tee hee

Here's hoping that real conservatives look at the GOP and see that it has been ruined by right wing extremists. Some serious soul searching is in order for decent republicans.

Thomas1 last week it was $100 that they wouldn't take either. Next week will it be $100 that Democrats don't take 30 seats in the house or 7 seats in the Senate?

Right now I am only worried about one seat--McCaskill v. Talent. If McCaskill wins in the face of an avalanch of negative ads it is all over for the Republicans tell at least 2012.

Thomas1 works for Diebold.

I live in NM, but Wilson/Madrid are not in my district. This may be the most negative cat fight in the history of NM. The latest TV ads for Wilson has lots of McCain. cleve

I am very, very wary of these polls. It seems that the nubmers always go up on election day for the republicans. Probably voter fraud, or apathy, or whatever, but I will not let myself believe any of this. We'll see after election day, but until then, Dems should take nothing for granted, and they'll have to keep working to get the message out.

I am so worried that Diebold has it all in the bag.

Here is why the Republicans will stay in control, so the Free Market can work:

Folks may have vaguely noticed the sordid story of United Health Group CEO William McGuire trickling out over the past couple of days. In an age of obscene CEO pay, McGuire put every other executive to shame: At the end of 2005, his stock options were worth 1.8 billion dollars. Unfortunately, those options were backdated -- the dates were forged to begin at the lowest point for the stock, so the holdings would be worth more.

"We're so lucky to have Bill," Ms. Mundinger, a longtime compensation-committee member, told the [Wall Street Journal] earlier this year. Of his rising pay, she said: "He needs to be compensated appropriately so that his business model has believability in the market."

What makes you so certain, Thomas1?

Thomas1: knock off the spam, please. Anyone who wants to take you up on your bet has already had plenty of chance to do so.

Jeez, Thomas, and you wonder why there aren't any takers.

Post again with a real email address -- and I'll do the same -- and I'll get in touch with you about a $100 wager. I trust some of these terms are negotiable. If not, I can only assume your wager is not made in good faith.

DNFTT

Dear Thomas,
Please fuck off.
Sincerely,
Rob G.

(Full disclosure: I originally met Kate O'Bierne at a swingers party while she was taking on a football team like I have never seen before. We have since become S&M buddies and her safe word is "Red Rover")

My $100 wager has been the same since I made it. Funny how there's all this gloating but not a SINGLE taker.

Because it's a sucker's bet, ThomASS. In the unlikely event you win, you'll log on and crow about your winnings, but if you lose, you'll simply change your nym and extend the thread of Charlie/Cheney/ThomASS/ThomASS1...

"My $100 wager has been the same since I made it. Funny how there's all this gloating but not a SINGLE taker."

Kind of an odd wager, Thomas. Since the whole House is elected and only 1/3 of the Senate, what does it say exactly to bet that the Senate remains under Republican control? The Democrats need to gain 6 seats among the 33 seats up for grabs to switch control. To do that, they need to win 70% of the races -- a much higher percentage than anyone thinks they'll get in the House.

If they win only 65% of the Senate races and gain a solid majority in the House, would you not still call that a big win, bordering on a landslide?

This comment was left on another blog after a post went up about Cheney's visit to Ft. Campbell yesterday.

He camo out to polite applause, and we were silent until the Flying Cross was awarded, then we clapped for out fellow soldier, not Darth Cheney. We are nothing to him and the rest of the administration. Cannon fodder. A means to an end. Chumps.

Please people - vote to stop these guys before they get a bunch more of us killed for nothing. 3000 is enough. The reasons aren't going to suddenly be righteous. Castrate them with a Democratic house and senate, for the love of all that is holy, stop them.

I got goose-bumps when I read this.

The blockquote should have extended one more paragraph.

To make this an actual wager about who wins the election, Thomas, would you be willing to bet who wins the majority of seats?

We could tilt it a little in your direction by defining a "win" against you as necessarily involving Democratic wins in the majority of races in both houses -- e.g., if Democrats win the majority of (this year's) Senate and House races, you lose. If Republicans win the majority of races in *either* house, you win.

That would be somewhere in the neighborhood of a reasonable assessment of who actually wins this election. Game?

I got goose-bumps seeing Global Citizen invoke the word "holy" -- I'm with the statistician -- don't vote Bush/Cheney in 2008!

Posted by: Thomas1

That's funny. I pictured you more the goose-stepping type.

"no, I wouldn't call that a big win, bordering on a landslide."

So you think if Republicans can just hold more than 30% of current Senate races, while losing the House, that this would not be a big electoral loss for them?

I'd be willing to bet that either party wins over 30% of their races in either house in any election. A baseline that low has nothing to do with who has confidence about their party's chances.

Of course, as an independent, I have little need to feel confident about either party's chances. I'm just saying it's an obvious sucker bet.

I was thinking that the Foley incident was going to hurt our chances in the midterms, but I realize that no one cares about this at all. In fact, most of the people I talk to think that Foley's actions were perfectly legal and ethical.
Posted by: Thomas1 on October 17, 2006 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK

hilarious

I was thinking that the Foley incident was going to hurt our chances in the midterms, but I realize that no one cares about this at all. In fact, most of the people I talk to think that Foley's actions were perfectly legal and ethical.
Posted by: Thomas1 on October 17, 2006 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK

hilarious

Thomas1: "I was thinking that the Foley incident was going to hurt our chances in the midterms, but I realize that no one cares about this at all. In fact, most of the people I talk to think that Foley's actions were perfectly legal and ethical."

Thank you for that insight. Please call us when your space shuttle lands.

Thomas, your bet makes no sense.

1. On or about November 7, 2006,

Do they hold elections on another day where you live?

the Democratic Party wins the election

Unclear. There is no national election. There are over 400 elections.

for the majority of both Houses of the U.S. Congress (no ties, as in the Senate, Cheney would become the tie-breaker);

Why not just say "wins 51 or more Senate seats" AND "wins 218 or more House seats" AND "Jim Jeffords and Bernie Sanders count as Democrats, Joe Lieberman counts as whatever party he votes for Leader in"

2. On or about January 8, 2007 and serving continuously until June 8, 2007,

No. This makes it so even if Pelosi is speaker, then then is hit by a car and dies on Feb. 1, I lose the bet. Hell no. Makes no sense. Also, in a situation where Pelosi is speaker and resigns in disgrace on March 1st, who cares? All that matters is if the Dems have 218 seats to "win" the chamber. Why is this relevant?

two (2) Democratic members are selected as Speaker of the House and Majority Leader of the Senate

Why not just say "A Democrat is Speaker of the House" and "A Democrat is Senate Majority Leader"?

(if someone like Lieberman pulls a reverse Jeffords, that does NOT count as the Democrats "winning" both Houses);

A reverse Jeffords would be a Democrat becoming a Republican. That would give the GOP one more seat. Explain how either:

1. The Democrats losing one seat but not flipping control to the Republicans (say, going from 53 seats to 52) is a "loss" of the chamber.

2. Why post-election actions are relevant if the bet is about who can mobilize to win the election and what that says about the national mood.

This bet sucks. A confident man would keep it simple and not angle for loopholes.

Furthermore, a gentleman would make the bet a donation to charity.

That's my district. Patricia Madrid is currently state attorney general: when the Feds built a kickback case against the current and previous state treasurers - both thieves, of course, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars - they gave the witnesses (those who paid off the state treasurers) immunity, as often happens. Madrid then filed _state_ charges against those witnesses - I have never even heard of such a thing. The only reasonable explanation is that she was punishing people who had gotten a good New Mexico Democrat in trouble.

And I'm going to vote for her, even though I'm a long-time straight-ticket Republican.
Because she's only a crook, not a proven traitor. The Republican widow lady next door managed to figure out - before the war - that the Administration WMD story was bullshit, just from reading the local bird-cage lining paper. The district is full of people (who work at Los Alamos, Sandia Labs, etc) who _knew_ that the Administration's claims about the Iraqi Peril were bullshit. Heather Wilson could have heard the ground truth with two local phone calls - but she didn't bother.

Screw her and the mule she rode in on.

For a little historical perspective, the single bloodiest day of the Civil War was on September 17, 1862 at the battle of Antietam, where more than 23,000 men died.
Posted by: Thomas1 on October 17, 2006 at 3:36 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, but 10,700 of those were scum-sucking rebels, who, today, would be carted off to Gitmo, waterboarded, beaten, and forced into naked pyramids. So who cares about them? Nobody. Traitors.

Thanks for smacking the petulant fly in the ointment of the thread, ObF.

We are nothing to him and the rest of the administration. Cannon fodder. A means to an end. Chumps.

Cheney hauled out the old canard about flypaper. I'm willing to bet that the troops, who unlike Cheney have actually, you know, been in Iraq and seen that is a civil war and not a front on terror are less inclined to believe that one now.

"Having seen our interests attacked repeatedly over the years, and knowing the ambitions of the terrorists, this nation has made a decision," Cheney said. "We will engage these enemies. We'll face them far from home, so we do not have to face them on the streets of our own cities."

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/19403.html

Wonder how much the military vote will be affected by the fact that the troops aren't protected by the media from the reality on the ground.

I see the (fake) Thomas1 is back -- how you doing Windhorse?

???

Definitive Civil War image,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cold_Harbor_burial_party.jpg

(The Real) Thomas1: "For a little historical perspective, the single bloodiest day of the Civil War was on September 17, 1862 at the battle of Antietam, where more than 23,000 men died."

According to the National Park Service site for Antietam National Battlefield:

2,100 Federal and 1,550 Confederate soldiers were killed at Antietam - a total of 3,650 dead.

9,550 Federal and 7,750 Confederate soldiers were wounded - a total of 17,300.

(Please note that the above numbers do not necessarily reflect those soldiers who may have died from their wounds at a later date.)

Additionally, 750 Federal and 1,020 Confederate soldiers were listed as either missing or captured.

When those numbers are added together, there were 22,720 American casualties at Antietam, making September 17, 1862 America's bloodiest single day in its history.

While other Civil War battles involved more casualties (Gettysburg Casualties were about 51,000), those were incurred over a protracted period of combat. The Battle of Antietam lasted only one day - both sides were too exhausted and traumatized to continue the fighting, and the Confederate Army withdrew to Virginia two days later.

The Republican widow lady next door managed to figure out - before the war - that the Administration WMD story was bullshit, just from reading the local bird-cage lining paper.
Posted by: gcochran on October 17, 2006 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, good for her. I had to wait until I saw Colin Powell shit his shorts in front of the UN before I figured out it was a con job. I guess I'm just gullible that way. (I couldn't imagine they had cujones that big).

One problem with Madrid being a sign of the Republican meltdown is that she was on the House Page Board from 2001-2004 and also happens to be the top individual recipient of money from Foley's PAC. Therefore the Foley scandal is having an outsized effect on this otherwise wily survivor, and makes it less indicative of a wider trend than one might hope.

Being a Repug is electoral poison, as it should be.

(The Real) Thomas1: "For a little historical perspective, the single bloodiest day of the Civil War was on September 17, 1862 at the battle of Antietam, where more than 23,000 men died."

Osama_Been_Forgotten: "Yeah, but 10,700 of those were scum-sucking rebels, who, today, would be carted off to Gitmo, waterboarded, beaten, and forced into naked pyramids. So who cares about them? Nobody. Traitors."

I like your answer much better than mine.

The GOP may be worried that this election cycle is fraught with uncertainties.

What should worry us all is the realization that many in the GOP are confused about security and what's best for the longterm health of our nation.

While I can't predict the future, I am appalled by the notion that if, I so much as type a

sentence...

that indicates I'm not exactly "with us," I stand a good chance of disappearing into the void
without even a glimpse of what used to

pass as the US legal system.

We aren't in Kansas anymore folks.

Bush and Co. created an OZ in Iraq.

While I am devasted by what has occurred in Iraq since 1991, I am equally dismayed at the

utter greed of the GOP.

to dynamicinfo: I guess I would respect your expertise a little more if you'd managed to get the candidates straight in the New Mexico house race.. Heather Wilson is the incumbent Republican and Patricia Madrid is her Democratic opponent. Madrid is the crook, Wilson is the traitor - got that?

to Osama_Been_Forgotten: my neighbor, before the war, noticed that none, zero, nada, of the tens of tips we had given the IAEA inspectors panned out: so she reasoned that our intelligence was all wrong. Occam's Razor strikes again.

I had come to the same conclusion a bit earlier: I knew that Iraq had no nuclear program - anyone could have figured that out rather easily.
Although I don't seem to remember many people in public life doing so. Perhaps they're suffering from, shall we say, bounded rationality?

Is it me, or does Charlie really, really need his own blog?

Or at least his own thread - that way, he can talk to himself happily, and the rest of us can get on with a grownup conversation.

Osama_Been_Forgotten, "Yeah, but 10,700 of those were scum-sucking rebels, who, today, would be carted off to Gitmo, waterboarded, beaten, and forced into naked pyramids. So who cares about them? Nobody. Traitors."

Not likely. Today those people are the Republican party.

In two days at Shiloh on the banks of the Tennessee River, more Americans fell than in all previous American wars combined.

At Cold Harbor, Va., 7,000 Americans fell in 20 minutes.

And moving west and forward a few years, the Seventh Cavalry fell to the Sioux warriors in "less time than it takes a hungry man to eat his supper."

Was there a point in there somewhere?

My idea? Those morons who go out and re-enact the Civil War and lionize bloodshed should use live ammo.

Thomas1: knock off the spam, please.

Wha...? Charlie/Cheney/Doug M/"Don P"/Thomas1 pissing all over your comments section goes utterly unremarked, but Kevin comments only on yet another iteration of his lame, loophole-filled (I think he's pining for the days when he pretended to be a lawyer) bet?

What's up with that?

Not likely. Today those people are the Republican party.
Posted by: cld on October 17, 2006 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK

Oh yeah, you're right.

I rephrase it:

"Yeah, but 12,000 of those were scum-sucking traitorous Union soldiers, and had the South won, they would have been carted off to club Gitmo, waterboarded, tortured, beaten, and given mock executions. Who cares about them?"

Is it me, or does Charlie really, really need his own blog? Or at least his own thread -

What a great idea! Let's get a private thread for Al, rdw, Norman Rogers and American Hawk, too. Oh, and rmck1.

Back in the days when Montana and Rice were the Gods of the NFL, someone wanted to bet me fifty bucks that the 'Niners would win the Super Bowl. I took the strait-up bet, the odds were in my favor. When the Niners didn't even make the playoffs, he tried to welch on the bet by saying they couldn't win it if they weren't even playing.

He got drunk, dropped a C-note, and I picked it up off the floor and walked out of the bar. Probably wouldn't get so lucky with this dumbass, so I ignore his lame-ass posts.

Two excellent comments found at tpm,

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/17/why_so_confident#comment-173045

On October 17, 2006 - 3:53pm the bewilderness said:
I didn't read all the comments, so someone else may have already raised the possibility that the Republicans will challenge close races and then simply swear in the Republican before the challenge is resolved. They did this recently in CA and it ended a recount. The power to seat anyone you like in spite of the vote is an abuse no one would have considered possible before 2000.

On October 17, 2006 - 4:07pm JeffC said:
Keep in mind that they can't lose. They just can't. Losing in an unacceptable option.

There is nothing they won't do to keep from being investigated.

And there is nothing the corporate-owned media won't say to prevent the sort of social and economic upheaval that would follow real evidence of widespread vote fraud.

Even if they steal the election in the most obvious and blatant way possible, the media can't and won't expose it. The revolution won't be televised, it will be avoided at all costs.

The GOP can't allow itself to be seriously investigated. Serious investigations could and probably would destroy the party.

This isn't the old political game. When they installed Bush in 2000, using every means available, they did it because they had no intention of ever again losing power. When they emptied the treasury and invaded an oil-rich country, they did it because they had no intention of ever again losing power. There still aren't meters on the oil wells in Iraq! I mean, come on. This is a criminal enterprise from top to bottom, barely concealed only because to expose it could bring down the government itself. It's the beast too awful to be named, hidden by the illusion of democracy, when democracy actually died almost seven years ago.

The illusion of democracy remains convenient. But if it threatens to become a real democracy, they'll do away with the illusion.

They can't lose, and they won't lose.

"3000 is enough" were the words of a soldier at Ft. Campbell.

I got goosebumps reading them.

He was stating that they are dying for no good reason. The Civil War is not a valid comparison. Idiot.

And once again, I am done with you. You do not engage in honest discourse, you come here to hijack threads. You are a petulant child, I loathe you and everything you stand for, I have no respect for you because your stock and trade is intellectual dishonesty. So now go ahead and shout and scream. Bold my name. Call me names. Prove my point that you are a pathetic loser and a fucking moron. But it will be without further comment from me to you. You do not merit serious comment.

There is a four part Iraq War video slide show up on Youtube right now that everyone should go see. The photos show the dark side of the American Military's behavior and attitude in Iraq. The whole thing is eye opening, disturbing, and certainly challenges the portrayal of the troops the MSM has been feeding us for the past three years.

LINK - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=986DikQDPEk

-- good thing a President named Abe didn't flinch at 23,000. Get it now, you idiot?
Posted by: Thomas1 on October 17, 2006 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

Good thing I didn't flinch at 650,000 Iraqi civilians.

Is it me, or does Charlie really, really need his own blog?
Or at least his own thread - that way, he can talk to himself happily, and the rest of us can get on with a grownup conversation.

Or we could ignore him. Eventually, he'll get bored and go away. Or, more likely, create yet another nym but use the same asinine jargon and that totally dorky smiley face.

Story on how Republicans are acknowledging they will lose the House,

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/GOP_sources_losing_hope_of_victory_1017.html

One pointed to rumors on the Hill that there is the possibility of a Democratic October surprise. "[Former Congressman Mark] Foley wasn't their surprise. That just kinda happened, but people are saying they do have one of their own."

The American Civil War was an unavoidable war. Iraq was wholly voluntary. On George's part. Like all his military service.

I've got $100...

Hell Thomas1, I'll give you $100 to never post here again.

The American Civil War was an unavoidable war

And one we should have learned a couple of lessons from, at that. It's always so glorious for those who have no personal risk.

One pointed to rumors on the Hill that there is the possibility of a Democratic October surprise.

tick tock tick tock

Even assuming the 650,000 figure is correct, OBF, that's better than another WTC here.
Posted by: Thomas1 on October 17, 2006 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINK

Even at face value, (ie. assuming that our action in Iraq prevents another WTC, as if Iraq had anything to do with it) that's a sick fucking statement coming from a sick fucking sociopath.

Juxtaposed with that You Tube video posted by steveNY - hell, maybe this is really the end-times, and Bush really *IS* the antichrist, and we really are all damned.

Thomas1 on October 17, 2006 at 3:23 PM:

In fact, most of the people I talk to think that Foley's actions were perfectly legal and ethical.

What, did you do a poll when your local NAMBLA chapter met?

It does seem to be in pretty poor taste to offer bets on the outcome of an important election; after all, most of us already have a lot more invested than a mere $100. The fact that Thomas1 wants to trivialize it suggests to me that he's detaching emotionally from his hopes of living in a backward-ass Gilead that only calls itself America.

God talks to Republicans, so they claim. Maybe God is in on the scandal, taking kickbacks. Perhaps God was molesting some of those kids.

If God really was talking to lil George, then we might want to impeach God when Dems take over. I would like Pelosi to discover exactly how and where God talks to these guys, and why. That should be our first priority.

Mental hospitals are full of inpatients with a direct line to "God."

Thomas1:

Kevin never boasted about how the Democrats are going to win both the House and Senate. This whole betting thing started when a few pro-Republican posters said, in effect, "Republicans are gonna own the Democrats! No one dares take me up on my bet that Reps will win both houses, cuz you guys are chickensh*t!"

A few of us had enough of that bravado, and took them up on it. And as it turns out, none of them stepped up to the plate, and 'put their money where their mouth is." All the pro-Democrats posters have been reasonable about their chances. So what exactly is your point?

Speaking of God, he routinely smites entire civilizations, so we shouldn't worry about a few thousand or even tens of thousands of casualties, as long as in the end we get the oil.

Of course a couple hundred thousand Iraqi deaths are worth preventing another 9/11.
Posted by: Thomas1 on October 17, 2006 at 5:10 PM | PERMALINK

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
We're more likely to have another 9/11 now than if we hadn't attacked Iraq.

Osama bin Laden caused 9/11. Bush ignored that threat. Bin Laden is still out there, still alive, still plotting the next attack. And idiots like you believe that since he hasn't attacked us again, he wont in the future. That's what we all thought on 9/10.

Are you retarded or something?

Mental hospitals are full of inpatients with a direct line to "God."
Posted by: Global Citizen on October 17, 2006 at 5:15 PM | PERMALINK

Not full enough.

No ObF, they certainly aren't. If Bush had lesser parents he would not be president. he would be an inpatient. Or an inmate. Or perhaps gutted in a bar-fight when he couldn't back up his bravado.

Thomas1 on October 17, 2006 at 5:10 PM:

That was the fake Thomas1..

Sure it was...

..for all I know, it was you who posted it

Nope. I'm already giving you more attention than you warrant.

I am the one who has consistently stated my desire to run every homosexual Congressman (or -woman) out of D.C. on a rail.

So when one of the 'Publican Senators from Idaho who voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment is outed, you're bringing your pitchfork and torch?

Shorter Thomas1:
Past deaths justify future deaths.
Wheeeeee!

Granted the GOP is corrupt, but so to are the democrats. We have a systemic problem. Hiring a different set of clowns won't solve that.

Thomas1:
Well, there's a difference between 'gloating' and flat-out boasting that "no will will take me up on my bet that Republicans will win both houses!"

Ron Byers:
I agree that as Missouri goes, so goes the Senate/country, but I think the Senate boils down to Missouri, Tennesse, & New Jersey. Whoever wins 2 out of those 3 will control the Senate.

Granted the GOP is corrupt, but so to are the democrats. We have a systemic problem. Hiring a different set of clowns won't solve that.

Sure, because doing a bit of blow while pretending to be mayor is just the same as destroying the Constitution and raiding the treasury for your friends.

No difference at all.

Thomas1: Even assuming the 650,000 figure is correct, OBF, that's better than another WTC here.

So the value of one American's life is greater than 200 foreigners' lives, eh? Is there any figure that would be worse than another 9/11? Would 6 billion still be okay with you?

How many bloody, mangled, dead children is your useless life worth, Charlie?

Top this,

Iraq is so screwed up a group of Shiites want to restore Saddam,

http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2006/10/return-of-saddam.html

"LOL, latts -- I recall those of you who chided "Charlie" because he WOULDN'T bet on the 2004 election -- was that one LESS important?! Damned if you do . . ."

Posted by: Thomas1 on October 17, 2006 at 5:12 PM

Thank you Chuckles for providing yet another piece of evidence that you are Chuckles, because no one brought that up here before you and it seems unlikely that someone that did not blog under the name Thomas1 anywhere near here in the 2004 elections would be aware of this. While I will agree it is not conclusive evidence it is strongly suggestive, just like your writing style, you pet issues, your inability to tell the truth, etc. You repeatedly out your sock puppets when you make stupid mistakes like this, but then seeing which party and President you favour making stupid mistakes regularly and not realizing it is right on track for you.

General:

The only way the GOP manage to pull this one out of losing the House is if a major Dem scandal comes out which makes the GOP scandals seem marginal by comparison. The odds of that given they have been out of power for the last several years though is highly unlikely. The Senate I will make no predictions about since I think that may well turn on just how good the GOP turnout is and whether those gotten out by the GOP actually vote GOP in the privacy of those booths.

There has been a perfect storm brewing against the GOP for years now, and it appears to be coming to a head in this midterm election. The only way I see it failing aside from the scandal route I mentioned above is the GOP managing to fix this election as they did the 2000 and 2004. We know too much about how this was done even if it is poo pooed as conspiracy theory by GOPers. When one sees virtually all the electronic voting errors favouring one side over the other it becomes very difficult to believe that is by accident. If the problems with the electronic voting machines was genuinely technical then there would be a far more even spread between which side gained by it, yet that was not what was seen. Then there is the fact that one in four votes cast in 2004 were unverifiable because the companies that made them, especially Diebold, claimed they could not make voting machines with paper audit trails. Which when you consider the idea that Diebold makes ATMs which do provide paper receipts of their transactions proves it is not a technical issue but a deliberate choice. Combine that with software being privately controlled by the company without independent oversight/verification, well then you have the necessary conditions for a small number of people to skew literally millions of votes.

We will see what happens in Nov. If the polls are around the same and the GOP still somehow maintain control of both Houses I think the average citizen is going to shout fraud this time. Only members of Bushco appear to think that the GOP is not in serious/major trouble this time out, and for them to suddenly pull a miraculous win despite it will be seen by many that so far think the claims of GOP vote rigging seem too outlandish/tinfoil hat material for what it had to be. The mood in America is too angry and grim at this point for this kind of result to be plausible in my opinion, and there is enough anger that this time if it looks yet again like the vote was rigged that there will be enough anger from Joe and Jane Public to actually do something about it instead of just shrugging their shoulders as they have in the last three elections.

Like the Civil War, WWII was an unavoidable war. The contrast is more informative than the comparison.

2,100 Federal and 1,550 Confederate soldiers were killed at Antietam - a total of 3,650 dead.
9,550 Federal and 7,750 Confederate soldiers were wounded - a total of 17,300. Additionally, 750 Federal and 1,020 Confederate soldiers were listed as either missing or captured. When those numbers are added together, there were 22,720 American casualties at Antietam, making September 17, 1862 America's bloodiest single day in its history.

Actually, it seems that there were 11,650 American casualties and 9,300 anti-American casualties....

Thomas1: So, let me get this straight, you are saying that if our current President of the United States had lesser parents he would have been gutted in a bar-fight? Do you want that to happen regardless of his lineage?

Look at how slimy you are. Just like a typical SS officer, aren't you? Ready to get on your little princess phone and call in the storm troopers so you can accuse someone of threatening the president's life.

The answer to your question, Herr Charlie, is what sane person wouldn't want that? But even during his drinking days, Bush would never have put himself in the position of taking on someone in a bar fight--not unless he had at least a half-dozen others backing up his cowardly ass, that is. Like you, he's a thug. Like you, he enjoys it when other are injured or killed. You truly are a pitiful person.

I'm not sure how many are worth "Charlie's" life, but I know I would gladly lay my life down to prevent another 9/11.

Thomas1: And, my opinion of course . . . differs.

Differs from what? You're not a nazi snitch? You weren't insinuating that GC might be threatening Bush and that if she was you would report her?

You're the lowest of the low, Charlie. And because of that, your opinion doesn't matter.

Jayarbee;

Fuckhead just wants me to respond, because I broke my long-standing rule of not giving him the time of day earlier. It won;t work, of course. I raised three children and cared for my Grandmother when she had dementia. I can ignore his shrieking and idiocy.

I am, quite simply, better than him.

Thomas1,

That's really the dumbest thing you've yet written. That's like saying poverty is unavoidable when you can always rob a bank.

I think the comments reposted by CLD really nail it. If it were a fair election the Dems would probably win. I am deeply concerned it will not be a fair election.

Global Citizen: I am, quite simply, better than him.

Quite simply, indeed--given that being better than him is about the simplest thing a person can do. For instance, I bet you remember who you voted for in 2004, right? Charlie thinks he voted for Gore!

Thomas1: Just as I have never shouted or screamed, I'm not "shrieking" either

Or perhaps gutted in a bar-fight when he couldn't back up his bravado.

Actually, W's the kind (i.e., petty & sneaky) who would back down in the bar & then get a couple of tougher friends to ambush his opponent in the parking lot later. If he'd been born to middle-class parents, he'd probably be fairly high up in, say, the Midland Chamber of Commerce, being a natural bullshitter; if he'd been even less lucky in the class lottery, he'd sell cars & have been kicked out of his house for drinking & gambling. Amazing what the lucky sperm club can do.

Thomas1: now you know what I think about John "cut and run" Murtha though.

Who, if you ever met in a bar and dared to tell him what you thought, would, with but a glare, send you scampering out the door and home to change your wet pants.

"I am, quite simply, better than him."

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 17, 2006 at 6:13 PM

A more wonderful example of understatement that I may have ever seen is hard to recall. Truly GC you strike at the very soul of the matter here. The only downside to it is that it is such a blindly obvious fact to be pointing out to everyone else that it may seem a little condescending...:)

Chuckles:

Raising irrelevancies so as to smear someone's voice instead of dealing with the content, exactly the behaviour you decry in others, nice example of projection there Chuckles. Incidentally, the example that you chose to use yet again on me only makes you look more and more desperate every time you raise it. Most here seem to think you do it from envy, me I think it is because you can't find anything "worse" in my writing history here to throw out. Either way though you come out looking pitiful and pathetic without me having to say one word, so why do you keep doing it? I've heard of people that keep hitting their heads on brick walls despite the clear futility of the action, but you make such folks look positively sane and sensible with this. Your attacks on folks like GC and many others generally come off with similar desperation and inability to defend those whose cause you trumpet so you must destroy the personal honour/credibility of those voices pointing out their flaws and mistakes. It was old when I first started here Chuckles and it has only gone downhill from there. You get more active as election dates come closer, but my God Chuckles, Al is a far more readable troll then you are. What that says about your abilities (or the persona you have taken if this is not your true nature but a fraud/act for whatever reason, of which there are several whether you are truly a conservative or liberal) to take in information and reason with it is not at all kind, flattering, nice, nor any basis to consider you a credible source for anything. All you leave people room for is mockery, which of course you then take as proof of the "intolerance"/"bigotry" of the "left". Very sad indeed.

Thomas1: I don't recall "Charlie" ever saying he voted for anyone other than Bush (he accurately predicted 60 million votes, in fact).

No one's ever said that you use the same set of bullshit "facts" for each of your characters, Charlie--only that, in addition to having identical posting styles, they all exhibit the same dysfunctional personality.

Nathan was a lawyer, Doug M. a Gulf War veteran, etc. But you have peddled the same illogic under each of your guises. You have told the same lies about political figures you oppose. And you have repeatedly goaded others to make statements which you hoped to twist into a threat against the soul-less monster who inhabits the White House. You are the definitive person people love to hate . . . because you are so hateful.

But I shall follow GC's sensible lead and simply swear off speaking to you again. Would that we could entice everyone to do the same.

I don't need to bet to enjoy this.

On election day, I will be celebrating.

Why do you people respond to Charlie/Thomas1? Why? Isn't it obvious by now that all he wants is attention, and you're giving it to him in spades? Yes, refute his lies with clear factual cites, but don't address him directly and get into a back and forth with him, for God's sakes. Would you spend this much time arguing with the psychotic on the street corner (which is exactly what he is, but with a DSL line)?

Everybody other than the trolls When did Murtha say anything about Cut and Run. I do believe it was Schmitt that said them words not Murtha.So to you Stay and Die Neo's F off.

Get this,

GOP replacement for Jeb in Florida tight, as it were, with Mark Foley,

http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2006/10/is-gop-candidate-crist-straight-was-he.html

Do you think your comrades chiding Charlie about not betting in 2004 was "trivilizing" that election too?

No, I think it was an attempt to run a sanctimonious nutjob-- one eerily similar to yourself, as has been noted-- off. I also remember "Charlie" declaring that Dubya would get 60% of the vote (which he didn't) and then trying to claim that he meant 60 million votes instead. Same shit, different day when dealing with religious fanatics, I guess.

The question of Larry Craig's homosexuality never crossed my mind before.

First thing you thought of, though. Where there's smoke. . .

Hah! I see he's on the board of the National Rifle Association. Isn't tiring to wave your manliness around so much?

I see that Thomas1 has succeeded in hijacking the thread... I think the best thing would be to ignore him completely, or maybe after a few responses if you really feel the urge to answer, and have some time to waste. But he becomes awufully boring after a while, and at the same time you can feel how happy he is that somebody is paying attention to him. He's a pathetic troll, poor him, and need attention, but as far as I'm concerned he can go to Rove to get it...

Yes I did miss that link, Thomas1, and I thank you for pointing it out to me.

It seems to me this phenomenon of gay Republican men who work to emphasize an environment of societal disgrace for homosexuality has to do with their authoritarian personality disorder.

Because they are in charge they don't think it applies to them, and because, for them, all sex is about power it emphasizes the victimization of the people they have sex with. And they can get away with it.

Getting away with it is deeply vital to the Republican personality.

I think there are, and possibly for much the same reasons.

Though in the case of Democrats it seems a lot more likely they would be more in the vein of people who just haven't been able to address the issue about themselves until they were old enough to feel secure.

It's always the closetted Republicans who seem to work most strenuously to oppose gay civil rights issues, while closetted Democrats mostly just ignore the subject.

I guess this is already a hopelessly OT thread...

Even assuming the 650,000 figure is correct, OBF, that's better than another WTC here.

OR 1 American > 21 Iraqis.

I was watching a retrospective on Iraq here (in Japan) on NHK. It was interesting because for the most part the program just let people tell their own stories: Sunnis who had lost loved ones to American bombing, Shiites who had lost loved ones to Sadaam, US families worried about their kin.

It was interesting too because I found myself feeling much more in common with the Iraqis in the program than the Americans who were shown; the grandfather with his quiet dignity fearful for his grand-daughter reminded me of my own family members, the angry young UK-trained woman giving a tour of how US soldiers had entered the house giving a bullet-hole by bullet-hole account and I could see my aunt when she was younger but watching the bible-bleating young soldier's wife from Alabama, praise the lord, I felt little to no empathy.

Democrats don't gamble with the lives of others.

It's like a network of nattering twits, this blog of Kevin Drum's, I tell you.

No greater twit has exposed himself than this self-loathing, self-flagellating Mr. Thomas1. Now, the liberals who post here are a rancid, misguided lot but a man who professes to be a Dumbocrat while espousing policies more in line with the Republican Party is what we call the worst kind of a traitor to the cause. A traitor to the cause is what has infiltrated the Republican Party in the form of Mark Foley or Bob Ney in recent years and the Republican Party is getting busy with the process of purging those few members of the legislative branch who cannot stay honest in their business. A traitor from within is what betrays a movement, and the liberals know of what I speak. They are turncoats, and in prison, a turncoat gets the shiv under the armpit after yard time.

Thomas1, I see you as a traitor to the cause. I see through your charade and I see you for what you are--you are a self-loathing Republican pretending to be a Dumbocrat in order to fisk these little liberals and humiliate them. In recent days, I have brought these liberals to screaming tears and actually drawn death threats from them. You are getting in the way of my work and for that, I am calling upon you to cease your wandering and pathetic attempt at baiting these liberals into responding to you.

Only I, and I alone, can accomplish this and only I, and I alone, am the voice for a sensible and responsible Republican Party. You sir, should not be ashamed, ever, to post as a Republican. You are symptomatic of what has our party on the ropes, and this business of electioneering is a tough road to travel. It is too important to be left to the amateurs--the legacy of George W Bush is at stake and I am one of a select few which will guarantee that his legacy is not one of answering to the whim of Nancy's Funtime Congressional Happy Subpoena Town.

You should unabashedly represent yourself honestly, or face the consequences of me directing my energies towards you. Read the archives and return to the other night when you traipsed upon the ground that I planted with a screaming and unhinged little lefty named rmck1. You were like a scavenger living off the kill that I took, fair and square. This is dishonest of you--the unhinged little cunt was mine to toy with and you took it upon yourself to nibble at the leavings. I am entirely convinced that you, yourself, think you are my equal when, in point of fact, you are a pretender to my throne.

Self-loathing Republicans like yourself are worse than liberals, I can assure you of that. Do not interfere in the work that I am doing here--it is too valuable to the parties concerned and the next few weeks are critical. I am advising you and your half-assed kind to part ways with the blog for a bit so your uncle Norman can work his magic and cast a paralytic spell of terror and confusion amongst the liberal crowd. I am like the armored division that breaks through and runs wild in the enemies rear area, shooting up his ambulances and bivouacs. Get out of the way, man--you're accomplishing nothing.

And the rest of you denigrate me--ha! Your uncle Norman has plans for you.

The desperation of the GOP is evident not only by our local Trolletariat member in chief Chuckles in manic mode but by the awful race baiting the GOP appears to have no problems with as Kevin Drum notes in his Race Baiting thread. This isn't the same sort of hard working game that I recall from 2004, this time there is a stronger scent of fear that this time the mood is so deep and intense that they cannot change it no matter how many hot buttons they push. I must say I find that fascinating to watch, although the race baiting I just read through was more than a little sickening. I mean really, it wasn't just the bigotry it was the insulting the intelligence of those that would be targeted by it. While granted you might get the odd one to take it seriously it is hard to believe it would not turn more against them. Especially if the Dems use it in an ad campaign of their own to demonstrate just how far the GOP will pander when they are in meltdown mode.

I mean really, the only way at this point the GOP can win this election is to fix it, barring some really unusual scandal by the Dems or maybe a national security crisis/attack right before the election (as in days) fueling a rallying effect. Even so, I am not sure that would be enough in this mood and given what has driven this black mood against the GOP. It has been the incompetence, the corruption, the lying, and the inability to trust them, all Foley was really was emblematic of this problem with the GOP. I don't see that being easily flipped even with what would otherwise work. The GOP Congress cannot run away from the fact they have rubber stamped the Bush Agenda, especially the foreign policy agenda. That same agenda is under severe disrepute these days, as well as any faith in Congress to deal with future crises and to actually provide oversight on this President for the last quarter of his time in Office.

This is what Kate O'Beirn is picking up on, and why she is looking for these weathervanes/bellwether races. She can feel these conditions and also recognizes the potential within them to be a true generational realignment in American politics. This is what has so many GOPers in panic mode, because with a decisive defeat there will be a circular firing squad, and Bush and his policies, especially his war/security policies will be seen as one of the main targets to focus on. Even without that factor there is going to be the feeding frenzy on the campaign chairs/staffs and the managers of the mighty GOP machine that suddenly failed dramatically. That will only further fuel the shift as the dark secrets of the GOP come out into the light when it is used as ammo to deflect blame/responsibility for the messes created by the GOP's Congressional control.

So the GOP are desperate, as witnessed in part by the Trolletariat infestation/operation operating at high speed and volume. It is all they have left, and if they can kill the momentum of the anti-GOP mood then they have a chance at somehow preventing the nightmare scenario for them, losing badly and being solidly rejected by the American public. After all, one of their most often repeated points is that they are what the majority thinks, well lose badly enough and they lose that and without it they have little to fall back upon.

Thomas1:

P.S. Norman Rogers -- ckelly is taking up a collection above to get me to stop posting.

Yes, well, amateur hour is over. One never gambles on something as serious as an election. I don't need to take their money to prove to them that I'm better than they are. As a more profound man than you once said: Go away, kid--you bother me.

Scrotum:

as witnessed in part by the Trolletariat infestation/operation operating at high speed and volume. It is all they have left, and if they can kill the momentum of the anti-GOP mood then they have a chance at somehow preventing the nightmare scenario for them, losing badly and being solidly rejected by the American public.

I am not sure what you mean by an "operation" per se. I am not wearing a headset and carrying a carbine and three grenades in each trouser pocket, but I will tell you this: ridding the land of such as you is worth the effort. You are like a sad and confused Wavy Gravy, telling the kids to stay away from the Purple Microdot acid. Your time has passed. There is a new American Empire to defend, and a man as righteous as George W Bush shall command that Empire.

italiano:

I see that Thomas1 has succeeded in hijacking the thread...

No, uncle Norman is here to make you see the light. And that light shines for all to see. Do not cover your eyes--you're sure to miss the best parts.

And you wonder why I think you're all morons.

I bet Charlie the average cost of one abortion -- $490 -- that he can't fuck off and leave this site alone under any of his easily-recognisible identities from now until January 1, 2007.

Thomas1:

I will bet you that George W. Bush is not President of the United States on January 21, 2009.

Are you a horse's ass, man? Step aside and let the professional work. I don't need you clogging the threads with your cliches and your yammering.

Read it and weep for your lost opportunity, liberals:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on Tuesday the U.S. military is too strong to lose the war in Iraq, but ultimately political solutions will be needed to win.
"You've got a situation where it's not possible to lose militarily," Rumsfeld said. "It's also going to require more than military power to prevail."
Rumsfeld, in comments to reporters at the Pentagon, said U.S. training of security forces in Iraq had been "rushed" but that placing U.S. trainers within the Iraqi police force would gradually boost Iraq's ability to reduce violence on its own.

There's your so-called "October Surprise," liberals. A brave man telling the terrorists that we cannot lose.

How many liberals are saying the same thing right now? Think you can win an election by talking about nothing but defeat? Think the American people are going to rally behind a bunch of round-shouldered defeatists who talk about "phased withdrawals" and "timetables?" I recall a great deal of American History, but I do not recall a time when a political party talked about doom and gloom and won anything at the ballot box other than infamy and a seat in the backbenches.

And you wonder why we're winning the war AND the election on November 7.

Norman, I have been saying that embedded advisors with the Iraqi security forces were a big part of the solution for quite some time. We differ on a lot of things, and even how to achieve desired outcomes - but neither of us want the military to be decimated by misuse abuse and malfeasance. The military personnel I am in contact with, including close relatives, are losing faith in the mission for those very reasons. They can smell the bullshit.

I am concerned about what can happen when the mightiest military in the world is no longer bound by the Honor Code. We came perilously close to that after Viet Nam (anyone else remember the entire West Point class that was caught cheating?) You can't give people the best education in the free world then lie to them and expect them to be too stupid to know they are being hosed.

I do not believe we are going the right direction, and I want a change of course. The one we are on is headed over the cliff like Thelma & Louise on crystal meth.

What say you liberals:

Rep. Peter King (R-NY): Conditions on the ground are different than what you see on television.—As we go through the city of Baghdad, it was like being in Manhattan. I’m talking about bumper to bumper traffic. Talking about shopping centers, talking about restaurants, talking about video stores, talking about guys–on the street corner, talking about major hotels. And so, at that moment, people must be amazingly resilient and you would never know that there was a war going on…

…in Mosul—I remember seeing news reports about roller coasters. Where you had two or three parking lots filled with their cars on a Sunday afternoon. Again, that’s not something you’d see on television, and at any given time a suicide bombers can walk into an amusement center, but the point I’m making is that the situation is more stable than you think….

Do we hear from Murtha or Kerry about the roller coasters? Of course not. We get doom and gloom. How many elections do you think you're going to win with that winning strategy?

And you wonder why I'm planning to drink to your health the day after election day--you won't be able to stand up after the beating the Republican Party hands you!

Hormonal Citizen:

The one we are on is headed over the cliff like Thelma & Louise on crystal meth

I suspect that only you would know what that's about, toots.

You never disappoint me, Norman...;)

Your sex frightens him, GC.

At least when he changes my name, it has the added bonus of being true.

It's that authoritarian personality disorder evolves from excessive susceptibility to anxiety. I don't know if that, by itself, is a learning disability, or if that produces the learning disability.

Some social conservatives are relatively smart, but their anxiety overwhelms them.

Thomas1: I have never posted as "Nathan", "Doug M." or "Charlie". I swear you and Gregory really are giving me too much credit here. Please, please -- stop responding to me -- be "done with me" once and for all.

And earlier today:

Sorry, but I never posted as "Doug M"

Posted by: Thomas1 on October 17, 2006 at 3:39 PM

Is that so? Let's go to the videotape . . .

Here's Doug M. in July:

Joel:

Perhaps you missed where Nathan already ADMITTED that Iraq was a "clusterfuck"? I have never seen him trivialize the deaths of American troops -- unlike Rep. Murtha.

Posted by: Doug M. on July 17, 2006 at 9:42 PM

Here's Thomas1 today:

I doubt that's the dumbest thing I've yet written -- I gave Hillary Clinton the benefit of the doubt on another thread -- now you know what I think about John "cut and run" Murtha though.

Posted by: Thomas1 on October 17, 2006 at 6:25 PM

Doug M. in July:

Wonderin:

Murtha seeks to trivialize the sacrifice that they and their family make every day, and his cowardice is well-chronicled here: http://themadtech.wordpress.com/2006/01/

Posted by: Doug M. on July 17, 2006 at 9:52 PM

Thomas1 today:

DTS:

Democrat President. Hillary was mistaken (giving her the benefit of the doubt): http://www.factcheck.org/article330.html

Posted by: Thomas1 on October 17, 2006 at 1:59 PM

Doug M. in July:

brewmn:

I'll be the first to admit Bush does not communicate as well as Clinton. As for Lieberman, you are aware there are more conservative Democrats in Congress, right?

nut:

I've never started "blowing" my dear leader. Now, can you answer my honest question?

Posted by: Doug M. on July 13, 2006 at 3:26 PM

Thomas1 today:

latts:

I've been a lurker here for a long time, and I don't recall "Charlie" ever saying Bush would get 60% in 2004 -- I'm sure all the other old-timers here recall his 60 MILLION vote prediction though -- he was right about that one. I guess you are calling me a "religious fanatic" now too?

cld:

Perhaps you missed the news posted in the link from above by grape_crush?

Posted by: Thomas1 on October 17, 2006 at 7:41 PM

Doug M. in July:

In a poll by the Associated Press in 2000, Laver was voted "The Male Tennis Player of the Century", ahead of Pete Sampras, Bill Tilden, Björn Borg, Donald Budge, John McEnroe and Lew Hoad (tied), Ken Rosewall and Roy Emerson (tied), Jack Kramer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Laver

Posted by: Doug M. on July 7, 2006 at 10:38 PM

Thomas1 today:

a) On August 6, 1945, an estimated 80,000 civilians were killed in Hiroshima, with another estimated 60,000 more dying from injuries or radiation poisoning thereafter. Since 1945, several thousand more hibakusha (sp?) have died of illnesses caused by the bomb.

b) On August 9, 1945, roughly 74,000 people died in Nagasaki of the bomb and its after-effects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

Posted by: Thomas1 on October 17, 2006 at 5:28 PM

Doug M. in July:

FWIW, I am not Charlie.

Posted by: Doug M. on July 7, 2006 at 9:18 AM

Thomas1 in October:

I am not Charlie. Again, though, what else would you have done given just the Foley emails above?

Posted by: Thomas1 on October 3, 2006 at 2:28 PM

Doug M. in July:

LOL, Now Novak is shooting down Wilson's lies all over the place . . .

Posted by: Doug M. on July 12, 2006 at 6:37 PM

Thomas1 today:

LOL, latts -- I recall those of you who chided "Charlie" because he WOULDN'T bet on the 2004 election -- was that one LESS important?! Damned if you do . . .

Posted by: Thomas1 on October 17, 2006 at 5:12 PM

Doug M. in July:

So far, two votes for Rod Laver ; )

Posted by: Doug M. on July 7, 2006 at 7:57 PM

Thomas1 today:

Make it $1000, ckelly and I'll give you a PayPal account # ; )

Posted by: Thomas1 on October 17, 2006 at 5:02 PM

Now, why don't you tell us one more time that you are not Charlie and that you are not Doug M. Say it really loud so everyone hears you. And then why don't you just disappear and come on back tomorrow with a different name; okay, you lying loser?

I worked in Neuro for quite a while before doing a 180. I believe (IIRC)the Amygdyla is the culprit. When it is underdeveloped, authoritarian personality disorders are prevalent and anxiety/panic disorders are common as well. Coupled together, you get a nasty beastie indeed - whose "rights" supercede our own, under the ADA act they so vehemently revile.

In short - right-tard republicanism is a brain disorder of organic etiology.

A country must be led. This country is well-led, of course. Here is another home run hit by the team that has been leading since the first inning:

Vice President Richard CHENEY: Well, I think there’s some natural level of concern out there because in fact, you know, it wasn’t over instantaneously. It’s been a little over three years now since we went into Iraq, so I don’t think it’s surprising that people are concerned.

On the other hand, this government has only been in office about five months, five or six months now. They’re off to a good start. It is difficult, no question about it, but we’ve now got over 300,000 Iraqis trained and equipped as part of their security forces. They’ve had three national elections with higher turnout than we have here in the United States. If you look at the general overall situation, they’re doing remarkably well.

It’s still very, very difficult, very tough. Nobody should underestimate the extent to which we’re engaged there with this sort of, at present, the “major front” of the war on terror. That’s what Osama bin Laden says, and he’s right.

Liberals are sorely in need of a little starch in their shorts. Defeat will be visited upon the man who shirks his duty and expects everything in life to be a cakewalk.

And you wonder why the American people won't vote for your bullshit.

Oh Norman - would that I had all night to banter. But I do not. I have homework to do. But you just tell us how it's gonna be Uncle Normie. I'll check back later.

This from the administration that was assuring everyone that we would be greeted with flowers, and that it would be a cakewalk.

Little noticed in the recent Port Security Bill signed into law on Oct 13 by da Shrubkin was a measure banning Internet gambling, with the exception of horse racing. No credit card, electronic transfer or even checks may be used to pay for any internet gambling debts.

Little toy engine, da Shrub blew you off your turntable coming out of the roundhouse. Now put your supposed money back into your coal tender.

The liberals are penny wise and pound foolish:

The DSCC's optimism about winning the Senate is apparently contagious as the DNC is going to pony up an extra $5-10M for the Senate committee, according to sources familiar with the previously reported arrangement between the two campaign orgs.

While the DNC doesn't have $10M to just toss around to another campaign committee, the DNC apparently has decided to go into debt to come up with the extra cash DSCC Chair Chuck Schumer has been pleading for from DNC Chair Howard Dean. The actual amount of the loan the DNC is taking out is not known as the committee holds out hope they can raise nearly everything they need before the election. But a line of credit has been opened.

Poor Howard! Ran out of money on the road to oblivion while Billary sits on FIFTEEN MILLION DOLLARS that she won't let them touch!

And you wonder why you can't win the race for dogcatcher!

Me, I like the trolls. The comparison is good for my self esteem.

It's just you and I now, Norman ;)

It was never you and always me. That's your contribution to the cause? Pathetic. I have posted enough substance to make the liberals tear their hair out and lament the destruction of their Dumbocrat party. Could you please make a good show of it, at least? Nothing causes me more grief than a pretender and a self-loathing Republican trying to make him or herself seen to as many people as possible. It's like watching someone hold up a sign outside of where they shoot the Today Show.

Yes, we see you, now stagger back to Oklahoma, you rube.

any more than you wouldn't bring up the THOUSAND sexual partners you've had in polite company

Scotian, you dog.

...any more than you wouldn't bring up the THOUSAND sexual partners you've had in polite company...

Yeah - I haven't had any of my sexual partners in any company, polite or otherwise.

We was always alone.

Sniff.

qd铃声 来电铃声 经典铃声 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 艳情小说 性交姿势 做爱电影 人体摄影 明星裸照 裸女图片 黄色小说 成人小说 乱伦小说 强暴电影 轮奸视频 性虐待电影 迷奸图片 写真集 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 淫书金瓶梅 舒淇写真 美女脱衣图片 裸体女人 人体写真 手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水美女鲍鱼 阴户阴道臀部阴毛 美女图库 口交肛交图片 联通铃声下载 联通手机铃声 中国联通铃声 联通免费铃声 联通用户铃声 联通cdma铃声 联通和弦铃声 联通mp3铃声 联通特效铃声 联通炫铃 中国联通炫铃 联通炫铃下载 联通炫铃网站 联通炫铃业务 联通cdma炫铃 联通手机图片 联通手机炫铃联通彩铃 联通彩铃下载 中国联通彩铃 联通手机彩铃下载 联通彩铃业务 联通彩铃网站 联通免费彩铃 联通cdma彩铃 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性变态图片 淫女图片 日本女学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 美女激情免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 韩国电影 免费黄色电影 最新电影 成人性爱电影 免费小电影 免费性电影 免费成人电影 免费电影在线观看 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 免费影片 免费影院 最新大片 十八电影网 美女写真 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 性爱图片 激情电影 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 美腿图片 三级片 美少女图片 日本av女优 情色电影 同志电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 写真电影 阴部图片 乳房图片 明星裸照 性爱视频 偷拍图片 美眉图片 泳装美女 美女内衣内裤 强奸电影 美女祼体图片 美女自拍 黄色电影下载 免费色情电影 激情图片 激情小电影 性感美女图片 漂亮妹妹图片 做爱图片

reader:

> What a great idea! Let's get a private thread for Al, rdw,
> Norman Rogers and American Hawk, too. Oh, and rmck1.

Which, sadly enough, I might even be tempted to post on.

Norman:

Good evning, old bean. See you're up to your old tricks. Can't feel
too top-drawer to be so *defensive* about the outcome of your team.

See Norman, politics isn't like, say, grandiose fantasies
of being a cyber-Achilles, getting sweet and perpetual
bloody revenge on those unwashed-looking schoolmates of
yours who just had *too much fun* smoking dope out back,
and would for some reason never invite you along.

Even Achilles had that heel of his of his. In politics, it's a little
thing called "reality." I'd encourage you to visit it sometimes.

See, Norman -- the smart money's on the Dems taking the House this
year. My prediction is we take it by five seats, and we'll win four
in the Senate (bit worried about VA and TN). That's a sensible,
TradeSports kind of proposition. Certainly more sensible than the
GOP nomenklatura on FOX huffing about 50-seat blowouts. Must be
more than a disconcerting for you to see Freddy "The Beadle" Barnes
and William Kristol urging on the Democrats in the interest of a
purifying and (in their eyes) well-deserved conflagration.

See ... old beans like yourself no longer feel much affinity for
the GOP. They may fight to rid the death tax so when Uncle Reginald
finally kicks, they'll be enough to send that obnoxious niece of
yours to Harvard *and* pay the lease on your next Lexus. But they
also enacted the biggest Socialist entitlement since LBJ signed
Medicare. They've maintained that vaunted party discipline of
theirs just like Tip O'Neil Democrats -- with porcine earmarks.

Our vaunted national defense? It's in the tank, old man. North
Korea developed a plutonium weapon on W's watch. Terrorism? It's
up all over the world, as the gift to Osama of an Iraqi invasion
keeps on giving. The generals and the lions of the GOP Senate are
in near open revolt. Men of good breeding everywhere are starting
to chafe at being associated with backwoods snakehandlers.

The corporate octopus types who so offended Teddy Roosevelt's sense
of honor and noblesse oblige have colluded with strychnine-drinking
tongue babblers. That's your vaunted GOP coalition. Which leaves
*everybody else* thinking about voting for change this year, old chum.

Only one thing left to say, old sport:

Sucks to be you.

Bob

shit-eating twit rmck1:

See, Norman -- the smart money's on the Dems taking the House this
year.

Smart money? You have NO money. How far is that going to take you? Screaming Howard has to take out loans to keep the lights turned on. How's that going to win you anything in November? Three weeks to go and you have Billary and her millions and a bargain basement party begging the nearest solvent banker for a loan.

Sucks to be you.

I'd say that it would definitely suck to be you if the New Jersey State Police were to actually find you. However, what with your living in a pile of your own shit behind a library, I doubt very much whether they would find you.

Expose your private parts to some minors if you really need this much attention.

And you wonder why everyone loves you!

Norman:

I have a C-note that says the Democrats take the House by five.

What say you to that?

Bob

Norman:

Schumer and Emmanuel have done yeoman service, as both their committes have outraised their GOP counterparts.

Howard Dean has made an unpopular choice with them -- but the 50-state strategy is something that will pay long-term dividends. It's already tilled fields that we otherwise wouldn't have anticipated being competitive this year.

As an old Wall Street player, he knows a little about that.

Bob

Norman:

I don't live in Freehold, btw.

Bob

I have a C-note that says the Democrats take the House by five.

What say you to that?

Ha! You haven't seen a C-note since your days of stealing from the till down at the supermarket! Unhinged little liberals don't pay their debts, by the way. Were you to actually lose your bet, there is no doubt in my mind that you would hem and haw and find a way to welsh on the bet.

Oh, and then you'd attempt to kill me, no doubt.

Norman:

Not at all. We can put it in escrow and make the transfer online. You'd have independent confirmation well before the election if the money were actually there.

Bob

rmck1:

Schumer and Emmanuel have done yeoman service, as both their committes have outraised their GOP counterparts.

Once a shit-eating twit, always a shit-eating twit.

"Did they [the DNC] waste a year and a half not targeting drop-off voters? Yes," Emanuel said, referring to voters who cast ballots in presidential years but not in off-year elections. But he said House Democratic candidates would be fine, because, "It's not like we have slouches over there ... they [the DCCC] know what they're doing."

"Realizing that voter turnout could determine whether the Democrats control the House or spend another two years in the minority, Emanuel hired Michael Whouley and Jack Corrigan, longtime Democratic field operatives, to implement the DCCC's strategy. The committee has worked with 70 campaigns devising a field strategy; it is helping pay for field programs in several campaigns, said a senior Democratic aide.

Stacie Paxton, a DNC spokeswoman, said, "Unfortunately, the congressman is misinformed. We've been targeting drop-off voters for more than a year and we contacted three million drop-off voters this Saturday at the DNC's third national organizing day."

When your boy Rahm gets on the same sheet of music as Screaming Howard, please show up and toot that little ass horn of yours, 'mmkay, rmck1?

In the meantime, know this: I am a Republican and you cannot kill me.

rmck1:

We can put it in escrow and make the transfer online. You'd have independent confirmation well before the election if the money were actually there.

But then I'd have ALL of your money. Wouldn't that just be pathetic? And you and your cat, Mr. Twinkers, would have to go without ramen noodles and MeowMix for a month. Your uncle Norman has a heart and he's not about to separate a baby from his candy unless there's a very good reason to do so.

Norman:

Why do do Dean and Emanuel *need* to be on the same page?

You think Tom Reynolds (heh!) is on the same page as Ken Mehlman?

Dean's building party organizations in 50 states. Funding the Alabama Democrats and such -- this is unheard of, and terribly frightening to Beltway consultant types, who look at every race through an exclusively tactical lens of what do we do *this year* to maximize our chance of winning the *minimum seats necessary* to get a *bare majority*.

Well, one wins battles with tactics. But rarely is a war won without strategy. Dean wants to develop a unified philosophy and approach that will make us competitive everywhere -- not just in 15 purple swing states.

Dean's looking to the future. Some in our party have said he's trying to destroy the Democrats in order to save them -- and there's some cogency to that argument.

There'd be more, though, if we haven't more than halved the money spread between us and the GOP in '02.

Money's not the central issue for the Dems this cycle -- and that's something of a first for an off-year election.

Bob

Norman:

It's a C-note I can easily afford. I'll just forego a bunch of CD purchases I was planning to make, is all.

Besides, it'll be nice to be able to buy twice as many of them :)

"Mr. Twinkers," LOL !

My cat was named Hobbes, actually.

For the philosopher, not the cartoon strip.

Bob

shit-eating twit says:

Why do do Dean and Emanuel *need* to be on the same page?

Well, aren't they BOTH trying to get Dumbocrats elected?

Well, one wins battles with tactics.

Amateurs talk tactics; professionals talk logistics.

Bwah hah hah hah hah hah!

Silly little shithead--have you forgotten how political parties work? I would think that the head of the party and the head of the effort to recruit and elect Congressmen from the same party would have a modicum of cooperation...except we're talking about the Dumbocrats! What say you about that fifteen million Billary sits upon like a golden egg while your man Screaming Howard has to borrow money to keep the lights turned on?

And you wonder why it's so easy to leave you quivering in a corner, beaten and confused! Good show, rmck1! You made a complete ass out of yourself earlier than usual! My compliments to your ability to step on two landmines with one foot!

In the meantime, know this: I am a Republican and you cannot kill me.

And I am Woman - hear me roar!

You're worth the price of admission any day, Norman.

Kate O'Beirne might worry about future war profiteering investigations that involve her husband if Democrats win the House.

rmck1 eats shit like a twit:

Years after alternative media pointed out the virtual impossibility, Sen. Hillary Clinton finally has admitted she was not named for the famous conqueror of Mount Everest, Sir Edmund Hillary.

The New York Times, which repeated the claim as fact in a story just one week ago, reported Sen. Clinton's campaign issued a correction yesterday.

"It was a sweet family story her mother shared to inspire greatness in her daughter, to great results I might add," said spokeswoman Jennifer Hanley.

For more than a decade, Sen. Clinton's informal biography repeated the story, and it was recounted in former President Bill Clinton's 2004 autobiography, "My Life."

The problem with the tale, however, is one of timing. Sir Edmund and his Sherpa guide, Tenzing Norgay, became known to the world only in 1953, after becoming the first men to reach Everest's summit. Sen. Clinton was born in 1947.

I don't have a point to make. I just found that incredibly funny and I hope you liberals do as well.

And you wonder why I can't wait for 2008!

Norman:

You haven't, of course, refuted a single thing that I've said (which is why, of course, you're resorting to invective instead of pursuing a a rational argument).

In the GOP, the situation is reversed. Tom Reynold's Foley problem has him running scared in his own race, so he hardly has the time or energy to devote to the RNCC. Liddy Dole is also in something of a crisis, as the RSCC is funding GOP candidates at a lesser rate than the DSCC. Emanuel and Schumer, OTOH, has been brilliant. They're on the offense; they have very few seats to defend (Menendez in NJ -- who has his own whopping cash pile he's saving for the last two weeks, as a Hudson County machine politician who knows at least as much about the importance of GOTV as Mehlman) and about 3 House seats. The RSCC has pulled away from DeWine's and Santorum's races, and are concentrating in VA and TN, hoping to hold the bare minimum to retain a majority.

I have no idea where you're getting the idea that Dean's DNC is broke. He's already cut checks to a few candidates and stashed away a GOTV fund. Granted, the overall cash advantage comes from a much more flush RNC -- but the Republicans *always* need to spend more money on their Condo Commandos than the Democrats do on election day, pulling voters out in much denser areas.

Clearly from a purely tactical standpoint, the Democrats here are in the catbird's seat, despite the RNC's bigger dime.

Bob

Norman:

Her mom told her the story when she was six, after Hillary made his ascent.

You've never heard of family legends?

Bob

shit eating twit says:

You haven't, of course, refuted a single thing that I've said

Why do do Dean and Emanuel *need* to be on the same page?

Emanuel and Schumer, OTOH, has been brilliant.

Notice how disconnected your thinking is? First you say, why do they need to work together? This means that not working together is something to celebrate. It is not. Then you make a statement that says that Emmanuel and Schumer have been brilliant. How so? By not working with Screaming Howard? How smart is that when you are trying to run a national campaign?

But you are correct; it's hard to refute someone who is completely and totally wrongheaded in his analysis from the outset. You construct a false-positive here when you state your question. The exact opposite is true: a political party is an operation that requires synchronized efforts in order to wage a national campaign. Money spent in races throughout the country has a profound impact on control of the US Congress.

The overwhelming consensus of the fringe left is that Emmanuel and Schumer have fought Screaming Howard at every step. They have been villified just like Joe Lieberman. There is no synchronization of the efforts to retake the Congress--the last, best hope for the Dumbocrat party to find relevance in a world commanded by George W Bush--and that of Screaming Howard to build a shabby apparatus in all fifty states.

You ARE refuted. You're just too pathetic to figure it out. When you start off wrong, and when you posit that I have not refuted you, invective is all that's left. You're pathetic and you know nothing.

And you wonder why I have fun at your expense.

shit consuming twit:

I have no idea where you're getting the idea that Dean's DNC is broke.

Then why borrow money?

What a diseased ass you are!

Goodnight, this is too easy by a half!

And you wonder why I have fun at your expense.

Well, that's only fair. We're all laughing at you.

Could you use a bit more spittle-flecked insults involving bodily functions?

They're the best!

No Norman - don't go! Let's have another screed about liberals and Dumbocrats!

One more before lights out?

Yes Norman, don't go. pretty please. I came back to be set straight by one so wise and knowing as thee. Please come back and screed some more.

Hey Norman - let's hear about how we have no moral fiber. That's always a good one!

Throw in a 'godless' or two, and maybe 'moral relativism'...

Whatta you say?

Norman:

Well, it's no wonder you exist in a fantasy world when all the objective analysis points our way. Empty rationalizations are the form of your invective's content.

The Demcrats are united, as are the Republicans, on long-term goals. Everything else is a matter of how to get there. Do Democrats squabble? Of course we do; we always have. But Reupublicans right now are suffering severe discipline problems with DeLay out of the way and the bloom off Rove's rose (recall how he didn't deliver on either Social Security piratization *or* an immigration reform package that would lead to the enfranchising of Hispanics). The Republicans are caught between a take-no-prisoners hardcore ideological base and their need to appeal to moderates. The Democrats can play all across the field, because we (wisely, thanks to Pelosi) haven't hammered out a rigid ideological vision. We're in the position of capturing the anti-Bush vote from a wide variety of ideological perspectives. As I said, right now were everybody save the corporate octopus types and the snakehandlers. That's quite a large chunk of the country.

The squabbles between Dean and the committee chairs, while real, have been vastly overplayed. It's possible to agree with either position. Right now, the climate looks so good for Democrats nationally that Dean is beginning to appeear prophetic. What about all those races in play now that Emmanuel wouldn't have thought twice about earlier, but which had a jump-start on Party organization with Dean at the helm?

I'm telling you, Norman, if we take the House, Howard Dean is going to be viewed as a savant.

And since that's where the TradeSports odds are atm ...

Bob

OOOH! OOOHH! Secular Humanism. that's always a good one! Scream at us for being godless humanists. C'mon. I know you got it in ya! Buck up, old chum. One. More. Tirade. C'mon. I have faith...

Yes! We must learn to prevent conservatives from sharing their congenitally shrunken amygdalas with us!

I'm recommending Norman Rogers to the Colbert Nation as America's Secret Hero.

Nah, I think he's gone.

The organ music and dry ice smoke is fading away...

Norman:

The DNC is broke, you say?

Link, por favor?

Thanks,

Bob

Oh well, time to head off.

I feel sorta guilty - you know, like slowing down to gawk out the window at a car wreck. Still, if there wasn't a Norman Rogers we'd have to invent Him...

Damn I so wqnted to sweetly point out that Humanism is merely a philosophy that elevates justice, reason and ethics while rejecting rite, ritual and ceremony...so therefore those who scorn humanism and embrace rite and ritual must therefore reject reason, justice and ethics by definition.

It would have been such fun to actually see the spittle appear on my monitor from hundreds of miles away.

GC yeah, I know what you mean.

Still, they're always be gems like:

In the meantime, know this: I am a Republican and you cannot kill me.

Comedy Gold.

floop & Globe:

G'night, guys.

Oh well, it was kinda fun while it lasted.

I'm sure I coulda kept Norman around if I, like, cut of his body parts with a chainsaw -- but I wanted to talk politics instead.

Heh -- at least we pretty clearly demonstrated he'd got nuthin'. When the Hillary story came out, I really chuckled :)

Bob

Good night Bob.

If you haven't come to see me for a while, make sure you check out the Idiot of the Day for Monday this week.

Give it up Thomas. There's a lot more than emoticons there. You're busted. Quit embarrassing my team.

Hey Floop - what do you think the Chasers could do with our friend Uncle Norman. (Pardon me while I collapse in paroxisms of laughter at the mere notion.)

Globe:

Chasers?

Bob

Australian comedy troop. hands down the funniest thing on TV in any language and originating from any country. Nothing is sacred. (My personal motto? Sacred cows make the best burgers.)

Bob - if yopu get a chance to access a system that has media player and the like, check them out on YouTube.

Thomas1: Do you know how many people use emoticons on these threads?!

How many people besides you and Doug M. type your silly winky smile with a space between the characters? And you're forgetting about how you both address people you're talking to -- always with a colon afterward -- then dropped down a line -- and then stacked for each user. About Doug's and your frequent and inappropriate use of dashes. About how the two of you you constantly CAPITALIZE words for emphasis. About how you each put words in "quotes" over and over, generally for effect. About how you live with Doug at Wikipedia. About how Doug and you LOL (comma) to start your stupid lies. About how your patterns of speech are the same: boring. About how you both often trail off sentences. . .

And then there's the matter of Doug M. leaving on the very day you showed up...in the same thread!!!

And every time the subject of your multiple personalties comes up and how you always lie about them, Archivist's post will be here to link to. As will this one ; )

Seeya!

The GOP meltdown is evidenced in the degraded quality of the trolling. The more ground the GOP loses, the more unhinged the rantings.

Times are tough indeed when Thomas1 breaks out the Norman Rogers sockpuppet.

t1: For a little historical perspective, the single bloodiest day of the Civil War was on September 17, 1862 at the battle of Antietam, where more than 23,000 men died.

for even more current perspective...

more people committed suicide last year...

than died from terror attacks...

gc: Mental hospitals are full of inpatients with a direct line to "God."

god doesnt talk to g.w....

its just cheney..

on the oval office intercom...

Vice President Richard CHENEY: Well, I think there’s some natural level of concern out there because in fact, you know, it wasn’t over instantaneously.

"They are in the last throes of the insurgency." - Dick Cheney June-2005

Chuckles, dear, you're missing one crucial component in that phrase, "plausible deniability," and that's the term, "plausible." That you have employed multiple aliases here is not plausibly deniable. That you have repeatedly lied about yourself is not plausibly deniable. The rest is just an amusing little game we have of "Who's Chuckles?"

t1: For a little historical perspective, the single bloodiest day of the Civil War was on September 17, 1862 at the battle of Antietam, where more than 23,000 men died.

Just to be pedantic, this number refers to the total casualties (killed, wounded, missing) at Antietam, not fatalities. A total of ~3700 men were killed in the battle.