Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
The left needs a reminder.

I'm starting to get the feeling that the GOP is going to get a pretty serious reminder in 60 days or so.

Do you think the Dems will take both Houses of Congress? I'd say not. I predict significant gains in the Senate, and Speaker Pelosi (ouch) come January, 2007.

S_A_M

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop



I don't recall the details of how Wilson did or did not lie, and in any event do not think they have anything to do with Broder's column.

This is typical, your recollections and concern only runs one way.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I'm starting to get the feeling that the GOP is going to get a pretty serious reminder in 60 days or so.

Do you think the Dems will take both Houses of Congress? I'd say not. I predict significant gains in the Senate, and Speaker Pelosi (ouch) come January, 2007.

S_A_M

bet 1 month board support? what is significant gains?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,212743,00.html Clintonites are starting to realize how history will see them after the documentary has been made public. Lot's of bitching- but here's my favorite part (it's like Penske wrote this thing):

• The former Clinton officials reportedly are outraged that producers wrote into the film a sequence that strongly infers the president was preoccupied with the Monica Lewinsky affair instead of focusing on the threat from Usama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Lindsey's letter to Iger reportedly points out that the 9/11 Commission — which Kean co-chaired — actually stated that Clinton was "deeply concerned about bin Laden," and that he received constant updates from administration intelligence and security officials.

I would argue that unless we can find some Clinton DNA on Osama's robe the President was more engaged with that woman, ....Ms. Lewinsky.

What is interesting, in typical Clintonian fashion, is what Lindsey is not saying. He is not rebutting that Clinton's sexcapades distracted him or endangered our country, he is just saying that in addition to that, Clinton was also concerned and got updates, but not so concerned that he coulnd't break from his frat boy pursuit of a blowjob to fully focus on the affairs of state and attacks on and national security threats to our nation.

If this stuff is so false (and wrecklessly and maliciously so) let these clowns sue after the airing. That would be a trial I would pay to watch.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Part of that was obvious hyperbole, the kids below age 3 can';t handle a 9mm, they have 22s. The point is the new D party of Ned Lamont and Howard Dean leave us in a position where that will be our only defence as they capitulate to the enemy. Perhaps take it as helpful advice to start arming now.

Tapioca is my favorite

I am not going to go and search your posts from the last Israel-Hezbollah war, but I recall we had a discussion about your support for the aggressor on that one, no?

I never supported Hezbollah. I did point out that a campaign of indiscriminate bombing of both civilian and rebel targets was less than honorable. But I never wavered from my support of Israel's right to exist secure within its borders.

I am not defining the whole of the Arab population as the enemy, just those portions who are Radical Islamics bent on destroying America or Israel and the supporters of the same.

How would you propose identifying them? You favored wide-scale bombing of Lebanon because if the Arabs were willing to live with Hezbollah, then they were terrorists, too.

I call bullshit. I am fully about freedom and defence of the American ideal. Please cite me anything specific about me or my life to this point that would indicate otherwise. I spent decades working in politics because I passionately believed in those concepts. These days I focus my effourts on more communitarian based projects. Like reaching across the political divide to bridge the gaps in my local community and create opportunities for freedom for all.

What you do in your personal life has little to do with what you post on this board. That's a shame. It would make for much more interesting discussion, assuming you ever have an interest in legitimate discussion.

Dissent. See above on the patriot act. I have walked the walk as well as talked the talk. AS for BabyJesus, I believe, what more needs to be said, other than to promote the virtues of the BabyJesus is my response to those who would tear down the moral values of our great nation and to those who label the faithful supporters of our President as religious freaks. There is nothign wrong with religion,m faith or positive morality, per se. And as for socks, I don't sock, so I miss the point of the reference.

But I like rice pudding, too

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I'm starting to get the feeling that the GOP is going to get a pretty serious reminder in 60 days or so.

Do you think the Dems will take both Houses of Congress? I'd say not. I predict significant gains in the Senate, and Speaker Pelosi (ouch) come January, 2007.

S_A_M

Sam ,you disappoint me. Keep the faith. I predict we hold both Houses, although with narrower margins than today. A victoury for America and for Freedom.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
bet 1 month board support? what is significant gains?

I am with you.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Tapioca is my favorite

Igfnorant to the point that the New Democrat Party threatens the security of America and our one friend in the ME.

Originally posted by taxwonk


I never supported Hezbollah. I did point out that a campaign of indiscriminate bombing of both civilian and rebel targets was less than honorable. But I never wavered from my support of Israel's right to exist secure within its borders.

And you don't see how these positions conflict or how the civilian populations of these "countries" need to stand up and take a position against the extremists in their midst (or does there lack of any effourt to do so indicate their support??). Further, once you compromise Israel's anbility to effectively take out the terrorists who hide behind "civilians" you don't see how that threatens Israel's existence and helps Hezbollah?

Originally posted by taxwonk

How would you propose identifying them? You favored wide-scale bombing of Lebanon because if the Arabs were willing to live with Hezbollah, then they were terrorists, too.

they should self-identify, their failure to do so and/or take responsbility for their governance is indicative to me of where their sympathies lie. Are you seriously arguing that a poll of any ME country would show less than 50% support for the elimination of the State of Israel? And I am being generous to the Moderate Arab Movement with the 50% number.

Originally posted by taxwonk

What you do in your personal life has little to do with what you post on this board. That's a shame. It would make for much more interesting discussion, assuming you ever have an interest in legitimate discussion.

Dissent. There is plenty of legimate conversation, but, sadly, as in the real world, the left wants to play politics of personal destruction. I still have not gotten an answer to my post about how liberals expound high and mighty theories of anti-bias and peace love and harmony for all, but are okay with constant personally directed invective against the President, Republicans and Christians, based on their exercise of faith. Is that the hypocrasy that intoxicating?

Originally posted by taxwonk

But I like rice pudding, too

Non-responsive.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
What is interesting, in typical Clintonian fashion, is what Lindsey is not saying. He is not rebutting that Clinton's sexcapades distracted him or endangered our country, he is just saying that in addition to that, Clinton was also concerned and got updates, but not so concerned that he coulnd't break from his frat boy pursuit of a blowjob to fully focus on the affairs of state and attacks on and national security threats to our nation.

If this stuff is so false (and wrecklessly and maliciously so) let these clowns sue after the airing. That would be a trial I would pay to watch.

In Against All Enemies, Richard Clarke said that the ML/impeachment thing distracted Clinton. But I have learned from you that Richard Clarke is a grandstanding liar, so I no longer believe this.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
In Against All Enemies, Richard Clarke said that the ML/impeachment thing distracted Clinton. But I have learned from you that Richard Clarke is a grandstanding liar, so I no longer believe this.

Well played, playa.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Well played, playa.

Is this the PB equivalent of spitting Diet Coke out of your pussy?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
And you don't see how these positions conflict or how the civilian populations of these "countries" need to stand up and take a position against the extremists in their midst (or does there lack of any effourt to do so indicate their support??). Further, once you compromise Israel's anbility to effectively take out the terrorists who hide behind "civilians" you don't see how that threatens Israel's existence and helps Hezbollah?

they should self-identify, their failure to do so and/or take responsbility for their governance is indicative to me of where their sympathies lie. Are you seriously arguing that a poll of any ME country would show less than 50% support for the elimination of the State of Israel? And I am being generous to the Moderate Arab Movement with the 50% number.

Explain to me how this differs from saying basically that all Arabs are legitimate targets because they're either terrorists, they don't fight terrorists, and anyway most of them probably want Israel destroyed. Your scapegoating an entire cultural and ethnic group.

Dissent. There is plenty of legimate conversation, but, sadly, as in the real world, the left wants to play politics of personal destruction. I still have not gotten an answer to my post about how liberals expound high and mighty theories of anti-bias and peace love and harmony for all, but are okay with constant personally directed invective against the President, Republicans and Christians, based on their exercise of faith. Is that the hypocrasy that intoxicating?

Your whole "politics of personal destruction" schtick rings hollow. You are painting anyone who disagrees with you as being in some left-wing fringe lunatic element who, in your words, is willing to turn the whole country ove to Islamofacists. And you have the unmitigated gall to accuse me of engaging in the politics of personal destruction?

I direct invective against the President because I think he's and idiot. I don't generally take issues with Republicans. Painting a whole party with the same brush is your thing. I have Republicans I respect and agree with. I also have Republicans I don't agree with, but who aren't idiots. I have nothing against Christians, as long as they have nothing against me.

It's much the same as my policy toward gay men. Don't ask me to suck your dick and I don't care what you do in your home. Don't try to tell me that I can't have my child taught evolution without it being undermined by some theory that has little or no scientific support and I don't care what you believe in your church or your home.

I have biases and I have never claimed not to. You have your biases too. You just seem to feel the need to wrap yourself in teh flag and the bible and proclaim yourself right and everybody else a dangerous radical and coward because they disagree with you.

Or at least that's what you play on the board. Well, I'm not buying it. I think it's all an act and you're full of shit. If it's not an act, then you're not full of shit, you're full of hate and paranoia.

Quit attacking me because I don't believe what you believe. Quit lumping me in with people I have nothing in common with. Quit acting like you have some moral superiority that allows you to impugn my patriotism, my faith and ethics. Then I'll stop treating you like some fucking lunatic yahoo who needs a fucking hose turned on him.

You're so fond of stirring up the shit? Well this pot's full Penske. Either dump it or eat it.

[SlaveNoMore]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,212743,00.html Clintonites are starting to realize how history will see them after the documentary has been made public. Lot's of bitching- but here's my favorite part (it's like Penske wrote this thing):

• The former Clinton officials reportedly are outraged that producers wrote into the film a sequence that strongly infers the president was preoccupied with the Monica Lewinsky affair instead of focusing on the threat from Usama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Lindsey's letter to Iger reportedly points out that the 9/11 Commission — which Kean co-chaired — actually stated that Clinton was "deeply concerned about bin Laden," and that he received constant updates from administration intelligence and security officials.

I would argue that unless we can find some Clinton DNA on Osama's robe the President was more engaged with that woman, ....Ms. Lewinsky.

Mario Loyola on the Corner

American political cultural is far too saturated with tit-for-tats, but I cannot help taking delight in the reaction of Clinton administration folks to ABC's 9/11 mini-series. The New York Times quotes former Secretary of State Madeline Albright as saying that those who have seen it told her that the movie "depicts scenes that never happened, events that never took place, decisions that were never made and conversations that never occurred." Hilariously, ABC responds that the movie is a "dramatization, not a documentary," hilarious because of course this is what Michael Moore said in response to the critics of the supremely false and defamatory Fahrenheit 9/11. I urge Democrats to recall how delighted they were that Moore's movie came out in an election year, and to remember in particular the snide smiles pasted all over the faces of Terry McAuliffe & Co as they emerged from the gala screening of Moore's movie. And I urge all those who intend to watch the ABC mini-series to go back to the classic Christopher Hitchens review of Fahrenheit 9/11.

PS - According to Drudge, ABC chickened out and is revising the programme.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk

I direct invective against the President because I think he's and idiot.

Practice pointer: when calling someone stupid be careful not to have a dumb error in the post.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

• No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the last five years, hard years, tells us that.

-- Lt. Gen. John Kimmons, head of Army intelligence, at a Pentagon briefing yesterday