And the DNC hasn’t done that to the GOP? Please. Look at how they have characterized Republicans since the Reagan era – “racist-sexist-bigoted-homophobes.” If anyone has been reduced to demonizing their opponents, it’s the Dhimmicrats. We’re just fighting fire with fire for once.

And if anyone has created a cast of characters worthy of being cartoonish, it is the DNC. Look who we’ve got so far in power: Reid, Pelosi, Kennedy, Frank, DiFi, Murtha just to name a few. Walt Disney couldn’t create caricatures like these if he tried.

Look at it this way – my words create a type of shoe. If you or anyone else wants to put it on and loudly announce that it fits, that is YOUR problem.

Plus, your comment in #44 regarding “Buffy, Muffie and Brad” shows exactly the type of thinking with today’s lefties. You are more concerned about how others perceive you than your own self-worth.

Rather than being self-assured and proceeding with a plan, you and your ilk are more worried about how our “friends” like China, Russia and France would react. With friends like that, who needs Dhimmicrats, er, I mean enemies? (Freudian slip there.)

Let me put it in terms you may understand: the GOP expects America to act like John Wayne – tough, in charge, under control and resorting to strong tactics ONLY IF necessary.

Dhimmicrats want America to be like Sally Field – screaming “You like me! You really like me!” and doing the happy dance while others laugh at us behind our backs.

Churchill once called us “the arsenal of democracy.” If that is the case, we have no need for the approval of others if we alone are carrying the torch.

Regards (and no etc. cause I’m done),
Peter H.

The intention behind these terms isn’t to make people laugh; it’s to turn your opponents into cartoons. A mind that does that is a mind that perceives the whole of life as a cartoon. (A foolish person, frankly).

Regards, etc.

Regards,
Peter H.

Wait till Buffy, Muffie and Brad hear you say that huh? But like can’t you actually grasp complexity? Becuase life actually is more various than these foolish terms allow.

Maybe among your own small clique they’re coin of the realm, but to anyone else it makes you all sound like cartoons. Are you serious when you say that this kind of language is an indication “the adults are in charge”? LOL.

As I recall, it was the Dhimmicrats who chanted all through the 1990s that “politics stop at the water’s edge.” What changed, hmm???

Sigh…you libtards make this so easy…

Regards,
Peter H.

Then, when that hasn’t worked, you’ve tried to pass laws preventing our soldiers from being used against your terrorist allies and stripping them of funding.

Now you’re trying to collapse Iraq by yanking our troops out of it.

How do you feel about the fact that you’re now allied with terrorists and murderers who want to erase all Jews from the planet and think gays should be slaughtered?

Yet most of the country disagrees. Miserable failure.

Now maybe they’ll figure out that there really IS a war going on?? And that these people really DO want to kill all of us?? Sheesh.

Regards,
Peter H.

* According to a USA Today/Gallup poll, 61% of Americans oppose “denying the funding needed to send any additional U.S. troops to Iraq,” and opposition is up from 58% in February. (3/23-25, 2007).

* A Bloomberg poll reveals 61% of Americans believe withholding funding for the war is a bad idea, while only 28% believe it is a good idea (3/3-11, 2007).

* A recent Public Opinion Strategies (POS) poll found that 56% of registered voters favor fully funding the war in Iraq, with more voters strongly favoring funding (40%) than totally opposing it (38%); (3/25-27, 2007).

* POS found also that a majority of voters (54%) oppose the Democrats imposing a reduction in troops below the level military commanders requested (3/25-27, 2007).

* A separate POS poll finds 57% of voters support staying in Iraq until the job is finished and “the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security for its people.” And 59% of voters say pulling out of Iraq immediately would do more to harm America’s reputation in the world than staying until order is restored (35%); (2/5-7, 2007).

* An LA Times/Bloomberg polls reveals that 50% of Americans say setting a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq “hurts” the troops, while only 27% believe it “helps” the troops (4/5-9, 2007).

And in your case – it is not.

To quote Patrick Swayze as Vita Boheme in “Wong Foo,” I am hereby taking away all your princess points. (WAVE & BLINK)

Try to have a nice weekend.

Regards,
Peter H.

Gotta love it.

Regards,
Peter H.

Or wait, he was talking about AlGore… the guy who got kicked out of Divinity School.

Or wait, he was talking about…. LOL.

Gee, I didn’t know we were talking about John Kerry. Go figure.

Regards,
Peter H.

Victory also requires you to decide on a right and a wrong — which again, requires you to “judge” other people and be “intolerant”.

The Dems made it clear last night that they want to return to the glory days of Democrat diplomacy — where you can take American citizens hostage in our own embassy for hundreds of days while we twist ourselves into a self-flagellating pretzel, or where you can blow up our embassies, buildings, military apartments, and ships with the only penalty being a few cruise missiles — after you’ve been given three weeks to clear everything out of at where they’re fired.

There is a reason that every anti-American government and organization in the world — from Hizbollah, Hamas, Syria, and Iran, through al-Qaeda, France, Germany, and the British left — wants the Democrats in power. They — and the Dems — prefer when the United States is the rough equivalent of a man with an IQ of 50 and a billion-dollar trust fund who was willing to do or say anything for acceptance.

The MSM dutifully reports as fact the false allegations by the Dhimmicrats that Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq, when as a worst-case scenario it was a simple mistake. Even George Tenet in his “60 Minutes” interview this weekend admits as such.

President Bush was properly relying on the virtually unanimous opinion of all major intelligence agencies in the United States and the world. For example:

*British intelligence said Saddam Hussein was trying to buy uranium in Africa.

*CIA Director Tenet (originally appointed by the Clintons) said it was “a slam-dunk” that Saddam had WMDs.

*The French also said that their intelligence service believed Iraq had WMDs.

*Russian President Vladimir Putin also said Russian intelligence believed that Iraq has plans for terror assaults in the US.

So Bush was only following the OPINIONS of those at the time of the liberation of Iraq from Hussein. (And we all know how much libs love to point to worldwide opinion polls when it suits their advantage.)

To lie is to say something you know at the time to be false. At the time, we thought it was true. We can’t go back and Monday-morning-QB it after the fact.

In fairness, though, it was not President Bush’s mistake, but that of the various intelligence agencies. So if you insist on saying Bush made a mistake, so did the Dhimmicrats who voted along with him – with access to the same intelligence in the House and Senate, though they’ve lied in denying that as well.

Though Bush clearly hadn’t lied, I still wonder why Dhimmicrats are all of a sudden bothered by a so-called “lying” President, since they habitually defended a habitual liar of their party who previously occupied the Oval Office – and his harridan of a wife who enabled him to lie. But I digress.

So there you have it in a nutshell. If Bush lied, then so did the Dhimmicrats.

Match, set, game. You lose. Try again.

Regards,
Peter H.

Publicly pledging your support for terrorist groups and terrorism-supporting countries whose goals are to kill Americans, as Pelosi did a few weeks ago, is a different strategy all right.

Publicly supporting people who send hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash to terrorists to buy and build IEDs to use against our troops, as Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Howard Dean did for Cindy Sheehan, is a different strategy all right.

Publicly announcing that you have surrendered, as Harry Reid did last week, is a different strategy all right.

Publicly announcing that you are deliberately cutting off funding to hinder the troops and prevent them from carrying out their mission, as the Democrats are doing now, is a different strategy all right.

One wonders what would happen if Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the Democrat Party stood up and made it clear that we are not weak, that we will fight, and that the Iraqi insurgency and the terrorist organizations that support it will go down in flames because of it.

But instead they’re flying around the Middle East promising its primary supporters that they’ll do everything in their power to stop US troops from fighting.

The fact that you support their deliberate and hateful sabotage, keogh, is no surprise; the fact that you support their pandering to and endorsement of genocidal terrorist groups like Hizbollah and Hamas isn’t either.