» Breaking News
RNC Spent Almost $30,000 More In Clothes For Palin
Mumbai Terrorist Ajmal Amir Kasab Promised $1,250 For Attack
Economy Kills Broadway’s Latest Version Of “Grease”
Katie Price: Dwight Yorke Ignores Disabled Son Harvey
Obama Campaign Manager David Plouffe Writing Book
I think that “joke’s” freshness expired 30 years ago.
O.K. Maybe it was Patrick Kennedy.
(Better?)
Let me guess. Ted Kennedy came up with that one.
That joke might be old… if that joke of a Senator was no longer a Senator.
Brought to you by the Anyone But Bush campaign.
God forbid we should direct our attention to the fact we are engaged in an illegal war when we could be worrying about something that happened 37 years ago.
Thanks for linking up, OW. Are you ready for the premier? Woot!
Dugger: I think Ted Zeppelin should stay in office long enough to be the first Senator whose head explodes on C - SPAN…
Hahahaha Dukker, its you that doesn’t get it. Bush drove the US into a war and rather than “get involved” he’s tried hard to “not lose” and keep it out of the papers and from damaging his image, rather than try to win it. He is in essence, trying to crawl away and hide from his wreck while our soldiers die.
“Ha ha ha!! I get it! So the car going off the cliff Ted Kennedy got involved in a drunk driving accident almost 40 years ago and a girl died.”
No you don’t get it. Kennedy did not “get involved”. He was driving the damn car and left the poor girl there to drown while he went and sacked out in Edgartown.
Plus, death toll from leftists over last century = 100,000,000.
Get it, now?
Dugger
I think we should take the trolls up on their little game:
Death toll from Chappaquiddick: 1
Death toll from Iraq: 50- to 100,000.
Ha ha ha!! I get it! So the car going off the cliff–Ted Kennedy got involved in a drunk driving accident almost 40 years ago and a girl died! Oh, that’s so much worse than lying the country into an illegal war that’s killed thousands of U.S. and Iraqi citizens! That’s some funny sh-t!
F-cking a–holes.
Illegal war.
Can you define that?
(Troll? Ha. I’ve been commenting here for years. Long enough to be able to make a joke here once in a while. And this one was too easy. But I know- your rich and privilidged deserve better than our rich and priviledged. )
“Get it, now?”
Indeed, we do Dugger: You’re a scumbag.
Plus, death toll from leftists over last century = 100,000,000.
WTF does that mean, much less have to do with Iraq?
Geez, you wingers are missing a few cans.
Sorry mitter,
You don’t get it either. The war was authorized by a bi-partisan Congress. There would be no war if Democrats also hadn’t wanted it. A bi-partisan Congress has paid for it every year since.
But I will grant that certain nervous Democrats think, now, they were wrong then, and maybe one of them even thinks he was wrong then, but still voted for the war.
Dugger
He’s probably pulling out the old bullshit about mao and stalin being leftists. Which of course betrays the stunning lack of understanding that neocons have both of their own ideology and ours.
Sure, QW, Mao and Stalin were conservatives because they wanted to conserve the status quo of collectivism, complete state control, and massive executions to enforce their will.
/sarcasm
Quickie,
Please. Mao and Stalin were the quintessential extreme leftists. If you want to make the circular argument re political extremism, be my guest; but I believe a much better case can be made for Hitler being a leftist than Stalin and Mao being rightists. But most of us in the real world accept that Hitler was an extreme rightist and Mao and Stalin extreme leftists. Wishing away the ugly historical context of extreme leftism (or extreme rightism), doesn’t make either really go away. The world is aware of the danger of extreme rightism. It ignores the bloodier history of extreme leftism.
And frame, did I tell you I think it is a good idea to torture impoverished homeless liberal handicapped female multi-ethnic bi-sexual blue-state children just in case they might be terrorists. That seem OK to you?
Dugger
“That seem OK to you?”
Um Dugger, you explicitly stated that progressives share the same hostility towards America as do the 9-11 terrorists or Osama Bin Laden. That makes you a scumbag.
Michael, you do realize Lousiana has a governer and New Orleans has a mayor, do you not?
Your memory is a little faulty.
I remember Blanco and Nagin waiting until 18 hours before the storm before declaring an evacuation and then, when asked directly about the looting, saying “first and foremost is search and rescue.”
You’ll probably also remember that Blanco directly intervened to ban the Red Cross from entering New Orleans until Thursday.
“Michael, you do realize Lousiana has a governer and New Orleans has a mayor, do you not?”
Yes, I do, and as I remember, both of them were monitoring the situation and trying to begin the coordination of help and relief, not miles away at a hoedown.
And is it an ex-mayor of New Orleans, or an ex-President, who’s famous for his “the buck stops here” sign?
Dugger: “No you don t get it. Kennedy did not get involved . He was driving the damn car and left the poor girl there to drown while he went and sacked out in Edgartown.”
It would be real easy to change a few words in that sentence…let me try.
“No you don t get it. Bush did not get involved . He was running the damn country and left the poor city there to drown while he went and played guitar in San Diego”
Dugger and Frank,
I took history in school and even got a political science minor in college, yet no where does it gloss over what Stalin and Mao have done to thier people and others. So how in the world is “Extreme leftism” ignored? After Hitler’s (extreme right) demise, it seemed to me that Communism was our main concern for DECADES! And what do you call Islamofacists? Certianly not leftists, but rather far right ideology. I think on this site the conservatives cut thier noses off to smite thier face. Unless Iraq or the world is anihillated they will NEVER admit this War was a mistake and change direction.(Except maybe Dugger, who I am unsure of his position on the Iraq War) Iraqies want us out, Democrats want us out and have provided a plan(2 actually) and even moderate conservatives are pulling away from this mistake of a war. Is being wrong so bad that we should continue this madness? Bush is GONE in two years, so why the hell do CONS care? Is it staying in power? I think we have tried your way and it is a miserable failure. Republicans would be much better off if they would have formed bipartisan Iraq legislation, but Cheney and Bush would have to stop politizing the death of Americans and the War. They will not because to them it would be an ommision to being wrong. Does your party really want to go down in flames with these narcissists?
On a side note: Can we actually get Osama and the terrorists who attacked us? Just asking:)
“Except maybe Dugger, who I am unsure of his position on the Iraq War”
He believes that we won’t be able to fully judge the matter it until at least 3050.
He’s actually a fascist who hates Americans more than he loves freedom.
And what do you call Islamofacists? Certainly not leftists, but rather far right ideology.
Did you study the Middle East in college? Apparently not.
While radical Islam may be classified as an ideology, from a sociological perspective, i.e., norms ideas, it is by no means an ideology that fits into the spectrum of right and left in the Westen sense.
a) Where is the secular government?
b) Where is majority rule, with a protection of the minority?
c) Where is the recognition of basic freedoms contained in the Bill of Rights?
Maybe the problem the left has with fighting the War on Terror is that they truly believe there is a moral equivalence between Christian fundamentalists and Islamofascists, and please, don’t even bother raising the subject of a handful of abortion clinic bombings, compared to this.
I won’t deny that a lot of people could have done better jobs in that situation, but __the President of the United States was off playing the guitar__ while a major city was being destroyed.
Centuries after he’s dead, what’s Nero remembered for?
frame,
Thou art full of doo doo. I said ‘many’ and ‘many’ I meant. Go back and read and then hyperventilate some more. You’re always easy, but particularly so today.
WW,
My point would be that our and foreign mainstream media, most all forms rightly portray Nazism as evil and without redeeming values. Nazis are likewise given simialr treatrment. But communists and communism, and the pantheon of extreme leftism, for whatever reason seems to be regarded as a fashionable
belief structure. A communist or Marxist is OK, don’t you know. john Reed in reds, The Way we Were (idealistic young commie) etc etc. Marxist hsitory professors. Our culture should be every bit pervasively hostile to extreme leftism as theya re to extrem rigjhtism. But extreme leftism permeates popular culture.
On the war, I’ve said here before, that if I were Pres I probably would not have gone in, but I could be and hope I am wrong and the Neocons right. Ultimately, I believe the Iraqis will revert toa harsh theocracy. Be happy to be wrong. And we don’t know now and may not for awhile - the outcome.
Michael
That was weak. First responsibility for New Orleans = New Orleans Government (remember Nagins’flooded field of buses - if he ain’t responsible why is he there- to hobnob with Minister Bush-blew-the-levees Farrakhan?). 2nd responsibility = state governemnt. 3rd = Feds.
Dugger
“While radical Islam may be classified as an ideology”–Thank you for agreeing.
Frank,
Since when did I start talking about thier governmental structures? This has do with thier IDEA of how the world should be. Call it ideology, religion, faith, point of view but its ideas do fall under what the right espouses: control over others bodies, morality, judgment, divine rights, etc…
In other words, scumbag, you think that MANY progressives in this country share the same hostility that would drive someone to fly planes into buildings? You’re beneath contempt.
its ideas do fall under what the right espouses
Bunk.
Just bunk.
So the left espouses no control over one’s behavior, immorality, lack of judgment, no recognition of the divine.
Great. There’s something to brag about.
Frank,
I believe in a God, I have ethics and morals, I make the best decisions I can, and I will remind you that I…I don’t control others behavior, but we do have laws and I try to follow those laws. *I* can only speak to my own behavior. The hedonist falacy you hold for liberals is laughable. I wish you would explain why my comparison is “bunk” because I am willing to listen, but actions do speak louder than words.
So the left espouses no control over one s behavior,
No, the left espouses no control over the morality of others.
no recognition of the divine.
By the state, dumbass. I don’t want religion shoved down my throat, especially not by the government. My tax dollars are being wasted so that government officials can prostyletize for a religion I don’t even believe in. And that doesn’t strike you as the least bit off?
*I* can only speak to my own behavior.
That’s where the cons will disagree. They believe that morality can be forced onto others, even if they have a completely different worldview.
My tax dollars are being wasted so that government officials can prostyletize for a religion I don t even believe in.
Which religion is that, dumbass?
And are you sure you know the meaning of proselytize?
pros·e·ly·tize (prOs’Y-l--t+z’) pronunciation v., -tized, -tiz·ing, -tiz·es.
v.intr.
1. To induce someone to convert [emphasis added for the reading impaired* - fd] to one’s own religious faith.
*That’s dumbass to you, Zython
White Whale: You’re willing to listen? To what? I really think you should support the ridiculous statement that you made, and I’m willing to listen.
So go ahead.
control over others bodies: Does that include things like the policies of the CDC, the FDA, and the anti - smoking campaign?
morality: Does that mean the government should be immoral, or amoral? Or
should it stand by while people are immoral or amoral, no matter what harm it does to others, i.e., child abuse, pedophilia, rape?
judgment: Does that mean the Courts should be shut down?
divine rights: I confess I have no idea what this means. Are you referring to the “divine right” of kings, or are you suggesting that the Founding Fathers were mistaken, when they endorsed the belief that “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights”?
Still listening?
Unless someone wants to put a nativity scene in their front yard.
Or drive an SUV.
Or own a gun.
Or save for their retirement.
Or wants to contribute more than $2,000 to a politician.
Or wants to pass their inheritance onto their kids.
Or wants to replace someone on maternity leave.
Or wants to hire a new employee, irregardless of their race.
“No, the left espouses no control over the morality of others.’
University politically correct speech codes?
Hate crimes?
Here’s the deal guys. We believe that YOUR rights end where MINE begin. So you don’t have the right to trample all over my right.
Child abuse, pedophilia, and rape are all well outside of the moral bounds that you know we’re talking about here, Frank, and you know it. There is no one that condones those things and throwing them out there and trying to make it look as if progressives support them is pretty low, even for you. And you already spend most of your time in the mud (slinger).
As for proselytizing, I don’t know. Pick any of these “faith based” initiatives that are out there and see how often you get turned away for help if you don’t agree to be converted by the helpers. Assholes.
And finally, here’s a demonstration:
We have a problem with SUV because your right to own an SUV tramples on my right to drive safely to work and my right to live free of the threat of terrorism that is directly linkable to our dependence on oil. Of course you have a right to an SUV. But the great good of society may mean that we have to place some restrictions on so that everyone else can have rights too. (breathing reasonably clean air, for instance).
Own a gun. Sure. But your right to own a gun stops at my right not to be shot because you’re a terrible parent and your kid decided to go on a rampage just like he saw on fox news. This should be state or local decision IMO, but I digress.
Save for their retirement: what are you talking about? Who is stopping that? I think you’re smoking the koolaid again.
Contribute more than $2000 to a politician. This is clumsy expression of your right to contribute stops at my right to be heard. We already have a serious problem in this country with the rich monopolizing the access to politicians by buying them out, and everyone has a right to be heard. That this method isn’t working is beside the point. You show a decided inability to go beyond the effect and look at the causes.
Pass their inheritance off to their kids: Thats because concentrating all the wealth in the hands of the few tramples on the rights and ability of everyone else to make wealth. It takes wealth to make wealth. Just ask Warren Buffet. Besides, save, are you part of the 1% that the estate tax actually effects? No? Didn’t think so. Why you guys spend so much time defending people who work very hard to diminish your rights and chances of success, I will never understand.
Wants to replace somone on maternity leave: Again, there are two sides to that question. That mother has a right to a job, and just because you’d love to keep her in the kitchen popping out babies like a good woman should doesn’t mean she doesn’t have a right to have a career and a family. Its called “pursuit of happiness”.
Hire a new employee regardless of race: Again, you’re missing the root causes of it. All you’re concentrating on is the effect. How would you defeat racism and social inequality? Got some better ideas? Lets hear ‘em. Oh yeah. You don’t believe in that sort of thing, because your white, middle class upbringing has never seen it personally. Yeah, I think this out to be social class based rather than race based, but you want to know the reason its race based? Because theres a scientific/statistical evidence of a socio-economic divide between races, and that is a self-perpetuating condition. Heres the other thing, bucko. If people would adhere to the spirit rather than the letter of the law, we coudl be done with it. You want proof it works? The military. Its pretty much the model for what affirmative action should’ve been, but couldn’t be because assholes like you didn’t believe in the causes and therefore did everything you could to screw up the implementation.
I realize that you won’t read all of this, but there it is.
What, dugger, you saying its perfectly ok to kill someone because they’re black?
Or are you saying that you have a right to denigrate others?
Quickie,
“What, dugger, you saying its perfectly ok to kill someone because they re black?”
Please. I really do believe you are smarter than that. Even for intentionally bad polemics that is bad.
I believe no extra punishment should go into any crime because of the thought behind it. It is wrong to murder any human. The murder is the crime, not the thought.
Dugger
Fine, but when you’re talking about your “right” to drive an SUV, recognize that you’re completely degrading the definition of what a “right” is. Nobody wants to ban SUVs. They want to tax gasoline, which falls well within the accepted responsibility of government everywhere in the western culture. Only on the far right do you hear such lunacy as “the purpose of government is to reduce the tax burden.” In fact, the purpose of the government is to serve the people who elect it. In some cases, people will choose to tax goods, services, entities and individuals in order to pay for the other shit those people want the government to do. This is not communism; it is simply common sense everywhere except in the right-wing fringe.
the purpose of government is to reduce the tax burden.
I agree tomy, that is beyond the pale. Cons are stuck in this kind of childhood where they don’t want to make any sacrifices for the common good. Adults know that reasonable taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.
And, of course, the people on the left can’t see how reducing taxes might “serve the people.”
It’s the duty of “the people” tp pay for whatever lefties dream up, right?
It s the duty of the people tp pay for whatever lefties dream up, right?
And the rightists believe that the government should operate for free, right?
“I believe no extra punishment should go into any crime because of the thought behind it. It is wrong to murder any human. The murder is the crime, not the thought.
Dugger”
Well, to be fair, the motive is taken under consideration in many cases. For example, simple assault will not be judged as severely as aggravated assault, since in the former, no intent to cause grievous harm or death is ascertained..
Also, many hate crimes are typically more brutal than similar crimes not motivated by bigotry. Look at the deaths of Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., to name two.
And the rightists believe that the government should operate for free, right?
And Zython loses by reason of non sequitur
Frank_D 1, Zython 0
non sequitur
How was my comment a non-sequitur? You have the right to say what, from your twisted perceptions, the left believe, but I’m not allowed to do the same (sans the “twisted” part)? All I was doing was pointing out how ridiculous your assertion was by reversing it to the opposite extreme.
Zython: 28; Frank_D: 0, and still undefeated.
And the rightists believe that the government should operate for free, right?
That statement neither contradicts my statement, nor is it the reverse of my statement. It came from out of nowhere, hence, non sequitur.
Zython, still a jerk 3 for 3.
I did. Even though you completely missed the point. Zython claimed that “the left espouses no control over the morality of others.”. Your post details in full why the left wants to control the morality of others. Thanks for proving my point!
PS. The “retirement” line item? Social Security. Liberals think they know better than me how to save for my retirement and take a portion of it out of my hands. That’s a moral issue.
I think there are times when tax cuts are appropriate. I also think there are times when tax increases are appropriate. At all times, this calculation is driven by practicality. At no time is it driven by appeals to the “rights” of gas consumers or rich people passing on billion-dollar estates to their children.
Please try to keep up with current events. Since the tax cuts were enabled, tax revenue is UP. Significantly. Proving we haven’t entered the left side of the Laffer Curve yet again.
You wanna complain about profligate spending, hey I’m with you! But to argue the current deficit is due to the lowered tax rates flies in the face of incontrovertable evidence.
“there is NO good time to raise taxes”
Awesome. Let’s fight all our wars on credit! Way to support the troops, idiot.
In the spirit of debate, I’d like to ask what times each of these are.
For me, there is NO good time to raise taxes, with the sole exception being to re-raise the rate to the Laffer Curve status quo after first dropping it to stimulate the economy out of a slowdown.
Please try to keep up with current events. Since the tax cuts were enabled, tax revenue is UP. Significantly. Proving we haven t entered the left side of the Laffer Curve yet again.
http://www.cbpp.org/7-12-05bud.htm
lnstebj yvrjdkwf uapzyioc cwedhlaz ndrqg phco akmi