Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
We could argue past each other for days, so I'll try to hone it to a simpler point...

I used to do crim work. I had clients come in and tell me variations of a story, and it made me cringe. I knew that if your story changed, even slightly, you were probably guilty. And juries seemed to recognize that very quickly. In both civil and criminal courts, man who changes his explanation or offers 10 disparate reasons for his innocence usually finds himself a judgment creditor or behind bars.

I know that Bush had good inetntions in manipulating, remaining willfully ignorant and probably lying to get us into Iraq. Its pretty opbvious his admin cooked the intell. And that his supporters keep changing his basis for going all but proves their culpability. Everyone knows it, but his admin isn't prosecuted because nobody can stomacch another Clinton/Lewinsky mess, and everyone is afraid of pushing the Republic toward turmoil during a "war on terror." We all went along with Iraq. We knew he couldn't sell the real reason for the war (reshaping the middle east) so we all played ostrich while the pretext was built from tortured facts. I'm not some idiot who believes we went there for oil. I understand thaat it was a bold and daring reaction, and might still change the world for the better. So I don't call for Bush's impeachment.

BUT, what I can't stomach are those who refuse to call a lie/manipulation/cooking of intell for what it is. Its just embarrassing to suggest that Bush wasn't forcing us into Iraq under a pretext. Its as obvious as the nose on your face that that is exactly what happened. Perhaps history will judge his manipulation necessary, possibly visionary.

But it was a manipulation. There is no doubt about that. And every oddball fact you scavange from dusty UN reports, and every disparate new tortured justification you offer to create a legitimate basis just helps to prove my point.

The fact that you fail to acknowledge thereby disrespecting the Constitution and the democratic process (much like the Clintonistas) is that Bush's Iraq policy was affirmed by a public referendum last November. Just because you were on the losing side of that referendum is no reason to be ignorant of it.

Better luck next time, although I doubt we will see a Dem president in Coltrane's lifetime.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
6'11" guys don't run sub 6 miles.

but how about IQ? I can't break the 150 mark. Have you earned your 3rd digit yet?

Tell me again, who is dumbest?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Tell me again, who is dumbest?

not me. you keep paraphrasing me.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
not me. you keep paraphrasing me.

I sense your upset, is this the Spank Myasski thing?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
I love the sound of helicopters in the morning. Sounds like . . . victory.

Why this anti-Bush hack got selected to make an anti-Bush whitewash out of lies and more lies is important. He lied about virtually everything, and it appears that this quasi-undercover agent wife (who had been publicly listed as far back as 2001 as being in the CIA) who had a virulently anti-Bush agenda, used her influence to get him selected. Was that a proper use of authority and power for someone who supposedly worked for Bush - to work even harder to undermine him? Seems to me that, in making such an effort, in using her work powers, she puts herself out there. I don't think you can use your "undercover" status as a sword. I think she tried, and it didn't work. Poor babe.

Like NotBob says, the whitewash is just . . . stoopid. It shoulda been cleared up a while ago. But the underlying saga primarily exists so that some people can redirect attention away from the guy who was their hero, but who turned out to be a lying goat. Proof of their effectiveness can be found in the number of people who can remember the original yellowcake stories, but don't remember that Wilson's stories turned out to be all lies.

I don't remember the original yellowcake stories all that clearly, and I don't remeber any clear evidence that Wilson lied either. But I do distinctly remember McClellan stating categorically that Rove was not the leak. I also remember Rove stating that he was not the leak.

So, if Wilson did lie, and if those lies justify trying to smear not only him, but his wife, then what is appropriate with respect to the lies that Rove and McClelllan told?

Alternatively, there is a possibility that McClellan wasn't lying, that he was merely relying on people who were lying to him. But, then, what should be done about the ones who lied to him?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
My great grandfather was also active in the Republican party (he was a State Senator from Everett Washington and was known as Weyerhauser's man in Olympia)

Bragging about the fact that your great-grandfather was a bought political hack is not usually the sort of thing one hears outside of the Outfit or the Daley Machine.

Does it give you street cred in the West, too?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk


So, if Wilson did lie, and if those lies justify trying to smear not only him, but his wife, then what is appropriate with respect to the lies that Rove and McClelllan told?

If it had been under oath, for consistency's sake i would say we should impeach them.

Originally posted by taxwonk


Alternatively, there is a possibility that McClellan wasn't lying, that he was merely relying on people who were lying to him. But, then, what should be done about the ones who lied to him?

As soon we decide on the appropriate consequences for Hillary's lies on the January 27, 1998, Today Show, we can apply the same consequences to McClellan.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Speaking of the Democrats' Communistic tendencies:

Karl Marx must be rolling in his grave, and don't even ask about V. I. Lenin: Russia eliminated its inheritance tax last month. Its move comes after January's decision by the government of Sweden, the birthplace of the modern-day welfare state, to eliminate its estate tax. ........

The U.S. now has the distinction of imposing the most onerous death tax in the industrialized world. ......If this sounds, well, a bit communistic, it is. The third policy plank of Marx's "Communist Manifesto" is "taxation of all inheritance."(hi Comrade Wonk!)

How shameful and destructive to those patriots amongst us who work hard to provide for our families. Why do the Dems seek to destroy family values, why, Bilmore, why?

There is no tax on death. And only a jackass would argue so strongly in favor of the the repeal of a tax that will never be a burden on him when he knows that elimination of that tax will ultimately increase his own tax burden.

I reiterate that the increase in FIT that is passed to make up the shortfall from the repeal of the estate tax is passed, the bill should be entitled "The Idiots' Excise Tax Act." Informally, it can be referred to as the Shrub Tax.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
Okay, it took me a minute. Turd Blossom! How sweetly quaint! You guys really are the nice party, aren't you?

Actually, Turd Blossom is the nickname the Bush gave the unknown party who outed Plame. I guess that makes Mr. President the Belle of the Nice Party Ball.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
There is no tax on death. And only a jackass would argue so strongly in favor of the the repeal of a tax that will never be a burden on him when he knows that elimination of that tax will ultimately increase his own tax burden.

I reiterate that the increase in FIT that is passed to make up the shortfall from the repeal of the estate tax is passed, the bill should be entitled "The Idiots' Excise Tax Act." Informally, it can be referred to as the Shrub Tax.

Whether or not it is a tax on death is semantics. It is certainly communistic.

I argue for both the repeal of the estate tax and furthering lowering of the FIT and am not convinced that this cannot happen. In the alternative I will be passing on my second amendment rights insurance to my heirs.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
The fact that you fail to acknowledge thereby disrespecting the Constitution and the democratic process (much like the Clintonistas) is that Bush's Iraq policy was affirmed by a public referendum last November. Just because you were on the losing side of that referendum is no reason to be ignorant of it.

Better luck next time, although I doubt we will see a Dem president in Coltrane's lifetime.

Where was the box that said "I [support/disaprove] of the Iraq War"?

Oh, I'm just being nitpicky. You're right. The election was a referendum on Iraq. There were no cultural or economic issues involved.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Actually, Turd Blossom is the nickname the Bush gave the unknown party who outed Plame. I guess that makes Mr. President the Belle of the Nice Party Ball.

Just because 50 Cent uses "nigga" in his lyrics does not make it acceptable for you or Coltrane to be tossin it around casually.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I did not do well and yet despite this I know what perjury is, why it is wrong and I respect the rule of law. 3 things I don't share with my fellow Americans who call themselves Demos.

Fuck you, asshole.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Whether or not it is a tax on death is semantics. It is certainly communistic.

I argue for both the repeal of the estate tax and furthering lowering of the FIT and am not convinced that this cannot happen. In the alternative I will be passing on my second amendment rights insurance to my heirs.

"Communistic?" Even when I agree with you, I'm constrained to do so, because it requires me get behind childlike simplifications. The scary thing is I can never tell whether yours is intentional or unintentional comedy.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Where was the box that said "I [support/disaprove] of the Iraq War"?

Oh, I'm just being nitpicky. You're right. The election was a referendum on Iraq. There were no cultural or economic issues involved.

It is part of a whole, the people who support lower taxes and the culture of life also support our national defence. On the other hand you have the culture of death, higher taxes and appeasement-not Red State positions.