 |  |
Point 2: I suspect the Secret service and/or FBI NOW know who they are and what they look like...and "that's a good thing".
Point 3: Do they honestly think the President (any President) wastes his time daydreaming and watching the 'scenery'??
Point 4: Someone should smack the ungrateful, unAmerican pig with his upside down US Flag.
Posted by: Cheryl on June 17, 2006 10:43 AMThe photo on the right reminds me of John Kerry's book with the cover showing silly liberals aping the Iwo Jima memorial statue and hoisting an upside down flag.
I have to wonder why nothing these people do ever seems honoring of this country. I'll bet they don't even know.
Posted by: Misty on June 17, 2006 11:08 AMDo these people have children? I hope not. If they do, are they telling their children that Bush (America) is responsible for 9-11
When I see people like this my first thought is:
We have people from other countries literally dying trying to get into this country to BECOME AN AMERICAN, and these pathetic ANTI AMERICAN citizens embrace all the freedom that being an american bestow's upon them, but spit in AMERICA's face everyday with their beliefs.
When I see photo's like this, I am Ashamed to be an AMERICAN.
Richard still hasn't chimed in to defend himself. I wonder why.
And I still want to know if in their Friday afternoon phone converstation Stefan asked Richard whether he believes the Holocaust never happened.
Posted by: lefty loosey on June 17, 2006 11:45 AMI thoroughly enjoyed are phone conversation on Friday. I finally see what you mean about this 9-11 thing being an inside job. You are right on my man. Once we have stopped the evil mail in ballots, onto outing my President for murdering all those people. Jerk. And I am also slowly coming around to your notion that the Holocaust was just a bunch of baloney. I am not there yet man, but one or two more vote by mail protest events with you and you'll have me I just know it Richard. Silly Jews.
Sincerely,
Stefan Posted by: Stefan on June 17, 2006 11:51 AM
I live near Ft. Lewis. Nearly every day I have a chance to talk to young men and women that have served/are serving, and the real historical truth is that the American military of this time and the job they're doing is fantastic, on a level of historical proportion.
Keep in mind that it is technically possible to be an American citizen and still be without connection with the main character of American reality.
The irony is that the protesters discount the Bush administration's success in changing the future of Iraq and Afghanistan, knowing full well that the Clintonistas bungled their attempts to do similar things in other countries.
Not to mention the irony of older (not grown up) 60's hippies becoming the radical fringe of the Democratic party a generation removed from the protests at the Democratic National Convention way back then. I guess the drugs really do affect memory...
The more these crazies pull stunts like this, the more they marginalize their movement. Because in the end, if forced to choose between a rational debate and an emotional tirade, these leftist moonbat children will choose the tirade every time.
Oh, and they've done an excellent job of hijacking the Democrat party and running it into the ground.
Keep up the good work Moonbats. Need any more rope?
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 17, 2006 01:42 PMImagine a Republican holding a sign that says "I support Bankrupting my Children"
Posted by: John McDonald on June 17, 2006 01:54 PMThe party platform doesn't mean anything. Party platforms are designed for political insiders to fight over and make them feel like they are "part of the process". Most candidates try to pretend the platforms don't exist.
What matters in 2006 is what Republicans who control the house, senate, and presidency have done, not what they say they are going to do. In 2006, election night is going to be like a Super Bowl party as I watch my party return to its values of limited government, competence, strong defense, and positive citizenship through the process of massive electorial loss.
Posted by: John McDonald on June 17, 2006 02:29 PM1. If the moonbats hate living in the U.S. so much because they believe the nation and/or government is evil, why do they stay? This isn't a Communist state that fences its people in. If it's so intolerable to be here for the leftists, why don't they make a go of it in another country?
2. How exactly will handing control of Congress to the Democrats benefit the GOP and the country?
I've heard people say that it gives the nation the opportunity to see how befeft of ideas and ability the Dems are, but can we take that chance at this time? Can we take the chance, given that the Dems will try to cut and run in Iraq, that Pelosi and her like-minded liberal nuts will be trying to raise taxes and expand the government at every turn, and that an impeachment try would be all but certain? How will the nation benefit? How will the GOP benefit?
Sounds like using John's logic would be the same as cutting off one's nose to spite our face. Sure, the face is punished, but it is scarred for a long time.
Posted by: MES on June 17, 2006 03:11 PMI understand your cliches, but the facts don't match your cliches.
Number of entitlement programs started under Clinton = 0. Under Bush = 1.
Balanced Budget Clinton = Yes, Bush = worst since LBJ, despite the biggest real estate boom since just post-WWII.
Yes, things could get better under the Democrats, if the remaining Republicans believe in fiscal restraint. The current crop of Republicans including Dave Reichert have proved they are not worthy of being a majority party.
Reagan never had the majority Bush enjoys and yet passed a significant amount of conservative legislation. Real leaders don't whine about unstoppable majorities.
Posted by: John McDonald on June 17, 2006 03:27 PMnot true. Clinton created plenty of phony government jobs just to keep his unemployment numbers down and Bush scraped those jobs when he gained office.
And as for the Defecit, The latest numbers show that because of President Bush and the Republicans tax cuts that the defecit will be cut in half alot sooner than thought.
You forgot to mention that Clinton was riding high during the beginning of the .com erra and that his tax increases caused the decline of the economy in the late 90's.
You also forgot to mention that Clinton's gutting of the Military has made it so we have had to rebuild our strength to protect our Great Nation from this newest threat.
You may also want to mention that your hero Clinton and his Democrat party put on hold military pay raises and when they did givce them they were far below the rate of inflation. Not to mention that it is always democrats talking about military cuts(which Cinton loved to do)which really meant lets take away or reduce the benefits to troops.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on June 17, 2006 04:23 PMHow about you name ONE entitlement program Clinton created. -- i assume you would have already if he had, yet you are the big expert and just say I've told a lie. Bush created the perscription drug program at a cost of $300 to 400B over ten years.
If the reality is bad, just make a forecast for sunny days ahead ... LOL.
Clinton cut military spending most was bipartisan via the base closing comission. Bush Sr. started the cuts in , Bush Jr. was continuing the cuts prior to 9/11. Any president would have increased the budget and GWB has only increased it modestly from 3.0% GDP to 3.7% vs. ~6% under Reagan. Bush Sr. 5.8% to 4.8%. Clinton 1 4.8% to 3.5%, Clinton 2 3.5% to 3.0%
Anyways, with Domestic spending increasing at a far faster rate than military spending it is hard to claim that the military has taken a big priority in budgeting.
Obvious Moonbat Trolls.
Pretend they are Republican Trolls.
Your trolling is really rather pathetic. Please tell Dwight Pelz he is an idiot and didn't bother to inform you, his troll, before he sent you out to try to sow discontent.
How about you name ONE entitlement program Clinton created.
from: http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/10/clinton.college/index.html
Clinton unveils new programs to help college students, parents
August 10, 2000
Web posted at: 3:09 PM EDT (1909 GMT)
CHICAGO (CNN) -- Returning to one of his favorite themes -- education -- President Clinton on Thursday unveiled two new programs to make it easier for students to repay their loans and called on Congress to pass his plan for college tuition tax breaks.
"If we value opportunity for all as we say we do here in America, we have to provide all Americans access to opportunity, and that means access to college," Clinton said during at appearance at DePaul University.
Clinton said that starting Thursday, the federal direct student loan program would reduce interest rates for students who repay their loans on time.
"This could save more than 2 million students and their parents $150 through an interest rebate on new loans and $500 on refinancing existing loans," the president said.
Clinton also announced a new loan forgiveness program for teachers who work in the nation's "most hard-pressed communities," a change that he said is worth up to $5,000 for new teachers who stay in the classroom for at least five years.
"They would be paying it back by teaching our kids," Clinton said.
The president also pressed Congress to pass his previously announced plan for a $36 billion "college opportunity" tax cut. The plan would allow parents to deduct up to $10,000 in college costs from their income taxes.
Once again JOHN, you have been outed. Please report back to DNC Central for more programming...beep...for more programming...beep...for more programming....
Please tell us all about the Democrat plan will ya?
Posted by: pbj on June 17, 2006 07:51 PMCheck out the document linked. It gives the History of the Student Load Program. I had no idea if you were right or wrong when I looked it up. As you can see the program was basically flat under Clinton and has exploded under BUSH. LOL, Honestly I had no idea, but you brought it up. Please remember Clinton did PROPOSE all types of entitlements, however none that I'm aware of actually passed as Republicans amazingly did what they were sent to Washington to do. Perhaps being out of power is they best thing for them and they are at their most effective.
Posted by: John McDonald on June 17, 2006 07:59 PMI am STILL waiting for the Democrat plan.
Posted by: pbj on June 17, 2006 08:33 PMWithout skipping a beat, he replied, "Medina."
It was worth getting rained on on the walk back to work.
Posted by: Organization Man on June 17, 2006 08:35 PMIn fact, whenever I pass by one of these perpetual anti-war protests, it always seems to be the same old Green Party and Socialist Worker Party crowd.
Now, the last time I checked, the Sound Politics crew was all giddy over a Green Party candidate running against Maria Cantwell. In 2004, you even saw conservative groups helping fund Ralph Nader's doomed efforts. In 2001, Pam Roach helped the Greens field a candidate to run against her opponent.
Now, we are to believe these lovable Greens are now bad, because you're trying to pretend they are actually Democrats?
If you are trying to insinuate that the far left and the mainstream Democratic Party are the same thing (despite the fact the far left hates the Dems more than they hate the Republicans), that's a neat game to play.
But, it doesn't work very well for those of us who have as many problems with the people pictured at the Medina protest, as we do with your failed rightist ideology and policies.
Enough with the "selective" zoom-in photography propaganda. If your intrepid photographer actually interviewed some of these lefties, you would find they have worse things to say about the Democrats and "sell-out" liberals than they do about Bush.
Posted by: Benjamin on June 17, 2006 08:39 PMI loathe Bush's plan to secure the borders - he is a sellout and is promoting amnesty for illegals which will have a profound effect on our economy, culture. Anyones stand on that issue will influence my vote in November more than any other issue.
Posted by: KS on June 17, 2006 09:17 PMA great counter-demonstration would be to get placards of those Time magazine covers of Hitler, Saddam and Zarqawi with the big red X across their faces. You could also get pictures of bin Laden and Ahmadineajhad with a dotted outline of an X. This would drive the moonbats nuts.
Posted by: Bill K. on June 17, 2006 10:05 PMThe looney left run the Democrat party. Who is your chairman again? I am glad I left that party.
Did you know your party chairman Howard Dean doesn't know if Bin Laden is responsible for 911?
Did you know he also said that we did not need the best military in the world?
Posted by: pbj on June 17, 2006 11:07 PMWhen liberals select talking points to make things look bad, they should try to understand the nature of their own lies. The “debt” will not figure in this up-coming election, but Rats like John pin their hopes on it because they are too dense and emotionally unstable to cope with reality.
Hate never sells in elections and most voters -- both liberal and conservative -- know this election is about irrational hate for Bush and silly manufactures of fault versus our committment to do the right thing in Iraq. I am happy they hate Bush and concentrate on it like John does because it disables them from doing anything substantive to discover their own interests let alone promote them.
Anyone who has ever read American history knows that the problems Bush is experiencing have occurred before with other very successful Presidents. There were scurrilous lying maggots like John McDonald that murdered Lincoln for exactly the same reasons John spouts his hateful lies.
Party platforms define party objectives. This is a real toughie for John because he has been alternatley sniffing dirty underwear and eucalyptus vapors with Patty Murray. Political insiders in the Democrat Party fight because they are angry and frustrated that they have no ideas except to hate GW Bush like John McDonald does. No matter the wins or losses this year, this tactic of Bush hate emulating a strategy will not work for the Democrat Party. GW isn't bothering with it, and neither are most of the American people.
What matters in 2006 is what Republicans who control the House and Senate, have done in regards to Iraq and the fact that they are doing exactly what they said they were going to do. Patty Murray still applauds Usama Bin Laden (but they keep her in a room somewhere), Ted Kennedy exhibits his usual brilliance along with Howie Dean, Nancy (deer in the headlights) Pelosi, tricky Dick Turban, and (lets all repeat the same old stuff once again) Harry Reed.
John . . . are you Harry Reed?
Lies and mischaracterizations about entitlement programs, budgets, and the economy in general put out by liberals like Patty Murray and her supporter John McDonald ring false because more people per capita are working, they have more discretionary household funds than they did during the Clinton administration, and they largely understand that our energy problems can be placed directly at the feet of liberal Democrats. What matters is that we are doing exactly the right things in Iraq, and it is producing positive results. Popularity is fleeting, and rank stupidity humorous, but substance lasts; GW Bush will be hailed as a Great President and the naysayers will continue steamrolling him long after he is gone.
The pretense of a false comparison between Dave Reichardt campaigning as they all do with nominal claims about the nature of his credits is just pil pul yakkity yak – who cares? Only Democrats, afraid of the fact that Republicans' political bull$shit will out class liberals' bull$hit are trumpeting false causation and superficial nonsense. Liberals' limited government claims against others are the most absurd examples of hypocritical partisan situational ethics in existence.
GW Bush neither created the ”perscription [sic] drug program” nor the 2003 Prescription Drug Program, and the cost is not $300 to 400B over ten years. Many of us didn’t agree with this plan but Patty Murray and John McDonald would prefer to punish the House members and Senators who voted for it by voting for an entire socialist Health Care system. As John says, “If the reality is bad with Republicans in power, just make a forecast for sunny days ahead with the rats running things... LOL. Love the consistency.
John ignores the fact that Clinton drastically cut the military during the 90’s cavalierly ignoring threats against America, and yet he feeeeeels it wrong that GW Bush wisely increased the utilization of resources to the extent that was/is necessary to protect America.
Despite domestic spending claims and irrelevancies the military has taken a big priority in budgeting and they have used it in a way superior to any military in the history of the world. John like his mentor Patty Murray, looks at superficialities and draws conclusions based on simplistic hate and stupid nonsense.
Bill Clinton used administrative law to create huge mountains of regulations and un-funded mandates designed to oppress and regulate all of our citizens. Prescription drug costs skyrocketed because of some of the regulations imposed on the major drug companies because the Clinton’s were in favor of driving costs so high that seniors would need the government to purchase drugs they need. Ever heard of the Food & Drug administration or Hillary Care? John wants to say Bush is as bad as Hillary so why not give her some power? Wow . . . that's brilliant.
Patty Murray and John McDonald feeeeeeel that Republicans did what they were sent to do in Washington during the Clinton Administration because they were "out of power" even though the rest of us sane people know they had a majority.
We are witnessing some true genius here.
Have you ever been close to Patty Murray and looked into her eyes? The cheap doll like quality is enunciated by John McDonald here – humorously empty headed and nonsensical.
See www.bls.gov for unemployment rate.
The unemployment rate is very close to what was right around 9/11. And higher than Clinton's final two years. However, historically 4.6% is good and has only increased from ~3.9%/4.0% to 4.6% since Bush took over.
Posted by: John McDonald on June 18, 2006 03:08 PMThat's OK not~quite~a~liberal~john - what you lack in facts and common sense you more than make up for in volume....
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 18, 2006 06:08 PMSince John doesn't have the honesty to answer you I will.
Democratic Plan:
Higher taxes
More regulation
More entitlements
Liberal judges legislating from the bench
Quotas
Payoffs to third world despots
Increased capitulation to Islamofascism
More cum on blue dresses
1. Whoever is the next president will raise taxes (either on social security, medicare, or federal tax) unless the spending is restrained or inflation/devaluation of the dollar takes off like the Carter years.
2. More regulation - the Bush Adminstration has done a ton of regulation as well. It is hard to see any difference other than in talking points.
3. More entitlements - probably, just like the Bush Adminstration, at least we will have some Republican senators opposing it instead of supporting the entitlements.
4. Liberal Judges - yes, Democrats will do this. Bush's record on judges is good if you count the conservative backlash to get Alito on the court.
5. Quotas - maybe
6. Payoffs to the 3rd world - yes as Clinton did with Korea, and as Bush is now doing with HAMAS and Iran.
7. Capitulation to Mullahs - yes, but just the same as Bush is doing in Iran, Sudan, Mauritania, Pakistan, Kosovo, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan.
8. Sex - maybe.
Which illustrates my basic point is their is very little actual difference between Bush and Liberals - lots of differences in speeches, in protests, in platforms, etc. but in real things that happen -- not much. I think the only meaningful difference will be in Judge nominations and how often the race card is played, however that is a price I'd be willing to pay to have my party back.
Just one more note: When Harriet Meiers was nominated notice how L. Bush and L. Graham accused Conservatives of sexism. It showed once again that Bush is not beneath playing the race or sexism card, and that loyality is more important to him than competence.
Posted by: John McDonald on June 18, 2006 07:34 PMWrong. If it s a Democrat they will raise taxes. Bush has cut taxes. ANd we are not presidential election now are we? BTW, did you vote for Inslee aas you 1st Dist rep?
2. More regulation - the Bush Adminstration has done a ton of regulation as well. It is hard to see any difference other than in talking points.
I do not beleive this at all. In fact, the president has reduced regulation. Please list 5 specific bills where the president has increased regulation. This should be quite easy if it is as you claim.
3. More entitlements - probably, just like the Bush Adminstration, at least we will have some Republican senators opposing it instead of supporting the entitlements.
What entitlements? A prescription drug plan for seniors? You don't think that is worthwhile? You hate senior citizens JOHN?
4. Liberal Judges - yes, Democrats will do this. Bush's record on judges is good if you count the conservative backlash to get Alito on the court.
Only if Democrats get elected. The expect an expansion of the Kelo descision and an erosion of rights.
5. Quotas - maybe
BS! Give me two examples of such.
6. Payoffs to the 3rd world - yes as Clinton did with Korea, and as Bush is now doing with HAMAS and Iran.
Bush isn't paying off HAMAS. Yes, I agree we shouldn't be sending a red cent. Does Inslee oppose sending the money or support it? HINT: He supports it. And what have you been doing to oust Inslee?
7. Capitulation to Mullahs - yes, but just the same as Bush is doing in Iran, Sudan, Mauritania, Pakistan, Kosovo, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan.
How is he capitulating to them? In Iran he is currently persuing the diplomatic means. After all, you liberals constantly complained that he never did that with Iraq (which is a lie). You always have to persue the diplomatic means. He isn't the madman you liberals paint him to be.
8. Sex - maybe.
That one was over the top and illustrates the old scialist soviet principle of telling a big lie over and over. In fact, Republicans have never had a problem keeping it in their pants.
Oh, I am sorry. I misread that. You WANT them to havemore sex with interns and rape their subordinate. Well then JOHN (does anyone see the irony here with his name and this topic? he he), well if you are interested in turning the Oval office into the Oral Office and one big porn set, then the Democrats are your party.
And since your cover ry is that you are a disaffected conservative, what are we supposed to gather is your motive for you non-stop lying blather? Here is a note for Goldy, Dwight Pels or whatever other leftist sent you over here on such a poorly conceived cover story to "seed dissention in the enemy ranks". Any conservative who felt the way you claim to feel would simply post once his discontent and leave. You however fell into the knee-jerk liberal mode of defending Democrats. that is where you went wrong. That and you constant trolling, ready to respond in an instant in a negative manner.
So, JOHN I expect being a Democrat and a JOHN, you have some speical ladies to visit real soon. Because your liberal whoring here is about over.
Posted by: pbj on June 18, 2006 08:28 PM2. Regulation: Source Hertiage Foundation "In number of pages, the CFR makes the Federal Register look rather small, with the 2003 edition weighing in at 144,177 pages, divided into 50 titles or subject areas.30 While a little less than the record 145,099 pages in 2002, the 2003 total is about 2 percent more than when Bush took office in 2001. This rate of increase is actually greater than the rate during the Clinton presidency, when the page count increased about 7.5 percent over eight years, but about half the size of the increases during the first Bush Administration and--perhaps surprisingly--the Reagan Administration. The CFR exploded during the Carter Administration, increasing by 26 percent over four years."
3. Like any entitlement they all sound good at first ... communism sounds good ... to each from their ability to each according to their need. How can you argue with that? except to say that it makes people lazy and unappreciative of hard work and soon the whole society suffers. It also begs the question of why stop at prescription drugs, why not free cars, free TVs, free food (food is an absolute necessity). No I don't hate seniors, I do hate socialism though -- I hope you will learn the difference (hint it won't come from you little red Mao book you read).
4. OK, many liberals have a problem with Kelo too.
5. I don't think you understood what I meant by "maybe". In other words - it is possible that Democrats would try to support more quotas as they pander to minorities - I think that agrees with you, you seem to be slightly off your rocker in this last post and respond negatively even when I'm agreeing with you.
6. Read the news if you think Bush is not paying off HAMAS. The reports are they for all to see. $120M going to Palestine. HAMAS is the government of Palestine. I didn't vote for Inslee. I'm pissed at the guy I voted for, for sending money to HAMAS. George Bush promised to fight terrorism, that is why I voted for him. He has broken his promise just like his Dad did on taxes. Now it is payback time, I could not give a flying rip what the other minority party is for. I care about what my majority party is doing or not doing, which seems to be something you have a real hard time talking about in your red herring effort to turn me into a Democrat. I NOTE how you ignored my "Payoff" Iran comment -- real smooth, you dishonest Loser.
7. Iran is being bribed currently. It is called appeasement. Except I'm not a liberal and I'm pissed that Bush is not fighting the war on Terror and we keep losing countries and regions to the Islamist. Deny it if you wish - the facts are what matter not your fragile ego built on insane loyality to the Republican Party.
8. Whatever
It is almost like you folks have a psycological problem in how you respond -
one, personally insult the a critic (alphabet is a good example of this),
two, insist that they are democrat (almost everyone else),
three, rarely respond to any fact (True Soldier and Eric try),
four, constantly confuse a verbal position verses what someone actually does (all the true believing Republicans, because that is all they have to hold onto is words not Republican deeds).
2) Regulation: Never heard of the "Hertiage" foundation. You got a link to that or are you just speaking out of your liberal playbook again? And I asked you to specifically name 5 bills where Bush pushed for regulation. I am still waiting.
3) Entitlements. Maybe you want to push the old folks into the street, but the rest of us do not. Perhaps you belong over at HA where you can be more cut throat.
4) Liberals are the ones who enacted KELO. Look as the justices that voted for it, they are liberals.
5) ???
6) Bush isn't paying off Iran. He is trying diplomatic means. He hasn't given them anything. What is John's plan for Iran? Invead, nuke them? You liberal buddies would like that wouldn't they?
You know, if you don't like this blog, there are liberal blogs where I am sure they will all pat you on tha back for your public display of BDS.
Oh, John here is another tip you can give Goldy, Dwigth Pelz or MoveOn the next time they are trying to "sow dissent". A true conservative would actually get off his butt and take action to change the liberal representing him instead of incessent whining about the current occupant of the White House who isn't even up for election.
Clearly, even when under cover, trying to infiltrate conservative blogs, liberals absolutely cannot suppress their BDS. John's posts are just dripping with it.
Just waiting for him to finally implode, break his cover and start cussing me out with the impressive list of synonyms liberals have for fecal matter and copulation.
C'mon John. You know you want to.
Posted by: pbj on June 18, 2006 10:52 PMIf lower taxes always result in greater growth, why not eliminate all taxes and just rely on economic growth being higher than rate of increase in debt?
One of the many benefits of a tax based system is that it forces politicians to raise them to pay for new spending. People don't like taxes. When a politician can increase the debt for new spending people don't feel this impact for a period of time. Raising the debt ceiling is just the Republican way of raising taxes (via future inflation). Note how little mention of raising the debt ceiling there was in the press. Anyways, there is no free lunch when it comes to higher government spending people will always have to pay for it somehow, even if taxes are low.
2. http://www.heritage.org/ The Heritage Foundation is one of the most respected and famous conservative think tanks in the country and has been around for sometime. It publishes many good articles. It would be a good place for you to learn about being a real conservative, because I can see you aspire to be one. They are very fact based.
3. Entitlements are bad. I'd have preferred a competitive solution to high drug cost through faster FDA approval and legal protection when FDA approved.
4. The Liberal wing of the court did pass Kelo as you say. However, the Republicans have had very little to say about it and I don't see any proposal of a constitutional amendment to overturn it.
5. Bush is bribing Iran, you simply need to read the news. What word would you use for a "package of incentives that includes new nuclear technology"? I call that appeasement or bribery. If you call giving other countries technology, money, trade benefits "Diplomacy" in return for them not doing something - well okay - so long as we both agree what is actually happening. -- I would fund the rebel groups in their country for starters and bomb their nuclear facilities.
Posted by: John McDonald on June 19, 2006 07:45 AMYes, November will be a D. Trump "You're Fired" moment for the Republican Party. As a conservative, I'll worry about the replacement in the 2008 election cycle.
Posted by: John McDonald on June 19, 2006 08:27 AMJohn is a nut-job Patty Murray crony who intends to put a another clueless bitch into power who will lay waste to our state.
John's wordiness comes from the fact that he has others helping him write stupid lies and find liberal sources that support them. Whenever you look into the sources he proffers you will find they are just lies supporting more lies. John is supremely ignorant of the fact that piling $hit high does not make it into anything other than $hit.
John's desperation is palpable and humorous.
The only surprise in November will be for people like John. They will suddenly go quiet when they realize that hateful mendacity only persuades emotionally and mentally unstable people like them.
A vote against Reichardt = another Patty Murray John McDonald style nitwit in office to contribute to the destruction of the Bush administration and our nation. It would be like taking a machine gun from a mature trained soldier and handing it to a retarded child . . .
. . . and John is spraying liberal bull$hit away with blissful abandon.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on June 19, 2006 10:52 AM
I have a nickname for people in the pic's that are posted here.
"on the way home from Woodstock"
These people never left until now.......
Posted by: Chris on June 19, 2006 11:58 AMThe guy dressed in camo, holding the flag: don't be too hard on him. I wouldn't be surprised if he was medicated; holding his flagpole like it's a baseball bat, wearing an umpire's cap. Probably thinks he's on deck at Safeco, and the guy with the megaphone is Dave Neihaus.
Posted by: Organization Man on June 19, 2006 07:06 PM
I never used those words John. I simply stated that the President is currently following the diplomatic path at the moment. If he were to invade or bomb, you and your liberals would then shout he was a warmonger, imperialist etc.
Your act is boorish and everyone sees through it. Your quasi Marxist rhetoric gives you away comrade. But you go ahead and try to defeat Reichert, despit the fact he isn't even in your district. Because we all know a "true " conservative would do just that.
Folks,
John is no conservative. Go back an review the 2004 election in which Democrats were printing ad about how a "true conservative" would vote for John Kerry. Try not to fall off you chair as you are laughing you behinds off.
Jay Inslee has already introduced legislation to hinder our ability to monitor terrorists on our own soil. Inslee will be out. He is a traitor and a terrorist sympathiser.
Why are Democrats hell bent on gutting our ability to protect the American people?
Yours is a very pathetic defense of the President on the issue of Iran. Reading your post the only thing I get out of it is that we agree that "Dipolmacy" means bribery. The Republicans are in power and therefore they need to lead by setting what is the best path and defending it, not whining and saying that they are doing Diplomatic bribery because they don't want to be criticized. So in other words, PBJ is claiming that Bush is setting Iranian foriegn policy based on potential criticizism from Democrats ... LOL way to go PBJ.
Posted by: John McDonald on June 20, 2006 08:21 AM1. Bush overstates the arrest record of the patriot act by 10x according to the Washington Post.
2. We have lost the country of Mauritania
3. We have lost the country of Somalia and made peace with the Islamic terrorists in Sudan.
4. We defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan, but then allowed the installation of Sharia Law. Please remember, it is on the basis of Sharia Law (which calls for Jihad) that Osama and others fight. This war is also a battle of ideas, we defeat them on the battlefield only to set up their schools and institutions which teach the very system we are fighting.
5. We have made "holding hands and kissing" friends Saudi Arabia who continues to fund terrorist groups and persecute Christians.
6. We lost the Palestanian territory as they went from being run by a secular terrorist organization to a Islamic based terrorist organization. --- and we supported both terrorist organizations with money.
7. We've done nothing to stem the tide of ethnic cleansing against Christians in Nigeria, Pakistan, Indonesia, Kosovo, Sudan, and Iran and the explusions and massacures have only increased since 9/11.
8. We are actively trying to bribe Iran in the same manner of Clinton's failed bribe to North Korea.
9. Turkey has elected an Islamic Government only held in check by their military.
10. Done nothing against HAMAS, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah since 9/11.
11. Most 9/11 planners walk free in Europe.
12. Major terrorist attacks have occured in Madrid, London, Russia, and in fact overall terrorism has increased since 9/11.
13. Osama and Mullah Omar remain free.
14. And while supporters of President Bush like to point out that no terrorist attack has occured in the US since 9/11. There was ~8 years from WTC I and WTC II with no "War on Terror" protection.
15. And Bush managed to SAVE the Bin Laden family from harsh treatment at the hands of common Americans, by making them his top priority post-9/11. A nice little view of what Bush thinks of the common American.
16. Shutdown exactly 0 madrasses.
17. And can't even stop the Saudi's from holding public fundraising campaigns to support suicide terrorist families
This War on Terror has a much better PR engine then anything else. 99% of "victories and arrests" are just PR crap. Note: the recent resignation of Peter Goss, a real Republican reformer, now ex-Bush supporter.
Posted by: John McDonald on June 20, 2006 08:44 AMJohn, please tell us what you would do? Nuke Iran? Please tell us ALL what should be done? Or are you just another liberal John Kerry-esque troll who can only complain but offer no solutions?
Apparently you do not understand that we live in a Democracy. Bush is not king. Republicans barely have a majority and 7 of those collaborate with the enemy (the "gang of 14"). So in effect, unless you are advocating Bush break the law, he is doing exactly what he should be doing at this point.
Now John. Please tell us all what should happen to Iran??
We are awiting JOHN.
Everyone knows the old saying that if you love something you should let it go, and if it comes back to you it's yours. John, as a liberal, likely never had much sanity, and the prospect of any coming his way in this lifetime is rather unlikely. He’d like everyone to believe that he is a benighted Republican hero trashing Republicans so he can save the Republican Party. John is no Republican and no conservative of any kind. The last thing he hopes for is that “conservative Republicanism” will return to him anew and chaste.
His narcissistic play-act of mock humility and earnestness poses an entertaining diversionary tactic, but the role of a nominally disgruntled conservative is preposterous. Spiteful stupidity in substitution for reason is an exclusively liberal model of emotional instability inimical to conservatism even in unbalanced extremes. Mentally warped liberals masquerade nonsense as intellectual prowess because for them, it feeeeels good to vent their frustration at being completely incapable of coping with reality and solving problems. In essence, they are unaware that they are delusional because they share a common emotionally warped orientation with other liberals. John’s reliance on superficial emotional appeals and nonsense shows that he has never been anything but a liberal.
Like other liberal nitwits, John does us a big favor. He shows us how desperate liberals are to be in power, and the extent to which they will go to convince others of his silly lame foolishness. His act started reasonably enough, but now after his numerous panicked demonstrations of rank inanity, who can be fooled by him?
John won’t respond to me any longer because I expose him for the liar and scoundrel he is. His shtick is to tell a string of hateful lies and then accuse me of hate. I have contempt for John but I don't hate him. He is too insignificant for me to waste the energy it might take to hate him.
However, I am amused by his tediously growing instability and pathetic histrionics, and he never disappoints me.
So let's review the war on terror again.
"1. Bush overstates the arrest record of the patriot act by 10x according to the Washington Post."
The Washington Post? That liberal rag?
Once again you throw out statements with no evidence to back it up. In true liberal fashion.
"2. We have lost the country of Mauritania"
Yes, that is such a strategic lynchpin. And John, you never told us what your plan was? Surely the liberals have a plan? John Kerry said so
"3. We have lost the country of Somalia and made peace with the Islamic terrorists in Sudan."
Still waiting for your plan on Somalia John? Last plan the liberals had for Somalia was to send out troops over their unarmed and not allow them to shoot back. Then they were to get killed and have the limp naked bodies drub like a dead horse through the streets of Somalia. Is that you plan this time John?
"4. We defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan, but then allowed the installation of Sharia Law. Please remember, it is on the basis of Sharia Law (which calls for Jihad) that Osama and others fight. This war is also a battle of ideas, we defeat them on the battlefield only to set up their schools and institutions which teach the very system we are fighting."
BS John. When you offer people a choice of the government they want, you cannot complain about their choice. Afghanistan is no longer a terrorist training ground for attack against the west. Mission accomplished.
"5. We have made "holding hands and kissing" friends Saudi Arabia who continues to fund terrorist groups and persecute Christians."
What do you want us to do John? Nuke them all? What is YOUR plan John?
"6. We lost the Palestanian territory as they went from being run by a secular terrorist organization to a Islamic based terrorist organization. --- and we supported both terrorist organizations with money."
Under Clinton we did, no doubt there. And now what is John's plan?
"7. We've done nothing to stem the tide of ethnic cleansing against Christians in Nigeria, Pakistan, Indonesia, Kosovo, Sudan, and Iran and the explusions and massacures have only increased since 9/11."
This isn't the crusades John. And spreading Christianity was never a part of the WOT. But enlighten us John, please tell us your plan to stop all those things?
"8. We are actively trying to bribe Iran in the same manner of Clinton's failed bribe to North Korea."
No we aren't John. We are engaged in diplomacy while we get our assets in place. But go ahead and tell us wht President John would do?
"9. Turkey has elected an Islamic Government only held in check by their military."
Note the key word is "elected". We could be communist tomorrow if all the people "elected" to
do so.
But please tell us how you would control Turkey;s elections John? After that you can tell us how you would do the same in Pakistan, Indonesia, Nigeria, Kosovo, Sudan and Iran.
"10. Done nothing against HAMAS, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah since 9/11."
BS John. You have never heard of all the busts of the front groups posing as charitable organizations that were really collecting money for terorrists?
Even liberals stopped peddling that lie long ago John. Your liberal talking point list is outdated.
Islamic charity, director charged
Perjury counts: Federal grand jury accuses both of lying about ties to terrorism
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/focus/terrorism/archives/0502/e01attacks.html
U.S. deports Saudi director of Virginia Muslim charity
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20051212-110500-7469r.htm
11. Most 9/11 planners walk free in Europe.
No John, most of them walk with satan and their 71 make virgins
12. Major terrorist attacks have occured in Madrid, London, Russia, and in fact overall terrorism has increased since 9/11.
No more attacks on US soil JOHN. No African Embassies blown up, no USS cole blown up, no planes flying into skyscrapers.
If Europeans had nearly the same level of vigilence as America, they too might avoid attacks. And George Bush isn't king of the world. He is only charged with keeping America safe. If Spain gives in to terrorists it gets what it deserves.
13. Osama and Mullah Omar remain free.
Now that is the same old liberal talking point that you libs have been using since day one. But you are disingenuous when you make that charge. You all said the same thing about Saddam and Zarcawi, but as soon as we got them you all cried tears of sorrow. Why should we even bother getting Osama and Mullah Omar? The ACLU will just be there wth their lawyers to set them free for Democrats while terorrists behead Americans and liberals cheer.
14. And while supporters of President Bush like to point out that no terrorist attack has occured in the US since 9/11. There was ~8 years from WTC I and WTC II with no "War on Terror" protection.
And during that "No war on terror" we got :
Two African Embassies blown up, Khobar Towers blown up, Dead nake US pilots bodies dragged throught streets of Somalia, USS Cole blown up, US Military shrunken down to less than the military of lichtenstein, our military secrets transferred to China, command or our military handed over to the United Nations.
15. And Bush managed to SAVE the Bin Laden family from harsh treatment at the hands of common Americans, by making them his top priority post-9/11. A nice little view of what Bush thinks of the common American.
No, that is not true John, despite what Michael Moore says
16. Shutdown exactly 0 madrasses.
There are a few in Afghanistan and Iraq that are in rubble. How many did Clinton ever shut down John>> Please tell us YOUR plan to shut them down.
17. And can't even stop the Saudi's from holding public fundraising campaigns to support suicide terrorist families
You are confused John. That was Bill Clinton. He allowed Saddam to pay $25K to the families of suicide bombers and you liberals chastised Bush when he stopped Saddam. Which is it you liberals want, to stop it or allow it? Please make up your minds.
This War on Terror has a much better PR engine then anything else. 99% of "victories and arrests" are just PR crap. Note: the recent resignation of Peter Goss, a real Republican reformer, now ex-Bush supporter.
No John, the war on terror has been a phenomonal success. Zarcawi is dead, Iraq and Afghanistan are free, the Cedar revolution was inspired by the elections you liberals said could never ever happen in Iraq and now the Syrian Army is out of Lebanon - something you liberals wouldn't even touch. Liyba gave up its nuclear program without firing a shot after seeing the writing on the wall of Afghanistan and Iraq.
And finally, no attacks on US soil since 911. Never before has there been such a lull in terorrist attack on this country.
I know it is even more of a success now because the frequency of your cut and paste mocking points has increased. You knowm if you keep trolling those liberal blogs, you are gonna get a disease.
Note: The character of John is to be played by Barney Fife.
JOHN: "Master, I have posted your talking points within the ranks of the conservative blogs hoping to stir up discontent amongst the masses of neocons. However, they keep on refuting the points with facts and I don't know what to do. With each propagand list I post, they become even more defiant."
EVIL: "Have your tried to argue back with them pointing out the utter futility of freedom and justice?"
JOHN: "I have master. But every time I make a point, they point out that it is unsupported by any facts and proceed to post links to real facts that prove I am wrong. It makes me feeeeeeel baaad. Sob."
EVIL: "Repeat the lies over and over oh young evil apprentice. With many repetitions, they should succumb to the dark side."
JOHN: "How long will it take master? I have posted the same lie in conversational and list form. Their resistance to falsehoods doesn't appear to be weakening."
EVIL: "Oh $H*T! Uh, ok ok. I am thinking. Let me think. Oh! Yeah, I got it. We will use our plan B."
JOHN: "Ooooooh plan B! Master! You are such an evil genius. No one else would EVER have thought about plan B."
[Short Silience]
JOHN: [Clears throat] [Fidgets for a bit] "Yup, plan B. I gotta hand it to you evil one. What a plan. El plan-o Bee- Oh. Quite - A - Plan. None better... [in decresing intensity ] none better...yup...sure is the best that plan B."
[long silence]
EVIL: "You don't know what plan B IS do you?"
JOHN: [sheepishly] "Ahem...uh not really."
EVIL: "DAMN YOU! Moron. How many times do I have to remind you! I told you the rhyme, get it in your mind. Ready?"
JOHN: "Check-A-Roono your evilness. Let' er rip. My mind is a sponge, and open page. Yessiree sir evil master sir. I am ready to learn the rhyme. Eager willing and ready to lear.."
EVIL: [interrupts and barks] "Pay attention!"
JOHN: [sheepishly while looking at the ground and fidgeting] "Yes sir."
EVIL: "If it looks like defeat, then plan B is to cheat. Repeat it."
JOHNN: "If it looks like my feet then planning retreat."
EVIL: [angry tone] "No you idiot! If it looks like defeat, then plan B is to cheat."
JOHN: "If it looks like defeat, then plan B is to cheat."
EVIL: "If you must cheat, Ron Simms you should meet."
JOHN: "If you beat your feat ransom your meat."
EVIL: [Emphasizing] "If you must cheat, Ron Simms you should meet."
JOHN: "If you must cheat, Ron Simms you should meet."
EVIL: "To really be mean, send ballots to Dean."
JOHN: "To really be mean, send ballots to Dean."
EVIL: "We'll know we're ahead when we count the dead."
JOHN: "We'll know we're ahead when we count the dead."
EVIL: "We'll be careless and crass and our taxation shall pass."
JOHN: "How long is this thing? I can't remeber all this? Got a shorter version of it?
EVIL: [frustrated] "I have got to get better evil henchmen. Damn that 710 KIRO for hiring Goldstein away from me. He was such a convincing liar too. I still cannot believe they hired him. That Pee Wee Herman voice is really annoying."
JOHN: "Ahem"
EVIL: "OK. Here is a short version."
JOHN: "Give it to me."
EVIL: "To steal the election and make sure that your win, grab all the ballots and give them to Simms. If at the polling place they do wail, then force them all to start voting by mail. Count illegals and felons and dead people too, do all things illegal to keep the state blue. "
JOHN: "The meal of selection for vigor and vim, is to eat forty shallots to stay fit and stay trim. If they pull on your face and knock over the pail, then vomit the shallots and munch on some kale. Eat berries and melons and cod liver too, and soon all your dreams will start to come true."
EVIL: "Oy vay! Never mind. Go over to Goldstein's blog and copy his latest talking points. But be sure to remove the profanity. Repeat often. Now get out of here before I turn you into a Robert Riech!"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/11/AR2005061100381.html
2. The Bush Doctrine is a worldwide war on terror. Where ever there are terror groups with an international reach the US will fight them militarily and/or financially. Unlike previous wars were certain regions were strategic, our enemy only needs a home base no matter how worthless - case in point Afghanistan. Is Mauritania strategic in the classical sense - no, is it strategic for a terror group - yes. Islamic fundamentalist took over the country, freed Al Queda members from prison and supports them now. What has Bush done, nothing. I think he should do what he says and support a CIA led coup or invade them and set up a secular government.
3. PBJ, please study post-war Japan. If our guys die to win the freedom of a people, we have a say in the type of government they set up. Allowing a backwards people to "elect" themselves back into a dictatorship of the Islamic clergy is not Democracy or why America fights. We should have insisted on a secular constitution akin to Turkey's constitution.
4. Somalia should be treated in the same manner as Mauritania, support a coup or invade them and set up a secular government. The last time under Clinton was terrible by denying armor to our guys.
5. There are a many things I think we should do with the Saudis. Primary is allowing the 9/11 lawsuits to go forward by stripping immunity from the royal family and Saudi government institutions that have openly supported terror. The Bush Adminstration first tried to block the lawsuits, but then a Clinton-era Judge threw them out due to immunity in Jan '05.
6. With the Palestinians, I would stop giving them aid for starters. The Bush Adminstration just gave $120M. 50% of the economy of Palestine is international aid. When they have gone 12 months with 0 terror, then start to help out. But paying the family bills of active terrorists is something so stupid, I would not even accuse alphabet soup of supporting.
7. Christians and the WOT. The Christians groups and regions I mentioned are victims of Islamic Terrorism. They did not choose to be targetted by the Islamic Fundamentalist and as such they need our military and financial support, because they can be our allies and help kill terrorists. When 700 Christians are slaughtered in Jos, Nigeria because a women crosses the street in front of a mosque during prayers uncovered -- putting some guns in the hands of those Christians seems very reasonable to me.
8. Source: On bribing Iran -- just read the article and make up your own mind - I call it a Clinton era North Korea style bribe. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13165152/
9. Turkey and their recent Islamic government. The Bush adminstration needs to do a much better job of pointing out the evils of Islamic Fundamentalism both the US, Europe, and the Middle East. We have to fight the battle of ideas. We are presented so many golden opportunities to talk about liberty, true democracy, the rights of women, freedom of the press as we did in the fight against communism -- however this White House has yet to learn english let alone articulate logic. So far the Mullahs are winning the idea war as evidence by elections in Turkey.
The Bush Adminstration made some progress after 9/11 on closing down terrorist funding groups like the Holyland Foundation. However, organization with strong terror connections continue to operate in the US ... CARE for example (many congressmen attend CARE events). Many of the Muslim Student Associations at various universities still hold fundraisers to support the families of terrorists, but so does our government so who am I to complain. It is interesting to note that Jihad supporters at Ohio State University (they published the english version of Osama's declaration of war against the US prior to 9/11) complimented the University of Washington MSA for having many like minded members. The USC MSA had Taliban supporting web pages until the middle of 2005 when they finally took them down.
As far as the Bush Adminstration killing a single HAMAS, Islamic Jihad, or Hezbollah member ... I can't think of any.
11.
a. Abdelghani Mzoudi (9/11 Hamburg Cell) ... freed in Germany.
b. Mounir El Motassadeq (9/11 Hamburg Cell, convicted, but then freed on appeal in Feb '06) c. Imad Yarkas, (9/11 planner) freed by Spain
d. Driss Chebli, (9/11 planner) freed by Spain
e. Sadik Merizak, (9/11 planner) freed by Spain
f. Abdelaziz Benyaich, (9/11 planner) freed by Spain.
Sources: http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2006/06/02/spain_court_overturns_conviction_of_911_suspect/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-09-26-sept11-spain_x.htm?csp=36
Keep in mind that the one conviction here was thrown out as well earlier this month.
It is harder to find a 9/11 planner in jail, let alone dead ... then walking free in Europe or North Africa. 8 Spainish 9/11 planners are under indicitment let's see what happens over the next months.
Posted by: John McDonald on June 21, 2006 06:50 AMhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/11/AR2005061100381.html
Well, once again you are caught in a lie. I urge everyone here to go to the link you provided. Here is what the headline reads:
U.S. Campaign Produces Few Convictions on Terrorism Charges
Statistics Often Count Lesser Crimes
So, simply put, what this means is that we got the bad guys on some smal charge. And you know what? I could care less if they get them out of the country for spitting on the sidewalk.
And the supposed "analysis provided confuses confivctions and charges."
Here is a classic statement "Among all the people charged as a result of terrorism probes in the three years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, The Post found no demonstrated connection to terrorism or terrorist groups for 180 of them."
Well, if I look for a smart liberal and cannot find one, does that mean there are no smart liberals?
Nice try at the liberal tactic of lying JOHN. But like Barney Fife, you just aren't very clever.
2. The Bush Doctrine is a worldwide war on terror. Where ever there are terror groups with an international reach the US will fight them militarily and/or financially. Unlike previous wars were certain regions were strategic, our enemy only needs a home base no matter how worthless - case in point Afghanistan. Is Mauritania strategic in the classical sense - no, is it strategic for a terror group - yes. Islamic fundamentalist took over the country, freed Al Queda members from prison and supports them now. What has Bush done, nothing. I think he should do what he says and support a CIA led coup or invade them and set up a secular government.
And of course JOHN you are fully breifed each and every day about all our covert operations around the world, right? Oh and we are STILL waiting for YOUR solution JOHN
3. PBJ, please study post-war Japan. If our guys die to win the freedom of a people, we have a say in the type of government they set up. Allowing a backwards people to "elect" themselves back into a dictatorship of the Islamic clergy is not Democracy or why America fights. We should have insisted on a secular constitution akin to Turkey's constitution.
You are simply wrong. It is not true Democracy if we impose our brand of it one them. Your criticisms ring hollow.
4. Somalia should be treated in the same manner as Mauritania, support a coup or invade them and set up a secular government. The last time under Clinton was terrible by denying armor to our guys.
And of course at your daily intelligence breifing you were told that no government actiona t all is being taken. Because if our covert action isn't reported in the liberal time, it doesn't exist. Right JOHN?
5. There are a many things I think we should do with the Saudis. Primary is allowing the 9/11 lawsuits to go forward by stripping immunity from the royal family and Saudi government institutions that have openly supported terror. The Bush Adminstration first tried to block the lawsuits, but then a Clinton-era Judge threw them out due to immunity in Jan '05.
So it is Bush's fault that a judge appointed by CLinton threw out the lawsuits? Yup, liberal logic at its finest here folks. Hey, JOhn. Perhaps if you stopped voting in liberals like CLinton that appoint such judges, you won't have anything to complain about.
6. With the Palestinians, I would stop giving them aid for starters. The Bush Adminstration just gave $120M. 50% of the economy of Palestine is international aid. When they have gone 12 months with 0 terror, then start to help out. But paying the family bills of active terrorists is something so stupid, I would not even accuse alphabet soup of supporting.
From what I understand, that money is supposed to go straight to the people and not through the PA government organizations. It is a far cry from the billions that Clinton gave them and hardly a reason to return to the liberal days of even more money for them, as you advocate.
7. Christians and the WOT. The Christians groups and regions I mentioned are victims of Islamic Terrorism. They did not choose to be targetted by the Islamic Fundamentalist and as such they need our military and financial support, because they can be our allies and help kill terrorists. When 700 Christians are slaughtered in Jos, Nigeria because a women crosses the street in front of a mosque during prayers uncovered -- putting some guns in the hands of those Christians seems very reasonable to me.
And just how do you know we aren't working to do just that? What did the Democrats do to help them?
8. Source: On bribing Iran -- just read the article and make up your own mind - I call it a Clinton era North Korea style bribe. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13165152/
I think that sounds like bad deal. It could be a bluff, knowing that Iran will never accept. And fundamentally, unless we are prepared to invade every country in the world or nuke them, how else will we stop them from getting nuclear weapons. What is YOUR plan JOHN?
9. Turkey and their recent Islamic government. The Bush adminstration needs to do a much better job of pointing out the evils of Islamic Fundamentalism both the US, Europe, and the Middle East. We have to fight the battle of ideas. We are presented so many golden opportunities to talk about liberty, true democracy, the rights of women, freedom of the press as we did in the fight against communism -- however this White House has yet to learn english let alone articulate logic. So far the Mullahs are winning the idea war as evidence by elections in Turkey.
Really John, I don't the voters of Turkey base their election choices on what the president says any more than I base my choice on what the President of France says. Ultimately Turkey's course will be more swayed by European requirements for membership in the EU than anything the US can do. And terorrists do not run Turkey.
Good arguments but John doesn’t care. Dealing with reality is not his thing.
Good production values.
John repeats over and over in an obdurate dim-witted way that he is desperate, clueless, shameless, and liberal to the bone.
His prideful obtuse blindness perfectly segues to your script. John and the evil one played by Mike Myers are on a fools errand to a place that does not exist and we have ring-side seats. John feeeeels that he lost his mojo around the time he signed up with Patty Murray, but in reality he never had any because he is merely the conjured haze of liberal fat bastard (a sphincter of sorts). He must rant continuously and prolifically because if he stops spewing inanities, he will be returned to corpulent vapors of podgy flatulence.
More evidence that having reason and decency on our side, and a great president with backbone and integrity, we are winning!! Bush is everything that decent people care about and that is why John hates him, however
. . . in the real scheme of things . . . John is but a fart in the wind.
Cheers.
and he believes that I care what he feeeels about me (snerk).
Nevertheless, Bush is everything that decent people care about in a President and that is why John hates him so much.
Alas . . . in the real scheme of things . . . John is just a stinky liberal fart in the wind.
Cheers.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 22, 2006 02:09 PM