Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit
The other night Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas, was on the PBS NewsHour to debate the Iraq mess with Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island. She wiped up the floor with him. Cleaned the man's clock.
She stuck him with the "cut and run" epithet; he took it and did not fight back. Call him a perfect gentleman or call him a perfect wuss. The guy is a West Point graduate, he served with 82nd Airborne Division and was an Army Ranger. With a resumé like that the Senator ought to give as good as he gets, but he was defenseless against Hutchison's charges that he was playing politics with the war. She administered a total smackdown on this weaponless Democrat.
It was a typical of Democratic performances in the face of Republican onslaughts. When Bush and the Republicans pour on accusations of cowardice, weakness, softness toward the enemy, irresponsibility, isolationism and defeatism, they don't answer. They just take it.
Democrats act as though somebody had put a cork in their mouths when Bush and his crew accuse them of "politicizing" the war. This accusation from a bunch who run on the war in every election.
Democrats do not talk back about the stupidity of Bush's orders to stand and fight to the last soldier, the mess in Afghanistan, the grafters, his bungling, his wrecking the United States Army and Marine Corps, his lies about our fighting foreign Al Qaeda fanatics in Iraq, his staffing the Department of Homeland Security with jerks and fools, his stubborn dunderheaded-ness. Bush is a dream target and the D's are shooting spitballs in his direction.
You would think the Democrats had their mouths duct-taped when the Republicans shout "You're micro-managing the war." When do the Democrats in Congress answer, micro or macro, somebody had better manage the damn war?
Over the last months Bush has been putting serving generals in uniform on TV to sell his line but not a word from the Democrats that active-duty generals have no business in politics. The Republicans have won a lot of elections by labeling the Democrats as wuss and wimp party--and the current crop of D's is doing nothing to dispel the impression that none of ‘em have onions.
Where is their passion? We are talking about war here, folks, about people getting killed, about life and death. Where is the spine? Where the guts. Where is the anger?
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
RSS
"The Republicans have won a lot of elections by labeling the Democrats as wuss and wimp party".
You answered your own question, Mr von Hoffman. The electoral track-record of the "Dems are weak on defense" mantra...isn't good.
Part of Jack Reed's problem may have been "I don't want to hit a lady"...but that fear of Dems as having ANOTHER 30 years of "They want to turn the Pentagon into public housing" stuff...still has them twitchy.
Now, Jim Webb did a fairly good job on "Meet The Press" putting the smack-down onto Lindsey Graham.
But in general...Dems are scared and not likely to get brave until Her Nibs is in the White House to take the heat for them.
(Here's my HSUBFOOLS-baiting) Same for impeachment!
Posted by Mask at 07/16/2007 @ 1:02pm
"We don't need to spend a half a trillion dollars to fight a rag-tag enemy with moltave cocktails and bb-guns"
This should be the Democrats response to "cut and run".
"We want to fight the enemy with a leaner meaner and more targeted force that doesn't require a hundred thousand troops in Iraq"
This is another effective response!
Maybe they should hire me before they get into a debate with these war-mongering Republicans.
Posted by Metteyya at 07/16/2007 @ 1:09pm
"Now, Jim Webb did a fairly good job on "Meet The Press" putting the smack-down onto Lindsey Graham. "
No he didn't..what he should have said was, "I can't wait to question the Generals when the Surge is over in September," and he should have dropped it..and use the Sept dead line of full surge results as a platform...yesterday he looked like another quabbling dem looking for political points...which is all the dems look like now..
and BTW, what is Frank gonna do if Hillary is the president and says, "Well we can pull out just yet as that will turn the place over to the AQ and Iran..."...which it will even more than it is now..no dem president is going to watch Iran take over as they pull out(cut and run) especially in front of the press...and watch Iraq turn into a full blown Pakistan...as, after Iraq goes, so goes the ME as the Islamists push even harder since the US is leaving..
If you like $75 barrel of oil now then you will love $150 barrel or no oil....for that will be the legacy of the next president if she bails(and she won't bail).
Posted by john maasch at 07/16/2007 @ 1:20pm
If you like $75 barrel of oil now then you will love $150 barrel or no oil....for that will be the legacy of the next president if she bails(and she won't bail).
Posted by JOHN MAASCH
No, that is the legacy of this administration. It's important to remember what got us in to this mess. It is important to remember that this administration did nothing more than bide its time until it left office and dumped its mess on the next President.
I've heard the Iraq Study Group Report mentioned in the msm recently; why aren't the Dems beating Bush et al. over the head with the bi-partisan, sober assessment of the situation?
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/16/2007 @ 1:24pm
Georgie and tough guy Cheney are not men enough to admit that Iran must be negotiated with; they're gonna leave that for the next occupant of the WH.
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/16/2007 @ 1:28pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 07/16/2007 @ 1:20pm
Webb didn't say anything different from Lugar or Warner or Voinovich...which means that it's not just Dems, JOHN.
Nobody thinks "the Surge" is going to pay off...except for Graham and the 28% Club.
The scapegoat will be the Iraqi Government and everybody knows that too. Petraeus will claim that his boys/girls are doing a heckuva job and post a body count and claim that Al-Anbar is almost as safe as Detroit in 1975...but the public isn't going to care, the nervous Repubs aren't going to hang their hat on it, and the Dems sure aren't either.
By September another bill will be out there and there'll be enough Repubs in the Senate to HOPEFULL over-ride the veto.
Given Graham's trouble on the immigration bill, if the polling in South Carolina on the war gets much worse....even HE might turn on the President and start sounding like Webb come September!
Posted by Mask at 07/16/2007 @ 1:45pm
if Hillary is the president and says, "Well we can pull out just yet as that will turn the place over to the AQ and Iran..."...
"Draw down", rather than "pull-out", is the way to handle the language.
"We are going to 'draw down our troops' so we still have an effective deterrent on the border with Iran and Turkey, and we will maintain a small troop presence to protect the oil wells so that the oil sharing agreement among the Iraqis can be enforced."
"We will also keep our special forces units on the ground in Iraq to continue to take the fight to Al-Qaeda and its operatives."
Wording the withdrawal in this way makes it look sensible and undercuts the central arguments against "cut and run" concerning Iran, Turkish Kurds, and oil agreements.
Posted by Metteyya at 07/16/2007 @ 1:53pm
Didn't see Kay Bailey's supposed "smackdown" but given that it aired on PBS, the Senator from Rhode Island probably thought the viewing audience was laughing wildly at her "cut-n-run" taunts. He probably thought no reponse was even necessary. She had already made a big enough fool of herself.
Why she, or any self-respecting Repub (is that an oxymoron?), feel the need to carry Bush/Cheney's water is beyond me. Seems they would gain credibility and popularity if they stopped defending him and tried to steer the debate to something they believe they have an edge on (which are slim to none at this point, but you see my point).
Posted by BlueTexan at 07/16/2007 @ 2:05pm
Speaking of cut abd run...there is an actual town in Texas called Cut And Shoot. No joke.
Maybe the Dems could use that..."Hey, we aren't cut and running...we're cut and shooting!" That should get the Red states support. They love to shoot.
Posted by BlueTexan at 07/16/2007 @ 2:07pm
As is usually the case, the logical answser is the most reasoned explanation.
The Dems don't answer the charge of their cowardly labels because it is the correct label of them and the surrender leftists that populate websites like this one.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/16/2007 @ 2:14pm
did not see it, but unfortunately sounds typical of the COLMES syndrome.
maybe the dem party should hire some assertiveness trainers and send members to camp cojones boot camp.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/16/2007 @ 2:19pm
It's not that Dems aren't aggressive enough; rather, there are too many 'New Dems' like Hillary and not enough real Dems like Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean taking up the controversy.
Voters have only recently begun to figure out that they were lied to about Iraq; now it's time for the other shoe to drop. It's time for real Dems to take the offensive on the fact that the Repubs' attack on Iraq was nothing but a smokescreen for their treasonous appeasement of the real enemy, the Saudis.
In addition to pointing out that because of the treason of the Party of Big Oil, American soldiers are under attack by the Saudi-funded Taliban and Saudi-funded Sunni insurgents, Dems can remind rank-and-file patriots that the real reason the Repubs want to stay in Iraq is to force the Iraqis to privatize their oil.
Posted by samcrossett at 07/16/2007 @ 2:28pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 07/16/2007 @ 2:14pm
It a more appropriate description of your neo-con loony leaders...how many have served in the armed forces...hmmmm? The fact that Kay Bailey can call a West Point grad and Army Ranger a cut-n-runner is truly laughable. It doesn't even warrant a response.
Posted by BlueTexan at 07/16/2007 @ 2:31pm
Posted by BLUETEXAN
What's really sad is that the herd animals like libertyliar swallow that crap without even thinking about it. The same with the Swiftboat bs. The fools went with a war dodging coward that used his father's influence to escape danger rather than a man that went to Vietnam and fought. I can't comprehend the lack of thought in such a process. How can people be so dumb?
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/16/2007 @ 2:50pm
If you truly "LOVELIBERTY," you cannot love the incompetent despots currently inhabiting the executive branch of my beloved country.
Posted by The Goods at 07/16/2007 @ 2:52pm
the real reason the Repubs want to stay in Iraq is to force the Iraqis to privatize their oil.
You forgot the other Republican reason concerning defense contractor profits!
You also forgot the number one reason the neolib Democrats wanted to invade Iraq, and now want us to invade Iran - AIPAC!
Posted by Metteyya at 07/16/2007 @ 2:54pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 07/16/2007 @ 2:14pm
Richard Lugar, John Warner, George Voinovich, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, etc. are....
"surrender LEFTISTS"!?!?!??!
Posted by Mask at 07/16/2007 @ 2:56pm
The same with the Swiftboat bs. The fools went with a war dodging coward that used his father's influence to escape danger rather than a man that went to Vietnam and fought. ---Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/16/2007 @ 2:50pm
You voted for Kerry in 2004?
Posted by Mask at 07/16/2007 @ 2:57pm
I think, MTS, that they so truly need to believe this garbage that Rasputin Karl puts out that intelligence isn't the issue. It's more of a pathological need. For what, I don't know. Maybe some of them were up to their asses in alligators in some swamp back in Nam and they feel betrayed by the politicians they think lost the war. And then there's GWB, talking tough and manly and facts just do not get examined. He fills the emotional needs within them for revenge, maybe, or the need to always win. I don't know; I'm just hazarding a guess.
Posted by The Goods at 07/16/2007 @ 2:59pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/16/2007 @ 2:50pm
Amen. Preach on.
They live in "inverse reality" world...whatever is true and accurate, reverse it and then repeat it over and over again without thought and stake the future of your country on it! Insane!
Posted by BlueTexan at 07/16/2007 @ 2:59pm
You voted for Kerry in 2004?
Posted by MASK
You can't vote while you're an inmate in the BOP. (That was 2000.)
I voted for Nader in '96.
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/16/2007 @ 3:09pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/16/2007 @ 3:09pm
You were in prison in 2000 to 2004?!?!? For what?
Posted by Mask at 07/16/2007 @ 3:10pm
It was was '97 to 2001, in what I felt was an "excessive" sentence for bank robbery.
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/16/2007 @ 3:12pm
OK, I've got my elections confused. In Clinton's second election I voted for Nader. In Gore vs. Bush I was in. When Kerry went against Bush I was on Supervised Release, thus ineligible to vote.
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/16/2007 @ 3:19pm
What's up with the link to PBS NewsHour? Hutchinson is there, but not Jack Reed. My search for "Jack Reed" + Hutchinson gave only instances of JR juxtaposed with Tim Hutchinson. Did TheNation let some lying wingnut post on their real estate?
Posted by nathanhale at 07/16/2007 @ 3:31pm
"Nobody with any sense of reality pays any attention to that cut and run nonsense."
True, but a lot fools vote.
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/16/2007 @ 3:40pm
Only fools, (see the Alamo), stand and fight when the battle is lost.
FRANK...don't mess with Texas. :)
Posted by BlueTexan at 07/16/2007 @ 3:45pm
She can put as much lipstick on the pig as she wants, Frank, but the bottom line is that your girl voted for this quagmire and still refuses to admit that maybe, just maybe, she fucked up.
And that's just one of the many reasons why, although I don't know who I'm voting for in the primary, it won't be Hillary Clinton. She hasn't convinced me even a little bit that she understands just what her "I'll stand behind the commander-in-chief" vote has cost us as a country. At least John Edwards has gotten that message.
And don't even go there with the whole "She's a woman, so she's held to a different standard" stuff. I'd be climbing in Edwards and Obama's asses in the exact same way if they hemmed and hawed about the reason she made this dreadful vote the way Clinton has done. If I hold her to a higher standard at all, it's because I'm pissed off that someone so smart allowed themselves to be so stupid on this one.
Also, before you ask, I'm not only a woman, but I'm one of the many women who helped her husband to a second term. So it kind of pains me to have to say I'm voting for her. But then again, after the Telecommunications Act of 1996, I experienced some serious buyers remorse when it came to Mr. Clinton.
As for Obama, if you can tell me under what circumstances a black man is going to get a pass on anything in this country, I'll tell you that his name is probably Jay-Z.
(and if you even write the word mulatto MTSpence, it's me and you! Remember what I said last time, if you don't want to be branded a racist, don't use terms that not even the racists use anymore.)
Posted by edwriter at 07/16/2007 @ 3:52pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/16/2007 @ 3:12pm Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/16/2007 @ 3:19pm
Hmmm? Well, first, what do you feel is the "appropriate" sentence for robbing a bank? (of course, the Banking System IS controlled by the 'evil capitalist exploiters', so maybe it shouldn't be called a "bank robbery" anyway, but a "liberation of the proletariat's stolen wealth"?...heheh)
On the elections thing, so basically, you've been pretty much a non-voter now for over 8 years. "Nader in '96" got only 685,000 votes (compared to Perot's 8.8 million and even Nader's own 2.88 million). 2000, you were a victim of political oppression by the Bourgeoisie State, as well as in 2004. And of course you won't "legitimize" the 2008 elections with participation.
Pretty much for several election cycles now....you don't exist. Either by your own choice or dictatorial policies against political prisoners such as yourself.
So, to sum up, a FELON (sorry, sorry..."fellow worker free from the rockpile"--Wobbly English) who wasn't allowed, then REFUSES to participate in our political system....is free to criticize others who do and weren't dumb enough to try to rob a bank.
That about it?
Posted by Mask at 07/16/2007 @ 3:53pm
I meant "not" voting for her. Sometimes my mind goes faster than my fingers.
Posted by edwriter at 07/16/2007 @ 3:53pm
The verbal abuse we are hearing from the Gopers is defensive, agitated and angry. It sounds like the despair of dead-enders who don't want to be told the truth about their terminal condition.
Posted by markws at 07/16/2007 @ 3:54pm
True, but a lot fools vote.
Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/16/2007 @ 3:40pm
"the smart ones" of course don't so as to not "legitimize the system".
Posted by Mask at 07/16/2007 @ 3:54pm
And Frank, while we're discussing Hillary, what does she think about reinstating the assault weapons ban? I live in Philadelphia and kids are going down in hails of bullets here, including an incident this weekend where a kid was gunned down for not getting out of the way of a car fast enough at the Italian Market.
Posted by edwriter at 07/16/2007 @ 3:55pm
"I'm delighted to fight the fight with her. ... The person who has always reached out to us has been Hillary. ... I think Hillary is a fighter. ... She is a wonderful individual. ... More diplomacy the better. There is no daylight between us on Iran." -- former ambassador Joseph Wilson ----Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/16/2007 @ 3:24pm
Quite a coup for Her Majesty. Gonna be tough for all the Joe & Valerie fans from "Plame-gate" to now turn around and say Joe "doesn't know what he's talking about".
Posted by Mask at 07/16/2007 @ 3:57pm
(and if you even write the word mulatto MTSpence, it's me and you! Remember what I said last time, if you don't want to be branded a racist, don't use terms that not even the racists use anymore.)
Posted by EDWRITER
I used the offensive term to make a point. At one time in the not too distant past even the taint of "colored" blood made you not white; now, Obama appears to be using his African father's blood to an advantage. He's just as "white" as he is "black" but no one anywhere is willing to say anything, out of fear of being branded a racist.
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/16/2007 @ 3:58pm
Do what you want, false face, that's your choice, but don't blame me for pointing out the obvious. Continue voting Dem in the belief that it's going change; it's all nothing but a matter of degree.
And it was much more than one bank. Of course, some play it safe tool such as yourself would never contemplate doing such a thing. Call it smart, dumb, whatever you want.
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/16/2007 @ 4:05pm
There is no daylight between us on Iran
If this is true, then we really should be concerned about Hillary invading Iran!
Hillary, AIPAC, and the neocons need to understand that as long as Israel, yes Israel, possesses nuclear weapons, then other nations in the region will have an incentive to produce nuclear weapons to deter Israeli aggression.
The problem is Israel, not Iran!
Posted by Metteyya at 07/16/2007 @ 4:10pm
The problem is Israel, not Iran!
Posted by METTEYYA
Amen.
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/16/2007 @ 4:12pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/16/2007 @ 4:05pm
I'd rather discuss this....
I used the offensive term to make a point. ---Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/16/2007 @ 3:58pm
Sounds familiar...such as a certain Ms Coulter calling John Edwards a "faggot"....to make a point, of course.
Posted by Mask at 07/16/2007 @ 4:15pm
Poor false face, incapable of making a geniune argument she resorts to dirty little pusillanimous tricks. It's reveals what you are.
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/16/2007 @ 4:25pm
Or, then again, you may truly be too dense to understand the differences. Which is worse?
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/16/2007 @ 4:27pm
If you truly "LOVELIBERTY," you cannot love the incompetent despots currently inhabiting the executive branch of my beloved country.
Posted by THE GOODS 07/16/2007 @ 2:52pm
I don't "love" them, but I certainly am grateful that Bush is in the White House instead of the Democrats who would once more sell freedom down the drain (ala the Vietnamese) for their own cowardice. Better than the Dems who would open the doors for more terrorist attacks in the US.
Bush is far from perfect, but he is so much better than any Democrat that I am willing to put up with his shortcomings.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/16/2007 @ 4:36pm
Richard Lugar, John Warner, George Voinovich, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, etc. are....
"surrender LEFTISTS"!?!?!??!
Posted by MASK 07/16/2007 @ 2:56pm
Lugar, slightly conservative but wrong on Iraq
Warner, slightly conservative but wrong on Iraq
Snow and Collins =liberals (RINOS)
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/16/2007 @ 4:39pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/16/2007 @ 4:25pm
Was that "anarcho-communist"...or "anarcho-Klansman", Empty?
Between the racist slurs and the gay slurs, wonder if maybe you had some trouble with African-Americans and "the Sisters" in prison?
Posted by Mask at 07/16/2007 @ 4:41pm
Again:
Poor false face, incapable of making a geniune argument she resorts to dirty little pusillanimous tricks. It's reveals what you are.
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/16/2007 @ 4:42pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 07/16/2007 @ 4:39pm
Okay, LL, tell ya what....give me a list of "really, really" conservatives in the US Senate....
and WHEN they turn against the war, I'll ask why THEY are "surrender leftists", since obviously to you the only people against the war are Maoists and Red Brigade pacifists.
heheh
Posted by Mask at 07/16/2007 @ 4:43pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/16/2007 @ 4:42pm
Yeah....I don't call African-Americans "colored" and I don't use words like "fag" or "faggot"...."just to make a point"...
and then claim I'm a "progressive" or that there's some difference between me and some right-wing ditz like Ann Coulter using such terms.
Although...to be fair to the horsey-faced Ms Coulter, I DON'T think she's ever used the term "colored" for an African-American....so she's one up on you there.
Posted by Mask at 07/16/2007 @ 4:44pm
It was was '97 to 2001, in what I felt was an "excessive" sentence for bank robbery.
Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/16/2007 @ 3:12pm
And it was much more than one bank. Of course, some play it safe tool such as yourself would never contemplate doing such a thing. Call it smart, dumb, whatever you want.
Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/16/2007 @ 4:05pm
Now we have proof positive from MTS as to his claims that he is so much smarter than not only conservatives, but the vast majority of Democrats...
A convicted bank robber (and more than one as he proudly tells us). Now what more proof could we ask for to validate his mental genius and his superior world views?
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/16/2007 @ 4:46pm
I used the offensive term to make a point. At one time in the not too distant past even the taint of "colored" blood made you not white; now, Obama appears to be using his African father's blood to an advantage. He's just as "white" as he is "black" but no one anywhere is willing to say anything, out of fear of being branded a racist.
There you go again, false face, playing your dirty little games. Not man enough to win on your own, you resort to cheating. Pathetic.
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/16/2007 @ 4:47pm
the more endorsements 50 foot queeny gets, the closer i come to committing to one of the other two viable candidates...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/16/2007 @ 4:49pm
LVL,
In your opinion, is there a fiscally conservative angle to the Iraq occupation in the GWOT?
What if we had to make federal taxes 90% to finance the Iraq occupation?
Oh and since you're fiscally conservative and we already have our paychecks announce how much is going to SS and Medicare....why don't we do the same thing for every major federal expediture?
Would we have even less support for the occupation if it was being paid for directly by subractions from our paychecks?
Posted by freedomplease at 07/16/2007 @ 4:53pm
Okay, LL, tell ya what....give me a list of "really, really" conservatives in the US Senate....
and WHEN they turn against the war, I'll ask why THEY are "surrender leftists", since obviously to you the only people against the war are Maoists and Red Brigade pacifists.
heheh
Posted by MASK 07/16/2007 @ 4:43pm
True-blue conservatives in the Senate:
Sessions, Shelby, Cornyn, Hutchinson, Inhoffe, Hatch, Brownback, Bennett, Roberts, Coburn, Cochrane, McConnell, Crapo, Bond, Allard, Vitter (well he's a bit flawed now), Chambliss
Grassley is like Lugar and Warner, slightly conservative, but not a true-blood. Same with John Ensign. I supported him as a Congressman and his run for the Senate. He has remained pretty conservative except for a few issues. Add Thune to that category.
Craig of Idaho, maybe; same with Enzi of Wy.
Lott has blown out his conservative credentials when he attacked talk radio.
And at the end of the day, most of even these conservatives have failed when it comes to reducing federal spending. For that they all get an F.
As regards this posting and where you are attempting to take it, unfortunately conservative Republican Senators are for the most part no different than Democratic liberal ones when it comes to one issue. THEY ALL WANT TO STAY IN OFFICE. They all seem to compromise to some degree in order to stay in office.
For me, this issue transcends electability much as it does conversely for the far left. This war supercedes all other issues for me and the need to stay engaged in the fight in the ME is not an option but a necessity.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/16/2007 @ 5:04pm
A convicted bank robber (and more than one as he proudly tells us). Now what more proof could we ask for to validate his mental genius and his superior world views?
Posted by LVLIBERTY1
It's called the ability to think on your own, as opposed to what you are spoon fed while growing up.
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/16/2007 @ 5:05pm
In your opinion, is there a fiscally conservative angle to the Iraq occupation in the GWOT?
What if we had to make federal taxes 90% to finance the Iraq occupation?
Oh and since you're fiscally conservative and we already have our paychecks announce how much is going to SS and Medicare....why don't we do the same thing for every major federal expediture?
Would we have even less support for the occupation if it was being paid for directly by subractions from our paychecks?
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 07/16/2007 @ 4:53pm
Freedom,
If the war was increasing the deficit, there might be a validity to your argument. However, the deficit has continued to decline during the past 4 years making your argument moot.
As to SS and Medicare;
1. I don't care personnally because I haven't drawn a "paycheck" since 1991.
2. I find SS and Medicare to violations of the constitution and believe they should be repealed.
Let me turn around your question and ask how many Americans would continue to allow the Federal Income Tax if instead of payroll deduction they had to send a check every month or quarter (as I do)?
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/16/2007 @ 5:10pm
It's called the ability to think on your own, as opposed to what you are spoon fed while growing up.
Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/16/2007 @ 5:05pm
Evidently you failed that test of thinking on your own. Even my grandchildren know that robbing banks is not smart.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/16/2007 @ 5:11pm
Where did I say it was "smart"? I'm sorry, but you are much too limited to speak on the subject of what is "smart" and what isn't. And I seriously doubt any inbred offspring of a fundamentalist fruit like you can do much more than sit on a porch and pluck a banjo all day long.
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/16/2007 @ 5:23pm
If the war was increasing the deficit, there might be a validity to your argument. However, the deficit has continued to decline during the past 4 years making your argument moot.
Ah so the Iraq war isn't costing us anything! OK, I guess my money's safe with fiscal hawks like you, huh!
Seriously LL, with an argument like that we can say.....who cares about bridges to nowhere.
And as a fiscal conservative you should be ashamed that you're concerned with the deficit and not the overall debt.....which is still INCREASING!
Let me turn around your question and ask how many Americans would continue to allow the Federal Income Tax if instead of payroll deduction they had to send a check every month or quarter (as I do)?
Good question and good point. Since it would be even harder than the current system from an adminstative standpoint I'd guess that we'd have moved to a consumption based tax.
Posted by freedomplease at 07/16/2007 @ 5:24pm
Where did I say it was "smart"? I'm sorry, but you are much too limited to speak on the subject of what is "smart" and what isn't. And I seriously doubt any inbred offspring of a fundamentalist fruit like you can do much more than sit on a porch and pluck a banjo all day long.
Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/16/2007 @ 5:23pm
It will probably be a shock to your peanut sized brain but there are a great number of conservatives like myself who have never lived in the South or the Mid West.
Your brain seems much too small for you to to assimilate thoughts that are outside of your stereotypes.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/16/2007 @ 5:43pm
People play banjos only in the South and Mid West? Now who's stereotyping?
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/16/2007 @ 5:52pm
And you're not a "conservative," libertyliar; you are a fundamentalist, a nationalist, jingoist.
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/16/2007 @ 5:57pm
And as a fiscal conservative you should be ashamed that you're concerned with the deficit and not the overall debt.....which is still INCREASING!
Let me turn around your question and ask how many Americans would continue to allow the Federal Income Tax if instead of payroll deduction they had to send a check every month or quarter (as I do)?
Good question and good point. Since it would be even harder than the current system from an adminstative standpoint I'd guess that we'd have moved to a consumption based tax.
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 07/16/2007 @ 5:24pm
I do care about Bridges to nowhere and I have a lot of disagreement with the Republican Congress and Bush for not reducing spending.
The single biggest contributor to the increased size of the Federal debt is SS and Medicare
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04485sp.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States
BTW, approx 1/3 of total US debt is personal and business debt according to the Govt.
more than 80% of Fed Govt debt is SS, Medicare and Fed Govt retirement payments.
By taking SS and medicare out of the Fed govt's hands we coupld pursue policies that further reduce the Federal Debt
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/16/2007 @ 6:07pm
People play banjos only in the South and Mid West? Now who's stereotyping?
Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/16/2007 @ 5:52pm
Enlighten us Oh brilliant one. What region of the country did you have in mind when you said:
And I seriously doubt any inbred offspring of a fundamentalist fruit like you can do much more than sit on a porch and pluck a banjo all day long.
Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/16/2007 @ 5:23pm
And as Mask points out, you seem incapable of even making a nominal retort without some homosexual slur as in "fruit".
You are in need of serious mental health counseling or we can set you up for deliverance from the demons who seem to run your life.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/16/2007 @ 6:13pm
anybody ever notice how Antiliberal isn't around whenever Luvvy is? Watch, now he'll probably post something under the alias.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/16/2007 @ 6:10pm
No Frank, I have resumed my identity. My own little experiment actually ended more than a week ago and I should have fully resumed my LVLIBERTY1 nom de guerre
"That name sounds strange to you," said Athos, smiling; "it was my nom de guerre when Monsieur D'Artagnan, two other gallant friends and myself performed some feats of arms at the siege of La Rochelle, under the deceased cardinal and Monsieur de Bassompierre.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/16/2007 @ 6:18pm
and watch Iraq turn into a full blown Pakistan...as, after Iraq goes, so goes the ME as the Islamists push even harder since the US is leaving..
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 07/16/2007 @ 1:20pm | ignore this person
Everything old is new again! Everyone dance! It's time to do The Domino Theory!
Posted by nyknicks12 at 07/16/2007 @ 6:20pm
adios muchachos!
my chariot awaits my drive across the great Mojave to California...temperatures will probably not exceed 115..a gorgeous day.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/16/2007 @ 6:25pm
The Dems don't answer the charge of their cowardly labels because it is the correct label of them and the surrender leftists that populate websites like this one.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 07/16/2007 @ 2:14pm
Gutless bitch. You talk tough here, but you ain't shit when it comes time to put up, so SHUT THE FUCK UP, coward.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/16/2007 @ 6:27pm
Only fools, (see the Alamo), stand and fight when the battle is lost.
FRANK...don't mess with Texas. :)
Posted by BLUETEXAN 07/16/2007 @ 3:45pm
Ah, yeah, I wouldn't say something like that where I come from. They'll find you floating in a bayou the next morning.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/16/2007 @ 6:30pm
1. I don't care personnally because I haven't drawn a "paycheck" since 1991.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 07/16/2007 @ 5:10pm
you sleep pretty good at night fleecing the flock for a living, do you, oh cowardly hypocrite for chri$$$$$t???
How long are you going to sponge off the ignorance of your "flock"?
Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/16/2007 @ 6:35pm
More confirmation that the nation badly needs a real opposition party. The Green Party is eager to play that role if only the stranglehold on the ballot by the two imperial-corporate parties can be broken. It's time for a new constitutional convention and the setting up of a European style parliamentary democracy.
Posted by lagemac at 07/16/2007 @ 6:36pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/16/2007 @ 6:10pm
He posted his info for LUVVY under an Antiliberal comment. Pretty well outed his hypocrite ass for all time with that one.
Why do you need to user names, hypocrite for chri$t?
Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/16/2007 @ 6:37pm
"OK, I've got my elections confused. In Clinton's second election I voted for Nader. In Gore vs. Bush I was in. When Kerry went against Bush I was on Supervised Release, thus ineligible to vote.
Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/16/2007 @ 3:19pm
Doesn't that make you a lying bald old coward? or is that only for others who havemade mathematical mistakes 36 years old?
Hypocritcal son of a bitch....
A GODDAMED BANK ROBBER?????????????
EXCESSIVE SENTENCE???????????
You are an EMPTYHEAD...YOU ARE IGNORED...
Posted by john maasch at 07/16/2007 @ 6:38pm
Hey, c'mon now, SOMEBODY needs to rob banks!
Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/16/2007 @ 6:47pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/16/2007 @ 6:47pm
The Alamo held up Santa Ana's men long enough for Houston to get his army together. They stood and died to give him that chance.
That, and they had heard of Goliad.
Santa Ana was a sonofabitch of the first order.
I would prefer Little Big Horn - Custer was a fool. He had courage, but apparently lacked in brains.
Bush.... well, he has neither.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/16/2007 @ 6:50pm
"Where is their passion? ...Where is the spine? Where the guts. Where is the anger?"
For years, many of us have been hoping Democrats in Congress would rise up to become the loyal opposition we so desperately need. They don't, and still we hope because we seem to have nothing else. At what point does the evidence convince us our hope is misplaced and that it's up to us?
Posted by Beep52 at 07/16/2007 @ 6:57pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/16/2007 @ 6:54pm
Well, depends on how you look at it I guess! It was at one point, then they lost it.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/16/2007 @ 7:00pm
I started out as a Republican, before Reagan; in those bygone days, conservatives were all about sound fiscal policy, smaller government, and libertarianism. Now it seems that today's conservatives are reaching back in history to the imperialism of ancient Rome, the National Socialist police state of Third Reich Germany, and the slavery and segregation of the Old South. After all, the American heroes who fell at the Alamo were fighting for the introduction of slavery to Texas, in violation of Mexican law.
Posted by samcrossett at 07/16/2007 @ 7:14pm
I called my Senators, told them not to attack Iran for the 1000th time, I said what a disappointment they voted for the Lieberman ammendment, which states that it is a fact that Iran is killing Americans in Iraq. Apparently, the talking point is that the ammendment only calls for a report. Actually, the ammendment is mostly quotations of Bush officials making claims, and in summary it says that Iran "must end" its alleged killing of Americans.
It is the same thing all over again, they will re-assure us that it is necessary and possible to invade and occupy Iran. How could 97 Senators vote for it?
Conservatives: WRONG about Iraq
Conservatives: WRONG about Bush
Posted by conshame at 07/16/2007 @ 7:29pm
Now it seems that today's conservatives are reaching back in history to the imperialism of ancient Rome, the National Socialist police state of Third Reich Germany, and the slavery and segregation of the Old South.
Yeah, Sam, the Republicans have traded in the libertarians for the evangelicals and their Crusader mentality. That couldn't possibly be regarded as an upgrade, could it?
Why don't the libertarians run a 'strong' presidential candidate to stick it to the Republicans for dumping them?
Posted by Metteyya at 07/16/2007 @ 7:42pm
I called my Senators, told them not to attack Iran for the 1000th time, ...."
Just a wild guess, but I think they may had ID'd you(correctly) as a nut and have plced you on their watch list and ignore list...I wouldn't contact them anymore if I were you...
Conshamed again: WRONG about Iraq
Conshamed again: WRONG about Bush
Conshamed again : WRONG about everything...again.
Posted by john maasch at 07/16/2007 @ 7:49pm
It is the same thing all over again, they will re-assure us that it is necessary and possible to invade and occupy Iran. How could 97 Senators vote for it?
Remember this, Conshame:
Q: If you corrupt the Republicans with defense and oil industry contributions and corrupt the Democrats with AIPAC contributions, what do you get?
A: A total mess in the Middle East!
Posted by Metteyya at 07/16/2007 @ 7:49pm
Posted by METTEYYA 07/16/2007 @ 7:49pm
Thank God we then have moral giants in the Democrats like Kennedy, Jefferson, Lee, Hillary, Bill, Reid, Boxer, Barney Frank, Pelosi,and Edwards to keep us all safe, clean and away from any outside intertests, like Chinese rocket companys, Arab port deals...ect.,...right?
Posted by john maasch at 07/16/2007 @ 7:56pm
like Chinese rocket companys, Arab port deals...ect.,...right?
JM,
You really are living in the past and a tad bit racist.
Did you realize that nearly all US manufacturers now make their products in China? So maybe we should watch out for exploding iPods, or incurable Chines rashes in our designer clothes that only affect Americans?
Did you know that the UAE company that wanted to manage our ports is one of the biggest backers of Bush and his 'war on terrorism'?
I know, all Arabs are the same, just like there is no such thing as a Chinese capitalist, right? - once a commie, then always a commie, and all Arabs hate America!
Posted by Metteyya at 07/16/2007 @ 8:06pm
"Did you know that the UAE company that wanted to manage our ports is one of the biggest backers of Bush and his 'war on terrorism'? "
Did you know their biggest lobbist is...Bill Clinton..
Racist?
All Arabs hate America? No, my Lebanese American lawyer doesn't, my Chinese partner in LA doesn't...Although, I have never seen the Arab Americans for the US march lately, but I will give you that one..
and racists,...as I said, my black female boss think more like me than any of the loon squad here...
You are strange and prone to generalizations of those who think yopu are wrong...its what I expect here and am rarely let down.
Posted by john maasch at 07/16/2007 @ 8:18pm
"I know, all Arabs are the same, just like there is no such thing as a Chinese capitalist, right? - once a commie, then always a commie, and all Arabs hate America!
Posted by METTEYYA 07/16/2007 @ 8:06pm
Actually, you are wrong about the Arabs, I can help you there if you are confused..
As for the Chinese..I travel to China..do you?..if you have I think you missed the entire place, if not I can help you there too...send me your email addresss and I can help you off line...if you are interested.
You seem..lost.
Posted by john maasch at 07/16/2007 @ 8:20pm
Posted by METTEYYA 07/16/2007 @ 8:06pm
You never addressed the thought on how clean your Dems are..
Posted by john maasch at 07/16/2007 @ 8:22pm
"Yeah and he should probably check the made in China tag on his American flag while he's at it.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/16/2007 @ 8:11pm
Maybe Frank should check out the tags on Hillarys skirt and boxers when his head is up there licking her balls...it might say "Stolen from the WH, or made by LORAL Corp,..."
Posted by john maasch at 07/16/2007 @ 8:24pm
JM,
'You' were the one that brought up offensive Chinese rocket companies and crazyArab port deals, not I!
Maybe you should choose your words and examples more carefully next time! :-)
Posted by Metteyya at 07/16/2007 @ 8:27pm
"Oh and since you're fiscally conservative and we already have our paychecks announce how much is going to SS and Medicare....why don't we do the same thing for every major federal expediture?
Would we have even less support for the occupation if it was being paid for directly by subractions from our paychecks?
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 07/16/2007 @ 4:53pm
Now that is an awesome idea. No matter what your ideolgy, the people should see where their money goes. (And comes from).
I personally can't think of a better idea, to get ordinary people more involved with their govt.
Posted by Malcontent at 07/16/2007 @ 8:28pm
"Would we have even less support for the occupation if it was being paid for directly by subractions from our paychecks? "
True enough..and how many other "Important Programs" would hit the endangered list if we allowed each worker to send in his tax money weekly or bi weekly, as he gets his check? And let them decide if 30-40% of said check is to be confiscated, is a good idea...and that those programs get the money BEFORE his family food fund?
Posted by john maasch at 07/16/2007 @ 8:34pm
"I personally can't think of a better idea, to get ordinary people more involved with their govt.
Posted by MALCONTENT 07/16/2007 @ 8:28pm "
Me too.
Posted by john maasch at 07/16/2007 @ 8:35pm
Actually, you are wrong about the Arabs, I can help you there if you are confused..
As for the Chinese..I travel to China..do you?..if you have I think you missed the entire place,
Wrong?
So you ARE saying that all Arabs hate America and all Chinese companies are communist? Because this is what is implied in the crazy Arab port deal and stupid Chinese rocket venture comment that YOU made in your above post!
Posted by Metteyya at 07/16/2007 @ 8:36pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 07/16/2007 @ 8:28pm
Sign...yeah sure,,whatever..
off to a 5 mile walk.
Posted by john maasch at 07/16/2007 @ 8:40pm
True enough..and how many other "Important Programs" would hit the endangered list if we allowed each worker to send in his tax money weekly or bi weekly, as he gets his check?
I have a better idea...
Why don't we pass a law in which taxpayers can 'earmark' where and where not to spend 'our' tax dollars. I think we can defund the war in light-speed with that sort of people power!
Posted by Metteyya at 07/16/2007 @ 8:40pm
HOFFMAN: We are talking about war here....
Yes, indeed! However we get into any war, and there has been many, the sense of national honor and the brute instinct to win are powerful currents to swim against.......not something wusses are good at!
Posted by Happy at 07/16/2007 @ 8:42pm
Posted by METTEYYA 07/16/2007 @ 8:40pm
You may find the entire govt defunded...
Lets let the people keep their entire paycheck and pay only consumption tax..let them decide how much the govt will have to spend..period.. and no longer at the mercy of "we need more cash $3 trillion is not enough.."
Fuck em all.
Posted by john maasch at 07/16/2007 @ 8:44pm
fuck em all
yup, that about sums maasch up
Posted by Will C. at 07/16/2007 @ 8:45pm
not something wusses are good at!
Posted by HAPPY 07/16/2007 @ 8:42pm
so true, sitting it out in the nose bleed seats boy
Posted by Will C. at 07/16/2007 @ 8:46pm
As regards this posting and where you are attempting to take it, unfortunately conservative Republican Senators are for the most part no different than Democratic liberal ones when it comes to one issue. THEY ALL WANT TO STAY IN OFFICE. They all seem to compromise to some degree in order to stay in office.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 07/16/2007 @ 5:04pm
So your earlier "surrender LEFTISTS" statement was inaccurate....any politician who wants to "stay in office" might go against the war, right?
But wait...doesn't that mean that...the war is un-popular?!?!?
And doesn't that mean that even Giuliani, Thompson, or Romney might "do what it takes to stay in office" (in 2012) and end the war due to its un-popularity?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 07/16/2007 @ 9:04pm
Did a little research at www.dumbcrooks.com....and I found it-
(though I thought Empty Spence was from Texas, not Connecticut)
Bank robber stops to count the loot
A Bridgeport, Connecticut man learned a valuable lesson when robbing banks: Wait until you get home to count the loot.
Ernest Michaelson, 45, was discovered behind the United Bank on Saturday, moments after it had just been robbed. Police said Michaelson was counting the stolen money when police arrived and was quickly arrested.
Police said Michaelson matched the description of the robber who threatened to start shooting people if he wasn't given the money.
The suspect fled after a teller handed over about $857 and was spotted by a bank manager as he ran behind the bank.
October 23rd, 2000
Posted by Mask at 07/16/2007 @ 9:27pm
"cut and run" epithet; he took it and did not fight back.
The reason that he took it is that it is true
Posted by Len Mosse at 07/16/2007 @ 10:06pm
len, he didn't run
Posted by Will C. at 07/16/2007 @ 10:13pm
What's angered Keith Ellison? It's kind of puzzle that even though Dubya's perhaps the most pro-Israel prez since 1945 and never defended Arab courses, most American Muslims voted for him, and twice in '00 and '04. Read this.
-----------
In Meeting With Atheists, Rep. Ellison Compares President Bush to Hitler Monday, July 16, 2007 Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, is defending himself Monday after comparing President Bush to Adolf Hitler and leaving the impression the administration may have rigged the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
Speaking to an atheist group on July 8, Ellison said that the president acted much the way Hitler did when the Reichstag, or German Parliament building, was burned in 1933 ahead of elections that pitted Hitler's Nazi Party against others, including the Communists. Hitler, who was suspected of ordering the fire, declared emergency powers that helped him launch his dictatorial and murderous reign.
"It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that," Ellison told the group, according to The Minneapolis Star Tribune. "After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it and it put the leader of that country [Hitler] in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted."
Posted by Helen DAO at 07/16/2007 @ 10:23pm
The question is not "where's the anger?"
The question is, why do so many self-proclaimed progressives waste their votes and their time on the Democrats? How much betrayal can they stand?
Posted by geezjan at 07/16/2007 @ 10:33pm
You may find the entire govt defunded...
No, JM,
With an 'earmarked' tax system, you still have to select some area of government to fund with your tax dollars or it will all go to the general fund like it does now.
Only 'unpopular' and 'ineffective' programs would be defunded (like the Iraq war). I would also include a caveat that all corporate taxes must be spent based on the same percentages of support that individual taxpayers have selected to prevent corporations from dictating where our tax money is spent.
At least we would not need a constitutional amendment to get this done, and it would dramatically improve the accountability of our government to the people so governed and limit the influence of moneyed special interests.
Posted by Metteyya at 07/16/2007 @ 10:54pm
JM,
Also, by restricting corporate earmarks, you don't give certain taxpayers a 'super-vote' simply because they are associated with a company that has high profits.
We all know that there are progressive companies, middle of the road companies, and conservative ones and since they have already earmarked on their individual taxes, why give them a super-vote as a group when they have already voted?
We also know that the Fortune 1000 comprises less than 1% of all business, so giving such a small percentage of companies a super-vote because of their higher profits is undemocratic. 1% of the population of people or companies should not be able to determine what the 99% of the rest of us should spend our tax money on, as this would defeat the purpose of earmarked taxing.
Posted by Metteyya at 07/16/2007 @ 11:19pm
Lott has blown out his conservative credentials when he attacked talk radio.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 07/16/2007 @ 5:04pm
WTF???
Posted by skeletonman at 07/17/2007 @ 09:51am