Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Sort of like the Wellstone tribute.

That would be a touche' moment were you not speaking to someone intimately familiar with that particular rally.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by bilmore
That would be a touche' moment were you not speaking to someone intimately familiar with that particular rally.

You were there?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Sort of like the Wellstone tribute.

Or what people who have me on ignore say about my posts on FB.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by bilmore
Read more carefully.

As I said, I participate in, and buy into, such policy, supporting those programs, as well as charitable stuff. My beef was with the philosophy that holds it to be, not a mark of my social conscience, but my moral obligation to do so. Remember, I was objecting to the phrase "my share of the burden". I think it's fair to call it charity. It's not my burden.

Bilmore, you are welcome any time on the island.

[Aloha Mr. Learned Hand]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Hey, I'm reading this today and nobody else has nuthin to say?

OK, I just read the coolest thing of all year. Oprah gave everyone in her audience a brand new car today. Got that? More than 200 new cars. It was all people whose family members had written in (presumably after prompting by the show) to express the audience member's particular need for a new car. The show picket the people they figured were most in need. The chicagotribune.com site has it on the front page.

Yay Oprah!

Word is Pontiac is going to pick up the taxes as well.

Of course -- in the eyes of the IRS -- if I remember correctly, this magnanimous gesture will be viewed as income to these lucky recipients, and they will have to pay taxes on the benefit received.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
I can't tell you how many people, in the days following his superb speech, told me how awful, how hateful, how petulant it was.

When I asked them if they actually heard it, they said no, there was no need to hear "such hate", they had read about it instead.

Not even "read it". "Read about it".

I heard it.

I cannot know for sure, but I suspect that your ascribing the designation of "superb" to it may be largely because of its tailoring to what the party faithful wanted to hear. Its blood drenched imagery and designation of Kerry as an Enemy to America went over quite well, I must say. And in that respect, I cannot disagree. I will even give it a "Superb!" with a capital S and a nifty exclamation point, to boot.

Beyond that, however, I cannot agree with your assessment.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
You were there?

Minnesota is like Appalachia. Everyone's related.

[sgtclub]

To accept CBS's insistence the four documents from the early 1970s are authentic, you would have to believe the following:


(1) That the late Jerry Killian, Bush's commanding officer, typed the documents--though his wife says "he wasn't a typist."

(2) That Killian kept the documents in his personal files--though his family says he didn't keep files.

(3) That the disputed documents reflect his true (negative) feelings about Bush and a contemporaneous official document he wrote lauding Bush did not.

(4) That he typed the documents on a technically advanced typewriter, an IBM Selectric Composer--though that model has been tested and failed to produce an exact copy of the documents.

(5) That this advanced typewriter, which would have cost $15,000 or so in today's dollars, was used by the Texas National Guard and that Killian had gained the significant expertise needed to operate it.

(6) That Killian was under pressure to whitewash Bush's record from a general who had retired 18 months earlier.

(7) That Killian's superior, Maj. Gen. Bobby Hodges, was right when, sight unseen, he supposedly said the documents were authentic, but wrong when, having actually viewed the documents, he declared them fraudulent.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...4/617fgqgo.asp

eft

[sgtclub]

I know, I know, it was taken out of context:

I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.
John F. Kerry, May 3, 2003
Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president.
December 16, 2003

Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it's the right authority for a president to have. But I would have used that authority as I have said throughout this campaign, effectively.
August 9, 2004

Iraq was "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time."
September 6, 2004



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We should not send more American troops. That would be the worst thing.
John F. Kerry, September 4, 2003

If it requires more troops . . . that's what you have to do.
April 18, 2004

I will have significant, enormous reduction in the level of troops.
August 1, 2004

We're going to get our troops home where they belong.
August 6, 2004



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We should increase funding [for the war in Iraq] by whatever number of billions of dollars it takes to win.
John F. Kerry, August 31, 2003

$200 billion [for Iraq] that we're not investing in education and health care, and job creation here at home. . . . That's the wrong choice.
September 8, 2004

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Shit.

Outlook Today for Rain of Fire, 80%. Predicted 1" - 2" of ash. Remember to wear those fire-retardant galoshes!

Both Ty and Club have agreed with me before. I am non-partisan. However, if AG ever agrees with me, well, devils (Hi AG!) will be wearing parkas.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I heard it.

I cannot know for sure, but I suspect that your ascribing the designation of "superb" to it may be largely because of its tailoring to what the party faithful wanted to hear. Its blood drenched imagery and designation of Kerry as an Enemy to America went over quite well, I must say. And in that respect, I cannot disagree. I will even give it a "Superb!" with a capital S and a nifty exclamation point, to boot.

Beyond that, however, I cannot agree with your assessment.

"Blood drenched imagery"? Boy, I missed that part. But, agree with the rest. It hammered home to me directly on the deciding issue for me today. I can overlook the gay marriage idiocy, the overspending, the caving in on campaign finance reform, and a bunch of other stuff, because I consider our present stance as participants in the beginning of WWIII to be more important than any of the other issues, and I absolutely cannot stand the idea of Kerry being "in charge" during this coming four years of that war.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by bilmore
Read more carefully.

As I said, I participate in, and buy into, such policy, supporting those programs, as well as charitable stuff. My beef was with the philosophy that holds it to be, not a mark of my social conscience, but my moral obligation to do so. Remember, I was objecting to the phrase "my share of the burden". I think it's fair to call it charity. It's not my burden.

Would we be in agreement if I said its our collective national obligation to try and make programs work fairly and efficiently? Believe me, I'm generally opposed to things like public housing and a lot of section 8 in the form its in now.

But, once we accept that its going to be done on our dime, I'm merely advocating a more fair and efficient (actually, effective) way of implementing it. A Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan could not have done the job of "helping" poor black people worse than whoever designed urban public housing and section 8 policy from approx. 1960 on. In fact, I'd love to see if Senator Byrd has an alibi for that period of time.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by bilmore
"Blood drenched imagery"? Boy, I missed that part. But, agree with the rest. It hammered home to me directly on the deciding issue for me today. I can overlook the gay marriage idiocy, the overspending, the caving in on campaign finance reform, and a bunch of other stuff, because I consider our present stance as participants in the beginning of WWIII to be more important than any of the other issues, and I absolutely cannot stand the idea of Kerry being "in charge" during this coming four years of that war.

Hey, I downloaded and read that 50+ page tome you recommended here. You got something you wanna tell us, or do you just agree with the author.

Hello

PS He said it was WWIV

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Me
Both Ty and Club have agreed with me before. I am non-partisan. However, if AG ever agrees with me, well, devils (Hi AG!) will be wearing parkas.

Atticus is an idiot who can't follow logic.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

• TV reporter killed by US fire during live Baghdad broadcast
  By Adrian Blomfield in Baghdad
  (Filed: 13/09/2004)
  
  A television journalist was shot dead as he made a live broadcast from Baghdad yesterday when United States helicopters fired on a crowd that had gathered round the burning wreckage of an American armoured vehicle.
  
  Mazen al-Tumeizi, a Palestinian working for Al-Arabiya, one of the main Arab satellite television channels, was among 12 people - all believed to be civilians - killed in the incident on Haifa Street.
  
  * * * * *
  
  A Bradley fighting vehicle was damaged by an apparent car bomb. A total of five American soldiers were wounded in the explosion and during the operation to evacuate the crew.
  
  Later, a crowd of Iraqis gathered round the burning vehicle and some began dancing in celebration.
  
  Tumeizi was describing the incident on camera when two helicopter gunships were seen flying down the street and opening fire. Tumeizi was hit by a bullet and doubled over, shouting: I'm dying, I'm dying." About 50 people were wounded, the health ministry said, among them a Reuters cameraman and an Iraqi reporter for the Guardian.
  
  Through the day, United States officers offered contradictory accounts of the incident and ordered an investigation.
  
  "As the helicopters flew over the burning Bradley they received small arms fire from the insurgents in the vicinity of the vehicle," said Major Philip Smith of the 1st Cavalry Division. "Clearly within the rules of engagement, the helicopters returned fire destroying some anti-Iraqi forces in the vicinity of the Bradley."
  
  However, witnesses said there were no Iraqi fighters in the area at the time.

from the Telegraph (UK)