Making Baby Jesus Cry

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
It is way too early to judge that. All we can be sure about the future is that it will be different than we all expect.

One other thing, it is pretty hard for me to imagine an Iraq turning into the type of country where I would say they would have been better off with Saddam Hussein. That would have to be one nasty civil war and it would have to last one hell of a long time.

If you believe the country would have been better of had we not invaded how do you explain the net increase in population (huge return of Iraqi exiles) as compared to a constant decrease in population the entire time Saddam was in power (I have seen estimates that one fourth of the countries population either left or were killed). If it is so bad why are people returning and not leaving.

2. the left only wants to see the bad. The people on the ground know the truth.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
In your heart, you secretly agree that Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot?

I liked Why Not Me? a lot.

I have not read "Why Not Me" but my favorite parts of RLBFI was the football game and the Vietnam scenario with Daniel Quail et. al.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Spanky
Franken? Al Franken? If that is a joke I don't get it.

(Don't agree with his politics but enjoy his books)

Joke. Franken as a mole inside the JL'smRWC.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Joke. Franken as a mole inside the JL'smRWC.

What is the beef between him and O'Reilly? I know that O'Reilly sued him and lost over the book cover but is there more to in than that? Why does O'Reilly accuse Franken as being a liar and why does Franken accuse O'Reilly of being a liar?

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Spanky
I have not read "Why Not Me" but my favorite parts of RLBFI was the football game and the Vietnam scenario with Daniel Quail et. al.

Why Not Me? was more of a slam on the political process here generally, though of course it had his general slant (he's not really a hide the ball type of guy). It becomes slightly less funny now that it appears likely he actually will run for political office at some point.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Spanky
What is the beef between him and O'Reilly? I know that O'Reilly sued him and lost over the book cover but is there more to in than that? Why does O'Reilly accuse Franken as being a liar and why does Franken accuse O'Reilly of being a liar?

Can't remember offhand. Franken has accused ol' microphone-butt of being inaccurate in a number of different respects. O'Reilly probably contends the same, though I find it hard to concentrate on his words, as the pulsating vein in his forehead is distracting.

Me, I just contentedly warm myself from the heat of their mutual rage.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
It is way too early to judge that. All we can be sure about the future is that it will be different than we all expect.

One other thing, it is pretty hard for me to imagine an Iraq turning into the type of country where I would say they would have been better off with Saddam Hussein. That would have to be one nasty civil war and it would have to last one hell of a long time.

If you believe the country would have been better of had we not invaded how do you explain the net increase in population (huge return of Iraqi exiles) as compared to a constant decrease in population the entire time Saddam was in power (I have seen estimates that one fourth of the countries population either left or were killed). If it is so bad why are people returning and not leaving.

I have never seen a report anywhere of huge numbers of returnees, but if I had to guess, I would say that people are very happy to return to Kurdistan, which is free of the threat of genocide and which enjoys a good relationship with us and Israel.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
2. the left only wants to see the bad. The people on the ground know the truth.

Sure, that must be it.

From Hardball:

• MATTHEWS: What I keep doing here is asking people on and off camera who come on this program, high-ranking officers, enlisted, former officers. I get sometimes, not all the time, two different versions, the version they give me on the air and the version they give me the minute when we‘re off the air.
  
  The version they give me when we‘re on the air is gung-ho, we‘re doing the right thing, everything is moving along. The version they give me off the air is, Rumsfeld is crazy. There aren‘t enough troops over there. We‘re not taking this seriously enough, or, we shouldn‘t be there, sometimes.... It isn‘t always a straight scoop when you go on television with people...

via Semi-Daily Journal

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
What is the beef between him and O'Reilly? I know that O'Reilly sued him and lost over the book cover but is there more to in than that? Why does O'Reilly accuse Franken as being a liar and why does Franken accuse O'Reilly of being a liar?

Franken is a liar by nature. Also a leftist by nature.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I have never seen a report anywhere of huge numbers of returnees, but if I had to guess, I would say that people are very happy to return to Kurdistan, which is free of the threat of genocide and which enjoys a good relationship with us and Israel.

So you agree that things on balance are better. When things are bad in a country you get massive population mirgrations. If the insurgency is so bad why aren't there masses fleeing the cities and fleeing the country?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
So you agree that things on balance are better.

Um, you realize that Kurdistan is but a subset of Iraq, yes? I think your sarcasm meter is off.

Christ.

oh, but hahahahahahahahahaha SMB is down to one lane -- you should SEE the traffic backed up.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Sure, that must be it.

From Hardball:

From the one well known leftist with an iota of sense, Chris Hitchens:

as well as being a vulgar producer of her own spectacle, and an embarrassment to her family, Cindy Sheehan is at best a shifty fantasist.

This is an argument, about a real war, that deserves moral seriousness on all sides. Flippancy and light-mindedness have no place. Cindy Sheehan's cheerleader Michael Moore has compared the "insurgents" in Iraq to the American minutemen and Founding Fathers. Do I taunt him for not volunteering to fight himself in such a noble cause? Of course I do not.That would be a low and sly blow. Do I say that he is spouting fascistic nonsense? Of course I do. Is Cindy Sheehan exempt from any verdict on her wacko opinions because of her bereavement? I would say that she is not. Has she been led into a false position by eager cynics who have sacrificed nothing and who would happily surrender unconditionally to the worst enemy that currently faces civilization? That's for her to clarify. While she ponders, she should forgo prayer, stay in California, and end her protest.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
So you agree that things on balance are better. When things are bad in a country you get massive population mirgrations. If the insurgency is so bad why aren't there masses fleeing the cities and fleeing the country?

No, I agree that things are better in Kurdistan.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No, I agree that things are better in Kurdistan.

And that's a start. The trickle down will flow to Sunnistan and the Shiite south.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
And that's a start. The trickle down will flow to Sunnistan and the Shiite south.

Are you on crack? Why do you think it's going to get better?