Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Majority, eh?

Is that why our two-term Republican President is spending like a drunken sailor Democrat?

Not Wired, not even Tired -- this baby is now Expired!!!


Wired: deficit spending like a Republican
Tired: GOP, the party of fiscal discipline?
Expired: spending like a drunken sailor Democrat

[SlaveNoMore]

ltl/fb
Basically (as edited), yeah.

Right. Because Sailor-Democrat is an oxymoron.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Is that why our two-term Republican President is spending like a drunken sailor Democrat?

Typically, drunken sailors don't have that much money, so this is a misnomer. He's spending like a drunken sales executive on an expense-account junket.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by bilmore
Typically, drunken sailors don't have that much money, so this is a misnomer. He's spending like a drunken sales executive on an expense-account junket.

This I can agree with too.

Slave, you dumbass, on the whole he's not spending on things Democrats would spend on.

[SlaveNoMore]

ltl/fb
This I can agree with too.

Slave, you dumbass, on the whole he's not spending on things Democrats would spend on.

Thank.Fucking.God.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Thank.Fucking.God.

Yes, dear.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Thank.Fucking.God.

2. He's on a spree, but at least it's (mostly) for the right stuff.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by bilmore
2. He's on a spree, but at least it's (mostly) for the right stuff.

Yes, dear, part 2.

[bilmore]

Cool interview excerpt from The American Enterprise:

"TAE: At the Swift Boat veterans' May 4 press conference you had an open letter calling Kerry unfit to be Commander in Chief. It was signed by virtually all of John Kerry's commanders in Vietnam. Yet the story fell flat. The media ignored it. How did your group react to the media blackout?

O'NEILL: We were shocked. We couldn't believe it. I haven't been involved in politics or media relations, and I thought the job of the media was primarily to report the facts. It was obvious to me that many hundreds of his former comrades coming forward to say that he lied about his record in Vietnam and that he was unfit to be President would be important information for Americans. I only then became aware of the bias of the media.

TAE: How do you explain the media's response?

O'NEILL: The establishment media was very pro-Kerry. They were opposed to any story that was critical of Kerry, and I believe that they were captured by their own bias. We met with one reporter around that time. We told a story to him relating to Kerry's service. He acknowledged it was true and terribly important. And he told us he would not print it because it would help George Bush. That's when we began to realize we had a real problem on our hands.

TAE: Is there anything other than pro-Kerry bias to account for the establishment media's attitude to the story?

O'NEILL: Perhaps a second factor is that there are very few veterans in the established media. It makes it very difficult for them to understand the story or to care about it. That's very different from the situation 40 or 50 years ago when most people had served in some fashion in the armed forces or had uncles or brothers who had.

TAE: Did your group consider giving up?

O'NEILL: We couldn't give up because in the end our objective was to get our facts out. We had to be able to look at ourselves the day after the election and know we had done everything we could. If we were simply shouting in the desert, we would still have to shout.

Our analysis after the press conference was that the three major networks, the New York Times, and the Washington Post would under no circumstances carry a story like ours, no matter how well documented. The strategy we devised first involved use of a fifteenth-century method of communication; that is, writing a book, which may sound strange in the telecommunications age. But that book, Unfit for Command, sold over 850,000 copies. I've often mused how funny it is that the New York Times had to list it as No. 1 on its bestseller list. The second thing we did was run, with the small amount of money we had, our ad, which featured 15 of us.

TAE: Did your group come up with the content of the ads?

O'NEILL: Yes, the content had to come from us. There's not an advertising firm in the world that's ever been on a Swift Boat. And none of them were there on the day of March 14 when Kerry fled on the Bay Hop.

The same thing is true of the second ad. None of us will ever forget the day Kerry testi-fied before Congress. It was like the Kennedy assassination. And so we just couldn't live in the United States if we didn't make a statement about his testimony in 1971."

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by bilmore
Cool interview excerpt from The American Enterprise:

I am so glad you posted that thing about eyes rolling and wrists being patted and people saying "yes dear," because it so perfectly describes my reaction to the vast majority of your, slave's, and penske's socks' posts. Though, sometimes I think "jesus fucking christ!" instead of "yes dear" and my wrist pats might involve fists.

I'm sure you know that, but I wanted to thank you.

fwiw, I have that reaction to Ty/G3 sometimes, too. But not as frequently.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I am so glad you posted that thing about eyes rolling and wrists being patted and people saying "yes dear," because it so perfectly describes my reaction to the vast majority of your, slave's, and penske's socks' posts. Though, sometimes I think "jesus fucking christ!" instead of "yes dear" and my wrist pats might involve fists.

I'm sure you know that, but I wanted to thank you.

fwiw, I have that reaction to Ty/G3 sometimes, too. But not as frequently.

I'm curious. O'Neil strikes me as a fairly reasonable guy, and he did have virtually every one of Kerry's Nam superiors lined up and saying Kerry was unfit - and giving reasons based on specific events in VN. (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, and assuning you read the interview, and didn't do the reflexive "oh, the Swift Boat Jerks" thing.)

Plus, the stuff they claimed about Kerry ended up about 1/2 proven, 1/4 contested in differing characterizations, and 1/4 contested with factual assertions, all of which leaves me unable to do what Dems seem to have done, which is to completely ignore and demonize them.

Do you just totally disbelieve all of those people on faith - especially all of those in that group of his commanders - and then chuckle patronizingly when someone mentions them - or do you have some unshared info that allows you to make a reasoned judgment that they are bad, or wrong, or . . . ?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
Typically, drunken sailors don't have that much money, so this is a misnomer. He's spending like a drunken sales executive on an expense-account junket.

For someone as old as you are, you've lost a lot of perspective.

Back in the day, a sailor would come into port after a year at sea hunting whales and shit, and if it was a successful hunt, they'd be downright rich by the days standards. Two or three successful hunts and you were set for life.

They'd also have had no sex (except to the extent a guy name Quequeeq lent them his pole) in over a year.

So they had lots of money, but it was not just spending money, but the way they spent it. A coked up i-banker just isn't going to spend like a drunken sailor.

Clinton would have known how to spend like a drunken sailor, though he never did. Bush hasn't spent like a drunken sailor since his coke days, and even then I have trouble seeing wild-eyed doped up George throwing hundreds at loose women to do unusual things. Let's face it, we haven't seen a president who could and did really spend like a drunken sailor since JFK.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
I'm curious. O'Neil strikes me as a fairly reasonable guy, and he did have virtually every one of Kerry's Nam superiors lined up and saying Kerry was unfit - and giving reasons based on specific events in VN. (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, and assuning you read the interview, and didn't do the reflexive "oh, the Swift Boat Jerks" thing.)

Plus, the stuff they claimed about Kerry ended up about 1/2 proven, 1/4 contested in differing characterizations, and 1/4 contested with factual assertions, all of which leaves me unable to do what Dems seem to have done, which is to completely ignore and demonize them.

Do you just totally disbelieve all of those people on faith - especially all of those in that group of his commanders - and then chuckle patronizingly when someone mentions them - or do you have some unshared info that allows you to make a reasoned judgment that they are bad, or wrong, or . . . ?

Fishing with bait is wimpy.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by bilmore


"TAE: At the Swift Boat veterans' May 4 press conference you had an open letter calling Kerry unfit to be Commander in Chief. It was signed by virtually all of John Kerry's commanders in Vietnam. Yet the story fell flat. The media ignored it. How did your group react to the media blackout?

Cite, please.

O'NEILL: We were shocked. We couldn't believe it. I haven't been involved in politics or media relations, and I thought the job of the media was primarily to report the facts. It was obvious to me that many hundreds of his former comrades coming forward to say that he lied about his record in Vietnam and that he was unfit to be President would be important information for Americans. I only then became aware of the bias of the media.

Then and only then. Yeah, right.

TAE: How do you explain the media's response?

O'NEILL: The establishment media was very pro-Kerry. They were opposed to any story that was critical of Kerry, and I believe that they were captured by their own bias. We met with one reporter around that time. We told a story to him relating to Kerry's service. He acknowledged it was true and terribly important. And he told us he would not print it because it would help George Bush.

Cite, please.

That's when we began to realize we had a real problem on our hands.

TAE: Is there anything other than pro-Kerry bias to account for the establishment media's attitude to the story?

O'NEILL: Perhaps a second factor is that there are very few veterans in the established media. It makes it very difficult for them to understand the story or to care about it. That's very different from the situation 40 or 50 years ago when most people had served in some fashion in the armed forces or had uncles or brothers who had.

TAE: Did your group consider giving up?

O'NEILL: We couldn't give up because in the end our objective was to get our facts out. We had to be able to look at ourselves the day after the election and know we had done everything we could. If we were simply shouting in the desert, we would still have to shout.

Our analysis after the press conference was that the three major networks, the New York Times, and the Washington Post would under no circumstances carry a story like ours, no matter how well documented.

Cite, please. My recollection is that is was the lack of documentation that raised doubts.

he strategy we devised first involved use of a fifteenth-century method of communication; that is, writing a book, which may sound strange in the telecommunications age. But that book, Unfit for Command, sold over 850,000 copies. I've often mused how funny it is that the New York Times had to list it as No. 1 on its bestseller list. The second thing we did was run, with the small amount of money we had, our ad, which featured 15 of us.

TAE: Did your group come up with the content of the ads?

O'NEILL: Yes, the content had to come from us. There's not an advertising firm in the world that's ever been on a Swift Boat. And none of them were there on the day of March 14 when Kerry fled on the Bay Hop.

The same thing is true of the second ad. None of us will ever forget the day Kerry testi-fied before Congress. It was like the Kennedy assassination. And so we just couldn't live in the United States if we didn't make a statement about his testimony in 1971."

And O'Neill's been making statements about it since 1971. What a hack.

[slavio]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


I think most of the blog comments are from Penske,

The secret admin powers lead me to think that description holds for everyone who posts here regularly.