Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by bilmore
We'll have to agree to disagree. I hate Stern.

Well, I'll add that I don't really think Stern is very creative either. Entertaining? Yes. Creative? No.

But I really only listen to sports talk radio in the morning, so while I think Stern is funny, he's clearly not funny enough for me to tune in.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I have read her and she is MEAN and HORRID and just AWFUL. She is also CARELESS, DISINGENUOUS, and DISHONEST. And she is quite likely CRAZY. I will admit that she is occasionally FUNNY, but not funny enough to make it worth reading through all the vitriol. For conservative humor, I'll stick with the collected works of the collective penskes.

Damn, I read too fast. I thought you were speaking of Dan Rather at first.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Among the points of contention from last night's thread, the above has devolved to a particularly silly one. Ty is agreeing with you that Iraq is part of the WOT now. Today Iraq has more terrorists than missing "g"''s in a Bush stump speech.*

. . .

* And speaking of, some new estimates are that the number of Iraqis in the Sunni insurgency, including fighters, messengers and people who provide logistical, housing and other assistance to them exceed 100,000. Now that's a lot of hearts and minds to win (or alternatively, cities to flatten with Bilmore's smart bombs).

That's some damn good flypaper. Only I thought the purpose of flypaper was to get rid of flies, not create new ones.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by bilmore
Damn, I read too fast. I thought you were speaking of Dan Rather at first.

Do you actually watch Dan Rather? I sure don't. The only relevancy network news anchors have is that bestowed upon them from right wing bloggers.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
From what I've read, over 7.5 million people will vote in the [Afghan] elections. Moving from a totalitarian state to a democracy or quasi democracy does not happen overnight, as much as the DEMs would like us to believe. You must be PATIENT.

Since the population of the country is much larger, that's a bad sign. And you need to be patient, but you also can't just use the passive tense. You need to devote resources and have a plan, neither of which seem to be things that this Administration wants to do. No one -- Dems or otherwise -- thinks that democracy happens overnight. The fear on my part is that it's much harder and takes more work than Bush seems to realize.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Do you actually watch Dan Rather? I sure don't. The only relevancy network news anchors have is that bestowed upon them from right wing bloggers.

And as if on cue, I go to drudge to see what Scaife's minions are drooling about today and what do I see?



http://drudgereport.com/

You guys are obsessed.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Nope. Sorry, Ty, but he was a fucking Whackadoo of the highest order. His sons were merely sociopaths, but Saddam was a raving parnoid schizophrenic and rapidly decompensating.

Granted, but my point was that a rational nationalistic dictator might well have acted the same way.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
I've read her. I AT LEAST expected her to be funny, in a shock jock way. She wasn't. And I'm not anti-shock jock humor. She reminds me of ManCow here in Chicago -- both try REALLY hard to be outrageous, but neither of them are very entertaining or creative.

2. Ann Coulter is not funny at all. I agree with the substance of quite a bit of what she has to say, but there is nothing witty about her. Her writing style leaves much to be desired.

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Don't ask me how Stern pulls it off. He has a gift.

Stern is not funny to anyone with even a modicum of intelligence.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Not Me
Stern is not funny to anyone with even a modicum of intelligence.

But he has great educational value. Before your appearance, he was my number one source of information on breast implants.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
LA Times:

Former chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said Tuesday that until the final days before the war, he and U.S. officials — and perhaps even Saddam Hussein — believed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. But rather than taking the time to find out for sure, he said, the momentum of war preparations made the Bush administration deaf to evidence that contradicted their conclusions.

If everyone, even Blix believed they were there, how can Kerry's position be sound?

As so often, I start to wonder whether you are serious. Blix was receptive to facts which contradicted what he believed, and he changed his mind. Bush wasn't, and didn't. Had WMD been the reason for the war, and had we had a President who listened to what Blix et al. were (not) turning up, you can easily imagine a different outcome. Congress could not know, ex ante, that Bush was hell-bent on war, although certainly signs were there.

It's like Archduke Franz Ferdinand turned up alive, on an opium bender in Belgrade, but the Kaiser et al. said, what the hell, we've already mobilized the forces so let's do it.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Since the population of the country is much larger, that's a bad sign.

2

The last election 100% of the eligible voters made it to the polls, and it wasn't really a close race.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
2

The last election 100% of the eligible voters made it to the polls, and it wasn't really a close race.

I am too lazy to find your original post, but I remember seeing the Blix interview on Fox you were talking about. As you may recall from back at infirm, I was pro-war at that time, and I remember trying to find the quote to make a point similar to the one you were trying to make. I could never find it.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
As so often, I start to wonder whether you are serious. Blix was receptive to facts which contradicted what he believed, and he changed his mind. Bush wasn't, and didn't. Had WMD been the reason for the war, and had we had a President who listened to what Blix et al. were (not) turning up, you can easily imagine a different outcome. Congress could not know, ex ante, that Bush was hell-bent on war, although certainly signs were there.

Oh I'm serious. I gave up arguing seriously here because you guys don't care to think or listen, but I can be very serious.

1 "Days before" Blix thought there were weapons.
2 He also thought we should go on inspecting.

3 He also wouldn't have started a war.

If Blix believed #1, why is it not fair for Bush to have done so? And if Bush believed #1 was true, how can Kerry say authorizing invading Iraq to disarm Sadaam is anything other than having supported the war.

2 and 3 are decisions to be made by the man in charge of the 250K troops we had on Iraq's borders.


Your little WW1 parable fails because Blix didn't "decide" there weren't weapons until AFTER the war.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I am too lazy to find your original post,

my toady, Gattigap, keeps an indexed archive of all my seminal posts. You can always ask him.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Oh I'm serious. I gave up arguing seriously here because you guys don't care to think or listen, but I can be very serious.

1 "Days before" Blix thought there were weapons.*

2 He also thought we should go on inspecting.

3 He also wouldn't have started a war.

If Blix believed #1, why is it not fair for Bush to have done so?

OK. My view that he misled people is about representing something as a iron-clad case, not a suggesting that he knew there were no WMD but acted as if they did. I've explained this any number of times, but you guys keep trotting out these caricatures. They didn't know, and acted as if they did.

And if Bush believed #1 was true, how can Kerry say authorizing invading Iraq to disarm Sadaam is anything other than having supported the war.

This is where you lose me. I really have no idea what you are talking about. Kerry voted to authorize force in October. The war wasn't until months later. Obviously, a decision to pull the trigger wasn't made in October, and every legislator voted to authorize force surely expected the President to exercise reasonable discretion when decided, months hence, to pull the trigger. Surely they all disagreed about what constitutes reasonableness, but that's the nature of the beast. Kerry disagrees with the decision the President made. He doesn't say Bush had no authority to make that decision.

2 and 3 are decisions to be made by the man in charge of the 250K troops we had on Iraq's borders.

Absolutely. That was my point.

Your little WW1 parable fails because Blix didn't "decide" there weren't weapons until AFTER the war.

Are you watching FOX News again? The LA Times article you quoted from above says he reached that conclusion in the days before the war.