Sen. Harry Reid should be recalled
By: Pam On: Apr/26/07 - 84 Comments
In fact lots of people are calling for his resignation…
In fact lots of people are calling for his resignation…
Fred DawesThat is old news old Nazi/Red Soros been going after the euro for 8 months the next one will be the dollar...
RobertYou simple peons, YOU are the cause of Global Warming! All that CO2 generated as you drive your cars to work is...
snowy egretWhat have they against CLARENCE THOMAS is it becuase he opposes AFERMATIVE ACTION? and RACIAL PREFRENCES?
snowy egretThe french fined this soros creep for something i cant remember and now this I HOPE HE GETS LIFE AT ELBA...
snowy egretOh look its another O-Zone depleating atmosphear contaminating jet belonging to a liberal demacrat and not...
Fred DawesRobert the system boys will put us all in prison and not one of our enemies like this lying little pig will...
Fred DawesLooks like the next move by our so called government will be to make us all into global slaves, oh i forgot...
Luigi FulkThis recall is blown out of proportion, recalls are bad but they all (manufacturers) go through them,...
RobertWell the Secretary is a lying, filthy verminous pos. He belongs in prison, not in the Administration.
Fred Dawesits all a game.
Fred DawesWell yes! the system boys got to say what the boys are told to say and why? “to many of the rats got...
Fred DawesLike most Reds obama and has people will tell you unemployment is at a all time low. and we have our great...
Fred DawesHey good news no one blamed Bush! but someone will soon.
Bryan E HallThey never “blamed it on Toyota”. They simply pointed out the problem was with a part...
RobertIf he was telling the truth, he wouldn’t have to “…check his past statements”....
PamBryan, maybe you should learn to read…They are blaming the recall on Toyota because it is an easy...
RobertSo Global Warming/Climate Change is also responsible for this unemployment!!! 
NOT the Government, NOT...
Bryan E HallFirst of all, GM has never “blamed the recall on Toyota” but instead simply and accurately...
Barbara Ann JacksonScores of debt buyers and collection lawyers are DELIBERATELY exploiting borrowers’...
Barbara Ann JacksonScores of debt buyers and collection lawyers are DELIBERATELY exploiting borrowers’ predicament to...
April 26, 2007 - 07:54 AM on April 26th, 2007
A bunch of Republicans crying for the Democratic leader to step-down? Good luck with that. I read in one of your links that President Bush is also “unhappy”. Awww. poor thing.
April 26, 2007 - 08:05 AM on April 26th, 2007
Deja vu all over again.
April 26, 2007 - 08:06 AM on April 26th, 2007
Unless it is Nevada voters, it is a so what, just like Democrat calls for resignations of the administration.
I really believe things aren’t all that bad in the US. If we have got time to obsess about American Idol, some dumbass singer named Sanjaya, or how big Rosie O’Dumbass’ rear end is, we really nave no life threatening problems. I take that as evidence that the Democrat hacks are wrong. We are a safer country under Bush’s stewardship.
April 26, 2007 - 08:21 AM on April 26th, 2007
3- Those examples aren’t a rationale to say things are ‘good’ in the US or that Democrats are wrong. It just means a majority of Americans are easily entertained with mindless tabloid television programs. It’s easier to feel good about your own life when you are busy poking fun at Rosie’s fat-ass or some loser getting voted off Idol.
April 26, 2007 - 08:31 AM on April 26th, 2007
4, Yes, it is. If Americans were truly afraid, they would not be sorried about trivia.
BTW, in Milwaukee, the head of a Liberal get out the vote organization did not get off on a misdemeanor plea, but is facing felony charges for ordering people to submit fraudulent voter registration papers. More and more DEMOCRAT vote fraud. It is not a problem that both parties commit, but one systemic to the Democrat party.
April 26, 2007 - 10:35 AM on April 26th, 2007
It is the Republicans giving the Democrats the same as they received when they were majority- demanding resignation over every little non-issue to point out the “culture of corruption”.
In a way, I am glad to see them doing it and I hope they press forward with it. The more of this that happens, the worse Congress will look. Then maybe, the folks will get tired of it.
April 26, 2007 - 01:02 PM on April 26th, 2007
This bum should scorned, thoroughly humiliated, verbally abused, then removed office and prevented from ever holding public office again. His public asserion that th Iraq war is lost, whih no doubt has been repeated in terrorist briefings everywhere, has not only been a huge morale boost for the enemy, it has led them to intensify their attacks since they now feel they have the upper hand.
This degenerate, disgraceful boll weevil has arguable now cost both American and Iraqi lives. With the bombing over the last few days he is responsible for the deaths of more people than Cho at VT. Stop Reid before he kills again!!!!
April 26, 2007 - 01:34 PM on April 26th, 2007
7- You’re being a bit of a drama-queen there, don’t you think?
I’m glad Harry said this. Finally, someone high up in government had the cojones to publicly say it. The war has been ‘lost’ for quite some time.. that’s why it doesn’t even look like war anymore.. as it’s morphed into an ‘occupation’ trying to pacify sectarian violence, sucking from us blood and treasure with no end in sight.
Now that Harry has spoke the truth we all already know, we can move forward with a solution to end it.
April 26, 2007 - 01:55 PM on April 26th, 2007
Well now wouldn’t it just have been swell for a prominnet American politician to broadcast all over the world in early 1943 that the Allied cause was hopeless, the Nazis were too strong, and it was time to give up?
Because in early 1943 it was looking very, very grim indeed for the Allies. There was no light at the end of the tunnel.
America was a different brred back then. That was before boll weevils like Harry Reid and the new Demotraitor party …
And are you arguing that Reid, et al. are not in any way responsible for the recent increase in terrorist attacks?
April 26, 2007 - 02:11 PM on April 26th, 2007
9- What we are doing in Iraq has few, if any, parallels with what transpired during WWII. WWI had a ‘military’ solution and we won. Iraq (which, by the way, hadn’t wared with anyone in over a decade before our invasion) now is like fighting a bee hive with a fly-swatter.
There are military options for ‘winning’ in Iraq, but the first option is something we did away with on the grounds of morals, ethics, and basic human decency a long long time ago. A second option is sending in several hundred thousand more troops, which this administration is unwilling to do. So, in absence of the only real military options, the third best option is to withdraw ourselves from the occupation.
Unless you’re advocating for the first option, which is for us to commit genocide?
How do you think we can “win”, Robert?
April 26, 2007 - 02:12 PM on April 26th, 2007
I absolutely do not think Robert is too far off the mark with his statement pertaining to the MORALE of the troops.
I would not call him being a “Drama Queen.”
That is a very REAL issue with the troops.
You have no idea what it means to them. You have no idea at how devastating harsh words can effect them while they are deployed.
I absolutely can not speak on behalf of the ENTIRE military but I have known my fair share and this kind of stuff ANGERS them.
Liberals/Democrats just LOVE to speak on behalf of the military troops but I dare say they do not really take the TIME to get to know the troops. They speak to how many face to face BEFORE going off to the press? Honestly…how many do they really sit down with and have a face to face talk with?
I’ve seen the big ole’ politicians come through Ramstein. They do the classic Meet & Greet. They shake hands, have a photo taken and WALK AWAY.
That’s it.
They just WALK AWAY.
Then they jump on a plane, come back to the states and presume to KNOW what those people are THINKING.
All that from a hand shake?
I can say this ’till I’m blue in the face but ALOT of military people BELIEVE in what they are doing. They BELIEVE they are bettering the lives of a group of people. They BELIEVE they are saving lives.
Screw Harry Reid because it’s people like him that DO increase terrorist attacks.
We have all been warned in Germany right now to be more aware of our surroudings because of a heightened threat to American lives.
Know why?
It’s people like Harry Reid that are putting us in danger.
Don’t think that the rest of the world doesn’t EAT THIS KIND OF SHIT UP with a SPOON.
They LOVE TO HEAR self loathing Americans spew their crap. It gives them HOPE. It gives the folks in this world who HATE Americans an excuse and a reason to do what they do.
Some of you, not all because I don’t know where you are all from but come to Europe and really LISTEN to what these people THINK based on the words of the likes of Harry Reid.
It will scare you, keep you up at night and it’s frightening.
April 26, 2007 - 02:14 PM on April 26th, 2007
Toasted. Roberts not being a drama queen. If people like Harry Reid opened their eyes and listened to the experts they would understand that Al Queda and other terrorists organizations are exploiting this situation. They are well educated and you bet they are listening to our politicians.
Reid is just another Neville Chamberlain but I think we need someone like that to keep the rest of us sane and safe thinking.
April 26, 2007 - 02:17 PM on April 26th, 2007
Sandy, I think we posted at the same time
but I do believe you said it much better than I and I respect the fact you have a front row seat. God Bless.
April 26, 2007 - 02:18 PM on April 26th, 2007
Tofu will never understand/experience the Military. He broadcasts that he is gay. He’s gay first, and maybe a soldier 3rd or 4th.
Tofu is always undercutting the US because it is capitalist and not Gay-centric.
April 26, 2007 - 02:21 PM on April 26th, 2007
Sandy, I’ve been to Europe. There are many people there who hate Americans because we are harder working and more successful than they are. They can’t understand why we don’t have a paralyzed society like they do.
Tofu just hates America and wants everthing he disagrees with torn down and destroyed, starting with the Military.
April 26, 2007 - 02:33 PM on April 26th, 2007
Oh PCD…you are soo correct. I’ve been very lucky and fortunate in my village to be taken in as a local per say but that still hasn’t stopped even my closest German friends from letting me know what they truly think of us.
It’s sooo disturbing at times and honestly right now I’ve even taken a step back from my German friends because I’m at a loss for words.
There is something going on and I can feel it. There is a new tension in the air and even in Germany it’s very hard to miss.
I’ve made it very clear to my “german pals” that yeah I like their country and all but I am still an American and I’m out of here in one year. It’s back to the Land of the Red, White and Blue for me. Of course when Germans who WORK at a military base criticize American politics that ALWAYS makes me laugh. I have suggested to quite a few Germans that maybe they should find employment ELSWHERE if they truly have that deep of an issue with the U.S.A.
The truth is the K-Town area would fold like a deck of cards if the American forces were not here.
Germans and Europe as a whole to me is one gigantic NANNY STATE. They LOVE it. They can’t function without their politicians holding their hands and telling them how to live.
What’s really funny to me is the Liberals/Democrats in the states…..they say alot of stuff but they wouldn’t want the hand dealt to them that most Europeans have.
American Democrats/Liberals wouldn’t even put up with the shit in Europe…hahhaa.
April 26, 2007 - 02:41 PM on April 26th, 2007
11- Sandy, there are plenty of troops who aren’t buying the story anymore and know they’re not accomplishing anything in Iraq. For the troops, it’s the Groundhog day movie day after day after year after year.
And it’s not their fault, and they need to know that. The fault is with those who put them in this situation; a war/occupation that they cannot ‘win’. They follow their orders, but don’t think for a second all of our soldiers are blind puppets.
People HERE, civilians and vets HERE, have to speak for the troops who are not permitted to speak against this catastrophe. Silence on the part of the troops does not mean approval– they are not allowed to speak against the war.
April 26, 2007 - 02:45 PM on April 26th, 2007
PCD, BonBon, Sandy, et al,
Same question to you as I put to Robert…
How do we ‘win’ in Iraq? What’s the plan? Tossing a few more soldiers token soldiers into the meat grinder? How does it end?
April 26, 2007 - 02:52 PM on April 26th, 2007
18, Maybe it ends when we put defeatists like you on the first plane to paradise spots like Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, and Cuba. Once the terrorists see that we are for real and we go after them and their supporters in Iran and Syria, they’ll quit. They know their idea of world Sharia dies with them if we cut loose on them.
April 26, 2007 - 02:57 PM on April 26th, 2007
18-
I see, so you want to “bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran…” and Syria.
Good luck getting a Democratic congress to go for that warmongering plan.
April 26, 2007 - 03:03 PM on April 26th, 2007
20, your assumption is that the Democrats will hold the Congress. They just may piss off the majority of Voters with their Iraq funding stunts, their tax and spend actions, their wasting money on phoney crisis, their endless condesension to the public, their graft, and their contstant lying.
April 26, 2007 - 03:12 PM on April 26th, 2007
Last time I checked (just a few hours ago), the American public is in the majority supporting Democrats on their stance on Iraq– which is the biggest issue for most voters.
I know it’s tough being in the minority, I was there before. I know it can feel like a very helpless place to be. Hang tough and in another 10-20 years, your ideals may be back in favor.
April 26, 2007 - 04:22 PM on April 26th, 2007
19. Once the terrorists see that we are for real and we go after them and their supporters in Iran and Syria, they’ll quit.
So, they’re not afraid to walk into a crowded market with explosives strapped to their chests but they’re going to back down when we kill a few more of them in Iran and Syria. Makes sense…
April 26, 2007 - 04:24 PM on April 26th, 2007
There is strength in numbers AKD or had you never noticed?
April 26, 2007 - 05:35 PM on April 26th, 2007
So what’s new inside the the power system of total liers?
after all didn’t he say that Mexico City and its drug dealers are nice guys?
and Bin Laden Is misunderstood? but the fact is he is normal mean anything to you guy’s? by the way we will see a world war soon and that is the plan of the real system that is running old this rat its all about one world.
and may God help you all.
April 26, 2007 - 07:34 PM on April 26th, 2007
22, How did you check? Oh, you just consulted yourself.
April 26, 2007 - 08:46 PM on April 26th, 2007
The point is the nutroot senator from Nevada said this awful statement while American trooops are still in combat in Iraq. This foolish jackass put our brothers and sisters in harms way, and no doubt gave comfort to our enemy. He’s a disgrace. He should have kept his big stupid mouth shut. All the Dems running for president know that, and that’s why they don’t make such stupid moronic statements. Reid is simply a dumb jackass more worried about politics 2008 than America or our troops.
April 26, 2007 - 09:03 PM on April 26th, 2007
#26 Honest, he really checked! Daily Pos, Democrat Underground, moveon.org, michaelmoore dot com, they all agreed!
April 27, 2007 - 08:19 AM on April 27th, 2007
re 23:
“So, they’re not afraid to walk into a crowded market with explosives strapped to their chests but they’re going to back down when we kill a few more of them in Iran and Syria. Makes sense:”
It does make sense. They are afraid to to this, which is why they send in 14 year old boys and common folks tempered by religious idealouges. You don’t see the leaders doing this. The folks they send in to do the dirty work are just as much victims as the people they kill. It is the bin Ladens, the Husseins and the al Sadrs of the world- the men not willing to die for “their cause” and the nation states that support them that we need to “go after”. Those are the terrorist we need to “go after”.
We can’t do that by turning tail and running from the area.
April 27, 2007 - 04:15 PM on April 27th, 2007
It does make sense. They are afraid to to this, which is why they send in 14 year old boys and common folks tempered by religious idealouges. You don’t see the leaders doing this.
No, but the “leaders” are replaced much more quickly than your post would indicate. And the distinction between leaders and soldiers isn’t at all how you’re painting it.
As for the individuals willing to die for the cause: Let’s see, the person would have to be desperate with little to lose (this is, I suspect, what attracts most people to religious fundamentalisms—what you’re dealing with is a disregard for the real world in favor of an imaginary one).
The lowest estimates I’ve heard for the number of civilian casualties of the current military intervention in Iraq is a little over 60,000 (I’ve heard a lot of estimates of well over 100,000 and I’m disregarding the highest estimates as they don’t seem to be coming from credible sources). This number doesn’t take into account the huge number that died as a result of the sanctions before the war. Famously, when asked on US television if she thought that the death of half a million Iraqi children from sanctions was a price worth paying, Madeline Albright replied: “This is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it.” I suspect that the parents of these children disagree—of course, we could try to explain to each parent mourning for his or her dead child that if Saddam had just buckled we wouldn’t have had to starve them out before bombing them back to the stone age. I wonder if they’d be interested in listening (especially if the person explaining it were wearing camo and holding an M-16)? Of course I suspect that neither you nor I could hope to understand what they’re experiencing.
I’m sure a lot of these people have brothers, sisters, children, parents, etc. who are all probably insane with grief. Maybe they should all blame Saddam—regardless, they don’t seem to. This is, of course, just Iraq, which until not to long ago wasn’t even the main terrorist breeding ground. Of course, now…
Here’s a link to an article that I’ve cited before:
Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of “professionalized” terrorists, according to a report released yesterday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director’s think tank. Iraq provides terrorists with “a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills,” said David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats. “There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries.”
Kind of a grim picture. As long as there are individuals willing to strap explosives to their chests—individuals who’ve lost loved ones, homes, etc.—there will be someone to tell them that it’s the right thing to do. It doesn’t take a charismatic leader to hand someone a Koran and a detonator
But I’m sure if we kill a few dozen thousand more, everything will be fine, right?
April 27, 2007 - 05:03 PM on April 27th, 2007
Still waiting for someone to give a real answer as to how to ‘win’ militarily in Iraq without continuing to play groundhog round and round.
So instead of just labeling liberals as the enemy, offer some solutions. If you don’t have any, step aside and let the Democrats clean up the mess you started.
April 27, 2007 - 05:17 PM on April 27th, 2007
Okay Toasted your on. First of all politicians from both sides can stop giving speeches from their pedastals announcing we have lost the war emboldening the enemy. You can acknowledge that we are fighting terrorists (Al Queda) in Iraq and there really is no civil war. Then, when that is accomplished maybe we can all get behind the troops both with our moral support, appreciation and funded missions. Then we can start to trust that the executive branch of our government holds our countries secrets and is acting in its best interest.
April 27, 2007 - 05:17 PM on April 27th, 2007
Okay Toasted your on. First of all politicians from both sides can stop giving speeches from their pedastals announcing we have lost the war emboldening the enemy. You can acknowledge that we are fighting terrorists (Al Queda) in Iraq and there really is no civil war. Then, when that is accomplished maybe we can all get behind the troops both with our moral support, appreciation and funded missions. Then we can start to trust that the executive branch of our government holds our countries secrets and is acting in its best interest.
April 27, 2007 - 06:02 PM on April 27th, 2007
Been posted on RV before, TT. Myself, FAO, and John Galt have all rendered our statements.
April 27, 2007 - 06:07 PM on April 27th, 2007
Right, BonBon. In order words, ignore realities on the ground (civil waring and sectarian violence), sit down, shut up, and clap louder and pray harder that the strategy will, by some miracle, start working.
April 27, 2007 - 07:51 PM on April 27th, 2007
TT, exactly how large of a percentage of the population of a country does it take to turn sectarian violence into a civil war? 50%? 40%? 30%? There are over 28 million people in Iraq. We have roughly 150,000 military personnel there. If only 1 percent of the population wanted us out, they’d out number us by almost 2-1. If 5 percent wanted us out enough to actually try and throw us out, there would be not a damn thing we could do but tuck tail and run like you and the Democrats are suggesting. Do you honestly think that we should run from a hostile tiny minority in a country the size of California and with an even smaller population? I would postulate that that means that at least 90% of the population of Iraq probably wants us to stay until the government is able to secure the country, otherwise, they’d have thrown us out by now. Last time I checked, 90% was a pretty damn solid majority. Let us not forget that they have substantially higher voter turnout, despite death threats from the very people who are attacking us both, than we have here. With the purple ink on the fingers, they have much lower voter fraud than the Democratic party promulgates here as well.
Most of Iraq is not a hotbed of violence. To call it a civil war is simply incorrect. Sectarian violence incited by outside forces, yes. A civil war? no. The numbers simpy do not support that conclusion.
On a historical note. While the death of an American service member is never a good thing (unless you’re a Democrat and can spin it to your political advantage) the death toll in Iraq has been exceptionally low. Currently there have been under 4000 deaths including accidents in Iraq in the years since the invasion. During the battle for Iwo Jima, the death toll topped 3000 in little over a month. At Tarawa, the Marines lost over 1000 in less than a week. Both of these were on tiny islands smaller than the city of Baghdad. The Battle of the Bulge lasted 6 weeks and resulted in 19,000 Americans killed. This battle covered an area about the size of Iraq proper.
April 28, 2007 - 12:13 AM on April 28th, 2007
I would postulate that that means that at least 90% of the population of Iraq probably wants us to stay until the government is able to secure the country, otherwise, they’d have thrown us out by now. Last time I checked, 90% was a pretty damn solid majority.
I love the transition from wild speculation about numbers to a solid figure…
Obviously, you can’t assume that everyone who wants us out is attacking us, especially in a starving, bombed-out country now lacking many of the basic amenities. But the attacks continue.
The information I cited suggests that things have gottent much worse; at least if you think that we should be fighting terrorism. The creation of new terrorists is never a good thing, FAO (unless you’re a conservative and you can spin it to your political advantage).
April 28, 2007 - 09:00 AM on April 28th, 2007
The creation of new terrorists is never a good thing, FAO (unless you’re a conservative and you can spin it to your political advantage).
It is a very good thing indeed if you are a Leftist BDS who is hoping, wishing, salivating over the notion of turning Iraq into another Vietnam. Just think of the carnage that will follow!!! Millions will die! The U.S. will be disgraced forever! Bush will have totally failed! The thought of all that probably makes BDS Leftists wet their pants!
April 28, 2007 - 09:58 AM on April 28th, 2007
GEE AKD do you think the villages that have running water for the first time EVER are happy we’re there? The only places with fewer amenities now than during the Saddam regime are areas where the terrorists keep interrupting construction. You’re still not facing the facts that in a country of over 28,000,000, the attacks are being carried out by a VERY small percentage of the population. Your analysis would be like saying that if the Bloods and Crips started a gang war in LA, and the Pagans and Hells Angels started one in San Diego, the whole damn state of California would be in a civil war. The numbers involved would be roughly the same and the land mass would be about the same. Terror attacks work because it takes VERY FEW PEOPLE to reek a lot of carnage. Welcome to the world of guerrilla warfare. The attacks in Iraq could be carried out by 50 – 100 moderately well trained people. Should we allow a country of 28,000,000 to be held hostage by terrorists numbering at best in the low three digits? Papers found with the late Musab Al Zarquawi stated that the Al Quaeda in Iraq cadre had been decimated by US attacks and that they were down to only around 50 solid jihadists. The rest would turn and run or could be bought off.
The real question that I don’t hear anyone answering from the Democratic side of the aisle is, “If we pull out of Iraq prematurely and it falls into the hands of AL Quaeda and Iran, how are we going to stop them from continuing their attacks here?” We have a wide open border that everytime anyone suggests locking down, they’re called racist. Mexico is one of the most corrupt countries in the western hemisphere. Even the Mexicans would rather be arrested by US police than Mexican ones. Even if we lock down our ports, which will severely damage our economy and thereby wreck the world economy, we won’t be able to lock down the Mexican ones. With the new free pass that Mexican trucks and drivers are going to have coming across the border into the US, exactly how are we going to stop explosives, arms, and terrorists from rolling right in? We’ve been requiring Mexican products to be cross loaded onto US trucks and we still haven’t stemmed the tide of illegal drugs or weapons, so how will allowing relatively uninspected Mexican trucks help? If you think the violence in Baghdad is bad, wait until they have free rein to come here. Make no mistake about it, Bin Laden has said from the start that the US will cut and run if they can keep causing casualties. His entire stategy is to try and wait us out. The Democrats, instead of saying this is a war we can’t afford to lose, they’re claiming that we have already lost it. Last time I read the Constitution, the position of Commander in Chief belongs to the President, not Reid or Pelosi. If the Dems are so all fired set on ending this war in defeat, like they did Vietnam, they need to have the courage of their convictions and cut off the funding completely. Their two Constitutional options are:
1. Cut off funding and face the wrath of the American people come election day for leaving our soldiers hanging out to dry.
2. Pass the funding bill without strings and allow the military commanders on the ground to do their jobs.
Anything other than these two options is a violation of the Constitution.
Like Rudy Giuliani said the other day, we have a choice of being on offense, or going back to the pre 9/11 strategy of being on defense. We are currently on offense. We are chasing them down every rabbit hole possible. (Waziristan is a province of Pakistan and we’re not able to violate their sovereign territory openly without causing a real international uproar.) That’s why we haven’t found Bin Laden. He’s hiding in an area of Pakistan where the Pakistani army won’t go and the US Army isn’t allowed to go. On that topic I do have one question for the Dems, “Why do they expect Bush to send troops illegally into Pakistan after Bin Laden without permission when Clinton wasn’t willing to fire a cruise missile through Pakistani airspace without permission?” Had Madeline Albright’s State Dept not called the Pakistani interior ministry and warned them about the cruise missile fly over into Afghanistan, Bin Laden might have been killed years before 9/11. Instead the interior ministry warned Bin Laden and he beat feet out of the area before the missile arrived.
April 28, 2007 - 01:53 PM on April 28th, 2007
Had Madeline Albright’s State Dept not called the Pakistani interior ministry and warned them about the cruise missile fly over into Afghanistan, Bin Laden might have been killed years before 9/11.
This is ‘An Inconvenient Truth” for the Left…
April 28, 2007 - 11:03 PM on April 28th, 2007
37- “I love the transition from wild speculation about numbers to a solid figure:”
April 29, 2007 - 11:01 AM on April 29th, 2007
The one weapon Al Qaeda and the “insurgents” have that is most effective is the American Left. Focused into maximum effectiveness through the Democrite party, the American Left is terrorism’s greatest hope.
April 29, 2007 - 01:56 PM on April 29th, 2007
39.
GEE AKD do you think the villages that have running water for the first time EVER are happy we’re there?
GOLLY FAO, not if those same villages have piles of dead children to bury.
The real question that I don’t hear anyone answering from the Democratic side of the aisle is, “If we pull out of Iraq prematurely and it falls into the hands of AL Quaeda and Iran, how are we going to stop them from continuing their attacks here?”
It’s true that we’ve made such a horrible, horrible mess of the situation that Iraq could fall into the hands of Iran (AQ = less likely). Of course since we keep making the situation worse and worse, breeding more and more suicide bombers, I don’t see how this is much of an argument for staying.
The Democrats, instead of saying this is a war we can’t afford to lose, they’re claiming that we have already lost it.
They’re saying it’s unwinnable; have we seen any indication otherwise?
Cut off funding and face the wrath of the American people come election day for leaving our soldiers hanging out to dry.
I wonder if the American people will blame the dems who try to force the president to withdraw the troops by cutting off funding or if they’ll blame the president who lied us into war with no real strategy for victory.
Here’s some info from a recent article on foreign relations (unsurprisinlgy, FAO, they have a slightly more nuanced understaning of the situation than you do):
The legislation [put forth by congress] sets a date to start rolling back Bush’s escalation of 30,000 troops and calls for bringing home the rest of the combat troops. Instead of leaving the void that many of the war’s bitter-enders predict, the bill would reposition roughly 20,000 to 60,000 troops for counterterrorism missions, protecting diplomats and training Iraqi troops. Finally, the measure sets benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet in order to continue receiving U.S. financial assistance.
These proposals mirror much of what was contained in the bipartisan Iraq Study Group report released last November. They are also endorsed by prominent members of the military. Writing in support of the bill this week along with five other flag officers, Maj. Gen. Mel Montano, USANG, Ret. noted, “Supporting the Iraq Supplemental Bill not only reflects the thinking of the Iraq Study Group but puts teeth to the phrase ’supporting the troops.’”
The American public also backs the proposal. A mid-April CBS poll found that 57 percent of the public thinks that the “United States should set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq sometime in 2008.”
I do wish that you actually supported our troops, FAO, but I guess that we can’t all be patriots.
April 29, 2007 - 02:45 PM on April 29th, 2007
GOLLY FAO, not if those same villages have piles of dead children to bury.
The same old dead children argumentive ploy. Would those be dead children killed by the U.S., by any chance? Is that what you are snidely implying? How much are you guys paid to surf the blogs and post these slanderous little nuggets? Do you have a script, a list of them, or are you freelancing? I wonder who’s funding these efforts. Al Qaeda directly, or is this through a Soros group?
April 29, 2007 - 04:54 PM on April 29th, 2007
44. The U.S admits to the bodycount, moron. Too bad you’re too dumb to do anything but cry “traitor.”
April 29, 2007 - 05:50 PM on April 29th, 2007
You know Robert, Saddam and his boys loved to kill the children. I guess those stats don’t matter much to people like AKD though. Too bad. They should wise up and shut up.
April 29, 2007 - 09:20 PM on April 29th, 2007
No one in American politics has incited terrorists and terrorism more than George W. Bush.
Seriously.
The Majority Leaders statement is nothing compared to what Bush has done since 9/11 to incite, inflame and embolden Islamic radicals worldwide.
April 29, 2007 - 09:20 PM on April 29th, 2007
“You know Robert, Saddam and his boys loved to kill the children.”
We kill children, too.
April 30, 2007 - 01:32 AM on April 30th, 2007
Actually I don’t even have Fox news. I do however listen to the troops when they talk. I also have the common sense to be able to understand the numbers. If 10% of the Iraqi population wanted us to leave badly enough, there would be nothing that would we would be able to do but leave.
As for the illustrious Senator Reid, this is the same @#$%^& that in December was screaming that we had to send more troops. Bush gives him what he wants and now he’s screaming that we have to not reenforce the same troops that 4 months ago he said needed reenforced.
For the Dems, it doesn’t have a damn thing to do with winning or losing in Iraq, it’s about soundbites on the MSM.
As for a National Guard general, I wouldn’t give him too much creedence. You don’t know when he was in and the standards waiver so much in the National Guard from year to year and from Administration to administration that you never can tell a person’s qualifications. When it comes to on ground intel, I’ll take mine from the Captain or Major who’s down in the trenches rather than the General who’s area of expertise is either making sure the bullets are inventoried properly, or the soldiers don’t get credited for too much leave time. Watch the movie “Heartbreak Ridge”, there really are officers in the military like the Major in the movie.
There is one thing that the uneducated masses in this country fail to understand and that is it really doesn’t matter what the polls say. Congress does NOT have the Constitutional authority to attach strings to a war funding bill. They do NOT have the Constitutional authority to dictate how the military is going to fight a war. The position of Commander in Chief is specifically assigned to the President. The founders KNEW that it’s impossible to fight a war by committee. They KNEW that combat operational decisions have to be made quickly, and that when a committee tries to fight a war, they will lose due to their inability to make decisions in a timely manner. The law as passed by Congress is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. They are NOT allowed to dictate conditions on military spending. They are NOT allowed to dictate terms of a treaty. And to try and do either violates the Constitution’s Separation of Powers. Read Article II of the Constitution. Negotiating treaties (demanding that the Iraqi government achieves “benchmarks” or lose aid is negotiating a treaty by anyone’s estimation. BTW how stupid does someone have to be to not see that that is just an enticement for the enemy to step up the violence? I want to go into a fight where the other side is restricted like that. Basically what that is telling the enemy is that if they ramp up the violence, we’ll run away and leave the Iraqi government to fail. If I were an Al Quaeda in Iraq commander, I’d be thanking the Democratic party for all of the support. I’d simply ramp up my attacks until the US ran away and then claim a victory against the Great Satan and use it as a recruiting tool. Isn’t that what Bin Laden has been saying for the last 5 years? That the US will run away once its nose is bloodied badly enough? I want someone to explain to me exactly how this is a winning strategy? We’ll support our allies but only if they prove that they really don’t need our help. However if they prove that it’s going to take longer to root out the terrorists than they had hoped, we’re going to run away and leave them on their own? Oh I forgot, we’re going to leave 20-30% of the troops there to be basically a symbolic presence. Sorry you don’t fight a war that way. If we had, Parisians, Italians, Czechs and half of North Africa would be speaking German right now. This is really going to improve our image on the international stage alright, we’re not going to be a bully, we’re going to be two faced cowards.
My only solace in all of this is knowing that the liberal mecca of San Francisco is almost certainly on the Terrorist Target A-list right up there with NY. Perhaps once those cities have been hit again, the liberals will see the error of their ways. Gavin Newsome with his declaration that SFPD will absolutely NOT cooperate with ICE investigations concerning illegal aliens makes SF all that much more of an easy target.
Imagine this Conversation.
ICE Agent: Hello, may I speak with someone concerning one Abdul Mohammed being in the US illegally, and SF specifically?
SFPD: I’m sorry sir we aren’t allowed to assist in any ICE investigations. We are a sanctuary city.
ICE Agent: He’s an Illegal Alien and we have reason to believe that he is involved with a terrorist organization. We know that you picked him up for driving on a suspended license and the truck was carrying 4000 lbs of fertilizer.
SFPD: I’m sorry sir but city policy forbids me from disclosing any information about Mr. Mohammed or any other member of our wonderfully diverse community.
ICE Agent: Are you aware that Mr. Mohammed has recently purchased an entire truckload of heating oil to be delivered in 55 gal drums?
SFPD: Well! how dare he? Doesn’t he know that all of that heating oil will cause global warming by emitting green house gases when it’s burned? Besides Heating oil contains at least 2 dozen compounds known to the state of California to cause cancer in lab rats. Didn’t he read the labelling on the drums?
ICE Agent: Are you aware that Mr. Mohammed and his associates have been linked to the purchase of over 2 cases of fully automatic AK47s that were smuggled across the border from Mexico?
SFPD: Well sir, That’s got nothing to do with San Francisco. Fully automatic high capacity weapons are not allowed in the City. In fact if it weren’t for the dreadful NRA, we’d have banned all firearms in the city. That awful US judge sided with them and said that the US Constitution does in fact apply in our fine city.
ICE Agent: We’ve got reason to believe that they are planning an attack on San Francisco at this very moment, we need to find out where they are.
SFPD: I’m sorry sir, but city policy forbids me from assisting in your investigation in the least. Since this conversation isn’t going anywhere, I’m going to hang up now, I don’t want to be late for my afternoon Yoga class and I want to grab an avocado and bean sprout sandwich on the way.
April 30, 2007 - 04:19 AM on April 30th, 2007
We kill children, too.
Good point. The American Left has arguable been responsible for the deaths of more children (abortion) than any other malevolent force in history.
45 AKD you come across an another hate-America boll weevil.
April 30, 2007 - 11:32 AM on April 30th, 2007
The American Left has arguable been responsible for the deaths of more children (abortion) than any other malevolent force in history.
And this is relevant to the thousands upon thousands of dead Iraqi children (not to mention parents, brothers, sisters, cousins, friends, etc, etc.) how exactly? That Saddam killed children is horrible, too. It doesn’t change the fact that we’ve done so and that all of the Iraqis willing to die to punish us know that we’ve done so.
April 30, 2007 - 12:59 PM on April 30th, 2007
AKD,
Idiots like you are nothing but a cancer upon society. You bloviate with bogus numbers because you know the real numbers and their real circumstances do not server your twisted purposes.
April 30, 2007 - 01:08 PM on April 30th, 2007
FAO, there is one more relevant factoid: The City of San Franfreako about 6 years ago decided that the City would pay for employee “gender reassignment” surgery. That’s right. I am not making this up.
In other words, say a female employee desired to undergo a FTM sex change operation (addadicktome). The City pays for everything.
April 30, 2007 - 01:14 PM on April 30th, 2007
It doesn’t change the fact that we’ve done so and that all of the Iraqis willing to die to punish us know that we’ve done so.
Since you are so “well informed’, perhaps you could explain just how the U.S. has killed those thousands and thousands of children? Did we target them? Did we strap bombs to them? Did we place them in vehicles then detonate explosives? Pray tell the details, since you are so convinced.
But let’s not have any Democrite or moveon-org propganada buzzwords. Only facts.
And while you are at it, explain how you know the Iraqi people want to punish the U.S. for those alleged deaths? How can that be when the majority of the Iraqis, while they do not like the fact that their backyard has been turned into a battleground, know that if we withdraw suddenly the result will be vastly worse?
April 30, 2007 - 01:39 PM on April 30th, 2007
I think AKD is confusing the dead children during Saddams reign of terror.
April 30, 2007 - 02:15 PM on April 30th, 2007
It doesn’t change the fact that we’ve done so and that all of the Iraqis willing to die to punish us know that we’ve done so.
So that’s what this “insurgency” is all about!!! It is Iraqis angry that the U.S. has killed so many thousands and thousands of their children! Shazzam! Now there’s something to remember for future invasions! Note to self: don’t kill thousands and thousands of children! It pisses off their parents-really!
I am glad we have the American left to instruct the military on how to conduct combat operations! Without the wisdom of the American Left, the U.S. military would just continue in its traditional way: Go in and indiscriminately murder the children! But now due to the efforts of the American Left we see maybe that dosn’t work. because now the Iraquis are mad!
April 30, 2007 - 05:27 PM on April 30th, 2007
Since you are so “well informed’, perhaps you could explain just how the U.S. has killed those thousands and thousands of children?
Well, quite a few died from malnutrition during the period of sanctions. A lot of others died during the intitial strike. I guess if you’re honestly too stupid to find this information for yourself I could link to something.
Go in and indiscriminately murder the children! But now due to the efforts of the American Left we see maybe that dosn’t work. because now the Iraquis are mad!
I’m happy to see that you find dead children so funny. The right’s “starve them, then bomb them back to the stone age and wait for them to greet us with open arms” seems to be a much better battle plan. By the wat, you’re clearly too much of a moron to “see maybe that dosn’t work.”
It is Iraqis angry that the U.S. has killed so many thousands and thousands of their children!
It couldn’t be that. Who gives a fuck about kids. It must be because they hate our freedom….
Robert + PCD = snowy egret w/a spell-check.
April 30, 2007 - 05:39 PM on April 30th, 2007
Well, quite a few died from malnutrition during the period of sanctions. A lot of others died during the intitial strike. I guess if you’re honestly too stupid to find this information for yourself I could link to something.
Wow, this statement alone tells me just how naive you are AKD. Foolish, foolish, foolish and dangerous as well.
And oh by the way, during those “sanctions” it was Saddam who was exploiting the resources the Oil for Food program gave him to feed the children. To the tune of billions of dollars even. The ones he tortured, raped and murdered he did along with his sons, not the U.S.
Silly person, wise up.
April 30, 2007 - 06:35 PM on April 30th, 2007
Well, quite a few died from malnutrition during the period of sanctions. A lot of others died during the intitial strike. I guess if you’re honestly too stupid to find this information for yourself I could link to something.
Yeah I thought as much. One of the stupidest, most asinine arguments ever made in an attempt to discredit America in the ME rears its stupid head again. Another Kool-aid Drinker. you are utterly worthless. Your head is so firmly planted in your rectum there is absolutely no hope. You don’t deserve the freedom paid for by the service and sacrifice of better men.
April 30, 2007 - 07:22 PM on April 30th, 2007
You don’t deserve the freedom paid for by the service and sacrifice of better men.
Amen to that.
April 30, 2007 - 10:58 PM on April 30th, 2007
Damn I thought my commentary on the stupidity that is the sanctuary city of San Francisco would’ve drawn more comments than that.
BTW AKD, the US didn’t impose sanctions on Iraq, that was the left’s favorite international organization, the UN. We, along with some of our coalition partners, simply enforced them. Of course, I’m certain that Saddam’s corruption didn’t a have damn thing to do with the fact that billions of dollars in Oil for Food revenues went to build dozens of marble palaces instead of actually buy, OMG dare I say it, FOOD. Of course the sanctions would’ve been lifted years before had Saddam actually abided by the terms of the CEASE FIRE that stopped the hostilities of the first the Gulf War. For those who don’t know, a cease fire is not a treaty ending a war, only a truce that halts hostilities until one side breaks the conditions of the cease fire. Technically, the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was simply the resumption of hostilities from the Gulf war that was halted in 1991. For what its worth, we’re still at war with North Korea.It’s just that the truce has held for over 50 yrs. Though Kim Jong (mentally) Il is pushing it.
Oh Robert, a different recruiter called today and said that I should be able to get a medical waiver after all. Damn I need to go back on my diet again. I cooked way too much stuff for the Holidays.
May 1, 2007 - 03:20 AM on May 1st, 2007
The United Nations economic sanctions were imposed at the urging of the U.S. to remove Saddam Hussein from power. The US indeed enforced them as well. The New York Times stated: “By making life uncomfortable for the Iraqi people, [sanctions] would eventually encourage them to remove President Saddam Hussein from power” (sorry that I don’t have the link—I have the actual paper). Insofar as the sanctions were supposed to topple Saddam they were a failure, however the sanctions caused the death of between 400,000 and 800,000 Iraqi children (depending on who you ask).
As for the oil for food program, we all know how corrupt that was right? Individuals and companies from dozens of countries were implicated. After extensive investigation, though, it was determined that nearly all the accusations of corruption were American fabrications, used to discredit the UN after it accused the US of Crimes against Humanity in Afghanistan and Iraq.
May 1, 2007 - 06:43 AM on May 1st, 2007
AKD, you are just a fool. I don’t know what left wing sewer you get your information, but many officials were charged and convicted of crimes involving Oil for Fook. Kofi Annan blew town before his connections to his son’s misdeeds caught up with him.
It is fools like you that created the conditions where a Saddam and even a Hitler florished. Don’t start with your Bush is Hitler tripe. It isn’t true. That stuff is just Soros funded hyperbole to get kool-aid drinkers like you going.
May 1, 2007 - 10:15 AM on May 1st, 2007
62. I’m not sure how to process this. I’m totally at a loss for words. You are obviously either misinformed or hate America and Pres. Bush so much you will say anything. Well, after much thought I started to wonder. Terrorists use the internet to spread propaganda. Anything that makes Europe and the U.S. look bad. Could that be you?
May 1, 2007 - 11:55 AM on May 1st, 2007
This kind of thinking is why America is in trouble, imo. While we face a ruthless and determined enemy, we have those here creatively manufacturing arguments to blame America and weaken our resolve.
I call them Boll Weevils. And no, they do NOT deserve Freedom.
My earlier question remains: Are they paid for this? Or are they just so emotionally and mentally dysfunctional they want to commit virtual suicide and are willing to drag the rest of us down with them?
May 1, 2007 - 11:58 AM on May 1st, 2007
64 Good morning BonBon! You had a good observation: I wonder if they are even Americans. Could AKD be operating out of a cave in Tora Bora? Or a terrorist boiler room operation in Iran? Through Al Gore’s wonderful invention they can pose and post as anything they want.
I have been saying AKD = Another Kool-aid Drinker, but it may be worse than that. Maybe something like America we Kill you Die.
May 1, 2007 - 12:03 PM on May 1st, 2007
The United Nations economic sanctions were imposed at the urging of the U.S. to remove Saddam Hussein from power. The US indeed enforced them as well. The New York Times stated: “By making life uncomfortable for the Iraqi people, [sanctions] would eventually encourage them to remove President Saddam Hussein from power”(sorry that I don’t have the link”I have the actual paper). Insofar as the sanctions were supposed to topple Saddam they were a failure, however the sanctions caused the death of between 400,000 and 800,000 Iraqi children (depending on who you ask).
So Hussein was a bad man, do we all agree, or do you want to argue that point too? Aren’t we always told by the Left that diplomacy and other non-military means are the way to settle things? So we do it through economic sanctions to try to encourage Saddam to comply. Instead he gives everyone the finger and with the help of corrupt degenerates from the U.N. and our so-called allies in Europe, subverts the Oil for Food program that was supposed to allow food and humanitarian trade for the Iraqi people. They suffer hardships while he build palaces and buys weapons.
So that’s our fault? Only in the minds of mentally-ill, sniveling hate-America leftist boll weevils.
May 1, 2007 - 04:17 PM on May 1st, 2007
It is fools like you that created the conditions where a Saddam and even a Hitler florished. Don’t start with your Bush is Hitler tripe. It isn’t true. That stuff is just Soros funded hyperbole to get kool-aid drinkers like you going.
Hitler was the result of an unchecked populist revolution moving far to the right. Do any of the right-wingers here actually grasp the fact that Nazism was a far right movement? that Hitler’s official rhetoric, even before it became virulently anti-semitic, centered on the dangers of the left (and “Bolshevism” most of all)?
64. I’m not sure how to process this.
Well, at least you’re being honest.
64. Terrorists use the internet to spread propaganda. Anything that makes Europe and the U.S. look bad.
67. with the help of corrupt degenerates from the U.N. and our so-called allies in Europe,
Maybe BonBon and (Terrorist!?) Robert need to have a talk about our “so called European allies.”
May 2, 2007 - 12:09 PM on May 2nd, 2007
Stop the Spammers! Suggestion: Don’t have “linked only” posts appear in the “Discussion” list on the left border of the homepage. That was the spammer posts will not push legitimate posts down and off the list. The spam posts will still be in the topics, but no one will care.
I can only wonder if DU or some other deranged Defeatocrat group is actually paying someone to spam Conservative websites. Wouldn’t surprise me. They are capable of anything to suppress free speech.
May 2, 2007 - 12:38 PM on May 2nd, 2007
Robert,
I would not be surprised that one or more Liberals are doing this. It just like elections, they can’t win on the issues so they cheat anyway they can.
May 2, 2007 - 01:05 PM on May 2nd, 2007
Robert,
It is not at UC-Berzerkly that the Liberal censors reside. It is about any campus in the US. It may be students, professors, or local Democrap activists that steal the papers.
I used to live in Anaheim. The Democrats hired goons to harass GOP workers, slash tires, and rip down campaign signs. Dornan got a kick when I enabled him to do a 3-way conference to catch his rival’s campaign worker doing a push poll out of the rival’s campaign office. The guy never caught on that Dornan was listening in. Everytime I caught the guy in an outright lie, he put us on hold to get another lie to cover up the one just told. I think Dornan about wet his pants in glee over what I was doing to the bum.
May 2, 2007 - 01:29 PM on May 2nd, 2007
This is why I say over and over again that today’s Democrite Party is the very lowest, most vile skum in the political slime pond. Is there corruption elsewhere? If course. But the Degenocrats of today have taken politics to its lowest level ever in american history.
It is an evil, soulless, degenerate enterprise. it is absolutely astonishing to me that so many sheeple glibly support it.
May 2, 2007 - 02:49 PM on May 2nd, 2007
Tweedles Dum and Dee,
Are you two honestly stupid enough to think that the democrats and republicans are all that different? 90% of the time, they’re being financed by the same corporations (check the donors for the last election). And yet I hear again and again (on “Right Voices,” aka, “Republican Talking Points”): “Those pesky democrats are ruining America.” Blah, blah, blah.
Coke and Pepsi, kids.
May 2, 2007 - 02:53 PM on May 2nd, 2007
AKD, as I said before, you see things as Gay first, then as a Democrat. I don’t think you ever see things as an American.
May 2, 2007 - 03:03 PM on May 2nd, 2007
AKD, as I said before, you see things as Gay first, then as a Democrat, I don’t think you ever see things as an American.
Gay? Don’t tell my wife.
I try not to see things according to any pre-established Weltanschauung, especially not according to whatever hellish, confused idea you have of what it means to be “american.”
May 2, 2007 - 03:05 PM on May 2nd, 2007
AKD, you are the one in Hell. You think Democrap spin is truth. You can’t reason and you get blown out of the water more often than Japanese sailors at the end of WW2.
May 2, 2007 - 03:20 PM on May 2nd, 2007
76. As if it isn’t clear from your posts that you’re the ultimate enemy of America—celebrating every tragedy because it helps you push your (admittedly, incoherent, but dangerous nonetheless) agenda.
May 2, 2007 - 03:26 PM on May 2nd, 2007
Are you two honestly stupid enough to think that the democrats and republicans are all that different?
Most politicians = corrupt a-holes.
Most politicians = pond scum.
Today’s democrite party = the very lowest slime in the political scum pond.
Yes, there is a difference.
May 2, 2007 - 03:32 PM on May 2nd, 2007
Most politicians = corrupt a-holes.
Most politicians = pond scum.
Then why is it that I never hear you criticize the republicans? Are you pro a-holes/pond scum in some cases?
May 2, 2007 - 03:45 PM on May 2nd, 2007
I do when it is called for. I have criticized Bush on many occasions. I have said ‘Let the chips fall where they may’ more than once regarding investigations of corruption.
But whose on the wrong side of most impt issues these days?
General characterization:
Issue Repubs Dems
Iraq Complete the mission Cut and run, defeat, failure
CO2 and GW The Science is not in Hysteria,fraud (carbon offsets)
Economy Make tax cuts permanent Raise taxes. Wreck the economy.
Energy Move toward independence No nuke power, no new dev. of our own resources, make U.S. more dependent on foreign sources
Corruption Resign, step down Ignore, carry on
That’s for starters…
May 2, 2007 - 03:48 PM on May 2nd, 2007
Reformatted version:
General characterization:
Iraq
Repubs: Complete the mission
Dems: Cut and run, defeat, failure
CO2 and GW
Repubs: The Science is not in
Dems: Hysteria,fraud (carbon offsets)
Economy
Repubs: Make tax cuts permanent
Dems: Raise taxes. Wreck the economy.
Energy
Repubs: Move toward independence
Dems; No nuke power, no new dev. of our own resources, make U.S. more dependent on foreign sources
Corruption
Repubs: Resign, step down
Dems: Ignore, carry on
That’s for starters…
May 2, 2007 - 04:01 PM on May 2nd, 2007
General characterization:
Iraq
Repubs: Lie us into war (WMDs, Saddam/Osama link); no exit strategy.
CO2 and GW
Repubs: If it’s good for the oil companies it’s good for the environment—and science be damned! (by the way, the earth is a few thousand years old and Adam and Eve rode around on Dinosaurs. If you disagree, you’re going to HELL).
Economy
Repubs: What’s good for Bill Gates is good for all Americans (and if you disagree you’re a communist).
Energy
Repubs: NEED. MORE. OIL!!!!
Corruption
Repubs: Lying and insider trading is fine, as long as you’re not getting blowjobs from interns.
May 2, 2007 - 08:47 PM on May 2nd, 2007
82 what nonsense.
May 5, 2007 - 12:51 PM on May 5th, 2007
Morality
Dems: Having actual homosexual sex with an underaged page receives a standing ovation.
Republicans: Sending an ADULT page lurid IMs gets you thrown out of the house and the party.
Economy
Dems: Raising tax rates will only hurt the wealthy, but not the people they hire, purchase products from, etc etc etc. BTW Dems want a confiscatory estate tax but put all of our holdings into trust funds so they won’t have to pay it.(see Kennedy compounds in Hyannisport, Miami et al for estates not being taxed. According to his tax returns, Teddy doesn’t make enough to pay the taxes on the estate he lives on.)
Republicans: Higher tax rates stifle economic growth and result in lower revenues because more people are unemployed and unable to pay taxes. Why tax estates? The money to pay for them has already been taxed.
Environment
Dems: With enough publicity, even questionable science can be made the final word, and heaven help anyone who brings up its questionable nature especially if their facts might interfere with the dems most recent scam.
Republicans: Yes there is an indication that global temperatures are rising, but there is little evidence that human activity is causing it. The rise is still minimal and within the range of the normal temperatues of the planet. To take radical steps that would cripple our economy would be stupid without further study. Likewise, it takes time to develop feasible alternatives to oil and we have to develop the oil, coal and nuclear resources we have in the interim.
Corruption
Republican: Take money from lobbyist Jack Abramoff, go to jail and get kicked out of the party.
Dems: Take money from lobbyist Jack Abramoff, get promoted to Senate Majority leader position. Take bribe money from FBI informant, be nominated to the House Ways and Means committee (William Jefferson) Be filmed agreeing to accept bribe money and be an unindicted coconspirator in Abscam, be nominated for the House Majority leader position (Muertha). Be the only US Judge ever impeached for corruption, be nominated for the House Intelligence committee.
National Security and Military affairs.
Republicans: Build a strong military and intelligence networks to be able to protect this country from hostile actions.
Dems: Cut military spending repeatedly resulting in more deaths from lack of equipment in order to fund social program benefits for illegal aliens.
Gun Control and crime
Dems: Guns are bad and noone should be allowed to have them, except of course for Democratic toadies. Criminals are of course exempt from gun laws because without guns, they might have to get a real job and heaven forbid we actually punish them for carrying out their chosen trade.
Republicans: The Constitution guarantees every law abiding American adult the right to own a firearm. It does not allow anyone to use it irresponsibly. Criminals should be treated as the law breakers that they are, especially repeat offenders.