Comments on: A Funny Thing About Ben Ferguson

By: factcheck

factcheck — Wed, 24 May 2006 21:05:39 +0000

Ferris, how much time did you serve? Unlike you, I am grateful for ALL vets who served, whether 1 day, 1 year, or 30 years, Democrat, Republican, or other.

Though I am not obliged to agree with them on any point.

By: mjb

mjb — Wed, 24 May 2006 20:05:52 +0000

“The Democrats served their time and quit as quick as they could.”

Just stunning. How is that not an evil thing to say?

By: Dugger

Dugger — Wed, 24 May 2006 20:05:50 +0000

Bill L

Pardon me, but you are full of doodoo. Have never done this. Quite the opposite.

“Coming from one(Dugger) of the three people (the other two being Frank and Pedro) who have from time to time trumpeted their military backgrounds as irrefutable evidence of their military wisdom in a multitude of discussions, I have to say thanks for pointing out the obvious.”

Dugger

By: factcheck

factcheck — Wed, 24 May 2006 11:05:36 +0000

Sundown, have you ever seen Office Space? One of the main characters is named Michael Bolton, and he seems to have the same problem. His line was “Why should I change my name, it’s him that sucks.”

But you have nothing to fear from young Ben. His press consists of having his ass handed to him by Randi Rhodes on Lou Dobbs.

By: Sundown

Sundown — Wed, 24 May 2006 05:05:34 +0000

Back to the issue at hand,

I actually am quite embarrased by this guy. My name also happens to be Ben Ferguson, so I did a double take when seeing this post, then remembered that I had heard of this guy sometime ago. It turns out that (at the time) he hosted a very obscure local talk-show and was a staunch right-winger.Seemed a little strange then. Now this guy apparently is getting big time press.

So I’m hoping this guy fades into obscurity, both for the fact that he is a spoiled rich kid who lacks morals, and for the fact that he’s an embarrasment to my name. I’d hate to have everyone question my sanity when I tell them my name.

By: Bill L.

Bill L. — Wed, 24 May 2006 04:05:25 +0000

trying to fool the American people into believing that a miltiary background is automatically equatable to military/defense wisdom (which it ain t…

Coming from one(Dugger) of the three people (the other two being Frank and Pedro) who have from time to time trumpeted their military backgrounds as irrefutable evidence of their military “wisdom” in a multitude of discussions, I have to say “thanks” for pointing out the obvious.

Is it just me, or has the quality of trolling around here really fallen as of late? Some of the newer (to me, anyway) trolls come off as being so dense that I am afraid to respond to them for fear of being accused of harassing the mentally disabled. I’m especially amused with the support they get from the more “established” trolls who pat them on the back and give them a hearty thumbs up for their efforts. Are they serious or are they merely trying to bolster their (non)argument with the appearance of solidarity? More rightwing group think? Stupidity loves company?

By: drpedro

drpedro — Wed, 24 May 2006 04:05:20 +0000

yea jade, the most telling part of your post is the headline

Democrats “fight” for veterans vote.

“Veterans are not as prone to be republicans as four years ago”

Whoa….the republicans are doomed! Clearly our fighting men and women are rushing to become liberals, they aren’t as “prone” to be republicans anymore!

By: drpedro

drpedro — Wed, 24 May 2006 04:05:19 +0000

the hypocrisy of the lefties is in full bloom in these posts…..

On the one hand, those of us who HAVE served have no extra validity…but a guy who HASN”T served also has no validity.

On the one hand, Hillary Clinton’s private life is verboten….but who this guy is playing tonsil hockey with in a train station is front page news…

Hypocrite, thy name is Liberal….

By: Dugger

Dugger — Wed, 24 May 2006 00:05:45 +0000

BD,

Why thanks.

“And Dugger, your example is entertaining and a good lesson for us all.”

Actually, I think the same is mostly true of the Republican party structure, but then the topic was sort whether there were lots of vets running as Dems.

Dugger

By: Jadegold

Jadegold — Wed, 24 May 2006 00:05:25 +0000

I don t know, Farris s argument would seem to be supported by the fact that 70+% of the military is republican& .

Highly doubtful.

“Dr”P’s “evidence” will unquestionably be a MilitaryTimes.com snap poll. Of course, MilitaryTimes is a right-leaning military-themed site–so it’s a bit like pretending a poll at LGF represents the views of sane people.

From The Washington Post – December 26, 2003

Democrats fight for veterans’ votes

According to Peter Feaver, a Duke University political scientist, veterans constitute 19 percent of the American public. A four-year-old study by Feaver concluded that 37 percent of them were Republicans, 31 percent were Democrats and the rest were divided among independents, minor parties and political nonparticipants.

In the 2000 election, veterans leaned solidly Republican, unhappy with President Bill Clinton’s sex scandal and his handling of foreign affairs. Now, however, “that appeal has receded a little bit,” Feaver said. “Veterans are not as prone to be Republicans as four years ago.”

By: factcheck

factcheck — Wed, 24 May 2006 00:05:20 +0000

“so it s a bit like pretending a poll at LGF represents the views of sane people”

Was sipping a beverage when I read you post. You owe me a new keyboard.

By: BD

BD — Wed, 24 May 2006 00:05:06 +0000

And are that 70% planning to come back and run for office? Or is the only reason they haven’t because they’re more manly than Democratic soldiers?

By: Nimrod Gently

Nimrod Gently — Tue, 23 May 2006 23:05:50 +0000

“So according to that logic all pro-abortion liberals should have abortions? I mean, if you support the cause you should really go the distance.”

HA HA HA HA HA HAHA HA HAAH AHAAA HAHAHA HA

Logic, my dear numpty, merely enables one to be wrong with authority.

By: drpedro

drpedro — Tue, 23 May 2006 21:05:49 +0000

I don’t know, Farris’s argument would seem to be supported by the fact that 70+% of the military is republican….

By: BD

BD — Tue, 23 May 2006 21:05:29 +0000

And Dugger, your example is entertaining and a good lesson for us all. The Republicans must be very happy to let anybody into their ranks without having to be vetted by the party power structure first, the way you’d imply.

By: BD

BD — Tue, 23 May 2006 21:05:21 +0000

Farris seems to have an inside scoop on all the registered Republican soldiers who would plan on coming back and running for office. Some kinda GOP cavalry, it seems.

Also, Farris seems to believe that a soldier deciding to fulfill their obligated tour of duty is simply not good enough, and that those who re-enlist are “better” soldiers. Which is a very nice oversimplification.

By: factcheck

factcheck — Tue, 23 May 2006 21:05:12 +0000

“Rheinhard, don t let this stop you being a loyal disciple of Randi Rhodes. You can always fall-back on the Liberal Mantra: Fake but Accurate.”

Is this an example of your civil discourse?

By: SaveFarris

SaveFarris — Tue, 23 May 2006 21:05:09 +0000

why are the overwhelming majority of returned Iraqi war vets running for Congress this year doing so as Democrats?

Because the Republican “vets” aren’t vets yet, they re-enlisted. The Democrats served their time and quit as quick as they could.

By: factcheck

factcheck — Tue, 23 May 2006 18:05:57 +0000

I don’t know phile, your pResident claimed that 51% to 48% was a mandate, so describing 58% to 42% as overwhelming isn’t such a stretch.

By: phile

phile — Tue, 23 May 2006 18:05:38 +0000

I fail to understand what point you’re trying to make. What exactly is the conclusion to be drawn from the fact that the majority of the 9 Iraq veterans running for office, are running as Democrats? As for a presidential election, the candidate that wins the electoral college, whether by 5 or 100 votes, becomes president, and has a mandate to lead the country.

Again, what’s your point?

-phil