As the Cons flip and flop

Email Print posted by Hubble 01/18/2007 02:33:37 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
As the worm turns

It amazes me the Cons scream at the top of their lungs that asking what the exit strategy is somehow aids the enemy, and how if you criticize the President you don’t support the troops, but when you take a look back at history they didn’t always have these views.

Could it be that the Cons are just a bunch of Flip Floppers?


“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”  –Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

“You can support the troops but not the president.” –Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

“Well, I just think it’s a bad idea. What’s going to happen is they’re going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years.” –Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

“Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?” –Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

“[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation’s armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy.”  –Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)

“If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy.”  –Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush

“I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn’t think we had done enough in the diplomatic area.”  –Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

“I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today” –Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

I got these off of Rosie O’Donnell’s blog while searching for some Republican quotes, so I suppose it makes me a cut and paste whore.

It’s really is ironic how these same people are now pretending that anyone who actually believe what they themselves have advocated are treasonous and giving aid and confort to the enemy. Or is this a case of do as I say do, not as I do? And the Sheaple say "bleat, bleat, bleat oh fearless leader."

Little Shrub and his crowd just keep on putting the con into conservative.
< Oreos, bananas, coconuts, and cream puffs! | A Republican Leader Has Endorsed a Clear Racist >
 Display:
As the Cons flip and flop | 30 comments (30 topical, 0 hidden)
Bump and watch them spin (none / 0)
How many Republicans does it take to change a light bulb?

Twelve to investigate Clinton's involvement in the failure of the old bulb, 23 to deregulate the light bulb industry, and 51 to pass a tax credit for light bulb changers.

Or

1. One to deny that a light bulb needs to be changed;

2. One to attack the patriotism of anyone who says the light bulb needs to be changed;

3. One to blame Clinton for burning out the light bulb;

4. One to arrange the invasion of a country rumored to have a secret stockpile of light bulbs;

5. One to give a billion dollar no-bid contract to Halliburton for the new light bulb;

6. One to arrange a photograph of Bush, dressed as a janitor, standing on a step ladder under the banner: Light Bulb Change Accomplished;

7. One administration insider to resign and write a book documenting in detail how Bush was literally in the dark;

8. One to viciously smear #7;

9. One surrogate to campaign on TV and at rallies on how George Bush  has had a strong light-bulb-changing policy all along;

10. And finally one to confuse Americans about the difference between screwing a light bulb and screwing the country.

and my favorite

A: None. There is nothing wrong with the light bulb; it's conditions are improving every day. Any reports of its lack of incandescence are delusional spin from the liberal media. That light bulb has served honorably, and anything you say undermines the lighting effect. Why do you hate freedom?

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 01/18/2007 02:44:49 PM EST

Hubble (none / 0)
Democrats now control 2/3 of the Federal Government. It is time for Democrats to offer something other than criticism.
 
What is their proposal? Where is the leadership? Where is the responsibility and accountability? Do they want to escalate? Do they want to de-escalate? Do they want to run? Do they want to hide? Do they want to bring America another defeat, after what they did in Vietnam?
 
Why should they be given power, if they don't know what to do with it?

The world waits. 

by KenTX on 01/18/2007 03:16:22 PM EST

When did we take over 2/3rds (none / 0)
I wasn't aware that Dems had control of 2/3rds of the Federal Government. Really? When did we do that

Let's examine
Federal Government is made up of three branches

Executive- last time I checked ole Shub is a Republican, I don't think you can just give him to the Democrats

Judicial-I believe that the Suprem Court now consist of 7 nominees of Republicans and two of Democrats. I'm pretty sure The Republicans have a solid lead in the Supreme Court.

Legislative-Dems have had control for two whole weeks.
Let's see two weeks versus six years and already trying to spin it that it's all the Democrats fault.

Very good Ken, you spun it with just the right amount of fake outrage and sarcasm.

It doesn't matter what the Dems want at this point ,they have many ideas and have expressed them only to be shot down because the "decider" is the Commander and Chief  and at this point he is the only one who matters when it comes to troop deployment.

I'm sure that Cons would love to see funding cut so you can scream mock outrage about how the Dems are endangering the troops and blah blah blah blah blahhhhhh. I just don't think it will work this time.

Of course I do love how Cons have had 6 years of control, have screwed it all up and now are trying to blame the Democrats because after two weeks it isn't fixed.

Spin on McDuff! Spin on! ROTFLMAO

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 01/18/2007 05:18:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh, Hubble... (none / 0)

You have heard, I am sure, that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?

Then why are you trying to explain the Constitution to Ken?  Has he not removed any doubt that he is completely unable to understand it?  Read his posts sometimes.

Last week hundreds of bandwith trees died making the electronic "paper" it took to try to explain to Ken (and co.) that the Congress does not control the armed forces and then he comes back, days later, with this.

I suppose he could just be fantastically bad at math but this is just not a serious post.

Forget the math, just focus in on this:

The Repubs have had 100% (or 200% using KenMath) control of the government for six years and have totally screwed everything up and Ken can't find a bad thing to say about them. The dems have had the House and a one vote margin in the Senate for less than 100 business hours and Ken is already demanding results.  I mean really, how can you take these people seriously. 

by ProfRich on 01/19/2007 10:36:56 AM EST

[ Parent ]
you might get there (none / 0)
Hubble is allowed to tease me as much as he wants. Hubble and KenTX are old friends, and we enjoy the exchange. It's all in good humor.

ProfRich has not yet reached that status. I'm not saying it won't happen, but the jury is still out.

So when Rich posts a comment like this,
"Then why are you trying to explain the Constitution to Ken?  Has he not removed any doubt that he is completely unable to understand it?  Read his posts sometimes."

I am compelled to remind him how many times I have had to educate him on the subjects of history and politics and the government.

And Rich is a high school history teacher!




by KenTX on 01/19/2007 11:04:06 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Thanks for the help Ken (none / 0)

I hope everyone clicks on that link and reads it all.  It was actually one of the things I was referring to.  I would have linked to it myself but I was busy making some charts and graphs of how many times you guys have lied, thrown out misinformation or just been dead ass wrong on this forum.

I think its funny your only response to the pounding you took was to link to some previous argument you seem to think you have won while failing to adress:

1) How the dems have 2/3 of the govt

2) How the dems should have fixed everything in 90 something hours of work

3) That the repubs had complete control of the government and have absolutely wrecked the country

Yeah, Ken, that link really made you look like a genius.

I feel so stupid right now.

Clown. 

by ProfRich on 01/19/2007 12:24:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Rich, I will continue to help. (none / 0)
“I feel so stupid right now.”

Rich, in your role as the Jay Bennish of Texas, you should feel stupid.
ProfJay 
“I hope everyone clicks on that link and reads it all.” 

I’m happy to provide the forum with several links, providing examples of where I tried to assist your continuing education.

In this link, I schooled you on the subject of history.

In this link, I schooled you on the subject of The Constitution.

In this link, I schooled you on the subject of politics.

In this link, I schooled you on the subject of proper sourcing.

In this link, I schooled you on the subject of the Clinton Administration.
 
And this was your response, where you tried in vain (and in error once again) to defend the criminality of Bill Clinton.

“You are extremely wrong that it is common knowledge that Clinton committed perjury before the Grand Jury.  It is, in fact, hotly debated whether or not he did commit perjury (as perjury is a legal term and a lot more complex than "He did cause Bill O'Reilly said so").  He did lie to us and was certainly creative at times with his words but that don't necessarily equal perjury.”

Clinton admitted to lying under oath in January 2001.

"President Clinton, on last full day in office, agrees to settlement in which he will avoid possibility of indictment in exchange for admitting he gave false testimony under oath and agreeing to surrender his law license for five years."

Rich, I conduct frequent debates with liberals in this forum such as MedfordTim, MRFredFromFla, SouthBendJarett, WebbHubble, AlphaSigmaDoTheRightThingMo okie. The debates are spirited, and friendly, and we’re able to maintain an atmosphere of conviviality. You are invited to participate in the fun.

However, if you want to continue to behave in an unbecoming manner, you’ll leave me no choice but to continue with your remedial education. Just consider me a patient and willing instructor.

by KenTX on 01/19/2007 03:31:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ken's debate style exposed! (none / 0)
What the hell are you talking about Ken?  Allow me to teach you how to address someone's points since this is a skill you are completely devoid of.  In no particular order:

1) I don't need or want your permission to participate in the debate (and I don't expect you to need or want mine.)  If a forum moderator requests anything from me, I will comply.  If you want to go cry to one, feel free.  If reasonable people on this forum indicate I am going too far I will take that into account but I don't need your condecension.  I don't know how long you have been around but I know I earned my Turkdom long enough ago that I don't need to look to you for permission to defend myself here.

2) As for Benish, that man must be fired, ifhe has not beenyet.  That is unforgivable.  See, as a non neocon I DON'T believe in indoctrination. 
Here is a little story I am quite proud of, not so much for Ken who is too far gone to get or accept the point, but for the rest of you.  I teach US History and try assiduosuly to remove my personal feelings.  A lot of my teaching style is presenting evidence from two sides and letting the kids talk it out.  I will play devil's advocate to steer things away from consensus but not much else.  When Reagan died I ran into a student of mine from the past.  She said, "I was thinking about you last week cause I know how much you liked Reagan."  I was pretty blown away because, surprisingly, I don't like Reagan.  At all (R.I.P. nonetheless).  Then it hit me, I must have done the neutral teacher thing pretty well that time.

3) That guy might ought to be fired based on that picture alone.  Wow, that is awful.

4) Keep posting the links, Ken.  I am perfectly fine with my arguments and feel that most of the people (meaning everyone not rabidly predisposed to agree with Fox News.....errrr..... I mean your arguments to begin with) doesn't really see this as evidence of your unimpeachable intellectual dominance of our forum (which is what I assumed you were doing since one of those isn't even related to any of my posts.)

5) Somebody clock it.  How many posts was that without the Clinton perjury post?  And how does that one rate for biggest non-sequiter use of "THE QUOTE".  Why don't you just make it your signature line and stop desperately trying to shoehorn it into every forum thread featuring you getting exposed as a clown like it somehow redeems you and your nonresponsive "arguments".

6) Anyone who wants, go reread this little exchange between me and Ken.
Here is the recap:

Hubble: The Repubs are gigantic, Dennis Hastert's ass sized hypocrites and here's a Congressional pork barrel full of quotes of them doing exactly what they themselves now call treason.

Hubble: Here are some damn funny jokes.

Ken: Now the dems have 2/3 of the gov't.  What are they going to do? 
(a no-prize to the first person who can provide a link to the original subject and Ken's post.  I am stumped.  I figure he posted this cause that was what Hannity was talking about on his drive in and he can't understand our posts so he just goes with whatever the repub talking point is for the day, more of this to come).

Hubble: Explains US Constitution to Ken.  Three branches, division of power, the works.  Fails to use charts and graphs.  Fails.

Rich: Points out futility of trying to teach Ken about Constitution. Wonders why Ken can't actually defend the repubs at all (not a word).

Ken: Cries Rich is playing too rough.  Posts link to an argument Ken thinks he has "won". 

Rich: Asks Ken three questons point blank (1) How is it 2/3 (2) How can the dems have fixed it already (3) Why won't he  ;talk about the repubs screwing everything up for six years but wants to talk about the dems not fixing said mistakes in 85 hours

Ken: Posts more links to his victory.  Links to suspect website (not as suspect as the crazy Muslim-hating Jew Ken has based his belief system on, but still fairly crazy) accusing Rich of indoctrinating youth.  Cries some more.  Yet again, as he always does, fails to respond to questions and or other peoples points.  Gives the "I'm not a bad guy, I have liberal friends" line.  Ends with "Clinton commited perjury" quote/screed.  Ken, you sir are a master arguer.  There can be no doubt.

Does this sound familiar to anyone else?

by ProfRich on 01/19/2007 04:34:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The Great Debate (none / 0)
Here is a post from November of last year, proving without a doubt that KenTX is well aware conservatives currently control dominate two branches of government.

The exchange in this thread between Ken from South Texas and Webster (Chelsea’s real father) Hubble was done tongue-in-cheek-fashion. Rich has not been around long enough to understand the jokes. However, he is quick to pounce when he believes he recognizes a mistake.

So let’s see how quick he is to pounce on this mistake:

ProfRich writes:

“You are extremely wrong that it is common knowledge that Clinton committed perjury before the Grand Jury.  It is, in fact, hotly debated whether or not he did commit perjury (as perjury is a legal term and a lot more complex than "He did cause Bill O'Reilly said so").  He did lie to us and was certainly creative at times with his words but that don't necessarily equal perjury.”

KenTX responds:

Clinton admitted to lying under oath in January 2001.

"President Clinton, on last full day in office, agrees to settlement in which he will avoid possibility of indictment in exchange for admitting he gave false testimony under oath and agreeing to surrender his law license for five years."

I love highlighting ProfRich mistakes. They are so numerous, it could be a full time job.
Here’s a proposal. Why don’t we conduct a debate on political issues in your classroom? You choose the subject, and if I disagree with your liberal premise, I’ll take the opposite position. Then we’ll let your students judge who won the debate. We could link the video of the event on this forum. How about it?

by KenTX on 01/19/2007 05:25:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Clinton...Again?...oy vey.... (none / 0)

So we are beating the Clinton horse again are we.

 

 

 

Clinton hit his target...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bush missed his...
 

by MRFred on 01/19/2007 05:48:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"Clinton hit his target" (none / 0)
Secret Service transcripts of kitchen alcove monitoring report included the entry:

"Loud bellow, followed by exhuberant utterance that sounded like 'Oh, Yeah! That's what I call a facial!'"

by KenTX on 01/20/2007 12:44:37 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Go for it, Matlock (none / 0)
Just a gut feeling that's corroborated by multiple sources, but okay, you can call it a "gut feeling" I suppose, if it makes you feel more like Perry Mason.  He could be dead, but his being dead doesn't automatically credit Bush with a win in the War on Terror (which is an endearing nickname for the War on Things You Can't Ever Possibly Eliminate Completely).  What about all those rumors of his ill-health, his two dialysis machines...?  If he accidentally injests Pop Rocks and 7-Up and his stomach explodes like a seagull on Alka-Seltzer, is Bush going to take credit for that, too?  Presupposing the answer to that is yes, does Bin Laden's being dead mean we can quit being scared out of our wits at every shadow that crosses the wall?  Or will our leaders shake fingers at us and say, "No, don't get too comfy...Bin Laden was never the greatest of threats to our security?"

by OneHitKill on 01/20/2007 03:21:37 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Rose Colored Glasses of the RNC and PNAC? (none / 0)

I appreciate you optimism my friend but I can't help but see a wee bit of partisan spin here. I am afraid that I dont share your view...and its not a lliberal /conservative ...whatever...issue...its a survival issue.

But I was patient and open minded enough to finally wrap my head around what the President's declaration has enabled the U.S. to do, as a means of combating terrorism.

Good for you. That would great if we weren't diverting most of our resources and attention to debacle that is Iraq. We had a golden oportunity in Afganistan..one where our conventional force superiority could have been decisive...and we blew it. That irritates me to no end. Aften Afganistan...there would have been plenty of time for Iraq...whoever...Bush pulled the trigger much to quickly...now we are screwed.

We have succeeded in discovering, penetrating, and interrupting or completely shutting down treasonous funding operations that were feeding money to the Muslim Extremists on a global scale.

Not by a long shot my friend...I am sure terrorists are using low tech "brown bag" operations to move money off the grid. Not as fast as a wire transfer to be sure...but still effective. We simply discovered money laundering that used  legitimate banking and finance operations. One only has to look at ongoing drug and crime money laundering operations in th US to dispute your claim. Terrorists can move money in and out of the US anytime they please...just walk it across the Rio Grande....ship it in a container to outsource US port operations...or simply FEDEx it to anywhere in the US.

  We have located and destroyed several para military training camps where Muslim Extremists were being trained in the making of bombs, hijacking planes, etc.

Which ones? Other than the recent action in Somolia? If the Bushies would be plastering that all over FOX  along with the Obama graphics "mistakes" if that were true.

We have succeeded in creating a footing in Iraq, where "the people" are gaining an increasing ability to "repel" extremist forces democratically via their own Constitutional electoral processes.

That would be nice..if it were only true..periodically the people  may "repel" extremist forces accidentally caught in a cross fire during the Shia-Suni civil war.

But, has president Bush caused serious damage to the Muslim terrorist's infrastructure and has he laid the grounds for comparable techniques to be used against other factions of "terrorists?" That answer is a resounding YES.

Bush has laid the grounds for comparable techniques to be used against other factions of "terrorists"? If you mean by:

  • Outsourcing the hunt for Bin Laden and letting him get away.
  • Accepting PNAC ideology and allowing it to trump military strategy.
  • Ignoring Domestic security when it conflicts with US business interests.
  • Terminal Iraqi tunnel vision
  • Squandering post 9/11 national and international goodwill and cooperation .
  • Politicizing the "War on Terror" to the detriment of all.

then he's done a wonderful job.

As far as Bush caused serious damage to the Muslim terrorist's infrastructure ? Thats inflated old news...al Queda has changed and adapted...we haven't ...we are so focused on Iraq that the  information  cyber and intelligence war is being lost.

By the way what "other terrorist infrastructures" have we attacked? The recent attacks on al Queda camps in Somalia is the only evidence I have seen of the "war on terror" outside of Iraq.

Lastly...the Phillipino's got their man...why cant we? 

by MRFred on 01/20/2007 09:47:59 AM EST

[ Parent ]
We Get it.. thats the conservatives problem (none / 0)
We invaded Afghanistan for one reason. To hunt down the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 and bring them to justice. 

So in my naive liberal just don't get rush Limbaugh logic "outsourcing" the hunt for binladin was a HUGE blunder

Since the "outsourced" troops basically let him slip away at tora bora

The mission changes weekly depending on how well bush's meds have taken


I love the conservatives   ... If you fail to agree with my point of view  ..you just dont get it.. you dont understand... logic   Tony Snow tries that all the time. It stopped working a long time ago. Rush and Sean and Faux news have been hammering away trying any angle they can . It hasnt changed the polls a percentage point.


You know what?? WE DO GET IT..


  I think you need to re evaluate .. who doesnt get it . 

by Stay Tuned on 01/20/2007 05:24:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
It spilled..its time for a new glass... (none / 0)

We have different outlooks on life and different expectations from our leaders.

With due respect your hardly in position to tell me what I see or how I see the world. I expect success from my military leaders and that includes the President...nothing less. I havent seen it. Period.

To date Ive seen a lot of rhetoric  a lot of promises , a lot big openings and weak finishes...

 "The initial stages of the war in Afghanistan were superbly executed, especially the airstrikes that destroyed the Taliban on the ground," says Mr. Heyman, the British editor of Jane's World Armies, a London-based military analysis publication. "But after that, there were never enough forces on the ground. And if you don't have enough forces on the ground, you can't dictate events on the ground. That is one of the reasons so many escaped."

So taken as a whole if Afganistan was an  intelligent combat decision ( orchestrated by the CIA by the way) then its small wonder Iraq turned out as it has. I honestly believe that the Bushies had their eyes on Iraq all along and didnt want to commit the troops reqired to ensure al Queda was crushed when we had them cornered.

In any case "Allies"is a generous  and misleading description for corrupt warlords.

 I can see the Native Afgani's are more aclimated and adept...

 Indeed...

Meanwhile, back in Jalalabad, the Afghan warlords enlisted by the US to attack Tora Bora were also cutting deals to help the Al Qaeda fighters escape


The "mission" is bigger than Bin Laden..

Not according to your boy George

"There appears to be a real disconnect between what the US military was engaged in trying to do during the battle for Tora Bora - which was to destroy Al Qaeda and the Taliban - and the earlier rhetoric of President Bush, which had focused on getting bin Laden," says Charles Heyman, editor of Jane's World Armies.

This is why Bin Laden is important. 

"There are citizens all over the Middle East now saying that the US military couldn't do it - couldn't catch Osama - while ignoring the fact that the US military campaign, apart from not capturing Mr. bin Laden was, up the that point, staggeringly effective."

One more thing...you claim to be conservative in outlook and dont know what PNAC is? Dude...they are going to pull your card! :)

 

 

by MRFred on 01/20/2007 06:01:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Since when are you worried about OBL? (none / 0)
"Is Bush going to take credit for that, too?"
bat cave
Bush can take credit for a couple of undeniable facts.

1. Osama is forced to live in conditions that are much worse than Gitmo.

2. Osama is unable to plan and execute more attacks on America.

3. Osama will not be able to experience freedom again, until a Democrat is elected president.

by KenTX on 01/20/2007 09:54:28 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Undeniable facts? (none / 0)

If it were only true...

1. Osama is forced to live in conditions that are much worse than Gitmo.??

He's free.... case closed.

2. Osama is unable to plan and execute more attacks on America.

How are you so sure about that? I was under the impression from Bush that we were fighting al Queda in Iraq...

3. Osama will not be able to experience freedom again, until a Democrat is elected president

Oh please Ken...he's free right now...moves with impunity in Pakistan...

by MRFred on 01/20/2007 10:47:33 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Gitmo is better than a cave (none / 0)
Life in Club Gitmo is pretty good. Subway sandwiches, Happy Meals, excercise equipment, free health care, warm tropical breezes.
club gitmo

by KenTX on 01/20/2007 11:05:25 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Gitmo..Cave...gufffffaw..... (none / 0)

Sorry , but I always go lowbrow early... 

by MRFred on 01/20/2007 02:47:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Don't tell me what I can't deny (none / 0)
"Again?" He's experiencing freedom right now, you clown.

by OneHitKill on 02/07/2007 03:39:50 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Your high horse's back is arthritic (none / 0)
When I'm being meaningful, you'll know.  Until then, if you still feel threatened by the horrifying prospect of
"meaningful conversation," just take a deep breath and count to ten before you decide to respond.  The Bytch you Bang may be your own.

by OneHitKill on 02/08/2007 05:21:59 AM EST

[ Parent ]
No link can save you (none / 0)

Don't bother posting links in support of such a vague thesis as "the War on Terror exists."  If Acroso has taught me anything, it's that a hyperlink is entirely capable of proving nothing.  (Plus, consider the unfair disadvantage; if you post a link, I probably won't click on it.  I've been ripped off way too many times to ever trust anyone again in that department.)  I will extend you the mutual courtesy of not posting links to evidence that the War on Terror is a load of shit.

Bush and his defenders like to say "history will judge me to be right."  If, in our lifetime, terrorism somehow disappears from the earth, you will be entitled to enjoy gloating rights along with all the other people who would rather be held responsible for the unnecessary fallout of the War on Terror later than sooner.  But until history does judge you to be right, you are wrong and will be treated accordingly.

by OneHitKill on 02/07/2007 03:37:46 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Why do you bother? (none / 0)
All the points are pretty much true. Leading me to wonder. Why do you bother?

Why do you bother "debating " ideologically blinded right-wing flat-earthers ?


by Stay Tuned on 01/19/2007 05:57:51 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Why do we bother? (none / 0)
Some of us bother because there may be those individuals who don't know exactly what to believe. Talk radio has for years put forward unchecked the right wing propaganda to the American people thus convincing many people to actually vote against their own self interest.

Polls show most American favor Democratic issues
Abortion - with several caviots most Americans believe in the right to abortion

Universal Health Care A  2003 Washington Post/ABC showed 62% of Americans favored Universal Health Care

Minimum Wage - 83% favor raising it to $7.15 per hour.

The list goes on and on, but the voices for over a decade would have the American people believe if you think that way you are out of the mainstream.

In a forum like this it is without a doubt better to have a few from the opposition to in the words of "The Decider in Chief"  "Catapult The Propaganda" in order to show the counter argument with if necessary charts and graphs and the occasional "cut and paste" even if it does make you a cut and paste whore.

Prof you'll have to excuse Kenny Boy he hasn't been the same since the conviction and then having to pretend he died to avoid going to prison, he's been off his game. Of course he's still confused by why his favorite boy who gave him his own personal nickname and made him his bitch suddenly turned into St. Peter at the mention of his name and proclaimed "Ken who? I've never heard of the man. What do you mean he flew me to campaign stops all over the nation in his corporate jet? Nope must be somebody else never heard of him."

So even tho he still puts up a brave fight, like a great boxing champion at the end of his career.....well you get the idea. 

Unlike a few other who post whatever they heard Sean Slanthead say, Ken does have his own thoughts, even if he is wrong.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 01/19/2007 06:49:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
KennyTX Boy (none / 0)
"you'll have to excuse Kenny Boy he hasn't been the same since the conviction and then having to pretend he died to avoid going to prison"

It's like I kept trying to tell you guys, I'm not guilty!

by KenTX on 01/20/2007 12:37:42 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Leave it to the Young Turks (none / 0)
I'm pretty sure if anyone comes to this message board they

1. are a fan of the young turks
2. or are hateful right wing nut jobs that want to spew their venom.

The Young Turks do an awesome job of getting their point across as is evidenced in their radio show and their blog posts if any minds can be changed they are far and away most qualified.

The wackjobs on this message board and other liberal blogs  aren't the run of the mill repug. They are the bottom of the barrel ,venomous  nut jobs .  You can't argue with a sick mind is all I'm sayin

Whats happening here is  not debate, its just a series of gotchas and personal attacks and ankle biting.

I don't think  there is a higher purpose.

by Stay Tuned on 01/20/2007 05:39:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Pelosi (none / 0)
Sounds like Pelosi and most of the house Dems proposing more troops for the last year....until Bush does it. Then it's outragious!

by acroso on 01/18/2007 05:20:23 PM EST

Speaking of people who echo Sean Slanthead (none / 0)
Acroso,
Please for the love of God, go see Vanna, buy a vowel and get a fucking clue.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 01/19/2007 08:11:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Arcroso Revealed! (none / 0)

I figured it out. Arcroso is a nightshift call center worker in Mumbai. He blogs in between calls. This explains the odd syntax in his posts and the spelling issues...it's outragious!

 

Hello my name is...STEVE..how can I help you. First we will reboot your computer....

by MRFred on 01/19/2007 08:38:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
its all about timing (none / 0)
Here's a clue for you

The time for more troops is past.

simply put

More troops when bush invaded for no reason  Good
More troops  now  Bad

I'm not prepared to argue with his own generals that say more troops is a bad idea. I'm sure you aren't qualified either.

by Stay Tuned on 01/20/2007 05:43:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]
As the Cons flip and flop | 30 comments (30 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: