So he asked for nearly $200 billion to pay for the next year in Iraq (which Rumsfeld said would cost about $100 million and then the rest would be covered by oil profits...4 years ago).
Then he vetoed a bill that would add 61 cents to cigarettes to raise $35 billion over 5 years and give healthcare to millions of children.

wow. that's just evil. there's no way around it. that is just evil.

Its not illegal to smoke cigarettes. Taxing to control someones behavior is evil.

adding a tax to something isn't evil. 61 cents a pack to help insure kids is a good trade off. they're not banning people from smoking, they're not taxing to get them to stop, they're adding a tax to a frivilous item that can do a lot of good.
and where do you think the $200 billion for Iraq is coming from? are you really ok with them spending that much to kill people but then not insuring kids?


Jon Stewart did some good coverage.

It doesn't help kids or stop people from smoking. Its just another "feel good" law that does nothing but make people poorer. If someone decided to quit smoking they will quit smoking by their own choice, not the governments.


The lie about sin taxes are that they are supposed to stop people from doing "bad" things and help the poor get medical help or some such BS. If the idea is to stop the bad behavior, where will the tax money come from?

it has nothing to do with smoking, it's a means to finding money to give children healthcare.


again, cigarettes aren't the point. it's a small tax on a frivilous item that gives a very needed service to children. those children will grow up healthier and the country is better off for it.
also, contrast it with bush asking for 5 times as much in 1/5 the time to fund a war that he sold on not being a burden to the taxpayer.

Part of the issue here is that Ray is imposing his own sense of values on the rest of us.

Ray thinks that socialized medicine is a good idea, despite a certain amount of evidence to the contrary. Fair enough.

But rather than accept that there are valid reasons to oppose government control of health decisions, Ray has to assume that anyone disagrees must be evil.

The military issue is the same thing. Ray is against the war. Fair enough.

Again, however, Ray assumes that those who might see the conflict as necessary must be evil.

Personally, there's no way anyone could convince me this war is necessary and since it's not necessary there's a point to made for Bush being evil since he's callously sent so many to die. Or, he's just a dumbass.

Socialized medicine is evil

As is socialized mail

As is socialized education

As is Social(ized) Security.

Or it could just be a boogeyman catch-phrase to evoke an emotional response.

No. They're just evil.

I'll let the mailman know how you feel.

That's okay, I let him know how much I hate him whenever he comes by.

Turn the hose on him or sic the dog on him. Soon he'll stop bringing you junk mail and bills.

A 61 cent tax on cigarettes? It certainly does sound like a good idea to me. If for nothing else to add an incentive for people to stop smoking.

The problem with "free choice" is that people who wants to quit, say, smoking are not doing it, they are not taking that choice, simply because they lack the right incentive. We all know it's bad for us, but that's not enough of an incentive. If you hit people where it hurts, their economy, they might seriously consider taking the choice they've wanted to take for a long time.


Oh, and G-mans statement about there being adequate evidence that socialised medicine doesn't work is all well and good, seeing as how he conveniently ignores the ample evidence out there tha points out that it does work.

They don't quit because they don't want to quit. Is that really that hard to understand?

Hmm, maybe that's a bit too hard for you to understand. Let me give you another example.

Organ donation. We have here in Denmark a shortage on organs because there aren't enough donors. Now, in your reasoning it is because people simply don't want to donate their organs. Not true. People do indeed want to donate their organs when they die. But even though they have the choice to become an organ donor they don't make that choice, why? I don't know, really, but it's a statistical fact nonetheless.

In sweden, if I'm not much mistaken, you're automatically signed up as an organ donor and you have to choose to not be a donor.

Now, another reason for people not quitting the smokes might be because they find it too hard, y'know, cigarettes being more addictive than heroin and all. An economic incentive might make a bit easier for these poor addicted souls.

You should be able to relate, what with being addicted to WoW

comparing it to completely unrelated things doesn't make you right.

it's more an example that would make it easier for you to understand what I mean.

Even though people have the choice and want to make that choice it's not a given that they will actually do it.

There can be many reasons for that, fear, culturel inhibitions, peer pressure, it might conflict with how they were raised. You name it.

Do you understand me now?

here's how i see it:
healthcare for kids good. veto prevents healthcare is bad. man who vetoes then asks for 5 times as much money in 1/5 the time to fund a war that is failing.
for those of you against big government and taxes, where do you think $200 billion is coming from?

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. - Dwight D. Eisenhower

But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed,
because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just. [Luke 14:13 &14.]

"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me.'"
-Matthew 25:41-45

but Eisenhower and the bible have a liberal bias.

I think this is just a case of Democrats once again falsely demonizing Republicans, for something that is reasonable and logical.

PBS News Hour, Oct 3, 2007, Children's Health Insurance Legislation

The child care program would help families making up to $80,000 a year, who not only can afford health insurance, but already have health insurance. So if this bill passed, all these upper-income families would cancel their private insurance policies, and just take advantage of government freebies.

What would happen if Bush successfully vetoes this bill, is it would come back and the Republicans would change it from an 80,000-dollar-cap to a 60,000 dollar one (i.e., limiting it to families who really need the benefits).


This is just another political manipulation to emotionally charge the debate on a false issue.

I was especially repulsed by the photo-op by Nancy Pelosi, praying with children in front of the cameras for Bush to change his mind. The party opposed to prayer in schools, the party of abortion, the party of assisted suicide, the party of removing the Ten Commandments from our courthouses... praying for our President. What irony. What hypocrisy.

i've noticed with you it's always "bush good, democrats bad." followed by a long list of things you don't like. this isn't a thread about abortion or the ten commandments, and i don't think either party really likes to touch the assisted suicide argument. and if you're talking photo-ops is it any different than mission accomplished on a battleship or bush...wait for it...posing with a bunch of kids last year when he vetoed the stem cell bill?

That's yet another completely false sweeping generalization of yours, Ray.


Several topics (and there are many more) where I've voiced criticism of Bush and other Republicans:

9-11: six years later (Bush made mistakes)

Romney/Mormon President topic (even Reagan made mistakes)

Calling for Surrender

It would be nice if just once you could argue on the merit of the facts, instead of just hacking out sweeping generalizations and personal attacks.

So....let's say that plan actually works and it gets people to stop smoking.

If that happens, the program funded by smoking has lost it's funding, hasn't it?

It's very foolish, or disingenuous, to fund a program with an activity you are trying to eliminate or curtail.

yeah, because all the other taxes put on cigarettes over the years has stopped smoking and bankrupted the system.
and no one is really trying to curtail smoking. smoking is a very frivilous thing that causes many health problems. it makes sense that cigarettes be taxed to help pay for healthcare when you figure the sheer number of people who end up needing healthcare because they smoked.

So you're admitting the plan is disingenous. Okay. Thanks.

no, i'm admitting that you're wrong as usual. this isn't about smoking or detering smoking. it's about healthcare for kids and putting a small tax on something that's rather frivilous. they could tax liquor, porn, anything like that and it'd be good if it goes towards healthcare for children.
what i notice is that no one on the right is addressing that bush vetoed 35 billion over 5 years while asking for nearly 200 billion for the next year.
where does that money come from? and is funding a failing war that costs lives really as important as giving children healthcare?

well, if it does manage to make people stop smoking and the Tax on cigarettes then become useless I'm sure there are resources spent on treating those who have gotten sick from smoking that will be freed and ready to be spent on other things, such as health care for kids.

You know, we could argue about the context of these passages all day, but it wouldn't get us far. Suffice it to say that I am still convinced from all my studies that the primary focus of Christ's teachings regarding compassion still lies in the choices we make as individual human beings concerning other individual human beings. The only even quasi-political entities Jesus ever addressed with commands or condemnation were the Pharisees with their stifling 'supplementary' codes of morality and the Sadducees with their stagnant Temple-centric religious and social heirarchy.

Again, making looking after those who can't look after themselves the government's job, rather than yours and mine and every other individual's moral responsibility, only accomplishes locking the disadvantaged into an inescapable and fatalistic cycle of dependency on the hand that feeds them. I've seen it. It may be well and good for some to sit back and cut a check and feel confident that the powers that be will spend said check providing medical care for underprivileged children rather than Bridges to Nowhere™. But I don't like the idea of faceless bureaucrats determining what's best for the well-being of citizens they'd never go out of their way to meet off the campaign trail. And I ESPECIALLY don't like the precedent set by making anyone dependent on the government for any facet of their existence.

I have no doubt that you genuinely care about the underprivileged, dude. But so do I. And I think there are vastly superior ways to take care of those who can't take care of themselves than "empowering" them into dependency on government cheese. I hope now we understand each other at least a little better.

All that really suggests is that his priorities differ from yours.



My pants.



Rhetorical horseshit.

The Surge is Succeeding? topic


Already asked and answered in the appropriate discussion topic.

so your whole point is that he values war over healthcare? wow.

...takes one to know one.


no, it's a question of priorities. what matters to bush? from his actions we can infer being stubborn on Iraq despite it failing every one of his promises and hopes is more important than insuring kids. even if you think their parents can pay for it, it's still about giving insurance to kids.

Is it the government's job to give people of any age insurance? Who's supposed to provide the parents' insurance? Employers. They're not? Find another employer. If the federal government wants to be an insurance company, they can sell health coverage at a reduced rate and try and compete with all the other providers out there. Your opinion on the war is immaterial.

the federal government already is given plenty of responsibilities that you don't seem to have a problem with. why not provide health care? where is the harm? it works in other countries and quite frankly since the government decides what the safe levels for pollution and what food and drugs are safe maybe they should also provide doctors for the people who get sick. it would probably make them set safer standards for things and in the end it'll lead to healthier americans instead of the grossly unhealthy country we live in today. we're supposed to be a superpower, the modern rome, why not have the government provide healthcare?

I have to ask, Ray, why would you want the same government who, according to you, has instigated a false war, killed US soldiers and Iraqi civilians, fumbled relief efforts during Katrina, trampled civil liberties, created a bad economy, has filled itself with lies and corruption, and is 'evil' to have the power to decide if little Sally Sue can have her chemo?

that's an idiotic and loaded question.

No, it's a perfectly legitimate question. Why do you think the same people behind the Post Office, the IRS and the office of Homeland Security are suddently going to become competent in this one area?

No. It's a completely valid question that you just don't want to answer. You already pre-supposed that Sammitch approves of some government programs yet did not consider that he also disapproves of others when you asked him why the government shouldn't control health care. Why can't I put your own disapproval of how the government has acted when asking you the same question? The fact is that you're willing to give more power to a government that you've claimed is too greedy for it and misuses the power that they already has. You can either explain why you feel the government can handle this responsibility, or you maintain your non-responsive posts that only deflect away from the issue instead of actually trying to discuss it.

i think that we should always aim for a good working government that helps the people. just because we have to suffer through the worst president ever currently doesn't mean we should just accept that the government will always be fucked up and give up.
the government already looks out for our health by monitoring food, drugs, pollution and even police and fire and the FBI are all meant to protect lives. what exactly is the problem with them paying for healthcare as well? that way we all have health care. and if done right (which we should aim for) then it wouldn't be run like g-man suggests. it wouldn't measure whether or not to pay for treatment based on cost, but on medical opinion. because the government wouldn't run it like a business needing to make a profit like private insurance companies do.

but the point of this thread is that george bush is asking for 200 billion for the next year of war while denying 35 billion over 5 years that would help kids be healthy.

That's nothing more than repeating your premise. It does nothing to explain why the health care program is a good thing or why Bush was wrong to not increase funding for it.

I can accept that as a reason, though I cannot agree with it. It relies heavily on ideology more than practicality. An ideology that you are sometime unable to extend in other areas yourself. I think the facts of government disprove your assessments of the situation. I also, personally, find it hard to believe that you can put that amount of faith in the same government whose decisions you've been rallying against.

There's a big difference between maintaining the overall safety of the country and getting into a business (which healthcare is and always will be until doctors, nurses, technicians, lab workers, and drug companies all decide to stop taking paychecks and lawyers decide to stop suing). The FDA creates a level of quality as well as provides information about what people are consuming to protect the public and allow them to make their own decisions based on the facts. The FBI pursues those who have violated the laws of the federal government. That's a big difference than them making the decisions as to what form of medical treatment they will allow you to undergo.

Also, as I've said before, if you want socialism on a state and local level, that's up to you and the people in your area (after all, they are the ones who run the police and fire departments). But that doesn't mean that your form of government is going to suit me in my part of the country.

Well fuck me with a broomstick!


If NO Government program works well because Bush fucked up the Defense Dept, FEMA, The State dept, The FDA and lord knows how many others, let's then dissolve the Post Office, the USDA, the Immigration agency, the Social Security Administration etc etc. Since they can't possibly do any good because we think Bush is an incompetent leader. SHIT, let's dissolve the entire Government!

Funny thing though, in Political Science I learned all about the bureaucrats and about political appointees. The bureaucrats tend to stay in their jobs thu many Administrations and are generally nonpartisan and good at their jobs while the political appointees serve at the pleasure of the President and are usually gone when he's gone.

Now a lot of the problem with our current Government have to do with the fact that they're headed by political appointees with a strong ideological agenda. it's not a question of bad Government, it's a question of bad MANAGEMENT.

It's sort of a slap in the face to many fine people who actually know what they're doing to lay this trip of ineffective Government on them. Take FEM, before Bush, it actually did a pretty decent job. Just because Bush fucked it up doesn't man I'm suddenly going to think that FEMA is a waste of money and can't do anything right and thus the money shouldn't be spent on them anymore. My thought is going to be, FIRE BROWNIE!

Same with any kids insurance program. My thoughts are going to be hire a good manager, hopefully one WITHOUT an ideological agenda or party loyalties to oversee it.

I dunoo Doctor. I remember you being a pretty level headed person. This seems like the same kind of false partisan argument G-Man would make.

And we're discussing whether the bill to keep kids healthy would actually do that or is even necessary in this instance. It's more than your simple black and white statement to vilify someone you don't like and his policies. We've debated the war a good bit in this forum, so that's why I think a lot of people are concentrating on the health care aspect of it.

I don't believe in big government at the federal level. I've always made that clear. And Presidents do affect the running of government. Bad management leads to bad government. Clinton fucked the CIA and our military, as far as I'm concerned, which led to shitty intelligence and pisspoor training of our military, which is part of our problems in Iraq. Bush fucked FEMA, according to you. What's gonna get fucked by the next president? I just don't like that much power in the hands of the federal government. It should be done closer to home where the people can better keep track of it. Like I just said, if you want to socialize healthcare, do it at the local and state level.

Also, you guys need to stop using the USPS as an example here. Though it is a government agency, it's not actually run by the government in the same way as a healthcare agency would be. It's its own entity. It receives no money from your taxes. It's totally sustained by the services that you pay for when you use them.

I used the USPS precisely because, even though it is a "separate entity," it has existed largely as a bureaucratic monopoly, with a workforce consisting of federal employees. All of which would seem to make it a good indicator of how a federal "single payer" health care program would work.

That's the same point I was making earlier:

IMO

1) If people want to smoke let smoke. Raising taxes to manipulate them into quitting reeks of an arrogant messiah complex.

2) If the govt. doesn't want to pay for universal health care then fine. But, then they should stop trying to regulate people's health by making seatbelts and helmets mandatory and monitoring drug use. It's downright hypocritical.

You don't mind if I copy and paste this over to the Philosophy thread, right?

I don't think he owns rights to quotes from the Bible or President Eisenhower.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

What he said.

We're commanded to spread the Gospel. So spread it fer Christ's sake.

Literally.

that's implied oral consent written down by a third party, not express written consent signed and notarized.
sorry, but the copyright is still in place.

True. I just wanted to be polite.

We've been having a back and forth here for days already about how the "LIBERALS" are the ones who supposedly don't debate the issues and instead go for the cheap attack. Even when we are debating the issues and we get sidetracked about how "liberals" are this and liberals are that.

I've made the point here
that

So what does this have to do with this topic? Well it turns out that for the past week, the right wing blogosphere, Michelle Malkin, The National Review, and many "unnamed" sources from the office of Mitch McConnel have been feasting on a 12 year old boy because he dared speak up for the program Bush vetoed. He made a point on radio about how it helped him and in turn the righties did a smear job on him in order to try to discredit him.

So in recap:

Two weeks ago, the Democratic radio address was delivered by a 12-year old Maryland boy named Graeme Frost. Graeme told his story of being involved in a severe car accident three years ago, and having received access to medical care because of the Children’s Health Insurance Program. He said:



The right-wing immediately condemned Democrats for daring to put a human face on the SCHIP program at a time when Bush was proposing a “diminishment of the number of children covered.” Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) — who has posed with children to advance his own political agenda — claimed Graeme was being used “as a human shield.”

Conservatives have more recently turned their targets on young Graeme Frost himself. A poster at the Free Republic propagated information alleging that Frost was actually a rich kid being pampered by the government. Among other bits of information, the post by the Freeper “icwhatudo” asserts that Graeme and his sister Gemma attend wealthy schools that cost “nearly $40,000 per year for tuition” and live in a well-off home.

The smear attack against Graeme has taken firm hold in the right-wing blogosphere. The National Review, Michelle Malkin, Wizbang, Powerline, and the Weekly Standard blog have all launched assaults on the Frost family. The story is slowly working its way into traditional media outlets as well.

Here are the facts that the right-wing distorted in order to attack young Graeme:

1) Graeme has a scholarship to a private school. The school costs $15K a year, but the family only pays $500 a year.

2) His sister Gemma attends another private school to help her with the brain injuries that occurred due to her accident. The school costs $23,000 a year, but the state pays the entire cost.

3) They bought their “lavish house” sixteen years ago for $55,000 at a time when the neighborhood was less than safe.

4) Last year, the Frosts made $45,000 combined. Over the past few years they have made no more than $50,000 combined.

5) The state of Maryland has found them eligible to participate in the CHIP program.

Desperate to defend Bush’s decision to cut off millions of children from health care, the right wing has stooped to launching baseless and uninformed attacks against a 12 year old child and his family.

Right wing bloggers have been harassing the Frosts, calling their home numerous times to get information about their private lives. Compassionate conservatism indeed.

Malkin visited the Frost’s home and business today. A coworker of Mr. Frost tells Malkin that the family is “struggling,” but she refuses to believe it.

These days, anyone who is in the way of an agenda has to be discredited so that no one listens to them anymore. Yet, once upon a time, American society would pull out all stops not to go after a kid. The bar has been lowered yet again. This time it has been lowered so far, it has struck oil amid the sleaze.

excellent post, whomod. you know it's a shame that the Republicans will do anything to support Bush even in the face of these disgusting actions. It'll only hurt them in the long run, as it's already hurt them in present.

What do you expect from a bunch of fascists? To help the sick and disabled?

And a nice objective post by the European!

Hey! I've NEVER claimed to be objective!

Very good. Carry on.

I'm waiting for Wonderboy to tell me once again how it's the LEFT who engages in personal attack while all the right wingers do is try to debate the issues thru the left's sea of bile..

Up is down, night is day etc.

How is questioning whether the father is underreporting his income the same as attacking the kid?

is there any proof or reasonable cause for such questioning? or did that happen when the little kid told the story about the program Bush opposes helping him and his sister?
because then it is just attacking the kid indirectly. it's disgusting and it's the kind of shit your party does. even to each other.

here's a real shocker for you. This disgusting smear campaign isn't just being flogged by the rightwing blogosphere or talk radio.





The disgusting purpose of this is to have news organizations digging into every aspect of the Frost's lives to determine whether the Woodward and Bernsteins of wingnuttia, (Freeper posters and stalker Michele Malkin) are "right." And then the sanctimonious right wing vultures will determine whether they "deserve" to eat at Applebees once a month with their four kids or whether they are "cheating" the benevolent tax payers by having a television set or a cell phone since their catastrophically injured kids need help from the government. They will say that Mom and Dad should work two jobs or maybe they shouldn't have had kids in the first place or started their own business. There will be no sense of "there but for the grace of God go I" or no recognition that sometimes life throws you a curve ball and that you need the help of others to get you through.

The Frosts can now expect that they will be bombarded with judgment from smug jackasses who will poke around in their private lives and tell them they are at fault, even though they both work, because their family couldn't afford to pay the huge premiums for a family of six or the catastrophic costs associated with major injuries and the ongoing care necessary for a special needs child. And when these critics say this about these people they will also be saying it about millions of working poor and middle class families who are crumbling under the burden of the runaway health care costs that are breaking the American economy and the American family. They will all be told they are bad parents, bad citizens, bad people.

Yet it is Americans like the Frosts, who make 45,000 dollars a year trying to run a small business and raise a family who are the backbone of this country. They don't deserve to be swift-boated or smeared or stalked just because they need some help when their kids are hurt and the costs for caring for them runs into the millions of dollars --- or for speaking out about it. This sickening smear campaign against these people is unamerican, unchristian and inhuman, which actually isn't all that surprising considering the people it's coming from.

Wait a minute. The kid was put on the air, with information given to him by his parents and the Democrats for the specific purpose of being represented as a representative receipient of the program. When the whole debate is NOT over "should the program exist at all," but "at what income level should it apply".

Given the above, that is going to make people wonder "is this kid really a typical 'poor' kid who should be in the program."

As a result, a blogger who lives near them pointed out that the father owned his own business, the kids attend public school, they own nearly HALF A MILLION in real estate, etc.

That led others to begin questioning the father's veracity, not the kid's.



No. It's not. But "right wing attacks little kid" is a better talking point for your side than "right wing attacks possible deadbeat dad" or "right wing attacks Democrats for exploiting a kid." So the facts, or even legitimate questions, get ignored in terms of hyperbole.

I don’t know what mortgage load the Frost’s are carrying, but we can guess they have about $200,000 in equity in their home. So, in order to qualify for aid, Michelle Malkin wants them to sell their home and everything else they can liquify, move into a cardboard box, and then apply for aid once the $200,000 is gone, which these days would take about six months. We’ll destroy any chance they had of clinging to middle-class status, make sure they are permanently destitute, and then help them. OK.

Does anyone on the Right ever, you know, think?

The idea behind “safety-net” type programs is supposed to be to help people enough so that they don’t slide into destitution, but get back on their own feet. But in Rightie America, people who have had a run of misfortune must be utterly crushed.


IMO this episode gets right to the heart of what kind of nation we want to be, and what kind of nation we are becoming.

Do we want to live in a nation in which ordinary citizens must live in fear of saying the “wrong” thing? Of drawing the attention of powerful people who will publicly crucify them?

Do we want to live in a nation in which most of us are one accident or illness away from losing our homes and everything we’ve ever worked for?

G-man, The Baltimore Sun yesterday had a picture....

of Mr. and Mrs. Frost sitting on the stoop of their lavish “$400,000″ home — an estimate quoted by one rightie blogger after another as gospel — and which the New York Times says is actually worth $260,000. In some parts of the country $260,000 can still buy a pretty nice place, of course. In Manhattan it might get you a new, generously sized corrugated cardboard box in a prime location under an overpass.

Anyway, the Baltimore Sun article, by Matthew Hay Brown, talks about the accident that injured the children.



Then Graeme recorded the Dems’ radio address – that set off the far right blogo- sphere. A pseudonymous contributor to Free Republic cataloged the $20,000 cost of tuition at the Park School, the $160,000 Halsey Frost paid for his warehouse in 1999 and the $485,000 for which a neighbor sold his home in March. Links were provided to photos of the Park School’s 44,000-square- foot Wyman Arts Center and the Frosts’ 1992 wedding announcement in The New York Times.

Soon strangers were posting accusatory messages describing Halsey Frost as a business owner who lived on a street of half-million-dollar homes, a charge that G-Man repeated just now, worked out of his own commercial property and paid to send his children to private school, yet still took advantage of government-funded health care.

“Bad things happen to good people, and they cause financial problems and tough choices,” Mark Steyn wrote on the National Review Online. “But, if this is the face of the ‘needy’ in America, then no-one is not needy.”

The Redstate contributor was less civil.

“Hang ‘em. Publically,” the contributor wrote. “Let ‘em twist in the wind and be eaten by ravens. Then maybe the bunch of socialist patsies will think twice.”

It's "hate' and misinformation to boot, all in the name of ideology... It's pure and simple to see, no matter how many ways you try to rationalize it G-Man.

So much for comassiponate conservatism. And THIS is why the right is ging to LOSE on the issue of health care in this country. Because it's not about compassion or doing the right thing. It's all about faceless ideology and loaded scare phrases like "socialized medicine" that do NOTHING to adress the real suffering by real Americans.

So this kid was covered under the current plan? Is this the very same plan that Bush isn't eliminating, cutting funding to, or in any way altering for the worse? Isn't this the same plan that he's wanting to prevent from being spread to families with higher incomes and accessibility to health care? I'm not going to bash this kid or his family, but I also don't see how trotting him out is proof that what Bush has done is evil. If that kid were to get sick today and not a year or so ago or whenever he was originally ill, he'd still be covered by the same plan.

Well, that's the point. So why was there an orchastrated effort by the right wing to try to discredit this kid and his family by alleging that they were taking advantage of this program?

To try to prove that that was the Democrats goal? To spread "socialized medicine" to those who clearly 'don't need it'? Or was it just designed to shut this family up and to try to make the messengers look bad?

Michelle Malkin has taken a lead role in the attacks on the Frost family, and she’s not backing down. Today she’s blogging about “Democrat poster-child abuse, the nutroots’ pushback, and the continued campaign to silence the Right.”

Silence the Right — ooo, that’s rich. Here’s a woman with several national megaphones, including frequent gigs on Fox News, who has been leading a high tech lynch mob against some ordinary citizens who had the guts to speak up, and she’s screaming because she thinks someone is trying to silence her.

Actually, I don’t want to silence her. I want everyone in the nation to know about this little episode so they will realize what Michelle Malkin really is — scum.

People used to say, “pick on somebody your own size.” Malkin can hurl insults at politicians or other prominent media personalities all she likes, but when she tries to destroy an ordinary family just because they had the nerve to say something she doesn’t like, that’s something else entirely.



If you can stand it, take a look at Malkin’s post and the above (previously posted) NY Times article quote and note that throughout she has “corrected” means-tested to asset-tested. Apparently Malkin had said the Maryland S-CHIP program does not have means-tested eligibility requirements, when in fact it does. So now she’s howling about asset testing, which I assume means that because the Frost’s have some home equity they shouldn’t be eligible for S-CHIP.

Man, the Righties have some UGLY bitches...

Isn't that the asian ann coulter?

Malkin is one of those people who can be intentially deceitful. blech.

Because politics are, today, influenced by mean, horrible people with no sense of morals and self righteous attitudes. That's on both sides. I don't think most Americans pay attention to them. It's the far fringes that they cater to and keep them in rotation on what passes as news shows in this country.



I don't care (or even know) about her or Coulter or Pat Buchanan or the people from PETA and ELF. And, face it, G-man's not going to admit that her argument is sad and pathetic. Either way, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. All it is is yet another diversion from the real issue and a way to just try and lay blame and duck what's really supposed to be about.

thedoctor... the sanest of them all.

Does he ever? Which in itself is sad and pathetic. It excuses and in it's own way, condones this type of behavior and rhetoric.

And I have to disagree, but when the dialouge gets diverted to personal attack, as it ALWAYS does, (read my 1st posting on this subject), then it does become the issue. Whether we want it to be so or not.

Yeah, it's a distraction from more substantive arguments about the program itself and about American health care in general. But these repeated smear tactics against ideological foes of these people do not deserve to stand unchallenged and uncommeented on. Otherwise they'll just go on and on and it'll be like giving these people license to swiftboat and steamroll anyone they happen to disagree with.

And as was the case with John Kerry's infuriating high road silence, not responding to the right's attacks leaves the impression among the general public that there is actually merit and truth to the attack.

That last point (bolded) is the one I've thought since this whole thing began. The Democrats bring out this sad little boy, in an emotionally exploitative bypass of the real issue: Should the maximum income to qualify for the governmentprovided S-CHIP healthcare be a maximum of 60,000 (as it's been) or 80,000 (as the Democrats are pushing for) ?

If this bill is successfully vetoed by Bush, the bill will go back to congress, to reach agreement on the lower income cap. Which will prevent families with very healthy finances from just cancelling the health insurance they already have, and can well afford, to take government freebies.

WHAT??!!! This bill had bipartisan support!



You really haven't been paying attention to this story. If you had, you'd have read that the family was DENIED care because of "pre-Existing conditions" meaning insurers generally only like you if you AERN'T sick.

And somewhere up there i made the point that social safety nets are there specifically so you won't have to lose everything and go into destitution in order to play for your child's health care.

let's just say the so far unproven accusations that the family makes 80,000 is true. does that really negate the hardship of paying for major medical costs for 2 children after a major accident?

Wait just one minute.

There's a whole thread on Ann Coulter on this very board where I've said on more than one occasion that, while I agree with her on some issues, on others I've thought her arguments were, to use doc's terms, sad and pathetic.

In the case at hand, I've never said much about Malkin's column. I've only pointed out that questions arose about the kid's father's income and that it was not "attacking" the kid to ask those questions. I've also more or less echoed doc's point about how the family was not, perhaps, the best example of who the program should cover.

Apparently, however, no one here really wants to talk about the policies or consequences of socialized medicine. They'd just rather talk about whether it was "mean" to question a father who made a concious decision to inject himself and his kids into a debate about it.

But you can't let it distract you from the real issues. Address it, but don't neglect what this is really all about. You started this mode of conversation. You posted the article and continued to harp on it without discussing the real issue. Yes, G-man took the bait and gnawed on the bone like a rabid dog; but you're the one who put it out there to begin with. Could it be because discussing the smear tactics of the far right is easier than coming up with reasons why the program should be expanded to families with the disposable incomes to pay for their own insurance policies or who more than likely, with that high of incomes, have jobs that provide those benefits for them at a reduced cost? It's all smoke and mirrors. You led the conversation away from the real issues to turn this into another "The conservatives are evil/no the liberals are evil thread". We don't need anymore of those. Trust me. We gots plenty. The people on the right who attacked this family are shitheads. The Democrats who trotted out this kid to garner sympathy and launch a campaign of false insinuation against the President and his reasoning for vetoing the bill are shitheads too. None of that affects the real issue at hand.

Me?

In the middle of a debate between whomod, Ray and WB, all I did was ask how questioning the father's veracity was the same as attacking the kid.

I then followed up with two posts, only after you and Ray talked about my post, in each case making points very similar to yours.

Why are you trying to make this about me?

Ray went after it too, yes, as did others. I'm sure they'll keep harping on about it and avoid the issue if we let them. I was just making a point that you did follow that carrot instead of ignoring it and just discussing the plan as you are, of course, the main point of contention with Whomod and Ray at the moment. Also, I did not see your last post as I was typing mine while you posted it.

Well, with all due respect, Doc, my point doesn't seem all that different than the post you made, in which you pointed out that Bush's veto really wouldn't affect this family anyway. In either case, we were both questioning the validity of their premise vis-a-vis this particular family.

And, in any event, that certainly doesn't seem like I "gnawed" on the issue "like a rabid dog."

You're a Republican (evil) and G-man (gay and evil). This is a sick little kid; therefore, being the Republican G-man, you should naturally be ripping the flesh off his carcass with your teeth as you dry-hump the rest of the corpse.

Even with a pre-existing condition, you can get insurance, just at a higher cost. If you're pulling down 80g's a year, you can afford that cost. You will have to sacrifice luxury, but which is more important?

so far there's been no proof that the dad did anything wrong other than Rush Limbaugh's word

That's your way of once again saying that you don't want to discuss the policy itself and whether it should cover people making $80,000, isn't it, Ray?

No, there hasn't. Nor have I said there is, but there also isn't proof that he's making $80,000 a year either. So he and his family fit into the current requirements for the program they used and isn't getting cut, eliminated, or having it's caps reduced.

game, set, match - thedoctor

TAKE. THAT.

that one has got to hurt. Like I've said, this bill enjoyed bipartisan support. It seems all the veto is doing is further splintering what's left of the Bush base.

It's one of those mixed '"good news" on the heels of real misery' things to me of course but what I can't understand is why the ideological fear of potential "socialized medicine" overrides keeping what's left of your party's support.

I'm not a big pro-lifer. That's one of the reasons I gravitate toward Guiliani over some of the other GOP candidates.

With that being said, however, there's not really an inconsistency in a pro-lifer voting against the bill.

Prolifers believe abortion is murder. There is a big difference between being opposed to murder and being opposed to expanding a government funded health program.

The Wall Street Journal has a pretty even-handed editorial today on this whole program. While taking conservative bloggers to task for criticizing the Frost family (and Democrats for putting them in the spotlight in the first place), it points out that:

• The Schip bill was not some all-or-nothing proposition: A continuing resolution fully funds the program through mid-November, so none of the 6.6 million recipients will lose coverage. And even if Washington can't agree by then, there will be another stopgap, because Schip might as well already be an entitlement. In truth, the Bush Administration endorses a modest expansion. A majority of Congress backs a much larger expansion. The controversy is over the role of government in health care.
  
  The 10 million children that [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi cites are the sum of the current enrollees plus those who could join under the Democratic plan (which also has the support of some Republicans). Never mind that up to 60% of these children already have private insurance, which Schip would displace as it moves up the income scale. Only by Beltway reasoning could "not expanding" count as "denying" public assistance.
  
  Despite all that, after his veto Mr. Bush repeatedly signaled a willingness to compromise and spend more than the $5 billion he would prefer to pump in--which is by itself a 20% expansion. His offer has been spurned flatout, and an override vote is scheduled for next week.
  
  Mr. Bush's position recognizes that a subsidy like Schip is necessary is some cases because of government mandates and overregulation. Congress and the states consistently enact health-care policies that make insurance coverage more expensive, and then they wonder why people have trouble paying for it.
  
  The employer-based insurance tax deduction is a wealth transfer to those who need it least--the most affluent, with the most gold-plated plans. It launders health dollars through a third-party bureaucracy that encourages people to spend, reducing access and raising prices for the uninsured.
  
  On equity grounds alone, Democrats should support changing these incentives.
  
  That they don't, or won't, suggests ulterior political motives, and that's where Schip comes in.

it's really unethical for you to change a thread title from that of its original poster in order to skew it to your view.
also, repeating the same lame joke that has never once gotten a laugh is kind of retarded.

Actually someone else, I think it was whomod, changed it to something different the first time around.

Also, I'm not sure how changing it to the title of the editorial which, among other things, criticized the far right for attacking the Frost family is skewing things to "my" view.

Besides, Ray, let's face it. Given your complete hatred towards Bush, and tendency to blame him for EVERYTHING, it gets confusing keeping track of the real subject of threads you might title "Bush is evil".

In any event, thanks for this quote:



I'll be using it to respond to 99% of MEM's posts

Bush vetoed the bill. Your problem is you don't want Bush held accountable for anything. But he vetoed the bill, this thread is about him and his actions and your attempt to justify them by attacking me and MEM.

and your little quote joke has never gotten a laugh, not even on its first use. yet you keep using it as a joke. doing something over and over again and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity.

I posted this:



You responded with this:




All of which exists on a thread that you called "...Bush is just evil.."

I think the record adequately reflects who was trying to discuss the health program issue and who's been regularly engaging in the off topic attacks.

I'm quaking in my boots at the thought.

It was voted for in the House with 220 Democrats and 45 Republicans. Hardly a majority of Republicans.

In the Senate, it passed with 50 Democrats and 18 Republicans votes.

Draw from that what you will. It's not a majority of Republicans, in either branch of congress.

he said "bipartisan" not that a majority of the republicans supported it. so i guess only a minority of republicans isn't evil enough to try and block healthcare for children while funding a massively faulty war.
and we know how you hate minorities.

I don't see how he misrepresented anything.

It's been hinted at before, but why would anyone want what they consider a fucked up government managing their health?

I think The Doctor asked that and I responded some time ago.

If you want to look at Government run health care there already is a model to look at, it's called Medicare.

And by all accounts, seniors are quite happy with it. So I don't understand where all the doom & gloom comes from.. Well, that's a lie actually, I know EXACTLY where it comes from.

As for the Graeme Frost story, The Frot parents came on Countdown yesterday to talk about the right wing slime machine.



One of the problems with wingnuts like Malkin and Limbaugh is that they never concede a point. They could have said, “OK, maybe the program helped this one kid but … blah, blah … socialized medicine … blah, blah, blah …”

But they can never give an inch. Ever.

That’s nuts!

There's a new S-CHIP ad out BTW since congress is going to try to overturn the Bush veto.



the family of the girl in the ad, The Wilkersons had THIS to say

If the govt doesn't want to have universal health care then at least they should stop pretending to care about our health and let us do drugs and whatever we want.

You are asserting a false premise, namely, that everyone agrees that socialized medicine is the best way to preserve our health. Many, in and out of government, care about the public health but believe that market based solutions do a better job of providing for that health than a "one size fits all" program run by bureaucrats and politicians.

No, I'm asserting that if the govt. truely gave a fuck about our health they'd do something as simple as shell out some cash to help those who are poor/desperate. I'm sure there are other ways...but universal health care seems like the best. How can it get better then giving everyone health care? Don't see it.

Giving everyone health care is just a short step away from making everyone dependent on the government for health care. History tells us that totalitarian regimes of any stripe get their start by becoming 'provider' societies. The primary difference is that far-right regimes secure the dependence of their citizens by promising intangibles like total security and national glory while leftist regimes do so by promising material things like universal healthcare and equal pay for everyone regardless of, well, anything.

police, fire, ambulance.
we already depend on the government for security. you dial 911 and expect it to be there and it is. that is government provided support that we're all dependent on in our daily lives for simple order and safety.
fbi, cia, the army.
we already have an expectation of protection from foreign threats and domestic problems. you go to sleep not checking the horizon at night because you're dependent on them for that support.
fda, epa.
you already have the dependency of going to the store and feeling safe buying food and medicine.

so if the government fails in any of those other jobs, why shouldn't they get you better? is a business trying to make a profit really better than an agency run by people who can be dismissed for any public fuck ups.
and since they're held responsible for protecting us from unnatural death that can be prevented, why not keep you healthy?

the difference between private insurance and government provided insurance is that the government care is guaranteed. there's no profit margin for the government. no businessman deciding whether to treat you based on money. private insurance companies are worse than the government, they have more power.

You're overlooking an important factor by taking profit margin out of health care. It's been mentioned before. Who is compensating physicians and other health-care professionals in a socialized system? It virtually guarantees they won't be getting what they're getting now. And who's going to want to spend a decade in med school on student loans they'll have to pay back if they're getting rewarded with shitty government compensation?

well ideally doctors are in it for the job of helping people. i think the greedy ones generally go to cosmetic surgery and not the other more stressful fields.
and i imagine if the system were paid for by the government there would be more government grants and scholarships for med school to compensate.

Ambulance services are actually carried out by private businesses. Whether it be run by a hospital or contracted out from a hospital to a private firm.

The rest are run by the local government. They're controlled more closely to home and adaptable to the needs of the communities they serve.



Organizations that don't actually regulate people's lifestyles. They simply enforce the laws of the nation at large. These are organizations that most people won't ever even have to deal with in their lives. Can't say the same for insurance.




You seem to still be under the false impression that health care doesn't really cost money. It does. As long as that happens, whether a business is running it or the government itself (i.e. HMO's) it will be run the most cost effective way possible when it comes to allowed treatments. It's better to let those who can afford to pay for it to do so out of their pockets while trying to help those who can't rather than having the government run everyone's insurance programs.

Will the government also pay for the doctors' malpractice insurance premiums? If so, this program is going to cost a shitload of money. If not, that's another reason for many doctors to pass on the recipients of government run insurance (as there are many doctors who do so now because they don't get much money from them) since it costs an arm and a leg to both become a doctor as well as stay one. Also, I can't help but notice that you continuely rely upon these ideals that may or may not be very well represented in modern society.

so far works for medicade and the VA. it's working in the UK.

Not true. In many, if not most, government run systems, there is a certain amount of de facto or de jure rationing of health care.



You are very naive if you really believe that bureaucrats won't look for ways to cut costs to curry favor with their superiors.

Furthermore, have you forgotten the golden rule, that is, "he who has the gold makes the rules?"

If the government pays for health care, there is a strong incentive for the government to regulate personal behavior, on the theory that said behavior costs the taxpayers more in health care. Which, on its face, might be appealing to you in that "nanny state" mentality sort of of way.

However, what behavior is deemed "costly" would probably be tied to whatever theories, medical and political, are in vogue at a given time. So maybe under a moderate to liberal administration the banned behaviors (see, eg, smoking) are ones who agree should be banned. But eventually the political pendulum will swing, as it always does. And then some behavior you enjoy (see, eg, gay sex) will be seen as inherently dangerous and worthy of regulation.

The power to tax and the power to spend is the power to regulate. Do you really want a centralized planner deciding what you, or others, can do with their bodies?

Not all doctors take Medicade patients, and VA doctors work for the government, usually associated with the military itself. If you put everyone on government controlled insurance, you'll more than likely see a great decrease in doctors (as they would not be able to make enough money to justify the expense of becoming a doctor) or they would shut their doors to all but the ones who have better insurance or pay in cash (i.e. the wealthy) causing an even greater load on the doctors who actually participate and give them less time with each patient.

How many people are in the UK again? What percentage fall into income brackets where government assistance might be needed?

Paying for veterans' health care makes sense. They've directly contributed to the future of their society. If you make too many withdrawals and not enough deposits, though, it won't take very long for the red ink to start to accumulate.

nice doomsday scenarios and cynicism. despite the fact that it does work in other forms and we can adapt and adjust as needed. it's better than nothing. and it can be shaped into something that helps a lot of people.

It's how things are in the US right now. It's not inconceivable or even an inflation to believe that it may occur at a higher rate. Why are there so many lawyers in the US (more than there are possibly needed)? Because people can make a shitload of money as one. Those who don't either become ambulance chasers or change careers. I think the best way to have government insurance that is adaptable and better suited to individuals is to do it (yes, I'll say it again) at the state and local levels.

Ceding power to state and local systems?

"Inconceivable!"

it could really work if run locally with federal funds. like public schools. which do run well, it's really the number of obnoxious kids getting higher that makes it dificult.

Yeah, that makes sense. Have the federal government give block grants to states to set up health insurance programs, but the states make the call as to how the money and programs are implemented.

Some promising news on Universal healthcare from the Carpetbagger report.



Well, the devil is always in the details but as I posted above, it certainly looks as if the debate has certainly shifted in the universal health care camp. It'll be interesting to see what Boehner's plan would actually consist of though..

Ironically, there is some indication that the public actually supports the Bush position in this matter. A USA Today poll shows that the public by a 52-40% margin favor limiting SCHIP to families at 200% of the poverty line, just as Bush wants to do.

In addition, the article goes on to say: "Bush, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have said they're willing to talk if Thursday's veto override fails, as both sides expect."

Accordingly, while polls aren't the be-all and end-all, it is interesting that at least one gauge of public opinion would seem to show a majority is with Bush, not the Democrats, on this particular issue.

You almost start to think they're patting the GOP on the back and then this little gem:



So delightfully tactful!

Well, it was a partisan blog after all... and then they added that regardless of what the plan does or does not include, the point is that the debate has shifted dramatically. Which judging from Boehner's comments, is true actually..

I think the distrust comes down to how vehemently the right has opposed Universal health care. And to suddenly be all for it> It's understandable (to me anyways) why people would be wary of this.

Doomsday scenario you say? From Beardguy's thread on UK dentists.




Doesn't really seem to be working 100% in the UK.

Since we're arguing the doom and gloom of the "S" word, I thought it might help to add some levity..

He forgot to mention schools, medicare, medicaid, Social Security, police. etc. etc.

Why, you'd almost think we already live in a "socialized country".

Better tell grandma she'll have to get in line early for her Social Security check so she (hopefully) can use it to get some gruel in the soup line.

Thought this was funny and quite frankly true a good bit of the time.

Edit-not the stereotypes on the map but the representation of how America sees the the rest of the world.

Well, there's a certain segment of the population that certainly appears to think this way.

As I said, Universal health care is an idea who's time has come.

the entire point of compromise is that one side gives a little, then the other side does and finally you come up with something that is agreeable, not perfect, to both sides.

I think the message of this article is that Bush just doesn't want so many kids to be insured!

Yeah, Wonderboy and American Hero popped into my mind when I saw that.

This story was outstanding because it brings this debate out past the slogans and again shows how this debate impacts REAL people in rel ways. The 1st and 3rd parts are about this family and the 2nd part is the debate itself summarized:

And that final sentence summarizes just why this is a losing issue for Republicans. People are at the breaking point already and no amount of ideological debating and spinning can compete with harsh reality facing too too many people. Poor and middle class alike.

Johnathan Alter of Newswek commented the day after THIS remarkable moment occured at the AFL/CIO debate:







Health care is THE issue facing us today. And compassion and assistance is needed not academic debates about big government or whether or not people make "too much" . People without insurance (and even those WITH insurance TIED to their jobs) don't give a damn about that. All they care is that they or their loved ones can't afford health care.

And Graeme Frost, this family in the article, Steve Skvara, [and as it relates to the Iraq war] individual soldiers, the coffins of dead soldiers etc personify that. This is why the right wing detests these people. They like things in the abstract. Where one can argue ideology and not reality. Once it becomes about REAL people not just statistics, real soldiers, not just "the troops" then they just come off as callous insensitive, monstrous.

And i sincerely hope Wonder Boy can appreciate the family in that articles plight because they made the kinds of choices that he thinks too many people do not. He blames femenism of course but it's about economic reality today. They chose to devote time to family and raising their kids in a traditional way. And sadly, those choices lead to unnecessary hardship. I wish it were NOT the case.

Interesting "trap" whomod sets here.

He brings up the actions of the parents and their lifestyle choices. However, if we question or criticize their actions, is there any doubt he will then tell us we are out of line for "attacking" the children and/or their parents?

The only people "trapped" IMO are the people without any insurance. I wasn't trying to set up any "trap" for anyone. But I'm wondering as to why you see one.

Is it because of my prior point about them being REAL people and not just faceless ideological debates?

I found this essay worth mentioning and posting because it brings to life a big talking point of the right. About how if you make a certain amount of money that means you can afford insurance. It really doesn't mirror reality for this family and for many others. And in the first part of the article in the prior page, it detailed that point.

Again..




Amen.

I suppose some of this is subjective but where there's smoke...

A tragicomedy of errors

In an excerpt from his new book, The Fall of the House of Bush, author Craig Unger details how Bush is, well, screwing up the world

By: CRAIG UNGER

It was not until after George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were narrowly re-elected that many Americans began to realize that the Iraq War represented a dangerous moment in American history, a turning point both in terms of America’s place on the global chessboard and, domestically, in terms of its fate as a constitutional democracy. Gradually, the horrors of the war, its related scandals, and its ramifications began to reveal themselves.

On November 7, 2004, five days after the election, it was reported that thousands of surface-to-air missiles that had once been under Saddam’s control were unaccounted for because the US-led force had not secured all the weapons depots in Iraq. The next day, US-led forces moved in to clear out Fallujah, a stronghold for Sunni insurgents, launching a ferocious 10-day battle that killed at least 1000 insurgents and left 54 Americans dead and more than 400 seriously wounded. Colonel Gary Brandl led his troops into battle with words evocative of a Holy War. “The enemy has got a face,” he said. “He’s called Satan. He’s in Fallujah and we’re going to destroy him.”

During the assault, a marine deliberately shot and killed an unarmed Iraqi civilian in a mosque, and the videotaped incident was televised across the world. In response, violence raged across Iraq. On November 9, militants kidnapped three members of interim prime minister Ayad Allawi’s family. A few days later, in the north, saboteurs set fire to four oil wells northwest of Kirkuk. Astoundingly, despite having the second largest oil reserves in the world, Iraq was forced to import oil from nearby Kuwait because of lack of refining capacity and hundreds of terrorist attacks on its facilities.

By now, repercussions from the war were also being felt throughout the entire Middle East. Iraqi authorities had already captured Saudis crossing the Saudi border into Iraq to fight the United States. In response to Fallujah, 26 prominent Saudi religious scholars urged their followers to support “jihad” against US-led forces. Militant Islamists from America’s oil-rich ally had now taken up arms against the United States.

Paradoxically, even though their policy failures were finally evident, the neocons had become empowered as never before. Just before the election, Bush had quietly dismissed Brent Scowcroft as chairman of PFIAB [the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board] — without even bothering to speak to him personally. Cheney and Bush had both known that the phenomenally popular Colin Powell was crucial to their re-election chances. But now he, too, was expendable. On November 10, eight days after the election, Powell got the phone call from White House chief of staff Andy Card. He was out.

Doing everything possible to put a good face on his resignation, Powell told reporters at a November 15 press briefing that “it has always been my intention that I would serve one term,” and that he and Bush “came to a mutual agreement that it would be appropriate to leave at this time.” But Frank Carlucci, a former secretary of defense himself during the Reagan administration, who was close to both Powell and Cheney, and who continued to think highly of Cheney, was more forthright. “Colin has been used,” he said.

Bush and Cheney reshuffled the cabinet, strengthening the neocon hand. Condoleezza Rice replaced Powell. Much to Scowcroft’s dismay, she had proven to be less a voice for the realists than an enabler and repeater of others’ formulations, in effect a neocon fellow traveler. Her deputy, Stephen Hadley, a Cheney ally, in turn took her old job as national security adviser. As for intelligence, Porter J. Goss, a former Republican congressman from Florida, who had become the new CIA director before the election, issued a memo to CIA employees that instantly confirmed his reputation as an administration loyalist: “As agency employees we do not identify with, support or champion opposition to the administration or its policies.” The memo added that their job was “to support the administration and its policies in our work.”

With Rice, Hadley, and Goss in key positions, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld had consolidated control over national security to an unprecedented degree. The notion that America’s $40 billion intelligence apparatus would speak truth to power had become a pipe dream. State Department veterans desperately fantasized that Scowcroft, former Secretary of State James Baker, or even Bush 41 himself would somehow soon ride to the rescue.

Purple fingers, blue in the face
Meanwhile, in both Iraq and Washington, the dream of spreading democracy throughout the Middle East continued to be mocked by the brutal realities of war. On January 30, 2005, 58 percent of the Iraqi electorate defied threats of violence to vote in the first elections since Saddam’s ouster. After reaching the polls, Iraqis proudly displayed their ink-dipped purple fingers as indications that they had voted. In Washington, Republican congressmen flaunted purple fingers as a sign of solidarity with Bush and pride at how the United States had brought democracy to Iraq. “Giving Terrorism the Purple Finger,” read a headline. “Purple finger” cocktails were concocted, consisting of grenadine, cassis, black currants, and vodka.

After nearly two years of bombings, kidnappings, and assassinations in Iraq, at last the White House had a concrete achievement to celebrate — one that no one could deny. In his 2005 State of the Union address on February 2, President Bush proudly saluted the Iraqi voters and the American soldiers who had made the election possible, introducing as his special guest Iraqi human-rights advocate Safia Taleb al-Suhail: “Eleven years ago, Safia’s father was assassinated by Saddam’s intelligence service. Three days ago in Baghdad, Safia was finally able to vote for the leaders of her country — and we are honored that she is with us tonight.” At last, Bush said, Iraq had turned the corner.

The speech also showed that Bush had been reading from the neocon handbook — he proclaimed to the world that his administration’s goal was the promotion of “democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.”

“This is real neoconservatism,” Robert Kagan, a leading neocon, told the Los Angeles Times. “It would be hard to express it more clearly. If people were expecting Bush to rein in his ambitions and enthusiasms after the first term, they are discovering that they were wrong.”

Dimitri Simes, president of the Nixon Center, a conservative think tank that hewed more closely to realist policies, had a different point of view. “If Bush means it literally, then it means we have an extremist in the White House,” he said. “I hope and pray that he didn’t mean it.”

To anyone who believed in democracy, the sight of Iraqis voting was potentially inspiring. But the political reality on the ground was starkly different. Yes, Shi’ites flocked to the polls in huge numbers. But the Sunnis, alienated by America’s de-Ba’athification policies, which removed members of the largely Sunni Ba’athist regime from government, angry because they had lost jobs and security when the United States disbanded the police and the military, and enraged by the American assault on Sunni mosques in Fallujah, boycotted the election in droves. Even before the elections were held, Brent Scowcroft had warned that voting had “great potential for deepening the conflict” in Iraq by exacerbating the divisions between Shi’ite and Sunni Muslims, and that it might lead to a civil war. As the Bush White House basked in the glory of having shown the world it could create a new democracy in the Middle East, it soon became clear that Scowcroft had been prescient.

The Shi’ites took office, but the Sunni insurgency went after new targets. US forces had protected its own bases, including the Green Zone, but not the general population in Baghdad or any of the major cities. “When we did not secure the population,” General Jack Keane told PBS’s Frontline, “the enemy realized that the population was fair game. . . . All through ’05 they exploited it. They began to kill people, take them on. . . . In ever-increasing numbers they began to kill more and more of the Iraqis. . . . They were exposed.”

Immediately after the election, the Sunnis struck back with a vengeance. On February 3, bombs killed at least 20 people in Baghdad; insurgents stopped a minibus near Kirkuk and gunned down 12 of its occupants; gunmen ambushed and killed two Iraqi contractors near Baghdad; others overran a police station in the town of Samawah — not to mention innumerable assassination attempts, car bombs, and the like. On February 17, a string of attacks killed at least 36 people, mostly Shi’ites. The next day, at least eight suicide bombings and other attacks targeted Shi’ite worshippers observing the religious festival of Ashura. By the end of the month, suicide bombers targeted crowded marketplaces near Baghdad, killing as many as 115 people with one bomb.

Meanwhile, Osama bin Laden had ordered his supporters to attack Iraqi oil facilities — which they had begun to do with considerable success. Terrorists had begun an all-out war against the country’s oil facilities, costing it billions in lost revenue.

Having put so much stock in the Iraqi elections, the Bush administration now had another problem. Like it or not, the administration was wedded to a Shi’ite government led by Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari of the Islamic Dawa Party, one of two major Shia parties in the ruling coalition, the United Iraqi Alliance. A militant Shi’ite Islamic group that had supported the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran and that had received support from the Iranian government during the Iran-Iraq War, the Dawa Party had moved its headquarters to Tehran in 1979. There, according to Juan Cole, professor of Middle Eastern history at the University of Michigan, it “spun off a shadowy set of special-ops units generically called ‘Islamic Jihad,’ which operated in places like Kuwait and Lebanon.” The party, Cole wrote, was also “at the nexus of splinter groups that later, in 1982, began to coalesce into Hezbollah.” Moreover, the party had been founded by Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr, the uncle of Moqtada al-Sadr, the powerful Shi’ite leader of the Mahdi Army, which has been tied to ethnic cleansing of Sunnis.

One by one the contradictions behind America’s Middle East policies emerged — and with them, the enormity of its catastrophic blunder. Gradually America’s real agenda was coming to light — not its stated agenda to rid Iraq of WMDs, which had been nonexistent, not regime change, which had already been accomplished, but the neoconservative dream of “democratizing” the region by installing pro-West, pro-Israeli governments, led by the likes of Ahmed Chalabi, in oil-rich Middle East states.

Now that Chalabi had been eliminated as a potential leader amid accusations that he had been secretly working for Iran, and the Sunnis had opted out of the elections entirely, the United States, by default, was backing a democratically elected government that maintained close ties to Iran and was linked to Shi’ite leaders whose powerful Shi’ite militias were battling the Sunnis.

Professing to train Iraqi soldiers to “stand up,” so Americans could “stand down,” the United States was in fact training soldiers who were loyal to the Shi’ite cause, rather than to any concept of Western democracy. “[T]hey weren’t really Iraqi security forces,” explained journalist and author Nir Rosen. “They were loyal primarily to Moqtada al-Sadr, to Abdul Aziz al Hakim [the Shia leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq], but not to the Iraqi state and not to anybody in the Green Zone.” As shown in a PBS Frontline documentary, Gangs of Iraq, Iraqi soldiers, even when accompanied by Americans who were training them, intentionally kept the Americans away from large weapons caches that could be used against the Sunnis. Unwittingly, America was spending billions of dollars to fuel a Sunni-Shi’ite civil war.

Even worse, in the larger context of the region, by deposing Saddam and supporting the Iran-leaning Shi’ites, the United States had inadvertently empowered Iran, its biggest foe in the Middle East. And Iran’s ascendancy posed problems for Israel and Saudi Arabia as well. Potentially, the Sunni-Shi’ite conflict could spread throughout the entire region.

By 2005, for tens of millions of Americans, it was increasingly impossible to ignore the realities of what was happening in Iraq — the absence of WMDs, the escalating sectarian violence, the vast expenditures of blood and treasure in pursuit of a mission that was unclear at best, constantly changing, and had never been accomplished at all. Polarizing the nation more profoundly than at any time since the Vietnam era, the war had become a litmus-test issue that defined and linked whole sets of belief systems — red state America versus blue; evangelical Christians, anti-abortion activists, NASCAR dads, and other denizens of the Bible Belt versus the secular, post-Enlightenment America that has long been on the cutting edge of science and the embodiment of modernism. Those who questioned US policies in the Middle East, as their foes saw it, were cut-and-run traitors who aided and abetted the enemy. On the other side were Neanderthals waging a holy war in the Middle East, shredding the Constitution, destroying civil liberties, rolling back not just the New Deal but the Enlightenment, all in the name of God.

Hate filled the air, at times evoking the specter of McCarthyism, the hate and fear mongering of Father Coughlin, and even the assault against reason undertaken by the Puritans. Right-wing pundit Ann Coulter expressed her regret that Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh “did not go to the New York Times building.” Americans who did not vote for Bush, she said, were “traitors,” her critics, members of the “Treason Lobby.” To Rush Limbaugh, Democrats “had aligned themselves with the enemy” and were “PR spokespeople for Al Qaeda.” To Fox News host Bill O’Reilly, the American Civil Liberties Union were “terrorists” who were almost as dangerous “as Al-Qaeda.” Thanks to the neocons and religious conservatives, the radical right was driving America as never before.

With the Republicans still in control of Congress, Bush’s critics vested their few remaining hopes for retribution in Patrick Fitzgerald, a newly appointed federal prosecutor who had recently taken charge of the Valerie Plame Wilson–CIA leak investigation. But in many respects, it seemed as if the nation had regressed to the era of the Scopes Monkey Trial. Tens of millions of people in the only country that had put a man on the moon, that had unraveled the human genome, now questioned whether evolution was real. A Creation Museum was under construction near Cincinnati, Ohio, to demonstrate that it wasn’t. Tourists to the Grand Canyon were treated to creationist tours assuring them that geologists had been wrong, and that one of America’s greatest wonders had not been formed slowly over millions of years, but was God’s creation dating “to the early part of Noah’s flood.” The Kansas State Board of Education held hearings about redefining the word “science” to remove bias toward “naturalistic” (nontheistic) belief systems. Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum — who believed that states should be able to arrest gay lovers in the privacy of their bedrooms — backed an amendment to allow the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative theory to evolution.

The Bush administration and the religious right declared war on science. Slogans that had once been bumper stickers — JUST A THEORY — became government policy: global warming is a hoax; condoms don’t work; intelligent design is legitimate science. The administration’s initiative to fund AIDS programs in Africa was hailed by the press, but information about the benefits of condoms was removed from government Web sites. The global-warming section of the Environmental Protection Agency was dropped entirely. In deference to the Christian Right, morning-after contraceptive sales were banned, even after having been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. According to Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor and 2004 Democratic presidential hopeful, a National Cancer Institute fact sheet was “doctored to suggest that abortion increases breast-cancer risk, even though the American Cancer Society concluded that the best study discounts that.”

And when it came to dealing with the “liberal” judiciary, Pat Robertson sought help from God during a prayer retreat, and the Lord told him, “I will remove judges from the Supreme Court quickly, and their successors will refuse to sanction the attacks on religious faith.” Asking his television audience to pray that three liberal Supreme Court justices retire, Robertson said, “I don’t care which three, I mean as long as the three conservatives stay on. . . . There’s six liberals, so it’s up to the Lord.”

If the once powerful Christian Coalition had become moribund — and it had — that was because it had been replaced by a far more powerful institution: the Republican Party. Indeed, in 2004, no fewer than 41 out of 51 Republican senators voted with the Christian Coalition 100 percent of the time. When the new Congress took office in early 2005, it included Tom Coburn, newly elected senator from Oklahoma, who believed that doctors who performed abortions should be executed. Asserting that global warming was a hoax, Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) compared environmentalists to the Nazis. He argued that American policy in the Middle East should be based on the Bible, that Israel had a right to the West Bank “because God said so.” And on the Senate floor, in a speech about the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, he displayed an enormous photo of his extended family, and told the august assembly, “We have 20 kids and grandkids. I’m really proud to say that in the recorded history of our family, we’ve never had a divorce or any kind of homosexual relationship.”

Meanwhile, the White House sought extraordinary means to get its message across. In late January 2005, a man named James Guckert showed up at a presidential news conference using Jeff Gannon as a pseudonym, and lobbed softball questions to President Bush. “Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the US economy. . . .” he told President Bush. “Yet in the same breath they say that Social Security is rock solid and there’s no crisis there. How are you going to work — you’ve said you are going to reach out to these people — how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?”

Gannon’s questions were so friendly, critics suspected that they might have been planted, and found out that he worked for Talon News, an apparent front for the conservative website GOPUSA. More titillating, Gannon had appeared naked on several gay-escort sites, such as hotmilitarystud.com, and was reported to be “a $200-an-hour gay prostitute.” More titillating yet were reports that Gannon visited the White House regularly, often on days in which there were no press conferences. Was it possible that he might be part of what was known in Washington circles as the Lavender Bund, the coterie of closeted right-wing gays who helped the religious right and the Republicans advance an agenda that was often explicitly anti-gay? Later came revelations about Congressman Mark Foley and his suggestive e-mails to young congressional pages, and Ted Haggard, head of the National Association of Evangelicals, who had a relationship with a male prostitute.

As the culture and political wars continued, they took a toll on the White House’s credibility. In March 2005, Republican politicians and the religious right — most of whom, theoretically at least, had been proponents of States’ rights — ignited a national controversy when they tried to intervene on behalf of Terri Schiavo, a Florida woman in a persistent vegetative state, to prevent the removal of her feeding tube.

In April, federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald continued to investigate the leak of CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson’s name. But journalists Matthew Cooper of Time and Judith Miller of the New York Times refused to divulge their sources. The question of who in the Bush administration had leaked her name was both a Washington parlor game and a profound inquiry into what was really going on in the White House.

Bled dry
Meanwhile, two years into the war, America’s all-volunteer military force was being drained. With ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, there were not enough boots on the ground. To replenish their forces, officials raised the age limit for enlistment from 34 to 40. Tours of duty for soldiers were extended repeatedly, leaving many of them feeling tricked and demoralized. In particular, the military relied on call-ups from the National Guard, many of whom were “weekend warriors,” middle-aged men wrenched away from their families and jobs, at great sacrifice.

And what about Osama bin Laden — the all-but-forgotten villain behind 9/11? “We’re on a constant hunt for bin Laden,” Bush reassured America. “We’re keeping the pressure on him, keeping him in hiding.”

But Bush’s promises were wearing thin. The administration’s practice of transferring prisoners from Guantánamo to other countries where they might be tortured was called into question. There were multiple reports of brutal treatment of detainees by the government. Likewise, attorneys for Guantánamo detainee Salim Ahmed Hamdan, who had been Osama bin Laden’s driver, argued in court that their client must be afforded the same legal protections that American citizens have. The numbers of wiretaps and secret searches soared.

By late spring of 2005, approximately $200 billion had been spent on the war in Iraq. Tens of thousands of people had been killed. Countless more were wounded or living as refugees. There were no WMDs. Iraq’s oil riches were being destroyed by saboteurs and stolen by terrorists. A report prepared for the UN Human Rights Commission showed that malnutrition rates in Iraqi children under five had nearly doubled since the US invasion.

Yet the administration continued to assert that victory was around the corner. “The level of activity that we see today, from a military standpoint, I think will clearly decline,” Cheney told Larry King in May 2005. “I think that they’re in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.”

But by the end of June, more than 1700 Americans had been killed in Iraq. Baghdad’s mayor decried his city’s crumbling infrastructure. The Iraqi capital of more than six million people was now plagued by shortages of electricity and fuel, incessant bombings and suicide attacks, and did not even have adequate drinking water for its residents. With one revelation after another about the Bush administration’s secret rendition policies, detention of prisoners without rights at Guantánamo, and Abu Ghraib, America, rather than Saddam, had become known for torture and abuse.

Then, on July 7, 2005, four terrorist explosions rocked London’s transport system at the height of rush hour, killing at least 33 and wounding roughly a thousand others. A group calling itself the Secret Organization of the Al-Qaeda Jihad in Europe later claimed credit for the attacks, and asserted that the attacks were payback for Britain’s involvement in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The bombings sent a ripple of dread through Americans, especially New Yorkers. Many people could not help but wonder if the war in Iraq might induce such attacks on American soil rather than prevent them.

President Bush had argued, “If we were not fighting and destroying this enemy in Iraq, they would not be idle. They would be plotting and killing Americans across the world and within our own borders.” But the London bombing proved that exactly the opposite was true. According to a study published in Mother Jones by Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank, research fellows at the Center on Law and Security at the NYU School of Law, the net effect of the Iraq War was that it increased global terrorism by a factor of seven. “The rate of terrorist attacks around the world by jihadist groups and the rate of fatalities in those attacks increased dramatically after the invasion of Iraq,” said the study. “A large part of this rise occurred in Iraq, which accounts for fully half of the global total of jihadist terrorist attacks in the post–Iraq War period. But even excluding Iraq, the average yearly number of jihadist terrorist attacks and resulting fatalities still rose sharply around the world by 265 percent and 58 percent, respectively.”

Four days after London, a suicide bomber in Baghdad killed 23 people outside an army recruiting center in Baghdad. Among other victims that day were nine members of a Shi’ite family. It was all but official. As Iraq’s former interim prime minister Ayad Allawi now asserted, Iraq was facing a civil war, and the consequences would be dire not just for Iraq but for Europe and America. A long-time ally of Washington, Allawi said, “The problem is that the Americans have no vision and no clear policy on how to go about in Iraq.”

As if the situation in Iraq were not enough, the neocons still had their eyes on Iran. To that end, in July 2005, House intelligence-committee chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-Michigan) and committee member Curt Weldon (R-Pennsylvania) met secretly in Paris with an Iranian exile known as “Ali.” Weldon had just published a book called Countdown to Terror: The Top-Secret Information That Could Prevent the Next Terrorist Attack on America . . . and How the CIA Has Ignored It, alleging that the CIA was ignoring intelligence about Iranian-sponsored terror plots against the US, and Ali had been one of their main sources. But according to the CIA’s former Paris station chief Bill Murray, Ali, whose real name is Fereidoun Mahdavi, fabricated much of the information. “Mahdavi works for [Iranian arms dealer and intelligence fabricator Manucher] Ghorbanifar,” Murray told Laura Rozen of the American Prospect. “The two are inseparable. Ghorbanifar put Mahdavi out to meet with Weldon.”

In a similar vein, in a speech before the National Press Club in late 2005, neocon Raymond Tanter, of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, recommended that the Bush administration use the MEK [the Mujahideen e-Khalq, the Marxist-Islamic urban guerrilla group of Iranian dissidents who had been designated as a terrorist organization by the United States] and its political arm, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), as an insurgent militia against Iran. “The NCRI and MEK are also a possible ally of the West in bringing about regime change in Tehran,” he said.

Tanter even suggested that the United States consider using tactical nuclear weapons against Iran. “One military option is the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, which may have the capability to destroy hardened deeply buried targets. That is, bunker-busting bombs could destroy tunnels and other underground facilities.” He granted that the Non-Proliferation Treaty bans the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states, such as Iran, but added that “the United States has sold Israel bunker-busting bombs, which keeps the military option on the table.” In other words, the United States couldn’t nuke Iran, but Israel, which never signed the treaty and maintains an unacknowledged nuclear arsenal, could.

If the MEK was being cast as the Iranian counterpart to the INC [Iraqi National Congress], there were more than enough Iranian and Syrian Ahmed Chalabis to go around. Reza Pahlavi, the son of the late shah, who was installed by the United States but had lost power as a result of the Islamic Revolution, was shopped around Washington as a prospective leader of Iran. And Farid Ghadry, a Syrian exile in Virginia who founded the Reform Party of Syria, was the neocon favorite to rule Syria. Ghadry has an unusual résumé for a Syrian — he’s been a member of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the right-wing pro-Israel lobbying group — and has endured so many comparisons to the disgraced leader of the INC that he once sent out a mass e-mail headlined, “I am not Ahmed Chalabi.”

Nevertheless, according to a report in the American Prospect, Meyrav Wurmser introduced Ghadry to key administration figures, including the vice-president’s daughter Elizabeth Cheney, who, as principal deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs and coordinator for broader Middle East and North Africa initiatives, played a key role in the Bush administration’s policy in the region.

The biggest blow of all to Bush came on August 29, 2005, when Hurricane Katrina devastated the gulf coast of Louisiana and Mississippi, killing more than 1836 people and causing more than $81 billion in damage. It was not the storm itself, of course, but the monumental incompetence of the Bush administration and its inability to manage the disaster that devastated New Orleans. Under Michael Brown’s aegis, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) failed to heed warnings that the city’s levees might be breached, failed to evacuate the city, and failed to bring housing and relief to the victims after the storm. Disengaged and ineffective, Bush, most memorably, told the director of FEMA, “Heckuva job, Brownie.”

With Katrina, whatever myths were left about Bush’s presidency had been shattered. His approval ratings plummeted to 38 percent. When New Orleans needed the National Guard, the National Guard was in Iraq. Only 34 percent of the public approved of Bush’s handling of Iraq — roughly the same percentage who had approved of LBJ’s handling of Vietnam in March of 1968.

By this time, any chances that American forces could prevail in Iraq were gone. Less than a year after the marines’ horrific siege, Fallujah had morphed into a police state patrolled by thousands of Iraqi and American troops who lived in its bombed-out buildings. But the Sunni insurgency there had somehow survived. In a 12-day stretch in late summer, 48 Americans died. They would not be the last. Bush’s fate was sealed. His presidency was an irrevocable failure.

In all seriousness, he'd be much more sophisticated then Bush.

Bush policies according to the wise all powerful internet master of smilies friend Grendel-

Awesome and somewhat dispiriting account of the past seven years. You can find much of this here in the Deep Thoughts section of the RKMB's. Seeing it all summarized like that was overwhelming. What a waste. What a tragedy. What a CRIME.

I dunoo.. The parts I quoted were the hardest to swallow. Iraq and Iran and the misinformation and outright propaganda is one thing but as a civvie, it really didn't affect me like it did you and people you know (with the exception of my wife's nephew who did briefly go to Baghdad as an Air Force mechanic ). But the entire domestic nightmare, all refreshed like that, it's fucking maddening as well as saddening. That such people can still try to poison the atmosphere as well as reason itself is tempered by the fact that they don't have many customers left anymore.

I like the way your piece ended with Katrina. BECAUSE it was so catastrophic and so needless, That was the moment it all turned around and righted itself in this country. Thank God eternally for that. Sanity reemerged in that horrible moment of tragedy. At least some good came of it.

Mike Huckabee responded to the Steve Skavera clip that I posted yesterday:




Now THAT is the kind of rhetoric we need more from Republicans. They've lost credibility gradually on account of their overt fealty to big business and the corruption therin. Not to say the Dems aren't tied to big business and big money, but they at least they and their constituents show concern for the working public. It's not all rhetoric about lazy union members and people wanting handouts etc.

The plight of average Americans should not be a partisan issue. And concern for THEM should be the job of every elected representative. It's amazing to me that corporations demand the same rights as individuals but scoff at assuming any of the responsibilities.

whoa, that's amazingly original.

truly your creativity knows no bounds

"Support twat"



Priceless.

and to think you got all pissy over me quoting you without paying any attention to what you actually said.

Your comparison is invalid. There's a diffrence between saying bush is evil/stupid/bad and blaming him for every singe thing that's bad which is what WB does with Liberals.

Not really. But keep telling yourself that.

If anything, and I don't always agree with WB, he's attacking a philosophy and explaining why he opposes that philosophy. You guys constantly attack a person.

You've forced me to make you look stupid.

a person who is currently weilding an aweful lot of power. a person who affects the country and the world daily. Hundreds of thousands of lives are in his hands daily, millions of people are affected by his signature.
Add that power to a man who consistently favors religion over science, cronies over experts, and idealogy over common sense and there's going to be a lot of criticism.
Don't act like he's just some guy who we're picking on because we're mean.

and wondy attacks liberals like it's one hive mind dedicated to evil. he acts like some sort of crusader.
no one, not even you, show that level of hatred.
add that to a man who also hates women, minorities, cultural differences, who boasts "christian values" while acting very unchristian and you have a real nutjob.

Not to mention WB incessantly blows Pat Buchanan for blaming ever bad thing on liberals.

...by posting an example of what I meant?

Wow. No wonder you think you're a "slayer of conservatives." Not hard to give yourself THAT title, then is it?

In the very post you cited to prove me wrong, you see WB attacking generic "liberals". He isn't attacking named persons or blaming a particular person for a problem. He's blaming followers of a political philosophy.

Again, I submit it's not the same thing.

As for Ray, there's nothing wrong with criticizing a President (any President) but, as I've discussed before, some of you guys take it to extremes (see, e.g., the original title of this thread) and/or to the point of illogic, attacking him for things that you wouldn't oppose if it were anyone else.

Sometimes, thankfully not so much on this board, there's even a tendency to wish physical harm or illness on the man.

That crosses a line from reasoned dissent to "hate."

I agree, like I've been saying it's not the same thing. That's why I'm the "slayer of conservatives"...I get you idiots to prove my point.

And what is it with you assholes anyway? I change my title just cause you bitches were blowing it out of proportion and yet your bitching about it more then when I had it up?

I know it's not a big thing but it's just an example of how you re-edit someone's post to suit you.

If you'd bothered to be honest and second, actually quote my entire response, you'd clearly see that I was laughing at the word "twat" being an acrynom for the war on terror.

But noooo.... You have to go and be a douche. Not that I didn't think all those pics were funny mind you, but I wasn't responding to ALL THOSE PICS as you tried to re-edit me into doing.

I mind because it's cheap and dishonest.

EDIT:

Oh, I just noticed you even retitled the thread to directly try to hammer your dishonest point across at my expense.

For shame G-Man...

For shame.



"Speaking of Inciteful and Hateful, G-Man"

Man, that nails the point home and in an truthful way. Because it was inciteful and based on the dishonesty involved in doing that, I'd guess hateful as well.

You ignore that I frequently praise liberals/Democrats who demonstrate a knowledge of foreign policy, and who demonstrate a clear understanding of the real issues, and who don't resort to the same divisive smear tactics as their fellow America-hating liberal Democrats. Among those I've praised are Sen. Joseph Biden, Sen. Christopher Dodd, Sen Joseph Lieberman, and Sen. Byron Dorgan.

I've even praised Bill Clinton for some of his actions. I think Bosnia intervention prevented a meltdown in Europe that could have escalated into a much larger regional conflict, if not World War 3.
Clinton's wisest actions as president were very quick response to global economic crises, with economic bailouts to Mexico and Indonesia, that without faster response could have caused a lot of harm to global markets, and to our economy as well.
I also have great praise for Clinton's Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin.

Most of the other Democrats I like tend to be more conservative, such as former Sen Sam Nunn, Zell Miller and Lloyd Bentson.



But I generally see liberals as borderline Marxist, if not overtly Marxist, very cynical and secularist, intolerant of anyone who doesn't ascribe to the same liberal policies they do.
Liberals who are eager to play divisive racial politics (even as they tout themselves as the ones pushing for racial unity, while their actual agenda depends on keeping America divided along racial and class lines.)

Liberals talk about conservatives "exploiting fear" to get votes, but it is in truth Democrats and the liberal media who perpetually exploit fear, and manipulate the public with completely misleading media exploitation to rally support for their anti-American causes.

• Perpetuating the notion of white racism, as if blacks should live in daily terror of white racism, when the statistics of race-motivated violence is actually 50 black-on-white incidents, for every 1 white-on-black incident. (Blame the U.S. Justice Department for those numbers, not me.)
  To the division and detriment of the nation.
  .
• Blaming Bush for the Iraq war, while absolving virtually all the Senate Democrats (except Barack Obama) of their support of regime change, and their liberal rhetoric (John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle, Harry Reid, etc.) that perfectly mirrored Bush's, citing the imminent threat of Iraq that needed to be dealt with, until they opportunistically turned on Bush and started attacking the war THAT THEY VOTED FOR !
  Angry divisive, hypocritical rhetoric. To the division and detriment of the nation.
  .
• Liberals/Democrats spinelessly resist any attempt to secure our borders or limit immigration in any way, because any legal or illegal immigrants who become citizens will likely register Democrat. It is usually 20 years or more after becoming Americans that immigrants acquire enough wealth to see the wisdom of becoming Republicans. When they are poor and new to the country, they want tax-paid benefits and handouts, and they know which of the two parties provides those handouts. Importing an alien electorate to change the demographics so they can finally begin winning elections, while balkanizing America.
  To the division and detriment of the nation.
  .
• partisan coverage of "the homeless". Which liberals/Democrats further exploit as a class issue. In Bias by Bernard Goldberg, he cites how homelessness suddenly became a celebrated cause by the liberal media during Reagan and Bush Sr presidencies, massively reported as a growing crisis.
  And yet while nothing changed and no programs were implemented to improve homelessness, it miraculously ceased to be covered when Clinton became president. How did Clinton cure homelessness? He got elected. Nothing more. If a Republican were elected in 1992, it would have continued to be exploited and propagandized as a "heartless Republicans" class issue. But because a Democrat was elected, the propaganda war could stop, and a brother Democrat was given a free pass. But class envy continues to be exploited by Democrats in many other ways.
  To the division and detriment of the nation.
  .
• Similarly liberal rhetoric and media coverage of AIDS
  .
• Similarly liberal rhetoric on the environment
  .
• Similarly liberal exploitation of Hurricane Katrina/New Orleans/FEMA
  .
  
  And on and on.
  .
  To the division and detriment of the nation.

Fear and hatred are the core weapons of the Democrats. So I always find it amusing when they try and reverse it, and allege that it is Republicans who "exploit fear".

Other favorites of liberals are namecalling, caricatured mockery and slander. Which Whomod, Ray and Halo82 exemplify in virtually every post.

And use of such tactics, as I've said a few times here, is beyond dishonest. It's evil. The level of malice and deliberate misrepresentation liberals consistently use (not all liberals, but way too many, certainly the most vocal ones) can only be described as evil. Certainly by those who have been slandered by liberals, by those whose civil rights, free speech, freedom of religion, and even their reputations have been deceitfully stolen from them by liberals.

There are Democrats and liberals I respect. Such as Ralph Nader. There was a California Congressman I saw recently (on Tavis Smiley's program)who suggested a new program for scholarships as an expansion of the G.I. Bill that I see as a reasonable liberal-Democrat program that would benefit the nation, and reward education, that would more than pay for itself in taxes and economic development.

Not all liberal-Democrats are evil. But all too many of them are, in how they willfully conduct themselves, or in what they unwittingly support.

It's not that we ignore it so much as we never see you say these good things till your called out on being a conservative zealot.

Anyway



How anyone can say this about the left as though the right isn't just or MORE guilty of this is blind. The only diffrence is the left is more straight forward while the right is passive aggresive in being judgemental.

where? as i've shown it's easy to pull up your racist/sexist quotes but in all that digging i don't recall seeing anything positive. so please link and quote and date your positive remarks about certain liberals so we can decide for ourselves whether they're actually nice or just more BS.

And just so we don't lose sight of what really matters more pics on Bush's evil-







and if it makes you feel better-

And there's more-







and for the sake of versatility

WB has pointed out Dems & certain actions that he agrees with but it's all chalked up to being exceptions to Dems being the bad guys in general. An insulting generalization IMHO.

That's yet another lie. I've repeatedly praised Biden, Lieberman and others on occasions where I was not defending myself.

But I'm almost always responding to vitriolic liberal posts that blame/demonize Bush and other Republicans for everything. And in deconstructing your collective liberal slander, disproving your lies, that takes time away from simply addressing the real issues, and giving credit to some of the better men and women of the Democratic party. Although I've often made time to praise them anyway.

The Democrats weren't predominantly a party of anti-American marxist ideology, until the early/mid-sixties. And there is a vanguard of Democrats who resist that trend within their party.

And as I've said, the Republicans I admire are of the Reagan/Buchanan model, and I'm less than thrilled with the Bush administration, on a number of issues. But when the alternative are treasonous liberal pacifists like John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Tom Daschle, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards, the better alternative is clearly the Republican party.






Psychobabble of yours, that makes no sense.

I've said repeatedly, with examples, how the Democrats are clearly far more hypocritical and destructive:
On social issues, abortion, assisted suicide, undermining two-parent families, publicly funding "art" that a majority of Americans find obscene and offensive, undermining security of our borders --and our very sovereignty!-- for political gain and minority pandering, undermining our long-term national security, liberal hypocrisy regarding Gerry Studds that far exceeds what liberals criticize Republicans for with Mark Foley, liberals bemoaning conservative repression of their rights, while they plot stealing a majority of Americans' religious freedom and conservative free speech. And on and on.

Every time I start to accept that Halo82 might actually be a separate person, Halo posts something like this to further convince me that he has to be an alt for whomod.
He began posting here within a week of Whomod's return to these boards after 2 years.
What are the odds that another person on these boards could be this vitriolically anti-Republican, and have the same tendencies toward mocking caricatures and posting partisan propaganda images?

And like Whomod, he finds things wildly funny, that are in truth just vicious and mean-spirited.

i.e., they share the same hatred and pathological obsession.


The Statue of Liberty being vampire-bitten by Bush image is one Whomod posted to these boards repeatedly 3 or 4 years ago.

Democrats per se are not evil. But the 1960's-forward/marxist-based liberalism that dominates the party, is evil.

There are good individuals in a generally bad system.

And I've also admonished what I see as the globalist/anti-american bad elements that have infected the Republican party as well. I've repeatedly said I have problems with both parties, but that in pragmatic terms of their overall actions, the Republicans are the less destructive to America.

In ideological terms, I'm a Goldwater/Reagan/Buchanan Republican. And if the Republicans were true to this ideal, I would support them 100%. But in the real world of compromised ideals, I'm a swing voter who has no loyalty to what the Republican party has become, and that's why I have voted for Perot, Buchanan, and Nader, and would vote for Dodd, Biden, Lieberman, Nunn, or (when he was alive) Lloyd Bentsen, if the Democrats had given me these palatable alternatives. Another I'd vote for is Democrat Senator (and Reagan-era assistant Secretary of Defense) James Webb.

Again: Democrats as a whole are not evil, just those who resort to evil tactics, who have infected the Democratic party. And there are certainly a number of Republicans I hold to the same standard.

Is Senator Joseph Lieberman really a liberal? Is it just on media issues he's conservative?

Wondy, you can claim to have said it repeatedly but I've never seen it. I know you've sided with Dems on the occasional thing but I don't think that equals praise. However, for the most part, you revert back to blaming them for society crumbling for a plethora of species reasons (see the quote of you I used against Gman).

Your an idiot. There's no more reason to believe I'm Whomod then there is to believe your Pariah. In fact there's more reason to believe you two are the same. Who and I have very diffrent writing styles, he's far more liberal then I am, and we've disagreed on issues like the whole license plate. You and Pariah have an almost identical type of idiocy. Your opinions on the whole Injin thing were almost exact.



I don't know? What are the odds of Whomod inviting a friend who has similiar opinions here to argue against your kind of moral turpitude? I'd think pretty good.

And Whomod's more into posting articles and Youtube then I am. In fact I haven't the slightest clue how to embed Youtube into the posts.



Who died and made you the arbiter of humor. Another thing you and Pariah have in common you both think your some unassailable authority.



No, I have hatred. Who has obsession.



Fucking google search. No respect for my desire to be original.*

Wondy, your a broken, banal, and pathetic record. You can always find out if me and Who are the same. But I'm gonna show you something. Look around the members list here-

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Insurgency_Forums/index.php?act=idx

That site is how Whomod knows me. He sent me this

Hey Halo
[ Forward PM | Reply ]
Personal Message
whomod Hey Halo, Sep 14 2007, 07:19 PM

The Whole Truth


Group: Co-Admins
Posts: 1,944
Joined: 7-September 06

I sympathize with you. I haven't been around these boards as much because frankly, i've started and contributed to posts in which no debate is enacted.

Right now I'm over at Kamphausen's boards where it's full of these Bush robots who are still all rah rah over the Iraq war. Somehow it feels ..I dunoo.. more useful to debate these fools than to simply get nothing or silent agreement. I don't know if You know what I mean.

You're pretty articulate and don't back down from a fight so if you'd like, the invitations open to get down politically speaking over there.

BTW, when are you due to ship out again?







*Sarcasm was used

You mean like how the Reps don't like Hugo Chavez and Venezuala? Then your right, that is anti-american.

Well, although I'm glad to hear you say that, I have to admit that ... well,..

... that you sound NOTHING like Barry Goldwater.

You know, I wasn't going to say this, because I agree with Wonderboy that his opponents in this debate have been less than objective and more inciteful that they themselves would admit.

But Wonderboy, if calling prominent politicians, presidential candidates even, for traitors isn't hateful and inciteful then I don't know what is.

Wonderboy, with that remark you TRULY have lowered yourself to a level you've hinted to you would like to avoid.

I would urge you to withdraw such comments as I would urge Halo, whomod and adler to withdraw their accusations of war crimes against Bush

Duely noted.

well acting in violation of international law, acts of torture, and lying to the people to get support for a war are war crimes.

well, the lying part, you can't really prove he knowingly lied. The torture part, has he said he condoned it? and the violation of International law, is that the thing with invading Iraq without a UN mandate? well, as you know, a nation does not really need a mandate from the UN to declare war when they act in self defense.
And that leads back to the part where you can't prove he knowingly lied

But it wasn't self defense. Right or wrong there's no real merit to that claim. At best it was a preemptive strike.

you may have a point about the UN, though it is a pretty shortsighted thing to do.
But you can't sit there and say they didn't lie (or mislead if you prefer that word) the public and the international community. They mislead people, ignored facts they didn't like and there is proof that they wanted a war with Iraq since before 9/11. And since I already posted a thread with videos where they lied after the fact about the things they said leading up to the war you really can't defend their credibility.

Also keep in mind that the violations of the Geneva Convention regarding torture(regardless of their redefinitions of age old terms) do constitute "war crimes." In fact torture levels were lower under Saddam.

Um guys,...

just wanted to re-post this since I already commented on G-Man's dishonesty but even that wasn't enough to stop my name from still being used disparagingly on the title thread.

Consider this a cease and desist.

It was obviously a distortion of reality.

I did say that you can't prove whether or not Bush KNOWINGLY lied

so, you're arguing he can claim idiocy as a defense?

Are you seriously saying that you thought the other anti-Bush pics weren't funny?

In any event, I'll clarify: You took WB to task for "inciteful and hateful" comments towards liberals. I was simply pointing out that Halo (and, come to think of it, Ray) has made posts that are at least as (if not more) "inciteful and hateful" towards President Bush with what appear to be your approval. I mentioned your name because, in fact, I was directing my comment at you and responding to your comment.

Obviously, you have the opportunity to correct my understanding of what you meant and condemn Halo and Ray's comments and posts if you feel I've mischaracterized your opinion of them. If you say that you think they are out of bounds, I'll take you at your word.

I don't think what we say is more inciteful I think it's just more straightforward. WB says Liberals are disdainful/hateful and we say Bush is a moron. In terms of gradations I think that's about on the same level of insulting.

You go well beyond saying he's a moron. Words such as "evil" are bandied about (just look at the original title of this thread) and you post pictures of him as everything from a monster to a Nazi to a "Star Wars" villain.

Obviously, you have a First Amendment right to do so, but there's something more than a little hypocritical about taking WB to task for saying things about liberals that are hardly worse than what you say about President Bush.

We use hyperbole to get the point across of just how stupid we think he is.

Well, I do anyway, I don't know if he's evil. I just know he's a lousy fucking president who's about as bright as a black hole.

Words can only hurt you if you try to read them. Don't play their game.

um.. keep on going. Then maybe you wouldn't have to re-ask a question that I'd already answered.






"inciteful and hateful"? Putting up parody political jpegs is the same as saying that most liberals hate America and wish "the enemy" to win??

See,... here's how i see it.

The jpegs are meant to amuse people, and for the most part, they do. If you're one of those that disagree and finds them slanderous, mean, Un-American whatever.., I think Jerry Falwell already went to court over this argument and lost.

Now, Wonder Boy asserting with a straight face that liberals and femenists (and gays and Mexicans ....) are responsible for the downfall of the US and western civilization isn't parody, isn't funny and is in fact, quite paranoid and bigoted. There is a difference. Whether you choose to play dumb about it is all up to you I suppose...



What?

I thought it was perfectly clear the 1st time. I'm not going to go around in a circle with this because I don't like playing legal parlor tricks where one has to go over and over and over the same material.

So for the last time. I responded to the acrynom "TWAT", because frankly, it was funny. You decided to quote that post, edit OUT the fact that I was laughing at "twat", and prefaced it with a bunch of pictures THAT i WASN'T RESPONDING TO and tried to make it seem as if I was.

To what end? Who knows. Whatever it was, I'm sure it was intended to try to make me look bad. In a cheap dishonest way no less.

And even if I was commenting on all those pics, so bloody what? People can't laugh at parody anymore if it parodies and laughs at Bush? Who died and make you Fuherer?



So just stop. Stop trying to turn this around as if I have anything to answer for.

So...you've admitted that I was correct. You did find the pictures funny.

Accordingly, your accusation that I unfairly accused you of finding them funny is without merit. You did.

So what it really boils down to is that you find criticism of generic "liberals" to be inciteful and hateful, but portraying the President as a Nazi/Monster/Evildoer to be "funny."

I guess it all boils down to whether or not the insult is written or photoshopped...?

Are you delusional? He said nothing of the kind. He said nothing even remotely close to it for your response to be consider a clever comeback.

While whomod's double negative isn't the clearest-written statement I've seen, the sentiment is clear: he thought all the pics were funny.

Poor Halo: easily confused again...

Poor G-man desperately trying to make a point but can't because his point has no foundation. That's not even close to what your saying. Move on.

G-man. You are such a douche.

Give it up already. you were called out editing a post to give it the meaning you wanted to convey. A message that frankly wasn't there.

All this weasley lawyer backtracking to try to swing this around isn't helping you much.

Since you ask, did I find the pics funny? Why?

If I do, am I GUILTY of something?? Like guilty of editing quotes to give them a meaning that wasn't there? That kind of guilty?

Since you ask and since it's been commented on already, I'd say I found the entire crop of pictures to be funny. Funny in the way an 'I Love Lucy' episode you've seen a million times before is funny I suppose.

Remember, I already did my posting jpegs bit as a birthday prank almost 4 years ago. I wasn't exactly slapping my knee is amusement but the "TWAT" one (again, the pic I was actually commenting on in the 1st place) was new and I did find it funny. Enough to comment on.

You however had to be a douche and try to use that posting to um... indict me of some monumental hatred on account of me (supposedly) finding a bunch of parody photos to be funny ("supposedly" since you didn't know one way or another). And you went about trying to do that by editing my post. I seem to recall you'd be accused of that sort of stuff when you were a mod. I don't like it being done to me and I don't like the person who did it. instead of fessing up to it try to weasel himself out of it and instead of apologize, continue to try to put me on the defensive.

Why would I apologize for pointing out what you, yourself, said?

You can parse words all you want, or claim that the quote from your post was taken out of context, but you have repeatedly made it clear that, in accord with what I wrote, you found Halo's anti-Bush cartoons funny. As such, there was nothing inaccurate about how I presented your quote.

As such, the only weaseling here I see is arguably coming from you.

Does mean, per se, that I believe you to be "guilty" of anything? Not really.
I think you believe that I was calling your reaction to his cartoons "inciteful and hateful" or otherwise blaming you for the cartoons. That was not my intent. I was simply pointing out that Halo was engaged in activity not dissimilar from what you condemn in WB and that your reaction in Halo's case was different.

Yeah, why anybody apologize for doctoring and misrepresenting somebody else's point of view for the sake of making a dumb point?*

*Sarcasm was used.

Despite how you clumsily try to spin it otherwise, G-man made his point quite well, exposing the collective hypocrisy of yourself, Whomod and Ray.

You guys hold your opposition to a standard you never hold yourselves to.

And your basis for this is...what? None of us like you therefore it must be hypocritical? We must be biased to the point we don't recogonise your brilliance? Please, I realize your constantly on G-man's dick but come on.

Ok. You're not going to apologize for editing someones quotation to suit your point. All you're going to do is spin spin spin and try to make this about me.

Is it so hard to admit to something that you clearly did and got called out on? Does it show 'weakness' to fess up and apologize? I'm just asking because it seems to be the standard M.O. of right wingers when they get called out on stuff. Stick to your guns and pretend you didn't do any such thing while calling out for the accuser to apologize to some other fabricated outrage that they apparently did. It's old hat already and it's boring. Plus since it's been done so often, it's predictable as fuck.

And thanks for again bringing up WB's hatred of liberals since I already addressed it once before. But if you want to pretend I didn't, fine.

BECAUSE I DIDN'T SAY IT WHEN YOU FUCKING EDITED MY QUOTE, YOU IDIOT.

G-man, you might be smarter then WB and Pariah...but your twice as lame. Can't even come up with new rationalizations.

That's just a face-saving attempt on your part to get the last word, Halo.

Too bad it's just meaningless psychobabble. G-man made the point that what you guys collectively criticize is EXACTLY what you guys yourselves collectively do.

Your hypocrisy boileth over.

It's not just an attempt to get the last word. It's true. G-man can't make a arguement he just repeats himself. It's a well known logical fallacy.

Ah.
The well-known logical fallacy is: your argument makes no sense.

So G-man was right, then you guys repeated your attacks, and G-man repeated the argument that exposes the hypocrisy of what you said.

No, we used completely substance in each of our "attacks".

Bush mug shots.

When you can see similar pictures in a public library, can you really call something "inciteful and hateful"?

Seems to me that it's very mainstream and the ones howling mad are in the fringes.














This is one case where I applaud the fact that this library (partially) receives private funding.

First of all, they're just doctored photos, and none of these individuals have been indicted on any criminal charges, so there's no factual basis for giving them mug shots.

Second, five of the nine persons you displlayed images of are not even Bush officials anymore (Karl Rove, John Ashcroft, Don Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Hughes, and Paul Wolfowitz).

Third, at least two of the individuals criminalized in the fake photos should be held up as heroes to the left, not slandered as criminals. (1)John Ashcroft for not signing away civil liberties on his hospital bed, and (2)Colin Powell for doing his best to moderate excesses in the Bush administration while he was there, and for also voicing criticism of Bush after leaving as secretary of state.

Fourth, it's just fun to watch you fry in your own bile, in hatred of people who are mostly gone from office already. That's ultimately all you have, is remarkable boundless hatred for these people. To the point that you feel a need to slander them at every turn.
But the truth is, even though there are many legitimate points to criticize Bush on, you guys are, in truth, viciously partisan assholes toward any Republicans, and have been for the better part of three decades.
It was the same under Reagan.
It was the same under Bush Sr.
And conversely you made 10,000 excuses for the Clintons.
And now it's the same under W.Bush.

So don't even try to pretend that this is some treatment that's unique to the Bush administration. The liberal slander, lies, and partisan venom continue, regardless of the which Republicans these spiteful attacks are heaped on.
And as I've said repeatedly, with each of these attacks, the level of your malice, your divisiveness, and your total disregard for the truth, and ultimately your evil, are fully on display.

Not just as an aberration in a single incident.
Consistently.
Slander after slander.
Vicious attack after vicious attack.

"Fry in my own bile?"



they're not my pictures first of all, second, the point of them wasn't to show a who's who of the people in office now nor are they intended to give a biography of their "good deeds". It's an exhibit of the people who lied us into war and the dates given on the "mug shot" are intended to show the date when they lied to the public.

It's so sad having to explain art to someone.....

Oh, thanks for clueing me in on the fact that these aern't real mug shots.

You really are a stooge Wondy.

The point is that there all fuck ups. Go ahead and deny it but all that's gonna happen is we'll get into a lengthy conversation and I'll beat you again.
Oh I know I know

halo, with all due respect (no, really), the best you can hope for is to piggyback off of whomod knowing he won't say anything when you slap your name on his "victory". all these times you come out of a "debate" saying you've "defeated" the other guy, it's all I can do not to laugh. just like when I read your sig.* do you really have any business using the word pretentious? do you know what it really means? because if you really had a handle on that I doubt you'd be so quick to apply it to others around you in such a hypocritical fashion.**


* - notice I don't pick on other people's spelling or grammar? that's typically because they're not busy making themselves out to be smarter than everyone else in between butchering the language almost as badly as dubya's accused of.

** - sarcasm was not used. you're really that much of a tool.

*** - man...

Oh, the irony...

The guy who couldn't write a literate sentence to save his life, has the audacity to call anyone else stupid.

If you weren't so prone to insults and personal attacks, I probably would just answer your points. But you're so consistently in-your-face and obnoxious, I won't reward your bad behavior.

You post illiterate shit that often doesn't even make sense, and then say idiot crap like "I won" or "I beat you". Who are you kidding? Dumbass.




I'll make you a bet: that Halo is this nerdy guy with no confidence, who desperately is trying to convince himself that he is capable. Why else would someone try so hard to prove himself against anonymous adversaries in a political discussion.

I'd like to point out that every one of these so-called discussions, you guys solicit escalating it to the the most bitter of exchanges.
If you respectfully made your case and limited yourselves to the facts, without being cocky in-your-face assholes, I would return the courtesy. You can see how I treat other liberals who are more civil here, like Beardguy, Chant --who I actually like, despite our divergent views!-- and others, who I may disagree with, but who don't resort to the very personal ad hominem attacks you do.

But you guys demonize Republicans, and although you often attack Republicans I'm far from in lock-step with, and who in fact I feel deserve a lot of the more objective criticism they receive, such as Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, I feel a need to point out the weaselly-ness of your way-beyond-the-pale attacks. If you could stick to the facts, and make an objective case, you might actually find myself and other conservatives agree with some of your points.
But I guess you guys are the animals you are, and you have to slander, demonize, gloat, and make disproportionate personal attacks.

I could post any number of inflammatory and partisan images in retaliation, if I even had the desire to take it that low. Every one of these discussions, you guys have the opportunity to present your views in a respectful way. It would be nice if one of these times you'd take that opportunity.

I realize this is going to be tough for you, but can you actually back any of this up? See, that's how I judge winning. It's making a point somebody else can't rebuke (non-sequiters, red herrings, and denial don't count). Beating guys like WB, G-man, Pariah, and you is easy cause your reasoning is a straw house. It's based on some specious sense of tradition, ego, or what mommy and daddy told you. For example, ego is why your butt hurt right now cause I've clobbered your dumbass too and then you run away saying "I was only joking, I was only joking".

How am I pretentious for stating a simple fact. That fact is that every argument I get into with one of you 4 bitches you run away from it.

But your not going to go out on a limb and provide any real substance for your claims against me for the same reason most of your posts are nothing more then heckles. Your too fucking chicken shit to be proven wrong.

I've never claimed or even remotely made myself smarter then everyone else. This is the kind of vague argument that any asshole can make against anyone who's confident. I DO hope I'm smarter then you, G-man, WB, and Pariah. But that's only because you've revealed yourselves to be such stupid assholes I couldn't take the idea of being dumber then you.

And where the fuck do you get off talking about hypocracy? I've never relied on anyone for any argument where as your nothing more then a toad for any other conservatve or whoever as shares your opinion.

But you know what? At least the other 3 have the guts to put themselves out there. You only do that once and a blue moon when your certain your right.

Do yourself a favor Sammitch. Put me on ignore cause this isn't going to end well for you.

Of course a shallow idiot like you would think I'm talking about something as trivial as literary shit.

Or your just desperate for an argument so you revert back to your favorite red herring of exaggerating on my bad spelling/grammar.



Believe it or not I don't have to try all that hard in these discussions. You idiots usually shoot yourselves in the foot with your contradictions, distortions, and exaggerations.

So there goes that theory. One to try another, Freud? Actually that's a bad comparison since Freud wouldn't try so hard to come up with a negative diagnosis since "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar".

I've explained to you several times now why I'm so passionatly against this kind of right wing sophistry. I've known Marines who have died and/or had there life fucked with for the sake of this idiotic war and callous cocksuckers like you and Sammitch don't fucking care as long as you get what you want which is bragging rights about how great your country is.



I'd like to point out your a broken and hypocritical record. You've givin as good as you've gotten. Most of the time you start the insults when somebody reveals your reasoning to be wrong.

I love when you do all the hard work so I don't have to.

I so thoroughly enjoyed reading this the first time that I thought I'd come back to it and phone in a commentary track for the special edition. ahem...

dance, puppet, dance!!!



here's the problem: how do you back that up? how long have you been around here? a month, give or take? do you even look at the other forums on here? you don't know me. at all. which is why you've never 'beaten' me and never will. you don't know why I think or feel what I think or feel any more than I care what you think or feel. all your sad little attempts either come out of this idea that you have of these posters you can't stand or out of your stockpile of tired off-the-shelf message board material. you talk about 'straw houses' in between railing against straw men. that's why you dance when I want you to dance.



this is my favorite part! I realize you're used to not being liked on other message boards (seriously people, check out the stuff they put this guy through on the insurgency forums), but I'm gonna be nice to you for a moment and tell you that this isn't your house. and just about anyone who comes in here thinking it is ends up leaving forever at least three times. (though I did see pcg on here earlier.)

do you really think I care what you can dish out? this is the forum I kill time in when nobody's doing anything in random chat or video games. typically, anyone whose existence on these boards is confined to the politics forum is more to be pitied than ridiculed, but anyone who actually thinks what they say in here makes them better than another poster is just plain asking for it. these boards started out as a place for people who got banned from other message boards, and ninety percent of the population of this place consists of alts, trolls, spammers, and various tools and toads of all stripes. (my kind of people!) chances are most of us don't take this nearly as seriously as you seem to, and about as many of us honestly couldn't give a flying fuck what you have to say.

all the same, I'm not about to ignore you. I'd miss out on daily gems like this...



...and I do enjoy watching my puppet dance. besides, like I said before, there's really no need to ignore you, since aside from your occasional moments of accidental hilarity most of your stuff is just so damn unremarkable. so yeah, you can try and take it to me all you want, but honestly you're wasting your time. compared to most of the posters who've taken shots at me, you're small potatoes. and again, you don't know me any more than I care to know you. you may as well just keep doing what you're doing and keep your entertainment value high. because regardless of what you may think, the only people who are 'winning' anything on here are the ones who enjoy watching you dance away.

No, that's just what you like to allege, every time I make you look like the idiot you are.



What you offer is 90% insults, and factless statements about how anyone who disagrees with your very emotional and opinionated views is an idiot.

Once in a blue moon, you offer something resembling a logical argument, and on those occasions, I take the time to answer your points. And on a few rare occasions, we both actually agree.
If you would dispense with all the cocky in-your-face bullshit, these discussions would be more pleasant, and more productive.




I'd like to point out that this is the first time I've offered a psychological analysis of you. In retaliation for the many times you've ad-hominemed me with a slanderous projection of the psychological basis for my views.

I might add, your recurring use of psychological terms, and your general unbalanced tendency for online tantrums, speaks of a guy who has spent considerable time in therapy. And could clearly use a lot more.

(Again: you opened that door.)



I've met quite a few Marines who are enraged and disheartened by the Left-wing sophistry.

I'm far from "heartless" and certainly am not without criticism of W. Bush, or of Clinton, or of Bush Sr., or even of Reagan for that matter.

As usual, you're too busy trying to paint me to fit the blanket stereotype of whatever you see as the ultimate hated-right-wing-whipping-boy to actually listen to what I've said.
As I've said repeatedly in many posts, while ideologically my heart and soul is Republican, I've had many disappointments with the Republicans in the last 20 years, to the point that I only voted for a Republican president in 1988 and 2004, and even then only as the perceived best of bad options. I'm not a flag-bearer for W. Bush, but I do feel you (and Whomod, and Ray, and several other liberals here) give a fee pass to the Democrats, who are arguably just as responsible for the Iraq War, just as responsible for 9-11, just as responsible for Bin Ladin's rise, just as responsible for not capturing Bin Ladin, just as responsible for the housing bubble, just as responsible for Abramoff, just as responsible for gridlock on legislation, just as responsible for pork spending, out-of-control immigration, deficit spending, and on and on.
But you assholes act like the Democrats walk on water and have all the answers, and heap all the blame on Republicans.

I have repeatedly in the last 6 years on these boards written laundry lists of what Bush and other Republicans are doing wrong. I don't ever heap all the blame on Democrats --even though I do think liberal ideology is more destructive to our culture and sovereignty, I've said repeatedly that the Republican actions have not been true to conservative ideology and they've pandered to Democrat excesses to remain in power. Something I've frequently referred to as bipartisan treason.

So I don't know where you get off labelling me as "one of THOSE people", when I'm clearly not goose-stepping to the W. Bush band.

I support some actions of Bush, and constructively criticize his mistakes. New York Times columnist and liberal Tom Friedman has advocated pretty much the same view I have, on many points, specifically: If we're going to be in Iraq, we should use enough troops to do the job right. And at each turn over the last few years, while we failed to have the troop strength needed (under Rumsfeld), we always had the ability to move in the needed forces to finish the job right.

I supported getting rid of Rumsfeld. And at the point he was replaced, and the "Surge" began, things in Iraq turned in our favor.

But the liberals (including you, the self-proclaimed partisan "slayer of conservatives") still whine "failure, failure, failure, pull out", even when things have turned in our favor.

I don't doubt there are marines who'd like to pull out and go home, but quite a few I've seen intervied, and their families, see the necessity of what we're doing in Iraq, and don't want them pulled out prematurely before the job is done, which would truly make the four-plus years of sacrifice in Iraq end up being for nothing.



You can't possibly reveal me or anyone as wrong by indulging in insults and personal attacks, as you relentlessly do. There aren't enough facts in what you say to prove anything, other than you're being an infantile and highly opinionated jerk.

I've made every effort to be civil. It took quite a bit of your relentless antagonism to get me to fire back. But when you continuously don't play by the rules, indulge in relentless ad hominem attacks and insults, and relentlessly solicit a backlash, don't even fucking try to call me or anyone else hypocritical.

That's a pretty asinine argument considering you don't know me any better then I know you.

Let me tell you what I do know. You normally don't bother to provide any substance to what you say. All you do is mock other people's opinion. Your so sure your right you feel like you don't need to back it up. Hell, had you bothered to look you'd see that I've posted in the comics, sports, offensive, women, and random sections. But your so sure you know everything didn't bother to look. You just figured you'd try and put me on the spot as some kind of political troll.

I know you toss out all these little generic moralisms at guys like Ray, Whomod, Rex, MEM, and myself but when WB, G-man, or Pariah are just as guitly or generalizing or whatever else bothers you with us your cheap attempts at being witty are nowhere to be found.

I know you have no real imagination since your arguments are about as unctuous as possible. You talk about making me "dance" yet your the one who always seems to follow me around. You talk about me "railing the strawman argument" yet you and I both know I haven't put any words in your mouth, although you might try to distort my infering who you are as strawman but it's not.

So put it all together you a pathetic little toad who can't think for himself.

this is my favorite part! I realize you're used to not being liked on other message boards (seriously people, check out the stuff they put this guy through on the insurgency forums), but I'm gonna be nice to you for a moment and tell you that this isn't your house. and just about anyone who comes in here thinking it is ends up leaving forever at least three times. (though I did see pcg on here earlier.)


Oh, that's awesome. Use my recent flame wars against me. How imaginative, thanks for proving my point. Good one. Despite my recent arguments I get along with everyone there (except Sikkbones who's more a sparring parnter then a guy who truly hates me). So yeah people, please do check out the insurgency and see how wrong Sumbitch is.

What you don't understance Sammitch is that this doesn't need to be my house to out think you and your warlords. All I need is for you to keep typing.



Obviously you do care since you take the time to post replies bitching about my opinion. Ironically, you once made a comment about my "obsession" with you but your the one who's always starts this shit.



The only thing I'm dancing on is your ego.

But you can tell yourself whatever you like.

you know Halo, when we take our time replying to peoples comments and bitching about their opinion...well, that's actually not because we care about what they think. It's just that it is expected of us here on the RKMBs.

It's a cliché if you will. Look at me and Pariah, we've had our bouts of flame wars, only a few, but still. But do you honestly think that whenever either of us responds to the other it's because we care?

No, that's just coicidental.*



More like 30% insults. Maybe 50%. But that's just with tools like you and Sammitch.

What is with guys like you and thinking emotion is a bad thing? Am I suppose to be some robot like you?



We both know that's not true. You'd just like to think it is cause it justifies you ignoring alot of what I have to say. Kinda like last time you used your desperate attempt at making me a alt for Whomod and I posted a pm and link as proof (not definitive, granted, but addtional) that we're not the same.



I've tried to have pleasant conversations with you but between your fragile ego and the sand in your vagina that never works out. So I might as well mock you.



Your pointless whining is duely noted. That is the first time you've offered an analysis.



It's more like tantrums in general. I have big gaping whole in my armor when it comes to arrogance and sophistry. I should just ignore idiots like you and Sammitch but...it's too much fun for me.

Actually I got my pychological terms from studying. There was a time I wanted to be a NYPD detective and I thought it might help.



I have to. What's your point? We've already covered this WB. Opinions in the Military vary as much as they do in the public.



And yet you always seem to rationalize that the suffering/death of the troops is okay cause they volunteered.





I've told you before, I'm an independant. I just so happen to think that right now the Republicans are worse.

Another thing that bothers me is how you want the Democrats to be just as responisble for the things that annoy you about the Reps. So it's not like you ever give the Dems any credit. Not that I really care about giving credit it's just that your claims of being fair minded are entirely false.





You just like to play the part of the victim Wondy but it's inherently false. Like the time you called me a partisan asshole JUST for agreeing with Ray. Get off your cross.



ahem...YOUR A HYPOCRITE!!!!!

You are. You pretend to be civil so you can claim the high ground but it's all bull shit.

I might agree with you if Sammitch wasn't so fixated on me.

I think I've truly bruised his ego. Why else would a guy you usually doesn't bother to post more then a short obnoxious comment make a long post desperately trying to undermine me.

BTW, here's a link to the insurgency for all to come and see how they hate me.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Insurgency_Forums/index.php?act=idx

I have to admit though. It is pretty stupid of me to take these two idiots so seriously. Especially when it distracts me from my duty of inciting wrath among those who are dumb enough to respect Bush. But, it's never to late to make amends.


This pic is probaly my favorite.

dance puppets dance!

Beware! He claims he has the power to make people do what he wants!

Actually, the only things he can make happen are the things that are inevitable or happen regularly. For example-

He can make me shit on Bush.

He can make WB finger himself everytime he watches a Cheech and Chong flick.

He can make the sun rise and set every 12 hours.

And afterwards he makes himself feel important by saying he caused it.

He has no more power then what you give him...maybe he is the devil?

and dancing and dancing and dancing...

weak.

you deserve better?

Hell yeah I deserve better.

But, if I was you, I'd be more concerned about what a transparent idiot I am.

Which is kinda a moot point since if I were you I'd take a header off something tall.

smell the desperation!

if your feet are getting tired, stop dancing.

Do you know what the word desperation means? Desperation is using generic arguments over and over and over.

Hypocracy abounds for you Sumbitch.

If you were any kind of a puppet master you'd get me to do something that I never do.

Like...respect you?

And in case your dumber then I think you are-

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Desperation

you should realize Halo, that you actually ARE dancing...

Dancing to sammitches tune, because you're reacting exactly as he wants you to react.

I'm only saying because I want to ruin Sammitchs fun

Your making the same error Sumbitch is. I'm doing nothing that I don't always do. Which is argue.

ruin my fun? you danish bastard!

doesn't it look like good times though?

your not spelling very well at the moment.

too much dancing can really take it out of a guy.

oh your totally right.






(if you can't see what I'm talking about by now, you're a sadder story than I thought. perhaps this stint as my puppet of choice will be good for your vocabulary.)

heeeeeeeeeee's gettin' winded!

seriously, dude, you're gonna hurt yourself!

Yeah, it's a good thing I said I wanted you to put me on Ignore. If I hadn't, you would have put me on ignore and you wouldn't have so much fun pretending to be smart.

Your welcome.

zomg your so smrt!!1!

Like your the judge of anything.

Just keep repeating "Dance monkey dance".

Otherwise your just gonna end up revealing your idiocy.

Another idiot not yet heard from.

Naturally you'd show up to distort reality.

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!

Such a genius.

ya rly your right on with that 1!

Yet, here he is. He comes out of this debate saying he's a "puppet master" and I can't see any diffrence between that and announcing your the victor. I don't how you can say claiming victory is pretentious and then claim to control others.

What have I done to earn Sammitch's obsession with me.

I announce victory for two reasons. 1st, it's true when it comes to Sumbitch, WB, G-man, and Pariah. Those four bitches can't have a straight up conversation without using a logical fallacy, twisting reality, or relying on some lame ass masquerade as puppet master.

2nd reason is I know it bothers them. There all so fragile and easily threatened. Like little pussies-



-I know Sammitch is bothered by it cause he won't stop following me around. He can say what he wants but eventually he's gonna throw one of his bitch fests about right and wrong (shortly before he puts his foot in his mouth).

So go ahead Sandwitch. Keep proving me right by not being able to make an intelligent point or not being able to back up the points you make ever once and awhile. Keep reassuring my victory. Although, I guess it's not so much a victory for me as it is for the intelligent people of the world.

this is better than anything I could've hoped for! I almost feel bad about how easy it is...

Your so diabolical!*

Sarcasm used.

hey, I might be twisted, but at least I don't beat off to political photoshops.

no kidding, you're gonna go blind!

You truly are an idiot.

There's nothing wrong beating off to Photoshops.

I used to have a really good one of Mariska Hargitay. Then again real pictures are good too

hot women is one thing, but beating your meat to dubya photoshops? maybe the lefties' opinion of the man is more complex than I initially thought!

That middle image is by your allies at the Socialist Worker. Thanks for making the marxist connection so clear. Plus others in the background waving flags of marxist Hugo Chavez, to further hammer the point home that they're not simply against Bush, but completely anti-American.

The Bush halloween pumpkin is actually pretty creative.

Y'know, I was gonna sit this one out and just let you dance to Sammitch's tune. But then you had to go and mention me by name. In a laundry list of names that basically amounts to anyone who dares to disagree with your highly opinionated liberal views.

Holo, your ego is so fragile that you have to respond to every last post, and every last point. You absolutely have to get the last word, and Sammitch is leading you around like a puppy on a leash.

Please, pray tell, continue to dance.

WOOF WOOF !

it's like a stroll down memory lane

well played...

I wouldn't say fragile. Massive maybe.

But come on, the fingering yourself during a cheech and chong flick was funny.

What's with the incessant ass kissing towards Sammitch?

He's nothing more then a redundant, simple minded, troll who can't hack it in a intellectual debate.

Actually, I understand WB is desperate to take any potshot at me he can so he distors reality.

You had to go and back peddle.

you're actually calling any of these debates for intellectual?

and for the record, there's nothing ass-kissing about it. Give credit where credit is due.

Sammitch took your comments and mixed in a gay reference, in the true RKMBS style.

hence the comment "well played"

Yes I'd call'em intellectual. At least before Sammitch comes trolling and brings shit down to a flame fest.

And his gay referance contrived as fuck.

Actually, to be fair, WB likes to ruin a good discussion with his petty bullshit too.

dance puppet dance!

.

obviously the American people must hate America.

Treason is the big thing nowadays.

Family Guy skewers Bush, Cheney 'in a galaxy far, far away'

Why does Faimily Guy 'hate America'????














But really, i'm glad Bush realized his dream of uniting America.

Except for that "UnAmerican" 1/3rd that is . And supporting that idiot seems to be as UnAmerican as you get nowadays.

It doesn't matter Who'. Haven't you heard that the "surge" (aka paying off the enemy) is working?

19%!!!!






Oh look, he’s finally succeeded at something outright.