1"Sicko" promises to take the health-care industry to task the way Moore
confronted America's passion for guns in "Bowling for Columbine" and
skewered Bush over his handling of Sept. 11 in "Fahrenheit 9/11."
Oh...by complete lying and fabrication
Posted by: Randman at May 10, 2007 09:40 AM (Sal3J)
2
"Way to go, fatty." LMFAO!! I hope fat boy asked the Cubano's for some dieting tips.
Posted by: Insolent Infidel at May 10, 2007 11:03 AM (5pynU)
Posted by: DrTheopolis at May 10, 2007 11:24 AM (9ZqGe)
4
Looks like this blabbering nit wit is in trouble and i hope they throw the book at him and make it a dicionary right in his ugly bearded face
Posted by: sandpiper at May 10, 2007 02:40 PM (nzpL/)
5
I'll get Moore's future cell mate a blindfold, and a case of vaseline for Christmas. Unless it ends up being Soros (as per #3). In that case I'll send each a case of vaseline laced with itching power, and no blindfolds! If I can think of any 'Moore' punishments, I'll add them to the list. USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at May 10, 2007 03:11 PM (2OHpj)
6
Thank you micheal moore is about time your bring the true i didnt know you where coming out with a new movie if it wasen for this site i would've not know i cant wait to see it.
My sentiments have not since I wrote and recorded this song, a song that was, BTW, released several months prior to the Dick Morris DVD of the same title. Thanks to Rusty Humphries, it was aired nation-wide upon its release. It was not meant as a formal psychological diagnosis of Moore, so please, Michael, don't try to sue me.
Pelosi and The Protocols of the Daily Kos
LGF has a post up exposing yet another Daily Kos diarists railing against the "Zionists," and is, as Charles describes it, "a lesson in how to write 3500 words on the Arab-Israeli conflict without once mentioning “Hamas,†“Fatah,†“Islamic Jihad,†or “terrorism."
Pelosi recently told a group of liberal bloggers, “We can take the president to court†if he issues a signing statement, according to Kid Oakland, a blogger who covered Pelosi’s remarks for the liberal website dailykos.com.
The Daily Kos is driving the Democrat national policy, and given the rabid insanity and anti-Semitism at that site, I find it completely inappropriate for the Speaker of the House to be taking policy advice from these painthuffing morons.
Censured? Don't you think it would be better to splash Holy water on her? USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at May 09, 2007 04:44 AM (2OHpj)
2
"I find it completely inappropriate for the Speaker of the House to be taking policy advice from these painthuffing morons. "...hmm wonder who puppeters and pays the daily kos? (sarcasm)...
Posted by: Kamchatka Bear at May 09, 2007 08:30 AM (gtZwa)
3
Update: she's now threatening to sue...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,270942,00.html
I wonder if that means we can sue her for treason? Anyway in more exciting news the self proclaimed republican-corrupion-swamp-drainer has started oinking and exibited a typical pork laden, corrupt pig behaviour that Democrats so often portray for us:
Posted by: Kamchatka Bear at May 09, 2007 09:27 AM (gtZwa)
4
Nany Pelosi doesnt need to be censured, she needs to be charged arrested tried and convicted of TREASON......Right along with Harry Reid, George Soros Ted Kennedy and John Murtha.
House Dems Try New Surrender Tack
After having their original surrender proposal vetoed by the President and failing to override, House Democrats are plotting a new tactic for waving the white flag:
WASHINGTON (AP) - House Democratic leaders planned to brief party members Tuesday on new legislation that would fund the Iraq war through July, then give Congress the option of cutting off money after that if conditions do not improve.
Up until yesterday “The Factor†was pretty much alone in reporting about Soros. But in it's Sunday edition, The New York Times ran an article entitled "Anti-war Groups Use New Clout to Influence Democrats on Iraq."
While the article doesn't mention Soros by name, it does say that every morning, a cluster of anti-war mostly far left groups gather for a conference call with the Democratic leadership in Washington. Every morning.
At the center of this cluster is the notorious Move On organization, which has received at least $5 million from Soros himself and an unknown amount from organizations he funds. Doesn't take a James Carville to figure out that Soros now has direct access to the most powerful Democrats in the nation.
Posted by: Kamchatka Bear at May 08, 2007 12:52 PM (gtZwa)
2
Hey Guys, "Alternate Media" doesn't mean "Alternate Reality."
Report also please that Boehner and Lott are also now voicing support for tying continued funding on measurable progress, likely by "autumn" I believe Lott said. This of course makes some important Republicans Surrender Monkies as well.
Looks like the automatic, unconditional (R) following the names of Bush supporters isn't going to be quite as automatic and unconditional anymore.
Posted by: B at May 08, 2007 03:45 PM (Zlbra)
3
lol you've been barking so long about corruption amongst repub politicians, now you've finally found few that are feeding from Soros's hands along with the whole Dem party lol
Posted by: Kamchatka Bear at May 08, 2007 05:07 PM (gtZwa)
4
Nice donkey picture. Looks like allahdickchew at the county fair.
Posted by: greyrooster at May 08, 2007 08:26 PM (l9HRC)
Was Osama Bin Laden Right?
On September 11, 2001, we were attacked by al Qaeda because they believed we lack the will to fight - even for our own survival.
In the years since that fateful day, the mood in our nation has changed from one of unity and resolve to a nation bitterly divided. Was Osama bin Laden right?
2
No he is not right and full press venom that America showed post 9-11, until the Soro's crew and ANSWER got to work was proof of that, we will not be beaten, the left may work their voodoo and create the conditions for us to retreat in Iraq however the next time something occurs here in the U.S. 90% will step up and kick ass. It is a shame that it will take another terrorist attack on U.S. soil to bring back the fire that most have forgotten however I and my family have not.
Posted by: Rightmom at May 07, 2007 01:44 PM (0lpqx)
3
Rightmom is ... well ... RIGHT! USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at May 07, 2007 01:55 PM (2OHpj)
4
Talk is cheap. Even the majority on this blog is against doing anything that will make the muslims believe we are anything but a paper tiger. Not because of our military but because we have been brainwashed into thinking violence against them will do anything. It will. Because violence is what muslims believe in. That is their method of operation and it works against those to don't believe in it. The muslim world needs a 9/11 times 10.
Posted by: greyrooster at May 07, 2007 10:40 PM (AFjd5)
6
Unless an American has a relative in this war as a soldier/Sailor etc then the American doesn't even know we are at war.
Yes Osama was right but not about the will to fight back Americans have that. What Americans don't have is Patience and give a sh!t, America will lose cause We don't give a sh!t enough to fight back and win.
Our Government doesn't care what our religion is and will gladly help Islam take over.
Osama jumped the gun had 9/11 not happened American's would have sleep walked into Islam and never noticed.
Posted by: Barry 0351 at May 08, 2007 08:59 AM (PzQS1)
7
Nope, he was wrong; anyone will fight for our survival. This bullshit in Iraq just doesnt' happen to be about survival, which is why 71% of America is now against it.
Zawahiri Mocks Democrat's Surrender Bill (Updated, Bumped With Video)No matter what words Harry Reid uses, redeployment, withdrawl, timetable, al-Qaeda see's it as surrender. It's a damn shame too that the Democrats handed Zawahiri this propaganda just as al-Qeada in Iraq's back is against the wall and our Apache crews are making short work of the Taliban's spring offensive.
Via ABCNEWS: In a new video posted today on the Internet, al Qaeda's number two man, Ayman al Zawahiri, mocks the bill passed by Congress setting a timetable for the pullout of U.S. troops in Iraq.
"This bill will deprive us of the opportunity to destroy the American forces which we have caught in a historic trap," Zawahiri says in answer to a question posed to him an interviewer.
Continuing in the same tone, Zawahiri says, "We ask Allah that they only get out of it after losing 200,000 to 300,000 killed, in order that we give the spillers of blood in Washington and Europe an unforgettable lesson."
1
It's like the fool who doesn't realize he's driving his car onto a bridge ignoring the signs "The bridge is out!"
Al Qaeda is finished--it is only a matter of time before they get completely smoked...yes, they will still get their cowardly suicide bombings in here and there, but no one would argue that we can completely snuff out crime either (the liberal havens NYC and LA come to mind, with their gang problems and drug issues).
I'm proud of our troops--who are showing liberal Democrats just how good they are, and murderers and cowards like Zawahiri just exactly who's boss. God bless our troops!
Posted by: Richard Romano at May 05, 2007 06:36 PM (iD1fP)
2
Zawa-Dood needs to chill, like on a SLAB! USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at May 05, 2007 06:44 PM (2OHpj)
3
It is a close race between this guy and Ahmandinnerjacket for the "Most Idiotic Looking Human Being" award.
Posted by: Jack's Smirking Revenge at May 05, 2007 07:00 PM (ou0cx)
4
I award them both the MultiMegaton grand prize in a tie decision!
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at May 05, 2007 11:34 PM (2OHpj)
5
I have learned a rule of thumb for listening to terrorist rants. Whatever they say, the opposite is the truth. When they claim a glorious victory, it means they got a butt kicking. When they say they want peace, look for the knife behind their back. He SAYS he wants us to stay and die. He MEANS "Please go away and leave us alone!"
Posted by: Paul Moore at May 06, 2007 05:09 AM (EjXVN)
No wonder these people are losing so bad if they've got funny-looking old men with funny clothing as their leaders.
Posted by: Infidelsalwayswin at May 06, 2007 05:17 AM (u1G5u)
7
Zawahiri was speaking to the dems. He has got them pegged. He doesn't want us to stay so in order to make the point he speaks of not being able to kill more troops if we don't stay. I think they are hurting and unlike other videos of him where a massive attack has happened this video was made because of the debate in Congress and the President Zawahiri is worried that we have his number and it is just about up if we stay the course.
Posted by: allahakchew at May 06, 2007 09:41 AM (BrndJ)
8
Allahdickchew: Stupid skank. Tell the truth. You would blow zahawiri at the first opportunity. He's dark enough.
Posted by: greyrooster at May 06, 2007 10:24 PM (+aKL7)
9
They seem to know that the demacratic donkey has a IQ below a ants
Posted by: sandpiper at May 06, 2007 11:43 PM (I9Upt)
10
Zawaqueeri is trying to use reverse psychology. The leftards will buy it, of course.
Posted by: Al Qaedemocrat at May 08, 2007 01:24 PM (P6kNY)
Bill Richardson: Surrender Monkey
Of all the Democratic candidates fror President, Bill Richardson seemed the most promising to me. And by promising, I mean he seemed the most realistic. But his "7 Point New Realism Plan for Iraq" is anything but realistic. It's sheer fantasy.
It not only calls for combat troops out of Iraq, but for all residual troops as well. Now, as much as I oppose Democratic plans to abandon Iraq to al Qaeda and Iranian puppets, at least most of those plans, as I understand them, have called for U.S. troops to stay in Iraq in a training capacity or to be "redeployed" to Kurdistan.
But Richardson is asking us to abandon our Iraqi allies altogether! It's the reverse Kennedy doctrine. You remember what Kennedy said, dont'cha Mr. Richardson?
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
Back when Democrats had spines, I guess.
The rest of Richardson's "plan" is also the worst type of fantasy. Convening conferences is how you solve Iraq's problems? Note to Mr. Richardson, one such conference has already been convened and one is immanent. Nary a problem solved.
Idiot.
Look, to say that there is no "military solution" to Iraq is to set up a straw man. No one has EVER suggested that Iraq could become reasonably stabilized through a "military solution". NO ONE. EVER.
But it is sheer fantasy--the antithises of 'realism'--to think that Iraq's problems can be solved without military involvement. Opening the door of diplomacy has never meant shutting the door on military action. These are not mutually exclusive choices.
What is maddening about Richardson's "new realism" is its utter hypocrisy. In point #7 Richardson calls for redeploying "some of our troops to stop the resurgence of the Taliban and to fight the real terrorists who attacked this country on 9-11", yet in point #3 says that having troops in Iraq provides al Qaeda with a propaganda tool.
So, he says we should fight the "Taliban" in Afghanistan--who he names as "the real terrorists who attacked [us] on 9-11", but not "al Qaeda" in Iraq?
Does that nitwit not understand that it was al Qaeda that attacked the U.S.? Does he not understand that our beef with the Taliban was that they were supporting al Qaeda, not that they actually attacked us?
Moreover, the saying that Iraq's problems can't be solved through military means but Afghanistan's can isn't just illogical, it is hypocritical.
And I must explain to my readers that, as a Christian, I consider calling somebody a hypocrite to be by far the worse thing you can call them.
Why is he not calling for a regional conference for Afghanistan? Why is he not calling for U.S. troops out of Afghanistan since the Taliban use our presence their for propaganda purposes? And, as someone who spends an awful lot of time watching Taliban and al Qaeda propaganda videos, I can assure you that our presence in Afghanistan is just as much an issue as our presence in Iraq.
The only people who really see a difference between the U.S. presence in Afghanistan and Iraq are non-Muslims---namely, Europeans. The vast majority of Muslims see the U.S. "occupation" of Iraq about the same way they think of the "occupation" of Afghanistan. Just another brick in the Zionist-Crusader wall.
So, why support a "military solution" to Afghanistan but not one in Iraq? Seems to me the only difference is how popular the actions are. Iraq: not popular--"diplomatic solution". Afghanistan: popular--"military solution".
It's exactly as our founding fathers feared. Mobocracy in action.
Richardson, I used to admire you. Of all the former top officials in the Clinton Administration, you were the one I considered most likely to succeed. In fact, you were the only Democrat running for President that I thought worth the time to think about voting for. Not anymore.
1
Richardson thinks "military solution" is Marine Pee.
G
Posted by: gerald at May 01, 2007 11:57 AM (foV9j)
2
I had pretty much the same reaction when I read Richardson's "plan." It was essentially, "Oh, well, I didn't expect to be able to vote for a Democrat anyway. This just nails that coffin shut is all."
What really bugs me about this, and the other Democrats' "plans" for surrender, is that they do two things that are terribly foolish: they lie by omission, by using terms like "redeployment" — is anyone else reminded of using the term "rightsizing" as a euphemism for "fired"?); and they implicitly assume that they can take all the credit for ending the war, while putting all the consequences for the war on President Bush. The truth is, the consequences of our <strong>defeat</strong> will be felt by <strong>all Americans</strong>, but most strongly of all, by our former, abandoned allies, who will die in droves for their folly at trusting us.
Posted by: Jeff Medcalf at May 01, 2007 12:15 PM (yfeAd)
3
Sorry but I do not vote for democrats who have terrorist supporting imams speaking at their winter conference. After serving in the first part of the Iraq war 2003-2004 and now watching the Dems who sent me to Iraq turn their backs on the troops. Anything they now say falls on my deaf ears. If I vote at all it will be a vote against the Defeatocrats. Especially if it comes to osama/obama who used to be a muslim and is now part of a racist church.
Posted by: Legrand at May 01, 2007 03:40 PM (/etUv)
4
I knew from day one what Richarson was about....appeasment. Are you telling me you guys fell for his so called idioligy?
Posted by: allahakchew at May 01, 2007 04:53 PM (BrndJ)
6
I was thinking that Richardson might have the political experience to know better than to cast his lot with the "surrendering now" crowd. He had an opportunity to stake out a responsible anti-war position, and he failed. I used to be concerned that he actually had a chance to win the election, but not anymore.
I'm forecasting again: if Rudy or Fred gets the GOP nod, and Richardson is off the Dem ticket, the GOP will win the presidency in 2008. Landslide with Rudy, while Fred will only do slightly better than Bush (losing Ohio, winning Penn).
That's barring the proverbial leaked footage of a candidate caught having sex with a monkey.
Posted by: wooga at May 01, 2007 05:52 PM (t9sT5)
7
Don't sell Freddie short. I think what we need is someone without experience in the political field. Rudi's a worker for sure. Either wouldn't hurt my feelings. Just so it isn't the Clinton bitch. I believe I'd just as soon have Jomama. But we knew Barrack HUSSEIN Jomama would self destruct. Looks like the company he keeps has done him in. I was hoping he would stick around for awhile and have the blacks and Clinton supporters fighting amonst themselves.
Posted by: greyrooster at May 01, 2007 10:41 PM (pW/bR)
8
This just in, a protest at the Bronz Zoo is being led by a group of Surrender Monkeys who are caged right between the Rhesus Monkeys and the Chimpanzees. When asked what the Surrender Monkeys are protesting, the protest leader replied, "We are protesting the Jawa Report for falsely associating us with Bill Richardson. Bill has never been a true Surrender Monkey and he is obviously human and not a primate." When asked for further comment, the Surrender Monkey screeched loudly, jumped to the top of the cage and began hurling feces at passersby. Zoo officials explained that this is nothing new and that the primate species known as Surrender Monkeys are simply tired of being associated with homo sapiens, Democrat defeatists.
Posted by: DrTheopolis at May 02, 2007 11:44 AM (9ZqGe)
Posted by: Dick at April 28, 2007 05:11 PM (XlQVK)
3
Bluto things have sure changed in the last 2 years. Back in the day...... a post like that would attract 10 maybe 20 comments with people talking about hanging ALL Democrats.
Now a days, 12 hours goes by and really only one comment asking for..... imprisonment ?
Posted by: John Ryan at April 28, 2007 09:05 PM (TcoRJ)
4
IF I EVER HAVE to make the point again that Democrats are MORAL RELATIVISTS, let this be the best example. The Saudis OWN Jimmy Carter. It is now known that he has been accepting Saudi Oil money since the became the US President. He may appear to be holier than thou, but Carter's anti-semitism coincided with massive payments from a Saudi anti-zionist fund:
http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/
Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=28044
(You will have to re-assemble the link on the URL line.)
Carter was the first Democrat president to exhibit clear pro-Socialist views. Moral Relativism is a dangerous thing, because ethics are subsumed by expediency. For me, Carter has now gone from being a disappointment to being a disgusting traitor.
Posted by: DemocracyRules at April 28, 2007 11:25 PM (L/SIz)
If it were just Harry Reid, it would be too much, but the ineptitude in the Democratic 'leadership' is downright scary.
The Democrats are aligning themselves with elements of Islamo-fascism for their own political purposes.They want the White House so bad in '08 that they are willing to jeopardize the safety and security of the U.S. to achieve their ends.
Reid's comments are only the tip of the iceberg. The messages sent to terrorists by the Democratic Party via Syria and the U.S. media are a white flag, a weak, cowering America and a willingness to strike a deal that will put the Dems in the Oval Office.
Posted by: truthteller at April 29, 2007 01:35 AM (Hunjz)
7
Well, Abu John al-Ryan, you provoked the response you were seeking, though it seems rather tongue-in-cheek, not to mention pro forma. Tell your controllers at the Iranian embassy that you have earned your rials today.
8
As a OIF/OEF veteran who is disabled, I am waiting for how the democraps are trying to get my vote. Calling the war I served in Illegal, a loss, or a waste is not going to get my vote. It is a strange world we live in when a athiest like myself finds myself allied with the rightwing which is mainly christian.
Seriously how can the dems think I should support them or vote for them when they invite a terrorist supporting imam to their winter conference???
Posted by: Legrand at April 29, 2007 04:10 PM (/etUv)
9
Legrand: I feel your pain. I to am a disabled athiest. Except when I feel ill. I seem get a bit more religious. Only my disability is called Crown Royalitis. Luck to you. My boy came back in one piece (Iraq). I came back saying what the fuck (Viet Nam). My father never came back. My youngest wishes to join the Marine Corps when he graduates from U of Southern Mississippi next month. He probably will. If he can figure a way out of the closet I plan to lock him in. I will not allow another of my kids to fight in a war that America doesn't wish to win. Whats the purpose. To keep muslims from killing each other?. That's not a good enough reason. If he wants to be a cop in fatigues, he can join the Fish and Wildlife Dept.
Posted by: greyrooster at April 29, 2007 10:45 PM (zW8V9)
10
By Dem posturing I assume you meant bending over and taking it up the wazzoo...
Posted by: DrTheopolis at April 30, 2007 03:32 PM (9ZqGe)
11
"12 hours goes by " Everyone already knows Dems are evil!
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at May 01, 2007 01:02 AM (2OHpj)
I Do Not Like to Hear Good NewsMary Katharine Ham skewers Harry Reid, Seuss-style. She changed "General Petraeus" to "General Fooz," because "...nothing rhymes with 'Petraeus.'"
3
Wow (That was hilarious, but...). I've heard her name before, but never seen her or read anything by her. I had absolutely NO IDEA she was such an impossibly incredible babe.
Too bad she reminds me of my ex-wife... without all of the fun endowments up top.
OK. I'll go away now... to her Townhall blog.
Posted by: Hucbald at April 27, 2007 10:17 PM (xOoWH)
Posted by: doriangrey at April 27, 2007 11:10 PM (XvkRd)
6
Mary Katharine Ham is plenty good mojo for the Conservative/Patriotic cause, and a good role model for other young women who want to put thier wit and humor to good use. Subscribe to her on YouTube, and you WILL BE both informed and entertained. Generate some high numbers for her, and she will reach even more people. USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at April 27, 2007 11:14 PM (2OHpj)
Posted by: Michael Weaver at April 28, 2007 12:34 AM (2OHpj)
10
Vag's idea of the perfect women is a tranny butt
Posted by: Randman at April 28, 2007 01:46 AM (Sal3J)
11
Darth Fag's idea of a perfect women is Rosie with nappy hair. Rosie plays the man part.
Posted by: greyrooster at April 28, 2007 07:19 AM (q7s2f)
12
Obviously Randman has this on his mind. Speak for yourself, Randman.
I am not like Bill Clinton who lusts after women who use their sexuality for career advancement. Nor am I like the good Christian masturbators who stroke off to MKH in their Sunday finest. I have a beautiful wife and she is all I need.
Posted by: Darth Vag at April 28, 2007 07:26 AM (b0FZu)
13
"I have a beautiful wife and she is all I need" I have to praise your commitment. Where once that kind of relationship was both worthy, yet common, now it seems to be fairly uncommon. I offer a sincere, and non-sarcastic "good for you!" Till death do you part
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at April 28, 2007 10:35 AM (2OHpj)
Michael Weaver may take you comments about your wife as the truth, me I don’t care. You obviously hate the young lady because she is pretty and made a political statement you didn’t like. Good for her and fuck you. And since I am not married I will admire any pretty woman I want, get over it. She made a political statement then you made a political statement, the only difference between the two of you is that she is a pretty woman and your not. So what does that make you...Oh yea the word is hypocrite........
This isn't rocket science. And, to be honest, I don't blame the Democrats. I blame you, the American people, for being weak and spineless in the face of our enemies.
It's sad, really, that al Qaeda knows you better than you know yourselves.
Oh, yeah, keep telling yourself that there is no al Qaeda in Iraq. It will make you feel better and its cheaper than prozac. That way, when and if we do leave, the new Islamic State of Iraq won't exist.
more...
1
"I blame you, the American people, for being weak and spineless in the face of our enemies."
And they blame you for fomenting far more fear than reality requires, while you alternate between hating your country and it's people and hiding under your bed.
Posted by: anonymous at April 26, 2007 02:36 PM (Bss6w)
2
anonymous, maybe you really shouldn't be talking about hiding... since you yoursel are hiding under "anonymous" lol
Posted by: Kamchatka Bear at April 26, 2007 02:40 PM (gtZwa)
3
Sure it will exist... they will rub our noses in it's existence, every single day. But they will attribute it's existence to George Bush (for invading in the first place), and acknowledge no responsibility for the inevitable consequences of the premature departure they are currently demanding.
Witness the selective memory loss of the Democrats regarding their pre-war statements and votes. They have had great success with this tactic in the past, and there's no reason to believe it will not continue to work in the future.
I cannot blame politicians for this, because that is like blaming a slug for leaving a trail of slime. It cannot help itself. I blame the American people for being selfish, complacent, irresolute and so easily misled.
Posted by: Kafir at April 26, 2007 02:40 PM (HsmTD)
4
Kafir,
but really could it be any other way? The country of diversity with the only thing that people have in common - diversity. Your buddist neighbour aims to rid himself of desires, muslim - convert you into islam, atheist - turn you narcissistic (you are whatever you make yourself, which for most people pretty ugly). Media tells you it's bad to have american identity ("boogie" man of the world).
The house (as in US) is... divided. Everyone has his own definition of the "right". What will make you united in this age of political correctness when it's "wrong" to tell the truth?
Posted by: Kamchatka Bear at April 26, 2007 02:56 PM (gtZwa)
Hey Anonymous, you could have stopped right there. The moment you said "they", you identified yourself as non-American, so your opinions on our national security and political process are totally irrelevant.
Posted by: Kafir at April 26, 2007 02:59 PM (HsmTD)
Posted by: Richard Romano at April 26, 2007 03:22 PM (iD1fP)
8
Everything is unfolding just as I've predicted, and it shouldn't be too long now before the next American Civil War kicks off. It will be Blacks vs. Whites vs. Hispanics vs. Muslims, and everyone but the lefturds will be against the Feds, and considering that the lefturds are useless in a real fight, it doesn't look good for the Feds.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 26, 2007 03:23 PM (jQsc/)
9
I have a caption for that photo, "Islam invents fulcrum," or how about "Local magician levitates mule," or "Taliban unveils new mule launcher platform, vows to launch against infidels."
Posted by: DrTheopolis at April 26, 2007 03:27 PM (9ZqGe)
10
When the democraps won in November, it broke my heaart. (I still find it funny there was NOT ONE case of voter fraud) I said to my fiancee "The people voted these smucks in, they get what they deservre. The only sad thing is WE get what THEY deserve also."
Posted by: amy at April 26, 2007 03:35 PM (l9F6u)
11
Our shadow party at its best. They know what they are doing and will continue doing this as they are stuck in the past. As with Clinton they don't take this seriously. Everything will be all peachy keen when our troops come home and we will talk to all the radicals and make it better....we don't want to be hated.....spit....BTW...commentor JOHN RYAN is doing his best to put down one of our soldiers who returned home (who is really upset with the libs). John Ryan is like a snake ready to strike when the enemy(us) is depressed. John Ryan in my take is a radical muslim, is infiltrating our blogs to spew untruths to try to break us down. If you see fit please comment on this blog in support of American Soldier and tell John Ryan to go to hell.
Posted by: allahakchew at April 26, 2007 03:58 PM (BrndJ)
12it shouldn't be too long now before the next American Civil War kicks off
Nahhh! We are all too rich and spoiled to risk it all.
Posted by: Randman at April 26, 2007 04:02 PM (Sal3J)
13
I couldn't agree more Doc! November 6th I lowered the stars and stripes and hoisted the skull and crossbones. This ain't my country any more, I won't stand with cowards. The coming civil war? You betcha. Let's roll.
Posted by: lugh lampfhota at April 26, 2007 04:09 PM (YlZyD)
Terrorism only works on liberals. That's why they are liberals. Afraid to stand up to anything that isn't politically correct. Afraid some black duke sitting behind you going to knock the shit out of you? Kiss his ass. Be a liberal. Shout Jesse Jackson is wonderful. That way maybe you won't get your cowardly ass kicked. Go to a demostration. Call your Country traitorous names. Curse at your President. But make damn sure plenty of cops are there in case things get out of hand.
Posted by: greyrooster at April 26, 2007 04:44 PM (jmD0W)
The only thing that terrifies me more than a civil war is the thought of loosing my country to a bunch of imbeciles who are in fact brainwashed communists pretending to be socialist masquerading as liberal Demoncrats....... John Lying Ryan John and B come to mind as individual who need a damn good killing........
Posted by: doriangrey at April 26, 2007 05:12 PM (XvkRd)
17
all your families hope that u are safe.
it's terrible about the number.
1 +1+1+...+1=...
http://www.igametc.com
Posted by: Tracy at April 26, 2007 08:29 PM (8lLqk)
18
anonymous: I'm hiding under the bed because I'm with your wife.
Posted by: greyrooster at April 26, 2007 08:43 PM (jmD0W)
19
IM: Wrong brother wrong. Going to be Whites and Hispanics against black muslims and big mouthed muslims stupid enough to come outside their houses. Then the blacks can decide after they see what happens to the muslims. I believe they will experience an attitude adjustment and decide whites, browns, asians ain't so bad after all. Real quick. If they take any other path mainstream America will start remembering the Los Angeles riots, O. J. Simpson, etc: How sick they are of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Calling on the National Guard won't help them. To many remember the behavior of blacks, in particular the American black muslims cheering against and preaching against America.
Posted by: greyrooster at April 26, 2007 08:54 PM (jmD0W)
Ha ha ha ha.........I believe they will experience an attitude adjustment and decide whites, browns, asians ain't so bad after all. Real quick....I am sooo going to hell for finding that funnay...........
Posted by: doriangrey at April 26, 2007 08:57 PM (XvkRd)
22
OK now settle down boys and girls no need to get hysterical and start talking about civil war here. Plus I am sure that even if one did break out here allo fthose countries whom we helped with their civil wars would be over here in a flash to help us out with our own civil war.
Impy I am not too sure that "everything is unfolding just as I predicted"
I sort of remember some statements about Iraq that were perhaps a little optimistic ?
Tell me Have all of you been listening to too much of the Beatles "Helter Skelter" because that was what pushed poor Charlie Manson over the edge.
IT WAS ONLY A SONG !!! NOT A MESAGE FROM SATAN
Posted by: John Ryan at April 26, 2007 11:13 PM (TcoRJ)
23
If "liberals" are so bad, then why did the "conservative right" (also known as the Republicans) get the US into a pointless war?
Posted by: Sean at April 26, 2007 11:49 PM (nsic9)
Posted by: Winston at April 27, 2007 02:10 AM (RMLdk)
25
"OK now settle down boys and girls no need to get hysterical and start talking about civil war here" Looking a lot more like it's inevitable, and if you don't like the idea, it starts to seem attractive. In any case, if our external enemies wants to play in our internal spat, they will end up with an even bigger ashcan of a nation then we will. Someone will get nuked. Meanwhile, I'm thinking a Skull and Crossbones is fine for people without a country. My battle standard WILL ALWAYS BE the Stars and Stripes and if someone carries my standard in vain, I'll eat thier flesh! Or at least cook it real well!
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at April 27, 2007 02:36 AM (2OHpj)
26
"pointless war" Sean, trying to reason with 'liberals' is what is pointless. You won't ever see reason, and that will prove to be the last straw. Your asking for it! All of you on the far left! You just keep on like zombies! That begs for an appropriate response!
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at April 27, 2007 02:56 AM (2OHpj)
27
Sean: You ignorant shit. More democrats were crying for war than republicans. The one time the libs have ever been right about anything. 99% of the government workers we relied on for info are liberal democrats. Asshole Clinton has attacked every little country he could. Even attacked the Christians to save the muslims in Bosnia. Friggin lefturd.
Posted by: greyrooster at April 27, 2007 08:21 AM (nC58B)
28
Yeah, sorta like Osama's biggest demand was we move our troops out of Saudi Arabia and ... oh, Oops, sorry about smashing your argument to pieces. Stop pretending that politicians can, will or would want to protect you.
Posted by: tbone at April 27, 2007 09:15 AM (HGqHt)
MANCHESTER, N.H. —- Rudy Giuliani said if a Democrat is elected president in 2008, America will be at risk for another terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001.
What's really scary is, he may be right. The Democratic Party has so invested itself in American defeat that a Democratic President's options would be severely limited, and his or her election would be taken as a sign of weakness by Islamists.
1
Hmmm. Funny though how America was attacked on Georgie's watch though isn't it?
I'd say the terrorists looooove having conservatives in the WH. You guys have done wonders for their fund-raisers and bake-sales.
Posted by: John at April 25, 2007 01:28 PM (S3Rzh)
2
Rudy may be in for a rude awakening in '08 ... (most) Americans no longer shit themselves at the mention of the word "terrorist" and run for the nearest Republican.
Posted by: B at April 25, 2007 01:31 PM (Zlbra)
3
John. Funny how they planned the whole thing during Slick Willy's watch. My guess is that they love having spineless Democrats in office even more.
Posted by: REMF at April 25, 2007 01:41 PM (M4k1c)
4Hmmm. Funny though how America was attacked on Georgie's watch though isn't it?
Wow. Bush was president when they attacked the World Trade Center the first time? When they bombed the Khobar Towers and our embassies? I guess he was pres when they bombed the Coal. Your a real bright defender of the terrorist John. I am curious John. At what point did you start hating your country and loving the terrorist? Was that on Bush's watch as well?
Posted by: Randman at April 25, 2007 01:44 PM (Sal3J)
5
Ya know, this goes both ways - the argument is meant to be which political asshat party can keep us safer but the politicos don't realise is the extremists hate ALL Americans regardless of your views on taxation.
Posted by: tbone at April 25, 2007 01:49 PM (HGqHt)
6
John, We've also done wonders for their water-boarding skills.
Posted by: blackflag at April 25, 2007 02:00 PM (Mq5jS)
7
B: You're a leftist, defeatist, fucktard. You idiots just cannot get into your sissified heads that the muslims hate us. They hate us because we are strong and have the ability to fight back. They hate the Jews for the same reason. Shit Jews don't eat pork either. They hate us because we refuse to give in the their perferted, backwardassed religion. They don't hate us because of our success, or inventiveness or wealth. We don't take anything from them. They hate us because of our freedom. The freedom to say no to the stupid nazi religion. They hate us because we refuse to put our mothers, daughters and wifes in postitions of 2nd class citizens. The hate our freedom so much that they teach their little children to hate us. They teach their own kids that killing themselves is a good thing. What the fuck is a matter with you leftturd assholes. Totally devoid of common sense. Your leaders are freaks and degenerates. Just like the muslims. Thompson or Giuliani is our best hope to stopping terrorist escalation. A democratic/liberal electorial victory is a sign to the terrorists that they are winning. If I were a Islamic terrorist the day after a Jomama or the Clinton bitch was elected I would commit another 9/11 to put a cap on my sure to come victory over the infidels. Perhaps not here but somewhere in Europe. Without strong American backing that country or more would start bowing to Islam. Then right and wrong would no longer matter. Just Islam. You assholes who do not fear Islam are idiots. That includes many conservatives also. I cannot understand why people are so blindly stupid on this issue. Islam will either be stopped or it will cause the deaths of our children and grandchildren. Muslims dogs would love to control America. Populated or not. They have the oil. All they need is the wheat.
Wake the hell up and quit selling America and the western world out.
Someday for sure we are going to have a out and out war with Islam. I can only hope someone I can get to the likes of John Ryan, Canuck John and B before the muslims get me. The three of you are traitorous assholes.
Posted by: greyrooster at April 25, 2007 02:03 PM (NOVbS)
8You idiots just cannot get into your sissified heads that the muslims hate us.
But Rooster....that is why John and his type have such sympathy for the terrorist. They think alike.
Posted by: Randman at April 25, 2007 02:10 PM (Sal3J)
9
Keep on living in fear, Greyrooster, it suits you. And while you're teaching me about Muslims and their hate, which Southern organization with three big letters do you belong to again?
Posted by: B at April 25, 2007 02:19 PM (Zlbra)
10
Greyrooster: Although I might have said it more POLITELY, I think you are right. The problem is that Democrats are now textbook Leftists. Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Kerry, Edwards, Kennedy, etc. want expanding government controls, economic leveling, controls on capitalism and competition, moral relativism, and top-down political structures where citizens are not trusted to govern themselves.
They are fuzzy about the constitution. For example, they advocate special treatment of minorities and women, gun control, limits on free speech, politically biased education curricula, biased schools, biased universities, they question the Christian basis of American life, and they permit new immigrants to violate the Bill of Rights. This Democrat manifesto quietly chips away at the foundations of liberal democracy ‘progressively’, as Leftists have been doing in Europe, Canada, and elsewhere for decades.
Leftists’ scope is global, they want global government, global economic controls, global environmental controls, and no wars between nations because Leftists do not believe in nations. They want to stop all American wars, since these would be victories for Republican liberal democracy, not Leftism. The Democrats support Islamists and apologize for them because both groups want to defeat Republican liberal democracy. An American defeat in Iraq would be a victory for Leftism, just as Vietnam was. They like Cuba and Venezuela because they are Leftists.
To Democrats and their fellow-traveling main-stream media, anti-war posturing is not treasonous, because they are loyal to the ‘Internationale’, not America. Like most Leftists, they loathe modern liberal democracy, and especially George Bush’s use of it, because it is their main competitor.
Honestly, in Canada we would just call them socialists.
Posted by: DemocracyRules at April 25, 2007 02:24 PM (L/SIz)
11
Equating people who have different opinions with terrorists... check. Yet another reason to note that you guys is fascists.
Now, let's not forget all the evidence which says that Bush & Co were warned repeatedly that Bin Laden was planning an attack, and yet they choose to ignore it.
Yup... they've done a bang up job.
Posted by: John at April 25, 2007 02:49 PM (S3Rzh)
12
To: JOHN I NOTE WELL WHEN I AM ACCUSED OF BEING A FASCIST! If the other person accuses me of this, they are afraid of me, and in a special way. It is mainly Socialists who remain obsessed with Fascism. Those two political philosophies are diametrically opposed to each other. Ergo,my interlocutor is implicitly telling me that they are a Socialist, or at least, an extreme Leftist.
Posted by: DemocracyRules at April 25, 2007 03:12 PM (L/SIz)
John, When will you admit you do not know what the word "fascist" means?
Probably never, since it would cause to much cognitive dissonance to admit that the progressive left is much closer to "fascism" in ideology tan the GOP. The funny thing is, that's not a smear. Fascism is just another political ideology, like communism, capitalist democracy, etc.
Posted by: wooga at April 25, 2007 04:24 PM (t9sT5)
The last time I checked, the "left" as you put it hasn't done stuff like start wars based on imaginary threats, thrown people in gulags without charging them with anything, handed no-bid contracts to corporations cozy with the VP, engaged private armies to do dirty work, approved tortured, and launched countless attacks on the consitution.
You guys have done more damage to the US than the terrorists ever could have. You are Bin Laden's wet dream.
Posted by: John at April 25, 2007 04:59 PM (S3Rzh)
17
Ever heard of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, John? My God, you're one of the stupidest people I've ever seen commenting here.
18
Lets try not to feed the troll john. It is preety obvious he is deluded when he says gulags, no-bid contracts, and previous stockholders in conjunction with his beliefs. Even democrats dont buy johns BS.
Posted by: DAT at April 25, 2007 05:26 PM (GPWI6)
19
John F. Who? Why do you bring this up? As if it should suggest authority? I agree it does, though this seems to go against your belief that "elites" are ruining 'merica. My point was that the study is not yet peer-reiviewed. This is an incredibly important point.
DAT... Er... save for the fact that there is a gulag in Cuba, and Haliburton has received no bid contracts.
Posted by: John at April 25, 2007 07:23 PM (S3Rzh)
20
I can't keep up today, so I'll just chime in with a completely accurate review of anything John said here. John is a lying asshole! And there you go! The same for anyone on John's side! All this drive by lying is exhausting, and I suspect that is all he is hoping to do! USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at April 25, 2007 07:43 PM (2OHpj)
21
B: Me being afraid? Truth is you leftist defeatist pissants are the ones afraid. That's why you make excuses for muslims and other trash. You're afraid of them. Stockhom syndrome. Pitiful little shit.
The KKK wouldn't let me join. Have to be a Christain and I'm not. On second thought, I'm suddenly feeling very religious. KKK. AKA. American, Christian, pro NRA, pro white, pro kicking the muslims asses, anti Al Sharpton, anti Jesse Jackson, anti Clinton bitch, anti Barrack HUSSEIN Jomama. Just think. If I get religion maybe they will let me come to the meetings without having to buy the beer. Love to see you there some nite.
Posted by: greyrooster at April 25, 2007 10:38 PM (yp+ZO)
22
John: You traitorous asshole. " Equating people who have different opinions with terrorists". Yep! Sure do. Osame Bin Laden has a different opinion and I do consider him to be a terrorist. I don't consider you to be a terrorist. Just an asshole.
Posted by: greyrooster at April 25, 2007 10:42 PM (yp+ZO)
23
To: Geyrooster Yes, Democrats, MSM, do show treacherous cowardice. This, of course, is also a hallmark of Islamist fighting styles. However, I think it is deeper than that. Whether they know it or not, people like John have set about to defeat democracy, wherever it lives, and replace it with Socialism. Not a very pretty thought, eh?
Being Canadian, I can visit Cuba, and I did, and asked a lot of irritating questions. One was, "what do you think happened to the Soviet Union"? The answer, when uttered in the presence of someone who might be listening, was that, "Gorbachov made a mistake, and things fell apart, so Cubans have to carry on alone".
In this previous sentence, replace the word 'Cubans' with 'Democrats', and there you have the new American political philosophy.
Pro Patria
Posted by: DemocracyRules at April 25, 2007 10:59 PM (L/SIz)
24
Democrats are merely following the same line they followed in Viet Nam. Same actions, same terms, same methods. Lefturds are the enemy every bit as much as the terrorists.
Posted by: greyrooster at April 26, 2007 08:48 AM (jmD0W)
Lets look at what she's busy doing (there is no congressional schedule you can find linked on either of her government sites, so I'll look at the most recent press releases to determine what the Speaker is sooooooo busy doing that she can't meet with our General who will presumably wallop her and her colleagues upside their freaking skulls with a cluebat).
Yeah. Waaaaaaaay to busy to talk to our Troops and tell them to their faces that her and her fellow Democrats think they're losing Iraq.
Exit Qs: Didn't Pelosi and company promise to end high gas prices and stop "big oil" from being in collusion with "Republicans?" Then why have the gas prices risen steadily in this part of the country for 70 days straight? Are the Democrats in collusion with "big oil?" Where's the Katie Couric special on "Democrats and Oil Prices?"
1
she dares not cross her master Soros. I'd be curious to see how much he pays her and Reid... probably not too much. Senators are not too expensive these days. The freezer one had his pricetag at about $100K. So double it for each... it would be about 1/2 mil., plus maybe the same amount for the silky pony and maybe a few more truthers. So it would be about $2-3 mil. for the country. A little bit more expensive then what Georgia's rose revolution cost him... but I am sure he thinks it's worth it.
Posted by: Kamchatka Bear at April 25, 2007 09:36 AM (gtZwa)
Posted by: tbone at April 25, 2007 10:58 AM (HGqHt)
3
Taliban Nancy doesnt want to hear anything that Gen. Patraeus has to say because then she would have to admit that like Harry Reid she is guilty of treason.
Posted by: Kamchatka Bear at April 25, 2007 11:04 AM (gtZwa)
5
REMEMBER, that Nancy Pelosi is essentially a socialist. Of the 300 million Americans, many of those who used to be called Democrats have actually become socialists. Check Nancy's agenda -- it's really Socialism. Socialists are not loyal to the US, they are loyal to the Socialist Internationale, more at one with Euro-socialists than Americans of any stripe. In this sense, they are no longer really citizens of the US -- that's why they act the way they do.
They want to stop all American wars, since these would be victories for Republican liberal democracy, not socialism. The Democrats support Islamists and apologize for them because both groups want to defeat Republican liberal democracy. An American defeat in Iraq would be a victory for socialism, just as Vietnam was. To Democrats and their fellow-traveling main-stream media, anti-war posturing is not treasonous, because they are not loyal to America.
Posted by: DemocracyRules at April 25, 2007 02:58 PM (L/SIz)
6
Oh oh! Looks like McCain, the senior Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee skipped the meeting as well. You may now proceed to be equally outraged.
*tumbleweed blows by*
Posted by: John at April 25, 2007 03:03 PM (S3Rzh)
Posted by: Kamchatka Bear at April 25, 2007 03:10 PM (gtZwa)
8
How much does a Republican congressman cost? Probably the same as a Democrat one, seeing as both parties are chock full of corrupt politicians who influence policy and sell us all out for corporate money.
Posted by: davec at April 25, 2007 03:59 PM (63hdl)
One tiny little flaw in your conspiracy theory there boy-o, John McCain isn’t trying to slow bleed our troops in an effort to defeat them. Sen. McCain wants to give them everything they need to succeed in their mission, unlike fucks like you and Taliban Nancy and Harry “The Traitor†Reid. Reality really would hurt fucks like you if you ever stopped by to visit it.
Posted by: doriangrey at April 25, 2007 05:28 PM (XvkRd)
10
I could make the same arguement for McCain, who last time I checked wanted to be prez. And seeing as whoever wins will most likely inherit Georgie's little mess, maybe he should be there as well.
But no matter. The Dems will take over and clean things up soon enough. Not that I think they're all that shithot either, but anybody iss better than the clowns in power now.
Posted by: John at April 25, 2007 05:38 PM (S3Rzh)
Harry Reid Ignoring Commanders, Troops, Experts
Dirty Harry really stepped in it with his traitorous remarks the other day.
He's ignoring the first rule of holes, and now he's struck a gas line by vowing to ignore progress in Iraq reported to him by the General he and his buddies confirmed with no opposing votes. Ignoring them while continuing to push for their starvation in battle.
That's patriotism, kids. The real heroes are in the US Congress.
Willfully cherry-picking facts and believing what one wants to while intentionally ignoring all evidence and factual certitude to the contrary.
Wasn't that a criticism the left made of Bush?
Quite amusing how all that changes when its their narrative being threatened with reality on the ground.
This, of course, all means one thing - the surge is working. Early news reports of its successes just out of its infancy threatened to blow the carefully constructed Democrat mirage of lies and distortions to hell with each new report indicating success. They're in danger of opposing this success. That can't allow this to happen. It would mean the end of the neo-liberal movement and the Democrat Party for a generation.
So what do the Democrats do? Why, they heroically recapture the headlines by engaging in illegal, groveling negotiations with terror-supporting dictators while declaring the war over, done with and lost - after they spend $25 billion trying to buy enough votes in Congress to kneecap the Troops in battle. Heroes.
Its not like the news will press that angle as much as the press the WARISLOST angle every single day. Not enough time to report on progress in Iraq. Too many psychopathic killers and anti-Semitic race hustlers need their limelight, after all.
1
I'd call Reid a scum-sucking maggot out of hell, but that would be an insult to scum-sucking maggots out of hell.
Posted by: Hucbald at April 24, 2007 01:58 PM (94gQ6)
2
Harry Reid, though a politician by election is nevertheless a benighted fellow living in some delightful fantasy land where retreat somehow equals victory. With blinders securely attached to his head he marches forward ignoring anything around him which disagrees with his own pre-conconceived notions of our progress in turning Iraq back into a self-sustaining nation. He is driven by his own political agenda which has the stench of re-election lingering about it like death seems to linger about a cemetery. Ultimately, Harry smells the blood inflicted by the thousand tiny wounds sliced into the body of our nation everyday by the so-called media outlet and their skewed reporting. Media outlets which feel so empowered and emboldened by their own daily diatribe of doom and gloom that they feel they have the pulse of the people and can control the political landscape from behind editorial desks and live video feeds. The truth, however, is that truth in media is as rare as truth in politics so to believe one versus the other or to let one control the other is like letting the all the insane out of their cells and giving them leadership positions. If you can trust no one else to tell you the truth, trust the soldier in the line of fire, they of all our citizens know the truth.
Posted by: Rick at April 24, 2007 02:55 PM (9ZqGe)
3
Harry "pinky" Reid is a taitor. Here is a great editorial cartoon in regards to dingy Harry:
Posted by: allahakchew at April 24, 2007 03:37 PM (BrndJ)
4
Oops, meant traitor. Hmmm, maybe he is a tator tot.
Posted by: allahakchew at April 24, 2007 03:38 PM (BrndJ)
5
after reading this, I just HAD to send an email off to dirty harry...here's a copy. I wanted to put the subject in there...but you don't have TREASON in the categories.
Mr. Reid, It is my opinion that you are guilty of treason. The remarks you have made and the attitude you have taken towards Gen. Petraeus and the other soldiers that are fighting for our safety is reprehensible.
I realize that I am from Tennessee, but you truly cannot say that I'm not one of your constituents...your words endanger ALL Americans...when this happens..constituency is rendered nugatory. I ask simply that you stop giving aid and comfort to the terrorist factions through your negative words and defeatist attitude! Its a disservice to those who've given their lives to make our country safe as well as a slap in the face to those troops that are in the field already.
Sincerely, One of your opponents!
ps. Grow a spine willya?
Posted by: towerclimber37 at April 24, 2007 04:29 PM (YWADR)
I think federal law prevents me from expressing my opinion of H. Gollum Reid! I'll settle for 'He is a traitor'!
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at April 24, 2007 07:58 PM (2OHpj)
7
what does a crooked lawyer from vegas now about war that petraeus does not?
the dems/"doves" f*cked the south vietnamese and the contras. they will try to fu*k the iraqis.
and then the israelis.
bte: it's many of the same damn doves: kerry, kennedy, et al... they were soft on commies then - AND WRONG - and they are soft on the jihadis now. and wrong again.
Posted by: reliapundit at April 24, 2007 08:39 PM (+iQvq)
Heh heh heh, I sent him a similar e-mail, only mine was shorter and more to the point. I said...Dear Sir, you are a god damn traitor and the sooneer you are lined up against a wall and shot for treason the better off America will be...I wonder if he hears about any of the e-mail he has been getting where people call him a traitor.
A Message for the Honorable Harry Reid, Douche...
...From a Marine corporal serving in Ramadi. Full text and a photo of Corporal Rock at Pat Dollard's site (quick, somebody teach Drudge's editors how to make a hotlink):
yeah and i got a qoute for that douche harry reid. these families need us here. obviously he has never been in iraq. or atleast the area worth seeing. the parts where insurgency is rampant and the buildings are blown to pieces. we need to stay here and help rebuild. if iraq didnt want us here then why do we have IP’s voluntering everyday to rebuild their cities. and working directly with us too. same with the IA’s. it sucks that iraqi’s have more patriotism for a country that has turned to complete shit more than the people in america who drink starbucks everyday.
1
Surrender Harry won’t get it, he is far too busy committing treason in an attempt to gain control over the United States tax revenues to be bothered with what anyone else thinks. Benedict Reid really ought to study up on Benedict Arnold, perhaps even visit his grave, over in England.
Posted by: doriangrey at April 23, 2007 01:18 PM (XvkRd)
2"...we need to stay here and help rebuild. if iraq didnt want us here then
why do we have IP’s voluntering everyday to rebuild their cities..."
Now, this is honour and goodness! This is why I call coalition troops soldiers of peace. Bless them all! They are not there as conquerors or usurpers; they are there as liberators extending a helping hand to the down-trodden people of Iraq who have been victimized by Saddam and Al-Qaeda and the Mullahcracy of Iran through its terrorist agents.
Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at April 23, 2007 01:55 PM (j97MF)
3
My ex-girlfriend had a dog named Harry once. Harry was really good at rolling over on his back to play dead. I'd imagine Harry Reid learned the same trick somewhere. Besides, rolling over on his back to play dead will make it much easier for the RoP headcutter's to remove his head from his neck when they finally get to him.
Posted by: Rick at April 23, 2007 04:10 PM (9ZqGe)
4
Thank you soldier for your comments--we stand with you, God bless you and our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Posted by: Richard Romano at April 23, 2007 04:47 PM (iD1fP)
Dafydd : Fighting Back is NeverAlways an Option
Posted at Big Lizards:
here must have come a time when a man or woman, hiding not far away, saw that the gunman had turned his back. What that person did in that moment is the true assay of character.
Maybe someone charged at the gunman -- but foul fate intervened, and the butcher heard, turned, and added another victim to his hellish toll. Anyone so killed is as heroic as Professor Librescu.
But -- and I hate the thought, even as it screams insistently -- it is virtually inevitable that there were others who were there, who saw an opportunity, but who were frozen to the spot with dread. Or else they talked themselves into believing that there was nothing they could do. Or worst of all... some must have done nothing because they had been carefully taught that "nothing" was what they were supposed to do. I cannot help thinking that for many students at Virginia Tech yesterday, just as for the fifteen British sailors and marines, "fighting back was not an option," because to them, it is never an option...
[W]henever we allow the moment to pass, and we remain hunkered down, hoping the butcher wanders away -- translation: oh Lord, please let him shoot that girl over there instead of me! -- we send exactly the opposite message: We reinforce the unAmerican idea that "we must sit quietly and wait for instructions."
We will lose forever that which makes us exceptional, not just Americans but all men of the West. And worse, we will lose it to terrorists and psychopaths, to tyrants and the grey horde... none of whom deserves such a cheap victory. We will console ourselves that there was nothing we could do; but in reality, we will have sat down and surrendered to a bunch of nobodies for a fistful of nothing.I agree with Dafydd's general sentiment as regards the loss of the Western fighting spirit. That said, I have to confess I've never stared down the barrel of a gun wielded by a crazed psychopath. I realize that's a lot more common these days than it used to be, but I've somehow managed to miss out on that particular thrill. Never having faced that situation myself--and not being in a position to speak intelligently as to which of my bodily functions would be negatively affected by such a situation--I'm a bit reluctant to second-guess the actions of those that have been.
1
I believe modern day academia teaches that fighting back is not an option. Takes time an experience to get that idea out of young heads. This is an instance where kids from the ghettos and barrios have an advantage over the pamper uducatied young. The ones from the ghettos know the inportance of fighting back. If they don't they get the shit stomped out of them.
Posted by: greyrooster at April 23, 2007 06:38 AM (Ri8KN)
2
Not everyone shows up for their 9 am engineering class thinking about what sort of karate move to use if a crazed gunman shows up. Just like few people considered what they would do if hijackers took over a plane they were flying on or before September 10th. People need to start taking a New Yorker mindset. When an average person walks down the street, that's all he is doing. When a New Yorker walks down the street, he's making sure its well lit with lots of people while casually keeping a look out for trouble, always keeping in the back of his mind what to do if somethin goes down. I think its less that we are tought not to fight back, but that we are tought that unless it directly affects you, its somebody elses problem.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at April 23, 2007 07:56 AM (oC8nQ)
3
I have been hearing people ask why the students did not fight back all week and was hoping somebody would answer that has had lived through it. I have twice. The first time I was so scared I would have done anything the police ask me to do. (bad youth). The second time I had had training in the army, plus I had time to think about the first time I stared down the barrel of a gun and the way I felt. My reaction was different, much the the surprise of the gunman. If a person is not ready and has not had training, by the time they think what to do, it is too late.
Posted by: stunha7878 at April 23, 2007 08:12 AM (qppR1)
Posted by: Ortzinator at April 23, 2007 08:19 AM (JleDT)
5
Fight or flight. Simple as that. These students didn't have the means to fight, so flight is the only viable option. Run like hell. Jump out a window. Do SOMETHING. Don't sit there waiting for the cops to show up. They are 4 minutes away, minimum. That sealed their fate.
I'm not saying charging the gunman and administering a karate chop to the face is a good idea by any stretch, but I can't help but to think that if he had at the very least been dodging flying books, chairs, beakers, etc. he might have had a much harder time killing people. That being said, yes it is unfair to do any kind of monday morning quarterbacking.
Its just so frustrating to see people accept their fate at the hands of a lunatic because they have been taught to rely on big brother to come and save them and aren't allowed to defend themselves. Some shit needs to change in this country.
Posted by: Jack's Smirking Revenge at April 23, 2007 08:37 AM (2p893)
Seriously. Fuck off you basement dwelling, keyboard warriors. You weren't there. You don't know how things went down. It's okay if you imagine yourself fighting back against someone like this during one of your little masturbatory fantasies, but you should probably keep that to yourself. It just makes you look like a ragingly deluded asshole to say otherwise.
Losers.
Posted by: John at April 23, 2007 09:48 AM (S3Rzh)
7
Did you not notice how, in every post above, that we said monday morning quarterbacking was not fair and that we were simply expressing our opinions and frustration John? Or are you that big of a retard? You would undoubtedly be one of the dead ones if you were there (shame) John, because you would probably try to reason with the guy. Shit, with your anti-everything attitude, you'd probably help the dude. "Are you guys off your meds?" And don't ever use one of my lines against you against me, you unoriginal hack. Your lack of intelligence and sense of humor astound me you fucking hump. And you are typing away like everyone else on this site, so stuff those keyboard warrior remarks up your gimpy ass.
Posted by: Jack's Smirking Revenge at April 23, 2007 10:15 AM (2p893)
8
"that big of a retard?" YES he is! USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at April 23, 2007 11:06 AM (2OHpj)
I got shot once. It was only a blank, and the wad hit my face with just enough force, I didn't really know if I was injured. In fact, i didn't know it was a blank until later. It was all part of a prank by my friends. NICE JOKE! Anyway, I heard a yell, and looked, and the revolver went off towards my head, and 'smack!' I was hit. First thing I did was see how much of my face was damaged. I had no idea why my friend would shoot in my direction, and I half wondered if it was an acident. A lot of things go through your mind. I do know that if he had been really trying to blow my head off, he would have had time for a second shot, because I was completly surprised, and seriously confused. That's my only experience at being a target. USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at April 23, 2007 11:11 AM (2OHpj)
10
No monday morning quarterbacking from me. I've actually stared down the barrell of a gun, and I should be dead right now. One of those big .357 "python" guns with the scary looking rail on the barrell, pointed right at my head from about 3 feet away by a jealous lover. I pushed him over a coffee table and when he got up he pulled that cannon out of his back pocket. My legs turned to jelly and I honestly thought those were my last moments on earth. It's fucking scary to be on the wrong side of a gun. I kept talking to him and telling him to stay calm and not to do anything he would regret for the rest of his life. This guy was a furious jealous ex-boyfriend with about 30 pounds on me and a cannon pointed at my head. I was 98.7% certain he was going to blow me away, so I made my move at the first opportunity. Not because I was Rambo, but only because I thought it was my only chance. That opportunity presented itself when he became distracted by the screaming woman in the room. He was only about 3 feet from me. We struggled for the weapon for several minutes, though time pretty much stood still so I can't tell for exactly how long. It was like being in a movie. And suddenly we were both back on our feet and he still had the fucking gun!!! and it was still pointed at me. And then, as suddenly as he appeared, he was gone. He just ran. Maybe he got spooked, I don't know. But it was over, and I was still alive. The moral of the story? I don't have one. But I have an inkling of what those kids felt when Cho was on the rampage. TERROR. I only fought because I believed in my heart of hearts that I had to, and I saw an opportunity. Had feigning death seemed more likely to save my life, I'd probably have done that, especially if Cho never provided an opening. In those moments their only thoughts were on maximizing their survival. Maybe combat-hardened Israelis think differently, but not regular folks like those VT students.
11
"One of those big .357 "python" guns with the scary looking rail on the barrell, pointed right at my head from about 3 feet away by a jealous lover."
we always knew jesusland carlos was a pillow biter...
burn in hell faggot.
Posted by: Harland Stroehman at April 23, 2007 12:00 PM (Nhfns)
14
I think the bigger issue Dafydd raises isn't so much about the VA tech students' personal bravery as it is about the culture of submission they (we) were raised in, culminating in their (suspected) failure to fight back.
My gut tells me that if you analyzed all acts of bravery reported in the press, you would find a disproportionate number of them were committed by offduty cops, soldiers, vets or people with some formal combat training.
I'd bet a lot of those VA tech students wanted to fight back, but as they had always been trained to think, think, think rather than just act, well that's probably what they did. Which I think is a safe bet to say, is the worst thing you can do when a gun barrel is swinging toward you.
Posted by: Scott at April 24, 2007 08:15 AM (FAHM2)
The war in Iraq "is lost" and a US troop surge is failing to bring peace to the country, the leader of the Democratic majority in the US Congress, Harry Reid, said Thursday.
What Benedict Reid isn't saying, of course, if that, politically, he and his co-conspirators in the Democratic Party need for the war to be lost.
3
"Party before country is now the Democrat motto"
It's just a natural consequence of narcissism, that vast majority of liberals are suffering from.
Posted by: Kamchatka Bear at April 19, 2007 04:03 PM (gtZwa)
4
As soon as I saw the headline my scalp lit on fire and sparks flew out my ears. Are the Saudi's paying him to say this traitorous stuff or is it just for the Moveon.dopes votes? Every serviceman, woman and family member ought to e mail him and ask "why do you want us to lose soooooooo bad?
Posted by: birdhurd at April 19, 2007 04:22 PM (ji/VW)
PEACE to all non-Muslims and Salam to all Muslims. This post is addressed to those who advocated "nuking Mecca" in a post at (http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/049078.php). I am truly thankful to my Creator (swt) to give me an opportunity via this forum/post to look deep down in the mind of a human being who desperately wishes to bring destruction of this world. As deep I went, I saw nothing but darkness. None of this war-monger's mind gave me a single piece of hope or light as is usual with any NORMALLY-BORN child with a healthy mind. I want to thank all human beings who wrote great books on morality, civilization and experiences of life that gave me enough KNOWLEDGE to look down at these poor war-mongers as mentally sick people for whom there should be a video game invented to give them an opportunity to witness destructions of cities, rape of women, killing of kids, butchering of old and eating inside organs of the young. This should suffice their lust for human blood. Otherwise, in reality, I don't think they can even look at thier own asss being injected with an injection and they would certainly die if they even see a single drop of their own blood :-) I read this story (post/forum/imagery) with great interest and I must thank the originator in person by helping him/her with any spoon feeding or milk bottle that he/she may require during his/her mental treatment in an asylum (or home) where he/she deperately wishes to be called a NORMAL person. Don't worry, life is too long and you will NEVER die, right? now sleep tight and have sweet dreams of killing human beings, raping women and nuking the whole world!!!!!!!!!! wow........... just in case you wish to wake up from these (sweetly horrible) dreams, read http://qurango.com
Posted by: Amir Ali Tayyab at April 19, 2007 05:04 PM (dHTni)
Posted by: Edward Lunny at April 19, 2007 05:18 PM (QkaPP)
10
That Reid is a traitor isn't even a question. Actually WAIT! If he considers himself to owe allegience to some cause OTHER than the well being of the USA, then it may be he isn't a traitor after all, except in the 'I was born in America' sense of his actions. He could be understood as a spy, and poltical sabotuer working for whatever cause he DOES serve, and in a way, he would be a great hero to others following the same path. Is Reid an enemy of our Republic? Oh YES he IS! USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at April 19, 2007 05:20 PM (2OHpj)
11
This is horribly unfair to Benedict Arnold... please remember, he fought like bejebus for the Revolutionary Cause, took several bullets, spent almost all his money to pay his troops and buy supplies for his Army, and got treated like crap by politicians in Philadelphia who refused to timely promote or ever reimburse him. That treatment drove him to contact the Brits. What the heck has Reid done to measure up to Benedict Arnold???
Posted by: Todd G. at April 19, 2007 05:21 PM (5fD5R)
12
Amir Ali Tayyab: take care of the beam in you own eye before worrying about the mote in mine. Your co-religionists have murdered my people in the name of Allah. Your countrymen in Pakistan have sheltered vicious, bloodthirsty terrorists from justice.
You would do better to attack the subhuman vermin who shout "Allahu-akbar" while beheading helpless hostages. In that way, you might be able to spare your brethren the fate of the Cult of Kali.
By the way, I'm Bluto. Rusty wrote the "Nuke Mecca" piece.
13
"PEACE to all non-Muslims and Salam to all Muslims. This post is addressed to those who advocated "nuking Mecca" I wonder if he has been influenced by Muslim killing muslim? or muslims Killing women and children, bombing Mosques and market places, or maybe by the Muslims beheading civilians, or Binnys fatwa to nuke america. Or the Muslim civil war killing each other, or maybe their professed love of death over life? Or is it the condemnatation of Allah, for Islams violation of his words and the Qaaran? The use of Islam for political ends, of a talaban calaiphate from Spain to russia? Littereed with the dead bodies of Muslims AQ couldn't recruit?
Bomb Mecca, Bomb NY, Using Binnys logic for killing American women and children in USA a case could be made against Mecca.
If a nuclear devise was used in USA by AQ, Mecca surly would be DUST.
IT WOULD ALL BE WRONG, BUT CAN ONE SEE HOW IT COULD HAPPEN?
All praise to Allah.
Posted by: gerald at April 19, 2007 05:24 PM (h0BrM)
14witness destructions of cities, rape of women, killing of kids, butchering of old
Amir the queer, you do know that your false prophet Mohammed (piss be upon him) did all of those things, right? Plus, he raped a nine year old girl. Now go back to sodomizing "smooth skinned boys" and leave running the world to the jooos. That's right, we know all about how muslims love the NAMBLA.
Posted by: wooga at April 19, 2007 06:29 PM (t9sT5)
15
#5 Please do not wish peace to me in the way you did..non-muslim--. I am a person and am not recognized by my race/religion. If Mecca gets nuked there is nothing I can do about it as I am an average citizen in America and don't have a finger on the button to nuke.
Posted by: allahakchew at April 19, 2007 07:27 PM (BrndJ)
16
Reid is not just a traitor but a smirking traitor. I suggest that Senator Reid go to Anbar and personally surrender to al Qaeda in Iraq. Perhaps the beheading of the majority leader of the Senate might wake the braying jackasses from their slumber.
Amir, It's not a matter of if but when the West will turn the Meccan desert into a trinitite slab. The Mohammedans will go the way of the Neanderthal. And were I in charge, Mecca would have been 10 million degrees Fahrenheit on September 11, 2001.
Posted by: lugh lampfhota at April 19, 2007 08:01 PM (YlZyD)
17
Reid is dumber than a bag of owlshit. He's just aligning himself with the rest of the cowardly shitbags.
Posted by: Insolent Infidel at April 19, 2007 08:39 PM (uA7FB)
18
I called Reid's office and expressed my outrage in a polite manner. His office staff person was very condescending. But she knows I think he is an Asshat.
Posted by: Unclezeb at April 19, 2007 11:13 PM (l4QX/)
Harry Reid, Senator, but more to the point: Mamma's Boy! However, Bush did give him (Reid) the rope with which he (Bush), now, is being forced to hang himself. I don't feel safe with these guys calling the shots. I'm ready to vote for some new people, people with foresight and spines, people who know what it is like to defend something beyong the mere use of words. My only problem is that when I look out into the political fields I have a really difficult time seeing any candidates with such qualities. Therefore, I am going back to building my bomb shelter.
Posted by: RJ at April 20, 2007 06:41 AM (yyxO/)
20
Scary Reid will weep the day they reap what they are sowing. Or he may just have died of age but people in this country will pay the price in the end. Also if we leave iraq, we will be back and exponentially more Americans will die to retake what was already in our grasp when he and his cronies pulled us out.
As for the islamic spem catcher who posted about nuking Mecca, I would prefer to neutron bomb the place. Keeping the infrastructure intact will aloow for us to move in quicker and redo the place before I open my new bar and pork bb-q joint next door to the black rock.
Posted by: SeeMonk at April 20, 2007 09:15 AM (2HM/d)
21
A corrupt politician (a redundancy?) who only knows how to pander, and has NO CLUE how to lead.
Posted by: Richard Romano at April 20, 2007 09:31 AM (iD1fP)
22
Ried... Amir Ali Tayyab Amir Ali Tayyab....Ried
You two should be great pals.
rape of women, killing of kids, butchering of old and eating inside organs of the young
You forgot cats and dogs sleeping together. His main beef with this is just the order......not the acts. His terrorist friends think that you should butcher the women, rape the young and eat the organs of the old.
Posted by: Randman at April 20, 2007 09:31 AM (Sal3J)
Posted by: Viper1 at April 20, 2007 03:58 PM (7OmOQ)
28
Wouldn't it serve as a nice example to all future,and present for that matter, traitors to have this useless meatsack tried for the crimes against this nation he is committing on a daily basis.
Posted by: Viper1 at April 20, 2007 04:00 PM (7OmOQ)
Actually though most of the allegedly liberal media reported it, Reid said the following:
REID: This war
is lost, and that the surge is not accomplishing
anything, as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq
yesterday.
[...]
I was like the odd guy out yesterday
at the White House, but I at least told him what he needed to hear, not what he
wanted to hear. And more people have to start telling George Bush what he needs
to hear, not what he wants to hear. I did that. My conscience is clear, because I believe the war, at this stage, can
only be won diplomatically, politically, and economically.
So basically they neglected to say that he didn't say the war was lost at all, but only the shooting war. You want to hang somebody for treason? Go out to the garage, tie some rope around your own neck, throw the other end over the rafters and pull. Then you'll have bagged yourself a traitor.
...
You guys don't even know what reality looks like anymore do you? I can only imagine what it's like peering out at the big scary world you see as full of Mooslims and Queers, and Libruls all snatching at your guns, and trying to bend you over towards Mecca for the cornholing of your lives.
Posted by: John at April 21, 2007 02:33 AM (S3Rzh)
30
I vote for: TRAITOR based on Webster's definition, in almost any version of said dictionary.
Posted by: The Interface at April 23, 2007 02:46 PM (NHBPN)
31
Amir Ali: Nuking Mecca, bombing the muslims world, flying airplanes in bldgs, blowing up shopping malls. All the same to me. When you muslim pigs quit your behavior perhaps those that call for nuking Mecca will stop also.
Posted by: greyrooster at April 25, 2007 11:11 PM (yp+ZO)
1
I was in the banking business for 10 years. The brach offices of banks, and credit unions are required to have a document on hand at all times and it is the "OFAC" list. The OFAC (Office of Foreign Asset Control) is a document that lists all individuals and countries that the people of the US are forbidden from doing business with. Syria and Iran are on this list as well people like Osama, and Sadam. The list is quite long.
I know Pelosi isn't there for any financial business but how in God's name does this woman think this is good for the US in any way? I don't get it.
Posted by: Rome at April 02, 2007 12:17 AM (/GrlO)
The 'PLAN' with the 'PIC' are double sweet. I will spread them both around with the appropriate h/t. Thank youse indeed Good Lieutenant! ;-)
Posted by: Rubin at April 02, 2007 01:21 AM (nadg+)
3
Ummm...shouldn't Nancy's ass be up in the air as she prays five times a day toward Mecca?
Posted by: Macker at April 02, 2007 06:02 AM (1dAZE)
4
#2 I wonder if that will be the new fashion statement in San Fransico but with a tin foil hat on top. I keep remembering how giddy the dems were when they won. Eyeblinking, kissing each other. Now they are kissing Syrias ars. They live in a make believe world like Alice in Wonderland. Nancy has had one to many mushrooms to eat.
Posted by: allahakchew at April 02, 2007 07:17 AM (BrndJ)
Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at April 02, 2007 08:11 AM (j97MF)
7
Pelosi is probably under the delusion that Iran will hand her the hostages while she is in Syria in order to damage Bush/Blair politically.
And they just might.
Posted by: crosspatch at April 02, 2007 09:54 AM (y2kMG)
8
The democrats said they have a plan before the last elections. I think they have been caught lying again. So sad that Americans don't hold politicians to their words. The libturds never had a plan and never will. Democrats don't lead and they certainly don't make decisions.
Posted by: greyrooster at April 02, 2007 12:27 PM (QJgPi)
9
They have a plan, let's just hope people figure it out before it's too late.
Posted by: wb at April 02, 2007 12:42 PM (syC+J)
10
The plan is to go exactly opposite what the present government is doing. Why? Even the Democrats don't have that answer. Just follow the leader and look who the libturds sellected for their leaders. Nothing put ineffective finger pointing trash.
Posted by: greyrooster at April 02, 2007 01:06 PM (QJgPi)
RINOs Sighted in Damascus!
There's been plenty of disgrace to heap upon the Democrat majority in its young and slender majority. Here's another slice, with an extra special cherry on top.
Some would call them heroes. Not me. They the most vile filth on this planet or any other. Their souls belong wandering aimlessly through the land of wind and ghosts.
Quick for godsake somebody fetch my RINO Rifle...........
Posted by: doriangrey at April 01, 2007 01:46 PM (oMumr)
2
Gotcha covered doriangrey. Have extras....in case of need....
Posted by: allahakchew at April 01, 2007 03:12 PM (BrndJ)
3
Ordinary people loose their passports and are refused re-entry when they visit Cuba and other countries on the banned list. Why are our elected officials above the law?
Posted by: Garrett at April 01, 2007 03:44 PM (6Hyks)
Pelosi to Give Her Syrian Allies Pep Talk
More evidence that Democrats' real war is with the Bush administration, and that they are not above colluding with terrorist regimes:
WASHINGTON (AP) - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will visit Syria, a country President Bush has shunned as a sponsor of terrorism, despite being asked by the administration not to go.
"In our view, it is not the right time to have these sort of high- profile visitors to Syria," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters Friday.
Pelosi arrived in Israel on Friday in what is her second fact-finding trip to the Middle East since taking over leadership in the House in January.
Her repeat trip, an indication she plans to play a role in foreign policy, is also a direct affront to the administration, which says such diplomatic overtures by lawmakers can do more harm than good.
Seeking political help from America's enemies is a tradition with Democrats, going back at least to when Teddy Kennedy conspired with the Soviets against the Reagan administration.
Posted by: allahahachew at March 31, 2007 01:36 PM (BrndJ)
9
Good Lt:
Mostly because they made promises to their moonbat constituents making them believe they were going to 'impeach chimpy' and remove all funding for the war, overturn the patriot act and all the other bullshit promises that politicians usually make.
Nancy Pelosi now has the same people she made promises to picketing her office and home, unfortunately for her hippies have plenty of time on their hands to picket.
That is why the Democrats are making such a big deal about the firing of the attorney generals, and making references to Karl Rove being made to testify under oath: They think by leading the moonbats into thinking Karl Rove is going to get 'frogmarched in a orange jumper suit' like they did with "fitzmas" it'll take their eyes off all the promises they made about the War.
Posted by: davec at March 31, 2007 04:20 PM (9DUEl)
10
I would say that 100 % of the people who support our country support the efforts being made. 100% of the sacrafices made are by those who keep America safe. 100% of those of us who always have and always will support them....100%. Those who have never supported America never will unless it can get them votes. And if not supporting America will get them votes, then they will stab the USA in the back 100% of the time.
Posted by: wb at March 31, 2007 05:50 PM (0HmJb)
11
87% of Jews voted Republican in the last elections.
Beat the little shit to it. ha, ha.
Posted by: greyrooster at March 31, 2007 08:17 PM (P64nD)
Democrats Are A Failed Coaching Staff
The Democrats are the stupidest people on the planet. We all know that. The problem is that they often don't know that.
Here's a way you can enlighten them as to the consequences of their actions using the greatest of all teachers - sports.
Imagine that there are two football teams - the US Eagles and the Basra Bombers are playing for a championship. They play a hard-hitting, brutal game that causes some major injuries on both sides. At the half, the US Eagles are up by a field goal, 13-10. Prior to the second half, the Eagles' assistant coaching staff confronts the head coach and informs him that regardless of the score, they will be leaving and trying to take the team with them with 4:30 left in the 3rd quarter. The coach tells them to pound sand. The game progresses (with Eagles gaining an upper hand with another field goal) until there are 4:30 left in the third quarter.
At this time, the coaching staff takes off their intercoms and headphone systems, leaves the field, and are followed by some players who they convinced to leave due to the risk of injury and the "bullishness" of the coach's strategy. After 4:30, the play resumes, but the coach is handicapped by the lack of a support staff. The players on the field don't get the proper calls and plays they need to execute the game strategy. There aren't enough people filling the defensive ranks on the sidelines to play a complete game. The US forfeits, even though they were winning, and the support staff claims "victory."
1
Ohh, very good metaphor. I'm gonna try to use it with some of my more liberal friends. Well, the ones that watch football, at least. . .
Posted by: CrusaderCoyote at March 29, 2007 12:02 PM (wyQq6)
2
Well in the last Federal election in the 18% of the people who voted, the people who were most highly educated (postgraduate degrees) voted heavily Democratic. About 60% Democratic versus 40% Republican but also by a 3 to 2 ratio there were more people who voted Democratic who had not graduated from high school. So sure if you want to call them stupid I guess your statement is at least partly true.http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.html
Posted by: John Ryan at March 29, 2007 12:31 PM (TcoRJ)
3
Democrats indeed are the stupidest people on the planet. Jihadis want the U.S. to pullout by date certain, and what do the Democrats do? Pull out by date certain. LOL! Fucking morons.
it's true more Phd's vote Democrat, but more college degrees vote Republican. And while the Phd population is a tiny sliver of America, college degrees are vast. Which proves the GOP voter is a lot more educated on average.
6
Here's a well-known election in which John Ryan would've argued the exact opposite, if it turned out his way.
Next.
Posted by: Good Lt at March 29, 2007 01:25 PM (yMbfY)
7
And those with Phd's either end up teaching in our liberal colleges or
end up in insulated worlds comprised mostly of those with similar Phd's.
A Phd is a wonderful person to consult when you have a problem
pertaining to their field. It's when they get into areas beyond
their expertise that issues arise. They think they have license
to pontificate on things they have limited knowledge of, thinking that
their opinion is inviolate because they have an advanced degree.
I'm not saying they're all like that. They certainly aren't, but
many of these people live in ivory towers dictating down to us, the
unwashed masses, as if we don't have a clue what's good for us.
It's the average person, living in the real
world, that should be dictating. They don't ride in limos and
dine only in private clubs. They don't have private trainers and
10,000 sq ft homes. Conversely, they don't wait at the mailbox for
their gov't check while they're not filling out forms for free
healthcare, food stamps and housing assistance.
They deal with the traffic and buy their own groceries. They pay
their taxes in abject fear of the gov't that the lazy and the uber rich
advocate for.
And they don't listen to people named John Ryan.
Posted by: Oyster at March 29, 2007 01:47 PM (FFmKq)
8
I don't even think John Ryan listens to himself.
He can't be that stupid.
Posted by: Good Lt at March 29, 2007 01:53 PM (yMbfY)
9
Back to the matter at hand... This comparison is not very apt unless we are in 4th OT - also replace fouling with beheading/torture.
Posted by: tbone at March 29, 2007 03:32 PM (HGqHt)
This piece of crap has stabbed the troops in the back for the last time.
Update, by Vinnie: Bad news, it ain't gonna happen. Two people have announced an interest in running for Hagel's seat (in local radio interviews, I live in Nebrakahahahaha, remember) in the Republican primary, but only if he decides to make a go at the Presidency.
If Hagel decides to run for the Senate again, he won't be challenged, and we face the prospect of having two Democrats from Nebraskahahahaha in the Senate in 2008.
<BODY>You did your bit by reminding us all, but incumbamnts are way hard to whip. We should all scrap a couple of bucks for his next opponet. I'm already streched thin Wounded Warriors get the majority my extra $$$. hagel is like most Senators, clueless fucks who get regular asshat injections and believe they can walk on water. </BODY>
Posted by: Rubin at March 27, 2007 07:43 PM (X2K3z)
Posted by: civil behavior at March 27, 2007 08:22 PM (abf+b)
3
Isn't hagel due for a fact finding tour on the iranian border?
Posted by: wb at March 27, 2007 09:34 PM (26qW5)
4
Hagel, Foley, Barney Frank and Snivel behavior. Birds of a feather.
Posted by: greyrooster at March 27, 2007 09:49 PM (Il8Q1)
5
Yeah, tsk tsk, civilbehavior. Just ask Nancy Pelosi, if she's not too busy having your friends arrested for trying to camp out in her office, or pushing by them trying to get into her house in San Francisco.
Oh, did you conveniently miss the news of the moonbat protests of, well, fellow moonbats?
Posted by: Vinnie at March 27, 2007 09:51 PM (BH1E/)
Hey ,dont forget the honorable Mr. Smith(R) went to Washington too. Hes the nimrod Senator from Oregon who also voted nay. I just sent him a note as well.
Posted by: birdhurd at March 27, 2007 10:03 PM (4RJke)
Posted by: Good Lt at March 27, 2007 10:29 PM (yMbfY)
8
Does Hagel every see anyone, what with the constant preening he does, wouldn't that mirror he insists holding just in front of his pretty face block out our reality? The guy just loves his self too much, part of my generation of narcissists. "Do your own thing!" Which in his case means he is a real jerkoff!
Posted by: RJ at March 28, 2007 07:15 AM (yyxO/)
9
Well, at least Nebraska still has Jeff Bargholz ... unless he's been recaptured and put back into whatever bin he escaped from.
Posted by: Gleep! at March 28, 2007 10:28 AM (Zlbra)
10 Logic impaired Leftards whine about stopping the genocide in Sudan while simultaneously calling for surrender in Iraq-- knowing the mayhem that will ensue. Makes a whole heck of a lot of sense to me! That's Leftard logic from the "reality-based" community for ya.
11
Reality impaired Rethuglicans whine about doing "what's right for our soldiers" while allowing the conditions at Walter Reed to go unchecked — until the MSM caught them with their panties around their ankles. and they HAD to do something about it. That's Rethuglican reasoning for ya, say one thing, do another.
Posted by: Gleep! at March 28, 2007 12:34 PM (Zlbra)
13
Funny, I was going to make the same comment about you, especially as the Rethugs now decry the consequences of a situation they created for themselves and the rest of us while still shuffling blame. Kind of like the guy who murders his parents then wants leniency becasue he's an orphan. Hypocracy knows no bounds.
Posted by: Gleep! at March 28, 2007 02:44 PM (Zlbra)
14the Rethugs now decry the consequences of a situation they created for themselves
Gleep,
Wrong. The Democrats voted for this war. Do you not recall? Were you living on planet Mars or something? Only difference is the GOP actually wants to win this war, while the Defeatocrats want to win in 2008. They voted for a war they don't really care to win at all because their sites are set only on regaining political power. How FUCKING lame is that. So the hypocrisy here is more than obvious, wouldn't you say?
By the way, as hard as you Leftards tried to make the shame of Walter Reed a partisan issue, nobody bought it. The American people instinctually know the GOP is more pro-troops in its little toe than Leftards are in their entire body. What the America people did catch a glimpse of however because of Walter Reed is what a fiasco Hilary's government-controlled heathcare would be if she got elected.
15The Democrats voted for this war. Do you not recall? And it would seem that most have regretted it to this day and have at least had the balls, with guys like Hagel, to take steps to bring some accountability to its execution with something, anything, that might pass for a benchmark of success. More than I can say for the go-along get-along types in Congress. Speaking of recollections, do you remember last November, when Republicans were swept from Congress as perhaps the clearest indictor of dissatisfaction with this buffoon-like administration and its ham-handed execution of this stupid thing? Well, the Democrats and know small number of Republicans are joining that chorus, finally following the will of most of the REASONING public. Quit reading GOP press releases and wake up.
Only difference is the GOP actually wants to win this war, while the Defeatocrats want to win in 2008. This, you fool, is not a war to be won with an American presence in place. It is a hearts and mind movement we lost before it started. You think these people don't know the American government talks of freedom, democracy and liberty but props up strong-man dictators when it serves their purpose --including their own Saddam in the '80s? You think their memories are as as short as ours or their lack of awareness as intense? We're finding out what the British "liberators" found out about Middle East tribalism in 1917, and we're finding out in the same way.
The American people instinctually know the GOP is more pro-troops in its little toe than Leftards are in their entire body.
And how would they know that? Couldn't be by when the troops went into Iraq with insufficient body armor and Humvees designed for use at Fort Riley? Maybe it was through the Pat Tillman debacle. Or maybe it really was through Walter Reed. Here's what the public knows about the GOP: that they're pro-GOP and nothing more. Why were they swept from power? Because preserving their hold on it was at the top of every GOP list that existed and the American public was sick of it.
JC, guys like you have never been more in the political wilderness ... and it's exactly where you and your ilk belong.
Posted by: Gleep! at March 28, 2007 03:28 PM (Zlbra)
16JC, guys like you have never been more in the political wilderness
With a one seat majority in the Senate and 50% of Americans saying they would never vote for your leading candidate, Hilary? LOL. You're a bit delusional. Or maybe that's why you're so desperate to see our efforts in Iraq go down in flames?
The rest of your post is obviously rubbish. Something about the Democrats "regretting" it, which somehow lets them off the hook? LOL. You people are amazing. You don't "regret" going to war, you FUCKING WIN IT. Have the intellectual honesty to admit all you want is the White House in 2008, not victory in Iraq. Otherwise I'm done talking to a wall.
17
Walter Reed...Give me a break. Doctors and Nurses work to help all Vets. The hospital administration tackles the budget...these are beaucrats fighting for every dollar. Those problems relating to Walter Reed were where? In patient care, or in the physical plant, etc.? Was not Walter Red slated to be closed? If so, when did this decision take place and the budget for this hospital affected? When the Democrats saddled up to make Walter Reed their "picture of caring for the troops" did any of them recall how it was Congress who set the budget and at some point in time has the responsiblity to exercise oversight and control where the money goes? What a bullshit game...while those who wore our uniform only ask for fairness and citizen support. Stupid PR on the part of the VA and the Majority party...they know who they are.
Posted by: RJ at March 28, 2007 04:19 PM (yyxO/)
18
Your obsession with who gets the White House -- as if that's the final say on all matters political -- matters less to me than who can bring a conclusion to a war that was a piss-poor idea in the first place.
You accuse me of intellectual dishonesty. Well, my friend, from all I've read in your comments, present and past, you're part of the ever-shrinking group whose primary interest in pulling something that could be called a victory in Iraq is solely for the purpose of keeping the Republican party in power. Damn the repurcussions of failed policy and who cares how long the war goes on; Bush can't retreat because that's admitting failure and could be the key component of a GOP loss in '08. It's so plain it's sickening.
And yes, tough talk aside, you can "regret" going to war if it's proven to be a poorly conceived idea--at least if you're reasonably intelligent. MacNamara did it; Powell's done it, I would be surprised if some day Rumsfeld regrets it. Bush and yourself? Never; there's too much face to be saved to worry about the details.
Drink less Kool-Aid and become more aware. It'll serve you well.
Posted by: Gleep! at March 28, 2007 04:48 PM (Zlbra)
19Stupid PR on the part of the VA and the Majority party...they know who they are.
Typical conservative thinking ... "if only the PR were better, this wouldnt' have been a problem." Oversight is the responsability of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, chaired by Steve Buyer, (R) Indiana. He replaced Chris Smith of New Jersey, who the Republican House leadership accused of investing too much money in veteran care. No amount of apologism changes that fact.
Posted by: Gleep! at March 28, 2007 04:56 PM (Zlbra)
20a victory in Iraq is solely for the purpose of keeping the Republican party in power.
Ah, and now we finally get to the nub of the matter. Finally. Thank you for that because it allows me to distinguish my desire for the White House from yours. And the difference is that doing what is best for America and the Iraqi people is what would get my guys to the White House, while the exact opposite is true for you. Your road to the White House runs through the ruins of an Iraq in the hands of jihadis and a greater terrorist threat to your country, while mine runs through stable and democratic Iraq allied with my country because we defeated America's enemies. You require America's defeat to win, while I require American victory to win. See the diff? You would sell your country down the drain to achieve your victory in Iraq. You should be ASHAMED of yourself. How you can sleep at night, I'll never know
22Ah, and now we finally get to the nub of the matter. Finally. Thank
you for that because it allows me to distinguish my desire for the
White House from yours. Read carefully, JC ....notice how I said "SOMETHING resembling a victory." The fact that it will not actually be any type of victory that promises the peace and stability promised by the Bush administration since the start of this things is either lost on your or just doesn't matter. They'll just "declare" it one day because they'll have to or face a lynching from the Republican Party.
You seem to think the wanting of a thing badly enough will be all that is required to get it. So wanting a peaceful Iraq in your mind is enough to capture the loyalty of an entire administration and a political party. The fact they've proven themselves utterly incapable of bringing that vision to reality, with nothing on the horizon to indicate any changes in that fact, doesn't seem to matter to you. That leads one to beleive that you're less intrested in a peaceful Iraq than you are saving face so as to keep power.
If after starting this war it was ever possible for the Republicans to engineer the type of victory to which you speak-- and I'm doubtful of that -- it has been so mismanaged by this administration that the chance was squandered long ago.
Wanting the Republican Party to regain the White House because they, in your opinion, envision puppy dogs, rainbows and all those other things that are good for Iraq and us does not prove they are capable of doing it. In fact, they've spent the past 5 years proving the reverse to be true.
Our stature in the world is lesser because of our unilateralism; our ability to fight terrorism the way it needs to be fought -- not simply with guns and more troops but with global cooperation -- is diminished.
I don't care what the Republicans say they stand for; I'm concerened with what they're actully doing to make it happen, which has been an abject failure. And you my friend can't tell the difference. You'll vote for the party no matter what.
Posted by: Gleep! at March 29, 2007 12:37 PM (Zlbra)
23
Gleep: You friggin idiot. Jeff has gone undercover looking for your dumb ass.
Posted by: greyrooster at March 31, 2007 02:18 AM (LDOOz)
24
Greyrooster: I thought maybe you were Jeff, but you're too dull-witted.
Posted by: Gleep! at April 02, 2007 12:16 PM (Zlbra)
Consistency is the Hobgoblin of Small Minds.
As backdrop to the idiotic shenanigans the Democrats have disgraced themselves into, I want to post this video periodically. Please make sure you watch and bookmark it.
5
#3 Jesusland Carlos here is the link :-)http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=df6_1172732739
Posted by: allahahachew at March 27, 2007 04:08 PM (BrndJ)
6
Good Lt thanks for posting this. The back ground music is something else. Kinda like a countdown to '08
Posted by: allahahachew at March 27, 2007 04:12 PM (BrndJ)
7
Excellent work Lt. I would dare Jon Stewart to show this.
Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at March 27, 2007 05:05 PM (j97MF)
8
It just goes to show that when it comes to the libs and the history of their comments, history starts today. And the cycle repeats itself each and every day.
Posted by: Rome at March 27, 2007 06:12 PM (/GrlO)
A Moment of Clarity
The British, with the aid of our B-52's, should be firebombing Tehran right now until the soldiers are released.
We have to stop dicking around with these savages. They're rushing to get nukes, people.
Israel responded to the kidnapping of two soldiers by the Islamic pigs with an ultimately flawed but fierce air and artillery campaign that destroyed fortifications and operational staging positions for Hezbullah forces. As least Israel did something.
The West had better get their collective sh*t together.
1
The Mullahcracy and indeed the entire d@mned Mo-slime Ummah think they
can bully, coerce, terrorize and intimidate the whole world.
They need to be taught a firm lesson; a good hard kick in the teeth.
What I'd like to know is why in the hell do British, Canadian and
Australian governments allow the Islamic Republic regime of Iran to
have embassy's/Islamic cultural centers in these countries?
While the Islamic Republic is internally fragmented, there is a very
clear common denominator to all the factions namely the manufacture and
export of terrorism. And these embassy's/Islamic cultrual centres are
merely infiltration points.
Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at March 25, 2007 12:01 PM (EdIIN)
2
Stop all Iranian oil exports via blockade. Stop all Iranian gasoline imports via same. Increase pressure until they wake up and smell the coffee. USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at March 25, 2007 12:23 PM (2OHpj)
Fuck that, teach them the only kind of lesson they know how to learn or respect. To Quote Ronald Reagan “the bombing will commence in five minutesâ€.
Posted by: doriangrey at March 25, 2007 02:41 PM (oMumr)
6
The British government has to convince its citizenry that those boats were operating correctly, legally, etc. before they jump into Iran. If not, then expect discord with a fractured internal support structure. Remember the Falklans, and how PM Thatcher operated? PM Blair, who is not as popular as he was three years ago, has to convince his people first and foremost while sending messages to Iran's leadership that if they harm one hair of a British soldier they will pay dearly. Meanwhile, the American Navy is planning its game. The Iranians are trying to provide a cover story justifying their actions; perhaps playing a hostage game for trade. If this works, then the Brits will be the losers and follow the Italians, the Spanish, etc. while leaving the US and Austrailia the major players against the Islamofacists. If this provocation is played wisely by the Western nations, we could destablize Iran or choose to attack limited targets (refineries and that nuke stuff come to mind as the top targets I would go for first) which would hurt them dearly. Our goal should be a change in government in Iran, the sooner the better.
Posted by: RJ at March 25, 2007 02:59 PM (yyxO/)
7
doriangrey, bleed thier fuel first. It won't hurt us, and it will give the dissidents inside the country some extra freedom to operate as the Iranian military gets short on fuel. I don't care if the Mullahs understand the message s much as I appreciate the additional benefits it provides to the good guys. And igf the Mullahs get the messsage, great. If they don't, I still say as I previously have, that we cab break all of thier toys, and so we might as well. I wasn't suggesting negotiation, as much as I was suggesting the easiest form of siege warfare. There is a payoff if they cave in, and thier is a payoff if we have to bomb them. So Why not? Really?
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at March 25, 2007 06:03 PM (2OHpj)
8
doriangrey, I wanted to nuke the Ayatollahs since thier sick 'revolution' began, but why not give Garduneh Mehr's folks a chance to man up while weakening the IslamoFascists?
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at March 25, 2007 06:05 PM (2OHpj)
9
I have heard that there are a great deal of unexploded mines from WWII in the straight the Iranian tankers have to go through to get to the Gulf of Oman and thereby the ocean. It would be unfortunate if Iranian tankers, and mysteriously only Iranian tankers, began to 'find' them.
Posted by: Ranba Ral at March 26, 2007 01:32 AM (VvXII)
10
No apologies needed my friend. The terrorist dirtbags occupying my homeland need to be burnt to a crisp. If the allies just bomb concentrations of the IRGC/Basiji which are the main prop of the regime. Iranian people themselves would tear the members of the mullahcracy limb from limb. There won't be enough of AhamdiNezhad and Khamenei to put in body-bags.
Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at March 26, 2007 07:45 AM (j97MF)
Democrats Vote To Lose Iraq (UPDATED w/ snark!)
UPDATED: Tom Maguire finds the Democrats (via the NYT) metaphorically and literally "praying" for this pork-filled disgrace of a bill to pass:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, used an array of persuasion techniques — some hard, some soft — as she walked through the House chamber on Thursday, seeking out undecided legislators in hopes of securing the 218 votes needed to pass the measure. Representative John Lewis, Democrat of Georgia and a former civil rights leader and chief deputy whip, told Ms. Pelosi this week that he would oppose the bill because of his commitment to nonviolence and his unwillingness to devote more money to the war. “Let’s pray about it,†he recalled Ms. Pelosi saying. Ultimately, he added, “she respected my decision.â€
Maguire goes in for the layup:
"Let's pray"? If The Coach had suggested a quick prayer with The Hammer prior to a vote on a pork-filled war appropriation, the resulting snark from lefty bloggers would fill a small cesspool. Whatever.
Here's some of the pork-fat the Defeatocrats used to grease the skids of surrender.
And then, there's this:
- - -
After spending billions in taxpayer dollars to "pork the vote," the democrats have voted for surrender by six votes.
Like we said all along, the Democrats are the party of defeat, surrender, and weakness. Our enemies laugh at us because of them.
1
I honestly don't think he will need that veto pen because I can't see how this will get through the Senate.
Posted by: crosspatch at March 23, 2007 12:21 PM (pxZRL)
2
This is the reason the republicans lost the election in November. 60% plus patriots want an end to this travesty. The Democrats are implementing what the vote reflected. Don't like democracy when it's not your kind huh?
Posted by: civil behavior at March 23, 2007 01:19 PM (wZT+W)
3
Have you ever tried to photoshop and it just went horribly wrong? If not, here's how surrender pork donkeys are not supposed to look.
*sigh*
Posted by: Kevin at March 23, 2007 01:25 PM (/ndDU)
4
So civil behavior has migrated here now? Spreading that
anti-American screed around liberally, eh civil? Did Wizbang ban
you, or did you just get tired of calling everyone there a "foolish
American"? Not everyone voted against Republicans for the same
reason you did. Or didn't you check the polls you rely so heavily
on?
---------------------------------
This is just another of the Democrats ham-handed political ploys. Vote with us or we won't give you piles of other people's money.
Not that our government wouldn't give them the money anyway.
Posted by: Oyster at March 23, 2007 01:35 PM (FFmKq)
Civil Behavior, if I was going to punch you in the mouth, I sure as hell wouldn't tell you when I was going to do it... unless I wanted to make sure that you had the best shot at stopping me possible.
You don't tell the enemy your plans. Fools.
Posted by: QC at March 23, 2007 01:52 PM (PX+vn)
6
Civil is one of the 28%ers who think Congress in Defeatocrat hands can do no wrong.
The other 72% of Americans think Civil is a buffoon.
Posted by: Good Lt at March 23, 2007 02:02 PM (yMbfY)
7
Did Civil cry along with Murtha when the vote was counted. Talk about a bunch of unpatriotic wooses. I am sick of them wasting all this time with this garbage. We are suppose to defeat the enemy not hand us over on a silver platter to be defeated. I just couldn't believe how giddy they were over this...stupid jack*sses they don't realize the cut their own throats.
Posted by: allahakchew at March 23, 2007 04:23 PM (BrndJ)
Posted by: Michael Weaver at March 23, 2007 08:31 PM (2OHpj)
9
Now I remember why I don't want to be 'civil'. Missed the Gathering of Eagles, apparently! Yeah, I'd say civil is going to wake up someday soon wondering where all of these 'foolish' pro -victory Americans came from, and then his head will explode.
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at March 23, 2007 08:35 PM (2OHpj)
10
Oh yeh, and if his head does explode, don't worry. You won't get anything on you! USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at March 23, 2007 08:36 PM (2OHpj)
11
Hehe Michael, it's definitely not good. I gave up halfway through making it, realizing that was so bad that someone had to see my shame
.
Posted by: Kevin at March 23, 2007 09:44 PM (/ndDU)
12
Kevin, It was good because you tried
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at March 24, 2007 06:07 PM (2OHpj)
Give peace a chance. And by "peace" we mean "communism". Or "socialism". Maybe even "fascism" if Hugo Chavez is, in fact, a "fascist". I guess any "ism" will do, as long as its not "pro-Americanism".
Just curious why they feel it necessary to hide their faces? What is this, AQ parade?
Posted by: Kamchatka Bear at March 21, 2007 01:25 PM (gtZwa)
4Just curious why they feel it necessary to hide their faces?
Because they are cowards just like their terrorist heroes they are emulating.
Posted by: Randman at March 21, 2007 02:45 PM (Sal3J)
5"terrorist they are emulating"
in the kamchatka language I would call that "IZMENA RODINE" which translates more eloquently into English as TREASON. What does US law prescribe for treason?
Posted by: Kamchatka Bear at March 21, 2007 02:56 PM (gtZwa)
6
And of course they're Leftists because they're burning an American flag. It's plain they're Republican plants, intent on using a photo op to fan a helluva lot more flames than this one. And you suckers are just the ones to bite.
Posted by: John Locke at March 21, 2007 05:03 PM (Zlbra)
7
John Locke, the odds any of those flag burners are conservatives is about the same as the odds of a Satanist getting elected to the governership of Montana. I'm not saying it's impossible, after all, we did elect a Democrat. I'm just saying that some things are so unlikely that they aren't credible. Leftist, or Muslims burning a US flag is very credible. Ain't it? USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at March 21, 2007 10:27 PM (2OHpj)
It's not every day when you can see the US military get their asses kicked by teenagers (it's only been the last 4 years).
Suckers!!
Posted by: Robert at March 22, 2007 10:15 AM (VTtVl)
10
Michael ... I was bored and thought a conspiracy might be fun. Seriously, these guys aren't Leftists, Rightists, Middleists, Uppists or Downists; they're assholes. The pro-war crowds got 'em too. They don't burn flags, though. They're content to shred the constitution.
Posted by: John Locke at March 22, 2007 11:04 AM (Zlbra)
11
Robet has obviously spent a considerable amount of time fighting against the insurgency in Iraq. Thank you for sharing what can only be the result of your serious and dilligent observations while in a combat zone.
Dick weed.
Posted by: SeeMonk at March 22, 2007 12:55 PM (yKwZ2)
12
Libs don't shred the constitution, they piss on it hoping the ink will run like they do from a tough fight.
Posted by: SeeMonk at March 22, 2007 12:56 PM (yKwZ2)
13Libs don't shred the constitution, they piss on it hoping the ink will run like they do from a tough fight.
Well, conservatives like SeeMonk do shred the constitution ... though I don't know why you'd shred something you 're determined to wipe your ass with.
Posted by: John Locke at March 22, 2007 01:04 PM (Zlbra)
"Well, conservatives like SeeMonk do shred the constitution" Well I consider myself a Conservative, with a strong Libertarian streak, and I don't see the Conservative movement as trying to shred the Constitution.
I'd go as far as to say that Conservatism IS as much Constitutional fundamentalism as is Libertarianism. The Constitution isn't some kind of mutating beast (living document?) though it can be added to by way of amendments when it is deemed sufficiently necessary.
I can go on for hours about who is shredding what, especially for the benefit of readers. I have been reading a lot about judicial activism lately. There is a ton of material just there.
In any case, I'm not trying to pick a fight over what I guess was a misunderstanding.
Sorry if I missed the joke earlier, but it did look like a genuine leftard type remark, so I accepted it as such. In fact, it looked like purposeful propaganda. Anyway, since it was meant s a joke, I'll leave it go.
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at March 22, 2007 01:48 PM (2OHpj)
15
Yes, Michael, I wasn't being serious in any way with that statement. I lean left and abhor garbage like in that photo. Don't call yourself 'anti-war," call yourself "incapable of self-control" is my feeling toward those types, no matter how frustrated they may legitimately be.
And when I say "conservatives like XXXX," I mean "people who aren't conservatives." Their only credentials to being a conservative is that they despise their liberal bogeymen. Takes a bit more than that. That's lost on some, which is the only reason why I bring up "SeeMonk" and "conservative" in the same sentence.
Posted by: John Locke at March 22, 2007 02:05 PM (Zlbra)
16
Ive been to these protests before. Those people are the Anarchists. They always do shit like that to start fights and offend people.
Posted by: Rupert at March 22, 2007 07:52 PM (heS+8)
17
John Locke: Bite me. You wife did. Just hope your not as ugly as she is.
Posted by: greyrooster at March 22, 2007 08:43 PM (jNRRK)
18
Greyrooster-- If you're the best conservatism has to offer, the movement should worry. Tell me, when you host your lynchings, does your Band of Toothless Brothers prefer natural hemp for the rope or have they embraced the new synthetics? I'd heard the KKK was moving int o the 21st, just thought I'd get the insider's view on it.
Posted by: John Locke at March 23, 2007 09:54 AM (Zlbra)
No matter what words Harry Reid uses, redeployment, withdrawl, timetable, al-Qaeda see's it as surrender. It's a damn shame too that the Democrats handed Zawahiri this propaganda just as al-Qeada in Iraq's back is against the wall and our Apache crews are making short work of the Taliban's spring offensive.
