Today's P-I has an unwitting self-parody in its partisan thumbsucker masquerading as news: "State's top power trio sets mark for women"
The rise of Gov. Christine Gregoire and U.S. Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell has broken another lock on a political system that remains disproportionately controlled by men.The most sensible quote in the entire piece is near the top:
What that means for residents is open to debate.In this day and age, most of us recognize that an elected official's performance in office has little to do with the variety of gonads they happen to have inherited, but to a liberal newspaper like the P-I, Ovary-American politicians are always an excuse for a celebration. Oddly, the P-I even manages a backhand sexist slur by implicitly attributing one of Sen. Cantwell's dumbest acts in office to her femininity --
Cantwell, meanwhile, has focused on energy policy, taking on oil executives and accusing them of gouging consumers. Cantwell scored her biggest victory in the closing days of 2005 by leading Democratic opposition to drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.Yes, it's dumb to blame producers for the inevitable consequences of tight supply and growing demand while simultaneously restricting supply even further. But Cantwell's idiocy is caused by her liberalism and not by her gender. It's insulting to women that the P-I would imply otherwise. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at December 30, 2005 12:17 PM | Email This
"blaming producers while restricting supply"
EXACTLY! What up with THAT, Maria??
Ergo Hillary '08
...and elected representation that more accurately reflects the American public.
So the diversity of equipment that resides between the thighs trumps the diversity of ideology, political thought, and values. Typical liberal thought, diversity equals skin color and gender.
Yet Murray is dominant
Within the democrat caucus, when you are team player you rack up bonus points, she is just cashing in on favors owed and party loyalty. What was the last bipartisan bill she authored, sponsored and navigated through congress... thinking... thinking... thinking...
Instead of a critic of the performance of them as political players. the piece focuses on political player women.
If the piece wanted a focus on power players, focus on the power players. Notice it is the left who obsesses over the gender and race.
The excitement in the democratic party is Hillary could be the first woman president.
The buzz for republicans is if Condi could run a campaign, and be president then that she is (A) female (B) black would drive the lefties nutzo.
Posted by: JCM on December 30, 2005 01:36 PMFrom the article:
"By Murray's reckoning, Washington, D.C., and Washington state are better off being served by women.
""For men, winning the game is absolutely everything," she said. "For women generally it's not whether you scored more points but whether you move the ball. We want our kids to get an education, we want our families to be healthy and we want to be comfortable in our neighborhoods.""
If a male politician made that statement (with the gender of the pronouns changed), the MSM rags would rip him a new one, and rightfully so.
Yet when Murray does it, the P-I finds it praiseworthy. Unbelievable.
Gender politics, like racial politics, are absolutely unacceptable.
Posted by: ewaggin on December 30, 2005 01:42 PMEvery time she gets away from her handlers, she manages to come up with a comment so egregiously stupid that it defies belief.
Posted by: ewaggin on December 30, 2005 01:51 PMHmmm-so far federal funds for the viaduct are literally deep-sixed. And sinking fast noting the general view, and party affiliation, of our 2 airhead senators.
Gee, does anyone remember the Spokane Street Bridge and the immediate gushing of federal funds to replace it? Orchestrated by powerful WA senators respected, if not feared, in WA DC?? A distant memory....
With these three dimwits, the Alaska Way Viaduct will pancake and WA DC will yawn, shake their collective heads wondering why Washingtonians elected such irrelevant, brainless twits to represent them, and ignore us. Oh wait, we have Jim McDermott.........useful idoit that HE is....
We get our just desserts when we order them..
Better learn to ride a bike if you commute on the viaduct.......
Posted by: THS on December 30, 2005 01:53 PMStill looking ....
Posted by: jimg on December 30, 2005 02:26 PMOo-o-o-ps -- forgot that Dixie didn't raise taxes, did see much need for "special sessions" and publically stated that the local media types acted like children...
By the way the last time our state's pension fund was balanced was during her administration...she made that one of her top priorities...
Of course with a record like that, the PI went out of its way to paint her as a (right-wing) kook...
Talk among yourselves
Posted by: Lew on December 30, 2005 03:09 PMShe lost her bid for re-election in 1980. Not in the general, mind you, but in the D primary - to one, "Baghdad" Jim McDermott.
If that doesn't reveal the true colors of Washington's Democrat establishment then and now, I don't know what will.
Posted by: jimg on December 30, 2005 04:20 PM* - click my url, Murray is the perennial winner of the least intelligent member of the Senate. The P-I is mighty proud of course. Can't wait for the day it and the Times become free alternative weekly's.
Posted by: AP on December 30, 2005 05:59 PMLOOKS GOOD IN A BATHING SUIT
1. Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Woe is us!
Posted by: Clean House on December 30, 2005 08:17 PMIf you happen to be male, or shudder, a white male, well then you better hope you've got some retardation or deeply recessed ethnic pedigree or your going to have to start doing your daily penance by pledging to honor the Democrat party for life and falling over yourself with apology, and even then, you might never make it to political heaven for your original sin of color.
I call the P-I on this one. When are they going to start following the words of MLK and judge people for the content of their character instead of on their external attributes.
The P-I is a racist rag that is simply angry because it is on the decline to total journalistic obsolesence.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 30, 2005 10:15 PMAll you RIGHTWINGNUTS do is b*tch, complain, criticize and cry foul. Why don't one of you mount a campaign for office, city council, mayor, county executive, senator, congress....instead of sitting back writing here and basically doing nothing of any real substance.
Amused by RIGHTWINGNUTS
PS. This post is on topic.
Posted by: Amused by RIGHTWINGNUTS on December 30, 2005 10:49 PMOnly one of the three was duly elected by the citizens of this state. Cantwell and Gregoire do not represent us, they are only a product of the union/fasciso cabal that is trying to hijack away democracy from this state.
Posted by: AP on December 30, 2005 11:15 PMInstead of being obstreperous and contrary, why don't you just tell us what you stand for? If you actually like fraudoire or can'tdowell, why not just say so? Oh, I forgot. Liberals don't stand for anything. They only stand against. It's awfully hard to espouse your agenda when you don't actually have one. Alternatively, it's terribly easy to pick at and find fault when you have nothing else to offer. You end up doing exactly what you accuse us of….only you look like a fool in the process.
You're pretty pathetic digdug, but I ill give you credit for trying. I figure in another 8-10 years you ought to be able to hold a real conversation…...
Come on AP, you just proved my point. You chose to complain and cry foul once again. For crying outloud. The ballots for Gregoire were HAND COUNTED, I know I voted, by mail, for both of our Senators. Unless I missed something, unlike you I don't buy the conspiracy crapola that is slathered around here like ketchup on a Whopper, I have to believe that my vote, though it was mailed in, was counted correctly and the office holders were legally elected.
If I were to choose to not believe, then I must also not believe in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. That would make me a REPUBLICAN RIGHTWINGNUT. It would be at this point that I would be better off in Cuba, where at least the government there is up front about its dishonesty and abuse.
So again, I say shut up or stand up. Quit crying and do something positive. Run for office, get involved in your local party functions, show up at city council meetings, write your representatives, conduct civil protest, circulate petitions and give them to your representatives. You can be effective. Or, you can continue to complain, b*tch and moan. Let me ask you something, how is that working for you?
Posted by: Amused by RIGHTWINGNUTS on December 31, 2005 02:01 AMDugoutnut is more suitable for sports pages and blogs, it reflects my love of baseball. I promise, so that you don't get your panties in a bunch again, I will keep the Amused by RIGHTWINGNUTS.
Good Morning!
Posted by: Amused by RIGHTWINGNUTS on December 31, 2005 02:13 AMYou're wandering even further astray from the topic (again). The topic of this thread is the butt-munch puff piece by the Pravda Intelleginza on three hack partisan democrap females. The piece where even they ask when the investment in them is going to pay off. The piece where the only positive "contribution" that cantdowell has made that they can cite is another typical democrap obstructionist hatchet job (blocking ANWR).
Did you even read the piece? Do you have ASD?
Oh, by the way....no one here gives a crap what you think.
Posted by: alphabet soup on December 31, 2005 02:21 AM1. The open exhange of ideas.
2. Freedom of the press. Including your right to post here, MSM, conservative media.
3. Open government. I realize that secrecy in some matters is of paramount importance, but too much secrecy, particulary for political gain is wrong.
4. I am anti death penalty. Read the Scot Turrow book "Ultimate Punishment" and you will know why.
5. I am anti-abortion. However I believe the government has no right to legislate morality. Nor does anyone have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body.
6. I am against any kind of gun control, save for fully automatic weapons and the so called "cop killer" ammunition.
7. I believe in a strong domestic policy first and foreign policy second.
8. I believe in a strong military. I believe conscription could be a good thing. Serving your country should be a duty for all who are physically able to serve.
9. I believe that I live in the greatest country, under the greatest system of government ever devised by man.
10. I believe "Under God" belongs in the Pledge. I believe "In God We Trust" belongs on our money.
11. I believe that I am no better and no worse than my neighbor. Equal rights under the law.
Any questions?
Posted by: Amused by RIGHTWINGNUTS on December 31, 2005 02:27 AMI have agreed most of the time with the position that my duly elected representatives have taken on the issues that are important to me. I think that the three women that the PI focused on deserve respect (sorely lacking from you judging from the childish, immature way that you skewed their names).
I have often found that when rational argument fails, some folks turn to name calling and hyperbolic accusations. You have taken this to a new level. I would be interested in sitting down with you, in a very public place, and having a beer or two. You seem confused, alone, angry and dysfunctional. Perhaps you just need a friend to talk to.
Posted by: Amused by RIGHTWINGNUTS on December 31, 2005 02:36 AMAnytime that you want to sound off you can write me at my moniker at the google email service. Don't worry about flooding is with junk, the filter is awesome, and I am sure everyone here at SP is mature enough not to do something childish and immature.
Posted by: Amused by RIGHTWINGNUTS on December 31, 2005 02:46 AMWonder if Stefan condones and accepts your attitude? I don't. No more playing with you. I am getting dirty and I don't much care for your stench. It is a shame that you can't be voted off this rock.
Don't waste your time with one of your "witty" replies. I will not address you again you POS.
Posted by: Amused by RIGHTWINGNUTS on December 31, 2005 08:46 AMAmsused, before you go off on a rant. I have held elected office before. I have worked in the process and I have seen the dark under-belly of governmental mission creep.
Posted by: Velvet Fog on December 31, 2005 08:59 AMI love SoundPolitics, despite a couple of failings in the design of their site. I don't even mind most of the trolls, although I remain puzzled why they expend so much time and effort so stupidly and foolishly. They sway no one, they influence no one, they accomplish nothing. If you ask any one of them, they will all say that they have the "right" to express their opinion anywhere they choose, SP included. They are, of course, wrong. We are guests of Stefan and the crew and participate at his discretion. As 2005 closes out, I want to thank Stefan for allowing me the platform to express myself (you'll find another "expression of my gratitude coming at your tip jar, Stefan!).
I harbor few illusions about my own posts. They are mostly meant to amuse myself with my observations of the loony left. Most are funny, most are dead-on, and most are completely right.
One thing that has cropped up repeatedly with the trolls that infest this site has revolved around personal identification. As SP does not require a personal registration, anyone can post using any moniker bound to any identification (email or website trackback).
About a year and a half ago a troll persuaded me to reveal my personal email address, which he subsequently thrashed with spam, resulting in my having to abandon it in favor of a new one. More recently anther troll attempted to shame me for my reluctance in doing the same. Something about "hiding behind your keyboard", or some other stupid, idiotic nonsence). Being a cowardly liar (but not in the big soft, cuddly, Ozzy way ;'} his illicit intentions were transparent. My defense was to open an account that uses his name in a humorous fashion as my email name. I have continued to use that email identifier at SoundPolitics only ever since.
This leads me to the likes of dugnut. Like the majority of trolls who come here, his posts started out friendly-like, but disagreeable (never mind the obvious contradiction - they are part & parcel of the sick pathology of liberals). As he become more strident and insulting, several of the regulars here at SP, including myself, began to respond.
With all of this in mind, I present you with an email to my "SoundPolitics email" that dugnut sent (I have deleted out the profanity):
******************************************************************************************
very nice email address. The slur is just what I expected of you.
I bet you don't have the ***** (I am sure your wife or mother has them
in her purse) to come out in the open. You should be ashamed but you
are proud of your hatred.
On the site you can't be told certain things, no swear words get past
the filter, but they do here.
What a chicken**** piece of work you are. What an anti-semitic
crackpot. You mask hatred for others under the banner of conservatism.
Hatred based on something other than political ideology. You disgust
me. I am sure Stefan would be very amused by your email address.
I am not
Go **** YOURSELF YOU WORTHLESS PIECE OF HORSE****. You know what, you
give horse**** a bad name.
*******************************************************************************************
This is the reason I do not reveal my true email address! You might notice that earlier above dugnut sought to entice me to correspond with him privately with the suggestion that, in doing so I wouldn't spam his email. Nice projection dug, but that's quite obviously your style, not mine!
Let me bring this home so that I waste no more of the site's time: Just like with Rich Kiker (that's his name you dolt!) I have no aversion to "come out in the open" - name a time and a place moron!
Stefan doesn't need to condone or accept my attitude, because he knows that quite to the contrary of the gigantic leap of assumption that you made about my geopolitical attitude, I am enormously proud of and a staunch defender of Israel (you moron!).
So there you have it, dug.
"You're so vain, you probably think this post is about you"
And it is.
It is meant to illustrate and remind regulars at SP of what sort of human refuse liberal trolls are. You get to be the posterboy to highlight the enemy within.
Don't waste your time with one of your "witty" replies. I will not address you again you POS."
Promise?
Posted by: alphabet soup on December 31, 2005 10:18 AM"1. The open exhange of ideas."
Unless you don't agree with them. Then you tried to shout down dissenting opinion.
"2. Freedom of the press. Including your right to post here, MSM, conservative media."
See response 1
"3. Open government. I realize that secrecy in some matters is of paramount importance, but too much secrecy, particulary for political gain is wrong."
Where was your concern when Bill and Hillary had over 900 FBI files on Republicains at the White House? Or when J McDermmit bought an illegal wiretap tape before Congress? Or when B & H hide Hillary's Rose Law Firm Records in the White House for 6+ years in violation of federal subpeona?
4. I am anti death penalty. Read the Scot Turrow book "Ultimate Punishment" and you will know why.
Please tell me how many people Ted Bundy, Wesley A. Dodd, or Jeffery Dalmer have tortured and killed since being put to death? Do you know the number of people they had killed after they had been arrested, convicted and then escaped?
"5. I am anti-abortion. However I believe the government has no right to legislate morality. Nor does anyone have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body."
You know if she could spontaniously reproduce you may have an argument. But at least you are on the "right" side of this point.
"6. I am against any kind of gun control, save for fully automatic weapons and the so called "cop killer" ammunition."
The Founding Fathers had EXACTLY the same type of weaponry as the British military at the time including cannons. There are several other papers written by the Founding Fathers, that this the intent of the 2nd Amendment
"7. I believe in a strong domestic policy first and foreign policy second."
Isolationism does not work long term (re 1930's), just because you refuse to see the reality of the world is your problem. Which is more important is fluid.
"8. I believe in a strong military. I believe conscription could be a good thing. Serving your country should be a duty for all who are physically able to serve."
I disagree. Putting people in a situation, that they would not basically choose on their own, is not only wrong but dangerous for all invloved. Conscription is an act of last resort.
"9. I believe that I live in the greatest country, under the greatest system of government ever devised by man. "
Hmmm, I agree.
"10. I believe "Under God" belongs in the Pledge. I believe "In God We Trust" belongs on our money."
Watch it now DUG, you could be called a right winged wacko for this kind of thinking.
"11. I believe that I am no better and no worse than my neighbor. Equal rights under the law."
Too many points to list:
Then why do you support positions that remove rights from certian people in the name of "fairness"? Why do you deride people for wanting to keep the money they make or at least have the same entity be able to "SHOW" that it was properly spent and not wasted it?
Everyone on this website has witnessed that my arguments and those of others here at SP have
so thoroughly defeated and humiliated dug that he is now using my handle "Amused" in an attempt to mock me.
Who cares?
dug is emotionally unstable.
I recieved a similar e-mail from Alan Scott saying,
"Alright then, F#ck you. You're wrong. You guys are talking in an echo chamber. All points of view aren't equal, it's just that you sound as much like a moron as a shrill, uninformed lefty. And you're an a##hole."Silly, but revealing of a serious ideological, moral and mental weakness. Do you suppose it ever dawns on ding dongs like this that I couldn't care less what they think of me personally? Michael Savage was correct when he observed that liberalism is a mental disorder. Alan Scott and dug nut are definitely disordered.
Very amusing.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on December 31, 2005 12:59 PMIt looks like dug thinks Rich Kiker's (AKA Unkl Witz) name is a slur and you're anti-semitic. What a hoot!
this dug clown is really stupid. What do you spose Kiker thinks of dug's opinion?
I suppose that I am finished with rich.kiker.is.a.phony@hotmail.com - after all, I believe I made my point. Perhaps I should change it to Carl.Howard.is.a.dungnut@hotmail.com.
What do you think dug?
Posted by: alphabet soup on December 31, 2005 01:49 PMSo much for the,
"1. The open exchange of ideas," eh?
You are a bigoted idiot who thinks he has a pre-eminent right to smear others on the basis of his insipid racist reasoning, and his hide-bound narcissistic cultural hypersensitivity.
Stefan knew about Rich Kiker before any of the rest of us. Is Stefan also a racist because Rich Kiker's name is Rich Kiker you racist buffoon? You talk about no class!!
What would you believe if his name would have been Rich Hunky, or Rich Niger, or Rich Beener dip-$hit?
Soup doesn't have an anti-Semitic bone in his body, but obviously you do.
If you had any class at all you'd apologize to Soup, stupid. We won't hold our breaths.
How amusing indeed.
Posted by: Amused by Carl Howard on December 31, 2005 03:54 PMI see that for someone who you claim does not bother you, you expend vast amounts of energy to answer me ...
Egomania seems to run rampant here. Shame you have nothing but anger to back it up. You live in a BLUE state. Move to a RED one if you don't like it here.
As for AS's assertion that I SPAMMED him. Please, I sent him one email. I told him what I think. He chose to edit my words, and that is fine. I love that you all are so high and mighty and Christian in deed and word, that you are comfortable throwing stones. I am sure you are all in favor of government censorship, after all, it would be for our own good.
As for being anti-semitic, I AM A JEW, morons. And for the record, my name is Richard, most folks call me Ric. You can call me what you want.
If you wish for me stop posting, a simple email from Stefan will do the trick. I told you before..I enjoy the train wreck, but I can resist posting, it just amuses me.
You all go on being self-righteous. I will go on learning, listening to other points of view and deciding each issue on its merits and not based on some party line.
As for Amused, between you and Mr. Cynical, you have the market cornered on each and every point that you accused me of. I like the Amused By RIGHTWINGNUTS moniker. It is parody. Parody is not original material, it is twisting material in a humorous way. I suppose I could switch to Mr. Librul, or Mr. Optimist, would that suit you? I could even make up new email addresses for each one, then you could have fun debating whether or not it is me or some sort of conspiracy to flood this blog with sane, rational thought.
Have a great New Year!
Posted by: Amused by RIGHTWINGNUTS on December 31, 2005 05:30 PMYour are a shameless bigot, and you prove it with your own words.
Nothing else need be said.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on December 31, 2005 06:17 PMOK, I will bite, show me where I am a bigot. Use my own words, without adding or editing. The reason you said "nothing else need be said" is because, typical of RIGHTWINGNUTS, you make a charge, no foundation, repeat it at every available opportunity and magically...it becomes truth to....to you and those of your ilk. The rest of us just nod our heads in Bemusement and wait for the next lie.....should be coming anytime now.......(tapping toes in anticipation...)
Posted by: Amused by RIGHTWINGNUTS on December 31, 2005 07:49 PMYou will find your apology under the post you placed in another string. How is my swearing any different that your STFU comment, you are two faced and a coward.
Posted by: Amused by RIGHTWINGNUTS on December 31, 2005 08:21 PMI couldn't care less about your swearing - it just shows you for the illiterate boob that you are. I bet your boy is so proud ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on December 31, 2005 08:40 PMMore name calling, now I am a boob. Gee, that hurts. Graduated USC (go Trojans!) class of '78, I am definitly not illiterate. Entered the Army, by my own choice, served in Grenada, 1983; and in Panama, 1989 commanding three squads of Rangers, jumped at night to begin the US invasion.
It was my job to protect your right to wave your arms wildly, speak what for you, qualifies as your mind. You know, the more I interact with you here, the more I realize just how important of a job I was doing. Allowing you to speak reminds all of us just how fortunate we are to live in a country where folks just like you, SoupySales, can speak all you want, but you are rendered completely harmless simply by allowing you to do so.
Happy New Year to you.
Bemused, how is it again that I am a bigot?
Posted by: Amused by RIGHTWINGNUTS on December 31, 2005 09:02 PM1) Half baked accusations of bigotry and racism based on totally flawed reasoning.
2) When wrong, brazen it through because you (your ego) can win debates using shameless irrelevant tactics.
3) Pretend that lies and innuendo are as good as facts, and the truth.
4) Pretend that you have integrity.
Dug says, ”Just wondering if Stefan has checked out the email address you use here. The anti-semetic [sic] slur (the Jewish equivalent [sic] of the "N" word)it contains is reprehensible, . . . “ then loutishly calls the victim of his completely false accusation,” a disingenuous, viporous[humorous sic],hate mongering, ignorant excuse for a human life form. You are wasting air.” and says ”Do us all a favor and leave the planet immediately.” By the way, only a very stupid Jew misspells semitic.
Only a bigot would assume that a legitimate name (Kiker) that sounds vaguely like a racial slur is meant as racism without confirming it, would accuse someone of anti-Semitism for using the name, and then knowing for a fact it was a false, would let the false accusation stand. Your refusal to apologize proves that you have no integrity.
dug, you’re a punk with a big mouth and nothing to back it up but vile, hate mongering, lies and innuendo against others. No one here cares about your jadishness or your family or what you think of any of us. You cannot fairly and rationally win arguments so you feed on spite.
Jew aside, with this behavior, you clearly prove what you are all about. No one expects an apology; because we all know that it is not in your nature.
What is truly amusing is that you don't recognize what this clearly means about your own integrity.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on December 31, 2005 09:14 PMI am very proud of my ability to get under your skin. It AMUSES me how seriously you take this drivel.
Me a stupid Jew? Allow me to enlighten you....
Semitic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
Semitic is a linguistic term referring to a subdivision of largely Middle Eastern Afro-Asiatic languages, the Semitic languages, as well as their speakers' corresponding cultures, and ethnicities. Although there is much debate about the scope of the word's "racial" use in the context of population genetics and history, as a linguistic term the language family is well-defined to include ancient and modern versions of Amharic, Arabic, Aramaic, Akkadian, Hebrew, Maltese, Syriac, Tigrigna, et al.
Try Google. You could save yourself the embarrassment of being wrong once in a while.
Now, how about an apology from you Bemused? If you are going to make a claim, back it up with fact, not more made up RIGHTWINGNUT bulloney.
Happy New Year!
Posted by: Amused by RIGHTWINGNUTS on December 31, 2005 09:35 PMHowever, I have never quit or run from a good argument, but truthfully, there is none to be had here.
I am very proud of my family, I don't care if you don't care. You act and write as if your words have some kind of effect on me or my life. It is apparent that I have gotten under your skin, when it is this easy, the battle is won.
I would buy you and SoupySales a beer sometime, but I think your nerve to speak ends when you come out from behind the keyboard.
Posted by: Amused by RIGHTWINGNUTS on December 31, 2005 09:47 PMAs for you, I apologized to you and I do it again here. Now, wipe your tears, tuck in your shirt and go outside and play nice.
Posted by: Amused by RIGHTWINGNUTS on December 31, 2005 10:01 PMYou misspelled "semitic". Amused pointed it out.
You offered a lame-a$$ apology that was followed up by a disclaimer that essentially took it all back. Screw you. Tuck in your own shirt troll.....
Posted by: alphabet soup on December 31, 2005 10:22 PMIf you don't like it . . . anywhere . . . any place punk.
This macho "Anytime, anyplace" is juvenile. So, take me up on the beer. Public place and daytime are my only restrictions. I will wear sandals, shorts and a Hawaiian shirt. Pick the place. Honest, I will buy if you remain civil, if you don't, buy your own beer. Do you need me to send you bus fare? (Just kidding) Maybe we can be friends who agree to disagree. You can show me that RIGHTWINGNUTS can be personable and I will show you that not every DEMOCRAT is broke, on welfare, anti-defense and pro choice. Come on Soupy, what do you say?
Posted by: Amused by RIGHTWINGNUTS on December 31, 2005 10:29 PMYou've been nothing but a pain in the a$$ since you've been here. You've been insulting to Shark, contrary and disputatious, and a duplicitous bigot. As the saying goes, I wouldn't cross the street to pee on you if you were on fire.
I just want you to go away....
Posted by: alphabet soup on December 31, 2005 11:17 PMI assure you, the offer was genuine. Anyone who knows me knows that I enjoy a great debate and a good beer. I don't understand something. You accused me of making personal threats to you, but yet it is you who continues to make reference to physical contact. How do you account for that? I thought we were building a relationship here.
I hoped, just like the girl who can't stand you at first, then begins to see you as cute and funny, you would come around and be friends.
Apparently you take this stuff way too seriously. The exchanges have been entertaining, I am sure that there are two or three people out there who just can't wait to see what we are gonna say next. I know I have enjoyed the mindless banter. It gives me something to do while I wait to ring in the new year.
But the bottom line is that you talk a good game, but you are not really willing to back it up with anything other than your keyboard.
Again, for the third time, I apologize for accusing you of being anti-semitic. (and for the record, there is a HUGE difference between a typo and a spelling error).
The offer of a beer is still there. Microbrew even.
Posted by: Amused by RIGHTWINGNUTS on December 31, 2005 11:35 PMHappy New Year.
Have a beer with dug?
Anyone stupid and base enough to suppose that the name “Rich Kiker” is someone’s anti-Semitic slur is not someone I would ever wish to have a beer with. It’s the hysterical grasping of a dim-witted, bigoted mentality (Sen. Maria Prentice’s race-baiting).
Dug is an unstable, disingenuous hypocrite who contributes nothing positive to anything at Sound Politics; how would he be better elsewhere? Even his superficial semi-apology is an insincere mocking attempt at diverting attention away from his own depravity by attempting to smear you. No debater, dug practices petty bickering using classic liberal tactics (lie, quibble, smear, dodge, shuffle); all petty devious gamesmanship. It's all he is, so that's all he has.
Every comment is a referendum on his self-worth and arrogant self-importance. Given the consistency of his dishonesty and duplicity here, what reason would anyone have to believe anything he says; especially his arrogant lies about being a Ranger? He’s probably not a Jew either, but who cares, he isn’t honest. Dug clearly believes that others consider him a debater, but despite his insufferability here—he is easily beaten and easily ignored; can you imagine enduring his notion of a debate or a conversation in person?
Have a beer with dug? Soup, I’d enjoy meeting you in person, but for whatever its worth, I wouldn’t bother with dug if I were you. He has proven himself to be a vile hate mongering liar, and a psychologically unstable nitwit. Even at the very best, it would be a tedious waste of time listening to him boast about himself and all of the things he learned by talking.
Thanks.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on January 1, 2006 03:30 PMA casual get together with dug? Not likely.
Despite all the backpedaling and pussy-footing that dug did last night, I am reminded of his true character which was revealed in his email to me. Anyone that contemptible and emotionally retarded will only cause needless difficulty for others and should be avoided. In his last post, he starts with an insult and a provocation that speaks for itself. And that was supposed to be an olive branch?! He made several mistakes and chose to compound them by bluster. His combative and disingenuous nature proves that his mission in life is to cause problems for those who don’t agree with his shiftless ideology, and I reject his game.
His faith and self-promoted service history are of little concern to me (although I find it mawkish that he wears it so loudly on his sleeve). Mostly dug’s pettiness is dull, and eventually he will tire of this place—after all, as I said earlier, he doesn't impress anyone, hasn't persuaded anyone, and he won't fool anyone here. He only makes a bigoted buffoon out of himself, and the only way he could ever win is if he pi$$es someone off. As you say, a waste of time.
Have a beer with dug — no thanks!
"Some members of the governor's staff will return from the three-day holiday on Tuesday to newly renovated offices at the State Capitol.
Shortly after the two hurricanes, Gov. Kathleen Blanco decided to renovate some of her staff's offices. At the time of her decision, Blanco also was hinting at deep budget cuts to state programs and the possibility of laying off 20 percent of the state workforce.
The project cost $564,838.
The newly refurbished office space on the sixth floor of the State Capitol includes hookups and mounts for two flat screen televisions, Swedish granite countertops, walnut paneling and frosted laminated glass. The floor, which will not be accessible to the public, was redesigned to add three new offices, a conference room and file storage areas."
You raise an interesting question. Since you apparently fancy yourself a brave person;
why not e-mail me with your personal name and address, workplace, and a description
of the car you drive and then let me know who the coward/bufoon tags belong to?
Let me see, you make the "anytime, anyplace" comment and when pressed/accepted you back off. Then when I point out the duplicity of your words and failure to back up your invitation, you ask me for my info. I have not issued challenges, I merely pointed out that you failed to back up your mouth. Then somehow in your mind, logic dictates that you should begin the challenge senario again, this time with me. Still you failed to answer my question.
You turned it around (a Republican tactic that many of us moderate conservatives find to be harming the party) to make it seem as though I am in the wrong.
The bottom line is this: Everyone here at SP read what you, Alphabet Soup and Amused by Rightwingnuts wrote. Sure, Amused by Rightwingnuts should probably not post here since he is obviously a liberal, but you and Alphabet Soup issued the challenge, not him. He accepted, he offered to meet in a public place, no exchange of info, just meet. What harm is there in that? What is it that you are concerned about? I will say this, and not to anger you, but if he is the man he says he is, I would be concerned too. All three of you showed absolutely no respect to one and other. We all are allowed to have our own views and beliefs and to express them. The three of you got carried away, but to be fair, you and Alphabet Soup took it too far. You allowed Amused by Rightwingnuts to get under your skin. When he accepted your challenge to his ego and manhood, you retreated. So, I ask you again:
Who failed to back up his boast and challenge? The truth is all three of you are buffoons. Why this blog can't have an intelligent exchange of ideas based solely on the issues without degenerating into a high school shoving match is beyond me.
Posted by: Regular Guy on January 2, 2006 02:03 PMBut he is a definite contradition.
Here are few:
An admitted Ranger (all volunteer force) who supports conscription (the Draft).
An admitted JEW that jumped down the throat of a man just because of his last name. And then made a half-assed apology in the middle of another post.
But his most prominant quirk is his inability to stay on topic. While he and you deride personal attacks, he ussually starts with one.
Posted by: Mike P on January 2, 2006 02:26 PM
Bull$hit, you issued a challenge to me when you addressed me commenting, ”I really wonder who the buffoon tag belongs to. We all know who the coward tag belongs to.”
Now you say to me, ”Let me see, you make the "anytime, anyplace" comment and when pressed/accepted you back off.” I didn't boast or say ”anytime, anyplace.” If I had—I wouldn’t say anytime, anyplace, assuming all of anyone else’s terms, and I never backed off from anything. I recommended to Soup that meeting dug would be a waste of time, because discretion is the better part of valor. How stupid are you really?
RGuy, WHO FAILED TO BACK UP HIS CHALLENGE? YOU DID. Nevertheless, if you (or Dug) want to threaten me in person, I will be happy to meet you. First send me your personal name and address, workplace, and a description of the car you drive (license number) via e-mail, and then I will be happy to make the arrangements, on my terms. As you say, "What harm is there in providing me the info? What is it that you are concerned about?" TURNABOUT IS FAIR PLAY jacka$$, not some sinister Republican tactic. You are trying to rub my nose in your shallow stupid characterization, but you refuse to back up your own. So, buck up, back up your mouth bubba-Louie, or mind your own fu@king business.
There is no “High School shoving match here,” just an arrogant liberal bigot (Dug) who got caught trying to smear someone. Dug never got under my skin, he only said he did, I have never been angry or expressed anger-just disgust, and dug doesn’t scare me in the least mostly because I won’t allow him an opportunity to blind-side me. I’ve been in combat and made my own bones, but (unlike dug) I don’t feel the need to play up.
If you believe Dug’s offer was genuine, who’s the bufoon here? If dug was actually remorseful, he would simply have admitted it, apologized, and moved on, and THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN RESPECTED. Dug’s mocking apology and insulting insincere offer was an empty ruse to re-direct everyone’s attention away from the fact that he got caught trying to smear someone as a racist, and clearly it worked with you. If you are a Republican—clearly you are one of the stupid ones that trusts liberal scoundrels at their word. It certainly doesn’t mean I have to.
The REAL bottom line is this: If you are stupid enough to buy into dug’s bull$hit, go for it, but leave me out of it. If you haven’t been cheated, had your car vandalized or keyed, or been otherwise unfairly sabotaged by a shiftless liberal like dug, you have lived a very sheltered life. Since you are stupid enough to ask the question What is it that you are concerned about?” then you won’t mind providing me with your personal information will you? . . . .
Otherwise, stick your dim-witted busy body garbage up you’re a$$.
But be a nice boy and do it somewhere away from others.
You did say "anytime, anyplace". Read your own posts. You are an egotistical zealot, who makes outlandish statements and characterizations I quote, "If you haven’t been cheated, had your car vandalized or keyed, or been otherwise unfairly sabotaged by a shiftless liberal.." as if only liberals would do these these things. This smacks of how Hitler used minorities to stir anger and fear on his rise to power. You are not the type who feels the need to brag about your service? Yet you just did. My guess is that you served in a capacity of something less than what Amused by Rightwingnuts apparently did. As for his want for a draft and comparing it to his volunteer service, how is that germain? A man who has served and seen the benefit of service might think that it would be of value for most young men and women. Your arguments are emotional, not factual. You rely on cutsie pie names and ranting and raving. This infuriates those of us who know that a hard line approach is no longer appealing to the majority of Americans.
As for the rude suggestions, I have no direct response as you have shown the entire blog what a petty, childish, immature lout you really are. Your true colors are exposed for all to see.
You have answered the question.
The coward is you and everyone knows it.
Posted by: Regular Guy on January 2, 2006 06:21 PMSo that’s what “Pop! Goes the weasel” means!
Very persuasive (albeit hysterical) liberal argument for a supposed “moderate conservative.”
Thanks for the laughs.
I suppose though, that as long as you hide behind the name calling, those of us who are working hard to effect real change, won't have to worry about you.
You really should consider growing up. Childishness will not achieve the goals you profess to champion.
The truth is you HATE anyone who does not agree with your views. You are vile and disrepectful and when you are called to account, you cry like a baby.
Here, have some virtual Kleenex to wipe your eyes and blow your nose.
Posted by: Regular Guy on January 2, 2006 08:05 PMHaving never offered an argument (at least not once on this site), he wouldn't know one if it bounced its way off of his thick skull. He then follows it with his usual bag of liberal projection.
You are a loser dug!
Posted by: alphabet soup on January 17, 2006 07:48 AM