Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by bilmore
Are you confused today?

He made the statement in the campaign. Then came the final days of the campaign, the court fights, and the resulting and never-ending personal demonization from a majority of Dems. At that point, it was DOA.

Are you extra-senile today old man? You just said, "But, after four years of the stuff that Ty doesn't want to hear about, I think the initiative is sort of DOA."

Is "at that point" "the final days of the campaign" or "the last four years?" No matter your answer, it was an empty campaign promise. But the "personal demonization" thing is a nice touch coming from a Republican.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by bilmore
It would be too frustrating. "What are you having? I'll have one of those, too. No, wait, those people over there are having martinis. I should have a martini. I love martinis. Well, I didn't like them yesterday, of course, but I liked them before that. So, yeah, I'll have a Bloody Mary. I remember drinking Bloody Marys with Hemingway on the summit of Kilimanjaro during the war. He said - and this is seared - SEARED - into my memory - that he loved the taste of gin. So now, I always have a Tequila Sunrise in his memory.

No, wait. You're having a beer, right? . . . "

Is it difficult to see your computer with Rove's dick in your mouth?

TM

[Hank Chinaski]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134586,00.html

Just when Atticus seemed to be fading one of his predictions pops up true....

Hatch: End Ban on Foreign-Born President
Wednesday, October 06, 2004

CAPITOL HILL — Lawmakers are considering the idea of allowing foreign-born American citizens, like California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (search), to become president.

The head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Utah's Orrin Hatch (search), opposes the constitutional provision barring naturalized citizens from holding the nation's top office. He calls it "an anachronism that is decidedly un-American."

California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (search) brought up the name that was on the mind of many at the hearing: Arnold Schwarzenegger. Another is Democratic Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, born in Canada.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
Is it difficult to see your computer with Rove's dick in your mouth?

TM

If you were a Republican, would YOU be talking about anything substantive right now? Me neither. Not when I sent hundreds of thousands of troops into Iraq to ferret out WMDs to realize they've been gone for 13 years. Whoops! Sorry about your dead sons, daughters, husbands and wives, folks! My bad!

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally posted by bilmore
It would be too frustrating. "What are you having? I'll have one of those, too. No, wait, those people over there are having martinis. I should have a martini. I love martinis. Well, I didn't like them yesterday, of course, but I liked them before that. So, yeah, I'll have a Bloody Mary. I remember drinking Bloody Marys with Hemingway on the summit of Kilimanjaro during the war. He said - and this is seared - SEARED - into my memory - that he loved the taste of gin. So now, I always have a Tequila Sunrise in his memory.

No, wait. You're having a beer, right? . . . "

I realize that, in this instance, Bilmore was "humorously" responding to a "humorous" comment made by Thurgreed, but it strikes me that the substance of the debate as to who should be the head of the executive branch of the most powerful country in the world has, for maybe the last year or so, devolved to the following:

Bush supporters: "Kerry is a flip flopper."

Kerry supporters: "Oh yeah? Well, Bush is dumb."

Bush supporters: "Well how about this: Kerry flip flops."

Kerry supporters: "Well maybe you should think about the fact that Bush is dumb."

Bush supporters: "Flip flop. Flip flop."

Kerry supporters: "Dummy dumb dummy."

Of course, although I have not actually read any of it, I'm certain that the debate on this board is far more focused on substantive differences in the candidate's policies and reasoned arguments about the practical effect those policies will have on the country, and is not simply a bunch of dressed-up name-calling in which partisans approach politics with the same mentality as a sports game, supporting their chosen candidate/team regardless of the facts and circumstances and employing extraordinary feats of rationalization to do so.

Thus endeth my semiannual, highly condescending, "contribution" to the Politics Board.

[sgtclub]

From Insta:

SADDAM HUSSEIN believed he could avoid the Iraq war with a bribery strategy targeting Jacques Chirac, the President of France, according to devastating documents released last night.

Memos from Iraqi intelligence officials, recovered by American and British inspectors, show the dictator was told as early as May 2002 that France - having been granted oil contracts - would veto any American plans for war. . . .

Saddam was convinced that the UN sanctions - which stopped him acquiring weapons - were on the brink of collapse and he bankrolled several foreign activists who were campaigning for their abolition. He personally approved every one.

To keep America at bay, he focusing on Russia, France and China - three of the five UN Security Council members with the power to veto war. Politicians, journalists and diplomats were all given lavish gifts and oil-for-food vouchers.

Tariq Aziz, the former Iraqi deputy prime minister, told the ISG that the "primary motive for French co-operation" was to secure lucrative oil deals when UN sanctions were lifted. Total, the French oil giant, had been promised exploration rights.

Iraqi intelligence officials then "targeted a number of French individuals that Iraq thought had a close relationship to French President Chirac," it said, including two of his "counsellors" and spokesman for his re-election campaign.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
or not.

Guess the source:

"IS SADDAM MANUFACTURING EBOLA VIRUS? This important and detailed report from the Washington Post makes for unnerving reading. Yes, as the story details, we don't know for certain whether the reports of defectors are completely true and our satellites cannot determine with complete accuracy whether new buildings and construction are designed to build weapons of mass destruction. So the question becomes: who gets the benefit of the doubt? A dictator who has used such weapons and declared the United States as an enemy or a democratic country that has already experienced terrorist catastrophe?

KERRY'S OBVIOUS FLAW: For all the Times' puffery, isn't it a critical problem for John Kerry that he voted against the first war with Iraq? If he couldn't stand up to Saddam and the enemy after a brutal invasion of another country, why should we trust him to defend our security today? I'd say that's a fatal weakness."

(It's noted Kerry supporter Andrew Sullivan, pre-conversion. Isn't hindsight wonderful?)

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
I realize that, in this instance, Bilmore was "humorously" responding to a "humorous" comment made by Thurgreed, but it strikes me that substance of the debate as to who should be the head of the executive branch of the most powerful country in the world has, for maybe the last year or so, devolved to the following:

Bush supporters: "Kerry is a flip flopper."

Kerry supporters: "Oh yeah? Well, Bush is dumb."

Bush supporters: "Well how about this: Kerry flip flops."

Kerry supporters: "Well maybe you should think about the fact that Bush is dumb."

Bush supporters: "Flip flop. Flip flop."

Kerry supporters: "Dummy dumb dummy."

Of course, although I have not actually read any of it, I'm certain that the debate on this board is far more focused on substantive differences in the candidate's policies and reasoned arguments about the practical effect those policies will have on the country, and is not simply a bunch of dressed-up name-calling in which partisans approach politics with the same mentality as a sports game, supporting their chosen candidate/team regardless of the facts and circumstances and employing extraordinary feats of rationalization to do so.

Thus endeth my semiannual, highly condescending, "contribution" to the Politics Board.

FWIW, I'd like to have a mojito with Kerry.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
I realize that, in this instance, Bilmore was "humorously" responding to a "humorous" comment made by Thurgreed, but it strikes me that substance of the debate as to who should be the head of the executive branch of the most powerful country in the world has, for maybe the last year or so, devolved to the following:

Bush supporters: "Kerry is a flip flopper."

Kerry supporters: "Oh yeah? Well, Bush is dumb."

Bush supporters: "Well how about this: Kerry flip flops."

Kerry supporters: "Well maybe you should think about the fact that Bush is dumb."

Bush supporters: "Flip flop. Flip flop."

Kerry supporters: "Dummy dumb dummy."

Of course, although I have not actually read any of it, I'm certain that the debate on this board is far more focused on substantive differences in the candidate's policies and reasoned arguments about the practical effect those policies will have on the country, and is not simply a bunch of dressed-up name-calling in which partisans approach politics with the same mentality as a sports game, supporting their chosen candidate/team regardless of the facts and circumstances and employing extraordinary feats of rationalization to do so.

Thus endeth my semiannual, highly condescending, "contribution" to the Politics Board.

Well, that's all just stoopid.

(Point for me. Your turn.)

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
If you were a Republican, would YOU be talking about anything substantive right now? Me neither. Not when I sent hundreds of thousands of troops into Iraq to ferret out WMDs to realize they've been gone for 13 years. Whoops! Sorry about your dead sons, daughters, husbands and wives, folks! My bad!

Delete everything after "13 years" and replace it with, "I've seen how hard those troops work on tv," and add a few "Go fuck yourselves, we're never wrong," and it's a more accurate read.

TM

[bilmore]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
Are you extra-senile today old man? You just said, "But, after four years of the stuff that Ty doesn't want to hear about, I think the initiative is sort of DOA."

Is "at that point" "the final days of the campaign" or "the last four years?" No matter your answer, it was an empty campaign promise. But the "personal demonization" thing is a nice touch coming from a Republican.

TM

I understand your intentional obtusity (obtusiousity? obtuscatoriness?) and will try to make this clearer.

You: The campaign promise to "unite" was hooey.

Me: Not when made. But, when it became apparent that the other side of the aisle was all drinking from the same koolaid cooler, and screaming "he's Hitler's reincarnation!!", (which began in earnest in the last days of the same campaign in which he had made that "uniter" pledge), there was no longer any possibility that anything he could do would effect that pledge, aside from doing everything the Dems wanted him to do, and I doubt that that was his burden at that point.

[Replaced_Texan]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...12933_2004oct6

Unanimous rebuke of DeLay from the Ethics Committee. Fucking asshole.

R(can you tell that I hate this motherfucker)T

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by bilmore
I understand your intentional obtusity (obtusiousity? obtuscatoriness?) and will try to make this clearer.

You: The campaign promise to "unite" was hooey.

Me: Not when made. But, when it became apparent that the other side of the aisle was all drinking from the same koolaid cooler, and screaming "he's Hitler's reincarnation!!", (which began in earnest in the last days of the same campaign in which he had made that "uniter" pledge), there was no longer any possibility that anything he could do would effect that pledge, aside from doing everything the Dems wanted him to do, and I doubt that that was his burden at that point.

Whatever, bilmore. You changed what you said to try and bolster your original, flawed argument. But I expect no less from you. Either way, this one is done.

TM

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
(It's noted Kerry supporter Andrew Sullivan, pre-conversion. Isn't hindsight wonderful?)

Yes, hindsight does make analysis easier.

But the clarification that comes with the passage of time also helps to evaluate the performance of those involved at the time and since that time.

After all, it's not the break-in, or the oral sex, that gets you -- its the "cover-up."

No one would suggest that we ignore hindsight in performance evaluations -- and elections are in large part performance evaluations on a massive scale.

S_A_M

P.S. I freely admit that I can't be neutral or purely objective, because I _might_ have even voted for Howard Dean over Bush. (That would have been even harder than voting for Dukakis over Bush I.)

[bilmore]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
Whatever, bilmore. You changed what you said to try and bolster your original, flawed argument. But I expect no less from you. Either way, this one is done.

TM

Oh, good. Screw up your argument, and then declare victory. I like it.