August 22, 2006
Darcy Burner untethered on TV

A big thanks to David Owngoalstein for posting this video of a hysterical Darcy Burner ranting and raving in front of the DNC Fall Meeting last weekend.

The video gives the impression of a woman who is passionate, but more than a little out of touch with reality.

We are under attack by forces outside of this country -- terrorists who are focused entirely on killing Americans and destroying this country. And we are under attack from the inside, by an administration and a majority in Congress that would destroy the things the American people have fought for and won over the last 250 years.
Although the Republicans in the White House and Congress may have weak approval for some of their policies at the moment, I don't think the intemperate message that "we are under attack" by Republicans in the same way that we are under attack by terrorists will appeal to very many of the independent voters in the district. I think the Reichert campaign would do well to remind the voters how unhinged and how far outside the mainstream Darcy Burner really is.

Other fascinating tidbits from the video --
Burner recites all of what the troops in Iraq have accomplished (including things that her anti-war base never wanted to accomplish in the first place, e.g. deposed Saddam, ensured there were no WMD in Iraq, helped the Iraqis form an elected constitutional government), but claims that: the troops are

sitting over there getting shot at because the Rpublican Congress and administration in Washington, DC cannot figure out what their plan is to give Iraq back to the Iraqis and get our troops home and that has got to stop.
That claim is debatable, but if Burner has a different plan to ensure a successful exit strategy in Iraq she hasn't said what it is.

Referring to her then newborn son, Burner asks: "How will I give this child the life I want him to have?"

Uh... go to law school and then run for Congress when he's still an infant so he can spend hardly any time with his mother?

Burner notes that the 9-11 Commission recommended "ensuring that first responders could talk to each other on their radios" but complains that:

we still, almost 5 years after September 11, have not fixed that problem because the bills are sitting in Congress while the majority party fails to act.
Uh... Congressman Reichert's bill on that very subject just passed the House of Representatives.

UPDATE: While I was writing this Eric was also posting about Burner, mentioning that her nutroots base was disappointed with her ad, wanting her to hid harder from the left. The DNC speech was written for the nutroots.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at August 22, 2006 10:57 AM | Email This
1. "...passionate, but more than a little out of touch with reality..."

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to today's Democratic Party.

Posted by: MES on August 22, 2006 11:15 AM
2. You might want to look at who supports her nomintion!! Another tendancy of the Dems as well.My friend found this out after reading her
pamlphet and was in for a shock!!

Posted by: Laurie on August 22, 2006 11:22 AM
3. Sorry, got bored when she talked about our past challenges and how we overcame them - the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the Industrial Revolution, The Depression....

Which one doesn't really belong?

Posted by: SouthernRoots on August 22, 2006 11:32 AM
4. Oops. Forgot to mention - look at around the :54 mark.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on August 22, 2006 11:34 AM
5. HA! HA! HA! HA! Hey, help me out here, who were we fighting during the industrial revolution? HA! HA! HA! Oh man, my stomach hurts!!

If this moron wins, we will be in baaaad shape.

Posted by: G Jiggy on August 22, 2006 11:42 AM
6. Wow. I thought we were the ones who were supposed to be fear mongerers. Looks like Darcy is trying to hone in on that issue.

Posted by: Reporterward on August 22, 2006 12:25 PM
7. I thought I was watching a 7th grader trying to give a position speech. Lots of emotion, light on actual substance.

Posted by: soundcrossing on August 22, 2006 12:30 PM
8. She waits until she gets four minutes into her speach before she begins talking about herself.
It's all about her brother, cousin, father, friend and what they've done.
Whoever her handlers are will have to work on that since the election is less than three months away and she still hasn't defined herself, who she is and what she believes.

Posted by: Reporterward on August 22, 2006 12:32 PM
9. An unqualified, over-matched candidate. In waaay over her head.

Riechert >=55 percent

Posted by: jimg on August 22, 2006 12:39 PM
10. Absolutely unreal. And surreal. Darcy Burner, actively equating the external danger of terrorists and their ideology of Violent Islam, with opposition from another political party in her own country. In Darcy's eyes, terrorism is equal to the GOP. She really believes that those of us who verbally disagree with a foreign policy of appeasment or a domestic policy of welfare and socialism are just as dangerous as people who are actively attacking American using force. In summary for Darcy, ideas equal physical force, when they are conservative ideas.

All Reichert has to is excerpt this speech in a couple commericals and Darcy will be finished. And yes, a big thanks to David Goldstein. David, you just helped spread the message far and wide. I'll hit your tip jar later this week.

Democrats just don't see anything wrong with this message. You have to admire their ability to evade reality without even the aid of drugs or hypnosis. Or maybe they are on drugs. David, how much do you drink at Drinking Liberally?

It will be fitting when Darcy's half baked effort at a run for congress is finished. This will go well with her half baked effort at law school, half baked effort as a community leader, etc.

Posted by: Jeff B. on August 22, 2006 01:01 PM
11. Good Gawd! who's her speech writer? An appalling demonstration and some of the worst public speaking I've seen in a long time. The only credible section of the speech was her stories about her family. Plenty of the Kerry model, "We have a plan." A good demonstration of an activist ranting about what the party wants and woefully short on what she is going to do about it.

The more I see of er... What's her name? The happier I am that Dave Reichert is the Congressional Reprsentative for the 8th District.

Posted by: Jamie Walker on August 22, 2006 01:02 PM
12. 250 Years?

Posted by: GOPolitics on August 22, 2006 01:11 PM
13. terrorists who want to kill us.

Yet she throws in with those who don't what to fight but to capitulate.

Posted by: JCM on August 22, 2006 01:17 PM
14. Also note who she is addressing here. In the first part of the speech she speaks as if she is addressing the general population and speaks to the audience as if they might be tempted to vote one way or the other. But the audience is the DNC. These are the leaders of the Democrat party, all marching in lockstep on a platform that Iraq is a Quagmire and that it's all George Bush's fault. Since so many other aspects of this administration are going objectively well, this is the only feeble line they've been able to dream up.

Does anyone really believe that the audience to whom Darcy is speaking is in any way representative of, or compromised of even a small percentage of her actual 8th CD constituents? Heck no. This was a little Dog and Pony show designed to appease and impress the Nutroots base. The message? Darcy's not soft, she's not practical, she's as mad as hell as the rest of them about WORST PRESIDENT EVER. By golly, she's got the Better Nutroots Golden Seal of Approval and Kos himself is simply fawning.

It's amazing that Darcy would make this move as a first time candidate, and not worry that this video would get out and be used against her. Whoever is running the Burner campaign should be fired ASAP.

But oh wait, who am I kidding, this is all a masterful plot fully orchestrated by the evil genius Karl Rove. Yeah, yeah, that's it.

Posted by: Jeff B. on August 22, 2006 01:22 PM
15. Kinda odd that the time of the video is 9:11

Pronounced Thomas 'Keene'? How 'bout 'Kane'

Take back the Congress this year? In 80 days? It would not be until Jan. 20

What an airhead.

Posted by: GOPolitics on August 22, 2006 01:24 PM
16. Ms. Burner seems upset, wanting to lash out, and downright ANGRY. But we aren't informed by her as to why. She may even be a bit mean...

Posted by: bulldozer on August 22, 2006 01:25 PM
17. My Goodness

This chick is unreal. She needs to get her back adjusted, she is humped over the entire time.

Ohhhh her brother delivers beer WOW.

I think darcy should get her eyes checked, she seems sleepy-eyed.

Regarding the First Responder's comment - Reichart's bill passed, she doesn't know current event's does she.

Posted by: Chris on August 22, 2006 01:29 PM
18. And according to Darcy "We" have the ability to innovate and develop technological solutions to current energy problems caused by years of stifling regulations envisioned by environmental activists and enacted during the Carter Administration. So if Darcy is to be believed, the solution is to let government pass more legislation? Darcy speaks as if she is an engineer speaking to engineers. But "We" refers to Democrats who would control the congress if their dreams come true in November.

This a free country. The markets make decisions. We are not going to legislate our way out of an energy problem. Remember the gas rationing of the 1970s created by Carter? And you think gas is expensive now.

The Democrats are the party of Statism. Rather than actually let our Engineers and Scientists dream up ideas that really will make energy less expensive, cleaner and reduce our foreign dependence, the Democrats just want to tax the heck out of gasoline to try and force people out of there cars, while greasing the wheels of the BioDiesel industry with subsidies.

The real energy nightmare won't begin until Democrats control the House again.

Posted by: Jeff B. on August 22, 2006 01:35 PM
19. One thing I agree with Darcy on is that the Dems can only take back the house if almost all of the Nutroots candidates she listed have a lot of support and a lot of money. And there's probably not enough money, nor a strong enough possibility of ROI for every single candidate to win, that the Dems really need to win.

From an investment perspective, it is an entirely futile and losing proposition and national DNC money would be far better spent on protecting incumbents and helping a few candidates who might have a reasonable shot in the swing districts Is it any wonder that the Dems are a party so completely untrusting of and confused by private industry? Running a business actually requires successful financial decisions that are not based on emotions.

If you look at the possibility of the Dems having wide success this November from a gambler's perspective, this is one bet that a smart gambler would never take.

Posted by: Jeff B. on August 22, 2006 02:05 PM
20. Burner was playing to her audience, a bunch of nutroots Dems. When they get together they love having a big anger fest. They're such rational adults. I wonder if Burner studied Cindy Sheehan and Hillary Clinton tapes to hone her public speaking skills?

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 22, 2006 02:16 PM
21. For "dangerous" effect, here's some background music to go with the video.

Posted by: Lynne on August 22, 2006 02:47 PM
22. Snakes on a plane? Burner in a churner.

Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on August 22, 2006 03:11 PM
23. "Uh... Congressman Reichert's bill on that very subject just passed the House of Representatives"

So what does Reichert's bill actually accomplish, Stefan? Looks like an unfunded mandate to create new bureaucracy without actually delivering. Five years after 9/11, and the best he can do is make a "National Emergency Communications Report" to study the problem.

Posted by: Ben Diamond on August 22, 2006 04:44 PM
24. Lynne,

Love the background music. If we don't elect the Democrats right now: floods, plagues, locusts, starving children, and even bigger threats to our nation than random suicide bombers and other massive and violent terrorist attacks.

Oh the unimaginable horror if every US Citizen doesn't get free, on-demand health care and free lifetime retirement pay from Social Security.

Cue up the horror sound track and listen while Darcy paints the ominous scenarios of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.

Posted by: Jeff B. on August 22, 2006 05:24 PM
25. And that applause at 8:06! Was anyone besides a camera crew there? Yawn.

Posted by: Buck on August 22, 2006 06:51 PM
26. "How will I give this child the life I want him to have????"
That's easy, hon. Just do what a whole lot of us did and stay home with your baby and actually RAISE the child you bore and enjoy him and give him your full, loving attention. Works wonders.

Posted by: Misty on August 22, 2006 08:18 PM
27. Darcy Who?

Dave Reichert is on the Homeland Security Committee and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure - two of the most important committees for his district.

The usual liberals are here trying to downplay the '21st Century Emergency Communications Act (H.R. 5832)', authored by our own Dave Reichert! Tell me, everyone, how many non-ceremonial laws has John Kerry authored in his 20+ years in office??

Dave Reichert has a long history of serving King County, the 8th District, and the USA. Darcy Who has squat.

Furthermore, the Majority leadership likes Dave Reichert. President Bush was very impressed with his daily workout regimen. Dave has connections to be able to bring the people of the 8th District what they need from Washington DC.

But despite all that, the Democrats want people to believe that Darcy Who will be able to do more and have more effect on Capitol Hill. Whatever.

Dave Reichert is not only the best choice - in this race he's the ONLY choice.

Posted by: Larry on August 22, 2006 08:40 PM
28. "President Bush was very impressed with his daily workout regimen."

That says it all, doesn't it? Workout buddies with Bush. Please tell me what Reichert's bill actually accomplishes other than creating more bureaucracy. A good cop does not a good legislator make.

Posted by: Ben Diamond on August 22, 2006 08:46 PM
29. Ben Diamond,

Answer the question from my comment first.

How many non-ceremonial laws has John Kerry authored in his 20+ years in office?

You voted for him - you should know.

Then we'll chat about the content of 21st Century Emergency Communications Act.

Posted by: Larry on August 22, 2006 08:57 PM
30. We overcame the Industrial Revolution? These are the ravings of a lunatic and ignoramus. Hard to believe she's been nominated by a major party for Congress.

Posted by: stu on August 22, 2006 09:15 PM
31. Her reference to "250 yrs" would make it 2026...a small point but if one is going to use overheated rhetoric one should at least get the age of the country correct.

The reception she gets is uninspiring to say the least.

Posted by: John HArvey on August 22, 2006 09:18 PM
32. Pretty good speech overall, a political winner.

She honored the Military, she avoided getting sucked in by extreme leftist crap. She has passion. She is well spoken. She offered a positive vision, instead of bashing Reichert. Focused on Republican ineptness. That's the winning message for any Democrats, especially in the 8th. It's amazing how many Democrats still think bashing the military is going to get them elected. If the Democrats had a few more political brain cells, then this election would be so lopsided that the Republicans would lose 60+ seats, instead we will probably lose 20 to 30.

Posted by: John McDonald on August 22, 2006 09:22 PM
33. It shouldn't come as any surprise that you would be impressed (or do you just mouth the words?)

"She honored the Military..."

Sure, hezzbullah-style (hides behind "the military" so that she can throw rocks with impunity).

"She has passion."

If you call that passion I can't imagine what your home life must be like.

"Focused on Republican ineptness."

If you call that focus, then I can't decide who needs glasses worse, you or her.

Dream on liberal~john...

Posted by: alphabet soup on August 22, 2006 09:44 PM
34. Equating terrorism with the Bush adminstration is the kind of leftwing craziness that most people just hear and shake their heads at.

Posted by: Michele on August 22, 2006 09:46 PM
35. So what--were there like 8 people in the audience?
I wasn't impressed with the speech. Long on generalities, way too short on any kind of specifics. Nothing new there.

Posted by: Michele on August 22, 2006 09:53 PM
36. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..............

Where's Dave Ross when the Democratic Party needs him! At least Ross is credible! Darcy is a hoot!

You know if the 8th district was really informed and didn't vote just for R's and D's then Reichert would take at least 80% of the vote, but since that is not true then jimG is right 55%!

Posted by: Andrew Roberts on August 22, 2006 10:04 PM
37. Alphie, you can do better than that - the lack of a nasty insult is really disappointing me. You got standards to keep up man as you are the smartest Republican on this forum, except for maybe Earl and maybe Jeff. Jeff's been flipping out a bit lately though - normally I really enjoy his stuff. Jimmie, had a major good point a couple of post back too.

Yes, saying we are under attack at home by the Republicans was probably more than necessary, but not attacking Reichert for his Green River ineptness took a lot of restraint. But all that was more than countered balanced by her bio - Davie boy would do alot to have her bio, if she wasn't a Democrat you folks would be falling dreamy in love with this candidate as the only standard left to be a Republican is to support other Republicans - core values do not matter.

Posted by: John McDonald on August 22, 2006 10:47 PM
38. My blood pressure and anger level has subsided since the latest Republican lost to the terrorists in S. Lebanon and another golden opportunity missed. So now I can get back to a more measured roast of Reichert - so when should I start to ramp up the visability of my "Reichert the Inept" website and really go big time? (still needs more cleaning, I'm got to remember to stop writing when I'm pissed off and 11:00pm). Well I'll stop posting, while I get that in shape. Adios - and all the best, hopefully someday you'll see the light and nominate Republicans that we can be proud of voting for again instead of the Documented Losers who run the party now.

Posted by: John McDonald on August 22, 2006 11:00 PM
39. Man, that's the lamest opus I think I've ever seen (also the most insincere, and likely the most unintelligible). Do what you feeeeeeel you have to do liberal~john - the rest of us will just have to muddle through without you...

(snerk snerk ;'}

Posted by: alphabet soup on August 22, 2006 11:14 PM
40. "You voted for him - you should know."

Wow Larry, being pretty presumptuous there. In fact, I did not vote for Kerry and have no interest in researching his legislative record in contrast to Dave Reichert's single unfunded mandate, which was the topic of the post.

Posted by: Ben Diamond on August 22, 2006 11:22 PM
41. Ah, John McDonald from Woodinville raises his voice in the debate. Our favorite out of district "Republican" critic of Dave.
Just a hint John, try focusing on the Jay Inslee vs. Larry Ishmael race since it's in your balliwick.

Posted by: Reporterward on August 22, 2006 11:58 PM
42. true--she may be trying to swim the Channel with an anchor, but i'm a bit miffed that we have so many local races unopposed this fall; "roll over and take it politics" should make anyone disappointed; these players are determining our lives on a micro and macro scale, yet nobody REALLY cares till it's too late; it's not in a sitcom with tattoos and belly buttons;

Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on August 23, 2006 05:13 AM
43. "When fascism comes to America it will be waving a flag and carrying a cross" - Sinclair.

You greasy headed Bush rednecks are the fascists you hate. Keep your Biblical Sharia to yourselves and out of Washington.

Posted by: shrike on August 23, 2006 06:03 AM
44. Put this together with her instances of resume padding, and she really has a kind of Al Gore grandiose preachy thing going.

Posted by: Hindu on August 23, 2006 07:00 AM
45. Tell us how you really feel, shrike.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 23, 2006 07:30 AM
46. wow--profound quote--Shrike needs Sims' Home Training; as for Darcy, "...given enough rope, she will..."

Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on August 23, 2006 09:42 AM
47. Greasy headed? Biblical Sharia? I thought this post was about Darcy's stupid speech. Well . . . the stupid speech and her general stupidity mixed with mind numbing delivery.

I suspect that he thought he was posting in "Rant & Rave" over at Craig's List. That type of pointless, valueless, factless political invective is pretty common over there. The Nutroots rule that place.

As for me, I don't own a bible nor is my head greasy. It has hair on it that is shampooed once a day according to the directions on the bottle. I do own a flag however, although I don't wave it much as it hangs on a pole.

Thinking a little further . . . can somebody help me out here? Should I be insulted? Am I a victim?

Posted by: G Jiggy on August 23, 2006 10:13 AM
48. "You greasy headed Bush rednecks"

I think I'm a victim here! I don't have hair, does this mean I can't belong to the group? This is discrimination!

Posted by: bob j on August 23, 2006 10:54 AM
49. Whatever. I only lasted about three minutes into her speech. Yes, its important to remember her intended audience, but clips like this have a way of getting out so that everyone can watch and silently shake their heads in disapproval.

Posted by: Gary on August 23, 2006 11:23 AM
50. I find the comment above about "Darcy's bio" in the comment from John McDonald above.

By "bio" are we talking about the overstuffed resume that Darcy claimed to have as a Microsoft Executive? The one that has been exposed as a total over representation of her position there?

Darcy was a low-to-mid-level manager at Microsoft at a time well after the company established its market position. Big deal. Her career in politics is so shallow that it is almost laughable.

I understand that when you have a weak candidate like Burner you have to do a little spinning, but your about to drill yourself into the ground there.

Posted by: johnny on August 23, 2006 04:28 PM
51. Wow, did I butcher that first line of the previous post.

First line should read:

I find the comment above about "Darcy's bio" from John McDonald in need of clarification.

Sorry about the confusion.

Posted by: johnny on August 23, 2006 04:32 PM
52. 1) Timid Trembling voice
2) Scared at the beginning of the speech
3) Longnecked little schoolgirl who by the look of her skin tone.. like she went outside once, didn't like it and never went outside again.

Terrorists everywhere are quaking in their boots at the thought of Darcy Burner in charge of anything to do with the security of this country.

PS. The sound of 10 people clapping and cheering really said all there was to say.

Posted by: Troll on August 23, 2006 05:04 PM
53. Those popping Ps into the mic both saturated it with dribble and ripped the wind screen clean off.

Posted by: MB on August 23, 2006 09:25 PM
54. I heard better public speaking skills at my daughter's first grade poetry recital. The Democrats are really serious about this chick?

I'd follow this race just to watch Dave Reichert eat her for brunch in a debate. What color is the sky in that floozy's world?

Posted by: NurseWilliam on August 23, 2006 09:40 PM
55. Thanks to all your feedback on this talkback the Burner Campaign has everything it needs to win this election. Darcy's staff will read your posts and will do two things:

1)Continue using the same points as are in this speach and the hundreds she has given all over the district for the last 9 months. Her sharp, cool-headed points are obviously working because they've got the losers here foaming at the mouth.

2)Add additional talking points and strategies based specifically on the comments above specifically to make you all even more angry and crazy!

So yeah, continue claiming that Reichert doesn't have a real challenger in this campaign. The convincing case you make that Reichert isn't in Danger is probably why he can't seem to keep up with Darcy's fundraising. Nobody cares about him because he won't admit he needs help.

So who is going to be the first here to admit that Reichert is in Danger and needs vollunteer and cash support like a man dieing of thirst? ...Nobody? Okay, then I guess Reichert should start diverting cash into a real race like Steve Coffgin's. Ha!

Posted by: Sorry Charlie on August 23, 2006 10:01 PM
56. Charlie.

You may wish to learn spelling first, before you say much more.

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on August 23, 2006 10:07 PM
57. Haha! I'm wiping tears of laughter away as I read all your comments! You guys are a cross between Simon Cowell and a gossipy knitting club.

"Her posture's horrid!"

"I don't understand the specifics of her policies on Iraq and Energy."

"She reminds me of my daughter."

"As a republican, I found I didn't relate to her intended audience, democrats."

Keep tossing out those crazy balls guys. Either the press will swing eventually (not likely) or you'll just come off sounding crazier than ever. Meanwhile, the Burner campaign can develope a cogent response to every comment you make here. Thanks for all the hard work!

Posted by: Sorry Charlie on August 23, 2006 10:11 PM
58. Yes you all r rite. My spelling is horrable!

Maybe I should apply to work for Reichert's campaign!

btw: way to ignore the message of my post. Must have touched a nerve huh?

Posted by: Sorry Charlie on August 23, 2006 10:16 PM
59. It's funny how amy/medic vet seems to have no problem with the spelling of people he agrees with.

Posted by: Ben Diamond on August 24, 2006 08:31 PM
60. "hysterical"?

You keep topping yourself with your hyperbole.

Posted by: Daniel K on August 24, 2006 10:31 PM
61. I truely believe most American are unaware of what it is they should be fearful of, who their enemies are and is anymore. Hell the American Revolution was pretty clear, WWII was pretty clear. Ever since America has lost it's way, and it's soul, and it's international pride. Fanatical, internal pride is alive and well. The enemy wears a turban and reads the Kouran. I can say most don't believe people like Bush, Cheny, Rumsfeld, countless others involved in the military invasion of Iraq, or those involved in the war in Chili, Nicaragua, San Salvador, or the many financial/imperialist routed wars should be addressing war crimes for the destruction of legitimate governments and the slaughter of innocents all over the world. Evertone nees to have a good look at Moore's Farenheight 911, and watch intensley "Why we Fight", and feel sick about what is the real truth here. Go ahead, lift the rocks, a little self loathing can be a powerful motivator. Vote the evil out, the ones supporting the American Military, Industrial Complex - start by voting this group of good ol boys out on their asses, start somewhere, I don't know, how about Nader? Then a 200 yr plan to ensure you flush the evil out of the world that even my liberal ass finds deplorable. Only then can the united Nations and the us ever hope to gain credibility about itself that could even be reasonable to sustain.

Posted by: Wil on August 24, 2006 10:53 PM
62. don't send a boy to do a man's job; don't send a 'Burner' to do a 'welding' job;

Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on August 25, 2006 07:13 AM
63. Will (61):
You need to stop listening to the leftists and think on your own. Media templates and leftist propaganda has so infected your thinking that you are just spouting it like your own. You are caught in a feedback loop of tired leftist dogma, hence: "I can say most don't believe people like Bush, Cheny, Rumsfeld, countless others involved". "Most people" are your feedback loopers, nothing more.

I agree that Washington DC needs a house cleaning but not the one you envision. Nader is not a God send, he is a hypocritical hypocrite who is gotten rich by duping "useful idiots" like yourself. As he decries corporate America, he invests in it heavily to make $$$ that he hides from his supporters so as to not ruin his "everyman" image. In other words, he's exactly what you detest.

Maybe somebody else here would like to take up your love affair of Mr. Moore and his movie but I simply don't have time to refute all the cr*p in that bogus screed.

Read "The New Thought Police" by Tammy Bruce (past president of N.O.W.) and "Right Turns" by Michael Medved. These are people who (like me) woke up and smelled the leftist coffee. Read some articles by Walter Williams or Shelby Steele. Get your get-right straight. Good luck dude, you'll need it.

Posted by: G Jiggy on August 25, 2006 01:28 PM
64. Bush = Christian Fascism. The Dobson/Hagee wingnuts love the war in the Middle East - mainly so that their Biblical "prophecy" will be fulfilled.

It's your crowd bud - the mouth breathing Creationist idiots. You are Rove's wet dream.

Posted by: shrike on August 26, 2006 06:04 AM
65. And THERE'S the kind of intellectual honesty and reasoned thinking that we've come to know and love, from the precipice of the left cliff...


Posted by: BRC on August 26, 2006 07:36 AM
66. Yea, that shriek - guess it told us a thing or two. Whadda maroon.

Posted by: alphabet soup on August 26, 2006 08:32 AM
67. Shrek has all the leftist buzzwords fully embedded into his frontal lobes. Then that public education teaches him sentence structure and you give them a computer . . . it's like building a Frankenstien monster.

All I wish is that these guys would come up with something new . . . and with some shred of truth to it.

Posted by: G Jiggy on August 26, 2006 10:33 AM
68. You Bush rednecks who support "shoot first - then negotiate" and constantly show your hatred of individual freedom will die off slowly as a more human oriented populace emerges in the US.

Your man is scum - the whole Republican party is. Chickenhawks who profit off the death and suffering of others.

Posted by: shrike on August 27, 2006 10:30 AM
69. Shrek, (excuase me, Shrike) and I repeat . . .

>> Shrek has all the leftist buzzwords fully embedded into his frontal lobes. Then that public education teaches him sentence structure and you give them a computer . . . it's like building a Frankenstien monster.

All I wish is that these guys would come up with something new . . . and with some shred of truth to it.

Shrek, you wouldn't know what is happening in this country if somebody made a video for you. You're simply a parrot. "hatred of individual freedom" *AWK* "Republican party is Chickenhawks" AWK* "who profit off the death and suffering of others" *AWK*

Come back when you can think for yourself.

Posted by: G Jiggy on August 27, 2006 01:06 PM
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?