Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
There is room for the fiscal conservatives Sebby, don't be a martyr.

Where? They've been squeezed out by religion and compromise. Seems the room for them is now with a moderate wing of the dems, if they could get together some sort of alliance.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Coming from someone who conspired with the other liberals to rip out Terri Schiavo's feeding tube and dehydrate her to death in the name of the paternalistic State, your rhetoric is empty. You and your kind need a good dose of personal responsibility to go along with a couple of doses of respect for life and liberty.

I'll give you that, based on the fact that you've proved over and over that you're much more familiar with empty rhetoric than just about anyone else here. Well Done, Sir!

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
In an ownership society it is morning in America.

Only for the owners.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by taxwonk
On this, we are in complete agreement. The problem is, how do we root them out and kill them? One by one?

Are you suggesting a carpet bombing campaign?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sgtclub

• Can anyone seriously believe that not invading Iraq would have changed the mindset of this fanatic? Or leaving Afghanistan alone? What we're learning, especially from the home-grown bombings in London, is that our fundamental enemy is a medievalist theological fascism, buried in the recesses of a legitimate religious faith. It would be nice if we could talk these people out of it, or hand them concessions to buy them off, or hug them till they saw the joys of the New Age. Until then, we have to bring them to justice - on the battlefield or court-room. And the people who are most able to bring them to justice are Western Muslims; and the democratically-inclined Muslims in Iraq.

For those interested, reading the transcripts of the van gough trial is fucking chilling. Those people are FANATICAL.

Read yesterday's WSJ page one story, the so-called younger generation of Western Muslims are becoming more radical by the minute. Europe will be an Islamic Republic before Coltrane's granddaughters reach abortion legal age.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Exactly. He's never had a legitimate reason. His handlers forced him into one (he does nothing based on what the NYTimes says) and now he's backpeddling to the 5/6 agin. Why? Because no one would have supported him had he offered the 5/6 original reasons. Again, you're offering more evidence that he's been lying/manipulating all along.

Huh? You started with the premise that the fact that he has shifted his rationale indicates that he is lying. I pointed out that he did not shift his rationale, that he has been consistent all along, but that he highlighted WMD at the UN because, well, WMD was the reason why he was in breach of UN resolutions (and therefore, a proper justification for war, due to the breach of the 1991 cease fire). I just don't get this.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
I'll give you that, based on the fact that you've proved over and over that you're much more familiar with empty rhetoric than just about anyone else here. Well Done, Sir!

Over a 25 year arc from Reagan to W, the righteously rightward evolution of the thinking class in America has occured and continues. It must be tough to be on the losing side of history. Does RedChina give political asylum?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Where? They've been squeezed out by religion and compromise. Seems the room for them is now with a moderate wing of the dems, if they could get together some sort of alliance.

I was bullshitting with a DC politico the other night and said "When's Chuck Hagel going to run? He's a very centrist fiscally conservative fellow with an impeccable war record."

The response: "Never. Hagel has all sorts of problems. He's moderate. the right wing of the GOP is already set to kill any early candidacy attempt. He's on a short list of RINOs targeted by the Jesus contingent."

The extremes have the floor. Here's to watching them implode running Hillary and Frist next election. By the time that debacle is over, no one will have any faith in this country again.

Thanks, Karl. And thanks, Hill, you egomaniacal c*nt.

[Replaced_Texan]

Missouri thinks it may have executed the wrong guy. Whoops.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Only for the owners.

In America anyone can take ownership of their own life. Its both a gift and a responsibility, with the latter item being the thing many liberals have a tough time with.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
. And thanks, Hill, you egomaniacal c*nt.

Thanks to Panda too, for continuing to support the cunt.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Missouri thinks it may have executed the wrong guy. Whoops.

So could his family pursue a wrongful death claim against the state? Or not so much?

And what does penske have against the vagina? I know sebby hates them, but I thought Penske was better than that.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Huh? You started with the premise that the fact that he has shifted his rationale indicates that he is lying. I pointed out that he did not shift his rationale, that he has been consistent all along, but that he highlighted WMD at the UN because, well, WMD was the reason why he was in breach of UN resolutions (and therefore, a proper justification for war, due to the breach of the 1991 cease fire). I just don't get this.

5/6 shitty reasons out of the gate is a shift in and of itself. You don't go to war for cobbled together violations of UN Resolutions, or suspicions. He learned that, so he shifted to WMD. Then when that didn't work, he shifted back to the 5/6 reasons WHICH WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ACCEPTABLE TO THE PUBLIC. He's tried to package a universe of reasons in some manner which would garner public support. If the reasons were decent enough in the first place, he wouldn't need to jockey them, and shift one or two to the forefront whenever he's challenged. The guy's rationale is totally fluid. Call me crazy, but shifting the bases for going to war indicates lack of a decent basis. If he had a good reason to go, he'd have stuck with it, and it would have convinced us. All the repackagings show manipulations.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Missouri thinks it may have executed the wrong guy. Whoops.

I am pro-life, even for criminals. Assuming that this is true, it is too bad the police, prosecutors and DA could not be brought up on murder charges. Even more shameful is that none of them will apologize with any sincerity for killing an innocent man.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Can't challenge your experience, but there are a not insignificant number of people who work at CIA who can say they do. For example, lawyers in the GC's office have told me what they do, at least in general terms (e.g., I work on south america issues or FOIA requests). So, the fact that someone works at CIA does not necessarily make them covert or clandestine, or even not public knowledge. Although Bilmore and I disagree whether Plame was in the known category (she at least could tell Wilson initially only because he had a security clearnance).

Now that you mention it, a friend of a friend is a lawyer at the CIA. She's the exception. Otherwise, I know (directly and indirectly) of perhaps 8-10 people who work(ed) there. They simply can't say what they did (nor would I press them). I have one or two friends who I suspect work there now, but its hard not to suspect anyone who says they are in the State department... as it seems like the most likely cover for all kinds of people.

The broader point though is that the public perception of this is not going to be good, even if she was a non-covert employee. And this is simply something I'd rather Rove not have done. He could have couched it in different (very different) terms, without ever mentioning this. But I'm dying to hear what he actually has to say about it directly, rather than through his attorney (who makes statements that are open to misinterpretation... or possibly accurate interpretation that reflects poorly on the speaker).

Hello