Thinking Right

By LivingRight

December 14, 2006 08:06 AM | Link to this

Thanks Jim, I hadn’t likened the Iraq War to an abortion, but I suppose you’re right.

By Curious Observer

December 14, 2006 08:14 AM | Link to this

It’s called freedom of speech, a concept with which the conservatrons may be unfamiliar.

Perhaps the use of war dead to make a political expression is not noble. Still, it’s protected under the constitution.

Who else is going to remember the thousands who gave their lives for the sake of helping ensure George W. Bush’s reelection? Certainly not the conservatrons, who want nothing more than a temporary boost to their private aggrandizement through a Republican administration.

The same people want to ban flag burning. Although too cowardly and selfish themselves to volunteer for military service to their nation, they want to restrict the freedom of others under the flag and to tout their “support” for the soldiers who do serve.

They are beneath contempt.

By jbmlaw

December 14, 2006 08:19 AM | Link to this

Good morning all. Jim selects a topic today that arises in several related news sites over the past few days. Chairman Ann has her usual funny-weekly this morning, and she argues that the Iraq Surrender Group report is the cause of the debate. In all fairness, I can understand the leftists’ shrillness. The number of people who died during the regime of the evil dictator August Pinochet was 3,197; 2,796 during the coup, and 401 in the 17 years thereafter. In Iraq, US military deaths in 2004 total 860, 2005 total 845, and year to date 2006 total around 725; thus US military deaths, all lamentable, equal around 75% of the number of deaths in the accursed Chilean coup. Also, by coincidence, approximately the same number of babies are aborted in Atlanta every month.

This topic has some personal meaning to me. My younger son, the Naval Ensign – he hates to be called “Ensign” – called me excitedly this week, to tell me all about his training over the last two weeks – the helo dunk, the helo lift from the frigid waters, the redneck parasailing, the high-altitude oxygen-deprivation exercise. Taranto, on vacation this week, is running a series of letters from our brave military sons and husbands, whose only request seems to be – like my Ensign - that they be allowed to do their job.

By jbmlaw

December 14, 2006 08:21 AM | Link to this

Curious @ 8:14, those who mock the dead for political purposes are the only evil souls in our society.

By Mid-South Philosopher

December 14, 2006 08:27 AM | Link to this

Good morning, Jim,

This subject is a tough call. Curious observer is correct…the issue of “free speech” is at stake. At the same time, your perception as to the reaction of the left to of a field of crosses for “abortion victims” is also correct.

The one thing I am thankful for is that both sides…the pro-War and anti-War camps…seem to respect the military as a neutral factor in this matter. We don’t seem to see the hatred toward the military that we of the Vietnam era “enjoyed.”

Under our Constitutional system of government, the President is Commander-in-Chief. Since the Second World War, the Congress has “abdicated” its power to “declare” war by relying on the judgment of the Executive brance and passing “resolutions” to prosecute our various forays.

It will be interesting to see how the 110th Congress (God help us) will deal with the war as well as a number of interesting domestic challenges.

My prophecy…there will be little improvement. Congress is composed of politicians. Politicians are like septic tanks. Even the best and the most effective and useful are full of ** and smell bad.

By Southern Democrat

December 14, 2006 08:47 AM | Link to this

Interesting topic today and one that I am sure will keep the “undercurrent conversation” quite busy.

At risk of sounding glib and I do not mean to be disrespectful to anyone, but I will agree with Mr. Wooten’s points and condemn the invocation of fallen military personnel just as soon as my government stops appropriating the memory of those who died on 9/11. (And I understand, of course, that this appropriation is limited only to use by the government and not by the loved ones of those who died per Edict of Coulter).

Jbmlaw, I hope that your son’s military experience continues to be invaluable and please let him know that my wife and I thank him for his service.

By Realist

December 14, 2006 08:49 AM | Link to this

I havent checked in for some time. But with the news out of South Dakota this morning, I simply couldnt resist.

The Lord certainly moves in mysterious ways does he not?

Merry Christmas everybody.

Happy Non-Specific Holiday to you too Dems :)

By @@

December 14, 2006 08:53 AM | Link to this

Jim: The tactic of using the fallen to further the anti-war crowd’s political agenda has always bothered me. It’s easy and a cheap shot. It’s nothing that can even compare to the real shots being fired at our brave military in Iraq.

There are other cheap shots that have been fired by the anti-war crowd as well. Those would be the ones that are quick to accuse our military at the mere hint of wrong doing. Guilty before proven innocent for liberals.

I watched an interview with a very large and vocal group of soldiers in Iraq this week. This was their message to America. They wanted it to be heard.

Great things are happening there.

We can win this war.

If you say we can’t win, you’re saying you have no confidence in our abilities.

We’re here because we believe in what we’re doing. We weren’t duped.

You can’t support us without supporting what we’re doing, because we support what we’re doing.

The media isn’t telling the whole truth about Iraq.

How many times have you heard the leftist anti-war crowd pat each other on the back here? Telling each other they were “dead on” in their assessment of the war?

Is the anti-war crowd “dead on” or are they just “on the dead”?

I say it’s the latter. Luckovich does the same thing with his cartoons at times, and we conservatives are quick to voice our disdain.

BTW Jim, liberals took some cheap shots at me here, and at Luckovich’s yesterday. They namejacked my @@. Harmless, but noteworthy. Because it is always a liberal that namejacks.

I know the names of all the fallen Jim. My posting name is insignificant by comparison. No need to shield it.

By The Way

December 14, 2006 08:55 AM | Link to this

I simply took a blank website and reserved a pixel for every member of congress, fox news talking head, and talk radio host (and every person with a W bumpersticker) who was also a chicken hawk.

I totally ran out of pixels, man.

Wooten’s tone has changed since the electoral sweep.

“So november took you by surprise…you better listen to their mother’s cries…”

“Electrically they keep a baseball score”.

and the beat goes on……

“We will not leave before the job is done”. What job, Mr. President? “To secure an Iraqi Parliament that can sustain itself, defend itself, govern itself, and be an ally in the war on terror.” But, Mr. Prez, the elected parliament is mostly shia, and they want to destroy israel and align with iran, and they want to kill americans. “Not all Shia do. There’s cooler heads shia that are moderates. They’ll convince the others to lay down their weapons and join the democracy.” But Mr. Prez, secession is encrypted in the Iraqi Constitution, they dont want strong centralized power. Everything they do is localized and legal. Your bubble government is only a fraction of the population and the rest want genocide. “Then we’ll kill all the genocidal terrorists.” That’s 20 million people, sir. “Oh, I think maybe 20 thousand is more like it”. No, there are mostly shia in Iraq, about 20 million. They are united against the sunnis, who persecuted them for 100 years, thanx mostly to the USA, and they are united against israel. We have created a shia superstate which forms the body of a shia crescent with it’s point aimed at Israel’s heart. “Well, we wont leave till the job is done.” Who told you to say that? You sound like an idiot.” This conference is over, mom.

By Rev Haggard

December 14, 2006 08:59 AM | Link to this

They should protest military funerals like us conservative Christians do.

By Shar

December 14, 2006 09:15 AM | Link to this

You, an outsider, have decided to interpret the hidden agenda behind this self-described “tribute” to the war dead, and on the basis of your own interpretation have judged the people responsible to be dishonest grandstanders using bodies as political placards. On the other hand, the Administration’s censorship of photographs of war dead, caskets or any other representation of the war’s cost, on the premise that such displays would be ‘disrespectful’ (regardless of whether or not the fallen soldier agrees with government censorship or the cause in which he or she fell) is laudable. In your own words, “If the [suppression] of a soldier’s name and likeness is to … advance a political agenda with which the fallen soldier may not have agreed, his sacrifice is not honored.”

I suspect that both of those decisions are politically motivated, but I recognize that my suspicions are not proof of someone else’s lies. And neither are yours.

Taking a swipe at abortion merely serves to rabble rouse while underscoring hypocrasy. The war is a matter of public policy, in which the President and the Congress decided that killing people was required to advance American’s vital interest. This seems to be a process with which you agree, and what’s more, you seem to feel that the public’s opposition to this decision and its consequences should be ignored. However, when the same process is agonized over on a personal basis, you believe that the public has every right to participate in setting the parameters and deciding the outcome. Why would a small-governnment conservative decide that public intervention is irresponsible and un-American in public matters but should override the individual’s personal assessment and decision?

By Jim Wooten

December 14, 2006 09:17 AM | Link to this

Morning all. I do acknowledge that @@ is correct about the use of her blog identity yesterday.

By @@

December 14, 2006 09:20 AM | Link to this

Nice try Rev. Haggard. I have equal disdain for the members of the Westboro Baptist Church which is comprised of 150 members, all from one family plus those that married into the family. Their target is “gays”, and I deplore their methods on both fronts.

It’s a cult, not a church.

By Real Faith is not for Weanies

December 14, 2006 09:23 AM | Link to this

Realist,

The Lord could care less about your pathetic political sqabbles. To posit that the Lord somehow caused a stroke in a Democratic Senator to tip the balance of power to the favor of the other side is pathetic and shows a complete contempt for the workings of a Sovereign God.

And don’t hide behind “it was a joke” since it obviously wasn’t.

Once and for all get this into your tiny little narrow minds….

God does not have a political affiliation. God is not nor would God have been a Republican (or a Democrat for that matter.)

Disgusting.

By DebbieDoRight

December 14, 2006 09:25 AM | Link to this

it is asinine and absurd to compare abortions to war. u, Jim, have just done the same thing that you declare the “left” of doing, using your position and your status as a political tool.

why is it so hard for the small conservatron brain to assimilate the meanings of the words “faith, disagree, support, honor, hope, patriotism, honor and country”?

i remember a column of yours when clinton was in power, (which i will gladly pay the required fee to get this one out of archives for you to jog your memory); you lambasted him for his arrogance in Somalia, (a mission he inherited, not started from BushI — and i say mission because it started out as a PEACE mission), saying it was time to let the troops come home, ridiculing his efforts to sustain peace in Somalia saying that it was impossible in a country that was still stuck in a feudal warlord system to achieve any type of lasting peace and demanding his send our troops home.

now nearly 10 years later, you are singing another song to the same tune. the same type of insurrecttion that happened in Somalia is happening in Iraq, but miraculously, your memory of everything that you said before, (good thing for me it’s in print and can be retrieved), has dissipated like mist.

If it is to advance a political agenda with which the fallen soldier may not have agreed, his sacrifice is not honored

i wonder now about your so-called disdain for the polticizing of our war dead when you were so “hot” to do it ten years ago with a different president who didn’t share your republican manifesto.

By Rev Haggard

December 14, 2006 09:28 AM | Link to this

When our protests at the funeral are over, Realist myself and my good friend Pat Robertson are going to pray very, very hard.

We are going to pray for the continuance of our beloved divine intervention. We are a heartbeat away from controlling the Senate. Its God’s will. Let us pray.

The man upstairs has been listening. God Bless America.

Pray hard America. Pray hard.

By jbmlaw

December 14, 2006 09:30 AM | Link to this

Dear Southern @ 8:47, thank you for your good wishes. I know my son is honored to be able to serve, and Mrs. jbmlaw and I are grateful for your personal support. It’s tougher on mom, in all candor, but the Ensign is smart enough to not disclose all to her.

By Aquaman

December 14, 2006 09:30 AM | Link to this

Had we not been shielded from the true costs of this war in terms of human life by a Pentegon edict not to show flag draped coffins I may very well agree with this statement. But the decision to hide the images of the toll this action has taken in the lives of young men and women was a carefully calculated political move in its own right. (And isn’t it odd that the supposedly leftist media played right along.)

Now this is not to say that two wrongs make things right, but it is hypocritical for the right to cry foul at this political statement while sitting on their hands for the other.

You may be on the right side of opinion on this blog JW, but it is my opinion that you are on the wrong side of history. (Notice that this is an opinion statement and nothing more.)

By Political Foreskin

December 14, 2006 09:33 AM | Link to this

Somebody namejacked @@? Well I never….that’s inexcusable….it probably was a typo, because @@ is not a name, it’s punctuation. So I’m sure that whoever was responsible…….Okay, it was me. I confess. I did it, and I’m GLAD! and I’d do it again! I was trying to take over the blog so it was all mine, and I’d be the king. And I almost got away with it too, if it hadn’t been for you horrid trolls…….I’m melting…all my beautiful wickedness….what a world…what a world……….

By Rev Haggard

December 14, 2006 09:34 AM | Link to this

@@ said, “I have equal disdain for the members of the Westboro Baptist Church which is comprised of 150 members,”

How many people are involved in the Santa Barbara cross protest?

By @@

December 14, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this

I knew it was you, PF.

By Political Foreskin

December 14, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this

no it wasn’t

By DebbieDoRight

December 14, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this

@@ - i periodically check other english speaking newspapers (and some that I can transcribe to english) online worldwide to get a different perspective then what is shown here in america. basically when they, (reporters), get a chance to speak with a serviceman in iraq or afghanistan, (away from cameras so that the servicemen can not be identified), the serviceman will tell the truth and say what’s in his/her heart. the majority of the newspapers report the same thing accurately — the morale of the troops in iraq and afghanistan has gone down, some of the equipment is not suited for the environment, and they really wish to go home.

a lot of times, (as seen on camera when the bush camp was caught setting up a “rehearsal” impromptu gathering with soldiers), soldiers are not allowed by military law to speak of how they really feel, (especially on camera), and face UCMJ disciplinarian action if they do. its the same thing in corporate america. a memo comes down from the board that may state “we know that the drivers will probably strike tomorrow, if anyone in the media questions you about it, refer all questions to the legal center”, (or something to that affect).

By @@

December 14, 2006 09:36 AM | Link to this

yes it was. you just admitted it.

By Brian Curtis

December 14, 2006 09:37 AM | Link to this

And cries like “Don’t let their sacrifice be in vain… stay the course!”?

How are those uses of the dead any less political, any less exploitative for a cause they may not have supported? Not every soldier killed by Bush’s stupidity should be posthumously presumed to support it.

By Political Foreskin

December 14, 2006 09:37 AM | Link to this

did not.

By getalife

December 14, 2006 09:38 AM | Link to this

Realist,

How do you live with yourself?

Geez.

@@,

Westboro Baptist Church is a church not a cult. There was a mob at their last funeral but they got away.

Jim,

I guess you are including Mike’s why cartoon. Still looking for the answer to the why question but it seems to be oil. Now that the Saudis read cheney the riot act, we can’t leave.w will send more troops and many more Americans and Iraqis will die.

How in the world can you be pro war and pro life?

By @@

December 14, 2006 09:38 AM | Link to this

did too

By Realist

December 14, 2006 09:39 AM | Link to this

Hey RealFaith, Im glad you can speak on behalf of everyone as to what God is and is not and what He does and does not do. Come to think of it, that pretty much sums up what a liberal is doesnt it?

An no I wasnt joking. The non-believing morally corrupt lying liberals and democrats pulled all the stops and told any lie nessecary to gain the majority and fool the American people. Now after so much deception and hard work, it appears in jeopardy. Dont be surprised to see other signs and strange happenings as punishment for the sins against man and God perpetrated by you athiests hippie liberals.

And you are correct, God could not have been a democrat. One cant be if one doesnt exist!

By Political Foreskin

December 14, 2006 09:39 AM | Link to this

not

By @@

December 14, 2006 09:40 AM | Link to this

too

By Political Foreskin

December 14, 2006 09:40 AM | Link to this

not

By @@

December 14, 2006 09:42 AM | Link to this

too

By Political Foreskin

December 14, 2006 09:43 AM | Link to this

too

By jbmlaw

December 14, 2006 09:43 AM | Link to this

Dear Shar @ 9:15, you posit the leftist view contingently acknowledging that using the images and names war dead is exploitative, but simultaneously affirming that the administration’s prohibition of exploitive photographs of our soldier’s caskets is equally wrong. I suggest you drink a little more coffee, because your sense of right and wrong is totally screwed up.

I think you are correct, that the “swipe” at abortion underscores hypocrisy: the leftists are all stirred up about 2,500 deaths of our noble military over the past three years, but cannot work up a tear for the innocent babies destroyed on a much greater scale.

By @@

December 14, 2006 09:44 AM | Link to this

not

By regulator

December 14, 2006 09:46 AM | Link to this

Debbie Do Right just kicked your a$$ Jim, I’ve always held you to a higher standard than this. If God disliked Sen. Johnson enough to do this to him, think how he must have hated Lee Atwater, he just flat struck him dead.

By Watta Load

December 14, 2006 09:48 AM | Link to this

How about the use of the brain dead for the purpose of political gain? Can anyone say “Terri Schiavo”?

By jbmlaw

December 14, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this

Shock – dear Debbie @ 9:35 advises that “newspapers” “report” that morale is bad, based on secret testimony. Yet, amazingly, these guys give it their all every day, kill lots of bad guys, and do their job. It’s almost as if their actions do not mesh with “newspaper” “reports.” Where is the disconenct?

By Political Foreskin

December 14, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this

Okay we’ll have it your way: I did not.

(Note from this blogger: the following was an illustration of how @@ blogs in conspiracy with a cadre of trolls who abuse other bloggers with threats and invectives and who badger other bloggers who think for themselves. @@ also only takes the exact opposite of whatever anyone else’s position is, like a glue-sniffing bizarro parrot).

By Buy Danish

December 14, 2006 09:51 AM | Link to this

@@,

Thank you for this post!

Southern Democrat,

In response to this - your “I’ll do this if you do that” analogy is a false one, and is nothing but shameless extortion. I will remember it in the future when I weigh your credibility as a blog contributor with ethics.

I put my trust in someone like Debra Burlingame whose measured opinions and evident grace engender the highest respect and credibility.

Certain 911 Commission hecklers and Hugo Chavez-hugging protesters could learn some lessons in comportment from her.

Gotta run…later…

By DebbieDoRight

December 14, 2006 09:52 AM | Link to this

but cannot work up a tear for the innocent babies destroyed on a much greater scale

maybe because they’re not “babies” or people.

By jbmlaw

December 14, 2006 09:54 AM | Link to this

Dear Brian @ 9:37, your plea, to allow the deaths of our noble military be in vain, rings loud and clear. Thank you for your honesty.

By DebbieDoRight

December 14, 2006 09:58 AM | Link to this

Shock – dear Debbie @ 9:35 advises that “newspapers” “report” that morale is bad, based on secret testimony. Yet, amazingly, these guys give it their all every day, kill lots of bad guys, and do their job. It’s almost as if their actions do not mesh with “newspaper” “reports.” Where is the disconenct?

jbmlaw: perhaps since you are a lawyer by trade, you can not fathom the concept of “doing the job you are paid to do”.

By Realist

December 14, 2006 10:01 AM | Link to this

“maybe because they’re not “babies” or people.”

I know of about 200 million people who say they are you ignorant liberal c.

Liberalism- 50 Million people speaking on behalf of the entire world

By getalife

December 14, 2006 10:06 AM | Link to this

Lets hope God is listening and strike Realpos with AVM.

By @@

December 14, 2006 10:09 AM | Link to this

DebbieDoRight:

The word “potential” must not exist in your life or vocabulary.

No potential for success in the war, no potential life in the womb.

Very sad.

By Political Foreskin

December 14, 2006 10:11 AM | Link to this

BTW: there have been 50 million abortions in the USA since RoevWade.

By Emma

December 14, 2006 10:12 AM | Link to this

My cousin died in the Iraq War. I am grateful that anyone would place his name on a makeshift memorial. He was a good man and is worthy of rememberance in every way.

Most people who want to see politics in these memorials haven’t lost a loved one in this war.

By Political Foreskin

December 14, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this

If we imprisoned all 50 million women for life, at $40K per year for say, 80 years, then the total cost to prosecute abortions to the fullest extent of the law that I’d support would be. 50million X 80 X $40K = 1.5 quintquadrillion dollars.

we can do it

By getalife

December 14, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this

BUSH: DON’T RUSH ME

Mmmm, he was in a big hurry to invade Iraq but when pushed for a plan to get out little w throws a little fit like a child.

Yep, the 25% still supporting the cheerleader are scraping the bottom of the barrel of pathetic Americans.

By DebbieDoRight

December 14, 2006 10:20 AM | Link to this

@@: reality is in my vocabulary.

Realist: perhaps you should change your name to Pharisees or Saducee or even Charlatan. your blatant lies, unrepetant hate and outright slander do the word “christian” proud — im sure by your example millions of non-believers are flocking towards christianity even as we speak. save your crocodile tears for our fallen soldiers they are clogging up your toilet.

By Brian Curtis

December 14, 2006 10:23 AM | Link to this

JBMLaw: Your eagerness to exploit the war dead for YOUR political purposes, while decrying it when your opponents do the same, is ample proof of your hypocrisy. Thanks for making it explicit for all to see.

By DebbieDoRight

December 14, 2006 10:24 AM | Link to this

Hey RealFaith, Im glad you can speak on behalf of everyone as to what God is and is not and what He does and does not do

i think RealFaith actually READS his bible and can COMPREHEND god’s word. instead of people like you who need Rev. BillyBob Joe Jeffrey Brown to ‘splain it to u. i hope he doesn’t move his lips when he reads……

By William Fielder

December 14, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this

By John

December 14, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this

Theis “war” was based on lies from the start, and this lie has caused great suffering and death, on all sides. Meanwhile, our hero President, owned and operated by Zionists, shamelessly carries on the subterfuge. As far as the showing of dead as agenda for tribute, it’s in the eye of the beholder I guess. Your abortion victim analogy was a very poor one, as fetuses are not people with backgrounds and histories, names and identities, loved ones, etc.

By Jarhead

December 14, 2006 10:28 AM | Link to this

To compare war casualties and abortion is like comparing the rights of the society to the rights of an individual. This country is always going to be debating where the balance is because of the way the Constitution is setup. That’s part of the fun of living here.

The military can do amazing things but they aren’t going to solve the political problems. Ultimately we have to acknowledge that all soldiers are being used for political purposes (‘War is just politics by another means’ and all that). We as a democracy have to agree to those political ends.

Everyone in the military gets to gripe and complain. Its one of the few rights they have left after bootcamp. Don’t think the troops in Iraq invented it.

The military can do amazing things but they aren’t going to solve the political problems. Ultimately we have to acknowledge that all soldiers are being used for political purposes (‘War is just politics by another means’ and all that). We as a democracy have to discuss and agree to those political ends.

By Jim's a Cherry Picker

December 14, 2006 10:37 AM | Link to this

How about this Jim? Does this stuff drive you crazy too?

A few comments from this month’s Vanity Fair…

Richard Perle:

According to [Richard] Perle, who left the Defense Policy Board in 2004, this unfolding catastrophe has a central cause: devastating dysfunction within the Bush administration. The policy process has been nothing short of “disastrous,” he says. “The decisions did not get made that should have been. They didn’t get made in a timely fashion, and the differences were argued out endlessly. At the end of the day, you have to hold the president responsible.… I think he was led to believe that things were chugging along far more purposefully and coherently than in fact they were. I think he didn’t realize the depth of the disputes underneath. I don’t think he realized the extent of the opposition within his own administration, and the disloyalty.”

Kenneth Adelman:

“I am extremely disappointed by the outcome in Iraq, because I just presumed that what I considered to be the most competent national-security team since Truman was indeed going to be competent. They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the postwar era. Not only did each of them, individually, have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly, dysfunctional.”

Freaking liberals. Uggh.

By hellinahandbasket

December 14, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this

I suppose I should be surprised but it has long been the tactics of the ‘anti’war’ crowd to use the deaths of soldiers to further their agenda. Take for instance Casey Sheehan, yes the son of Cindy the well known and vocal ‘anti-war’ mother. There is little printed of him or his father but the reality is Casey Sheehan was a hero, plain and simple. Eagle Scout,devout Catholic and brave soldier. Casey’s enlistment was soon to end when we went to war, he re-enlisted knowing full well his unit would be deployed to Iraq. He volunteered twice (according to his mother) to go on the mission that took his life so he could save others. 7 brave heroes died that day along with Casey when they were ambushed…only one mother has chosen to profit personally and financially from her loved ones death. Her husband left his wife as a result of her behavior. Its obvious those who died like her son were dedicated, honorable and brave soldiers who saw beyond their own lives and sought to save others or do something ‘bigger’ than themselves but those like Cindy dishonor them by using their memory for their own agenda and not honoring them by theirs. I know many empathize with her loss as do I but I wonder why a mother as distraught as she supposedly is would do this? Her son Casey would have been ashamed of her behavior and let’s face it we read in the news all the time where a mother uses and abuses her children so we cannot assume Cindy is the doting mother she claims to be. Case in point: it was a little over TWO years before she even thought to get a headstone for her son’s grave and that was because the media called attention to it and her remarks..’the goverment should pay for this.’ Sadly Cindy could have spared herself that expense as the Veterans Administration does pay, Cindy was just too caught up with her Hollywood friends and her ‘campaigning’ for her financial backers to take the time to contact them. Yes there are always those who seek to benefit and promote their own agendas at the expense of others but its abhorrent when its the mother or loved ones that are profitting.

By Middle America

December 14, 2006 10:54 AM | Link to this

jbmlaw @ 8:19am,

You’re absolutely right. We’ve only lost 75% of those who died in the Chilean coup. So we’ve got 25% more that should die before we get concerned. At the current rate, that will be next month. So I suggest we all adjourn for now, and come back in a month (coincidently the same thing Bush is doing now) when it will then be an issue to worry about. At which time I will verbally take jbmlaw to the proverbial woodshed for being such an unfeeling as shole. Shiites and Sunnis have been warring for 1300 years, only stopping when one side can control the other (i.e. Saddam Hussein) with a brutal hand. One more month, six more months, a year, two years of U.S. troop intervention will not change the fact that they hate each other. But if you say it’s not as bad as the Chilean coup, then that should be enough to console a grieving family when their son or daughter dies in the next 30 days.

IT HAS COME TIME TO IMPEACH GEORGE W. BUSH. HE IS NOW FLAGRANTLY IGNORING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, RESULTING IN THE DEATHS OF MORE AMERICAN SOLDIERS. HE HAS ALREADY CEMENTED HIMSELF AS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY. IF WE DO NOTHING, WE WILL BE REMEMBERED AS THE PEOPLE WHO ALLOWED HIM TO CONTINUE AS CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT AND INCOMPETENT.

By Buy Danish

December 14, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this

DebbieCrackPot,

I have never seen @@ post anything that was even remotely a “blatant lie”, “slanderous”, or “hate filled”.

Why are you lying about @@ and slandering her with so much hate?

I await your erudite mooooooooos.

By Southern Democrat

December 14, 2006 11:01 AM | Link to this

Buy Danish @ 9:51,

I am a bit puzzled by your post as you dismiss my comparison as a false one without offering any reason why. I find your comments on this blog a bit frustrating as you alternate between thoughtful, constructive postings and pure vitriolic responses in such a haphazard way that I never know what to expect. I imagine that I will be able to gauge by your response to this post with which personality of yours I will be discussing today.

By jbmlaw

December 14, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this

Dear Debbie @ 9:58, because you are a leftist you cannot fathom the concept of intellectual consistency. You argued @ 9:35 that military moral was terrible, then at 9:58 you argue that military morale makes no difference in the performance. If the latter is the case, why should we care about the former?

Dear Brian @ 10:23, your words @ 9:37 say all we need to know about you. There is no moral equivalence between our noble military and the idiot protesters who abuse the privacy of the individual; your attempt to find such an equivalence speaks volumes about you.

By Sell Swedish

December 14, 2006 11:11 AM | Link to this

BLAME?

Who do we Blame for the Iraq catastrophe? That’s easy: the iraqis. They totally dont know what democracy is, but they do know they dont waawnnt it. (daisy cutter mae)

Who do we blame, indeed.

By Steve

December 14, 2006 11:11 AM | Link to this

JbmLaw,

I stand corrected. The figures I provided yesterday on the number of deaths under Pinochet were grossly overstated — I confused the total killed under Pinochet with the combined total of people killed, tortured or forced into exile under Pinochet. I apologize.

Apparently, as you said, more than 3,000 people died in political violence during Pinochet’s rule. It is reported that approximately 28,000 people were tortured and hundreds of thousands of Chileans went into exile, many never to return. As you may recall, Pinochet filled Santiago’s main soccer stadium with political prisoners to be killed, tortured or forced into exile.

You used the phrase “evil dictator” when referring to him. Your humor is sometimes dark, so I have difficulty discerning when you’re being genuine and when you’re being sarcastic. Do you support Pinochet’s tactics or do you condemn such tactics? Does your affinitity for the term “leftists” arise out of your desire for torture, incarceration, exile and/or murder of those you disagree with, or does such affinity arise out of your lack of understanding of the violent undertone that the term communicates?

I ask again — do you support the forcible suppression of your political opposition?

By Brian Curtis

December 14, 2006 11:12 AM | Link to this

JBM: There is 100% moral equivalence between the war protestors and the war supporters each exploiting the deaths of our soldiers for politican advantage.

You pretend to be in the same category as the soldiers themselves, but you’re not. You’re just another partisan advocate trying to exploit their image to further your agenda. That makes you no different from Cindy Sheehan in any degree.

By Diogenes

December 14, 2006 11:13 AM | Link to this

Jim,

During Vietnam, every means possible was employed to bring the government’s attention to public dissatisfaction with the conduct of the war. Diogenes thinks Bush’s War no different. All tactics needed to express public discontent are fair. Our leadership must be made aware of the horrendous costs of the Bush War and be constantly reminded of what their ineptness is costing in human lives.

Let’s erect 3000 crosses at 5 Points if it will shorten this debacle by one day.

By Lease Scandinavian

December 14, 2006 11:13 AM | Link to this

Democracy? The iraqis totally dont know what that is, but they do know they dont waawwn it. (Daisy Cutter Mae)

By Lease Scandinavian

December 14, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this

If Baker is a surrender monkey, then this must be the planet of the apes.

You cant make a silk parse out of a sow’s earmark.

If you put those two maxims together, and add “by the people, for the people, and peopled by people”, then you get exactly what Lincoln himself would have said about W’s Iraq War.

word.

By time for the truth

December 14, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this

THE SAD PATHETIC Gwinnett COW looking to ban Harry Potter books has LOST … HA HA HA HA!!

This obsessive brainless housewife control freak has been smacked down by the state board of education … only real issue us why the hell did it take so long? These rather tedious books are perfectly harmless and have actually managed to get a good number of today’s undereducated self absorbed spoiled brats reading something other than playstation manuals and celebrity arsewipe pages on myspace.com.

SEE HOW FRAGILE THE demoNcrat senate majority is … allaaaaarrgh willing the GOP will soon regain control. Watching the pinko scum screech and screech and screech if they lose control will be the entertainment of the year … but we’ll just remind them about the treacherous wankpig Jeffords and what the ignominiously beaten vile Woy Barnes did when Senator sadly Coverdell died.

Johnson was elected by blatant demoNcrat fraud largely on the red indian reservations in Dakota. How fitting he perhaps loses his ill gotten seat at such a crucial time.

The most magical thing about this likely scenario is that VP Cheney will for two years have the casting vote in the senate.

BUSH STILL HAS TWO MORE GLORIOUS YEARS!!

By Eric

December 14, 2006 11:22 AM | Link to this

How is this different from Neocons, Pubs and War Supporters saying we must KEEP troops in Iraq, dying for people who don’t want us there, in order to ‘honor’ those who have already died?

By Real Faith is not for Weanies

December 14, 2006 11:24 AM | Link to this

Realist,

I hardly claim to speak for anyone, but it is clear from even a cursory reading of the Word that your disgusting comment shows a complete lack of understanding of the nature of God. If he were so intimately concerned about politics why would Jesus spend so much of his time speaking out against the actions of the religious leaders of his time and no time at all speaking out against the Roman occupiers of Jerusalem?

The simple answer is that God is concerned with the same things that Christians today should be concerned about. The eternal.

Jesus chose to associate with the fringes of society and address the needs of the poor, the sick, the less fortunate so that they could see that God cared about them too, regardless of their station in life. Jesus took no role in politics then and God could care less about the politics of today. Using Jesus and God as a prop, turning him into a petty childlike being who uses his omnipotence to strike your political opponents with stokes in your political rantings, is pathetic and offensive to the truly faithful.

And what, pray tell, gives you the right to brand me an athiest hippie liberal? What in my post today or yesterday (the only posts I have ever offered here) lets you in on that? In point of fact I am a very committed Child of God who is sick of twisted idiots like you co-opting my faith to further your political aims. You make my purpose in life, which is fulfilling Matthew 28:18-20, much more difficult.

You are a disgusting little person.

By ckt

December 14, 2006 11:25 AM | Link to this

no kidding jim. when all those stupid Georgia Tech young republicans were putting up flags to commemorate those that lost their LIVES in the war, I couldn’t believe their calousness - ohh.. wait… that’s ok right, because it’s the republicans that were doing it?

let me just ask you. we’ve destroyed a country, destabilized a region, killed on the order of 1-200,000 Iraqi civllians, caused over 1.6 million Iraqi’s to leave their country and had 3000 americans lose their lives… WHAT IS ENOUGH FOR YOU??? and I swear to God if you say “Democracy in the middle east” i will lose it. THINK FOR ONE DAMN SECOND!!!

By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I

December 14, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this

25,000 dead and wounded in Iraq.

Not a single one of our resident chickenhawks though.

Speaking of chickenhawks - Hi realist! Gloating over someone’s illness - more medical supplies sales for you?

By time for the truth

December 14, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this

Whilst Pinochet may have been more than a little heavy handed with filthy far left marxist vermin … his role as the saviour of Chile, helping establish its remarkable economic success has been undeniable. Funny how the far left scum on here UTTERLY IGNORE the countless innocent victims of their hero Castro who for 40+ years has butchered, tortured, imprisoned and oppressed infinitely more folks than Pinochet ever dreamed of doing.

The blindingly obvious lesson here is that murderous leftist killing and oppression by leftists and marxists is perfectly OK to leftist apologists. But when folks rise up to oppose the undeniable evils of communism/socialism the nasty spiteful pinkos get obsessively uppity. Chile was on the way to a vicious Cuban style dicktatorship, in an age of USSR backed murderous imperialism. Every marxist in history has, given the chance, oppressed and systematically murdered the opposition and enslaved the poor sods caught within the borders of such hellholes.

By time for the truth

December 14, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this

Democracy in the middle east

Democracy in the middle east

Democracy in the middle east

Democracy in the middle east

Democracy in the middle east

Democracy in the middle east

huge I hate leftist cowards smirk

By Time4theNoose

December 14, 2006 11:42 AM | Link to this

retardo-rama

By Diogenes

December 14, 2006 11:45 AM | Link to this

time for the truth (1137)

You’re spending too much time at Disneyland.

By jbmlaw

December 14, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this

Dear John @ 10:25, I admit I am always intrigued by leftist theories of compassion. You argue that we should decry the knowing and voluntary service of our brave military, but that intelligent nanny-staters don’t and shouldn’t care about the helpless victims of abortion.

Dear Middle @ 10:54, I argue that Iraqis deserve the benefits of freedom, and you argue that our Middle Eastern brothers neither deserve nor appreciate the virtues of freedom, purple fingers notwithstanding. I agree that one of us in unreasonably insensitive, but I disagree with you on which of us better fits that description. As to consoling the grieving, you are fundamentally correct; certainly no one will even mention, much less console, those affected by the incalculably larger number of abortion victims over the next month. I will gladly console our families of our heroes and laud their contribution to the world. But who will laud the poor abortionist, who kills innocent babies for money?

By DebbieDoRight

December 14, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this

DebbieCrackPot,I have never seen @@ post anything that was even remotely a “blatant lie”, “slanderous”, or “hate filled”.Why are you lying about @@ and slandering her with so much hate?

Danish Cow: honestly can’t u conservatrons READ??!!! this is what i said dingy danish:

Realist: perhaps you should change your name to Pharisees or Saducee or even Charlatan. your blatant lies, unrepetant hate and outright slander do the word “christian” proud — im sure by your example millions of non-believers are flocking towards christianity even as we speak. save your crocodile tears for our fallen soldiers they are clogging up your toilet.

I await your erudite mooooooooos

ok here ya go, here’s a couple of moos and i’ll throw in a sheep sound too. unfortunately i don’t know the sound that a lemming makes, because that’s ANOTHER great one for you. Lemming.

MOOOOOO…. BAAA…..BAAAA….(add lemming sound here)

By LivingRight

December 14, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this

So we are going to wait until they are dead before acknowledge the games being played with them?

By Middle America

December 14, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this

time for the truth,

You are obviously a moron. But since morons don’t usually get things that are obvious, I’ll explain.

Democracy is the last thing you want in the Middle East. They had elections in Palestine, Hamas won. They had elections in Lebanon, Hezbollah gained in power. They had elections in Iraq, and several seats were awarded to people loyal to Moqtada al Sadr and his Shiite death squads. Iran has free elections that result in a leader like Amadenejad. If free elections were held in Saudi Arabia, an Islamic Republic is what would result. If free elections were held in Pakistan, goodbye our lukewarm buddy Musharrif, hello Islamic Republic. I’m detecting a theme here, but I’m sure the slow witted like TFTT don’t, so I’ll expand. Islamic peoples almost always choose religious law over freedom and they choose sectarian or tribal affliations over national loyalty. So any free elections at this point in history will only result in bad or worse outcomes for the free world. There are no Arab Thomas Jefferson’s or Persian George Washington’s waiting on the other side of a sand dune, waiting to take these people to the promised land of the rule of law and civil rights. And they will NEVER follow the lead of a westerner to that end.

But by all means, keep on being a moron. All this isn’t going to stop our Moron in Chief, so why should some slob on an internet blog try to become any more enlightened?

By Time4theNoose

December 14, 2006 11:54 AM | Link to this

I have to tell you all what just happened to me via the Revenue Dept. of the State of Georgia:

I recently was approved for a payment plan for back taxes. Starting Dec. 10, Georgia will take $179/mo out of my Wachovia account.

When Dec. 10 rolled around I looked at my account and Georgia had DEPOSITED 17,900 bucks in it. (by mistake).

I felt like Donald Trump for a day. I even started bossing my wife around.

But by the next morning, my checking account was back to $163.36. But at least I know how it feels to be a playah…..and I can never go back….. word pasted, chump wasted.

By DebbieDoRight

December 14, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this

Dear Debbie @ 9:58, because you are a leftist you cannot fathom the concept of intellectual consistency. You argued @ 9:35 that military moral was terrible, then at 9:58 you argue that military morale makes no difference in the performance. If the latter is the case, why should we care about the former?

jbmlaw: now i know for a FACT that you are a lawyer — u have an uncanny way of twisting words — however since mine were typed and are now held on this blog forever or at least a while, i will cut and paste EXACTLY what i said. perhaps this time you can glean their meaning.

jbmlaw: perhaps since you are a lawyer by trade, you can not fathom the concept of “doing the job you are paid to do”.

millions of people go to work every day and HATE thier jobs, but they still do them and give 100%. being a lawyer the 100% rule may not apply to u, i know, but try to comprehend it anyway.

By cranky old man

December 14, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this

Double standards, from both ends of the political spectrum, never fail to amuse me. Social conservatives denounce the use of crosses with the names of war dead as a form of protest, yet they think it’s okay to make posters with pictures of aborted babies to get THEIR point across. The rule of thumb seems to be that it’s okay to be obnoxious if it serves MY pet cause, but I must cry foul when the other side does it.

The problem with political discourse is that people use deliberately misleading language instead of using logic and reason. Jim’s use of the term “Iraqi phase of the war on terrorism” is one of those deliberately misleading terms. Saddam was certainly a bastard according to any sane person’s yardstick, but he was not a major supporter of terrorism aimed at the U.S. Ah, but if you imply an association between Saddam and Osama often enough, eventually people will start to believe it. And opposition to war in Iraq becomes oppostition to protecting Americans in our own country.

The problem with using a rational argument to justify an invasion of Iraq is that it just wouldn’t be compelling enough to pass muster with most Americans in a cost/benefit analysis. An argument could have been made that an invasion was justified based on Saddam’s refusal to comply with the terms of the ‘91 ceasefire. But “Making the world safe for UN resolutions” just doesn’t have that “Remember the Alamo” ring to it.

By jbmlaw

December 14, 2006 12:06 PM | Link to this

Dear Steve @ 11:11, I suspect you missed my late and untimely posts yesterday on the subject. To use your phrase, “the forcible suppression of your political opposition” is almost exclusively a tactic of leftists (defined, by me, as “those who use the tools of government to micromanage private economic decision.”) Pinochet, due to the comparative paucity of numbers, marginally fits the definition of one who so suppresses; obviously he is a piker next to Castro, to cite a leftist hero.

In contrast, my posts exclusively oppose efforts, almost all in this counrty by leftists, to suppress private activities. (You hear leftists talk about rightists requiring people to go to church and behave according to right-wing behavior codes, but such talk is phony – there is neither movement nor such inclination within the right.) You surely perceived, from all of my Friedman posts, the source of my opposition to leftism. Regulars of this column are numb to my oft-repeated argument, that “Government does only three things well: (1) it is the most thorough tool devised by man to confiscate wealth of another, (2) it is the most effective means of depriving its citizenry of freedom, and (3) it is the most efficient killing machine known in the history of the world.” Because I resist allowing the central government any power beyond the narrow, explicit grants in the US Constitution, I thus restrict the capacity of any to steal freedom from any. Right cannot compel left under my system – no great threat anyway - and left cannot compel right under my system. I stand for freedom, and against “peace.”

By time for the truth

December 14, 2006 12:07 PM | Link to this

unhinged foreskin is the one that urgently needs the noose!!

middleschoolamerica

the point of my gentle mirrored back sneer about democracy in the middle east was to get up the nose of of a different snivelling leftist wankpig retard than yourself.

earlier some sad tw@t dramatically stated that if it beheld said statement I cut and pasted again it would kill itself and take 20 odd liberals with it - or something similar …

thus your pathetic moronic diatribe was utterly misplaced … but hugely amusing … knowing I can effortlessly manipulate the leftist scum on here by merely repeating their own slogans back at them is mighty pleasing, if a tad unsurprising.

VP Cheney for two years will now use his casting vote in the senate … if this GLORIOUS SCENARIO happens watch loads of conservatives (figuratively speaking only of course) to die laughing!!!

leftist cheats like Johnson never prosper … unlike thoroughly corrupt members of the black congressional caucus!!

By jbmlaw

December 14, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this

Dear Diogenes @ 11:13, you would thus tolerate a church-sponsored effort to erect crosses outside abortion clinics?

By Steve

December 14, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this

JbmLaw,

“time for the truth” makes my point. Castro is a leftist who persecutes his political opposition. Why do you use the same word to describe your fellow Americans that is commonly used to describe Castro and other Soviet-style dictators? Why do you use the same term that Pinochet used to identify those marked for removal. tftt applauds Pinochet’s economic achievements. Apparently, he or she believes that, in this case, the ends justified the means. Similarly, Realist believes that God does and will continue to forcibly suppress Realist’s political opposition (referring to his post regarding the sudden medical condition of the Democratic Senator). They have stated their positions.

What about you? Do you believe the means justifies the ends? Do you support the forcible suppression of your political opponents? Is that the reason you’re attached to the term “leftists” to identify those you disagree with?

By time for the truth

December 14, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this

Dioherrea

you need to go bounce on Plato’s or Socrates’ buttocks!!

By Lyrazel

December 14, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this

…when the name calling ends discussion can begin and solutions can be found.

Could it be the crosses are to represent a reminder to this nation that its people who volunteered to serve are dying? I see not as a cut against soldiers—but more a bringing back awareness to the American public of how few are responsible for the burdens in Iraq while majority of Americans are worried more about whats on tv tonight.

I see the public loosing interest in continuing efforts in Iraq mainly because they are uninvolved in sharing its burden. Reminders that lives are still being lost perhaps catch our 2.9 second attention span far better than all the shill our politicians hurl.

By Renee

December 14, 2006 12:16 PM | Link to this

Same as usual. Does anything ever change around here?

Jim Wooten continues to spit on the graves of our fallen U.S. soldiers.

He couldn’t care less if we remember them or not. More and more die every single day and Jim and George Bush don’t give a damn.

My son’s still over there and I pray he returns before Bush gets him killed. And again, I know Jim Wooten couldn’t care less about him.

By Renee

December 14, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this

Same as usual. Does anything ever change around here?

Jim Wooten continues to spit on the graves of our fallen U.S. soldiers.

He couldn’t care less if we remember them or not. More and more die every single day and Jim and George Bush don’t give a damn.

My son’s still over there and I pray he returns before Bush gets him killed. And again, I know Jim Wooten couldn’t care less about him.

By jbmlaw

December 14, 2006 12:21 PM | Link to this

Dear Debbie @ 12:04, you forgot to cut and paste your 9:35 comment, which you invalidated with your words at 9:58.

By Diogenes

December 14, 2006 12:24 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw (113)

If the abortion clinics go away, don’t forget the enormous social costs there will be. I don’t know who is prepared to pay those costs. I certainly don’t hear anyone realistically talking about those costs. Conservatives seem to deprecate the social welfare state, but in all candor I don’t believe the churches are prepared for the tidal wave they will unloose.

By getalife

December 14, 2006 12:24 PM | Link to this

The American people voted for change in Iraq, w is ignoring the American people.

When a President ignores we the people, it is criminal, pure and simple.

By JK

December 14, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this

Another non-point put forth by Mr. Wooten to encourage division between us. Is there a problem here to be discussed or perhaps solved? Unless you’re saying “stop free speech now!” then um, no. Just more “we’re good, they’re bad, choose sides” kind of day.

Mr. Realist! Where have you been? I’ve missed you. There’s something I’ve wanted to tell you… I don’t know if I should. The timing really isn’t optimal…. Dare I?

By time for the truth

December 14, 2006 12:30 PM | Link to this

Steve

obviously there was an element of wind up in my comments about Pinochet … with the valid, wider point being that the left consistently utterly ignore or glibly gloss over leftist oppression and butchery, whilst hysterically screeching about that perpetrated by the right. Ongoing LEFTIST HYPOCRISY IS A MORE SUCCINCT WAY OF EXPRESSING this.

There is always a tension about the means supporting the end, such as sick willie klinton’s illegal abuse of fundraising using commie chinese funding which had to be repaid.

Pinochet was a killer … he was also personally very corrupt, which ultimately cost him his legendary hammer of the marxist scum respect in later years amongst the honest non-venal Chilean right. Naturally there are two elements of the right here, the mainstream, conservative/GOP type and the more fascistic far right or hard right - clearly Pinochet leaned further toward the hard right which happily neither I, nor my friend jbm subscribe to or support.

By DebbieDoRight

December 14, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this

regarding the use of the fallen soldier’s names in politics — sometimes you have to take the war to the people in order for them to realize the price they’re paying.

Sherman’s March to the Sea followed his successful Atlanta Campaign of May to September 1864. He and U.S. Army commander Ulysses S. Grant believed that the Civil War would end only if the Confederacy’s strategic, economic, and psychological capacity for warfare were decisively broken.

By Chazman

December 14, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this

Hey Trashman,

Cheney won’t have time to be casting tie-breaking votes. He’ll be too busy in court trying to fight to keep hiding what lobbyists have been by to see him whle in office. As conservatives love to say, if your innocent, what do you have to hide. What does Cheney have to hide? He is a public official and he does not want the American taxpayers to know what lobbyist have been sitting in his office.

Pathetic.

Now go back to celebrating Johnson’s illness.

By DebbieDoRight

December 14, 2006 12:36 PM | Link to this

jmblaw: no need to cut and paste it, u wouldn’t comprehend it anyway.

By Diogenes

December 14, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw (1206) Your comment: “the forcible suppression of your political opposition” is almost exclusively a tactic of leftists (defined, by me, as “those who use the tools of government to micromanage private economic decision.”)”

I don’t know when our political terminology got so garbled. Steve is correct when he says that “the forcible suppression of your political opposition” is a tactical of totalitarian govenments, which usually have socialist or communist structures, forms which are referred to as “leftist” in that the individual is cared for by the state, in theory at least. In the US, we call the ones who support social welfare programs on the left; and those who wish to restrict social welfare programs the right. Getting Fascism and other totalitarian forms of government confused with our left and right is unfair to everyone concerned, especially our form of government.

You choose then to interpose your own definition onto a already confusing array of terms. At a very extreme form, leftist, i.e. facist and communist governments micromanage the economy, but usually it is the state’s economy, not private. As long as we maintain a capitalistic form of economics, we have no fear of the dark picture you paint. Again, we move back and forth on a fairly small range on that continuum, with the right trying to achieve “free markets” in a world in which there are no freee markets, and the left trying to develop social welfare programs. Right now, our current administration is doing more micromanagement of economics than I can remember since another Republican named Nixon.

By Steve

December 14, 2006 12:41 PM | Link to this

JbmLaw at 12:06,

I did not ask if you oppose efforts to suppress private activities via the voting booth. Most of your reply speaks to that.

You go on to say that you “…resist allowing the central government any power beyond the narrow, explicit grants in the US Constitution; I thus restrict the capacity of any to steal freedom from any. Right cannot compel left under my system…”

Maybe it’s me, but I still have a hard time understanding what you’re trying to say. Taken in context, this statement seems to refer to the voting booth rather than the kinds of atrocities I described. However, you’ve worn me down. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and infer from this response that you do not advocate and would not support the capture, torture, incarceration and/or murder of those who disagree with your political positions. I’m glad that you have separated yourself from the likes of “time for the truth” and Realist.

I will state again, that the repeated use of the word “leftist” is rhetorical devise intended to mark Americans who hold particular views, whether they be to opposed the war in Iraq or increase the minimum wage, as in the same camp as Soviet-style dictators. In fact, you stated this explicitly by referring to Castro as a “leftist hero”. Of course, the listener’s conclusion is that Castro needs to go – and so do any so-called “leftist” Americans. Continue to use this misleading and dangerous word if you must, but I believe that in doing so, you divide more than you persuade. I believe that such division is, in the long run, to both your peril and mine.

By Steve

December 14, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this

time for the truth at 12:30,

Regarding your comment “Pinochet leaned further toward the hard right which happily neither I, nor my friend jbm subscribe to or support.”

Of course you’re talking about the atrocities, and I thank you for the clarification. I apologize.

By time for the truth

December 14, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this

Now go back to celebrating Johnson’s illness.

OK … WILL DO … CHEERS for the kind PERMISSION! Johnson used fraudulent red indian reservation votes to get elected …

FULLOFCRAPMAN … Cheney is by far the best ever VP the USA has ever had … his vision and courage and political acumen are unsurpassed. Typical treasonous envious leftist spite and pinko media bile deliberately obfuscates Cheney’s massive political contribution to America. I can only hope that he soon invites nasty lefties like you to go shooting with him.

By Diogenes

December 14, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this

JIm,

You were a Vietnam vet. When you returned, did you participate in anti-war demonstrations or did you just think that those carrying the signs were belittling the sacrifice you had made? The mothers and fathers carrying signs certainly believed that they were speaking out on your behalf.

By Middle America

December 14, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw,

You were right to call me out on abortion, because I must have mentioned it 100 times in my blog entry (actually zero). You presume to know my position on abortion, just because you know my position on the war. Not everything is so black and white as you Republicans think. I hate abortion. I wish it never happened. But unlike you or Dubya, I don’t further my beliefs at gunpoint.

I never said people in the Middle East didn’t deserve freedom. I’m merely saying that if they want it, let THEM fight for it. The Colonists of America decided they wanted to be free and took up arms to make it happen. They got support from France in their endeavor, but nobody from France came over militarily and told the Colonists at gun point that they need to be a democracy. But you referring to them as “brothers” is quite laughable. You don’t know anything about these people. They don’t want democracy as YOU define it, or as GWBush defines it.

By Breaking News

December 14, 2006 12:58 PM | Link to this

All Democratic Senators are urged to stay off small, Wellstonian-like aircraft, lest the Lord choose to work mysteriously yet again and coincidentally come to the aid of the Republican crime syndicate in Washington. They are also urged to avoid power lunches with old friends, as radioactive bits are widely available for use, thanks to a successful political cleansing initiative of Vladimir Putin. If it’s good enough for “Pooty-Poot,” it’s good enough for Cheney!

By Middle America

December 14, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this

TTFT,

You thinking I’m a leftist is the funniest thing I’ve heard in quite some time. I just hate the war, and morons like you and jbmlaw who write pages of drivel without knowing a thing about the subject.

By Buy Danish

December 14, 2006 01:10 PM | Link to this

Southern Democrat,

If you had said that you disagreed both with the Left’s using the names and images of dead soldiers for political gain, and with the administration invoking images from 9/11, that would not have been an extortionist’s tactic - although I would disagree with the analogy.

However, you chose to frame as “I’ll do A when you stop doing B” which is juvenile at best - and since you are clearly not a child, it is far worse than that, especially considering the fact that the memory of our dead military are at stake.

As for the analogy being a false one, do you recall anyone complaining when Pearl Harbor was used by FDR?

Do you recall Americans protesting the hundreds of thousands of soldiers who died in World War II, not on in Japan, but in the European theatre?

9/11 was an event like Pearl Harbor, and it is fitting and proper to remind the American people of what happened, and to chart a response accordingly.

To complain about that is ludicrous, and has nothing to do with the attempts by the anti-war Left to undermine our foreign policy and either willfully, or as Useful Idiots, display an insincere concern for our military dead in order to weaken the resolve of the American people.

By jack

December 14, 2006 01:11 PM | Link to this

My my, superstition abounds on the blog. There is no such thing as god. lol.

As for the other topics…

If you are using your own property to display something that is not defined to be illegal either in its content or manner of display, knock yourself out. Matters not to me which side of the argument you are on—that is your right.

By the same token, don’t interfere with me when I do the same.

By Diogenes

December 14, 2006 01:12 PM | Link to this

Jim,

Your comment:

“Take another emotional issue involving the loss of human life: abortion. Would anybody imagine that a field of homemade crosses erected as a scorecard was anything more than a political statement of opposition? Of course not. And would any news organization run a daily reminder of abortions performed in, say, the 10 largest American cities? Of coure not. The political purpose would be too obvious.”

In a free society, with a free press, that form of political expression is permissible. It may not be in the best of taste, but it is permissible. It surprises me that you, as a representative of the free press, would even ask that question. As long as the day to day operation of the clinic is not interferred with, political expression is permissible in the US.

jbmlaw:

I think this is a more direct answer to your question, but I still want you to consider how the enormous social costs would be met were the clinics to go away. I say this only because I have full confidence that you do consider things and that you won’t just dismiss this query without thinking about it.

By Anna

December 14, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this

The Iraq War has nothing to do with the war on terror. Just because you and other Bush water carriers keep saying it does not make it so. You are part of this administrations great machine of liars, lead by the head liar himself GW Bush.

By Ryan

December 14, 2006 01:20 PM | Link to this

The Iraq War is the biggest stategical blunder in the history of this country. Bush and Cheney are the two worst leaders we have ever elected and they and their supportors will be judged VERY harshly in the history books. This war is an incredible mess and staying in Iraq is unthinkable and getting out may be impossible without losing tens of thousands of US soldiers. Bush deserves the firing squad for what he has gotten us into. I see a war crimes tribunal in his future which I guess is why he is shopping for land in Paraguay. Coward! Idiot!

By CJ

December 14, 2006 01:23 PM | Link to this

Jim actually seems to strike a little bit of balance in his post today. He opposes erecting a field of homemade crosses as a tactic for protesting the war in Iraq, and similarly, he would oppose such an approach to make a political statement about abortion. However, he does seem to imply that pro-life activists are above such tactics. Of course, we all know that isn’t the case.

Responding to Jim’s comment, “If the use of a soldier’s name and likeness is to report news, that’s fair. If it is to advance a political agenda with which the fallen soldier may not have agreed…” –- Many who support President Bush’s handling of the war seem to claim omniscient knowledge of when such activities are meant to honor the fallen vs. when they are used to advance a political agenda. Not too long ago, a network news organization decided to display the names of all soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, its representatives said, to honor them. Bush supporters took issue with that broadcast and claimed that this network (ABC as I recall) was only airing this broadcast to advance a political agenda. How would Bush supporters know that? In fact, they wouldn’t -– nor would any viewer. This leads me to believe that the vocal opposition to this broadcast was itself an attempt to advance a political agenda.

The other problem I have is — how does Jim Wooten separate a person’s political agenda from what’s in his or her heart? Many oppose the war, in part, because they don’t want any more troops to die in vein and are truly saddened about those we’ve lost so far. Although that might make them political, that doesn’t make their sense of loss for those who have died any less real.

By Buy Danish

December 14, 2006 01:25 PM | Link to this

Middle America,

Guess what! Republicans hate the war too. The difference is that we understand how it is essential that we win, and that it is part of the larger war on terror (or what I prefer to call Islamist fascism).

By Badge

December 14, 2006 01:28 PM | Link to this

I am so sick of this sanctimonious abortion hogwash. If all you religious nuts think life begins at conception then why don’t your churches hold funerals for miscarriages? If you think a fetus miscarried at 8 weeks is the death of a soul then why don’t you buy a casket and put the fetus in it and then hold a funeral and then buy a burial plot and a head stone? I’ll tell you why, because you only believe that bull5hit when you are arguing against a woman’s right to choose.

By Anna

December 14, 2006 01:33 PM | Link to this

Some Republicans may hate this war but if they think it is possible for us to win then they are delusional. This war is already lost. Now the challenge is to get out without losing more lives. Live in the now!

By Diogenes

December 14, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this

Is the woman trying to get Henry Potter books banned in Gwinnett County schools a kook or a representative of a cause?

By Liza

December 14, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this

This from a man who insisted that we would be greeted as liberators in Iraq! This from a man who insisted that we need to invade Iraq because they had weapons of mass destruction! This from a man who said February through August that there was no way the GOP would lose the House and the Senate! Jim Wooten is about as sharp as a bowling ball. Who cares what he says! He couldn’t find his butt with a map and two flashlights!

By Anna

December 14, 2006 01:39 PM | Link to this

She is a kook who wants to impose her religious views on everyone. In other words, she is a Republican!

By Get Real

December 14, 2006 01:47 PM | Link to this

If you are pro war and pro life you are a hypocite.

Ask these hypocrites if they supported Clinton in his war and watch them squirm.

By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I

December 14, 2006 01:49 PM | Link to this

Somebody quick - get Bi Danish to the front in Iraq - his expertise is vital to the war effort!

By Buy Danish

December 14, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this

Anna,

Iraq has nothing to do with the War on Terror?

Read this - Even a Useful Idiot should be able to connect the dots.

By Middle America

December 14, 2006 02:03 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

If we go to war and kill 100% of our enemy but are left with 1 person was it worth it? Because technically that would put one in the win column for us.

People need to stop thinking about the world in terms of winning and losing. This is not a game of squash in the backyard. This is real life where things are just slightly more complicated than U.S. 1, Islamic World 0.

Look at it like this, we stepped in 5hit. And everybody knows that when you step in 5hit, you can’t just keep stepping in it to get the 5hit off. You have to take off your shoes and hose them sumb itches off. And then you step AROUND the 5hit, not in it, to clean up the mess.

By Anna

December 14, 2006 02:04 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish, I have seen that before. It is pure propaganda. Just because it is on the WEB does not mean it’s true. But I’m wasting my energy trying to reason with a kool-aid drinker. Go down and argue with the dwindling numbers in this country who are falling for these lies. I believe the last poll had it down to only 27%. Bravo!!

By Sick&Tired

December 14, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this

The woman in Gwinnett actually represents the Conservative Republican agenda. I laughed when I saw what “Time for the Truth”, wrote about her. I don’tthink he realise that she is cut from the same cloth.

But, I was proud to see that “Time for the Truth” and I could actually agree on the same thing.

The world must be truly coming to an end……….

By Buy Danish

December 14, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this

Middle America,

It looks like you step in it with your idiotic posts. I certainly hope the the rest of the country is not as abjectly stupid as you.

Anna,

It is pure propaganda? Really! Since you are so knowledgeable you should easily be able to tell all of us what is untrue.

Maybe you could start with the Martyrdom checks for the suicide bombers, or how about this which CBS News reported?

I’m all ears.

By Get Real

December 14, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this

As you can read, bi-granny has swallowed all of w’s lies.

The kicker is, she thinks she is smarter than other bloggers.

Amazing but true.

By Diogenes

December 14, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this

Sick&Tired (215)

You state that the women in Gwinnett represents the “Conservative Republican agenda.” Then she is just a front, a shill, not an independent operator? There’s a certain amount of romantic ethos about an independent fighting the government, even for something as laughable as this. As a shill, however, she’s just another puppet and not the least bit interesting.

When a political Party starts banning books, however, that is serious suppression of individual rights and calls to mind book burnings of the past.

By Middle America

December 14, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

Nope most of the country is as abjectly stupid as you, see two terms for George W. Bush as evidence.

By Buy Danish

December 14, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this

Sick&Tired and Anna,

That woman in Gwinnett does not represent me or the “conservative Republican agenda”.

The only thing I’m interested in banning are “sex-ed” pamphlets which are distributed to school children and teach them about subjects like “fisting”.

You Leftists love to impose your views on everyone./sarc.

By Diogenes

December 14, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this

Anna,

You’re jousting with shadows. As I’m sure you noticed, that was dated May 7, 2003. Even in the frenzy of their blood lust, CBS had sense enough to qualify their report out of existence by saying “there is evidence – though meager - that Iraq had a hand in the terrorist attacks.”

The only place that one finds which ties terrorism to the tightly controlled country that Saddam had build is in the deranged mind of G.W. “Great Wall” Bush. It’s like indigestion. Take a Tums, and it will go away.

By Buy Danish

December 14, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this

Get Real,

The truth is that I am disappointed that the Bush administration has done a poor job of connecting the dots and of reminding the American people where Kerry, Albright, Clinton, Berger, Rockefeller and others stood on the threat Saddam Hussein posed.

There are very few items on that list that Bush has even mentioned, so your claim that I “bought his lies” is unfounded.

Middling American Brain,

Wow. What a brilliant retort./sarc.

Dio,

Re your 2:27, If the Harry Potter story is not “interesting” why are you blathering on about it? And why don’t you do some of your own research instead of relying on false statements from others?

By Fulton

December 14, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this

You mean the way the administration treated the Pat Tillman situation? I agree 100%, James…

By time for the truth

December 14, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this

Sick and Tired

As a proud right wing secular implaccably anti-religion AGNOSTIC conservative what I said about that smug nutty superstitious backward ignorant control freak woman was the polite version. I’d love to meet her face to face and bless her (crossing her) in the name of Satan, Lucifer and Beelzebub. True religious nutters get extremely uppity when you do this - but its fabulous fun to watch their deeply ingrained brainwashed irrational fears bubble up when you do it. Note I am NOT actually a satanist although I once told some insane wide eyed dickweed who started very noisily preaching at me in Cobb Co that I was a loyal member of the Church of Satan. That’s still a much treasured memory.

By Diogenes

December 14, 2006 02:53 PM | Link to this

‘Tis the season for fruitcakes.

By Get Real

December 14, 2006 02:53 PM | Link to this

I see you did not buy into this quote by w:

“Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11”.

There were no WMD’s.

Iraq did not attack us.

This war is a mistake.

By Buy Danish

December 14, 2006 02:53 PM | Link to this

Dio,

Please advance your theory to the families of dead Israelis and Americans who were murdered thanks to Saddam Hussein’s inspiration and largesse.

btw, your over-used “great wall” analogy only serves to remind me of the wall set up by Jamie Gorelick that prevented the CIA and FBI from communicating prior to 9/11.

Thanks for the reminder!

By time for the truth

December 14, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this

Being a secular centre-right traditionalist is a tough road to hoe (sorry to indirectly mention crackpipe dennis/debbie here) - the religious, especially the horrid evangelical crowd loathe you and so do the leftist pinko scum … but intellectual honesty and being supremely comfortable with one’s world view is much more rewarding than trying to conform. I also loathe petty authority and jobsworth types too … (unless they have a gun and a badge - then I just play the innocent English tourist).

By Buy Danish

December 14, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this

Dio,

You are the fruitiest fruitcake of all - and your nuttiness is not constrained by the seasons.

You admit debating with cats who vote, you call people Satan, you refer to yourself in the third person, and you have imaginary conversations with Jim Wooten.

Shall I go on?

By Political Foreskin

December 14, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this

IF Baker is a surrender monkey, then this must be the planet of the apes, man.

You cant make a silk parse out of a sow’s earmark.

Democracy? Iraqis totally dont know what that is, but they dont waawnn it. (Daisycutter Mae)

By jbmlaw

December 14, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this

Dear Steve @ 12:10, thanks for the opportunity to alleviate your fears. You later ask, and I describe myself as Kantian rather than Utilitarian or Nietzschean/Randian. Our friend Diogenes @ 12:24 raises excellent points to allow me to differentiate my views from yours.

I do not view the political spectrum along the traditional left-right dichotomy you both explicitly embrace. If you are unfamiliar with the libertarian two-dimensional chart of views, I will endeavor to describe, although it is much easier with graphics when I am sitting next to my partner.

The “x” axis of the chart asks the question, “To what extent do you believe government should rein in bad behavior?” For purposes of the exercise, let us ascribe to the right plane of the chart a view that “bad behavior must be controlled,” and to the left plane of the chart a view that “people need to be more tolerant.”

The “y” axis of the chart asks the question, “To what extent do you believe government should provide for the welfare of the individual citizens?” For purposes of the exercise, let us ascribe to the top plan the view that, “People are unable to fend for themselves, and need the guiding hand of government,” and to the bottom plane the perspective that “people should be individually responsible.”

In this scheme, the top right quadrant would be those people, often called “populists” who believe in big government in every respect – need many behavior laws, need many welfare programs.

The bottom right quadrant would be traditional Republican conservatives, who believe the society needs strong reins on bad behavior, but should have minimal intrusion on matters of personal welfare.

The top left quadrant would be the traditional Democrat leftists, people who believe a caring government promotes minimal subsistence programs for its citizenry, but otherwise opposes micromanaging matters of personal behavior.

The bottom left quadrant would be the modern libertarian, one who believes in personal responsibility for economic matters, and minimal behavior regulation by the government. This is me. I don’t know why you care, but that should paint a picture to allow you to predict my view on almost everything. I acknowledge deviation in the area of abortion only.

And just for the record, I think TFTT and Realist are both geniuses, totally unappreciated by our fellow bloggers.

By Diogenes

December 14, 2006 03:39 PM | Link to this

Jim

I see that Senator Robert Brown (D-Macon) is going to introduce legislation to bring the minimum wage in Georgia to $7.25/hr. Your advocacy of the insurance companies’ use of credit ratings as a means of setting rates would disproportionally affect the lowest incomes, as several of your bloggers stated a couple of days ago. The “free market” you like to envision just doesn’t exist, as your bloggers pointed out.

Senator Brown is quoted in Jay Bookman’s editorial in today’s AJC: http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/bookman/index.html as saying: “The people of Georgia value work. We tell them that if you’re hungry, go to work. Raising the minimum wage encourages work … .”Please take a good close look at Mr. Bookman’s editorial. I think he clarifies things very well, even pointing out that in a poll conducted in September by UGA, “Among Georgia Republicans, 85 percent support an increase in the state minimum wage.”

What the Republicans in Washington won’t do for us, will have to be done by our own.

By Political Foreskin

December 14, 2006 03:51 PM | Link to this

JBM, I went back and charted your last 50 comments as points on that X/Y axis you described. When I connected the dots, they described a parabolic cylindrical bulbuous wong that made my wife slap the back of my head. She wanted to know what porn site I was on.

Maybe you should stick to the syntactical compromises you persistently make when you fall into the common compositional trap of using contrived form over digestible substance so some of the insomniac lurkers can get some sleep.

I know it works for me…..zzzzz

By Diogenes

December 14, 2006 03:51 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw (323),

For you that may be a workable chart, but that almost necessitates that we define terms before each discourse. You get into questions very quickly about what you mean by “minimal government interference”? What is your criteria for determining whether or not a behavior carry a penalty with it?

What is your criterion for determining “minimal government interference” in economic matters? Am I to understand that you oppose any minimum wage at all? That you oppose social security? You’ve made yourself a nice little chart, but you make it difficult for even us moderates to try to converse about the “standard” political spectrum. We have to go through the defining of premises each time because you’re working with a different set of premises than those of us who use the “standard spectrum.”

Your non de blog hints that you might be associated with the law, the group that most benefits from government interference because the lawyers then have to explain the mess to the rest of us.

By DebbieDoRight

December 14, 2006 03:52 PM | Link to this

Playing games with the war dead AND the american people:

Media Silent on Clark’s 9/11 Comments Gen. says White House pushed Saddam link without evidence http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1842

Bush: No Iraq link to 9/11 found President says Saddam had ties to al-Qaida, but apparently not to attacks http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/attack/140133_bushiraq18.html

Bush began Iraq plan pre-9/11, O’Neill says http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/11/bushbeganiraqplanpre911oneill_says/

Two Months Before 9/11, an Urgent Warning to Rice http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/30/AR2006093000282.html?nav=rss_print/asection

By DebbieDoRight

December 14, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this

And just for the record, I think TFTT and Realist are both geniuses,(huge WTF! expression from debbie) totally unappreciated by our fellow bloggers.

well……the totally unappreciated part is definitely true.

By Sick&Tired

December 14, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish - Ms. Mallory leans far more closely to your agenda, than she does with anything Moderate or Liberal.

The woman is a religious NUT, who wants to control what is read by other people’s children. I think she is within her rights to keep her children from reading Harry Potter. But, she crosses the line when she starts making demands for OTHERS.

And I say this as a parent; there are many things I don’t want my child to read or DO - but I have no desire to control other people’s children. That’s the difference between my moderate views and a right-wing nut.

Same thing with abortions. I have no desire to have one, nor do I have a desire to stop another woman from making that choice.

By Diogenes

December 14, 2006 04:05 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw (323),

By the way, why do you describe yourself as Kantian rather than Randian? Your chart could have come straight off the pages of Atlas Shrugged. If you described yourself as more John Stuart Mill than Rand, I’ll accept that, even though we still need to go through the asserting of premises before we can hold meaningful discourse.

By freedomadmin

December 14, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this

Bush plays games everyday he is President. Come join me at a site where discussion of political issues is encouraged:

http://www.forumcityusa.com/index.php?mforum=freedom

By Political Foreskin

December 14, 2006 04:07 PM | Link to this

Jbm: Realisp and time4turd are geniuses? You may have a point! I never knew blogging like that was possible. They’re miracles of modern science! No, really! When one reads the improvised syntactical choices and the editorial etiquette, one can appreciate how underrated these two journalists are.

By Diogenes

December 14, 2006 04:09 PM | Link to this

Sick&Tired (400)

“The woman is a religious NUT, who wants to control what is read by other people’s children. I think she is within her rights to keep her children from reading Harry Potter. But, she crosses the line when she starts making demands for OTHERS.”

Hear! Hear!

These religious kooks forget that they cannot control what other people think and do. One has the obligation as a parent of putting constraints on one’s children, but I’ll fight the kooks tooth and toenail when they start trying to tell me what my kids can read or not read.

Bravo!

By DebbieDoRight

December 14, 2006 04:14 PM | Link to this

The truth is that I am disappointed that the Bush administration has done a poor job of connecting the dots and of reminding the American people where Kerry, Albright, Clinton, Berger, Rockefeller and others stood on the threat Saddam Hussein posed. There are very few items on that list that Bush has even mentioned, so your claim that I “bought his lies” is unfounded.

State Dept. Confirms Rice-Tenet Meeting

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/03/AR2006100300410.html

Rice: No Memory of CIA Warning of Attack

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/02/AR2006100200107.html

By JK

December 14, 2006 04:20 PM | Link to this

I don’t believe that all these people actually mean what they say here. Some just enjoy the sensation of poking others in the eye with a sharp object, and they don’t care what the object is. poke poke poke

By Buy Danish

December 14, 2006 04:24 PM | Link to this

DebbieCrackPot,

I’m not going to re-argue the Iraq War with you, or the events leading up to 9/11.

What I posted earlier was in response to Anna’s ridiculous claim that the Iraq War has nothing to do with the War on Terror.

That is blatantly false, and ignores all the terrorists agents funded by Hussen who are not in Al Qaeda’s purview, but nevertheless are intent on doing harm to “infidel” nations like the U.S., Israel and others.

No one has ever said that Saddam Hussein was directly involved, so you can discard that straw man.

By Steve

December 14, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this

JbmLaw,

Your posts are nearly always laced with words and phrases often used specifically to divide: “leftist”, “your team”, “my team”, etcetera. You don’t seem to be aware that such shorthand is frequently, if not usually, imprecise. In fact, based on a single post that disagrees with you on a single item, no matter how benign, you’ll label a person a “leftist” whose “leftist hero” is Fidel Castro (I’ve seen you do this numerous times to others as well). Then, at 3:23 you write that you “do not view the political spectrum along the traditional left-right dichotomy you both explicitly embrace.” My friend — you contradict yourself.

As for me, the purpose of my line of questioning arises out of my rejection of such left-right assignments. I have no need for labels, charts or graphs. When I participate in a family argument over an issue of the day, each of us speaks genuinely, passionately and sometime loudly, but we don’t divide ourselves into teams by assigning labels to each other such as leftist, neo-con or any other description that would associate one another with the worst of those who hold views on a particular side of a political spectrum (e.g. Castro or Pinochet). You’d be surprised at how often your positions are consistent with mine. But, I whole-heartedly reject the divisive rhetoric that you seem to enjoy.

As for your comment that Realist is an unappreciated genius: “An [sic] no I wasnt [sic] joking. The non-believing morally corrupt lying liberals and democrats pulled all the stops and told any lie nessecary [sic] to gain the majority and fool the American people. Now after so much deception and hard work, it appears in jeopardy. Dont [sic] be surprised to see other signs and strange happenings as punishment for the sins against man and God perpetrated by you athiests [sic] hippie liberals.”

Maybe giving you the benefit of the doubt earlier was a mistake.

By time for the truth

December 14, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this

deranged pussfilled foreskin needs to immediately drink a pint of crystal meth flavoured liquid nitrogen whilst it reflects on how best it can selflessly end its pestilential perfervid cyber presence on here in the most painful, solitary non-attention seeking (petrol fuelled) blaze of rampant combustible ignominy.

Failing the unfolding of this long overdue happy event the sickster unhinged foreskin should arrange a one way drugged way beyond its normal everyday stupour in a sealed coffin official CIA forcible deportation to kiss a thousand hooded extra venomous cobras wearing toyboy mongoose scent in a fetid New Delhi bazaar for a Ripley’s special to be shown live on Millidegville Hospital’s access channel for the criminally bewildered, boorishly narcissistic pathologically unfunny drooling amateur arsewipes.

By Political Foreskin

December 14, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this

You cant make a silk parse out of a sow’s earmark.

If Baker is a surrender monkey, then this must be the planet of the apes.

By Diogenes

December 14, 2006 04:44 PM | Link to this

Political Foreskin (437)

Is your assertion, “…this must be the planet of the apes” even open to debate?

By time for the truth

December 14, 2006 04:47 PM | Link to this

Steve

jbm is still mercilessly winding you up - and you keep on biting - beautifully … the supposed divisive/labelling rhetoric you whinge about is clearly, to anyone with any meaningful nous, designed to at least gently inflame/infuriate. Kind of like my trademark factual description of the assorted congealed liberal afterbirth that infest these boards can be sometimes a tad too close to (explicit) comfort for my noxious pinko chums.

you’re not by any chance unhinged foreskin’s new (untested) psychiatric juvenile social worker are you?

jbmlaw and realist are veritable geniuses - just under appreciated by the witless leftist maggots that congregate here like a flock of extremely wormy fleabitten ADD vultures that selfishly and compulsively must vent their irrational treasonous Bush hate and envy.

By Political Foreskin

December 14, 2006 04:52 PM | Link to this

I think the last word on the planet of the apes debate is this: “Yes, we have no bananas, we have no bananas today”. President Chimp, planet of the apes part duh

But by all means, debate away…..

By Political Foreskin

December 14, 2006 04:53 PM | Link to this

Well!

By Diogenes

December 14, 2006 04:57 PM | Link to this

Political Foreskin (452)

Well said.

By Buy Danish

December 14, 2006 04:59 PM | Link to this

Hey Steve,

I think we get the point. You don’t like “labels”. You are a “moderate”. You are perfect and if only you were King of the World - famine, war and pestilence would be cured forever.

Now, since you reject the idea that Castro is a “Leftist” is it okay if we just call him a …Communist?

By Buy Danish

December 14, 2006 05:12 PM | Link to this

Diogenes the Darwiniac,

Is your assertion that this is the Planet of the Apes more “proof” that Darwin’s theory of evolution is an indisputable science?

By Diogenes

December 14, 2006 05:19 PM | Link to this

Jim,

I don’t think today’s blog total will surpass that of Dec. 12. I guess that demonstrates that the conservative element is most interested when government interference improves their financial status.

By Political Foreskin

December 14, 2006 05:47 PM | Link to this

No, bd, his assertion is that if you still support W, then you yourself are a monkey woman. A yeti. A hairy beast.

Your total ignorance of the Saudi warning about siding with the Sunnis shows me that you deserve neither respect nor a shick.

and you need to recede. (receding hair, get it?)

By Buy Danish

December 14, 2006 05:55 PM | Link to this

PoFo,

Uh huh.

I haven’t said anything about the Saudi’s siding with the Sunnis, so you are ignorant of what I have said or think about the matter.

I can’t believe that Wooten thinks you’re funny or that your posts have “merit”.

By Steve

December 14, 2006 06:03 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

To the contrary — you clearly missed the point.

Also, if you’re interested in having a civil discussion with me, then I’m happy to oblige. However, it would facilitate our discussion if you wouldn’t attribute words, ideas or positions to me that you pulled out of thin air.

By jbmlaw

December 14, 2006 06:05 PM | Link to this

Dear Diogenes @ 3:14, you demonstrate your mastery of my chart. I favor a minimum wage only if the minimum is set at $250 per hour. Make that $300 per hour. I favor social security only if government has no say in the investment or payout of the funds.

I believe, as Kant, that there is eternal right and wrong. I reject moral relativism in every form, I believe cost/benefit analysis is wholly inappropriate for ethical systems, and I reject the egocentrism of Nietzsche and Rand.

By rmc

December 27, 2006 11:59 AM | Link to this

Jim,like most warmongers, don’t want people to see the death and destruction this illegal invasion has done to our troops.The troops are not to be seen if they are dead or paralyzed or injured.Its like the crazy uncle that relatives try to hide.Pathetic what this criminally negligent god fearing right wing conservatives have done to the troops.