jawa.mee.nu

May 01, 2007

Imagine Bushlessness

Code Pink out in force, and I can see we are in total agreement for once. Oh, I'm imagining. I'm imagining....

Zombie has the complete photo set of the "Impeach Bush" rally. I believe none of you will be shocked at all the "9/11 was an inside job" type posters.

Posted by: Rusty at 02:16 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 52 words, total size 1 kb.

April 24, 2007

John Kerry's 9/11 'Truth' Waffling

I didn't link the video of John Kerry waffling over 9/11 earlier because Allah seemed to have debunked the notion that Kerry was a Truther so thoroughly. But I think Ace's response merits some attention:

If someone suggested to him he had evidence the Holocaust never happened, does anyone belive he would have repsonded in the same "sure I'll look at the facts" way...?
How about if someone suggested to him Saddam had WMD's post 2003 , or that Saddam had lower-level involvement with 9/11?
You think he would have been baffled by such questions and offered a similar "I'll have to read up on that before offering an opinon" dodge? Or would he have been a tad more definitive in his answer?

With that as context, go watch the video. No, it doesn't mean he's a Truther. Rather, it means that enough Democratic voters believe that 9/11 was an inside job that John Kerry knows he has to waffle.

Posted by: Rusty at 01:33 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 164 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Beings Austin Texas is so full of liberal moonbats I wasn't suprised to see the questions. After the Kerry's made their entrance from behind the Iron Curtain the answers Kerry gave was only to assure support from these people. You can't expect him to deny it when he met with the enemy during the VietNam war.

Posted by: allahakchew at April 24, 2007 03:53 PM (BrndJ)

2 The government knows that it was a tribe of Bigfoot creatures from the Cascade Mountain region that hijacked those planes on 9/11 on the orders of Adolph Hitler who is sitting safely in his Antarctica base where he has been kept alive by the Holy Grail which was seized by Nazis during the occupation of France during World War II and taken via a sub to Argentina and then to the secret Nazi base in Antarctica. They also have proof that it was Mars aliens that secretly had JFK assassinated to stop the space program from finding life on Mars. Yes.. Oswald was a martian. And don't even get me started on those chem trails which have slowly been turning some people into Republicans and making the rest of us fat. The Republican zombies will control everyone and they will feed the fat people to the grey aliens who are getting tired of abducting cows for making hamburgers and steaks. McDonalds and most other fast food restaurants are run by the grey aliens in an effort to fatten us up before being slaughtered for our meat.

Yeah... and then there's the rest of us. Kerry's just whoring himself for votes. That's what politicians do before elections.

Posted by: Rick at April 24, 2007 04:15 PM (9ZqGe)

3 Rick, Now the secret is out. Jeeze couldn't you have waited a little longer?

Posted by: allahakchew at April 24, 2007 04:24 PM (BrndJ)

Sorry... couldn't help myself... too much caffeine... plus I removed my tinfoil hat for cleaning. Must be those neo-con mind control satellites again, they're going to start tracking me again I just know it...

Posted by: Rick at April 24, 2007 04:29 PM (9ZqGe)

5 Rick! Copywrite that one QUICK! It has 'Hollywood screenplay' written all over it! Move fast! IN OTHER NEWS, Kerry is a user of losers! USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at April 24, 2007 06:45 PM (2OHpj)

6 I believe that the Deomcrats have pushed the Hate Bush scenario to the limit, and that now, with the elections and presidential campaign ahead of them, they dare not regress from their universal stand that Bush is wrong. Isn't it a shame that our elected leaders must save face, rather than face the Nation and do what they know must be done.

Posted by: Robert at April 24, 2007 10:29 PM (hRHEh)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

April 18, 2007

Eisner: time to crank up the anti-gun propaganda machine

Partial transcript of former Disney CEO Michael Eisner on Power Lunch today:

I think the solution is to get the public, in an emotional, story-driven way, behind the goal of an abolition of handguns and automatic weapons. Because politicians are almost co-conspirators in this bloodshed.

Allahpundit has the video.

Posted by: Rusty at 01:31 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 56 words, total size 1 kb.

Sandcrawler PSA: Dr. Rusty Shacklefor NOT Packing Heat on Campus

My university does not allow me to carry a gun. They just sent out a campus wide e-mail warning us about a disgruntled employee who made terroristic threats and who has now been 'banned' from campus. Gee, I feel safe knowing the nut has been banned.

Posted by: Rusty at 09:10 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 56 words, total size 1 kb.

April 13, 2007

ACLU's Hypocrisy

I don't mind watchdog groups. Someone needs to watch the watchers. What I do mind are watchdog groups that are so focused on our own minor flaws that they ignore the massive abuses of our enemies. They turn Jesus' condemnation on its head. The hypocrites at the ACLU are so focused on the motes in our eyes, that they ignore the beams in our enemies'.

Jules Crittendon:

I encourage ACLUâ€™s Jameel Jaffer and Nasrina Bargzie to get to the bottom of who is killing all those civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan without even attempting to investigate, prosecute or compensate their families. I think we may well be into the tens of thousands of uncompensated civilian deaths in car bombings, summary executions, torture deaths, etc.

Posted by: Rusty at 01:49 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 125 words, total size 1 kb.

April 12, 2007

Breaking: CBS Fires Imus

Michael e-mails with this scoop: "Don Imus has been fired from CBS Radio, and he is officially off radio and TV now."

CBS:

CBS announced Thursday its decision to cease broadcasting the Imus in the Morning radio program, effective immediately, on a permanent basis.

Prediction: A satellite radio contract within a week of Howard Stern proportions.

Posted by: Rusty at 03:24 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 59 words, total size 1 kb.

1 So long you sadistic bastard. Take your wife with you, too. However, let's really begin cleaning house of all these sadists. I'll go for Jerry Springer next. He's white and a jew. Howard Stern is free on sat. radio, where Imus may head, unless he wants to sit at the ranch and play Michael Jackson...helping those kids! Take Sharpton and Jackson for a horseback ride on the ranch, Imus. Now, I've got to shower, this stink and filfth is all over me!

Posted by: RJ at April 12, 2007 04:29 PM (yyxO/)

2 Couldn't have happenned to a better guy. Doesn't change the fact that the only real threat to freedom of speech today is coming from the Left.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 12, 2007 04:33 PM (8e/V4)

3 Weenies; CBS and MSNBC, he was just quoting what he heard from "hip hoppers' in their music, trying to be funny dising a sports team, he was using a coloqualism based in the vernacular.

I don't like him or his program but this is reverse racism.

If his language has negative effects on the young, then what impact does the MTV channel have?
What they say is OK but fire Imus, assholes.

Two faced also.

g

Posted by: gerald at April 12, 2007 04:42 PM (h0BrM)

4 Imus will get nothing like Stern. He won't even get "Opie and Anthony" kind of money. His ratings are relatively poor, and nobody in their right mind would actually PAY for Imus (people will pay for Stern, Oprah, Martha Stewart, Rush, etc., - basically someone who is actually original in some respect).

Posted by: wooga at April 12, 2007 04:46 PM (t9sT5)

5 Yeah, no one listens to Imus so a Stern-like contract is impossible.

Posted by: Jack's Smirking Revenge at April 12, 2007 05:25 PM (ou0cx)

6 What makes you thinik Imus didn't have a back up plan? Ever see his ranch pictures in Architectrural Digest? His part of the house is very nice, very very nice. How hard would it be to shut the "ranch for the kids" part down? He could then bring back his brother (there's another winner and a half!) go to Santa Fe and have dinner with Valerie Plame Wilsons...hell, he could go to Toas and lunch with Donald Rumsfeld just for fun! What is this SADIST gonna do? Rant and Rave will be his response. The forum for such is to be decided as is the format: But mark my words, it will be mean and nasty, just like the man is. Race has nothing to do with this, it was just subject matter, a vehicle to deliver his mean diatribe.

Posted by: RJ at April 12, 2007 05:45 PM (yyxO/)

7 RJ, thanks for the mean diatribe.

Posted by: QC at April 12, 2007 05:50 PM (PX+vn)

Hey QC, I take it you have not seen the Arch. Digest layout of the "ranch" nor consider Imus a sadist? Too bad.

Posted by: RJ at April 12, 2007 06:20 PM (yyxO/)

9 "his brother (there's another winner and a half!)"
I suppose you call that a sweet soliloquy?

RJ, I know plenty JD Imus and his ranch, and I know plenty about mean diatribes, and you just layed one down.

Posted by: QC at April 12, 2007 06:42 PM (PX+vn)

10 RJ: What's this sadist shit? What happened here is major broadcasting has given in to the libturds and black crybabies. Whatever happened to free speech. Only free if your talking about our elected leaders. Merely, another freedom lost to the lefturds. I don't like the racist bullshit Al Sharpton says therefore I don't listen to him. It's called freedom of choice.

Posted by: greyrooster at April 12, 2007 08:08 PM (2J0r9)

11 His brother, QC, I used to watch as he roamed Santa Fe and talked to those customers visiting his store...my opinion of him is not so sweet, just like his brother who packs a gun on his side while sitting at the desk spitting out his sadism, which greyrooster does not understand. Imus' so called humor depended upon slap downs of other people (including his own employees...you know even those at the ranch who didn't get along with him and his "nice" wife...who went to lawyers seeking relief), like the degrading Howard Stern demands of his guests, or how about the Jerry Springer show where people come on to get humilated...if you don't see this as a model of sadistic behavior, then I'll just keep reading Jung, or perhaps Freud, Maslow...even Reich and Lorenz...maybe I will really learn something. Then again, maybe not. Let them hide in the "artists" corner or try a unique definition of "comedy" that is "edgy" or "in your face humor" with all those others who provide us with entertainment. They are our verbal gladiators!

Posted by: RJ at April 12, 2007 09:53 PM (yyxO/)

12 Rooster freee speech is free. Imus was being paid millions. Those people who were paying him don't want to pay him anymore. He can still say what he wants, they just took his microphone away from him.

Posted by: John Ryan at April 12, 2007 11:25 PM (TcoRJ)

13 He still has a microphone. As of this morning, he is on the same station that his wife is on. Can't remember which one because it's not important to me. He has the right to say whatever he wants but he doesn't have the right to be heard. Too bad the libturds can't understand that theory.

Posted by: Insolent Infidel at April 13, 2007 09:22 AM (A5PXC)

14 Why do I have the feeling Imus will be back bigger that ever. Someone will soon realize that he is now the hottest thing on radio. Hip Hop will come to his aid. If nappy headed ho is not allowed on the air then Hip Hop (black) music is dead.

Posted by: greyrooster at April 15, 2007 08:54 AM (2J0r9)

15 Imus is worthy of 24 hour news cycle coverage for being stupid, but a
gang of blacks burning a white kid to death and then gang raping his
girlfriend, murdering her, and throwing her in a dumpster isn't. I
can't wait for the Revolution, because there's a lot that needs fixing
in this country, starting with the mass executions of just about
everyone in media and government.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 15, 2007 11:50 AM (eGb9y)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

April 06, 2007

Democrats Lack Cajones to Impeach Bush

Another sign that the lunatic fringe of the Democratic party has taken over. At the Washington Times Christina Bellantoni reports that the chorus to impeach Bush is just getting louder. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 09:17 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 97 words, total size 1 kb.

March 29, 2007

"John Doe" Flying Imams Prompts Democrats to Change Rules

The House Democratic leadership is in the process of crafting new procedural rules that would make it much harder for rank-and-file members to offer changes to bills. The procedure was used only two days ago to "recommit" a bill to committee to protect "John Does" from civil lawsuits which might arise from reporting suspicious activity--such as the flying imams case.

As I've said on these pages many times: it's not so much that I like the Republicans as I fear the Democrats.

Audrey Hudson, official flying imam reporter and JY blog mascot-babe, in the Washington Times:

House Democrats want to change rules that allow Republicans to modify bills on the floor -- a tactic the GOP has used several times, including a maneuver this week to insert a shield law for "John Doe" passengers to report potential terrorists without fear of legal reprisal.

House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat, threatened to change the rules during a press briefing Tuesday, just hours before Republicans used the procedural motion to recommit the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007 back to committee to include the protective language.

The effort passed on a vote of 304-121, with 105 Democrats siding with all 199 Republicans.

Scary. Most interesting fact from the article? 17 of 19 of the motions introduced by Republicans passed with the support of rank-and-file Democrats. I think that says something about just how left-of-center the Democratic leadership really is.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:12 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 249 words, total size 2 kb.

March 28, 2007

National Review : "Alberto Gonzales Should Resign"

What little credibility Gonzales had is gone. All that now keeps him in office, save the friendship of the president, is the conviction of many Republicans that removing him would embolden the Democrats. It is an overblown fear. The Democrats will pursue scandals, real or invented, whether or not Gonzales stays. But they have an especially inviting target in Gonzales. He cannot defend the administration and its policies even when they deserve defense. Alberto Gonzales should resign. The Justice Department needs a fresh start.

Full column here. (h/t Glenn.)

Posted by: Ragnar at 09:43 AM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 95 words, total size 1 kb.

1 you reap what you sow. putting a mexican in office over a real American is near treason. the faster they get rid of this piece of filth the better it is for the Republicans.

hey GW, America is for Americans. putting filthy mexicans in office, opening our roads and borders to mexican trucking, what the hell are you doing to our country?

Posted by: Jonathan Marks at March 28, 2007 11:02 AM (Nhfns)

Senior Gonzales has a smile, you know that smile, a certain smugness of superiority. Now, when the going gets tough...our Attorney General shows up late with cramps...Midol for him please! At least Janet Reno liked stealing babies and shipping them to Cuba...she's got balls, we all she does. Maybe she has an extra pair to lend to Alberto. Compassionate Conservatism is what got us all into this mess. Real leaders, please step up! First, though, will be a physical to see if there are a set of real balls! Ladies, go home make babies to replace those who are dying for our freedom and are yet to die for our freedom!

Posted by: RJ at March 28, 2007 11:06 AM (yyxO/)

3 Jonathan -

You're an idiot. Alberto Gonzales was born in San Antonio, Texas. Last time I checked, Texas was part of the U.S.

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold, Arrogant Prick at March 28, 2007 11:07 AM (SgRiA)

4 RJ -

Hopefully you don't think women are only good for "going home and making babies." If you do, you're as big an idiot as Jonathan.

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold, Arrogant Prick at March 28, 2007 11:10 AM (SgRiA)

5 probably right after his wetback parents illegally crossed over. it matters not, mexicans infest this country and cannot be considered citizens in any case.

when will our leaders wise up and put our military where it is needed at the borders. i pray for a future when our soldiers are shooting dead every man woman and child crossing the border illegally and destroying our country.

God Bless America

Posted by: Jonathan Marks at March 28, 2007 11:11 AM (Nhfns)

6 Oh God, the Greyroosterization of the comments section have begun. Go to hell JM. Racist pig.

Anyway, it's silly to think that anything Bush does will please the Dems in Congress. I called for Rumsfield's resignation, but that was only because he had screwed the pooch, not because the Ds wanted it. But Gonzales, as far as I can tell, is only guilty of being politically motivated. Imagine that, a politican acting politically!

Posted by: Rusty at March 28, 2007 11:12 AM (JQjhA)

7
Disregard the Leftwing troll named 'Jonathan'..

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 28, 2007 12:25 PM (82lH3)

8 RJ sounds like a leftist troll to me.

Posted by: Randman at March 28, 2007 12:25 PM (Sal3J)

9 Yes, by all means, we should surrender in the face of any type of allegation, founded or unfounded as is this case. Restructure everything anytime any one of the GOP gets accused of anything resembling inpropriety.
So umm, when will you began to call for the impeachment of Mr. President?

Posted by: Mr. EMT at March 28, 2007 01:07 PM (j72mm)

10 Or a rightwing troll masquerading as leftwing troll so that the real issue, incompetence, can be obscured.

Posted by: John Ryan at March 28, 2007 01:34 PM (TcoRJ)

11 incompetence

On that much we can agree. He's an incompetent boob and he can't leave soon enough for me.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 28, 2007 02:31 PM (8e/V4)

12 Hey clowns, look at my posts on the 15 British soldiers, err, 14 soldiers and 1 broad. Note what the broad is doing...thus, go make babies, stay out of the military, let the men do the work, etc. If you think I am a leftist troll, then I pity your ignorance.

Posted by: RJ at March 28, 2007 03:31 PM (yyxO/)

13 Ragnar, no, I think women can do more than make babies, they can farm, work in factories, even hook a little to make ends meet, perhaps sit on your face to make it harder for you to think.

Posted by: RJ at March 28, 2007 03:49 PM (yyxO/)

Actually, what if all those soldiers (sailors?) in those British commando/boarding boats were women? And let's say, just for argument's sake, that the senior officers on board their mother ship were females too. Do you think the same result would have occurred? Why? Oh yea, I forgot...as I play with female sensitivities, is it not the Muslim loving goat herders who treat women a certain way? Do our freedom lovin' gals want to live like the Burka infested, rotted teeth breeding/cooking stock of those goat lovers? I don't think so. This whole culture war is all about the women, right? Right! That's why the Iranians did what they did.

Posted by: RJ at March 28, 2007 04:26 PM (yyxO/)

15 Is that what it means to be conservative? To be bigoted and racist?

Posted by: Rupert at March 28, 2007 04:30 PM (heS+8)

16 Hell no, being conservative means you want to keep something...like your women out of combat positions while in the miilitary...for numerous reasons... As to being racist, which side of the fence are you looking from: The one who hates the race, or the one who uses a race to hate? Rupert, try a different tac. Being liberal means you want to have something, like being free to hate and to love while knowing the difference, kinda like good and evil. I want that female soldier (sailor) returned (liberal thought) while the Iranians pay dearly for this game (conservative thought) keeping my freedom.

Posted by: RJ at March 28, 2007 06:38 PM (yyxO/)

Rusty: Never knew an academic meathead that is light in the loafers knew what Greyroosterization is? You suprised me. If you got a white boyfriend perhaps these racists wouldn't bother you so much.

Posted by: greyrooster at March 28, 2007 08:29 PM (LXuMj)

18 RJ,
If you took the time to be considerate of others feelings in the female world you would understand how unfaily they have been treated and how much we owe them. They deserve our love, respect and our service to show them that we celebrate them everyday. Just the other day, I made long, sweet passionate love to my woman, then I gently kissed her on the eyes and forhead and said " Darling, do you know the meaning of eternity?" Her eyes teared, she snuggled closer and whispered in my ear " Tell me Baby" " It's the time it takes you to make me a sandwich after I've come". Oooohh suck on my salty chocolate balls.... put 'em in your mouth and suck em... Now if I get deleted for that, do it because of a lousy Chef impersonation, not because I speak the truth, women can cook too. What's this got to do with alberto?, nuthin. But that's the point, he hasn't done shit either.

Posted by: wb at March 29, 2007 05:58 AM (D4E90)

19 I doubt that anyone besides John Lyin is interested in your salty black balls. However, if it is be kind to a commie day you've just made John Lyin one happy commie at the thought of it.

Posted by: greyrooster at March 31, 2007 02:10 AM (LDOOz)

20 it's chocolate balls.... chocolate. Not the same thing as chocolate city, actual made of chocolate, salted balls put em in your mouth and suck em.

Posted by: wb at March 31, 2007 10:07 PM (0HmJb)

21 John Ryan just had an organism.

Posted by: greyrooster at April 02, 2007 10:25 PM (9nRcM)

22 I also
was born in San Antonio and yes Alberto
Gonzales may have been born their also, but I can guarantee if you go
back in
his family's history far enough you will find several Illegal wetbacks
swimming
across the river probably in the middle of the night , invading this
nation
illegally. My family on the other hand like most other Legal Law
abiding
citizens can be documented arriving on ship (sailing from Europe in my
family's case),
and entering this nation the way that the law required and this Nation
asked for them to do. I am a Democrat neither liberal nor
conservative, just
Law abiding and using common sense in most of my decision making,
like I believe most good legal American citizens are. It is time for
this
Nation to wake up, and quit leaning to the cares and agendas of illegal
immigrants
from ANY other nation and their supporters, and put the LEGAL Americans
demands at the front of all
others. This Nation can no longer shoulder the cost of these criminals.
Get here Legally and in line or take your chances at the whole border
lined for
100 miles filled deep with land mines to prevent tunneling, and rows of
razor
sharp barbwire fence, Guard towers placed every 1/2 mile away, with
high powered
rifles and scopes with orders to shoot to kill anything that has made
it
through the other set of obstacles, and then get through a zone of
Abrams
tanks, machine gun nests, and a combination of jet fighters and
bombers, combat
helicopters, and predator drones with missiles and bombs flying
overhead and thousands of troops patrolling the full length of the border at all
times. This would still be cheaper than the pointless Iraqi war, and the cost
and burden that is placed on this nation by all illegal immigrants for, jobs
stolen from legal citizens that they WILL do if they are paid fairly, health
care for illegal's, assisted housing, food stamps and birthing assistance and
hospital costs for illegal beaner anchor babies. And all other cost that are
paid for by legal American citizens
for the benefit of illegal criminals not "Undocumented Workers" as
they like to refer to themselves. This man should never have been
promoted to Attorney General, and probably never allowed to go to
college or law school on the Legal Tax payers dime. Get these people
out of our Nation, they CAN all be found and deported to all their
countries of origin contrary to modern opinion, just like Eisenhower
did to the Mexicans in the 1950's. GOD BLESS AMERICA and its LEGAL Citizens AGAIN!

Posted by: proudlegalamerican at April 19, 2007 12:42 PM (uOAst)

23 Yes he's a smug face wetback, that is now lying and having frequent memory loss in his appearance before the congressional committee. Fire His butt!!

Posted by: yankeedoodle at April 19, 2007 01:50 PM (uOAst)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

March 26, 2007

The Smeagol McCain Speaks Against Democratic Iraq Bill

I like Smeagol McCain much better than the Gollum version of him we usually hear about in the blogosphere. Notice what he says, at the very end, about Moveon.org's influence on the Democratic side of the aisle. He calls the Democratic bill "shameful" and "disgraceful".

Posted by: Rusty at 01:34 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.

March 23, 2007

Goose Meets Gander

Pelosi has arranged for war protesters to be booted from in front of her office. Where are the cries of "help, I'm being oppressed" and why has Saint Cindy Sheehan abandoned these poor oppressed souls in their time of need?

Posted by: Rusty at 01:05 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.

Storage Units Advertise with Anti-Bush Message

A Manhattan storage unit company is using an anti-Bush ad campaign in order to drum up business. It's clever in that John Stewart state-the-liberal-conventional-wisdom-and-pretend-its-an-inciteful-zinger-aimed-at-the-man "ha-ha" kind of way.

Either this is a really bad idea or New Yorkers are far nuttier or liberal than I thought. Kesher talk has more photos.

Posted by: Rusty at 12:56 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 57 words, total size 1 kb.

March 20, 2007

Rusty Suddenly Joins the Peace Movement

I found the protest interesting.

Interesting.

Very interesting.

Then, suddenly, I lost interest.*

Bonus Star Wars themed protest pic below** more...

Posted by: Rusty at 04:33 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 126 words, total size 1 kb.

March 08, 2007

Pelosi Violated C-SPAN Copyright

Kevin at Wizbang has been going back and forth with C-SPAN over the use of its "copyrighted" material. The problem? C-SPAN allowing Speaker Nancy Pelosi to post video but not allowing bloggers to post the same video. This hypocrisy could be solved by:

A) Applying the same copyright takedown notices that it has used in the past to the Speaker Pelosi, or B) Liberalizing it's copyright stance.

As a result, C-SPAN has gone with the "B" option. You didn't really think they were going to go after Nancy Pelosi, did you?

Posted by: Rusty at 12:38 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 94 words, total size 1 kb.

February 19, 2007

Go Ahead, Buy That SUV

Annual oil revenues to the Islamist Republic of Sudan at recent oil prices : ~$ 5 billion.

Annual oil revenues (from the U.S. alone) to Hugo Chavez' Venezuela at recent oil prices : ~~~$30 billion~~ ~$28 billion.

Annual oil revenues to the Islamist Republic of Iran at recent oil prices : ~$45 billion.

Annual oil revenues to the Islamic Kingdom of Saudi Arabia at recent oil prices : ~~~$163 billion~~ ~160 billion.

UPDATE : Thanks to Vinnie for correctly pointing out that the above revenue numbers reflect revenues at recent, but not necessarily current, oil prices.

Posted by: Ragnar at 11:52 PM | Comments (26) | Add Comment
Post contains 101 words, total size 1 kb.

February 09, 2007

A Libby Felony Count Is Thrown Out

...and Russert gets nailed on the stand. If you aren't reading Tom Maguire on this trial, then you aren't reading anything. Excerpting NYT reporter Neil Lewis from Tom's post:

[The jurors] seemed to pay close attention as Mr. Wells, known for his cross-examination skills, and Mr. Russert, a successful public communicator, went at each other for a second consecutive day.

-- more...

Posted by: Good Lt. at 07:49 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 352 words, total size 2 kb.

January 26, 2007

Hillary 4 Prez!

Treacher starts a fan club and is looking for help naming it. I'd go with: Clintonistas Uniting for a New Tomorrow

Posted by: Rusty at 10:27 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

Tom Delay for President

Worst. Choice. Ever.

Seriously, is he that dumb to think he could even get the nomination let alone win? Apparently, yes more...

Posted by: Rusty at 10:20 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Has to be a joke.

Posted by: greyrooster at January 26, 2007 12:40 PM (w+w6p)

2
I think before you start shooting this cowboy out of the water you should look at his record in Texas.
Particulerly events surrounding the restructure of the voting districts and the way Texas democrats had to flee the State of Texas and its Rangers who were ordered to arrest and drag the aforementioned Democrats back to the House to vote.
The man has a set of balls on him and doesnt back away from a fight nor does he let anyone shirk their duties or allow them to prevent him from carrying out the duties of his office.
He seems (ok he is) misinformed as far as the blogosphere goes, but what goals does he have that any patriotic American standing for the constitution does not also have?

Posted by: Mr. EMT at January 26, 2007 01:16 PM (rWohb)

3 After doing five minutes of research, it becomes obvious that whoever authored the artical this is linked to does not have all of thier facts straight concerning Mr. Delay's education of the blogosphere. Which makes me question the authenticity of the conference call discussed and any issues adressed therein.

Posted by: Mr. EMT at January 26, 2007 01:40 PM (rWohb)

4 Considering how incredibly stupid conservatives have been the last few
years, I wouldn't be surprised. This is a nation of idiots, as attested
by the last couple dozen national elections, so anything is possible.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 26, 2007 05:38 PM (eGb9y)

5 Sad when "playing fair" becomes synonymous with being an idiot. But I can not disagree.

Posted by: Mr. EMT at January 26, 2007 07:23 PM (j72mm)

6 He has balls. He just can't avoid showing them. It's called politics. One has to remember most voters don't have balls and are jealous of anyone who does.

Posted by: greyrooster at January 26, 2007 11:47 PM (w+w6p)

7 Again, sad but true.
New millennium and Men are supposed to be metrosexual nancy boys with out a spine.
Not have hair on their chest and nuts the size of grapefruits.
........
.............
And with that mental image I just gave myself i shall go dumpster diving through Rusty's pile of sexy lady's while I'm stuck at work.

Posted by: Mr. EMT at January 27, 2007 09:01 AM (rWohb)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

January 09, 2007

Democrats Announce War Plan

Here it is.

Jules Crittenden has more. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 11:15 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 143 words, total size 1 kb.

1 "cart blance" ?

Posted by: Dan at January 09, 2007 01:17 PM (ILHet)

2 It's very simple.

The Democrats plan is to not feed any more young Americans into the civil war in Iraq unless the president comes up with a plan as to how to get them out and sets specific conditions upon which that will occur.

The Democrats will fund the present amount of troops already deployed but will not fund additional deployments of troops without specific assurances from George that he has a plan to remove them given benchmarks of progress or lack thereof. Otherwise a phased withdrawl will be implemented as per the wishes of close to 80% of the American public who already know this war has been lost due the many mistakes that have been made by Bush, Runsfield and gang.

Any questions?

Foolish Americans.

Posted by: civilbehavior at January 09, 2007 02:14 PM (aaS4R)

3 I'm so glad the Liberals are running the show now, I mean all the logic gaps should be filled, like this one:

Last year: There isn't enough troops to stop the violence in Iraq, Rumsfeld is stopping the Generals requests for more troops and the troops are being killed because of it!

Now: You cannot have more troops, we won't fund it.

Posted by: davec at January 09, 2007 03:55 PM (yaQM4)

4 Friggin Islamocrats continue to run in circles. They have no idea of what they want. And refuse to set a policy for fear of being wrong.

Posted by: Greyrooster at January 09, 2007 08:40 PM (w+w6p)

5 Snivel Behaviour:

Even for a leftist you're reality challenged. Congress has nothing to do with commanding the military, and the dhimmies don't have enough votes to withhold funds or overturn a presidential veto. They'll just bitch from the sidelines and try to take credit for the President's success.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at January 09, 2007 11:09 PM (abVz3)

6 Snivelbehavior: Didn't you commies lose? Are you too slow to know?

Posted by: Greyrooster at January 10, 2007 02:18 PM (w+w6p)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

December 11, 2006

Lament of a Moderate Muslim...

This was posted by "tazi2010" in the comments section of the "Flight Club" video. I have no way to vouch for the writer's authenticity, nor do I have any particular reason to doubt it, either:

All of us who are moderate are living normal lives [in] society,first we hear of anything wrong is when we see a report in the media and wonder.Then we try to say something but the extremists are already in all committees&we are excluded from all debates,these extremists who maybe in CAIR too do not represent.I guess we dont have any reps..in the UK the plot to blow up planes was thwarted by moderate muslimÂ¬ the MI5,but that was hardly mentioned in the media,we really dont know what to do.

If this is a legitimate comment from a Muslim individual, I certainly sympathize with him/her. There is certainly truth to the sentiment. To those of us outside the religion of Islam, it certainly appears that the radical activists are in the driver's seat and the remainder of the Muslim community is sitting quietly in the passenger seats.

*** MORE BELOW THE FOLD *** more...

Posted by: Ragnar at 03:15 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 498 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Hi Ragnar,
I don't mean to dampen the spirits, BUT amongst the plots uncovered by the Brit's was a particularly sinister attempt at infiltrating MI5 and MI6 by folks pretending to be moderates!!!!!

Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at December 11, 2006 04:21 PM (vixLB)

2 Theologians used to debate over how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. I wonder how many peaceful muslims could do the same?

It doesn't matter, because both are trick questions, because both creatures are purely mythical and exist only in fantasy. A good muslim is a dead one.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 11, 2006 04:46 PM (v3I+x)

3 Sammi who translates the Saddam documents for me has put it this way:

why does the west expect moderate muslims to speak out when your own liberals wont?

true dat

Posted by: Ray Robison at December 11, 2006 06:05 PM (GqKnY)

4 Ray: Me no understand.

Liberals don't speak out? Muslims are liberals?

Not true dat.

Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at December 11, 2006 06:39 PM (vufNv)

5 There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim. Islam is the enemy.

Posted by: Speaking for the Choir at December 11, 2006 08:14 PM (HSkSw)

6 It really sucks, but the real moderates are caught in a bind. They can speak up, and get killed by the extremists, or keep their mouths shut and get lynched with the extremists.

And the lynching is not that far away, either.

Posted by: Phillep at December 11, 2006 09:24 PM (DX8L2)

7 Heroic Dreamer

Let me be more precise:

If western liberals wont denounce Islamic extremism, how can we expect moderate muslims to? Half of our our own western population won't speak against Islamic extremism. And they usually only get snubbed at cocktail parties. Muslims often get killed. When the west shows it is serious, moderate muslims may speak out.

Posted by: ray robison at December 11, 2006 11:12 PM (4joLu)

8 Good point Ray.

Posted by: Greyrooster at December 12, 2006 07:53 AM (ezJiI)

9 Ray: Radical Islamists and the left do seem to have formed an alliance.

It makes sense, actually. The left as always been proscriptive and undemocratic. While pretending otherwise. And radical islam pretends peace while waging war.

Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at December 12, 2006 10:56 AM (vufNv)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

November 26, 2006

Top Democrat: Troops Are Stupid

The incoming Chairman of the powerful House Ways & Means Committee and a Deputy Majority Whip, Charlie Rangel (D-NY), reiterated the point that US troops are stupid today on Fox News Sunday.

Wow. He actually believes that. Or maybe it was just another botched joke? Right.

After putting up stats showing that US military recruits are less likely to be African Americans, come from poorer neigborhoods, or be high school dropouts, the question asked to Rangel was this: Isn't the volunteer Army better educated and more well to do than the general population?

Rangel answers:

Of course not. I want to make it abundantly clear: if thereâ€™s anyone who believes that these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you can just forget about it. No young, bright individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits. And most all of them come from communities of very, very high unemployment. If a young fella has an option of having a decent career or joining the army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq.

Hot Air has the video up.

My experience has been that returning soldiers are generally smarter and harder working than the average college student. By. A. Long. Shot.

It's not even close. If I had a chance to just teach returning Marines, soldiers, sailors, or airmen I'd do it in a heartbeat. They are that good.

Look, no one goes in to the military because it provides them with the opportunity to kill people. Yes, many join because it helps get them into college. But these aren't children. They know what they are getting into.

To think of them as anything other than fully competent adults is an insult to our men and women in uniform.

Charlie Rangel.

UPDATE: You want stats, we got stats! When we aim, we aim to please.

Posted by: Rusty at 07:14 PM | Comments (86) | Add Comment
Post contains 329 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Typical lib. Just more honest about his thoughts.

Posted by: Randman at November 26, 2006 08:46 PM (Sal3J)

2 Stupid troops stuck in Iraq redux.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 26, 2006 09:02 PM (8e/V4)

3 Piddledicks hero. Shit! They even look alike.

Posted by: Greyrooster at November 26, 2006 09:51 PM (aghaS)

4 That is beautiful. No mention of it on WaPo yet. I am still boycotting CNN so I don't know about them.

Posted by: SeeMonk at November 26, 2006 09:51 PM (n4VvM)

5 Rusty what percentage of the undergrads that you teach are doing so under the G.I College Bill ?
Have you any figures on the national use by veterans ?

Posted by: John Ryan at November 26, 2006 10:05 PM (TcoRJ)

6 Maybe that is why he nominates so few people from his district. To go to a Federal Academy you need to be nominated by a Congressman in your State and Rangel (way back when) was my safety congressman in case mine did not nominate me.

So the Congressman has free education scholarships sitting in his pockets but is not informing his constituents about it. Instead he lets them enlist when some could be going to one of the academies. What a selfish bastard.

On the flip side, if he really feels like he does, he should refuse to nominate anyone to West Point. As should his fellow Democrat Congressman. That will show real support for our troops.

Typical Politician BS.

Posted by: Fred Fry at November 26, 2006 10:19 PM (i6csM)

7 So, soldiering is not a decent career anymore now?
I guess by this logic Generals Eisenhower, Patton and MacArthur never had decent careers then, is that right?

Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at November 26, 2006 10:53 PM (EdIIN)

8 Rangel is a very stupid fellow who is stuck in his liberal mindset from the sixties, much like his stupid liberal colleague Jack 'decorated Vietnam veteran' Murtha, a stupid crook who actually believed we should withdraw from Iraq and station "offshore" in Okinawa, where the stupid Murtha believes they would be welcome.

Actually, the Okinawans want the US troops out of there and the Iraqis generally want us to stay. But Armed Services Cte. member Murtha doesn't know that.

Rangel is stuck on stupid and Murtha is on his flank getting busted by his Dem colleagues. The Dems are too smart to accept a stupid jerk like Murtha as House Majority Leader under Pelosi, who in turn was so stupid she chose Murtha over Hoyer. Lucky for the Dems, their average IQ is over two digits, unlike Rangel's and Murtha's.

Posted by: daveinboca at November 26, 2006 11:09 PM (z01Ds)

9 I guess Rangel is unaware of the record reenlistment rates and multiple combat tour rates.

In my eye. He knows full well. As a high profile politician and Democrat icon, Rangel is a lying prick by nature and career choice.

This kind of contempt for soldiers serving in a combat zone isn't surprising. After all, he's Whiter than Hallie Berry, but he pretends to be Black to capitalize on the racial makeup of his constituents. It's in his best interests as a shameless whore to pander to the class warfare fanatics who benefit from government entitlement programs. Everybody knows who I'm talking about. The "disadvantaged" people whose kids are fatter than wealthy people.

The notion of a politician like Rangel making character judgements about soldiers or anyone else--including convicted felons and terrorists--is ludicrous. He and his ilk are parasites sucking the blood from Americans of all economic levels. Shit has more value.

There is a hint of truth to his claim, though. It explains why our colleges are infested with the dregs of our youth. The immoral twits and morons who make up a sizable proportion of the American student body in higher education are looking to land a "decent career." Most of our "young, bright individuals" seem to think that a military career is an honorable pursuit. They're definitely better educated and more successful than the average American. Hell, a quarter of the population is retarded. Just ask Puddlepuke's special needs teacher.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 26, 2006 11:27 PM (bLPT+)

10 John Ryan you friggin idiot. It's now called the Marshall plan. The active duty participants must now contribute to the fund directly from their paychecks. Guess who was president when it was instituted. Hint. ( I never had sex with that woman)

Posted by: Greyrooster at November 26, 2006 11:43 PM (aghaS)

11 You are all missing the point Rangel(spit) is crazy like a fox, ask yourself why would he Skerry, Murtha and others stupid crap like this? Well it is part of a plan that worked well for them in the Vietnam era here is how it goes. The vast majority of the military is committed to winning this war the re-enlistment rates in the combat zone prove this conclusively and the generals including the ones that are supposedly against it want to stay and finish the job however, the entire Dhimmi's party is on record as against the war so how do you go up against the military without committing political suicide? Well you discredit them thats how, this is just the beginning first convince average Americans that the average enlisted person is a moron and a victim next start attacking the Officers as cynical uncaring bastards that exploit peoples disadvantages to dupe them into enlisting and then send them to Iraq as useful dupes. At this point you can tell the American public not to listen to the troops and to view what the Officers are saying with heavy suspicion and you know better than the military what needs to be done. It is a very Machiavellian way to discredit the military.

Posted by: Oldcrow at November 27, 2006 12:43 AM (cesXn)

12 How in the flying phuck would Rusty know that JRBS? Why in the hell would he know that you dipshit???

Posted by: Conrad Vig at November 27, 2006 12:45 AM (PM8kH)

13 "Top Democrat..."

Oxymoron.

Posted by: Hucbald at November 27, 2006 01:10 AM (V2jfq)

14 I love it when lefturds come out and really show their allegience like
this; it just proves I'm right that they are with the enemy and should
all be killed.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 27, 2006 07:34 AM (v3I+x)

15 The new GI bill is called the montgomery bill/plan and it involves and allotment of a $100 a month of the first 12 months of your initial enlistment. After that you are fully vested in the program. Still is the best bang for your buck since a investment of $1200 is less than 1% of what you can reap if you use all of your GI benefits.

Posted by: DAT at November 27, 2006 08:34 AM (G3PpJ)

16 Let's see now ......one of the following is "STUPID".

A. The troops? .............nope.
B. Congressman Charles Rangel........Yeah, man.

Posted by: n.a. palm at November 27, 2006 09:43 AM (Je/pU)

17 Actually, oldcrow is right. I researched re-enlistment for the past few years, and the numbers are strong. However the reasons are not clear. There seems to be a debate over why, and it's hard to sort all that crap out. Some cite the re-enlistment bonus. Others contribute the reason that life insurance policy's payoffs have sky rocketed for the National Guard. ect. As I have said the reasons are cloudy, but it seems that incentives are a contributing factor.

I am not defending Rangels remarks, in fact I really don't like this man's approach. Some have enlisted for the educational advantage, which is a huge factor, but these young men and women are not dumb. They know what the risks are. The choice they make enlist and to stay are for a variety of reasons. I do believe their patriotism is the largest factor.

That being said, we owe to them to bring them home as quickly as possible.

Posted by: No Fear at November 27, 2006 09:52 AM (ZQepB)

18 No Fear: "we owe to them to bring them home as quickly as possible. "

I think we owe them victory, first.

(Yeah, sure you did a whole lot of research... you have a left-wing agenda here, and you think your "even-handed" approach is disingenuous - a way to open the dialogue door so you can sell your wares - why not just admit it. Or better yet, think about what you are saying - why do we need to bring them home asap? have you even asked yourself this question? )

Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at November 27, 2006 10:27 AM (2bJJN)

19 No Fear: I meant to write that I think your "even-handedness" is disingenuous.

Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at November 27, 2006 10:47 AM (2bJJN)

20 http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,116567,00.hthttp://stats.bls.gov/opub/ted/2006/feb/wk4/art01.htmml

http://usmilitary.about.com/About_US_Military.htm

Happy now herotic?
I can provide more if you like.

There can be no victory. We are mired down. Just like Nam. Other than genocide, what's you plan?

Posted by: No Fear at November 27, 2006 10:53 AM (ZQepB)

21 Disingenuous?
========
Why do you say that? In what way. My feelings and opinions are just as valid as yours. We simply disagree.

Posted by: No Fear at November 27, 2006 10:56 AM (ZQepB)

22 why do we need to bring them home asap?
==================
I've answered that. We can't win, we can't break even, time to get out of the game. Anything less is unexceptable.

Posted by: No Fear at November 27, 2006 11:01 AM (ZQepB)

23 I want to apoligize, Heroic, "herotic", that's wrong.
Lots of name calling this weekend you weren't a part of... it gets to be a habit...it was uncalled for and I'm sorry.

Posted by: No Fear at November 27, 2006 11:05 AM (ZQepB)

24 Careful HD, or NF will have her imaginary son fire off an angry email to you. No Fear explains her whole philosophy in her last sentence: "We can't win..." - forget the fact that Operation Iraqi Freedom's commanders have succeeded so well at conservation of force that our troops the Iraq theater of the War on Terror have suffereed historically low casualties; she may be right, but not in the way she thinks. It may be that we can't win because there are too many stupid cowards like No Fear who think that "Fortress America" is the way to go.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 27, 2006 11:07 AM (vBK4C)

25 Yes, my imaginary son again...kindly move on and stay on topic. That was Rangels remarks. I was addressing Old crows remarks, suporrting them actually. Disagreeing as to the reason we should stay.

Heroic dreamer can make his own arguement and doesn't need to be protected by you from me.
Give your guys some credit to defend their own statements. Or are they stupid?

Posted by: No Fear at November 27, 2006 11:17 AM (ZQepB)

26 No Fear: "We can't win, we can't break even....My feelings and opinions are just as valid as yours."

Your opinions are based on your feelings and this is the problem. We are fighting a war - facts are relevant, your feelings are not.

Did you have a dream or something about how the war was unwinnable? Boo hoo if your opinions are wrong, if your feelings are hurt...boo hoo hoo.

Do you know the difference between objective and subjective? Objective is when someone socks you in the nose and your nose bleeds. Objective reality.

Subjective is when you think that if you turn the other cheek -- if you close your eyes and wish on a star -- you can save your nose from bleeding. Because you're not yet bleeding you think you will never bleed, if only you keep your head turned. You don't want to bleed, so you won't. You refuse to acknowledge the fist headed your way. Subjective reality.

Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at November 27, 2006 11:24 AM (2bJJN)

27 No NF, you're stupid if you think you get to tell me what to post here. Very few people here take kindly to people, such as yourself, who are willing to be useful idiots for the Jihad.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 27, 2006 11:27 AM (vBK4C)

28 Just following the rules you gave me sir...stay on topic, cite what your responding to. Be respectful, polite. You took me to task. I am abbing by your rules and expecting you to do the same.
Or do they change in the middle of the game...I didn't get the memo on that. Please keep me up to date.
This is your house and I don't wish to shit where you eat. Or is that too graphic for you?

Posted by: No Fear at November 27, 2006 11:32 AM (ZQepB)

29 I was responding to Oldcrow. I supported him. I say we can't win. You say we can. Tell me how.

Posted by: No Fear at November 27, 2006 11:34 AM (ZQepB)

30 And by your own admission you are the "Dreamer" not I.

Posted by: No Fear at November 27, 2006 11:35 AM (ZQepB)

31
Posted by: No Fear at November 27, 2006 09:52 AM

No Fear,
I am Active duty military I know why re-enlistments in theater are at historical highs I don't need research to tell me. I have one tour in Iraq and volunteered for a second however medical stopped me I will get another chance in about a year if the DOC's clear me anyway the reason is because we believe in the mission and those who have been there know we are winning. Let me ask you this how exactly are we losing in Iraq by what measure is it a failure? On what do you base this statement? Casualties maybe? Well between 1997 and 2000 active duty military deaths were 2337 now note this was during peacetime operations. The terrorists have not stopped us from achieving any of our strategic goals, the Iraq campaign is a three step process they are as follows:
1. Depose Saddam's regime - DONE
2. Get a Democratically elected Government in place- Done, three elections that the terrost's were completely powerless to stop.
3. Stand up police and defense forces so the Iraqi Government can defend itself - In progress and getting closer to completion everyday.

The terrorists suffer catastrophic losses everytime they fight us I believe the kill ratio right now is around 120 terrorists to every American loss. So tell me exactly how are we "losing". The only part of this war we are losing is the Information War thanks to our MSM and the Dhimmicrap party. Stop drinking the Dhimmi koolaid NoFear and get the reals facts.

Posted by: Oldcrow at November 27, 2006 11:37 AM (cesXn)

32 "To think of them as anything other than fully competent adults is an insult to our men and women in uniform."

And the reason states don't let these "fully competent individuals" drink alchol, even though they are technically adults, but not emotionally adult, is because they are also extremely immature at that age. Why don't you think states allow them to drink? I'd love to hear your answer to that one . . .

Posted by: barfly at November 27, 2006 11:51 AM (y6aaW)

33 No Fear: We win by denying Iraq as a staging area for terrorists and by having moved the battlefield from Manhattan to the Middle East. We win by allowing tens of thousands of jihadis to meet Allah there. We won by getting rid of Saddam, who even the NYT has finally admitted was only a year away from an atomic bomb.

I'll let OIFveteran, who has been there, and made this comment to a post I made at NewsBusters about the unconfirmed mosque burnings, explain to you why your feelings and opinions are so unpopular with people who care deeply about their country:

As a veteran of this conflict, I've been trying to tell this to people I have come in contact since I left theatre...the MSM is FOS (full of, um....feces) We, the U.S., have had approximately 140k-150k soldiers in theatre per year. So, since 2003 there have been approximately 450k troops in theatre which means less than a 1% death rate, assuming we are at 3k now(Granted, I was just a lowly Sergeant, but I can't think of any General that wouldn't love to have such a low death rate). Now the KEYWORD here is theatre. Theatre includes Kuwait. So those that happen to die for whatever reason, be it HMMWV accident, dehydration, people who have died that never set foot in Iraq, or some other freak accident are counted among the dead for OIF. While the death toll has nothing to do with this story directly it does show the purposeful intellectual dishonesty engaged by the MSM everyday. Why verify things if it makes the U.S. look bad? Why take the time to discern between a KIA and a death? Why ignore intellegence reports that show the "insurgents" have used cyclosarin gas in some of their IEDs? Why say Saddam had no WMDs when, between the U.S. and Poland, have found over 800 mortor rounds? Why not report on the still missing 3k liters of Anthrax? I don't know. Maybe if I was as smart as Kerry or Rangel I'd have the answers. I don't know how my civilian couterparts feel, but it is so infuriating having traitors amongst our midst who hide behind the first amendment. /rant off.

This is from one of the people that Lurch and Rump Rangel consider stupid.

A mother who won't even defend her son from an asshole like Rangel is simply pathetic.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 27, 2006 11:53 AM (vBK4C)

34 Oldcrow,
If we have accomplished so much, why the esculation of violence, which by the admission of this site's threads does exist
.
AND Stand up police and defense forces so the Iraqi Government can defend itself - In progress and getting closer to completion everyday.

Then they can take care of their own problems, which is more than we did in Nam. so "Mother May I" let our troops come home.

Posted by: No Fear at November 27, 2006 11:53 AM (ZQepB)

35 No Fear:

You say "we cant win in Iraq."

Win what?

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 27, 2006 11:58 AM (bLPT+)

36 One reason for the continued violence is that al Qaeda and other terrorist groups monitor our media and are encouraged by the politically motivated undermining of our President and troops.

That means that people like you No Fear, are directly responsible for their decisions to commit atrocities in order to stampede us. When they stage a new head-lopping, you are their audience. Does it make you feel good to know that you are having this effect; that more Americans and Iraqis have had to die in order for your party to regain power?

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 27, 2006 12:00 PM (vBK4C)

37 Bluto, you make a very good arguement and I'l research all your points.
I admit I am not up to speed on alot of what you have to say.

HOWEVER...

A mother who won't even defend her son from an asshole like Rangel is simply pathetic.

I did not defend Rangel from my imaginary son. What I said was..."I am not defending Rangels remarks, in fact I really don't like this man's approach."

But to be fair I will look at your talking points in you post. Despite what you think I really do want to know what the truth is.

Posted by: No Fear at November 27, 2006 12:01 PM (ZQepB)

38 My responce is in yours #32

Posted by: No Fear at November 27, 2006 12:02 PM (ZQepB)

39 It's not really my post. The meat comes from a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I have family and friends still serving there, so I'm not real big on people whose politics encourages the jihadis to kill them. Perhaps you've noticed.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 27, 2006 12:03 PM (vBK4C)

40 The escalation of violence against whom? The Iraqi civilian populace, these are referred to in the military as soft targets and the only thing it accomplishes is getting splashed all over the nightly news and fools like you see it and think it actually means anything in the strategic or tactical picture IT DOES NOT. You did not answer a single one of my questions which is what I expected. So you base all your statements on "feelings" not facts and objective logic/reasoning typical anti-war Libtard crap. So once again I ask you by what measure are we "losing" in Iraq? And bear in mind the city of NY and LA have more civilian deaths per month than all of Iraq.

Posted by: Oldcrow at November 27, 2006 12:04 PM (cesXn)

41 35 One reason for the continued violence is that al Qaeda and other terrorist groups monitor our media and are encouraged by the politically motivated undermining of our President and troops.
That means that people like you No Fear, are directly responsible for their decisions to commit atrocities in order to stampede us. When they stage a new head-lopping, you are their audience. Does it make you feel good to know that you are having this effect; that more Americans and Iraqis have had to die in order for your party to regain power?

How in the world am I to respond to that? When you have a sane arguement to make, let me know. Ok?

Do me and the rest of the people watching your car wreck. Go from A to B and explain that. In detail. Please.

Posted by: No Fear at November 27, 2006 12:11 PM (ZQepB)

42 Oldcrow just did.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 27, 2006 12:15 PM (vBK4C)

43 38 It's not really my post. The meat comes from a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I have family and friends still serving there, so I'm not real big on people whose politics encourages the jihadis to kill them. Perhaps you've noticed
===================

I understand your feelings, and the intolerence that can come from that. My imaginary son has friends in hot spots.

Dread, hate does not begat peace.

Posted by: No Fear at November 27, 2006 12:17 PM (ZQepB)

44 I have said I'll look into these talking points, I do want to know what is true. Why would I come come here and subject myself to all this hatred of me if not to learn the truth?

To covert you, I am not delusional. If I stay on my liberal web site, I get yeah sayers from the choir, the news is confusing, give me an agruement. Let me find out if what you say is true. I want to know the truth.

Why...my imaginary son, is why. He's smart, a computor geek. Which is why he's in Germany. But suppose someother kid comes along...smarter, bigger, faster...more. My son is sent to a hot spot. If that happens I want to know why.

KNOW YOU KNOW.

Posted by: No Fear at November 27, 2006 12:26 PM (ZQepB)

45 or now you know...sorry my brain is way ahead of my fingers sometimes. <sigh> <blushes>

Posted by: No Fear at November 27, 2006 12:27 PM (ZQepB)

46 No Fear:

What are "we" losing in Iraq, and how are we losing it?

Spare us the Cindy She-hag routine about your imaginary son. If he's in the Army, he's a grown man and doesn't need his mommy's protection. If he is in the Army, he should be prepared to fight whichever enemy he's directed to fight, regardless of what his dhimmie mommy thinks. That's what it means to be a soldier.

What are we losing, and how was "Nam" a quagmire, you ignoramus?

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 27, 2006 12:34 PM (bLPT+)

47 Jeff, thank you so much for you heart felt understanding. If I live to be one hundred and twenty, he will still be my child. Which is why I want to understand why my son, my child,. that soldier who is a grown man may have to die.

What are we losing, and how was "Nam" a quagmire, you ignoramus?

Yor're not serious. I'm ignorant? That statement alone dismisses any other arguement you may make. How old are you anyway. I lived thru that war. You sir are ...to be polite...misinformed.

Posted by: No Fear at November 27, 2006 12:42 PM (ZQepB)

48 "Dread, hate does not begat [sic] peace."

Yes, I suppose the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were done so in a loving spirit of peace. And every one of the vicious jihadi babyhunters who have died in Iraq were killed with love.

Kindly excuse me from your headlong rush to national/cultural suicide.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 27, 2006 12:46 PM (vBK4C)

49 You may have lived through that war, as I did (the draft ended the year I turned eighteen), but you swallowed everything the media told you whole, without questioning a thing. If you had you would know that a) Tet was a crushing defeat for the VC, who were never able to mount an assault above company strength after their losses b) when Congress abandoned the South Vietnamese by cutting off funding (most of our soldiers were already home) they were left to face a Soviet-backed invasion, using more armor than the Wehrmacht sent into Poland, with three rounds per soldier, while their medics washed bandages for re-use c) that abandonment resulted in a monumental bloodletting that the US media refuse to acknowledge to this day, and, worst of all, d) the betrayal of American troops by significant numbers of the American population for the purpose of political gain crippled our military for decades.

That's how Iraq is just like Vietnam - an incompetent, and in many cases, treasonous Press either gets it wrong, or deliberately misreports events in order to support their political allies.

And the treason isn't only a thing of the Vietnam era; tell me, are you happy that the New York Times published an illustrated guide for the jihadis explaining to them exactly where all the weak spots in American body armor are? Or that they have worked tirelessly to expose classified government programs that had resulted in the thwarting of multiple terrorist plots?

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 27, 2006 12:56 PM (vBK4C)

50 Dread that is not what I meant and you know that., come on. I am not impling you endorse genocide. In fact I know that you do not. This is such a complicted subject.

I wich you would thread each individual agruement, instead of lumping it all together.

Not to bury my nose to far up your ass, your smart enought to do just that. Break it down.

Posted by: No Fear at November 27, 2006 01:00 PM (ZQepB)

51 I took you at your word. You stated clearly the old saw that "violence doesn't solve anything." It does. The atomic bombs saved more Japanese lives than American ones. What do you think would have happened if the US had had to invade Japan from Okinawa?

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 27, 2006 01:04 PM (vBK4C)

52 Dread,
I have another commitment and have to go. I would like to continue this at another time.

I would lie to thank you for not letting this discussion degrade like it did on another thread. Thank you for the debate, I wish I could stay to see it thru.

As much as it shocks me to say, for the most part you have been a gentleman. Thank you for the time you have taken explaining you point of view. And that goes to, well , most of the rest of you.

Posted by: No Fear at November 27, 2006 01:09 PM (ZQepB)

53 that was not lie, , shit that was like....sorry... again...

Posted by: No Fear at November 27, 2006 01:11 PM (ZQepB)

54 DAT: What you say is true in regards to the montgomery bill. My take (1) Why should they be required to pay the $1200? (2) Why should they be required to pay it immediately when they make nearly nothing as an E-1? (3) Why can't those who see the value of an education 2 yrs after they enlist participate in the program? The reality is the Marshall plan is merely a hoax to have less ex military involved thereby subpossedly saving money.

Posted by: Greyrooster at November 27, 2006 01:50 PM (aghaS)

55 No Fear is a latent hippy bitch. I remember them well.

Posted by: Greyrooster at November 27, 2006 01:53 PM (aghaS)

56 I came here expecting the layout Puddlefuck with a Jerry Springerisque volley of chairs, and the retard is no where to be found.

No Fear, take the scared mommy out of your speach pattern and see what
happens. Re-enlistments are at all time highs because these troops
believe in what they are doing, unlike you and the Liberal agenda.

Now, just so you won't have to bother in looking it up, I've done it for you.

pride [prahyd] â€“noun

1.a
high or inordinate opinion of one's own dignity, importance, merit, or
superiority, whether as cherished in the mind or as displayed in
bearing, conduct, etc.

2.the state or feeling of being proud.

3.a becoming or dignified sense of what is due to oneself or one's position or character; self-respect; self-esteem.

4.pleasure or satisfaction taken in something done by or belonging to oneself or believed to reflect credit upon oneself: civic pride.

The troops are cheating you see.

They're using something Liberals can't quite possibly ever understand.

Posted by: Dick at November 27, 2006 02:26 PM (XlQVK)

57 Only a real idiot would join of donate to the demacratic party the party of the brainless donkey

Posted by: sandpiper at November 27, 2006 03:42 PM (mi9uJ)

58 Sandpiper, if anything, is consistent.

Posted by: Jane at November 27, 2006 03:49 PM (SCVhh)

59 Cindy Sheehan:

Your son (if he actually exists,) is not a child. He's a man. Using wildly inaccurate terms like "child" and "quagmire" doesn't change the facts, although you left-wingers think if you try often enough, they will. "A lie told often enough becomes the truth," right?

Your son may have to die because he's a soldier. The American military was formed to fight, not to stay in America and build levees for ingrates.

You cant answer 2 simple questions, can you? Not simple enough, apparently.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 27, 2006 04:21 PM (bLPT+)

60 No Fear: "If I stay on my liberal web site, I get yeah sayers from the choir, the
news is confusing, give me an agruement. Let me find out if what you
say is true. I want to know the truth."

Hahahahah. You are really funny. I don't believe a word you say. You need to come to the Jawa Report comment page to discover the truth?? Stop pretending to be an impartial visitor and then pretending to be - yet again - hurt and offended.

It's not OK to put America in harm's way by being a useful idiot. You are not patriotic enough to instinctually know any better, and you have a lazy, self-indulgent mind.

It's not OK. Get with the program, you nitwit.

Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at November 27, 2006 04:53 PM (2bJJN)

61 Well at least we aren't seeing the same calls for hanging all Democrats that we were reading in the comments 6 months or a year ago. I take that as a fact that our country is becoming more unified.

Posted by: John Ryan at November 27, 2006 05:19 PM (TcoRJ)

62 John Ryan: You islamoturd. Once again you're not reading correctly. The hanging still stands. I hear No Fear looks like a goat. Make you horny?

Posted by: Greyrooster at November 27, 2006 05:31 PM (aghaS)

63 Statistics. Well I guess you can prove almost anything by them.
The part about the 2 income family earning a total of 30k a year and being included "middle class" seemed a bit of a stretch. If is 2 people at $7.50 per hour equals middle class life, I guess ALL Americans will be middle class after the minimum wage increases !

Posted by: John Ryan at November 27, 2006 05:33 PM (TcoRJ)

64 JR: get a life

Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at November 27, 2006 05:40 PM (2bJJN)

65 John Lyin:

Yes, the Dhimmicrats are uniting people. They're uniting the jihadis and other enemies of America, as well as giving them hope.

No doubt Plastic Pelosi's nomination of crooks like Murtha and whatsisname to key congressional positions was meant to unite the country. The planned witch hunts will be a big uniter as well.

You leftists can never admit that it's your hatred of America and it's culture that divides this country. You hatemongers will never work to unite people. You'll continue with divisive policies like class warfare, Affirmative Action, special privileges for homosexuals, opposition to any military action and the jihad against Christianity.

Yeah, you guys are real uniters.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 27, 2006 05:55 PM (bLPT+)

66 http://www.stazzz.net/shemales.php shemales pictures

Posted by: shemales pictures at November 27, 2006 06:46 PM (eD8TF)

67 TRUE STORY:
In the middle of a firefight with the Taliban, one Canadian soldier bellows out, "Where do you want your well?"

Posted by: DemocracyRules at November 27, 2006 08:07 PM (+WNUd)

68 John Ryan is probably one of those making $7.50 per hr. If his boyfriend also makes $7.50 per hr that means they are almost middle class. Not so John Ryan you're still low class. Class isn't defined by money. Myself, to the lady who is mother of the boy I fired last Saturday. I'm trying to remember what she called me. Oh yea. "White trash with money". Which may be true since I fired her son for repeatedly using the MF word around the young ladies working the counter. Last year a local politican referred to me as a "certain classless redneck with a checkbook bigger than my brain". I should say ex-politician. Last I heard, he was attempting to sell swimming pools in New Orleans. So John Ryan, according to some, money has nothing to do with class. Regradless of how much you earn, you're still a classless socialist idiot.

Posted by: Greyrooster at November 27, 2006 09:01 PM (aghaS)

69 Of course troops are stupid, stupid!

Us Israeli;s are among the dumbest in the world ocz our triups has to serve 4 3 yers in the IDF.

Tats why our IT industry is wun of th bestest in th werld - cos all the top engynirs in Israyl is traind by the IDF wen they serve ther cuntry.

MORON!

Posted by: Russel at November 28, 2006 04:19 AM (Aiq1f)

70 "No Fear: "We can't win, we can't break even....My feelings and opinions are just as valid as yours.""

No Fear's feelings and opinions are as valid as President Moron's delusions.

We will "win" in Iraq, only after the definition of "victory" has been changed to reflect the reality of what the end game will be.

This is where President Moron and his speechwriters really shine.

He can't change the reality, but he can sure change the rhetoric.

We don't hear much about leaving Iraq with a democracy, anymore.

Now, the fantasy is to leave Iraq with a stable government.

When was the last time Iraq had a stable government....hmmmmm?

Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 28, 2006 07:42 AM (R53xI)

71 I wasn't going to post on this thread, but since Dick and Greyrooster missed me, I had to come here.

After reading some of your posts, my wife thinks you guys don't like me.

I had to explain it to her.

You see, honey, these guys are suffering from PEDS (post election depression syndrome) and some are even suicidal.

Remember how, in 2000, some Democrats said they would move to Canada or France, if Bush won the election?

Well, it's happening to the Republicans, this time around.

They are talking about suicide, rather than staying and watching their wives and daughters raped and murdered by the hoards of muslims, that will follow our soldiers back here from Iraq, as a result of the Democrat victory in congress.

Those that don't commit suicide are threatening to move to the mountains, living in a cave with their stockpile of food, guns and ammo.

So, I just come here to give them a little hope for their sorry ass lives.

So far, it seems to be working.

Just, as President Moron has prevented all terrorist attacks, on American soil, since 9/11, I have been keeping the conservatives safe, at MyPetJawa, since I have been posting here.

None, that I know of, has committed suicide and none, that I know of, has moved to the mountains (although some may still be considering it), since I have been posting here.

So, honey, you see, I'm doing my part for the undeserving Republicans of this world.

They only seem to be insulting me and the other liberals posting on this site.

Their insults are merely a cry for help, and I'm just doing my part, to try to relieve their suffering.

Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 28, 2006 08:03 AM (DH1pf)

72 As I have yet to be convinced, to be swayed, by the arguements made to me here, why my leftard beliefs should be abandoned, I'll stay and fight the good fight with you PD. I don't want to see and Reich-wingers suffer. It's heart breaking, truly.

Tell Mrs. Duck to have no fear. We really are being charitable. I would like to be as much help to them as they have been to me.

Isn't that right greygoose?

Posted by: No Fear at November 28, 2006 09:17 AM (ZQepB)

73 No Fear: "why my leftard beliefs should be abandoned,"

Because they are leftard beliefs. Not liberal mind you. leftard. When left becomes so far left that it cannot fight for freedom any longer. The first step is admitting you are a leftard.

Congratulations, you've just taken your first step into a much larger universe.

Posted by: Darth Odie at November 28, 2006 09:29 AM (YdcZ0)

74 Yes, I can see the error of my ways. I should aspire to become a bigoted, homophobic, misognistic war pig. Just like greygoose.

Posted by: No Fear at November 28, 2006 10:03 AM (ZQepB)

75 I really hope to get another post so we can reset the discussion....Far be it from me to determine if I am in fact Democrat or Republican. Truth be told, at the present time, I wish to be part of neither party - mostly because instead of finding a way to get things done for the benefit of all these politics continue to divide us.

Here are the facts that I have tried to follow in this thread:
1) Kerry and his followers are incorrect in their statements regarding the US Military and those of us who comprise its ranks. Such statements in public are degrading and frankly, I am appalled that the MSM lacks the fortitude and courage to deny airtime for such nonsense.

Have we all agreed on the fact that the US Military is first and foremost, the best we have to offer in defense of our nation and the constitution?

2) It is a fact that due to freedom of speech, anyone can call the President names based on their opinion of his performance. Nobody can deny that right. However, if you can do a better job, sling the mud and RUN FOR OFFICE. I have served faithfully under democrat and republican administrations. I have opinions for and against both types, however I discharge my duties 110% regardless of the elected commander in chief.

You want a larger view, try and be a better President than the one you insult. Since I cannot do better than the ones that I have observed I will remain silent on the professional conduct. (I guess that's my military education coming out again.)

3) The MSM continues to undermine Coalition efforts in Iraq to create the conditions for troop withdrawl. Please note I refrain from the word "victory" as setting conditions for a democratic and free Iraq is not an end in itself but a means to an end. When we finish in Iraq, there will be another location, be it continued work in Afghanistan or some other location.

My opinion (having had boots in the sand): the insurgency in Iraq (OK the terrorists, thugs, call them what you will) wans the coalition out and free reign in Iraq for one primary reason: REAL ESTATE. By maintaining a regime in Iraq that allows their organizations to have safe harbor they gain a base of operations. That allows them to move to other free nations and continue to attack at will.

Please note, I am not saying this to make the argument that one should vote for or against a particular party, etc. By in large, I think most politicians understand this or a similar concept and want us to stabilize Iraq before we withdraw troops. However, the minority of the politicians (the ones getting face time with MSM) do not understand and do not seek the benefit of the larger national goals, but to feed the generic American ideal of the "quick fix" mentality.

See you on the high ground.

Posted by: Ironman Six at November 28, 2006 10:50 AM (cQGX8)

76 No Fear: "I'll stay and fight the good fight with you PD."

Wait a minute....now my feelings are hurt. I thought you were seeking the truth....the TRUTH....remember? But you were only playing us? Oh, my....the hurt. My feelings. ..my precious, oh so sensitive feelings. You have hurt them, NoFear, by your betrayal, by your lies and deceits....

Oh well.

At least you can't hide behind your stupid alleged sock puppet or fake son in the service. Or sensitive, yet confused and searching, mind. You could always say that your typing fingers have a form of Tourettes Syndrome and you didn't really mean to say what you said. I'm sure you'll think of something.

Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at November 28, 2006 11:02 AM (2bJJN)

77 As I have yet to be convinced, to be swayed, by the arguements made to me here, why my leftard beliefs should be abandoned,====================================

I have yet to be swayed. I am still seeking the truth. So what is truth? Are your political holdings true? Are mine? I suspect it's some where in between.

Take the post in the context it was written. Humor.

BTW, the reason I had to leave yesterday was because I had to take my other fake son to his fake dentist, and then back to his fake school. So he could learn about the fake world around him and function normaly in it. He then went to the fake tire center where he picked up his fake car. After that he went to his fake job, and then he came back to his fake home to his fake mother. When he did return he read a letter from his fake brother whom is in the fake airforce. Then he called his fake girlfriend.

Are you some kind of moron? What is wrong with you? What happened in your life that made you so cynical? I think the only thing you are deserving from me is pity. And that is one thing I would never want from anyone. Their pity.

I stand on my own two feet, support my family by myself, occasionally getting child support from my reich wing ex husband, (he's only about 2 yrs. behind.) I pay my taxes, and occasionally fall asleep at night knowing both my kids are ok. For that night. For that moment.

I ask nothing from no one except their knowledge. I am on a journey, to learn as much as I can. Where ever I can.

I shared some humor with a man I respect, not only for his beliefs, but for his past service to our country, and his commitment to it to this day, that is an honor for me.

Give me a reason to feel the same for you. Sir.

Posted by: No Fear at November 28, 2006 11:58 AM (ZQepB)

78 Ironman, thank you for your post. I hope everyone reads it. It's worth the time.

Posted by: No Fear at November 28, 2006 12:05 PM (ZQepB)

79 I have an IDEA.

Take a break and watch this.

Some of you might not get it . It contains humor.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=fgT13ZWKq48

Posted by: No Fear at November 28, 2006 12:27 PM (ZQepB)

80 You have to log in to watch it.

Posted by: No Fear at November 28, 2006 12:32 PM (ZQepB)

81 No Fear: I thought you were duplicitous but I realize now that you are just a little mental. I wish you well on your journey and I highly recommend that you find a compass.

Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at November 28, 2006 05:48 PM (2bJJN)

82 Ironman 6:

Great comment. I agree that some of the politicians getting face time with the Establishment media just don't get it. Guys like Murtha and Kennedy are obviously deluded and just plain stupid.

However, many of them know exactly what will happen if America cuts n' runs from Iraq. They just don't care, because if they get their way, and the mission in Iraq is ended prematurely (abandoned,) they know the Establishment Media will help them blame the disastrous results on President Bush and the Republican party.

Guys like Kerry know what happened to the South Vietnamese when they were abandoned to the fun loving commies, and he knows what will happen if Iraq is abandoned to the terrorists. So do Pelosi and Reid. Political power is more important to them than America's security--or anything else, for that matter.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 28, 2006 09:42 PM (bLPT+)

83 No Fear

The number one reason to stay in Iraq is because the mission goals are being achieved. The second reason for staying is the long range strategic picture. Not so we can have bases, or Iraqi oil, or whatever material thing that comes to mind.

Combat experience against Jihadists!

Long way to my point, but here goes.

Kerry compared our troops to those under Ghengis Khan, and I hope you will forgive me if I do the same for a moment.

At the time of Ghengis Khan (GK), there was no more formidable military power on earth. They had the sturdiest horses, and the strongest bows. Both mobility, and firepower. They had high morale.

An individual Chinese soldier, might be able to kill a mongol warrior, but it was never a fair fight. Mongols lived and breathed the lifestyle that made them fighters, and they learned to operate in formations that maximized those skills.

They were politically strong, unified by GK, and trained and comanded in a decimal system. One leader had ten men behind him, and each had ten men behind him, and so on. The largest units were 10,000 men. They had the same quality of discipline, and skill, throughout.

The experience of the man who would lead, and teach ten others was vital. He could pass on what he knew, and no more. Leaders were chosen for quality. Trust, and loyalty were thicker than blood. Each knew the others would do their job.

And contrary to popular image, the mongols were almost always outnumbered by their enemies. They were unmatched!

So are the armed forces of the USA in modern times. Unmatched. Outnumbered. Our troops have the best weapons, and the best training. Each one knows that the others will do their jobs. Trust, and loyalty, and promotions based on merit. Unmatched!

Whether we like it or not, we are headed into another world war. It doesn't need a special number to make it a world war. It just will be.

This coming war will be against brutal, life hating irregulars, who use children as smart bombs. They will hide among the people of the world. They will not balk at using any horror you can imagine against their enemy 'the Infidel'

The killers are active right now, in Iraq, and our troops are building schools, and training police, in spite of them. Our troops are learning the things that they will need to know, when it is their turn to lead and teach their 'ten'. They are learning what they will need to be the Officers and NCO's of the very much expanded armed services. Yes ... expanded.

No Fear, the men like your son, doing their duty now, are the hope not just of Iraq, but of civilization itself. This is a hard time, but it is really only a warm up for the war to come.

I really and truely wish it wasn't so, but it is. We need to be in Iraq for the benefit of the Armed forces.

One last thing. No military does well with poor morale. No army that comes home with the mission left unfinished, has good morale. We cannot let the war end in anything that looks, smells, or feels like failure. So when the guys here rant at the MSM, and 'Sheehanism', they are trying to win the war here, so our troops can win over there and come home proud.

As our troops learn over there, you are learning over here at the Jawa report

USA all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at November 29, 2006 04:03 AM (2OHpj)

84 Oh, yeah, our goals are being accomplished, in Iraq.

Everyone believes that, now don't they?

What is President Moron going to do when the democratically elected Al Qaeda party is running Iraq.

Will that be acceptable to President Moron?

BTW - Ironman Six - do not...I repeat...do not disagree with the people here, or your claim to military service will be recinded.

Your service is recognized, only as long as you drink their Kool-aide.

Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 29, 2006 06:41 AM (GKEqe)

85 And, BTW, No Fear -

The only "truth" you will find, here, is the "truth" of Yonada, Natira.

Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 29, 2006 06:43 AM (nohEa)

86 PiddleDork, your shopping list is ready. Just click the links above.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 29, 2006 08:23 PM (bLPT+)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

November 15, 2006

New Senate Majority Leader Reid Now Focus of Abramoff Investigation (Updated)

From ABC's The Blotter:

As convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff reported to federal prison today, a source close to the investigation surrounding his activities told ABC News that Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was one of the members of Congress Abramoff had allegedly implicated in his cooperation with federal prosecutors.
A spokesperson for Reid, elected yesterday as the Senate Majority Leader, said the senator had done nothing illegal or unethical.

Of course not, Harry's one of Pelosi's anti-corruption warriors now, just like Jack Murtha, William Jefferson, and Alcee Hastings.

Of course there's also this:

The AP also reported that Abramoff's billing records showed extensive contact with Reid's office over a three-year period in which Reid collected more than $68,000 from Abramoff's firm, partners and clients.

Funny how this sort of thing comes out post-election, when it's a Dem in the crosshairs, isn't it?

Update: In the "hoist by his own petard" category, Suitably Flip reminds us of this letter to President Bush, sent in January and still posted on Senator Reid's website, in which the senator says:

There is no reason to wait for indictments or convictions before the American people learn of the role Mr. Abramoff played in the Bush White House. We therefore call on you to make public as soon as possible an accounting of Mr. Abramoffâ€™s personal contacts with Bush Administration officials and the official acts that may have been undertaken at his request.

Right back at ya, Harry. Certainly you won't be waiting for an indictment to give the American people a full accounting, will you?

Via Stop the ACLU.

Posted by: Bluto at 02:09 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 269 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Democrat, or Republican -- if they sold interests and took bribes they should all be shown the door, and a prison sentence if found guilty. It's in all our interest to get corrupt politicians out of office.

Posted by: davec at November 15, 2006 03:27 PM (QkWqQ)

2 davec,

this story will have no legs. He's a Democrat.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 15, 2006 03:37 PM (8e/V4)

3 Yeah Bluto it is really..... funny.
Must be that MSM thing again, or maybe the FBI has been taken over by the leftists ? Bluto is your point that the FBI are now all Democrats and that we can't trust them ?
Are there no media outlets anywhere that dare to print the truth ?
Jack Abramoff, first appointed to a position by Ronald Reagan, bilked clients out of perhaps 100 million and all the top Democrat got was 20 grand a year for 3 years ? Come on Bluto he should have gotten more than that: BE FAIR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff

Posted by: John Ryan at November 15, 2006 03:38 PM (TcoRJ)

4 JR, a Clinton-appointed judge demanded that Abramoff be jailed immediately in an attempt to foil the investigation into Reid and â€œsix to eight seriously corrupt Democratic senators.â€ - http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/11/abramoff_report.html

Looks like it's not going to work though.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 15, 2006 03:45 PM (vBK4C)

5 The wikipedia article is rather extensive but as you can see he was a staunch Republican from at least in college. Increibly corrupt, and a real disgrace for the Republicans.
As for the story not havibg any legs let's see how far it goes with the "conservative" news outlets. Again i am not sure how much juice you get from a congressman for 20Gs a year. At that rate they would be affordable even for the middle class!

Posted by: John Ryan at November 15, 2006 03:47 PM (TcoRJ)

6 Really, John. I consider myself middle class, and I'll tell you that $20,000 per year in bribes would be way more than I could afford.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 15, 2006 04:02 PM (8PoNP)

7 Something that Ace of Spades has pointed out: the governor of Nevada is a Republican. If Reid is forced to resign, the governor will appoint a replacement. Probably not a Democrat.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 15, 2006 04:04 PM (vBK4C)

8 Oh, yeah, according to John's logic, small bribes are ok as long as they go to Democrats. And his definition of small seems pretty large to me. I think they would be large enough to land you in jail.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 15, 2006 04:06 PM (8PoNP)

Did anybody hear what the forehead say about Mr. Howard Dean?

Dump him...yup.........DUMP HIM!

Dems are geniuses...no really...I actually had this conversation with someoneâ€¦

If the Dems dump Dean and Dirty Harry they own the government for the next many many years.

That (Whats his name) Carvil dude is a Bloody Genusâ€¦No doubt.

Posted by: Papa R. at November 15, 2006 04:26 PM (R75zM)

10 Papa R: could you translate that into english?

Posted by: n.a. palm at November 15, 2006 04:42 PM (2anYm)

11 Let the games begin, love it!!!

Posted by: jan at November 15, 2006 04:53 PM (+oWgl)

12 John Ryan:
Let's hear your reply to Jesusland Joe?

Posted by: davec at November 15, 2006 08:06 PM (QkWqQ)

13 John Ryan, let me put this as succinctly as possible:

The argument of how much a politician got - 10K or 200K - is not
"nuance". And guilt is not determined by how much or how little. And "Yeah, but..."
is not an argument. The public and MSM outcry has so far drowned
out any chance of looking objectively into who was on Abramoff's
dole. The Democrats set the paramenters and the MSM slid right in
behind following the script. Don't you want to know the
truth? Or are you satisfied that all the right people have been
implicated?

Posted by: Oyster at November 15, 2006 09:11 PM (YudAC)

14 ack ... parameters.

Posted by: Oyster at November 15, 2006 09:11 PM (YudAC)

15 He's satisfied, Oyster.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 16, 2006 10:55 AM (8PoNP)

My comment was part of a longer conversation and I guess I just blurted out the punch line.

Sorry for the confusion na., I will go slower this time.

Think of the Dems as two groups, the Masses and the Players.

The masses in the Democratic Party are every little person calling themselves a democrat and they mistakenly run around thinking they have say in the Democratic Party.

The players in the Democratic Party are the ones that DO have a say. They think like there in a very sophisticated game of Survivor and al that rally counts is the last man standling.

Oh sure, the players in the Democratic Party all look for alliances, friends, associates and partners in crime.

BUT

None of these players are in it for the party or group, they are in it for the individual.

So what did I mean, the players in the Democratice Party are just plain smarter than the world thinks. They put together a game plan to win the elections and they are not resting on their laurels.

This comment by the forehead is very revealing and is just an indicator of how much the Dem Players are in it for themselves and show how they think.

The leadership or players in the Democratic Party, that have had the power, are working hard to consolidate and fortify that power again. They are going to look at any avenue they can to achieve that goal. They will look over the political landscape and find any hindrances to achieving power and will capitalized on any opportunity.

As far as Howard dean is concerned, they know he has talked too much. They see that although he may have been somewhat useful in the past he is not going to help in the future. And they know, that because of what he has said and done in the past, some people would not cling on to the democratic moniker just because they donâ€™t like Howard Dean.

And

There is a slim chance he might gain favor with the American people and that cannot happen.

So why do I think the forehead is so bright, well think of Johnny-fair-play, for what it is worth he was a Bloody genius too.

Posted by: Papa R. at November 16, 2006 12:13 PM (R75zM)

17 According to the commie John Ryan the republican crook got a 100 million while the democrat crook only got $30,000. Just goes to show what small thinkers the democrats are. Only a complete dumbass would sacifice his career and freedom for $30,000. But, we must remember he's a democrat.

Posted by: Greyrooster at November 17, 2006 01:09 AM (R6qo5)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Anti-Semites are Republicans

At least, that's the line a lot of people want to feed you. Including the increasingly stupid Bill Maher.

Posted by: Rusty at 10:33 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Bill Maher is just a whore. He'll say whatever the Left would have him say, but the proof is out there for anyone to see. The fact that Bill made such a statement proves him to be the moron he truly is.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 15, 2006 11:42 AM (8PoNP)

Posted by: Johnny Copeland at November 15, 2006 12:36 PM (VorDn)

3 The left and the right are just talking heads really. However we should not give one dollar in aid to Israel or any other country for that matter.

It is time for America to start taking care of herself first.

Starving kids in Darfur? Oh well that is life and that is NOT our problem. We have starving AMERICAN kids in appalachia.

Palestenian filth attacking Israel? Again, not our problem. Israel can defend herself and she knows only the elimination of the palestenian will solve that problem.

America first. Now.

Posted by: Johnny Copeland at November 15, 2006 12:39 PM (VorDn)

4 87% of the Jewish vote went to the Democrats according to exit polls.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.htmlThis was CNN AmericaVotes 2006
If anyone has substantially different exit poll results please post them.

Posted by: John Ryan at November 15, 2006 12:48 PM (TcoRJ)

5 Hmm...a Stormfront commenter slipped in to deflect our attention from the anti-Semitism of the Left. How quaint, since Stormfront, the Islamists and the Left have joined forces against Israel. Sickening, really.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 15, 2006 12:49 PM (8PoNP)

6 Are you calling me a Stormfront supporter jesusland?!!?

You stupid idiot I am an American and I support America First. AND ONLY AMERICA FIRST.

If you and the free spending politicians want to continue throwing our money away on foreign interests and countries then do not cry when this great nation completely disentigrates.

I do not give a rats ass what country or cause it is--if it is not located within our borders not one dollar should be sent in aid. Period, the end.

Posted by: Johnny Copeland at November 15, 2006 12:55 PM (VorDn)

7 Sorry Joe. Have to go with Johnny Copeland on this one. I believe we should support Israel by keeping our noses out. They know how to handle the muslim menace better than we. That should be obvious by now. We care far too much about what the world thinks. The Israelis just want to survive and could give a rats ass about what the world thinks. What the world and the dumb asses muslims fail to understand is that Israel will destroy the middle east before succumbing to the muslim murderers.

Anti Jews republican. Yea right. Republicans like Greg and John Ryan.

Posted by: Greyrooster at November 15, 2006 01:09 PM (R6qo5)

8 Joe..... 87% of the Jewish vote went to the Democrats.

Posted by: John Ryan at November 15, 2006 02:34 PM (TcoRJ)

9 John:
The 'Hawk' Israeli's elected themselves is working out to be just as successful too right John? he handed them their first ever defeat, and guess what? I bet the 87% will regret it by the time the two years are over.

Posted by: davec at November 15, 2006 03:01 PM (QkWqQ)

10 John, I'm not argueing with your statistics, as I have none to dispute them. But what I do have is first hand knowledge. Some Jewish friends voted Democratic, have always voted Democratic, and probably will vote Democratic until the day they die. But they don't consider the Dems they voted for to be Leftists, and neither do I, because they aren't.

The Dems they voted for also happen to be friends of Israel, and would have nothing to do with the minions at Kos, or any of the nutroots who make up a large part of the Left and are anti-Semitic. The majority of the Democrats elected fall in this category, and are not Leftists. Did I make myself clear?

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 15, 2006 03:07 PM (8PoNP)

11 I don't know who came up with the 87% BS but I don't believe it. I have several Jewish friends and I met them at Republican get-to-gethers. I think the figures are more left wing BS.

Posted by: Greyrooster at November 15, 2006 06:17 PM (R6qo5)

12 It's increasingly stupid that criticising Israel = Antisemitism.

Posted by: Professor von Nostrand at November 15, 2006 11:45 PM (Bwpq7)

13 BILL MAHER STUCK ON STUPID BECUASE HE IS STUPID

Posted by: sandpiper at November 16, 2006 05:00 PM (O2c+K)

14 Yes Von Nostril. It is stupid. Stupid like criticising blacks = rasism. Just try it.

Posted by: Greyrooster at November 17, 2006 12:58 AM (R6qo5)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

November 14, 2006

Pelosi in Dirty Land Deal?

The wealthiest member of the U.S. House of Representatives and Speaker Elect, Nancy Pelosi, may have been involved in questionable land deals. That, according to Dan Riehl:

Nancy's son Paul, Jr. appears to be President of the Commission on the Environment and also a cousin to [San Francisco Mayor] Gavin Newsome. Isn't that how people get appointed to these commissions? Hm?
And it appears that very lucrative contracts for development are being awarded to individuals with significant links to both Pelosi and Newsome. It also appears that Nancy was involved in transferring The Presidio from the Army to the city, where it would eventually come under control of the commission with lucrative contracts going to firms staffed by Pelosi confidants, as well as family.

I'm not convinced, but according to Democrats, isn't it the nature of the accusation that is important? I do wonder, though, if Pelosi will exempt herself from the windfall tax she is proposing?

Posted by: Rusty at 08:35 AM | Comments (29) | Add Comment
Post contains 158 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Hehehe! These Democrats are as dirty as any Republican ever was. Now we have both the leader of the House and the leader of the Senate possibly involved in dirty land deals. Is this how all Democrats get rich, using influence to make millions in dirty land deals? The plot thickens! I told you we were going to have a fun two years.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 14, 2006 09:51 AM (8PoNP)

Remember Enron?

Posted by: No Fear at November 14, 2006 10:03 AM (ZQepB)

3 JJ - The difference? Your average American will never hear about this 'cause the networks and the news agencies will bury it.

It's all for naught until, somehow, the media sheds itself of the partisans that pose as reporters.

Posted by: MCPO Airdale at November 14, 2006 10:06 AM (3nKvy)

4 Remember Enron?

I remember that Enron ripened under the Clinton administration, and that they all went to jail under the Bush administration.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 14, 2006 10:28 AM (8e/V4)

5 Enron is now in the past. The people responsible are in jail. It's now time for some more Democrats to go to jail. I, for one, will enjoy it. Payback is going to be great, and fun, too. Having fun catching criminals will always get you up in the morning, boy!

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 14, 2006 10:29 AM (8PoNP)

6 Payback is going to be great
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 14, 2006 10:29 AM
=========================

Payback? For what exactly? For puting those bastards in jail? Men who stole peoples retirement from them? JJ you just don't seem to understand how many people were devasted by what those men did. And they still are.

Just because criminals go to jail doesn't mean all is well. Not for the victums. That never ends my friend. Ever. Ever.

It's not in the past for them. And it never will be. The fact that you are so dismissive of that, and them saddens me. Truly.

If these allegations are true, there will be no winners. Only losers. That's the way it goes. The fact you are gloating sickens me.

Posted by: No Fear at November 14, 2006 11:02 AM (ZQepB)

7 Crime is crime only if you are a Republican. Democrats are never guiltyof anything except stupidity

Posted by: n.a. palm at November 14, 2006 11:04 AM (FcnYD)

8 I didn't say that n.a. Re-read my post please. Restore my faith in humanity and just one of you admit that whether it's a Dem or a Repug, crime hurts us all. Every one of us. This not about politics. It's about us.

Posted by: No Fear at November 14, 2006 11:08 AM (ZQepB)

Uh, NoFear, the payback I'm referring to has to do with putting crooked Democrats in jail, and has nothing to do with Enron. I was all for putting those Enron crooks in jail, but I am also all for putting crooked Democrats in jail. And you should be, too.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 14, 2006 11:11 AM (8PoNP)

10 If those allegations are true I am. You betcha. Thankyou JJ.

Posted by: No Fear at November 14, 2006 11:12 AM (ZQepB)

11 Oh, just so you know, it's the crime that does the damage, not the punishment. Punishment is meant to correct and discourage. It is good.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 14, 2006 11:13 AM (8PoNP)

12 As a victim of violent crime I understand that all to well.

Posted by: No Fear at November 14, 2006 11:15 AM (ZQepB)

13 But a victim no more. A survivor.

Posted by: No Fear at November 14, 2006 11:18 AM (ZQepB)

14 Great work!
My homepage | Cool site

Posted by: Mary at November 14, 2006 11:30 AM (QXOnh)

15 Well done!
My homepage | Please visit

Posted by: Hayden at November 14, 2006 11:33 AM (QXOnh)

16 Nice site!
http://mepeznki.com/czaj/cdtg.html | http://oceermhz.com/xbbw/skjh.html

Posted by: Patty at November 14, 2006 11:34 AM (o+0N8)

17 I looked over the reported assets of Sen. Boxer. She claims to own a condo in DC that's valued at 100,000 to 250,000. Given the outrageously high real estate prices in the greater DC area, either Sen. Boxer lives in the middle of crime-ridden Anacostia, or she's lying.

Posted by: Ed at November 14, 2006 11:54 AM (/bNYo)

18 No Fear: I wasn't responding to your post. I don't read your posts. You are the arch-typical liberal hypocrit.

Posted by: n.a. palm at November 14, 2006 12:13 PM (nL9X4)

19 Yep, NoFear, I was also the intended victim of an armed robbery, but was able to get to my pistol before the bastard killed me. Thank God he didn't kill me, and thank God I didn't kill him, although he deserved it, and I would not have lost one moment of sleep had I shot him. And thank God and the governor of Texas that I had a concealed carry permit that allowed me to carry a firearm for protection, or I am 100% sure I would be dead, leaving a wife and 3 children.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 14, 2006 12:14 PM (8PoNP)

20 I think that after receiving about 90% of the vote in San Francisco that it might be somewhat less than surprising to find close connections between ANYONE in that city and Pelosi.

Posted by: John Ryan at November 14, 2006 12:28 PM (TcoRJ)

21 No n.a. I'm not a hypocrit. I firmly believe every single word I say. And live by them. You however are an ass.=====================================
Having said that...JJ, I sympothize with your expierence, if you believe nothing else I say, believe that.

I wasn't an intended victim, I was one, and someone did die. I have never said anything about disarming anyone. I have a carry permit also. That's beside the point and you know that. My original point was crime. When it occurs, it doesn't care what party, what line, or what color you are. It's not a thing to gloat over or celebrate. Stop keeping score. If we can't agree on that one point, all really is lost. And the fault won't be mine.

Posted by: No Fear at November 14, 2006 01:41 PM (ZQepB)

22 Ok, NoFear, I see what you are saying, and let's just say we've both faced the elephant in the room and survived. That, in itself, makes life that much more precious.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 14, 2006 01:50 PM (8PoNP)

Also, I apologize for spelling errors, I didn't sleep well last night.

Posted by: No Fear at November 14, 2006 01:51 PM (ZQepB)

24 Peace JJ, I'm sure we'll met again on another thread.

Posted by: No Fear at November 14, 2006 01:53 PM (ZQepB)

25 And so we shall.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 14, 2006 02:01 PM (8PoNP)

26 Will Pelosi exempt herself from a windfall tax? You betcha.
And so does every other congress critter. It must be really nice
to be the ones writing the laws that only you will really understand so
you can operate on the fringes of those laws without repercussion and
get a one up on everyone else before they discover the loopholes and
take advantage of them too. Then you close up the loop holes real
quick like.

Posted by: Oyster at November 14, 2006 04:31 PM (UeUAE)

27 Too bad the GOP controlled house didn't investigate Pelosi, when they had the chance.

Another opportunity lost, as always, for them.

This is why the Republicans can't win elections anymore.

You should realize by now, that whining and smearing doesn't win elections anymore, but you guys are slow to learn those lessons, aren't you?

Oh, well.

When are you people and the rest of the GOP going to stop whining and get on with your pathetic little lives?

You are really getting to be pitiful.

You lost. We won. Get over it.

Go Nancy!!

Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 15, 2006 04:15 AM (qBTkS)

28 What kind of dirty dealing has been going on here?

Posted by: sandpiper at November 16, 2006 05:07 PM (O2c+K)

29 Nancy Pelosi the pro union democrat doesn't allow union workers at her hotel in Napa valley, at her 30 million valued vineyard in Napa valley or at the 30 restaurant chain she is co-owner of. She contracts out the grape cutting to non union slavers. How's that for hypocrasy. A true democrat in the fashion of the Kennedys who champion tax increases but keep their money in overseas trusts to avoid taxes. Liberal democrats are the enemy of the working man and the working man is to dumb to see it.

Posted by: Greyrooster at November 17, 2006 12:39 AM (R6qo5)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

November 10, 2006

Jon Stewart: Democratic Majority Kingmaker

John Stewart is the Rush Limbaugh of 2006 and faux news the talk radio. Forget The Daily Kos, it was The Daily show that put Democrats over the top in key races. Just as the new phenomenon of nationally syndicated talk radio is what helped propel Republicans into the majority in 1994 it was faux news and the cult of Jon Stewart that led to this year's Democratic landslide.

That's what I argue in my latest Townhall column:

Jon Stewart is an unlikely player in national politics. He's not a pundit, he's a comedian. As unlikely a candidate for Democratic kingmaker as he may be, he's a force to be reckoned with.
Ratings for The Daily Show's coverage of the '06 elections were second only to The O'Reilly Factor on Fox News. 2.0 million Americans tuned into Comedy Central on Tuesday to follow election results. That's right, more people were watching a comedian talk about the news than an anchor on CNN.
And just who is it that is tuning into The Daily Show? Young people. Lot's of them.
In fact, in the 2004 election nearly as many young people cited The Daily Show as a source of news as any other source. And Jon Stewart's Daily Show audience has only grown since then.
On the college campus where I teach, Jon Stewart's is the first and last word on all things political. His is the only name that all recognize. Itâ€™s more than that: his views are the only views considered socially acceptable. When Jon Stewart believes something, students believe it. He who Jon Stewart hates, students hate.

Read the whole thing, or I'll take away your Swingline.

UPDATE: Since I know some of you didn't click on the link to see the statistical basis for the argument (lazy...) here it some of it:

The 2006 election saw the youth vote at its largest in 20 years. While younger Americans continue to vote in smaller numbers than older Americans, 2 million more voted in this election than in that last midterm.
And that vote is becoming more Democratic. According to the bipartisan Goeas-Lake exit polls, Democrats bested Republicans among 18 - 29 year olds by a 50 - 35 percent margin.
In nationally pivotal races, it was the young voter who put Democratic candidates over the top. Exit polls indicate that in Pennsylvania 68% of those under 30 voted for the Democrat over the Jon Stewart maligned Rick Santorum. Much higher than any other age group.
In the overwhelmingly Republican state of Montana, where the race was decided by less than 3,000 votes (at last count), 56% of young people voted for the Democratic challenger over the scandal tainted incumbent. The incumbent, Burns, had once argued that President Bush had a secret plan to win the war in Iraq. John Stewart joked that a vote for the challenging Democrat was a vote for blowing President Bush's super-secret plan for Iraq.

The list, of course, goes on, but I can't cite every case. Anyway, do me a favor and just read the whole thing.

Posted by: Rusty at 09:10 AM | Comments (38) | Add Comment
Post contains 515 words, total size 3 kb.

1 I tend to agree with Rusty's analysis. My 25 yo son started watching The Daily Show in his college dorm and is still an avid viewer. He too labels Fox News biased although he rarely watches.

One wonders if conservatives will ever be given the exposure and acceptance that liberals enjoy in the TV medium.

Posted by: MCPO Airdale at November 10, 2006 10:31 AM (3nKvy)

2 Jon Stewart and the Democrats are a match made in heaven.

Jon is a comedian and the Democrats are a joke. PERFECT!!!

Posted by: FLLaw33870 at November 10, 2006 10:39 AM (38GUY)

3 Interesting, Rusty, and perhaps a small factor in the Democratic win. I know my son, who is in college, occasionally tunes in to Stewart, but he would never let someone like that influence his vote. I think most students who watch Stewart tend to be liberal, and would vote for the Democrats anyway.

The margins in the election were razor-thin, and just a very few thousand votes decided who controled the Senate. I think the factors that decided the election were:

1. Burnout and fatigue-The Republican base just didn't go out and vote. One reason was the war in Iraq, and the way the MSM covered it. You and I know that most people still get their news from the antique media, and the constant railing by the networks against the war took a toll, no doubt about that.
2. There can be little doubt that enough illegal aliens, felons, the dead, and multiple voters tipped this election to the Democrats. If, for example, you think that 8,000 illegals, felons, and other fraudulent voters didn't vote for Democrats in Virginia, then I have a bridge I would like to sell to you. That is not to say I am complaining about voter fraud, as the Republicans have been in power since 1994, and have had it within their power to stop this fraud going on all over the country, especially in cities like Philadelphia, the supposed birthplace of our nation. What a joke!
3. We have sat on our hands and watched the Left mobilize for the past two years, and what have we as conservatives done? Nothing, really. We have been outworked by the Left, and it showed on election day. We spent out money on TV, while the Left got out there and organized and worked, while we sit on our hands. We can blame this on ourselves. I'm pointing a finger at myself on this one, as I got lazy, thinking that most Americans would not want to put the fringe Left into power.

I'm know that other points have been made, such as Republicans acting like liberals with the non-stop spending and unbalanced budgets, etc. I accept these as well, but the main reason to me is that the Democrats outworked, outfoxed, outorganized, and outright won. We should accept this as a challenge, and get to work. And we are not that far from taking control back, which is why I hate to see this implosion that in now going on in the Republican Party, which is doing nothing but playing into the hands of the Democrats. We just need to close ranks, and go to work! And work! And then work some more!

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 10, 2006 10:56 AM (8PoNP)

4 Dead voters rock!

Posted by: CafeenMan at November 10, 2006 10:59 AM (eNwl1)

5 Sure they do to a Democrat or liberal, CafeenMan, as any means neccessary was the rallying cry. And quite frankly, it worked, but again, that is the fault of Republicans, as they have been in power for how many years, and did nothing to address this fraud.

In Virginia, and even more so in Missouri, election fraud occurred on a massive scale, and when organizations like ACORN are the ones involved, you can be sure they weren't cheating for Republican candidates. But again, I'm not complaining, just stating the obvious.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 10, 2006 11:24 AM (8PoNP)

6 Great article Rusty.. I think it's right on. It is really depressing to think we have TONS of mush-headed kids coming up who haven't developed critical thinking skills and they're going to be voting. It's like Jon Stewart will be commanding a million-man zombie army of voters who will do his will. That's too much power in the hands of one man.

Posted by: Richard H. at November 10, 2006 11:27 AM (/xUS1)

7 JesusLand - The GOP has had 6 years to show what they can do. They showed us. We didn't like it. They'll come into power again. Hopefully they learn some important lessons and keep their hands out of the cookie jar. Maybe they'll actually try to conserve instead of waste. I would like that.

Posted by: CafeenMan at November 10, 2006 11:33 AM (eNwl1)

8 What some of the commenters there are missing is that this isn't
funny. Jon Stewart is funny. No doubt about it. But
using a left (or even right) politically leaning "comedian"
to shape or reinforce one's world views is not funny. Now if Jon
Stewart applied his humor equitably we could all share in the
laugh. There's plenty of jokes to go around.

All we've heard from the left for six years is how stupid the American
public is. Now suddenly they're not stupid? They would
blindly follow a Rush Limbaugh out of stupidity, but not a Jon Stewart?

Rusty has seen a clear distinction in the students at the college he
teaches at. That the students hang on Jon Stewart's every
word. And they do. I work with a lot of kids still in
college. I listen to them talk everyday.

Let's face it. When one is young they are far more idealistic and
the dream of everyone getting along and sharing their toys is still
possible. Then they move out into the real world and get slapped
in the face with reality and many, if not most, become more pragmatic
and realism sets in. Mommy isn't going to punish the other kid
anymore for not sharing something YOU want. Others just keep
railing against all the perceived injustices and how they've been
wronged. They grow into old lefties hell bent on defending the
virtues of socialism and an equal, indiscriminate distribution of
wealth to punish those they see as merely "lucky". Or they harbor
the horrible guilt of being economically successful and insist that
everyone else follow their definition of "moral conscience".

Here's lucky - you were born in America. THAT'S lucky. From that point on you have choices.

The left has for years now talked about the hypocrisy and stupidity of
the right. About the corruption, the scandals and the bare-faced
lies. Even though there has been plenty of it for as long as any
of us can remember from both sides of the aisle. Keeping
the other side honest with shrill cries of hypocrisy while ignoring
one's own doesn't cut it anymore. They will be held to their own
standards. Now they need to put up or shut up. This is
their chance to prove they're right. That the corruption will
end, that they won't lie to the American public and that sex scandals
and bribery are a thing of the past. Good luck. The
Internet is watching even if the MSM won't.

Posted by: Oyster at November 10, 2006 11:50 AM (YudAC)

9 OK, Oyster - I'll say. A lot of Americans are stupid. At least most freepers have the courage to stand by their extreme beliefs even when they're being deservedly ridiculed. But a lot of Americans jump from one bandwagon to the next due to societal/peer pressure. They have not the nuts to stand for whatever it is they really believe in. They are the same people who no matter who wins the Super Bowl, that team has always been their favorite. Really!

So yeah, I'm happy the dems have gotten some control away from the GOP because the GOP is exceedingly corrupt. But no, I'm not real thrilled that so many american can swap their values just like that.

I knew the war in Iraq was very wrong from before it ever happened. I've never changed my view of it because nothing has happened that proves me wrong. In fact, my beliefs have been proven correct over and over. Anyone who did any research before the war started should have known it was wrong. There is no excuse. A lot of people are trying to claim that they were misled by Bush. Well, if his administration is the only ones they were listening to then they are very wrong from the beginning. If they had bothered to check their facts they would have known Bush was misleading them. I don't forgive them and that includes the dems who voted for the war. They have no excuse.

Anyway, things turned out well this year but not for the right reasons.

Posted by: CafeenMan at November 10, 2006 11:59 AM (eNwl1)

10 CafeenMan, I'm not disagreeing with your analysis, and one of the worst faults of the Republicans was their do-nothing policy on the border with Mexico.

As an example, I live in Texas, but have been working in Arkansas for the past 8 months. In the Arkansas governor's election, the Democrat, Mike Beebe, used the border control issue quite effectively against Asa Hutchinson, who had been the Assistant Dir. of Homeland Security. In his television commercials especially, he called attention to Asa's failure to address this issue while in a position of power at Homeland Security. Frankly, he had a great point, and I feel like it hit home here in Arkansas, where illegal aliens are pouring across the borders.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 10, 2006 11:59 AM (8PoNP)

11 I don't have an opinion about what to do about illegal immigration. I think it should be stopped but what will work best is beyond my level of understanding the problem.

I think what would go a long way toward working is making it very undesirable to hire them in the first place. First, we stop as many as we can at the border. Then we heavily fine employers who hire them. If that doesn't work, we dig a 50 mile wide canal between the US/Mexican border and fill it with crocodiles. Put lots of cameras on buoys and make it a reality tv show. Anyone who survives the swim deserves to be an American. Anyone who uses a boat gets sunk by the coast guard. Should be very entertaining and create lots of revenue that can offset the costs of the whole program.

Posted by: CafeenMan at November 10, 2006 12:20 PM (eNwl1)

12 Cafeenman: Sticking to your initial assessment all along does not
make you right. I've stuck to mine too and they are a far cry
from yours. Does that make me right or wrong? Only in the
eyes of the opposition can one be so completely wrong. Have
things turned out in Iraq as you thought they might?
Perhaps. But that in itself has nothing do do with whether or not
it was right to go in there. Some people felt misled. I
didn't. And I still don't.

Posted by: Oyster at November 10, 2006 12:23 PM (YudAC)

13 more good news for the conservatives, because with the dems in power the people with Jon's target on their back will be Pelosi, Shumer, etc... and the harvest... it is plenty.

Posted by: Jon at November 10, 2006 12:31 PM (abs60)

14 The blog where I used to post was taken down a couple years ago which is unfortunate. At the time I said something to the effect that the first time we invaded Iraq they had mystical beliefs about us. They didn't know us and believed us to be undefeatable giants.

Since then they have learned that we are flesh and blood and can be defeated. They didn't lay run this time. I knew that it wasn't going to be an easy fight. Does that make it wrong? No, it doesn't. Fighting Germany in WWII wasn't easy, but we were right to fight.

What made this war wrong was that every assessment by people who were in a position to know was that Saddam did not have WMD's, that he didn't have the capability to create nukes any time soon and the entire justification for the war was fabricated. That made it very, very wrong.

We were looking at a third world country that had tons of internal problems and wasn't capable of harming anyone else. Saddam had no known connections to terrorists and was, in fact, an enemy of Al Qaeda.

He had a laughable army, no navy, no air force. How in the hell was he ever going to do anything to us? Seriously. We might as well have invaded Iceland.

Anyway, my point isn't that because I've held the same beliefs all along that I'm right. I'm right because I'm right and events unfolded pretty much as I expected them to.

And I'm not one pushing for us to get out of Iraq. I don't think we should have ever been there but now that we're there I think we have some kind of duty to help clean up the mess. The problem with that is we're a big part of the problem. I think we're damned either way.

So when people say we need to cut our losses and let Iraq fend for itself it seems like the least of all the evils but I don't have any answers for how to make this disaster right. Nobody does.

Some people are ego-driven and just can't stand the thought of not winning. They're the ones who are most wrong because there is no winning. We lost when we started the war.

Then there are those who claim people who don't agree with them are terrorist appeasers. That's weak and simplistic and simply trying to intimidate people into falling into line. I'm sure there are Americans who would like to see terrorist attacks on the US. They would be called anarchists - not democrats. Democrats may be wrong in their proposed solutions to the problem, but anyone who is honest doesn't believe the democrats want the terrorists to win. 99% of Americans would love to see the terrorists exterminated. But we're not really accomplishing that are we? We need a different direction but we've botched things so badly that nobody even knows where to start.

Posted by: CafeenMan at November 10, 2006 12:36 PM (eNwl1)

15 more good news for the conservatives, because with the dems in power the people with Jon's target on their back will be Pelosi, Shumer, etc... and the harvest... it is plenty.

Posted by: Jon at November 10, 2006 12:31 PM

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

I think Jon Stewart is left-leaning but he's also got a job to do, so I don't think he will be kind to anyone doing something ridiculous - even dems.

Posted by: CafeenMan at November 10, 2006 12:38 PM (eNwl1)

16 The fact that the young are liberal and Anti-war shouldn't be news to anyone . . They always have been. And the fact that they pay attention to a Cable Comedian shouldn't shock anyone . .

But, the fact that the "Swing" voter can be influenced by something that happens in a "Rumor" or "Scandal form" this afternoon, and will affect his vote on long term government issues, points to a far worse problem . . apparently, the "Swing" Voter is an Idiot!

How do you fix that?

Posted by: large at November 10, 2006 12:53 PM (fEUSs)

First we outlaw stupidity. Next, nobody is allowed to vote without passing a test that shows they have some grasp of where the candidates stand on various issues. Lastly, we don't let stupid people reproduce. I'll be happy to be the judge and jury.

Posted by: CafeenMan at November 10, 2006 12:57 PM (eNwl1)

18 The machinations of the liberal education system are guilty for frying the brains of gen x & y. Jon Stewart is just the icing on the cake. A careful analysis of the democratic party reveals that the majority of their base is a conglommorate of minorities (immigrants, muslims, young voters, etc.) which share only one thing in common: each minority is disaffected in some way. They are content to feed off of half-truths and approach critical thought without the benefit of tradition and 3000 years of written knowledge. They operate on the presumption that social 'change' is always better. When they lose an election, they invent new psychological disorders which are entered into the DSM and they burn themselves in the streets because they have found no God, no greater purpose in life in busy their hands with useful production.

Therefore, to the party of the disaffected, I say that campaigning on UNDEFINED CHANGE was a perfect plan. It was enough to seep into the imbecile brain, and mobilize those disaffected to come out and cast their misguided vote.

We will see that the only way to combat this is by changing the way we teach people to think. With intelligence and critical thought many liberal platforms unravel themselves. We need to mobilize our base to make change.

Posted by: Scourge Of Jihadis at November 10, 2006 01:12 PM (gopc4)

19 When they lose an election, they invent new psychological disorders which are entered into the DSM ...

Posted by: Scourge Of Jihadis at November 10, 2006 01:12 PM

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

What D/O in the DSM is a result of losing an election? I refer to the DSM every day and haven't seen anything to support your claim.

Posted by: CafeenMan at November 10, 2006 01:44 PM (eNwl1)

20 I don't know why we are all worried anyway, because if you haven't heard yet the aliens are getting set to invade the U.K. It's posted on Drudge so it must be true. Lets see Jon laugh that one off.

Posted by: southdakotaboy at November 10, 2006 01:46 PM (JaJ3u)

21 Well Joe a lot of races especially the senate races were extremely close. However overall the totals that I have seen were Republicans 25 milion, Democrats 31.5 million in the senate races.And of course even before this election the elected Democrat senators represented a significantly larger percentage of Americans than did the Republican senators. More people live within a 2 mile radius of me than in some states.

Posted by: John Ryan at November 10, 2006 01:57 PM (TcoRJ)

22 Rusty any correlation between the ages of those killed in Iraq and those voting Democrat ?

Posted by: John Ryan at November 10, 2006 01:59 PM (TcoRJ)

23 Oh yeah Rusy and of course THE MATH !!!! so 50% voted Democrt and 35% voted Republican ........ and the other 15% ? Green? Red? Black?

Posted by: John Ryan at November 10, 2006 02:08 PM (TcoRJ)

24 Doen't matter, John, the Senate was not created for proportional representation(how do you like my math, John?), but to protect the rights of the smaller states. The House was created to proportionally represent the population of the US. That is why the US is not a true democracy, but is a constitutional republic. I wish more people would receive even half an education in this country, which is another problem exaserbated by the liberals.

The public education system in the US is now so bad that our students don't even know about their own government. Pathetic. That's why I now have my children in private school.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 10, 2006 02:16 PM (8PoNP)

25 It shows how unserious Liberal politics is. It's all about feelings. That's why it attracts the young so much. Not until they learn to think for themselves do they pull back and go, hold on a minute. That's why older people tend to be conservative. Yet some people never grow up at all, and are adolescents in adult bodies forever.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 10, 2006 02:21 PM (8e/V4)

26 What about those wacky Diebold machines? I don't hear the Left crying like burning parrots over them this Election?
I guess when you're a Democrat and your party wins, you're the Winner! If the Republicans win, why of course it's because they cheated.

Posted by: davec at November 10, 2006 02:38 PM (QkWqQ)

27 "...that he didn't have the capability to create nukes any time soon and
the entire justification for the war was fabricated. That made it
very, very wrong."

"Any time soon." And just how long was acceptable for you
Cafeenman? Until France and Russia used their veto power to lift
sanctions because el baradei said the Iraqis were being semi
cooperative? Well it doesn't look like he was being all that
cooperative. We found he still had intricate nuclear documents -
something they were supposed to have turned over or destroyed. We found
Russian MIGs among sundry other Russian made war materials (recent
stuff). We found terror training camps. We caught Russians
leaving Baghdad in a mad dash for the Syrian border when they had
assured us all Russian delegates had been evacuated before the
invasion. We found documents indicating a relationship between
them and al Qaeda operatives. We found that Iraqis had indeed
gone to Niger seeking yellowcake uranium. And that's just off the
tip of my tongue. These are not fabrications. You're not
using your critical thinking skills. You came to a conclusion and
did no adjustments over the course of 3 1/2 years of information.
Frankly, more of my initial assessments have proven true than yours.

Believe what you will, but all the evidence is there that Saddam was in
defiance of every single resolution. Every single one. What
did he have to do to justify it for you? Kill thousands or
millions here? A little late for all the dead by then, huh?

Posted by: Oyster at November 10, 2006 04:10 PM (UeUAE)

28 First off : Holy @#%@#$@#$@#$ This is the most well reasoned, well thought out, logical, and non-personal conversation I have ever seen on this site. Halelujah.

Second : Jon Stewart is funny. He's occasionally hillarious. He is definitely left leaning, but since his target audience (young people who value humor in their news more than stock reports and moral high handedness) are left leaning, that's entirely appropriate. I like watching Jon Stewart because it amuses me, and I can get to hear another (opposing) view of what I think. Sadly there are a lot of people out there who will watch this as a form of 'what should I think about this'ism. We live in a democracy though, and one of the big flaws with democracy is it's susceptability to bread and circus leadership.

Finally, illegal immigration will not be solved until the public at large is against it. Against it not in theory, or in the sense that they think that the government should do something about it, but against it in the sense that it becomes socially unacceptable to hire illegal immigrant labor for any purpose. Until the rich housewives look down their noses at the one who has the illegal maid. Until consumers stop buying produce that was picked by illegals.

The only other possible solution (I see) is for us to change the Mexican-American equation so that it is not in fact better for them to sneak into the country. Public opinion is one answer, but so are creating economic opportunities south of the border (Our job? no... good for us? yes. Worth the effort? Probably), stiff penalties for getting caught in the US illegally (unpalatable, I know...) (Could we build a prison for Mexican criminals(drug smugglers, etc) in Mexico and pay the workers in Peso's? we'd get around a lot of US labor and prison problems that way...)

Posted by: Granite at November 10, 2006 04:21 PM (E7FBk)

29 Oh, and CafeenMan : I wanted to compliment you on your clarity in expressing the difference between or morality in invading Iraq in the first place (closed for debate, we did it, right or wrong) and or morality in dealing with the situation we are in over there.

I've been looking for the Dem's, Liberal's, non Bush fan's plan B for a few months now, and all I've been able to find is arguments that "We shouldn't have gone in the first place, and that means we should leave now." (I'm still looking for other answers, if anyone's got them, but until we've got a plan B, I'm for plan A)

Now if I just hadn't stuck my foot in my mouth by letting people post personal insults between reading the forum and posting my comment

Posted by: Granite at November 10, 2006 04:34 PM (E7FBk)

30 Rusty, that was a great article. I first remember the USA-hating Jon Liebowitz when he was a putz on MTV. I had completely forgotten about the guy but saw the huge influence he had on college kids two years ago when I went back to grad school. I thought then that the guy was something to worry about and you completely hit the nail on the head.

The guy is an arrogrant creep and nowhere near as funny as P.J. O'Rourke, either in person or in writing. Plus he is a soccer fag.

Posted by: Abdullah al-Libi at November 10, 2006 06:59 PM (PsIom)

31 Liebowitz?

Posted by: Gleep! at November 10, 2006 10:53 PM (a7sMc)

32 "Any time soon." And just how long was acceptable for you Cafeenman?

Posted by: Oyster at November 10, 2006 04:10 PM

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

I was wondering how long it would take for somebody to pick up on this. Thanks.

I wonder how many countries AREN'T trying to develop nukes. With the US playing wild and loose with whatever international rules and treaties exist and the fact that we have every weapon known to man, I would expect every other country to be taking steps to reach some kind of parity. I don't trust us to do the right thing with these weapons and certainly don't expect other countries to trust us.

So how long? I have no idea. How far was Saddam from developing a nuke? Many years. And then there's still the same problem. His country was in chaos. He was in no position to use a nuke even if he had one. And other than being belligerant at times, he showed no signs of trying to take us on in any way. He may have been crazy but he wasn't entirely stupid.

And that brings up my next point. Every fabricated justification for the war in Iraq was a real justification for many other countries.

Justification #1) WMD's. OK, a lot of countries that don't like us actually have them. Why Iraq who didn't have them instead of a country that does?

Late Justifications:

Saddam was a mad dictator: That's THEIR problem, not ours. There are many other countries having dictators who are committing far worse atrocities than Saddam did. Why aren't we kicking their asses?

Saddam used biological/chemical agents against his own people: This one is true. Unfortunately, we sound very hypocritical saying it since we supplied the weapons to him to kill the people he killed with them.

Saddam wasn't ever a threat to us. Our military is meant to defend us - not to go around beating up puny, impotent dictators.

Posted by: CafeenMan at November 11, 2006 02:15 AM (eNwl1)

33 26 What about those wacky Diebold machines? I don't hear the Left crying like burning parrots over them this Election?
I guess when you're a Democrat and your party wins, you're the Winner! If the Republicans win, why of course it's because they cheated.

Posted by: davec at November 10, 2006 02:38 PM

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Here's my overall problem with this administration. They are supposed to represent us. Instead they rule us. We aren't a monarchy. Bush doesn't get it. He reminds me of Bill at the end of King Pin where he wins the tournament and claims to be king of the world. The presidency isn't supposed to work like that.

Shouldn't our government be as transparent as possible? I concede special consideration and secrecy of programs that would be compromised if made public. For example, undercover agents shouldn't be outed.

But why is our energy policy a secret? Why are Chevron and Exxon making the policy? They aren't? How do you know since it was all done behind closed doors with no oversight?

Secret spying programs. That's ok by me as long as there is non-partisan oversight. But to have it soley in the hands of one party is scary and wrong.

Half of what Bush has done would probably be ok with me if there were somebody else who was at least able to check on it and make sure it isn't abused.

The reason open source code works so well is that it undergoes microscopic peer review. There is no reason in the world why Diebold code shouldn't be open source. That doesn't make it easier to hack - it makes it harder. Does Diebold cheat? Nobody knows except them. I don't know if they do or don't but I would really like it if somebody were allowed to check those machines out thoroughly. What's wrong with that?

Frankly, I don't mind if every election is recounted regardless of who won. If somebody I don't like is elected I'd feel a lot better about it if I knew he won fair and square. When we aren't allowed to perform recounts or somebody is saying recount these but not those then there's something really wrong with that. It's just common sense and not a lefty ideal.

Posted by: CafeenMan at November 11, 2006 02:24 AM (eNwl1)

34 >>>Liebowitz?<br><br>
Yup, that is the real name of that dhimmi creep. Probably changed it so that his Moslem masters don't give him the HASAN, CHOP! treatment.

Posted by: Abdullah al-Libi at November 11, 2006 04:07 AM (kxhLo)

35 What, I wonder, is gregturd's opinion of all the JOOOOOOOOZZZZ in the lefturd establishment, such as Stewart?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 11, 2006 10:47 AM (v3I+x)

36 Well done!
My homepage | Cool site

Posted by: Terry at November 14, 2006 11:36 AM (QXOnh)

37 Thank you!
My homepage | Please visit

Posted by: Mike at November 14, 2006 11:37 AM (90VbI)

38 Well done!
http://yqaeoezg.com/yfhy/xdru.html | http://zrrcyroi.com/tdpm/rofg.html

Posted by: Betty at November 14, 2006 11:38 AM (o+0N8)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

288kb generated in CPU 0.0617, elapsed 0.1085 seconds.
56 queries taking 0.0636 seconds, 583 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

May 01, 2007

April 24, 2007

April 18, 2007

April 13, 2007

April 12, 2007

April 06, 2007

March 29, 2007

March 28, 2007

March 26, 2007

March 23, 2007

March 20, 2007

March 08, 2007

February 19, 2007

February 09, 2007

January 26, 2007

January 09, 2007

December 11, 2006

November 26, 2006

November 15, 2006

November 14, 2006

November 10, 2006

Recent Comments