Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2006 > October > 26 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USMoney and endorsements in politics
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
As the final week of campaigning approaches, the AJC and other newspapers along with unions, interest groups, and associations, wind up the process of endorsing candidates. Endorsements cut both ways. Republicans and conservative Democrats in most jurisdictions in Georgia want the endorsement of the National Rifle Association. Democrats and some Republicans put great stock in the endorsement of the Sierra Club or the local affiliate of the National Eduation Association union.
I suspect we all are swayed pro or con by some endorsements from some groups in some races where the candidates aren’t well-known or well-financed. But in the high-profile state and national races, where most everybody has sufficient information, endorsements are likely to sway few. That’s one reason, incidentally, that I don’t support publicly-financed elections or limits on campaign spending. Campaign spending is a form of free speech. Certainly, quick and proper disclosure of who gives and who gets is vital in campaigns, but I’m not one who thinks big sums indicate big corruption. There are many ways to “sell out” and contributions are but one. A group that can deliver a thousand voters can be more influential than one that contributes a chunk of money used to buy costly campaign commercials that happen to deliver half that many. Besides, billionaires like George Soros have unlimited ways of influencing election outcomes, and candidates who are largely self-financing, like New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine who spent $60 million of his own money six years ago to get elected to the U.S. Senate, don’t need contributions.
With the end of the campaign season nearing, endorsements and campaign commercials rolling, two questions arise: Do endorsements matter pro or con, and if so, which ones? And what’s wrong, if anything, with properly disclosed money in campaigns?
Comments
By Jim's a Distractor
October 26, 2006 08:52 AM | Link to this
Speaking of money and endorsements,
REPUBLICAN CONTRACT WITH AMERICA
As Republican Members of the House of Representatives and as citizens seeking to join that body we propose not just to change its policies, but even more important, to restore the bonds of trust between the people and their elected representatives.
That is why, in this era of official evasion and posturing, we offer instead a detailed agenda for national renewal, a written commitment with no fine print.
This year’s election offers the chance, after four decades of one-party control, to bring to the House a new majority that will transform the way Congress works. That historic change would be the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public’s money. It can be the beginning of a Congress that respects the values and shares the faith of the American family.
Like Lincoln, our first Republican president, we intend to act “with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right.” To restore accountability to Congress. To end its cycle of scandal and disgrace. To make us all proud again of the way free people govern themselves.
On the first day of the 104th Congress, the new Republican majority will immediately pass the following major reforms, aimed at restoring the faith and trust of the American people in their government:
FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;
SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs;
FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public;
SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.
By Brian Curtis
October 26, 2006 08:55 AM | Link to this
I’m heading into a meeting so I’ll keep this brief.
“I don’t support publicly-financed elections or limits on campaign spending.”
I’m not surprised; neither major party does, since we have a money-driven system that they like just fine.
“Campaign spending is a form of free speech.”
No, it isn’t. “Money talks” is not the core principle of our democracy—or at least, it shouldn’t be.
“I’m not one who thinks big sums indicate big corruption.”
Why on earth not, when that’s exactly what they DO indicate? Campaign contributors on the tens-of-thousands scale aren’t just supporting a candidate—they’re demanding favors and services, and everybody on all sides knows that full well.
You know it too, Wooten—so why are you pretending otherwise? So much for the posture of being for the “common man.”
By Blog Dawg
October 26, 2006 08:57 AM | Link to this
At this point, the Republicans will accept anyone’s endorsement but W’s.
Concerning Iraq, W has changed the nautical “Stay the Course”, to “Women and Children First”.
Cheney just said on the Today show that the Dixie Chick’s career is in it’s last throes.
By jbmlaw
October 26, 2006 09:13 AM | Link to this
Good morning all. Contrarian that I am, endorsements affect me, but mostly not in the manner intended by the endorser. Those (that move me most) raise my radar and cause me to be wary. I seek out the names endorsed by Move On and its ilk. I always want to see who has union endorsements. Anyone with an interest in enlarging Leviathan can scare me. And obviously I would vote against anyone endorsed by Michael J. Fox.
I’ve previously mentioned my distaste for John McCain in this blog, and this is the sole reason. I do not care about the Keating 5. I appreciate that he is a tough old bird, but good character does not always equal good judgment. I do care about constraints on political speech, and until McCain acknowledges the fundamental constitutional error of McCain-Feingold (and “acknowledgement” means “repeal”) he will never get my vote. I respect the Swift Boat Veterans for exactly the reasons I despise McCain.
By CJ
October 26, 2006 09:14 AM | Link to this
The idea that campaign spending equates to free speech is incorrect. The result of such thinking is that some have a hell of a lot more free speech than others.
The airwaves belong to the public (television and radio), the public right-of-ways along the roadways belong to the public (signs and billboards), and the telecommunications infrastructure belongs to public. Public resources should be distributed to campaigns on a basis that is consistent with the public interest rather than being sold to the highest bidder. The expensive campaigns we’re exposed to every couple of years consistently results in the poor and the middle-class being represented primarily by millionaires who are out of touch with the people they represent.
We need publicly-financed elections. Arizona has been publicly-financing elections for several years and Arizonans love it. Their current Governor, Janet Napolitano, ran exclusively with publicly provided moneys. Somebody with her background would not have been able to get out of the starting gate in Georgia and most other states.
By jbmlaw
October 26, 2006 09:18 AM | Link to this
Spending is the ultimate form of free speech. Contemplate the alternative: you are forbidden to take out a newspaper advertisement to disagree with the policies of a candidate. If I think Ronald Reagan is a crook, why should I not be allowed by law to spend all of my money to tell the world of my belief, so long as I am honest about who I am?
By jbmlaw
October 26, 2006 09:21 AM | Link to this
Dear CJ @ 9:14, your error is your assumption that all speech is equally meritorious. Nobody deserves to be heard; everyone deserves freedom to speak. Because your views are unpopular, you would prohibit popular views from being expressed. That is the definition of self-loathing.
By Captain Freedom
October 26, 2006 09:23 AM | Link to this
Jim,
You neglect to mention the latest dirty trick by the Democrats, that treacly and manipulative endorsement by the so-called “actor” Michael J Fox. His shameless and trembly exploitation of people who suffer from Parkerson’s disease is just the latest whiny spasm of victimology of the Dumbocrat cripples.
Thank God Rush Limbaugh had the courage to take down this sanctimonious little twerp. Of course the phony Alex Keaton was faking. Democrats lie whenever they speak; you can tell by the way his voice quavers. If only more True Believers were willing to kick the crutches out from under these soap opear sob sisters, if only more of us had the stones to knock Max Cleland out of his wheelchair, if only more Americans could see through this cynical Demoncrat appeal to the notions of Christian compassion and care for our brothers and sisters.
No! says the Captain. He refuses to be swayed by stories of alleged suffering. His True Belief remains undeterred, and he applauds the Mighty Wurlitzer for kicking Marty McFly right where he deserved it.
I’m, disappointed in you Jim. You were more than willing to take on the Dixie Sluts. Why haven’t you spoken out about Fox’s shaky logic? Has Fox’s appeal to our womanish natures made you all wobbly?
Kick the basstid while he’s down. And if he’s not down yet, just give him a little push. His balance isn’t all that, anyway.
On the other side, the ads being run in support of Mr. Corker in Tennessee are exemplary in their explication of the important issues of the day. It is essential that Volunteer State voters be aware that the deceptively light-hued Harold Ford is in fact a dyed-in-the-wool Mandingo type whose main drive in life is to answer one burning question: “Where the white womens at?”
And there is the difference between Repub and DumDum advertising — while the lefty liars appeal to womanly weeping, the Righteous Republicans rely on solid fact, a head-on address of the issues, and clear thinking about the twin threats of terrorism and throbbing-membered darkies.
Yes, another great day to be an American, a Republican, and a Christian. Which of course is a redundant superfluous repitition.
By James P.E. (*Professional Engineer*)
October 26, 2006 09:38 AM | Link to this
Welcome back Captain Freedom..I love it..“Where the white womens at?”
By abc
October 26, 2006 09:58 AM | Link to this
Captain Freedom, to espouse such drivel and wind it up referring to yourself as a Christian is a smear on Christianity. Retreat back underneath your bridge, troll. I suppose you think you’re funny.
Campaign advertising exposes the worst characteristics of our politicians and government regardless their political party. Mud slinging is about all it amounts to. Endorsements mean little or nothing to anyone except for those that endorse, and those that they endorse.
By time for the truth
October 26, 2006 10:02 AM | Link to this
Lance Corporal Syphilis makes many superb points … its witty heartfelt understated incitement to “knock Cleland out of his wheelchair” being arguably the funniest line of the month.
Its wonderful to see lefties actually posting such abject pathetic shiite - and revealing for us all just where these treasonous SCUM stand. What is even more notable though is that the abortion bucket escapee Syphilis is cretinously pretending to be a conservative whilst posting its wholly ingenuous leftist HATE SPEECH. But Allah be praised - generously (and asininely) enough this maggot brained leftist leech Syphilis makes it clear to all that it is really a cut and run treasonous piece of pinko filth - so we get to laugh at ALL the socialist hate whilst seeing just how the pondscum left actually “think”!!
By Van
October 26, 2006 10:03 AM | Link to this
Regarding spending.
Why can we not eliminate soft money, remove the limits on donations and make all records a matter of public record - say on the candidates web site. I feel if you support someone, support them and not the groups behind them - National, State or County (fill in party) Committee.
Regarding endorsements.
I too can be swayed. If I see a large Union endorsing someone, I go the other way. I can always look to the AJC for recommendations of who not to vote for.
As a mature, grey haired person, if I can listen and watch someone talk, I can get a much better idea about them. Not a 30 second spot on TV, but an old fashion stump speech or personal appearence.
By Dusty
October 26, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this
Yes,welcome back, Captain Freedom.
Did we ever miss you!!Whooeee!! What’s a day without a redundant superfluous repetition of race baiting, fabrications, hallucinations, political propaganda, cry-baby-blues, liberal leanings, paranoia, thumb-sucking, gov’ment knockin’s and undercover backstabs to Republicans by the surreptitious Captain Freedom??
Yes,welcome back, clever turncoat. The firing squad will be waiting for you at dawn.
By JK
October 26, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this
Hey, I like this REPUBLICAN CONTRACT WITH AMERICA I just read about. What a fabulous idea! Eight simple points to implement and return accountability, honesty, and dignity to our Congress. EXCELLENT! Why didn’t somebody put this together before? I think I will vote for the guys who promise to deliver this next year when they finally regain the majority. How long will it take them to implement it? Surely no longer than six or seven months, right?
By getalife
October 26, 2006 10:20 AM | Link to this
Van,
Web sites can give donation information and clips of speeches. Everything you need to know about your rep. could be on their site.
The money donated now is legal bribery pure and simple.
Government reform is easily achievable but the old school politicians do not want ethics or corruption reform. These folks are not stars, they are criminals.
By getalife
October 26, 2006 10:23 AM | Link to this
Yes,welcome back, clever turncoat. The firing squad will be waiting for you at dawn.
Spoken like a good little Nazi. Hitler would be proud.
By Steve Barton
October 26, 2006 10:24 AM | Link to this
Jim, I want to offer my condolences for what your comment section became very quickly after you began here and my real sympathy is wade through all of this stuff every day.
1) What could be wrong with properly disclosed money? I think your citing of billionaires at play in the political system and self-financing multimillionaires in the surrent campaign finance regime is right on target. Get rid of the financing limits and enforce timely disclosure.
2) Endorsements matter. Van (above) is right tht the AJC can point a direction. Your citation of NRA and enviro groups is correct, they are important. I look for the endorsements of folks I trust. For instance, Mike Bowers endorsement of Carol Hunstein means to me that I am not worried if she is re-elected. I’m still voting for Mike Wiggins because of the message it sends and because the trial lawyers are all behind Hunstein — whatever they do I’m against.
All the best, Steve Barton, Dunwoody
By Blog Dawg
October 26, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this
Too bad the contract with america didn’t come with a sanity clause.
By Andy
October 26, 2006 10:29 AM | Link to this
You cant fool me, Blog Dawg, there aint no such thing as a sanity clause. or an ether bunny for that matter, not to mention the tooth fairy.
By getalife
October 26, 2006 10:29 AM | Link to this
Talked to some troops on blogs yesterday and Iraq is very dangerous right now
Malarki and w are fighting each other and our troops are stuck in the middle.
By Blog Dawg
October 26, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this
The tooth fairy?
By Andy
October 26, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this
I told you not to mention that.
By Steve Barton
October 26, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this
Correction: replace bolded “is” above with “if you actually”.
And to clarify my lament, the best comments sections are the ones that stay on topic.
By time for the truth
October 26, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this
Yes,welcome back, clever turncoat. The firing squad will be waiting for you at dawn
Let’s hope they’re armed with Uzis …huge I despise leftists smirk
By Chazman
October 26, 2006 10:42 AM | Link to this
Dusty,
Are you going to answer the question that I and Aquaman have asked you - going on 5 days now? Let’s look at Aquaman’s post yesterday @5:13:
I see others picked up where I left off and yet you still refuse to face the fact that your position defies logic.
You asserted that you answered my question the other day, despite having ignored it consistently.
To refresh…When we had troops under fire in Kosovo many, including the current President and his spokesman spoke out against President Clinton and questioned the wisdom of the mission and why there was no clear exit strategy. These are the same questions being asked of President Bush.
The question again is: Were the ones questioning President Clinton acting in an un-American manner and undermining our troops under fire in Kosovo.
If they were then say so and your position will be consistent. If not then why was it OK then for the GOP to ask those questions then and suddenly NOT OK when it is the opposition.
A simple question, ask directly of you, that has gone unanswered for almost 4 days.
And your response to that post?
Would Aquaman’s keeper please come get him? He’s loose again and nobody will claim him.
Wow! How astute you are Dusty. Nice response.
It’s really a simple question. Was Tom Delay correct or not when he stated the following: “You can support the troops without supporting the president.”
Is is that hard to admit that a republican said something wrong? I stated yesterday that Pelosi said something wrong, something that I did not agree with. Seems you can’t do the same thing with a republican. You’re the one who painted yourself in this corner. As Aquaman and I ask, Is your postition consistent?
And what about Trent Lott. Were you mistaken when you stated he is not running for reelection? I noticed you had a smart azz comment when I stated I mistakenly attributed the above Delay quote to Lott and I acknowleged so. How about you? Did you just make a mistake in believing Lott was no longer “in politics”? Was it just an honest mistake (we all make mistakes).
But back to the main question. **”You can support the troops without supporting the president.” How about it Dusty. Is that correct? Was Delay wrong? It’s day 5 and counting.
By Dusty
October 26, 2006 10:42 AM | Link to this
Jim,
Seems like we should have a review of the laws on financial giving or support in politics. There are quite a few of them on the books yet everybody seems to be spreading money and endorsements like they please.
Maybe AJC could give us a concise review of these laws and then we could see how it is done. Right now, it almost seems like the “rich” can give all they want and the poor can only vote. Am I balancing the wrong things?
By Van
October 26, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this
getalife,
Regarding donations, that is true. My main concern is that everytime Congress tries to help solve the problem they just make it worse. I am also against the matching funds in Presidential races.
That is why I always try to give straight to the candidate.
By Republican Recruiter
October 26, 2006 10:53 AM | Link to this
The National Republican African American Recruitment Committee would like to introduce our new slogan to the public….
“Harold, call me.”
African-Americans males are flooding Republican offices in response. All claiming to be named Harold. (Ken Mehlman is our leader and like Rove a genius.)
REPUBLICANS SWEEP IN NOVEMBER
By Dusty
October 26, 2006 10:58 AM | Link to this
No no, time for the Truth.
We use only water pistols to douse the flames of misinformation from the notorious Captain Freedom (who is now swelling like a puff-fish in the joy of all this attention). Bring the blindfold.!
By getalife
October 26, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this
Van,
You are wasting your money. They don’t need your money. They have big oil, big drug, big Corporate money flowing in like Exxon Mobil profits.
By Jim's a Distractor
October 26, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this
Hi Jim,
One thing you failed to mention is how many GOP candidates your Communistic, leftist, pinko-loving, God-hating, pro-child-killing rag has endorsed.
Liberal media. Kinda funny huh?
By Brian Curtis
October 26, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this
“Dear CJ @ 9:14, your error is your assumption that all speech is equally meritorious. Nobody deserves to be heard; everyone deserves freedom to speak.”
JBM: And you make a similar mistake, by equating the depth of one’s pockets with “deservedness to be heard.” Money has nothing to do with the validity of an opinion.
And the corporate contributors aren’t “trying to be heard” anyway. They’re buying favors, such as privileged access, special legislative loopholes, and even the power to write their own laws. You know it; they know it and openly acknowlege it; why deny it?
By Chazman
October 26, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this
Dusty,
Your silence is deafening.
By Dusty
October 26, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this
Happy Halloween, Chazman.
GET HELP, buddy!
By @@
October 26, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this
Jim: Special interest groups and their support of a candidate concern me to a degree. They’re usually self-serving entities promoting a singular issue. I want my representatives to address a variety of issues that are of interest to me. So when did a small group of people become more important than the many “mes” which make up our society?
While candidates can seduce these groups for their support all they want to receive campaign funding, it’s not until the candidates take office are “we” the people, able to determine if their votes have been purchased to serve the interest of a few. That can only be done upon reviewing their voting records after the fact.
I’m more inclined to be curious as to why a special interest group won’t back a candidate. I’ll probably find that it’s because that candidate has “my” best interest at heart.
I’m an advocate for business. They are, afterall, what sustains our society. In that I’m not a supporter of unions, I was concerned when I read that Canada was promoting an [Anti-scab bill putting it a step closer to passage in the House of Commons.] Progressive? I think not.(http://www.breitbart.com/news/na/cp_n102581A.xml.html) I take issue with the word “scabs”. Since when did replacement workers become a wound? Kinda puts workers at odds with one another doesn’t it?
Socialism…..that’s what scares me the most.
Sorry for the long post, but I only make one so….
By JK
October 26, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this
Um, Dusty, if I ask nicely, will you answer the question for ME? Pretty please with strawberry syrup and a little powdered sugar on top?
In your opinion, when Tom Delay (and other Republicans) said, back in the 90’s, that You can support the troops, but not support the President, were they (A) being bad, unpatriotic Americans, (B) lying, or (C) telling the truth?
By CJ
October 26, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this
jbmlaw @9:21 “…your error is your assumption that all speech is equally meritorious. Nobody deserves to be heard; everyone deserves freedom to speak. Because your views are unpopular, you would prohibit popular views from being expressed. That is the definition of self-loathing.”
Your error, jbm, is that you expend more energy trying to appear intellectual than you expend trying to become intellectual. That is the definition of self-loathing.
Publicly-funded elections would increase opportunities for a wider range of views, popular or not, to be expressed by candidates from all walks of life. This approach to campaign financing has been tested, it works and the entire country ought to adopt it - in my humble.
By time for the truth
October 26, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this
Dusty
hopefully water pistols filled copiously with brackish stale urine of illegal immigrants and their freeloading, neighbourhood ruining kin.
By time for the truth
October 26, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this
Your silence is deafening.
DAMN SHAME YOU don’t follow suit plastic spastic colon.
By If only
October 26, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this
sigh if only the “free press” in this country were as relentless in pursuing an answer from our elected representatives as some folks are in badgering Dusty…
It’s not so much that I agree with Dusty (I don’t) as it is that there are some folks piling on and beating that dead horse.
Continuing to badger Dusty for an answer makes you look as foolish as she is when she spouts her “keep-the-blinders-on, never-question-the-government-if-you-love-your-country” patriotism.
By DebbieDoRight
October 26, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this
WHY MORE BLACK AMERICANS DO NOT VOTE REPUBLICAN:
I think that there is nothing more repugnant in our society than people who try to divide Americans along racial lines, and I would denounce any ad that I thought did,” said Mehlman, who addressed the NAACP last year, apologizing for the Republican Party’s race-tinged “Southern strategy” during the 1970s and ’80s.
“I happen not to believe that ad does,” he said, adding that even if he wanted to pull the ad, he couldn’t.
Even though a woman’s voice discloses that “the Republican National Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising,” Mehlman said the RNC was not, in fact, responsible. He said the ad was produced by an independent group contracted by the RNC, with whom he is prohibited from communicating.
“The way that process works under the campaign reform laws is I write a check to an independent individual and that person’s responsible for spending money in certain states,” he said. Beyond that, he said, the RNC is out of the loop.
Ford Stated in an interview, “If they wanted it to come down, it would come down. It’s just that simple.”
Race baiting at its best!!!
By @@
October 26, 2006 11:41 AM | Link to this
Whoops! Make that two posts Jim. I hate leaving messes.
Anti-scab bill putting it a step closer to passage in the House of Commons. Progressive? I think not.
Hope that worked, if not, I’ll live with the mess.
By Dusty
October 26, 2006 11:43 AM | Link to this
JK,
You get the little yellow pumpkin award for asking copy-cat questions.
Tom DeLay did not tell me whether he was lying, bad, unpatriotic or telling the truth back in the 90’s. I’ll have to call him up and ask him.
By Brian Curtis
October 26, 2006 11:59 AM | Link to this
Ahh, but Dusty, you’ve already said you don’t NEED to know anyone personally to magically deduce their anti-patriotic motivations from their questioning of a war.
You’ve already said that questioning a war is automatically the same as bashing the troops. And since you won’t consider the possibility that a war might really be unjust and unnecessary, you’re stuck with your definition of “patriotism”: blind, unquestioning obedience for fear of making ‘the troops’ feel bad.
That’s why you’re feeling hounded, Dusty. Because your irrationality has backed you into a corner. You’ve made a claim that has no logic or merit to it, and now you’re getting called on it.
By DebbieDoRight
October 26, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this
Truth: Do you like ANYBODY??
Dusty: Why not answer their question? What’s so awful about that.
Capt. Freedom: As always so dang funny it hurts.
Endorsements: Mean nothing to me. Unless of course if a candidate is being endorsed by the KKK or Phyllis Schafley THEN I listen.
By Chazman
October 26, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this
Dusty,
There’s no need to call Tom Delay. We already know what his opinion is. He has stated it. And we know he didn’t tell you whether he was lying, bad, unpatriotic or telling the truth. We want to know what your opinion is of his statement. You can support the trooops without supporting the president. We would like to know whether you agree with him or not. Is he wrong?
And another great response:
Happy Halloween, Chazman.
GET HELP, buddy!
And speaking of great responses:
Another classic from Time For The Trash,
DAMN SHAME YOU don’t follow suit plastic spastic colon.
plastic spastic colon? Good God man, are you 5 years old?
Still waiting Dusty. Are you consistent in your beliefs?
By Dusty
October 26, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this
by if only,
You almost fell off the deep end into the cluthes of those evil Republicans. But you saved yourself just in time. Thanks for the errr…support anyway.
As for my “keep the blinders on, never question the government if you love your country” patriotism…well… it was either that or the “terminal terrorist tripe but I still suuport the troops on good days”patriotism. So ..wow…I chose to support the USA government fighting terrorism. I even made the terrible politically incorrect use of that suspicious word “Patriotism!”.
So, careful, by if only, patriots abound. You don’t want to dismiss them too easily.
By Southern Democrat
October 26, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this
I agree 100% with Van on this issue. Wow, I’m sure that feels weird for both of us!
By Dusty
October 26, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this
Poor Brian,
Your vision is poor. I’m looking at the Grand Canyon and you say I’m in a corner.
Poor baby. You will have to furnish quotes for all your fabrications. If you don’t like me supporting our country, just say so. That will make it all a lot easier.
By Dusty
October 26, 2006 12:24 PM | Link to this
Chazman,
Oh I’m consistent.
Happy Halloween, Chazman. GET HELP.
By Brian Curtis
October 26, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this
Dusty: And you can spot the patriots by their willingness to challenge the government and hold them accountable.
What have YOU done to earn the title?
By Dusty
October 26, 2006 12:34 PM | Link to this
Debbie Do Little
Why don’t you answer some questions?
Why do you hate the Commander-in-Chief when you say your husband is in the military?
Why do you say he is stationed at Ft. Ord when it is closed? Why not say The Presidio?
Why do you sound exactly like AquaGirl?
Why don’t YOU call Tom DeLay?
By Chazman
October 26, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this
According to Dusty, these are unpatriotic Americans who bashed our brave troops. Shame on them for hating our country!
“You can support the troops but not the president.” –Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
“[The] President … is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation’s armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy.” –Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)
“American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy.” –Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
“If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy.” –Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush
“I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today” –Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.” –Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)
Why do these Americans hate this country and hate our brave troops? How dare they bash our troops!
Right Dusty? Dusty?
By Dusty
October 26, 2006 12:42 PM | Link to this
Brian Curtis,
I didn’t know you had to “earn” patriotism.
But since you say that is the way it goes, why don’t you nominate me as “Patriot of the Month”? I’ll try very hard to fill all your expectations. You don’t mind, do you?
By Just like your party.
October 26, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this
Hope that worked, if not, I’ll live with the mess.
By Dusty
October 26, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this
Err Chazman,
Congratulations!! You can cut and paste.
I think you would enjoy knitting more.
GET HELP!
By Van
October 26, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this
Chazman,
It is simple - I will always support the President, I may not support all his policies or stances. They are separate. One is the office and the other is policy, and just that.
I did support President Bubba in Bosnia, I did not support how he managed it(too many rules of engagement).
You may not believe that Iraq is part of the global war on terror, or you might, but this is the policy of the President, that Iraq is part of the War on Terror.
By Brian Curtis
October 26, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this
Dusty: I think you’re the one in need of help, you’re barely keeping afloat with all the exposure of your hypocritical stance.
You claim to be a patriot, yet you never question our government’s actions. AND you insist that anyone who does is “un-patriotic.”
In other words, YOU’RE the one who played the patriotism card, and now you’re backing off it because it’s not working. Would you care to concede the point and try another tack? Or do you intend to keep claiming that patriotism is defined solely by blind obedience?
By Brian Curtis
October 26, 2006 01:02 PM | Link to this
Van: Then what do you do when the president is wrong? Do you still support him?
Or do you dare to criticize him and get attacked by Dusty and her ilk for being “Anti-American” and “hating the troops”?
By getalife
October 26, 2006 01:04 PM | Link to this
As the gop are wallowing in their own filth, we are witnessing the true character and patriotism of their supporters.
Pathetic creatures like Rush smearing the sick. The lies, the smears, the racism, the pure unadulterated hatred spews forth from the failed gop party.
Lets face it folks, these creatures are pure evil. Lord knows what they are teaching their children.
By DebbieDoRight
October 26, 2006 01:05 PM | Link to this
OK Nutsy I’ll answer your questions, (unlike you and Dubya I have no fear of the truth).
Why do you hate the Commander-in-Chief when you say your husband is in the military?
THAT’S the main reason I dislike him (Hate is too powerful of an emotion for someone as shallow as Dubya)!! My husband has already shed blood for a Bush why should he shed more? The first war was Bush Sh#t and this second one is even BIGGER Bush Sh#t. We shouldn’t have invaded Iraq the first time, (do we invade EVERY country that declares war on another? Or just the ones that declare war on OIL RICH countries?), and we DANG sure shouldn’t have invaded Iraq this time.
Why do you say he is stationed at Ft. Ord when it is closed? Why not say The Presidio?
Nutsy, I NEVER SAID he was stationed on Ft. Ord, I said I was VISITING HIM AT FT. ORD — that’s where the military family housing is located. Ft. Ord still houses some military and DOD units. I have given you the web site to go to to LOOK IT UP FOR YOURSELF; yet you insist that you do not believe in “leftist” websites, (the website I gave you was Military.Com — now if THAT’S leftist then you really do see a boogie man behind every truth!).
Why do you sound exactly like AquaGirl?
I don’t know. Is it because deep down you WANT ME to sound like AquaGirl? (I thought you said I sounded like Midori before — get it straight Nutsy).
Why don’t YOU call Tom DeLay?
What for? I don’t espouse to his politics. YOU do.
By Chazman
October 26, 2006 01:12 PM | Link to this
Van,
Very well stated. Responses such as that earn respect.
By DebbieDoRight
October 26, 2006 01:13 PM | Link to this
Oh and Nutsy, good strategy!! Attack me for asking why not answer their question, thereby not having to actually ANSWER THE QUESTION!!! Just like your drunk leader Dubya, evade, ignore, forget and then if cornered, DENY! You ConServATrons are so much alike!!!
By DebbieDoRight
October 26, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this
Chazman: ““Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.” –Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)”
You can’t REALLY blame Dubya for that statement, you know he doesn’t write his own material, think for himself, cut his own food, dress himself, or speak for himself. Someone TOLD him to say that. They said it sounded “Presidently”.
By time for the truth
October 26, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this
Crapman
watching you ACTUALLY respond to the ‘plastic’ jibes is hugely amusing. I guess I’ll have to revise (further) downwards my assessment of what passes for your intellect. Your increasingly soporific “gotcha” game with Dusty is unbelievably moronic - but very typical of inane empty headed liberal scum.
DebbieRitalinDumbarse still keeps on robotically parroting the same moronic question. Good for you Debbie - it shows that happily your short term memory continues to function at least somewhat after all that glorious high school abuse last year of ADD drugs.
By time for the truth
October 26, 2006 01:20 PM | Link to this
Dusty is still winding up the extremely easy to wind up vermin effortlessly … its fooking hilarious to see the obsessive flea ridden pinko buzzards circling endlessly and anally OVER NOTHING!!
By Dusty
October 26, 2006 01:22 PM | Link to this
Brian Curtis,
Does this mean that you are NOT going to nominate me as “Patriot of the Month”?
And you are all hung up on “patriotism”, I see.
Well, my dictionary says “Love for or devotion to one’s country” and that suits me just fine.
Sorry about all that ilk and other stuff you seem to run into. I thought you would miss it as you perfect your cut-n-run philosophy. Keep dodging.
By DebbieDoRight
October 26, 2006 01:26 PM | Link to this
Nutsy: Let’s see if u have any nuts…here AGAIN is the website:
http://benefits.military.com/misc/installations/Base_Content.jsp?id=460
Click on “Government Housing”
Another page will come up entitled “Installation Guide”
Fill in the drop down blanks, (for FYI you can select your status as either military, DOD Civilian, or Non Military).
Access Installation Info, drop down to the bottom of the page and find out about the housing information. Since I know you can’t comprehend what u read, I’ve decided to help you out with this “cut and paste”:
Name : La Mesa Welcome Center POC : Housing Staff, La Mesa Housing Office
Address : 1301 Leahy Road, La Mesa Village
City : Monterey. State : CA Zip : 93940
Phone : (831) 656-2321 Fax : (831) 372-8398
Comment : 0800-1700, daily, except Tuesday, 0800-1400. All family housing business pertaining to in-processing, assignments, terminations and inspections will be processed at the Naval Postgraduate School’s La Mesa Housing Office in Monterey. Personnel assigned to the Presidio of Monterey with duty as students at the Defense Language School will probably be assigned housing on the Presidio of Monterey Annex (formerly Fort Ord), about 8 miles from the school. To sign-in and put your names on the housing list, you go to the Navy Housing office mentioned above.
Hope that helps!!
By Aquaman
October 26, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this
Dusty,
We are begging for help. Your help to be specific.
The reason I am not willing to let this slide is that you have said again and again that it is impossible to support the troops and not support the President.
IF that reasoning is true then I do not support my own son. You made a serious accusation attacking the patriotism of anyone who questions this administration based on the idea that criticism of the President and the (lack) of mission and exit strategy is un-American.
The problem is, and I’ve said this repeatedly, that members of the GOP, including the current President made identical criticism of President Clinton when we were in Kosovo.
Is it that the GOP is free to make such criticisms at the time because you agreed with them but now I am un-American to ask the same questions because I disagree with you.
If you would stop running from this, stop attacking me for asking, and simply answer this question I’d go away.
By Dusty
October 26, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this
Debbie Do Right,
I do appreciate your husband’s service in the military. Sorry you sound so bitter about it all. In fact, I would say that your husband “shed blood for our country”, not for “a Bush”. And it wasn’t even during the term of George W. Bush, was it?
Nevertheless, I am sure you are concerned. My son was stationed at Ft.Ord when it was open and was also sent to Ft.Huachuca for language studies. There’s always worry.
I would stick around and quibble but I must leave. Jim Wooten has mentioned “money” and I must go out and spend some. Cheers!!
By Chazman
October 26, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this
DebbieDoRight,
You have to excuse Dusty. He can’t seem to get his facts straight. He didn’t even know Trent Lott was running for office in 2 weeks. Said he was “out of politics.”
But at least we know what he thinks of those that I quoted above. Delay, Hughes (speaking on behalf of Dubya, no less), Bush. That they are troop bashers that hate our country. He won’t say it directly, but from his earlier views, he must really hate those that I quoted for their unpatriotic views.
And of course……
I guess I’ll have to revise (further) downwards my assessment of what passes for your intellect.
Hey Time For The Trash….you’re the one typing those juvenile little names. As I said before, I really think they’re funny. They really do sound like something a 5 year old would come up with, maybe 6, but they are funny.
By Aquaman
October 26, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this
I suppose cut and run fits you Dusty.
By Chazman
October 26, 2006 01:47 PM | Link to this
Run Dusty Run !!!!!!!!
By Andy
October 26, 2006 01:50 PM | Link to this
Bush is changing the Iraq slogan from “Stay the Course” to “Right Turn, Clyde”.
By Mallory
October 26, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this
What’s with this Chazman guy & his obsession with Dusty answering some lamely engineered question? What is it? He needs someone to tell him he’s right? Must be a government supported democrat, waiting and wondering. So typical.
J.Wooten, Money & endorsements! Politics 101. I want to know who endorses & supports the candidates. It’s my job to find out & it can be done with minimal effort. If I don’t put forth the effort I have only myself to blame. Watch the candidates closely and read between the lines. It’s revealing. If you screwed up, don’t whine. Vote them out next time.
By Dusty
October 26, 2006 01:58 PM | Link to this
Tend to your knitting, AquaChazman,
I’ll BE BACK TOMORROW. Stay sweet now!!!
By DebbieDoRight
October 26, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this
Dang! Dusty said something nice. Now I can’t be mean and witchy back at her. I guess I’ll just have to spew all my pent-up Anti-Dubya venom unto Truth.
DebbieRitalinDumbarse still keeps on robotically parroting the same moronic question.
Twisted Truth: It’s always good to hear from you!! Twisted, why DO u hate everyone? Is it because you didn’t get enough hugs from your elders? Not enough “you go boys!” from people who loved you? Well Twisted it’s not too late. There’s this group that’s headed for Guyana and their a real fun group! Check them out, I KNOW you’ll fit right in. Oh, and don’t forget to drink the Kool-Aid!!
By Redneck Convert
October 26, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this
Let us have a crack at that Cleland cripple up at Billy Bob’s. And send us that Michael J. Fox too. They are both abortion-loving commies that will marry all the gays in public and force us to watch. Then, the Revrend Jim Bob Buice says, all our marriages will be null and void. My girl and my boy will become bassturds. And it’s a pity, cause they had got a good start on a 2nd career of baby-sitting for the rich and golf course mowing, respectfully. Now they will have a stain on their karackter.
Come to think of it, these gay marriages might make the marriages of dead people null and void. I could become a bassturd. And the missus would become a slut with kids born out of wedlock. We would all be bassturds.
Be sure to vote Republican next month. Don’t pay no attention to endorsements. Just look for the R after the name.
By Mrs. RepubLady
October 26, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this
We have all the endorsements we need! Victory is ours in November. Van, Dusty, jbmlaw, Jim Wooten, and Captain Freedom: Keep the faith! They cannot take the power back.
By Brian Curtis
October 26, 2006 02:07 PM | Link to this
All right, folks, I think Dusty’s been pretty thoroughly discredited now.
So the neext time she brings up her transparent “patriotic” insults, remind her that she “cut and ran” when asked to explain herself.
And another empty-headed neocon fool bites the dust. Can’t handle the truth, I suppose.
By Aquaman
October 26, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this
Chazman’s Obsession is based on the idea that if you make an emphatic assertion then you should be consitent. As for the question being lamely engineered I’d suggest you take another look at it. It is a very simple straightforward question that deserves an answer.
By Aquaman
October 26, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this
So now Chazman and are the same person because we ask for the same answer.
I guess its impossible that there would be more than one person asking Dusty to take “personal responsibility.” (Or is that another thing that only the opposition is asked to do?)
By Captain Freedom
October 26, 2006 02:30 PM | Link to this
The Captain finds it necessary to weigh in once again to dispel any notion that I might harbor bigotry towards our ebony-pigmented brethren. In fact, nothing could be farther from the truth.
I love Magic Johnson and Michael Jordan, and have often enjoyed the intoxicating rhythms of jazz masters like Kenny G, so please, count me as a fan of the dusky arts. And who can deny that Sammy Davis, Jr. is truly one of the all-time greatest entertainers in all of human history, this despite his embrace of heathen Judaica.
No, the Captain is virtually colorblind, as evidenced by his stauch support of Negro candidates such as Ken Blackwell and Lynn Swann. Now, some of the pansy libs of the Sharpton-Jackson faction have called these stalwarts race traitors, as they did to Clarence Thomas and JC Watts. The idea that a black man might rise above his overpowering libido to work his way up the ladder of success is anathema to the welfare cheaters and hip-hop homies of the left who think nothing of fathering four and five children out of wedlock in a single weekend. Not so the fine gentlemen named above, who realize it is better to store those wayward testicles on a shelf in order to get ahead.
And it’s not just good White Christian Conservatives like the Captain who appreciate the delicate tap dance these gents must endure to rise to the top of the Country Club for Growth. In fact, Michael Steele has proved his pan-racial appeal with his latest ENDORSEMENTS (thought I had strayed hopelessly off topic, eh Jim?). Yes, the godly and contentedly de-sexed Mr. Steele has garnered the thumbs-up from both Mike Tyson AND Don King.
I used to believe that Don King was a huckster, and knew well of his prior convictions for embezzlement and manslaughter. And of course the terrifying Tyson, a potent symbol of the furious Negro libido unleashed, induced paroxysms of self-wetting in the Captain, what with him being a violent rapist, not to mention a terror-loving Islamist.
But I was wrong, and unlike my fellow Conservative Dusty of the Parched Muffpie, I can admit when I have made an error. Despite their excessive Negritude, King and Tyson have proved that they know what is best for this country — a successful Republican party, albeit one that is letting people like them into the tent.
The Captain, bigoted!?!?! Almost as likely as Ken Mehlman hating queers.
By Chazman
October 26, 2006 02:31 PM | Link to this
Mallory,
Lamely engineered question? Just what exactly IS that? Guess I do get a little obsessed when people accuse Democrats of being unpatriotic and hating America when they don’t blindly, 100% support the President when over 6 years ago, the same thing was done by Republicans but it was OK then. Need proof?
“You can support the troops but not the president.” –Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
“[The] President … is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation’s armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy.” –Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)
“American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy.” –Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
“If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy.” –Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush
“I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today” –Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.” –Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)
He needs someone to tell him he’s right? No Mallory. I admit when I am wrong. But when someone paints themselves into a corner as Dusty has done, I just love to watch her try to get out of it without getting her feet wet. Got it?
By Mallory
October 26, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this
No Aquaman, Chazman’s obsession is with himself. The only thing he’s doing is hanging himself up & losing the opportunity to move on to other, more pertinent topics. Maybe that’s his problem, he’s got nothing else to say. Going after something that belongs to somebody else & will never be his is a true indication of a loser.
By What the?
October 26, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this
What happened to Aquabeyatch? She is now Aquaman?
By Wit and Wisdom of Dusty
October 26, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this
It turns out that Dusty isn’t as direct as we all hoped. However, based on her posts, we’re confidently able to infer the following:
definition of Dissention: Critizing a Commander-in-Chief from the Democratic Party.
definition of Sedition: Criticizing a Commander-in-Chief from the Republican Party.
How to support our troops: Criticize a Commander-in-Chief from the Democratic Party.
How to undermine our troops: Criticize a Commander-in-Chief from the Republican Party.
How to demonstrate love for our country: Agree with Dusty.
How to demonstrate hatred for country: Disagree with Dusty.
Glad we got it cleared up.
By Chazman
October 26, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this
Going after something that belongs to somebody else & will never be his is a true indication of a loser.
That’s about as rambling as your “Lamely engineered question.” Do we need to get a translator in here for your responses?
By Andy
October 26, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this
Cartoon Idea: Show W, (as the chimp) riding a tank and leading american troops into battle in Baghdad, and chanting, “Stay the course, stay the course, stay the course”, but the US troops following him and Uncle Sam, and the Allies, and the Shia and the Sunni, and the newly elected government there are all shouting in unison, “RIGHT TURN, CLYDE”.
That’s it!
By time for the truth
October 26, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this
What’s with this Chazman guy & his obsession with Dusty answering some lamely engineered question? What is it? He needs someone to tell him he’s right? Must be a government supported democrat, waiting and wondering. So typical.
crapman is merely a sad anally obsessive leftist wanker who simply cant get beyond the puerile on here - which is why I ALWAYS post (to it) at its level so as not to intimidate it.
DebbieRitalinDuambarse
Despising liberals and lefties is irrefutably the will of Allah!! Although as a decided agnostic (like Dana and a few others on here) the use of Allah (burp) is entirely sardonic (look it up feminazi JK). Your naive simpleton persona on here is most amusing - many thanks for contriving that so naturally and convincingly.
By Fat A* Andy
October 26, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this
Cartoon idea: Show a bunch of fat a* unshaven slobs wearing grease stained wife beaters, with cheeto crums on thier fat man t** and stomachs, slouched in front of the computer all goddamned day spouting bullsht.
We can call it Thinking Right
By Mallory
October 26, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this
From your own mouth Chatman.
“But when someone paints themselves into a corner as Dusty has done, I just love to watch her try to get out of it.”
If that’s it. If that’s all you get out of it. How about sparing everybody else your gleeful obsession & move on to something that doesn’t involve you exclusively.
Dusty isn’t required to do anything just because you demand it moron. Get over your bad self. I get the feeling Dusty is withholding simply to keep you stuck on stupid for everyone to see, & she’s doing a fine job.
By Aquaman
October 26, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this
Mallory,
What you are missing is that there are people, and I am one, who are absolutely FED UP with the nonsensical assertion that it is somehow un-American and un-patriotic to profess a support for the troops while not expressing support for the President, the war and the mission. Dusty and others (Van included) have made this assertion time and again and it is time they be called to account as to whether this is a consistent position based on a true moral compass or another partisan position that changes with the wind.
My involvement is simple: I have a son in Iraq whom I support with every fiber of my being. Simultaneously I do not support this mess in Iraq. There is no clear mission, no exit strategy, do real direction. My dissent and the accompanying questions are identical to the dissent expressed by the right while we were engaged in Kosovo. Identical.
So am I un-American? And if so are those on the right who asked the same questions of President Clinton un-American as well? It’s really very simple.
After years of being called un-patriotic by the right I don’t feel it is too much to ask the same question 5 days in a row.
By Aquaman
October 26, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this
And if Dusty and you want to see it as some sort of Pyrrhic victory that the question keeps being asked without a response then have at it.
But the fact is that it is a legitimate question and based on the adamant nature of her past statements Dusty would be well served to answer it. And I would hope everyone would possess the intellect to see that she answers by her silence, like it or not.
By jbmlaw
October 26, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this
Dear Brian @ 11:07, I fully understand why the left demands a “handicapper general” to rein in the vibrant speech of the conservatives. Would it not make more sense for those of you on the left to polish your speech with ideas? Good ideas always drive out bad ideas; we conservatives win, but only if we are heard. That is why we oppose your efforts to game the system. (And you should re-read my critique of your restrictionist view: I affirm nobody deserves to be heard. That includes people with money. The freedom I affirm is the right to speak on political matters.) Are you not embarrassed by the lengths your side will pursue to restrict freedom?
Similarly, CJ @ 11:30, your views are so unpopular that you would use the guns of government to compel people to fund publicity of your political positions. Does that not tell you something about your intellectual integrity?
JK and Brian, re: your bizarre pursuit of Dusty, why should she care what a discredited Republican says about anything? You don’t. How can you raise “hypocrisy” when your question is thus predicated on your own hypocrisy? (Unless you first established that Dusty thinks your quotes are contextually valid and are spoken by people she deems mentors. I think you failed.)
Chazman @ 2:31, your argument deserves more than a one liner. You have a false predicate for your line of questioning: “Lamely engineered question? Just what exactly IS that? Guess I do get a little obsessed when people accuse Democrats of being unpatriotic and hating America when they don’t blindly, 100% support the President when over 6 years ago, the same thing was done by Republicans but it was OK then.”
We do not accuse Democrats of lack of patriotism; you actually mean “Leftists” – nobody questions Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman’s bona fides. Your comparison fails because the anti-Americanism that led to the Iraq unpleasantness was not bounded by any state borders, and more to the point, was actually free-floating throughout the Middle East; in contrast, the Yugoslavian brotherhood, object of your non-contextual quotes, never bombed a single sky-scraper in New York City, nor any American embassy in Africa. By presenting similar quotes about dissimilar circumstances, you manufacture a false argument. About the only comparable ideological war of the past century was communism. When you do the research, I suspect you will find conservatives pretty consistent between the two, and Leftists pretty consistent between the two.
Mallory, I am unfamiliar with your prior writing. You are good, I like you almost as much as I like @@.
Man, this blog jumped way off topic today. I thought it sounded like a pretty good topic.
By DebbieDoRight
October 26, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this
Ooooo Twisted Truth you learned some new words!!!:
Despising, irrefutably, agnostic, sardonic persona, contriving ,naturally and convincingly.
Good Dog Good Arf!
By jbmlaw
October 26, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this
Aquaman @ 3:26, I don’t agree with most of your posts, but I write to express my appreciation for your son. You say you don’t understand the mission: a great letter from Iraq yesterday, in Taranto’s Best of the Web, spoke intelligently of the mission, without being blind to the problems. http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009148 God bless your son.
By Captain Freedom
October 26, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this
“By Fat A* Andy
Cartoon idea: Show a bunch of fat a* unshaven slobs wearing grease stained wife beaters, with cheeto crums on thier fat man t** …”
Andy, this is just mean-spirited. In addition to the torture of his pilondial cyst, the Captain also suffers the shame of gynaecomastia (“the condition of a man’s breasts in which they are as large as a woman’s and functionally active”). While some might consider this an advantage of sorts (e.g., one does not need to get a date to cop a feel), it is in fact a terrible condition, as my friends from the Man Breast Support Group (I’m talking to you, TFTT and Markus!!) can attest from dark personal experience.
It is okay to tease a woman (Hi Dusty!) over here dessicated ‘down there’. And it is certainly okay to taunt cripples and Parkerson patients over their so-called “struggles”. But hurling contumely at proud American Christian Males with ample bosom is simply beyond the pale of civilised discourse. Why, to make fun of this condition, one would have to make fun of such Stalwarts of Freedom as Bill Bennett, Denny Hastert, Sonny Perdue and Newt Gingrich.
By time for the truth
October 26, 2006 03:47 PM | Link to this
talking of dogs DebbieRitalinDumbarse
you are obviously a fleabitten wormy female mongrel dog … a very sad (sounds like) itch with a b in front - gedditt? …huge smirk
time for you to take that housebreaking process much more seriously love otherwise your new Bush voting owner will DESERVEDLY take you back whence you came and dump your sorry bedwetting ritalindumbarse at the pound!!
Clearly your annual rabies shot is long overdue!!
Hopefully your new Bush voting owner will also make sure you get ‘fixed’ at the local vetinary surgery.
By Fat A*ss Andy
October 26, 2006 03:51 PM | Link to this
such Stalwarts of Freedom as Bill Bennett, Denny Hastert, Sonny Perdue and Newt Gingrich.
I beleive these men, in addition to thier heaving chests, have jobs sir. Impressive resumes and money and status. They don’t sit in front of a screen all day trying out thier latest pinko comedy bits that you all likely sadly work on all night in your “off blog” hours. Get a fucking life guys. Come on, you are here every goddamned day doing nothing useful whatsoever. How can you possibly have the nerve to put anyone else down when it’s clear what huge losers you all must be? I mean it’s laughable really!
Luh-hoooooooooo-sers!
By DebbieDoRight
October 26, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this
Here Twisted Here Boy!!! Good boy!! Roll Over!! Good Boy!! HEY Don’t Speak!,Don’t Speak!! Dang it! Opened your muzzle and spilled out Republican Dog Sh#t again!!
Arf!
By I love Jim Wooten
October 26, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this
Oh boy..oh boy..oh boy..it’s almost Friday..I can’t wait for the Friday free for all..
What do y’all think will be featured this week?
By Mallory
October 26, 2006 04:16 PM | Link to this
Aquaman, Sorry for the delay. A bath interceded. Feel free to be FED UP all you want, but don’t expect me and others here to be starving for the clarification you want from Dusty. I’m not. It’s a sidedish to the topic here.
Your son’s service & your sacrifice are appreciated. I’m sure Dusty appreciates it. Aren’t you pleased enough with that? You’re patriotism is how you define it. Dusty’s? The same. I really don’t see the problem.
I didn’t question Clinton’s actions in Kosovo so I’m off the hook. I do question why this threat has been left looming through so many previous administrations. If it hadn’t, your son may have been safe at home which is where I’m sure you want him. Any parent would. Does he agree with you on the Iraq war?
By getalife
October 26, 2006 04:19 PM | Link to this
The illegals have already started chanting, “President Bush, tear down this wall”.(As Reagan rolls over in his grave)
Gorbachev smiles.
By Captain Freedom
October 26, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this
Once again, the genius that is Our Leader shines like a stream of bat’s piss.
The wall, a long overdue solution to the hordes of unwashed Mexicalis yearning to be free, is also a brilliant stroke of fiscal conservatism. There is a nearly unlimited supply of cheap, skilled labor in the area where the wall will be built. By utilizing this resource, we can build our fortress America for pennies on the dollar. We’ll just have them put up the last segment from the other side so none of the undesirables get stuck on our side.
Bet those Canuck wankers up north wish their wages weren’t so high, now. The jobs go where the labor is cheap!!
Pure genius.
By Aquaman
October 26, 2006 04:42 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw,
I read the piece and found it interesting. I understand that many find validity in this foray into Iraq and I respect them for that. I am man enough to admit that my bias toward things is partly based in personal fear. I am not ignorant to that bias and know full well that I speak from a compromised position. At least some of the reason that no one can convince me of the value of the war in Iraq simply because I am unwilling to be convinced. My bias isn’t to blame for the whole of my position, but it certainly is the genesis.
Irrespective of my bias, however, I believe there is validity in my position and find it unbelievable that some would question my patriotism for expressing opposition to the current administration and the policies they promulgate.
I understand that the current question comparing criticism of President Clinton to the criticism of our current CIC is not fully valid, but it is the statements of those currently tossing around the un-American label that make the connection. To them ANY criticism of the war is evidence of a lack of support of the troops. More to the point people like Van and Dusty have repeatedly stated that it is impossible to say that one supports the troops but not the war and by extension the President. (Van called us “liars, ignorant and just plain old fashion back stabbing, america hating, pinko scum” just a few days ago.)
I refuse to sit by and let statements such as these go unanswered. If it bothers some to see me constantly reasking the same questions I suggest 2 things: encourage Dusty (or even Van) to answer or tolerate it. It’s not going away.
The position they have taken up with such fervor is offensive and contrary to the freedoms that my son enlisted to defend.
By Aquaman
October 26, 2006 04:47 PM | Link to this
Mallory,
My son does agree with me. From his perspective there the mission is murky and changes constantly. He and I both will admit that there are many that disagree there, but disagreement is the right of any American.
Or is it.
As for anyone starving for a clarification, forgive me but I could care less if anyone else cares. I care and I would simply like an answer.
As for patriotism being as one defines it, I agree. Dusty, on the other hand does not. That is why the question was asked as she feels very free to define others patriotism level for them.
By abc
October 26, 2006 04:55 PM | Link to this
Ha, actually the irony in that is funny… betcha quarter that the wall gets built by illegal immigrant labor. Hmmm.
By CJ
October 26, 2006 05:01 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw @3:30 “…the anti-Americanism that led to the Iraq unpleasantness was not bounded by any state borders…the Yugoslavian brotherhood, object of your non-contextual quotes, never bombed a single sky-scraper in New York City, nor any American embassy in Africa.”
jbmlaw seems confused. He’s under the impression that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. President Bush recently clarified such confusion for us, but jbm must have called in sick that day.
So, given the fact that Iraq never bombed a single sky-scraper in New York City, nor any American embassy in Africa, we appear to have jbm’s permission to criticize the President without being patriotic.
Thank you jbm. And, consistent with your misinformed logic, I continue to support our efforts in Afghanistan.
By deegee
October 26, 2006 05:20 PM | Link to this
I can think of no greater monument to the Republican Revolution than a big, ugly wall on the southern border.
By CJ
October 26, 2006 05:23 PM | Link to this
Mallory @4:16 “I do question why this threat has been left looming through so many previous administrations.”
I hear ya’ Mallory.
I also question why the Reagan administration restored relations with Iraq in 1984 as Saddam’s regime was actively using chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers and civilians???
I also question why American corporations were allowed to sell Hughes helicopters to Iraq during the Reagan administration - helicopters that are suspected to have been among those dropping bombs of the Kurds???
I also question why Reagan killed sanctions passed by the Democratically controlled U.S. Senate in response to Saddam’s 1988 gassing of the Kurds???
Maybe you can help me out with these questions. With regard to your question, you might find the answer in the book co-authored by Bush 41 and Scowcroft.
By CJ
October 26, 2006 05:26 PM | Link to this
Oops @5:01.
I meant to write “unpatriotic” in the second paragraph…not “patriotic”.
By CJ
October 26, 2006 05:48 PM | Link to this
P.S. to Mallory @3:21 “How about sparing everybody else your gleeful obsession & move on to something that doesn’t involve you exclusively.”
By “you exclusively”, did you mean me, Chazman, Curtis, Aquaman, DebbieDoRight, Van, Wit and Wisdom and any others who have weighed in this issue? When you wrote “you exclusively”, were you referring to any and all who the Dustys and Vans of the world attempt to bully into submission with their “love it or leave it” rhetoric. Is that what you meant when you wrote to Chazman that this issue involves “you exclusively”?
When you wrote at 4:16 not to “expect me and others here to be starving for the clarification you want…”, were the “others” you were talking about only you and anybody who agrees with you, or did you include me, Curtis, Aquaman, DebbieDoRight, Wit and Wisdom and anybody else who has weighed in on this issue?
Given the fact that several have been involved in this discussion over the course of several days, mabe you can clarify what you meant by “you exclusively” and “others here”. Or, alternatively, maybe you can stay out of the conversation if you’re so uninterested.
By Neo-Scum Pink is the new In-Color for Brown Shirted Cowards
October 26, 2006 05:59 PM | Link to this
When Hillary is president, we will arrest all the current and former neo-scum for treason, put them in prision, and water board them all daily. HAIL HILLARY
By jbmlaw
October 26, 2006 06:00 PM | Link to this
Dear CJ @ 5:01, you persist in false arguments. You believe Afghanistan attacked the US, and in Africa. That is false; it was a radical ideology, not bounded by borders. You fool only yourself.
By Mallory
October 26, 2006 07:09 PM | Link to this
Wrong Aquaman. From what I’ve seen Dusty tells you what she expects a patriot to be. You don’t meet her expectations by her definition, but are a patriot by your own.
Why shouldn’t Dusty feel free to define her expectations of patriotism and point out that you don’t meet them. That’s what your son is fighting to protect.
I have no problem with saying that the Republicans that voiced their public objection to the Commander in Chief under which our military serve have done a disservice to this country’s efforts. I wouldn’t question their citizenship though. This war is laden with propoganda used by the enemy to defeat us with our division. United we stand, divided we don’t stand much of a chance.
Notify your representatives, notify the President, the Vice-President, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State. But don’t notify the enemy. Don’t notify the media. Your public dissent may end up killing me & my family in the end. I guess I’ll have to hold you accountable.
Happy?