1. They ignore warning signs about terrorist attacks
2. They leak classified information to the media
3. They lie under oath and obstruct justice in an investigation about national security violations
4. They send our country into war without an exit strategy and without a good reason
5. They create massive deficits while only cutting spending on vital social programs and veteran benefits
6. They fill vital government positions with political cronies, leading to death and disaster
» Breaking News
Paul Benedict, Of “Jeffersons” Fame, Dies
Florida Man Assaults Girlfriend With Hamburger
Doctor Gets Text Message Help With Surgery
Charmane Star [Breaking Beauty]
Miko Lee [Breaking Beauty]
Another good thing:
1) They annoy the Bejebus out of Oliver Willis
You forgot to mention one of their good points.
They are united like mindless fire ants as they destroy
everything in their path.
They manipulate the media.
There are several masterful examples, but I’d like to propose a new example: Miers.
The Miers nomination distracted people, Republicans in particular, from thinking/talking too much about the impending indictments. Everyone knew that the grand jury would be finished by the end of October. When does Miers withdraw? Was she ever really the actual nominee?
Think about what happens to what people pay attention to next week if Bush nominates another Justice.
Will the timing of Miers’ withdrawal and a new nomination be a coincidence?
They cut their own taxes, and raise everybody else’s.
And, finally, they let the religious fanatics loose to empose penile discipline on all you naughty little libertines. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
I have relatives who voted for Bush in 2004, using the mantra that he was “the devil they already knew.” They can’t have known very much about Bush. What has Bush done that have had a positive impact on the majority of Americans? Lobbyists, corporations and the very wealthy may think he has been good for their lower taxes, but look at what cost to the rest of us.
[...] ical observations, v 2.0
Posted by The Editors under Uncategorized
Basically: Things That Happen When You Elect Republicans by Oliver Wil [...]
They gut environmental regulations
They allow businesses to regulate themselves
They gut enforcement agencies that enforce business regulations
They allow businesses to gut pensions
They make it very difficult for the average citizen to sue big corporations for malfeasance, negligence, fraud, or whatever.
They make it easier for corporations to sue the average citizen.
They encourage businesses to outsource jobs overseas.
Pork, Pork, Pork!!! Runaway Pork!!!
Whose taxes were raised?
Since they are not worried about how high the national debt goes, why don’t they just do away with income taxes and the IRS. That would really stimulate the economy and create more tax revenues.
Another good thing:
1) They annoy the Bejebus out of Oliver Willis
They annoy the Bejebus out of every patriotic American with an ounce of sense.
Now it begins — we difine “patriotic” as not Republican.
What’s next?
Blacklisting?
“McCarthyism” - Thy name is left wing Democrat — the torch has been passed.
Wow frank, are you trying to be ironic? Because last i checked, the left was being called “unpatriotic” and “freedom-haters” by the rabid pro-war crowd. Remember what it was to be “Dixie Chicked”?
I think there are a lot of moderate and even some conservative Republicans who are annoyed right now, with good reason. Your assumption that Wilbur was only calling those who were not Republican annoyed assumes all Republicans are fine and dandy with the current situation. That being said, the title of the post should change “Republicans” to “the Bush administration.” But being that he named things that were exclusive to the current occupants of the White House, this is implied.
Those who are not annoyed, regardless of of their political stripes, are indeed not patriotic. They are the members of Bush’s personality cult, and put their defense of his public image above and beyond the what is best for the country.
Frank, you already demonstrated a gaping hole in your knowledge of matters McCarthy. Now you seem to be seeing things in a “only 2 choices” mode, i.e. a Republican patriot cannot be annoyed by what has happened, because republicans are caught up in it. Most perplexing.
JP: Dixie Chicks are so four years ago. I think Wilbur can speak for himself, and if he disagrees with my interpretation, he can say so.
Sorry to disappoint you, bryan, but I don’t even remember you posting in that thread, so I don’t think you’re in any position to provide us with a pseudo - analysis of my knowledge of things McCarthy.
This is the second time someone that referred to the idea that not being sufficiently anti - Bush is anti - Patriotic. I see it as a slippery slope.
You say poh - tAH - toe, I say poh - tAY - toe.
To both of you: The only thing worse than people who don’t know what they’re talking about, is people who try — inaccurately — to tell you what you’re talking about.
Johnny;
“Those who are not annoyed, regardless of of their political stripes, are indeed not patriotic. They are the members of Bush s personality cult, and put their defense of his public image above and beyond the what is best for the country.”
Indeed. You can also describe these hacks as being for their political party first; then comes the interests of the country as a whole. Party loyalty sometimes means anti-american.
Yeah, and sometimes people believe that their Party has the country’s interests as a priority at all times.
You were saying?
Does that include the National Socialist Party?
Actually, it could. Is there a point you’re trying to make. I’m still waiting.
Well, I am sure that when the Nazi’s were working on a final solution to the
“Jewish Problem”, it might have been a better situation if someone questioned
whether or not the ‘true believers’ really had the answer for what was best for Germany. Don’t you?
“Sorry to disappoint you, bryan, but I don t even remember you posting in that thread, so I don t think you re in any position to provide us with a pseudo - analysis of my knowledge of things McCarthy.”
Frank, your memory seems to be as weak as your arguments. You replied to posts I made in that thread, before backtracking immensely. Check for yourself.
I won’t worry if you don’t reply. Your inability to discern between socialists and communists was a revelation.
“…we difine ‘patriotic’ as not Republican. (sic)” Frank, became painfully obvious after 9/11.
The ‘difference’ between socialism and communism is a distinction without a difference to the poor schnook waiting on line for bread and toilet paper, while he workd 12 hours a day for a bloated military (like the 75 years the USSR was in power)
Actually, Democrats were free to believe that Bush did not know about 9/11 beforehand; that he did not, deliberately get jets off the ground in time to stop two passenger jets; that Bush did not “chauffeur his Arabian friends out of the US”. They just didn’t.
As to whether not avenging 9/11 was patriotic, I don’t remember anyone saying it wasn’t, do you?
[blockquote]Yeah, and sometimes people believe that their Party has the country s interests as a priority at all times.[/blockquote]
Frank, while I cant say i agree with the Republican party on many issues, I can certainly understand how many people are attracted to the concepts of free markets, social conservatism, etc. I have agreed to disagree in this aspect.
This presidency however, is doing things that transcend political affiliation. Spending recklessly and appointing your buddies to positions of power were never a part of the GOP’s platform last I checked. Can you fill me in on how this qualifies as having the country’s interest as a priority?
Tell me Frank, when were the reports of bread and toilet paper queues in Spain during the socialist government they had recently, or France or indeed the present day UK?
You don’t know the difference.
“The only thing worse than people who don t know what they re talking about, is people who try inaccurately to tell you what you re talking about. ”
This is rich from the man who has just told Sadie about the abortions she’s had.
I don’t know why Bush is not vetoing excessive spending bills — not exactly the same — but close enough, admit. And I don’t think the people he has appointed to positions of power have been any more or less qualified than the party hacks (who lost elections) that Clinton appointed during his two sessions.
However, rather than argue those points, I will concede them, and say that I trust the President now, the same as I trusted the President that I despised from 1991 - 2001. I trust that, as mistaken as they might be — in my eyes — they have the nation’s interests at heart.
So I never, for a moment, thought Clinton supporters were unpatriotic. I never bought into the rhetoric that dissent is a prerequisite for good citizenship, so I have always believed that we support our President off shore, a tradition, you may have noticed, that has been violated by several Democrats,of late.
I find it troubling when anybody says “non - belief — in anything — might be unpatriotic”, because it sets ideological standards for patriotism that you or I mght fail to meet at any given moment. The slippery slope I mentioned is toward level of support of certain things. It was suggested in two places in liberal circles that supporting the President, or not fully accepting that Libby and Rove committed crimes were unpatriotic.
Could that mean that not waiting for indictment, trial and verdict is not patriotic? Didn’t these people see The Ox - Bow Incident or Twelve Angry Men?
“Actually, it could. Is there a point you re trying to make. I m still waiting.”
I’m waiting too
Let’s say for the moment that this is your point: “Party loyalty sometimes means anti-american.”
The point I was trying to make is that that kind of thinking can have very serious consequences, especially if the party in power decides that the party that’s out is unpatriotic.
Exactly my point Frank. You claim you have never indicated opposing Bush is unpatriotic.(feel free to correct me at any time) I am willing to stipulate that point. You claim you have always supported the commander in chief as sitting President. I am willing to stipulate that point without challenging you. You also claim to never compromise your principles. You also has accepted my characterization of you as ‘the end justifies the means’ as a guiding principle for you.
I worry about others who have more flexible principles than yourself who;
“that kind of thinking can have very serious consequences, especially if the party in power decides that the party that s out is unpatriotic.”
Hey, idiot, you’re the one who said “ Party loyalty sometimes means anti-american, not me. If there’s something wrong with that kind of thinking then that’s what’s wrong with you.
Sheesh, now you’re disagreeing with yourself!
I have not accepted the idea that “the end justifies the means” in all cases. So, at what point does your ridiculous attempt at debate fall apart?
Does it ever end with you?
That’s why I am so curious as to what motivates you. This endless game of ‘gotcha’ you play with me is as pointless, as it is witless.
What exactly is your definition of ‘end justifies the means’?
Could this be it?
From Wikipedia:
President Ronald Reagan s administration sold arms to Iran, an avowed enemy. At the time, Americans were being held hostage by Islamic terrorists in Lebanon, and it was hoped that Iran would influence the terrorists to release the hostages; at the same time, Iran, which was in the midst of the Iran-Iraq War, could find few nations willing to supply it with weapons. The U.S. diverted proceeds from the sale to the Contras, anti-Communist guerrillas engaged in an insurgency against the socialist Sandinista government of Nicaragua.
As far as I am (was?) concerned, it was win - win, and it didn t bother me a bit.
Yours from Oct 25.
BTW;
Since you have the inside dope on Miers and Alito, care to reveal what Rove’s future is?
Your self-absorbed assumptions about why I dog you so relentlessly gives me pause.
What would Blaauw and Winkel say about your being somewhat smitten by the fantasy that someone may be interested in attaching themselves to the Frank__D personality cult.
Or about your being victimized by fecal metaphors and being ‘nauseated’ by semen.
I think I will leave you alone. I don’t want it on my conscience that I may have contributed to your breakdown.
That’s one instance where I saw that the ends justified the means — that doesn’t make it a universal.
My, you are keeping close tabs on me. Stalking me makes feel almost like a celebrity.
So that’s two pieces of the puzzle that is Semanticleo — you like talking about excrement, and you are a stalker:
From The Toll of Stalking: The Relationship Between Features of Stalking
and Psychopathology of Victims.
E Blaauw
FW Winkel
Department of Clinical Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands
E Arensman
Department of Clinical & Health Psychology, Leiden University, The Netherlands
“The stalker personality type can present as highly intelligent and very charming…
In any event, it is imperative that you realize that you are not dealing with a rational person and so any attempt to disengage from relationship with rational conversation will not work. This person needs help and this is not your responsibility.”
I doubt very much that you will leave me alone.
I am not involved in a personality cult — of my own or anybody else’s
And I’m not being “victimized by fecal metaphors” — actually, you are.
Three strikes and you’re out.