Fight The War The Liberal Way — Adopt-A-Terrorist!
Since an election is only fair and valid when the Democrats win, I’m going to now urge all Americans to help support our new liberal leaders in Washington. Let’s all join hands and support (not my) Speaker Pelosi in her efforts to “catch the terrorists.”
I’m doing my part by adopting a terrorist. It is actually easier than you think…. after all, the American Civil Liberities Union is representing and defending many of these cold-blooded killers right now. So just pick up your phone and call to request your own terrorist by calling the local ACLU offices right now. (ACLU link here.)
My Adopted Terrorist is named Ali. I’m not sure if this is his real name or not, but it is the one I was told to use or else I’d be beheaded. Ali is a radical Muslim who was born in the oppressed and destitute land of Saudi Arabia. That really surprised me since most people stopped at the airports here are old women, babies with formula, and gay guys with hair gel. As a matter of fact, I think I do recall hearing that 19 breast-feeding infants flew planes into buildings on September 11, 2001. Ah, but I digress.
Unfortunately, I cannot show you Ali’s photo. The Terrorist Civil Rights Union…er…. ACLU… says that showing his photo may jeopardize Ali’s prescence in the United States. We wouldn’t want that would we?
Anyway, I spoke to Ali for the first time over the weekend. He was very nice. But I have learned that Terrorists have their own kind of language; almost like slang. Instead of referring to me as “friend” or “buddy” like I did, Ali repeatedly called me an “infidel pig.” Instead of talking about sports and the weather, Ali tells me that I’m going to hell and his knife will be my instrument of death. I don’t know about you, but that is kind of cute isn’t it?
So in order to keep my Adopted Terrorist (I was sent a certificate of adoption by the ACLU and signed by Michael Moore!), I have to send Ali copies of the New York Times each day (apparently it is used as some type of instruction manual by al-Qaeda), send him half of my paycheck each week, and chop off one of my toes and/or fingers once a month. Oh yeah, and I had to convert to Islam over the phone or he was going to murder my entire family. At least I didn’t have to be held hostage with a gun to my head like those FOX News guys who recently converted.
I’m kind of excited though because this week, I’m meeting Ali to show him the new Spirit of America under (not my) Speaker Pelosi. We are going to hold hands and sing kum-bah-yah while burning American flag. He promised me if I did that, he wouldn’t drive a truckbomb into the shopping mall near where I live.
You see, folks, this new Democrat Strategy on the War on Terror will work just fine! All we have to do is join the Adopt-A-Terrorist program and do exactly what they say. What’s the big deal?
I’ll be keeping you updated on Ali’s story over the next several weeks…
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
91 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Do they have fitted burhkas, or is it one size fits all?
Comment by Alli — November 13, 2006 @ 9:44 am - November 13, 2006
I already adopted a cabbage patch kid and a highway but I always have room for one of the faithful. Maybe we could set up a play date?
Comment by Hephaestion — November 13, 2006 @ 9:44 am - November 13, 2006
You’re not quite all there, are you?
Comment by Anonymous — November 13, 2006 @ 9:55 am - November 13, 2006
Adopt-A-Terrorist is a brilliant move by the Democrats, Bruce!
First, it helps cement the warm, personal connection the two groups feel for each other… hell, didn’t we have terrorists applauding the change in party control in the Congress? Didn’t we have Shia and Sunni terrorists working to increase the carnage and death count in the lead up to the election so that the anti-WOT crowd would be motivated to show up on Election Day in the US? Isn’t that what they wanted when they learned that they might be able to influence the selection of the Speaker and #2 back-up spot in the House?
Plus, now Hillary can drop her “Help the Felons Vote” campaign… she’ll have more than enough terrorists ready to vote for her. Plus a lot of felons aren’t an motivated to vote as a terrorist might be.
Right?
Adopt-A-Terrorist is a brillant move by the Democrats. I’m glad they’ve moved away from the former campaign of “Just Do No”.
By the way, the Election was LAST week… how come the Democrats haven’t captured Osama bin Laden yet? And why are gas prices why? Why haven’t the Democrats stopped global warming? Why isn’t there any progress so far? The People have a right to know.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 13, 2006 @ 10:09 am - November 13, 2006
Add satire to the list of things conservatives can’t do.
Comment by Chase — November 13, 2006 @ 10:13 am - November 13, 2006
All that comes to mind is that these posts and responses are insulting to the memory of lives lost on November 11, 2001 and those who continue to die in Iraq today. Please get real, and sane.
Comment by Kenyon Cameron — November 13, 2006 @ 10:17 am - November 13, 2006
They’re not terrorists. They’re oppressed, disenfranchised, marginalized, disempowered freedom fighters, and they’re IN TOUCH WITH NATURE!
Comment by rightwingprof — November 13, 2006 @ 10:17 am - November 13, 2006
My, my, my…
Isn’t it alarming how articles like these send the moonbats off the deep end?
And by the way, Kenyon, it was September 11, NOT November. Kinda shows how completely out of touch the left is, huh?
Eric in Hollywood
Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — November 13, 2006 @ 10:21 am - November 13, 2006
And would someone please get Chase a new bowl of Corn Flakes?
Someone seems to have pissed in the one he has in front of him.
Erin in the Land of Silk & Money
Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — November 13, 2006 @ 10:23 am - November 13, 2006
#4 – Because Dems need the white house first
Have patience!
Comment by keogh — November 13, 2006 @ 10:25 am - November 13, 2006
This post by Bruce demonstrates the need for an appropriate GayPatriot theme song.
Comment by Ian — November 13, 2006 @ 10:30 am - November 13, 2006
Chase, that’s fair… let’s also add “leadership” to the list of things your party can’t do. Afterall, it’s been 6 days since the Election and Osama bin Laden is still on the loose, global warming seems to be unabated, our troops aren’t home yet and the now deceased-Christopher Reeves still can’t walk as was promised by Democrat Veep Edwards in 2004 if the Democrats won.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect some –even a tiny bit– of progress after 6 days. We can’t afford to wait… look what happened in the lapse of time so far: Brit and K-fed busted the knot (OMG) and it looks like mullets are coming back into style Paris and Little Rock. We can’t afford to wait.
But I’d be happy to start with the Democrats raising Reeves from the dead and getting him out of the wheelchair… or even getting Michael Fox back on his meds. Or Katie K Kouric off the air. Something. It doesn’t have to be World Peace right away.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 13, 2006 @ 10:32 am - November 13, 2006
My my my,
Isn’t it alarming how bitter the zany rightists are?
And by the way, the rest of the country rejected your false alarmist arguments on November 7th.
Kinda shows how out of touch you rightists truly are, huh?
Keogh in no-where-ville
Comment by keogh — November 13, 2006 @ 10:35 am - November 13, 2006
As for a theme song, might I humbly suggest “Bear Down Chicago Bears”?
After all, since all Ian and his buddies seem able to do is piss and moan over perceived wrongs, my Bears continue to prove nothing tastes better on a Monday morning than having kicked some serious ass the night before.
OT, I know, but cut me some slack, will ya?
Eric in Victory
Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — November 13, 2006 @ 10:37 am - November 13, 2006
And while you’re at it, might wanna get Keogh-or-whatever-his-name-is a fresh bowl as well.
Quite the rash of drive-by cereal-peeings we have this morning.
Eric in Utter Stitches
Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — November 13, 2006 @ 10:38 am - November 13, 2006
12 – Again, you will have to wait until the Dems have the whitehouse in 2008.
But they did get rid of Rummy, and by all accounts Bolton will be gone soon too.
Progress is coming! Progress is here!
Comment by keogh — November 13, 2006 @ 10:39 am - November 13, 2006
“Keogh in no-where-ville”
Never mind…seems he doesn’t quite know where he is, anyway.
Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — November 13, 2006 @ 10:40 am - November 13, 2006
“Progress is coming! Progress is here!”
All power to the proletariat!!!!
Sorry, kinda got caught up in the Leninist moment.
Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — November 13, 2006 @ 10:41 am - November 13, 2006
keogh, thanks for using spell check finally… nope, not bitter at all.
I just think the games you played for years ought to be fair terms for holding you accountable now that you have the keys to govt and the People have spoken.
Come on, just Chris Reeves walking should be good enough for a start. Or are you still stuck on “Just Do No”?
Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 13, 2006 @ 10:41 am - November 13, 2006
piss laden cereal tastes better than your bitter pills or or tear stained soup!
Comment by keogh — November 13, 2006 @ 10:44 am - November 13, 2006
Rummy being gone is almost as good as a cure for death!
Comment by keogh — November 13, 2006 @ 10:47 am - November 13, 2006
Eric, if it wasn’t funny… over at Mudville Gaz, the Great Grey One notes that the Democrats in our country (esp former Gen Karpinski) are literally in league with the enemy and protecting the enemy in an ACLU-styled lawsuit… http://www.mudvillegazette.com/
Kind of reminds me of all those silly-assed Left lawsuits against Hank Kissinger for war crimes after 1972. The Left can be both bitter and petty at the same time and repeat those traits over and over.
Counting down the seocnds until the anti-Rummie generals start offering up testimony time for the new Democrat show in Congress… the ACLU buddies have beat them to the punch with this war crimes nonsense.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 13, 2006 @ 10:49 am - November 13, 2006
And Bruce merrily (and blindly) helps march the GOP toward defeat in 2008. For the GOP’s sake, lets hope less fanatical heads prevail in next few years.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — November 13, 2006 @ 11:09 am - November 13, 2006
GP, I get the irony, sort of. But the adopt a terrorist plan could have just have easily been a satire of the Bush administration strategy. The war strategy seems to have recruited more terrorists than before the war. Now they really “need” to be adopted, I’m sure.
I’ve heard the argument that it is better to stay in Iraq, to keep the terrorists there. Don’t know if that strategy is going to work, since terrorists seem to be capable on working in more than one front. Further, even if they weren’t, suppose we were really in the “final throes” as was suggested a year or so ago. Then these terrorists would be in the same position as in a supposed “cut and run” strategy, with nothing to do in Iraq.
Anyway, I simply don’t think it’s fair to equate opposition to the war with loving terrorists and terrorism. Just as I don’t think it would be fair for Democrats to say that Bush supports terrorism because of his administration’s Iraq policy. History will tell if Bush was right, or the Democrats were right, or most likely, that both were wrong, and there was a better way to deal with terrorists.
Also, as suggested in another thread, I wouldn’t take anything that terrorists say about our elections seriously. First, they wouldn’t know an election if it hit them in the head. Also, my recollection was when Reagan defeated Carter in 1980, the terrorists/hostage holders were apparantly glad that Carter was defeated. Most people didn’t think that this was a ringing endorsement of Carter, or disparaging of Reagan regarding the issue of dealing with the nutcases in the Middle East.
Comment by Pat — November 13, 2006 @ 11:10 am - November 13, 2006
As a Member of the ACLU….I do NOT always agree with what they do, or who they represent…but, I’d rather live in an America with an ACLU…then an America without one! ….PS: Just a side note…how come “Gay Patriot” can’t even be a little bit happy about the outcome of the election? After-all with the GOP……Gay does NOT equal Happy…it means, being “Closeted” / denying who you are…to further those who would like to see gay people disenfranchised! You can belive what you want…but, I’m sure the GOP wishes Gays/Lesbians did not exist or have a voice.
Comment by Happier American — November 13, 2006 @ 11:25 am - November 13, 2006
Happier American, like you I’m a member of the ACLU and do not always agree with what they do either. Also, since you basically asked how one could be gay and GOP, you may want to read through the blog and see why. For a quick answer, there are gay people that, while disagreeing with Republicans on gay rights issues, but agree with them on most other issues. And also, although I believe the Democrats are better than Republicans on gay rights, they are far from perfect.
Comment by Pat — November 13, 2006 @ 11:32 am - November 13, 2006
Wow…. that was bitter as earwax.
Comment by Patsy — November 13, 2006 @ 11:33 am - November 13, 2006
Hey Bruce, why don’t you adopt this terrorist. I’m sure you and he would be in agreement on a lot of things.
Comment by Ian — November 13, 2006 @ 12:04 pm - November 13, 2006
And Bruce merrily (and blindly) helps march the GOP toward defeat in 2008. For the GOP’s sake, lets hope less fanatical heads prevail in next few years.
Actually, Gryph, you should see the latest example of “San Francisco values” that Speaker Pelosi and her Democrats support.
And let’s not forget what Pelosi supporter Gerardo Sandoval had to say, shall we?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 13, 2006 @ 12:21 pm - November 13, 2006
Gay does NOT equal Happy…it means, being “Closeted” / denying who you are…to further those who would like to see gay people disenfranchised!
Oh good, we have a new one added to the list of “Republicans want to murder gay people” and “Republicans want to put gays in concentration camps”.
If “disenfranchising” gays means supporting state or Federal amendments stripping them of rights, or pandering to antigay bigots, you have your own problems to worry about, thank you.
Do us all a favor and deal with your own party homophobes, rather than making wild accusations.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 13, 2006 @ 12:25 pm - November 13, 2006
patsy – how do you know earwax tastes bitter?
Comment by worried watcher — November 13, 2006 @ 1:06 pm - November 13, 2006
As soon as you see somebody use “disenfranchised,” you know he’s an idiot. Like Jonah Goldberg, I welcome our new Democrat overlords. Peace! Love! Pot! Love beads! Hate crimes! Thought crimes! Drugs! Burkhas! The Goddess of Peace! Celebrate diversity! Put on your diapers and let the Government do everything for you! Be a sensitive weenie!
YEARGH!!!!!!!!!
Comment by rightwingprof — November 13, 2006 @ 1:19 pm - November 13, 2006
LOL I remember Sandoval when he made that statement. He’s an idiot.
So why did you and the GOP screw up and help his Party win the Congress and the Senate? This is your fault you know. Yet you and Bruce seem determined to engage in the same old Party fanaticism that guaranteed that the GOP lose the election. May I put to you that perhaps “stay the course” might not be a good idea for you and the GOP at this point? That maybe a little reflection is in order? Here’s a little political question you should ponder. If we have pulled out of Iraq for the most part by the time of the 2008 elections, is that going to help or hinder the Democrats? Especially since the majority of the Americans don’t want us there anymore?
I made this prediction before the election, and I think its still pretty accurate. We will begin pulling out of Iraq within 6 months, regardless of who is in office. So the GOP, if its smart, will drop the “cut and run” rhetoric. Look for a plan from the Bush Administration soon to begin “cutting and running” under another different political slogan.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — November 13, 2006 @ 1:42 pm - November 13, 2006
Gryph cries out in the darkness, hoping that his version of reality will get some traction despite standing in the middle of a mudhole, and writes:
“…Bruce merrily (and blindly) helps march the GOP toward defeat in 2008. For the GOP’s sake, lets hope less fanatical heads prevail in next few years.”
Funny how some here have lots of advice for GOPers (whom they hate and made it very clear). Oh, to be sure, they express their own “fake” concern about the GOP’s future. They can read the minds of GOPers and attribute opinions and perspectives even though these witless commenters are lacking in the fundamental bedrock values about family, society, patriotism, diversity, opportunity and life-affirming altruistic priorities that most gay conservatives hold.
I wonder if the Democrats and their enablers are beginning to sense they got exactly what they were after… that they have no where to go but Cut & Run & Retreat from not only their dove-ish stances on the WOT, but from the radicals within their Party –who have more litmus tests than the Pro-Life community.
Guys like Gryph like to maintain they are in favor of the WOT, support the troops, maybe even believe in the military’s capacity for leadership and service to country (but I doubt they really do –it’s just window dressing to cover the sneering contempt brought to a head by Kerry).
But the truth is, when the lights are out and no one is looking, they don’t support the troops. They don’t believe in America. The don’t have any interest except in a single issue –maybe it’s gays in the military, maybe it’s global warming, maybe it’s abdictation to the UN. But in the dark, when they are alone and unfiltered with their bitter, resentful thoughts… it comes out.
Save those crocodile tears for people moved by feelings and urges, Gryph. You don’t have a clue to what it will take to keep the WH in 2008 and Take Back the Congress for America so that the leftist tilt on the Courts can be corrected. Crocodile tears is all you have, gramps.
What’s next? A homily on your heartfelt concern for Christianists (sic)?
I think Bruce has it right: the Democrats ought to endorse a Save/Adopt a Terrorist program. Maybe they can do it when they shut down GitMo next month? Or close the black CIA torture centers? Or when the UN uncovers the mass graves of innocent Iraqis killed by Americans post-invasion? Afterall, American troops are CREATING terrorists… and these guys think they support the troops? LOL.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 13, 2006 @ 1:56 pm - November 13, 2006
So why did you and the GOP screw up and help his Party win the Congress and the Senate?
The main screwup that the Republicans made, Gryph, was in message.
From the very moment the evidence started falling into our hands, the GOP should have been putting, loudly and often, the facts of life under Saddam out for public consumption.
Do you think the majority of Americans would still hold the view of the Democrats that getting rid of Saddam was “unnecessary and unjustified”, had they seen those graphic videos to which Bridget and I link?
Do you think they would so easily buy the Democratic logic that Saddam was “no threat to anyone” when they saw what he was willing to do to his own citizens?
Do you think they would support the Democrats’ racist notion that the Iraqi people are incapable of peaceful, democratic government when they saw to what traumas they had been exposed for decades?
Do you think they would support the Democrats’ attempt to pander to the UN’s “moral stance” if they had seen what the UN was winking at while pocketing billions of illicit petrodollars?
The decision in 2003 to not aggressively forward and circulate this information is, in my opinion, a major reason why Republicans lost on Iraq — because it would have made so obvious and clear exactly for what the US was fighting. It would have brought into perspective our losses, and it would have underscored the difficulty of what we are doing.
Darfur is a picnic compared to what Ba’athist Iraq was like — but because the abuses there have been publicized and not covered up by leftists and the UN, there is overwhelming pressure on the United States to “do something”.
Imagine what would have happened had the people of the US been honestly told what Saddam was like, instead of the Democrats’ preferred portrayal in Fahrenheit 9/11.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 13, 2006 @ 2:48 pm - November 13, 2006
I just got mine! His name is Akmed. I told him I’m gay, and he said he will kill me in my sleep… but I know he’s just kidding. He’s so cute!
Comment by James — November 13, 2006 @ 4:03 pm - November 13, 2006
NDT says:
“Imagine what would have happened had the people of the US been honestly told what Saddam was like…”
Since we are playing would have/could haves:
Imagine what would have happened if the Bush Admin actually waged the occupation competently.
Imagine what would have happened if the Bush Admin had an actual understanding of the Iraqi people before they went in.
Imagine what would have happened if the Bush Admin would have had a plan to deal with the insurgency.
Imagine what would have happened if the Bush Admin would have reigned in the looting instead of saying “Stuff Happens”
Imagine what would have happened if the Bush Admin would not have allowed the environment which led to Abu Ghraib
It was their execution that was the screw up, not just bad propaganda….take off your blinders, see the facts.
Comment by keogh — November 13, 2006 @ 4:31 pm - November 13, 2006
Thank you, keogh, for providing a prime example of the problem.
Imagine what would have happened if the Bush Admin would not have allowed the environment which led to Abu Ghraib.
Why are you be upset over what our troops did, keogh, when you and yours considered what Saddam did to be within international law and perfectly all right, given your OPPOSITION to stopping him from doing it and your statements that stopping him from doing it was “unnecessary and unjustified’?
The answer: You don’t care about torture, only how it can be used to advance your leftist causes.
Similar to how you whine about bombing civilians, but praise and support Hizbollah and demand that Israel do nothing when they bomb Israeli civilians.
This only works when people don’t know both sides of the story. If they knew, for instance, that you and your fellow puppets had no objections to Saddam’s brutality on an enormously-larger scale, then your whining over what our troops did seems childish and petty. Just as your being against civilian bombing erodes when people know you support Hizbollah doing it.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 13, 2006 @ 4:59 pm - November 13, 2006
“You don’t care about torture, only how it can be used to advance your leftist cause
Jeez…
or:
“Similar to how you whine about bombing civilians, but praise and support Hizbollah and demand that Israel do nothing when they bomb Israeli civilians”
To borrow a phrase:
“Get serious”
or can you?
Comment by keogh — November 13, 2006 @ 5:41 pm - November 13, 2006
NDT:
You are still deluding yourself NDT. Lack of communication about Saddam’s atrocities was not a problem. Besides the majority of Americans don’t have a problem so much with going into Iraq, they don’t understand why we are still there, years after “Mission Accomplished”.
But to answer that question the GOP would have to ask it in the first place. Which it is incapable of doing because it might be seen as deviating from the official slogan “stay the course”. So Americans found that they had to go elsewhere to ask that question.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — November 13, 2006 @ 6:18 pm - November 13, 2006
Speaking of torture, the experience of reading this post approximates waterboarding.
Where’s Blatt on Giuliani?
Comment by sean — November 14, 2006 @ 12:03 am - November 14, 2006
I thought McCarthyism, the John Birch Society and all the other you-aren’t-a real-American-if-you-disagree-with-me vitriol was dead and buried. But Michigan Matt in #34 proves me wrong.
Comment by Ashley Hunter — November 14, 2006 @ 12:50 am - November 14, 2006
Is anybody else not entirely surprised by this admission of a fetish?
take off your blinders, see the facts.
While you’re at it, do you know where those 100,000 dead Kosovars are? Nobody seems to be able to find them.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 14, 2006 @ 2:23 am - November 14, 2006
#42. Yeah, #34 is OUT there, Ashley. I’m with you on that.
#39. He asks you disingenuous and leading questions and then answers them FOR you…with disingenuous and leading responses. Control, control, control.
Hey Blatt, I know you have a lengthy post all ready to throw up on here for when Rudy starts his 2008 run…or are you waiting for an official announcement?
Comment by sean — November 14, 2006 @ 2:52 am - November 14, 2006
Ashley at #42, honest honey I can’t tell if that was unintended sarcasm or just misplaced hyperbole with a tad of snark thrown in as a sore winner. I appreciate your effort to get the lower-case-clan crowd keyboarding.
First, as with many here who visit from the Borg, you misread, misconstrue and misapprehend my comments. Second, you mis-characterize them as McCarthy-ish and then commit the oldest McCarthy-ish trick in the book of liberal tactics (smearing by “guilty” association) within the same comment you contend that I am doing it… yeow. And you didn’t even comprehend you were doing it?? Wow.
How many layers of mirrors and smoke did it take for you to contort that puppy into a para-reality?
Gosh, it’s amazing that someone (like me) can reject the “fake” advice and concern from the Left on what the GOP needs to do now and get smeared by the very people who rail against any gay person who doesn’t march silently in unison with the GayLeftBorg. Well, wait a second… I guess you and Gryph are being consistent: intolerance of contrary political opinions is a benchmark “family value” for the GayLeft.
I will agree with you on one point, though… your tactics are str8 out of the Joe McCarthy book of smears and distortions.
And, they’re off topic, too.
Remember… this thread was about the Left’s Adopt-A-Terrorist plan to end the WOT and bring the troops home, end global warming, stop big oil, impeach Bush, capture Osama bin Laden, pad the kneelers for the North Korean and Iranian “neo-Democrat” leaders, et cetera.
Time to brace for that Brave New World you Democrats have been begging for… sorry it’s not to your liking 7+ days post-Election.
When we can’t tell the difference between statements from Iranian leaders helping al Qaeda terrorists and the Democrat Party leaders… it’s a sad day for the Republic. And that’s true no matter what you contend. No spin. Just facts and reality.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 14, 2006 @ 8:52 am - November 14, 2006
Add telling time to the list of things conservatives can’t do.
The Democrats don’t take power until January. Unfortunately, even then, we won’t have the power to set the foreign policy agenda or effect military policy because those tasks falls to the President.
Which is why, in 2 years time, we’ll tell the voters, in order to roll back the Bush era, we need the White House too.
Comment by Chase — November 14, 2006 @ 9:12 am - November 14, 2006
Chase moans…
“The Democrats don’t take power until January. Unfortunately, even then, we won’t have the power to set the foreign policy agenda or effect military policy…”
Thank God for small favors.
Eric in Hollywood
Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — November 14, 2006 @ 9:24 am - November 14, 2006
#44:
I’ve learned that if Mattie spews more than a couple of sentences, it’s not worth reading so I don’t. Same for NDT. They’ve become especially unhinged following the American people’s clear repudiation of Bushco and its rubber stamp enablers in Congress. Speaking of unhinged, I’ll bet the GOP base will soon be enjoying Rudy G’s efforts at drag as in this clip of him smooching with The Donald. Maybe Rudy can get Sean Hannity, James Dobson, Tony Perkins, Jerry Falwell, Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson together doing the can-can in prime time at the GOP convention in 2008.
Comment by Ian — November 14, 2006 @ 9:39 am - November 14, 2006
Oh come on Chase… the Democrats HAVE power. It happened on Election Day. It’s why nearly every single one of the leaders are pissing in the wind to mark their turf… Biden: Bolton is gone; Levin: troops begin to pull out in 6 months; Pelosi: no further approps for the WOT without a timetable; Kennedy: No Child Left Behind is dead; Leahy: no more conservative judges; Waxman: if I were American tobacco, I’d be very very worried; et cetera.
Come on. Those guys are acting like January is here. How come Osama bin Laden isn’t captured yet? How come global warming continues? Why aren’t gas prices dropping? Why isn’t Chris Reeves up and walking? Parkinson isn’t cured yet… how come? And my personal favorite from my son: “Dad, our teacher said the voters brought back the dinosaurs on election day –when can we go see Jurassic Park?”
Nope, Chase. The problem with any sense of propriety and teling time accurately rests with your team, once again.
But nice try, there.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 14, 2006 @ 9:41 am - November 14, 2006
Matt wrote…
“How come Osama bin Laden isn’t captured yet? How come global warming continues? Why aren’t gas prices dropping? Why isn’t Chris Reeves up and walking?”
And why doesn’t ian have a job yet?
Just wondering…
Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — November 14, 2006 @ 9:45 am - November 14, 2006
Ian at #48 writes: “I’ll bet the GOP base will soon be enjoying Rudy G’s efforts at drag as in this clip of him smooching with The Donald.”
One of the smearingly anti-gay tactics of the 2006 election that didn’t get discussed much was the use of those moments when Bush was depicted by the Left as a nelly-gay-boy doing unmasculine things… like the “kiss” between Liberman & Bush, or Bush assisting the Saudi king up the steps at Camp David… or even the smearing speculation about Rove being gay lover of Bush or Chief Justice Roberts got his appt because he was a closeted gay.
I wondered where all those GayLeft activists were to stand up and say smearing someone by depicting them in gay situations is WRONG. Well, those GayLeft activists were getting ready to do more damage by outing gay GOP staff on the Hill –adding their own little wager to the PR campaign to demean people by smearing them as gay.
And now, not surprisingly, we get treated to more of the same by Ian.
This time the target is Rudy.
Nice job there Ian. Smear someone by presenting them dressed in drag –how petty and gay of you.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 14, 2006 @ 9:50 am - November 14, 2006
And off topic, I might add.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 14, 2006 @ 9:54 am - November 14, 2006
Michigan-Matt says in #45:
Actually Matt, I think I’m very tolerant of your political opinions, – when you actually express them, which is quite rare. Most of the time your game here is just to insult whomever crosses your path. I can play that game too.
But even if I were intolerant of your “political” opinons, it doesn’t mean that your not an asshole.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — November 14, 2006 @ 10:54 am - November 14, 2006
#51: I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that Mattie thinks that doing drag is somehow a “smear” against that person. After all, he’s part of that GOP base that will be attacking Rudy for his “immorality.”
Comment by Ian — November 14, 2006 @ 11:02 am - November 14, 2006
[Comment deleted. This commenter has been repeatedly banned from this blog.]
Comment by Anon1 — November 14, 2006 @ 11:09 am - November 14, 2006
Gryph, I have to say that although Matt (and myself) vociferously disagrees with much of what you folks on the left believe vis-a-vis the GWOT, I don’t think he goes out of his way to “insult whomever crosses [his] path.” Rather, the worldview that holds that the United States is somehow the moral equal of terrorists is so repugnant, abhorrent and groundless as to render those Americans who put forth that view, and refuse to entertain any opinion to the contrary, thoroughly ignorant as to the world in which we all must live.
With the exception of yourself, most of what passes for the left’s discussion here is little more than stubborn refusal to accept that while ABSOLUTELY NO CIVILIZATION in the history of the world has approached anything resembling perfection, this infant experiment in democracy remains the best hope for the future of mankind. Mistakes, of course, are attendant and will continue to be made, but to postulate that any administration in our republic’s history conducted itself to the conscious detriment of it’s people is sheer madness, and will continue to be fought here at every step.
The notion that an American President is willing to sacrifice the lives of citizens for profit is a notion I, for one, will not tolerate from anybody, and I encourage all here who believe the current President is doing just that to email me personally.
I’d be more than happy to discuss the merits of your insanely stupid and reckless beliefs in a more, shall we say, intimate setting.
Eric in Hollywood
Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — November 14, 2006 @ 11:18 am - November 14, 2006
Amendment to my last post…
The notion that an American President is willing to secrifice the lives of citizens for the profit of either himself personally or his “friends” is the height of moonbattery/delusion/hysteria.
And I’ll still be more than willing to intellectually tear you apart, should you wish to challenge me on it.
You know where to find me.
Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — November 14, 2006 @ 11:31 am - November 14, 2006
What is the basis for this animosity towards the ACLU?
The ACLU asks courts to review certain laws in light of the U.S. Constitution or state constitutions and/or established interpretations of those documents.
If the laws are constitutional, the courts so rule; if not, the courts so rule.
Isn’t judicial review part of the process?
Where’s the problem?
Comment by Gene — November 14, 2006 @ 11:42 am - November 14, 2006
to postulate that any administration in our republic’s history conducted itself to the conscious detriment of it’s people is sheer madness, and will continue to be fought here at every step.
I disagree. I don’t think there is much integrity or goodwill to be found in government, and, with the possible (but increasingly unlikely, IMO) exception of Ron Paul, I don’t know of one federal elected official in my lifetime who has taken the oath of office with any intention of taking it seriously. For one thing, all of them, to varying extents, support socialist programs, none of which are permitted by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
Comment by kdogg36 — November 14, 2006 @ 1:04 pm - November 14, 2006
[Comment deleted. This commenter has been repeatedly banned from this blog.]
Comment by Anon1 — November 14, 2006 @ 1:13 pm - November 14, 2006
You are still deluding yourself NDT. Lack of communication about Saddam’s atrocities was not a problem.
Two words: Fahrenheit 9/11.
Did you think that was an accurate portrayal, Gryph?
In fact, can you name for me a movie, documentary, or television special that has specifically reviewed a) Saddam’s abuses and b) the complicity of media outlets like CNN in covering them up even PRIOR to the destruction of the Ba’athist regime?
Isn’t judicial review part of the process?
Where’s the problem? openly use our legal system and its rules to aid and abet terrorists.
The ACLU is hardly the organization you wish to paint it as; it’s a group of people who have decided to abuse the judicial system to impose its will on the electorate.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 14, 2006 @ 1:39 pm - November 14, 2006
That is, leftist lawyers openly use our legal system and its rules to aid and abet terrorists.
Finally, you claim the ACLU only supports the Constitution; why, then, do they repeatedly support gun laws that violate the Second Amendment, antireligious bigotry that violates equal protection, and hate speech against white people and heterosexuals?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 14, 2006 @ 1:41 pm - November 14, 2006
Hollywood Neocon says in # 56-57:
At the moment your not capable of having the conversation. Because if your posts are any guide, you don’t have the slightest idea of what I believe.
I’ll give you the same challenge I continually give to Matt. (And that being a consummate coward, he always runs from.)
If you really think for example, that I believe “…an American President is willing to sacrifice the lives of citizens for profit… .”, prove it. Quote me.
You and Matt and others are often so far off in your opposition to what I believe that in practical terms, you are having a conversation with yourselves. Rhetorical masturbation. Its also yours and his chosen method for insulting and denigrating others, by associating them with outlandish or offensive rhetoric that in truth they never said. Its like asking someone how long its been since they stopped beating their wife. Its just a cheap debate trick.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — November 14, 2006 @ 1:45 pm - November 14, 2006
If you really think for example, that I believe “…an American President is willing to sacrifice the lives of citizens for profit… .”, prove it. Quote me.
How many citations of you whining about Halliburton will that take?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 14, 2006 @ 2:13 pm - November 14, 2006
Gryph, I think your capacity to judge anything –be it what the GOP should do or how the military should lead or what issues should be on the gay agenda– is fundamentally weak. Cowards are those who Cut&Run or try to intimidate (like you do) by smearing and ostracisizing fellow gays. It doesn’t work, Gryph-ster.
You keep posting here to attract readers to your failing website and then try to smear anyone who dares differ in opinion with the BigBoyGryph. I think you might want to return to the OutSports and spend a bit more time with the old men there dreaming of high school boys from the wrestling team –it better suits your skill set.
Because, like John Kerry, you don’t know jack about service, honor, the military or what a true coward is –otherwise you couldn’t live with yourself.
But I give you credit for snarky, petty comments. You’re giving Ian a good run for his money in that race to finish first.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 14, 2006 @ 2:13 pm - November 14, 2006
Ian misses the point again and writes: “I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that Mattie thinks that doing drag is somehow a “smear” against that person.”
Wow, there’s a novel approach for you Ian, try to turn all agys against a commenter by misconstruing his comments. Tribe tactics don’t work for gays because we’re all uber-individualists and self-interested, Ian. It takes a huge effort for guys like you to get over that even once in a while.
If you –that would mean YOU, Ian– didn’t intend to smear Rudy with the link to the drag video… why do it?
Like the other neanderthal’s who commented on the video at YouTube, you too see the drag stunt as a smear. Just like MikeyRogers and JohnAravosis saw outing GOP gay staffers on the Hill as smearing them.
My question is: Why does the simplest of truth escape your grasp?
Wait, I know the answer… it didn’t come via the GayLeftBorg impulses.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 14, 2006 @ 2:19 pm - November 14, 2006
“Because, like John Kerry, you don’t know jack about service, honor, the military or what a true coward is –otherwise you couldn’t live with yourself.”
Say what you like about John Kerry’s politics, and postwar actions, but indeed he has been in the line of fire and saved at least one solider’s life. And not many would call his actions in the service of our country “cowardly”…unless of course, are you calling Jim Rassman a liar?
You can say you disagree with him politically, morally and show disgust about his post-war actions, but to call him a coward shows a lack of respect toward his service to our country.
Your Kerry hatred brings a question to my mind:
Why does such an avid “troop supporter” as yourself, lay such contempt on Kerry’s service record simply because you disagree with his politics and post war actions?
Indeed it seems that your “troop support” is not based on love of country, but instead, of ideology.
So we see that your financial and personal sacrifices toward supporting our fighting forces, are not because of love of country but instead, love of your Rightist Values
Very interesting…
Comment by keogh — November 14, 2006 @ 3:04 pm - November 14, 2006
#56 “Rather, the worldview that holds that the United States is somehow the moral equal of terrorists…”
Which is, in essence, nothing other than multiculturalism… and the death of liberalism.
If no one is better (or worse) no culture, no belief system, no ethnic difference and the prohibition involved on judging the “other” instead requiring only judgement turned on one’s self, one’s own culture, belief system, and government… then liberal values are dead. There are no social wrongs to right. No walking in someone elses shoes. No working for justice or even care about the “other”, about the girl circumcised or sold, the ethnic or religious minority abused… instead “liberalism” and “enlightenment” are defined by understanding and “valueing” other systems, on explaining why the burka is really liberating, and how if something isn’t good about those other people and their strange beliefs it’s because we’ve interfered somehow, made their lives less authentic.
Comment by Synova — November 14, 2006 @ 3:07 pm - November 14, 2006
Comforting thought… not to be responsible for anyone other than yourself.
Comment by Synova — November 14, 2006 @ 3:10 pm - November 14, 2006
Why does such an avid “troop supporter” as yourself, lay such contempt on Kerry’s service record simply because you disagree with his politics and post war actions?
What would you think, keogh, of someone who you trusted and with whom you had several shared experiences turning around and testifying to Congress that you were a murderer and a baby-killer — and then later admitting that he “exaggerated” for political effect?
Most people would have no qualms with Kerry’s service record had he not prostituted it for political gain – and, in the process, used it to tell lies about other veterans and servicepersons.
If you want to know why I think so highly of John McCain, here’s why; he is able to see John Kerry, who gave wholehearted support and propaganda to the Viet Cong who imprisoned and tortured him (McCain) and their apologists like the Democratic Party and Jane Fonda — without decking him on the spot.
Kerry has shown that, if it gets him political points, he will lie and smear other veterans — while still trying to claim that his “veteran” status, which he abhors, and his “medals”, which he threw away, should count for something.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 14, 2006 @ 3:23 pm - November 14, 2006
He threw away someone *elses* medals, NDT, so he could keep his for later.
Comment by Synova — November 14, 2006 @ 3:31 pm - November 14, 2006
That’s fine, be disgusted with his post war actions.
But to lay contempt on his service record, means you are disrespecting his service to the country and thus we see that you only support those soldiers to whom you share political ideology with.
Comment by keogh — November 14, 2006 @ 3:39 pm - November 14, 2006
But to lay contempt on his service record, means you are disrespecting his service to the country and thus we see that you only support those soldiers to whom you share political ideology with.
LOL…..when it suited his own political purpose, he himself laid contempt on and “disrespected” it. He said people with a service record like his were baby killers. Indeed, he was so ashamed of it, he threw “his” medals away.
Of course, when it served him politically, suddenly he became proud of what he had previously denigrated, and began brandishing that which he previously spit on and threw away.
This, keogh, is a classic example of Democratic identity politics thinking on your part; you honestly believed that you could run a nimrod and opportunist like Kerry, and people would support and not criticize him “because he was a veteran”.
Turns out that veterans are not as brainwashed as gays and blacks into thinking what the Democrats tell them based on group identity.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 14, 2006 @ 4:01 pm - November 14, 2006
That’s fine.
I don’t care at all what you think of him post war
But to call him cowardly for political reasons shows that you do not appreciate the sacrifice of our troops, instead you only serve ideology.
Which was my point to Matt, but I appreciate you trying over-explain/apologize for someone else’s thought.
Comment by keogh — November 14, 2006 @ 4:12 pm - November 14, 2006
But to call him cowardly for political reasons shows that you do not appreciate the sacrifice of our troops, instead you only serve ideology.
LOL…..Keogh, given that you and your fellow leftists like Kerry spit on them, told lies about them for political advantage, branded them as “baby-killers”, and gave the Viet Cong support and license to torture them, I find it beyond ironic and clueless that you’re whining about others “not appreciating their sacrifice”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 14, 2006 @ 5:14 pm - November 14, 2006
Where to begin?
kdogg said…
“I don’t know of one federal elected official in my lifetime who has taken the oath of office with any intention of taking it seriously.”
kdogg, if you’ll remember, I said “conscious detriment,” meaning that an elected official took office with the intent of f*cking the citizenry over for fun and profit. If you still mainatin that this is the case with the Bush administration, than you and I need to discuss this further.
Anon1, meanwhile, snipes..
Oooooooh. How scary you are! Wow! That oughta shut all progressives up.”
No, you’re just an ignorant fool who could do with a swift kick in the brain. Your arguments amount to so much dog excrement, and until such time as you decide to actually have a point, you may as well be talking to yourself, which is probably how you spend most your free time anyway.
And finally, Gryph writes…
“At the moment your not capable of having the conversation. Because if your posts are any guide, you don’t have the slightest idea of what I believe.”
Patrick, perhaps you missed what I had written earlier in my post. I stated, quite emphatically, that the arguments you state in this forum are well thought out, and demonstrate an individual who takes the time to think for themselves. I have, time and again, complimented you on your insightfulness and your compassion. If you somehow thought that I was addressing the entirety of my post to you, than you are mistaken, sir.
However, even if you were misguided in your response, to state that I am incapable of having the argument, than I challenge YOU to debate my assertions. I stand by them, each and every one.
Hope this clears a few things up.
Eric in Hollywood
who still wishes that anon1 would have the courage of his convictions
Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — November 14, 2006 @ 5:19 pm - November 14, 2006
And by the way…
If Bruce or Dan somehow still believe that the tripe issed by the likes of anon1, who somehow seems incapabale of formenting a coherent thought, continues to warrant attention here, than my long-held assumption that the two moderators here operate in fear of seeming close-minded continues to be proven accurate.
There is absolutely nothing to be gained by encouraging the presence of ignorance. At the very least, Patrick, Ian, and most of their fellow leftists continue to present points upon which we all may debate. To continue to allow spite for the sake of political correctness, however, under the guise of “exposing their weaknesses” only serves to further the leftists position that conservatism is weak, and can be conquered simply by shouting it down.
Get a clue. While I value debate with those who wish to debate, to entertain the mental diarrhea of the delusional only pollutes democracy. For reference, may I suggest a re-reading of The Federalist Papers.
Eric in Hollywood
Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — November 14, 2006 @ 5:29 pm - November 14, 2006
keogh, it’s been a busy day but I also appreciate NDXXX answering your open ended querry to the thread at #67… btw, thanks NDXXX.
And keogh, next time you want to try to limit answers to your querry so that others don’t answer (re: “…Which was my point to Matt, but I appreciate you trying over-explain/apologize for someone else’s thought”) I might suggest you start with the line “Matt” and that directs your querry to the intended party.
Seems so simple, eh? Right, it is. And it avoids the snarky and unnecessary “over explain” slam at NDXXX. And I sure didn’t see it as an apology –lol.
There’s no “Kerry hatred” here… that is a phenom solely and exclusively marked by the BushCo hatred faction of the GayLeft down on the Democrat Plantation. You guys invented the notion of hating someone for the sole purpose of justifying your activism… beginning with the “stolen” election of 2000 and carrying your venom through the anti-war keyboard movement.
Finally, keogh, I don’t hold Kerry’s war record (which has yet to be released after 3 years and counting) nor his service in high regard… no more than I hold Benedict Arnold’s or Patton’s or Tecumseh Sherman’s or Westmoreland’s or Karpinski’s or Shalikashvili’s. It may be ok in Massachusetts for a soldier to turn his back on his fellow soldiers and disgrace their service, but it isn’t ok in my book. But hell, in a state the keeps electing Kennedys to office, I guess the standard for moral conduct is pretty low.
Hope that answers your querry –Whether or not Kerry threw his medals and ribbons over the fence before he decided he didn’t want to throw them. (wink)
Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 14, 2006 @ 5:37 pm - November 14, 2006
“You guys invented the notion of hating someone for the sole purpose of justifying your activism… beginning with the “stolen” election of 2000 and carrying your venom through the anti-war keyboard movement.”
Such an intellect that you can reach all the way back to 2000 for that one! Somebody better inform Marie Antoinette about this…it wasn’t the hungry masses that wanted her dead, it was the 21st century democrats!
Comment by BannedFromTheRanch — November 14, 2006 @ 6:31 pm - November 14, 2006
I did misunderstand your post and I apologize. I do not challenge the veracity of your assertions, I know that many Democrats think those things. However I do not. I also simply do not see myself as a member of the “Left”. I would be most unwelcome at an HRC Fundraising dinner. Not just because of my lack of deep pockets.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — November 14, 2006 @ 9:03 pm - November 14, 2006
the guy who said ‘Darfur is a picnic compared to Ba’athist Iraq’ – what planet are you on?
Iraq was an oppressive regime where if people opposed it they were repressed and sometimes murdered. Darfur is a place where open warfare is going on as we speak and people die on a daily basis, in much more urgent need of involvement than Iraq.
as for ‘adopt a terrorist’ that is just a pathetic attempt at apologism for Republicans’ blatant disregard for the constitution and the need to give people a fair trial
Comment by aram — November 14, 2006 @ 11:53 pm - November 14, 2006
#81
Well let’s see. Darfur has had, what, 200,000 killed? Sadam’s Iraq had (conservatively) 1.5 million.
just a pathetic attempt at apologism for Republicans’ blatant disregard for the constitution and the need to give people a fair trial
What kind of regard for the constitution do you have when you run around trying to apply it to everybody? Answer: NONE. And don’t try to tell us libs give a damn about the constitution anyway.
It’s called The Constitution of the United States of America. Not of the world. Not of Islamo-fascist SOBs liberals want to coddle. Of the U.S.A.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 15, 2006 @ 1:36 am - November 15, 2006
Seriously.
Libs piss & moan about imposing our values on Iraq, but they have no problem imposing our constitution on people it doesn’t apply to? F@*k THAT!
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 15, 2006 @ 1:38 am - November 15, 2006
Patrick, thanks for taking the time to respond.
While you and I differ as to our beliefs, both of us would no doubt be sharing “sidewalk time” at either party’s conventions.
The ensuing conversation, therefore, would be simply fantastic, no?
Eric in Hollywood
Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — November 15, 2006 @ 1:38 am - November 15, 2006
BannedFromTheRanch –I’m guessing from the sneer in your comment you would argue that the radical BushCo Hatred faction within in the Left and Democrat Party (typified here by commenters like Ian, raj of the former access, sean and keogh) didn’t exist prior to the 2000 election? Hmmm.
Funny that… I didn’t know in your alternate world it started in Texas with Bush’s trouncing of that former Democrat Party star (and one time Presidential hopeful) Gov Ann Richards… poor Ann, they buried her with a silver foot up her butt.
Right Banned… the BushCo Hatred faction all started long before the 2000 election. You guys from the GayLeftBorg are such tools.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 15, 2006 @ 7:06 am - November 15, 2006
#78 – I don’t care that NDT apologized for you. I was just letting him know the orgin of my comment. – I appreciate your blog etiquette advice though, almost as much as I appreciate being called snarky from the King of Snark.
“You guys invented the notion of hating someone for the sole purpose of justifying your activism… ”
Excuse me?
Every liberal knows that if you want to harm a conservative blogger, you mention a Clinton. The subsequent foam and spittle that flies from the Rightist blogger’s orifices creates an electric shock which emanates from the computer through the hands and to the brain.
No Matt, the Dems feelings toward Bush are merely a critique, compared to the hatred on the Right for the whole Clinton family…and it is this Clinton Hatred that fuels Repub activism to this day….
Comment by keogh — November 15, 2006 @ 1:22 pm - November 15, 2006
For the most part I think that Andrew Sullivan is having that debate right now. He has been going out and debating quite a bit on his latest book, I’ve been downloading and listening to them, they have been very interesting conversations.
I wonder if Bruce and Dan are ever going to be capable of admitting that many of Sullivan’s criticisms of the GOP have proven to be spot-on and that its part of why they lost in the election?
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — November 15, 2006 @ 2:10 pm - November 15, 2006
Gryph –LOL! Sullivan “spot on” last happened when he hooked up for some anonymous bareback sex. And you think he’s a role model?
No wonder.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 15, 2006 @ 2:45 pm - November 15, 2006
keogh at #87 writes: “No Matt, the Dems feelings toward Bush are merely a critique, compared to the hatred on the Right for the whole Clinton family…and it is this Clinton Hatred that fuels Repub activism to this day…. ”
keogh, gotta clue for you… it’s was termed Bush Derangement Syndrome. Not ClintonHatred. And BushCo Hatred.
And my favorite: “GOP fights the WOT. Democrats fight a war on GWB”
Keep trying, though keogh. Someday, somewhere, somehow you’ll convince someone without a basic education that for you and the GayLeft it isn’t all about BushHatred. But around here, where we get to read your rants on a daily basis, that “dog” of yours just don’t hunt.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 15, 2006 @ 2:54 pm - November 15, 2006
#76: kdogg, if you’ll remember, I said “conscious detriment,” meaning that an elected official took office with the intent of f*cking the citizenry over for fun and profit. If you still mainatin that this is the case with the Bush administration, than you and I need to discuss this further.
I cannot claim to know what is in the hearts and minds of any particular individual. What I do know is this: as a result of legislators’ actions, American citizens have been screwed over — sometimes in dramatic fashion, more often subtly and incrementally. And I also know that, if a person exhibits a patent lack of integrity in one area, I cannot trust his or her motives in other areas. An elected official ignores the oath of office; bad things happen. I cannot know, in any given case, if actual malevolence is involved, but it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if it was.
Comment by kdogg36 — November 15, 2006 @ 4:22 pm - November 15, 2006
No Matt, the Dems feelings toward Bush are merely a critique, compared to the hatred on the Right for the whole Clinton family…and it is this Clinton Hatred that fuels Repub activism to this day….
Actually, I’ve seen several people here, myself included, be more than willing to point out when Clinton did something right.
I’ve never seen any of the Bushbashicus moonbaticus colony here do the same with Bush.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 15, 2006 @ 8:24 pm - November 15, 2006