Waiting for Fitzgerald

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Bilmore makes an appearance and the board goes crazy.

They saw me, and all thought "ooo, low hanging fruit!"

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by bilmore
With Landrieu, there's that whole "I'm actually too stoopid to accomplish anything I attempt" defense, which, when it's a BARD burden, makes prosecution a waste of time. It's like a diminished capacity defense, but with nicer suits.

Too bad that wasn't the rationale the demos have for not criticising the infraction. I could respect that.

[softball] How about speculation on what happens when W makes the same threat against Nagin?[/softball]

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by bilmore
They saw me, and all thought "ooo, low hanging fruit!"

Uhm, tmi dude. I really didn't need that visual.

[Penske_Account]

Apparently certain parts of NY State are waking to the nightmare of their reality.

From the Auburn, NY Citizen:

Unfortunately, [Hillary] Clinton knew little about the Auburn road project. Instead, the senator kept her statements broad and general, a sure sign that Auburn was little more than a convenient photo opportunity on her way to Seneca Falls.

We'd appreciate it if state and federal politicians saw Auburn as something more than a scheduling convenience on the way to someplace else. Or at least fake it a bit better.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Certainly, that retrenchment is easier to defend. Kudos to you.

Sorry to disappoint you, but it's mostly political reality that keeps anyone from doing completely what they want to do. Do you doubt that? Do you think the Dems, when they were in power, left you ANY take home pay because they were concerned about you? Nope - because they had to compromise.

Most of Bush's actions have involved that political compromise. We're not in Syria right now, mostly because of political compromise. For you to imply that that's not a factor in everything a pres does is either naive or wilfully obtuse.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by bilmore
Do you think the Dems, when they were in power, left you ANY take home pay because they were concerned about you? Nope - because they had to compromise.

And in the process the wilfully obtuse socialist dimwits, cripple our economy and our freedom.


According to a new report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office, we pay a very heavy price for the heavy taxation of saving, investment, corporations and estates that Tritch strongly favors. It found that the efficiency cost of the tax system -- the output that is lost over and above the tax itself -- is between 2 percent and 5 percent of the gross domestic product. In short, we lose between $240 billion and $600 billion every year just because of the way we raise taxes.

Based on past postings I think that we could safely replace "Tritch" with the names of any one of several leftwing posters from this board. I wonder what part of being exposed to the benefits of freedom and capitalist markets causes the lefties to turn on our system and seeks its destruction in the name of socialism, which is a slippery slope to Marxism. Why, Bilmoure, why?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
The examples are interchangeable. They are they to make the same point. Sometimes killing innocent people is necessary. Liking killing German civilians to get rid of Hitler, or killing innocent American soliders to get rid of Hitler.

How is that in any way similar to deliberately giving blacks syphilis and not treating them at the Tuskegee Institute? Your example was only relevant if your were arguing (a) that we should have killed those responsible for Miss Ever's Boys, or (b) that it was okay to give the men syphilis. Neither was what you were arguing though. So your analogy didn;t hold water.

You are assuming that the insurgency has popular support. I don't think it does. I think the majority of the people hate the insurgents in the Sunni areas. And in the Shiite areas they are almost overwhelmingly hated and in the Kurdish areas they have no support.

I don't think that's true. Cite, please.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I don't think that's true. Cite, please.

huh? That's pretty common-knowledge stuff. Look to the polls that exist. Look to the anecdotal stuff in the Iraqi press. Look to the Iraq blogs. At some point, you can't just keep saying "show me proof", especially when you're dealing with commonly-accepted theses. The burden shifts.

(ETA) - But then, you're the guy who keeps saying that the Iraqis opposed our invasion and want us out. So I have to expect a certain level of wishful thinking, I guess.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
Sorry to disappoint you, but it's mostly political reality that keeps anyone from doing completely what they want to do. Do you doubt that? Do you think the Dems, when they were in power, left you ANY take home pay because they were concerned about you? Nope - because they had to compromise.

Most of Bush's actions have involved that political compromise. We're not in Syria right now, mostly because of political compromise. For you to imply that that's not a factor in everything a pres does is either naive or wilfully obtuse.

I agree that political calculations play a role in almost everything a President does.

I disagree with your contention that Bush and Rummy decided, for the "purely political reason of not wanting to give the D's more ammo," to cut by about 2/3 the troop force levels that Bush's generals were suggesting, and for the last several years to keep those levels essentially where they were, in the face of growing evidence that this was a particularly bad idea.

Whatever else you may say about it, the Iraq War has been the defining act of this Administration. For you to suggest that political compromise, instead of ideology or other realities, was the driver that caused the Administration to slash troop levels is, IMO, either naive or willfully obtuse.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
Empire? Sure, territorial conquest leads to bad things. But we want to walk away once people are free. Where has that happened in history? I think it's the lust for land that leads to what you speak of.

And, yeah, evil exists, but that's no reason to let it lead a comfortable life. You seem to be saying, we can't eradicate it, so let's give up. I can't buy into that.

Our power can kill a significant number of people who think they are entitled to ruin and end other people's lives. No, we can't take over the world, but we don't want to. We can just wipe out as many baddies as feasible, and then go home knowing that we've left the good people in a much better position to lead nice lives. I'm willing to go that far.

Experience has shown me that the baddies are replaced by other baddies. The collapse of the Nomenklatura and the KGB in the former USSR has led to a number of countries being run by either smaller despots, Islamofacists, or gangsters. We are still in Afghanistan and Iraq because, quite frankly, the people who want to lead are the wrong people and they're the only ones willing to fight and die. At least for the next few generations.

I'm not suggesting we throw up our hands and give in completely. We have economic weight, which can be used to favor those who represent democratic and free principals and punish those who oppress their people. We have the ability to arm, train, and even, on occassion fight with indigenous rebel groups.

I think you're not thinking things through in manner consistent with history if you believe that we are going to ride out, smack down the villains and ride off into the sunset with a wave and a mighty Hiyo, Silver, though.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Please show me a cite on a Harryette Miers phottoshoppe? There are none. Your side posted pics of her and made fun of her hair and makeup, as if y'all are so beautiful. You leftists accuse me of being up Bush's arse, and yet I came out first against this nomination from a substantive standpoint, and yet you still use your petty puerile PoPD against me, so, in the words of one of the great demo thinkers on this Board, Go. Fuck. Yourself. Hard.

As for our collective opinion I think the vote was 5-2-1 for confirmation.

How about your phony Luttig website? You had one other one, too, as I recall. I concede those weren't photoshops posted on this board, but quite frankly, I think you actually benefitted by my oversight.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
The interesting thing is, Wonk gets deleted for his post that arguably raised issues under the Federal statute which prohibits threats against the PotUS, et al., and yet not one leftie here will duly criticise Dimwitted Senator Mary Landrieu when, on the public record, she blatantly violates the same statute with a expressly explicit threat against the physical being of the PotUS, which she has the ability to imminently carry out. And repeats the same threat when given the chance to back down.

Imagine, Bilmoure, iyw, if Bush made the same threat against say, Nagin. What result?

Once again, I didn't threaten to kill the President, by any reasonable interpretation of what I said. As for Senator Landrieu, I'm assuming that nobody's invoking the statue because it was tossed out as violative of the First Amendment the first time it was invoked.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
For you to suggest that political compromise, instead of ideology or other realities, was the driver . . .

You don't understand. Had the Bush admin acted solely on ideology, and not been concerned with political acceptability and compromise, there would be no abortions, we'd be in Syria, my SUV would be sipping Alaskan gasoline, and Ty would be in jail. There are no "sole" drivers. There are drivers.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Once again, I didn't threaten to kill the President, by any reasonable interpretation of what I said.

This would be more meaningful if you didn't have to add the qualifier. Who defines "reasonable"? You? Then, no, I'm sure you're right.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
How about your phony Luttig website? You had one other one, too, as I recall. I concede those weren't photoshops posted on this board, but quite frankly, I think you actually benefitted by my oversight.

Take the stick out of your arse you humourless fucking prig. It's a meaningless internet chatboard which serves as a topical receptacle for about 12 people's mental masturbation on politics. While you may beat me out for the prise of erudite ivory tower intellect based on your postings here, step back and look at your great accomplishment with some objectivity.

Boo fucking hoo.