Mike Luckovich

By Luckoduh

September 28, 2007 8:04 AM | Link to this

Um, you mean “Moronic” woman, right?

Isn’t this a warm, friendly reminder of days gone by, Hillary the monster pummeling and abusing all of the people around her?

Will she launch a table lamp at them like she did her “husband” the “president?”

Duh.

~~~~~~

{{{{Domestically, the Democratic presidential candidates appear only before supportive groups. They don’t speak to antitax groups and talk about their own assumptions regarding tax policy. They don’t go to traditional values groups. It’s all very controlled. And it’s unworthy of a great nation. When people say the campaign feels artificial, that’s what they mean. It’s not John Edwards’s hairspray or Hillary Clinton’s makeup. It’s that they give every sign of being afraid to speak and listen to those who haven’t been patted down by thought-cops for unacceptable views.}}}}

~~~~~~

{{{{The barriers to nuclear energy are political not technological. We’ve let the fears of 30 years ago, and an endless political squabble over the storage of nuclear spent fuel make it virtually impossible to build a single new plant that produces a form of energy that is safe and non-polluting. If France can produce 80-percent of its electricity with nuclear power, why can’t we? Is France a more secure, advanced, and innovative country than we are?}}}}

~~~~~

{{{{But in the spirit of neighborliness, let me offer some advice to Mayor Francis on how to stop the flow across his border. If you want to save your country enormous expense and disruption, stop sending your new guests free meals at their free rooms via free taxicab. Then kick them all straight back to Mexico — and make sure the TV crews from Telemundo and Univision are there when you do it. Do that to the first few hundred and you’ll never see the first million. Or you can make the same mistakes we’ve made in the U.S. It’s up to you.}}}}

By Mrs. Godzilla

September 28, 2007 8:11 AM | Link to this

Ah, Hillary.

Yep, she’s looking Presidential. She’s fighting the good fight. She would not be my first choice, but she may well take the nomination. And if she does, she’ll be my candidate.

I was concerned about her electability, but as spend more time working on the ground, I am finding surprising support for her – in some very unexpected places.

There is a long way to go and the slime machine hasn’t been cranked up yet. (I suspect we’ll see a bit of slime here as the day goes on.)

We shall see.

By Hey Duh

September 28, 2007 8:17 AM | Link to this

Your first {{{{{ }}}}}

Why did you not include the VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH

{{{The Republicans are the same. An invitation to debate on Univision, the Spanish-language network? They have scheduling conflicts. What about the Log Cabin Republicans? No time right now.}}}}}

and continues

{{{{{ How unserious.

If you, candidate A, have clear and serious reasons for desiring the wave of millions a year illegally over the border to stop, you should be able to talk to Hispanic groups and audiences about it. You go straight to them and appeal to their patriotism, fairness and common sense. Why? Because they’re patriotic and fair and have common sense. It is a compliment to show you know this.

Will some of them boo? Yes, of course. So what? Too bad. That’s the price you pay for being truthful at a tough time. And in America it’s always a tough time.

The staffs, gurus and handlers of all the candidates are always afraid their guy will get booed. But do they realize how tired we are of hearing the tepid applause that follows the predictable pander?

I know they’re all always eager to laud Ronald Reagan. But Reagan began his fall 1980 campaign in the South Bronx, and argued his case with people on the street. After he was elected, he pleaded for peace in letters to Leonid Brezhnev. Too bad he wasn’t tough enough. Oh wait.

I think the problem is not coming from normal Americans but from our leadership class, our academics and political leaders. The new fearfulness has resulted in new foreign policy: “Let’s not speak to Buffy.” Great. How’s that working for ya?}}}}}

By Hey Duh

September 28, 2007 8:21 AM | Link to this

Your second {{{{ }}}}}

is From A John Mc Cain piece

did you happen to read THIS

{{{{I also believe that strengthening our energy security goes hand-in-hand with addressing global climate change, which I believe is real with human activity contributing to the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere}}}}

By Hey Duh

September 28, 2007 8:27 AM | Link to this

Your third {{{{}}}}}

Googled it up and down can’t find it.

Sounds xenophobic.

By Goldie

September 28, 2007 8:34 AM | Link to this

Good cartoon, Luckovich — but I’m not sure how “Bionic” Hillary will be when the Dems realize that she has signed on with Bush’s plan for war with Iran… what the hell was she thinking???

By Truthman

September 28, 2007 8:40 AM | Link to this

X-lent toon.!

Dennis Kucinich is the man we should elect, but the national Dems won’t back him:

Here’s why Kucinich is the choice over Clinton and Obama:

He’ll end Bush/Cheney’s war for profit in Iraq.

He’ll take the fight to the REAL bad guys - you know, Luckodunce-cap - the ones in Afghanistan!!!

He’ll impeach Cheney and then bring the rest of Bush junta to justice.

He’ll pull America into the 21st Century and join every other industrialized nation by giving us universal health care, thus showing he, unlike Andi’s tossed salad prez, puts principles above profit!!

He’ll end America’s stupid, wasteful war on marijuana with legalization.

Vote Smart! Vote Kucinich!!

By @@

September 28, 2007 8:43 AM | Link to this

Hillary with “new parts” from the Democrats old junk yard?

Read the fine print on the warranty.

By Goldie

September 28, 2007 8:48 AM | Link to this

Truthman @ 8:40 — I like Kucincich, too, but the majority of Americans are NOT going to vote for a prez who says he will not hunt down Bin Laden… Kuch is too much of a pacifist to be prez today.

By Say It Ain't So

September 28, 2007 8:49 AM | Link to this

Hey Truthman, go back and do a little research on Dennis the Menace when he was mayor of Cleveland Ohio. If you think he is the best candidate, then you have smoked way too much of your marijuana.

By Truthman

September 28, 2007 8:53 AM | Link to this

Goldie,

I was not aware of that statement. Let me do some research and I’ll try to get back to you.

TM

By Miles Apart

September 28, 2007 8:58 AM | Link to this

Goldie’s remark was gold. Notice how she didn’t torture the reader with overworded overbite. She may have changed a few hearts with musing from her succinct sweetbreads. (ew).

Contrast that with heyduh. The reader must exhale when he first glances at the crucible heyduh expects us to endure. Most pass this by, sorry. I waded into it, and really tried to give it a chance, and was pummeled with alliterative punches to the face and body. The only thing i had to change was my diapers.

That hurt, sir. Please be brief. We have limited time. You talk alot, and you talk real good too, sir. Will I ever read you again? Depends.

‘muff said.

By @@

September 28, 2007 9:00 AM | Link to this

Dr. King would be so disappointed.

School Cancels Speech by MLK Jr.’s Niece

Listen carefully to what she has to say about the impact abortion has had on our children.

A woman with personal experience and class. Not the usual “in-your-face” liberal approach.

By Miles Apart

September 28, 2007 9:11 AM | Link to this

Warning to new readers of this blog. Do not click on any of @@’s links. They may contain viruses. She thinks it’s funny if she can get a sucker to crash his new $3500 Dell PC. I have had very expensive lessons from her kind. Dont click on links. If a person cant sum up in 25 words or less, then they’re probably to total moron anyway, so it probably is a baited trap.

Dont click. It’s a trick.

Dont click. It’s a trick.

Everybody shout!

By Hey Miles Apart

September 28, 2007 9:13 AM | Link to this

If truth is a crucible for you. you have my deepest sympathy.

Perhaps you should contact the authoress of the piece Duh quoted and I finished - Peggy Noonan.

I suspect she would be interested in hearing that after reading her work you felt pummeled.

By AmVet

September 28, 2007 9:13 AM | Link to this

It may well have been lip service but it was rather interesting to hear at last night’s debate, how the six candidates almost all repudiated one of the key planks of Reagan’s neo-conservative movement - the war on drugs.

Decades late though it is.

There is little debate about it: Reagan’s drug policy legacy is a disaster and the question was not whether Reagan’s/Meese’s drug policies were bad, but how bad.

Sadly the Democrats were little better as they bought into RR”s framing this in the context of who is toughest on crime.

But it was Reagan who lit the fire of this incarceration binge, and in the years since he took office tens of millions of people have been arrested under the drug laws, millions have been sent to prison, and hundreds of billions of dollars have been incinerated.

BIG, intrusive, misguided, incompetent government brought to you courtesy of the neo-cons.

By @@

September 28, 2007 9:23 AM | Link to this

Miles Apart a/k/a/ PoliFore:

(((If a person cant sum up in 25 words or less, then they’re probably to total moron anyway)))

There’s 86 words in your post Mr. Blog Monitor (BM for short).

Think before you type BM.

By Paul

September 28, 2007 9:24 AM | Link to this

Miles Apart 9:11

[[If a person cant sum up in 25 words or less, then they’re probably to total moron anyway, so it probably is a baited trap.]]

Your post was 86 words.

BTW - you may want to check at cnet dot com for ratings of antivirus, antispyware, antiadware and firewall programs. Some all in one programs that aren’t memory and processor hogs are available at a reasonable price.

You should be able to click on any link and not worry about what you’ll connect to.

By Mike

September 28, 2007 9:29 AM | Link to this

LOL. Mikey finally draws a Democrat and when he does, he depicts her as a superhero.

Mikey is a rigid a partisan as Hannity or Coulter.

By Nomad

September 28, 2007 9:41 AM | Link to this

I think it should have said “Gin and Tonic” woman. That is what she will be imbibing while she either loses the primary to Obama or Edwards or the general election to Thompson or Guliani.

She is not as personable as her husband. The ice witch will return.

NOMAD

By getalife

September 28, 2007 9:49 AM | Link to this

They have a new road sign for parks

There should be a new Move on type resolution for Rush

Just to be fair and balanced but doubt the wingnuts will say anything about this real outrage like they do with Move on.

Geez.

By luckovichisaheadcase

September 28, 2007 9:55 AM | Link to this

The irony of this cartoon is that Obama and Edwards ate Hitlery’s lunch in the latest debate, but Clintonite sychophants don’t really care about that. They just see ‘the smartest woman in America’ whose desasterous first healthcare plan led to 12 years of Republican control of the House of Representatives and was the hallmark of a presidency which by any objective standard was one of the most dismal failures in American history. Clinton did not get one of HIS OWN initiatives through Congress, even when his ‘poddy’ was in charge. He then had to sign and take credit for Republican initiatives like unfunded mandate legislation and welfare reform (which he vetoed twice before signing). You folks really have come down from the heights of the likes of FDR and LBJ. Pitty.

By luckovichisaheadcase

September 28, 2007 9:59 AM | Link to this

getalife - weird how you folks vilify ‘right wingers’ like Rush and Anne, but you defend the indefensable when it’s the radical left, looney, neo-Marxist, hate-American first crowd like Moveon.org. Your hypocrisy is palpable.

By EXTREMELY STUPID COMMENT AWARD

September 28, 2007 10:02 AM | Link to this

””“was the hallmark of a presidency which by any objective standard was one of the most dismal failures in American history.”“”

head case must not get out much.

By Paul

September 28, 2007 10:06 AM | Link to this

getalife

Crooks and Liars references Limbaugh as saying people who served in the military but are opposed to the Iraq war are phony soldiers.

MoveOn attacks a serving general who gives a report that is, in part, favorable, as a traitor.

Exsoldiers who support are phony. Currently serving are phony.

Sounds pretty balanced to me.

I was struck by the sentence, “when asked why the United States should pull out, their only answer is, ” ‘Well, we just gotta bring the troops home.”

I’d find that viewpoint more credible if they could come up with a reason or two other than casualty counts or money (the old “foreign policy by casualty count or budget” idea). I can think of plenty of reasons. I’d think with all the money the antiIraq side spends on consultants, they could, too.

By Hey Head Case

September 28, 2007 10:09 AM | Link to this

If MoveON every gets out of the MAINSTREAM and goes NEO LEFT on us… we’ll give them a rash of $hit.

HOWEVER, since you are right of Glenn Beck , they only seem left wing to you. Perspective! What a concept!

From your secret bunker, you don’t really see a clear picture of the world.

Try covering your right eye with your right hand, open the roof hatch, poke your head out and look araound.

By Truthman

September 28, 2007 10:10 AM | Link to this

MoveOn.org = truth.

Lush and Vannity and Man Coulter = lies and grumpy white people who hate change!!

Oh, and don’t forget Bill-O (Shazam, black folk don’t always start a sentence with Mo-Fo). What a total putz!!

Bite me, haters of truth!!

By Miles Apart

September 28, 2007 10:10 AM | Link to this

The only thing missing from the cartoon was the change falling from the sellout’s pockets.

Hillary is the only candidate who aint sold out to the Saudi Royal Family and Cheney’s Renegade Militia of Mercenaries (blackwater) who will follow us home from iraq and start a reign of terror that will make the insurgency in Iraq look like a minor yeast infection, of which Hillary knows to stay far away from.

It’s The hill in 08. Hillary knows we cant ever leave Iraq. All the candidates know this. Watch as they spin down their plea to flee.

Watch as the GOP stops using terms that expose their ignorance like “surrender, or cut and run”. Finally the American Peoples are on the same page, and the horror of Iraq’s longevity is dawning like a bad breakfast burrito on the constitutional caucus that drips from every true-patriot’s bowels.

bwa

By AmVet

September 28, 2007 10:13 AM | Link to this

getalife, my thoughts on Limberger are that we live in the 21st century.

And all of this hullabaloo about OddJob at Columbia, Moveon being denounced by the Congress, Rush, Coulter, OReilly etc saying the things they do or even these cartoons is a distraction, but of NO significance or even relevance.

But it indicates to me that the First Amendment is still somehow inexplicably still debatable as politically correct after 200+ years! Even to the numbskulls in Congress!

It is not.

The fact that Rush is being compared to BOR as the “worst person in the world” is humorous though, I must admit.

Is it repulsive, what he said about “phony soldiers”? To me it is, of course. But who cares what he says or thinks? (BTW if I were an elected representative I sure as hell wouldn’t waste precious time, money and resources making idiotic renunciations because I didn’t like the message.)

As was BOR’s statement that people who protest against the impending invasion of Iraq were “bad Americans” if they continued to do so after the bombs started falling.

They are both celebrities and what they say is part of their schtick to get ratings. Their opinions are meaningless to most rational, educated Americans.

That ANYONE takes them seriously is strange to me, but hey, believe what you will…

By getalife

September 28, 2007 10:13 AM | Link to this

headcase,

The Move on ad was a proven correct statement whether you like it or not. It was the truth.

Rush’s hating on the troops is a lie and disgusting. Not a peep about that scum huh?

“We Won! BREAKING NEWS: California Electoral initiative backers give up”

Score one for the good guys like Move on.

The gop will find another way like Diebold to cheat.

It is their only chance to win in 08.

By Paul

September 28, 2007 10:20 AM | Link to this

Miles Apart

Are you (italics) really making the point that Bill Clinton has not taken any action to, nor in any way, profited from his relationship with the Saudis? And if he has, it has not in any way affected any of his subsequent pronouncements?

By Miles Apart

September 28, 2007 10:22 AM | Link to this

Amvet, you lost us all at hulabaloo.

@@ you had us at “bellow”.

Sir Wipesalot: quit double spacing every comment, it’s impossible to read, you idiot, and some of the very good points you make are totally lost. Try editing as completely as you abuse that bidet your wife bought and doesn’t know you funk with. Moron.

By getalife

September 28, 2007 10:22 AM | Link to this

Amvet,

Here is another vets take on the scum they call Rush

And another one here

I think the dems should show spine, taking the lead of President Clinton, and force a vote to condemn Rush’s hatred of the troops just to be fair and balanced.

By Hey Paul

September 28, 2007 10:24 AM | Link to this

The balance isn’t quite level yet….

When the congress passes a “sense of” resolution - decrying Limbaughs words as they did MoveOns word - then there will be balance.

It’s astounding that you don’t think casualty counts (3800+Americans dead, 25m Americans wouunded and 1.2 Million Iraqi’s) and the wasted resources aren’t sufficient reason to end this war.

Since you have plenty of reasons you would consider more credible, DO SHARE THEM!

(by the way, I know you will dispute the Iraqi casualty figure. I know what an incredible far left wing partisan you think Lancet is)

By Dusty

September 28, 2007 10:25 AM | Link to this

Well, I must congratulate Mike Luckovich. He has drawn Democrats in his “human fly” pattern he usually reserves for Bush. At last, one small step towards political diversity.

As to bionic Hillary, she has a fine brain but the heart is missing. She is as hard as nails and is drilling her opponants like an electric nailing machine.

Ah well, bosch will be here soon to tell us that Baptists are the cause of all evil and that Germans are so much smarter than Americans. I think Jimmy Carter will have to straighten him out on the “Baptist” thing. That and calling President Bush a “traitor”.

By Paul

September 28, 2007 10:29 AM | Link to this

AmVet 10:13

I believe you’re whistling in the wind. People need enemies or to demonize others when discussion of the issues fails.

Ever notice how many of these personal attacks are an effort to discredit the messenger so they don’t have to discuss the issues? I once heard John Maynard Keynes’s theories dismissed because of he was a homosexual. I also heard van Gogh’s work discussed because he suffered from mental disease. Discredit the messenger, avoid the issues. Neither speaker analyzed Keynes’s theories or van Gogh’s artwork.

By Shawny

September 28, 2007 10:31 AM | Link to this

Not so bionic Nancy says this.

Pelosi also touted legislation known as the DREAM Act that would make it easier for some illegal immigrants to receive higher education benefits.

Move On = Truth?!? holy crap. single sided opinion, maybe.

By AmVet

September 28, 2007 10:38 AM | Link to this

{…if they could come up with a reason or two other than casualty counts or money…}

Good morning Paul.

As someone who respects your informed analysis, and though we may sometimes disagree, I am not attacking you but that above referenced post begs for a reply.

And that is - WTF are you thinking?

Have you not heard, as I have, numerous sound geo-political reasons for leaving that sh!thole? At least eventually?

I know you have.

You may disagree with the “antiIraq side”, but to claim none exist is simply ludicrous and disingenuous.

By Miles Apart

September 28, 2007 10:38 AM | Link to this

Dusty, you hit another one out of the park! (@10:25) Dusty, You rock!

Go dusty. We love you. You rule. You’re not a tool. Go dusty!

We love you Dusty!!! (u rock)

By Goldie

September 28, 2007 10:38 AM | Link to this

{{BIG, intrusive, misguided, incompetent government brought to you courtesy of the neo-cons.}}

You hit it, AmVet— this divisive crud in America was started by Ray-gun back in the 80’s, when he decided that dividing America into 2 halves was the way he would try to “lead”… and the Neo-cons were birthed.

By Hey Shawny

September 28, 2007 10:40 AM | Link to this

Same challenge

Different Neo Con

FIND A MOVEON LIE

By Paul

September 28, 2007 10:40 AM | Link to this

Hey Paul

What is this, a repeat of earlier in the week? When I began by asking if the word “liar applied in one case did it apply in a second, and you ended up never answering but asked question after question, culminating with “prove what part of MoveOn’s betrayal ad is false”?

But briefly:

Some here have taken the position America should invade other countries if the casualty count is low enough. Kosovo and Sudan come to mind. The point is, is the “worthiness” of a cause to be solely determined by how many casualties we are to take?

Would those opposed to the Iraq War because of the casualties be okay with it if the casualties were lower? If so, by how much? Notice the Dem’s redeployment plans still keep us in Iraq and the Middle East. Only difference is, LESS Americans would be killed. Shouldn’t they set a number certain after which we should leave altogether?

See how the rationales based upon casualties break down? Same thing happens with dollar arguments. Both engender more silly arguments.

BTW - I didn’t say I considered the reasons valid. Only that I could construct some.

Dusty

That new German President is sounding smarter all the time. So are some in her cabinet. The farfaraway American Left doesn’t seem to think so, though.

By RE

September 28, 2007 10:42 AM | Link to this

Scumbag:

LIMBAUGH: “Save the — keep the troops safe” or whatever. I — it’s not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.

CALLER 2: No, it’s not, and what’s really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.

LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.

CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they’re willing to sacrifice for their country

By Shawny

September 28, 2007 10:42 AM | Link to this

Hillary isn’t bionic, unless you consider the quick movements and elusive ducks bionic.

It is hard to hit a moving target. How do you think Kerry became the front runner….don’t take a solid position or change positions often.

By RW-(the original)

September 28, 2007 10:45 AM | Link to this

If all these so called problems are Reagan’s fault why didn’t Clinton fix them all in the 90’s?

Oh and before you tell me poor little Billy Jeff had his hands tied by a Republican Congress go check out the makeup of Congress during the Reagan years.

By Goldie

September 28, 2007 10:48 AM | Link to this

Truthman @ 8:53 — I mis-worded what Kuch actually said about Bin Laden in my previous post:

Kucinich: I Wouldn’t Assassinate Bin Laden

He specifically said “assassinate”, but you know how the Repugs will use that in their campaign ads to mean “will not go after Bin Laden” and I’m afraid that’s where we’ll lose the majority of American voters… I may be wrong about this, but Kuch will not win the General election because he may be viewed as too pacifistic for today’s world that wants heads on a stick!

By Paul

September 28, 2007 10:48 AM | Link to this

AmVet 10:38

Good Morning! See what happens when I try to be brief?

I trust from my 10:40 you get the drift?

[[Have you not heard, as I have, numerous sound geo-political reasons for leaving that sh!thole? At least eventually?]]

Sure I have. I’ve also made those arguments here. And suggested actions we could take to forestall future involvement. Unfortunately, most of the rejoinders have been along the lines of “oh yeah? You’re really a neocon Bushie!!!”

I was saying I’d like some of these one or two note wonder soundbite websites to cite them, at least. Discussing them is likely too much to ask.

By Goldie

September 28, 2007 10:53 AM | Link to this

{{LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.}}

RE— I wonder if Oxycontin-Dittoheads know that some of those “phony” soldiers are dead now. Like the ones who wrote the op-ed in the NY Times this summer… the Dittoheads are scumbags for listening to the hateful Oxycontin-Head himself.

By getalife

September 28, 2007 10:55 AM | Link to this

A Challenge For Lawmakers Who Voted To Attack MoveOn Ad: Will They Now Condemn Limbaugh?

Well wingnuts, should the gop condemn Rush to be fair?

By Goldie

September 28, 2007 10:57 AM | Link to this

{{If all these so called problems are Reagan’s fault why didn’t Clinton fix them all in the 90’s?}}

RW— were you one of the Repugs who had their “Don’t Blame Me, I Voted Bush” bumper sticker on his car, ONE WEEK after Bill was elected POTUS??? I had a co-worker who put one on his car back then, and President Clinton had not even been sworn into office yet… yeah, your guy Ray-gun made a “new day” in America by turning your political beliefs into your religion!

By RW-(the original)

September 28, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this

This may come as a shock to you moveon.morons™, but Limbaugh is talking about people that pretend to be soldiers so that they have more credibility. The point is that when the “soldier” can only come up with a slogan like “it’s just time to come home” and nothing else he marks himself as a phony.

By Hey Paul

September 28, 2007 10:59 AM | Link to this

Tango

Tap Dance

Same old Same Old

I cannot answer your question for all those that oppose the war in iraq. (80%) Just my own opinion, labeled as such.

Is the worthiness of THIS cause to be determined by casualty count? No, it’s lack of worthiness was apparent from the first day. An pre-emptive strike on a nation that did not attack us was UNWORTHY of the legacy of the United States of America.

Is the worthiness of any cause to be determined by the casualty count? Since I can’t stand gross generalization, a yes or no answer would not be accurate.

ANY cause, worthy of an AMerican life is worthy of sensible, accurate, realistic review prior to engagement. Something we did not see in the run up to Iraq, nor in the current drum beating regarding Iraq.

What disturbs me is what appears to me to be your casual attitude about the casualties.

BTW I didn’t say you did. But I am still waiting for you to share….

By Goldie

September 28, 2007 11:01 AM | Link to this

Getalife @ 10:55 — where’s all that fake outrage from the Repugs when Rush is attacking our soldiers???

Hmmm, I can’t hear you, Repugs….

By getalife

September 28, 2007 11:02 AM | Link to this

One wingnut for Rush hating the troops.

How about the rest?

Do you condemn Rush?

By luckovichisaheadcase

September 28, 2007 11:03 AM | Link to this

Please name Clinton initiatives which were successes. Please name them. I want to know. Please disabuse me of any wrong notions. My bet is that like his acceptance speech at the 1996 NYC Demoquat convention, you will rattle off a list from Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America, which Tony Cohuelo referred to during the 1994 campaign as a ‘gift’ to the Demoquats. Really brilliant, huh?

By N-GA

September 28, 2007 11:04 AM | Link to this

IMO any soldier who supports the war in Iraq by saying he/she is “defending our country” is no different (read “phony”) than a soldier opposed to the war saying “it’s time to bring our troops home”.

Both are simple points of view. And since military entrance requirements have been dumbed down to try to meet enlistment goals, then these simplistic opinions should be expected.

By Miles Apart

September 28, 2007 11:05 AM | Link to this

The cartoon? Look at the white flag being waved by the candidate to Kuchinich’s left. Great stuff. I missed that earlier.

You people need to read these cartoons more carefully.

You wont though, because all you can stand to do is yak like the mealy-mouthed masons of mischief you myspacing maniacs truly are.

By Goldie

September 28, 2007 11:07 AM | Link to this

So, RW— was that you calling in as “Caller 2” to speak with Oxycontin-Head? Saying the words, “The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq.”?

So you and Caller 2 know all of the “real” soldiers, do ya???

By getalife

September 28, 2007 11:09 AM | Link to this

Goldie,

Well RW supports the chicken hawk but the rest I hear

crickets…….

chirp…..

chirp….

chirp…..

By Tom

September 28, 2007 11:10 AM | Link to this

Top 5 Reasons not to vote for Hillary Clinton

She is a socialist in Democrat disguise

Those pant suits!

That voice, eek!

Bill would be around the interns again

And the Number 1 reason….

Nuff said.

By Goldie

September 28, 2007 11:10 AM | Link to this

{{What disturbs me is what appears to me to be your casual attitude about the casualties.}}

Hey @ 10:59 — Paul disturbs a lot of us here… he has stated that we try to make the war casualties “too personal” an issue! He’s never explained how American war casualties cannot be anything but personal…

By luckovichisaheadcase

September 28, 2007 11:10 AM | Link to this

N-GA - you just betrayed yourself as the hate-the-military, hate-America-firster that you are. My enlisted friends in the military, one of whom just returned from Iraq, would all be enraged if they read your comment about ‘dumming down’. I am afraid that the only dumming down has been allowing fools and sychophants like you to receive high school and college degrees when every intelligent thought you ever had died of loneliness. The intelligence and educational requirements for entering the military have actually never been higher. Please go soak your head.

By Shawny

September 28, 2007 11:14 AM | Link to this

Change it from Bionic Woman to Teflon Woman.

Indeed, she did learn something from hubby during his races and terms.

Bob, duck, weave…..

swing and a miss….

By getalife

September 28, 2007 11:15 AM | Link to this

headcase,

I take by your silence, you support the scumbag Rush.

Two pathetic wingnuts support bashing the troops.

Pitiful.

By Paul

September 28, 2007 11:16 AM | Link to this

Hey Paul

Here we go again… Amazing you you say “tap dance” when you cite specifics.

Kosovo has been cited as worthy and a success because of zip casualties (there were some, but proponents of Kosovo didn’t want to include them as they weren’t the result of direct combat action. Maybe that’s a “casual” attitude?).

People always tag on the “they didn’t attack us” ending. C’mon. Neither did Nazi Germany. I do believe we attacked them before they attacked us.

BTW - add up all the people who think Saddam engineered 9-11 along with all the people who think Bush and his administration had advance knowledge of the specific attack and were behind it, or better yet, the administration did it, and… well… you might not sleep so well… if you take them seriously.

But you’re taking the issue I brought up in response to others (what are the elements that should be considered, and what weight?) before American involvement, and pretty much dismissed them to make your own points.

Okay, but I still think it’s valid to ask Hillary “if you redeploy, and over the course of your Administration we take another 2000 casualties, will you then really, really withdraw?” It’s not a casual attitude - it’s asking people who use casualties as the MAJOR rationale to say, at what point does one draw the line?

[[s the worthiness of any cause to be determined by the casualty count? Since I can’t stand gross generalization, a yes or no answer would not be accurate.]]

The reason “we’ve lost N lives, pull out” seems a pretty gross generalization to me.

Have you noticed - I’ve not yet defended or justified our continued presence in Iraq (even though you imply otherwise). Just asking for clarification - because… please understand this… the same reasons for not taking action, or taking action, or withdrawing from action… could very well be used by the next Democratic Administration to get us in a war… or not.

By Dusty

September 28, 2007 11:17 AM | Link to this

Paul@ 10:40

If you are talking about the German president and cabinet getting smarter than our Congress, I would agree. But then again, there is a kindergarten down the street of which we could say the same thing.

Miles apart @ 10:38,

I love you too. I also love kittens and puppy dogs. I bet you are just as cute and furry.

By Shawny

September 28, 2007 11:17 AM | Link to this

Kucinich wouldn’t swat a mosquito that bit him and gave him West Nile.

By N-GA

September 28, 2007 11:17 AM | Link to this

Hey Andy, you mewling little bed-wetting chicken hawk. Ever since you were discharged under the don’t ask, don’t tell policy you’ve been fighting your battles on the web. You probably were first in line for Halo3. Did they accept your welfare check/workman’s comp check/disability check/mother’s social security check/RNC check at the video store?

By rushncap

September 28, 2007 11:18 AM | Link to this

RW — what does a fatas$ like Limbaugh or lazyas$ like yourself know about being a soldier? The only combat operation he’s ever engaged in was trying to smuggle his drugs past security. And the only battles you pick are safely online. If a soldier says he wants to come home because this war is complete and utter bull$#it, you STFU and listen.

By Goldie

September 28, 2007 11:18 AM | Link to this

My favorite soldier, Gen. Wesley Clark, says this about Oxycontin-Head:

“Rush Limbaugh has never worn the uniform in his life, yet he’s got the moral standing to pass judgment on the men and women who risked their lives for this nation?”

Where exactly IS Rush’s moral standing??? Is it located at that same place where he moaned in Nov.’06 that he was tired of “carrying water” for Bush? THAT moral standing???

By Buy Danish

September 28, 2007 11:19 AM | Link to this

To whom it may concern (namely all the outraged Moonbats who are falling for a lie perpetrated by Crooks & Liars)

Luckily I am a Rush subscriber so I can access the FULL transcripts in their proper context.

This began with Rush questioning the credibility of a caller who claimed to be a Republican and a vet:

{{{RUSH: Mike, you can’t possibly be a Republican.

CALLER: I am.

RUSH: You can’t be Republican.

CALLER: Oh, I am definitely Republican.

RUSH: You sound just like a Democrat.

CALLER: No, but seriously, Rush, how long do we have to stay there?

RUSH: As long as it takes.

CALLER: How long?

RUSH: As long as it takes. It is very serious. This is the United States of America at war with Islamofascists. Just like your job, you do everything you have to do, whatever it takes to get it done, if you take it seriously.

CALLER: So then you say we need to stay there forever?

RUSH: No, Bill — (Laughing) or Mike. I’m sorry. I’m confusing you with the guy from Texas.

CALLER: I used to be military, okay, and I am a Republican.

RUSH: Yeah.

CALLER: And I do listen to you, but —

RUSH: Right, I know. And I, by the way, used to walk on the moon.

CALLER: How long do we have to stay there?

RUSH: You’re not listening to what I say. You can’t possibly be a Republican. I’m answering every question; it’s not what you want to hear, and so it’s not even penetrating your little wall of armor you’ve got built up. I said we stay to get the job done, as long as it takes. I didn’t say forever. Nothing takes forever. That’s not possible, Bill. Mike. Whatever. Nobody lives forever, no situation lasts forever, everything ends. We determine how do we want it to end, in our favor or in our defeat? With people like you in charge, who want to put a timeline on everything — do you ever get anything done in your life? Or do you say, “Well, I wanted to have this done by now, and it’s not, so screw it”? You don’t live your life that way. Well, hell, you might, I don’t know. But the limitations that you want to impose here are senseless, and they, frankly, portray no evidence that you are a Republican. }}}

More to come…

By Goldie

September 28, 2007 11:20 AM | Link to this

{{Those pant suits!}}

Tom— you’re really petrified of women, aren’t you?

By Miles Apart

September 28, 2007 11:22 AM | Link to this

Notice RW’s copyright nonsense? He thinks he has to copyright every colloquial invention. Duh, I put “moron” next to a word and I dubs it first, duh.

RETARD!!!

RW is a dope-wanker(tm), and an idiot-wipe(tm), amd a finger-probe-n-sniff(tm).

You cant copy me cause I called it first. shotgun!! No backs. No vice versa, no changies. Simon says. Mother may I. tm tm tm tm tm

what a fallguy! what a dope! honestly.

bwa

By Goldie

September 28, 2007 11:23 AM | Link to this

{{Neither did Nazi Germany. I do believe we attacked them before they attacked us.}}

Paul — I do believe that Hitler and Japan declaring war on America would count as an “attack”, don’t you? Or are you saying that America declared war first???

By Goldie

September 28, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this

{{Luckily I am a Rush subscriber so I can access the FULL transcripts in their proper context.}}

OMG, what a surprise… I thought we could maybe make it until noon today before the blog really got PEE-YEW stink-infested — but I guess not!

By rushncap

September 28, 2007 11:29 AM | Link to this

Anyone surprised that Muffin is a ditto-head? I like the fact that she used to deny that she is being told what to think by that lard-a$s.

By Buy Danish

September 28, 2007 11:30 AM | Link to this

Spare me the faux outrage, Getalife. This is what Rush means by a Phony Soldier:

{{{RUSH: Here is a Morning Update that we did recently, talking about fake soldiers. This is a story of who the left props up as heroes. They have their celebrities and one of them was Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth. Now, he was a “corporal.” I say in quotes. Twenty-three years old. What made Jesse Macbeth a hero to the anti-war crowd wasn’t his Purple Heart; it wasn’t his being affiliated with post-traumatic stress disorder from tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. No. What made Jesse Macbeth, Army Ranger, a hero to the left was his courage, in their view, off the battlefield, without regard to consequences. He told the world the abuses he had witnessed in Iraq, American soldiers killing unarmed civilians, hundreds of men, women, even children. In one gruesome account, translated into Arabic and spread widely across the Internet, Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth describes the horrors this way: “We would burn their bodies. We would hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque.”

Now, recently, Jesse Macbeth, poster boy for the anti-war left, had his day in court. And you know what? He was sentenced to five months in jail and three years probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim and his Army discharge record. He was in the Army. Jesse Macbeth was in the Army, folks, briefly. Forty-four days before he washed out of boot camp. Jesse Macbeth isn’t an Army Ranger, never was. He isn’t a corporal, never was. He never won the Purple Heart, and he was never in combat to witness the horrors he claimed to have seen. You probably haven’t even heard about this. And, if you have, you haven’t heard much about it. This doesn’t fit the narrative and the template in the Drive-By Media and the Democrat Party as to who is a genuine war hero. Don’t look for any retractions, by the way. Not from the anti-war left, the anti-military Drive-By Media, or the Arabic websites that spread Jesse Macbeth’s lies about our troops, because the truth for the left is fiction that serves their purpose. They have to lie about such atrocities because they can’t find any that fit the template of the way they see the US military. In other words, for the American anti-war left, the greatest inconvenience they face is the truth.}}}

By Shawny

September 28, 2007 11:31 AM | Link to this

I fear that it will be a race between a real New Yorker (RG) and a fake New Yorker (HRC). Hillary is polarizing. She is false. She has no experience leading. She talks of her previous White House experience, but if experience by osmosis counts, then having being operated on makes me qualified as a surgeon, I guess.

It is too bad that Rudy will get the GOP nomination,

Huckabee 08

By Buy Danish

September 28, 2007 11:34 AM | Link to this

{{{By rushncap

September 28, 2007 11:29 AM | Link to this

Anyone surprised that Muffin is a ditto-head? I like the fact that she used to deny that she is being told what to think by that lard-a$s.}}}

I see that munchkin has not yet received treatment for his pathological lying.

If you actually listened to Rush you’d know that he never tells his listeners what to do, unless of course it’s to tell despicable lying scum like you to go to Hell (in so many words).

By Million Man Fart

September 28, 2007 11:35 AM | Link to this

Good toon Luckovich!

Hillary does have the charisma of a cyborg.

By rushncap

September 28, 2007 11:38 AM | Link to this

Muffin, darling, you know I love you. It’s just too bad that you have the intelligence of your below-average beagle. And “if I actually listened to Rush” I’d slit my throat and make sure I never left any progeny to pollute the gene pool.

By Paul

September 28, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this

Goldie 11:10

[[he has stated that we try to make the war casualties “too personal” an issue!]]

I’ve always thought, when someone doesn’t understand what one’s said, one should rephrase, give different examples so the person might understand. It seems, though, no matter what I say (or in this case, didn’t say), you keep coming back to the same inaccurate misrepresentations.

Let me try it again.

Yesterday some discussed PBS’s The War series. Looking at the pictures of D-Day caused great revulsion and sadness among many who saw them. For purposes of this discussion, the “emotionalism” refers to using that as a major reason to say “withdraw from the beachheads before any more Americans get killed.”

Note, again, and again, I am NOT discussing Iraq. It’s a c-o-n-c-e-p-t. I’m concerned about people who would get us in a war with no concern for casualties. I’m ALSO concerned about people who would get us in a war because the casualties will be “low” (aren’t they always?). I am quite concerned about the whole moral imperialism idea by which Democratic candidates could get us in future wars where there is not an overriding American strategic interest. Or where they (or a Rep Pres) would think the casualties are “low enough.”

Clear enough?

By Buy Danish

September 28, 2007 11:42 AM | Link to this

Goldiedhimmi,

No doubt the truth is really stinky poo to mewling toddlers such as yourself.

By Miles Apart

September 28, 2007 11:46 AM | Link to this

Would a million men, farting out of a million buttholes, for a million years produce the Al Gore movie script? (or cause a one degree global temperature variation)

By getalife

September 28, 2007 11:49 AM | Link to this

I knew you would support the chicken hawk, scumbag BD/RW.

Lets hear from the biggest, fake, fraud, patriot Dusty.

Do you support Rush’s comment on the troops Dusty?

By Buy Danish

September 28, 2007 11:51 AM | Link to this

{{{By rushncap

September 28, 2007 11:38 AM | Link to this

Blah blah blah And “if I actually listened to Rush” I’d slit my throat and make sure I never left any progeny to pollute the gene pool.}}}

First of all, at the rate you’re going there are not going to be any progeny, unless you can invent some miraculous way to impregnate a magazine photo.

Secondly, it does not surprise me that listening for yourself to Rush, instead of taking Crooks&Liars carefully filtered word for it, would be enough to cause a delicate child like you to slit your throat.

You can’t handle the truth, Munchkin. It’s like a disease that contaminates that carefully erected wall of separation from reality that you have constructed for yourself.

The truth is quite literally beyond the pale of your existence.

By Luckoduh

September 28, 2007 11:51 AM | Link to this

{{{{By N-GA September 28, 2007 11:17 AM Hey Andy, you mewling little bed-wetting chicken hawk. Ever since you were discharged under the don’t ask, don’t tell policy you’ve been fighting your battles on the web. You probably were first in line for Halo3. Did they accept your welfare check/workman’s comp check/disability check/mother’s social security check/RNC check at the video store?}}}}

Geez N-GA, do you always wake up at 11:00 a.m. in the throes of PMS or is there something specific that set off your little tantrum?

Or maybe you are trying to express your solidarity with Mrs. Klintoon, by showing that you too can come unglued over nothing and rant like a rabid foaming at the mouth idiot?

What ever it is, I wish you the best with your little problem, hope you get it treated.

By Dusty

September 28, 2007 11:53 AM | Link to this

Well, as usual, liberals Goldie and rushncap bring the perfume of intellectualism to this blog.

Following an actual transcript of a conversation as posted by Buy Danish, here is the jist of lib comments.

Goldie-the blog is now PEE-YEW stink infested.

rushncap —ditto-head and (rush) lard-a$s!

Yep, real brainy stuff…

By Paul

September 28, 2007 11:55 AM | Link to this

Goldie 11:23

[[Paul — I do believe that Hitler and Japan declaring war on America would count as an “attack”, don’t you? Or are you saying that America declared war first???]]

No, I don’t think declaring war constitutes an attack. ‘Attack’ involves using the forces to apply the declaration.

I believe the timeline was, Japan attacked the US Fleet at Pearl Harbor. The US declared war on Japan. Under terms of a treaty, Germany declared war on the US. We had not attacked Germany, they had not attacked us (let’s leave Lend Lease ships out of this - for clarity).

I believe you’ve made a sticky point:

If a declaration is an attack, why did the US not respond with a counter declaration of war and conduct military operations when bin Laden declared war on the US in the late 90s?

By Vapid Vinyl

September 28, 2007 11:55 AM | Link to this

Paul, trying to explain something to Goldie is like trying to talk to a skipping record player that is stuck on stupid. Same goes for getalife.

By Dusty

September 28, 2007 11:56 AM | Link to this

getalife,11:49

Rush was talking about military imposters. Do you support imposters, getalife?

By Support our Soldiers

September 28, 2007 11:58 AM | Link to this

On to Iran….

Lawmakers deplore ‘frightening’ state of Army readinessBy Otto Kreisher CongressDaily September 27, 2007 Members of the House Armed Services Committee expressed concern Wednesday that the sustained combat in Iraq and Afghanistan has reduced the Army’s ability to respond to any new conflict. “The Army has degraded to an intolerable point,” Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton, D-Mo., said. Recalling the so-called “hollow Army” that came out of 10 years of war in Vietnam, he said, “The parallels are alarming. We cannot afford to break the Army again.” Similar fears were voiced by members from both parties, including House Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee ranking member John McHugh, R-N.Y., who said the prepared remarks of the committee’s lead witness, Army Chief of Staff George Casey, were “just downright frightening.” House Armed Services ranking member Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., conceded that the war is “wearing on our forces,” but said that was no reason “to throw up our hands and give up.” Nonetheless, the overriding concerns of lawmakers were validated by Casey and Army Secretary Pete Geren, who told the panel the Army could not respond to another conflict as fast or as well as they would like. “Today’s Army is out of balance,” said Casey, a four-star general. “The current demand for our forces exceeds the sustainable supply.” Although he believes “the next several decades will be ones of persistent conflict” and the Army cannot accurately predict when and where the next war will occur, Casey said, “we are consumed with meeting the demands of the current fight and are unable to provide ready forces as rapidly as necessary for other potential contingencies.” The general cited the “stress and strain” on soldiers, their families and Army support systems and said equipment is “wearing out at a far greater pace than expected.” He noted that the Army Reserve and National Guard “are performing an operational role for which they were neither originally designed nor resourced.” “Overall, our readiness is being consumed as fast as we can build it,” Casey said. And because combat forces returning from Iraq or Afghanistan must be prepared quickly for more counterinsurgency deployments and cannot train for a wider conflict, Geren said, R

By Hey Paul

September 28, 2007 11:59 AM | Link to this

Hey Paul

Kosovo was called a success because it WAS a success.

Nazi Germany declared war on us,AFTER we declared war on Japan BEFORE we attacked anybody.

BTW ——what the hell was the point of that nonsense? The whole paragraph.

You go one to mix and match from previous discussions. Making no cohesive argument for anything. It would seem that you are typing as if you were being paid by the word.

Then this jewel “ The reason “we’ve lost N lives, pull out” seems a pretty gross generalization to me.” It’s gross alright. You turn it into a generalization. With your cavalier attitude.

Sorry, Paul, but you make no sense. You can’t stand the heat so you dance.

What a waste of a moderately literate human being.

By Luckoduh

September 28, 2007 12:00 PM | Link to this

{{{{Republican Party operatives are stepping up their political attacks on the former first lady but are wary of going too far with their criticisms because she is a woman.}}}}

What a total lie, fabricated from whole cloth, geez.

She is not a woman.

I don’t know who you’re trying to fool.

~~~~~

{{{{Ahmadinejad Cements Ties With Venezuela President Chavez, Declares ‘No One Can Defeat Us’}}}}

So when did they start calling the 82nd Airborne “No One?”

Is this freak serious or was he talking to the kowards at Columbia again?

By getalife

September 28, 2007 12:01 PM | Link to this

Excellent dusty, I knew you are a fraud.

Thanks for proving my point.

And that ladies and gentlemen, is how you frame a debate.

The gop taught me that lesson.

Move on.

By AmVet

September 28, 2007 12:03 PM | Link to this

Paul,

My bad.

The fact remains that although he may wish he had the full armada of John Ashcroft as his disposal, RL had NO idea if the caller was a veteran or not. Or a Republican or not.

And it did not matter one iota to him I suppose. I sense that being “right” is usually more important than being factual.

The ONLY thing that did matter was that he politically disagreed with the caller and as always felt righteous enough to call him a liar.

It does not matter.

Because for every true veteran he discounts, as well as the TINY number of repulsive scumbags who pretend to be, that he correctly exposes, there are Kevin Tillmans who would verbally rip him from limb to limb given the opportunity to “debate” Iraq.

So predictably, he and the other irrelevant radio talking heads, use this one extremely specific instance as a pretext for his all-knowing, all seeing ability to see through the people he engages who simply disagree with him.

Mental masturbation and intellectual dishonesty posing as excellence in broadcasting.

As I said before, given their own immoral and completely sordid histories and debunked lies, the fact that ANYONE, even their apologists, finds these guys credible is to me amazing.

But hey I’m pretty easily amazed!

By Buy Danish

September 28, 2007 12:04 PM | Link to this

Getalife,

Before you make too much more of a fool of yourself, I suggest you read the transcript I posted at 11:30, although it’s possible that there are just too many words for your pot-saturated brain to process.

If you can’t read it then I suggest you stop talking about the issue of Rush and phony soldiers since you are clearly completely ignorant of what actually transpired and continuing on this way will only embarrass you further.

By IN THE NEWS

September 28, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this

WASHINGTON - A small group of Republicans facing election fights next year have rallied around war legislation they think could unite the GOP: a call for an end to U.S. combat in Iraq, but not until President Bush is out of office.

By Goldie

September 28, 2007 12:06 PM | Link to this

{{when bin Laden declared war on the US in the late 90s?}}

Paul— and Bin Laden was the leader of what country in the 90’s for us to declare on???

Quit posting in circles — it’s really nauseating.

By RW-(the original)

September 28, 2007 12:07 PM | Link to this

rushncap,

When a soldier like oh…say.. General Petraeus gives us a progress report on Iraq and tells us what the next steps in a necessary endeavor we should take does that mean you STFU and listen?

Tell us all about your vast combat experience little one.

By Goldie

September 28, 2007 12:11 PM | Link to this

“This is a story of who the left props up as heroes. They have their celebrities and one of them was Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth.”

A celebrity? Really??? Do we need to provide links to all of the other fake soldiers in the news these days, or are you Repugs just going to listen to that Oxycontin-Head while he hems and haws?

BTW, who is Oxycontin-Head carrying water for these days… does he ever mention that???

By Buy Danish

September 28, 2007 12:12 PM | Link to this

Huge Amvet,

There are people who call up Rush’s show all the time and pretend to be Republicans, or the like. Even a moron like you could do that if you ever got through, but you would not get away with it for long as Rush has very finely tuned Moonbat Radar.

Indeed, I could call up and pretend to be a liberal and get to the front of the line. However, as soon as I stated my positions on the issues it would be patently obvious that I was not a Liberal, or a Democrat but a conservative and as such probably a Republican.

By the way, Rush just began the program discussing the phony soldiers kerfuffle which he is calling the “Anatomy of a Smear”. If you live in Atlanta it is on 640 A.M. WGST.

By Truthman

September 28, 2007 12:12 PM | Link to this

A serious question:

Is there one black Blackwater mercenary in Iraq?

I have NEVER SEEN anyone but white people working in Blackwater security details.

Do they not hire blacks?

Personally, I believe black people are too smart to work for a bunch of Bush-licking tossed salad white boys over in Iraq!!

Ask Zaxby the chicken man and Johnny Isakson why they support Blackwater so much? Are they getting kickbacks?

By Truthman

September 28, 2007 12:12 PM | Link to this

A serious question:

Is there one black Blackwater mercenary in Iraq?

I have NEVER SEEN anyone but white people working in Blackwater security details.

Do they not hire blacks?

Personally, I believe black people are too smart to work for a bunch of Bush-licking tossed salad white boys over in Iraq!!

Ask Zaxby the chicken man and Johnny Isakson why they support Blackwater so much? Are they getting kickbacks?

By Paul

September 28, 2007 12:13 PM | Link to this

Hey Paul 11:59

You coulda just said you didn’t want to answer any direct questions…

[[Kosovo was called a success because it WAS a success.]]

Because opposing sides stopped slaughtering each other? Yes, that’s a good thing. I believe that was the purpose. But we’re still there!! How many years later? Because if we leave, they’ll start up again! And that’s different from Iraq, how, exactly?

[[Nazi Germany declared war on us,AFTER we declared war on Japan BEFORE we attacked anybody.]]

I believe that’s what I said. And it was directed to Goldie’s question. You mix a response to you with a response to Goldie and say I mix and match? Wonderland calling Alice…

BTW - feel free to answer the question I asked Goldie. I don’t think I’ll get many takers.

BTW2 - are you also aware Hillary recently said, citing Kosovo, that sometimes, when a President can’t get a declaration from the Congress and can’t get action from the UN, he/she has to go to war alone? That (citing Kosovo) if Congress and the UN won’t approve you have to come up with another means for invasion, like go under the “umbrella” of NATO?

No? Well, I’m not surprised. That’s the kind of attitude I’ve been discussing. You call that a dance? I call it concern.

By getalife

September 28, 2007 12:13 PM | Link to this

BD.

I know your spin and never admitting wrong doing by your ilk is intellectually dishonest and a stupid debate tactic. Not to mention, the muliple id disorder.

Debating you is an exercise in futility because it is like talking to a wall.

If you ever admit something wrong with your party, get back to me.

Geez.

By Is it just me or

September 28, 2007 12:14 PM | Link to this

did I miss something in the paid for transcript from Buy Whatever?

You know the part where he REALLY did use the term phony soldiers?

You can rationalize what Rush said all you want.

If we can’t be critical of generals we musn’t be critical of any soldiers.

By Hey Goldie

September 28, 2007 12:15 PM | Link to this

Thanks for pointing out the Waltz that is Paul.

By Miles Apart

September 28, 2007 12:16 PM | Link to this

Imagine someone like Buy Stainpants posting a comment that nobody reads and then she actually commands people to read it. What a total smudgetwat. I love it.

Buy, just rinse and repeat. You’ll feel better and this blog will smell better.

RW, the oravaginal, if Gen. Barrabas knew what to do next in Iraq for victory, we’d have won already. He dont know what to do except have his soldiers milling around firing and taking fire as they surge what ever the F that means.

you couldn’t analyze a battlefield situation if your jockstrap had opposing species of flees…..ew.

bwa

The only point that getalife proved is the one on his head.

By getalife

September 28, 2007 12:17 PM | Link to this

Paul,

We won in Kosovo?

Can you at least admit that fact?

By Hey Everybody

September 28, 2007 12:17 PM | Link to this

Ain’t it funny, to have both Rush and Bill crying about smears?

Karma!

By Goldie

September 28, 2007 12:18 PM | Link to this

{{Similar fears were voiced by members from both parties, including House Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee ranking member John McHugh, R-N.Y., who said the prepared remarks of the committee’s lead witness, Army Chief of Staff George Casey, were “just downright frightening.”}}

Support @ 11:58 — I’m sure the Dittoheads include George Casey in with their other “phony soldiers”, ya think? Just like they can tell if a caller on the phone is really a Republican or not…

By Buy Danish

September 28, 2007 12:20 PM | Link to this

Rush just quoted the exact 2 paragraphs about Jesse Macbeth that I chose to share with you Moonbats.

So even if you are not listening, the truth is available to you, although I realize it is a bit like inviting an earthquake in to shake up your world.

Getalife,

Multiple ID disorder? What are you hallucinating about now, oh brave warrior of the Moonbat Army?

By Buy Danish

September 28, 2007 12:23 PM | Link to this

is it just me or are you pond scum,

It was not necessary to post that since Getalife already “shared” it with us.

I am putting this in context for the confederacy of Moonbat Dunces, of which you appear to be a mesmerized member.

By Paul

September 28, 2007 12:23 PM | Link to this

Goldie 12:06

[[Paul— and Bin Laden was the leader of what country in the 90’s for us to declare on???

Quit posting in circles — it’s really nauseating.]]

Uh… Goldie… that’s been the whole point since 9-11. And in some circles, well before. All the talk about nonstate entities. States sponsoring proxies. Ideological movements. Transnational forces. Organizations conducting warfare who are not part of a country’s military. Geneva Convention applicability to non-nation state forces.

I believe you’ve just illustrated why this country treated numerous al Qaeda attacks against US forces and territory (embassies) as more of a criminal justice matter and why we’ve had such difficulties in determining how to handle captured combatants who are not part of a nation’s military forces.

Yes, Goldie, you’ve illustrated that very well. Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!

BTW - the Constitution’s pretty loose about war declarations. Haven’t checked in a while, but I don’t believe it says “war declarations can be made only against a sovereign nation.”

By RW-(the original)

September 28, 2007 12:24 PM | Link to this

getalife,

If you moveon.morons™ spent one one-hundredth of the time you spend manufacturing phony controversies to be outraged about on solving problems just think of all you could accomplish.

By getalife

September 28, 2007 12:24 PM | Link to this

Karma indeed but wait until Hillary is elected.

Then you will see real karma for the gop and their supporters.

Good times ahead!

Bwa.

By Hey Paul

September 28, 2007 12:26 PM | Link to this

Sure I could have. But you never ask direct genuine questions. You pussyfoot around a subject. Framing it in your own terms, turning it from question to gobbletygook. You try and set a trap, that we are just plain too smart to fall into.

Every day you come here and post the same old trite mish mash of opinion, rumor and innacuracies - then act all insulted when we challenge you.

Get used to it dude. As long as you pretend to be reasonable, when in fact you are just another one of the dead enders, you will go no respect here.

By getalife

September 28, 2007 12:31 PM | Link to this

RW,

Hillary will clean up your mess like her husband did with daddy.

The gop does not govern, they create problems but never solve them. They leave them for the dems to solve.

Can you admit this fact?

By Paul

September 28, 2007 12:33 PM | Link to this

Hey Goldie 12:15

[[Thanks for pointing out the Waltz that is Paul.]]

I am insulted. Insulted, I tell you! A waltz is a mere one-two-three one-two-three repeat. Such simplicity! I’d have preferred a tango as a more apt description.

getalife 12:13

Of course we did! (It didn’t bI believe I said we achieved the purpose for which we invaded. In today’s parlance that’s called “winning.” So “we” won. But it didn’t buy us any goodwill with the Muslim world, did it?

And we’re still there. Years and years later. No casualties, but lotsa dough. And it ties up troops who can’t be used elsewhere. ‘Cause if we leave the slaughter will resume. I suppose then we’ll have lost?

See what I mean about parallels with Iraq?

Off to other endeavors - later -

By RE

September 28, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this

Irony;

By RW-(the original)

September 28, 2007 12:24 PM | Link to this

getalife,

If you moveon.morons™ spent one one-hundredth of the time you spend manufacturing phony controversies to be outraged about on solving problems just think of all you could accomplish.

By RW-(the original)

September 28, 2007 12:37 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

Thanks for the heads up on 640WGST. Rush is making them all look like complete fools. Too bad we’ll never see any of this in the media.

By getalife

September 28, 2007 12:39 PM | Link to this

Yea Paul,

You admit President Clinton won his war.

GFY (good for you), there is hope for you and some intellectual honesty which is severely lacking on this blog.

You could have stopped with this:

“Of course we did!”

Geez, BO blowhard.

By stuckin foned

September 28, 2007 12:43 PM | Link to this

can someone tell getalife the difference between fact and opinion?

zeeeeG!

By Hey Everybody

September 28, 2007 12:44 PM | Link to this

You know, it’s true. Debating anyone here who is still a supporter of the administration and it’s failed occupation, failed economy, screwd up justice department, hypocritical family values mantra, etc….is a waste of time.

But admit it. It’s kind of fun.

Like when we were kids and we found a dead animal on the curb. Curiosity made us peek and poke at it. Getting a good look at the insides. What used to make them tick.

These people are so far away from accepting the responsiblity they share for the dumbing down of our country, the loss of our national stature in the world and the horrible mess our citizens have to deal with in this economy that it’s shameful.

More shameful still, they think they are moral and patriotic.

None of what we post, will ever make a difference to them. They are stuck right were they are. They’ll die proud of their superiority and then find they can’t get inside the pearly gates.

The tide is turning and they are still headed in the wrong direction.

By Buy Danish

September 28, 2007 12:49 PM | Link to this

{{{{Like when we were kids and we found a dead animal on the curb. Curiosity made us peek and poke at it. Getting a good look at the insides. What used to make them tick.

By Hey Everybody

September 28, 2007 12:44 PM }}}

Proof positive that there are some very mentally ill Moonbats on the loose, and some of them are right at this very blog.

By stuckin foned

September 28, 2007 12:50 PM | Link to this

“Like when we were kids and we found a dead animal on the curb. Curiosity made us peek and poke at it. Getting a good look at the insides. What used to make them tick.”

weirdos..

By Paul

September 28, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this

Hey Paul 12:26

Your accuracy’s suffering. Never ask a direct question?

10:20 Are you (italics) really making the point that Bill Clinton has not taken any action to, nor in any way, profited from his relationship with the Saudis? And if he has, it has not in any way affected any of his subsequent pronouncements?

10:40 Would those opposed to the Iraq War because of the casualties be okay with it if the casualties were lower? If so, by how much?

11:16 Okay, but I still think it’s valid to ask Hillary “if you redeploy, and over the course of your Administration we take another 2000 casualties, will you then really, really withdraw?”

11:39 I am quite concerned about the whole moral imperialism idea by which Democratic candidates could get us in future wars where there is not an overriding American strategic interest. Or where they (or a Rep Pres) would think the casualties are “low enough.” Clear enough?

11:55 f a declaration is an attack, why did the US not respond with a counter declaration of war and conduct military operations when bin Laden declared war on the US in the late 90s?

12:13 BTW - feel free to answer the question I asked Goldie. I don’t think I’ll get many takers.

12:23 BTW - the Constitution’s pretty loose about war declarations. Haven’t checked in a while, but I don’t believe it says “war declarations can be made only against a sovereign nation.”

I even tossed in a couple of indirect questions. And left out the implied questions. But feel free for any of them.

{{You try and set a trap, that we are just plain too smart to fall into.}}

That’s what I think a big problem is. You view everything as “my side, right, your side, wrong” and “never admit to a mistake, error or contradiction.” So the discussion’s limited. Hillary might go to war without UN or Congressional approval? No comment. We can have forces in Kosovo for years but not Iraq? Even if we redeploy and take no casualties? No comment. Maybe were a bit slow on the uptake in realizing we were at war because it wasn’t declared by a traditional nation?

Plenty of questions there , direct, indirect and implied. Have at it.

Back later this evening -

By Luckoduh

September 28, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this

{{{{By getalife September 28, 2007 12:13 PM If you ever admit something wrong with your party, get back to me.}}}}

What does it say of your everyday average common pinko, that the drive by media can manufacture a scandal by taking a man’s words out of context, knowing full well that the basic liberal will be too stupid to realize it’s a bald faced lie?

The media knows full well that liberals are dolts, uninformed morons incapable of checking facts, only able to parrot stupid goony slogans and falsehoods.

You should be so proud of what they think of you, al-Gitmo.

By IN THE NEWS

September 28, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this

Military Reports It Has Killed A Senior Leader of Al Qaeda In Iraq, But Was He Killed A Year Ago?

By Next Time...

September 28, 2007 12:53 PM | Link to this

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Offering a grammar lesson guaranteed to make any English teacher cringe, President George W. Bush told a group of New York school kids on Wednesday: “Childrens do learn.”

Bush made his latest grammatical slip-up at a made-for-TV event where he urged Congress to reauthorize the No Child Left Behind Act

Next time… can we get a President that speaks English for a change!

By AmVet

September 28, 2007 12:54 PM | Link to this

It astounds me that parallels are constantly being drawn between Kosovo and Iraq.

I think somehow in the national consciousness they are a microcosm of the Clinton and W.

One can certainly question the motives, legality etc of Clinton’s decisions to go into southeastern Europe.

But the RESULTS irrefutably could not be any more different.

As mentioned above, certainly not without faults and questions, one, Kosovo, was prosecuted by an effective military campaign that got the desired results almost instantly and with the loss of no American or NATO lives and few dollars. (relatively speaking).

The other is unquestionably the greatest American blunder since Viet Nam. And perhaps tops even it! And it will have to be fixed sometime in the future by reasonable men and women who are actual leaders instead of party apparatchiks.

Democratic AND Republican leaders.

Yes it absolutely kills the neo-cons that a Democratic president was and is still considered an effective, albeit uneven, President and their current Texas ANG hero will likely go down in history as number forty three is the ranking of best American Presidents.

A modern day Warren G. Harding who will move up to 42.

But who cares what these hyper-partisans, Bush apologists and Limbaugh lovers think? Not I. Nor the vast majority of the American people anymore I suspect given the numbers from ALL of the polls.

The “faithful” voted for him. They get to live with the deadly consequences and this utterly inept administration every day, as we all do.

Only 13 more months until America gets the opportunity to express the repudiation of their twisted ideology and perhaps permanently rid the nation of these incompetent posers and send them back to their rightful place in the political Land of Nod.

By getalife

September 28, 2007 12:56 PM | Link to this

Who knows, maybe the wingnuts are libs trying to get dem votes? Worked in the last election.

Anybody reading can tell they are dishonest and never admit wrong with the gop.

By RW-(the original)

September 28, 2007 12:59 PM | Link to this

RE,

Would you like to make an attempt at explaining how my 12:24 comment is in any way ironic?

By getalife

September 28, 2007 1:03 PM | Link to this

I am proud to support the troops duh.

Join us and bash the chicken hawk Rush.

Write your reps calling on a resolution to condemn him.

Be a real American Patriot.

By AmVet

September 28, 2007 1:06 PM | Link to this

{You know, it’s true. Debating anyone here who is still a supporter of the administration and it’s failed occupation, failed economy, screwd up justice department, hypocritical family values mantra, etc….is a waste of time.}

And that is why so many no longer attempt to engage them. unless of course you enjoy juvenile vitriol and half-baked ideas!

{These people are so far away from accepting the responsibility they share for the dumbing down of our country, the loss of our national stature in the world and the horrible mess our citizens have to deal with in this economy that it’s shameful.}

{More shameful still, they think they are moral and patriotic.}

But even these few cannot dispute that their numbers are irrefutably and constantly dwindling. And that some here remain so blindly intransigent, no longer reflects the view of many, even most Republicans let alone other Americans.

{The tide is turning and they are still headed in the wrong direction.}

IMHO, the absolutely truth.

By Girly-Man George

September 28, 2007 1:13 PM | Link to this

TEHRAN, Iran - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad invited President Bush to speak at an Iranian university if the American leader ever traveled to the Islamic Republic, state-run television reported Friday.

Anybody wanna bet a brazillion Mangos that King George ain’t got half the balls that Ahmadinejad showed in coming to speak in NY when even a Republican Presidential candidate was calling for his incarceration and the very best security the USA could muster said they couldn’t do the job of keeping him safe from assasination?

Ain’t it great that a puny little tyrant from one of the world’s biggest shiite-holes has shown the entire world that he is a bigger and braver MAN than our own beloved Chimperor?

Republicans ALWAYS ‘talk the talk’ but when it comes time to ‘walk the walk’, they hide-out in the oval office with the drapes closed, cowering under their desks like the girly-man sissies they have always been! And the entire world is watching.

By AmVet

September 28, 2007 1:20 PM | Link to this

I used to view this as a humorous, albeit somewhat disturbing but hopefully harmless trait.

But after such an amazing number of these incidents, one might rightfully conclude they do in fact attest to a lifelong questionable lack of intellectual curiosity.

During his first campaign I sensed that he was a bit of a mental lightweight, relative to ANY other US President when he so horribly botched that interview on various heads of state.

(Clinton- Rhodes Scholar, Carter - graduated first in his class at Annapolis, etc.)

“As yesterday’s positive report card shows, childrens do learn when standards are high and results are measured,” he said.

The White House opted to clean up Bush’s diction in the official transcript.

Bush is no stranger to verbal gaffes. He often acknowledges he was no more than an average student in school and jokes about his habit of mangling the English language.

If only he could get his game up to being an average President!

By Buy Danish

September 28, 2007 1:24 PM | Link to this

{{{By IN THE NEWS

September 28, 2007 12:51 PM}}

Sheesh. Pathetic much? It was a bunch of Al Qaida ghouls who claimed he had been “martyred” and thus was dead, not the U.S. military.

Someone merely picked up the AQ post from the jihadi internet, which was probably just a weak attempt at psy-ops so we would stop looking for him.

But hey, anything to make it look like our military sucks, why you just can’t wait to jump on it!

Meanwhile you all have the audacity to claim that Rush disparages our military when he points out the indisputable fact that the Kerryesque Jesse Macbeth was a phony soldier.

By RW-(the original)

September 28, 2007 1:26 PM | Link to this

Can anyone imagine what it would be like if Blowhard had to face the day to day decisions the President has to?

By rushncap

September 28, 2007 1:28 PM | Link to this

Ooooh, Muffing is getting feisty. Sorry I did not respond earlier, lunch and all that, ya know, then a talk at research at group meeting. Glad to see you back anyways, sometimes slapping you around a bit amuses me. And right now I’m slightly bored, so I might as ewll.

Dusters, I spend intellectual energy on those who deserve it. I don’t take time to explain the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics to toddlers, and I don’t waste my energy on trying to seriously address an idiot like Rush or sub-idiots who worship him like Muffin. Believe it or not, whe is less intelligent that you. What did your Jebus say about pearls and swine and such?

By Hey Paul

September 28, 2007 1:28 PM | Link to this

10:20 NO

10:40 See previous answer

11:16 Ok with me too

11:39 Yes

11:55 declaration of war from a nation with an huge army already at war with a large part of the world - yes i’d consider that an attack.

declaration from a man in a dress with a beard he apparently now “grecians” ? not the same thing

12:13 feel free to ask goldie again sometime

12:23 yep you’re right.

the problem WITH BOTH OF US is the I’m right You’re Wrong stance.

But I don’t really have a problem with that

because

I AM right!

By Hey Buy Danish

September 28, 2007 1:34 PM | Link to this

I submit you are equally as guilty of jumping at anything that make the pitiful pResident and his evil minions look like they are capable of leadership.

Oh, and in case you haven’t noticed we have been told a number of fairy storys aboyt getting the # 2 or #3 bad guys.

When will you learn that we doubt every word that comes out of you guys BECAUSE WE HAVE LEARND SOME OF THEM ARE FALSE.

Over and Over And Over.

Meanwhile you have the audacity to call yourself a patriot.

By Buy Danish

September 28, 2007 1:40 PM | Link to this

{{{But after such an amazing number of these incidents, one might rightfully conclude they do in fact attest to a lifelong questionable lack of intellectual curiosity.

By AmVet

September 28, 2007 1:20 PM}}}}

Find the verbal “gaffe” in this sentence, Blowhard.

rushncap child,

You are not slapping me around in the least, although I don’t doubt that fantasies in that regard perk you up and make you feel like a man, albeit for a millisecond.

When that fleeting moment passes, you revert back to your chronically flaccid and miserable state.

Sucks to be you, munchkin.

By Safe From Harm

September 28, 2007 1:42 PM | Link to this

BALTIMORE - Republican presidential candidates discussed the importance of reaching out to people of color during a minority issues debate Thursday night and criticized the leading four GOP contenders for skipping it.

More Republican Girly-Men, hiding from those big bad ole blacks and latinos.

And these COWARDS are gonna keep us all safe from harm. Riiiiight! Suuuuure they will!!!

Maybe they are waitin to fight those dirty ole blacks and latinos over there so they don’t have to fight them here.

By AmVet

September 28, 2007 1:43 PM | Link to this

And yes, I can understand how daunting a task it must be for the commander-in-chief to get up every day and try desperately not to screw everything up that he touches.

But that apparently is good enough for the loyal party extremists.

By Miles Apart

September 28, 2007 1:50 PM | Link to this

Bush’s 8 years are not a failure. War is profitable and I can point to every war in history and show you the good effects outweighed the sacrifices. War is good. War works. War is money in your pocket.

The economy is good. The poor who were poor before bush are still poor, and that’s the price we pay for capitalism.

Things are great, and Bush is a great prez. if he hadn’t been betrayed by Rumsfeld, who didn’t attack OBL when ordered to, this would be considered a golden age and we would be sorry only that Bush is limited to 2 terms.

If you people had insight into events you would rule the world, as it is, you rule only the schmoehawks.

word

By Dusty

September 28, 2007 1:51 PM | Link to this

rushncap,1:28

If you are a pearl producer, oysters are in trouble. The flaunting of your assistantship as equal to the staus of Einstein is laughable. Stop the “I’m so bored ‘cause I’m so smart”stuff. Your pompous proclamations simply prove that you are too rude and uncouth to be successful in working with others. Nothing more.

By Buy Danish

September 28, 2007 1:55 PM | Link to this

Speaking of gaffes, how did I miss this?

{{{Believe it or not, whe is less intelligent that you. What did your Jebus say about pearls and swine and such?}}}

Do try to keep both hands on the keyboard rushncap.

Hey Buy Danish,

It does not surprise me that you missed the point entirely, namely that nattering nabobs like you can hardly contain your joy every single time you think you can disparage the efforts by our military in Iraq (and elsewhere for that matter).

I on the other hand have never even hinted that they are infallible and never make mistakes. I merely pointed out that citing a post from a jihadist website (with, by the way, not a single word of commentary attached to it) is not endorsing or verifying the content.

Moreover, there are many things that I and many conservatives have diverged from Bush on, with Immigration “reform” being just one example, so you are wrong there too.

Keep at it and you may get something right eventually, just like the proverbial stopped clock.

By AmVet

September 28, 2007 1:56 PM | Link to this

It was actually rather refreshing to view the Republican debate lat night without the four clowns of the apocalypse present.

The cheers were almost deafening when Huckabee started by saying the four should be embarrassed. It was repeated several times by the others.

And Ron Paul was loudly cheered for calling on the end to Ronnie’s cherished but moronic war on drugs.

Only Brownback and Hunter seemed completely out of touch with anyone other than white Republican men. And even Keyes is an almost caricature.

If you want more of the same that has passed for governance the past seven years, vote for one of the four clowns or one of the three stooges.

If not, vote for somebody else.

Lincoln and Eisenhower, the only Republican Presidents whose policies demonstrated they gave a flying f@ck about the poor and non-whites.

By Miles Apart

September 28, 2007 2:01 PM | Link to this

Cheers 4 Dusty for the brief, (thank you), but devastating slap in the face she just nailed Rush with. There’s probably nothing left of Rush that will survive that we can recognize as him.

Dusty you rock solid. I look at your reply and observe a sheer beauty; remove one word and there would be diminishment… Remove an entire phrase and the whole structure would collapse.

We love you Dusty, you ROCK!!

By Dusty

September 28, 2007 2:01 PM | Link to this

Amvet @1:43

You are mistaking your own inclinations as those of the Commander-in-Chief. The only loose “screws” around are liberals like you who sit around all day defaming the President of the United States.

When you have been elected as Governor of one of our largest state and then President of the USA for two terms, then you can proclaim your greatness. Until then, don’t pass judgment on what you know so little about.

By Bill

September 28, 2007 2:01 PM | Link to this

Oh Krist! The filthy, crude, insect-covered dreeb, NASCAR’s very own HJpg Man, BD, is back. A constant reminder of the quality and intellect of the Republiscum party. Makes for a happy Friday. Dustbrain, RW, Duh, Doom, @@, all in action and pumping out that hatred, bitterness, failure, envy. All are deeply, deeply disturbed. Sad that they are currently permitted to breed and replenish their herd. We’ll have to change that.

By The Beatles

September 28, 2007 2:02 PM | Link to this

You say you want a revolution Well, you know We all want to change the world You tell me that it’s evolution Well, you know We all want to change the world

But when you talk about destruction Don’t you know that you can count me out Don’t you know it’s gonna be all right (3x)

You say you got a real solution Well, you know We’d all love to see the plan You ask me for a contribution Well, you know We’re doing what we can

But if you want money for people with minds that hate All I can tell is brother you have to wait / Don’t you know…

You say you’ll change the constitution Well, you know We all want to change your head You tell me it’s the institution Well, you know You’d better free your mind instead

But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao You ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow / Don’t you know… All right, all right…

By Pink

September 28, 2007 2:06 PM | Link to this

Dear Mr. President Come take a walk with me Let’s pretend we’re just two people and You’re not better than me I’d like to ask you some questions if we can speak honestly

What do you feel when you see all the homeless on the street Who do you pray for at night before you go to sleep What do you feel when you look in the mirror Are you proud

How do you sleep while the rest of us cry How do you dream when a mother has no chance to say goodbye How do you walk with your head held high Can you even look me in the eye And tell me why

Dear Mr. President Were you a lonely boy Are you a lonely boy Are you a lonely boy How can you say No child is left behind We’re not dumb and we’re not blind They’re all sitting in your cells While you pay the road to hell

What kind of father would take his own daughter’s rights away And what kind of father might hate his own daughter if she were gay I can only imagine what the first lady has to say You’ve come a long way from whiskey and cocaine

How do you sleep while the rest of us cry How do you dream when a mother has no chance to say goodbye How do you walk with your head held high Can you even look me in the eye

Let me tell you bout hard work Minimum wage with a baby on the way Let me tell you bout hard work Rebuilding your house after the bombs took them away Let me tell you bout hard work Building a bed out of a cardboard box Let me tell you bout hard work Hard work Hard work You don’t know nothing bout hard work Hard work Hard work Oh

How do you sleep at night How do you walk with your head held high Dear Mr. President You’d never take a walk with me Would you

By Neil Young

September 28, 2007 2:09 PM | Link to this

I’m living with war everyday I’m living with war in my heart every day I’m living with war right now

And when the dawn breaks I see my fellow man And on the flat-screen we kill and we’re killed again And when the night falls, I pray for peace Try to remember peace (visualize)

I join the multitudes I raise my hand in peace I never bow to the laws of the thought police I take a holy vow To never kill again To never kill again

I’m living with war in my heart I’m living with war in my heart in my mind I’m living with war right now

Don’t take no tidal wave Don’t take no mass grave Don’t take no smokin’ gun To show how the west was won But when the curtain falls, I pray for peace Try to remember peace (visualize)

In the crowded streets In the big hotels In the mosques and the doors of the old museum I take a holy vow To never kill again Try to remember peace

The rocket’s red glare Bombs bursting in air Give proof through the night, That our flag is still there

I’m living with war everyday I’m living with war in my heart every day I’m living with wat right now

By Merle Haggard

September 28, 2007 2:12 PM | Link to this

Why don’t we liberate these United States We’re the ones who need it the worst Let the rest of the world help us for a change And let’s rebuild America first

Our highways and bridges are falling apart Who’s blessed and who has been cursed There’s things to be done all over the world But let’s rebuild America first

Who’s on the hill and who’s watching the valley Who’s in charge of it all God bless the Army and God bless our liberty Dadgum the rest of it all

Yeah, men in position but backing away Freedom is stuck in reverse Let’s get out of Iraq and get back on the track And let’s rebuild America first

Why don’t we liberate these United States We’re the ones who need it the most You think I’m blowing smoke Boys it ain’t no joke I make twenty trips a year from coast to coast

By Right Said Fred

September 28, 2007 2:13 PM | Link to this

FRANKLIN, Tenn. - Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson said Thursday he was unaware that a federal judge had ruled last week that lethal injection procedures in his home state were unconstitutional.

Wants to run the whole country and influence the world but ain’t got the first clue about what is even happening in his own state of TN.

Typical Republican: sexy but no substance, just like the song….

======================

“I’m too sexy” by Right Said Fred

I’m Too Sexy

I’m too sexy for my love too sexy for my love Love’s going to leave me

I’m too sexy for my shirt too sexy for my shirt So sexy it hurts And I’m too sexy for Milan too sexy for Milan New York and Japan

And I’m too sexy for your party Too sexy for your party No way I’m disco dancing

I’m a model you know what I mean And I do my little turn on the catwalk Yeah on the catwalk on the catwalk yeah I do my little turn on the catwalk

By Dusty

September 28, 2007 2:24 PM | Link to this

Miles Apart,2:01

Golly gee I am overwhelmed with gratitude at your fervant response. I am forever indebted to your spontaneous specious spots of joy. If I ever listen to Rush, which I never have, I will always think of Miles Apart, who is even greater than getalife.

Best love always. I light a “bugs-away” candle in your honor.

By Luckoduh

September 28, 2007 2:30 PM | Link to this

{{{{Notwithstanding (Suckie Face) Waxman’s billing as a legislator who loves to “write laws, and he has been extraordinarily good at it,” only three of the 95 bills he has sponsored in the past decade have been enacted. Seventy-seven of them were so good that they didn’t even make their way out of committee.}}}}

Worthless, totally worthless.

By rushncap

September 28, 2007 2:38 PM | Link to this

Muffin — sorry to disappoint you, but I’m not going to help you engage in your sexual fantasies. That is far too disturbing.

Dusters — I’m bored not because I’m smart, I’m bored because I’m bored. Also, one does not need to be Einstein to explain the Copenhagen Interpretation any more than one needs to be Shakespeare to act in his plays or one needs to be Newton to teach high school calculus. I’m not worthy to hold Einstein’s jockstrap, however that does not mean I can’t teach physics. Dimwit.

By John Fogerty

September 28, 2007 2:38 PM | Link to this

Some folks are born made to wave the flag, Ooh, theyre red, white and blue. And when the band plays hail to the chief, Ooh, they point the cannon at you, lord,

It aint me, it aint me, I aint no senators son, son. It aint me, it aint me; I aint no fortunate one, no,

Yeah! Some folks are born silver spoon in hand, Lord, dont they help themselves, oh. But when the taxman comes to the door, Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale, yes,

It aint me, it aint me, I aint no millionaires son, no. It aint me, it aint me; I aint no fortunate one, no.

Some folks inherit star spangled eyes, Ooh, they send you down to war, lord, And when you ask them, how much should we give? Ooh, they only answer more! more! more! yoh,

It aint me, it aint me, I aint no military son, son. It aint me, it aint me; I aint no fortunate one, one.

It aint me, it aint me, I aint no fortunate one, no no no, It aint me, it aint me, I aint no fortunate son, no no no,

By Buy Danish

September 28, 2007 2:44 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

Isn’t it amazing that our resident “scientist”, little squirt rushncap, observes that Rush Limbaugh is an “idiot” yet he admits that he has never actually listened to him.

I wonder what scientific process munchkin used to arrive at his conclusion.

It must be the process of “consensus” whereby because his Moonbat sources say something it must be true and therefore he can parrot their “findings” as fact.

By Gonna Love 08

September 28, 2007 2:45 PM | Link to this

Yep the Gay Old Party sure is the one to lecture us about being real soldiers,

Commander in Cheif- couldnt find his way to nam even though he is wearing a uniform.

Cheney- to busy fighting the gays to enlist.

Rummy- Never served.

Rush- wouldnt know a good soldier from a phony soldier because of excessive viagra and oxy use.

Bottom line the GOP has got us in a huge mess and you sheep march right along them. Reminds me of the saying my mom used to have “Well if they jumped off the bridge would you?” Of course i allways answered NO, but the GOP lovers on this sight would jump if W or Cheney did….

By Just Like a Republican

September 28, 2007 2:46 PM | Link to this

WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday that every child born in the United States should get a $5,000 “baby bond” from the government to help pay for future costs of college or buying a home.

Shades of Herbert Hoover, ain’t Hillary sounding just like a Republican?

Remember what Richard Nixon’s cousin, Herbert Hoover (R), said in his 1928 campaign slogan?

“A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage.”- Herbert Hoover (R), 1928

By getalife

September 28, 2007 2:57 PM | Link to this

More outrage from Rush as the wingnuts cheer him on

Where is the Move on type outrage wingnuts?

By Dusty's Support Group

September 28, 2007 3:05 PM | Link to this

Support the Troops!! On to Iran…..

Lawmakers deplore ‘frightening’ state of Army readinessBy Otto Kreisher CongressDaily September 27, 2007 Members of the House Armed Services Committee expressed concern Wednesday that the sustained combat in Iraq and Afghanistan has reduced the Army’s ability to respond to any new conflict. “The Army has degraded to an intolerable point,” Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton, D-Mo., said. Recalling the so-called “hollow Army” that came out of 10 years of war in Vietnam, he said, “The parallels are alarming. We cannot afford to break the Army again.” Similar fears were voiced by members from both parties, including House Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee ranking member John McHugh, R-N.Y., who said the prepared remarks of the committee’s lead witness, Army Chief of Staff George Casey, were “just downright frightening.” House Armed Services ranking member Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., conceded that the war is “wearing on our forces,” but said that was no reason “to throw up our hands and give up.” Nonetheless, the overriding concerns of lawmakers were validated by Casey and Army Secretary Pete Geren, who told the panel the Army could not respond to another conflict as fast or as well as they would like. “Today’s Army is out of balance,” said Casey, a four-star general. “The current demand for our forces exceeds the sustainable supply.” Although he believes “the next several decades will be ones of persistent conflict” and the Army cannot accurately predict when and where the next war will occur, Casey said, “we are consumed with meeting the demands of the current fight and are unable to provide ready forces as rapidly as necessary for other potential contingencies.” The general cited the “stress and strain” on soldiers, their families and Army support systems and said equipment is “wearing out at a far greater pace than expected.” He noted that the Army Reserve and National Guard “are performing an operational role for which they were neither originally designed nor resourced.” “Overall, our readiness is being consumed as fast as we can build it,” Casey said. And because combat forces returning from Iraq or Afghanistan must be prepared quickly for more counterinsurgency deployments and cannot train for a wider con

By Paul

September 28, 2007 3:08 PM | Link to this

Hey Paul

10:20 You may want to check Clinton’s disclosure form for speaking fees. If you care to expand the boundaries under the heading of profiting from his position, you may want to Google Sheik Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum or the Dubai ports deal.

10:40 You do realize you’ll still be having the troop withdrawal discussions if Hillary or Barak win, don’t you?

11:16 Okay with me, too. Just don’t expect Hillary to pay attention!

11:39 Don’t know if that’s concurrence or not. Doesn’t matter. An underlying concern is the possibility that if a mission can be done “on the cheap” it may lead to more such debacles in the future. The mindset concerns me.

11:55 Why not? May want to check out the timelines of the attacks, the numbers killed and injured (African nationals count, too). Many dismissed al Qaeda’s war declaration rather contemptuously – a variation of Stalin’s “how many divisions does the Pope command?” question. Very, very few actions involving insurgencies or nontraditional military forces started out large. Witness Mao. Or Lenin. But they grew. And this is ideologically driven – as were they.

Personally, I wouldn’t be so dismissive of “a man in a dress with a beard.” The guy has resources, capability, intelligence and the ability to inspire (and harm) a great number.

12:13 Goldie generally doesn’t answer such questions as “If a declaration is an attack, why did the US not respond with a counter declaration of war and conduct military operations when bin Laden declared war on the US in the late 90s?” I believe you answered in context of your 11:55. It seems you consider war declarations valid only if done by a recognized nation with a conventional military of a certain size. I believe that was the attitude of the Federal bureaucracy prior to 9-11.

12:23 Me, too. I was wrong, once. It was the time I thought I made a mistake! :-)

Thx

AmVet

The first time I saw the Kosovo-Iraq comparison was in the context of “our guy knew how to fight and win a war, yours didn’t.” Frankly, I think that’s the kind of mindset that encourages military adventurism.

Later, all-

By AmVet

September 28, 2007 3:20 PM | Link to this

Military adventurism.

Now there’s a term you don’t see very often!

But George does remind me somewhat of Pee Wee in his Big Adventure!

Which characteristics make America especially vulnerable?

The essential components are an autocratic government (check), favorably disposed mass culture (check), public ignorance and misplaced trust(double check), cooperative mass media (check), and political exploitation for personal and institutional advantages (multiple checks).

Yep, looks like we’re being led by military adventurists alright!

By Goldie

September 28, 2007 3:34 PM | Link to this

{{12:13 Goldie generally doesn’t answer such questions as “If a declaration is an attack, why did the US not respond … BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH}}

Paul— I answered you, so why don’t you STFU??? We can’t declare war on “terrrrisssts” like your prez says he is trying to do today — so against which country in the 90’s are you suggesting we should have declared war? WHICH COUNTRY, PAUL???

Tim McVeigh and Eric Rudolph declared their wars against America, too, in the 90’s, so you’re suggesting that we should’ve started bombing our way through America in order to declare “war” on them? Which states should we have declared war on right here in America, you idiot Paul???

Instead, you support the idea of bombing a country in the Middle East whose citizens may look a little like Bin Laden, but where he was not to be found and was not at all supported — GFY PAUL.

By rushncap

September 28, 2007 3:40 PM | Link to this

Muffin — I know enough about Limbaugh to know that he’s an idiot. I never listen to David Duke of Fred Phelps either, but that does not mean I really need to hear them to know where I stand. I know enough of Limbaugh, and have seen enough snippets and analyses of his BS to know that sitting around counting empty beer can in frat court on a sunday morning is a more productive use of my time. I guarantee you that you never listen to Keith Olbermann or Jon Stewart either, btw. At least you’ve stopped talking about your sexual fantasies. Thank the good devil.

By Goldie

September 28, 2007 3:41 PM | Link to this

{{… The guy has resources, capability, intelligence and the ability to inspire (and harm) a great number.}}

BLAH BLAH PAUL— You forgot to add, “but the guy does not have a recognized standing army that our military forces can declare war against… and it would be such a shame to try to pre-emptively bomb other countries that had nothing to do with that guy in the dress, either. Boy, I’m sure glad America did not step in some doo-doo like that! Nosiree, that would sure be the stupidest thing an American president could do!”

By getalife

September 28, 2007 3:51 PM | Link to this

Senate Democratic Leaders Demand Apology For Limbaugh’s ‘Outrageous,’ ‘Unconscionable’ Remarks

Screw that , vote on a resolution!

By Paul

September 28, 2007 3:55 PM | Link to this

Goldie

Can you discuss anything without mentioning Iran? Why do you keep equating Iran with al Qaeda and the war against militant Islam? They’re not the same thing.

I did not see where you answered. Sure we can declare War or Military Action against jihadists. The Constitution does not say anything about “countries” regarding war declarations.

Congress has, many times, authorized (short of a war declaration) military action against nonstate entities.

I just think you don’t want to answer as you think it would reflect poorly on the Clinton Administration. I, on the other hand, view it as a perfectly understandable chain of events.

Tim McVeigh? You know better than that.

So, Goldie, if we accept your assertion the US can’t declare war on al Qaeda, because they aren’t a country, by what authority do we conduct military actions against them? By what right do we invade other countries to get them? Do you suggest we just go wherever we want ‘cause we’re the baddest on the block? Like into Pakistan? Or Indonesia? Or the Philippines?

This is getting quite fascinating! Whoever knew ultralibs were so willing do dash about the globe with military forces? Or the FBI.

By AmVet

September 28, 2007 4:02 PM | Link to this

As if everyone with half a brain and a quarter of a conscience didn’t already know it - we’re screwed.

Why?

Because by the time the voters repudiate this leader responsible for plunging the nation into a senseless war, the damage has been done and cannot be undone.

So to cover their tracks, the leaders of this War Party are relying on Machiavelli-like “wisdom” to “guide” them.

It is necessary…to be a great pretender and dissembler; and men are so simple, and so subject to present necessities, that he who seeks to deceive will always find someone who will allow himself to be deceived.

Can you say AMEN, my neo-con adversaries?

Pretending to cut taxes, yet wildly increasing federal spending for nearly every species of boondoggle (thus buying off potential Democratic opponents in Congress).

Hiking the deficit and shoving the burden of servicing the resultant public debt onto future generations of taxpayers.

They understand well the classic expression of political irresponsibility.

Apres nous le deluge.

These endless screw ups will be our children’s problems then, and few of those unfortunate neo-con children who find themselves immersed will look back and blame the true culprits.

By Paul

September 28, 2007 4:06 PM | Link to this

Goldie

My previous -

I meant to type “Can you discuss anything without mentioning IraQ? Why do you keep equating IraQ with al Qaeda and the war against militant Islam? They’re not the same thing.”

You’re the second uberlib who’s referred to a dishadasha or a furwah or other Arabic men’s clothing as a “dress.” Whatever happened to cultural sensitivity?

By Goldie

September 28, 2007 4:07 PM | Link to this

{{by what authority do we conduct military actions against them? By what right do we invade other countries to get them?}}

Paul, we knew that Al-Qaida had been given safe haven in AFGHANISTAN and when the Taliban refused to turn Bin Laden over to us, that was our REASON FOR INVADING AFGHANISTAN…

Please do try to pay attention to the real facts. And like I’ve suggested before to help you with your ongoing confusion, stop listening to Bill Orally — do it for your children, even if you don’t care what we bloggers think about you… and also GFY.

By Goldie

September 28, 2007 4:11 PM | Link to this

{{Can you discuss anything without mentioning Iran?}}

BLAH BLAH BLAH— When did I mention “Iran” except this morning @ 8:34??? Lots of other discussions since then… god, you’re really flatulating yourself into a little bitty circle today.

By Goldie

September 28, 2007 4:14 PM | Link to this

There’s some “phony soldiers” in America who want to talk to the Oxycontin-Head:

You weren’t just flat out wrong, you offended a majority of those of us who actually had the courage to go to Iraq and serve, while you sat back in your nice studio, coming up with crap like this. — My challenge to you, then, is to have me on the show and say all of this again, right to the face of someone who served in Iraq. I’ll come on any day, any time. Not only will I once again explain why your comments were so wrong, but I will completely school you on why your refusal to seek a way out of Iraq is only aiding al Qaeda and crippling American security. —Ball’s in your court.

By Paul

September 28, 2007 4:14 PM | Link to this

AmVet

[[As if everyone with half a brain and a quarter of a conscience didn’t already know it - we’re screwed.]]

Double screwed? Look at the latest Dem candidate statements “we’re gonna be there a loonnnnnng time because… well, it’ll take a long time to undo Bush’s mess.”

Isn’t this the same excuse the Dem Congress used to justify their lack of accomplishments? “It’ll take a long time to clean up this mess?”

So, I predict we’re headed for round three (triple screw?) - just as Bush faithful justified so much of what happened by pointing back to the Clinton Administration, so will, after the election, Dem Presidential faithful justify lack of action or screwups on their part by pointing back at the Bush Administration.

The more things change, the more things stay the same -

By N-GA

September 28, 2007 4:15 PM | Link to this

Gold - $742.60/oz

1 euro = 1.4267 USD 1 Canadian $ = 1.00579 USD 1 USD = 7.5047 PRC Yuan

Dubai buys 20% of NASDAQ….

They have to do something with all those USD’s. Maybe the PRC, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Kuwait, UAE, etc. will go on a shopping spree in the USofA. We can get a bunch of our dollars back, and maybe when they buy up a lot of farmland, forest land, watershed, etc. we get get another real estate boom going! Maybe the government will try to sell more public lands…we have plenty, right?

/sarc/

By Buy Danish

September 28, 2007 4:16 PM | Link to this

{{{I guarantee you that you never listen to Keith Olbermann or Jon Stewart either}}}

Idiot rushncap,

You are almost correct. I used to listen to Olbermann during the Clinton presidency/Monica scandal days before Fox had arrived on the scene. I found him to be short-tempered, surly, irascible, uninformed and thus…obnoxious.

I occasionally listen to Jon Stewart and loved his Hillary Fake Bionic laugh bit from a few days ago.

That being said, I have NEVER commented on either one of them so your example is, like you, completely irrelevant and meaningless.

As for your weird and often violent fantasies, they are all yours munchkie, you think them, you own them.

By Gonna Love 08

September 28, 2007 4:18 PM | Link to this

Paul,

Since your such an authority on invading countries, why didnt we attack Saudi Arabia? 13 of the hijackers plus bin laden and his number 2 are all from Saudi. So Mr. Wizard why did we attack Iraq and not Saudi????

By Buy Danish

September 28, 2007 4:22 PM | Link to this

Very interesting. It seems that first the tribal chiefs and now the Taliban have turned against AQ, and Bin Laden and company are running out of safe harbors.

What’s a homeless Jihadi to do? The author suggests that he may be forced to go to Iraq.

By Goldie

September 28, 2007 4:23 PM | Link to this

{{Tim McVeigh? You know better than that.}}

So, BLAH BLAH— you’re also a McVeigh apologist like a few other trolls here? What, he doesn’t count in your eyes because the casualty count was only in the hundreds??? You also don’t believe that if he knew he could’ve killed as many as Bin Laden did, he wouldn’t have done those crimes after all?

Ugh, you’re real creepy now.

By Paul

September 28, 2007 4:25 PM | Link to this

Goldie 4:11

[[Lots of other discussions since then… god, you’re really flatulating yourself into a little bitty circle today.]]

I understand your confusion, but you can call me ‘Paul.’ Thanks anyway -

By IN THE NEWS

September 28, 2007 4:26 PM | Link to this

Newt Gingrich: Republicans Ran “Cheap And Nasty” Campaign Against Kerry In 2004

By Goldie

September 28, 2007 4:27 PM | Link to this

{{Whatever happened to cultural sensitivity?}}

Where has that ever existed in the blogospere?

By Cindy

September 28, 2007 4:28 PM | Link to this

Goldie, You go girl! These neo cons think they have all the answers, but they are so wrong. Defending an administration that supported this ill conceived, ill planned, poorly implemented Iraqi invasion is proof enough to me that they aren’t worth my precious time. BTW. I was chatting to an Airman last week (which is very much worth my time). He asked me if I was for or against the war and I told him my feelings. He said “me too.” He looked down and then told me he had orders for Iraq and he didn’t want to go. “But”, he said as he looked up with a sad smile, “I signed on the dotted line.” That truly pulled on my heart strings. The idiot necons on this blog don’t look these troops in the eyes, hear their stories or touch their warm flesh; they see them as a machine (and don’t even consider families) and that is a very poor way to treat our warriors.

By AmVet

September 28, 2007 4:28 PM | Link to this

{Isn’t this the same excuse the Dem Congress used to justify their lack of accomplishments? “It’ll take a long time to clean up this mess?”}

Not really.

The GOP still has significant minorities in both houses of Congress and of course, the veto power with you know who in the White House.

Thus the gridlock they so desperately want, as it is now their only playing card.

IF the Dems take 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and increase their majorities by a fair margin in both the Senate and House (both scenarios quite possible, even likely), they can start effecting immediate and substantial improvements.

The GOP has to defend 22 Senate seats and the Dems 12.

I can smell another Republican thrashing coming up.

By rushncap

September 28, 2007 4:29 PM | Link to this

Really Muffin? You mean 6 years after 9/11 the guy who committed the worst terrorist act in U.S. history is slightly less comfortable? Wow, let’s erase Lincoln and chisel Shrub into Mount Rushmore.

By Buy Danish

September 28, 2007 4:30 PM | Link to this

GoldieDhimmi,

This is a baldfaced LIE: {{{As Media Matters reported today, Rush Limbaugh, on his show said that those troops who come home and want to get America out of the middle of the religious civil war in Iraq are “phony soldiers.”}}}

But since you are so brilliant and well-informed (/sarc) I’ll give you the opportunity to redeem yourself and point out where he said what Hillary’s utterly shameless propaganda arm claims he said.

Rush’s words are all right here, on tape and in transcript form.

N-GA,

If your scenario of all these foreign countries buying America is correct then they won’t have much incentive to attack us, will they?

By Dusty

September 28, 2007 4:30 PM | Link to this

Paul@4:06

You put Goldie in a post along with sensitivity? Those two do not go together. That is like putting rushncap with compatibility. They do not compute.

Well, let me run and check on my “Support Group” of fictitious origin. They are quoting General Casey and I only quote the prestigious General Petraeus. Right away,liberals mess up. They can’t even get a phony post right.

By getalife

September 28, 2007 4:32 PM | Link to this

BS BD,

KO tells the truth and it interferes with your wingnut mind set.

Reality is not part of that mind set.

By rushncap

September 28, 2007 4:35 PM | Link to this

Muffin — I NEVER once talk about sex or fantasies. Not once. You are the one who always brings them up, I occasionally respond to that to simply tell you to STFU because I don’t want to imagine an old ugly hag like you naked.

I’m glad you found Fox “News”. I can understand that thinking was taking its toll on you, and we can’t have that. Enjoy Rush. I’ll stick to listening to those whose audience’s IQ is at least north of their age.

By AmVet

September 28, 2007 4:38 PM | Link to this

ITN @ 4:26.

We’ve discussed Newt’s “epiphany” before numerous times, but this just keeps getting weirder and weirder!

Call me suspicious, but I really don’t trust the very architect of the GOP slime machine.

He’s still unquestionably very smart, but has he shaken off the Republican evil disease? I have my doubts.

But at least he’s got the grandfather of the neo-cons rolling in his grave by consistently breaking the 11th Commandment.

What a complete party tool old Ronnie was!

By rushncap

September 28, 2007 4:39 PM | Link to this

Dusters, you really need to brush up on your backhanded swipes. Whatever you wrote about me and compatibility makes zero sense. If you’re gonna insult me, at least try to make it coherent.

Thanks in advance.

By J. Carmen

September 28, 2007 4:41 PM | Link to this

I would like to ask a question. I have served two tours of duty in Iraq and have listened quite a bit to Rush Limbaugh, mostly because he has always been such a strong backer of the troops like myself and our mission against the terrorists in Iraq.

My question is, why would an outfit like this Media Matters group go and take Rush’s words and twist them into something he did not say? And why do you people on the left spread that lie with such eagerness?

I thought you supported the troops?

Sorry, that was actually 3 questions, but anyway, thanks.

By getalife

September 28, 2007 4:43 PM | Link to this

“The question that he quoted at the beginning is from Drew Westen at The New Republic:

The question Democrats have never asked Republicans since the war began is the only one that really matters: Would you send your own child to die in Iraq? And if so, have you done everything you can to convince your children that, if this is truly the war you say it is–for our freedom, for our very way of life, to keep the terrorists “over there” so that we don’t fight them “over here”–they should drop their lucrative investment banking careers and be all they can be in Baghdad?”

Like cheney said, not worth it. Period.

By Help Me Out

September 28, 2007 4:43 PM | Link to this

Was the transcipt BuY Danish posted his original words or the transcript of the day after?

By Paul

September 28, 2007 4:43 PM | Link to this

Goldie 4:07

You do know we didn’t declare war against Afghanistan, don’t you? So you think we should invade any country who harbors a member of a terrorist organization (against whom we can’t declare war) - or is it only if they’re a lot weaker than we are?

BOR? Straw Man Number Two!

N-GA 4:15

Thanks for the cold-water dousing back to reality -

Gonna Love ‘08

[[Since your such an authority on invading countries, why didnt we attack Saudi Arabia?]]

I believe Goldie’s the authority. She’s attempting to explain why we can’t declare war against a noncounty but can invade countries who don’t give us what we want.

Goldie 4:23

Equating McVeigh with OBL is like equating Warren Jeffs with Buddha. You know better.

Straw Man Number Three!

Goldie 4:27

[[{{Whatever happened to cultural sensitivity?}}

Where has that ever existed in the blogospere?]]

I thought uberlibs were different? More’s the pity -

Cindy 4:28

One more time… we were discussing al Qaeda. Why must so many of you turn all discussions to Iraq and continue the fiction the war in Iraq is all about al Qaeda? I suppose it gives you ultralibs something to criticize.

Straw Man Number Four!

AmVet 4:28

RW-(the original) raised a question earlier about the makeup during Reagan’s term -

I seem to recall the “take a long time to clean up” reason used a lot her.

Buy Danish

Welcome back -

By Milhouse

September 28, 2007 4:45 PM | Link to this

Pop Quiz:

Name the only party to have a President resign in shame?

That should tell you all you need to know about the Republicans….

By Dusty

September 28, 2007 4:47 PM | Link to this

Cindy @4:28

Why is it you have always just talked to an airman, sailor, admiral, general and they all tell sad stories?

I felt “some warm military flesh” or handshake two weeks ago when a member of our church was leaving for Iraq. His brother was already there. He didn’t look a bit sad or mention “dotted lines”. He was a Marine ready to go. Not celebrating, just READY.

I admire our volunteer troops who are fighting for us. They are our sons and daughters, fathers and mothers.

You, Cindy, betray them by acting like they are little kids that don’t know what they are doing. Then you broadcast that they are fighting for nothing. If that is the way you support the troops, I surely do hope they don’t hear about it.

By Gonna Love 08

September 28, 2007 4:51 PM | Link to this

Paul,

That is not what she was saying at all. Of course you turned it into what you wanted not what she said, you popping oxy with Rush????

By Buy Danish

September 28, 2007 4:53 PM | Link to this

{{{By rushncap

September 28, 2007 4:29 PM | Link to this

Really Muffin? You mean 6 years after 9/11 the guy who committed the worst terrorist act in U.S. history is slightly less comfortable? Wow, let’s erase Lincoln and chisel Shrub into Mount Rushmore.}}}

rushncap,

Well, golly you’re quite the speed reader if you opened the link to that American Thinker article, read it in its entirety, and posted a comment about it all in the span of 7 minutes!

Of course you didn’t, which is how you came to the erroneous conclusion that the article was about making him “slightly less comfortable”.

It’s about how the entire worldwide Jihadist movement is falling apart - thanks in no small part to the efforts of George W. Bush, and no thanks at all to the MSM and the chorus of squawking parrots - like yourself.

By Goldie

September 28, 2007 4:53 PM | Link to this

{{Equating McVeigh with OBL is like equating Warren Jeffs with Buddha. You know better.}}

WHA’????? You’re really a big mess, aren’t you BLAH BLAH?

By Goldie

September 28, 2007 4:55 PM | Link to this

Our occupation of Iraq is just a political football for the Repugs in Congress:

WASHINGTON (AP) — A small group of Republicans facing election fights next year have rallied around war legislation they think could unite the GOP: Call for an end to U.S. combat in Iraq, but wait until President Bush is out of office.

You Repugs should all be ASHAMED!

By Dusty

September 28, 2007 4:57 PM | Link to this

rushncap@ 4:39

Oh, I am very coherent. Your pompous proclivity to proclaim your “genius” status is the opposite of compatibility…right here on this blog. Intelligence is rarely displayed by bragging and seldom enjoyed by others.

I am glad you are “smart”. It is good to have one redeeming feature.

By Goldie

September 28, 2007 4:59 PM | Link to this

{{Why must so many of you turn all discussions to Iraq and continue the fiction the war in Iraq is all about al Qaeda?}}

BLAH BLAH— you need to go take your meds, Dude. It’s your right-wingnut friends who believe the “fiction” of Iraq and Al-Qaeda!

Please— Take your fake outrage over to Wooten’s blog where you may get some kinda blowback that you so obviously crave.

By Susan

September 28, 2007 4:59 PM | Link to this

J. Carmen, thanks for your brave service.

Isn’t it really rancid the way these sycophants on the left conduct themselves when confronted with free speech that is beyond their stunted level of thinking?

And if you were one of the 30 million people that were listening to Rush that day and heard with your own ears what he really said, what would be your first thought when you saw the lies being spread by Media Matters?

What else have they lied about?

So if nothing else, they’ve made Limbaugh into a martyr, with millions flocking to his defense.

I guess we should thank them.

By RE

September 28, 2007 5:01 PM | Link to this

Anyone concerned about Rush Limbaughs comments about “phoney soldiers”, here is a list of his sponsors, take a few minutes and let them know how you feel

By rushncap

September 28, 2007 5:01 PM | Link to this

Muffin — I don’t read your links. You never post anything worth reading. I reacted to your post. If you don’t like that, bite me. We’ve been “winning” or “turning the corner” according to you neocon idiots for half a decade. I don’t buy that swill any more. None of the actually credible sources agree with that assessment. 6 years later we STILL haven’t even sniffed bin Laden. Your “President” has been such an abject, pathetic failure, we won’t before he leaves office. One day I’ll be telling my children about these 8 years the way American grandparents tell their kids about the Great Depression. Only I’ll be able to show them videos of the Chimpenator in full Technicolor.

By AmVet

September 28, 2007 5:04 PM | Link to this

As I’ve noted before, one of the few good things about Reagan was that he did not completely surround himself with sycophants and yes men like the current CIC has.

It appears that like most US Presidents he actually valued differing opinions and weighed very disparate ideas. He may well have ultimately dismissed them, but still.

And he had the Reagan Democrats to help him get his IMHO misguided policies pushed through.

The next Democrat will likely have a few if not a fair amount of Clinton Republicans to do the same. But only because the GOP candidates are going to HAVE to moderate their positions to even have a chance of not getting slaughtered next November.

That is true in spite of the nonsense I read here about how last November’s debacle was because Bush and others were not “conservative” enough!

These ultra neo-cons will never get it. They would rather make up this claptrap than acknowledge the truth.

It is their neo-conservative policy and ineptitude, arrogance and corruption that is doing them in.

So for now this GOP is so hopelessly stuck in the past, they are of no good to anyone - themselves, the Dems or the country.

By Paul

September 28, 2007 5:06 PM | Link to this

Gonna love 08 4:51

Serious question. Serious answer.

The country of origin of jihadists is not the issue. The common ideology, and the ties of their organization(s) are the issues.

As we’ve seen in the US and Europe, the next sticking point will be how to deal with citizens who are members of jihadist groups conducting war against the motherland. We’re in for some gut wrenching times.

Goldie 4:53

Perhaps you’ll enlighten us on the commonalities of McVeigh and al Qaeda - other than they blow things up and slaughter innocents? Is your implication they’re the same and should be dealt with in the same manner?

Before you get into your circular logic comments again, remember - you’re the one who brought it up, not me.

By rushncap

September 28, 2007 5:06 PM | Link to this

Dusters — what on Earth are you talking about? Are you trying to outdumb Muffin? You’re doing pretty well, girl, in such a case. First of all, you little lying b!tch, if you find me ever claiming to be a “genius” I’ll wire you $1000 no questions asked. You can use it to put a down payment on lipo. And with the last $30 of that money you can buy a thesaurus and verify that not only “genius” and “compatibility” are not antonyms of each other, they’re not even related to each other in any significant way.

BTW, I never brag about my intelligence. I’m under no illusion about its grandeur or lack thereof. I just call you and your ilk dumb. That fact is true irrespective of my own intelligence.

By getalife

September 28, 2007 5:08 PM | Link to this

Thanks RE, I will.

We have established the wingnuts think it is okay for the gop to bash the troops.Pathetic.

On a lighter note:

“Airport officials plan to put in new stall dividers just 2 to 3 inches above the floor, instead of as much as a foot now. The new dividers will go in two bathrooms where the airport has had complaints about sex, including the one where Craig was arrested.”

gop freak show,

Geez.

By Goldie

September 28, 2007 5:08 PM | Link to this

Love ‘08 @ 4:51 — lotsa luck figuring out Paul’s circles! He can really give you a bad case of vertigo with his conflations.

By Paul

September 28, 2007 5:11 PM | Link to this

Goldie 4:59

[[you need to go take your meds, Dude. It’s your right-wingnut friends who believe the “fiction” of Iraq and Al-Qaeda!]]

Fake outrage? Just making the point, in a very blunt way, that whenever the discussion is on OBL or al Qaeda you seem to be the one who INTRODUCES IRAQ into the discussion.

By AmVet

September 28, 2007 5:13 PM | Link to this

Limbaugh a martyr?!!!!!!!!!

WOW! I guess if you live long enough, you just might hear anything.

But it reminds me of a line in Rundgren’s Beloved Infidel:

Now the weak are vilified and the wicked glorified

BUT WAIT!

There is one definition that works:

By Goldie

September 28, 2007 5:13 PM | Link to this

{{Perhaps you’ll enlighten us on the commonalities of McVeigh and al Qaeda - }}

BLAH BLAH— how about: they’re all considered “terrorists”, yet which one have we actually pursued successfully, and it did not involve any “war” to do it???

By AmVet

September 28, 2007 5:16 PM | Link to this

getalife, I reported a few days ago that incidents of bathroom cruising were down significantly since Senator Craig’s, “I’m guilty. No wait, I’m not.” fiasco.

But those new dividers sound like they are really going to put a crimp in Wide Stance’s style!

Sometimes this stuff is just so funny, you couldn’t possibly make it up!

By Goldie

September 28, 2007 5:16 PM | Link to this

{{whenever the discussion is on OBL or al Qaeda you seem to be the one who INTRODUCES IRAQ }}

BLAH — and what is the reason given by your Neo-con troll-buddies about why we’ve occupied IRAQ in the FIRST PLACE, DUDE?

There’s your “fiction”, and GFY.

By Luckoduh

September 28, 2007 5:19 PM | Link to this

{{{{By Susan September 28, 2007 4:59 PM Isn’t it really rancid the way these sycophants on the left conduct themselves when confronted with free speech that is beyond their stunted level of thinking?}}}}

Susan: While I agree that their inbred ignorance is definitely a factor in why liberals are such pathological liars, I also feel that it runs deeper than that.

Remember how Bill Klintoon was called an “uncommonly good liar?”

It all stems from their utter and total lack of morals; they have sexual habits that are similar to any common barnyard animal, they see no problem slaughtering unborn babies with power tools in fact pursue with much enjoyment, they actively try to undermine the very country they live in, they hate God, so what is a bald faced lie to them?

It’s all so very sick.

By Goldie

September 28, 2007 5:23 PM | Link to this

Susan @ 4:59 — so just like RW posted earlier today, you know who the “real” soldiers are and they all want to stay in Iraq? Is that your claim?

By getalife

September 28, 2007 5:24 PM | Link to this

{{Perhaps you’ll enlighten us on the commonalities of McVeigh and al Qaeda - }}

Goldie,

You are talking RW.

The above is a dead giveaway.

Just use RW , RW.

Geez.

By Goldie

September 28, 2007 5:29 PM | Link to this

{{It’s all so very sick.}}

DUHHH— it’s all too clear who the sick one here on the blog is, you America-hater!

By Buy Danish

September 28, 2007 5:29 PM | Link to this

{{{By Help Me Out

September 28, 2007 4:43 PM | Link to this

Was the transcipt BuY Danish posted his original words or the transcript of the day after?}}

HMO,

I posted his original words this morning. Recently, I directed Goldie to a link of today’s monologue, which contains his original words along with commentary on the ludicrous claims that that are being peddled as the faux scandal du jour.

{{{By rushncap

September 28, 2007 4:35 PM | Link to this

Muffin — I NEVER once talk about sex or fantasies.}}}

You have frequently expressed a fantasy about “slapping me around”, and similar sentiments, to me and other women - not to mention bizarre references to raping donkeys and other such oddities.

It’s your subconscious doing the talking, Munchkie. It doesn’t take a degree in psychology to figure it out.

By Paul

September 28, 2007 5:29 PM | Link to this

Goldie 5:13

Now serious. No legal (UN) definitions of terrorism exist. Some use any attack against those not the cause of the grievance as as an example of “terrorism.” So the “everyone has their own definition” thing muddies the discussion, such as it is.

McVeigh blew up the OKC Federal building in revenge for Waco and Ruby Ridge. That alone constitutes a “terrorist act” by many commonly-held definitions.

al Qaeda is an ideological movement, worldwide, with specific goals and objectives. It seeks to obtain political objectives (not merely revenge) by means of killing those whom we consider innocents (they consider guilty) to bring about the destruction of existing societies and governments and the establishment of their own ‘government.’

That is why I consider them to have common elements (killing innocents to make a statement) I do not consider McVeigh and OBL synonymous. Nor should they be handled in the same manner.

Jimminy, I asked you why you thought why they were the same, I ended up having to tell you the common elements I saw but why, in the end, I find them so dissimilar.

See? If you’d just finish addressing one issue before introducing another you wouldn’t get so exercised about “circular logic” (which, as you describe, I find neither circular nor logical).

By AmVet

September 28, 2007 5:33 PM | Link to this

Yesterday someone posted one of those goofy but entertaining “tests” to see what candidate you might support by answering their questions.

As a goof, I thought I’d play with it a little.

If you answered yes to every question you ended up with Rudy.

No to everyone and you got Ron Paul.

Unsure to everyone and you got Biden.

At this point I’m totally cracking up but I though what the hell, I’ll answer every question exactly opposite of what I would be inclined to and my candidate was, drum roll please………Duncan Hunter!

I still didn’t give the crazy thing much credence but at least now I know who my anti-candidate is!

By Paul

September 28, 2007 5:38 PM | Link to this

Goldie 5:16

Are you aware you just illustrated my point? [[and what is the reason given by your Neo-con troll-buddies about why we’ve occupied IRAQ in the FIRST PLACE, DUDE?]]

This time you introduced another topic - “troll buddies” and “Iraq occupation.”

BTW - does this mean I get to call you “DUDETTE”????

If I attempted to answer you’d respond with “circular logic vertigo” comments. Then introduce another topic! It’s simple, really - stop introducing new topics!

By Goldie

September 28, 2007 5:38 PM | Link to this

{{by means of killing those whom we consider innocents (they consider guilty) to bring about the destruction of existing societies and governments}}

Yep, that’s a real close decription of what McVeigh said his reasons for the bombing were… and just like Eric Rudolph, McVeigh chose to run away from his deeds, as only cowards do… and to this day, you have right-wingnuts defending their deeds and calling them “brave” and “heroes” for making their statements and trying to bring down the U.S. gov’t.

BLAH— You’re just another terrorist-apologist.

By Buy Danish

September 28, 2007 5:41 PM | Link to this

No wonder Media Matters is going after Rush. They have to distract us from a Congressman who really does smear the troops - the “hero” nearest and dearest to Getalife’s heart.

WASHINGTON - A federal judge refused Friday to dismiss a defamation case against Rep. John P. Murtha and ordered the Pennsylvania Democrat to give a sworn deposition in the case./ A Marine Corps sergeant is suing the 16-term congressman for alleging “cold-blooded murder and war crimes” by unnamed soldiers in connection with the deaths of Iraqi civilians in the town of Haditha.

{{{He has said his intention was to draw attention to the pressure put on troops in Iraq and to cover-up the incident.}}}

Talk about a willing suspension of disbelief. Maybe it would have been better if he just said that the dog ate his homework.

By Gonna Love 08

September 28, 2007 5:48 PM | Link to this

Paul,

“The country of origin of jihadists is not the issue. The common ideology, and the ties of their organization(s) are the issues.

As we’ve seen in the US and Europe, the next sticking point will be how to deal with citizens who are members of jihadist groups conducting war against the motherland. We’re in for some gut wrenching times. “

But somehow invading Iraq who had NO terrorists will somehow make them surrender their jihad, when they see that the country that was attacked wont even try to find the mastermind behind the attack. Yep makes sense to me. And with McVeigh everyone thought it was an islamic group at first that bombed OKC, then were stunned when he was an American….

By Goldie

September 28, 2007 5:48 PM | Link to this

So, according to the Oxycontin-lovers today, only “real” soldiers want to stay in Iraq — that’s how you know they’re “real”, yes?

Directly from the Oxycontin transcript:

{{LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.

CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they’re willing to sacrifice for their country.}}

So there it is — the “real” soldiers are the ones who only agree with Oxycontin and Caller 2’s viewpoint. It’s all too clear where the hatred for 70% of America and half of our troops comes from with the 29%-ers on this blog.

By rushncap

September 28, 2007 5:51 PM | Link to this

Muff — good this it doesn’t take a degree in psychology. Or in anything else. Convenient for you, since you obviously don’t have any.

As for those supposed “sex fantasies” — you can stop flattering yourself. No man would ever have those about you. You’re safe. But I will let you know if I fall off of the Empire State building, hit my head, and suddenly find myself attracted to stupid, insipid, ugly, old neocon b!tches. You’ll be #1 on my list then, honey. Deal?

By AmVet

September 28, 2007 5:52 PM | Link to this

As I mentioned earlier, palpable desperation in the GOP:

WASHINGTON — A small group of Republicans facing election fights next year have rallied around war legislation they think could unite the GOP: Call for an end to U.S. combat in Iraq, but wait until President Bush is out of office.

The Democrats on Friday deemed the legislation a “nonstarter,” and underscored the difficulty Congress has in striking a bipartisan compromise on the war. What attracts Democrats has repelled Republicans and vice versa, making it impossible so far to find a middle ground.

“I don’t support it at all,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. “It doesn’t do anything.”

The proposal, by Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, would require that Bush change the mission of U.S. troops from combat to primarily support roles, such as training Iraqi security forces and protecting U.S. infrastructure in Iraq. His legislation would set a goal of completing such a mission transition within 15 months.

If enacted immediately, that timeline would not kick in until Bush’s last couple weeks in office.

“That’s very courageous,” Reid, D-Nev., joked when a reporter asked him Friday about the proposal.

Co-sponsors of the bill include Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina and Norm Coleman of Minnesota. Of the sponsors, only Voinovich is not up for re-election in 2008.

By Paul

September 28, 2007 5:55 PM | Link to this

Goldie 5:38

Is that Strawman Number Six when you don’t want to answer questions about when it’s okay to invade another country (I think you said if al Qaeda’s there - your reason for Afghanistan); if it’s a good idea to invade other countries who may harbor al Qaeda; if it’s okay for a Pres to take military action without a Congressional declaration or UN sanction (I believe you approved of Kosovo - would you have it saving some Muslims would have cost 5,000 American lives?); should all “terrorists” be fought and apprehended in the same manner; and - oh heck, these were the questions I asked //as you introduced new topics//.

getalife

What works better? Two aspirins? Or a 42 Below, rocks? Or both?

By AmVet

September 28, 2007 5:57 PM | Link to this

Yet more GOP desperation to change their reactionary ways.

But at least this time, I will give the President credit where credit is due as he is showing some courage and responsibility. Finally.

WASHINGTON — President Bush called on the world’s worst polluters Friday to come together to set a goal for reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing the climate to heat up. He didn’t exempt his own country from the list.

“By setting this goal, we acknowledge there is a problem, and by setting this goal, we commit ourselves to doing something about it,” Bush said in a speech that capped two days of talks at a White House-sponsored climate change conference. “We share a common responsibility: to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while keeping our economies growing.”

He said each nation should establish for itself what methods it will use to rein in the pollution problem without stunting economic growth.

The gathering drew representatives from 16 nations, including big producers from the developing world like China and India as well as the European Union and United Nations. Bush’s emphasis is on using green technologies and other voluntary efforts to tackle global warming. The president said the reduction goal should be finalized by next summer, along with ways to measure progress toward it.

He also proposed the creation of an international fund to finance research into clean-energy technology, announcing that U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson would coordinate the effort and would be in touch with other governments soon about moving forwar

By Goldie

September 28, 2007 6:01 PM | Link to this

{{Are you aware you just illustrated my point?}}

BLAH— obviously not too many bloggers here ever know what your “point” is. Unless it’s to find a way to say “Bill Clinton did it first” — that’s the only point that I can decipher from your posts day after day…

Or, maybe once today, you seem to have posted “Bill Clinton SHOULD have declared war against Bin Laden” — is that the difference?

By Goldie

September 28, 2007 6:03 PM | Link to this

{{(I think you said if al Qaeda’s there - your reason for Afghanistan)}}

No, BLAH— it was our military’s reason, not mine. Do you actually believe that I have an army behind me, waiting for my command to invade some country overseas???

By Paul

September 28, 2007 6:04 PM | Link to this

Gonna Love 08 5:48

When have I ever disputed the al Qaeda/Iraq thing? Ever? Yet the pattern here seems to be, when faced with a question, to default to “what about Iraq??? or McVeigh???”

Answer: nothing. Absolutely nothing. Doesn’t bear at all on methods for combating jihadists in the manner now faced by Europe. Which was the point of the post you referenced.

AmVet

Now if we could kill the ethanol subsidies, heavily subsidize other means (hydrogen?) get some huge CAFE increases, and in general take action to reduce our oil consumption by an amount greater than we import from the Middle East, then we’ll be onto something.

But I have absolutely no faith that either a Dem or a Rep would do so. Nader’s another story.

Oh yeah - Goldie - let me save you a post: “Then why did we invade Iraq?!!?!!!???”

By Goldie

September 28, 2007 6:06 PM | Link to this

I’m off to find my Friday pinot — have a fab weekend y’all!

By rushncap

September 28, 2007 6:08 PM | Link to this

See ya Goldie! Have fun with the pinot.

By Paul

September 28, 2007 6:09 PM | Link to this

Goldie 6:03

Okay, real clearly now…

Did you agree with the invasion of Afghanistan?

As Hey Paul says, it’s a simple question. Leads to a few other simple questions, too.

you, too! :-)

By AmVet

September 28, 2007 6:12 PM | Link to this

I agree Paul, the President is way more likely than not full of hot air (get it?) Groan….

I wish Ralph would run again, but that looks well nigh impossible now.

And who does that leave us with?

Richardson?

I like him a lot. Very broadly experienced and very smart. And would command the respect of whites, blacks and latinos.

My guess is that he would be able to build consensus and coalitions more effectively than all of the other candidates, from both parties combined.

But that is not good for the extremists, so he’s dead in the water.

IF one of the other Dems win, though I see a very powerful position in store for him, IF he’ll take it.

By Buy Danish

September 28, 2007 6:12 PM | Link to this

{{{As for those supposed “sex fantasies” — you can stop flattering yourself}}}

Rushncap,

I said they were fantasies, not “sex fantasies”. Talking about imaginary victories where you slap someone around is not about sex, anymore than rape is about sex.

That being said, I did submit that you get a rise out of your recurrent antasies about beating up women.

Which makes you kinda Clintonesque.

By the way, you are even more ridiculous when you talk about what I look like.

Maybe one day you’ll grow up, Munchkie but you’ve got a very long way to go.

By RW-(the original)

September 28, 2007 6:16 PM | Link to this

Paul,

You’ve either got the patience of Job or you’re having a good laugh at Goldielox expense.

getaclue,

Try to curb your paranoia, I only post using this name.

Buy Danish,

I think you touched a nerve with the mad “scientist” here when you described his tendency for violence against woman. He had to make believe you were talking about sexual fantasies and then lay out bizarre scenario coupled with yet another personal attack against a woman.

rushncap,

I have to say that I think a swan dive off the Empire State Building would certainly have a calming effect on your attitude. Go for it!

By Paul

September 28, 2007 6:18 PM | Link to this

AmVet

Good points. Also why he’d never make it. Money still trumps. So does the power of the extremists.

BTW - I think I may have figured “it” out today. I’d just held it as an inherent understanding that people have a basic philosophical grounding that forms the basis of their ideas, decisions and actions.

I do not believe that is correct. It seems ideology plays a huge role - great impact - and there can be little, if any, consistency in the principles that are reflected in one course for one situation, vs. another course of action for a similar situation.

By Buy Danish

September 28, 2007 6:19 PM | Link to this

{{{It’s all too clear where the hatred for 70% of America and half of our troops comes from with the 29%-ers on this blog.}}}

Goldie,

You are describing yourself. There is not one of us who have ever said a disparaging thing about our military - au contraire. Dittoes for Rush, no pun intended.

You are the ones who came up with the General Betrayus ad, you are the ones who won’t let the ROTC on campuses, you are the ones who wont let the Marines film an ad in San Franciso or let a navy vessel dock there, ad nauseum, and it is hilarious that you are trying to pin that attitude on us.

By Paul

September 28, 2007 6:22 PM | Link to this

RW-(the original)

Would you believe me if I said “not sure?” (Witness my question to getalife - should I take two aspirins or vodka/rocks? Or both?).

It does illustrate how trying to find a common thread of principle in a person’s proposed actions can be a futile endeavor.

Yeah, well, at times it was kinda fun. I’ll have a Calvinist guilt trip later, though -

Buy Danish

Don’t know if you saw my post earlier:

Welcome Back!

By AmVet

September 28, 2007 6:28 PM | Link to this

{I’d just held it as an inherent understanding that people have a basic philosophical grounding that forms the basis of their ideas, decisions and actions.}

It is the political version of don’t confuse me with the facts, I have my mind made up and will NEVER change it. And it is my experience that it abounds on both the left and right and the farther you go to the extremes the more entrenched it is.

Some of us non-politicians have the luxury of saying, “Hey that makes more sense than what I was thinking. Maybe I’ll adjust somewhat.”

The partisans view this as wishy wash and flip flopping. Once you have an idea there can be NO changing it without “selling out your principles”.

I have several times referred to Jefferson’s assertion that these people are slaves to their ideas.

{I do not believe that is correct. It seems ideology plays a huge role - great impact - and there can be little, if any, consistency in the principles that are reflected in one course for one situation, vs. another course of action for a similar situation.}

And to think you said earlier I was whistling in the wind! [grin}

By Buy Danish

September 28, 2007 6:30 PM | Link to this

Paul,

Thanks!

RW,

Yep, his fantasies are violent to the end. He can’t just imagine falling down and hitting his head to set up his scenario, nope, he has to plunge to his (near) death off the Empire State Building, hit his head - and miraculously survive.

Just like a Looney Tune Toon.

By RW-(the original)

September 28, 2007 6:36 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

Maybe he pictures himself as King Kong. It wouldn’t be the weirdest thing he’s come up with.

AmVet,

Every time you change names you eventually show yourself to be of the most virulent, close minded partisans to grace these blogs. Changing your name to start over isn’t going to help you hide from your past and your most certain future.

By rushncap

September 28, 2007 6:38 PM | Link to this

If our Muffin was a little (OK, a hell of a lot) brighter, she’d realize that the reason I used the Empire State building in my post was to indicate the level of head trauma one would require in order to make someone actually fantasize about her. Thankfully, however, she is too, erm, what’s the politically correct term? — “differently abled” — to see that this was an extra insult, and just kept on chirping brightly along. And that’s why I love the old gal. You can’t offend her because she’s too dumb to get offended. It’s the best of all worlds!

By Paul

September 28, 2007 6:40 PM | Link to this

I suppose it’s time to shut this down for the evening.

Getalife - haven’t heard back, so I’ll default to my favorite option: when faced with a choice of two things, each of which sounds good: pick both!

Have a pleasant weekend, all -

By Cindy

September 28, 2007 6:43 PM | Link to this

Paul,

BLAH BLAH (I like that)(He’s the energizer bunny isn’t he Goldie?)

I believe I was addressing Goldie.

But if you want to talk Al Qaida, we can talk that. Why didn’t we finish the job in Afghanistan when we had support and the upper hand? Why did we let Taliban back in to kill more Afghanis? Why did we throw troops at Iraq when the job in Afghanistan wasn’t done? Those are rhetorical questions that you don’t need to throw your worthless words at: we all know it was because this administration is STUPID and WORTHLESS!. They were foolishly seeking glory in Iraq to the detriment of our military people and this country. Thank the good Lord Bush/Cheney/Wolfowitz/Rumsfeld were not in charge during WWI or WWII.

And Dusty, I spend time on posts and bases. I do have heart to heart talks with these men and women. I care enough to take the time to know them. I also know parents who confide their childrens’ feelings to me at times. I have many surviving military ties. You have no idea how that young Marine felt: I doubt you had a close chat and his public display was a correct one. Will you be happy if he comes back in a “bag” so you can rant about his great sacrifice? That is so, so sad. You are so clueless to reality.

By RW (the oravaginal)

September 28, 2007 6:46 PM | Link to this

Duh(tm)

By RW (the oravaginal)

September 28, 2007 6:52 PM | Link to this

Pftzzthz(tm)

By AmVet

September 28, 2007 6:53 PM | Link to this

Paul, one last thing before I head out to have some Mexican food and margaritas with friends.

Like myself, I admire that you never take the bait. No matter how much you are disabused, insulted or called juvenile names, you don’t respond in kind.

That is classy.

But then we both know that giving their words NO power, completely p!sses off our adversaries. And it is very interesting indeed how our words apparently must have so much power over them that they cannot help themselves but feel compelled to reply to things not even addressed to them.

I enjoy the hell out of it too!

Until next week!

By Paul

September 28, 2007 6:58 PM | Link to this

Cindy 6:43

And I was so looking forward to the drink and two aspirins…

I believe you were addressing Goldie on a topic we were discussing. As they say on Law and Order “you opened the door.”

I’d kinda appreciate it if you’d finish with the questions that were on the table rather than pulling a Goldie and tossing out a bunch more.

But it’s late - so real briefly:

All my opinion:

This is not an endorsement of any particular situation. You asked me WHY I THOUGHT something happened. To state “why” does not imply assent or dissent.

What’s “finish the job in Afghanistan” mean? Did you really want to see an assault on Tora Bora? Really? You may want to review what happened to the 10th Mountain Division while operating at 10,000 feet.

“Let them back in?” Who “Let” them? It’s the nature of the war.

Why “throw” troops in I when A wasn’t done? The military, for years and years, told us if we gave them N billions of dollars they could fight two wars at the same time. Or one war and two major regional conflicts. I’m sure you can see the implications - some get very, very uncomfortable going there.

Bush got the same WMD intel as Clinton, the French, Germans, Israelis, Brits. After 9-11 it was viewed differently. The POSSIBILITY that a hostile regime could hand off weapons to nonstate terrorists who’d already killed thousands was considered too great to ignore. (Hillary said this last weekend she thought there were WMDs - we discussed earlier) -

Personally, I think it was an attempt to show a secular, democratic regime could work in the Middle East, that Iraq had an educated citizenry with a weak (we thought) religious hold that provided a way for the monarchies to transition to avoid a jihadist revolution (funded in large part by the Saudis, thank you). But you don’t “sell” wars on such theories. WMDs were seen as a better option.

But the situation now is much different than what was then. So are the surrounding countries. And that’s a whole different kettle of fish.

As I said, my read, brief, condensed version.

By rushncap

September 28, 2007 6:59 PM | Link to this

AmVet — I agree. I think Paul is the most civil person on here, and one who actually has interesting ideas. He is a conservative, but an intelligent and articulate one. When I’m in the mood for an actual debate (rather than just cheap amusement with sock puppets like Muffing, Dusters and RW) he is the only one worth talking to.

By RW (the oravaginal)

September 28, 2007 7:01 PM | Link to this

My butt itches.(tm)

By Buy Danish

September 28, 2007 7:05 PM | Link to this

rushncap,

Uh, the problem with your Empire State Building scenario is that you would not survive it. Therefore anything you dream up happening now is just another fantasy.

You see, child, you would do nothing but splat upon impact, and that would be the end of little squirt’s life… and sex life.

Maybe your mommy never explained to you that cartoons aren’t real?

By RW-(the original)

September 28, 2007 7:06 PM | Link to this

rushncap,

The next time you discuss or debate a topic will be the first time in at least two years. With your miserable track record of having lost every debate you ever entered into I can’t say as I blame you though.

By getalife

September 28, 2007 7:07 PM | Link to this

NetBank is history

Geez.

By rushncap

September 28, 2007 7:09 PM | Link to this

Slaps my forehead. Oh god, and when one thinks that Muffin can’t get any dumber, she pulls out “the problem with your Empire State Building scenario is that you would not survive it”.

I give up on her. Picking any more on her (at least today) is just amoral. Go in peace, Muffin. I’m sorry for what I’ve said. I did not realize… oh, nevermind. Go in peace.

By getalife

September 28, 2007 7:13 PM | Link to this

Finally, Chris Matthews is talking about Rush’s hating on the troops.

CNN nothing.

Geez.

By Buy Danish

September 28, 2007 7:17 PM | Link to this

rushncap,

It was a really stupid scenario, Munchkie, although it wasn’t as bad as the one where you slit your throat.

Twice in one day you’ve set up a suicide scenario.

Poor dear.