That’s the question posed by Stephen Miller at Independent Gay Forum. (h/t – The Corner)
In fact, Rudy’s position (supports civil unions but opposes same-sex marriage; opposes a federal amendment against same-sex marriage) is the same as Hillary’s and Obama’s. But more significantly, Rudy would be the first GOP presidential nominee who has marched in Pride parades, addressed Log Cabin events, criticized “don’t ask, don’t tell” and, in an Odd Couple twist, moved in with two gay guys (a long-term couple) after his divorce.
But I doubt that will stop the Human Rights Campaign, now essentially the gay lobby of the Democratic Party, from endorsing their gal sometime during the primary season (in 2000, they endorsed Gore before it was clear whether the GOP candidate would be Bush or, in a possible upset, McCain). If/when they do so, their message to the GOP could be summarized as: “You could nominate the ghost of Harvey Milk and we’d still be loyal Democrats. So don’t even bother trying to reach out to us. After all, we favor securing patronage positions for our key activists in a Clinton adminstration much more than we care about moderating anti-gay views in the other party.”
I think we all know the answer to Stephen’s premise. The Hypocrite Rights Campaign is nothing more than a joke and a shill for the Democrats. Period. The only thing that makes them a bit better than the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force is that, last I checked, the HRC doesn’t advocate for the end of capitalism and free enterprise in America. Can’t say that about NGLTF!
Now, slightly off topic, here is something from the IDG Forum post that made me laugh. I can only imagine the tortured mental gymnastics that this commenter had to go through in order to praise Bill Clinton. (Note that apparently Clinton was “forced” to do all of the bad things he did.)
(1) Clinton supported strong federal funding for AIDS. [GP Ed. Note – Untrue. Clinton zeroed-out ADAP funding that was restored by the GOP Congress in the 1995-1999 Federal Budgets]
(2) He enacted DODTA which is a small step in the right direction. [GP Ed. Note – Since Clinton enacted Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell…. gay Democrats/Liberals think it is a step in the right direction! Hilarious!]
(3) He signed DOMA into law at the peddling mostly of the Republican Party and its presidential candidate; Bob Dole. [GP Ed. Note – WHAT?!? That’s like saying he had sex with Monica because Hillary was forcing him to!](4) He supported the ENDA & the HCPA, even going as far as to call for their support in a state of the union address. [GP Ed. Note – But the Democrat-controlled Congress (until 1995) never passed either.]
(5) He enacted anti-discrimination polices in federal civilian employment
(6) He appointed openly gay people and supportive federal judges. [GP Ed. Note – So has President George W. Bush, including the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; big deal.]
High-sterical!
[RELATED STORY: Will on Rudy: Defying Expectations – Dan/GayPatriotWest]
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
Did you just “out” John Roberts?
I thought you people were against that sort of thing.
Proving once again that vaara would rather wisecrack (ineffectively) than read.
Try again, vaara. Read Bruce’s closing sentence a little harder this time.
Oh… never mind. Roberts is unquestionably a supportive federal judge, which I assume is what you meant.
Rudy will not be treated well, because he has an “R” after his name.
Although, Rudy is probably better on this issue than a lot of the democrats currently in office.
You would think they would like him since he’s a drag queen.
We’ll gain a bit more clarity on this issue if ENDA comes up for a Senate vote this session. If Democratic Senators Clinton and Obama (neither of whom was in the Senate the last time ENDA came up) are actually virulent homophobes, then surely they’ll both vote against it.
On gay issues, we could do far worse than have the Republick Party nominate Rudy. The question is: will they? You all seem to be writing off McCain but you shouldn’t, especially if he continues to lose ground to Rudy. He has the backing and resources of Bushco and that means McCain will stoop to anything to win the nomination. McCain will get angry and go negative; believe it – here in Arizona, we know what he’s like. Expect to see Rudy in drag but the ultimate smear will be by shadowy swift-boater types who raise the Mafia issue.
Ultimately, 2008 will hinge on the Iraq occupation (and maybe the consequences of an attack on Iran). If the surge goes well, and we have peace and a Jeffersonian democracy in Iraq, then the Republick Party will retain the Presidency virtually regardless of who the candidate is. If the surge does not go well, then Rudy, McCain and Newt will be toast since they’ve all lashed themselves to the Bush mast. In a sense, so has Hillary. So there you have it: surge goes well: Hillary against Rudy, McCain, or Newt – likely McCain because he’s the real social conservative and the most desperate and mean of the bunch. Surge goes badly: not Hillary versus a GOP dark horse – Huckabee maybe?
Ian: John McCaine has a better chance getting elected President as a Democrat than he ever will as a Republican.
John McCain has no chance with the Republicans. Thank goodness too. His assault on the Constitution needs to end.
Doesn’t matter.
Rudy could screw McCain all night long and the liberals would still hate them as long as they carry an “R” and favor seeing the end of the liberal created “civil war” in Iraq.
Ian I think you way overestimate McCain’s abilities. I don’t think he has a snowballs chance in hell of appealing to the GOP base in high enough numbers.
Ian just wants McCain to be the nominee because if he is, Hillary/Obama will win in a landslide. But we know who Ian really loves… Hugo Chavez.
I could still smell the sulfar
VdaK, now, now. That’s not fair. Ian doesn’t love Chavez, he just thinks we’ve misunderstood him and Chavez’s reactions to the illegal, covert CIA-funded coup against his legitimate, honorable, pro-poor people govt. Just like we misunderstand Joey-4-OILKennedy wanting to pimp for the dictator… oppps, valiant leader of the war on global capitalism.
Be fair; Ian’s brand of liberalism requires one to shill for dictators, politicians as perverts, and anyone who is willing to BlameAmericaFirst.
I loved the ultimate confessional statement that proves Ian doesn’t know Jack about politics: “He (McCain) has the backing and resources of Bushco”.
I’m still chuckling at that one. What a clueless git… McCain has the backing and resources of “Bushco”. What a moronic statement.
I love when they say “Bushco”. I just think of little Sally Shoelace in her pigtails, taunting her little brother.
Want to know what a Muslim would hear in a Mosque.. here’s a sermon in English explaining the basics of Islam and Islam’s position vs Non_muslims
http://infidelsarecool.com/2007/02/20/the-voice-of-islam-reminding-the-world-to-convert-or-die/
Bruce I think the answer to your question lies in what the LogCabineers do for Rudy at the outset here. His presence in the field might make it more difficult for LogCabineers in DC to continue their cozy, incestuous relationship with the FarLeft gay activist groups operating for the Democrat Party. Do they just keep quiet or work to support one of the leading GOP gay-friendly leaders?
Which reminds me, where’s all the sunshine, glory and fair weather promised by Patrick Sammon’s ascent to the LG Chair? Seems like the 2007 Convention is once again “light on substance”… maybe, given that theme, they ought to invite Edwards or Obama to keynote? Or maybe the LG ought to call it quits, hire out a hotel suite & well stocked bar at the next RNC conference and claim victory, access to power, responsible leadership, fighting for gays in the GOP, etc. It’d beat their lame and tame 2007 convention.
Hillary Clinton : Let the conversation begin
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/02/20/let-the-conversation-begin/
Two points you all ignore at your peril: first, Iraq will dominate 2008 and will have consequences for both GOP and Democratic candidates. McCain, Rudy and Newt have all strongly backed Bush on the war and strongly support the escalation. If the escalation fails and the disaster in Iraq continues, those three will be shown to have extraordinarily poor judgement in critical foreign policy. Any of them that wins the primary will lose the general. Indeed, it will be tough for any GOP candidate since the Iraq mess belongs to Bush and the Republick Party.
The second point is that McCain’s record on issues of importance to the base is solidly conservative especially on hot button ones. Rudy’s is more liberal than many Dems and it’s very difficult to paper that over and be convincing. With a Dem Congress pushing him, Rudy’s apt to act more like Arnold except he’ll be more pro-gay. McCain will not hesitate to go for the jugular on this and he’ll have the people on board who can do it.
Oh BTW, re Hillary: good news and bad news for wingnuts. Good news: she won’t be the nominee (or is that the bad news?). Bad news: she’ll likely be the first SCOTUS nominee of whichever Dem wins the Presidency. I really think that’s where her talents would be best suited and I relish the idea in so many ways. Remember you heard it here first!
If Rudy is the nominee perhaps gays might not view a vote for a repub as a vote for Dobson’s FOF and the other nutjobs of that ilk.
If he becomes the nominee, great! That means that we will have two pro gun control, pro choice and pro gay candidates.
Of course, it might fracture repub party….
So Dems win either way!
Go Rudy!
Actually, Newt Gingrich has called the Iraq War “a failure. Ian’s unbroken streak iof ignorant and non-sensical statements continues with no signs of slowing down.
#19
If that happened, the streets would be flooded from the foam and spittle coming out of the hyperventilating rightists.
#22:
Keogh, that’s why I so relish the thought of it happening!
Newt strongly supports the war even if he’s been critical of its handling. He also supports the escalation.
And the weasel runs onto the field to move the goalposts.Ignorant and Nauseating said that Newt backed the president on the war. When this was shown to be an ignorant statement, he tries to backtrack and say that he *meant* Newt favors winning the war and Bush favors winning the war (in contrast to Ian’s side who wants America to lose and have our face rubbed in the dirt), therefore, his statement was true… if you look at it a certain way.
Nevermind that Newt has proposed a strategy for winning radically different then Bush’s.
Once again proving that people who use words like “BushCo” and “Republick” have nothing to contribute to honest, adult debate.
Ian, for someone who tries hard to support America’s enemies and undermine the troops, you sure seem certain that the future news on the WOT-Iraq is going to be adverse to those who remain resolved, focused on bringing democracy to the Middle East and supporting the troops. See why some see your type as “Cheerleaders for Defeat”?
You’re probably as good predicting future news in a fluid and dynamic war as you are at understanding the GOP base (as in McCain inherits BushCo resources –LOL). There are literally hundreds of events that can intervene between now and the summer 2008 to dramatically change the temper of the WOT-Iraq.
Who knows what the summer of 08 will bring for news on the WOT-Iraq? Who knows what the dominate trend will be at that point? You sure don’t; that’s abundantly clear. Put down the koolaid from the GayLeftBorg and Democrat talking points. Think on your own.
Who knows if the Democrats in Congress will overstep their “anti-war mandate” and turn off even more American voters. I’m guessing they very well might… it’s in their blood, psyche.
Who knows if another attack on US soil or Canadian soil will occur? There are hundreds of events that can contribute to the 2008 race which you –even with your favorite GLBT reading glasses nailed to your nose– can’t even fathom at this point.
The truth is, Ian, you’re just blowing smoke… like with the nonsense about McCain inheriting the BushCo resources… or that Bush lied about the predicates for invading Iraq.
Finally Ian, you might want to read your own references… Newt didn’t endorse or support the surge… he pointed out that whether or not it’s needed depends on the surge being a bridge to a better future…
“On Meet the Press, Gingrich said, “[they need to] rethink from the ground up what we’re doing, how we do it, and what it takes. And it’s not just 30,000 more troops or not, it’s very important to surge troops if they’re going to bridge to a better future.” However, he suggested more must be done, by saying, “I believe a Franklin Delano Roosevelt civil conversation corps designed to mop up every young Iraqi male who’s unemployed would be as big a strategic step in Iraq towards victory as whether you have more troops or fewer troops.”
Yet one more example of intellectual dishonesty, Ian? Right, from the guy who rants Bush Lied… pathetic.
And Ian, on your posit about Democrat Senator Clinton not being the party’s nominee —care to explain it aside from your usual “cause I said so” cliches that amount to nothing more than uninformed opinion? And an Associate Justice? Really, come on!
Senator Clinton couldn’t make it past the WH vetting process, let alone hostile questions from the Sen Judiciary Committee, a Committee vote, or a floor debate on being an Associate Justice. And that’s IF her party controls the Senate, wins the WH and she doesn’t become the 6th Democrat to lose the Prez sweepstakes in the last 30 years.
I’d think you’d be a bit more mindful of history even if your GLBT koolaid gets you prematurely drunk.
Ian: Newt is one of the most Anti-Bush Pro-War Republicans out there. He has been vocally critical of every tactic the US has used thus far.and has been saying so since 2003. Its obvious you have no idea what you’re talking about and are on Lefy Auto-Pilot.
oh i see everyone else beat me to it
Looks like McCain isn’t much of a Bush-backer either. Sure, he supports the surge because he proposed it years ago, and he properly opposes the Democrat’s efforts to undermine the troops and “slow bleed” the troops into defeat, but that wasn’t what Ian originally claimed before he moved the goalposts.
And I think these are the most telling comments.
If that happened, the streets would be flooded from the foam and spittle coming out of the hyperventilating rightists.
Keogh, that’s why I so relish the thought of it happening!
Of course; Ian and Keogh make their decisions, not on whether they’re logical ones or not, but on whether or not they’ll upset other people.
Typical.
Yeah, I’ve noticed that, too.
It appears that almost every repub candidate is trying to separate themselves from the inept Bush strategy.
In fact according to comment #’s 28, 26, 21, & 30 you can indeed be anti-Bush, call for a new strategy, but still be a patriot.
Its nice to see you fellas come around that indeed you can be ant-bush, anti-bush’s tactics, but still be a patriot.
VdaK, that’s why Ian’s nonsense about McCain inheriting the BushCo political resources is so silly and superficial that he moves outside the cricle of serious debate… outside the circle, he needs to move the goalposts to stay relevant.
McCain is the kind of politician who would sell anyone and anything down the river if it advanced his political aspirations… and it’s why the GOP base won’t go for him in most primaries.
I wonder if he can tolerate another natl campaign without having a ScreaminHowieDean moment? That’ll put him in the doghouse for the balance of his Senate term.
#31:
“….but on whether or not they’ll upset other people”
Not “other people” just the irrational Clinton Haters who hate and foam at her shadow
And its very logical to have a smart, witty, polished and driven woman on the court.
She will balance out Roberts.
keogh, at the risk of being redundant… you can disagree with the Prez’s management of the post-war Iraq situation… and still not cross the line (as you and other lower case clanners do) into anti-troop, anti-mission, anti-American sentiments.
The difference about debating post-war management is that for you it’s about playing partisan gamesmanship with our troops, blaming America, and encouraging our enemies in this WOT. Big difference; I don’t think you’d sense a patriotic impulse if it was hooked to a taser and you were swinging in harness.
Leftists are the infantilizers of public civics.
Hillary is corrupt as they come. How anyone can support her after she had the White House Trvel Office staff falsely prosecuted for fraud, I’ll never know.
How could she go on NBC Today and accuse other people of inventing the Monica Lewinky story and saying it was conspiracy. How could this woman be so gullible? The fact she claims she thought Bill was not cheating on her should be enough to disqualify her.. If she cant tell that her uncontrollable lying sex addict of a husband is lying to her, how is she going to deal with other world leaders?
401k is intellectually bankrupt again…
Notice that he wants a jurist who is a “smart, witty, polished and driven woman” on the high court.
The one adjective lacking is QUALIFIED.
If 401k wanted same jurist on the court, we would have ended up with Harriet Miers. Both she and Shrillary are “smart, witty, polished and driven women” who have never held a judiciary post in their lives.
And exactly how would Shrillary “balance out Roberts?” From what I can see, the court tilts center-right anyway.
Try again.
Regards,
Peter H.
And I for one am not an “irrational Clinton hater.” But let’s look at the facts:
Bill Clinton is a selfish, amoral liar who discredited the highest office in the land with a tawdry and disgusting liaison with a subordinate. The act(s) were not important in and of themselves, but they speak volumes about his character and the disdain and casual disregard that he felt for the office.
Hillary either knew and was complicit in this and all of the other “peccadilloes” in his life, or was ignorant and the most blind and stupid woman in all of history.
Either way, she’s disqualified to run for higher office. And if that weren’t enough, the thought of Slick Willie oozing through the front door of the White House again summons nothing but shudders of disgust.
Besides, this is just from the Clinton family’s ancient history. Start adding in Hillary’s own weaknesses and perhaps you will understand the conservative mindset.
Match, set, game. You lose. Thank you for playing. We have lovely parting gifts for you backstage.
Regards,
Peter H.
#33: Keogh, isn’t it fascinating how these guys twist themselves into knots trying show how they disagree with Bush on the war while at the same time… um… agreeing with him on the war? The fact is this is not just Bush’s war but it the Republick Party’s war and will be through the election. The American people understand that the leading contenders for the GOP nomination all support the war and all support the escalation. Differences on tactical details won’t register with the voters. If Iraq turns around, the GOP contenders will benefit, if it doesn’t, then the next President will be a Democrat and the Democrats will strengthen their control of Congress. It’s really very simple.
As for how I can predict what will happen in the Iraq occupation, I can’t. What I can do is predict pretty well that the incompetent gang in charge is, after so much failure, highly unlikely to suddenly get it right at a point when it simply may be impossible to do so.
As for Hillary, she came into the campaign with much of the Dem base suspicious if not downright hostile towards her. Now that she has stuck to her guns on her vote for the war, she is alienating even more of her support. Moderate Dems who like her are also afraid that she would cause problems down ticket. Now all this wouldn’t matter much if the rest of the Dem field was horribly weak. But it isn’t: there are a number of strong candidates both declared and undeclared. Now, if the escalation works, Hillary might look better than her anti-occupation rivals and pull out a victory. But, if Iraq is going that well, she’ll lose in the general election unless the GOP nominates a real nutjob – which is always a possibility.
I think you only crave to see other people unhappy when your own life is miserable. I don’t want to see leftists miserable. I want their policies to be defeated because I think they will cause misery to others. But I don’t get my jollies by imagining them insane with grief or rage.
Re Hillary on SCOTUS. The idea that she couldn’t survive a Democratic WH vetting is one of the silliest things I’ve ever heard. All the dirt there is to dig up on her has already dried up and blown away. The VRWC has shot its wad on the issue. Now, I suppose the GOP could abandon its lofty principles and try to prevent an up-or-down vote on Hillary but I suspect if there’s a Dem in the White House, there’ll be enough Senate votes to ensure her nomination gets an up-or-down vote. And she’d win on that vote.
#36:
Condi would appear to disagree with your sentiments. Indeed, Congressional opposition may actually be allowing Bush to play good cop, bad cop with the Iraqi government. The least you could do is thank us lefties for our help. 😉
#39, Uh, Ian. The difference between us and you is we criticize the president because we want to win this war. Unlike you and your ilk, we don’t wank to thoughts of American defeat.
Also, unlike you, we are capable of criticizing politicians that are ostensibly on our side. You, on the other hand, are incapable of criticizing Democrats for anything except wanting to win the war. And that is what makes you a partisan shill.
# 38 – The Foaming begins
I better get out my waders
#39 – I too would be surprised to see Hillary make it through the primary. But the Repub party is really weak and fragmented right now…so any Dem candidate has a good chance at victory.
The repubs put all of their eggs in the bush basket and that basket has been leaking yoke for a few years now….
This is evident by how the many on the right are trying to shove moderate candidates down the throat of the FOF republican base by promising “conservative judges”
It will be an interesting season!
#44:
I think it all hinges on the occupation. The electorate wants out of Iraq whether or not Dear Leader’s Glorious Victory is achieved. They are not happy with the idea of an escalation since it goes against common sense but they are grudgingly going to let Bush have one last Hail-Mary attempt if for no ther reason than the GOP minority in Congress will force it. People are talking 18 months for the escalation to either work or not but I think we’ll know well before then. That puts it in the middle of the election season and if the escalation has failed then the GOP will be the focus of all the anger thereby benefitting the Dems. Bush might try an attack on Iran to save the GOP but that could easily backfire.
If Iraq turns around, the GOP contenders will benefit, if it doesn’t, then the next President will be a Democrat and the Democrats will strengthen their control of Congress. It’s really very simple.
Indeed.
Which is why the Dem strategy, as exemplified by leftists Ian and keogh, is to make sure that Iraq fails.
Failure in Iraq is the key to Democrat dominance — which is why that’s what they support.
The continuation of the insurgency could precipitate that failure — which is why they oppose imprisoning and killing jihadists as “war crimes”.
Do you think, Ian and keogh, that most Americans believe as do you, Nancy Pelosi, and her fellow Democrats — that it is OK to burn, stomp, desecrate, and spit on US flags, but that people should be severely punished for harming the flags of terrorist organizations committed to genocide?
NDT –
You use a link that doesn’t mention any Democrat, as evidence to support what appears to be an inflammatory bald face lie.
Here is the article that Conservative Columnist, Debra Saunders uses as a source:
http://xpress.sfsu.edu/archives/news/007880.html
I quote the President of the College Republicans:
“No one will condemn us for protesting Al Qaeda”
But what is amusing about this (Outside of catching NDT in ANOTHER lie) is that the College Republicans were honoring “Corporate America Appreciation Day”
Funny stuff!
The speculation that Hillary is going to let anyone come between her and the nomination and live is absurd. Hillary is like a rabid, bloodthirsty, battle-scarred Rottweiler. Obama is like a newborn puppy. By the time primary season rolls around, Obama’s gonna be a little bloody scrap of fur hanging from her jaws. And Edwards is just going to be a footnote: The guy who hired the two dirty-mouthed, slutroots bloggers who hate Christians.
If you think McCain is going to be the nominee you have to believe that Republican primary voters are going to forgive him for McCain-Feingold, forgive him for the McCain-Kennedy Maximize Illegal Immigration Bill, forgive him for opposing the Bush tax cuts, and forgive him for the Gang of 14. The WSJ editorial page may love McCain, but the rank and file, not so much.
That thing about the Allah being on the flag pisses me off to no end. But that’s typical Leftist. Kiss the ass of the people who would kill you first.
Ian, you should know that you’ve lost the debate and all credibility when you start seeking keogh’s intellectual support. LOL
And on my point about “Re Hillary on SCOTUS. The idea that she couldn’t survive a Democratic WH vetting is one of the silliest things I’ve ever heard”, I am guessing then that you don’t actually read your own comments ’cause along with Sen Clinton on SCOTUS, Sen Clinton losing the nomination, McCain having BushCo’s support and resources, and Hugo Chavez is a peace-loving freedom fighter who the CIA tried to overthrow… you’ve said some very silly things in all that, Ian.
Nice try but again, you fail to provide any credible argument to back up all that hot air. And to seek intellectual support from keogh… well, that speaks volumes even in cyberspace.
But getting the Oscar for Silliness is this jewel of yours: “Bush might try an attack on Iran to save the GOP but that could easily backfire.”
Is that like the “BushCo plans to bring back the draft” nonsense the lower case was peddling late last year?
Is that like the “BushCo will be impeached for lying” nonsense the lower case was peddling after the Nov elections?
Is that like the “Democrat Congress will run the most efficient, least corrupt Congress ever and do the People’s Business” nonsense the lower case was peddling in December?
Ian, you shouldn’t call anything silly with your track record of utterly ridiculous uninformed opinions parading as insight.
If I were on the GayLeft, I’d ask you to leave out of embarassment.
If I were on the GayLeft, I’d ask you to leave out of embarassment.
I sometimes wonder if Ian and some of the others aren’t really right-wingers imitating left-wing borg to discredit the Democrats.
You use a link that doesn’t mention any Democrat, as evidence to support what appears to be an inflammatory bald face lie.
And the fish has taken the bait.
Note the attempt of leftist keogh, who tried to insist that it was al-Qaeda, not Hizbollah and Hamas, being protested — contrary to the facts of the real case.
Amid heavy campus police presence at an Oct. 17 anti-terrorism rally in Malcolm X Plaza, some members of the crowd turned angry when the College Republicans stepped on homemade Hezbollah and Hamas flags, though the student group claims they were not initially aware the flags contained the Arabic symbol for God.
And then, even more amusingly try to argue that there are no Democrats in any of the organizations mentioned, or that Nancy Pelosi, who supports the SF State actions to punish the College Republicans for stepping on the flags of genocide-supporting terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hizbollah, but says nothing when SF State students, Hizbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist organizations stomp on, desecrate, and burn US flags, is not a Democrat.
#48: More foam and spittle. Your thesis is pretty silly. If Bushco had followed my advice- and that of many others – to keep the focus on al Qaeda and Afghanistan, while maintaining the intrusive Iraq weapons inspections, Dear Leader might actually have had his Glorious Victory and the GOP really would be poised to become the permanent majority. Knowing what a disaster invading Iraq could, if lefties really had wanted to see the GOP screwed, they would have kept silent.
#52 – Matt –
Ian has been right about exactly one thing, in all this time: The new type of “Blue Dog”, CONSERVATIVE candidates the Democrats had put up in the most recent cycle, did well last November.
Even a broken clock is right, twice a day. Because Ian chanced to be right about one thing, finally, it’s gone to his head, and the 150 things he’s been wrong about – of which you nicely listed just a few – are to be forgotten. LOL 🙂
If Bushco had followed my advice- and that of many others – to keep the focus on al Qaeda and Afghanistan, while maintaining the intrusive Iraq weapons inspections, Dear Leader might actually have had his Glorious Victory and the GOP really would be poised to become the permanent majority.
Mhm.
Why, exactly, should we allow “inspections” to be carried out by an organization whose bureaucrats were being paid millions of dollars to ensure that inspections and sanctions would never be enforced?
Why, exactly, should we perpetuate a regime that was taking bread out of children’s mouths, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of them starving to death annually, so that leftist countries and their nationalized companies could have lucrative supply contracts?
Why, exactly, should we turn a blind eye to the starvation, imprisonment, torture, murder, ecocide, and genocide of millions of people, just because leftist countries needed to collect on the hundreds of billions of dollars owed them by the current regime, debts that would vanish the instant Saddam did?
And furthermore, Ian, leftists like Cindy Sheehan have made it clear that your party’s position is in opposition to the Afghan war as well. Do you really expect us to believe that you had anyone’s best interests at heart, other than your own?
What you continue to make clear, Ian, is that you want the United States to fail. Whether that is out of hate and rage towards Bush for ending the UN and leftists’s gravy train powered by Saddam, or if it’s simply because you’re too foolish to realize the consequences of your actions, I still haven’t decided.
Since Ian puts so much stock in polls – perhaps even somehow thinking they determine reality? – suck on this, Ian:
Much needed levity.
#58: Well, you can suck on this from the same poll:
and note that, of those polled, there was a difference of 7 percentage points between those that voted for Bush versus those voting for Kerry in 2004 so they clearly oversampled Bush cultists.
Ian: I bet Bush’s approval rating is higher than yours is in here.
Thus proving, even people who don’t like Bush still think Iraq is a key part of the global war on terror! And still want us to win there (if you look at the other questions)!
Gawd Ian, you are so DUMB! LOL 🙂
And once more, you walked right into it, btw – I knew you were so dumb that you would be going there.
#62: Oh Cal, you are so wily! But the poll also proves that even people who think Iraq is a key part of the war on terror still want us to pull our troops out on a strict timetable.
#61:
No doubt insight like that is why you earn the big bucks! 😉
You have no idea, I am a computer programmer
#63 – Wow Ian, you still didn’t get it. I was trying to provide a satire of your commenting style on this blog.
It’s what they call a “multi-layer” joke/satire.
#65: Don’t look now but there’s a programmer in India who’ll probably do what you do for 8 bucks an hour. The key to success today is either to start out rich or pick a vocation/profession that can’t be easily outsourced.
#66:
Word of advice, Cal: don’t quit your day job.
Remember you heard it here first!
Well, the first time in 3 years anyway.
#41
If Iraq turns around, the GOP contenders will benefit, if it doesn’t, then the next President will be a Democrat and the Democrats will strengthen their control of Congress. It’s really very simple.
In other words, good news for America = bad news for democrats who want to lose.
The simple question is whether or not the libs will actually run on anything or if they’ll take the 06 route of lobbing some grenades and then hiding for two weeks. You have to have something substantial to run on in a presidential race.
#63
But the poll also proves that even people who think Iraq is a key part of the war on terror still want us to pull our troops out on a strict timetable.
I don’t think I’ve seen a poll yet where the majority of the people want us to surrender.
I think liberals have slipped into nihilism.
#71
I think liberals have slipped into nihilism.
“Ah. Must be exhausting.”
What do you mean “slipped”?
Descended into a hole
#1
Did you just “out” John Roberts?
I thought you people were against that sort of thing.
I believe he was referencing the time when liberals proclaimed that Roberts was gay. Then when that went over like a fart in church, they proclaimed that his 4(?) y/o son must be gay.
When one’s convictions are based on reason and fact, one doesn’t need an opinion poll to tell right from wrong.
Ian, let’s remember that when you find solace in Prez Bush’s approval rating, the polling also shows that voters reject the Democrat Congress… their approval rating is 63% negative… and the worst number for the exiting GOP Congress –with all the scandals, the do-nothing perception, the sex & corruption– was 71% negative.
Clearly, Americans dislike the Democrats in Congress even more than disapprove of the Prez.
The voters don’t support cutting off funding to the troops in Iraq, don’t support Murtha’s plan for a slow bleed, don’t support the cut&run nonsense most prez contenders on your side of the aisle are scretching about this week.
60% disapproval rating you say? 60% don’t like the direction of the WOT-Iraq you say? I say, ditto for the Congressional Dems and the cut&run/slow bleed plans.
#68 – Yes! Like that! Ian, I captured your attitude.
(And lameness. Comment #68 was what we call “Ian lame”.)
I’ll remember you said that the next time someone mentions a poll saying the majority of Americans oppose same-sex marriage.
By the way, Hill says America is arrogant, and when she’s president, she’ll make sure we’ll bow before our UN betters.
This from the lady who tried to take over one-seventh of the US economy, while sneering, “I can’t be responsible for every under-capitalized business in the country.” Arrogant? —- Naaaaaaah.
Here’s another question, how will gay groups treat Al Franken for Senator?
Al Franken: “I just don’t like homosexuals. If you ask me, they’re all homosexuals in the Pudding. Hey, I was glad when that Pudding homosexual got killed in Philadelphia.”
Off-hand, I’d say Franken’s remarks were rather more hostile than the ones that got Tim Hardaway fired, “”Well, you know, I hate gay people. I let it be known, I don’t like gay people. I don’t like to be around gay people.” Hardaway never expresses glee in the death of a gay person, unlike Franken.
But Franken, should he be the Democrat nominee, can almost assuredly count on the support of HRC and all the other gay Democrat groups.
Clintons in catfight with bitchy gay fundraiser.
Sweeet.
>I’ll remember you said that the next time someone mentions a poll saying the majority of Americans oppose same-sex marriage.
Ok, you’ll rememeber that.. What does that mean?
I oppose same-sex marriage.
Jeez, that’s funny, V the K….David Geffen got pissy at Bill Clinton because he pardoned a tax evader rather than a convicted murderer of two FBI agents.
Up until now, I never saw the point of the Rich thing, but when it’s made obvious that it was a choice between Rich and Peltier….Clinton chose wisely.
#58: Hey Cal, did you know your poll was done by “Public Opinion Strategies” a GOP polling outfit:
Fair and Balanced, I’m sure. Their acronym sure is appropriate, though. LOL! You know I wondered why you linked to a pdf file with no indication of its real source. Looks like you were ashamed of where it came from; I can’t blame you, I would be too.
Typical Ian tactic; when he can’t explain why his spin is contradicted, try to claim that the source is biased.
Of course, despite statistics showing that the overwhelming majority of journalists are Democrats, vote Democrat, and financially support Democrats, he insists that they can do their jobs fairly and that the fact that they are affiliated with Democrats creates no bias in their reporting.
And as far as “no indication of its real source”, apparently Ian missed this part in the URL.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/library/POS_Lundy_Iraq_Survey_20070220.pdf
But, as I pointed out yesterday, this desperation is understandable. Ian himself has admitted that the key to putting himself and his fellow leftists in power is a US defeat in Iraq; therefore, he and his fellow leftists are doing everything possible to ensure that that happens.
#86: So where exactly in the URL is “Public Opinion Strategies” displayed? And where inside the pdf? Oh that’s right, NOWHERE!! Sneaky Cal has some ‘splainin’ to do.
Yeah, the Hollywood left does love cop-killers. Mumia, anyone? Sara Jane Olson?
Maybe if Hillary had run for Senate in South Dakota instead of New York, Bill could have freed the Native American cop-killer instead of the Puerto Rican terrorists.
Ian, it took me exactly ten seconds to find out the detail.
It simply involved actually going to Outside the Beltway, as is directly referenced in the URL, and looking for it.
If one wants to hide their source, one merely can take the far simpler way of doing it that you do — not linking to it at all.
ROTFLMAO 🙂
One thing you can say for Ian – He’s hours of fun. Each new intellectual mistake or contortion (often both), each new visibly idiotic claim, is a hoot.
Oh, and while I’m here… do you think the letters *POS*, sitting right there smack in the URL Ian, could signify… uhhhhmmmm… anything?
And do you think your being THAT click-challenged and/or reading-challenged, serves you?
And do you seriously think, Ian, that ad hominem (as opposed to relevant) comments about a source of data adequately answers the data per se? or a logical point made with it?
#89: It’s intellectually dishonest to try to palm off some GOP partisan hack poll as if it’s done by a neutral observer. That you have to go through any extra steps to learn the identity of the pollster and then google to find out the dubious background of who did the poll just shows that you can’t take anything Sneaky Cal says at face value. Now I expected such shenanigans from you but Sneaky Cal is always bragging about how he’s so independent. What a crock!
BTW, even other Repub pollsters think this poll is bogus.
#91:
Yes I do: “Piece Of Sh!t” 😉
I just went number two a little bit ago. I hate doing that.
LOL….and of course, again, desperate Ian is doing his best to smear and obstruct anything that might lead to success in Iraq.
Why? Because, as he admits, defeat in Iraq will put the Democrats in political power — so he works for the US’s defeat in Iraq.
Daniel Henninger Provides Another Reason Not to like Rudy.
I have nothing for prosecutors who screw innocent people to advance their political ambitions.
#52 writes: “Ian, you shouldn’t call anything silly with your track record of utterly ridiculous uninformed opinions parading as insight. If I were on the GayLeft, I’d ask you to leave out of embarassment.”
Give that sage guy a prize for predicting where Ian was heading with this thread.
#48 — “Failure in Iraq is the key to Democrat dominance — which is why that’s what they support.”
Uhh, no. The key to Democratic party dominance is 12 years of an arrogant, corrupt, hypocritical, and incompetent GOP controlled congress and 8 years of an arrogant, corrupt, hypocritical, imcompetent, and contemptuous president/administration. The American people are fed up, and we voiced our extreme discontent (putting it mildly) with our votes in ’06. We will do so again in ’08. “Deal with it.”
ndtovent: The American people did not voice any extreme discontent.
This election came nowhere near the typical 6th year party swtich that normally occurs, and the Democratic margin of majority is a lot less secure than the Republicans have been.
Rudy will not make it due to his anti-gun stances…….The NRA and its millions of members will see to that.
Hillary & Obama will destory any hopes of the Dems for the Presidency.
Rep Tom Tancredo is the best bet to protect America from the illegal invasion across our borders and the internal and foreign threats from the cult of islam.
You debate rights given and denied to Gays and who may be the best President for Gays…….when you will be murdered by the muslims if islam conquers America. No islamic court will defend your right to be Gay, but sentence you to death by hanging, stoning, beheading or being shot. What greater threat can you face???
This past week, five innocents were murdered in Salt Lake City by a muslim screaming allah akbar and carrying a koran in his back pack. The MSN said noting about him being muslim, carrying a koran and screamaing allah akbar. The FBI said it was not terrorism.
In Nashville after a heated verbal discussion between two young men and a cabbie, the two young men were then attacked by the cab driven by the muslim cabbie. One of the young men was critically injured. The MSN said nothing about the cabbie being muslim.
War is being waged on America by the cult of islam and the feds are doing nothing to protect Americans except to keep out of the MSN that these criminals are muslims.
how much is being hidden from Americans about the cult of islam.
Jihad war is underway in America……………are you prepared, armed and ready? Your very survival depends on you being prepared, armed and ready.
The Texican.
Texican, you’re right on. Jihad in America has begun, and the Bush “regime” that supposedly is trying to rule through fear is doing the exact opposite… going out of it’s way to avoid acknowledging this reality.
Worse, when a radical Muslim shot up a Jewish center in Seattle, killing a woman, the police were sent to protect local Mosques from rampaging lynch mobs that never materialized. Which shows which side the government is going to protect when things really get bad.
This is why it would be really dangerous to elect a president whose first instinct of law enforcement is to disarm the law-abiding.
V, you’re right on. Remember the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994? One of its major provisions was to allow the federal government the power to seize unregistered handguns – directly in violation of the Second Amendment.
Lucky for us the courts later ruled it unconstitutional, but not without some serious consequences. Kudos to the NRA and Wayne LaPierre for going to bat for us.
Incidentally, my favorite part of this asinine legislation was “Midnight Basketball” courtesy of Algore. Wonder if he had figured out at the time that the lights used to illuminate inner-city BB courts was going to contribute to the threat of global warming?
Regards,
Peter H.
The way I see it, only Hilary and Obama could save us from the evil Republican empire. I fear a Republican dictatorship more than I do any Muslim or Islamic fanatic.
Elias: I realize you’re trying to troll, but in light in this , please justify your comment:
“Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world…. Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers] Islam says Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us Islam says Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender to the enemy Islam says Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Koranic] verses and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.” – Ayatollah Khomeini
NO. 103.
The way I see it, only Hilary and Obama could save us from the evil Republican empire. I fear a Republican dictatorship more than I do any Muslim or Islamic fanatic.
Comment by Elais — February 23, 2007 @ 7:57 pm – February 23, 2007
++++++++++++++++
Elias, when was the last time a Republican tried to kill you. Wake up and go google Gays and islam and realize that the muzzards will murder you for being Gay. The muzzards have the list of every gay that has registered as being Gay………….this should frighten the bejebbers out of you.
The hate of homosexuality by muzzards is only equaled by the muzzard hate of Jews then followed by Christians.
Go google Darfur and read of Christian women and girls separated from the muslim females. the Christian women and girls were gang raped, the women’s breasts were cut off and allowed to bleed to death. the young girls while still alive were thrown into fires to perish.
Elias, wake up and realize that the Dems will allow more illegals and muzzards into America and will try to take away our rights to defend ourselves from these threats.
Elias, your very life depends on recognizing the threat to your and our very survival in America by the cult of islam.
God bless.
The Texican.
#103 – Uh, what “evil Republican empire?” Dude, your party took over CONGRESS – that is one-third of the government. You get out much?
Regards,
Peter H.