Thinking Right

By Mid-South Philosopher

July 26, 2006 08:03 AM | Link to this

Good morning, Jim,

It is all true…what you have said about the “Liberal” Party. Unfortunately, there are no longer many folks in the “Democratic” Party. While a large number have shifted to the extreme left, an equally large number have shifted out of the party. Probably the most infamous “Democrat” defector is Zell Miller, but I assure you that there are thousands who, being turned off by the Democratic Party’s shift to fanatical liberalism, have drifted to other ports.

At the same time, we see a similar shift in the Republican Party…only toward fanatical conservatism. The litany of examples of the Republicans sinking into radical reactionary quicksand is as long as that of the Democrats drowning in the pool of fanatical liberalism. So I will just mention the most recent. Given the massive, unchecked spending of the Congress since 2001 (even when one adjusts for the military expenditures in Afghanistan and Iraq), not to mention any number of (in my opinion) other legislative debacles of the “inner beltway blunderers,” it is primo fascia evidence of the domination of the radical right that President Bush’s first and (thus far) only veto of an act of Congress was on a religious or moral basis.

To put it succinctly, Jim, we are a nation divided. Of those citizens that participate in government (the voters) I venture to say that we are divided about 46.5% radical right; 43.5% radical left; and 10% moderate. I may be giving the moderates a larger share than really exists!

While the percentages may change slightly and the “liberals” return to power, I suspect this general division will dominate American political history for next quarter century or longer. If the two sides cannot move to more of a moderate accommodative position, I believe that it is going to be harder and harder for the Congress to address meaningfully the challenges our nation will face both at home and abroad.

By Jim Wooten

July 26, 2006 08:19 AM | Link to this

Morning, Philosopher. While some of the social issues to which politicking Republicans are drawn don’t lift my boat, the single greatest threat facing the country is terrorism and until Demcrats can find a Sam Nunn or Scoop Jackson or some other credible voice on that issue, the lesser threats and more distant worries, like spending, and the partisan politicking, are all secondary concerns.

By seeing through the smoke

July 26, 2006 08:22 AM | Link to this

Divided? You bet. When I was a child growing up, I followed politics with my father, who was (and still is) a committed Republican. Dad spoke about the other party using the term “the Loyal Opposition” — I think he borrowed the term from our friends in England — showing respect for the loyal patriotic Americans who just happened to disagree with him.

I expected that at some point in my adult life, I would studiously consider the issues, thoughtfully apply my personal moral compass and find a place in one party or the other, without being vilified by the members of the opposite party. I was wrong. Not only am I unable to find a party that embraces my personally and fiscally conservative side and my socially liberal side, I find myself vilified by both democrats and republicans (see some ot the name calling on this blog and others if you need some examples of this vilification).

The idea that we need both perspectives to effectively govern has been thrown out in favor of Hannity/Franken style political “entertainment”, that ultimately results in an electorate and a nation divided.

A great Republican president once said “A house divided against itself cannot stand”. Lincoln was able to reunite our divided house (to what extent might be debatable). Our extremist views (left and right) have successfully divided our house again. I don’t see another Lincoln to lead us back.

By Interested Observer

July 26, 2006 08:35 AM | Link to this

Good morning — point well taken on the fact that security tops other issues when the country is at war or our security is at risk. However, those “lesser threats and distant worries” such as spending are going to seem a lot greater and less distant when the baby boomers begin reaching retirement age en masse and the wasteful, corrosive, self-indulgent spending of the Bush administration becomes painfully apparent.

One thing that’s interesting to point out is that while I wholeheartedly agree with you that Republicans have succeeded in convincing the voters that they’re tougher on national security issues than the Democrats, I believe the reality is quite different. How secure, really, are our ports? Our borders? Our airports? How quickly is the party in power trying to wean us off our dependency on Middle Eastern oil, so we won’t be actively funding the very same terrorists and authoritarian states we’re supposedly trying to defeat?

I believe that if the Democrats were in power, you would see the return of many more moderates and conservative Democrats, simply because the Republican party is increasingly shutting out those who don’t see all issues through the prism of religion (i.e., Christianity).

By Mid-South Philosopher

July 26, 2006 08:37 AM | Link to this

I can’t argue with your appraisal, Jim, and until whatever “moderate” elements remain in the Democratic Party become more of a force in the “nominating” process, which is currently controlled by the “fanatic” liberals (and, unlike “Annie Oakley” Coulter I am NOT saying that all “liberals” are “fanatics”) I don’t see a “Nunn” or a “Jackson” emerging. To wit: your own observation concerning the treatment of Sen. Joe Lieberman.

By time for the truth

July 26, 2006 08:49 AM | Link to this

When it comes to defending America most leftist liberals are pretty cowardly - that’s indisputable.

But credit where credit’s due - liberals are spending endless millions of their heard earned slush funds and using untold energy undermining the current global struggle against mohammedan fascists. WHY?

Because its Bush and Cheney and normal sensible clear thinking folks who are fighting the good fight for freedom and a terrorist free world with a few notable visionary Democrat allies against a huge motley rabble of craven gutless pinko Congressional leftists/commies/pacifists/anarchists/America hating appeasers et al. And that’s just the politics of it.

Liberals very selectively pick and choose their (political) fights, dependent on the politics of the leader. If its a GOP President - its just about forget it. If its a perjuring corrupt liberal adulterer - then its where do I sign up?

Liberal intellectual dishonesty and cowardice has become a sinister national joke. One that literally everyone else is paying the price for, especially the military. These vile pinkos unstintingly use their happily now decreasing sway in the media to dictate what ever it is they will ‘tolerate’ - anything else becomes the lastest Cindy nutjob Sheehan type cause.

Nothing is too hysterical to say, nothing is too treasonous if it undermines what liberals oppose. Including gleefully and deliberately exposing the kind of national security secrets that would have deservedly earned a firing squad in WW2

So long as the liberal feels good about the struggle and these self serving, back slapping leftist proles get to sneer long and loud at the military and the ‘war mongering’ establishment - every thing is fine and dandy in the liberal world.

The short and long term consequences of liberals’ increasingly hysterical, wholly self indulgent actions are of course utterly irrelevant - just so long as it feels ‘right’!!!

The tone of this post simply mirrors back albeit only partially the unremitting liberal hate Bush fest evinced on every liberal blog, on CNN and MSNBC and in so many leftist US newspapers that are hilariously losing circulation every year as normal folks vote with their wallets against the party of hate’s extreme, wholly unrepresentative agenda!!

By Political Foreskin

July 26, 2006 08:51 AM | Link to this

George Bush is a facile fool for fossil fuels.

What splits America is criteria for war.

Iraq wasn’t the only country, post 911, that matched George Bush’s criteria about possible WMDs, an evil dictator abusing the population, and oblique complicity in 911.

By Van

July 26, 2006 08:54 AM | Link to this

time for the truth,

Amen brother.

You did forget one item, the far left, liberal leaning, the “we hate America” press.

To answer a question, we have moved further right, because the left has gotten so shrill - we need the distance.

By Chris

July 26, 2006 09:03 AM | Link to this

I don’t believe that the country is as divided as Jim suggests. In my opinion, what has changed is that the extreme left and right have just become more vocal and are dominating the political discussion in our country. Does anyone really believe that Howard Dean or Ann Coulter represent the majority of Americans? This is proven by what is happening in Connecticut. Does Ned Lamont really represent the majority of CT voters? I would say no, just because he is a one trick pony. And Liberman has been a stalwart for most of the major issues in the Democratic party for 18 years.

By seeing through the smoke

July 26, 2006 09:10 AM | Link to this

The left and right leaning bloggers posting this morning prove my point. Both sides assume the very worst without a thought that the balance of the two might be a better solution.

“These vile pinkos”, “facile fool for fossil fuels”, “has gotten so shrill - we need the distance” — phrases that might make the speaker (writer) feel better, but add nothing to the debate and discount those who oppose them without regard to balance in government.

The war on terror might be the most pressing issue, again, I think that’s an opinion that may or may not be shared by everyone. We won’t find solution to that or any other issues (like the exploding deficit and pending healthcare crisis)if both sides ponder only their next sound byte that makes the opposition look bad.

But I’m sure all that makes me a fence sitting, yellow-bellied, pinko, flip-flopping, blah, blah, blah….

By Barbara

July 26, 2006 09:11 AM | Link to this

Mid-South, I hope your statistics are not correct. I agree that we have extremists in both parties, but I like to think, if we really sat down and removed the “party loyalty” from our discussions, that we’d find 90% moderate, and maybe 4-6% on each extreme side. I also agree with you that there aren’t as many people in the “Democratic” party anymore. My mother told me that, when she was growing up, everybody was a Democrat. She is still a registered Democrat because she firmly believes that is the party who looks out for the common folks. However, she hasn’t voted for a Democrat in over 26 years. She is now retired, and living on a fixed income and still sees the Republicans as a more “moderate” party now. Perhaps my liberal friends won’t agree with her assessment, but I happen to agree with her. I will say that I agree with Seeing Through the Smoke, though, that neither party is all encompassing and both parties seem to have become more divisive now. However, the Dems have moved far more “left” than the Republicans have moved “right”.

By deegee

July 26, 2006 09:14 AM | Link to this

If I accept your premise that the nation is polarized in such a way that liberal America is one that will fight — conditionally, after serious individual negotiation, on the assurance that history will judge the war to have been essential to save the nation or mankind. Does that mean that conservative America will fight - unconditionally, after no serious individual negotiation, and with no assurance that history will judge the war to have been essential to save the nation or mankind? Absent a draft, an individual’s decision to go to war is a very personal one that requires intellect and personal reflection. I think that the nation is unified in the war on terror but is divided on how to fight it. There is nothing wrong with having this debate.

By Jim Wooten

July 26, 2006 09:15 AM | Link to this

I would hope today that liberals who post here would try to explain to the rest of us, as clearly and precisely as possible, what does constitute a threat sufficiently grave that they would personally take up arms. My impression is that it’s nothing short of an actual invasion of this country. If the threat is more abstract, and the timetable for our destruction more arguable, I see an ideology cheerfully willing to whistle past the graveyard. If we were Israel, I think we’d be goners, because we’d rationalize away threats until evil found us, by which time we’d lack the will and means to resist.

By Political Foreskin

July 26, 2006 09:16 AM | Link to this

Liberals agree that terrorism is the threat.

George Bush deserves credit for fighting all the terrorists over there so that we dont have to fight them here.

The Sunni insurgency is fighting the newly elected Shia establishment. Al Queda has hundreds of troops fighting both Sunni and Shia. There are guest terrorists fighting in Iraq from every Radical Islamic stronghold from here to Tokyo.

Somehow, George Bush has suckered what looks like every terrorist in the world into Iraq. It’s actually kind of amazing.

George Bush deserves credit for something else: He forced Iran to show their cards sooner than they planned.

By invading Iraq, George gave political momentum to the radical Shia in Iran, who were elected on a platform of strong defense (and prayer in the schools) in the face of massed US troops just across the border.

The president of Iran IS the man in the Jimmy Carter era embassy hostage photo. Those radical shia who kidnapped our embassy staff are now in charge of Iran.

The man kidnapped our diplomats and he gets rewarded with the presidency. As soon as he came to power, he must have began to ship military ordnance to Hezbollah thinking that if the USA can invade Iraq, he can support his fellow Shia in Lebanon.

So, we have pretty good intel about Iran’s intention and capability without actually invading Iran to see what they got.

Now, lets let partisan bygones be bygones and have the national debate about what to do with Iran. We’ve got them cold. WMDs. Complicity in the attacks on Israel (the kosher 911), and a monster as prez.

That’s a criteria match. I say we go in. Lets just do what we’re doing over there anyway.

PLUS: Iran is stupid enough to actually fight us in the open. They have an army. They wont last long against Rumsfeld’s strategic genius.

Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran

PS: To get the debate started and as a partisan peace offering, I’ll say this about Ann Coulter: I wouldn’t kick her out of bed.

By Barbara

July 26, 2006 09:18 AM | Link to this

Excellent post Jim. And let’s not forget, the liberals want to take away our guns too, so even if we waited until we were invaded, we then wouldn’t have the means to protect ourselves in our homes. If we’re not going to fight our enemies overseas, at least let us keep our guns so we can keep them from coming in the front door!!!!

By Barbara

July 26, 2006 09:21 AM | Link to this

Political Fore, WOW! I agree with everything you said (except about the Ann Coulter part - I don’t swing that way. Heee-heee!)

By time for the truth

July 26, 2006 09:29 AM | Link to this

Its all too easy to decry conservatives, and conservatism, which is still what most of America seems to subscribe to - although mainstream conservatism is kind of the defacto moderate middle ground these days.

Your average moderate type, however reflective or well informed, - and not too many folks on either side are truly well informed these days - is nowadays effectively pushed into taking sides, however reluctantly, by the shrill moral fascism of the left.

The left refuse to actually meaningfully debate and the undenibaly refuse to accept ANY decision(s) that opposes their rigid leftist world view. Hence their rhetoric and antics are designed to not just merely oppose but systematically demonise and utterly undermine anyone who stands against them, regardless of public opinion and the ‘objective’ merits of any particular policy.

Most conservatives are actually far more tolerant than liberals of their opponents, even yours truly, although its loads of fun pretending otherwise on here.

No one and no party has a monopoly on either “truth” or what’s the best policy or approach. But nowadays, and that’s the big, fairly recent change, if you read/listen to even the average liberal (but not necessarily democrat) you would think that the world was (almost literally) about to end if anything other than their way was unquestioningly and slavishly followed.

Liberalism and its increasingly unhinged dogma has become a regimented religion for these political moonies as the ex British Chancellor of the Exchequer Dennis Healy astutely put it last century (when discussing the marxist militant tendency).

The left are by far the most intolerant politicos in modern times, unsurprisingly their ideological discipline is now KKK like - and just as vile and unrepresentative.

Whilst its a remarkable political achievment to have seemingly almost completely infiltrated a major political party, the fun part is watching that ideological ‘power’ blow up in their faces -that is surely coming. Just how long it takes is the open question.

Hopefully it will be just before Nov 2008!!

Cheers Van …

By GOB

July 26, 2006 09:29 AM | Link to this

But Barbara, wouldnt defending your home against an invading country make you an insurgent?? Or is that just when we are the ones invading?

By Jim Wooten

July 26, 2006 09:29 AM | Link to this

You have crystalized it, Political Fore. We do need to decide as a nation what threats we’re willing to tolerate — and whether we’re willing to live in a world with the Iran you describe. We don’t have to act tomorrow. But we can’t co-exist with a nuclear-armed madman.

By Barbara

July 26, 2006 09:36 AM | Link to this

GOB, I can only say this. If it is my home, I’m going down guns ablazin’. I think you might be referring to the Lebanese folks? If so, they are not defending their homes - they are “renting” their basements out to terrorists to store weapons. Weapons that are meant not to defend their homes, but that are meant to be lobbed into their neighboring country. There is a big difference in someone who owns weapons for self defense and for protection of their family, home and property, versus someone who stores weapons for terrorists, then, when they get caught, wants to cry “poor me! I was only defending myself.” Surely you see the difference. I’ve never threatened anyone with my self-defense weapons, and never would - unless they enter my home or approach me with intent to harm me.

By GOB

July 26, 2006 09:37 AM | Link to this

But we can’t co-exist with a nuclear-armed madman.

Except the ones in DC…

By Chris

July 26, 2006 09:40 AM | Link to this

GOB, you are proving the point about the lack of political discourse in this country. You are a member of the far left that is more concerned with hating Bush than with dealing with the myriad complex problems facing this nation today.

By GOB

July 26, 2006 09:42 AM | Link to this

Barbara - Actually, I was talking more about Iraq, particularly at the beginning before the Al-Queda decided to join in the fun. We saw the people over there fighting our troops as insurgents and the enemy, but the truth of the matter is if someone invaded America, we would do the same thing and call ourselves patriots.

By Chris

July 26, 2006 09:46 AM | Link to this

GOB, actually you are wrong. There are two forms of insurgency. There is national insrugency and liberation insurgency. National refers to the attempt to overthrow a government. Think Mao in China. Liberation refers the attempt to expel an occupying force. That is what is happening in Iraq. The initial ground war was not an insurgency, it was a ground war. If we were invaded and fought to defend ourselves that is not insurgency. Was it an insurgency when the French fought the German invasion during WWII? Once again you are proving the shallowness of your arguement. Showing that you are more concerned with bashing Bush than actually solving problems.

By seeing through the smoke

July 26, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this

Wow — Political fore, I didn’t know you had it in you and I clearly underestimated your capacity for levelheadness (“vote ralph” tirade notwithstanding)chuckle

good points all.

Jim — the important part of your position is we — implying all Americans, on both sides. — need to decide. Like it or not, there is great evidence we were lied to about the reasons for invading Iraq, were lied to about the potential for long-term “nation building” and lied to about the success of the mission.

on the other hand, we have been lied to about the success of the welfare state, lied to about the equality of affirmative actions, lied to about the threat of Iran by the left.

If we need to decide, we need to have leaders (on both sides) willing to have a transparent decision making process to the extent possible. And, of course, they must not lie. If there is a good reason, tell us truthfully and good Americans in both parties will follow.

I was 110% behind the decision to go into Iraq until the truths about the rationale were revealed. NO WMD, no involvement in 9/11, no “flowers” at our feet, no exit plan or long term plan for Iraqi self government.

Iran, on the other hand, appears to be a genuine threat. you know, with actual weapons of mass destruction, sponsorship of terrorists, etc. Too bad we squandered so much international credibility in Iraq.

By GOB

July 26, 2006 09:50 AM | Link to this

Chris - I am by no means part of the far left. I simply think it is important to look at things in a larger perspective. Why is it ok for the US to have the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet, but insist that no one else be able to build up their own.

What do you think the response of our government (be it Republican or Democratically controlled) would be if another country, or even the UN, tried to tell us what kinds of weapons we could and could not produce?

We insist that other countries respect our soverignty, but dont we only extend that same courtesy to a select few allies.

By Chris

July 26, 2006 09:55 AM | Link to this

GOB, we are allowed to have a nuclear arsenal because there is no chance will we ever use it unless someone uses them on us first. Do you really think Iran should have nuclear weapons? They shouldn’t be able to because their president has openly called for the destruction of another soverign country. That arguement is intellectually dishonest at best. And by the way the UN does restrict what type of weapons we have. Why don’t you do some research on the numerous weapon control treaties we are signators to.

By Political Foreskin

July 26, 2006 09:57 AM | Link to this

A liberal explains to Mr. Wooten about which country he would invade after 911, and why: Afghanistan. (OBL. Taliban. Al Queda. Terrorist training grounds).

How many troops would the liberal commit to Afghanistan to catch OBL? 137,000.

How long would the liberals keep our troops in Afghanistan? We would stand down when the free Afghan police and army could stand up (even if it took fifty years).

Everyone was in agreement about Afghanistan.

It’s the illogic of attacking Iraq. Saddam was once our ally. We purposely had set him up to contain the Shia majority with his Bathist/Sunni minority. He had them well contained. He had Iran well contained. For free.

Now the Shia are the elected good guys, and they want to destroy Israel. It took a misguided foreign policy to unleash this inexorable whirlwind of evil that’s dead ahead.,. Thank you W.

Now the liberal asks Mr. Wooten what part of “Radical Shia is the enemy” doesn’t he git?

Do you even know what the 12th Imam is? That he spoke from the womb? That he was fully mature at age six. Raised by birds. He didn’t die, he appears and disappears. Does he know the diff between the Lesser Occultation and the Greater Occultation?

Instead of prodding liberals, maybe the conservatives needs to know who the enemy is. It aint Barbara Boxer or Michael Moore.

Political Foreskin welcomes Thinking Right to the wonderful world of Radical Shia. yes, SHIA….come for the prayer groups…..stay for the dress code!!

Love to bash an ethnic minority? Love to brag about hate crimes? Love to chant about theo-politics? Then Radical Shia is for you.

Special dispensation available for beastiality, spouse-icide, polygamy, and hostage taking. Void where prohibited by UN Resolution 1559……NOT!

By Chris

July 26, 2006 09:59 AM | Link to this

seeing through the smoke, I would agree with you that their has been mismanagment in Iraq. However to make the blanket statement that there were no flowers at our feet is incorrect. The vast majority of Iraqi civlians(upwards of 90%) celebrated the liberation of the country. Shi’a were able to celebrate holidays for the first time in 40 years without retaliation from their government. Our soldiers were literally greeted with flowers. Has the situation changed drastically since then, yes it has. But I am willing to bet the vast majority of Iraqi’s wouldn’t change what happened.

By Jim Wooten

July 26, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this

STTS, while I don’t wish to revive that much-debated question of whether we were lied to about Iraq, I thnik this administration acted in good faith on the basis of intelligence our allies believed to be valid. But even accepting your point about squandered international credibility — though I’m not sure where you cash that check — but still, even if that is the case, there’s Iran here and now. And it has to be dealt with.

By time for the truth

July 26, 2006 10:01 AM | Link to this

Why is it ok for the US to have the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet, but insist that no one else be able to build up their own.

That is an unbelievably stupid/naive question.

Even the Chi-coms are concerned about N.Korean nukes, although they’re not as concerned as say Japan or S Korea or the USA.

Any further proliferation - especially Iran - increases the chance that a rogue regime hands over a nuke of what ever size to a terrorist group or US hating state that will use it on the west/Israel!!

You cannot disinvent the bomb, controlling who has it is the next best thing.

The niceties of sovereignty get dumped real fast when it comes to self preservation!!

its called realpolitik!!

By deegee

July 26, 2006 10:05 AM | Link to this

Israel has been invaded by their enemies many times. They have united and fought back every time. That’s human nature. We were invaded and attacked on 9/11 by terrorists. America was united in taking the fight to the Taliban in Afghanistan. We lost our focus.

By seeing through the smoke

July 26, 2006 10:11 AM | Link to this

and yet… no one even questions if the left “lies” were lies…. so goes the polarized debate.

The point is this: if we need to decide, we need transparent leadership, government and decision making, which we currently do not have from either side.

By getalife

July 26, 2006 10:21 AM | Link to this

Jim,

The GOP is corporate government. Just look at any issue and it is aligned with corporate interests.

Border security, no way need that cheap labor. Drugs from Canada, no way, have to protect the pharma lobby. It goes on and on, Check out big oil profits.

Your party has sold you out Jim and yet you keep cheering them on. You are a failed American.

By Shocked & Amazed

July 26, 2006 10:26 AM | Link to this

Talk about division!!!! Where does the leader of the International Community, Kofi Annan get off throwing out a blatant accusation against Israel for intentional bombing of the U.N. post while asking for an investigation in the same breath.

Stupid, stupid, stupid….and irresponsible.

That man needs to go. The sooner the better.

By GOB

July 26, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this

Chris - I was speaking more in generalities than to the specifics of the current Iran/N.Korea situations. I am not at all comfortable with those countries having nukes. That being said, I can understand why they are rapidly developing them. We have shown (and again, not just Bush or the Republicans, but throughout the last 30 years or so) that we have no problem coming in and imposing our will. Iran sees what is going on in Iraq, and doesnt want to be next. The fact that N.Korea has nukes and is a far greater threat to world than Iraq ever was only encourages Iran. N.Korea gets diplomacy because they have the bomb.

I guess the best way to simplify my point is this: we should be more careful and thoughtful in regards to how we deal with the rest of the world. Right now we can do so because we are the biggest and baddest guy on the block. What happens if that ever changes?

As for the weapons treaties we signed…treaties have not historically been worth much in this country.

By Sarah

July 26, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this

I don’t know what has happened to the Democratic party that I grew up supporting, casting my votes for and argumentatively defended. We seem hi-jacked midair by the leftist side of the party and God forbid we speak our minds when we are not in concert with Kennedy, Pelosi and others. We are castigated and made to fell like Anne Coulter would feel at a birthday party for a Kennedy at their Cape Cod compound. The Jesse Helms days of the Republican party made me think I would sprout wings and fly before I would ever cast a vote in the Republicans directions but that has slowly changed. Jesse is gone now and poor Joe Liberman has been regualted to a basement seat in Congress by his own party. I can’t close my eyes at night and feel safe and secure in regards to national security with some the Democratics we have at the helm, poised for a take over of the White House. I’m not afraid of the fringe Democratic side, such as McKinney, whom I can’t imagine as being effective and nothing more than a distraction to her own party. I am talking about Hillary Clinton and others who do yield rank and power.

By The Moderate Voice

July 26, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this

getalife, you need to look at your party too. To act as if the Dems haven’t sold out to their special interests is a joke. Abortion groups, unions, ACLU, and the “netroots” crowd dominate the Dem party right now. If you need proof look at Joe Libermann.

By GOB

July 26, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this

Moderate Voice - That’s a good point about the democrats as well. The difference I see, however, is that the special interest groups of the democratic party dont generally have the same goal in mind. They all have their own agenda, which results in more fragmentation than anything else.

The republican special interests, on the other hand, tend to fall into one of two camps, which often have the same goals. They are either religous or corporate based, so they actually bring the party together and give it more power. The problem lies with the fact that the power is then transferred right back to special interests.

By getalife

July 26, 2006 10:38 AM | Link to this

The Moderate Voice,

I do not support any party.

I support the United States of America.

This wingnut vs liberals battle is ridiculous. There are too many problems to be fighting amongst ourselves. I support any individual who advocates change to the madness of the current political arena.

I do not care what party they come from, as long as they will act in the best interest of our country.

By Jim Wooten

July 26, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this

getalife, both parties have their special interests with agendas. While undoubtedly corporations want affordable labor, and must have it if they’re to compete globally, they’d certainly prefer a border security system that verified employability when applicants showed up. As for drugs, there are no cheap ones anywhere except on the black market and from third world labs. It’s an illusion — cost-shifting research and development, for example. So is cheap government-negotiated pricing. Ultimately Big Business and politicians fix prices to include the assortment of agenda-items politicians want but don’t want to fund through direct tax levies. However failed you think the current drug marketplace is, it could get worse. Other work now intrudes in my life.

By JK

July 26, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this

Before laying into the massive amounts of hypocrisy I’ve just read, and while trying to keep my breakfast down, I’ll answer Mr. Wooten’s primary question:

As a life-long, interested, and participating AMERICAN, (labeled a “librul” when I didn’t vote for Reagan), I can say that I WOULD fight, and approved of the fight, against those who attack us. Afghanistan: YES! They were hiding Bin Laden and his training camps, and were given ample opportunity to fork them over before being besieged. Everyone I know was behind that effort. Then…. troops were pulled out of there before the mission was accomplished, and sent to a country that did NOT attack us. I said, “Hmmm… Why?” Others said, “You asked why, so you’re a bad American!” I said, “Well, bite me then. I still wanna know why.”

Mission: Get the Guy who did Sept 11 still NOT accomplished. Mission: massive debt accomplished. Mission: more people hate us than ever before accomplished. Mission: massive no-bid contracts to special friends and billions in missing money accomplished. Mission: the American people no longer trust their leaders accomplished.

Gee Mr. Wooten. I’m still trying to connect your dots here. (a) We were attacked (b) I supported retribution and ending the capability of our attackers to do it again. (c) That objective was set aside and other personal agendas began to take priority — namely my tax dollars and our soldiers lives going to other efforts, I said “WHY?” So how exactly does that make ME worthy of YOUR contempt?

By Toad

July 26, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this

To answer Jim’s question about when a liberal would agree to war: Obviously, if we are attacked; if another country is commiting genocide (as Saddam Hussein did to the Kurds, as is going in Darfur) it should be up to other nations to oppose, not just the U.S.; if we are attacked by a terrorist organization and we can attack their major location (Afghanistan).

By getalife

July 26, 2006 10:54 AM | Link to this

Jim,

Government was formed for “we the people” not corporate interests. The GOP has taken it to a whole new level thanks to Tom DeLay and the K Street project. This, my friend, is a legal bribery system and must be shut down.

If you look at drug seizures from Canada, it has increased dramatically. Seniors depend on these low cost drugs but the GOP supports the drug companies. This is just one example of how the GOP governs for “we the people”.

By JK

July 26, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten, As to Sen. Lieberman’s troubles, I have to ask, what’s it to YOU? Seriously. The people of Connecticut decide who they want to represent them. None of them have asked for my opinion. Are you upset because the people of Conn. might be re-assessing what they want in a Senator after years of representation by a particular one? Did you express similar horror four years ago when Georgia voters replaced Cleland with Chambliss? Are you suggesting we CHANGE the process by which we elect our representatives? If yes, please explain. If no, then again, WHAT IT TO YOU?

By fell for it, didn't ya?

July 26, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this

attention LIBERALS: do not be misled by Jim’s intial post. There will be no balanced discussion here today and no thoughtful debate on any issue you care about. This is a CONSERVATIVE blog. You will be attacked, condemned and belittled, regardless of the rationality of your arguments.

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED

By Liberal

July 26, 2006 10:58 AM | Link to this

The Iraq invasion was pure folly. Yes, Saddam Hussein was pure evil. Yes, he had at one time a WMD program that was destroyed in large part by Israel. However, the president and his administration unabashedly tried to connect the dots between Osama and Hussein, knowing that there weren’t any links. And then they blame it on the CIA, one of the most elite intelligence agencies in the world! Now because of Tenet’s complicity, the CIA is largely discredited. How did this happen?

Nobody asked the question if Iraq was the way it was because of Hussein or if Hussein was the way he was becuase of Iraq. Nobody asked the question if an insurgency would develop because of the operation.

And now, when there is acutally someone bent on the destruction of Israel and the West who is seeking nuclear capability (Ahmadnijehad) we are utterly helpless.

Talking big about nuking someone or “smoking them out of their holes” is pointless and wreckless. If we do go to war with another country, then it should be done all out and without nukes. However, it should always be the last resort after all the cards are laid on the table. Also, before we go to war with anyone else, we need to ask ourselves what the hell went wrong in Iraq so we don’t repeat the same mistakes.

I don’t care who is in power! This situation has transcended the realm of liberal vs. conservative. There needs to be an effective policy of bringing stability and economic growth to the Middle East!

By getalife

July 26, 2006 11:04 AM | Link to this

The new Iraqi leader is getting ready to speak to Congress.

Watch how they will applaud this Iranian puppet. Malarki supports Hezbollah and Iran.

This is what we achieved with the war in Iraq.

By JK

July 26, 2006 11:06 AM | Link to this

On the “Conservatives are more patrotic because they’re FOR the war” front: Hmmmm… How come all the conservative Republicans I know personally send their 18-23 year old kids to college, often at great out-of-state tuition expense, instead of encouraging them to join the war they so vocally support? I know oodles of good GOP moms in their big gas-guzzling Explorers who tell me “We support the President. We support the war!” But not one who sends her own kids. Hmmmm…. How ‘bout those College Republicans and Young Republicans? They’re all out in force to support GOP candidates… Don’t see ‘em signing up for a pair of boots though. Maybe I’m just in the wrong GOP neighborhood. I’m sure it’s happening in the other GOP neighborhoods.

By Liberal

July 26, 2006 11:13 AM | Link to this

A big problem with the current situation is that it undermines the effort to spread democracy in the Middle East. If democracy in the Middle East results in groups like Hamas and Hezbollah being elected while stll maintaining their own militias, then the desire to spread democracy there will dwindle.

By RetiredLTC

July 26, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this

By Interested Observer

July 26, 2006 08:35 AM | Link to this

How secure, really, are our ports? Our borders? Our airports? How quickly is the party in power trying to wean us off our dependency on Middle Eastern oil, so we won’t be actively funding the very same terrorists and authoritarian states we’re supposedly trying to defeat?

I believe that if the Democrats were in power, you would see the return of many more moderates and conservative Democrats, simply because the Republican party is increasingly shutting out those who don’t see all issues through the prism of religion (i.e., Christianity).

Bullseye, Interested Observer. Over time if the republican party continues on it’s present course it will implode. This administration has shot itself in both feet and gone to such extremes in so many areas that it has become impossible for most people to ignore. The beginning of the end is upon the republican party. Only a return to the true principles of conservatism is going to save them in the long run.

By deegee

July 26, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this

Foreskin is right about radical Shia being our enemy. How do you kill an ideology with guns and missiles? The Sunni-Shia hatred of each other is profound and further complicates efforts aimed at diplomacy. It is estimated that approximately 10% of the Muslim population is Shia and 90% is Sunni. I am reminded of the 80/20 rule where 80% of your problems are attributed to 20% of your possible root causes. Can you kill 10% of the Muslim population, probably not. Can you appease them by giving them democratically elected seats in government. Hasn’t worked real well for us so far. Can you contain 10% of the Muslim population? I would argue that’s the most likely alternative.

If the US had known in the 80’s what we know now would we have armed Osama in Afghanistan? Would we have passed on the opportunity to capture Osama in the 90’s? We might be in a different world today if we had not discounted the force and tenacity of religious conviction among radical Muslims. We are in a fight but it’s not a conventional fight. We need to become better educated and fight intelligently.

By getalife

July 26, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this

Ah, a heckler with a “Bring Troops Home Now” T shirt.

By Realist

July 26, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this

ATTN LIBERALS- Yes, this is a conservative blog. Fine. Last I checked based on past and even many recent elections, its a society with a conservative majority. The views of the liberal are no longer popular and gettlig less so everyday. And for that we thank Howard Dean, _ Kennedy, Bill and Hillary, Kerry and Edwards (dumb and dumber), I could go on for weeks. Your party is in dire need of new ideas and new faces but I just keep seeing the same old faces pushing further and further to the left. Try again in 2012 liberals…

By Liberal

July 26, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this

Absolutely degree. Nobody disagrees that we need to fight against Islamic fundamentalism, albiet Shia or Sunni, or “Islamofacism” as some call it. The issue is how we fight it. Knowing the enemy and fighting more intelligently is a step in the right direction.

By RetiredLTC

July 26, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this

One thing that I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt is that when you have to pull troops in from the countryside to secure the capital city, the center of government, things are going south in a hurry. Combine that with not replacing those troops in the countryside and you have created another set of problems. Reducing the force in the boondocks will allow the bad guys to rest, train, reinforce, etc. Anyone that believes that the situation is not starting to be deja vu all over again is fooling themselves.

By Amelia

July 26, 2006 11:40 AM | Link to this

By Realist

July 26, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this

ATTN LIBERALS- Yes, this is a conservative blog. Fine. Last I checked based on past and even many recent elections, its a society with a conservative majority.

WRONG! This country has a moderate majority with TRUE conservative values that have had their party hijacked by a vocal minority of right wing ideologues.

By Gee Thanks!

July 26, 2006 11:40 AM | Link to this

Hey Realist! “The views of the liberal are no longer popular and gettlig less so everyday.”

Thanks for the head up! Hey, what do you want us to do now? How about you just tell us what to think about everything, and we can stop thinking and having opinions all together. HEY, I know! Why don’t you head up a new government agency to do just that! Heck, money is no object anymore. The gov’t is bigger than ever! You tell us what to think, and hire thugs to enforce it, mmmm-kay? Yeah! You can call it “the SS” for S—t shakers! Yeah! Thanks, realist! When can you start?

By swifty

July 26, 2006 11:43 AM | Link to this

LTC — sounds like a rehash of Vietnam, doesn’t it? At least there are no jungles to be de-foliated with cancer causing chemicals, but maybe we can win hearts and minds.

By Susan

July 26, 2006 11:43 AM | Link to this

By Susan

July 26, 2006 10:09 AM | Link to this

TFTT, you are too afraid to go fight for what you believe in. We see that.

You’ll never stand up and act on your beliefs, so instead you sit and ‘snipe’ from your computer.

But that’s what being an Armchair Warrior is all about! Big talk, no action.

I’m just trying to make a man out of you, TFTT.

Clarkslawga and I agree: fake.

So, fake, keep talking the talk but we all know you can’t walk the walk. fake.

Don’t see any of your compatriots ready to go either. You’re all a bunch of panywaists, aren’t you?

Because if current events and terrorism really bothered you, you’d do something about it. Instead, you hit the blogs with bold displays of unmanliness.

fakes.

By Liberal

July 26, 2006 11:45 AM | Link to this

Realist,

We were discussing the state of the Middle East, but if you want to talk about domestic political parties…

You’re right in that the Democratic Party is in shambles. It isn’t united and does not have a coherent message. It isn’t the fault of “liberalism”. As someone left of center, I’ll admit that Newt Gingrich is a political genius. He was able to unite the Republican Party on a single platform as declared in the Contract with America.

It has worked for 10 years, however the fractures in the base of the GOP is now showing. Moderate Republicans are alienated by the vocal Religious Right. Fiscal conservatives are being alienated by Bush’s out-of-control spending policies. And paleo-conservatives are being alienated by Bush’s illegal immigration policy.

You would think that the Democrats would have been able to capitalize on this now, however they still remain fractured and divided. It’s going to take someone who has the guts to stand on a solid platform to unite the Democrats in order for them to gain power.

By clarkslawga

July 26, 2006 12:06 PM | Link to this

I see the fake Brit is mouthing off again today. I am beginning to see a pattern.

No life other than to sit in front of the ‘puter and trash other people. You do all this while hiding behind this fake persona in a pathetic and vain attempt to garner some sort of credibility. It would actually be kind of sad if you weren’t so ignorantly abusive.

No, it’s still sad.

Took a little time and read through all your posts today TFTT and guess what….no Brit speak at all. (Except for one Cheers, but that’s not really exclusively British, now is it.) Now why is it that when I call your fake a*s out and expose to the blog that you are a fake, you desperately start using all this fake Brit talk. But when you face no opposition to your self delusion you talk just like the loser from Valdosta that you are? Hmmmmmmmmmmm

Face it loser. You’re exposed. You’re game is over. And no amount of public policy debate is possible while a joke like you who hides behind a mask in abject fear that no one will care what you say and no one is afraid of your abuse any longer.

Pay no attention to the joke behind the curtain kids…Its just a fake Brit trying to get over.

And you still don’t get it.

Fake.

By exposing the truth

July 26, 2006 12:07 PM | Link to this

watch out Susan — ttft might want you to “sod off” too… he’s so very english, don’t you know, “love”. He’s a “bloody bastion” of reason that ttft….

can we spot a fake when we read it, yep. maybe some less enlightened or educated individuals might fall for his “so very bloody English” superiority, but they are easily led astray (aka republicans).

By clarkslawga

July 26, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this

TFTT,

Did you ever have time to look up where Leonard Cohen was from. Try Google. OR more appropriate for you, Dogpile.

I’ll give you a hint. He is like you in one very important way. He’s not from England either.

Fake

By clarkslawga

July 26, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this

TFTT,

Wow. Looks like more and more people are catching on to your deception.

Perhaps it’s Time For The Truth.

Fake.

By concerned citizen

July 26, 2006 12:13 PM | Link to this

Jim,

You are misreading the writing on the wall. Non-neoconservatives, that includes the people you label as “liberals”, the moderate middle and regualar conservatives don’t say they wouldn’t fight for this country, they are saying they don’t like the way Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld executed the war in Iraq. We can debate the merits of going to war with Iraq all day long, and there are valid points on both sides of the argument. But where there is no room for debate is the p**s-poor way in which this administration both argued the merits and carried out the war. There has been bumbling incompetence and at times blatant stubborn denial every step of the way. Now we stand on the cusp of WWIII as you say, but we’ve been exposed as unable to carry out a ground war in the middle east. This has to be very encouraging to Iran, and thus you have their provacative actions. Wooten, don’t question the patriotism of Americans that don’t have your same slanted view of the world. We’ll die for America, but we’re not going to die for George W. Bush or Dick Cheney. They’ve proven incapable of getting this job done.

By Susan

July 26, 2006 12:14 PM | Link to this

For TFTTooth, with love from everyone!

“There you go again,

Looking weaker than a man has right to,

And making me laugh so,

So that all I really know,

Is that you are a fake, and too scared to goooooo!”

—Homage to R-AA, as I wrote this ditty for TFTooth/fake to the tune of “Here you come again” by Dolly Parton.

Too scared to put on a uniform, boys?

You too can serve! Cook meals at base camp, assist in medics quarters, drive truck, hump supplies, communications, the opportunities are endless!

We know you’re scared to death, so I offer some non-combat opportunities. Just think how good it will feel to help your buddies in Israel. And you can make up stories for years to come about the courageous stuff you never did. Priceless!

By Really?

July 26, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this

Realist,

I’d speak slowly if I was you.

November is coming and I’d hate for you to have to eat your hat. You guys have had your time and look what a great job you’ve done.

War, recession on the way (look it up before you argue that one), out of control spending, record debt, China owning 13% of that debt. Damn fine job.

At least we ain’t got no homo’s marrying, no flags burning and the 10 Commandments are in the courthouse to guide us all. (That really will help, I’m sure.) Next up…..a ban on the Easter Bunny.

Fact is the Republicans embody all of the negative traits of old school free spending Democrats and the hard line party of the rich, racially ignorant, corporatists that make up the modern Republican Party.

Conservatism is dead. It just hasn’t had the sense to lie down yet.

By Realist

July 26, 2006 12:23 PM | Link to this

Liberal, I think the GOP has a unifed message regarding terrorism and the middle east conflict. And as Jim noted earlier, right or wrong, domestic issues are on the backburner as long as this threat exists.

By exposing the truth

July 26, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this

I wonder how time TTFT will have to re-submit his rebuttal… I’m sure the filters will omit the more intellectually honest bits of his replies.

Wait anxiously for ttft to launch his most enlightening and “oh so very blood english” reply.

as clarkslaw so succintly ends his posts Fake.

By Stewart

July 26, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this

Liberal

The Iraq invasion was pure folly. Yes, Saddam Hussein was pure evil. Yes, he had at one time a WMD program that was destroyed in large part by Israel. However, the president and his administration unabashedly tried to connect the dots between Osama and Hussein, knowing that there weren’t any links. And then they blame it on the CIA, one of the most elite intelligence agencies in the world! Now because of Tenet’s complicity, the CIA is largely discredited. How did this happen?

Links between Iraq and Al-Quada before 911 have been proven validated. Saddham’s participation in 911 have been disproven yes. But if you remember in Bush’s speech that both Republicans and Democrats supported he said “your either with us or against us”.

George Tenant said that “it was a slam dunk that Iraq had WMD’s” He was a Clinton supporter and appointee, that is why you don’t hear the Clintons on the “Bush Lied” bandwagon. There is some speculation that some weapons were moved to Syria with help from the Russians. Has not been substantiated, nevertheless Saddham thumbed his nose at the will of world community. With that said, the Bush Administration screwed up in their invasion by using Rumsfield’s light-force strategy versus Colin Powell’s. We are there and we have to win it.

The issue I have with the Democrats is that they politicize everything at the expense of the nation. Anyone with any grasp on international and domestic policies know that Howard Dean will say almost anything. And John and Robert Kennedy are rolling over in their graves at the conduct of their elitist brother.

By Liberal

July 26, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this

What is the GOP message regarding terrorism and the Middle East conflict?

Domestic issues on the backburner? Bush found time last week to veto federally funding stem-cell research. That alone alienated a lot of Republicans. In fact, some that are campaiging in state races are trying to distance themselves from the president. This is a far cry from the GOP of 2002.

By Reality

July 26, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this

THIS JUST IN FROM REALLY-

THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING

Recession looms!! Spending out of control!! Record Debt!! Lions, Tigers and Bears, OH MY!!!

Look here chicken little, all of your FUD (fear uncertainty and doubt) will not get a democrat in office on 08. So keep on preaching gloom and doom, its all you guys have.

By concerned citizen

July 26, 2006 12:29 PM | Link to this

Why is it when the question of serving your country comes up, it’s always a matter of giving up your life? Why doesn’t my country ask me to drive a more economical vehicle to reduce our dependence on middle eastern oil? Why don’t they ask me to pay a little more for alternative energy sources? If they were serious and asked me too I would. Instead they send young men and women off to war and possible death or permanent handicapping. For what? Oil? And on top of that I get to have my patriotism questioned by Jim Wooten? GOP right wingers need to take a look in the mirror and ask themselves if they think this is morally right. Soldiers shouldn’t be dying so some guy in Atlanta can drive a Hummer to work 30 miles every day. If we were energy independent of the middle east, we could then completely back Israel’s defending itself without concern of the oil implications of these other nations.

By Really?

July 26, 2006 12:29 PM | Link to this

Realist,

That is the most asinine position imaginable.

We cannot let our domestic house go to hell so we can fight a war on terrorism. If we do so there will be no domestic house left as there will NEVER be an end to the war on terror.

A true leader would assemble the resources to take care of all the issues and concerns that face the Country. But that would take true, objective leadership, not the fearmongering, incompetant mess that passes for this current administration.

By Ugotta B. Kidding

July 26, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this

As a “compatriot of TFTT” I must admit that I’m too old to serve in Iraq but let me tell the 2 smart A*******E$ SUSAN & “EXPOSING THE TRUTH”: Sorry but I’m past the age limit to serve but I’m sure you’re not! I guess maybe you’ve already been, right, since you know so damn much! I did have 2 sons serve in Iraq. One in the Marines in the western part of Iraq and the other in the U.S. Army driving an Abrams tank for part of his tour and the other half as a machine-gunner atop a Humvee when they were reassigned. I’ve seen his pictures of the damage from roadside bombs and rpg’s. I’ve seen the picture where, if not for the shattered bulletproof glass on his tank, his buddy would have taken 2 bullets in his chest. Remember the 2 American soldiers that were butchered at Mahmadiyuh? That’s where he was, sleeping in an old potato factory building in very primitive conditions while you & me were sleeping in our air conditioned homes and comfy beds. They had mortars come thru the roof, were quite often shot at with small arms fire, and struck IED’s with his tank. Despite all this he still thought and still thinks that our troops were doing a GOOD THING FOR THE IRAQI PEOPLE!!! So unless you know what you’re talking about please just “SOD OFF”!!!

By JK

July 26, 2006 12:34 PM | Link to this

right or wrong, domestic issues are on the backburner as long as this threat exists.

That’s a shame. From where does our strength come? What gives us the ability to be stronger than our hostile enemies — today and 20 years from now? Yes, “liberals” are always squawking about education, poverty, opportunity, and finding new ways of addressing old problems. When you have a populace that can’t compete globally, we become more and more dependent on others. We develop less and import more. Our middle class fades as good jobs leave. This makes us weaker in the long run, and “bad guys” will always take advantage of the weak.

By Markus

July 26, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this

Well Washington is the most polarized it’s ever been, so why not the nation in general? The atmosphere there has become hostile after the elecion of 2000 to down right poisonous today. And let’s not forget that it’s not the Republicans takinig shot after shot at Democrat policies.

People doubt this nation is as polarized as Jim says? Look at the last two national presidential elections: basically it was divided down the line of the less-populated red states and more populated blue states.

The hate and vitroil is coming from the left, not the right. “Failed administration.” “Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time.” “Republicans have never worked an honest day in their lives.” “One would think today’s soldiers to be Nazis running concentration camps at Guantanamo.” “I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for.”

But, what else should one expect from a party with no new ideas other than to say “we can do it better” and the usual liberal claptrap of starving children, old people in wheelchairs being pushed down stairs, homeless people dying in the streets (which is never even mentioned when a Democrat is in office), marxist-like policies of higher taxes on the successful (with the exceptions of inheritance fortunes, hardly ANYBODY is “priviledged” in this nation), on the left), and on and on and on.

The left in this nation has become more hostile than ever, up to and including infighting about their stances on Lieberman. Many say he isn’t liberal enough, even though about 9 out of every 10 votes on his record have been yea-Democratic. When a large portion of the leadership of the Democratic party eats it’s own veep candidate in 2000, something is REALLY wrong.

By Really?

July 26, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this

Wow, Intelligence reigns supreme for the Realist.

Instead of comparing me to Chicken Little, why not take your bird head out of the sand and realize that there are real problems on the horizon and they must be addressed.

And are any of the things I pointed out not real?

Are we not in a War? Is the economy not headed for recession? (I agree there is some debate on this but there are strong indicators that point that way.) Is spending not out of control? Is there not record debt? Does China not own 13% of that debt?

How about you spend some addressing those for me, rather than your pointless and pathetic attempt to cover up the fact that the emperor has no clothes?

Or is that too much?

By Realist

July 26, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this

Liberal, Bush is on his way out no matter what and he is unpopular at the moment. Of course they are distancing themselves. It doesnt mean the party isnt going to see huge success in this election. Im not going to argue it. Sit back and watch what happens in the elections. The bottom line is that there are two evils to choose from and Id rather vote for the fighting evil who will protect me than the the “head in the sand” evil who will be arguing stem cell research while nukes are dropping on Seattle WA.

By Really?

July 26, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this

Realist,

I’ll be gone until 3 so that should give you plenty of time to choose from the following three options:

Your choice.

See you at 3.

By Realist

July 26, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this

Really, I dont disagree that those are issues of concern. I simply dont see a solution coming from the dem’s. All I see is oppostion like you are spewing but no solutions. And Ive said many times, if I have to chose between two idiots, I will choose the idiot who will at least have the courage to protect me in a fight.

By Liberal

July 26, 2006 12:41 PM | Link to this

@Stewart,

Osama hated Hussein and wanted to fight him when Hussein occupied Kuwait. He saw Hussein as an infidel threatening the Holy Land and then felt betrayed when the Saudis let us establish bases in their country from where we could liberate Kuwait. Hardly a friendly relationship between the two.

It was always known that Hussein was not connected to 9/11. He was a sick man, but he knew that trying to launch an all-out attack on the US will just jeopardize his regime. He already had two no-fly zones imposed on him.

WMDs have not been in Iraq for some time. There was no way for Saddam to develop a WMD program with his country under heavy surveillance. I knew that Tenet and Wolfowitz were full of crap when they said that WMDs were there and that they were a “slam dunk”. They were more like an attempted shot from the half-court line at the buzzer…a long shot.

In regards to the Democrats support of the war in Iraq, it pi$$ed me off. I thought it was an ill-planned and ill-conceived war and continue to think so. I was upset at Democrats for not showing any guts and calling the Neocons out on their exaggeration and flimsy evidence.

Colin Powell was right in his strategy of all-out war. However, he wanted to wait to see if the inspectors were going to find any WMDs. Powell understood the gravity of war and what it entails. He knew that it involved sacrifice and committment and that it doesn’t even closely resemble a bad Jerry Bruckheimer movie with catchy phrases and yellow ribbons.

Now is the time to become better educated about the enemy or enemies and to act intelligently as well.

By Susan

July 26, 2006 12:41 PM | Link to this

Markus,

There are plenty of volunteer opportunities awaiting in Goode Ole Israel. El Al would love to fly you there!

Instead getting all worked up and spewing hot air, how’s about walking the walk?

Not one conservative has stood up and said what concrete action he will take to better the current situation.

You can keep pointing fingers all you wish, but until I see some action, Jackson, you are all still a bunch of Armchair Warriors.

Whatever happened to “Get up, Stand up”?

Oh, you guys probably don’t like Bob Marley, either.

So, how about an action plan?

Anyone manly enough to actually DO something?

By Really?

July 26, 2006 12:42 PM | Link to this

Whether you want to see it or not, the rancor, hate, and vitrol are being served up in equal amounts by those on both the right and the left. The answer is not acting like children and saying “Mommy, the left looked at me.”

The answer starts with you. (And me too as I am as guilty as hell and I know it and it shames me.)

By time for the truth

July 26, 2006 12:43 PM | Link to this

That was hilarious JK.

I doubt you know many GOP moms - except when they give you water while you’re doing their lawns or blowing their leaves … as for sending their kids out of state, the liberal morons running/teaching in the state’s schools have proudly dumbed GA education down to the worst or just about the worst in then nation now.

The military voted overwhelmingly for Bush in 2004 - so looks like the GOP continues to dominate there.

You selectively UTTERLY IGNORE the cowardly often hysterical anti-military attitude of countless liberals in US high schools - both teachers and the more politically immature self absorbed pot smoking liberal students. Military recruiters have been hounded out of many campuses because of leftist hysteria, despite this being illegal if the schools/colleges want fed funding. The cowardly deserters hiding like spinless vampire bats in Canada and elswewhere send a similar highly negative leftist message about the military. Academic nutters like the WI prof who claims the US attacked itself on 9/11 … and the CO prof (who’s about to be fired) for saying 9/11 victims were little Eichmans … Then there’s the vile military baiter Murtha - whose own naked political ambition swiftly emerged and got slapped down. And all the lesbians in the women’s units is a major problem for normal ladies who want to serve…. that’s liberals’ fault as well. Sick Willie introduced his dont kiss and tell policy on homos and undermined the services almost over night!!

You pinkos have done everything possible to undermine the military, with many but not all democrats leading the charge and the NYT, LA TImes. moveon.org etc spewing/recycling their leftist venom against the military.

NOw, to be slightly fair and balanced tell us about the demented alBore and his gas guzzling antics promoting his twisted, factless hilarious comedy about eco-wackos in his gas guzzling SUV (as you put it) or on even more fuel hungry planes until the bad amusingly PR nixed that - that’s when he’s not still slumlording in TN, inventing the internet again, or eating six large meals a day crying about his 2000 election defeat!!

Just mirroring back your ‘rhetoric at ya” bubba!!

By matt

July 26, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this

The idea that all or even most liberals were/are in favor of the liberation of Afganistan is LUDICRUS. Most liberals predicted we’d wind up just like the British in Afganistan. Liberal creeps like Ted Rall still accuse America of all sorts of crimes against humanity for freeing Afganistan. If our liberation of Afganistan had been less sucessful the liberals would be screaming in the most shrill voice “I told you so”, not asserting that they were for it all along. Liberals need hindsight to judge wars …

By Really?

July 26, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this

Realist,

Thanks for the answer. It was nice to get one without any abuse (not a comment about you, but about the general tone of the blog lately)

The problem with your analysis is that your guys have the power in two of the three (and some would say all three) branchs of the government.

You guys have had the reigns of power and this is best you can do? And there are plenty of opposition ideas, its just in vogue to say “the left has no ideas”. The truth is that the oppostion has no ideas that you agree with.

I’d love to continue but I have got to get going. I’ll check back later.

By Markus

July 26, 2006 12:51 PM | Link to this

@Susan:

First of all, since when the HELL did you pathetic liberals become so interested in military service? It sure wasn’t during the elections of 1992 and 1996 when your hero Billboy Clintoon ran up against two WWII heros.

Second, you will NOT attempt to invalidate my posts by your childish “why don’t YOU go do… I DARE you to…” horsecrap. As a TAXPAYER CITIZEN I HAVE A RIGHT TO SAY WHATEVER I WANT! And there’s not a thing you pathetic limpwristed liberals can do to SHUT ME and THOSE LIKE ME UP!

I am SICK AND TIRED of listening to pantywastes like you and your ilk try to shut out the voice of opposition by using some psuedo-interest in the military. In short, SHOVE IT.

By JK

July 26, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this

Time for Your Nap: Don’t pretend to know me, you big faker. I am surrounded by GOP. The other moms actually swallow their pride and speak to me, despite my liberal bumper stickers, because my kids are on the honor roll with their kids, are leaders, athletes, and well-liked by their peers. So spin that, you fake limey, into something UN-American. a—wipe.

By clarkslawga

July 26, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this

Another Brit-Speak free post from TFTT. Still calling lots of names and serving up huge helpings of abuse. I suppose you strip away the fake Brit thing and there still aren’t any real ideas in there.

Perhaps TFTT has finally dropped the sad attention grab and is trying to build some real credibility.

I wonder if the damage has been done though. hmmmmmmmmmmm.

Fake.

By Realist

July 26, 2006 12:54 PM | Link to this

Well, when Really gets back from picking up his check at the SS Admin office, he can tell us who the leader should be that could assemble all the resources that Bush cant. I truly want to hear who that person is.

Really is a true liberal. The only “real” problems are the ones he and his kind deem as problems. Thier only stance is in opposition to the current leadership. Its REALLY sad. As I said before, I wont dispute that Bush has dropped the ball and that we are in need of some new ideas on the homefront, but regarding the war on terror and being safe here on American soil, Id rather have bumbling Bush holding the reins than Kerry holding a joint and waving a peace sign.

By Dee

July 26, 2006 12:54 PM | Link to this

We have always been a nation divided. That is how our government was set up and meant to function. I cringe to think what would happen to this country if any of the three - liberal, conservative or moderate were to take control completely. The liberals would give our country away, the conservatives would isolate it and the moderates would make our nation so lukewarm - well, we would never stand for anything at all, let alone freedom and democracy. I like our nation. I am not happy about the “evils” in the world - no matter what form it comes in or in what country it is found in, but I am content to live in the most generous, prosperous and opportunity rich country in the world.

By Markus

July 26, 2006 12:54 PM | Link to this

@Really?:

I challenge you to find some recent Republilcan quotes that equate what I quoted above from mainstream democrats like Dean and Durbin and Kennedy.

The Democrats have REALLY been off the chain since Bush one re-election in 2004 that they and the media thought sKerry all but had in the bag.

By exposing the truth

July 26, 2006 12:55 PM | Link to this

ugotta — designated attack poodle. very cute. Do you wear those cute little pink bows in your topknot?

two fakes for the price of one, a bargain.

I do love the stench of fear and loathing emanating from our fearless armchair warriors — fight to the death!! fight ‘em over there, so we don’t have to fight ‘em here!! (as long as it’s doesn’t require me to give up my SUV or effect my oil stocks, that is)

By Liberal

July 26, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this

As a liberal with liberal friends and relatives, I’ve never tried to undermine the military…nor have any of my friends or family.

We have a kick-a$$ military with brave men and women that is all-volunteer. They are dedicated and they deserve better than the leadership they have now. If anyone is undermining the military, it’s Rumsfeld with his lite-war tactics and pi$$-poor planning.

By Markus

July 26, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this

One more thing Susan:

I’m a hardcore gun owner. I’d have no problem defending my own land. I’ll bet your pathetic liberal neomarxist a**e doesn’t even believe in the Second Amendment…

By Amelia

July 26, 2006 12:58 PM | Link to this

By Markus

July 26, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this

Well Washington is the most polarized it’s ever been, so why not the nation in general? The atmosphere there has become hostile after the elecion of 2000 to down right poisonous today. And let’s not forget that it’s not the Republicans takinig shot after shot at Democrat policies.

The dems have not made policy in Washington since the 2000 elections. This mess is all on GW’s watch. With a republican congress, senate, and a republican prez, it’s all on them.

By Ugotta B. Kidding

July 26, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this

Jim, do you really think these far-left wingers are going to support ANY wars when they are TERRIFIED of “BULLIES” and DODGE BALL??? My God man, you were really reaching today! Well I’m off to see the Wizard now. Got work to do.

By time for the truth

July 26, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this

Alas, it seems that this blog has been badly infested by two very sick, obsessive attention seeking parrots who are endlessly repeating themselves - desperately seeking kiddies playground like revenge for earlier cyber humiliation.

If nothing else it is hugely gratifying knowing how easy it is to reduce such vacuous plebians to such pettish behaviour. Hopefully the cyber vetinary intervention team will soon step in and not too humanely euthanise these brutishly stupid parrots!!

By Ugotta B. Kidding

July 26, 2006 01:05 PM | Link to this

Hello “Exposing Yourself”: Is it THAT time sweetness? I’ll be your “little poodle”. You want to put a bow in my hair? You’re just a snotty nose little kid. Come back when you grow up and have a clue what you’re talking about. And by the way…BLOW YOUR NOSE!!!

By Stewart

July 26, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this

Liberal,

You are undermining the military when you come out and say that American troops are murdering innocent civilians (Mirtha) and when you say we can’t win the war (Dean). Our enemies monitor and take advantage of the bickering here in the US. That’s what defeated us in Vietnam as well. If we are united in purpose, nothing can stop the US from achieving it’s goals.

By exposing the truth

July 26, 2006 01:08 PM | Link to this

ladies and gentlemen — I give you Markus in a raving hissy fit!

you are correct in that patriots are found all over the country, not just in the armed forces — people who have sacrificed financially, emotionally, and physically to fight this “war on terror”.

Patriots do not drive SUVs, give no-bid contracts to wage war, send our troops into harms way with insufficient armor and equipment, refuse to admit when the war we are waging is going badly and refuse to commit the required personnel and materials to do the job right.

Patriots do not leave our troops in an untenable situation, under incredible stress and pretend it’s OK for the troops to torture and rape and murder “because the terrorists do it”.

your vitrol on a blog does not make you a patriot, sir. Your freedoms make you beholden to Patriots.

By Break It Down

July 26, 2006 01:10 PM | Link to this

Amelia, you are missing Markus’s valid points because you’re not viewing them from the appropriate frame of reference: the double standard. You see, in the 90’s when the Repubs took potshots at the Dems and berated their Dem president, it’s beacause they are “Good [gun totin’]’Murcans.” When power shifted, the ones taking shots are “pinko commie lovin’ weed smokers.”

You can’t judge actions — like politicizing a tragedy to win elections, for example — based on the merits of the actions. You have to toss the facts and just tell people who is good and who is bad. See? It’s all about framing the argument.

By Cletus Snow

July 26, 2006 01:12 PM | Link to this

This country has played wait and see far too long.Desert Storm should have taken care of the problem, but we waited to see what the inspectors would find.WE found that the inspectors couldn’t find thier privates with both hands and a flashlight.Mr. Clinton sat in the white house played with his cigars and discussed the meaning of is for 8 yrs,Ok he fired a missle or two.Now comes 9/11 we waited we saw, at this point why can’t we secure our borders and go take care of the problem, before we have another 9/11 and the wait and seers kill another 3000 innocent americans. Wait and see is no longer an option.

By time for the truth

July 26, 2006 01:13 PM | Link to this

This is too bloody funny …

one mild mannered English Tory has reduced a growing number of intellectually dishonest leftist vermin to systematically obsessing about his nationality.

See how easy it is to manipulate the resident liberal vermin!!

Right back at ya JK … you and wittle Nazi Susan are my favourite trollopes - at least for today!!!! Where’s Amelia hiding -at a hooded (no cameras present) Cheney hate fest in Decatur no doubt!!

Cheers for answering ALL the political points I made JK …

By Ugotta B. Kidding

July 26, 2006 01:15 PM | Link to this

Expose Yourself: Everything you just said at 1:08 is absolutely stupid. And that line about (pretend it’s OK for the troops to torture and rape and murder “because the terrorists do it”), if I were a poodle I’d bite your A$$ you silly know-nothing blabbering leftist idiot. I’ve really got to go work a little while so while I’m gone, take a chill pill, and BLOW YOUR NOSE!!!

By time for the truth

July 26, 2006 01:15 PM | Link to this

sorry feminazi Amelia, I didn’t see you skulking there amongst all the poisonous parrots!!

By Liberal

July 26, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this

Apparently, it looks like that some members of the military actually murdered innocent civilians in Haditha. This happens when a military occupies a country for a while and shows that the stress and strain of this war is taking a toll on our troops.

Debating and differing is not why we lost the Vietnam War and it isn’t the reason why Iraq is going down the tubes. In both cases, our military was used as a police force. They are trained to break things and to kill. They are also trained to combat conventional armies and not insurgencies. In both wars, we were intervening in domestic affairs of other countries.

We did well in defeating the Iraqi Army…no doubt about that. But the president and the defense department foolishly did not consider the fact that it would be very likely for an insurgency to happen.

I’m not playing Monday morning quarterback. I knew that this would happen. Anyone that understood the history of Iraq knew that this would happen. And yet Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld thought that we would be greeted as liberators and that the rebuilding of Iraq would be easy and pay for itself through oil revenues. Talk about naivity on their part.

There is nothing that can stop the US from achieving its goals except for the US. We need to be smarter and better educated about a situation before we launch a war. That isn’t liberal or conservative…it’s sound policy.

By Aquagirl

July 26, 2006 01:18 PM | Link to this

My goodness. And I thought the blogging was getting nasty over on mom-mania…

Sorry, Jim, I can’t support a war that has been planned and carried out by people who are clearly unable to do a decent job. Did we need to go to war? Who knows? With intelligence the way it is, you simply have to trust your leaders when they tell you a war is necessary. When Colin Powell (now why won’t HE run for President? Oh, yeah, Bush fired him for being a reasonably intelligent non-yes man) said there were WMD’s and that we had to go into Iraq, that was good enough for me. But watching Bush, Rumsfeld, and the current circus in Washington waste lives, billions of dollars, and goodwill from the international community is disgusting. Clueless fools.

And am I the only one discomforted by the thought that Markus owns weapons?

By Susan

July 26, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this

“One more thing Susan:

I’m a hardcore gun owner. I’d have no problem defending my own land. I’ll bet your pathetic liberal neomarxist a**e doesn’t even believe in the Second Amendment…”

Oh, Markus, that is so hot, the image of you out in your yard-work onesie, weapon at hand, valiantly defending that .23 acre in East Cobb.

Hey, nobody’s trying to make you be quiet. By all means, shout away here in blog land. That way you’ll have no energy left for the real issues.

And I’m still waiting on that plan for you to fight for your country and to rid it of folks just like sweet little ole me!

By the way, I’d love to chat with you in person. Are you up for it? Or is Starbucks too liberal/commie/pinko for you?

By SW

July 26, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this

Years ago my father told me if I wasn’t a liberal at twenty-one, I didn’t have heart. In his next breath he told me if I was still a liberal at forty, I didn’t have a brain. One by one I have witnessed myself as well as most of my old gang of friends cutting loose of our past liberal ties and slowly start to see the world through a set of more conservative eyes. Granted, myself as well as others I know fall solidly in the moderate camp. The Dems stance on crime and the death penalty is far too passive in this crazy and violent world we live in. In regards to terrorism, I don’t know that anyone can really save us from the fanatics that are so hell bent on destroying our way of life. However, I do remember as a kid we had a choice of two shortcuts we could take to go to the park where we swam and played ball in. Both involved the risk of being caught by a neighbor for climbing the fence each had around their yard. One guy was easy going and complained but never really did anything, we always went over his fence. The other guy was a grouch and appeared meaner. We avoided him. I want a guy in charge that if nothing else, gives off a meaner appearance. Sometimes this may be all we have to go with.

By exposing the truth

July 26, 2006 01:21 PM | Link to this

Ugotta — I guess the truth hurts, doesn’t it? I suppose I should leave you be… after all, a battle wits with the unarmed “just isn’t cricket”.

Big tough Ugotta — all icing and no cake. You talk tough online but, like most of these neo cons, are all blow and no go.

fake.

By Stewart

July 26, 2006 01:28 PM | Link to this

Liberal,

You said apparently that soldiers murdered innocent civilians. I think it is best to wait until the investigation has been completed. I think you are correct in your observation of the Rumsfield strategy. And you also made a very good point about playing Monday morning quarterback. The reality is that we are there and we have to win. The Democratic party will have years upon years to play Monday morning quarterback after we have won the battle. Your observation comparing Iraq and Vietnam is incorrect, though the reasons for war and theater was totally different, there are similarities in the fact that the American Will to win deteriorated to a level where we had to pull out. And when John Kerry, Jane Fonda and the rest of the “peace lovers” were dancing around celebrating their victory more than 3 million South Vietnamese were slaughtered by their communist neighbors to the north.

By Steve

July 26, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this

I see that like most discussions involving strong emotions and parties that feel strongly about their liberal or conservative viewpoint, this discussion has degenerated into nothing more than a p!ssing contest.

Exposing the truth: Grow up or take your personal vendettas against certain posters off-line.

Susan: You are an anti-Semite, plain and simple.

Liberal: I disagree with 80% of what you have to say, but because you are able to express a thoughtful opinion, I enjoy your posts. Please stick around.

By Ugotta B. Kidding

July 26, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this

EXPOSE YOURSELF: Thought I was gone, didn’t you? Tried to blindside me, didn’t you? I KNOW your kind! KINDA looney as Hell! Didn’t your mama teach you to be nice to your elders boy, and I emphasize BOY!!! While I’m gone (and I’m really gone this time), write “I will be nicer to my ultimate SUPERIOR Ugotta” 500 times. And for the LAST TIME…BLOW YOUR NOSE!!!

By Wooly

July 26, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this

A CLUE INTO THE MIND OF MR. WOOTEN AND WHY HE SNEERS AT THE WORD “NEGOTIATE.”

By exposing the truth

July 26, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this

Ugotta — your vitrol is adorable… but does your momma know you talk like that? I bet she’d be rollin’ if she did. You go ahead and work now…fake.

Steve — it’s a blog. what did you expect? I apologize if you are offended, but I’ve been reading this blog long enough to know that the big tough neocon fakes like Ugotta and TTFT are only good increasing the uncivilzed behavior online. I’ll go on blasting the wannabe tough guys and exposing them for the fakes they are — at least today. Maybe then you can post in peace, too.

By MrLiberty

July 26, 2006 01:45 PM | Link to this

It amazes me that you can continue to be a political commentator and still use the old tired left and right dicotomy to classify the political feelings within this country. I know that being able to demonize the “other” side serves your political purposes since it eliminates the need for you to justify your lack of adherence to real principles, but David Nolan, founder of the Libertarian Party devised a much more accurate spectrum with which to evaluate political beliefs.

One one axis is your belief in personal freedom. On the other is your belief in economic freedom. The real ends of the spectrum become authoritarian and libertarian. Neither today’s so-called conservatives nor liberals believe in any freedom on either spectum for anyone.

It may be easy to demonize “liberals” for being against the war, but plenty of TRUE conservatives recognize that war is the biggest government program there is, the greatest threat to individual liberty there is, and the program that most must be avoided. Your kind of conservatism (neo-conservatism) just falls into the mildly authoritarian category along with Ted Kennedy and others who wish to stiffle economic freedoms.

The greatest threat to this country is not terrorism. Terrorists did not destroy the Bill of Rights after 9-11 - Bush, with the backing of folks like you did. Habeus corpus didn’t disappear after 600 years of use because of terrorists, it was Bush and enablers like you. We are not hated in the Middle East because of our freedoms. We are hated because of the actions of past leaders and current leaders like Bush - helped by people like you.

Yes there is a divide in this country. It makes it easier for folks like you to believe that your ever-present adversary “the liberals” are on the other side, but the reality is that you and the war-mongering, war crime supporting, freedom hating totalitarians like you in both the Democratic and Republican parties stand against those of us from the republican, democratic, libertarian, green, peace and freedom, constitution, and unaligned folks who have awakened to the reality that freedom, liberty, and a rational foreign policy that keeps us safe are not to be found with either of the war parties, but is more essential to the survival of this great nation than anything has ever been in the past.

You need to demonize us with names because you cannot win a discussion with facts or reality. You and your fellow Bush/war supporters are threatening the very existence of every man, woman and child in this and every country on earth. If there was a way to peacefully separate from you all, I would gladly support it. It may be the only way to save all of us from the results of your disasterous policies.

By Ugotta B. Kidding

July 26, 2006 01:46 PM | Link to this

I’m just yanking your chain a bit there Exposing the Truth. I enjoyed “playing with you” today. BOW-WOW! That’s “poodle” talk for See Ya!

By bigguy

July 26, 2006 01:50 PM | Link to this

Speaking of soldiers who murdered innocent victims in Iraq, I cant help but think of all the headlines we read here stateside reporting that someone had been murdered by a Hurricane Katrina evacuee. Some even after extending them kindness or opening up thier home to them. I know we had quite a few right here in Atlanta. Liberals want to hold thier hands and give them cash gifts and build them housing but condemn our entire military over the actions of a few. If that aint typical I dont know what is.

By Stewart

July 26, 2006 01:52 PM | Link to this

The greatest threat to this country is not terrorism. Terrorists did not destroy the Bill of Rights after 9-11 - Bush, with the backing of folks like you did. Habeus corpus didn’t disappear after 600 years of use because of terrorists, it was Bush and enablers like you. We are not hated in the Middle East because of our freedoms. We are hated because of the actions of past leaders and current leaders like Bush - helped by people like you.

Which rights do you want to protect? The right to private telephone conversations with terrorists? And yes we are hated in the Mideast because of our Freedoms. Women’s freedom to vote, all of our freedoms to view porn, have homosexual relationships, etc. We are also hated because of our support of Israel.

By K.Rad

July 26, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this

The post that bears repeating: “The GOP is corporate government. Just look at any issue and it is aligned with corporate interests.

Border security, no way need that cheap labor. Drugs from Canada, no way, have to protect the pharma lobby. It goes on and on, Check out big oil profits.

Your party has sold you out Jim and yet you keep cheering them on. You are a failed American.”

By time for the truth

July 26, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this

Kidding … hope your sons stay safe … they put the likes of JK to shame. I’m also way too old to even be considered for active service. The British Army stopped the draft over 40 years ago but if I had been called up if the law had ben changed I would have happily honoured that committment and not gutlessly run away to Canada or Sweden!!

Its enormously amusing to note that Nazi Susan a.k.a. as anal loser ga and exposing the truth and all those other sad ids that this one nutjob has now adopted is getting really uppity.

There’s always one pathetic multi id moron on every blog!!

By Liberal

July 26, 2006 01:57 PM | Link to this

Yes Stewart. American Will is a beautiful thing. It definitely won us WWII and allowed us to overcome a lot of bad stuff here. And you are right, despite the damning evidence, the accused soldiers are innocent til proven guilty.

The Vietnam War is different from the Iraq War in the sense that you had one enemy, the VC and the NVA. The reason that we weren’t successful in Vietnam is 1)It was a police action where we didn’t occupy land, just patroled it. 2)The other side was fighting for nationalism and to unite the country. We were there to combat the spread of communism, which of course was one of the goals of the Soviet Comintern. But we didn’t realize that we were in effect fighting against a determined and driven independence movement.

Iraq on the other hand is a very Balkanized situation with different groups attacking us and attacking each other. We did defeat Saddam’s military. However, we underestimated the nation-building part. That doesn’t take American Will, rather it requires Iraqi Will. And that’s something that we haven’t seen. Instead it has just been Shia Will or Sunni Will or Kurd Will.

By Realist

July 26, 2006 01:57 PM | Link to this

We are COPRORATE AMERICA. Why not have a corporate government? Its corporations who provide thd funding for all your social liberal programs for gods sake.

By K.Rad

July 26, 2006 01:57 PM | Link to this

Whatever your political party, we are Americans, and we are ALL hated by a lot of people in this world. It is easy to pontificate about what you gun-toters would do with your guns. There is self-defense, and then there is “pre-emptive force” which to others looks A LOT LIKE TERRORISM.

By K.Rad

July 26, 2006 02:04 PM | Link to this

@ Realist - what are you talking about? Do you even know anymore? By the way, I suppose you would refuse assistance from any “social liberal program” if you found yourself in need? No hurricane relief for you, Nope. If you are paralyzed in an accident, I know you would never consider getting disability. Every man and woman for themselves? Duh.

By Liberal

July 26, 2006 02:05 PM | Link to this

@bigguy

If you read my 1:17 post, I don’t think anybody is trying to condemn the whole military through Haditha. It’s just that massacres do happen when occupations become overextended, streesed, and strained.

In regards to Katrina victims. Of course they should be helped. No the federal government isn’t supposed to be there for handouts, but it should have the capacity to aid in emergency situations and mitigate catastrophes. Anybody who robs and murders is a lowdown SOB, but I’m not going to condemn an entire city.

By Liberal

July 26, 2006 02:09 PM | Link to this

“We are COPRORATE AMERICA. Why not have a corporate government? Its corporations who provide thd funding for all your social liberal programs for gods sake”

Realist,

Maybe a corporate government would be better. Afterall, it’s easier to sack an incompetent president or CEO in a corporation.

By MrLiberty

July 26, 2006 02:09 PM | Link to this

And before one of you simpletons attempts to lump me into your catch-all category of “liberal”, I will have you know that I believe in as small a government as possible (none would be preferred). I believe that there is no current function of government that couldn’t be performed by the private sector, including defense. I believe unconditionally in the right of every person to arm and defend themselves with whatever they desire - not as a deterrent to crime, but as a deterrent to government tyrrany. I believe that anyone should be able to do with their body, their property, and their life as they see fit so long as they don’t harm the person or property of another. I oppose all income taxation, it is nothing more than slavery to the government. I oppose all forms of government run education - it may very well be at the root of all of our societal decline. I support a sound monetary system based on gold, silver, or other stable device. I oppose all government debt. I oppose the existence of a standing army (as did our founding fathers) as one of the greatest threats to liberty there can be.

I believe that senators should be elected by state legislatures as they were before 1912 (?) primarily as a bastion to state’s rights. I believe that there is no such thing as a “public accomodation.” There is either private property or there is not. Laws that tell you how to dispose of your private property but let you keep ownership are the defintion of fascism - which is exactly what we have in this country.

Some liberal huh? What I am is a well-educated american who is proud of the priciples this country was founded on, and is disgusted by the fascist, totalitarian principles that now consume both major political parties. Wake up folks, the congressional, military, industrial complex is just using you as tools to fund their lavish lifestyles and retirements. Fear is not the basis of either domestic or foreign policy, but you wouldn’t know that by watching all of you.

By bigguy

July 26, 2006 02:12 PM | Link to this

Quote from Kim Jong AP 30 Minutes Ago

North Korea will upgrade its arsenal “in every way by employing all possible means and methods” and will greet any aggressors with “all-out do-or-die resistance and unprecedented devastating strikes,” Kim Il Chol said, according to the Korean Central News Agency.

I really have no more to say to yall. With the likes of this guy and that Iranian dude I want a prez with a heavy hand. Sorry boys, you liberal wuss types just aren’t going to git er done.

By Realist

July 26, 2006 02:17 PM | Link to this

So Mr. Liberty, what do you suggest we all do. Run off ala Walden and live in the woods? Maybe smoke pot or eat peyote all day and write poetry? I hear you complaining and saying how it should be but how do we get there? You are proposing things should be the way they were in 1912? Well I propose things should be the way were in 1950. Read into that what you will.

By time for the truth

July 26, 2006 02:19 PM | Link to this

Mr Liberty …

A lot of libertarian types, which is more where you at least seem to be coming from are in favour of the full legalisation of drugs. Ignoring how that would help certain Kennedy and Clinton family members do you subscribe to this brainless policy which would further undermine the dregs of this liberal plagued society?

It certainly seems from your most recent post that you are already personally way ahead of that policy!!

NO standing army … in either a pre 1939 or post 1945 world!!

Hitler, Stalin, Kruschev, Mussolini and Mao would have loved you mate!!

By Stewart

July 26, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this

Mr. Liberty,

You have some very valid points! Have you done any research on the Fair Tax? However I must disagree with your stand on a standing army. Unfortunately there will always be conflicts and the US like others will need to pretect their interests both here and abroad.

By Wait a Minute

July 26, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this

Wait a minute, when Democrats proposed a return of the draft, it was Republicans and “conservatives” who opposed it.

By getalife

July 26, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this

Wait a minute,

Google roll call draft and you will see two votes for the draft. One was Mr. Murtha.

Roll call for the war in Iraq and free trade. One vote stands out against and his name is Mr. Feingold.

By Double Standard

July 26, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this

Wait a minute: you are forgetting the underlying principle. If the Democrats propose something, it’s bad. If the Republicans propose something, it’s good. You cannot judge actions on actions. You have to judge them on what we tell you about who is good and who is bad. Facts exist only as static noise outside the realm of superior truth. Get with the program.

By Jim's a Dummy

July 26, 2006 02:29 PM | Link to this

Here’s the patriot who’s running our country now Jim. According to the American Bar Association, he’s a criminal

Kinda like the Catholic preists who were diddling the little kids…just wrap yourself in a flag, a bible, or both, and you can get away with anything in the name of anything.

By alesure

July 26, 2006 02:31 PM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten,

You can thank your Republican Party and President Bush for the deep divide in this country. Remember he ran as a uniter and has done nothing to unite this country. The American people have spoken, the are against this illegal war in Iraq. When this current adminstration is out, provide the next one is stolen; maybe, maybe we will come together. Peace!

By rarringt

July 26, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this

SW,

Interesting comment. I would surmise that liberals and the traditional notion of liberalism is about acquiring or improving society in a way that all can access the necessary tools of prosperity (i.e. education, civil liberties, etc.)

Conservatives and conservatism, in the traditional sense, is about maintaining and expanding one’s already attained position (effectively, the “status quo”).

Basically, your world view changes once you get a mortgage (which is a significant part of the American dream). I think Truman nailed it when he said “if you want to live like a Republican, vote for a Democrat.”

The unfortunate thing is, much of what happens in here doesn’t really ring true in terms of traditional moderate liberalism or conservatism. For example, Jim’s article basically states that liberals only believe in war if the barbarians are quite literally at the gate. Of course that’s not true.

Many responses on this post infer that conservatives are so dogmatic that they instinctively shoot first (or get someone else’s kid to shoot for them), and ask questions later, if necessary. That’s equally untrue.

A blog like Jim’s tends to attract partisan extremists on both sides. Part of his job is to get as strong a response as possible, which is why he frames virtually everything as a wedge issue. The truth is there are moderate voices in here as well as in the larger national community. I think there’s a growing majority of people that are tired of partisan hacks dictating and misdirecting where this country is going, and more important, what we are about.

I agree we need to focus on the war against terrorism. But we need to “know thy enemy.” I mean, we can’t just dismiss folks who strap bombs to their bodies as “crazy.” Where there exists the conditions to create one terrorist, there exists the opportunities to create many terrorists. I am, for the record, not condoning a “kumbayah” session, (those who choose to live by the sword must die by it), but we need to address the underlying issues of stark poverty in a land literally floating on an underground sea of oil, and fundamental disenfranchisement. If you give a kid an option between being blowing up a bus or having a good education and a real shot at a better life, I think he’d take the latter.

We have, and need, the best military in the world. We get that by paying them more, taking better care of them and their families, and making sure they have great opportunities to advance themselves after their time of service is up. That means more money for VA hospitals, and educational benefits, to say nothing of salaries. Which probably means higher taxes.

We need to strengthen our economy. That means a better workforce, which means better education (and better universal access to education).

We need to come up with a health care policy that provides benefits for us all, but doesn’t result in skyrocketing costs.

We need to keep secure borders, while ensuring this is still the land of choice for those who would immigrate legally.

This post is getting long, but don’t forget about social security, elder care, infrastructure maintenance, and the deficit. The point is most reasonable folks on both sides of the aisle recognize my little laundry list comprises issues which need to be addressed. We simply differ on how to address them.

Most people on one “side” view the others as the “loyal opposition,” but the extremists see disagreement as synonomous with disloyalty, and a lack of patriotism. It is unfortunate that they do not understand or fully appreciate that dissent is what democracy is all about.

By getalife

July 26, 2006 02:34 PM | Link to this

Jim is no dummy, he sees what is happening to our country.

He chooses party over country which makes him a failed American.

By Stewart

July 26, 2006 02:35 PM | Link to this

The people were for the “legal war” in Iraq at the time of it’s commencement.

By time for the truth

July 26, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this

alesure …

whereas sick willie, HiTllary and the D.C room service lovin’ alBore spent eight munificent, selfless years striving endlessly for political peace and bi-partisan reconciliation. Always assiduously accepting and acting whenever possible on GOP input with judicial picks and other senior appointments - even offering pardons to the highest bidders and even stealing White HOuse property when they finally slithered out!!

on yer bike - yer sad liberal lying tw@t!!

By getalife

July 26, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this

Ah, our English friend.

Are you sure you are not made in China like the GOP?

By Mark

July 26, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this

These things are true… The war in Iraq was sold to America with a bunch of lies… the war was horribly planned with no exit strategy (save for the one where we leave with arm fulls of roses… thanks Dick C you draft dodger)… gas is at $3 a gallon and going higher…today’s far right Republicans are throw backs to the folks that thought women shouldn’t be able to vote or own land and that blacks should be slaves and used the bible to back up their arguments… November will see these mouth-breathering bigots run out of the government (unless the Republicans steal the next election). If Democrats do take back the House and Senate in November, I hope someone begins a push to impeach both Bush and Chaney. They’re both criminals and incompetents.

By time for the truth

July 26, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this

ah getabrain …

a known admitted LIAR on here!!

I understand your parents were so poor in their early years that you were actually made in Hong Kong!!

By Harold

July 26, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this

The way to save America is to be friendly with Cuba. That way the Cubans can go back to Cuba and the Israelis can go back to Miami and the Arabs can go back to Israel. Everybody’s happy. Problem solved.

By Your liberal in transition

July 26, 2006 02:50 PM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten,

By time for the truth

July 26, 2006 02:50 PM | Link to this

and moron Mark is back with a simpering distorted weak dud of a post!!

truly fabulous race baiting section though!! I especially liked the KKK Byrd and bigot Sen Al Gore sr references!!

By Double Standard

July 26, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this

Mark, you’re missing the bigger picture here. Avoiding military service is perfectly honorable if your a Republican (cheney, bush, limbaugh) but dispicable if your a Democrat. The bible is good for backing up conservative policies (hate the queers) but bad for backing up liberal ideas (love your neighbor). Perspective, man! You’d better get with the program, because Markus has a gun.

By Mark

July 26, 2006 02:52 PM | Link to this

These things are also true… the Democrats currently have NO viable candidate for president in 2008… they don’t have a solid message and platform… they are too beholden to the far left (gay marriages and abortions for everyone!)…when a Democrat was in the Oval office, we had welfare reform, a budget surplus, a roaring stock market, protections of personal liberty and largely a world at peace…I’ll cast my lot with forward looking Democrats any day when pitted against the morally bankrupt leaders in the Republican party. Jim wonders why the country is so split right now? Because the Republican party has spent 20 years figuring out how to win elections by shrewdly dividing people with wedge issues. Too bad they haven’t figured out how to govern or win wars.

By exposing the truth

July 26, 2006 02:53 PM | Link to this

alesure:

“You can thank your Republican Party and President Bush for the deep divide in this country. Remember he ran as a uniter and has done nothing to unite this country. The American people have spoken, the are against this illegal war in Iraq. When this current adminstration is out, provide the next one is stolen; maybe, maybe we will come together. Peace!”

Our resident English wannabe tough guy:

“whereas sick willie, HiTllary and the D.C room service lovin’ alBore spent eight munificent, selfless years striving endlessly for political peace and bi-partisan reconciliation. Always assiduously accepting and acting whenever possible on GOP input with judicial picks and other senior appointments - even offering pardons to the highest bidders and even stealing White HOuse property when they finally slithered out!!

on yer bike - yer sad liberal lying tw@t!!”

Thats zero name calling attacks by alesure and debatably 5 attacks by ttft…..

very “bloody english” of you ttft. let’s not address any issue, just attack!

By TW

July 26, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this

Wooten is not a moderate; he is a Republican partisan. Hence to hear him bemoan how the country is “divided” sounds disingenuous to my ears, even calculated. Every partisan claims they are a moderate, representing the views of the majority if only that majority could get their thinking straightened out (right). Some do it because they believe it; some do it cynically; some aren’t sure whether they believe it or not. Wooten seems to me to fall into one of the latter categories. If only everyone would start thinking right and agree with Wooten, then we would no longer be so sadly divided…

By Liberal

July 26, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this

Harold,

Very funny joke!

TFTT,

Calling someone a “tw@t” on a political discussion board…a little extreme.

By getalife

July 26, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this

Time for lies,

That was very lame.

I was made in this great country.

Real Americans are starting to speak out against this failed administration.

By time for the truth

July 26, 2006 03:03 PM | Link to this

alesure

I naturally assumed your deeply dishonest bollocks was merely there for entertainment purposes … your swift, pitiful response does nothing to change that view.

The only way Bush can become a ‘uniter’ in demoNcrat eyes is to push a demoNcrat agenda and apppoint dem judges etc … anything he does that is actually true to his GOP manifesto and mandate merely makes him a ‘divider’. YOur utterly disingenuous post was predicated on usual liberal drivel … no matter … but you bloody well knew that already!!

By time for the truth

July 26, 2006 03:06 PM | Link to this

Liberal …

that is an extremely common term of endearment on any football forum in the UK … in fact its a very mild form of endearment and no one gets uppity or snotty!!

By Liberal

July 26, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this

TFTT, What club do you support?

By time for the truth

July 26, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this

They’re no longer in the premiership because one of the biggest tw@ts in English football ruined the side and we got relegated.

Do you actually care - or are you English, or just another colonial Man URe or A**e-nal arm chair supporter?

By Liberal

July 26, 2006 03:14 PM | Link to this

It’s not Milwall is it?

I support Barca in La Liga. Been to a game at Camp Nou and everything.

By time for the truth

July 26, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this

NOPE - Not Millwall.

ROB KELLYS BLUE AND WHITE ARMY!!

I taught English at a local private language school in Catalonia ten years ago now, I went to the Nou Camp too - and saw Barca play on TV sevral times in local tapas bars.

They were a bit lucky against A_rsenal, Chelsea are better than Barca too.

By Ed

July 26, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this

We can get on the rooftops and shout liberal vs. conservatives until pigs fly but when you’re on a metal slab with a toe tag on, if you are lucky enough to still have a toe to tag, it doesn’t matter. When you have a group of lunatics willing to walk into a building and blow themselves and others up, no one can stop that mentality. Not a republican, not a democrat. We might as well wake up here and smell the coofee and eee the world for what it is. Folks, we are in the first baby steps of a religious war and your enemies don’t care or know is you’re a liberal or a conservative, they see you as a target.

By getalife

July 26, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this

Soccer is for sissies. They fall down and play hurt like actors.

We play real football here.

By foundthereason

July 26, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this

Maybe it’s the smog, but I’m starting to think TFTT really is English. His posts certainly reflect the deep thought of one of the footballer fans who has spent years being tear gassed and hit in the head by riot police. Nobody could be so consistantly stupid and angry without some form of brain damage.

By Toad

July 26, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this

Sissies? Haven’t heard that one since the playground. Some of my best friends are sissies.

By Nick

July 26, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this

I would hope today that liberals who post here would try to explain to the rest of us, as clearly and precisely as possible, what does constitute a threat sufficiently grave that they would personally take up arms. My impression is that it’s nothing short of an actual invasion of this country.

Jim,

As a liberal, I’ll try to answer your question.

I’m at the prime age where if there were to be a draft, I’d surely be included in it. And while I would fulfill my duty, I would have to question what I was fighting for. It’s my nature. I often wonder whether or not many of the brave men and women overseas now truly know what they are fighting for. They’ve heard the rhetoric of freedom and democracy. But for me, those words that used to mean so much are now being used to churn the propaganda machine.

First, let me start by saying that I don’t think you’ll find a liberal that says we shouldn’t have entered Afghanistan (and if you do, please tell them to find another political label).

And I agree that it’s no use debating the reasons for entering Iraq. We’re there now, created a bit of a mess, and have an obligation to finish the job (how we go about that, though, should still be open for debate). In that respect, Iraq is an open and shut case in my opinion.

So although the motives for the war in Iraq are now unimportant in that regard, they still are very much important in the grand scheme of things. They continue to linger in the back of the minds of many liberals. There’s a general distrust of this administration. Conservatives believe President Bush is acting in, as you put it, “good faith,” but liberals aren’t so sure. There are simply too many questions (for brevity, I won’t get into them) clouding the nature of the war and how it is being operated. Those questions have left a bitter taste in the mouths of liberals. The result: in the immediate time frame, everything war-related is going to be second guessed.

And really, are most conservatives all that different? To all of those physically able to fight the war in Iraq, why haven’t you enlisted yet? The military is obviously strained, and I’m sure would welcome your help. Are you willing to die for this war, and if so, why aren’t you out there on the frontline? I think it’s a valid question.

I don’t agree with the current shoot-first ideology our country is dangerously close to adopting. We can’t go firing at every country we think poses a threat. To answer your question, no, I don’t think we should attack a sovereign nation. Doing otherwise would put us on the same level as our enemies. If we attack Iran prematurely, it can be argued that we were again acting in “good faith,” but I think the role of good cop / bad cop becomes blurred.

I’m not saying we should allow Iran and other countries to start building nuclear weapons. Please, blow their efforts out of the water. But that doesn’t mean we should put boots on the ground.

Why have we abandoned the philosophy that cooler heads will prevail? We aren’t that far removed from the Cold War. I think there are a lot of similarities between the communist governments that wanted to blow us up and the current Islamic governments that want to do the same. And we didn’t exactly go invading the U.S.S.R.

Ultimately, this has to all be solved diplomatically. War is, as always, the last option. I hate to bring Iraq back up again, but all things considered, did we really do our best to diffuse the situation? And I don’t feel as though we’ve exhausted all of our options in the Middle East. I’m not sure we have a true grasp of the role race, religion, and history are really playing in the conflict, and we’re certainly playing politics in a very ethnocentric manner. We shouldn’t be quick to pull the trigger again.

Hopefully that gives you a little insight into how at least one person’s liberal mind works.

By getalife

July 26, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this

Toad,

Sorry to hear that.

Real Americans play smashmouth football. I played linebacker and liked to hit the sissies.

Watch them crawl off the field, ah, good times.

By Liberal

July 26, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this

“Soccer is for sissies. They fall down and play hurt like actors.”

Getalife,

You’re talking about Italian or Portuguese soccer.

TFTT,

Ah, Leicester City. But Chelsea better than Barca? C’mon man. It looks like they’re about to lose Crespo. But I’ll give credit to their coach, Maurinho. And in regards to Arsenal, they looked alright in that match until Barca finally decided to play! Different discussion, different board.

Visca Barca!

By time for the truth

July 26, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this

getabrain

you mean the football that’s NEVER played with the feet, with thugs who are mostly functioning illiterates and that needs crash helmets and shoulder pads and only warrants an attention span of all of 20 secs by players and fans alike!!

The football that you Americans cant really play and have a micky mouse league at the level of our old div3 - you mean that kind of football?

BTW - there aint no such thing as “soccer” its a cissy term for football!!

as for the other pigignorant liberal … ‘teargas’ is NOT used in England, and its NOT riot police at matches, its always just the local plod plus the woodentops from the British Transport lot.

and I am NOT in the least bit angry on here - this is just light entertainment for me matey!!

By Realist

July 26, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this

And I suppose its the liberals like Nick who define what rhetoric and propaganda is? When its a liberal idea its insight. When its something a liberal opposes its rhetoric and propoganda. Lets just agree to disagree and let the elections speak for themselves. I for one am looking forward to election night. I think it will be a resouonding defeat for the dems, AGAIN.

By MrLiberty

July 26, 2006 03:39 PM | Link to this

You either own your body or the government does. Which is it. I believe in freedom. Kennedy nor Clinton supports legalization. The drug war is just a war on personal liberty. It is used to justify civil asset forfeiture, no-knock raids, domestic spying, etc. Before 1900 all drugs were legal and addiction was handled as a medical problem. Now with prohibition (you remember history don’t you?) we have police corruption, super high prices for drugs - meaning super high profits for dealers and the government. Personal responsibility must be demanded, but personal use, manufacture by responsible labs, not in your neighborhood, and profits so low the sales stay out of criminal’s hands sounds like the right, responsible, and pro-american answer to me.

If we had maintained a responsible foreign policy throughout the 20th century, it is likely (and read some history folks, books are cheap) that the empires of France, Germany, Russia and the Ottoman empire would have survived and just settled with a peace treaty.

Instead, jerk Wilson (making the world safe for democracy - sound familiar?) had to get us involved. We ship munitions to europe, don’t stay neutral, the Germans blow up the Lusitania, and now we are involved. 3 years and several million more dead, we force the Treaty of Versailles on the Germans. The Russian empire collapses and the Communists take over - then Stalin, and all the rest of the mess. Germany is devastated (instead of just at peace). Wilson forces through the Federal Reserve, income taxation, and the money supply starts getting manipulated. This leads to the Depression, the rest of the world suffers too. Germany is in such bad shape that conditions are ripe for Hitler’s rise. Roosevelt can’t listen to america so blockades Japan, ignores warnings that Pearl Harbor is to be attacked and gets us into WWII. Then he befriends Stalin and we save europe so Stalin can imprison them. Mao is empowered by success of commies in russia and is able to take over China. And the rest of the century is written in oh so much blood. And lets not even get into what France, England, and the US did to the middle east - you see the results of that every day.

Don’t ever speak as though any of the 20th century was inevitable. It was only inevitable because we allowed war mongers like Teddy Roosevelt to turn an accident on the Maine into an excuse to attack Spain and the Phillipines and allowed Wilson to undermine our freedoms and our neutrality.

A standing army is the tool that the executive uses to expand empire. If we must have one, lets have one on our soil, not in 160+ countries, killing leaders, manipulating elections, propping up the prostitution industry worldwide, and basically just pissing off the indigenous population.

By time for the truth

July 26, 2006 03:43 PM | Link to this

Crespo is over rated - and at least you know who Rob Kelly is - hope you didn’t have to google that!!

Barca are a very good side but up front they’re a bit light without Ronaldinho playing well, Larsson is gone now and he was ageing. I know they’ve got some new signings in but … we’ll see. Chelski now have the german captain plus they’ve weeded out some of the squad players. They choked twice in the Champs League but walked the prem last year.

By deegee

July 26, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this

Good one, Harold. Keep riding that Night Train!

By Joe

July 26, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this

I am sure the liberal are delighted in hearing about that child-lilling, serial killing, murdering thug of lousy excuse of a mother Andre yates just got by with serial murder. had it not been for her sporting a v****a in court, she’d be put to death like they do men. Whats next for the lovely Miss Yates, a commcerial for Mr. Bubble? She should have been taken out to the back of the court house and shot in head.

By Realist

July 26, 2006 03:46 PM | Link to this

I wondered how long it would take the tokers to come out of the woodwork with thier hippie pot propagandi. Its laughable.

By Liberal

July 26, 2006 03:46 PM | Link to this

Liberty,

I like history, but a few things. Teddy Roosevelt wasn’t president during the Spanish American War, it was McKinnley.

In regards to Hitler’s rising, the adverse conditions in the Weimar wouldn’t have been so severe had France and the UK not made Germany pay back all damages for the war as declared in the Treaty of Versailles. That put them in a humiliating position.

By time for the truth

July 26, 2006 03:48 PM | Link to this

getabrain …

you play bastardised rugby … virtually every major sport in the world worth a damn was invented by us Brits!!

Football, Rugby Union and League, Cricket, Tennis, Golf etc

By getalife

July 26, 2006 03:49 PM | Link to this

time for the lies,

You have to have pads they way we hit in real football. That is where the term smashmouth comes from.

I can remember sandwiching a quarterback with the other linebacker and hearing his ribs crack. I can also remember getting chopped blocked and hearing a loud pop of all ligamints in my ankle tearing and my ankle dangling with just the bone.

I would say Rugby is closer to our football.

By time for the truth

July 26, 2006 03:50 PM | Link to this

and baseball and basketball were ‘stolen’ form kiddies games in England …

By Realist

July 26, 2006 03:50 PM | Link to this

Its no matter Joe. Even if she got the death penalty, she would have sat around on our dime while liberal activists attorneys and judges delayed the will of the jury for as long as possible. At least in the hospital there is the chance of there being a psycho nurse or orderly who might give her a big fat injection of something to help her sleep…..eternally.

By Liberal

July 26, 2006 03:51 PM | Link to this

TFTT,

Chelski. Hilarious!

Joe,

They have plenty of job openings for public executioner in Iran.

By Realist

July 26, 2006 03:52 PM | Link to this

TFTT, Invented by Brits ok, but perfected in many cases by Americans :)

We are a young nation, cant help it that we werent around to invent the wheel….

By Jim Wooten

July 26, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this

I have read today’s posts searching for a liberal’s answer to the question: What, precisely, constitutes a threat against which you’d be willing to take up arms. I’ve seen a couple that make a half-hearted stab at answering the question. And I’ve seen a number of assertions that Afghanistan represented the model. But I’ve got to tell you, I agree with matt at 12:44. I’ve heard that repeatedly, but I’m old enough to remember what liberals were saying then. And it wasn’t the ringing endorsement of military force we hear now.

I think liberals use Afghanistan defensively because they really aren’t able to project any circumstance, short of actual invaders coming ashore at Savannah, that would cause them to take up arms.

By time for the truth

July 26, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this

getabrain

I understand why you have helmets and pads etc - but the sport doesn’t flow, it stops every few secs … Rugby and Football pretty much flow for 40 and 45 mins unless a serious injury stops it … and we have 92 football clubs in England and Wales and clubs get relegated so every season there’s a least a few new sides to play in every league - keeps it fresh!! Unlike the “franchises” over here.

By Toad

July 26, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this

I think liberals use Afghanistan defensively because they really aren’t able to project any circumstance, short of actual invaders coming ashore at Savannah, that would cause them to take up arms. And that’s a bad thing?

By time for the truth

July 26, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this

REalist …

WHAT???

You cant beat EU at golf anymore - I agree our tennis is utterly dire but who cares … the rest of the sports I listed you dont/cant play at all.

By Joe

July 26, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this

Hey Liberal, the Iran job sounds cool. Can I practice my resume on you?

By Toad

July 26, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this

Jim, is there anything any of us liberals could have said that would have satisfied your query? You said some of us made half-hearted attempts. What exactly are you looking for? Or was this an exercise in saying “see, you can’t come up with anything”?

By Liberal

July 26, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this

Joe,

I got a thick neck. It may be hard to execute me in one swipe. Besides, if you practiced on me, who will write your references?

By rarringt

July 26, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this

Looks like Jim’s editor got mad that people were actually being civil for a short time. Can’t let that happen for too long.

It’s important to remember Jim’s the only one actually getting paid to do this blog, y’all.

Funny how talk of sports can defuse most any tense situation….

By Jim Wooten

July 26, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this

Not at all, Toad. It’s useful to the national debate to know the line. If the left is beyond reach on any threat beyond the Port of Savannah, that’s worth knowing. I find the debate — not specifically here on this blog, but nationally — to be replete with historical examples and “what ifs” and should’a dones and shifting lines-in-the-sand and tangents. So to the extent all participants know where others stand, it advances the dialogue.

By Realist

July 26, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this

I think liberals use Afghanistan defensively because they really aren’t able to project any circumstance, short of actual invaders coming ashore at Savannah, that would cause them to take up arms. And that’s a bad thing?

Jim, I think that says it all. You can beat them with a hammer and they still won’t get it. Its a fundamental difference at the core of our beliefs. I have to say, I like our chances in a civil war. We have most of the cops, fireman, and military on our side.

By deegee

July 26, 2006 04:07 PM | Link to this

That was JW’s way of covering his ears and screaming, “I can’t hear you! I can’t hear you!”

By Toad

July 26, 2006 04:09 PM | Link to this

I just don’t think the U. S. has to be the policeman of the world. Let other countries fight over their land or religious differences. Unless we are threatened or genocide is occurring, we should stay out of it.

By AM

July 26, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this

The US has always had a 2 party system. However it has been divided further apart, by the DECIDER, who threw the Constitution out for his WAR ON TERROR. There are no checks and balances. No middle of the road. Bush has tried to make American people who are not with him, to be equal terrorists also. If the terrorist wanted to fight the war over here - all they have to do is hire Mexicans to do thier dirty work, and they could bring their bombs here by the truck load. BUT THEY ARE NOT.

By Joe

July 26, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this

Now come men, we’ve seen the guys in their cars, you know the ones…the VW Beetle, little sunflower on the tag and one in flower vase; isn’t that just too cute, and their Kerry bumperstickers. Can you in your wildest dreams see these guys defending our country? Yeah right! We should be thankful that we have the real men we have in this country that willingly fight and die for our freedoms, the ones that takes up the slack for…well, the others. I’m sure at home it’s their wives who are defending the turf there too. Case in point Liberal, can you see this guy with a gun, defending anything? It’s not so bad being a liberal, think about it. They get all the freedoms real men have fought and died for and they get to drive those cute little cars to boot.

By MrLiberty

July 26, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this

My mistake. I was just thinking of his ride up San Juan hill as a Rough Rider. Still, a man with an empire mentality that influenced his presidency.

Bottom line on the 20th century. We are either going to learn from it or repeat it many times over. Europe’s first fight wasn’t ours, but the world paid dearly for our involvement. Even in WWII, neither Germany nor Japan ever intended to invade us, nor could they. They could barely handle what they attempted in their own continents. The american public wanted no part of either war - they knew better, but that didn’t matter to the president. Sounds familiar doesn’t it?

By Liberal

July 26, 2006 04:11 PM | Link to this

“I like our chances in a civil war.”

Realist,

I hope you don’t have a “United We Stand” bumper sticker on the car.

Besides, if we had a civil war, the liberal side would have a way better USO than the conservative side.

By Jim Wooten

July 26, 2006 04:12 PM | Link to this

It’s not a trick question. It’s not an effort to elicit shouts. Surely there is a sane, clear, level-headed answer that looks forward to circumstances intelligent people can envision.

By getalife

July 26, 2006 04:13 PM | Link to this

Jim,

I bet you listen to Rush or read Ann with that liberal rhetoric.

Don’t be ridiculous with that rhetoric, OBL did 9/11. Afghanistan is not finished because W had to get Saddam.Where is OBL? His group were actual invaders coming ashore and attacked. Get real Jim, stop with the Rush rhetoric.

By MELO

July 26, 2006 04:14 PM | Link to this

Its amazing how the Right wants to impose its religeous beliefs here at home, but does not wish for the same by Iraqis or Iranians.

By time for the truth

July 26, 2006 04:14 PM | Link to this

In all seriousness …

Its in good part the Vietnam thang - ever since then liberals have been wary of being called war mongers and baby killers. Even though liberals/dems started that war two generations ago it was a very different world.

The liberal political mindset has evolved informed with all that baggage and of course the shift to the left in the last decade or so hasn’t helped at all either. The appeasement wing of the party now effectively holds sway and so anyone on the left who advocates the actual use of US military might will face at least harsh questioning - or worse.

The world view of US society has also changed and the notion of sacrifice and helping others far away doesn’t extend much beyond maybe a credit card gift for so many folks -and of course the media plays a huge role in defining the debate - as it did in finally undermining the war in Nam.

Afghanistan retrospectively is the ‘convenient’ fall back position - so they cant be accused of being weak on security.

Presumably most folks would be willing to defend their homes and family, even this country if attacked directly - but now its all about defining the “threat” and the unquestioning, selfless patriotic call to arms is decidedly a thing of the past.

By Mark

July 26, 2006 04:16 PM | Link to this

The only response that would have made Jim happy is “you’re right Jim, we’ll go to take up arms and fight whenever you and President Bush think it’s the right thing to do… just tell us where to go…” The answers are clear, Jim… most of the liberals were in favor of attacking Afgahnastan because that government harbored terrorists and thus were cooperating with people who wanted to harm America. Taking our eye of that battle to go into Iraq… a county that didn’t pose a threat, that didn’t have WMDs and that we weren’t prepared to engage overwhelmingly (the Powell doctrine) is not a fight most liberals support. We supported it when the President told us they were practically at our back doors with nuclear weapons and that Saddam and Osama were holding hands sharing a milkshake when the planes hit the twin towers, the Pentagon and that field in Penn…. but those things turned out to be lies. Liberals don’t oppose war or oppose fighting for America, we just oppose wars that are started with lies and then executed badly. Rumsfeld famously said “You go to war with the military you have…” Well… not when you’re starting the war. We went to war by choice… Bush, Rumsfeld, Chaney and the rest of them purposely threw our men and women in arms under the bus over in Iraq with their eagerness to swing their you-know-whats around. In WWII, we were pushed into war and did go with the military we had… and still won it in four years. How long have we been in Iraq now? How long we likely to be there? If this bunch had been running WWII, we’d all be speaking German and Japanese by now.

Our men and women in arms are the greatest, most honorable fighting force on the planet and people should be ashamed of what our President has done to them.

By Susan

July 26, 2006 04:16 PM | Link to this

Dear Mr. Wooten:

“What, precisely, constitutes a threat against which you’d be willing to take up arms.” ?

I’m adding in a question mark for Mr. Wooten as I think he intended the sentence as a question.

I’d take up arms against anyone who would hurt the man of the house—mine is the greatest and with him as head of household, chances are slim indeed anyone would have the opportunity to hurt him. He’s bigger,taller and stronger than me and his mere presence makes me feel safe and protected. He is the BEST!

Aside from that putative scenario, I am feeling very safe these days.

I don’t feel threatened at all, and life’s good. I’ve got the APD here in the City of Atlanta and they’re doing a fantastic job. Our streets are safe and quiet and they (the APD) are truly the best.

Hope that answers your question.

By Liberal

July 26, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this

Well Joe. I’m 6’2, 240 lbs., and bench over 300 lbs. I used to be a bouncer in a bar and I know how to shoot a gun.

So much for daisies and VW Beetles, eh Joe?

By MrLiberty

July 26, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this

There is nothing in the constitution about 2 parties or about parties in general. What we had were anti-federalists who became the Republican-Democrats and the Whigs. The Whigs were about a strong central government, high tarrifs, merchantilistic domestic policy (crony capitalism) and they vanished to be replaced by the same sort of folks - the Republicans. Somewhere the Republican-Democrats stopped favoring a weak central government, hard money, freedom and liberty and became the Democrats. Once they both had thrown off the pretences of caring about the constitution, liberty, etc. they got together, passed outrageous ballot access laws, and basically prevented any other party from ever having a chance to destroy their stranglehold on the political process and control of this country. The sooner everyone faces the realities of these two parties the better off this country will be.

By Realist

July 26, 2006 04:21 PM | Link to this

No Liberal, but I dont have a W either.

Melo, its because we dont “practice” our religion with an RPG on our shoulder or by planting IED’s in your neighborhood. Wake up.

By getalife

July 26, 2006 04:22 PM | Link to this

Liberal,

What bar, we may have crossed paths.

By Liberal

July 26, 2006 04:23 PM | Link to this

It was a bar in my college town back in Wisconsin.

By getalife

July 26, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this

Liberal,

I was thinking Atlanta, I met a few bouncers up close and personal.

By Nick

July 26, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this

Not at all, Toad. It’s useful to the national debate to know the line. If the left is beyond reach on any threat beyond the Port of Savannah, that’s worth knowing.

Jim,

Then where does the right stand? Who decides which country or group poses a threat? When do those countries or groups reach the breaking point when we decide to attack?

By JK

July 26, 2006 04:30 PM | Link to this

Since Mr. Wooten repeats his question as if no one answered, I’ll repeat my questions to Mr. Wooten (sorry to bore the rest of you):

Gee Mr. Wooten. I’m still trying to connect your dots here. (a) We were attacked (b) I supported retribution and ending the capability of our attackers to do it again. (c) That objective was set aside and other personal agendas began to take priority — namely my tax dollars and our soldiers lives going to other efforts, I said “WHY?” So how exactly does that make ME worthy of YOUR contempt?

Mr. Wooten, As to Sen. Lieberman’s troubles, I have to ask, what’s it to YOU? Seriously. The people of Connecticut decide who they want to represent them. Are you upset because the people of Conn. might be re-assessing what they want in a Senator after years of representation by a particular one? Did you express similar horror four years ago when Georgia voters replaced Cleland with Chambliss? Are you suggesting we CHANGE the process by which we elect our representatives?

How come all the conservative Republicans I know personally send their 18-23 year old kids to college, often at great out-of-state tuition expense, instead of encouraging them to join the war they so vocally support? I know oodles of good GOP moms in their big gas-guzzling Explorers who tell me “We support the President. We support the war!” But not one who sends her own kids. Hmmmm…. How ‘bout those College Republicans and Young Republicans? They’re all out in force to support GOP candidates… Don’t see ‘em signing up for a pair of boots though. How come?

By deegee

July 26, 2006 04:34 PM | Link to this

What circumstances were not addressed in this blog for taking up arms? We were attacked on our soil by Al Qaeda and we united and went after them in Afghanistan. Americans and other westerners have been attacked in other parts of the world by Al Qaeda, i.e., Bali but we are not going to send troops to Indonesia. Are you looking for some sort of a virtual game of “cross this line and see what happens, now cross this line and see what happens”. That’s kind of a waste isn’t it?

By Liberal

July 26, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this

Getalife,

I hope that you met them in a more ideal situation.

However, I doubt that Joe met a bouncer in an ideal situation….unless if it was a bouncer saving him from a thorough a$$ whupping after talking trash to the wrong guy.

By Realist

July 26, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this

JK, An 18 year old is not a kid its an adult and his or her parents arent able to “send” them anywhere. Joining the military is free will, its a choice. So thats “how come” all the replicans dont “send” thier kids.

By Joe

July 26, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this

Thats just a little over your bodyweight you’re benching, NOT impressive. At a fat 240 lbs, you should be benching in the high 400lbs.

By Liberal

July 26, 2006 04:39 PM | Link to this

Joe,

I’m not really fat. Benching over 300 lbs isn’t significant from a body-builders perspective, but it is more than the average guy. Are you average Joe?

By Stewart

July 26, 2006 04:43 PM | Link to this

JK

Mr. Wooten, As to Sen. Lieberman’s troubles, I have to ask, what’s it to YOU? Seriously. The people of Connecticut decide who they want to represent them. Are you upset because the people of Conn. might be re-assessing what they want in a Senator after years of representation by a particular one? Did you express similar horror four years ago when Georgia voters replaced Cleland with Chambliss? Are you suggesting we CHANGE the process by which we elect our representatives?

The issue with Mr. Lieberman is not that the Connecticut people are looking for a change. He will win whether he runs as a Democrat or Independent. The issue is that leaders in the DNC (Howard Dean) are trying to have him booted. Ever wonder why Bill Clinton has nothing to do with Howard Dean? Because he is an untruthful hatemonger.

By JK

July 26, 2006 04:43 PM | Link to this

Realist, that’s interesting, because when I was 18, my Daddy “sent” me off to college — paid the bills and encouraged me to see it through. You just want to pick, don’t ya? Big man. Pick pick pick pick. Thanks for enlightening us with your clever observation.

By getalife

July 26, 2006 04:44 PM | Link to this

Liberal,

Took a pounding but they did warn me not to touch the ladies.

By Liberal

July 26, 2006 04:47 PM | Link to this

Ouch Getalife. At least you’re still here to talk about it…

By JK

July 26, 2006 04:47 PM | Link to this

Stewart, are you a member of the democratic party? Are you a resident of Connecticut? If no, then what’s it to YOU? Do you wish to remove the freedom of Americans to form parties and vote? Huh? What… there’s no bullying within the Republican party? A few hundred thousand people in Texas would laugh their butts off if you told them that!

Anyway, my questions were to Mr. Wooten. You people who only want to pick at someone are boring me. ZZZzzzZZZzzz.

By Jim Wooten

July 26, 2006 04:47 PM | Link to this

JK, I agree with statement a. As to statement b, while I don’t what you advocated when, I will say that as much of the left defined “a” it was as a criminal action requiring a law-enforcement response. As to c, I don’t have any idea what “personal agendas” you’re talking about, unless it is the charge that Bush went after Saddam because of the assassination attempt against his father. But since I have no idea, I don’t wish to put words in your mouth. The “me” and “worthy of contempt” escape me altogether.

As to Connecticut voters, I have no personal interest whatsoever, except to the extent that the primary election reveals something to the nation about the state of mind of the Democratic Party and the depth of its hatred of Bush.

By deegee

July 26, 2006 04:48 PM | Link to this

Yes, you are a Realist.

Mom and Dad, I have made up my mind. Instead of going to Cornell I’m going to Baghdad.

Okay honey, that’s a fine choice, we’re behind you all the way.

By rarringt

July 26, 2006 04:50 PM | Link to this

Jim,

My problem with your question (and your column in general) is that it’s inherently biased. It presumes that 1) war is a primary (and preferable) option for resolving confict and 2)”liberals” don’t have the same stomach for war as conservatives.

First, anyone who has ever been in to a combat zone and seen the destruction wrought knows that war should always be an absolute last option, and only if diplomacy fails to protect our national interest.

Second, your effectively denouncing liberals as inherent cowards is disingenuous. You can harp about swift boat veterans or defense policy all you want, but JFK, John Kerry and Max Cleland volunteered for service. And combat duty, when they could have used influence to ride a desk. So have millions of people you would denounce as liberal.

Conservatives have served honorably as well. Everybody knows about John McCain. He’s got plenty of company.

On the other hand, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Limbaugh all of whom advocate strong military action today, all either avoided the draft or pulled family and political strings to get into “protected” elements of the National Guard.

My point is that ideology does not denote one’s dedication to service. Btw, Jim, which combat theater did you serve in?

To answer your question head on, as I said before, it comes down do what constitutes being in the “national interest.”

I would advocate peacekeeping action for humanitarian reasons (Bosnia, Rwanda, and yes, Somalia).

I would advocate defensive action if an ally were threatened (WWI, Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Persian Gulf I, Israel (via WMD) and Afghanistan)

I would advocated offensive action if we were directly under assault, or if a threat by clear and convincing action had been established. (WWII, measured response to terrorist attacks (such as in Libya and Chad).

Note that Iraq, which we all knew (but are loathe to admit) was justified under questionable information, was something I openly opposed then as now.

As I believe most all wars are a function of exchanging blood for treasure and territory, assume fighting for economic reasons applies to all of the above.

By Realist

July 26, 2006 04:52 PM | Link to this

Yes JK, my father encouraged me to go to play football, go to college and join his fraternity. All of which I did, but by my choice. Now had he told me to go into the service I would have said no. I chose college because I had a choice. Should there be a call, a draft, a shortage, of course I would go in a heartbeat, but I was fortunate as were you to have a choice. So again, that is why Republicans don’t “send” thier kids off to fight. Im just glad that I was raised and so too are my kids being raised that this country is worth picking up a gun and fighting for, and we dont have to study it for twenty years, have congressional hearings, or already be invaded before I get the courage to do it.

By clarkslawga

July 26, 2006 04:53 PM | Link to this

Wow. The fake Brit is back to the Brit-Speak. Odd how there was none of it before I showed back up and now it flows like s**t through a goose. I guess it’s that mean ole’ liberal media bias.

Good to see a return to form. And I must say that going so far as to spell the word favor as “favour” and behavior as “behaviour” was a nice touch. And to go so far as to reference t**t as a familiar term of endearment on UK websites, well that just felt desperate. Definitely not you’re a-game fakery.

Let’s deal with a few of your lamest assertions, shall we. You couldn’t humiliate me in any forum, cyber or otherwise. You don’t have the requisite intelligence. Your pathetic cries for attention negate any ability you may have to humiliate me, or speak on any topic with any degree of rationality. In short, a joke is a joke and as a joke you are no real threat.

And feel free to call me liberal, pinko, and any of the other epithets you have in your grab bag of abuse, you’re not going to get anywhere with them. As I have repeatedly stated it’s not about your politics.

And with that I am confident in once again asserting that you just don’t get it.

When it comes to multi-id’s, you are free to think what you like, oh wait that would require thought and would do nothing to bolster your false image. It just so happens that there are more than a couple of people who see through your crap and see you for the loser, fake-Brit that you are. And if I am not mistaken it appears that you and Ugotta have a remarkably similar style. A fact pointed out by more than one person. Yet another hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm moment.

As for repeating myself, how’s this…. Ahem… Time for the Truth is a Fake, Time for the Truth is a Fake, Time for the Truth is a Fake, Time for the Truth is a Fake, Time for the Truth is a Fake, Time for the Truth is a Fake, Time for the Truth is a Fake, Time for the Truth is a Fake, Time for the Truth is a Fake, Time for the Truth is a Fake, Time for the Truth is a Fake, Time for the Truth is a Fake.

Fake

By Stewart

July 26, 2006 04:54 PM | Link to this

JK,

Are you a resident of Connecticut? So what’s it to YOU?

By hollie a. ryder

July 26, 2006 04:54 PM | Link to this

Inexplicablity or idiocy seem to be the terms which describe most liberals view of the current world situation. The lack of being capable of recognizing that they will be dead if we follow their recommendations is frightening because me and mine will also be exterminated if their view should prevail in the United States with the world’s past and current geopolitical climate. Think not? Just consider Lockerbee, homicide bombers, or the 9/11 tragedy.

By clarkslawga

July 26, 2006 04:56 PM | Link to this

Exposing the Truth,

I love the Irony of the name. I just wish that I had thought of it since that’s what I’ve done.

Oh, and you called TFTT “Our resident English wannabe tough guy.”

I don’t mean to be rude but I’ve gotta correct you. It should read “Our resident wannabe English” tw@t. And I use that last word as a term of endearment only.

By getalife

July 26, 2006 04:56 PM | Link to this

Liberal,

They took it easy on me because I was drunk and told them I was checking the girls because I was going to school to be a plastic surgeon. They do not beat you too bad if they are laughing.

Here is a thought, the next person to call you a liberal, beat the crap out of them and tell them you are an American.

By JK

July 26, 2006 04:59 PM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten,thank you for your response. Per your initial question, I advocated taking up arms against the people who attacked us and the nation KNOWN to be harboring them. The “other agenda” was whatever they’re doing in Iraq that does not qualify as bringing Bin Laden to justice, and the gross mismanagement of our treasury that has conveniently, surely just by coincidence, made so many of the administration’s friends quite wealthy.

Your interpretation of the minds of others is interesting, but I’m sorry; I expected more from a Journalist at your level than gratuitous feeding of the pirahnna gallery. You clearly have no interest in fostering meaningful discourse here.

By clarkslawga

July 26, 2006 05:04 PM | Link to this

Geez,

Time flew today. Gotta run now. Wasted enough time on the Fake-Brit loser TFTT.

And BTW, your command of all sports English was something. But then again there’s this guy in my office from Dalton that tells me you’re a bit off. For some odd reason he follows that stuff too and speaks it quite fluently.

Creative ruse though. Much better than the tw@t comment. Almost had me convinced…..OK not really. You see it is the totality of the circumstances that leads to the conclusion that you are………….

A Fake.

By Liberal

July 26, 2006 05:07 PM | Link to this

Getalife,

Great post! That is really damn funny. And this being Atlanta, I’m sure you’re weren’t far off in your judgement if you thought those girls had fakes!

By clarkslawga

July 26, 2006 05:08 PM | Link to this

One last thing.

If you were paying attention you’d know by now why I waste my time doing this. There is a reason and a pretty damn good one. This isn’t just a means to waste time, there is a purpose here and it’s because of that purpose I launched this crusade.

Plus, I know for a fake, oops fact, that TFTT is that loser in a trailer that I keep talking about.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm. What could it be.

Fake

By Jim Wooten

July 26, 2006 05:09 PM | Link to this

rarringt, thank you for offering a reasonable answer to the question. It would save the country a whole lot of divisive discourse if we knew each others’ minds and values. That’s all really the question is about.. I can live equally with “Port of Savannah” if that’s where the bulk of those on the left are.

By Liberal

July 26, 2006 05:11 PM | Link to this

Getalife,

Oh yeah. It’s funny to debunk the whole “liberal wuss” stereotype. A lot of those big-talking conservatives on the radio like Rush Limbaugh are just compensating for the fact that they got their little punk a*******es throttled on a daily basis on the playground back in school. It’s easy to talk big when you hide behind a microphone hundreds of miles away.

By Susan

July 26, 2006 05:34 PM | Link to this

As Jim so eloquently states:

“As to statement b, while I don’t what you advocated when, I will say that as much of the left defined “a” it was as a criminal action requiring a law-enforcement response.”

My kitten is following the debate here in my lap and he too is puzzled.

Has Wooten gone fashizzle on the blizzle?

By getalife

July 26, 2006 05:38 PM | Link to this

Liberal,

I agree. I am fed up with this liberal hate rhetoric spewed by these a-ssholes. The sad thing is people actually listen to these cowards.

By Jim Wooten

July 26, 2006 05:41 PM | Link to this

Sorry to confuse your kitty, Susan. Many/most liberals saw the attack as a law-enforcement issue, not as an act of war.

By John

July 26, 2006 05:42 PM | Link to this

Our problems, past and present, don’t originate with differing ideas and beliefs. Our problems arise when one party has too much control. Good examples are our current Federal government, current State government, and our former State government. When one party controls Executive and Legislative branches (and even Judicial) inevitably bad things happen. There is very little compromise and give and take. New legislation is passed too easily without the painful and necessary process of true debate and accomodation. Do we have some huge problems because the Dems had a lock on Ga for so many years? Do we have major problems because the Feds have been too quick to jump into action without appropriate thought and debate? We NEED fanatics on the right and left. We need moderates to bridge the gap. We need a process that was first envisioned by the founders. We have the best system in the world. But it does not work very well without all the players/citizens/positions having equitable representation.

By getalife

July 26, 2006 05:44 PM | Link to this

Has Wooten gone fashizzle on the blizzle?

Jim,

Your breaking up man. The ship can’t take it.

What is the deal with the “Port of Savannah”?

By Susan

July 26, 2006 05:44 PM | Link to this

Maybe it’s old age, but what attack? I understand what you meant, but forgive me, to which attack do you refer?

I’m not good with a=x and b=y, because in the sea of comments, it’s hard to backtrack.

Thank you for helping me and the cat.

By time for the truth

July 26, 2006 05:44 PM | Link to this

I see that the Nazi Susan id has now been usurped for a while by anal ga loser again. These demented self appointed cyber contol freaks are socially the US equivalent of bus spotters that you see in London - even sadder than train spotters who at least have some element of tradition to bolster their self esteem issues.

Certainly anal loser/nazi susan et al proffer quite tangible evidence regarding making the case for immediate post natal abortions for the extremely badly bewildered.

By Liberal

July 26, 2006 05:50 PM | Link to this

Getalife,

Yeah. I don’t mind differing and debating opinion. Hell, I have a lot of close friends that are conservative Republicans. However, I refuse to be typecasted as a wuss.

An in regards to the Port of Savannah, the terrorists can have it. It smells like hell anyway.

By DeeJay

July 26, 2006 05:51 PM | Link to this

Jim, is being very disingenuous about Joe Lieberman. Leiberman should be bounced by the democrats, he is out of sync with his constituients. He looks and acts tired, he is a shill and a mouth piece for the republican party. He did nothing for the Gore ticket. He is a sad horrible tired act that is coming to an end . That’s why the republicans all admire him as if his sad support of the war deserves respect. Joe Leiberman has no credibility left and has been around too long. He should be booted out for someone with new ideas. Period.

By Confused

July 26, 2006 05:52 PM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten, is this a “law enforcement issue” response?

President George W. Bush: “I can hear you, the rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon.” September 14, 2001 Also: “If he [Bin Laden] thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he will be sorely mistaken.”

Are you criticizing us for listening to our President, or for believing him?

By Jim Wooten

July 26, 2006 05:52 PM | Link to this

Port of Savannah represents the invading-army standard for taking up arms.

And attack, Susan, is 9/11.

By Susan

July 26, 2006 05:52 PM | Link to this

Dear Jim,

It’s not really a big deal, but would you mind advising our fellow bloggers that there is only one Susan and she consistently and always posts from the same email address?

It’s not a priority, but I think it should be made known that I yam who I yam. (grin)

Thank you, Susan

By Markus

July 26, 2006 05:53 PM | Link to this

@Liberal:

“A lot of those big-talking conservatives on the radio like Rush Limbaugh are just compensating for the fact that they got their little punk a*es throttled on a daily basis on the playground back in school..”

I hate to jump in someone else’s thread, but what exactly is it with you liberals and your infatuation and near-obsession with the likes of Rush, Hannity, Savage, Medvich, and Prager? Two of those guys have PhD’s compared to ZERO higher education on Air America’s Rachael Meadow, Randi Rhoades, and Al Freaken.

“It’s easy to talk big when you hide behind a microphone hundreds of miles away.”

Funny, that’s what I say about cowardly democraticunderground.com bloggers. In any event, are you jealous of their success? Because they sure whip the snot out (no pun intended) of any Air America show host in ratings. Air America has FAILED in Atlanta. Why? Because they didn’t have what the free market wanted, and even the billionaire liberal George Soros can’t keep it afloat.

I see no corrolation between being PASSIONATE about something vs. being an angry blow-hard getting back at being beat up in school. If that’s the case, then what’s the excuse foro freakshow liberal extremist hate monger blow hards like Randi Rhoades?

By Markus

July 26, 2006 05:55 PM | Link to this

@Susan:

No, I have no interest in meeting you. What you think means nothing to me. Further, I can’t stand women with those worthless pets known as cats.

By Susan

July 26, 2006 05:56 PM | Link to this

It would nuts to say that 9/11 was anything other than an act of war.

On that we may agree.

By getalife

July 26, 2006 05:58 PM | Link to this

Liberal,

Yes, me too. Some people will never admit they are wrong and debating them is like banging your head against the wall.

Try talking to some conservatives at Mike Luckovich’s blog here to see what I am talking about.

By clarkslawga

July 26, 2006 05:59 PM | Link to this

Fake Brit,

I can assure you that I am no woman. But if you want to use Clarkslawga is Susan as your lastest way of diverting attention away from the fact that you are a Fake, then so be it. Can’t stop you, don’t care, and it isn’t going to make me stop. And comparing me to something you’ve seen back home is quite the touch. But then again, I saw the movie too.

It’s really fun to see how desperate you have become to shore up this little character of yours. But face it, the jig is up. You’re exposed. And what little creidbility you ever had is gone with the wind.

You are a fake whose closest brush with England is the Gin in your bloodstream.

So sit on your a*s all day, sling your barbs, say nothing of value, attack me, claim I’m someone else, bring out the Brit-speak when challenged (and strangely, only then) and claim intellectual superiority. It’s not working anymore. You’re a fake and it’s plain to everyone who is not blinded by the light of your lies and partisan blather.

And does anal loser mean I lost my anus? I can assure you that is not the case. I know you have trouble finding yours but if you took your head out of it now and again that might just help in locating it.

You won’t get to me.

You still don’t get it.

And you are most definitely a…….

Fake.

By time for the truth

July 26, 2006 06:01 PM | Link to this

the sad little tw@t bites again!!

By Liberal

July 26, 2006 06:01 PM | Link to this

@Markus,

I don’t listen to Air America radio. Don’t need to. And I don’t know much about it. Whether they are passionate or not, Rush and Co. talk a lot of trash. They said that Rush Libaugh used to drop water-balloons on trick-or-treaters when he was little. I didn’t hear that from a liberal, but from someone from his town in a news special about Cape Girardeau where he’s from. A kid like that is bound to get his little a$$ beat.

That fat man clearly talks a lot of trash. He even cowardly insulted Chelsea Clinton who was only 13. Limbaugh’s a punk.

It’s okay that Limbaugh and Hannity are successful. No jealousy at all. This is America. But you can’t hide behind the fact that that fat-a$$ Limbaugh is a punk.

By clarkslawga

July 26, 2006 06:02 PM | Link to this

Lastest?

Probably meant latest.

By Jim Wooten

July 26, 2006 06:04 PM | Link to this

Susan is to my knowledge the only Susan posting here, just as she asserts.

By rarringt

July 26, 2006 06:11 PM | Link to this

9/11 wasn’t an act of war. It was a terrorist attack, albeit a very effective on.

Only a state can commit an act of war, because you can only go to war against a state. No nation sponsored Al Quaeda’s efforts, and there were no soldiers involved.

Terrorism isn’t a state. You can’t make war in the traditional sense against an idea that knows no geographic boundaries. There’s no land to take, no major campaigns to wage. Abrams tanks are useless against ideas shared by large numbers over a widespread socio-political landscape.

The “war on terrorism” is just a catchphrase, like the “war on poverty” or the “war on drugs.” The Iraq occupation is just a part of it, although by far the most conspicuous.