A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
It's true. A search of the WaPo archives, for example, reveals that the paper has mentioned "CAIR" in 79 different pieces.

Since 1987.

God, those motherfuckers.

"council on american-islamic relations" has 311 hits since 1987. Can you say "Sorry Slave?"

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
"council on american-islamic relations" has 311 hits since 1987. Can you say "Sorry Slave?"

The Citizens for Agriculture and Irrigation Reform have really been marginalized since 2001.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by taxwonk
It is not often that my belief in God is shaken. But when you can call me disrespectful and not be struck by a bolt of lightning, my soul trembles ever so slightly.

How do you know he wasn't?

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The Citizens for Agriculture and Irrigation Reform have really been marginalized since 2001.

I don't get this. Is there some book I should have read?

[SlaveNoMore]

Hank Chinaski
"council on american-islamic relations" has 311 hits since 1987. Can you say "Sorry Slave?"

The conservative-libertarian wing of the GOP is a forgiving bunch.

I'm also guessing Gatti went with WaPo, as the Reuters search probably crashed his computers

[SlaveNoMore]

President Bush:

This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we are in. Every one of us wishes that this war were over and won. Yet it would not be like us to leave our promises unkept, our friends abandoned, and our own security at risk. Ladies and gentlemen: On this day, at this hour, it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle. So let us find our resolve, and turn events toward victory.

Democrats (all seated):

.....[crickets]....[Yawn!!!].....

[Fugee]

Originally posted by Adder
I will vote for her if she is the nominee, but I will not support her in the primaries. And I don't even have to hold my nose.

I don't know if I'd vote for her if she is the nominee. It would depend on who the GOP candidate is.

I was once very pro-Hillary, but was very disappointed in her. If the GOP candidate were a moderate, I'd definitely vote GOP over her. If the GOP candidate were someone heinous, I don't know what I'd do.

But I hope it won't come down to that. I'd love a choice between a moderate Dem and a moderate GOP -- but would settle for two candidates I can at least respect.

[SlaveNoMore]

as recounted by the brilliant Mark Steyn:

...On the other hand, Nancy flew up for the reference to Darfur and the Dems all leapt up to follow. It’s surely very revealing that the Democrats seem most enthused about the one issue where all you have to do is posture ineffectually while the UN stonewalls until everybody’s been killed. But on Iraq or anywhere else America moves beyond posturing to action the Dems sit on their hands.

follow-up commentary by Andy McCarthy:

Just watched Steny Hoyer get interviewed on Fox. He wants to assure everyone that Democrats strongly support the war on terror ... but feel that the war is really in Afghanistan, not so much in Iraq. Really? Osama bin Laden says Iraq is, for al Qaeda, the central front in the war. Ayman Zawahiri says he wishes we'd send more than 20,000 more troops because al Qaeda is in Iraq and would like to kill more Americans there. A big part of why Iraq is so difficult is that al Qaeda has contributed mightily to the chaos and killing. (Who did more to foment the sectarian infighting than the late Abu Musab Zarqawi, head of al Qaeda in Iraq?) I'm not saying that Afghanistan is unimportant. But the enemy is massed in Iraq and is braying that it thinks defeating us in Iraq is its top objective. Under those circumstances, how do you conceivably say the war we need to win isn't really in Iraq?

Steyn follow-thru:

Andy is right about Steny Hoyer. You can argue that Iraq is not the most important part of the war but it’s ludicrous to insist that it’s no part of it at all. For one thing, any outcome that can be presented as a US defeat will be a huge boost for our enemies around the world, and be very revealing of our credibility. This Dem device of always being in favor of some war somewhere other than the one you’re in is laughable. And, after calling for more troops for years and then objecting when it actually happens, Democrat butching up on this tired trope should be seen for what it is: bad-faith poseur politics on the critical issue of our times.

yes, on the Corner

[SlaveNoMore]

Fugee
I don't know if I'd vote for her if she is the nominee. It would depend on who the GOP candidate is.

I was once very pro-Hillary, but was very disappointed in her. If the GOP candidate were a moderate, I'd definitely vote GOP over her. If the GOP candidate were someone heinous, I don't know what I'd do.

But I hope it won't come down to that. I'd love a choice between a moderate Dem and a moderate GOP -- but would settle for two candidates I can at least respect.

Can you define "moderate Dem" for the peanut gallery here?

[Fugee]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Can you define "moderate Dem" for the peanut gallery here?

I guess I define a moderate, on either side of the aisle, as someone who balances economic and social concerns -- the particular party would make one side weigh a little heavier than the other but doesn't sacrifice one for the other. And who doesn't have a history of voting straight party line or make too many promises to the extremes in the party.

But I realize someone like that is unlikely to win nomination on either side. I'd be happy with candidates who are complained about by the hardliners in their own parties as not being "pure" enough.

And while I'm wishing for the impossible, I'll also wish that people who call themselves evangelical Christians would spend their time, energy and political capital on something other than abortion and gay marriage.

[SlaveNoMore]

Fugee
I guess I define a moderate, on either side of the aisle, as someone who balances economic and social concerns -- the particular party would make one side weigh a little heavier than the other but doesn't sacrifice one for the other. And who doesn't have a history of voting straight party line or make too many promises to the extremes in the party.

Isn't Bush a moderate Republican by this test?

His big budget-unlimited spending compassionate conservatism (gag) is populist, Democrat-ish, and makes folks like me, Club and Spanky lie awake at night.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Isn't Bush a moderate Republican by this test?

His big budget-unlimited spending compassionate conservatism (gag) is populist, Democrat-ish, and makes folks like me, Club and Spanky lie awake at night.

Hi! Am I on ignore?

[SlaveNoMore]

Penske_Account
Hi! Am I on ignore?

I've seen your interactions with the homeless up close. Compassionate is your middle name.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
President Bush:

Democrats (all seated):

Why should anyone applaud Bush's policy statements on Iraq until he provides some demonstration that he can deliver on the big talk -- that his administration can execute?

[Even within the more cramped confines of what is currently possible.]

Really -- he is our leader and all, and we have to do something and we don't want things to get worse -- but his credibility on Iraq is close to zero by this point.

Oh yeah, except that he really, really means what he says and he tries really really really hard. Honest. That is enough for me to applaud my small child, but not my President.

So, shut up and show us something.

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
The conservative-libertarian wing of the GOP is a forgiving bunch.

All CAIR does, as near as I can tell, is issue press releases. Although I suppose this makes them an essential and ideal adversary in conservatives' ongoing battles.