ThinkFast: October 3, 2007
ThinkFast: October 3, 2007
Yesterday, Clear Channel CEO Mark Mays responded to the Senate Democratic Leadership’s call for him to repudiate Rush Limbaugh’s “phony troops” remark. “While I certainly do not agree with all views that are voiced on our stations, I will not condemn our talent for exercising their right to voice them,” Mays wrote.
Though Blackwater USA CEO Erik Prince told a congressional committee yesterday that the company’s guards only opened fire on 195 occasions in Iraq since 2005, “two former Blackwater security guards” say they believe “employees fired more often than the company has disclosed. “The underreporting of shooting incidents was routine in Iraq,” said one guard.
Congress is pushing legislation to give Inspectors General “greater budgetary independence.” The measure would also make it harder for the administration to fire the the watchdogs. The White House is threatening to veto the bill.
The Bush administration has made “seemingly inconsistent decisions” when releasing prisoners they deem “among America’s most-hardened criminals” from Guantanamo Bay, according to Pentagon documents. “Human rights groups contend that the documents show” that the military panels are often “overridden by political expediency.”
The State Department launched its own blog last week, called “Dipnote.” People have already complained “that the white print on a black background makes it hard to read” Finally, “unbiased news directly from the federal government, a news source long noted for truthful, unbiased reporting,” the Washington Post’s Al Kamen mockingly writes.
Former Bush administration lawyer Jack Goldsmith said yesterday that the administration’s surveillance program “was the biggest legal mess I had ever encountered..” “[T]he White House so tightly restricted access to the National Security Agency’s program that even the attorney general and the NSA’s general counsel were partly in the dark.”
The Army has met its stated recruiting goal of 80,000 new active-duty soldiers for FY2007. But to achieve this goal, “the Army rushed enlistees into its ranks more quickly than usual, depleting the number in the pipeline for next year to less than 7,000 — the smallest in more than a decade.”
The Polish ambassador to Iraq was wounded and a civlian was killed in a car bomb that went off in downtown Baghdad today. Approximately 900 Polish troops are currently stationed south of Baghdad training Iraqi personnel.
And finally: Final score: Boxer 3, Inhofe 0. Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) has repeatedly challenged Sen. Barbara Boxer’s (D-CA) authority over the Senate environmental committee. During one hearing, she had to inform him, “You don’t make the rules anymore.” Yesterday, Boxer slammed down Inhofe’s assertion that she couldn’t invite sitting senators to the hearings, pointing out that in Sept. 2006, he invited Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN). “I don’t mind if we have disagreements, but…let’s get the facts right,” she admonished him.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
“The underreporting of shooting incidents was routine in Iraq,†said one guard.
I read an article back when this Blackwater story first broke quoting a Pentagon employee who said that “there are so many reported shootings by our contractors, we couldn’t possibly investigate them all”. I found that statement appalling.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:11 amApparently, Boxer did some research, and Inhofe was wrong. In fact, Inhofe did it himself a year a ago. According to a transcript of her opening statement at a hearing of the Environmental and Public Works Committee Tuesday, she said that she “went back in the record and found out on Wednesday, September 13, 2006 Chairman Inhofe invited and allowed Senator [Lamar] Alexander [R-Tenn.] to sit immediately to … Senator Inhofe’s right, asked him to engage in questions.â€
Just like a republican.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:14 amBTW: is Erik Prince a “phony soldier†or not?
Comment by Jake D.
Most ironic post of the day, coming from TP’s resident phony soldier.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:15 amRE: Mays defending free speech.
Why is it MoveOn’s ad is denounced, and Rush’s idiotic statement is a shining example of free speech?
Oh, that’s right. It’s that Vast Left-Wing Liberal Media at work again. My bad.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:15 amComment by Vendetta
Seen the latest polls?
Cauliflower is more popular…
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:16 amWell, barfly, at least Shakey Jake is using his real persona today rather than one of his phony alter-egos like he has been recently. Should be a great day for whack-a-troll on TP today…
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:18 amTarget rush’s sponsors, hit his fat ass in the pocketbook.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:18 amMorning, DF.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:19 am“While I certainly do not agree with all views that are voiced on our stations, I will not condemn our talent for exercising their right to voice them,†Mays wrote.
So the guy is a Bush sycophant through and through. What else is new.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:20 amIf Mays truly walks the walk, this is actually a refreshing change from the opposite side of that coin — John Moody telling the Fox News talent what they should say.
I am assuming Mays would defend Air America just as vehemently if they said anything anywhere near as inflammatory as Rush’s remarks?
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:20 amThe Army has met its stated recruiting goal of 80,000 new active-duty soldiers for FY2007. But to achieve this goal, “the Army rushed enlistees into its ranks more quickly than usual, depleting the number in the pipeline for next year to less than 7,000 — the smallest in more than a decade.â€
Getting drafty? Nah–couldn’t be. But if one bomb falls in Iranian territory…
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:20 amjake, here is a site more your speed:
http://www.barney.com/usa/index.html
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:21 amAnyone want to bet if it had been Ed Schultz who had said what Rush said, not only would the Right Wing Loons be all over him, his Clear Channel boss would have been all over him too.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:23 amComment by Jake D.
Sounds like he’s doing a limited hang out. He knows Rush has a large audience, but that the message Rush sent was too toxic to ignore. He’s just trying to keep the sponsors from jumping ship.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:23 amWell, I see that Shakey Jake got tired of his ridiculous little masquarade.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:23 amThe Army has met its stated recruiting goal of 80,000 new active-duty soldiers for FY2007. But to achieve this goal, “the Army rushed enlistees into its ranks more quickly than usual, depleting the number in the pipeline for next year to less than 7,000 — the smallest in more than a decade.â€
Tell me the Army isn’t broken…it’s positively shattered.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:24 amComment by Vendetta — October 3, 2007 @ 9:14 am
Give it up, troll. You’ve got nothin’.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:25 amHere’s a link to a list of Rush Limbaugh advertisers, in case anyone is interested:
http://papastraighttalk.blogspot.com/2007/09/rush-limbaugh-advertisers.html
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:26 amComment by Vendetta
Do I detect an element of fear in the last post?
It sounds like you’re trying to convince yourself that Rush is still viable.
Good luck.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:26 amRE: Mays defending free speech.
Why is it MoveOn’s ad is denounced, and Rush’s idiotic statement is a shining example of free speech?
Obviously you don’t know the rules. The rule is, if the right says something insulting it’s free speech, if the left says it, then it’s libel.
The world according to Right Wing Loons.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:26 amCaption:
“Aww, c’mere widdle Jakey, and give Unca Rushie a kiss…”
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:28 amGive it up, troll. You’ve got nothin’.
Comment by VerbalKint — October 3, 2007 @ 9:25 am
Not even a life, hence the hours spent here posting content-free comments.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:28 amIt’s nice to see Clear Channel and Rush Limbaugh come out and support MoveOn.org like that.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:31 amdemocrats who have done nothing to end this war as they promised.
At least clear channel is really moving on and is progressive.
Comment by Vendetta
Bad news for you and your ilk:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/01/AR2007100101235.html?hpid=topnews
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:31 amClear Channel is (and has been) the loudspeaker of Americanofascism.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:31 am#19 – your comment shows how stupid you really are. you think im a dem? of course you do, i blame your inbred parents.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:32 amSo, clearly the blame for this ineffective government rests on the sholders of the prez and the Repukes (51%) while the Dems are getting only 25% of the blame. Sounds about right to me. Thanks, Bilbo for the stat.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:33 am“Dipnote”?? Surely, they mean “Dip$hit”, don’t they?
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:34 amComment by Tampachessdon — October 3, 2007 @ 9:31 am
Oh boy, we have a new Right Wing Loon to play with. And this one makes about as much sense as our other resident Right Wing Loons.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:34 amDontcha just love the chutzpah of Barbara Boxer as she continues to emasculate that dingbat, Imhofe? Go Barbara! Next time she needs to slam her gavel down a little further….say in the area of his private parts maybe? Ouch!
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:35 amRush can buy clear channel if he wanted to. I dont see the lib lie as any threat I see it as an opp to expose them for the shameless liars they are.
Comment by Vendetta
Anyone with an IQ above room temperature knows that Rush Limbaugh is a bigoted hateful gasbag. What this incident has done is to show the American public, once again, how far the hypocracy of the Republican party will go.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:37 am“Dipnote”
????
Dipwad, dipweed, anything with “dip” in it can’t be taken seriously, can it?
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:38 amOh, wait, maybe that’s the whole point….
…nevar mind…..
#38 Veritas,
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:38 amI just wonder when the hell he is going to finally get tired of her emasculating him in fromt of him peers everythime he opens his lying mouth. Some people really don’t learn.
Good job this morning TP “crew” (Trip, Bilbo, Barfly, Molly, Gummitch) on whacking our resident troll(s). Perhaps there’s two (Vendetta and Jake D(eluded)?) Or maybe he’s a schitzo.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:38 amShould be “his”
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:38 amBluedahlia: As they say: “There’s no fool like an old fool” and Imhofe qualifies in both categories. He’s so ancient and out of touch that he doesn’t realize the level of his own hypocrisy. Who knows – he probably doesn’t remember what he just said 5 minutes previously. And “fool” because he keeps repeating his mistakes. And that’s the classic definition of insanity: repeating the same mistake and believing in a different outcome.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:40 amI love Barbara Boxer. I wish she would run for President. She would be ever so much better than Hillary. In the meantime the Democrats would be well served if they kicked Harry Reid to the curb and put Barbara in his place. Can you see her backing away from Bully Boy Bush? I can’t.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:41 amAnyone NOT on the “Ignore List†want to answer my question: is Erik Prince a “phony soldier†or not?
Comment by Jake D. — October 3, 2007 @ 9:40 am
No Jake, noone wants to play with you today.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:41 amMy god — he must be Bush’s progeny — looks like him right down to the smirk.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:41 amI don’t know, Nevar — “Dipnote” seems a perfectly appropriate name for a fake news blog from the Bushco administration, dontchathink? After all, what ELSE could you call any written product from a group headed by the biggest DIP in the world?
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:42 amFrankly, Imhofe always reminds me of the classic definition of “washwoman” – the petty quibbling over a few seconds of time or the feeling that somehow he’s “entitled” so some preferences just because he sat in the same seat prior to Boxer and now is experincing severe angst because while in that seat he did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! He’s squirming and his ego can’t take the heat of his tenure being made a joke of.
Imhofe is the poster boy for the reason we need “term limits”.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:42 amanswer my question: is Erik Prince a “phony soldier†or not?
Comment by Jake D.
He’s a mercenary.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:43 amA gun for hire.
By most definitions, that is a phony soldier.
LOL – Fox News and Clear Channel are backing up Rush. Reps are learning to stand arm-in-arm against libs attacks, whether those being attacked are right or wrong.
If you can stand behind a president who abuses his position of power to lure interns into sexual acts, then we can stand behind any of our own people exercising free speech.
Remember, these are your rules, not ours, so bask in the irony.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:43 am#49 Bilbo,
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:43 amI agree. I love that she doesn’t “suffer fools”. We really need more of that. Lots more.
Dogfather: We know it really should be called “Bush’s Propaganda Megaphone” and will have nothing of truth in it or real substance.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:43 amWe can’t answer your question, Shakey — we don’t like Dipnotes here…
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:44 amAnyone NOT on the “Ignore List†want to answer my question: is Erik Prince a “phony soldier†or not?
Comment by Jake D
I appear to be on your ignore list, but I’ll answer anyway. No, Eric Prince is not a phony soldier. He is not a soldier at all. He is a Right Wing Evangelical Loon who has leashed his mercenaries on Iraq and the United States. He is a very dangerous man and needs to be stopped in his tracks.
.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:44 amIt will be fun to watch the “conservatives” pretend, even for just a moment, that abortion, gays, and guns really don’t matter as they plug their noses and vote for the far-left liberal Rudy Guiliani. Don’t you trolls wish your GOP would give you something positive to defend once in a while instead of war, death, debt and Larry Craig?
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:44 amComment by Nevar — October 3, 2007 @ 9:43 am
You’re taking orders from Jake? “answer my question!” Don’t you see the pouty foot stomp?
DNFTT
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:44 amIt seems as if MoveOn.org, “Media Matters†and Soros have taken a few pages too many from the playbook of the National Socialist Party propoganda leader Joseph Goebbels. They couldn’t defeat Limbaugh in the open market with their failed “Air America†so now they are resorting to smear campaigns and repeated calls for the government to take greater control over the airwaves. For the most part, only those who already hate Limbaugh will believe these lies. There will be some who will hear the lies repeated so often that they will be fooled into thinking they are the truth. This is what the Neo-Libs/National Socialists count on. Now, how about focusing on the real issues? For example, why do Davidknows (nothing) and “Obsolete†appear to hate at least 50% of America more than they hate Al Qaeda? Why do the MoveOn.Orgocrats have to resort to lies to attack right-thinking conservatives? Why do MoveOn.Orgocrats think so much like Stalin and Goebbels that repeating a lie often enough makes it the truth? Why do the MoveOn.orgocrats talking points sound so much like an English translation of Bin Laden’s videotapes? The answer is obvious — control of the Democratic party has swung to the far-left, controlled by George Soros and MoveOn.Org — and the party is lost. Reid’s rants are just burrying it further.
Comment by Tampachessdon — October 3, 2007 @ 9:31 am
I see you’ve had YOUR coffee this morning! Hmmm….where to start, where to start…
1) Why is George Soros always mentioned in such a negative tone by you wingnuts without any specifics? He’s a rich guy who funds left-wing causes, just as Rupert Murdoch is a rich guy who uses his media machine to promote right-wing causes.
2) You accuse the left of using “propaganda”? Pot, meet kettle. Rove and Cheney conflated Iraq
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:45 amI watched Erik Prince “squirm” during his testimony yesterday. This guy’s facial expressions told it all. Each time he was “fudging the facts”, he’d get that look on his face. He’s nothing but a christofascist bushbot.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:45 amNo Jake, noone wants to play with you today.
Comment by Bluedahlia
Sorry, I slipped. I’ll do better, I promise.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:46 amSenate is in limbo..[.ouch.] Limbaugh.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:46 amYeah, V — but “Dipnote” captures the true essence of “Bush’s Propaganda Megaphone” more succinctly, doesn’t it? Plus, it’s so clearly self-deprecating (whether intentional or not) that our work is done on that one — the ridicule just writes itself!
Oh, BTW Shakey and Vendetta — “self-deprecating” doesn’t mean Bush is pooping his pants (at least this time). I knew I had to explain that one to you since it’s a really big word and probably not in your reichwing readers…
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:46 am#61, above the clouds,
Not all Reps are Christian conservatives, and given the poll numbers, Reps seem quite satisfied with Rudy’s positions on these issues.
Let’s talk about Hill’reh, who now won’t promise to pull all troops out by 2013 – that’s gotta stick in your craw.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:46 amcontinuing…
Rove and Cheney conflated Iraq and Osama bin Laden so often that they actually got over half the country to believe that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11.
3) Control of the Democratic party has swung to the far left? If only! You couldn’t tell it by our current crop of Congresspeople or our current top tier presidential candidates.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:47 am#64,
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:47 amIts ok, I don’t feel the need to treat you like one of my children. ;)
MissMolly: The level of “overt projection” now by the Bushbots is utterly amazing. They have the cajones to foist accusations on the liberals which they know they have been utilizing themselves. It’s “mirror time” for the reichwing nuts I see. They’ve run out of options so they are now attempting to accust others of their own sins.
It’s sooooo incredibly predictable and affirms that they’re on their last legs.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:47 amI agree. I love that she doesn’t “suffer foolsâ€. We really need more of that. Lots more.
What we really need is fewer fools. We’ll weed out the ranks next year and that will be a good start. GDumbya and Darth Cheney will take several of them out on their coattails when they depart the White House on their way to Paraguay.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:48 amSorry, gummitch, don’t hate me , OK :)
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:49 amDogfather: Yes, I love the obvious implications of the name of their propaganda machine. It’s so incredibly telling. As for educating our village idiot trolls, it’s an ongoing process and a chore.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:49 amAnyone on Jake’s “Ignore List†want to discuss why the moron makes such childish posts, that he cannot really defend, so he has to hide behind said list?
Or Maybe:
Anyone on Jake’s “Ignore List†want to discuss how Jake got caught cutting and pasting from a Korean War Veteran site, thus his defense of Limburger highlights a bigger hypocrisy spilling forth from a deranged mind?
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:49 amMorning, Tom! Yes, we certainly do need fewer fools. And we’ve got plenty of them right now, thanks to the Bush Crime Cabal. The administration has been intentionally loaded with still wet behind the ears children (twentysomethings) who not only have never been briefed on the laws of this country but who are not even smart or savvy enough to realize that at their age the ONLY thing they could be hired for would be to become a “patsy”.
“Ignorance is Bliss” should be the the banner in the new press room of the white house.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:52 ambilbobaggins
Think about it:
We rule the schools, the courts, the sciences, the media and the arts in general. We even dominate when it comes to maths textbooks and the internet.
Economically, well we are supposed to be drinking coctails and contemplating social injustice over caviar, meaning that we kind of dominate there too.
Our countries and our states are generally richer, our military history is more victorious (The conservative South lost to the liberal North for example) and our heroes tend to be more heroic.
Our historic contributions last longer (Unionism, the constitution, abolishing slavery, public welfare) our artists have more talent and are more widely recognised (Bob Dylan, Johnny Cash, Leonard Cohen, Kris Kristoferson and that is only one generation from one continent.)
So when the leftwing does something wrong it is shocking, because, you know, we actually are better then the rightwing.
At least, this is as according to the rightwing account.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:52 amIt’s “mirror time†for the reichwing nuts I see. They’ve run out of options so they are now attempting to accust others of their own sins.
This is a classic part of the definition of a sociopath. That’s pretty much what the Republicans are starting with the Sociopath and Chief himself.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:52 am55% of americans want the dems to challenge Bush’s amoral policies – which means that 55% of the country realizes that the Repukes would do nothing at all. How does this help your pathetic cause, Vendetta?
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:53 amBilbo: Is it PsychoChief or SocioChimp? Take your pick.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:53 amDIPSHITNOTE.com… yep, another bullsh*t propaganda site.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:55 amComment by Above the Clouds — October 3, 2007 @ 9:44 am
Yes, many Republicans will hold their noses while they vote for Giuliani, and many Democrats will hold their noses while they vote for Hillary.
Our primary system is a joke. Election after election, we are forced to vote for the least objectionable out of two objectionable candidates because they have clinched their party’s nomination before many states even get to express their opinion.
If we really had a Democratic nominee who represents the liberal viewpoint, we’d have Kucinich. And if the Republicans really wanted a nominee who represented the fiscal conservative, libertarian views that party once had, they’d have Ron Paul. But instead, we will wind up with the two candidates who are able to raise the most money from corporate America. Again. Sigh.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:55 ammissmolly sez:
What’s really disturbing is that they (via their propaganda mouthpiece, FOX “News”) are spreading the exact same lies…about Iran.
It’s been going on for a while, and now they’re ratcheting up the rhetoric.
By the time we attack, a sizable percentage of Americans will honestly believe that Iran was involved in 9/11. Now that’s “catapulting the propaganda”.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:56 amRush’s mouth does to America what Bush’s brain does.
They’re both narcissistic sociopaths that act like playground bullies. Only they have a right to an opinion about what’s ‘good for the playground’.
America needs change. These two jerkoffs is a great place to start.
I’ll leave the new Troll to you others for now, but I do want a shot at it later, mmmkai?
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:56 am“Overall, 55 percent of Americans want congressional Democrats to do more to challenge the president’s Iraq policies…â€
Comment by Vendetta
You are correct on that and many of the 55% are Republicans. Overall the public knows that the Democrats really can’t accomplish anything with the Obstructionist Republicans filibustering right and left. But, we would like our members of Congress to push harder even if the Republicans continue to obstruct. You see Sad Vendetta, the Democrats are not afraid to tell their leaders when they think they are failing their constituents, unlike the Lemming Right Wing Loons who march in lockstep with Bush off the Cliff even though they know that it will lead to their eventual demise. They are hardwired to put party above all else.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:56 amIgnore Limbaugh…
Senate passed 195 billions of your money two days ago going to IRAQ WAR,and no noise…Limbaugh now is the big story !!!
Limbaugh loves controversies and he thrives on them.
Ignore him..
He is not even news…
The Senate should not allow the Moveon resolution..to begin with..are we now going to pass resolutions everytime some idiot makes a statement..
Ignore him…
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:56 amAmerica needs change. These two jerkoffs is a great place to start.
Comment by Zimzone
The change is coming in November 2008. And I am going to love watching the Right Wing Loons blow blood vessels in their brains as a result. Perhaps a few will expire and the world will be a much better place for it.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:58 amoh yeah, dipnote’s comments are APPROVED by a moderator…. so much for free speech…. FU*KING LAUGHABLE!
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:58 amIt is not all good for the libs.
From the article,
“Most Americans do not believe Congress has gone far enough in opposing the war, with liberal Democrats especially critical of their party’s failure to force the president into a significant change in policy.â€
“…52 percent, think Bush’s plan for removing some troops by next summer is either the right pace for withdrawal (38 percent) or too hasty (12 percent would like a slower reduction.â€
“Overall, 55 percent of Americans want congressional Democrats to do more to challenge the president’s Iraq policies…â€
Comment by Vendetta — October 3, 2007 @ 9:51 am
You’re just proven Earl Blumenauer’s point: “We have a Democratic majority, we don’t yet have a progressive majority.”
In other words, it’s all good news for “libs” because 55% of Americans agree with the “libs” and want more done about Iraq. How is that not “good news for libs”?
Thanks for making our point: America is becoming more liberal because of the incompetence of this administration and the so-called “conservatives.”
Next?
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:59 ammissmolly & Trip: Isn’t it amazing that people can’t see that they are using the same lies and the same pages from the Iraq playbook? Amazing how they aren’t creative enough to even give the appearance of it being sincere and genuine at this point. Perhaps it has nothing to do with creativity and everything to do with a dictatorship?
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:59 amWow, Fan of Man is doing our work for us today. You are telling us that our gov’t is corrupt and politically motivated? Wow.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:01 amFanofMan: And with the censoring at the new site, only a total dweeb or flaming dip$hit would go there.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:01 am“the Army rushed enlistees into its ranks more quickly than usual, depleting the number in the pipeline for next year to less than 7,000 — the smallest in more than a decade.â€
OMG, they are just rushing these kids through without the correct training and skills to help keep them alive in that meat grinder called Iraq.
Unbelievable.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:02 amtarazan: And the MoveOn and Limbaugh type of “diversionary tactics” need to come to a screeching halt. This is part/parcel of the reichwing nut tactics – distract and evade, bait & switch. How can Congress allow themselves to get bogged down in such nonsense during which time more of our military dies and more of our kids lack health care????
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:03 amWayne: Soon anyone unemployed with a beating heart will be recruited, not trained, and sent directly to their death.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:04 amDon’t you trolls wish your GOP would give you something positive to defend once in a while instead of war, death, debt and Larry Craig?
Comment by Above the Clouds — October 3, 2007 @ 9:44 am
This is why they pounced with such self-righteous indignation at the MoveOn ad like a starving dog diving for a table scrap.
Just like how when the Vietnam War wasn’t going well, and there was a groundswell of opposition to it here at home, the hawks went all-out in their attack on a movie actress who traveled there and made a few dumb comments.
Any scapegoat will do, I guess.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:04 amWayne sez:
From all appearances, it looks as if the armed forces are being overstressed to the breaking point on purpose. Makes sense if you’re planning on instituting a police state with your own private army (Blackwater).
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:05 amverbal exchange between the 2 major parties.
Republicans: BOO!!!
Democrats: Whimper, Whimper.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:05 am“Children’s do learn” , or,
“No Childrens Left Behind”
Courtesy from one of the greatest Orators in history?
/sarcasm
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:05 amWell now if Clear Channel ever fires employees for anything they say on the air, they should sue Clear Channel for infringing on their free speech “rights.”
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:05 amVendetta,
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:07 amUs “lefties” or “libtards” or whatever else you want to call us are not happy with everything our representatives are doing either. We don’t need to march lockstep just because they have a D after their name. We here want progress; hence the name “Think Progress”. Get a clue.
Bush just vetoed the Children’s Health care bill that would have increased spending by $35 billion over 5 years…$6 billion per year. That’s less than it costs for one month in Iraq.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:08 amThis is like dealing with a blog full of lefties with Alzheimers . My cause is to get the dems to defend the war. I am further left on this than some of you toadies. The fact that they are not when 55% want at least a reduction is bad for the dems.
Comment by Vendetta — October 3, 2007 @ 10:04 am
OK, I obviously HAVEN’T had enough caffeine yet, because I read this post through several times and I’m not understanding it. How can you be “further left” and try to get us to defend the war? How is most Americans wanting a reduction in troops bad for the Dems?
Could you reword this so it makes sense?
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:08 amKucinich and Ron Paul are the only ones we should be voting for. The others are all puppets of someone.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:10 ammissmolly,
Asking a Troll to make sense is like asking Bush to utter a complete sentence.
Not that Vendetta wouldn’t look good in lipstick, but the pig thing gets in the way, know what I mean?
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:11 amLol Zimzone
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:12 amHow can you be “further left†and try to get us to defend the war?
Comment by missmolly — October 3, 2007 @ 10:08 am
The circle theory of politics, once you go so far right, you are then left of Stalinist Russia, maybe?
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:13 amAmazing how they aren’t creative enough to even give the appearance of it being sincere and genuine at this point. Perhaps it has nothing to do with creativity and everything to do with a dictatorship?
Comment by Veritas
If you haven’t read it yet, read John Dean’s Conservatives Without Conscience. It explains the Republican mindset very well and it is very scary indeed.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:13 amI spent the time before work this morning explaining to my kids why I disapprove of teachers letting students use calculators to do their math tests. In my opinion, it creates an unnecessary dependency. The math that is taught in public schools is for creating the basic skills that everyone should know and have at hand as they live their daily lives.
When you are trying to figure out your gas mileage while driving, when you are reading food labels at the grocery store, when you are trying to figure out how many cans of stain it will take to cover your deck, you will probably not have a calculator handy (because your kids will have accidentally flushed it down the toilet, of course).
In the same vein, I disapprove of people who allow themselves to be judged too easily as the member of one camp or another. Your personal opinions are the only real freedom you have in this life, and to be classified wholly as “liberal” or “conservative” is to let someone else figure out who you are and what you deserve.
I am disappointed by the laziness of American thought. Once upon a time in this country people fought for rights, fought for survival, fought for credibility, and fought for respect. They fought to get out of the shadows of racism and bigotry. They fought for the right to make an honest living. They fought for the opportunity to fairly elect their government representatives.
It’s not so much that we’ve forgotten to fight – it’s in our blood – it’s that we’ve forgotten how to think. On the one hand we condemn our detractors without looking for an opportunity for compromise, and on the other we make concessions in the places where no one should be asked to concede.
If you can’t quite figure out what this means, one simple picture should be enough to remind you of where this country came from, and where it is now.
http://www.shorpy.com/node/1644
These kids know what matters to them, they know what’s worth fighting for and what isn’t, and you can bet your ass they can do the math to figure out how far the $2 they earn will take them that week.
And they’re not “liberal” or “conservative” … they’re Americans.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:14 amUnfortunately both Kucinich and Ron Paul are nuts laughed at by their own.
Comment by Vendetta
I don’t know about the right and Ron Paul, but the left certainly does not laugh at Kucinich. He is very well respected and if the MSM didn’t black him out completely, I believe he would be in the top tier of candidates since his views most closely match a recent poll that showed this country truly does identify with progressive values. Until we get rid of our two-party system, candidates like Kucinich will never stand a chance.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:16 amGreat, show us some progress and get the dems to defund this war. Instead they approve another 190 billion while you are distracted by a manufactured debate over Rush. Vendetta
What is wrong with you. Did your mother drop you on your head when you were a baby. I’ll withhold my judgments on the Democrats until they do something to give Bush permission to use this money. It was approved in theory only. The Congress has not told Bush how he can spend this money. Perhaps they have it in mind to tell him to use the money to bring our troops home.
Besides, it was $150 billion NOT $190 billion. You need to get your facts straight before you mouth off.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:19 amVendetta is too busy playing on both sides of the street to be taken seriously. *yawn*
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:20 amVendetta
Frankly, the only guys still talking about George Soros, are on the right.
So pardon me while I ignore your hysteria.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:20 amYou have all been played by media matters, move on and american “Progressâ€
all puppets of G Soros.
Comment by Vendetta
And you have been played by the Right Wing Noise Machine, all puppets of Rupert Murdoch.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:21 amVendetta sez:
And how exactly do you propose we do that? We’ve been screaming for defunding a lot longer than you have.
Don’t blame the Democrats’ treachery on us…we’re not the ones who keep knuckling under to Chimpy.
Again, we’ve been awake a lot longer than you. Pelosi’s bald statement of “impeachment is off the table” was enough to wake anybody up.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:21 amIt’s good to see these sort of things come out. The first thing out of people mouth is What a good job the troops are doing and the US Military is the finest in the world. now the reichewing and limpballs are bashing the troops so the door is open people will be able to say what they wanna say about the troops and won’t be held accountable (i.e the troops are not off limits anymore) thanks to the reichwing and limpballs.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:22 amAnyone NOT on the “Ignore List†want to answer my question: is Erik Prince a “phony soldier†or not?
Comment by Jake D. — October 3, 2007 @ 9:40 am
How about it, Jake…who’s on the ignore list? I’d like an update.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:23 amAnyone NOT on the “Ignore List†want to answer my question: is Erik Prince a “phony soldier†or not?
Comment by Jake D. — October 3, 2007 @ 9:40 am
Erik Prince is currently a phony soldier. He USED to be a real soldier, when he was a Navy SEAL. Now, he has discarded his uniform, his honor, and his oaths to his country. He has taken military action, and turned it in to a for-profit venture. His uniform is discarded. His honor is sullied. His oaths to his fellows shattered.
Mercenaries are not soldiers, mercenaries are leeches. They are ronin. They are dishonorable dogs. Their word means nothing. They warrant no trust. Perhaps Erik Prince used to walk the walk. Now? He just talks the talk. And the words he talks mean nothing.
Now, I say this knowing full well that I am on your “Ignore List”, seeing as how you never refute anything I say, nor acknowledge any point I might make. Perhaps I made a refutation to a point you made that you couldn’t stand up to? I’m pretty damned sure I’ve never insulted you, or resorted to ad hominems with you. That pretty much sums up your posting here. Just like the Noise Machines on the Right and the Left, you simply attempt to scream YOUR view, without listening to or seeing things from someone else’s perspective.
Now, at least, if you continue your “tactics”, I can report any abusive posts. If you abuse too often, you get banned. So really, it’s better if you just debate honestly, or leave.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:24 amVendetta,
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:26 amYou don’t speak for me, or know what I stand for. So shut the hell up.
Here’s a link to a list of Rush Limbaugh advertisers, in case anyone is interested:
Comment by missmolly — October 3, 2007 @ 9:26 am
Thanks for the link. I let his advertisers know that, while I believe he made a mistake, it doesn’t warrant pulling their ads. The controversy will die down next week and the advertisers will suffer no ill effects. ;)
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:28 am“It’s not so much that we’ve forgotten to fight – it’s in our blood – it’s that we’ve forgotten how to think.”
Comment by Bush is a four letter word — October 3, 2007 @ 10:14 am
I blame television. There are other factors, to be sure, but television appears to be the biggest culprit. For a couple of reasons.
1) Television, more than any other modern invention, has taught us to plop ourselves in our Barcaloungers and allow information to flow into our inert, glassy-eyed selves. Yes, it started out as entertainment — now we are just in the habit of plugging ourselves into this source of noise and stimulation. We absorb anything anyone wants to throw at us, often without consciously realizing it. Our ability for independent thought has become atrophied.
2) Controversial issues are treated by the MSM television media as having two sides. For and against. Pro and con. Left and right. One representative from each side is there to provide comment. There are no third, fourth, or fifth points of view, and no compromise. We pick who we agree with and identify ourselves as being part of that Borg. Once we choose a side of the fence, we cling to that ideology without question, absorbing the soundbites we are fed from that side via television without resistance, because our thinking mechanisms have been inactive too long (see point one, above).
If Americans suddenly regained the ability to think, how would our world be different? I can think of a number of ways, starting with Americans becoming far more vocal about the outrageous way our country is currently being run.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:32 amComment by Vendetta — October 3, 2007 @ 10:25 am
Ah! Now it makes sense. Thanks!
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:33 amI am not on either side. I want politicians to do what they say they will do. Thats why they are elected. Instead the Repubs are not fiscally responsible as they claimed the would be and the dems have not stopped the funding to bring our troops home.
Comment by Vendetta — October 3, 2007 @ 10:30 am
Make up your mind. First you’re “farther to the left” than the rest of us, then you’re dumping on George Soros, then you’re blathering about the “dems” as though they were synonymous with “libs”, another of your favorite expressions.
Face it, you have no opinions based on thought, you only react to whatever is posted in order to get attention. You are, by definition, a troll.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:37 amGreat post at 131 missmolly.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:38 amRush was wrong to use “phony soldiers” and those who support him in the media are wrong to slander other soldiers. It’s not worthy of any congressional attention. It is worthy of the publics attention.
Rush is an alarmist and a spewer of dissconnected talking points. He’s an entertainer and nothing more.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:40 amFrankly, the only guys still talking about George Soros, are on the right.
So pardon me while I ignore your hysteria.
Comment by Bruce Gorton — October 3, 2007 @ 10:20 am
Of course you don’t want to talk about Soros. Makes it hard to whine about millionaire Republicans trying to buy elections. ;)
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:43 amThe truth is that because Mr. Murdoch refuses to drink the Clinton-Soros cool aid he is hated and demonized by liberals.
FOX news sued for the right to lie, and won
News – In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.
Just out of curiousity, WTF is “the Clinton-Soros kool-aid”? Please TRY, TRY, TRY to make “sense”, or you simply “make “a horse’s Limbaugh” of yourself.
You don’t want to end up a complete laughingstock, like Jerk D and Vendetta, do you?
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:45 amGodfather2 sez:
First of all, I believe the saying you’re groping for is “bald-faced lie”.
Second, can you be more specific regarding Reid’s alleged slander?
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:46 amMiss Molly’s lament about American’s lack of ability to think is something with which I strongly disagree. Americans do a fine job of thinking for themselves. Why don’t you first recognize the lies of Media Matters to show that YOU possess a modicum of cognition?
Comment by Godfather2 — October 3, 2007 @ 10:37 am
The fact that you accuse Media Matters of lying without any justification or specific examples just proves my point. Stop carrying water for the wingnuts and provide something thoughtful instead of empty accusations.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:48 amI am not on either side. I want politicians to do what they say they will do. Thats why they are elected. Instead the Repubs are not fiscally responsible as they claimed the would be and the dems have not stopped the funding to bring our troops home.
Comment by Vendetta — October 3, 2007 @ 10:30 am
Yeah, like I said, you’re playing both sides of the street. Please keep an eye out for that oncoming bus….
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:49 amWhen Clear Channel calls Limbaugh talent they are really scraping the bottom of the barrel. College drop out, 3x divorced, drug user. Surely they can find a better conservative to represent them.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:49 amBLACKWATER IS PAID TO PROTECT PEOPLE IN IRAQ. IS IT ANY SUPRISE THAT THEY KILLED IRAQIES? IT IS HELL OVER THERE AND UNLIKE OUR MILITARY THEIR HANDS ARE NOT TIED WHEN IT COMES TO RULES OF ENGAGEMENT. IF YOU ARE BEING FIRED UPON YOU RETURN FIRE.
THERE IS NO WAY WE WILL EVER WIN IN IRAQ WITH THE WAY THE TROOPS ARE HANDCUFFED BY CURRENT RULES OF ENGAGEMENT SO THEY SHOULD JUST COME HOME. THEN AFTER IRAN AND SYRIA TAKE OVER IRAQ AND GET A NUCLEAR BOMB THEY CAN BLOW UP SOME AMERICAN CITIES AND KILL AMERICAN TOURISTS ALL OVER THE WORLD. IT’S WHAT WE DESERVE FOR GOING INTO THE MIDDLE EAST, ISN’T IT?
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:49 ammissmolly sez:
Isn’t it great when the trolls refute themselves? ^_^
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:52 amAmericans do a fine job of thinking for themselves.
Comment by Godfather2 — October 3, 2007 @ 10:37 am
Here’s a few examples of “fine jobs of thinking for themselves”:
41% of Americans answered ‘Yes’ to the question “Do you think Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was directly involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001?”.
A majority of people couldn’t identify Saudia Arabia as the country of origin of most of the 9/11 hijackers, even given the question in multiple choice format. 20% answered Iraq, while 14% believed the hijackers came from Iran.
89% of Americans are unable to name the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (John Roberts), though a majority of those polled were able to name Nancy Pelosi as the current Speaker of the House.
Source here
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:53 am.
GF2, I read the transcript (before editing by Rush) and I’ve listened to the audio. His Bloviating since then had attempted to clarify that. I am all for exposing anyone who claims to be a soldier and is in fact not. That is a phony soldier. The far right has attacked real soldiers for their views and called them phony. That is disgraceful and should be confronted at every opportunity.
Rush is an entertainer. And he’s entertaining. He practices breaking up thought with his rustling of papers, banging his desk and jumping from topic to topic without thoughtful discussion. He tells you what to think instead of engaging in debate. He’s not original. This type of huckster has been around for ages.
I’m not a defender of Air America, although opposing views should be given the same airtime.
I don’t remember seeing you speak out when the topic was the dreadful conditions that still exist for our wounded Vets. You have quite a bit to say to defend an entertainer. I wonder if you could muster the same outrage and point it at this administration for continually turning their backs on the very service members that put their lives on the line.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:54 amGodfather2
Well, considering that we have whines about a liberal media, a liberal judiciary, a liberal education system, a liberal scientific community, a liberal arts community, and a liberal blogosphere I don’t think that one can really argue liberal bias anymore. When every source of information goes against your ideology Godfather2, maybe your ideology is just wrong.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:54 amSo many young men and women joined after 9/11 to fight in Afganistan only to be pulled out and sent to Iraq for oil and greed. Where is Osama ? Where are the wmd’s ? Where is the 9 billion or the 250 milllion stolen this year ? Where is the medical care for the wounded soldiers ? What about the stop loss, denying soldiers who have served their time and NOT allowed to go home ?
Rush. O’Reilly, Hannity, Coulter are beneath contempt.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:56 amGodfather2,
You made the allegation, you better f*cking well back it up — or shut the hell up.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:56 amcomment by texaslady @ 10:49
You forgot to say that he’s also a draft-dodging coward.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:00 amWhat OTHER proof do you want?
Comment by RemoveBush — October 3, 2007 @ 10:46 am
You cut off the transcript right where Limbaugh explains what he means by phony soilder. People sign up to the military to defend america. Right now that means going to Iraq and Afganistan. Do you really think that somehow they are being mislead? Wise up.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:00 amIn an interview with the New York Observer, conservative commentator…Ann Coulter left this choice quote:
COULTER: If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream, it’s a personal fantasy of mine, but I don’t think it’s going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.
It also makes the point, it is kind of embarrassing, the Democratic Party ought to be hanging its head in shame, that it has so much difficulty getting men to vote for it. I mean, you do see it’s the party of women and ‘We’ll pay for health care and tuition and day care — and here, what else can we give you, soccer moms?’
Does this outrageous statement by Coulter add to the rumors questioning her gender?
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:03 amGodfather2 sez:
Just looking for a little clarification.
Now see? How hard was that? You’d have used less keystrokes if you has just taken a pass on your ersatz-righteous outrage.
Now, about your assertion that Limbaugh only called soldiers that falsified their war record phony soldiers…did Murtha “falsify his war record”?
Because according to Rush, Murtha is also classified as a “phony soldier”.
See, GF2? I am familiar with “the google”. Perhaps it’s you that ought to “do your own research”.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:03 amGodfather2
No, he called soldiers who opposed the Iraq war phony soldiers. It is his standard MO, it went a bit far in the light of the MoveOn.org ad, and now you and your ilk are being outed as hypocrits.
Next week, Rush will probably call on America to kill all the Atheists or something stupid, and it will all start all over again because Rush is, at his heart, a shock jock. Nothing more, nothing less.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:04 amchriswyse, How does going to Iraq defend America? It’s not a war. There is no direct threat to our country from Iraq. None. No AQI is able to launch a blow against the US.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:04 am#50 – “No Jake, noone wants to play with you today.” Comment by Bluedahlia — October 3, 2007 @ 9:41 am
Isn’t everyone who posts to TP on his imaginary “ignore list”? He’s got this silly notion that HIS questions can only be answered HIS way, and if you don’t agree with him, then he maically puts you on his “ignore dissenters” list.
Sounds like Jake D. has conformed to the Rush “if you don’t turn off your brain and say ditto, you’re wrong!” Limbaugh mindset.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:05 amKeith Olbermann, Lou Dobbs, Rachel Madow, Chris Mathews shall I go on to the journalists, Paul Krugman, Bob Herbert, Maureen Dowd. The list of people speaking with intelligence instead of personal ,nonsense.
Can you name one show with factual commentary that Limbaugh or O’Reilly have ever done ?
Oh, I have one, how about when Rush stated, “I am tired of being the water carrier for the Republicans.” Guess the check was in the mail.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:07 amRush is an idiot, and the dittoheads who proudly follow him, are clearly incapable of thinking for themselves. They like being spoon fed their thoughts and ideas. Look at the posts defending Rush and his phony soldier comment. They all could have been written by one person. All almost exactly the same. Mostly along the lines of The leftâ„¢ lies, limbaugh was talking about Jesse Macbeth, liberals are children blah, blah, blah.Not an original thought throughout.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:08 amThis allegation Godfather:
Dear Remove Bush,
Prove that Sen. Reid’s slander against Rush Limbaugh is not, in fact, a bold faced lie.
I await your feeble attempts.
Comment by Godfather2 — October 3, 2007 @ 10:38 am
Back it up, get lost.
You must be new around here. Not using the * gets us deleted.
Get bent.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:10 am#131 ~ I blame television. There are other factors, to be sure, but television appears to be the biggest culprit. For a couple of reasons.
Television doesn’t help, but it doesn’t hurt either. Power is neither good or bad, it merely is. How television is being used is another matter. This is why we have the FCC, to ensure that it is not crossing the line from being entertaining into being a public menace.
For a lot of people television is no longer their primary media. This isn’t an elitist or classist judgment, just observing what draws my attention: television is not as interesting as real-time interaction. My son is the same way; at 10 he can’t be bothered to sit and watch television, he’d prefer to be interacting with something.
And when televisions turn of because of personal preference, the world changes.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:10 am#164 – “did Murtha “falsify his war recordâ€?” Comment by TripMaster Monkey — October 3, 2007 @ 11:03 am
To answer your question, “no”. Rep. Murtha has done nothing to falsify his war record. It’s the ultra-rabid right-whining neo-cons that have attempted to smear a veteran by falsely alleging he (somehow, using anti-American logic) “hates our troops”, because Rep. Murtha stood up to Pres. Bush & the anti-American Republicans and supported the troops over the “bomb everyone” neo-con cabal that wants to US to attack any oil-producing country for fabricated reasons.
Why do right-whiners hate our honorable veterans so much?
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:10 amWhich Klansmen and Killers are you talking about, the ones that hate Jews, Blacks, women, any minorities, I believe they belong to your side. And speaking of killers, I believe your men Bush/Cheney are leaders in that area right now. Add up the numbers.
Such a sad thing when conservatives have to defend the likes of Rush Limbaugh.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:11 amDemocrat Soldier sez:
That’s why he registered under an alternate name (”Rory”). The pseudonym “Jake” is fatally weighted down with numerous gaffes and exposed lies, and his “ignore list” backfired spectacularly on him, so he’s trying to make a fresh start with “Rory”.
Compare the wording of “Jake’s” and “Rory’s” posts. It’s obvious they’re written by the same person.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:12 am#148 yes please do reproduce the ENTIRE transcript and show where we are all wrong. And don’t selectively edit and only put forth the portions that satisfy your needs, put the whole thing out there everything and perhaps add time lines to show the proximity of the discussions of the fake soldiers. Use it to refute the notion that Rush was not simply slandering any soldier who disagrees with his point of view.
While you are at it, why don’t you at some point write up a little on exactly how this dreaded Clinton-Soros cabal is threatening America, be specific and use truthful facts. While you are at it write up some support with facts that back up your allegations against media matters. If it is all truthful, verifiable and flows logically you will actually convince people. However if what you write simply boils down to baseless allegations then you are staying in the same leaking sinking boat that the Party of Bush is driving to deep waters to be sunk. Here is your forum, give it your best shot.
Oh and don’t forget to add to your list of grievances against the NY Times the fact that their neo-con reporters drummed harder for War with Iraq than any other major newspaper in the country.
#159 many of these troops sign up and when they get over there and see what the reality is they become disenchanted. It happens all the time. That in no way makes them phony.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:12 am#173 – “Liberals often make the charge that conservatives can’t think for themselves.” Comment by Godfather2 — October 3, 2007 @ 11:10 am
Hmmm. . . . .
Can you say “ditto”? If you can, then you aren’t using your brain. You’re following the pimple-a$$ed draft-dodger over the cliff. Lemmings tend to do that.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:13 amGodfather2
Rush said what he said and you cannot wrap your brain around the fact that it was, by your own standards, wrong so you are trying desperately to excuse it and make it as if it never happened.
Accept that your guys can be wrong, particularly professional hypocrites like Rush, start thinking for yourself, and get on with your life.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:14 am“…I will not condemn our talent…”
Nobody asked you to condemn your talent. It is No-talent Limpballs to which exception is taken and who should be condemned..
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:14 am#176 – “Senator Robert Byrd and Ted Kennedy. Any other questions?” Comment by Godfather2 — October 3, 2007 @ 11:12 am
Nope. But one more: Sen. Thurmond.
Strom never apologized for his racist past, or his illegitimate children from his “black” mistress, and supported segregation to his dying day.
The “strange fruit” never falls far from the racist tree.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:16 am3183 – “As for the appearance of my a$$, you weren’t so critical of it last night as I sat on your face. You seemed to enjoy yourself mightily.” Comment by Godfather2 — October 3, 2007 @ 11:15 am
I wasn’ talking about YOUR a$$. In fact, I enjoyed plowing my liberal c0ck all the way up inside of you as you groaned for more.
I take it you want a repeat performance. Just tell me when you want to get reamed again. And again. And again.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:19 amJust some observations as I’m too busy to whack-a-troll this morning:
Notice how Jake D. disappears, and Rory appears?
Notice how every single troll’s comment has a recommend status next to it? Geez, talk about self pleasuring.
…and WTF was wrong with Jason Misogynist Hendler last night? It appears he was angrier than usual. Must be he’s approaching his 10 year anniversary to that fateful day when he almost got laid.
JMH confrontational with an opponent?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Thanks for the chuckle, JMH. You’re a one of a kind, that’s for sure!
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:21 am#186 – “See if you can raise the level of your criticism beyond the purile, foul mouthed, thoughtless and boring level …” Comment by Godfather2 — October 3, 2007 @ 11:17 am
Yeah, just read your #183 post for “good right-whining language”.
Hypocrisy, much? Yeah, you’re very good at throwing stones when your house is made of glass. Typical right-whiner.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:21 am, is that criticism a liberal talking point?
Comment by Godfather2 — October 3, 2007 @ 11:10 am
Not a talking point, just an observable fact.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:22 amI think it’s cute how Vendetta and Godfather2 let us know they have to go do something right now, but they’ll be back.
Adorable!
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:23 amGodfather2 sez:
Oh..you mean criticism like this?
They’re so steeped in hypocrisy they can’t see they’ve become recursive satire.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:26 amRush lovers, just say, he screwed up and said what he was thinking instead of the political correct thing. But what is he thinking by going on and on again to “clarify”. Rush shut up !!!! No wait a minute, surely a conservative with a brain left will see the stupidity and begin to READ !
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:27 amRemoveBush
They don’t actually have more of them. They just have more of the closet cases.
Vendetta
In other words, the Republicans object to independent, industrious, wealth, educated and entrepeneurial people?
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:28 amWe dont want to be accused of running away by you toady libtards.
Comment by Vendetta — October 3, 2007 @ 11:26 am
Ah, I see. But you haven’t left, so that makes you a liar.
And you’ve chosen a side of the street, good for you! Not that you fooling us before….
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:30 amVendetta sez:
How so? Explain your line of reasoning.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:37 amI think Vendetta is michael. Same woman hating, “you back up your shit”, without any thought to his posts, nonsense.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:42 amVendetta
You mean that those gays who are still trapped in the closet and trying their damndest to look straight, are stupid enough to want a government which is distinctly anti them.
And face it, if anyone wants a nanny state its the rightwing. “Oh please mr Goverment, protect me from gays, objectionable images on my TV, my neighbour’s private thoughts, the poor, people in other countries who might want to hurt me, and DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS” aren’t exactly leftwing positions.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:43 amThat and his use of “libtard” and “dip”. So easy to figure out. And not just their names either….
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:44 amFirst of all, I believe the saying you’re groping for is “bald-faced lieâ€.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — October 3, 2007 @ 10:46 am
Main Entry: bold-faced
Pronunciation: ‘bOl(d)-’fAst
Function: adjective
1 : bold in manner or conduct : IMPUDENT
Main Entry: bald-faced
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:48 amPronunciation: ‘bol(d)-’fAst
Function: adjective
: BAREFACED
Bluedahlia sez:
Isn’t it interesting, how when you’ve done this sort of thing long enough, you can distinguish a poster by the tone and tenor of their posts?
Of course, the trolls don’t understand, but that’s not surprising. Perceptiveness is not a trait often possessed by trolls.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:48 amI am not on either side. I want politicians to do what they say they will do. Thats why they are elected. Instead the Repubs are not fiscally responsible as they claimed the would be and the dems have not stopped the funding to bring our troops home.
Comment by Vendetta — October 3, 2007 @ 10:30 am
Yeah, like I said, you’re playing both sides of the street. Please keep an eye out for that oncoming bus….
Comment by Zooey — October 3, 2007 @ 10:49 am
Many people agree with Repubs on some issues and Dems on others.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:50 amComment by upright left — October 3, 2007 @ 11:48 am
Thanks for proving my point for me. I was too lazy to do the research myself.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:52 amVendetta sez:
First of all, interesting use of the quotation marks.
Second, you’re going to have to back up that assertion.
So, you’re advocating that gays be allowed to adopt? I had no idea you were so progressive…
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:54 amAnd face it, if anyone wants a nanny state its the rightwing. “Oh please mr Goverment, protect me from gays, objectionable images on my TV, my neighbour’s private thoughts, the poor, people in other countries who might want to hurt me, and DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS†aren’t exactly leftwing positions.
Comment by Bruce Gorton — October 3, 2007 @ 11:43 am
From your list, conservatives mainly want to regulate matters concerning violence and filth. Libs don’t want protection from filth. They want the government to subsidize it. Pay for my health care; give me birth control and pay for my abortion when I don’t use it (no lectures about responsibility allowed either); give me a place to live, spending money, and food stamps if I choose to let my child live, with raises for each subsequent child born outside of marriage; give me unemployment comp even if I lose my job because I goof off, allow us to have porn and also provide classes to teach men to respect women, and don’t give long sentences for sex offenders, they won’t be rehabilitated that way and they are victims of some sort anyway and shouldn’t be held responsible, etc, etc, etc. ;)
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:04 pmComment by Vendetta — October 3, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
Who is this directed at, Vendetta? Because it doesn’t address any of my questions.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:05 pmThanks for proving my point for me. I was too lazy to do the research myself.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — October 3, 2007 @ 11:52 am
Sorry, monkey, I understood your point to be that one is correct and the other isn’t. Glad you clarified that. ‘)
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:07 pmVendetta
You left out the first one:
I’d say that pretty much fits the Republicans to a Tee. The main difference is though, that while the left offers you a nice nanny state that will help you if you are in trouble, the rightwing has a drunk, abusive nanny state that is liable to lock you in a broom closet.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:09 pmThroughout history the greatest asset to any society has been children. If you produce none you are of limited value in a utilitarian state.
So, you’re advocating that gays be allowed to adopt? I had no idea you were so progressive…
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — October 3, 2007 @ 11:54 am
“Produce” would be the key word here, monkey. Gays produce no children from their “unions”. Obviously, they can produce them using means outside their union. Adopting isn’t producing. You refuted your own point, bud. ;)
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:11 pmupright left
In other words you want a nice authoritarian nanny to tell you what you can and can’t see, what you can and can’t do, and what you can and can’t think.
You don’t just want a nanny state, you want a NetNanny state.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:11 pmIn other words you want a nice authoritarian nanny to tell you what you can and can’t see, what you can and can’t do, and what you can and can’t think.
You don’t just want a nanny state, you want a NetNanny state.
Comment by Bruce Gorton — October 3, 2007 @ 12:11 pm
It’s interesting that you reference a program that is intended to protect children from filth on the internet. I want filth, that is allowed by using the constitution in manner not intended, to be highly regulated so that children, and adults who prefer to avoid filth, are not exposed to it when going about their daily lives. Those who want filth should have to seek it out so that decent people don’t have it forced upon them. It would be interesting to know how the founding fathers would have altered the constitution had they known it would be used to advocate such filth and avoidance of personal responsibility. ;)
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:18 pmupright left sez:
Actually, I didn’t. There are a surplus of children in this country. Leaving them to languish in orphanages only creates a burden for the state. Adopting one and helping him to become a productive member of society benefits the state.
Therefore, a “utilitarian state” would necessarily encourage all adults fit to care for children – regardless of their sexual orientation – to adopt and raise children. Q.E.D.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:22 pmJust let Rush and Coulter go on and on give them enough rope and they will hang themselves.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:24 pmVendetta sez:
Here’s where your argument falls apart:
Explain the value of offspring in this context. If most couples were infertile, and the race was dying, your comment might make some sense…but the reality of the situation is that there is a surplus of children in this country, being reared in orphanages which would be a burden to your “utilitarian state”.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:25 pmFinally, “unbiased news directly from the federal government, a news source long noted for truthful, unbiased reporting,†the Washington Post’s Al Kamen mockingly writes.
take out the letters ed and it reads more correctly
unbiased news directly from the feral government
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:26 pmThe State Department launched its own blog last week, called “Dipnote.†People have already complained “that the white print on a black background makes it hard to read
This must be the web site that Daryll’s been working on.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:26 pmVendetta
You miss the very old scientific value of the assumption ignorance – namely that we don’t know everything and therefore we should procede accordingly. We don’t know what X person is going to do, and thus we can’t say one way or the other what their value to society is.
This is in stark contrast to the assumption of ultimate truth offered by religion, whereby we know the value of a sinners life to be lower then that of anybody else’s. You might not know what X person is going to do, but that person is an infidel and thus deserving of death, allah akbar or whatever deity you want to substitute.
Further, the production of children, in a society where you have overpopulation, could well lead to the exact reverse judgement, where gay people are more valued because there are only so many resources to go around.
As we do not know how to put a value on human life, and as children are not a sure indicator one way or the other, your argument is null and void, as under a scientific society there would not be enough data to act on.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:31 pmYou refuted your own point, bud. ;)
Comment by upright left — October 3, 2007 @ 12:11 pm
Actually, I didn’t. There are a surplus of children in this country. Leaving them to languish in orphanages only creates a burden for the state. Adopting one and helping him to become a productive member of society benefits the state.
Therefore, a “utilitarian state†would necessarily encourage all adults fit to care for children – regardless of their sexual orientation – to adopt and raise children. Q.E.D.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — October 3, 2007 @ 12:22 pm
Of course you did. Your response had nothing to do with whether children should be adopted when their parents can’t care for them. You responded to this statement:
“Throughout history the greatest asset to any society has been children. If you produce none you are of limited value in a utilitarian state.”
With this:
“So, you’re advocating that gays be allowed to adopt? I had no idea you were so progressive…”
Producing children is not synonymous with adopting them. Children available for adoption have already been produced. They now need someone to raise them. ;)
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:32 pmassumption of ignorance.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:33 pmVendetta is right, we should go back to workhouses for the poor, and locking up debtors. Children can work like they used to.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:34 pmupright left
You call filth, what the rest of us call sex between consenting adults.
I call filth, what you would call a action movie.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:41 pmVendetta
Jesus also said that you shouldn’t pray in public, should not follow people who loudly proclaim their Christianity and that you should pay your taxes.
Jesus lent his name to Christianity and that is about all.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:44 pmYou call filth, what the rest of us call sex between consenting adults.
Comment by Bruce Gorton — October 3, 2007 @ 12:41 pm
“The rest of us” takes in qite a lot of folks. Many of them would not want to be included. As long as consenting adults keep their actions to themselves, fine. Parading it around and passing laws about it is another matter. ;)
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:45 pmComment by Vendetta — October 3, 2007 @ 12:42 pm
No more then yours. You would destroy the building blocks of education, so we can slip into some feudal society led by the aristocratic elite. You, and MA, and Michael are all the same. Bush appeals to people like you, because he comes from a wealthy family. He attended expensive schools, not on his own merits, but because of his family background. He has overseen a series of failed companies, and political ventures. Sorry serfdom didn’t work in old Russia, and I don’t wish to see it reinvented in the US.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:51 pmupright left sez;
Apparently, you missed my earlier post.
Do you need me to post it again?
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:55 pmupright left
So first of all, you included acts between private adults in your one paragraph rant.
Second of all, your definition of filth may well be different to my definition of filth. I see nothing wrong with sex between consenting adults (No matter whether they post the pictures on the internet or not), but I see everything wrong with a movie like, say, The Godfather, where the head of a major criminal organisation is glamourised to the point of being a hero.
Your definition of filth shouldn’t restrict what I can do or see, and mine shouldn’t restrict what you do or see. And frankly the government isn’t there to be my Nanny and tell me XYZ about my behavior. I am not a child, and unlike the rightwing, I don’t want to be treat like one
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:55 pmupright left sez;
As long as consenting adults keep their actions to themselves, fine.
Apparently, you missed my earlier post.
Do you need me to post it again?
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — October 3, 2007 @ 12:55 pm
No thanks, especially since I didn’t reference that post. ;)
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:59 pmBut what you are proposing would make you and everyone not born with a silver spoon in the mouth a slave to the aristocracy. I don’t know why you don’t see that. Education is important, it is what allows us to be productive members of society. To buy homes, and have children, and do all the things we hold important. If you want to rage against an unjust system lets talk about a government that can read my emails, listen to my conversations, and track all my purchases without me knowing about it. In complete contradiction to constitution.
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:01 pmI am not a child, and unlike the rightwing, I don’t want to be treat like one
Comment by Bruce Gorton — October 3, 2007 @ 12:55 pm
Wanting not to be assailed with filth is being treated like a child? A lot of folks would consider that common decency. You seem to equate accepting filth with being an adult. It’s possible to be an adult and still disdain filth. ;)
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:02 pmComment by Vendetta — October 3, 2007 @ 12:57 pm
I fail to see how improved government services for a moderate fee (Namely taxes) constitutes slavery.
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:03 pmupright left sez:
I know you didn’t. That’s precisely the problem.
Not only did you not “reference it, you have done all that you can to pretend it isn’t there.
Now that you’ve acknowledged its existence, scroll up and check how many of those incidents were between “consenting adults” (Hint: a minor cannot legally consent).
I look forward to your response.
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:03 pmupright left
You can disdain it all you want, you can avoid it if you want, you just can’t ban it.
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:05 pmJesus also said that you shouldn’t pray in public, should not follow people who loudly proclaim their Christianity and that you should pay your taxes.
Jesus lent his name to Christianity and that is about all.
Comment by Bruce Gorton — October 3, 2007 @ 12:44 pm
Distorting Jesus’ meaning in the midst of a discussion on whether someone else’s meaning was distorted? Jesus didn’t mean we are never to pray in public. He was warning against being like the hypocrites who prayed publically to appear righteous. ;)
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:06 pmprovide institutional resources (ie full day kinder, pre k, early child ed, school lunches extended day programs, Childrens health care).
these are the items you listed as needing to be done away with. I fail to see how that would benefit anyone, and not be detrimental to educating our children to be productive members of society. Please remember V fought against a raging facist government, not some socialized commie state. Watch the movie if you missed that point.
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:08 pmI look forward to your response.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — October 3, 2007 @ 1:03 pm
Pardon me for not responding to your post in my response to someone else. To what post would you be referring? ;)
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:10 pmYou can disdain it all you want, you can avoid it if you want, you just can’t ban it.
Comment by Bruce Gorton — October 3, 2007 @ 1:05 pm
I never suggested banning it. I simply said it should be highly restricted so that people don’t have to be subjected to it. ;)
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:12 pmupright left
6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
Yeah, right.
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:14 pmupright left sez:
Coward.
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:17 pmYeah, right.
Comment by Bruce Gorton — October 3, 2007 @ 1:14 pm
I assume, from your post, that I can take any quote from any source and it can be judged alone. The context doesn’t matter, no explaination can be given. Just the quote itself. ;)
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:18 pmCoward.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — October 3, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
Nope, not a coward. Just find it difficult to follow monkey talk. ;)
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:19 pmupright left sez:
Yes, you’re a coward.
You attempted to paint the conservatives as opposing “violence and filth”. I shot that pathetic claim down, and you’ve been frantically ducking me ever since.
Clear enough for you, coward?
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:22 pmupright left
Chapter six of the King James Bible’s Book of Mathew. Verses five and six.
Of course, I wasn’t expecting you to recognise it, because like the good Christian you are, you probably haven’t read the book.
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:22 pmComment by Vendetta — October 3, 2007 @ 1:13 pm
Yet this administration has gone far and beyond, what anyone previous has done.
Please respond to my post about eliminating the above mentioned programs, don’t change the subject.
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:24 pmI was demonstrating how the gov was prepared to assume the raising of our children.(sic)
Comment by Vendetta — October 3, 2007 @ 1:25 pm
Now you sound just as loony as the 9/11 conspiracy people. Please the Federal government is not going to assume control of your children.
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:32 pmIs it any wonder that MS shows more recovery than LA? They got 4x as much Federal aid!
GAO study denounces housing program
FEMA awarded Miss. lion’s share of money
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
By Bill Barrow
The Times-Picayune
http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-9/1191392691129840.xml&coll=1
BATON ROUGE — A new government accountability report criticizes the way the Federal Emergency Management Agency handled a controversial alternative housing program, bolstering the claims of Louisiana elected officials who say the state was shortchanged.
…
A different path, according to the report’s authors, could have steered more than $140 million to three separate housing projects in Louisiana, rather than the $74.5 million directed to one project in the state that still has not broken ground.
…
As it is, two projects in Mississippi got $281 million or three-fourths of the grant pool, dwarfing Louisiana’s share for one project. One plan each in Alabama and Texas roughly split the rest.
…
That memo included three financing options, one of which would have spread the $388 million to 10 projects in the same four states. … Besides bumping Louisiana’s take past $140 million, that formula would have added a third project in Mississippi and cut the state’s overall award to about $150 million.
“By selecting and funding the five projects it did, rather than the 10 under this option, FEMA awarded the vast majority of the available funds (about 71 percent) to one project in one state,” the report states.
…
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:33 pmVendetta
The Nazis smashed Germany’s unions in the name of aiding big business, they were deeply allied to big business as a whole and in fact provided Germany’s big businesses with slave labour.
Further, they persecuted the leftwing in Germany at the time, along with Germany’s atheists, jews and gypsies. They opposed the intellegentsia, in particular university professors, the “liberal” judiciary and perveyors of what they called “filth.”
They were not in truth socialists they were authoritarian fascists, and shared a social agenda that though more extreme then the current American right’s, isn’t all that different.
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:36 pmJews should be capitalised. As a Zionist I am surprised I didn’t.
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:37 pmYes, you’re a coward.
You attempted to paint the conservatives as opposing “violence and filthâ€. I Yes, you’re a coward.
You attempted to paint the conservatives as opposing “violence and filthâ€. I shot that pathetic claim down, and you’ve been frantically ducking me ever since.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — October 3, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
Ducking ya, monkey? Never. What’s the number of the post in which you “shot down that claim,” bud. Oh, and by the way, I noticed Sept 21 came and went without a “massive stock market collapse”. ;)
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:44 pmOf course, I wasn’t expecting you to recognise it, because like the good Christian you are, you probably haven’t read the book.
Comment by Bruce Gorton — October 3, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
Heh, heh, heh I’m well aware of the reference, gortie. Being a good Christian, I won’t comment on my knowledge of scripture. As I said, you don’t understand the context. You can twist the words of Jesus any way ya want without knowing the context. That works both ways, bud. ;)
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:49 pmupright left sez:
Post #224 (at the moment).
Considering its size, it’s hard to see how you missed it.
(BTW, I’m not your “bud”. Not on your best day.)
Indeed…someone is out billions. One can’t help but wonder who could be well-heeled enough to simply throw away billions on the market…
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:50 pmuptight left sez:
So…does that mean that Daryll is a bad Christian?
Just trying to get a feel for the ground rules here. Daryll, care to comment?
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:52 pmComment by TripMaster Monkey — October 3, 2007 @ 1:50 pm
At 224, I get my response to gortie. I’ll be happy to respond when I see your post.
So…does that mean that Daryll is a bad Christian?
Just trying to get a feel for the ground rules here. Daryll, care to comment?
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — October 3, 2007 @ 1:52 pm
I wouldn’t know. Bragging about one’s knowledge of scripture would be a problem. Explaining one’s knowledge for the purpose of establishing one’s credibility would not. I prefer to avoid any suggestion of bragging among those who are always looking to use scripture to accuse Christians. ;)
October 3rd, 2007 at 2:00 pmupright left
I provided the context fine. You are trying to twist it to suit your views because you like praying in public and being recognised for your piety.
October 3rd, 2007 at 2:05 pmuptight left sez:
I linked to it in my last post, coward. All you had to do is click on the link.
Before you ask (and waste yet more time), here is the link again.
You’re taking abject cowardice to a whole new level, UL.
So, what constitutes the difference between “bragging” and “explaining”, UL? If you’re going to establish such a difference, you need to quantify it. Elaborate.
I bet you do…you’ve probably been bit in the ass one too many times.
October 3rd, 2007 at 2:07 pm“I linked to it in my last post, coward. All you had to do is click on the link.
Before you ask (and waste yet more time), here is the link again.
“You’re taking abject cowardice to a whole new level, UL.”
You really are quite the tedious little monkey aren’t ya, bud.
You’re links just take me to the top of this page.
——
“So, what constitutes the difference between “bragging†and “explainingâ€, UL? If you’re going to establish such a difference, you need to quantify it. Elaborate.”
Try m-w.org, bud. You acknowledged that I’ve already done your work for ya once today. Enough with the laziness. Laziness, by the way, is a trait of those who want the goverment to provide for them. (Couldn’t resist.)
I prefer to avoid any suggestion of bragging among those who are always looking to use scripture to accuse Christians.
I bet you do…you’ve probably been bit in the ass one too many times.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — October 3, 2007 @ 2:07 pm
Nope, can’t say as that has ever happened, bud. It’s just the Christian thing to do. ;)
October 3rd, 2007 at 2:24 pmuptight left sez:
Fine. Try this link, then.
Can’t wait for you to try to tell me that one doesn’t work…
Bullsh!t. You’re the one who claimed a difference, it’s up to you to codify it. Otherwise, it’s just a nebulous distinction which you can change as needed to shore up your arguments (which was your intent, obviously).
Your continual attempts to skirt the issues are getting tiresome, UL. You’re starting to bore me.
October 3rd, 2007 at 2:31 pmNope, can’t say as that has ever happened, bud. It’s just the Christian thing to do. ;)
Comment by upright left — October 3, 2007 @ 2:24 pm
You lecturing on the Christian thing to do – ah the irony ;)
Which Christian, the burning, torturing, murdering, inquisition and heathen converting Christian? Or the diddle little boys version? Those are the only two Christian values that can be readily associated with you! ;)
October 3rd, 2007 at 2:47 pm“Fine. Try this link, then.
“Can’t wait for you to try to tell me that one doesn’t work…”
I hate to tell ya this, monkey, since ya seemed to be getting all worked up, but that link doesn’t show where you “shot down” any post here.
——
You acknowledged that I’ve already done your work for ya once today. Enough with the laziness.
“Bullsh!t. You’re the one who claimed a difference, it’s up to you to codify it. Otherwise, it’s just a nebulous distinction which you can change as needed to shore up your arguments (which was your intent, obviously).”
If we were talking about some obscure or technical terms, I’d define it for ya, bud. Bragging and explaining are simple enough terms even for you. If ya can’t figure that out from the dictionary, you don’t need to be here posting.
“Your continual attempts to skirt the issues are getting tiresome, UL. You’re starting to bore me.”
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — October 3, 2007 @ 2:31 pm
Don’t get all mad at me because your links don’t work, bud. Is there some reason why you can’t provide the nimber of the post in question? Obviously, the numbers have changed since the one you provided before wasn’t correct. If ya want a response, give me the number. Did the post possibly contain filth that would have caused it to be deleted? ;)
October 3rd, 2007 at 2:48 pmuptight left sez:
From one of your earlier posts:
Since you’ve finally conceded to click on the link I provided, I’ll ask you again: How many of the incidents listed in that link were between “consenting adults†(Hint: a minor cannot legally consent)?
The link demolishes your spurious claim that the moral values of conservatives are superior to those of liberals, and that they’re “opposed” to “violence and filthâ€.
I didn’t ask for a comparative definition of “bragging” vs. “explaining”, dolt. I asked for your definition of the dividing line between “explaining” Bible passages and “bragging” about one’s Biblical knowledge.
Do you practice being this obtuse, or do you find it comes naturally to you?
That’s funny…I tested all of them…and they all work perfectly. In light of that evidence, it would seem that you’re a liar, but since that’s nothing new, I won’t belabor the point.
That’s precisely why I gave you a link, dolt…because numbers are apt to change.
But enough about the post that you magically can’t seem to see. You have two issues in front of you:
1) Defend your assertion that conservatives are morally superior, or retract the claim.
2) Explain your definition of the difference between “bragging” about Biblical knowledge and “explaining” Biblical knowledge, or admit that no objective difference exists.
Sorry to lay it all out lik e this, but you’ve demonstrated repeatedly that unless given firm direction, you’re unable to focus sufficiently to complete a task.
You have your work cut out for you. Get to it.
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:07 pmComment by TripMaster Monkey — October 3, 2007 @ 3:07 pm
Once again, monkey, your first links took me to top of this page. You also stated that YOU “shot down” certain claims, so you’ll understand when I failed to see where YOU did that with your last link. The site you finally linked to does nothing to address my comments to gortie, which is where this began.
——
As much as I hate to, again, do your work for you, in the interest of time, here are the meanings of bragging and explaining:
Main Entry: 2brag
Function: verb
intransitive verb : to talk boastfully
transitive verb : to assert boastfully
Main Entry: ex·plain
Function: verb
transitive verb
1 a : to make known b : to make plain or understandable
See the difference, monk? Boasting or not boasting. You’ll have to look that word up for yourself, bud.
——
“Defend your assertion that conservatives are morally superior, or retract the claim.”
I’ll retract that claim just as soon as you show where I made it. Progs tend to feel like people who dislike porn, oppose homosexuality, believe that abortion is murder, advocate long sentences for child molesters, etc. think that they are morally superior. Don’t blame me for your feelings and assumptions. I never made that claim. It wouldn’t be the Christian thing to do since we are all sinners. Perhaps you inferred that because you subconsciously believe it. ;)
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:25 pmOk, UL, you’re just being obtuse to the point of idiocy now.
I’m done with you. I have more important things to do than play patty-cake with the likes of you.
Sayonara
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:37 pmComment by TripMaster Monkey — October 3, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
Sore loser, eh bud? ;)
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:38 pmupright left
You failed to back up your claim that I was taking Jesus out of context there. You know, when I quoted Mathew, Chapter six, where Jesus fills his followers in on praying.
Vendetta
All of those definitions are all very well and good, except that none of them are what the leftwing is proposing.
Socialised healthcare (One of the few major successes of socialist systems) does not equal socialised everything. It isn’t even a slippery slope as all of the other first world countries have demonstrated.
A social safety net, does not equal government running your businesses. It equals slightly higher taxes, for lower poverty rates and that’s about it. Your businesses still run themselves within legal parameters.
Higher environmental standards don’t mean your government is running your business, it just means your business has to meet certain criteria. There is a big difference between regulating a business so that it doesn’t harm those around it, and managing a business. Nobody wants to breath sulphur dioxide because the local factory wasn’t properly maintained.
You are claiming that people hold positions that they don’t and you haven’t offered any solutions yourself, other then to ignore today’s problems in the hopes that they go away. Maybe you should come right out and put forward your ideas on how America should run, or are you afraid that if you formulate them they might just turn out to be liberal ideas?
October 3rd, 2007 at 5:04 pmupright left
You failed to back up your claim that I was taking Jesus out of context there. You know, when I quoted Mathew, Chapter six, where Jesus fills his followers in on praying.
Comment by Bruce Gorton — October 3, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
I’m not sure why you want a response to that when we both no there is nothing that you will consider valid, being a non-believer. But here you go:
“Jesus gave three areas in the practice of righteousness, wherein the Pharisees, by overt display, perverted true worship and turned it into an effort to gain public approval: (1) almsgiving (2) prayer (3) fasting….”
“In secret” does not mean that public acts of mercy, fasting, and prayer are to be avoided. Rather, Jesus admonishes those for whom public display is a temptation, to practice theirs acts of piety in secrecy.”
The Holy Bible, King James Version, Baptist Study Edition
Edited by W.A. Criswell, Ph.D.
Thomas Nelson Publishers
You can also speak to a local pastor about it. Do you think you’ve stumbled upon something that the rest of the world has missed that you actually think you are right about this? ;)
October 3rd, 2007 at 5:37 pmIt’s “mirror time†for the reichwing nuts I see. They’ve run out of options so they are now attempting to accust others of their own sins.
It’s sooooo incredibly predictable and affirms that they’re on their last legs.
Comment by Veritas — October 3, 2007 @ 9:47 am
Dems are now wasting time on something that is just detracting from the legitimate work of Congress. At least that was the claim regarding the moveon issue. Dems can’t complain about that anymore. ;)
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:45 pmupright left
Except it is a direct instruction complete with giving you a location on where to pray. He said it straight – go to your closet and pray there. You don’t get any more direct an instruction then that.
His whole speech was against public displays of piety, not against piety but public displays of it. He was preaching against Evangelism, which never did privately what it could do with a camera crew ever-present, against the Church where public prayer is part of the program, and against politicians who use their faith as an instant in to your trust.
Part of what he was saying was warning his followers against the publically pious and the Christian faith has never, in its history, heeded that warning. Like I said, Jesus has very little to do with the Christian religion.
October 4th, 2007 at 5:06 amComment by Bruce Gorton — October 4, 2007 @ 5:06 am
Heh, heh, heh, gortie, I’m sure you’ll understand if I go with my own understanding of scripture and that of pastors who have dedicated their lives to studying the Bible and serving God over that of a lefty liberal anti-Christian. I don’t know where ya came up with that “preaching against evangelism” idea. Remember “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,? And, no, that doesn’t mean force anyone, it means tell people and let them choose. And how about “He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.” So, no, gortie, Jesus didn’t preach against evengelism. Public prayer for the right reason is pleasing to God. Public prayer for the attention it brings is not. ;)
October 4th, 2007 at 9:41 amupright left
Taking the word of a preacher on scripture, is like taking the word of a salesman on the car you are buying. Go read the book yourself and form your own opinions.
Besides, you can’t honestly tell me that you watch these frauds on TV who sell the keys to the gates of heaven, and say that they aren’t the precise hypocrits Jesus saw in the Pharisees. When I say Evangelists, I mean the Evangelical church.
October 4th, 2007 at 4:15 pmTaking the word of a preacher on scripture, is like taking the word of a salesman on the car you are buying. Go read the book yourself and form your own opinions.
Besides, you can’t honestly tell me that you watch these frauds on TV who sell the keys to the gates of heaven, and say that they aren’t the precise hypocrits Jesus saw in the Pharisees. When I say Evangelists, I mean the Evangelical church.
Comment by Bruce Gorton — October 4, 2007 @ 4:15 pm
Perhaps you didn’t notice the part of my comment where I said I rely on MY OWN UNDERSTANDING of scripture as well as that of pastors who I know have dedicated themselves to the Lord. My own understanding comes from my own study. So, thanks for the advice, but I’ve read it and continue to read it. You appear to have drawn your opinion of evangelism from TV preachers. When so many of them are obviously showmen out to make money rather than true men of God, it seems a poor way to evaluate an entire group of people. Unless, of course, it just happens to fit the opinion that you choose to hold. A Christian church that seeks to fulfill the will of God will be an evangelistic church. Jesus’ type of evangelism, not Jim Bakker’s.
October 9th, 2007 at 12:22 am