Validation

Published March 24, 2007 in Conservatives.

That a conglomeration of so amazingly wrong, evil-minded, pro-failure conservatives are upset at the vote in the congress to start ending the war just makes me feel even better about it.

38 Responses to “Validation”

Feed for this Entry Trackback Address

1 Wilbur
Mar 24th, 2007 at 7:04 am

If Bush vetoes the spending bill will that mean that he was for supporting the troops before he was against it?
2 fd10801
Mar 24th, 2007 at 11:21 am

No, wilbur, it will mean that he wasn’t fooled by such a cynically motivated trick as inserting pro - troop appropriations into an “end the war” bill.
3 midderpidge
Mar 24th, 2007 at 12:35 pm

As si years of Bush rhetoric has taught us: Bush was for funding the troops before he was against it.
4 midderpidge
Mar 24th, 2007 at 12:36 pm

As six years of Bush rhetoric has taught us: Bush was for funding the troops before he was against it.
5 Wellstone
Mar 24th, 2007 at 2:26 pm

Once again, let’s not let the Cons define the terms.

This was NOT an “end the war” bill, this is an EMERGENCY APPROPRIATIONS bill.

For four years, Bush has found a way, with his enablers in Congress, to keep funding the war through “Emergency Appropriations”, which are add-ons to the reguar budget.

These add-ons are necessary to pay for things not anticipated in the regular budget appropriations, and that is exactly what the bulk of the so-called add-on “pork” addresses.

When the spinach growers were decimated by the e.coli scare last year, when farmers in Arkansas were hit by the most severe drought since the Depression causing a farm emergencey and the collapse of the farming industry in the Panhandle emergencies were created that needed to be addressed.

That’s what this bill does.

Now the wingnuts think they’ve found a phony vehicle to whip up wingnut outrage, in the usual fashion:

Distort, deny, deflect blame, and assasinate character.

It ain’t working.

This is turning into a HUGE victory for Madam Pelosi, Hoyer, Clyburn, and the Dem House.

I want to SEE Bush veto down a bill that supports the troops, gives him every penny he’s asked for and more, and addresses emergencies in Southern GOP districts.

What’s better, I want to see the debate and the votes when that veto gets addressed when it goes back to the Congress.

GOP members are likely burning up the phone lines to the White House right now, and popping TUMS and Maalox like candy. This really could lead to the GOP’s complete collapse in credibility, in the national polls, and most important in the GOP power base of rural and southern districts.

And everyone will be delighted.

My congratulations once again to our Dem leadership: They are not only tough, they are SMART.

They have wrapped this issue around the necks of the GOP, and that noose is tightening and strangling them a little at a time.

I think if I were a GOP Rep today, I would feel like I was being waterboarded.
6 fd10801
Mar 24th, 2007 at 3:19 pm

A sharply divided House voted Friday to order President Bush to bring combat troops home from Iraq next year, a victory for Democrats in an epic war-powers struggle and Congress’ boldest challenge yet to the administration’s policy.

Nice rant, though.
7 fd10801
Mar 24th, 2007 at 4:49 pm

Not yet three months into their first congressional majority since 1994, the Democrats are acting like the Republicans they condemned for fiscal freewheeling.
In the House, lawmakers are considering the Democrats’ $124 billion war funding bill that not only includes $21 billion for political pet projects, but also establishes an ill-advised Aug. 31, 2008, deadline for bringing the troops home from Iraq.

The legislation, swollen with $3.7 billion in farm subsidies, is expected to be voted on Thursday. It also includes $500 million for wildfire suppression, $283 million in milk subsidies, $100 million for citrus growers, $75 million for peanut storage, $25 million for spinach growers and $15 million for rice farmers…
It’s also about a disgraceful attempt to cut and run from Iraq.
8 Rheinhard
Mar 24th, 2007 at 5:51 pm

Frank - it would be nice to provide a cite so we know what propaganda rag you’re getting your pull quotes from. Human Events Online? Investors Business Daily? Washington Times? American Spectator?
9 fd10801
Mar 24th, 2007 at 7:33 pm

Right… Only a right-wing rag would tell the story that way

House Passes Iraq Pullout Timetable
War Funding Bill Approved 218-212; Bush Vows Veto
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 24, 2007; Page A01
A sharply divided House voted yesterday to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq by next summer, attaching a timetable for withdrawal to the billions of dollars in war funding
10 fd10801
Mar 24th, 2007 at 7:38 pm

And, oh yeah: http://preview.tinyurl.com/28hnsm
11 Wellstone
Mar 24th, 2007 at 9:47 pm

This Has Been Another Episode of Your Liberal Media At Work.

I hardly recognize the Washington Post anymore.

When Frank starts pulling out clips that support his wingnut talking point from Page A01 of the WaPo, you know we are going to have to instill the same fear that the wingnut hordes have been so successful through the last few years.

We will simply have to make them pay for being lazy, and accepting right-wing narratives that are sent to them via eMail every day from outfits like wingnut central’s Bozell and Drudge.

And having a putz like Fred Hiatt in charge does not help one bit, either.
12 fd10801
Mar 24th, 2007 at 9:59 pm

So: The formula seems to be that there is a liberal “truth”, and those that don’t accept it are right wingers. So, because The Washington Post has printed a non - liberal “truth”, they are now to be shunned?

I love it.

p.s. Wellstone: Perhaps you could indulge me by pointing me to a link to news source that indicates this was not an Iraq pullout bill. Caution: I found the WaPo story at the Mother Jones website.
13 pedromd07
Mar 24th, 2007 at 10:29 pm

You’re wrong frank, they are going to INTIMIDATE journalists into accepting left-wing “truth”.

At least wellstone will call a spade a spade.
14 Wilbur
Mar 25th, 2007 at 3:31 am

Obviously it is a war-funding bill. The addition of a 2008 deadline makes it different from other war-funding bills, and the Wa Po (though a lot of what Wellstone says about it is true) is right to report it that way.

Though Bush constantly wants more war funding to pour into his Iraq cock-up, he doesn’t like certain provisions of this bill, so he’s going to veto it (if it ever reaches his desk).

In 2003, Kerry didn’t like certain elements of the war funding bill before the senate so he voted against it, even though he supported a version of the bill that actually included a way to fund the increase. To his political opponents this meant he was a “flip flopper” who didn’t “support the troops”.

ergo, Bush is a “flip flopper” who doesn’t “support the troops”.

We knew that already, but it’s nice to have confirmation.

Also nice to have confirmation that Bush and the Republicans have no intention of ending this fiasco before 2009.
15 fd10801
Mar 25th, 2007 at 7:08 am

ergo, Bush is a “flip flopper” who doesn’t “support the troops”.
ergo?
Don’t you mean “ergot”,as in ‘hallucinatory substance’?
16 Wellstone
Mar 25th, 2007 at 1:13 pm

No, again:

This is a SUPPLEMENTAL Appropriations bill.

The fact that the funding for the next year of an illegal and immoral occupation happens to be a huge part of it is simply because that’s the way Bush and the Pentagon WANTED IT.

Word went out to the Pentagon last year to bulk up and put in as much or more than they were going to need, because the gravy train of defense and war appropriations without questions or oversight left when the door closed behind the GOP majority in Congress.

As to whether we will intimidate the Media, we have to do whatever it takes to make them do their jobs.

When you have FOX, a propaganda arm of the GOP, giving people like Hannity, O’Reilly, Smith, Gibson, Cavuto, Hume, Wallace and others GOP talking points direct from Chairman Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch, when you have Brent Bozell and the MRC whose SOLE reason for being is to intimidate and pressure ALL the media, when you have concerted campaigns of eMail, calls, faxes, and postcards raining down on the Congress, the local pols, and the networks and forcing them to shut down Reagan documentaries while broadcasting Clinton hit pieces, we have no choice.

We fight, or we bend over.

Read Gingrich, Luntz, Coulter, so many other voices from the Right on what exactly they are willing to do to keep the Right in power, and you will see the Right Wing will never rest, never falter, never relent until every Liberal voice has been silenced, and all we hear is the message of FOX news and Sinclair Broadcasting over all the land.

They’ve won broadcast radio, they’ve won cable news, they’ve won broadcast news, they’ve won the NY Times and the Washington Post.

Their next target has to be: The Internet, the last remaining bastion of Liberal messaging.

We need to eMail, send letters to the Edoitors, make our voices heard. The next two years are crucial. If we can win the Presidency and a clear, filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and a 2/3 majority in the House, we can begin to reclaim our voice again.

Otherwise, we will keep being pushed out to the margins, out of the mainstream, demonized, and destroyed.

Tell me the last time “Liberal” was anything less than a put-down or an insult?
17 Rounds77
Mar 25th, 2007 at 1:16 pm

Frank criticizes Democrats for allegedly having no plan then criticizes when there is a plan. It seems nothing makes Frank happy unless it’s Bush’s idea.

To Frank and ilk, endless tours of duty to Iraq is the best way to support our troops, since “victory” (whatever the hell that is at this point) is as elusive now as it’s ever been, and setting a timeline for withdrawl is summed up by the right this way: “Otherwise, today’s vote was a bayonet stabbed in the back of every American troop in Iraq.”

Those poor political footballs otherwise known as the troops.
18 fd10801
Mar 25th, 2007 at 1:32 pm

Rounds: Leaving is not a plan.

Have you ever moved from one location to another? Was your “plan” to go there, or did you give some thought as to what to do with your belongings?

Retreat is not a war plan; it is a retreat plan.
19 Rounds77
Mar 25th, 2007 at 1:50 pm

Then what about our elected officials running this country the way the people would like it run? Support for an open-ended commitment has been waning since the 2004 elections, and what the Republicans keep proposing is more of the same, which up until now has been pretty much a failure. YOU GUYS are the ones with no plan, and this war is wearing on too many of us to just keep pouring (borrowing) money and sacrificing lives.

We’ve heard your voice for the past 6 years, and the country allowed you to call the shots. It’s time to step aside. Republicans have failed and have made America worse.

I’ve sincerely come to believe that people like you only support Bush’s overtly ridiculous polices simply because they come from a conservative and not a liberal. I can’t think of any other reason that makes sense. It’s almost as if you’d rather see the country get flushed down the toilet then not have power. This hatred of liberals is a sickness.
20 fd10801
Mar 25th, 2007 at 3:44 pm

Rounds: You have contradicted yourself:
First, “this war is wearing on too many of us to just keep pouring (borrowing) money and sacrificing lives.”

Then, “you’d rather see the country get flushed down the toilet then not have power.”

Which is it?
21 Rounds77
Mar 25th, 2007 at 4:54 pm

Frank, how’s your reading comprehension? You must know that I implied that our current course in Iraq is the toilet flushing thing. If you think otherwise, then you’re a member of those 30 percenters in America who subbornly aren’t agreeing with the 60ish percenters in America. Nor the majority of the world. You’re such pests!
22 Rounds77
Mar 25th, 2007 at 5:00 pm

I also want to add: no wonder Republicans can’t win elections.
23 fd10801
Mar 25th, 2007 at 5:55 pm

Let’s try it again, rounds: You said that [notice the quotation marks, indicating that you made the statement] “Support for an open-ended commitment has been waning since the 2004 elections,… and this war is wearing on too many of us to just keep pouring (borrowing) money and sacrificing lives… ”
That would seem to indicate that, in your opinion, the war is becoming unpopular, i.e., no longer enjoying the support of the American people.

With me so far?

Then you say [again, I quote] “It’s almost as if you’d rather see the country get flushed down the toilet then not have power.” I assume by this you meant that the “you” represents the Republicans, and that the Republicans would rather see the country get flushed down the toilet than “not have power.”

So far, so good?

OK, then, why would the Republicans, so hungry to stay in power, that they would see the country go down the toilet, not simply walk out of Iraq, so as to please those people who are opposed to the war in Iraq?

OK?

Comprehend that?
24 Rounds77
Mar 25th, 2007 at 6:12 pm

Having power for Republicans means having to prove they were right about Bush and Iraq. That proving that Iraq was not a monumental mistake. Insisting that we resolve to see this war through to the end to prove they knew what they were doing. Republicans simply can’t be wrong, Frank, where have you been?

In the course of using power in this way, our country is being ruined in so many fundamental ways. The path to further degradation is the one Bush and others like you insist on taking us, using your power to force us in this direction. Just so you won’t be wrong.
25 midderpidge
Mar 25th, 2007 at 6:14 pm

Makes no sense TweedleGeez. Republicans can’t admit Iraq is a horrible foreign policy and national security blunder. It would alienate their base. Instead they stay the course, pretending things will magically turn around, hoping to foist the entire mess onto the democratic President in 2009.
26 fd10801
Mar 25th, 2007 at 8:17 pm

midderpidge: The “Geez” thing hasn’t been funny since the first time you used it.
Being disrepectful of your elders isn’t funny, either.
You all might be amused to know that I have never - repeat, never — disrespected for my age, except on this blog by self - avowed liberals.

No one excels at terminal rightness like liberals (see social security, welfare, gun control, for example)
27 midderpidge
Mar 25th, 2007 at 8:40 pm

Gosh, you make me feel almost bad TG. If you don’t think old and eccentric fits you, imagine I’m using it in the British style, where Geezer pretty much means dude.

No one excels at terminal wrongness like conservatives (see social security, Iraq, foreign policy, economics, environment, global warming, corruption).

And Frank, if you didn’t like being called old you shouldn’t parade it around so much. I’ve seen you do the equivalent of “Drivers License?! I’ve been running over people since before you were born!” too many times.
28 fd10801
Mar 25th, 2007 at 9:30 pm

midderpidge, you’re an ass.

Several people have complained about my “pulling seniority” on them, without calling me a “Geezer.”

If your vocabulary is that limited, that you know other word for an elderly person, then go on. I merely pointed out that it was disrespectful, and that no one has been disrepectful to me on account of my age, except a few self - avowed liberals on this blog.

Hypocritical? Ironic? Take your pick. But don’t pretend I called you a youngster or a juvenile. I did point out that calling me a geezer was puerile, but you had already done so, when my age and your age were not topics for discussion.

The ability of you lefties to justify yourselves knows no bounds.
29 midderpidge
Mar 26th, 2007 at 12:04 am

Um, Frank, I hate to break this to you, but you started the name calling. If you don’t like the names you get called in return maybe you should just refrain or have a box of tissues next to your keyboard.
30 fd10801
Mar 26th, 2007 at 2:20 am

Um, midderpidge, I hate to break it to you, but I don’t much give a crap.

Perhaps you should be more careful of the company you keep.

You’re still an ass — and a phony, hypocritical ass, at that.
31 Duros62
Mar 26th, 2007 at 12:43 pm

why would the Republicans, so hungry to stay in power, that they would see the country go down the toilet, not simply walk out of Iraq, so as to please those people who are opposed to the war in Iraq?

Well, now, Frank, that’s a pretty good question. Why don’t you tell us why? Seems to me if they had chosen to please their voters, they would have a lot more asses in the seats right now.
32 Duros62
Mar 26th, 2007 at 12:46 pm

that I have never - repeat, never — disrespected for my age,

Frank, you routinely disrespect others for what you perceive as their young-ness and “immaturity.”
33 fd10801
Mar 26th, 2007 at 1:07 pm

duros: You don’t have to regurgitate midderpidge’s lame response. I can read. I can tell from a person’s post whether I think they’re immature, but I don’t call them stupid names. I simply say I think that their response was immature, or inadequate because of their youth. Is it so hard to comprehend that calling a 60 year old man, not “a geezer”, but “Geezer,or TweedleGeezer,” is disrepectful.
What is the problem?

Maybe I should start all over again, call everyone a name whenever I respond to their comment, and we can turn a simple blog thread into a name calling contest.

Let me start: beans in an idiot, midderpidge is an ill-mannered child, with no ability to take what he dishes out, and you, duros, are a sycophant, trying hard to pretend you’re treating me decently, when in fact, your only concern is convincing your liberal friends that you’re a cool guy.

Rex Mundane is a juvenile, arrogant self - absorbed jerk, zadura is a preening, directive nobody, and frameone is, of course, an idiot. “s” is drek, and zython is a schmuck.

Did I forget anyone?
34 locus
Mar 26th, 2007 at 2:14 pm

Frank,

This question has been asked more than once…

Why do you come here?

If you feel like a majority of the posters don’t respect you, don’t post here.

If you feel like a large number of people on this blog are arrogant, juvenille, or idiotic, why do you post here so much?

If it’s your intent to debate topics, why do you spend so much time responding to pettiness?

If you want high discourse, why do you belittle yourself with name-calling replies?

It seems like a good question has been asked. Since no one else on this thread is willing to speak for the right on this, why can’t you answer the question? You seem more than willing to engage.
35 Duros62
Mar 26th, 2007 at 2:46 pm

, and we can turn a simple blog thread into a name calling contest.
Well, that’s usually how it ends up as long as you’re here, Frank, because it’s all about you, isn’t it?

And another thing; Fuck you. I have been decent and civil to you all along. Yes, I have poked fun at you on occasion, but your humorless black hole of a soul has failed to get the joke and laugh with the rest. Because it’s all about you, isn’t it?
Your lame attempts to “gotcha” people who point & laugh or who don’t respect you just make you look sad and deluded.

Because it’s all about you, isn’t it?
Screw you and the magical pony you rode in on. I will no longer try to engage you in debate or discussion, so that’s one person you can scratch off your fucking list.
36 Duros62
Mar 26th, 2007 at 2:54 pm

The title of this post is the ultimate in irony.
37 frameone
Mar 26th, 2007 at 4:57 pm

“Being disrepectful of your elders isn’t funny, either.”

ROFL. But reading posts from elders who are idiots is hilarious. Priceless, frank. Priceless.
38 fd10801
Mar 26th, 2007 at 10:01 pm

frameone: The blog was grand while you weren’t here…

duros: You seem to be upset…
Was it something I said?

It seems like a good question has been asked

With all this commotion, I don’t know which question I failed to answer.

To all those people about whom I said nothing, I apologize for taking up your time and comment space.

If there is anyone out there who I did say something negative about, simply point out to me the error of my ways. Is there one of you, who I have named, that has not insulted on many an occasion?

Right. Now on with the show.

Oliver Willis

Validation

38 Responses to “Validation”

Leave a Reply

Tag Cloud

Recent Posts

Archives

Categories