Consider the following: (all within one week, I must say)

Sarah Palin,
Mark Sanford,
Joe the Nut (or is it the plumber?)
John Cornyn,
Rickity Perry,

Anyone I missed?

Poor Republicans, everything they say or touch or even look at turns to muck! Cornyn and Perry remind me of Terry Dicks, the British politician who said: “They are undoubtedly living proof that a pig’s bladder on a stick can be elected as a member of Parliament.”

The toll toads that are in trouble are the ones that become head-on death chambers when there’s NO safeguards in place to keep wrong-way drivers from careening down the cement corridors of no return, which has resulted in multiple deaths already this year.

THOSE toll roads, a$$-hat.

That’s because you have nothing boy. The people who would believe your BS assertion do so at their own peril because of the preconceived notion that I am for anarchy, no regulations or laws. I am only asking for one. Is that too hard for you? You zoo animals are weak.

Reading your comments once is bad enough. Having to dig through them repeatedly is too nasty to ask anyone to do.

It’s amazing how you seem to think that if we took out bin Laden somehow al Qaeda would just disappear.

More fantasy on your part. Neither I nor anyone else hear have said anything remotely close to that.

But according to you we had every right to go after those who harbored bin Laden (I agreed) even though the Taliban wasn’t responsible for the attack, eventhough hostilities NEVER ceased after the first Gulf War and we continued to have our planes shot throughout the 1990s by Saddam we had no right to take him out.

No manned aircraft were shot down by Iraq in the no-fly zones. And, no, we had no “right” to attack Iraq in 2003, and doing so crippled our chances in Afghanistan — along with all the other unpleasant side effects of the war and the occupation.

And, seriously, quit pretending you give a damn about whether or not the UN authorized the Afghanistan operation, or whether is was covered by UN Article 51. One invasion was a direct response to an attack on US soil, the other was not. Period.

Then actully present some evidence of what you describe.

You’ve presented yourself for months, with virtually every word you’ve typed. Anyone who follows TP comments is already quite familiar with your opinions and I have no need to dredge any of it up.

When the Taliban refused to turn over their leadership, the US and allies invaded.”

Same thing happened in Iraq. The U.S. didn’t invade Iraq and occupy alone. Just because more countries agreed doesn’t make it more justified. BTW do you have a specific U.N. resolution that authorized the invasion of Afghanistan?

“Same thing”? bin Laden was hiding out in Iraq? Wow. I wonder why no one has mentioned that in the long list of “reasons” for invading Iraq.

I love that you keep raising the question of a UN resolution. The answer is “we were attacked” and this was a response to that aggression; no resolution was required from the Security Council. The Security Council did authorize UN forces to help maintain security for the new government shortly thereafter however. Thanks so much for caring.

The only problem is is that the “other side” are not adults and force or the threat of is about all they understand as demonstrated by their continued tatics of using ONLY force to get their way…unless you can cite an example of lasting peace in the Middle East brought on by careful negotiations and diplomacy. Carter and Reagan couldn’t do it, Clinton took it up the ass by Arafat (a terrorist to the bone), Bush didn’t try, and Obama isn’t making any progress either.

No lasting peace yet, no, and “Bush didn’t try” is a good part of it. I’m not sure why you limit this to Israel & Palestine, though. You may not have noticed but there are other people there, and your need to belittle them as “not adults” is more evidence of your screwed-up ideology.

Then you are referring to so other idelogy

I’m not referring to any abstract ideology, actually. I’m referring to exactly what you, personally, have demonstrated over time about your own ideology.

The one that believes it’s perfectly OK to invade a sovereign nation…”

So when is Obama going to declare the invasion of Afghanistan illegal as well as the incursions into Pakistan and take back his crap talk about invading Pakistan if we find out bin Laden is inside their borders?

Still completely divorced from reality, aren’t you? For your information, Al Qaeda targeted and attacked this country a few years back. When the Taliban refused to turn over their leadership, the US and allies invaded. Bush pretty well ensured this would be a massive failure by diverting troops and resources to a completely unrelated nation. He also announced that bin Laden was no big deal and that he wasn’t really interested in pursuing him.

“…and that big talk makes a strong nation.”

That would be a your big mouth boy Obama who thinks we can talk our way out of problems.

No, that would not be President Obama, who understands that we cannot work our way through problems simply by blowing the crap out of other people, and that “talking” is what adults do to resolve problems. I was referring rather to the bloviation of your favorite morons at FauxNews, and the neocons they like to drag on as “experts.”

So when is Obama going to declare the invasion of Afghanistan illegal…

That one was legal under the U.N. Iraq was not. The entire world was with us on Afghanistan. Not so on Iraq.

In case you forgot, Al-Qaeda members being harbored by the Taliban government of Afghanistan conspired to crash airplanes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a third undetermined D.C. target on September 11th, 2001. It was in the news and everything.

.

<em.Tracy__5 Says:

… as well as the incursions into Pakistan and take back his crap talk about invading Pakistan if we find out bin Laden is inside their borders?

Is this an example of your “9/12 mindset?” Why do you love terrorists so much, terrorist-lover?

Confused? You mean the one the values liberty, low taxes, limited government and self reliance? If yours represents the zenith of these then move to Cuba.

Confused because you’re advocating pure selfish anarchy as the only antidote to totalitarian Communism. The rest of the world happens somewhere in the middle. As an advocate of an extreme, you are an extremist. Your free market fantasy is just that – a fantasy. Anarchy is not sustainable.

.

Tracy__5 Says:

No of course not, but when Colbert said interjects the “reality has a liberal bias” crap that was nothing more that a plug and reinforcement for what Krauthammer and many others have been saying for years.

No, it was a riff on the “the media has a liberal bias” meme, extending it to say that wingnuts disagree not only with the MSM but with actual real reality itself. As a parody of a wingnut, Colbert typically demonstrates by example how insane they are, which is what he was doing there. It’s highly informative that you fail to grasp this simple concept.

.

Tracy__5 Says:

No wonder people voted for Obama. Good one.

FAUX Noise has been demonstrated to have a pervasive pattern of intentionally lying and misrepresenting facts. The rest of the MSM has not.

The only purpose of this whole “all the media except for the one biased for us is biased the other way” thing is to attempt to confuse people as to whether there’s any such thing as actual truth or not. So that people like Rove can lie about established fact and get away with it, at least with enough confused people to sway certain elections.

Since you believe that people can vote for what the truth is, you seem to have swallowed the biggest of all Big Lies hook, line and sinker. However, since as you point out, people voted for Obama, then you should switch sides per your own belief system. The marketplace of ideas has spoken, and it turns out the wingnuts have been selling everybody shit sandwiches the whole time.

.

Tracy__5 Says:

The point is that regulars such as yourself should know what a bag of Cheetos tastes like….I don’t.

You don’t know what Cheetos taste like? Really? What, are you from some third-world hellhole where they don’t have snacks?

These people who decided to do the teabagging, why didn’t they do it during the Bush Administration, when he taxed the middle and lowerclass people and gave taxbreaks to the filty rich. Maybe that is why we are hearing about Ponzie scemes of late. (raising a brow)

Confused? You mean the one the values liberty, low taxes, limited government and self reliance? If yours represents the zenith of these then move to Cuba.

No, the one that values greed, selfishness, hypocrisy and the belief that might makes right. The one that believes it’s perfectly OK to invade a sovereign nation, or to bomb it into oblivion, if it fails to hand over resources or appear to be strategic competition in the Middle East. The one that believes that “me” is all that matters and that big talk makes a strong nation.

They are the nut-cases, the “kill everyone who disagrees with me”, gun toting, ammo stocking, racists, homophobes, religious zealots, sore-losers, sour grapes types who are a danger to society in general.

The FBI should be taking down the names of everyone who attends these Anti-American functions, they are a danger to everyone.

Still missing the point. :-D

Forever and ever, amen.

You being a regular here should know all about the Cheeto reference.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:57 pm

Still missing the point. :-D

… to maintain the roads. So are they against privatization, free markets, or globalization? All three maybe?

Beats me. It sounds incoherent to me too.
————

To jump in on your point, if the corporations are the ones best suited to do the jobs, and a good number of our corporations have significant overseas ownership,

then wouldn’t having corporations do it be the same as selling off our resources to have the money shipped overseas ?

And we think we hear too many foreign accents on help lines now. Can you picture it: Have a pot hole in the road, well I’ll let our international repair team know right away.

And who do you think does the polling? Washington and New York newspapers maybe?

Are you telling me that it’s a myth that Bush had low approval ratings for his last year in office? That there was a big conspiracy to make him seem unpopular when he was really very popular? Is that what you’re asserting?

Talk about your alternate realities…

.

Tracy__5 Says:

…i.e. the “rest of America”.

Um, no. The “alternate reality” is not the real reality. I live in the rest of America, and the sky is blue, whether or not that’s politically advantageous for Republicans.

.

Tracy__5 Says:

“FoxNews doesn’t present reality of any kind anywhere, nitwit.”

The viewer ratings and numbers squash your BS assertion.

Reality is not something that people vote on. If two Republicans and a sane person are in a room and asked to determine whether 2 + 2 = 4, it doesn’t actually = 5 just because both of the wingnuts vote that it should be. It’s still 4.