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

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Fuck you, asshole.

The truth hurts. Don't blame me, blame the Clintons.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
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.

I'm really tired of hearing this crap from people in states who get more in Federal funds than they pay in taxes, and who support an administration that wants to cut back on soldiers' combat pay and underfund VA hospitals. Yeah, these are the same good folks who will kill in the name of defending life until a baby is born, then turn their backs and forget that the kid is growing up hungry, cold and alone. Go fly that flag if it makes you feel good, though.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

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?

169 on the internet.

167 IRL.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
The truth hurts. Don't blame me, blame the Clintons.

No. The Clintons' didn't hold a gun to your head and make you say stupid shit like that. At least have the balls to take responsibility for the crap you spew that passes in freeperland for independent thought.

So I repeat - fuck you, asshole.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
169 on the internet.

167 IRL.

[spookyfish]

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.

Fuck. When you put it this way, I would have rather had it be about Iraq.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
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.

Interesting. So fiscal conservative, socially liberal Rockefeller Republicans are extinct? Fuck. Thanks for the memo. You better send one to Slave also.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
"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.

The great English actor, Sir Edmund Gwenn remarked on his deathbed, when he was dying, “Death is easy. Comedy is hard." I am not sure what his take on intentional versus unintentional comedy was.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Interesting. So fiscal conservative, socially liberal Rockefeller Republicans are extinct? Fuck. Thanks for the memo. You better send one to Slave also.

Either they are extinct or they are no longer in control of the GOP.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by taxwonk
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?

There is a summary of (liberal) media views on whats happening here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...041100587.html

Sorta interesting reading. If the characterization is right (i.e., that the distinction can be boiled down to saying "Joe Wilson's wife at the CIA" is not the same as saying "undercover Valerie Plame at the CIA"), than its not something they should be saying. And I'm not sure, but the only people I've ever heard say directly that they work for the CIA are people who used to work for the CIA. In the public's eye, Rove specifically mentioning this stuff to a reporter is simply not going to look right.

If they spent 2 years lying (er, misleading) and stonewalling to hide this, than the appearance of guilt alone is enough to convict in the electoral eye. At least, today or this week, but maybe not next year.

Politically speaking, the Dems need to find a way to drag this out until the midterm elections next year, and to make it stick.

Hello

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Yeah, these are the same good folks who will kill in the name of defending life until a baby is born, then turn their backs and forget that the kid is growing up hungry, cold and alone..

Coming from someone who conspired with the other liberals to rip out Terri Schiavo's feeding tube and dehydrate her to death in the name of the paternalistic State, your rhetoric is empty. You and your kind need a good dose of personal responsibility to go along with a couple of doses of respect for life and liberty.

[sgtclub]

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.

Your premise is, well, just wrong. Bush had 5-6 reasons for going to Iraq from the start. And he expressed them on numerous occassions pre-war. In fact, the NYT actually ran a story in which they chastised him for having so many reasons instead of just one. All of this happended before Powell went to the UN. The justification was paired down to WMD leading up to Powell's presentation because it was thought to be the strongest argument and the one most appropriate for the audience.

So with the exception of the flypaper rationale, he has been singing the same tune for 3 years now.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
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?

Did it ever occur to you that I wasn't bragging but merely stating a fact make a point.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
No. The Clintons' didn't hold a gun to your head and make you say stupid shit like that. At least have the balls to take responsibility for the crap you spew that passes in freeperland for independent thought.
.

The cultural legacy of the Clinton's blowjobs and lies obviously haunts you. Don't blame the messenger blame the message. And take respoinsbility for your complicity.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Three, who the fuck are you kidding. You don't even have 3 friends.

If no one was going to bother enforcing the UN Resolutions, then what the fuck is the point of the institution (other than wasting valuable real estate on the East Side). If anything, the Bush Administration and the Coalition of the Willing gave that sackless institution some teeth.

1. I have five.

2. Interesting. So the US and Coalition of The Small Islands and Developing Nations Seeking Loans and Favored Nation Trading Status from the US gave the UN teeth by... defying and belittling it? Bush bolstered the UN by repeatedly calling it irrelevant and ultimately pissing on it? Is this some sort of tough love? Geopolitical hazing? Will this give the UN some character? Make it able to fight back next time we pick on it?