There was a debate????
 

If that was the best you could do, you should have just stayed home.

There was a debate????
 

Perhaps that is a Ty definition then.

Smart girl.
 

It appears that being that close to that cold bitch Hillary brought her body temperature down so much that her nipples could cut glass.*

Turkey done!

Col(never been a big fan of Hillary)Trane

*thank you Hillary?

Do I win the Penske OTD?

Coming soon to an election near you.
 

Fucking classic. From the party that was calling "quagmire" three days into the war.

Arms For Peace
 

No kidding. IDEAS stands for International Defence Exhibition and Seminar.

"Who Should Attend?

IDEAS is targeted at top-level decision makers from the defence ministry, armed forces, airlines, transport ministry, maintenance & engineering companies, research & training institutes. The targeted audience will include the Pakistan Defence Forces, senior armed forces personnel & defence procurement experts from countries in Central Asia, South Asia, the Middle East and Africa."

I bet they blew things up as part of the exhibits. Cool.

Coming soon to an election near you.
 

My hope is that, after the election and no matter who wins, you very back towards the middle. Some of the stuff you've been posting recently is out there.

Coming soon to an election near you.
 

Prescient, wasn't it?

I'm afraid it didn't take a genius to figure that one out, however.

Which is the point.

There was a debate????
 

If you would use the word "bipartisan" to describe the process of enacting the example in my second paragraph, simply, because some members of the minority ultimately voted with the majority, then the word means nothing, and you can call the Bush re-election campaign "bipartisan" because Zell Miller (like roughly 10% of Democrats) supports it. John Kerry's campaign is also bipartisan because he's getting the support of a comparable number of Republicans. If you're going to use the word that way, you might as well retire it, because it means nothing.

Using the word as I do, my other points stand. I don't disagree with the vote counts you described, but I also don't understand what they have to do with anything I said, now that you understand what I meant by the word.

There was a debate????
 

Indeed.
A guy you support to lead the country:
Has never done a noticeable day of work in the private sector.
Was born with a silver spoon in his mouth.
Married even wealthier women.
Wants to raise taxes generally, and specifically on those far less wealthy than he.
Is a Democrat.

And your proposition is that Republicans slam the door behind them?

In short:
Democrats:
Believe in being carried up the ladder and then stepping on the hands of all those lower once they reach the top. Perfect embodiment: John Kerry.

Republicans:
Believe in being allowed to climb up the ladder. Lower taxes for those on the ladder and minimal help for anyone too lazy to climb. Perfect embodiment: Me.

And you characterize me as the one slamming the door shut on the ladder. How in the world do you conclude its the Republicans that are slamming doors shut and all that?

I know this would sound better if I threw a few insults in, but I'm just not up for it today.

Hello

Coming soon to an election near you.
 

We've been there a year and a half. Less casualties than Pearl Harbor or - say - 9/11 attacks.

And you call it a quagmire.

You see, it's stupidity like this comment of yours that cause people to scroll past you.

Coming soon to an election near you.
 

This is a bullshit response, because you're both accusing me of trying to have it both ways, while having it both ways yourself. If you're bothered by the (ostensible) use of the word "quagmire" three days into the war, then you ought to have a real problem with the actions -- not statements, but actions -- taken by the Republicans who are actually running the fucking government, like holding up the creation of the Department of Homeland Security so that they could smear Max Cleland. Or the crap they're pulling in the House with intelligence reform. But you don't, as far as I can tell.

But we apparently both are willing to pay lip service to the idea that when the country is at war.

If Bush had been running the war in a bipartisan way, then it would have been too cute by half for the Democrats to take their part in running it, and to criticize its prosecution at the same time. But since Bush wasn't willing to proceed in this way, it is quite simply beyond me why you think that anyone was trying to have it both ways.

I don't recall the Democratic Party using the word "quagmire." In fact, an awful lot of Democrats, like Kerry, voted to authorize the war. Seymour Hersh used the word in a New Yorker article, and it got a lot of play, but your "argument" -- I use the word loosely -- is a little like my accusing you and the rest of the Republican Party of calling Democrats "traitors" because Anne Coulter said it. If this appears to rankle me, perhaps you remember bilmore accusing me of using the word, and then ultimately having to acknowledge that I hadn't.

Coming soon to an election near you.
 

Whiff.

There was a debate????
 

FWIW, I think you did anyway. Muscle memory is a wonderful thing, I suppose.

Coming soon to an election near you.
 

Not if we include our coalition partners, the Iraqis.

There was a debate????
 

Doesn't your thesis obviate any difference between "bipartisan" and "nonpartisan"?