Oliver Willis

38 Responses to “Brand Dem”

1. 1 frameone
   Jul 28th, 2005 at 11:07 am

   Nice

2. 2 PSU94
   Jul 28th, 2005 at 11:07 am

   You mean like HoDean’s “reality” that it was the right-wingers on the Supreme Court who were responsible for the Kelo decision?

3. 3 SaveFarris
   Jul 28th, 2005 at 12:07 pm

   Keep it up, O! We Republicans want you (and HoDean and Kos and the rest of the “reality” gang) to keep preaching that message far and wide. Tell as many American voters as possible about your reality-based message.

   Filibuster-proof Senate, here we come!

4. 4 PSU94
   Jul 28th, 2005 at 12:07 pm

   Hey, maybe you can do some local-themed Brand Dems for different parts of the country.

   Here’s one for my city, Philadelphia:

   We’ve been running the city for Sixty Years.
   Do you like schools where 8th graders read at a 3rd grade level?
   Do you like neighborhoods that look worse than Baghdad?
   Do you like having a racist and corrupt mayor?

   Yes, then you must be a Democrat.

   Since 1794

5. 5 evergreen
   Jul 28th, 2005 at 2:07 pm

   Keep them coming.

6. 6 evergreen
   Jul 28th, 2005 at 2:07 pm

   When the chickenhawk republicans destroy this world via nuclear, economic and environmental holocaust, all that will be left is donkeys and cockroaches.

7. 7 PSU94
   Jul 28th, 2005 at 2:07 pm

   O.Y.E.,

   You’re a good example of the Democratic party of today. No original ideas.

8. 8 O.Y.E.
   Jul 28th, 2005 at 2:07 pm

   Hey, maybe you can do some local-themed Brand Rethugs for different parts of the country.

   Here s one for my city, Washington, D.C.:

   We ve been running the whole country for 4 1/2 years.
   Do you like wars based on lies?
   Do you like an environmental policy that makes entire states look worse than Baghdad?
   Do you like having a corrupt and treasonous President?

   Yes, then you must be a Republican.

   Since 1856

9. 9 SaveFarris
   Jul 28th, 2005 at 3:07 pm

   Yes, evergreen: keep it up! Spread the word that the Democratic Party thinks the 295 million of us not actively serving do not have the right to hold any opinion whatsoever about foreign policy!

   Can you say ‘Whig’? Because you’ll have about as many elected officials…

10. 10 evergreen
    Jul 28th, 2005 at 4:07 pm

    With the ‘Killem all - let god sortem out’ variant so frequently posted over at haunts like LGF its hard to bet against Nuclear holocaust.

    Radioactive tomatos are larger, so they’ll feed more of us.

11. 11 Repubelicans
    Jul 28th, 2005 at 4:07 pm

    PSU4,

    You’re a good example of a Republican attempting to roll the entire Democratic party into one commentor on a blog.

    Don’t embarrass yourself further. Thanks.

12. 12 BinkyBoy
    Jul 28th, 2005 at 4:07 pm

    They have no answer to Operation Yellow Elephant, so they just strike out blindly, such as how Ferris and PSU did.

13. 13 Jadegold
    Jul 28th, 2005 at 4:07 pm

    C’mon, Farris. We’re not saying you have no right to hold an opinion on foreign policy.

    To the contrary. We’re saying your opinion has no credibility because you, yourself, aren’t willing to make those sacrifices you flippantly demand of others.

    Clear?

14. 14 Dugger
    Jul 28th, 2005 at 4:07 pm

    evergreen

    “When the chickenhawk republicans destroy this world via nuclear, economic and environmental holocaust, all that will be left is donkeys and cockroaches.”

    Its gonna be alright. There. There. Just calm down. Take a cyber tranquilizer and think of yourself as a lazy hawk just floating up there on warm air currents. The little world down beneath keeps going on. Its not so important. the world will eep turning. Eyes getting a little heavy? Feeling more relaxed?

    BOOOO!!!!!!

    I’m George Bush and I authorized this cheap shot because we Republicans enjoying nuking just about everything.

    Dugger

15. 15 JD
    Jul 28th, 2005 at 5:07 pm

    If we were to accept your fundamentally flawed chickenhawk premise as being correct, would it then stand to reason that one would not be allowed to be anti-war unless you were willing to be a human shield ? Just asking …

16. 16 Jadegold
    Jul 28th, 2005 at 6:07 pm

    JD:

    I see you’ve fallen into the trap most conservatives are ensnared. That is, you apparently believe it is impossible to not support AWOL George’s Excellent Iraqi Adventure unless you are willing to support Saddam Hussein’s regime. This canard was put to bed about 12 seconds after it first appeared several years back.

    To illustrate, I think we could both agree China is a repressive regime that poses a significant threat to its neighbors and the US. Yet, I think we could both agree it might be a very poor idea to go “weapons free” against the PRC; we might prefer, instead, to pursue diplomatic options. By your logic, we are both appeasers, or quislings, of the PRC.

17. 17 BinkyBoy
    Jul 28th, 2005 at 6:07 pm

    No, because being anti-war has nothing to do with being a human shield, and its a fairly disingenuous argument to even come up with that as a defense. Human Shields are useless suicidal ignorant people that want to leave behind a “great message” but usually fail miserably and only become the butt of jokes for knuckle-dragging mouth breathers like yourself.

    Republicans wanted the war, despite overwhelming evidence refuting the Bush administration. Republicans voted for more war and less oversight. Now there is a lack of new recruits which could seriously damage your invasion. Seems there are plenty of Young Republicans that can fill those voids, serving their country honorably instead of polishing their guns and watching NASCAR.

    Why are they not rushing out to help our weakened military? Maybe because they don’t really believe in the war they wanted? Or maybe because they are chicken.

18. 18 JD
    Jul 28th, 2005 at 6:07 pm

    Lack of new recruits ? Seems to me that the most recent recruiting goals were being met, and it was recently reported that re-enlistment numbers are far exceeding expectations. Republicans, and many Democrats, voted for the war, but you knew that.

    Your chickenhawk meme is tiresome. It is as predictable in any conversation as some liberal comparing Bush to Hitler.

    I do not recall making a human shield a butt of a joke, so I have to assume that you are just projecting that onto me. As far as the knuckle dragging mouth breather goes, I guess this just simply shows that when a liberal does not like the direction of the debate, especially around here, they resort to grade school name calling.

    Congrats on living up to some insanely low expectations.

19. 19 JD
    Jul 28th, 2005 at 7:07 pm

    jadegold

    Yes, I did serve during the Gulf War, and under President Clinton. I received a medical discharged after having knee surgery from a service related injury.

    Currently, one of my younger brothers is working for KBR in Baghdad, and my youngest brother just returned where he was doing the same in Basra.

    Is that sufficent for you ?

20. 20 Jadegold
    Jul 28th, 2005 at 7:07 pm

    Seems to me that the most recent recruiting goals were being met,

    This is true. But not really.

    First of all, summer is when schools let out and is typically prime time for military recruiting. Second, recruiting goals were recently lowered–so meeting the new, lower goals isn’t much of an achievement–especially in light of the fact of the first point.

21. 21 Jadegold
    Jul 28th, 2005 at 7:07 pm

    Indeed, JD.

    Pity more of your GOP cronies haven’t the stones to do likewise.

22. 22 Jadegold
    Jul 28th, 2005 at 7:07 pm

    Your chickenhawk meme is tiresome.

    Think of how tiresome it must be for some family who is missing a father, mother, brother or sister gone to war while GOP chickenhawks wave their pom-poms back home.

    Tell us, JD–did you serve? If not, what’s stopping you?

23. 23 southpaw
    Jul 28th, 2005 at 8:07 pm

    Everyone who supports the President’s war in Iraq should quit their jobs and join the military. And that includes Ann Coulter, the Bush daughters and Cheney’s daughter.

24. 24 JK
    Jul 28th, 2005 at 9:07 pm

    That’s odd, JD…everything I’m hearing, regularly, about long-term prospects for recruitment are quite the opposite of your rosy scenario. How many fronts are we fighting on? How many obligations do we have around the world? Why is there even cursory talk about a draft?

    Then again, I’d expect that from someone with your ideological bent. Honesty and straight-shooting are in short-supply on the right these days.

    If the tables were turned, and a President Albert Gore had started this conflict based on false intelligence, Impeachment proceedings would have already begun in a Republican controlled Congress.

    From Karl Rove on down, the right has no moral center. Sure…Democrats overwhelmingly voted for the war. Seems like they’re the only ones these days that are holding anyone f-ing accountable for that decision.

    I repeat…it’s one thing to stick by your guy when he’s got his hands up a blue dress…it’ s quite another when we’re talking about 1,700 dead troops, Karl Rove, and inflated intellegence efforts.

    You guys have no moral compass these days. Shame.

    JK

25. 25 JD
    Jul 28th, 2005 at 11:07 pm

    JK, the only people talking about the draft are those that disagree with the current Administration. I was not painting some rosy scenario, I was simply pointing out that the most recent recruitment goals were met, and that current members of the military are re-enlisting at rates far greater than expected. If that does not fit with you preconceived notion of how things should be, that is your issue, not mine. My pointing out these facts shows nothing about my personal ideological bent, which you have no knowledge of, but then you proceed to imply that I am being dishonest by pointing out the facts.

26. 26 Jadegold
    Jul 29th, 2005 at 12:07 pm

    the only people talking about the draft are those that disagree with the current Administration.

    Patently false. The Pentagon has also broached the subject. The reason DoD has done so is because if troop commitments to Iraq and Afghanistan remain constant by Summer of 06, the armed services will be forced to either make personnel cutbacks in Iraq/Afghanistan or other areas or the military will be compelled to boost recruitment via other means, like the draft.

    the most recent recruitment goals were met

    Debunked. Again, summer is the prime recruiting time as HS seniors enter the market. Additionally, the military just lowered recruiting goals and are offering greater recruitment incentives. Additionally, DoD has raised age eligibility to 38, IIRC.

    http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-945789.php

    current members of the military are re-enlisting at rates far greater than expected

    Also untrue.

27. 27 pionar
    Jul 29th, 2005 at 1:07 pm

    Lack of new recruits ? Seems to me that the most recent recruiting goals were being met, and it was recently reported that re-enlistment numbers are far exceeding expectations. Republicans, and many Democrats, voted for the war, but you knew that.

    Except those numbers aren’t real, because the Pentagon lowered its targets so they could claim they exceeded them. It’s true that re-enlistment numbers are better than expected, though.

28. 28 JD
    Jul 29th, 2005 at 3:07 pm

    The Pentagon has to broach nearly every conceivable subject in matters relating to the military. Just because they have studied it in no way means that they are planning on implementing it.

    So the goals were lowered. Apparently the Pentagon thinks we can get by with the newer goals. At any rate, goals are always subject to change.

    Explain what is wrong about the recent reports that active duty re-enlistments are occurring at rates higher than expected. I have seen nothing to refute that.

29. 29 Ryland
    Jul 29th, 2005 at 7:07 pm

    Oliver, it constantly amazes me how many Republican apologists come here and try to drown out the facts with talking points. You must be doing something right, otherwise they wouldn’t get so excited about it.

30. 30 JK
    Jul 29th, 2005 at 8:07 pm

    JD, the following is a quote this week from a U.S. Army General, taken from the New York Times:

    “We will likely miss recruiting missions for all three components,” said General Hagenbeck, voicing publicly what many senior Army officials have said privately for weeks.

    _

    Can you at least attempt honesty here?

    I can’t stomach you clowns any longer. The stakes are *so* high…and all people of your ilk can do is resort to GOP talking points and carry water for this administration.

    You are a dishonest person. I can’t be any clearer.

    JK

31. 31 Bushwacked
    Jul 30th, 2005 at 9:07 am

    “I m George Bush and I authorized this cheap shot because we Republicans enjoying nuking just about everything.”

    George Bush, cheap shot, nuking everything, that pretty well sums up the mentality of the necon republicans. So much for Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt.

32. 32 JD
    Jul 30th, 2005 at 2:07 pm

    JK - That is the best you can do? A quote from the NY Times, absent surrounding context, from somebody saying that they might fall short of their goals in the upcoming period of time?

33. 33 JK
    Jul 30th, 2005 at 5:07 pm

    JD. I’m sure you could access the article if you wanted to access the article. Written by Eric Schmitt, New York Times, July 24th.

    Upcoming period of time? It’s called a “year.” LOL.

    Here’s another quote from this article:

    “It now seems unlikely that the Army will achieve its goal,” said Representative John M. McHugh, a New York Republican who is head of the House panel, and who predicted that the Army could fail by as many as 7,000 people for the recruiting year that ends on Sept. 30.
    __

    You’re being held to task in this thread by me and others, and now you’re grasping. at anything that will make you look like less of a dishonest fool than you already are.

    JK

34. 34 neoconsrloopy
    Jul 30th, 2005 at 7:07 pm

    JK, see, you were wrong and he is right because what JD MEANT to say is that the military is ahead of its recruiting goals for the century and why do you hate America for saying that the goals have been lowered that is just because the war is going so well and did I say CLINTON!!!

35. 35 JD
    Jul 31st, 2005 at 1:07 pm

    You see, you neoconsrloopy and JK would like for me to be some raving lunatic, droaning on and on about Clinton, etc … but I am not. I am simply pointing out that the situation is not nearly as dire as you would like to portray it to be. However, I know that would not fit with your idea that Chimply McHitlerBu$h is responsible for all that is wrong in the galaxy, so you are unable to acknowledge simple facts, like they fact that active duty members are re-enlisting at rates much higher than expected. Sure, if they fall short 7000 new recuits by the end of the year, that will constitue a shortfall, but that figure in and of itself does not signify anything, as those calculations are based on projections of re-enlistement, which are skewing higer at this point.

36. 36 serial catowner
    Jul 31st, 2005 at 4:07 pm

    Well, look at the bright side- if we didn’t have Iraq, KBR and the other profiteers would have to ‘root hog’ here in our own backyard. So the war in Iraq is a twofer- not only does it attract the terrorists, it also attracts corrupt U.S. companies.

    Kinda tough on the Iraqis, but I guess we all figure, “Better them than us.”

37. 37 Jadegold
    Jul 31st, 2005 at 5:07 pm

    I am simply pointing out that the situation is not nearly as dire as you would like to portray it to be.

    Great news, JD!

    Good to hear that especially after traitorous cowards tell us otherwise.

    Other traitors sound similar messages:

    “There is no question that the force is stretched too thin,” said David Segal, director of the Center for Research on Military Organization at the University of Maryland. “We have stopped treating the reserves as a force in reserve. Our volunteer army is closer to being broken today than ever before in its 30-year history.”

    Numerous critics and outside defense policy groups have warned that the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan has taxed the Army so badly that it will have difficulty meeting any new crises elsewhere, but the new assessment comes from an in-house undertaking prepared by the RAND Corp.’s Arroyo Center, the Army’s own federally funded research institute.

    “The challenge the Army faces is profound,” senior RAND analyst Lynn Davis, lead author of the report, said in a statement accompanying the study’s completion. “Any approach is fraught with risks and uncertainties, along with significant costs and some possible changes in the Army’s long-term goals.”

    Even as the Army was studying the report, it announced Monday that it is augmenting its troop strength in Afghanistan this month with a battalion of the 82nd Airborne Division that just returned from Iraq in March. And the Army’s latest monthly recruitment figures released Monday show the service and its reserve components likely will not meet recruitment goals for this fiscal year.

    The report - “Stretched Thin: Army Forces for Sustained Operations” - was to have been released Monday, but a RAND spokeswoman said it had been postponed to allow “further review” by the Army. Nonetheless, Davis indicated the report raises significant questions about the Army’s future and the burdens the Pentagon and taxpayers will have to bear to field adequate forces for the country’s needs.

    The study further calls into question the Pentagon’s ability to carry out its policy of maintaining the capacity to fight two major regional wars simultaneously while also providing troops for national security at home and waging the Bush administration’s war on terrorism.

38. 38 Dugger
    Aug 1st, 2005 at 3:08 pm

    Ryland,

    Friendly advice.

    “Oliver, it constantly amazes me how many Republican apologists come here and try to drown out the facts with talking points.

    One should not be “constantly amazed” about anything. I mean a few times, then a few times more maybe, but if you are “constantly” amazed by the same thing, it says something about you - something’s a little off-kilter. Think about it. And if I have enriched your day with this little gem of wisdom, why no thanks are necessary.

    Dugger, I am the monarch of the keyboard, ruler of the “something that rhymes with keyboard”.

Leave a Reply