Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by baltassoc
I've missed a few days here, so I may be out of the loop, but what's a MWD? Apologies if you're just dyslexic. I'm just wondering if I'm missing something since you did the same thing in two sentences.

Mah bad. WMD. Once I make a mistake, I try to make the mistake consistently. Even when I'm mistaken, I'm no flip-flopper.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by taxwonk
As far as who I believe will do the best job of preventing such attacks.... I don't believe anybody can prevent such attacks. I think that either candidate can put in place and adminster an intelligence and security infrastructure that will frustrate and prevent many opportunities. But the enemy is far more committed to this than us, and individually, they are far more willing to die.

And my guy Bush is far more willing to help them die. The description of the people at the wedding is a perfect example of the uncommitted leftist base. Its the millions who buy Fahrenheit 9/11 and believe Moore is right. They think if we just sit back here in the good old U.S. of A, nobody will hold our success against us. And, of course, there is always that oil supply/suburbs/driving thing that we have to ensure. I might reread The Prize again if I have time.

I'm glad to see you recognize the lack of committment thing among many in this country. Come over to our side and you'll see where the committed people are. It is Bush's fundamental selling point.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Make up your mind. A month ago, you were from the poorer old neighborhoods that were the primary locus of white flight, like the area around Taylor Street and the near West Side. Now you're claiming to be a middle-to-upper class Catolic (what, Winnetka or Gold Coast?)

You rewrite your personal history more than Gatsby.

I'll PM you with the answer (completely and utterly outable), but when you accept it, please acknowledge that my story is consistent.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

As an aside, partial birth birth abortion is the leftist feminist's version of the Iraq War. The pro-choicers moved the front line 1000 miles away. As long as the pro-choicers can keep the battle focused on partial birth abortion, the pro-lifers have that much harder a battle making any headway against regular abortions. And the pro-lifers fell right into the strategy. Its like the pro-lifers had never haggled in their lives.

Partial birth abortion also provides every politician with a great opportunity to disingenuously pretend he's pro-life without angering moderates.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
And my guy Bush is far more willing to help them die. The description of the people at the wedding is a perfect example of the uncommitted leftist base. Its the millions who buy Fahrenheit 9/11 and believe Moore is right. They think if we just sit back here in the good old U.S. of A, nobody will hold our success against us. And, of course, there is always that oil supply/suburbs/driving thing that we have to ensure. I might reread The Prize again if I have time.

I'm glad to see you recognize the lack of committment thing among many in this country. Come over to our side and you'll see where the committed people are. It is Bush's fundamental selling point.

Alas, not nearly enough of you have been committed.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Alas, not nearly enough of you have been committed.

I'm not the one who "sees" a right of privacy in the Constitution.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I'm not the one who "sees" a right of privacy in the Constitution.

I'm glad you edited your post. But if you choose to send your thought police after me next, I'd prefer that my method of execution be 800 million babies with hacksaws.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I'm not the one who "sees" a right of privacy in the Constitution.

To be fair, Sebby "sees" the right in the Constitutional penumbra and emanations. (Ha! I kill me!)

Apropos of Roe, the more I hear about Bush's "Dred Scott" remark, the more impressed I am with whoever came up with that idea. Fricking genius. Pantywaist liberals like me laugh and sneer at the surface stupidity of his remarks, while The Base picks up on the code and is reassured that Roe v. Wade is toast once O'Connor retires. And he is able to do it without most people having any idear what he is doing.

Sebby, do you really think that Bush doesn't mean what he says? You social-issues libertarians better hope that you are right ...

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I'm glad you edited your post. But if you choose to send your thought police after me next, I'd prefer that my method of execution be 800 million babies with hacksaws.

Joey called. His mom is taking him shopping and wants to know if you want to go too. If you do, be sure to be home in time for your orthodontist appointment.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Pantywaist liberals like me laugh and sneer at the surface stupidity of his remarks

See TaxWonk? You make it sound like these people aren't more than half of Kerry's support. I'm telling you, this sums up what I heard at the wedding.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I'm glad you edited your post. But if you choose to send your thought police after me next, I'd prefer that my method of execution be 800 million babies with hacksaws.

This AM Stern had a guy on who believed lizards control the main families and interbreed etc. He gave his webpage, but I fogot it. It was not bridgeoflove.com

Someone is ripping of Ickes act! Maybe the lecture ticket prices will drop.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Bob
me laugh and sneer at the surface stupidity of his remarks,

"internets" ha ha this is the stuff of national news.

the Kerry mis-statements we point to here weekly? they are so not covered I don't even remember what they are.

Go Team Dem!!!!

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I'm not the one who "sees" a right of privacy in the Constitution.

I find it implicit in the second amendment.

Literalists are funny animals. I find them really interesting because they're always harping about consistency and adherence to the letter of things, except of course when they don't like the way the letters read, in which case they embrace "conservative interpretation", more honestly known by those who like to interpret text as "ideological interpretation."

A great case in point is the govt's drug policy (I hate to hit this easy nail so often, but a finer example of how full of shit most 'conservatives' are can't be found). The false conservatives like to scream for states rights on every issue imaginable. But then, when the states use their rights - to a laudable end, since the Fed Drug policy is 'unconstitutional' under most literalist's standards - suddenly, the conservatives (save intellectually honest, and therefore rare, true conservatives like Buckley) are all about Federal pre-emption. Hmm. The states should have the right to regulate abortion, but not marijuana use? The Fed govt should keep its hand off the states when they get involved in seriou issues like abortion, but should get involved in matters like cancer patients and hippies trying to smoke weed?

Give me a fucking break. I see no honest conservatives anywhere. I see people who want limited govt unless and until that limitation allows other people to act in ways that offend those "conservatives" At least I'm fukcing honest. I'll tell you where I'm coming from. These fucking "conservatives" are always hiding their agenda and the reason is simple - they are the party of less liberty. They deep down want to control people. Their core belief is that we're better off if certain moral notions they like are enforced on everyone else. Call yourself what you are, will you? You're nothing more than the moralizing mirror image of the liberals who think we should all be hyper-regulated like children because we don't know what's good for us.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Not Bob
To be fair, Sebby "sees" the right in the Constitutional penumbra and emanations. (Ha! I kill me!)

Apropos of Roe, the more I hear about Bush's "Dred Scott" remark, the more impressed I am with whoever came up with that idea. Fricking genius. Pantywaist liberals like me laugh and sneer at the surface stupidity of his remarks, while The Base picks up on the code and is reassured that Roe v. Wade is toast once O'Connor retires. And he is able to do it without most people having any idear what he is doing.

Sebby, do you really think that Bush doesn't mean what he says? You social-issues libertarians better hope that you are right ...

There is another group who I've read speak in codes to their followers... who was that again? They've been in the news a lot the last few years...

My hope and prayer is that Bush is, deep down inside, a snotty East Coast Presbyterian, and that he'll snap into his daddy's policies in his second term when he's got nothing left to lose. My fear is that we'll get some shit-for-brains Santorum clone like Frist as the next candidate and the Southern Strategy will give us another four years of dealing with control by the lowest common denominator.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I see no honest conservatives anywhere. I see people who want limited govt unless and until that limitation allows other people to act in ways that offend those "conservatives" At least I'm fukcing honest. I'll tell you where I'm coming from. These fucking "conservatives" are always hiding their agenda and the reason is simple - they are the party of less liberty. They deep down want to control people. Their core belief is that we're better off if certain moral notions they like are enforced on everyone else. Call yourself what you are, will you? You're nothing more than the moralizing mirror image of the liberals who think we should all be hyper-regulated like children because we don't know what's good for us.

Keep in mind that the sides are sort of equally comprised of proportions of normal people, and issue-zealots. I'm conservative. I'd like more liberty. But, I don't want you murdering your landlord. Is that a moral position? Yeah. Want to argue that it's thus not the proper role of government to interfere in that murder?