Federal Case on Behalf Of Rumsfeld.

I ask the legal beagles this;
Shouldn't the case against Rummy be tried of its own merits without outside influence?

Posted by: one eye buck tooth [X^B on March 8, 2006 at 2:01 AM | PERMALINK


CHENEY: Jay Rockefeller might as well be a Democrat - you take him and we get Joe Lieberman

Been drinking tonight? The Dems already have Rockefeller, for all he's worth. And, worth even less, Lieberman is already yours, betraying his party and his country.


Posted by: jayarbee on March 8, 2006 at 2:02 AM | PERMALINK

Sit back and relax, Cheney, you don't need to trade anybody. Even Hagel has now been brought into line by Rove it seems. All your ducks are in a row. So you get Lieberman for free. The Great Leader reigns supreme.

Posted by: JS on March 8, 2006 at 2:06 AM | PERMALINK


JAY [not Nelson] ROCKEFELLER: If we are prevented from fully understanding and evaluating the NSA program, our committee will continue its slide into irrelevance.

Then quit making whiney statements and take a real stand. Walk out of open session in protest, call a press conference and call upon your colleagues to boycott all proceedings until the fascists' unlawful actions are halted, organize an impeachment drive. Shout it loud and often. You're supposed to represent the people; do your job.


Posted by: jayarbee on March 8, 2006 at 2:15 AM | PERMALINK

jayerbee, I think that your anger is misplaced. JR is doing more than most other Dems in Congress. He has been more vocal, more articulate, and more serious than the lot of them. Walking out of a session would not help. As it is, there is more bad blood between him and the committee chairman than I have ever seen displayed in public.

The Democrats should be using JR more as a party spokesman. He is one of very few real statesmen left in Congress -- most are now the equivalent of used car salesmen.

Posted by: JS on March 8, 2006 at 2:25 AM | PERMALINK


Of course Rockerfeller wants to make a lot of noise about what the Intel. Comm. can oversee and what it can't.
He's about to get fingered as the source of the NSA story in the NYT.
How sweet would that be --- Jay Rockerfeller indicted for leaking classified information.
Not even Scooter Libby could claim that. Rockerfeller would have all the bragging rights to himself.
I think JR would look mighty fine in some government issue pinstripes, don't you?
How long until both WV Senate seats are in the safe hands of the GOP? Sooner than most of you on this thread want to think.

Posted by: Jimbo on March 8, 2006 at 3:01 AM | PERMALINK

the pathetic quality of the gop senate is only matched by the pathetic quality of cheney's moronic remarks.

to think: most of these clowns (maybe all of them, i'd have to double-check if they were all serving in '99) favored impeaching bill clinton, but when george bush breaks the law and thumbs his nose, they fold.

how they live with themselves is beyond me....

Posted by: howard on March 8, 2006 at 3:02 AM | PERMALINK

you really can't turn your back for even a moment these days without some idiot blather: good work jimbo! i was afraid seconds might pass without a moronic remark.

Posted by: howard on March 8, 2006 at 3:03 AM | PERMALINK


howard, please tell me what I said that was so moronic? that JR will be one of the best license-plate makers in all of West Virginia?

Posted by: Jimbo on March 8, 2006 at 3:05 AM | PERMALINK

every single sentence you composed at 3:01 was moronic, Jimbo. need any further clarification? the fantasy life you right-wingers lead is mighty impressive, i must say.

Posted by: howard on March 8, 2006 at 3:09 AM | PERMALINK

One can only speculate why the moderates are being so spineless on an issue when a majority of the public is outraged. Too politicians many have over-learned the lesson that you can't lose an election by being tough on crime or terrorism.

Of course, it used to be said that no one was ever fired for buying IBM. Anyone remember that?

Nowadays we get rats actually clinging to a sinking ship.

Posted by: bad Jim on March 8, 2006 at 3:38 AM | PERMALINK

I see the troll patrol is out in force on this issue. Obviously, the Constitution is in great peril tonight.

Posted by: Ron Byers on March 8, 2006 at 3:51 AM | PERMALINK

have decided that a genuine investigation of the NSA's domestic spying program would simply be too painful,

C'mon, Kevin. I know you know the modern Conservative mantra: "Trust government completely (except when it's not in your immediate partisan interest but your opponents better dang well trust it when you um, want 'em to cause)."

Posted by: snicker-snack on March 8, 2006 at 5:18 AM | PERMALINK

Since the public seems thoroughly bewildered on this issue, I imagine we won't get any more movement on it until the first stories break about Nixonian misuse of the wiretaps for political purposes. In the meantime, Jimbo can console himself that the Administration seems determined to try to create an American version of the Official Secrets Act, which has been ever so useful in Britain for covering up major misdeeds by BOTH parties.

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on March 8, 2006 at 5:19 AM | PERMALINK

Footnote: the NY Times reports that Arlen Specter is apparently NOT going along with the detail, and in fact said yesterday that he may seek to "block [the program's] financing if Attt. Gen. Gonzales did not give more information." ( http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/08/politics/08nsa.html?ei=5094&en=7402b982a1503c71&hp=&ex=1141880400&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print ). Specter, be it remembered, also showed some backbone regareding the rights of Gitmo inmates (although this didn't stop the Graham-Levin swindle on this subject).

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on March 8, 2006 at 5:24 AM | PERMALINK

NSA spying will be illegal again as soon as a Democrat is elected. Or until the bedwetter's stop being so damn scared all of the time.

Posted by: merlallen on March 8, 2006 at 7:53 AM | PERMALINK

Additional footnote: as a result of this hard-Hitting Senate oversight, the Republicans are now ready to ram through Congress a bill by Sen. DeWine allowing the President to wiretap any American citizen of his choice for six weeks straight without a warrant. The possibilities are fascinating -- and, as I say, the voters, being ignoramuses as they are in every democracy, won't react until the first actual scandals break, which won't be for a while. They've put up with MUCH worse before from the likes of Nixon and Woodrow Wilson, after all.

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on March 8, 2006 at 8:10 AM | PERMALINK

Bush has characteristics of several former presidents. He has the morals of Richard Nixon, the intelligence of Ronald Reagan, and the presidential competence of Jimmy Carter.

Posted by: anandine on March 8, 2006 at 8:48 AM | PERMALINK

Oh What a Wicked Web We Weave.
When First We Practice to Deceive.

Posted by: Honey P on March 8, 2006 at 8:50 AM | PERMALINK

spy on "terrorists" all you want

just get a goddamned warrant first

Why is that so hard for Republicans to understand?

Posted by: KISS on March 8, 2006 at 9:05 AM | PERMALINK

After the fall of the Bu$hCo crime family, there will be a Reckoning. Big time.

Posted by: Doofus on March 8, 2006 at 9:05 AM | PERMALINK

Obviously, the Constitution is in great peril tonight.

And inhalant abuse was up again, if jimbo is anything to go by....

Posted by: Davis X. Machina on March 8, 2006 at 9:06 AM | PERMALINK

Since the public seems thoroughly bewildered on this issue

I disagree, Bruce. Polls show that the public has, by and large, concluded on their own that Bush did indeed break the law, and that they do want judicial oversight of government surveillance of citizens. Glenn Greenwald has a series of posts on the subject.

What's interesting is that the GOP's abdication of its oversight role is, contrary to Rovian spin, an unpopular move. The White House must have brought some serious pressure to bear, and I certainly hope the Republicans can be made to pay a political price for their cowardice.

NSA spying will be illegal again as soon as a Democrat is elected.

Spot on.

Posted by: Gregory on March 8, 2006 at 9:09 AM | PERMALINK

Gregory

You have it right, except I am not sure the country is willing to impeach Bush if all he did was listen in on Al Qaeda related foreign calls. The problem is the Administration acts like it did more than than just listen in on Al Qaeda related foreign calls. In fact given its absurd level of secrecy and insane claims that the public shouldn't even know the broadest outline of the program, it acts like it has been engaging something that could put all the principal actors in the slammer if it were to become known.

Posted by: Ron Byers on March 8, 2006 at 9:21 AM | PERMALINK

Our heartfelt thanks to Cheney, Bush, and the rest of the GOP drones, er, congressmen for keeping us in business. We look forward to keeping you safe through any surveillance means necessary.

You need not worry about privacy or any other concerns. We are the military and cannot arrest you, so what's the problem? The worst we can do is put you on a no-fly list, pilfer through your banking records, and/or notify DHS/FBI that you're a terrorist.

If no one listens to us, then we'll send black ops teams out to your house and throw you in GITMO.

But, if you're not a terrorist, you have nothing to fear.

Thanks again, Dick. You're tap has been removed. You may call your Israeli handlers with impunity...

Posted by: NSA Mole on March 8, 2006 at 9:33 AM | PERMALINK

Er, cheney. A swarm of proposals have been submitted, by such notorious pinkos as Judge Posner and Adm. Poindexter, allowing a substantial expansion of wiretapping ability by the Feds which would both avoid any danger of alerting the Enemy and simultaneously provide totally convincing safeguards against any misuse of such wiretaps for Nixon/Hoover type blackmail or other domestic political purposes. All that's needed, after all, is to incorporate some semi-independent judicial observers into the system to make sure that the White House isn't ordering and utilizing warrantless wiretaps for that purpose. Interesting, isn't it, that the White House is fighting so ferociously against even such ideas? When one of the chief Iran-Contra criminals comes off as a civil libertarian by contrast with the current administration, you KNOW you've got trouble.

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on March 8, 2006 at 9:40 AM | PERMALINK

Two of the top stories today from NYT: "G.O.P. Senators Say Accord Is Set on Wiretapping" and "G.O.P. Leaders Vowing to Block Ports Agreement".

This seems to me to be more than coincidence. I believe that the real accord is: the Republicans agree to back down on the illegal wiretapping, and in return, on the Dubai deal the Administration agrees to endure some ridiculous posturing (which as we all know will, in the end, signify nothing).

Posted by: Gully Foyle on March 8, 2006 at 9:47 AM | PERMALINK

Charlie,

Got a favor here.

Can you just go fuck yourself?

Please?

Posted by: obscure on March 8, 2006 at 9:51 AM | PERMALINK

Yep, that's what i called integrity. Bush's kind of integrity, responsibility, commitment, patriot, trustworthy and an overall-great-kind-of-a-guy. Lemmings without a spine.

Posted by: eo on March 8, 2006 at 9:53 AM | PERMALINK

"Trust Jay Rockefeller" to do what? Not to squeal on the administration's activities unless he learns that it's engaged in Nixon/Hoover type illicit activites? He's already proved that he'll do that -- he sat on his personal knowledge of the warrantless program for over a year (which Sen. McCain, by the way, has criticized him for doing, saying that if Rockefeller really thought it was illegal it was his obvious "civic duty" to break the classification laws and publicly anounce the program's existence so that Congress could actually debate it). And the judicial overseers recommended by Posner and Poindexter would report to judges rather than to Congress in any case.

What it really amounts to, of course, is that "cheney" and his ilk -- including the Administration itself -- want a warrantless wiretapping program with absolutely no limitations or oversight of ANY sort to ensure that the White House isn't misusing it for political purposes. The Founders had a very nasty word for that sort of thing; but then the real Cheney (the one in the Veep's mansion) has already made it clear that he's much more in sympathy with Bismarck ("Democracy means putting the children in charge of the nursery") than he is with George Washington. So is his ridiculous little admirer on this thread.

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on March 8, 2006 at 10:11 AM | PERMALINK

Ron Byers at 9:21 AM,

I agree.

Posted by: Gregory on March 8, 2006 at 10:12 AM | PERMALINK

"Perhaps, Ron - that "secrecy" is intended to keep the enemy in the dark?" Cheney at 9:26 am

Let us review. Al Qaeda has obviously figured out that we tap all their calls. That is why Ossma Bin Ladin is still walking around. So the administration obviously don't intend to keep that enemy in the dark.

We, the people, are the folks who thought we had a constitution. They are the folks violating it willy-nilly. Obviously, to the Administration we are the enemy. So assuming you mean the American people are the "enemy " you are correct.

Posted by: Ron Byers on March 8, 2006 at 10:31 AM | PERMALINK

Tom Delay wins Repub primary in Texas.

Indictment for campaign finance fraud
was not enough to get him out.
He skipped his election party to raise funds at a lobbyist party.
I guess if you know whos dirty hands are in whos dirty cookie jars.
You have loyalty so you will not rat them out. Crooks stick with fellow crooks.
Money Talks and Voters need to Walk. To the other
side and send the message that you work for us
or you find another job.

Posted by: Honey P on March 8, 2006 at 10:33 AM | PERMALINK

Just wait til Congress fails to reign in the DPW ports deal as well, craigie - imagine peace in the Middle East - there won't be a Democrat voted into the White House for 20 years.

Cheney, even more of a dumb shit than usual today, apparently too stupid to note that Republicans control congress, and that they're the ones who will be blocking any deal. Then there's also the fact that most Americans don't want the deal to go through, but thankfully dumb shit Cheney doesn't represent most Americans--

GOP LEADERS VOWING TO BLOCK PORTS AGREEMENT

Oh no, the Democrats are in trouble! Not!

Posted by: haha on March 8, 2006 at 10:34 AM | PERMALINK

Wow, imagine this, the POTUS, who is charged with the duty of Commander in Chief, actually retains control of National Security. Unprecedented. And considering there is a 7 member panel that oversees that program including three democrats why this is just unspeakable. Why doesn't the minority party have control over the nations matters?

Posted by: Jay on March 8, 2006 at 10:37 AM | PERMALINK

Did you ever stick your finger up your butt, then smell it?

It's quite a rush. Keeps me sharp.

Posted by: Jay on March 8, 2006 at 10:38 AM | PERMALINK

Good morning losers!

Posted by: Jay on March 8, 2006 at 10:41 AM | PERMALINK

And, Bruce, if we could trust those like Jay Rockefeller, maybe you'd have a point.

you mean this rockefeller ??

"Resist as it might," Brzezinski wrote elsewhere (about rockefellers 'commission'), "the American system is compelled gradually to accommodate itself to this emerging international context, with the U.S. government called upon to negotiate, to guarantee, and, to some extent, to protect the various arrangements that have been contrived even by private business."

Posted by: tofubo on March 8, 2006 at 10:41 AM | PERMALINK

I'm an idiot!

Posted by: Jay on March 8, 2006 at 10:43 AM | PERMALINK

Tom Delay wins Repub primary in Texas.

Indictment for campaign finance fraud
was not enough to get him out.

Posted by: Honey P on March 8, 2006 at 10:33 AM | PERMALINK

Honey P, of course rampant corruption isn't enough to disqualify a Republican from the support of his or her party. The general election, however, will be interesting.

Posted by: Gregory on March 8, 2006 at 10:45 AM | PERMALINK

Francis Fukuyama was right and Robert Frost was right: "Kit Marlowe taught me how to say my prayers: / 'Why, this is Hell, nor am I out of it.'"

This is a new kind of American corruption. Anti-freedom and not simply corrupt, say, the way that Harding was corrupt or Grant's cronies were corrupt or even as the scandalously corrupt LBJ was. These guys are simply gangsters and the conscienceless, affectless toads who troll here are witness to it. More than that: enablers.

Wasn't it Will Durant who said that when a dictatorship came to America it would come from the Right. Well, here it is.

USA
1776-2001

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on March 8, 2006 at 10:47 AM | PERMALINK

Sorry, Dems, this is not a 'domestic spying' program. It is a terrorist surveillance program and the public supports it.

I urge you Dems to make this a campaign issue in the 2006 and 2008 elections!

Posted by: Monkey See on March 8, 2006 at 10:54 AM | PERMALINK

This vast bastion of tolerance and diverse opinion is so welcoming and heart warming that it is no wonder why the Democratic Party continues to gain solid footing across the country with their strong stance on National Security and Pro-Family values. The party that wants to isolate foreign countries from business ventures, specifically if that country is of a certain ehtnicity, yikes! Also the party that promotes choice for those teens that find themselves in the "family way" yet stifles the choice of parents when it comes to actually learning of their pregnant daughter. How about the party that is Con-choice when it comes to offering parents the choice of schools that they can pay for and send their children to. And the party that has hung their hat on promoting opportunities for minorities for the last forty years yet can not understand why those minorities are still struggling and that the opposing party is the only party to have placed minorities on the SC.

I must say it really is heart warming to know that people of such depth of character and superior intellect, the likes of Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid are out there defending these virtuous goals.

Posted by: Jay on March 8, 2006 at 10:56 AM | PERMALINK

I just read the post from "Jeffry Davis" at 10:47 and I'm still laughing.

This goofball thinks the USA died in 2001. (!)

(When did the Democratic Party become the party of Doom and Gloom and Pessimism and Despair?)

Posted by: Monkey See on March 8, 2006 at 10:58 AM | PERMALINK

Words can carry such negative implications. For instance, I call it "murder" when a car bomb explodes in Baghdad. I believe the left's choice of words in "sectarian violence". The left calls it "corruption" when speaking of Tom Delay, and I would offer this description - "Financial appropriation mis-hap."

Posted by: Jay on March 8, 2006 at 10:59 AM | PERMALINK

this is not a 'domestic spying' program. It is a terrorist surveillance program

If that's the case, it's mighty curious that the Republicans would pass up the opportunity to establish that fact.

Since they did, under pressure from the White House and contradiction to their previous statements, Occam's Razor suggests that the converse of your statements are true.

and the public supports it

Obviously, that depends on how the question is worded, but in fact, the public has concluded that Bush's warrentless program is illegal -- after all, the Administration admits it -- and that it prefers judicial oversight. As I've noted, Glenn Greenwald has many posts on the subject.

I urge you Dems to make this a campaign issue in the 2006 and 2008 elections!

Indeed, I would urge the Dems to call Rove's bluff and do just that. Once again, if the Bush Administration had nothing to hide, it wouldn't be working so hard to make Congressional Republicans part of the cover-up.

Posted by: Gregory on March 8, 2006 at 10:59 AM | PERMALINK

This vast bastion of tolerance blah blah blah

Jay, this is one of the oldest, and dumbest, wingnut memes. No one is under any obligation to tolerate a serial liar. Your College Republican bullshit gets the reaction it richly deserves, and indeed is intended to provoke, so spare us the crocodile tears about tolerance.

Posted by: Gregory on March 8, 2006 at 11:03 AM | PERMALINK

Ever since the runt litter grew up and moved out I have nothing better to do then troll left-leaning blog sites. So deal with it. Losers

Posted by: Jay on March 8, 2006 at 11:04 AM | PERMALINK

The party that wants to isolate foreign countries from business ventures

Hey dipshit, are you sharing a brain with Cheney today? Republicans are going to block the ports deal--

GOP LEADERS VOWING TO BLOCK PORTS AGREEMENT

Now do us all a favor, and vote those terrorist-loving GOP leaders out of office!

Posted by: haha on March 8, 2006 at 11:05 AM | PERMALINK

The more I think about it, if the public actually does vote against the Repubs who are going to block the ports deal with Bin Laden's UAE buddies, then retaking the House should be a whole lot easier than I thought.

Say hello to Speaker Pelosi!

Posted by: haha on March 8, 2006 at 11:09 AM | PERMALINK

Love all the frivolity which comes out of the Repug Hill members when they are invited to the White House.

Such fun singing,

"Roll me over in the clover, Roll me over, lay me down, do it again"

Posted by: thethirdPaul on March 8, 2006 at 11:10 AM | PERMALINK

Why aren't the democrats that are on the Senate committee that is privy to the workings of the NSA "domestic spying program" running to the press with all of their findinds of malfeasance? Surely there is a plethora of incrminating evidence against this heartless administration. I just can't imagine why it hasn't come to light yet. Of course maybe those Democrats are in on the cover-up. Can Democrats be corrupted?

Nice post at 11:04 am, I couldn't have said much better.

Posted by: Jay on March 8, 2006 at 11:13 AM | PERMALINK

Pelosi can speak?

Posted by: Jay on March 8, 2006 at 11:14 AM | PERMALINK

We understand each other, don't we?

Posted by: Jay on March 8, 2006 at 11:15 AM | PERMALINK

Oh I am sure our liberal freinds can one up us on the use of rodents. It's called "Brokeback Rat".

Posted by: Jay on March 8, 2006 at 11:17 AM | PERMALINK

Cheney's got a hot ass. It's even hotter way up in the smelly part.

Posted by: Jay on March 8, 2006 at 11:18 AM | PERMALINK

Why aren't the democrats that are on the Senate committee that is privy to the workings of the NSA "domestic spying program" running to the press with all of their findinds of malfeasance?

Because they've been sworn to secrecy, Jackwit.

Posted by: poot Smootley on March 8, 2006 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINK

Greggy, your passive dismissal of my 10:56am post speaks volumes. Rings a little too true, doesn't it? Ouch.

Posted by: Jay on March 8, 2006 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINK

Sworn to "illegal secrecy", oh my God, the democrats are corrupt!!!!!

Posted by: Jay on March 8, 2006 at 11:20 AM | PERMALINK

Bush worshippers lick the sole of the fascist boot on their faces. They are beneath contempt.


Brokeback Bush Wears a Burka!

http://brokebackbush.cf.huffingtonpost.com/

Posted by: Balzac on March 8, 2006 at 11:21 AM | PERMALINK

As a recovering alchoholic I can spot delusions of grandeur - and Greggy you are full of it

Posted by: Jay on March 8, 2006 at 11:21 AM | PERMALINK

Why aren't the democrats that are on the Senate committee that is privy to the workings of the NSA "domestic spying program" running to the press with all of their findinds of malfeasance?

Whoops, forgot part 2.

AND, they've been given only general and incomplete descriptions of the programs.

Posted by: poot Smootley on March 8, 2006 at 11:21 AM | PERMALINK

GOP LEADERS VOWING TO BLOCK PORTS AGREEMENT

Hey, any friend of OBL is a friend of ours, throw the bums out! Buh-bye GOP leaders.

Posted by: haha on March 8, 2006 at 11:23 AM | PERMALINK

It's called "Brokeback Rat".

We'd love to hear about it, Jay.

Please go on...

Posted by: Your Liberal Friends on March 8, 2006 at 11:25 AM | PERMALINK

Really, then I would question their integrity as well. Should they actually hold the office of Senators if they simply comply with the information they deem lacking and not trustworthy especially when it pertains to the sensitivity of Civil Rights? I think not. Vote those bums out of office.

Posted by: Jay on March 8, 2006 at 11:25 AM | PERMALINK

What happened to the left refrain of "building allies" not enemeies in the middle east? Profiling the UAE on the port deal is suppose to be a conservative virtue. Maybe you guys have been hanging out with the conservative too long.

I know, let's think of the UAE as "undocumented workers" trying to gain a foothold in the US economy to further their quest for a better life. Does that make it a little more palatible?

Posted by: Jay on March 8, 2006 at 11:29 AM | PERMALINK

Sorry, I suffer from a rare strain of gerbil syphillus that's been eating away at my brain stem. Hence the completely nonsensical comments.

Republicans good, Democrats baaaad, duuuuuuuurrrrhhhhhh....

Posted by: Jay on March 8, 2006 at 11:29 AM | PERMALINK

Even though I grow older, my memory is still sharp as a tack.
Why, I remember the day that President Barry Goldwater appointed Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court in 1965. This followed President Nixon's appointment of Marshall to the Federal bench in 1963. Why if JFK and Johnson had come to power in 61, would they have even considered a minority? Pshaw and bedamn, no, no, no.

And now, back to remembering the day that the Seattle Mariners won the World Series.

Posted by: stupid git on March 8, 2006 at 11:30 AM | PERMALINK
Really, then I would question their integrity as well. Should they actually hold the office of Senators if they simply comply with the information they deem lacking and not trustworthy especially when it pertains to the sensitivity of Civil Rights? I think not. Vote those bums out of office.

You would question a Democratic politicians integrity???

I just....

can't believe it.

I couldn't understand the rest of what you wrote. It didn't really...

didn't...

really...

...

Oh, nevermind.

Posted by: poot Smootley on March 8, 2006 at 11:31 AM | PERMALINK

It would appear that your ol buddy Fitzpatrick is unable to find any revelation of classified information pertaining to America's most covert operative, you know the one with her picture on the cover of Vanity Fair. It was a really disappointing Fitzmas wasn't it?

Posted by: Jay on March 8, 2006 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

What happened to the left refrain of "building allies" not enemeies in the middle east? Profiling the UAE on the port deal...

How many times does Jay have to have this bullshit talking point debunked before he finally stops spewing it out of sheer embarrassment?

Judging a person or nation from the behavior of others is profiling. Judging a person or nation from his, her or its own past behavior -- in the UAE's case, cozying up to the Taliban and bin Laden -- is not. Are we clear now?

Posted by: Gregory on March 8, 2006 at 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

Jay, you need to be asking the GOP leadership why they're vowing to block the ports deal. The Democrats are irrelevant.

But I guess when you've been fellating Republicans for so long, it's hard to go against them. Just blame Democrats for everything, it's easier than actually thinking.

Posted by: haha on March 8, 2006 at 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

Are we clear now?

No. I'm an idiot.

Posted by: Jay on March 8, 2006 at 11:38 AM | PERMALINK

Cheney, I got that from the talking points list the RNC sent me this morning. Maybe you should check your copy.

Posted by: Jay on March 8, 2006 at 11:48 AM | PERMALINK

Lieberman is already yours
Lieberman gets a 76% liberal rating. And he's too far right for you moonbats?

Democrats: Moderation? We don't need no stinking moderation!

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 8, 2006 at 11:49 AM | PERMALINK

I think the Republicans on the committee are caving in because Rove's got blackmail info on them. So if they push too hard he releases it to the press.

Hell, that would also explain why the DLC caves in so quickly as well.

Posted by: Dr. Morpheus on March 8, 2006 at 11:57 AM | PERMALINK

Let me make a suggestion. It has been said that Halliburton might be a willing partner with the Dubai port people, but you know what would happen if Halliburton actually partnered up with them. The Democrats and liberals would be changing their tune and talking about how this was a conspiracy from day one to get Halliburton involved. So I have a compromise suggested, and that's Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart, I mean, they're huge. I saw a fact sheet on just how big Wal-Mart is in terms of the revenue they generate, the amount of income they produce, salaries that they pay, it's amazing how huge. It's bigger than you even think it is.

Posted by: Jay on March 8, 2006 at 11:58 AM | PERMALINK

Dr., no Republicans are "caving-in". They know that what's good for the President is good for the country. If you were a real American, like me, you'd know that too. Ever see American Dad? That guy was based on my character, except I'm not a CIA agent, I'm an semi-professional proctologist.

Posted by: Jay on March 8, 2006 at 12:00 PM | PERMALINK

Cheney imposter:
Lieberman gets a 76 rating from the liberal ADA. But thanks for playing.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 8, 2006 at 12:00 PM | PERMALINK

Scuse me? What Party are they? They don't forget.

They are doing a good job faking left enough to undermine your efforts and make you all look radical when you bitch.

Posted by: McA on March 8, 2006 at 12:01 PM | PERMALINK

Some of the Republicans posting in here is proof
you should have to pass a test before voteing.
The comments they have made prove they could
not pass a test if the answers were on the back.

Posted by: Honey P on March 8, 2006 at 12:01 PM | PERMALINK

Is it any wonder Rove has had such an easy time winning elections the past few years. Democrats have become like Pavlovian dogs, so easily distracted and answering the bell at every ring. This blogsite is a great example of that in that the minute a conservative posts, the liberals go straight into the ditch of ad hominen attacks. Well done, and how is that '08 platform coming along?

Posted by: Jay on March 8, 2006 at 12:03 PM | PERMALINK

That explains a lot Honey P. Where exactly on the back does the left place the answers to ballot? Is that why you guys are so mad about the last election? You placed the answers on the back and nobody looked?

Posted by: Jay on March 8, 2006 at 12:06 PM | PERMALINK

Jays post at 10:56 is one of the most bizarre yet from a wingnut whose postings rarely make much sense.

Others have already pointed out how absurd it is for him to talk about the hypocrisy of Democrats opposing the DPW port deal when it is congressional Republicans who have been the most outspoken and jingoistic in their opposition.

The part that is just mindblowingly stupid, however, was this little bit:

" And the party that has hung their hat on promoting opportunities for minorities for the last forty years yet can not understand why those minorities are still struggling and that the opposing party is the only party to have placed minorities on the SC. "

Just which minorities are you refering to here, Jay? You certainly can't mean African Americans, since Thurgood Marshall was appointed by President Johnson 24 years before the first President Bush appointed Clarence Thomas to take the retiring Marshall's place on the bench.

You can't be refering to Latino since there still haven't been any Latino justices on the Supreme Court.

You can't be refering to women, who while not an actual minority have been excluded from many positions of power in this country, since President Reagan nominated the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court, but the only one now serving was nominated by President Clinton.

Posted by: tanj on March 8, 2006 at 12:09 PM | PERMALINK

Jay
It was the butterfly ballot design. Butterfly ballots are bad because they're confusing, electronic machines are bad because they leave no paper trail (unless, of course, the Democrats win or they need to try and stop an election, then electronic machines are the cat's meow), simple ballots are bad because they're antiquated technology.

Come to think of it, all forms of voting are bad to the Democrats. Kind of makes one suspicious that they want to do away with voting.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 8, 2006 at 12:09 PM | PERMALINK

Conpsiracy nut, you're right. Democrats hate voting because every minute they spend voting to overthrow America is a minute they can't spend sodomizing minorites. It's all about priorities!

Posted by: Jay on March 8, 2006 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINK

There you go again Jay with the gay references. You really are curious aren't you, but probably have a good deal of self loathing like Drudge or Ken Mehlman as to who they really are. That's fine, you'll learn to accept your true nature in time.

It's okay, Jay, we are tolerant and accepting here. Plus I figure a guy like you doesn't have much luck with the ladies, so there's always plenty of randy men out there who would be glad to spend some time with you.

Posted by: DJ Krush on March 8, 2006 at 12:21 PM | PERMALINK

Conspiricy Nut, you're back! I've missed you - all the other people are so logical and sensible.

Posted by: dcbob on March 8, 2006 at 12:23 PM | PERMALINK

ehhhhhhhhhhh a troll circle jerk. It's like going to the zoo and the animals talk back.

Posted by: Neo on March 8, 2006 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

Winning '08 is really going to be easy. The poster under my name is a prime example of how far in the ditch the left is. Rove has you guys spinning like tops, duplicitous on nearly every issue and you are all too stupid to figure it out.

Oh well, at least there is still that hope for more destruction in Iraq.

Posted by: Jay on March 8, 2006 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

DJ,

You need to check the email address. Somebody is faking cJay posts similar to what they do to tbrosz.

Also, I'm not totally convinced cJay is a guy, but I suppose one never knows.

Posted by: Tripp on March 8, 2006 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

Conspiricy Nut, you're back! I've missed you
I've been here, we must just be commenting on different threads. Ships passing in the night, as it were. I'm also hosing up the single payer healthcare thread a few posts down; and I was hosing up the Dems in disarray thread, but I haven't checked on that one today.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 8, 2006 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

This is hysterical, liberals are their own worst enemies as demonstrated by the fake poster for myself and conspiracy. Pure lunacy and entertainment from the left. Bush is far from a true conservative, which the country will vote for every time, yet you guys still can't beat him. It's akin to a professional team boasting about there all of there stars and prowess yet still losing to the colleges.

Say hello to President McCain.

Posted by: Jay on March 8, 2006 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

Now Jay, impersonating other commenters is the best they can manage. Let's try to be understanding of those with lesser abilities.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 8, 2006 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINK

Winning '08 is really going to be easy.

Actually, Jay, since, judging by trolls like you, all the GOP has are easily-debunked bullshit talking points, I wouldn't be so confident.

Just think -- every time you repeat long-debunked lies like opposition to the UAE port deal is "profiling," you're admitting you don't have anything good to go on. Sure, that bullshit appeals to Rush-addicted focus group types like you, but check the polls: The American people just don't trust the Republicans right now, and they simply aren't buying.

So keep up the bullshit if you want to, trolls. It's far from demoralizing.

Posted by: Gregory on March 8, 2006 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

but check the polls
What, do they say Kerry is going to win again?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 8, 2006 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK

I don't mind a good sodomizing, just not from a minority!

Posted by: Jay on March 8, 2006 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

impersonating other commenters is the best they can manage

Not true, of course, although personally I deplore the hijacking of one's handle, and I've said so before.

But then, "hosing up" threads is the best c.n. can manage, since all he has is bullshit, so there you go.

Posted by: Gregory on March 8, 2006 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

But then, "hosing up" threads is the best c.n. can manage
Heh, that's why I don't mind the impersonators. They're helping me.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 8, 2006 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK

We're gonna ride Bush's 34% approval rating all the way to a Congressional landslide!

Do people who know that they are going to win so easily always spend their time on opposition websites telling them that they're going to win? Or is it just me and my dumbass butt-buddies Jay and Cheney?
I guess we still need to convince ourselves.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 8, 2006 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

What, do they say Kerry is going to win again?

No, they say the public doesn't trust Republicans right now. It's the nation's misfortune that, although Bush's popularity and credibility was in a steady decline, it didn't totally collapse until after the election. Of course, that liars like you, c.n., with bullshit like your false equivalence about Kerry's and Bush's service records, did all you can, but all you have right now are lies. I hardly envy the GOP and its lickspittles that.

Posted by: Gregory on March 8, 2006 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

Can someone help me? Because I really can't tell the difference between the "impersonators" and the "real" ones. They're all equally stupid.

Posted by: Neutral Observer on March 8, 2006 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

Because I really can't tell the difference between the "impersonators" and the "real" ones.
I know your problem. When I first switched to this handle I was going to out-moonbat the moonbats. But no matter how outrageous I was, all I got was moonbats cheering on my great ideas.

It's just too easy to duplicate moonbats and wingnuts.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 8, 2006 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK

The fact that the Republican leadership is running from Bush like kryptonite and pleding to sink the port deal(pun intended), is just more evidence of Bush's overwhelming popularity and electoral coattails.
Nope, Republicans aren't running scared at all, nosiree! Ride that approval rating to victory baby, just like we did in New Jersey and Virginia!

Posted by: conspiracy nuts on March 8, 2006 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

impersonating other commenters is the best they can manage

heh. get a load of Jay all upset that we aren't polite or serious enough for him. Wahh.

the thing about acting like a troll, Jay - people treat you like one. if you want a serious conversation, act like it.

Posted by: cleek on March 8, 2006 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

It's just too easy to duplicate moonbats and wingnuts.

So are you a moonbat or a wingnut? Because whoever's impersonating you is apparently having an easy time of it.

Posted by: Neutral Observer on March 8, 2006 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINK

Sheeple led by jellyfish.

Posted by: Myron on March 8, 2006 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK

Bush's popularity and credibility was in a steady decline
I've been hearing that for, what now, 3 years? 4? Rasmussen, using consistent methodology over time, has Bush at 43%; tack on 2-3% to get back to likely voters and you just don't have the crash you've been reporting since before he was re-elected.

But here's my advice: Keep worrying about Bush, you might be able to beat in '08.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 8, 2006 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK

So are you a moonbat or a wingnut?
I'm a wingnut. You're a moonbat.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 8, 2006 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK

oops. i quoted nut, not Jay. but what i wrote applies to both of them, Cheney too. (though i hope he doesn't shoot me in the face for saying it)

Posted by: cleek on March 8, 2006 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK

I'm a wingnut.

Oh, okay so that explains it. I can just scroll past certain names from now on, unless I'm in the mood for some entertainment--intended or not.

Posted by: Neutral Observer on March 8, 2006 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

cleek
I'm not a bit upset over the impersonators. No serious discussion can be had here anyway, so the fact that they and I are doing our thing isn't damaging.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 8, 2006 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, please worry about Bush. Just look at how much he helped the would-be Republican governor of Virginia! Coattails baby!

Hopefully all the Republican candidates will campaign with our popular and beloved president this year.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 8, 2006 at 1:41 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory, I would be cautious on those poll numbers if I were you. Remember the exit polls. The bad numbers towards the administration in the polls is not not a sign that the liberals are gaining ground, as it is more of a sign that the conservatives are not living up to their conservative values. People want the Republicans to be more conservative not for the Democrats to be more liberal.

Posted by: Jay on March 8, 2006 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

I can just scroll past certain names from now on
Heh, if you were actually neutral, you'd scroll past them all and go find a sane blog. The fact that you're here scrolling indicates you're looking for some confirmation of your world view.

And since it's the moonbat worldview that gets stroked here...

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 8, 2006 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

And you are fine example cleek.

Posted by: Jay on March 8, 2006 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

Heh, if you were actually neutral, you'd scroll past them all and go find a sane blog.

This is as sane as it gets unless you consider LGF to be "sane", and judging by your comments you probably do.
Although if it's so insane, not sure why you waste your time here. Unless you enjoy being mocked and have absolutely nothing better to do. Interesting psychiatric study for someone.

Posted by: Neutral Observer on March 8, 2006 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINK

We need the UAE to take control of our ports! Vote out any Republican who prevents it!

Posted by: Jay on March 8, 2006 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

My recommendation would be to listen to Honey P and put the answers on the back of the ballots. Now that's a democratic strategy.

Posted by: Jay on March 8, 2006 at 1:49 PM | PERMALINK

cleek is that little kid in the neighborhood with a behaviour disorder that everyone abhors.

Posted by: Jay on March 8, 2006 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

This is as sane as it gets
Yep, you might as well change your handle from "Neutral Observer" to "Moonbat Express". Let me guess, you used to be a Republican but got disgusted with the Republicans under Reagan.

Oh my, I love it here.

You're one of the reasons I waste my time here, a man can't get comedy like this just anywhere.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 8, 2006 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

Cheney, which state are the voting "machines" going to next time?

Posted by: Jay on March 8, 2006 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK

Jay, if you're really insterested in serious discussion, you shouldn't need an example of how it's done. be a big boy, start right now - just drop the goofy troll-bait schtick and start discussing things honestly.

[anyone wanna bet he declines ?]

Posted by: cleek on March 8, 2006 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINK

Surely we won't have to recyle the Plan B voting machines! Tell me there's a brand spanking new strategery in the works.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 8, 2006 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

and start discussing things honestly
That would pre-suppose somebody to honestly discuss with. They're in short supply around here.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 8, 2006 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

cleek, do you mean to start supporting your insane view of politics? That would most likely require a painful surgery and I am not sure frontal lobotomies are performed in my area.

Posted by: Jay on March 8, 2006 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

You're one of the reasons I waste my time here, a man can't get comedy like this just anywhere.

Wow, that's really sad. What a pathetic life you lead.

I guess you can't point me to a more "sane" blog, since you waste all your time here--a productive member of society.

Posted by: Neutral Observer on March 8, 2006 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

That would pre-suppose somebody to honestly discuss with. They're in short supply around here.

Certainly with you spamming the threads, most of them move on. Ciao.

Posted by: Neutral Observer on March 8, 2006 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

Ya, chow to you too.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 8, 2006 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

Interesting psychiatric study for someone.

CJ is certainly a mix. It is almost like he/she is educated to a point and yet not succeeding like he/she thought. My guess is about 25, probably from the south, and a lot of time to spend on the net at a job that doesn't use his/her potential. So you get displaced anger and a strong need for attention with easy access to the net.

How'd I do, CJ?

Posted by: Tripp on March 8, 2006 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

bashing from the right?


"Under President Bush, the government has expanded by 45-percent in 5-years,' said Brian Riedl, a federal budget analyst with the conservative Heritage Foundation. 3/7/06


since when do wingnuts deal in any fact other than bush won?

it allows them to ignore all else...

including irony...

Posted by: thispsaceavailable on March 8, 2006 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

The Congressional Budget Office "forecast a $371 billion shortfall for the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30, compared with the administration's $423 billion - a $52 billion gap." 3/3/06

now the cbo isnt right-leaning...

but in this case its funny...

either bush is off by more than 10-percent in its projections...

or

he'll break his old record with a new one...

win-win?

Posted by: thispsaceavailable on March 8, 2006 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK


this isnt from the right...per se...and its not about bush....but instead the gop majority and that they have done with it...


Since the GOP took control of Congress in 1994, home-district earmarks have jumped from 4,155 valued at about $29 billion to 14,211 worth nearly $53 billion 10 years later. - Congressional Research Service

cash in....


Posted by: thisspaceavailable on March 8, 2006 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK

"I think it's become in people's minds an emblem of the administration that just isn't as serious about the competent execution of the functions of government as it should be." - NEOCON Bill Kristol 3/5/6


is it in people's minds?

or..

the u-s death toll?

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on March 8, 2006 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK


does this one count?


"This is what the tyranny of a one-party state is like, people!" - Rush Limbaugh 1993

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on March 8, 2006 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

Con nut and Jay, two prime examples of what boys do when they have too much time on their hands, as well as proof positive of the effects of failing to secure a mate. No wonder they are so tightly wound and bitter and angry. It's only normal to want to be with a partner, and I can imagine the frustration these two have pent up inside them since they failed at the latter.

Posted by: Time Stand Still on March 8, 2006 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

That would pre-suppose somebody to honestly discuss with

actually, no is wouldn't. nobody here is forcing you guys to act like trolls - it's a choice you've made. and so, you get to enjoy the consequences - which is obviously what why you're here, because only a total retard would come back here, day after day all day long, if he wasn't interested in never-ending, eternally-repeating flame wars.

Posted by: cleek on March 8, 2006 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK
- imagine peace in the Middle East - Cheney at 1:27 AM
Solitudinem fecerunt, pacem appelunt [They made a desert and called it peace]

Cheney is the only one who delights in the deaths of Iraqi children (don't click: gruesome images for Cheney only)

Posted by: Mike on March 8, 2006 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

Another thread highjacked by the wingnuts.

Just what does that say about the right wing?

They cannot hold a civilized discourse. They call names and hurl insults but can't take it when it comes back. They run around like college freshmen, "We're number one! We're number one!" and like boor "fans" at the Olympics "USA, USA." But perhaps most of all, they have their eyes shut, and their fingers in their ears, refusing to acknowledge the truth that would stare them in the face, that would assault their ears if they weren't jumping around going "la, la, la, la, la" to keep the sound out.

What a bunch of childish fools. And this is how they get their jollies, with "snappy comebacks" in blog comments.

Wow.

Posted by: Cal Gal on March 8, 2006 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

cleek, do you mean to start supporting your insane view of politics?

ah... more thought-provoking discourse from that insightful philosopher, Jay. such an honest and genuine debater.

Posted by: cleek on March 8, 2006 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

nobody here is forcing you guys to act like trolls
That's right, and nobody forced your ilk here to call everyone that disagreed them a moronic brownshirt fuck either. But it sure resulted in a lot of patting each other on the back and telling them what a good job they did. Turns out you tolerant, inclusive lefties are anything but.

You moonbats made this swamp, I just play in it.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 8, 2006 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, cn, you "just play in it"? You certainly do seem to enjoy rolling around in the muck.

Posted by: Cal Gal on March 8, 2006 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK

I referred to it as "play", did I not?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 8, 2006 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

Yea, you just play it in huh, con nut. It seems you really rnjoy the attention you get here. Is someone not showing you any love in your 'real' life? you don't come to have an open mind or debate like some here who actually can disagree without sounding like a petulant spoiled brat. I have to ask, why here? Is it easier to post your childish tantrums since there is no registration? Did you get run out of every other swamp online, or did you realize that you couldn't stand out at freerepublic with the same old tired angry white man rants?

I really pity you attention seekers. You only demonstrate your own lack of skills to argue your side, but I get the feeling you just come here like a deranged chimp to throw his own feces everywhere and caterwaul likewise. Lookit me, ma! Lookit!!

Posted by: DJ Krush on March 8, 2006 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

Your pschoanalysis of me was fascinating, thanks for sharing.

Tell me, what is your analysis of people with no tolerance for others deviating from their viewpoint?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 8, 2006 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

"Tell me, what is your analysis of people with no tolerance for others deviating from their viewpoint?"

Republicans.

Posted by: Cal Gal on March 8, 2006 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINK

No, Cal Gal, I'm pretty sure you're not Republican. And you're pretty intolerant of the views of others. That would be why you hang out here, to get your moonbat worldview reinforced.

Shame you have to meet some trolls here to spoil the view.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 8, 2006 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

Connut
it isn't about having an opposing viewpoint, there are several resident posters here who while I think they are full of it, they know how to make their case without acting like a 7 year old. And once in a while, I actually might learn something from someone who doesn't agree with me if they know how to delivery their points effectively.

You on the other hand are not in that category. You come here exclusively to disrupt and distort and deflect. When someone calls you on your talking points, you either switch the subject, build a strawman or fish for a red herring, and there are some sharp minds who post here that will call you on it everytime.

But if you want to keep making a fool of yourself, go right ahead. You talked about being entertained. Well when you or Jay or a host of other resident trolls show up, that's when I microwave some popcorn and sit back and enjoy the show. That;s pure comedy to me.

Posted by: Time Stand Still on March 8, 2006 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINK

We're all interchangable, it doesn't matter.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 8, 2006 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINK

That's right, and nobody forced your ilk here to call everyone that disagreed them a moronic brownshirt fuck either

golly! if you're so upset about what all us mean mean liberals say about you, and the way we force you to act like a troll, i'd expect that you'd simply not come back. but you do come back. and you contribute to this "swamp" as much as anyone, hypocrite.

Turns out you tolerant, inclusive lefties are anything but.

awww... poor nut. his little dreamworld has been shattered.

tolerance doesn't mean letting everyone do what they want all the time - it means giving an individual the chance to prove otherwise, before deciding he's an idiot.

Cheney: Is the following question considered "trolling"...

doesn't look like it. not all your posts are so reasonable, though.

Posted by: cleek on March 8, 2006 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINK

That;s pure comedy to me.
Glad you're enjoying it.

But nobody comes here to get exposed to other viewpoints. They used to, but that ended a couple of years ago. Since then it's been all moonbats looking for companionship, and trolls to poke fun at them.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 8, 2006 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK

I guess you struck out on the looking for companionship part of things, huh con nut?

Posted by: Time Stand Still on March 8, 2006 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

Is "conspiracy nut" also "CJ"?!

No. Remember all those BurmaShave jingles you used to see down South?

Careful where the . . .
children go . . .
let the little . . .
shavers grow.

BurmaShave!

Posted by: Tripp on March 8, 2006 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

To Tripp and his attempt to profile me. Actually you're off the mark (but that is typically liberal). Have you ever wondered why I have so much time to play in the liberal sewer? It's called financial independence, or obscene republican profits, whichever you prefer, and I am from the southwest.

DJ, actually conspiracy is the one that profers up intelligent discourse, you just ahppen to disagree with it. I, on the other hand am the one that mocks and ridicules your points.

Posted by: Jay on March 8, 2006 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

and you contribute to this "swamp" as much as anyone, hypocrite.
Hypocrite! I don't think so. I've announced the reason that I come here is to poke fun at moonbats, and I've pointed out that I am part of the problem and not part of the solution. I'm well aware of what I'm doing.

Here's the sad ass part: You don't even realize that you're part of the problem.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 8, 2006 at 3:21 PM | PERMALINK

Wow Jay, so you have financial independance, which means still living at mom's house. Cool, good for you. Still won't help you get a girlfriend.

Posted by: Time Stand Still on March 8, 2006 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, cn, I AM a registered Republican. Anybody can register as one. Thankfully, the thought-police of the right still can't keep their party "pure."

And If I hang out here to get my world-view reinforced, why do YOU hang out here, other than to needle and irritate others.

Let's hear you analyze yourself.

Why do you want to hang-out where you're not wanted?

Posted by: Cal Gal on March 8, 2006 at 3:28 PM | PERMALINK

How insensitive of you Time, you don't know my sexual preference and I am deeply offended by you non-politically correct statement. Are you homophobic? I thought liberals embraced sexual diversity yet your trying corner me into heterosexuality. Have you been speaking James Dobson, how intolerant and disappointing. You may have to sacrfice your liberal membership.

Posted by: Jay on March 8, 2006 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINK

It's really great we can sit around the campfire with our wingnut friend's sing a couple of bars..... whatever.
Hey guys what do you think of the 7 troopers from the 82nd airborne that got busted for doing gay porn. It's good to know Donald Rumsfeld has time to go through gay porn sites looking for asses he can reconize.

I love it!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Neo on March 8, 2006 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, cn, I AM a registered Republican
Huh, imagine that. I used to register as a Democrat, just to swell their numbers in my lovely red state. I was trying to convince all my friends to register as Dems, maybe we could have gotten some presidential candidate visits. (Us from the states of foregone conclusion don't get those).

Anyway, I think I answered your questions at 3:21.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 8, 2006 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINK

I can't speak for conspiracy Cal, but debating with the mindless minority faction of the minority party is pure entertainment. It's fun to watch you all get your feathers ruffled.

I'll do it again, watch this. BUSH!

Posted by: Jay on March 8, 2006 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINK

No, no, Jay. Make a gig on Al Bore, they'll crawl out of the woodwork.

Or at least say that Bush got an honorable discharge.

Or praise the hat Kerry got from the CIA guy in Cambodia.

Hell, I got thousands of 'em.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 8, 2006 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK

"Monkey see": "Sorry, Dems, this is not a 'domestic spying' program. It is a terrorist surveillance program and the public supports it."

Really? How do you know Part 1 is true without outside observers? We heard exactly the same thing routinely, for years, about Nixon's and Hoover's activities.

As for your second statement: the polls indicate tha the public supports it IF it is aimed entirely at valid terrorist suspects. What they aren't sure about yet (because, as is usual in democracies, most of them haven't bothered to look into the issue in any depth) is whether the current system is enough to prevent said wiretaps from being aimed at anyone else -- which, of course, is what the whole brouhaha is about. It took them a long time to make up their minds about Watergate, too, until the Saturday Night Massacre (and let me express my disappointment here that "cheney" didn't mention Reagan's enthusiastic defense of Nixon on that one).

As for the real consequences of Snowe & Co. folding up, let me quote Glenn Greenwald ( http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/03/post-mortem-on-intelligence-committee.html ):

"Here are some rather critical and glaring questions which the hearings would have answered but which, now, remain unanswered:

"(1) Did the Administration engage in warrantless eavesdropping on Americans who have no connection to Al Qaeda or to other terrorist groups?

"(2) As part of any program, did the Administration engage in warrantless eavesdropping on the purely domestic communications of Americans?

"(3) Did the Administration initiate any other warrantless eavesdropping programs aimed at Americans besides the one revealed by The New York Times?

"(4) Why did the Administration never seek revisions to FISA if it believed that the law was inadequate or too cumbersome to permit necessary eavesdropping?

"It is so obvious as to be painful to point out that the purpose of the Senate Intelligence Committee is to find out answers to those questions. But the White House has exploited its control of the Committee to block that from happening...

"What the legislation does, on its face, is replace FISA judges with Republican Senators in approving the government's eavesdropping activities. Whereas the country agreed to a framework 30 years ago which allowed the government to eavesdrop on Americans only if the Government persuaded a FISA judge that such eavesdropping was warranted, this proposed legislation eliminates that requirement and allows warrantless eavesdropping as long as 4 Republican Senators agree with the White House that such actions are warranted."

As I said earlier, given the predictable confusion of the voting public on any political issue that requires any thought whatsoever, this scandal won't emerge again until the first reports that Bush -- or some future President (Hillary, maybe?) -- has used this marvelous new power to spy on his political opponents and have his majority in Congress obediently cover the fact up for him. And that, given the new coverup procedure enabled by Snowe & Co., will take a while.


Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on March 8, 2006 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK

Hypocrite! I don't think so.

i do.

Here's the sad ass part: You don't even realize that you're part of the problem.

i never claimed to be otherwise. and i also never claimed i'd be an honest and thoughtful commentor if only (*wring my hands in dismay*) everyone else was nicer. this place is and always has always been a troll's nest. and anyone who comes in here trolling day after day is a hypocrite for then complaining that people aren't nice enough.

Posted by: cleek on March 8, 2006 at 3:38 PM | PERMALINK

cleek
I should have known, my point sailed right over your head. You can be as mean as you want, I'm a big boy. What pisses me off is not the meanness, it's that this used to be a nice place for discussion; mostly populated by liberals, but a substantial population of conservatives, and Kevin used to write thought provoking posts that stimulated some nice discussions. (There were a few moonbats and wingnuts, but they were largely ignored).

Then you moonbats took over. First you drove the conservatives off, then you drove the liberals off, and then there were only moonbats and trolls left.

If kokblok happens to be lurking, they can confirm that history.

It's the loss of a fine place for discussion that pisses me off, because you moonbats are incapable of it whether you can recognize that or not.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 8, 2006 at 3:47 PM | PERMALINK

Bruce, those questions will be answered as evidenced by the new 7 member panel, which includes three democrats, appointed to monitor the program and to verify it's veracity. My belief is that the answers to those questions will satisfy the committee and this will be just another "strawman" (a word I know you will enjoy) thrown into that disappointing stocking of Fitzmas.

Posted by: Jay on March 8, 2006 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK

"...debating with the mindless minority faction of the minority party is pure entertainment..."

Jay, I don't think you can call slinging insults a "debate."

The word "debate" connotes rational argument supported by facts, neither of which you display.

People who enjoy calling others names are bullies.

If you (and cn and others) really were interested in serious debate, you wouldn't go around tagging Democrats "losers" and "mindless".

What you're doing is the blogging version of schoolyard taunters going "nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, NYAH, nyah." They seem to find that entertaining, too.

Posted by: Cal Gal on March 8, 2006 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK

What pisses me off is not the meanness, it's that this used to be a nice place for discussion; mostly populated by liberals, but a substantial population of conservatives, and Kevin used to write thought provoking posts that stimulated some nice discussions. (There were a few moonbats and wingnuts, but they were largely ignored).

I have to say, this is the funniest thing I've read all day--due to this wingnut who actually thinks he was ever part of any sort of nice, substantive discussion.
conspiracy nut has always been a moronic douchebag desperate for attention. Thanks for the unintentional comedy nutjob.

Posted by: puh-leeze on March 8, 2006 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

Says a late comer to the party.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 8, 2006 at 4:00 PM | PERMALINK

Continuing on my school-marm rant, I have to say, puh-leeze, that you're not helping with the "douchebag" retort.

Posted by: Cal Gal on March 8, 2006 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK

It's the loss of a fine place for discussion that pisses me off, because you moonbats are incapable of it whether you can recognize that or not.

Hey here's more of that inintentional comedy from our village idiot. Isn't it ironic, don't you think?

Posted by: LOL on March 8, 2006 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe Jay and Connut should go camping together.

Just don't spend the night on a mountain in a tent, you two, there's no telling what you guys who've never had a girlfriend might do.

I believe Jay would be the initiator.

Posted by: DJ Krush on March 8, 2006 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK

Continuing on my school-marm rant, I have to say, puh-leeze, that you're not helping with the "douchebag" retort.
Come on, ya gotta be proud that they could spell 2 syllable words.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 8, 2006 at 4:05 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: Then you moonbats took over. First you drove the conservatives off, then you drove the liberals off, and then there were only moonbats and trolls left [...} It's the loss of a fine place for discussion that pisses me off, because you moonbats are incapable of it whether you can recognize that or not.

I recognize that you are a stupid, ignorant liar.

You are also a pretentious, self-flattering boor. No one has posted more idiotic bullshit in these threads than you, and you yourself have acknowledged that you deliberately post idiotic and intentionally offensive bullshit just to get attention.

Your disparagement of the intelligent, sincere, thoughtful, well-informed people who post comments here amounts to nothing but the smug sneers of a hypocritical asshole who has proved over and over that he has nothing to offer but mechanical, rote regurgitation of the most inane right-wing drivel-points ever invented.

If you don't care for this forum then shut up, stop posting here, and go back to freeper moron land where you belong.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on March 8, 2006 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINK

I can't understand why no one has ever taken me seriously, what with my lunatic rants about commies and Maoists and moonbats, and how Republicans are a bunch of socialists.

If you actually formed a graph, you could see where the quality of the comments took a huge plunge. Right from the first time I posted here.

Pure coincidence I'm sure.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 8, 2006 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK

Jay's not really my type. I only take it from guys who are at least my first cousin.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 8, 2006 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

you deliberately post idiotic and intentionally offensive bullshit just to get attention.
I'm convinced that you're still pissed over the brocolli thing. But you're not paying attention. I do not do this to get attention, I do this because I like to do it. It gives me joy.

If you don't care for this forum then shut up, stop posting here, and go back to freeper moron land where you belong.
I do care for this forum, it's you moonbats that I don't care for.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 8, 2006 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINK

Admit that you're part of the problem while whining about the problem, you gotta love this level of moronic douchebag.

It's like a three year old who smashes his toy and then cries about not having anything to play with. Except that a three year old is more intelligent and mature.

Posted by: puh-leeze on March 8, 2006 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

puh-leeze wrote: conspiracy nut has always been a moronic douchebag desperate for attention.

conspiracy nut does two things: he constantly regurgitates inane right-wing idiot talking points, generally the most stupid ones ever conceived, and usually irrelevant to the topic at hand; and he constantly proclaims that he is superior to everyone else.

And then occasionally he'll venture into "serious" territory, and pronounce that the survival of civilization depends on maintaining the status of women in society as it was depicted on "Leave It To Beaver".

He is by far the stupidest, the most ignorant, and the most dishonest individual ever to post comments here.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on March 8, 2006 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINK

What pisses me off is not the meanness, it's that this used to be a nice place for discussion

and yet you're still here. guess you're not really so "pissed off".

i think i commented the very first day Kevin got comments at his CalPundit site (under a different name). and, yes the crowd used to be a lot smaller and a lot more polite. but, that didn't last long. go back as far as you like - the archives are right there at the bottom of the main page, and you can find the same kind of inane flame wars - just with fewer people.

It's the loss of a fine place for discussion that pisses me off, because you moonbats are incapable of it whether you can recognize that or not.

why abuse yourself so much ? why spend all day, every day, at a place that "pisses [you] off" so much?

hypocrite.

Posted by: cleek on March 8, 2006 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, I enjoy spending my days on a comment thread where everyone thinks I'm a stupid joke, and I don't like anyone. When the only other activity is inbred gay sex, then maybe you can understand why it gives me joy.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 8, 2006 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

and, yes the crowd used to be a lot smaller and a lot more polite. but, that didn't last long
It held on pretty tolerable (this is the internets, after all) until about the Democratic primaries. By the '04 election it was a swamp. Somewhere around there is when I changed handles and became the wonderful commenter you have all come to know and love. (After a brief stint as 'Mayor Daley', proposing the use of election fraud to get the Dems back in power. That was fun.)

why abuse yourself so much ? why spend all day, every day, at a place that "pisses [you] off" so much?
Poking fun at moonbats brings me joy, which counterbalances the pissed off. Under your plan, I'd just be pissed off with no joy to even things out.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 8, 2006 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

"Bruce, those questions will be answered as evidenced by the new 7 member panel, which includes three democrats, appointed to monitor the program and to verify it's veracity. My belief is that the answers to those questions will satisfy the committee and this will be just another "strawman" (a word I know you will enjoy) thrown into that disappointing stocking of Fitzmas.

Posted by: Jay on March 8, 2006 at 3:50 PM "

The answers will be determined by the 4 Republicans on the panel who can, by voting in a bloc, override any objections by the 3 Democrats. Given the pattern the Republican congress has established of not exercising meaningful oversight of the administration, this is not a reassuring prospect.

Note that this proposal, if it prevails, would change the legislatively enacted review system (the FISA court) without any new legislation and without any review by the Supreme Court to determine its constitutionality. As such, the proposal merely compounds rather than corrects the problems with the NSA surveilance program.

Posted by: tanj on March 8, 2006 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

Would all of you be more tolerant of conspiracy and myself if we were oppressed homosexuals just looking for equal treatment? Or how about if we were pregnant South Dakota teenagers ranting over the oppression of not being able to get an abortion? Or how about freedom fighters lashing out on the injustice placed upon us by the najority? Surely you could find some bit of tolerance in those cold liberal hearts.

Posted by: Jay on March 8, 2006 at 4:27 PM | PERMALINK

tanj, imagine that. The majority party putting themselves in the majority role. Unprecedented. And as this may confound you, the republicans don't walk in lockstep like the liberals as evidenced by the port deal.

Posted by: Jay on March 8, 2006 at 4:29 PM | PERMALINK

Naw, SD won't cut it. We'd need to be from a true blue state. Everybody else in the US is a worse enemy than the terrorists.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 8, 2006 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINK

If you don't like the attention, what is it about posting here that gives you joy? Are you a sadist or a masochist?

Posted by: Cal Gal on March 8, 2006 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

How many times do we have to answer that Cal? ADD is a bitch.

Posted by: Jay on March 8, 2006 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINK

Under your plan, I'd just be pissed off with no joy to even things out.

no. under my plan, you'd not even come here to get pissed off. you would hang out in FreeperTown or Lucianneville and let yourself get carried away by the dulcet tones of conservative mental-masturbation.

i'm only thinking of your health.

Posted by: cleek on March 8, 2006 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINK

Are you a sadist or a masochist?
Non sequitor. The impact on others doesn't affect me so sadism isn't in play. And it doesn't hurt me at all, so masochism isn't in play.

As for what gives me joy, the best thing here was 'Neutral Observer' from earlier. What a predictable piece of work. And yet another pure moonbat trying to sucker me that they were moderate. The this blog is sane is what gave it away. I visit sane lefty blogs, this ain't one. People come here for 2 reasons:
1) To get their worldview reinforced.
2) To poke fun at those reinforcing their worldview.
Anyone else would bolt after reading 5 comments. But yet they really wanted to play like a moderate. It's great, you cannot get comedy like that just anywhere.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 8, 2006 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK

You post here because you have ADD? I don't think so. I know lots of folks with ADD and they routinely come round just to insult people.

Tourette's maybe.

Posted by: Cal Gal on March 8, 2006 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK

i'm only thinking of your health
Naw, not if you're trying to send me to Freep. It's hard on my pride to be exposed to the fact that there are people on the right as crazy as you moonbats are on the left.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 8, 2006 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINK

Oops. Obviously I meant to say that folks with ADD do NOT routinely come around to insult folks.

Just my ATD at work.

Posted by: Cal Gal on March 8, 2006 at 4:50 PM | PERMALINK

CN:I visit sane lefty blogs, this ain't one.

OK, I'll bite. What are your top 5 "sane lefty blogs?"

Posted by: E. Henry Thripshaw on March 8, 2006 at 5:02 PM | PERMALINK

What are your top 5 "sane lefty blogs?"
Well, E Henry, here's one of the problems; you consider Lieberman with his 76 rating from the ADA to be a stone conservative. So naturally you're not going to agree these are all lefty blogs. But I regularly visit
- Roger Simon
- Marc Cooper
- Digby
- Tim Russo (but he's gotten a little off track lately, maybe national politics fried him)
Digby is kind of borderline sane; some posts are good, others crazy. I miss Paglia. If she still writes stuff I don't know where to find it. I used to stop by Dean Esmay's, but he's gone middle of the road and so doesn't present anything challenging anymore. And I like Tom at FunctionalAmbivalent, he's a lefty but doesn't blog much politics.

The comments at Simon and Cooper are good; the comments at Russo's are thin; Digby's comments have no discussion that I've seen, just patting each other on the back for being absolutely right.

Others kind of come and go.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 8, 2006 at 5:16 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut wrote: you consider Lieberman with his 76 rating from the ADA to be a stone conservative.

A typical stupid, ignorant lie from a stupid, ignorant liar.

The objection to Lieberman has never been that he's "conservative". It's that he supported Bush's invasion of Iraq -- an act that was in no way whatsoever "conservative" except to those who believe that deceit, corruption and mass murder are "conservative" values, and to those who are not really conservatives at all but just bootlicking Bush worshippers.

conspiracy nut's two hobbies: being a moron, and proclaiming how much smarter he is than anyone else.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on March 8, 2006 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, I also want to know about the "sane lefty blogs" that the nut visits, and why he simply doesn't spend his time there. If this really gives you "joy", then that's just sad.

And yes, this blog is sane. Kevin might be a lot of things, but insane is not one of them. Just because he doesn't fly off the handle about lefties and moonbats, doesn't make him insane. That would be the self-described nut who admits he's part of the problem, hates everyone who posts here, but continues to spend all day posting here.

Oh, and if you weren't so insanely obsessed about everyone's political pursuasion, and where they fit into your whole lunatic "wingnut-moonbat" spectrum, you might have realized that I'm not describing myself as neutral in terms of politics, only in terms of my observations of conspiracy nut.
Although I'd have to ask how you would know where I fit in politically, seeing has how I haven't said anything about any particular political or policy issue. The fact that you automatically categorize me just because I compliment Kevin's blog and I don't attack everyone here as a "moonbat" only further proves how unhinged you really are.

Bottom line, I just think that conspiracy nut is a sad, pathetic individual.

Posted by: Neutral Observer on March 8, 2006 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINK

And why would he mention Paglia when talking about sane lefties? She's neither sane nor a lefty.

Posted by: Cal Gal on March 8, 2006 at 5:33 PM | PERMALINK

The comments at Simon and Cooper are good

Then they must enjoy having you post there, what with your superior intellect and rapier wit.

Or do they fail to grasp the subtleties of "lefty-moonbat-lefty"?

Posted by: Neutral Observer on March 8, 2006 at 5:33 PM | PERMALINK

But, SecularAnimist, even our own host KEVIN DRUM "supported Bush's invasion of Iraq"!!!

Yes, and now he admits it was wrong. That's what sane people tend to do when confronted with overwhelming evidence.

Posted by: Neutral Observer on March 8, 2006 at 5:38 PM | PERMALINK

Well, E Henry, here's one of the problems; you consider Lieberman with his 76 rating from the ADA to be a stone conservative

You have no idea how I may or may not consider Lieberman, because I have never said anything about him in this blog. But as neutral said above, you really paint everything so black and white, that it's rather pointless to take you seriously. Instead you just rattle off a few "moonbats", proclaim how happy you are, and then...don't leave.

When I linked to a post by bubbles a few weeks ago that I thought was particularly salient, you answered back my linking to...the Communist Manifesto.

That's deep.

Posted by: E. Henry Thripshaw on March 8, 2006 at 5:40 PM | PERMALINK

I only pointed out that a comparison of Lieberman to Kevin Drum re the issue of the Iraq War was inaccurate, at best.

Posted by: Neutral Observer on March 8, 2006 at 5:56 PM | PERMALINK

Well you know, E Henry, when Marx is applicable, I link to Marx. And Marx is frequently applicable with this crowd.

it's rather pointless to take you seriously
I don't expect you to take me seriously, I certainly don't take you seriously.

And Neutral
You get classed by your mere presence. The 2 types of people that hang here were described at 4:40. Everyone else bolts.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 8, 2006 at 5:59 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut wrote: Marx is frequently applicable with this crowd.

You are a stupid, ignorant liar, a buffoon who regurgitates scripted, programmed drivel while proclaiming himself the intellectual superior to everyone else, living in a one-dimensional cartoon comic book "Ayn Rand for Dummies" mental world.

The political classification that is applicable to you is "asshole".

Posted by: SecularAnimist on March 8, 2006 at 6:08 PM | PERMALINK

Secular
Would it help if I stopped mispelling brocolli?

- Heavy progressive taxation is item 2 on Marx's list in achieving socialim. 'Nuff said.
- Abolition of rights of inheritance is item 3. Remember all the whining over insufficiently high death taxes?
- Socialized education is item #10. Democrats are against vouchers.
- Encouraging the proles to rise up against the bourgeois. Remember Edward's "Two Americas"? Instigating class warfare as a means to end class warfare. You'll find that in section 2 of the Manifesto and also in a whole lot of Drum's posts.

Want me to go on? The whole damn Democratic platform reads like Marx.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 8, 2006 at 6:16 PM | PERMALINK
The objection to Lieberman has never been that he's "conservative".

No offense, SA, but plenty of liberals objection to Lieberman is, in fact, that he is a conservative. Its just not that he is a conservative in a sense that a simplistic mathematical ratio of left:right votes like the ADA rating would show.

I prefer, personally, to refine this objection to state that he is a Republican enabler rather than an ideological conservative; but the gist is that, in either case, he undermines liberal efforts and the Democratic Party by being the right-wing media's go-to Democrat to endorse conservative culture-war talking points and attack other Democrats and liberals.

It's that he supported Bush's invasion of Iraq

So did lots of Democrats and notional "liberals", Lieberman is hardly alone or notable in this regard.

-- an act that was in no way whatsoever "conservative" except to those who believe that deceit, corruption and mass murder are "conservative" values, and to those who are not really conservatives at all but just bootlicking Bush worshippers.

Deceit and corruption have been the central defining motives of conservatives since liberalism arose to oppose it, at least. And, likewise, mass murder one of its frequent mechanisms.

Not, when I say "conservatism", I mean conservatism, not the libertarianism that modern conservatives have done such a show of rhetorically embracing in the last few decades that some confused libertarians have taken to calling themselves "real conservatives" and complaining that the dishonest scum manipulating cultural, religious, and national identity to preserve the privilege of a narrow elite clique are somehow not real "conservatives".

Posted by: cmdicely on March 8, 2006 at 6:19 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut wrote: The whole damn Democratic platform reads like Marx.

You are a buffoon regurgitating inane drivel from "Ayn Rand for Dummies".

And since Ayn Rand in the original is nothing but pretentious pseudo-intellectual drivel for pretentious pseudo-intellectual dummies, your cartoon comic book version is really, really, really dumb.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on March 8, 2006 at 6:25 PM | PERMALINK

Not bad, cm, but I'd like to point out that the big mass murders were lefties. Stalin, Mao...

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 8, 2006 at 6:26 PM | PERMALINK

I don't believe I was addressing Ayn Rand; I'm certain I was addressing Democrats and Marx.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 8, 2006 at 6:29 PM | PERMALINK
Not bad, cm, but I'd like to point out that the big mass murders were lefties. Stalin, Mao...

Plenty of conservatives have adopted rhetoric from one strand or another evolved from liberalism, either because the movement to bring their clique into power faced an existing conservative clique against whom such rhetoric was useful for organizing (as for Leninists and their descendants), or because they've found that appeals to tradition and identity alone are insufficient in an political environment dominated, at least superficially, by liberal ideas (modern Republicans rhetorical embrace of libertarianism).

Nevertheless, the manipulation of exclusionary identity to reinforce the rule of a narrow elite remain fundamentally the same, whether you want to talk about the last defenders of strong, centralized monarchies as Europe democratized, or the Nazis, Stalinists, or currently-dominant clique in the Republican Party.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 8, 2006 at 6:42 PM | PERMALINK

Anyone but a Republican...

Posted by: christAlmighty on March 8, 2006 at 6:55 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely
First Hitler. Fascism was an outgrowth of socialism (hang on and wait, I ain't blaming anyone here). After the industrial revolution it was clear that Marx's philosopy's were DOA, and fascism was the next step; supposed to be a blend of socialism and corporatism (odd mix, to say the least). Now Mussolini claimed to be fascist (and indeed was a former socialist and an early fascist), but merely used it as a vehicle to gain power; he was garden variety dictator. Hitler always claimed socialist, actually tended more toward fascism; but again just used whichever as a vehicle to gain his dictatorship.

Now in the case of pure dictators, I don't see them falling under either liberal or conservative. Totalitarianism is basically it's own thing; because it has no real philosphy for the people, only philosophy for maintaining power.

But Stalin and Mao, that's a different story. They were socialists, and they knowingly imposed draconian governments to achieve socialism. They did not do their thing to maintain power, or for some sick personal whim (Hitler and exterminating Jews), they were attempting to establish socialism and used totalitarian means to enforce it.

Further, it is my opinion that totalitarianism is necessary for pure socialism because you are asking people to act against their best interest, but you will no doubt disagree there.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 8, 2006 at 6:58 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely, it was certainly inappropriate for me to write that "The objection to Lieberman has never been that he's conservative", as though there were only one objection which was agreed upon by everyone, and as though I were in a position to assert what everyone's objection was.

I particularly object to Lieberman's support for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, but that is only my view. And I'm also in agreement with what I take to be your view, or the view that you mention, that Lieberman has all too often acted as an "enabler" of the Bush administration and the Republican majority in Congress when common sense and common decency would require that he speak out against them instead of "giving cover".

With regard to what "conservatism" is, I don't have any preconceived notion of what a "true" conservative ideology is. No doubt the definition of "conservatism" like other political ideologies may change over time. As far as I'm concerned it's up to each individual who chooses to identify himself or herself as a "conservative" to say what that means to him or her.

However, it seems to me that for someone to be an ideological or philosophical conservative, however they themselves choose to define "conservatism", they must have some ideology or philosophy or set of principles, even if it is one that is heinous.

And in my view, the Bush administration has none at all. They are not ideologues, they are simply and plainly crooks.

I posted earlier today on another thread (as I've done before) my "Die Hard" theory of the Bush administration. Like the villains in the Bruce Willis movie "Die Hard" who pretended to be ideologically motivated terrorists, taking hostages and making political demands, but who were in reality crooks pretending to be terrorists to confuse and stall the cops and buy time to crack a safe and steal billions of dollars of boodle, Cheney and Bush and company are nothing more than crooks pretending to be conservative politicians in order to seize power and keep everyone confused while they plunder the nation's wealth for the personal profit of themselves, their cronies and their financial bankers.

One might as well say that Al Capone was a "conservative" as to call Bush one.

Consider this fable:

Somewhere in a rural area, there were three small towns. In these towns three preachers appeared -- one in each town. All three of them called themselves Christians. And all three of them asked the people of their respective town to donate money to build a church, and the people did indeed donate money, enough to build the churches.

The first preacher built a church, and from the pulpit preached most sincerely about love and charity and generosity and helping the poor and downtrodden, saying that these were the true teachings of Jesus and what a loving God wanted everyone to do.

The second preacher built a church, and from the pulpit preached most sincerely about hell and damnation and hating gays and foreigners and believers in other religions, and about keeping women barefoot and pregnant and subservient to men, etc, and said that these were the true teachings of Jesus and what a wrathful and cruel God demanded of everyone under penalty of eternal damnation (after being stoned to death by the faithful).

Now, the followers of these two preachers sometimes met, and argued vociferously over which of them was a "true Christian". Both preachers, as well as their followers, were clearly passionate and sincere in their quite different and incompatible beliefs and values, and the arguments were endless.

The third preacher took the money that was donated to him to build a church, and skipped town, and spent it all on drinking, gambling and whoring in Las Vegas, all the while laughing about how he had conned the gullible hick suckers with his pretense of being a Christian preacher.

The third preacher is the equivalent of Bush, and arguing about whether Bush is a "true conservative" is like arguing whether that preacher was a "true Christian".

Posted by: SecularAnimist on March 8, 2006 at 7:02 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut wrote: I don't believe I was addressing Ayn Rand; I'm certain I was addressing Democrats and Marx.

You were spouting scripted, programmed right-wing boilerplate drivel and demonstrating your abject stupidity, shocking ignorance, utter dishonesty, and complete inability to think. As usual.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on March 8, 2006 at 7:07 PM | PERMALINK

CN:
Let me put this simply. People here may get out of line sometimes and react with name calling--always happened, always will. People here call YOU names because you are a wiesel, you are dishonest, and you are an asshole.
This has nothing to do with politics. You, CN, would be a wiesel, dishonest, and an asshole if you were a conservative, a liberal, a libertarian, a Maoist, a Marxist, a monarchist, or a space alien.

Posted by: smuggler on March 8, 2006 at 7:12 PM | PERMALINK

And in my view, the Bush administration has none at all. They are not ideologues, they are simply and plainly crooks.
Dang, I hate to play nice with Secular but it seems to be called for here.

Bush/Rove had the interest in not just winning elections, but setting up a durable Republican majority. Recall earlier my comment about the totalitarian philosophy of maintaining power. But before you leap off the deep end, the goal of the Democrats is the same. Each party does this because they believe their ideas are better. In the end, we rely on the Democrats to save us from the Republicans and the Republicans to save us from the Democrats.

But Bush may be interesting because he isn't (regardless of what gets said here in lefty land) a conservative, but he also isn't a liberal.

I haven't thought this all the way through, but fortunately we'll be rid of him in '09 in any case.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 8, 2006 at 7:14 PM | PERMALINK

You, CN, would be a wiesel, dishonest, and an asshole if you were a conservative, a liberal, a libertarian, a Maoist, a Marxist, a monarchist, or a space alien.
Thank you, it's nice to be known as consistent.

I assume you mean weasel, or is there some diesel powered rodent hybrid I'm not aware of?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 8, 2006 at 7:16 PM | PERMALINK

Con nut, the saying is dated and cliched, but I cannot think of anyone more deserving...

Get a life. Really. Turn off the computer, take a deep breath, and go for a nice walk or something.

realize there are more productive things to do with your time...right? you do have better ways to spend your days I hope...family, kids, hobby, something?


Posted by: Time Stand Still on March 8, 2006 at 7:17 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut wrote: Bush/Rove had the interest in not just winning elections, but setting up a durable Republican majority

I don't believe that Bush has any interest in that. He would just as readily run the Republican Party into the ground and wreck it as he would run (and is running) the United States of America into the ground and wreck it, if that's what it takes for him and his gang of white collar crooks to make off with the loot.

Bush may be interesting because he isn't [...] a conservative, but he also isn't a liberal.

No, he's just a crook. It's all he's ever done. And he comes from a family of crooks. It's what the Bush family does. They are just like a Mafia crime family, except instead of being into drugs and prostitution they are into the military-industrial-petroleum complex.

That's why the Bush administration's "political ideology" seems incoherent: it's a fraud. It's fake. It's phony. It's a scam to bamboozle both conservatives and liberals and keep them busy trying to figure out what Bush is really up to, while he and his gang get on with what they are really really up to: grand theft on an almost unimaginable scale.

Bush isn't Reagan. He isn't Hitler. He isn't Stalin. He's President Al Capone.


Posted by: SecularAnimist on March 8, 2006 at 7:37 PM | PERMALINK
First Hitler. Fascism was an outgrowth of socialism (hang on and wait, I ain't blaming anyone here).

Certainly, the rhetoric of both Fascism and Nazism drew much superficially from socialism, though it was nationalist rather than internationalist and, and abandoned, as I recall, much of socialisms concern for class -- a necessity for it to work well with corporatism.

It also adopted an idea of a central cadre analogous to Lenin's reformulation of Marxism, though clearly not for Lenin's overt reasons, since neither Italy nor Germany was a pre-capitalist society.

After the industrial revolution it was clear that Marx's philosopy's were DOA, and fascism was the next step; supposed to be a blend of socialism and corporatism (odd mix, to say the least).

Mixing what amounted to Leninistic elite socialism with corporatism isn't all that odd of a blend -- both are economically centralizing structures concentrating authority in a narrow central group; Leninism explicitly extends this outside of the economy throughout the political system, whereas corporatism doesn't necessarily reject political freedom and liberal democracy.


Now in the case of pure dictators, I don't see them falling under either liberal or conservative. Totalitarianism is basically it's own thing; because it has no real philosphy for the people, only philosophy for maintaining power.

The central point of our disagreement is right there; you believe that "conservatism" refers to something other than a system for maintaining power for a narrow clique -- I believe, from its origin in the defense of monarchy from emerging classical liberalism, "conservatism" has been nothing but a system for the preservation (or, in some cases, either restoration or establishment) of power for a narrow elite clique. Now, its not as broad as "totalitarianism" in the abstract, in that it involves the appeal to tradition and exclusive identity, which may be practically vital for totalitarianism, but isn't a theoretical necessity.

But Stalin and Mao, that's a different story. They were socialists, and they knowingly imposed draconian governments to achieve socialism.

I don't think there is any more evidence that Lenin or Mao was honestly philosophically guided rather than simply power-seeking and using rhetoric to gain that power than there is for Hitler or Mussolini, and certainly Stalin wasn't trying to establish much of anything, but rather to preserve the power already established for the Communist inner circle.

Further, it is my opinion that totalitarianism is necessary for pure socialism because you are asking people to act against their best interest, but you will no doubt disagree there.

Well, certainly; pure socialism is utterly unattainable fantasy, totalitarianism is neither necessary nor even helpful to attaining it.

Totalitarianism is where any movement is liable to end up if it tries to do the impossible, whether it is to wage a war to the death against a vague abstraction or to establish a utopia, socialist or otherwise. This is simply because hubris and either experienced or anticipated failures will lead it there (indeed, Lenin overtly adopted the elite features that distinguish Leninism from Marxism because of anticipated difficulties in trying to apply Marxism in a nation without the preconditions Marx identified for socialism.)

BTW, I have to congratulate you -- that was a useful, rational (though, as noted, I disagree with many points), and interesting comment.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 8, 2006 at 7:41 PM | PERMALINK
However, it seems to me that for someone to be an ideological or philosophical conservative, however they themselves choose to define "conservatism", they must have some ideology or philosophy or set of principles, even if it is one that is heinous.

And in my view, the Bush administration has none at all. They are not ideologues, they are simply and plainly crooks.

He acts out of the same defense of his own privilege and that of his own circle that the aristocrats defending the erosion of their privilege by the early waves of classical liberalism did; he is no less "conservative" than the original "conservatives".

Posted by: cmdicely on March 8, 2006 at 7:47 PM | PERMALINK

A Republican-dominated House committee approved an amendment that would block a President Bush approved deal under which a United Arab Emirates-based company is to assume operations of some terminals at U.S. ports in six cities.

Why is the GOP full of Arab/Muslim-hating bigots who are diverting attention from real issues about national security and slandering a "good ally" in the war on terror out of purely political motivations?

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 8, 2006 at 8:12 PM | PERMALINK
Bush isn't Reagan. He isn't Hitler. He isn't Stalin. He's President Al Capone.

I think you overglamourize Hitler and Stalin.

I will grant that there was probably some genuine concern for the commonweal guiding the policies of the Reagan Administration, though there was plenty of the same kind of thing that you excoriate Bush for, there, too.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 8, 2006 at 8:15 PM | PERMALINK

Bush is a dumbed-down version of Nixon.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 8, 2006 at 8:20 PM | PERMALINK

Tanj's reply (4:25 PM) to Jay's expressed belief that the 3 Democrats on the new subcommittee can "verify the program's veracity" is totally correct. I'll add only that the 4 Republicans already named by Roberts to sit on that sub-subcommittee do NOT include ANY of the Republicans on the Intelligence Committee itself who were actually asking any questions about it (Snowe, Hagel, Specter, Graham). After all, if a single one of them had been included, the subcommittee might actually have sometimes had a majority that felt compelled to ask the important questions listed by Greenwald, and we can't have that. The whole thing is not just a setup -- it's a pathetically transparent setup, a deliberate copy of Col. Klink's dogged determination not to know any awkward facts in the first place so that the war crimes tribunal couldn't accuse him of actively working to conceal them.

(And -- since Conspiracy Nut freely confessed about 100 postings back that he's just deliberately playing the role of a troll -- may I ask why any of the rest of you are falling for his silly little game?)

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on March 8, 2006 at 8:27 PM | PERMALINK

Could someone please explain to me how a very few Republican senators and the vice president can come to an agreement and then it becomes law. I didn't think they could just rewrite legislation amongst themselves. There is a FISA law, Bush broke it, end of story. Democrats should be saying that everyday. Rockefeller's statement should be repeated until it sinks in, Roberts should be made to explain his actions everyday.

Posted by: bob on March 8, 2006 at 11:01 PM | PERMALINK

One keeps learning fascinating new things about this deal. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/03/08/gop_senators_refuse_eavesdropping_inquiry/ :

"Critics contend that the bill would allow the Bush administration to skirt the 45-day deadline [for warrantless wiretapping] by declaring that national security is at stake whenever a case is questioned. DeWine's bill would not give the committee the authority to intervene, even in cases in which wiretapping appears to be unjustified.

" 'The White House could just decide not to tell them everything, and there's no sanction,' said Bruce Fein, a former Reagan administration lawyer who said he believes that the NSA program is illegal. 'And the president can still claim that he has inherent power to conduct surveillance.' "

Those who remember Fein from his Reagan days will, of course, wait with delight for cheney, Conspiracy Nut et al to denounce him for pinko tendencies. I suspect, however, that we won't be hearing from them on this subject again (especially since they never actually had anything to say on it in the first place).

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on March 9, 2006 at 3:46 AM | PERMALINK
办公用品,办公用品网,北京办公用品,办公用品公司,办公用品管理,办公用品批发,办公用品超市,采购,配送,北京 办公用品行业 办公用品 办公用品 办公用品 办公用品 办公用品 办公用品 办公用品 办公用品 办公用品 办公用品 办公用品 办公用品网 北京办公用品 北京办公用品 办公用品配送 办公用品管理 Posted by: 办公用品 on March 9, 2006 at 8:22 AM | PERMALINK

cmdicely
I believe ... "conservatism" has been nothing but a system for the preservation ... of power for a narrow elite clique
That is what I'm calling totalitarianism. Conservatism has a couple of components that I see. First is a reluctance, if you will, to move forward. Use what works, play it safe. (Progress is not shut off, but it certainly isn't radical in nature) The second component is reliance on the individual; individuals helping individuals. But it is a plan for society: keep doing what works, take care of yourself, help your neighbor. Just as liberalism is a plan for society (force changes for the better, groups helping groups). Totalitarianism is a plan for the dictator.

As for Bush. I'm not convinced he's a crook, but he's certainly not an idealogue of any type. In one way he's just been a buffoon, but in another way he's been cunning and efficient. He behaves as if he has an overarching goal that he is driving relentlessly toward, but there doesn't seem to be any actual goal. I don't know what to make of the guy.


and abandoned, as I recall, much of socialisms concern for class -- a necessity for it to work well with corporatism
That is why I called it an odd blend.

I don't think there is any more evidence that Lenin or Mao was honestly philosophically guided
Had you said Stalin and Mao, you might be able to gin up an argument. Lenin was clearly philosophically driven. With Stalin and Mao you do get a large component of despotic measures to maintain power. But I will argue that, at the bottom, they were forcing socialism on people and they knew the hardships they were causing. That was the driver for their need to remain in power by force. Socialism required force from the government to implement, which in turn required more force to keep the government in power.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 9, 2006 at 9:07 AM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: . . . but in another way he's been cunning and efficient.

Yes, Bush's cunning and efficiency are why we've spent $200 billion plus to not secure any WMDs, not interdict any WMD programs, and not capture bin Laden; create one of the largest, if not the largest, budget deficits in history; wasted hundreds of millions of dollars of "homeland" security funds; etc, etc, etc.

Thanks for the laugh!

Your jokes are always funny!

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 9, 2006 at 10:53 AM | PERMALINK

Thanks for the laugh!
Your jokes are always funny!

Want me to recount the tale of the Demcrats getting rolled on the Iraq war vote? You were taken to the cleaners. Now if you want to argue that you were badly outmanuvered by an idiot, go ahead.

Democrats: We're the smart ones, but we can't understand how a moron keeps beating us!

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 9, 2006 at 11:17 AM | PERMALINK

C.N.: The Democrats got rolled on the Iraq War vote -- along with a huge number of hawks, now busily apologizing all over the place for letting themselves be deceived (including little old me) -- because, while many of us were willing to believe that this administration was crooked, very few of us were ready to believe that it was suicidally, self-destructively idiotic. National security was supposed to be the GOP's speciality -- the one thing on which they were more competent and certainly more aggressively motivated than the Dems. And since obviously the greatest threat by far to the surivial of the US and human civilization right now comes from nuclear proliferation among tyrannies and shaky states, virtually none of us believed that Cheney and Rumsfeld (who were supposed to be this administration's competent Elder Statesmen) would be stupid enough to chase with fanatical confidence (and no contingency plans) after the red herring of an "easily reformable Iraq", while letting the situation in the rest of the world (including Iran, North Korea and Pakistan) go straight to hell.

In short -- like Brent Scowcroft, who recently complained plaintively in the NY Times that he "no longer knows Dick Cheney" -- we (and the Congressional Dems and GOP alike) got snookered by the fact that Cheney and Rumsfeld had turned into a couple of suicidal lunatics who were willing, in the name of their own newly acquired self-destructively reckless tendencies, to lie through their teeth to Congress about the strength of the evidence of Iraq's nuclear program in pursuit of the above-mentioned Chalabi-inspired will-o'-the-wisp of an easily reformable Iraq. Well, failure to foresee a wave of sudden and totally unexpected (and still inexplicable) suicidal lunacy on the part of the nation's two guiding officials isn't exactly an indication of stupidity on Congress' part. (Bush himself, of course, doesn't count, since everyone always assumed he was just Cheney's and Rumsfeld's ventriloquist's dummy.)

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on March 9, 2006 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

Bruce
First, wipe the spittle off your keyboard. Second, your short sighted rant isn't likely to persuade me. Got anything serious?

Lefties coming at me with shallow conservative arguments against the war is getting old.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 9, 2006 at 5:11 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