don’t forget “confuse the words ‘accountant’ and accountability”

your ignorant trailer trash. just because something is long-winded doesnt make it any more true.

after 6 years of this nonsense, pretty much everyone outside of the 20-30 ish percenters like you have woken up.

please cite polls inticating which beleifs of yours are in the majority?

and they only post these if they are reported by multiple well known news sources.. imagine how many are flying under the radar..?

we could use Cheneys personal physician, Dr. Kevorkian, but he’s busy in iraq. The iraqis were suffering from an acute, terminal lack of freedom and are currently being euthanized at the rate of of about 100 per day.

anyone notice that the media reports of violence in iraq have gone dead, but if you dig enough in the foreign media, you still hear reports of renewed bombings and whatnot… part of thier slick PR campaign is no doubt making an all out effort to supress reports of violence in iraq..

AF

Comment by O. Bigfoot — September 27, 2007 @ 11:25 am

You misused “it’s” in that sentence. “It’s” is a contraction of the verb “it is.” You were trying to use the neutral possessive, “its.” See the corrected sentence below.

China is building its military using capital from the Bush administation?

Life, it’s a good right now. My complaints are many and petty as opposed to few and large.

As an aside, the direction of todays TF has made me think of Boondock Saints, specifically this line:
And I am reminded, on this holy day, of the sad story of Kitty Genovese. As you all may remember, a long time ago, almost thirty years ago, this poor soul cried out for help time and time again, but no person answered her calls. Though many saw, no one so much as called the police. They all just watched as Kitty was being stabbed to death in broad daylight. They watched as her assailant walked away. Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men.

Emphasis added by me

How so? They confuse loyalty to a leader with a radical agenda with loyalty to the country. They confuse foreign policy decisions and criticism of them as being disloyal. What they have no problem with is claiming that the freedoms we enjoy as Americans, the very freedoms that make up America are the proximate cause of anger against us. How many times have we heard that god removed his protection from America because we allow homosexuals to be accepted, or because we don’t allow prayer in school, or because we allow women the right to choose the course of events with their own body’s, or because we give even the most heinous criminals like Gacy and Bundy rights according to the constitution? How many times have we heard from the right that we can surrender our right to privacy in our phone calls because 1) if you have nothing to hide there should be no problem and 2) 911 changed everything. How many times have we heard that we were attacked because of our permissive culture, therefore we must curtail how we live and restrict the rights of those whom the terrorists don’t approve of. The agenda of the right in America is not too far off from those whom they have hosen to fight. I could go on all day listing out example after example of where the right really shows their hate for our country and our culture. Face the right wing really does hate this country so much that they are willing to completely sacrifice it and what it stands for just to get their way. Bigfoot is no exception.

Now the latest hate du jour is advertising/political statements they don’t agree with. They think it is treasonous to criticize a military leader in a time of war. However they willfully choose to overlook the fact that this particular leader was acting in a political manner to sell a political agenda for the president. They forget that this military leader was a vocal supporter of the president in the past. They forget that this military leader has been wrong, dead wrong in a major way in the past. They look past the fact that the military leader and his political backers (who have thrown previous military leaders under the buss when they outlived their usefulness) have once again moved the goal posts, have changed the goals of the mission (the surge) from a goal of buying the Iraqi’s time to one of reducing violence. They overlook the fact that every other report out there contradicts the testimony of the military leader and his political backers and pretty much confirm that the violence has been reduced by playing with the numbers. The right also forgets that in our country the military is supposed to be under civilian control, yet they from time to time defer policy decision to the military like they did with General P.

BF and the right claim to respect and support the troops, except they only like those troops who toe the line, Anny who don’t toe the party line are hammered mercilessly. Witness how they reacted to the troops who wrote the NY Times editorial, the trooper who asked Rummy about body armor, Pat Tilman and his beliefs, any veteran who has spoken out against the war or any US policy, any general who dared utter anything that was not in line with administration policy. The right only supports the military when the military is to be used as a tool for fathering the rights political ambitions, other wise they toss the military aside like they do everything else that has no usefulness to their radical agenda.

BF is right, there is a real world out there that is immune to the spin and immune to the radical politics of a political party gone wild drunk on power. However his post and his comments do not flow from that reality they flow from the highly radicalized and alternate reality creating agenda of the right. He is also right in saying that the population of the US is immune to the radical agenda, but he got the side wrong, we have become immune to the radical agenda of the right wingers who lap up anything uttered by their pundits and politicos without nary a word of questioning or dissent. Sadly that 29% of the country (roughly the same % support the National Socialist Party had) will never listen to reason, they will never drop their radical destructive agenda. They are not interested in debate, discovery or coming to a correct resolution on any issue, they are only concerned with getting their way right or wrong.

Two things we can always assume fromt he right are blind acceptannce of their leaders and somewhere they will blame Clinton for it, whatever it may be, even their own policy errors.

Thanks, went with a name change I see. Hope you’ve been well.

Except when it’s a democrat. Then, republicans make fun of their service. Remember the Purple heart bandaids? A democrat would never do that.

When you live in hypotheticals, the world is indeed your stage, to which you can believe whatever you want.
Let’s use some other examples, shall we:

Had the previous president budgeted more for the Space Shuttle program, the Challenger disaster never would have happened.

Had the previous administration considered more seriously the space/time continuum, the Tigers would have won the 2007 World Series.

Had President Reagan not called the then USSR an “evil empire”, O.Bigfoot in Mouth possibly would have got laid.

Gee, that was fun!

Comment by O. Bigfoot — September 27, 2007 @ 11:25 am

That sentence I highlighted is one of the most ignorant and naive comments I’ve seen yet, even from you. You really need to take a good hard look at the real history of American foreign policy. To keep it simple (which appears essential for you), spend some time reading about US intervention in Latin America since the late 19th century.

None of the people commenting here hate our country; rather, we bemoan the willingness of people like you to destroy the freedoms that have made it worth loving. We don’t hate the military, but rather the manner in which the military is used for repellent purposes. And if we hate some of our leaders, it’s because they’ve earned that hatred by their attempts to destroy the republic.

Verizon Wireless said on Thursday it reversed an earlier refusal to allow an abortion rights advocacy group to set up a text message alert system with subscribers and changed its policy on such messaging.

Verizon Wireless had denied a request from NARAL Pro-Choice America to set up text message alerts for subscribers who sign up for notices with a number known as a short code.

The decision was based on what the company described as an “outdated” policy that aimed to protect subscribers from unwanted messages.