Darling of the left
It is sadly humorous to watch paranoid nitwits like Cindy Sheehan, Sean Penn, Harry Belafonte and Danny Glover screech about the erosion of civil rights in this country and the “despotism” of George W. Bush while they wholeheartedly support an actual dictator who is in the process of consolidating his power and crushing the opposition in his own country.
On Jan. 20, 2009, George W. Bush will no longer be the president of the United States. In Caracas, Venezuela, however, Hugo Chavez, socialist fanatic, supporter of Saddam Hussein, admirer of Fidel Castro and darling of the American left, will still be in office, beginning his 11th year of running Venezuela into the ground with no end in sight.
Mark Proper, Lakewood
Chavez is a POS, but who put him in power?Posted by k2ken on September 7, 2007 01:31 AM
If the people of Venezuela want to allow Chavez to remain in power through a direct democratic referrendum, that is their right. The US constitution could be ammended in the same manner if a president existed that had such overwhelming support from the people and the legislatures.Posted by Kyle on September 7, 2007 01:51 AM
A dictator is only a dictator if you happen to disagree with him. The Hollyweirdos like him because he hates Bush.Posted by on September 7, 2007 02:51 AM
Sheehan, ditzy air head...Penn, 2nd rate actor who drinks too much, Glover, washed up actor and partner of Anti Jewish Mel, and others. Can not the left come up with something better to speak out? Yeech. But really who cares what they say? But they are used by Chavez and yes, even the Dali Lama(who lost his CIA support to help free Tibet and now hits up celeberties).
Yes - "A dictator is only a dictator if you happen to disagree with him." Kindly remember that the US (under Reagan) helped Hussein consolidate his power. He'd still be in power if he hadn't gotten pissed that Kuwait was slant-drilling into his fields, cleared the invasion with the US State Dept (who deemed it a "border war & none of our business - until Maggie Thatcher pointed out to Bush the first that Kuwait = British Petroleum, aka BP), attacked Kuwait, got slapped down for it - while the US allowed Turkey to invade Iraq from the north. You gotta love US inconsistency.Posted by Mary on September 7, 2007 04:27 AM
Jacob said "Sheehan, ditzy air head"
Brave words Jake, I wonder how you would cope in similar circumstances to what Sheehan has experienced.
Lost any children in this war, Jake?Posted by Bango Skank on September 7, 2007 05:06 AM
Jacob said "Sheehan, ditzy air head"
Brave words Jake, I wonder how you would cope in similar circumstances to what Sheehan has experienced.
Lost any children in this war, Jake?Posted by Bango Skank on September 7, 2007 05:06 AM
In-re Bingo, Bango, Bongo's comment about if I lost chidlren in this war(why not other wars, but this is the war some love to hate)? No, I have not...I have no children and the question is irrelvant. I based my opinion of Sheehan based on her comments and interviews...she is not a bright person. Having a child(dead or alive) does not take intelligence, it is simple biological function. Lastly, I have not expercience acting either...how come you do not chide me on my comments of Penn and Glover?Posted by Yaakov on September 7, 2007 05:38 AM
Leave these ultra libs alone, it's only a matter of time before they advocate themselves irrelevant more so than they already are.Posted by these people are traitors on September 7, 2007 05:55 AM
Bango Skank is the standard issue leftist whose reflexive reaction is to dissent to try and silence the dissenter, i.e. What gives you the right to speak? Present your bona fides or remain silent.
Free and open discourse among the great unwashed where ideas rise or fall based solely on merit is anathema that effronts every fiber of the elitist character that is the leftist.Posted by James Jones on September 7, 2007 06:21 AM
Bango Skank is the standard issue leftist whose reflexive reaction to dissent is to try and silence the dissenter, i.e. What gives you the right to speak? Present your bona fides or remain silent.
Free and open discourse among the great unwashed where ideas rise or fall based solely on merit is anathema that effronts every fiber of the elitist character that is the leftist.Posted by James Jones on September 7, 2007 06:23 AM
Yaakov: "she is not a bright person."
And Bush, Cheney, Rumfeld, etc are? How many lives have been lost because of Sheehan? I don't agree with some of Sheehan's tactics, but there is no doubt that she is sincere in her grief and that her cause, ending the war in Iraq is supported by the majority of Americans, and that, for sure, she has a lot of courage.
Compare that to Yaakov's 03:57 post. Does that kind of drivel take courage, or is it stupidity at work?Posted by Truth on September 7, 2007 06:33 AM
Jones, please take your tranquilzers before you post.Posted by Truth on September 7, 2007 06:35 AM
In-re Truth is relatives comments. In my opinion, she is not bright. I do not have the time nor even space on this forum to quote all the innane comments she makes. Again, how many deaths or not...is not germane to the issue. She is sincere...so was Mussolini, the planners of 911, Pearl Harbor, people and ideas both good and bad. So what? She is still an airhead. BTW, why not include Clinton as well for ignoring warnings and intelligence and doing nothing about Bin Laden when he was at the helm. Ah, he is fellow leftist and they can do no wrong.Posted by Yaakov on September 7, 2007 06:58 AM
Bush had nothing to do with Cindy Sheehan son being killed.
He was killed by freedom fighters ,not Bush.Posted by on September 7, 2007 06:59 AM
"Free and open discourse among the great unwashed where ideas rise or fall based solely on merit is anathema that effronts every fiber of the elitist character that is the leftist."
And banal generalities rise to the top in Jone's meritocracy...
Please.Posted by Charles B on September 7, 2007 07:01 AM
It is funny...but I am being chided for my reamrks on Sheenan...but not on Penn, Glover, etc. Why? Because she is the madonna of the anti war movement...without her dead son, no one would listen to her and she would get no press.Posted by Yaakov on September 7, 2007 07:03 AM
In my opinion JJ coments about open discourse to leftists like garlic to vampires is the most dead on comment ever made. Go to an anti war rally or the like. Try an intelligent conversation with a leftist and it goes nowhere. It is like talking to Scientologists or as the writer Harlan Ellison put it "like taking to your armpit".Posted by Joe on September 7, 2007 07:08 AM
You forgot the nitwits on the Right, the Hannitys, the Limbaughs, the Haggards, the Craigs, the Roves, the Gonzalez's, the Coulters that attack and accuse and try to destroy anyone with a differing viewpoint. Those on the left dont accuse Republicans of being traitors or anti-American...we play by the rules. But the Right, lash out at anyone with opposing viewpoints much as Hitler, Saddam, Castro and Chavez did or do.
Good riddance to Bush when he is gone, the sooner the better. As for Castro and Chavez, what do you say we let the people in those countries decide who they want to follow, it is not our choice! Lets face it we do a bad job of picking leaders we helped pick Castro, Saddam, Chavez..and elected Bush...TWICE!!!!
What cracks me up is that I bet all you conformatives and neo-cons are just SALIVATING over the opportunity to vote for another actor president now that Fred Thompson has thrown his hat in the ring.
We know how disappointed you all were that you weren't able to vote Schwarnengger for president.
Let's not forget the late Rep. Sonny Bono, Rep. Fred "Gopher from the Love Boat Grandy and of course the late great Ron "Bedtime for Bonzo" Reagan.
Now what was the subject again?
Oh yeah..the ties between dems and "Hollyweird".
Hmm..that difference seems to be that dems just take money and support from actors.
Republicans elect them.Posted by Thomas on September 7, 2007 07:16 AM
Face it. George W. Bush (aka exterminator, vaporizer) is Hitler. Chavez was correct when he called Bush a "devil". A true demonic seed.Posted by 40acresandmymuleandNAMvetbennies on September 7, 2007 07:23 AM
Don't beg. It's not manly.Posted by James Jones on September 7, 2007 07:43 AM
What do you do to calm down?Posted by James Jones on September 7, 2007 07:45 AM
Thanks - I'm going to use the armpit analogy. That's a good one!Posted by James Jones on September 7, 2007 07:47 AM
mary,What drugs are you on?I was just watching the Wedding Crashers,you are way more funnier.Posted by Keith on September 7, 2007 08:23 AM
It might be a better argument if you, of the Oh so "superior moral standards" Right-wingnuts, had an IDEA to exchange.
We've all read your postings for months; and all that is to be found there is parroting of the same old, same old, talking points that got us into the Iraq quagmire in the first place; along with, of course, your parrotings of all the insults and personal pejoratives the Right-wingnuts hold so dear to their hearts when dealing with the REAL IDEAS proposed by others.
You wouldn't recognize an IDEA if one came up and kicked you in the butt. You think you know it all, already, about everything - typical Preacher in the Pulpit.Posted by Old Grouch on September 7, 2007 08:27 AM
Jones and Joe are cut out of the same deadwood. Both lack common sense along with any ability to discriminate. It is no wonder they have taken a liking to each other. Both demonstrate the basic ingredient of bigotry by acting like all people on the left believe the same. While it is ignorance personified, it is not uneducated ignorance. It is ignorance begotten of bigotry. They surely know that there is a considerable diversity of opinion on both the left and the right, but acknowledging that would impair their need to advertise their bigotry. It is obvious that their purpose in posting is not to inform but rather to make themselves feel good.Posted by Truth on September 7, 2007 08:29 AM
If you look at the first few postings you see the difference between how the left and the right approach a discussion. The posts from the left discuss the question of whether Chavez was democratically elected and how he could be removed. The posts from the right immediately start with the namecalling. "Hollyweirdos" from 2:51, "ditzy air head" from Yaakov, etc. So typical.Posted by Romulus on September 7, 2007 08:35 AM
How about the darling of the Right, Lazy Fred Thompson? What is it with Republicans and all these Hollywood types? Is that all they want to elect untalented actors? Reagan and Arnold and now Lazy Fred? Why does the GOP attract these Hollywood weirdos?Posted by anti-keith on September 7, 2007 09:04 AM
Was Sean Penn such a "man of peace" when he was bitch-slapping Madonna??Posted by tj on September 7, 2007 09:05 AM
I do believe that is the best summary of this line of postings. And, in fact, it is an excellent summary of almost any line on this website. Thank you, sir, for your insighful presentation.Posted by Old Grouch on September 7, 2007 09:07 AM
OK...Romulus and Reamus...Chavez, I believe was democratically elected...so was Hitler. Both are total loons, both dangerous and poweer mad and have a desire to control freedom of expression. Leftists use the term neocon alot, war criminals and so on. OK, to fair to Ms Sheenan...she is a adled brain, delusional, sarcastic, sincere but hopefully clueless, plain and homely mother of a(I am sorry to say) a good son and proud soldier that died too young. OK, Reamus...you feel better?Posted by Yaakov on September 7, 2007 09:15 AM
tj...you must understand that Penn's personal life is a separate thing from his politics. As to bitch slapping Madonna(not Sheenan Madonna of anti war movement or son-o-god's mama) Penn is just an excitable boy.Posted by joe on September 7, 2007 09:27 AM
I seem to remember our government, both Dem and Rep, supporting numerous tinpot dictators over the years when it supposedly suited our national interests (Saddam-remember the Rumsfeld handshake, Batista, Shah of Iran, the current thugs in Saudi Arabia, along with numerous brutal S. and C. American governments). As usual, those like the letter writer rant about "Hollyweirdos" and their support for whomever while leaving out the facts about our government and it's shady dealings with every tinpot thug under the sun. No "national interest" makes it ok to support these thugs. This is such a double standard, as they use the guise of "national interests" to make it ok for the government to support these dictators, while feigning outrage at "Hollywierd" and whatever they might be doing. How about some intellectual honesty. I guess that's too much to ask.Posted by W is a Shrub on September 7, 2007 09:29 AM
Ever heard the term "Useful Idiots"?Posted by on September 7, 2007 09:46 AM
W is a Shrub,
Thank you for reminding me of some of the "Darlings of the Right" that are not being talked about here.
Let's add Somoza down in Nicaragua - for whom Oliver North and others were illegally peddling arms, and sending down the cash.
Then, we might mention Norriega - who was chief money launderer for Daddy Bush when he was Spook-head - now about to be thrown to the dogs in Europe, after being taken as a "Prisoner of War" in Panama when he attempted to up his cut of the drug trade take.
And then we have General Pinnochet, who ousted - and murdered - the duly elected Allende, in Chile, by way of the weapons supplied by a Republican Administration in the U.S.A.
And dare I even whisper the name of David ben Gurion, whose Terrorist Gangs (so designated by the U.N.) bombed the British troops already leaving Palestine; and then, having captured British artillery, went on to shell the Armenian Christian Vank, where the refugees - mostly women and children - from the Terrorist Gangster takeover of Palestine had gathered for safety and protection?
But these, of course, were among the "Darlings of the Right"; so . . . !
We now must "let sleeping dogs lie", of course. Mustn't we? Lest Yaakov, or someone else, decide that we, too, are "ditzy air-heads", perhaps?
Ah! The "moral superiority" of the "conservative" Right-wing!Posted by Old Grouch on September 7, 2007 09:55 AM
If yerkoff doesn't have the time or room to post the remarks by Cindy Sheehan he thinks ditzy or inane doing the same for dubya would give him lifetime employment and he'd have to start his own blog on his own server, witness dubya's latest performances in Australia..Posted by davis X. Machina on September 7, 2007 10:00 AM
I have never heard a person from the left say "I love my country" All they ever do is put down every single thing that was ever done except by any Democrat (of course) and go to other countries and spew hate for our president and our country while making excuses for the likes of Chavez and Castro. Then they have the nerve to get all offended that we call them anti-American. If that is not anti-American I don't know what is. The conservatives truly do love this country and when they disagree with the government they don't go overseas and tell everybody who will listen how bad this country is. Mistakes are made by every person and every country not just the US so make everybody take blame for their own actions not just blame the US for every problem ever existing anywhere.
Being a reformed Democrat I have to say there is more hate spewed by the left then ever spewed by the right. You will attack me I am sure and say I was "never" a Democrat but I was and now I absolutely refuse to follow George Soros and moveon.org like the rest of you haters. The Democrats used to be a really great party but the far left have destroyed it totally.Posted by on September 7, 2007 10:16 AM
I am concerned Bush will seek dictatorship predicated on his performance of imperialism (seeking greater power than the Constitution permits):
Bush strips the nation of moral bearings: Advocates torture, has reduced international standing and disabled the military. Bush exhausts our treasury and adds $trillions to the national debt.
On an epic scale he has poured $billions into church coffer doing what the Founders warned against (i.e. coffer of his "jew" god from the loins of David), and more imperialism beyond the scope of this epistle.
I do fear that if one of his ilk does not win the presidency, Bush will place a crown on his head. Let us enter a secular prayer I am wrong along with an imprecatory one directed at George W. Bush, imperial president.Posted by Richard Grimes (ffrf.org and ask for a free copy of FreeThought Today on September 7, 2007 10:24 AM
10:16 obviously you dont listen very well, I have heard more on the Left defend the love of their country and our freedoms than those on the Right. They live that freedom, they show that love in their actions and not in attacking and smearing anyone who has a different viewpoint. Look at the Republicans on this blog ( KW, Keith, An American) is that what you consider yourself? Is opposing a corrupt and foolish president wrong. are we supposed to blindly follow him regardless of his actions?We love our country, but do not love our current leader, just as Republicans did not like Clinton. Or were you traitors when you tried to impeach him? We love our country so much we do not give up our freedoms easily ( especially when a tyrantical president is trying to take them away), we love this country so much we have the guts and intelligence to admit when our leaders are wrong instead of blindly following them.
Democrats love the US as much as republicans, its our flag too damn it. We dont want to see it ripped to shreds in a senseless war we should never have started.
Wow, Liberty puts me right up there with Keith and An American.
Now that we see you have zero perspective on anything outside your comfort zone, let me correct a couple of your choice tidbits.
I do remember when Clinton elected, twice. I voted against hime both times and worried about the socialist agenda policies he was in favor of. I really disliked him as president but in no way did I, or the majority who loathed him, have a rabid hatred for the man. I wasn't in favor of impeachment. It was a total waste of time and money. Besides, I figured he catch the rath from Hillary anyway.
Tell me something Liberte, How many conservative politicians where aligning themselves with the likes of Chavez, Castro, etc... when Bill was in office? How many hollywood elitists where flying to other countries to proclaim what an idiot Clinton was? Or lied about his actions to self-justify their hatred?
Your answer here will give us all great insight as to how left your perpspective is on the term "love for your country."Posted by KW on September 7, 2007 11:09 AM
I have just one question for all of the liberals posting.
Is Hugo Chavez's form of government the type of government you want for the US?Posted by jgd777 on September 7, 2007 11:13 AM
You ask how many have been killed because of Sheehan. Actually, her encouragement of the enemies of civilization in Iraq probably have encouraged them and cost American lives. So her indirect actions have been deadly.
It is instructive to point out that Bush never killed anyone personally. Indirectly, he has killed many. That is the function of the commander-in-chief.
Clinton trashed the CIA and filled it with people willing to take political stands. Then the CIA doesn't figure out that 9/11 is going to happen, and gives us bad intelligence in Iraq. Indirectly, Clinton killed a lot of people also.
As for Ms. Sheehan, how come nobody listens to Mr. Sheehan Sr. He supports the war. And he divorced Cindy over this nonsense.
Jim Jones, if you're going to position yourself as one of the good old plain folks sittin' around swappin' ideas over a tall cold one, might be a good idea to avoid pretentious phrases like "Free and open discourse among the great unwashed where ideas rise or fall based solely on merit is anathema that effronts every fiber of the elitist character that is the leftist.."
Don't you think? (And I mean that question in more way than one.)Posted by mytwosense on September 7, 2007 11:52 AM
I'm sure several of our own presidents would have done away with term limits if they could have gotten away it it. I believe Reagan was not in support of term limits...neither was Bill Clinton. Hillary Clinton has come out and said she's for term limits. (Just a side observation.)
And there's certainly a faction of republicans who clamor for it. Only, they call it "continuity of government." Check out this ominously titled article "Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy" at http://www.shelleytherepublican.com/2007/08/17/conquering-the-drawbacks-of-democracy.aspx
Here, the article's writer ponders: "If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestiege while terrifying American enemies.
He could then follow Caesar’s example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.
President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming “ex-president” Bush or he can become “President-for-Life” Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons."Posted by mytwosense on September 7, 2007 12:02 PM
Sorry, here's the full excerpt from the article. I tried to italicize the whole quote, it's not working for some reason so I'm just framing it in quotation marks:
"If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestiege while terrifying American enemies.
He could then follow Caesar’s example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.
President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming “ex-president” Bush or he can become “President-for-Life” Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons."Posted by mytwosense on September 7, 2007 12:06 PM
SO, Yaakov, what I'm hearing from your last post is that its OK for bush to kill others indirectly, but its not OK for Sheehan to maybe-in-some-sort-of-possible-but-not-likely-way to kill others?
And you're blaming Clinton for supposedly filling the CIA with political hacks? Have you even heard of Alberto Gonzales? Did bush not do the EXACT same thing to the CIA, the Justice Dept, the Defense Dept, and every other branch of gov't?
Your hypocracy is showing, bud.Posted by Tbone on September 7, 2007 12:09 PM
If I state my disrespect for Glover, Penn, Chavez and Sheehan, will you Bush defenders respect my concerns that allowing the executive branch to wiretap or abduct "suspected terrorists" without jucicial oversight represents an erosion of the civil liberties that make up the freedoms the terrorists supposedly hate us for?Posted by Dude on September 7, 2007 12:11 PM
I have just one question for all of the liberals posting. Is Hugo Chavez's form of government the type of government you want for the US? Posted by jgd777
No ~~~ jgd777. Revisit my letter of 10:24 by scrolling back a few; find what I fear is that Bush is a Chavez type character. I will vote for a Republican: I will vote for Ron Paul. I will never lick the sweat glands of the imperial President W. Bush which is typical of those who support him. Bush mimics Hitler's "final madness,” according to one of Hitler's generals. Bush did not have a constitutional mandate to invade a sovereign nation. Iraq did not attack America. If any nation attacked, it was Saudi Arabia where the terrorists were born.
"Is Hugo Chavez's form of government the type of government you want for the US?"
Most rational liberals (and, believe it or not most are rational) would not want a system like Chavez. However you do have some fruit loops like Truth who would love it if they could lead the dance. You can have dictators on both the right and left -- weakness like Truth's dream of Utopian Socialism never survive.Posted by on September 7, 2007 01:07 PM
JJ, who are the "great unwashed" and the "elite"?
Are some of the elite also unwashed or do they just take sponge baths?
Is it "elitist character" or just "elitist ideas"?
Step away from the single malt scotch whiskey and go take a nap.
Penn will probably win an Oscar someday, so what? He is no more an intellectual than Cheney is.
Cindy would like to see a world where other peoples children are not chewed up in that meat grinder that is Iraq. She actually tries to do something. Her effect on all this is probably very small. Parents like her, or ones that will be like her, have already made up their minds and Bush and his supporters will not be able to change that.
We can buy a calender with 365 dumb things Bush said. Maybe they can expand that to an 18 month calender. The man has a million of `em.Posted by Sharon B. on September 7, 2007 01:46 PM
I love America. It's the greatest country I can imagine. I'm even allowed, as are you, to openly express my opinion. George W. Bush is an idiot and a criminal. Loving W, does not equal loving America.Posted by Stan Broyles on September 7, 2007 02:00 PM
If you liberals love America so much why do you keep trying to make it like Europe and be socialist? Europe is waking up finally and going more conservative but the liberals in this country are still trying to make us all socialists. If this country was so bad as it is nobody would want to come here now would they? Even all conservatives don't love Bush but that does not make us want this country to be socialist like all the Dems running for office. If you vote for a Dem you are voting socialist and until the "New Democratic" party is gone that is the way it will be.Posted by on September 7, 2007 02:19 PM
Anon at 2:19. Didn`t you post this same letter before?
After all we discussed this is what you come up with?
Oh yes, people are flocking to the Republican party in droves to sign up.Posted by Sharon B. on September 7, 2007 02:51 PM
I don't agree with Chavez- he is a dispicible person. However, the US is not at war with Venezuela, so who really cares if Sean Penn goes to see him? Don't you all have anything more important to worry about?Posted by BO on September 7, 2007 03:29 PM
Yeah Sharon B. and they aren't flocking to the Democraic party either - get a clue. Independants are quickly on the rise - time for a third party.Posted by on September 7, 2007 05:21 PM
"Bush mimics Hitler's "final madness,” according to one of Hitler's generals"
No kidding - was Hitler's general a prophet or is he one of the voices you hear from the grave?
"Bush did not have a constitutional mandate to invade a sovereign nation. "
Actually he did. The Constitution vests the Congress with the power to authorize and the President to execute war. That's what happened in the case of Iraq.
I'm surprised Hilter's general didn't share that with you. Perhaps he's holding back information and manipulating you for his own purposes, did you ever think of that? The Nazi's were quite accomplished in the arts of propaganda - you know telling the same lie over and over again and that sort of thing.
You might read a newspaper once in a while just to check up on him and keep on the safe side.Posted by James Jones on September 7, 2007 06:11 PM
Yaaaakov asked plaintively ” how come you do not chide me on my comments of Penn and Glover?”
”… based on her comments and interviews...she is not a bright person…”
Neither are you for that matter, and I wonder how well you would come across in the media if you had been in her position.
For a Conservative you show a remarkable lack of understanding for decorum and social norms. We don’t go around calling bereaved mothers “ditzy” unless there is some important point worth making.
Didn’t Mommy explain this stuff to you Jake, or didn’t you have one of those either?
James said ” Bango Skank is the standard issue leftist”
Why James, how nice of you to say so, that’s terribly kind old boy, simply bowled over don’t you know.
Joe said ” Try an intelligent conversation with a leftist and it goes nowhere”
You have done that much Joe?
I am happy to oblige, what would you like to converse about?
Yaakov took another shot with ” Ms Sheenan...she is a adled brain, delusional, sarcastic, sincere but hopefully clueless, plain and homely mother of a(I am sorry to say) a good son and proud soldier that died too young.”
So now she is also “homely” in addition to being a bit thick.
My, my, you really know how to pour on the charm, don’t you?
Must be a real heart-breaker with the widows and orphans.
Are you weird enough to actually say this kind of thing to bereaved women to their face, or do you only do it from a safe distance?
What all this tells me Jake, is that you are prepared to abandon your Conservative beliefs when it suits you. You as a Conservative should value her status as a mother and as somebody whose oath-breaker husband cowardly deserted in her time of need, and you should respect her loss. However, your frustration at the thought that she is using her bereavement as a weapon against your leader, and by inference your beliefs, gets you so angry and frustrated that you ditch your values to take revenge.
Shabby show Jake, poor form indeed.
After all the bluster and high tone, you are just a little coward with no self-control then, aren’t you, eh?
Christopher Hitchens framed the issue nicely:
Finally, I think one must deny to anyone the right to ventriloquize the dead. Casey Sheehan joined up as a responsible adult volunteer. Are we so sure that he would have wanted to see his mother acquiring "a knack for P.R." and announcing that he was killed in a war for a Jewish cabal? (a claim that has brought David Duke flying to Ms. Sheehan's side.) This is just as objectionable, on logical as well as moral grounds, as the old pro-war argument that the dead "must not have died in vain." I distrust anyone who claims to speak for the fallen, and I distrust even more the hysterical noncombatants who exploit the grief of those who have to bury them.
Posted by James Jones on September 7, 2007 08:10 PM
Now let's see.
Who might know what Casey would have wanted; Hitchens, JimmyJ, or his mother.
Gee, you know, I just can't think.
This is all so hardPosted by Bango Skink on September 7, 2007 09:08 PM
Truman had a approval rating in the 20% range.Now he is know as one of the best presidents ever.He went through the same bull-sh-- as Bush with un-educated,un-informed,plus anti -americans lowering his approval rating.History will tell the truth.Posted by Keith on September 8, 2007 12:29 AM
Get on your mule and ride, please, and FAR. Maybe even swim that mule to Venezuela.Posted by c on September 8, 2007 08:18 AM
Did you see Osama Bin Laden on TV.His talking points were the same as the Democrat leadership and the Democrats on this page.The only question is if Bin Laden is the head of the Democrat party or just a member?Posted by An American on September 8, 2007 08:52 AM
IS it Skink now? or is someone trying to discredit skank?
ANyway, again with the manipulating of word connotations. If you are going to push the definition of "conservatism" to somehow include wife abandonment, why do you stop there this time? A true conservative would not have allowed his property ( read; wife) act that way to begin with, he would have been justified to cut her tongue out or have her stoned.
Seems you "ditched your values" here and made things up again or altered meanings to suit your beliefs, a tactic that you have said you deplore.
Osama Bin Laden is the real Darling of the Left [Democrats].Posted by An American on September 8, 2007 08:58 AM
Why does every subject become a pissing contest between equally irresponsible political parties. If you were not all so seriously interested in debasing and insulting each other, you just might be able to come up with solutions.
It would be ultra funny and a really good time if your focus was not so absurd and dangerously negligent of that fact that restating the problem over and over is exactly what the power and control zealots want you to do so you remain ignorant of their agenda, which is to destroy the freedom, justice and liberty you so arrogantly take for granted.Posted by Allen Campbell on September 8, 2007 09:47 AM
As we both well know, that's just good old Cowlorado politics. Been that way for just about as long as Cowlorado has had the vote, beginning with Territorial status.
Just a movement - I hesitate to indicate direction; but certainly not "UP" - from "Cowboys and Indians" to "Political Parties". Same level of basic intelligence; only the name of the game is changed, in attempt to reflect some kind of "rational progress" into the 21st Century.Posted by Old Grouch on September 8, 2007 10:12 AM
Grimes You might read a newspaper once in a while just to check up on him and keep on the safe side. Posted by James Jones
Ah Geez Jones: You don't have to be nasty. Hitler calls for a surge in which his general called it "final madness;" whereas, W. Bush calls for a surge which like the Battle of the Bulge is just going to leave thousands more dead and millions more homeless and in refugee camps and not one foot of ground will be gained. Jones: The terrorists were born in Saudi Arabia not Iraq. W. attacked the wrong nation. Jesus told Bush to assassinate Saddam; the Constitution does not permit such imperialistic conduct. Jesus told Bush to kill him before 9/11 occurred.
Take note Chavez does not invade a foreign sovereign nation and now Pat, once a Presidential aspirant, on McLaughlin on PBS Friday at 8 P.M. is convinced W. intends to bomb Iran. Hitler and Bush attack sovereign nations when they are not a threat to them.
I do subscribe to the daily and my TV viewing is either ch. 6 or 12 public television and last night on Primetime I saw a baby emerging from a human vagina (birth canal) and I watch 60 minutes and Dateline along with 48 hours. I try to keep informed so I am not erroneously accused.Posted by Richard Grimes r22037yahoo (ffrf.org ask for free copy of FreeThought to keep informed on September 8, 2007 11:05 AM
In my original post, I stated the position, that in my opinion, that the like of Sheenan, Glover, Penn and others are not intellectual giants need to promote any rational thought about leftism and the anti war movment. For the sake brevity being the soul of wit...I referred to Sheenan as a ditzy airhead, Glover, as a 2nd rate actor and Penn as a person who drinks too much. This was and still is my position based on things I have read and seen through various media. For this and especially about Sheenan the Madonna, I have been attacked. My point was that they are poor spokespeople for the a movement and that it could do better than. The right, etc is not immune from this either...but does not pander to base human emotions at the expense of rationality as does the left uses Sheenan(or she lets herself be used). The left now rebels against the Democratic congress(who, by the way, was voted in by the people who, for better or worse want a change in course of the war in Iraq) by threatening them with nasty slogans, shout downs, and other odious forms of dissent. They act like children that did not get their way and now in the process of a tantrrum. The left is good at doing this and it happened to many who dared to share an opinion contary to others. Accused of promoting death, etc...lack of charm(which I did not realize was necessary in a political discourse) and so on. Again, I quote the writer Harlan Ellison who said that talking to irrational people is like talking to your armpit. He is also said the world is turning into a cesspool of imbeciles. Ellison is a liberal...I was one when young, now more conservative with some notions of liberalness. But I found over the years, it is near impossible to talk with leftists anymore
...the older ones are more clear headed, the younger ones forget it...they are part of what Tom Wolfe called Radical Chic. In other words, it is in, hip, with it...and so on to be radical and not have any real idea or substance behind it.
I guess it's just the . . . shall we say, "irony"? . . . of those for whom a senile old Hollywood has-been ham is one of the "deified", criticizing those who would raise today's Celebrities to Worship that kind of makes it all so much fun.
And as to it being "near impossible to talk with leftists anymore": When do you Right-wingnuts ever seek to talk WITH anybody? Talk DOWN TO; talk AGAINST; talk ACROSS; sure! Almost every posting. Talk WITH? HA !HA! HA! It is to laugh.
Perhaps you could offer a Right-wingnut "real idea" that has "substance behind it", for . . . comparison and discussion (?) . . . if there be such, rather than starting off with remarks about "Ditzy dame" concerning other folks ideas.
The best teacher is EXAMPLE. Or so they say, anyway.Posted by Old Grouch on September 8, 2007 02:38 PM
Goodness, Old Grouch...after reading (and trying to make sense of your remarks) your post...maybe you should try a new moniker like Old Souse(if I remember correctly a term denoting a drinking problem), because your post comes across with points laced with some drink, etc. The point is your post makes little sense after numerous re-readings. Oh, well...I guess after many years of anti Catholic angst laced with being a pyschologist wears down on a person and drives to the wiles of Bacchus. A question...if there is "right" wingnuts...then it is logical to assume there is "left" wingnuts? If so, would you put yourself into that category?Posted by Yaakov on September 8, 2007 04:00 PM
Yaakov, I will need a seat belt on my chair. to keep from falling on the floor, if you continue posting things like "The right does not pander to base human emotions at the expense of rationality."
Remember the poor brain dead woman they all flocked to? Remember how they pandered to base human emotions on that one?
I remember, the President even got caught up in it.
At least Sheenan is able to tell people to leave her alone after awhile.
You don`t think the right used Terry, and vilified her husband?
Our last presidential election was pretty much about base human emotions, even though rational people tried to get Bush etal out, we failed. The old whisper campaign about "God, guns and especially gays" carried the election for him. Funny how some same sex couples pushed for marriage right around the election. It was enough to rile people up against them. Kind of reminds me of the MACHAVELIAN, Carl Rove, huh?
But people are wising up. The very last election, I like to think, rationality won out.Posted by Sharon B. on September 8, 2007 04:34 PM
Hey, neither side cares about right or wrong, fair or not when it comes to appeasing special interests. This latest one comes from the lefties responding to the "elite."
California's Dianne Feinstein is an industrious gal. Her latest pork -- let's call it Rambo's View -- deserves to be the poster child for everything wrong with today's greedy earmark process.
The senator's $4 billion handout (yes, you read that right) to wealthy West L.A. (yes, you read that right, too) is the ultimate example of how powerful members use earmarks to put their own parochial interests above national ones -- in this case the needs of veterans. ...
The pork here revolves around the West Los Angeles Medical Center ... Donated to the government in 1888, the center is 387 sprawling, prime real-estate acres in the middle of tony West L.A. ... [I]t is surrounded by the mansions and playgrounds of the city's elite, including the Bel Air Country Club and the Beverly Hills estates of Sylvester Stallone, Barry Bonds and Tim McGraw (to name a few).
Huge portions of the facility are also a veritable ghost town. It isn't just that 387 acres is an enormous space, and far larger than any one veteran's community in today's America might ever need. ... Of 91 buildings on campus, 21 are today partially or wholly vacant. ...
Which is why, when the Department of Veteran's Affairs set up a process in 2002 to study its infrastructure and rationalize its facilities, it designated the West L.A. center as one of 18 sites that might be downsized ... The VA has yet to make any decisions, but according to government estimates, even a modest reuse of the property -- say leasing out excess acreage -- could result in an extraordinary $4 billion for better care for veterans everywhere. ...
It turns out the well-to-do in West L.A. consider the veteran's center grounds their own little rolling, personal park, and they want it to stay that way -- thank you very much. ...
Ms. Feinstein, California Congressman Henry Waxman and other luminaries have united to publicly bash the VA's plans, and instead demand the "preservation" of the ground for local use. ... [S]ome Hollywood luminaries who live in Mr. Stallone's neck of the woods have also complained that any changes would impede views from their 15,000-square-foot manses.
Ms. Feinstein, who in the last election received some of her largest donations from the rich area, has been only too happy to come to its defense. ... She then slipped in an earmark provision that would bar the VA from disposing or leasing any of the ground. Thus a potential $4 billion worth of help and aid for our nation's veterans goes bye-bye in the name of preserving a view for those Hollywood actors who play veterans in the movies.
The indefatigable earmark warrior, South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, offered an amendment this week to strip Ms. Feinstein's earmark. California Sen. Barbara Boxer rose in righteous indignation on the Senate floor, and fizzed that she would never dream of leveling such a direct "attack" against South Carolina. ...
Posted by on September 8, 2007 05:55 PM
Democrats have already reneged, and reneged again, on campaign pledges to clean up the earmark swamp, and in any event aren't likely to rally against a powerful member of their own party. ...
So called Facts,at least these days, mean facts that support one's idea as apposed to The facts that tell the truth. But, it is well known in political discourse, that the truth does not matter as long as you can create an apealing and believable a lie that people will buy into. And what is the problem? is it all that hard to figure out? I hope not; People believe anything that fits in with their personal preferences and their belief system, no matter if there is any proof that believe is right.Posted by Allen Campbell on September 8, 2007 06:29 PM
Each side panders to their base to make political points. It is a fact of political life.
It has also been my experience that the left panders more than the right. Or, said a different way, the right has more often than not, had facts more on its side than the left.
This is not saying that the left does not use facts, they just use them more selectively than other positions. Of course, that is just my perspective.Posted by nostra damus on September 8, 2007 07:11 PM
ND, but another mans pork is our pet project that will bring jobs.
It is only pork if it is in some other state.Posted by Sharon B. on September 8, 2007 07:57 PM
I have never seen anybody on the left post any facts.What they post thinking that were facts have been proven lies months,years ago. But these people with low IQ's either can't comprehend and refuse to accept facts.These total idiots just keep on posting there idiotic lies.Posted by Keith on September 8, 2007 08:13 PM
Yaakov said ”My point was that they are poor spokespeople for the a movement and that it could do better”
No argument from me there Jake, perhaps you should have stated that rather than ding her on her intellect and looks.
As far as brevity goes, brevis esse laboro, obscurus fio.
” The right, etc is not immune from this either...but does not pander to base human emotions at the expense of rationality as does the left”
Nonsense, the Right panders every bit as much, they just choose different topics and targets. Rove and Coulter are the face of Conservatism as far as pandering goes.
” I quote the writer Harlan Ellison who said that talking to irrational people is like talking to your armpit”
Which is presumably why he is a writer rather than a philosopher or psychologist or …
I find that talking to irrational people is very productive for two reasons: it tends to make them more rational, and often it reveals something that one would not have realized before.
I can’t say what it’s like to talk to my armpit, but I often talk to irrational people and learn a great deal from them.
I also find that everybody has some irrational beliefs or thought patterns, so if you are going to take Ellison’s view, you are going to spend your days talking only to your armpits.
” Ellison is a liberal...I was one when young, now more conservative with some notions of liberalness. But I found over the years, it is near impossible to talk with leftists anymore”
That may have more to do with your aging right hemisphere than Liberals or youngsters.
As you age, the right cerebral cortex slowly shuts down and you are less able to deal with novelty and stimulation, so “tried and true” becomes more attractive. You will also find it easier to categorize something as “liberal” and then just dismiss it than to engage and get the right cortex to fire up like it used to.
Forcing yourself to encounter and deal with novel input and situations is difficult, but does somewhat slow the aging process.
It’s not that youngsters and Leftists have become dramatically more “Radical Hip” than before, it’s your brain which has changed.
richr grimey one,No wonder you write those idiotic post.All your false information comes from non-credible sources.Thanks for listing them so other people realize why you are so un-informed.Your 11:05 am post.Posted by Keith on September 8, 2007 09:25 PM
To Sharon B...I stand corrected when you pointed out the Terry Schiavo(sp?) case...everybody got on board which really nothing more than a ugly family feud. Both the right and left made a political football out of it. It was disgusting.
To the skanky stanky lady...well the feeling is mutual with the armpit issue. BTW...why is your moniker named after a name for a type of reptile. Are you one of David Icke's reptilian creature(oh excuse me, such honors are for Neocons...such things are immune on the left).
Back to Sharon...who mentioned the Madonna Sheenan asked that people leave her alone. If I recall correctly, she felt used by betrayed by fellow anti war supporters and leftits...wanted to sell "Camp Casey"(did she ever sell it?) and fade away...then she got her underwear in a knot about the Democratic congress and Pelosi about the war and started up again with campaiging for impeachments and threatening to run against Pelosi. So she really did not fade away...my personal opinion is bored and loney.
Sharon...i like your posts. Even if i disagree with them...the are to the point and lucid. As opposed to some of the others who are under the influence of drink, drugs, David Icke, and assorted other mind altering nonsense. Keep up the good posts.
In my last post, I was referring to Madonna Sheenan as being bored and loney. Not me.Posted by Yaakov on September 8, 2007 09:58 PM
Damn Yaakov, I like some of your stuff too. Harlan Ellison wrote "Shaterday" right.? I have that collection of short stories somewhere.
I did post a couple of times on Benadryl and John II saved all of them e-mail to JJ.
Even under the influence, I am a better writer than John II.
No one can write like JJ. Pontification every time.
What we all need is to laugh out loud from time to time.Posted by Sharon B. on September 8, 2007 10:21 PM
Yaakov, to the best of my knowledge neither myself nor the Neoconservatives are anything like what Mr.Icke seems to have in mind.
I chose the moniker because I liked the way the Stephen King character is always around but never in the picture. I like skinks and skanks, and geckos too, amongst other species.
Sharon...Ellison did write Shatterday and some other titles afterwards. I understand he is in semi-retirement due to mulitple bypass operation some years ago. You can see his interviews on Youtube and Google video. I like Ellison(liberal or not) because he speaks his mind and does not render an opinion just for the sake of being a liberal.
Bango-Thank G-d...you are not like those who believe in nonsense like Icke does(in my opinion, he doesn't believe himself...he is making a quick bucl)...and so there is hope in this world. I was not aware that King uses that character, as I have not read King in a very long time. But now, this inspires me to start reading him again. Thanks.
Lizards and the like are plentiful here...which is good as they eat the insects that otherwise would be in the house.
You make a point I have used in other media outlets; many of the so called right wing and left wing commentators, mostly the overly zealous types, adopt a controversial style soley for the purpose of financial gain. Both of these fakers are the creators of the political discourse than has divided the social/ political spectrum of an otherwise rational and resonable Public perception.
If people would look at the content of arguments, sans automatic political acceptance based on the source, I think a clearer picture of the reallity of politics, both left and right, and the irresponsibility they exhibit in their actions, which are driven by the mercantile interests of special interests that ignore and are contrary to the interests of the public, would be apparent.
It is time this unproductive rift among our elected representatives and ourselves be seen for what it truly is; a carefully engineered plan, foisted on the public by big money interests, to undermine and usurp our freedom of choice and the personal responsibility that goes with it.Posted by Allen Campbell on September 9, 2007 09:00 AM
For someone who doesn't believe in nonsense, you certainly post a lot of it.
Thanks for your evaluation of what I write. Is that by way of projection, from some sort of personal interpretation of your own 12 Step AA program, or just from your own personal experience, scribbling away under the influence?
If memory serves, I read about Ellison's passing away a while back - preface to publication posthumously of one of his last mystery stories, "Hitchcock's", or "Ellery Queen's Mystery Magazine".
The really good writers are also philosophers and psychologists as well. They just don't pigeon-hole themselves under a label. Ellison had an outstanding grasp of all three facets of presenting the human story(ies).
So much of what passes for "thought" today - especially on this website - is nothing more than parrot like repitition of what is supposed to be in the pigeon-hole, under whatever label, "liberal" or "conservative", or whatever, that the writer wants to use to "define" both himself, or herself, and that which he, or she, opposes.
Anyway, there is a theory that exercise - using - the right brain tends to at least slow down the deliterious progress, and effects, of that universal malady, old age. I leave it to others to judge; but I might say that the theory is one reason for appearing on this forum. However . . . ?Posted by Old Grouch on September 9, 2007 09:31 AM
Here are some questions for the class.Would the terrorists and Osama Bin Laden agree with the Democrat or Republican postings on this page?If the terrorists and Osama Bin Laden could vote in the US elections would they vote Democrat or Republican?These are just questions to get the class to think.Posted by An american on September 9, 2007 09:50 AM
The answer to the, some what politically contrived, question is; they would vote for neither as they are opposed to the very idea of the entire western world which has nothing to do with the political, philosophical, moral or societal cocepts we have. In fact theses radicals have no regard for anything but their own aims which are absolute power, control and authority over the entire world.. To ask a trick question in such a way as you did is totally beyond any reason because the options offered are not material to the actual circumstances stated. They have an abiding and furiously hatred for anything that does not agree with their tyrannical and oppressive religious view of how the world and the people in it should be and, they know allowing anything contrary to that belief would open the door to events that would insure the demise of their ruling authority. Hope you can grasp the logic of this answer.Posted by Allen Campbell on September 9, 2007 10:36 AM
Captain America. I can`t see Osama voting for the pro-choice, hand out birth control devices, support same sex marriage Democrats.
That only leaves the Republican party for him to vote for.Posted by Sharon B. on September 9, 2007 11:51 AM
"Face it. George W. Bush (aka exterminator, vaporizer) is Hitler. Chavez was correct when he called Bush a "devil". A true demonic seed. "
Takes one to know one............Posted by Heather on September 9, 2007 01:22 PM
"I chose the moniker because I liked the way the Stephen King character is always around but never in the picture. I like skinks and skanks, and geckos too, amongst other species."
Posted by Bango Skank on September 9, 2007 12:07 AM
You poor man. Even though the character Bango Skank appeared in Stephen King's works, he was the creation of Peter Straub. If you don't know your parentage, does that make you a ba....?
t's a shame ol' Bango Skank, that sleazy character created by horror novelist Peter Straub, isn't an American citizen. With his megalomania, parsing of words and ability to spin the truth to shade a given situation, he could become president. He's a perfect composite of Clinton and Bush -- a faux intellectual liar with wet dreams of superiority and dominance.
Oh well, I guess our lose will become another's bigger lose...Posted by on September 9, 2007 02:15 PM
Ouch, don`t you just hate it when you don`t proof read?Posted by Sharon B. on September 9, 2007 02:41 PM
Keith: I can't believe you would militate against the only person in this forum who would duel to the death anyone who would deny you your right to spew out fact after fact. "Shut my mouth."Posted by rg ~~~~ r22037yahoo on September 9, 2007 02:46 PM
Old Souse(oops Grouch). Ellison is still alive. I checked various sources on this via the internet and the local SF Group I used to invovled with in Denver.
To the person who mentioned Peter Straub...Straub is Canadian, I think. Boring as hell as a writer...really, really over descriptive. Takes 2 or more pages to descripe a person and or place.
Comon, people...the christian music letter has over 119 replies...we can beat that!
Straub is Canadian.
I know. Our own pseudo Bango Skank is a Brit...that's who I was referring to, the one who didn't know his own linage. Fits with his screen persona, don't you think?Posted by on September 9, 2007 05:32 PM
Politicians all resort to appealing to emotions. Democrats simply aspire to higher, more noble emotions. While conservatives emotional targets are fear and loathing, liberals are compassion and concern.
Let JJ match that for pompousness.!
We can never beat the 337+ for "Jesus had capitalistic friends".
Although the original , "was Jesus a capitalist" is numero uno in my book of absurd questions.Posted by Sharon B. on September 9, 2007 05:53 PM
As I recall, I said that I thought the tribute was to Ellison, as having passed on. I don't keep the magazines around after they have been read; so I couldn't look it up to be certain.
What makes it so much fun for me, is to watch how Jonesy butts in on something going on between two other correspodents to "explain" just how wrong one or the other of them is, and then go on to obfuscate things beyond comprehension of any kind; and does so without either invitation or observable purpose, other than his own need to show off.
Then along comes someone who takes it upon himself to defend Jones, and act as a major apologist for him, even though Jones isn't even posting on this particular line at the time. Real sensitivity, almost like a couple of clowns playing to each other, in hopes the audience will feel sorry for them both.
I did notice that Jonesy's inordinate fixation on other people's nether regions - by way of his constnat references insisting on how he will spank them, or has spanked them, or hopes that having spanked them they have learned a lesson, etc. - never seems to get mentioned. Could it be that this is not quite "appropriate" to our "theologian", and "morally superior" pompous pundit; who, as one writer points out never really tells us exactly what his religion is - just makes it a point to let us know that it is far "superior" to anything anything any one of us might have as belief?
Is this a progression from Batman and Robin to a new version of the Three Musketeers?
(Or, perhaps, considering the actual level of Theological knowledge displayed to date, Mouseketeers?)
Nice seeing you here, Sharon. Have a good week.Posted by Old Grouch on September 9, 2007 08:56 PM
There is a reason I asked the question"which party would the terrorists and Bin Laden vote for the Democrats or the Republicans".It is common sense the the terrorists and Bin Laden would vote Democrat.The Democrats are the party that would cut the funding for the war and free up funds and time for the terrorist to regroup and attack the US.This is nothing but "common sense".In fact Bin Laden in his speech said the Democrats were not getting out of the war fast enough.Showing he wants the war to stop.If the Democrats have total power it is their stated goal to leave Iraq.Sharon B and Allen Campbell fell into my trap.As I have told you in other classes Democrats go by how they "feel" and then they make up bogus facts to fit their "feelings".I think Sharon B. and Allen Campbell have more than proven that Democrats will say anything to prove their false beliefs.Posted by An american on September 9, 2007 09:33 PM
I am waiting for you to deliver the fight you promised.
Let’s compare ideologies, Liberal and Islamist, and then Conservative and Islamist.
I started with Qutb and Strauss, their ideological ancestor and yours respectively.
As for who they would vote for – assuming they would ever vote or join a democracy, they would vote Republican for two good reasons
- That guarantees them more war, more atrocities, and therefore great publicity and recruitment.
- They hate gays, lesbians, abortion, etc. just like Republicans.
Want to play some more?
You couldn't teach anything but how to ramble around any arguement made that you don't like. Did you ignore the point I made or are you just unable to understand more than one sentence at a time. As for a trap, that's just one more of your delusional self absorbed ideas. You could not trap a two legged cat with a mile wide net if you had the U.S. army rangers to help you do it.
But on the other hand, I must have sympathy for anyone so delusional as to think the world revolves around them and so socially and psychologically unfit as to think no one else has the capacity to think clearly except them.Posted by Allen Campbell on September 10, 2007 07:34 AM
An American has put his ignorance online for all to observe: "The Democrats are the party that would cut the funding for the war and free up funds and time for the terrorist to regroup and attack the US."
The people who are planning to attack the United States are not in Iraq, dumbo.Posted by Truth on September 10, 2007 07:37 AM
with "An American" at your back, who needs enemies?Posted by Bango Skank on September 10, 2007 07:43 AM
An American,You are asking to much from these liberals,common sense.Posted by Keith on September 10, 2007 08:30 AM
Anybody gone up to the one about, "Cut and Runners", and noticed just how much resemblance there is between the letter writer there and yappy puppy here? Do we now have, perhaps, identification for our little "SuperCitizen"?Posted by Old Grouch on September 10, 2007 08:41 AM
Keith! Keith, you lamebrain: Damn it, man or boy, you are repugnant. You contend your common sense to be so valuable it dwarfs the common sense of everybody in this forum. You don't even know what common sense is.
You dumb dumb: It has been defined in this forum. All liberals have common sense; all idiots have it; all conservatives have it; only non-humans do not have it.
Keith, you !@#$%^&* ~~~~ (fill in the blank): "Common sense is a collection of your bias and prejudice" and God knows you are biased and prejudiced so you do have plenty of common sense.Posted by jvb on September 10, 2007 09:54 AM
Keith got the right answer to the question.There is no "common sense" in the Democrat party.They decide how they "feel" and then try to make up facts to fit.jvb,Bango Skank and Allen Campbell can't admit the truth because their house of cards will fall down.Any normal person would see the terrorists and Bin Laden would vote Democrat because that would give them the very best chance of winning in Iraq.Look at all the stupid arguments they put out to avoid the truth.This is what Democrats do on all the issues.Remember they first have a feeling of how they want things to be and then make up facts to show their feelings are right. I think most thinking people will see the Democrats for what they are US haters and cowards.Posted by An American on September 10, 2007 10:30 AM
Common Sense is defined as"Practical understanding;sound judgment.The Democrats do not have this attribute.Posted by An American on September 10, 2007 10:54 AM
Darling of the left? Another ignorant chimp-sucker heard from.Posted by on September 10, 2007 12:50 PM
Mr American said ” They decide how they "feel" and then try to make up facts to fit.jvb,Bango Skank and Allen Campbell can't admit the truth because their house of cards will fall down”
Your particular house of cards is the belief that you need to maintain that Liberals or Left-wingers are over-emotional dimwits that place more value on feelings than facts.
Sorry mate, you have the wrong end of the stick.
You are the simpering airhead that has emotional weaknesses that make you believe fairy-tales and be obedient to ideology.
I am the hard-facts scientific type with military experience and training, and education that covers counter-insurgency and asymmetric warfare.
You think compassion is weakness, and rigidity is strength, to me a person who is uncompassionate is weak, and I see adaptability as strength.Posted by Bango Skank on September 10, 2007 06:49 PM
The liberals are out celebrating today the execution of the 3000 infindels in 2001.They are giving praise to there spiritual leader Bin Laden.An American check out the letters in the N.Y.Post today,you will enjoy them.Posted by Keith on September 11, 2007 08:39 AM
Thanks Keith.All we have to do is read the Democrat posting in the RMN and we can see they also "feel" the same way.Bango Skank you need to read the letters in the N.Y. Post that Keith mentioned in he posting.Maybe you do not understand what the Democrats stand for.If you are half as smart as you think you are you will some day see that "An American "is 100% right.Right now you are going through an education process and that can hurt.Posted by An American on September 11, 2007 09:55 AM
Certainly, by now, you should know better than to even attempt intelligent debate with the Architypical spokes-persons for the Republican Party and "conservatism".
It was once said of the Bourbon Dynasties that: "They learned nothing and forgot nothing". For the Republican spokes-persons on the website, one might add: "They know nothing as well."
That's what makes this forum fun.Posted by Old Grouch on September 11, 2007 11:54 AM
When Keith says liberals celebrate the deaths in 9-11that takes some of the fun out of these forums.
It is sad to see such hatred and little mindedness.Posted by Sharon B. on September 11, 2007 12:45 PM
- actually their statements and positions make perfect sense to me.
They have to find somebody to blame for why things aren’t working, and it is far easier to latch onto the doctrine of demonizing the opposition, than to actually process the information and update the ideology.
The worse things get and the more dissonance between reality and the ideology they stick to, the more they have to believe that "liberals" and by inference "Democrats" are slimy and evil and to blame for everything. To accept that they are neither, would mean that Keith and American would have to come to terms with how poorly their worldview actually works and how it keeps getting them into trouble with reality.
If the drought continues and you have already bashed in the skulls of five virgins, then either they weren’t virgins, or you didn’t bash enough of them. So bash up a whole lot more virgins, and then it will rain. Repeat until it rains, you run out of candidate virgins, or you die.
Once you have already bashed a bunch of virgins, it’s difficult for somebody with a conservative nature to admit that maybe the whole concept is crap and maybe virgin-bashing is unrelated to weather. It takes a high-functioning right hemisphere and many other things to be able to stand up and say that the thinking was wrong and that killing virgins was probably a useless mistake.
One of the hallmarks of conservatism is that its practitioners tend to hold onto ideas that are way past due date, the opposite of that is liberals who tend to throw out good ideas that still have plenty of life in them and chase new ideas that are untested.
Before I close, Bango, I have to describe one of my favorite cartoons.
An Inca priest is bowing to the ruler and he says :
"Sire, the parade of virgins has been cancelled. One is sick and the other refuses to march alone.Posted by Sharon B. on September 12, 2007 01:10 AM
tap tap tap tap tap ...Advice to keith & an american, you 2 guys need to get a room. Maybe Larry Craig could tell you which motel he prefers? when you two 'macho military' men hook up, playing 'Taps' takes on an entirely new meaning,lol.Posted by Laryy on September 12, 2007 07:21 AM
As you can see from the postings of Sharon B. and Bango Skank they are just dancing around the issue.The question is "who would the terrorists and Bin Laden vote for the Democrat or Republican party"?What a simple question to answer.Of course they would vote Democrat!! They can't even understand this simple fact.Everyone knows the Democrats are less likley to fight battles when the going gets rough.This is a fact!!!! Yet they will twist,turn,lie and do anything to make this "TRUTH" become what they "feel" it should be.If you were fighting an enemy would you want to fight the one that will stop when they see the first sight of blood or fight the one that will fight you to the death?This is so simple.The reason I asked this question is I knew thw liberal Democrats would fall into my trap.Any "normal person will see I am 100% right.The only other reason they may not understand this simple fact is maybe they have never fought for anything so they do not understand what it is like to fight.COWARDS!!Posted by An American on September 12, 2007 10:25 AM
I forgot to tell you the reason for the above lesson was to teach the "NORMAL" people that the Democrats can't reason on any issue.That is because they "feel" a certain way so they build silly facts to justify their feelings.I think I have more than proven this fact!! Class dismissed.Posted by An American on September 12, 2007 10:39 AM
Bango said: Your particular house of cards is the belief that you need to maintain that Liberals or Left-wingers are over-emotional dimwits that place more value on feelings than facts.
Bango, yes, this is one of the most common accusations against liberals I hear from extreme conservatives. I always just chalked it up to them employing "a best defense is a good offense" tactic, i.e., accuse your opposition of what you are yourself.
You followed your statement up with:
Sorry mate, you have the wrong end of the stick.
You are the simpering airhead that has emotional weaknesses that make you believe fairy-tales and be obedient to ideology.
I think you're onto something, but it may not be an emotional weakness so much as a difference in their thinking processes. I think you'll find this recent study very interesting, which seems to indicate conservatives are more prone to knee-jerk thought processing, i.e., opposite of logical and rationalizing reactions and behavior. (The study results actually go even further and say they show cons are less equipped to handle conflict and ambiguity than libs. Not sure if I could make quite hat stretch from this study alone, although based on my personal observations of and experiences with cons I certainly can.)
Here's a couple different links to the study: