April 21, 2006
Simple question for 'anti-war' advocates
This is not about the mechanics or origins of the war in Iraq. Even a simple "yes" or "no" answer is sufficient.
Do you acknowledge that the people we are fighting are evil?
Posted by Darleen at April 21, 2006 07:00 AM
Thing is, Mz Darleen, it's not that simple.
How do ya call people "evil" who are doing what they do on behalf of God, or their perception of God.
Or the hope of an afterlife?
Or on behalf of a monotheistic religion?
Doesn't mean you can't fight them.
And obviously nobody (in the West) wants to live under Islamic rule, but "evil"?
Manichean concepts of good and evil just muddy the waters when you're trying to fight terrorism.
The Islamic fanatics are essentially terrorists; you fight 'em with either military action, or police work, or a combination of both.
Calling 'em evil doesn't accomplish much.
Except maybe in a propaganda sense.
And even that's not working anymore.
Posted by: Carl W. Goss at April 21, 2006 07:29 AM
Agree with Carl 100%.
Calling them "Evil" means accepting their conception of this as a RELIGIOUS war.
Do you think we are at war with 1.2 billion Muslims, Darleen?
Posted by: Brad at April 21, 2006 08:04 AM
Judgements of behavior can be made independent of religious considerations. Any one who purposely murders innocent people is evil, pure and simple. I leave religious issues, such as sin, up to others.
Posted by: gahrie at April 21, 2006 07:00 PM
- This is OT - but definately worth it. Chk out the growing storm swirling around Mz McCarthy, the Liberal "mole" that leaked the "euro prison" story to the press. Start at Protien Wisdom/Flopping Aces for all the links.
- Turns out she has direct connections with one Joe Wilson, Burger (secrets in my shorts) was her boss at one time, Wesley Clarke, Sen. Rockefeller, and surprise surprise, General Zinni.
- But the real corker is that the Euro investigation panel says there never were any prisons. In fact it now appears the whole thing was a "sting" set up to trap the leakers!
- Priest wins a Pulitzer for a story that never existed.
- CIA Officials say that more disclosures a due in the next few days.
- Fitzgerald must be peeing his pants if hes heard about this.
- Next stop. Indictments for the NYTrash/Leakers NSA non-wiretap scam.
- Just in time for the fall election cycle "PrisonGate". What goes around comes around and Christmas may come early for us republicans. Yessssssssssssssssssssssssss!!!!!
Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at April 22, 2006 12:54 AM
Calling them "Evil" means accepting their conception of this as a RELIGIOUS war.
Heh. This calls to mind the movie "Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers":
Theoden: I will not risk open war.
Aragorn: War is upon you, whether you would risk it or not.
Accepting or denying their definition means little when they mean to chop your head off. I really can't quite understand the Left's inability to understand that the qualities the Left holds so dear - tolerance, acceptance, non-judgement, live and let live are an anathema to the strict Wahabist, and is a sign of our corruption and inability to defend ourselves.
Darleen, I think you need to rephrase your question. Is it evil to put to death homosexuals in the "worst, most severe way of killing"??
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at April 22, 2006 03:19 PM
Perhaps Darlene could define who it is we are fighting. Is it the Sunni insurgency that has lost its former political advantage? Is it the Shiite death squads quietly mounting revenge assassinations against those they long suffered under? Is it street thugs taking advantage of the endless chaos? Is it the Iranian allied government itself?
In Darlene's childishly simplistic wish to categorize this fight as a simple good vs. evil (which intelligent adults have always known does not exist outside of fairy tales and religious fanaticism) she blindly mouths meaningless platitudes. We will "win"....never mind that winning cannot be objectively defined. The enemies are 'evil" ....never mind we don't even know specifically who the enemy is.
In Darlene's mind our young people (5 just yesterday, 60 so far in just the month of April) are being sacrificed to fight...what? Islamofascism! She likes the word, the concept excites her as a simplistic target for her own internal need to HATE an outside force. Does she care that many who we fight are in fact not Islamofascists at all, but ancient sectarian enemies (not of us but of each other) whose bitter battle has been let loose by American incompetence and reliance on such asinine simplistic thinking as Darlene loves to masturbate herself on.
Look around you now, wingnut dingbat. The anti war forces are not weirdos and freaks. They are retired generals who know - unlike yourself and your fellow fighting keyboardist cowards -what war really is, what treachery was committed in the pursuit of this unnecessary war and how counterproductive and monumentally costly this ridiculous adventure has turned out to be. Keep in miind before you slander them - they ARE civilians now. And they are most definitely NOT sheltered little white housewives bitching from the comfort of their California lives, with all their children safe in their beds.
You have no moral highground, much as you pompously pontificate on it. Stop latching on to buzzwords like a four year old, and try learning something about this world where so many innocent people are dying. It's not about Darlene rubbing herself all over with how "good" she is because she hates all those who are "evil."
Posted by: A Friend at April 23, 2006 04:00 AM
"In Darlene's childishly simplistic wish to categorize this fight as a simple good vs. evil (which intelligent adults have always known does not exist outside of fairy tales and religious fanaticism)"
And there we have it folks. The fundamental problem with modern Liberalism summed up in one short sentence.
Posted by: gahrie at April 23, 2006 04:02 AM
Gahrie, since you are a proponent of this black & white view of the world, then surely YOU can be the first wingnut ever to answer these two questions:
1. Who are we fighting? (Yes, I know they're all "evil", but WHO are they? )
2. How do we "win"? Please explain in objective detail that can be used to define the victory once it's achieved. (If you're Darlene, it's simple. All we need to do is eradicate the world's most populous religion.)
Don't worry. Not holding my breath. Wingnuts adore simplistic jingos and slogans, especially those they can use to unilaterally describe themselves as GOOD. But the problem is, as we've seen in Iraq, they don't know a damn thing about GETTING ANYTHING DONE. They can't fight a war, or win it, they can only spout pompous moral slogans about it, while carelessly ignoring the death, destruction and bankruptcy their mindless certainties have unleashed on the rest of the world.
The Repubs have removed governing from the American government, everywhere except in our personal lives, while at the same time expanding the size and cost of government. Whatever their self-rewarding moral certainties, the American people can now clearly see this - They are INCOMPETENT. Combine that with their corruption, corporate socialism and contempt for working families. Looks like you're going to get a shot at seeing whether "modern Liberalism" is all that bad of an alternative after all.
It is a tragedy what your wingnut brigade has done to our country, but at least it will be fun watching you sputter yourselves stupid this fall.
Posted by: A Friend at April 23, 2006 04:36 AM
1) Originally I thought we were fighting Muslim extremists. However after watching the actions and reactions of the Islamic world, and doing a little research on the culture and history of Islam, I too have come to the conclusion that we are involved in a clash of civilizations.
2) We win by fighting the conflict on their territory, and not ours. This is not a fight we started, or one we can unilaterally end. If we pull our troops and stop fighting, Islam will move the conflict to our territory.
3) The belief in good or evil does not mean you see the world in terms of black and white. There are shades of gray.
Posted by: gahrie at April 23, 2006 07:19 AM
- Actually A freak, as long as theres a religion that exists, declaring everyone on earth whos not a member is an infidel to be murdered on sight, my guess is it could take thousands of years. Technology will probably speed it up for you though, so you’re best bet is to try not to be in which ever American cities go up in atomic dust. The end will come when one side or the other can no longer fight. Come to think of it, maybe you’re better off just staying in denial.
Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at April 23, 2006 08:29 AM
Ah, A Friend (orginally Hrubec) has weighed in again with the usual broken-moral-compass blather.
And that is what my basic question is about - one's moral compass.
If ANYONE cannot or will not minimally acknowledge that Islamists are evil, then there really is no point in debating them. They are so berift of basic values of human decency that it is like trying to teach a pig to tap dance... it frustrates you and annoys the pig.
Beings like Hrubec can string words together, but under all the histrionics one finds a deep contempt and hatred of human values.
One doesn't have to be "religious" to understand or use a system of values that can make judgements about what constitutes good and evil. I know some fine and decent athiests who can easily make good/evil value judgements based on values of what is proper for humans AS humans.
Islamism and the far-Left cult are both totalitarian and authoritarian and do not possess fit values for humans AS humans.
Posted by: Darleen at April 23, 2006 09:22 AM
- Oh and A Freak, before you go off in your little swamp fever corner and mentally masterbate yourself too much, your "get Bush" campaign doesn't seem to have been a viable anwser to no party plan, or workable social alternatives. "We aren't Bush" may give you hard left base orgasims of flights of fancy, but as one of my Liberal friends put it the other day: "what the hell does this whole "dirty trick" crap do. Sure we've managed to push Bushes popularity down, aided and abeted by our friends in the left-wing media. But the bottom line is that no matter how unpopular the Repugs may be, who the hell is going to vote for a party that acts like a bunch of raving maniacs, denies 9/11 ever happened or we're in a war, and thinks its smart to field one candidate that can't even be honest about his war record, and another one whos hubby can't keep his fly zipped". You lefties should start listening to your own. Some of them are not happy campers.
Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at April 23, 2006 10:06 AM
Darlene, there is no more fitting tribute to absolutism and the cultist worship of authoritarianism than the radical fringists that blogs like yours still manage to attract. The apocalyptic visions that drive you are not nominally different than those that drive your "evil" enemies. And indeed your self-proclaimed definitions of good and evil are no more meaningful than theirs. What you share with your enemies is simplistic hatred, simplistic divisions of the world into absolutes that do not exist except in your own self congratulatory minds and in irrational blanket condemnations of any who dare to disagree with you.
Fortunately for the human race, the reign of the neocons is rapidly being ended by the return to common sense of the American masses. It is hard to fathom a greater evil than misuse of national intelligence and the exploitation of national tragedy to create a false cassus belli and sacrifice human lives on the altar of a geopolitical fantasy.
It is tiresome to argue with fringe radicals like yourselves, especially now as you become so rapidly irrelevant. However, I'd still like to know, where in your science fiction blighted fantasies you manage to imagine that THIS administration - the one that so incompetently botched the invasion and occupation of an unarmed nation, one of the few secular NON-Islamist states in the region - how they are going to be the ones to competently wage this endless war upon the world's most populous religion. Considering they have started by exponentially empowering the Islamists in Iran, I'd say they're off to a rather poor start, wouldn't you? Considering as well that they are allying themselves with nations (such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) that are the world's most prolific hotbeds of radical Islam ... Can you express where your confidence in your leaders derives from? Or does it all mattr little, in your apocalyptic orgasm dreams, since it's only prelude to the Rapture? Or perhaps, given your own nonreligious nature, you just can't distinguish between reality and your science fiction tv show fixations?
Darlene you sound tired. I've noticed all the wingnut bloggers are losing steam. They really only enjoy playing with rigged decks anyway. Now that they're being exposed as probably the most destructive political force in American history, as cowards who would sell our Constitution for a tinfoil hat, they all seem to be more interested in baby pictures and incredibly boring family stories. It's delightful to watch you all crumble so weakly in the face of reality.
Posted by: A Friend at April 23, 2006 10:29 AM
Gee A Freak. I don't think I've ever read such a concise pile of "projective" self descriptive bullshit as that post. Tired. In your dreams. "Destructive force". Coming from a gaggle of emotion driven anti-Americans that think leaking national secrets is super patriotic, that comment is the hieght of hubris. The only thing anyone is tired of is your Marxist relativistism, and 24 hour a day efforts to avoid any sort of personal responsibility. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out moron.
Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at April 23, 2006 11:45 AM
We win by fighting the conflict on their territory, and not ours.
Aside from the fact that this statement doesn't answer "A Friend"'s rather valid question, it makes no logical sense. What makes you think that terrorists behave like traditional nations in wartime and obey geographical boundaries? Simply because we haven't been attacked on U.S. soil since 9/11 is not a testament to the invasion of Iraq-- remember, over seven years passed between the first WTC bombing and 9/11.
The "flypaper" theory is a fallacy. But let me ask you this question: IF that military strategy makes sense, and we ARE attacked again here, would you be willing to reconsider the logic of that strategy? If the answer is no, then 2+2 = 5.
Islamism and the far-Left cult are both totalitarian and authoritarian
See, this kind of thinking sums up your entire raison d'etre. You aren't at war with Islamofascism. You're at war with the "Left."
Exactly how does a nuanced worldview like "A Friend/ Hrubec"'s constitute a "totalitarian" worldview? It is the exact opposite of that worldview which lumps vast groups of individuals and members of one ethnic/religious into "Them."
Ascribing the actions of terrorists as "evil" may make us all feel better about our own actions in this war, but it gets us no further toward analyzing the effectiveness of indefinitely occupying the Middle East, constructing permanent military bases there, etc.
Can we move this debate into a more pragmatic realm or is your original question simply a set up to confirm your preconceived conclusions about the Left?
Posted by: Brad at April 23, 2006 11:48 AM
- Well Brad, since the left has decided their way to political "salvation" is to align themsleves with America's enemies, I would have to affirm your contentions. However it was your choice to go down this road, so why are you surprised. In some ways, ( example: trusted CIA officers acting as Liberal moles caught in blatant acts of espionage against their own country ), it almost seems at times like we have more of a problem with the hard left than we do with the Islamic Extremists. I think you'd be hard put to make a case for yourselves that that was a choice of Conservatives.
Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at April 23, 2006 12:00 PM
I'm always interested in clearly defining the values of those I find anti-human. My argument is with everyone that holds anti-human values wherever I find them, in Islamists or the far Left.
What is forgotten today is how highly divided America was prior to Pearl Harbor over the "war in Europe"... which ranged from the usual isolationist rhetoric to dire "conspiratorial" ramblings about a "cabal" of FDR, Brits and the always 'blame-worthy' Jews.
It was only when Americans finally woke up that the totalitarian regimes of facist Europe and Japan were NOT going to leave in America in peace that we (mostly) united in defeating them. Certainly those that still harbored pro-fascist sentiments had the good sense to no longer pursue the "America First" propaganda.
Now we are faced with an new fascist ideology albeit with an "Islamic" face and what do some of the far Left do?
Side with it. Regardless of 9/11. Regardless of Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg and Theo Van Gogh. Regardless of The Cole or the African embassies. Regardless of suicide bombers in Tel Aviv. Nothing of these acts of evil from Islamists moves the far Left or causes them pause in their efforts to excuse these acts as really being the fault of America or Israel.
So, Brad, understand I find Islamofascists and the fascist element of the Left one and the same
and I oppose them both
Posted by: Darleen at April 23, 2006 01:02 PM
Darlene, if you can't see the difference between WWII - where state fought state- and this new endless miasma of violence we are dealing with now - with state fighting ideology/tactics/culture/religious fanaticism - then really you can't have a rational discussion....And as we've seen, on this blog, you never do. You've set up a meaningless comparison and you've camped yourself out on it as moral judge & jury.
Your pronouncements as to the nature of totalitarianism and fascism in American politics would have a little more resonance if you'd ever bothered to address any of your president's attempts to undermine our Constitutional framework with his insipid theories (not that one can credit him with it of course, but his handlers) of the unitary executive...and what that in fact means for our own future as a free republic.
We have real problems to deal with in this world, not the wild fantasies of crazy hatemongers casting wildly about for any reason they can find to embrace their own authoritarian cult. Thankfully, your silly rantings are confined to this blog, where the fact that you can't distinguish between Battleship Galactica and our new global realities makes no difference to anyone.
I guess it's probably best for those you live and work with that you have this blog on which to unleash your churlish judgmentalism. You're not hurting anyone, so continue to enjoy yourself with your little tea party friend, Mr. Bang.
Posted by: A Friend at April 23, 2006 01:25 PM
A friend. You're an absolutist asshole. You wouldn't recognize "churlish judgementality" if it bit you on your head filled ass. The left hates anything that calls them to task for their actions, holds them responsible for their solicious lies and distortions, and points out their Theistic self serving fairy tales.
- Adhominem attacks, phoney "AnythingGates", dirty tricks, shilling your own people to ruin their lives, all of it because the "end justifies the means". Your minds are so constricted with your own quiet dreams of Totalitarianism you can't admit a single "good" in any other point of view. Good little Komrad Marxists, all marching in lockstep, screeching and howling, to the orchastrations of your Utopist Communist leaders.
- For your own sake, you should hold out hope that no Extremist totalitarian ever manages to make America submit my "Friend", because if you havn't noticed its always the fringe thats first to get lined up against the wall and shot when the thugs march in, but we shouldn't speak of that, because it doesn't fit well with the "party" line.
Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at April 23, 2006 01:49 PM
I am curious as to where this Leftist rejection of good and evil comes from. Classical Liberal thought believed in good and evil. Communism believes in good and evil.
Is it really nothing more than an (il)logical extension of the 70's "if it feels good do it"?
Posted by: gahrie at April 23, 2006 01:57 PM
- Well gahrie. They don't really practice true Communism. Its all about escaping personal responsibility. "Relativism". No matter what I do its all "relative". America steals Arab oil, so they have a perfect right to fly airplanes into our buildings. We "steal" their oil, so they kill. "moral relativism". They hate religion. Religion holds you responsible for yoiur words and actions. Everything they want to avoid. Want to make a moonbat sweat. Just mention the possibility of a draft.
- The Left knows that Socialism gets kicked to the curb everytime they try it. Americans are just not "bowed" like Europeans. So they dream up these totured logic distortions to demonize everything American, and launch their attacks from those distortions. they support our enemies, never realizing that its because of the freedoms they enjoy that they can act like this without getting shot or having their heads cutoff, as they would in all the Extremist countries they so love. they're simply elitist morons. Savant idiots. Lots of education, no smarts.
Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at April 23, 2006 02:07 PM
- Fact is, they're not really "Classic Liberals", They even lie about what they call themselves. They should be called what they are. Amoral "Theists". Nihilists, the worse scourge of mankind, over-educated minds with no moral compass. Exactly parallel to the Fascists they love to falsely project onto everyone else they want to demonize. They have come and gone over the years since the 20's, but always remain one of the greatest dangers to our Liberty.
Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at April 23, 2006 02:25 PM
BBH, and Darleen
If The Left are relativists, then how can we also be on the side of the terrorists, who espouse an ideology opposite of relativism?
Exactly what is fascistic about relativism?
Posted by: Brad at April 23, 2006 07:18 PM
If I may venture an answer. It is not so much that the Left is on the side of the Islamic extremists. It just appears that way because they are so anti-American. The Left doesn't really care who our enemies are....they just need somebody to identify with. If it wasn't the Islamic extremists, it would be the European Socialists, or the Latin American Communists, or the Chinese Communists.
Posted by: gahrie at April 23, 2006 09:16 PM
One thing the Islamic terrorists arn't--relativists. They are absolutists.
They are absolutely committed to:
(1) the end of U.S. aid to Israel and the ultimate elimination of that
(2) the removal of U.S. and Western forces from the Arabian Peninsula;
(3) the removal of U.S. and Western military forces from Iraq,
Afghanistan, and other Muslim lands;
(4) the end of U.S. support for the
oppression of Muslims by Russia, China, and India;
(5) the end of U.S. protection
for repressive, apostate Muslim regimes in Saudi Arabia,
Kuwait, Egypt, Jordan, et cetera; and finally (6) the conservation of the Muslim
world's energy resources and their sale at higher prices.
Only our need for Middle Eastern oil and the desire of the Neocons to to protect Israel at all costs, keeps us in the Middle East. This latter is hard to understand, since the Israelis do a pretty good job of defening themselves and have done so since the 1940s. Oil is more understandable.
All those other reasons given by the Bush administration, simply mask the real reasons we are committed to staying in that region.
Another thing most Moslems in the Middle East do NOT believe in, is the separation of church and state. Which is why those clerics and clerical parties in Iraq are causing so much trouble.
Personally I'm a relativist, that doesn't mean I won't kick some serious ass if someone tries to fly a plane into an office building I'm working in.
Yes, we have to defeat terrorism, but it always helps to have some understanding of what you are facing and the real reasons why your enemy acts the way he does.
Posted by: Carl W. Goss at April 23, 2006 09:20 PM
Darleen you are awesome.
This simple little question, and the comments following it, are the best, most straightforward illustration of the utter moral irrelevency of the modern left.
Man I wish I had thought of this question!
I guess I'll just have to link to it! :)
Posted by: Strider at April 23, 2006 10:34 PM
Carl, you forgot one:
(7) The conversion of the entire planet to Muslim rule under Sharia law (As Allah wills it to be!)
(You and "A Friend" remind me of a quote from Inigo Montoya in "The Princess Bride" when he goes up against the Sicilian:
"Truly you have a dizzying intellect.")
I'm pretty much of a mind that if the philosophy on which you base virtually every action you take is one that actively espouses beheading people who worhips the wrong gods, the deliberate targeted mass-murder of civilian populations, and the stoning of women who dare to show their faces in public, then you're evil.
Oh yeah. HITLER WAS EVIL TOO! EVIL! EVIL! EVIL! END OF STORY!
Now, please, write another ten paragraphs on how I'm oversimplifying and just can't see things for what they are.
I could use a good laugh.
And before you pathetic weasels again try the "you're just religious extremists yourselves" meme... I'm actually an atheist, but thanks for playing.
Posted by: Strider at April 23, 2006 11:04 PM
I guess "straightforward illustrations" are all in the mind of the beholder. Reading the incoherent rantings of Big Banger and Strider, what is illustrated for me more than anything else is the powerful strain of insanity that is present in the fringe element represented here on a Uber Wingnut board such as this one. I doubt either of you ever leave the basement, or obtains information from any source other than online Wingnuttia. You're in quite some enlightened company Darlene. The only case they're making for your moral absolutism is that, just as in the Islamic world, kooks are attracted to that kind of angry self justifying absolutism.
No wonder you are all becoming politically irrelevant at such a rapid pace. Like I said, we here in the real world will take it from here. And as for Anti Americanism, shove that bullshit up your ass. I'm a proud veteran who, unlike just about every wingnut I ever met, served my country. I fly my flag and, unlike my wingnut neighbor who has his NAILED to his tree (better to save his fat ass the walk), I take it in at night. There is nothing more anti American than the bozos on the right who would crown our president as king, who would gladly trash our Constitution and destroy our country's founding principles if it meant making themselves feel just a little more morally superior, who despise an open forum of ideas and problem solving - the very things that made our nation great and whose loss will destroy it.
You make a pathetic showing, even for obvious whackjobs. Aside from spewing your self important hatred on this miserable blog, what have any of YOU done to contribute to our country's greatness?
Posted by: A Friend at April 24, 2006 03:28 AM
- I generally like Juan Williams, he seems like a likable enough guy, and on occassion gets it right. I can sympathize with him when he has to carry the party line at times, and is forced to defend some of the hard lefts young turk bird-brain ideas, but yesterday was a sad, sad display.
- Appearing on FOX News Sunday, the question of Mary McCarthy came up, and he bounced back and forth between, “well she’ll have to pay for what she did”, “She thought what she was doing was right”, and a few “she’ll be a hero“‘s thrown in. The rest of the panel was incredulous. He refused to condemn espionage.
- So now the left has decided that our laws don’t even matter anymore. Each citizen can decide for themselves which laws they’ll obey, and which ones they’ll ignore. When our most important security positions are filled by people, depending on their political leanings, the pledges of allegience they make will no longer be of any importance. If you think this policy or that policy is wrong, you just do whatever you want. Honor no longer matters.
- These are the people that want to be given the reins of our government. Oversee our security. Defend us from nutcase ideologies that would like nothing better than to destroy our whole country. How exactly will they do that if they escew our entire form of government and laws?
- Is it to the point where left of center Liberal Democrats are simply no longer equiped morally, or mentally, to hold public office?
- I sure as hell don’t want people of any party, Republican or Democrat, who do not believe in our system of government in any position of importance. This is deeply troubling. I understand the emotional based ideas of the left, that they tend to confuse thier personal issues and emotion based "feelings" with rectitude when they decide political issues, but this is simply insane.
Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at April 24, 2006 04:41 AM
Let's see. "Hitler was evil", "stoning a woman to death for showing her face in public is evil", and so forth....
And "A Friend" reads these statements and decides they're "incoherent ranting".
Dude -- not only is the concept of "evil" nonexistent in your worldview, but you might want to look up the word "incoherent" while you're at it.
I'll grant you "ranting".
Posted by: Strider at April 24, 2006 05:43 AM
OH Gawd... Now AF (aka Hrubec, Snick, Tallulah et al) is claiming to be a veteran
just like s/he claims to be this wonderful mom of brilliant children
:::sniff:::::sniff::: the only BS I'm smelling here is hers.
Posted by: Darleen at April 24, 2006 06:51 AM
I'm a veteran, and that's no BS.
Posted by: Carl W. Goss at April 24, 2006 10:40 AM
Thanks for your service, CWG.
I have a question for these "moral compass" folks.
Do any of you acknowledge that evil ACTUALLY DOES EXIST?
Yes or No. No explanation ahould be necessary
Posted by: caltechgirl at April 24, 2006 01:45 PM
gahrie: you wrote
It is not so much that the Left is on the side of the Islamic extremists. It just appears that way because they are so anti-American.
Well, that's quite a bit more generous than what Darleen wrote about the Left! Darleen thinks the Left IS on the side of the Islamic extremists!
Islamism and the far-Left cult are both totalitarian and authoritarian and do not possess fit values for humans AS humans.
So to HER, the Left and the Islamofascists are basically one and the same. But YOU don't agree, gahrie?
What is it with you Right Wingers? You choose to label the Left as traitors when it suits you, but you don't really mean to say that we are just as evil as the 9/11 terrorists?
This whole question of whether we accept EVIL is just a set up for a mud slinging fest.
Posted by: Brad at April 24, 2006 03:24 PM
I'm not BSing either. USCG 1976-1982. Served one and a half years at Cape May as part of Bicentennial Band, traveling the country in uniform and on parade. Very thrilling. Then another amazing year and a half at Governor's Island NY as part of the initial Ellis Island restoration project, in my beloved NY harbor. Then struck for Boatswains mate and did my hard time in Bar Harbor, ME. Don't tell me about patriotism, you losers.
And as for my kids, don't recall saying they were brilliant...though they are. Beautiful, brilliant, clean, hardworking American gems, all three of them. Thanks for caring, Darlene. You're such a sweetheart.
And Brad, of course you're right it's a setup. It's always a setup with these people. They don't actually care about honor or integrity, only about sliming those who disagree with them. It's laughable how far off the mark they always are.
Posted by: A Friend at April 24, 2006 04:10 PM
- Disagree with you because you support Islam, and go with the blame America first screeds. You bet your ass we do. No "setup" needed.
- As far as the "Oh woe is us" whiney bleating, if you don't want attacks, then stop attacking. Try a little honest debate and discourse for a change. You might be surprised.
Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at April 24, 2006 06:14 PM
Mary, Mary, quite idiotary…
See how your leaks grow and grow…
With tin-foil hats, howling moonbats…
because of that evil Karl Rove…
Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at April 24, 2006 08:57 PM
The Neocon crowd, insufferably proud....
with they’re morals and scriptures be damn…
We’re elitist and brave, no laws to behave…
We prefer dear Jihadist Islam....
They’ll call you the names, a traitor profane…
To us you’re our hero, dear Mary....
For us theres no shame, we’ll hail to your name....
and follow our leader, John Wilkes Kerry....
Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at April 24, 2006 08:58 PM
My answer to the question is YES....
Some of the commenters here are doing what the progressives do. Over analysing and intellectualizing as a defense mechanism to having to face the reality of the situation we are in.
I suppose that's safer and less scary than realizing what we are really faced with.
One of you said your liberal anti-American/pro-anything-not-American sentiments is not evil when it suits conservatives. I disagree. I do think it's evil.
It's evil in the sense that one unknowingly does damage when mislead. By not standing strong it sends a message of weakness to the enemy. In that way it gives aid, comfort and hope to the enemy - which leads to more death and hardships.
If the Islamic world thought we'd come at them with all our force, they'd surrender in a heartbeat. But as it is now, they think we will be defeated by our own liberals. They have as much as said so. They can wait and the media and progressives will wear us down. They think we don't have the will to fight them and they are fine with bleeding us slowly.
Let the Warriors fight the War and you go paint and dance and do what you do. There's a place for both. I won't tell you how to perform a musical and you don't tell our Warriors how to fight a war.
Then we can all get along.
Posted by: beth at April 24, 2006 09:42 PM
- Just try not to breathe a word about a "draft" beth. The meer mention of the word gives the "touchy", feely", "caring" loons the hives.
Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at April 25, 2006 01:37 PM
If the Islamic world thought we'd come at them with all our force, they'd surrender in a heartbeat.
Gee, that's so EASY!!!! Why haven't "your" Warriors done just that then, genius? Oh, wait, I see, it's the fault of the LIBRULS! And what was that one of you wingbats was saying about "personal responsibility"???? Point me to the Wingbat dictionary where "personal responsibility" means "whine and point fingers randomly to cover up for your own rank incompetence".
Here's a few things you "patriots" need to understand:
1. It isn't YOUR military. Not only are MOST veterans currently in office Democrat, almost ALL the veterans running in 2006 are running as Democrats. Wingnuts are notorious for their cowardice and selfishness, don't make good soldiers or public servants. And turn on your teevee once in awhile (something other than the Fox Propaganda Network) and count the GENERALS now roundly condemning the gross and foul incompetence of YOUR President (I'll give you nutjobs that one).
2. YOUR party has had FULL and ABSOLUTE control over this government for 5 1/2 years. You are 100% RESPONSIBLE (I know you hate that word) for all the disasters that have befallen us in that time - for not preventing the terrorist attack on 9/11, for quashing investigations into it, for misusing and cherry picking intelligence to take us into the WRONG war, for waging a war with historic INCOMPETENCE that has now empowered IRAN and destroyed any leverage we ever had in the Middle East, for bankrupting our treasury, for destroying our middle class's access to health care and higher education... and the list goes on and on. Try and take some responsibility for your own greed, corruption and rank INCOMPETENCE... Don't worry. I'm not waiting.
When beth talks about wanting to ignore reality because it's safer that way, the irony reeks. That is exactly what you queer, strange wingers are doing every day hopping on marginal blogs like this to preach about your own inherent superiority while completely ignoring the generations of damage YOUR party is doing to OUR country.
But don't worry. The 2006 election is going to be a doozy. Once the Dems get subpoena power, we'll finally get a chance to lance the fetid sores that the Pubbies have inflicted on our nation.
As for the draft, good one, Banger (how's the air in that basement there, old man?)...Darleen's daughters all look prime draft age. I'm sure she'll be happy to offer them up like sides of beef...And the way things are going, her little grandkids might as well start learning how to salute as well.
Posted by: A Friend at April 26, 2006 03:57 AM
Thank you for the reminder of why I no longer bother engaging liberals in discussion. Your ad hominem arguments, unsupported assertions and illogical conclusions preclude rational discussion.
Regarding your points in your latest contribution, a few mild reminders:
"Why haven't "your" Warriors done just that then, genius? Oh, wait, I see, it's the fault of the LIBRULS!"
Well, y'all sure seem to be taking credit. What was it Osama said, back in the days after 9/11, about Americans lacking the will to wage a war? Which political faction has been calling for our military to abandon any responsibility to establish a viable nation in Iraq?
"1. It isn't YOUR military. Not only are MOST veterans currently in office Democrat, almost ALL the veterans running in 2006 are running as Democrats."
It isn't the number of veterans running for office on either party's ticket that matters, it is the political allegience of the troops. Last I heard, this was AMERICA's military. Mind you, last figures I saw on the party affiliation of the troops were that something like 85% of them were registered Republicans. As best I recall, it wasn't Republicans challenging each and every military ballot in Florida back in 2000.
"2. YOUR party has had FULL and ABSOLUTE control over this government for 5 1/2 years. You are 100% RESPONSIBLE"
I guess that explains why we already have a pipeline fetching us oil from ANWAR, and why there are no judicial nominations still pending, eh?
You have perhaps forgotten that Sen. Jeffords through the majority to the Dems back in 2001? It was in all the papers. The Republicans didn't reclaim the majority until after the 2002 elections -- and even then they had to build an extra Senate President-pro tem office for Senator Byrd. So redo your math.
Second, "FULL and ABSOLUTE control"?
Are you are ignorant of the concepts of filibustering, Senate "holds" and other ways in which the rules of the Senate empower the minority? Or are you using some definition of those terms not in Webster's?
When you write of irony while displaying the reality-challenged traits you accuse others of, you really ought put a warning so that those of us with a sense of humour and appreciation of irony don't have to wipe liquids off our screens.
Posted by: RES at April 26, 2006 04:26 PM
Even the insults from the wingbats are so unimaginative and repetitive...It's the constipated thinking that comforts you that has helped drive our nation into this ditch.
85% of military is Repub? Hmmm, sounds like an "unsupported allegation" to me....You can't have those kind of figures, becuase guess what? Our military is and must be NONPOLITICAL. Something wingbats need to be reminded of, along with just about every other fundamental AMERICAN principle....And when it comes to supporting the troops, let's never forget that the Pubbies don't REALLY support them, not where it counts, not with stuff like body armor or veteran's benefits. Sell your bullshit to someone whose already brainwashed. We veterans know better.
And yes, you've had full and absolute control. You've got a rubber stamp Congress pushing through tax breaks for oil companies and all the other graft and greed that has made our government so HUGE and irresponsible since the Pubbies started treating it like their personal piggy bank.
Don't worry. The gross corruption and criminality of YOUR administration is all coming to light now. Hypocrisy exposed to clean air and sunlight. Yee haw!
As for "building a nation" in Iraq? How's that going, moron? Last I looked a nice little Islamic fundamentalist Iranian-sponsored government was taking hold and civil war is making blood run in the streets. More Pubbie effectiveness!
Posted by: A Friend at April 27, 2006 04:11 AM
"Even the insults from the wingbats are so unimaginative and repetitive."
Sorry that you find logic insulting. You problem isn't that the "insults" are repetitive, it is that your mode of argument is so consistent that descriptions of it can't help but become repetitive - name-calling is a practice most of us eschew after third-grade. ("Wingbat"? Talk about unimaginative!)
"85% of military is Repub? Hmmm, sounds like an "unsupported allegation" to me...."
Look it up, friend. It was in all the papers. Or continue to swim in denial.
"You can't have those kind of figures, becuase guess what? Our military is and must be NONPOLITICAL."
Doesn't mean they aren't allowed to vote, friend. Unless somebody (e.g. FL 2000) institutes a deliberate effort to disqualify their ballots. The military -- as a whole -- is nonpolitical; that doesn't mean the individuals comprising it must forego politics. Still, it is rarely a surprise when a liberal can't see the trees for the forest.
As you were in band rather than combat, you might not be aware of the problems posed by excessive body-armor, but you should have read recent reports (it was in the NY Times, afterall) of troops eschewing the increased armor in favor of mobility. Surprisingly few real soldiers seem to think the tortoise is the combat model they should emulate.
"We veterans"? A mite presumptious of you to speak for so many. I know a good many veterans who'd disagree with everything you've posted here. It's a pity don't like the benefits; we conservatives tried to improve those many times during forty years of liberal Democratic control of Congress.
"The gross corruption and criminality of YOUR administration"
You mean like selling missile technology to the Chicoms? Like using the White House as a B&B? Like using a nunnery for a fundraiser? Stealing stamps from the House post office, or bulk sales to unions of badly pasted up books?
Or are you referring to the recent 10-fold increase in personal assets of Congressman Mollohan, erstwhile ranking Democrat on the House ethics panel, who "last year bought a 300-acre farm with the head of a small defense contractor that had won a $2.1 million contract from funds that the congressman added to a 2005 spending bill." As you enjoy irony so much I am sure you'll be amused that the farm in question is on the Cheat river.
Sadly, no party has found a prophylactic against corruption.
The nation-building in Iraq is coming along quite well, according to the veterans who've served there that I've read and spoken with. Nobody gets fed into plastic shredders these days, and the "rape rooms" have been closed down for over three years. Sure, there's a residual criminal element that continues to try to deter things, but they're increasingly less effective even as their propaganda releases become more Baghdad Bob-ish.
Still, it is going better than the previous administration's "let sores fester" policy.
Posted by: RES at April 27, 2006 07:14 AM
Knowing our friend's concern for honest government, here are a couple of items about political corruption:
Stabenow Campaign Corrects Finance Records
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: April 26, 2006
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sen. Debbie Stabenow's campaign has corrected her campaign finance reports to show that some donations from 2002 and 2003 came from an Indian tribe then represented by now-disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, not an individual as she reported at the time.
or perhaps you prefer this:
E-Mail Leads to Ethics Fine for Kansas Gov.
Gov. Kathleen Sebelius was fined $1,500 by the state ethics commission Thursday for illegally soliciting campaign contributions from lobbyists.
The case involved an April 12 e-mail that Sebelius' re-election campaign sent to 92,000 supporters. ... Sebelius' staff had described the e-mail as an update on education, but at the bottom was a link to the governor's campaign Web site, where people can make a contribution. The link itself said: "Make a contribution."
The Governmental Ethics Commission concluded that the Sebelius campaign e-mail was a solicitation.
Campaign attorney Gary White and Deputy Director Joe Scranton had no comment. The governor, a Democrat in her first term, could have faced a fine up to $5,000.
Sebelius herself served on Kansas' state ethics commission during the 1970s.
© 2006 Associated Press.
Posted by: RES at April 27, 2006 02:00 PM
Let's have you perform the same service now for your Pubbie degenerates now, RES. I know one corrupt Dem equals twenty corrupt Pubbies, so it should be really easy for you. I know, as a typical wingnut, you're fair and balanced, right?
While you're at it, why don't YOU prove your bullshit 85% military? That's the number YOU pulled out of your ass. I'm not going to do your work for you. And seeing you CAN'T prove it, that will also be quite easy for you.
You are indeed a typical oblivious wingnut. Anyone who thinks we are only fighting a "residual criminal element" in Iraq is either a willful idiot or insane. Let me guess? None of your flesh and blood are over there being sacrificed to nation build, right? Never mind, rhetorical question, when it comes to wingbats the answer is foregone.
I'm tired of arguing with you all. You're finished anyway. I'll give you a number you can take to the bank - 32%. That's how many Americans now stand with YOUR president - the one certain to go down in history as the WORST we ever had. He may not be running again, but I can tell you from the almost daily conversions I encounter, any of your Pubbies that ever kissed his silver spoon butt is just as finished.
I'll come back after I'm refreshed a little. This stagnant little hate blog is boring me.
Posted by: A Friend at April 27, 2006 03:40 PM
I'm sorry to see your mind is as closed as your mouth is open. Anyone who doesn't share your biases is a wingnut and a moron, yet you call US hate-filled? I suggest you look up "projection" in any decent psychology text.
Sorry, that 85% figure came from an article back during the Clinton Regime, fretting over the military's growing separation from the general populace. As you've made clear your intention to leave the field and, as I doubt you'd accept any authority I provide for the figure, there is no reason for me to support the claim. Self-evidently the only way you'd believe it is if you found the data for yourself -- which you're obviously unwilling to do.
As to your supposition: I've friends who've served in Iraq, the son of a good friend is currently over there, and my daughter is preparing to join the Navy. Time will tell which of us has interpreted the situation over there more accurately; only a fool would presume to any high degree of assurance now. But the Democrats' cut'n'run strategy would guarantee your vision would come to pass, with serious consequences for the world. All the more reason to not abandon our misson in the face of weak-willed, lily-livered counsel, eh?
I would caution you against celebrating a 2006 victory prematurely; you seem to be suffering from pauline Kael Syndrome: the assumption that your small circle of acquaintances represents a meaningful sample of the electorate.
Of course, that's typical of egotists.
Posted by: RES at April 27, 2006 08:55 PM
That''s cool RES. I'm familiar with wingbat behavior. As for your utterly meaningless, and clearly outdated 85%, I'd just like to remind you that the stuff you pull out of your ass has a name other than FACT.
Let me explain Wingnuttia to you, since your immersion in it doesn't allow you to see the forest for the trees. There are three types of wingnuts:
1. Corporatist elitists. These are not technically wingnuts, but self interested profiteers who are enjoying this government's rapid transfer of all wealth and power away from the American People and into the pockets of their elite class. They are pragmatists, not crazy, just conscienceless anti American rapists. (They present a little problem for the racist wing - see#3 - since they LOVE illegal immigration... Yee Haw! Slave labor. What could be better?)
2. Religious crazies. These are the freaks who believe the world is coming to an end anyway and who are going to ride their vision of a bloodthirsty Jesus right into ground zero. Bush's most important core support group, since they are zombies who can never be reached by rational thought. The American Taliban, estimated size as large as 20% of the population, incredibly enough.
3. You all. Those motivated by a need to externalize their hatred, a la the butchy churlish Darleen. It is vital to them at all times to be RIGHT, to feel SUPERIOR, to crow about their DOMINANT CULTURE, and politics is only a convenient, currently useful vehicle for them to do so. The last few elections have empowered them with a sense that they represent something larger than their own psychological pathology.
You might want to check out Glenn Greenwald's blog sometime. He's got your kind pegged.
Good idea for your daughter to join the Navy. Wouldn't want to send her into the slaughter house. That "residual criminal element" doesn't look like it's planning to come to Jesus anytime soon....And as for "cut and run" , that was convenient for you all to smear and slander the 35 year vet John Murtha with, but unfortunately for you, it's not the Dems who are seeking that. It's the AMERICAN PEOPLE. They want OUT of that wasteful hellhole, eating up ONE TRILLION of our dollars, maiming thousands of our children, empowering Islamic Extremists and DOUBLING the price of gas in just the few short years that Bush has had to piss all over our national honor and our future.
Posted by: A Friend at April 28, 2006 03:37 AM
So glad you overcame your boredom and returned to the conversation.
As to your points:
"your utterly meaningless, and clearly outdated 85%..."
Primus, you are probably right about the 85% being outdated. It is likely over 90% by now, given the Dems 2000 effort to invalidate troops' absentee ballots (a FACT you've yet to address.)
Secundus, as noted previously, I never expected you to accept as fact any data inconvenient to your mania. So reject it all you like, i will not lie to you by pretending I care what you believe.
Tertius, IF the 85% claim IS true it clearly refutes your inference about the military being predominantly Democrats, and thus is not meaningless. Further, if it were meaningless it hardly seems likely you'd have spent so much time rejecting it.
"Bush's most important core support group, since they are zombies who can never be reached by rational thought."
Interesting. The evangelicals with whom I've spoken are generally quite experienced in the ways of the world (all that mission work, don'cha know) and quite amenable to rational thought. Perhaps your problem is that you've never had a rational thought?
"You all. Those motivated by a need to externalize their hatred, a la the butchy churlish Darleen. It is vital to them at all times to be RIGHT, to feel SUPERIOR, to crow about their DOMINANT CULTURE ..."
Friend, have you tried using a mirror lately? The only person I've seen here insisting (without assembling an argument in support of their views) that they're at all time RIGHT is you. The only hatred demonstrated has been yours (BTW, I thought liberals were in favor of not criticizing folk based upon their sexual orientation, gender or other inherent factors, yet YOU proclaim Darleen "butchy"?) As for demonstrating a need to be superior, again I suggest you examine the mote in your own eye before criticizing others.
I also don't notice any crowing hereabouts except in your delusional posts.
"Good idea for your daughter to join the Navy. Wouldn't want to send her into the slaughter house."
Her choice, as it best accomodates her desired MOS in the medical field. Or is it your thesis that it is appropriate for a parent to dictate their children's choices, as if they were chattel? (It is worth remembering that it was the Democrats that were the party of slavery, extermination of Native Americans and Jim Crow, while no Republican ever owned a slave.)
Of course, I expect that a veteran of the Coast Guard knows all about avoiding danger. Real warrior culture in that Coast Guard band, eh?
"That "residual criminal element" doesn't look like it's planning to come to Jesus anytime soon"
No, they look like they're on their way to join Allah without passing Paradise and without collecting 72 virgins.
Surely you're not silly enough to believe enemy propaganda?
"And as for "cut and run" , that was convenient for you all to smear and slander the 35 year vet John Murtha with"
No, friend, Murtha soiled his ... reputation entirely without our help. His "35 year vet" status was primarily accumulated in the Reserve, wasn't it? Real bold, there. Regardless, his past service is no more meaningful to his policy positions than was the past service of Gen. Arnold or that of Aaron Burr.
But his disgrace is irrelevant to the policy advocated, which amounted to abandoning our responsibilities to establish a replacement for the tyrannical government we cast down. Sure, the folks making up that replacement government are less than ideal, but then I expect one thing on which we can agree is that the folks comprising our governments here in America are less than ideal. We seem to manage in spite of that, and I'm confident the Iraqis will, too.
"it's not the Dems who are seeking that. It's the AMERICAN PEOPLE"...
That must be why the Dems stood up and voted in support of Murtha's policy prescription in such overwhelming numbers. I forget - did they achieve double digits? The question isn't whether the American people want out of Iraq, the question is how we want to leave and what the consequences of our departure might be.
John Kerry advocated abandoning the Vietnamese people 35 years ago, and his estimates of the lives such policy would cost was only off by a factor of a few hundred. If we leave Iraq as he, Murtha and other Democratic leaders advocate the criminals likely will succeed in taking control, making the country a base for terrorism as Afghanistan was, and proving bin Laden's claims that America is a paper tiger with no stomach for a real fight.
Of course, that doesn't apparently bother people who don't believe in any evil other than Republicans holding power.
Posted by: RES at April 28, 2006 10:55 AM
RES, I really will depart after educating you on this little point, which your daughter might wish to consider: When one joins the military (which clearly you know NOTHING about, being a typical wingnut), they have to FOLLOW ORDERS...Do you understand? Because it was the Bicentennial, they needed a BAND. And in boot camp, they tested me and threw me into Charlie Company, which incidentally was the most elite unit, trained the hardest and held to higher test standards...to play in the band. Not my idea, you goon. I did what all enlisted people do - FOLLOWED ORDER.
I did that for one 1/2 years til it disbanded, then moved on to standard Coast Guard responsibilities - mainly code enforcement (BaseNY) and search and rescue (in tropical Maine).
Won't bother to respond to the rest of your nonsense. You're a typical wingnut loser. Shut the fuck up.
Posted by: A Friend at April 28, 2006 03:49 PM
"When one joins the military (which clearly you know NOTHING about, being a typical wingnut), they have to FOLLOW ORDERS"
I expect that the simple fact I know what MOS means should serve to refute the question of whether I "know NOTHING about" the service.
Coast Guard band - big effing whoop. "Elite" band unit there's a MOS that undoubtedly struck fear into Russian hearts and kept them on their side of the Fulda gap. I can just hear the Russkies:
"Ivan, you think we should launch the attack against the imperialist running dogs?"
"Nyet, tovarisch. We still have no counterforce able to match the Yankees elite marching bands."
"Trained the hardest" - yeah, those Airborne, Ranger and SEAL pussies quaked in fear at the thought of the rigor of your training.
It isn't being in the band that amuses me, it is expecting anybody to be impressed by it. Major Frank Burns lives.
"Code enforcement"? Risked some nasty paper cuts, did you? Maybe carpal tunnel syndrome from writing up violations? This may impress meter maids, but not me, Friend.
"search and rescue"? Cruising around in a boat waiting to see if Teddy Kennedy would drive off a bridge again and need his secretary pulled out of the briney? Yawn.
BTW - all the regular military I've met (yeah, that includes REAL combat troops - infantry, airborne and Deltas, Friend) recognize that the troops serving in the late Seventies were the dregs, dope-abusing losers who had to be flushed out.
"Won't bother to respond to the rest..."
You'd have saved yourself some typing if you'd been more honest and said "can't respond" -- because you've yet to demonstrate any ability to formulate an argument that isn't based on invective, strawmen, ad hominem and misdirection. Face it, Friend, you're just one more fascist thug sitting in your beer hall grousing, incapable of winning an argument except by being so damned ugly and unpleasant that scarcely anybody wants to bother with you. You spew bile with every sentence you post. I suspect that all those "almost daily conversions I encounter" are actually just people with lives, uninterested in engaging you in a shit-flinging contest, so they lie to keep you pacified.
"Shut the fuck up."
Most intelligent thing I've seen you post, friend, and in the spirit of meeting you on your own intellectual level I can only say: Make me.
You're a typical close-minded, foul-mouthed, hate-filled liberal, envious of folks with actual lives and doing your best to convince yourself you're superior to those you fear, without actually being willing or able to demonstrate any basis for that superiority outside of your smug self-admiration. A coward too scared to even acknowledge their cowardice. Pathetic.
Posted by: RES at April 28, 2006 07:56 PM
Make you shut the fuck up? MAKE YOU? On an online blog that people TYPE into? What kind of fake macho asshole are you anyway? OK, rhetorical question. You're the kind of one handed typiststhat keeps the wingnut movement still thinking they're relevant...masturbating your cock with one hand and your ego with the other.
No, I don't think you know anything about military service and it's pretty easy to see why. No one who has served would be so free with the ridicule as a piece of shit like yourself is. That's how we got that ridiculous Vampira in a Flag Suit, the little aristocratic Congresswoman from Ohio, denigrating the courage of John Murtha on the floor of the House....Which you picked up, you incredible douche. Do you even UNDERSTAND that he was speaking FOR the Generals who can not speak for themselves, at their request? The new protocol is for these poor suckers to retire and then finally get the TRUTH off their chests. Real men, real soldiers, don't take kindly to having silver spoon elitist cowards sending young men into a bloodbath for their own geopolitical fantasies.
You're in good company, asshole - cowards, elitists, selfish dirtbags who would destroy the world if they could only feel like real men again. The world would be a much better place if your type of flaccid weirdo just went and got himself a nice stash of Viagra. It would also make your blog spewage more satisfying to yourself.
I have no doubt you'll respond in kind. I don't need to feel superior to you and I sure as hell don't fear you. Stop flattering yourself. EVERYONE feels superior to your kind now. The country has TURNED AGAINST your kind now. Look around. The air must be stinking pretty hard in that basement you've got, but maybe if you crack a window you'll be able to see... .YOU"RE IRRELEVANT. You're finished. I hope you enjoyed your wank, because it's over, asshole.
Now, how's this, baby, I'll make it easy for you: DON'T shut up. Just wank off a little more for me. It's your own basement you're reeking in. I don't have to smell you or - thank the Lord - ever meet your sorry ass. You're disgusting.
Posted by: A Friend at April 29, 2006 03:58 AM
Tsk tsk, Friend, you ought wipe the foam off your lips. This is -- what? third time you've promised to leave?
Glad to see you finally grasped at least ONE of the concepts I've been trying to get through: issuing commands like "Shut the fuck up" is pointless, as you can't enforce them. It merely demonstrates your impotence.
Sorry to see that actually incorporating a new idea has loosened your tenuous grasp on reality even further. You imagine you can tell my gender through the internet and call ME a wingbat? Laughable!
Does it make you feel big, Friend, to imagine vile things about those who don't share your constipated, cramped, crackpot, contorted opinions? Is your life so empty that the only way you can feel relevant is by spewing obscenity-filled homophobic rants?
I know how painful facts are for you, so I'll provide only a few regarding "Cut'n'Run" Murtha:
1. The Ohio Congresswoman was merely relaying a message from a real marine to a paper marine (again, Murtha's service was almost entirely in the Reserve; treating his 37 years as active duty is as laughable as claiming Coast Guard Band as serious service.) Go back and read her precise words, Friend. Calling HER names doesn't invalidate what the marine who wrote to her about Murtha said (although it does make you seem more infantile, holding hands over ears going neener neener.)
2. You've NO evidence Murtha was speaking for ANY generals, especially because - as you noted - serving generals "can't speak for themselves". So if they requested he speak for them (as you claim) it would be a betrayal of their trust for him to admit it, just as it would be a violation of orders for them to use him as their back
door. In none of those cases do I see anybody worthy of respect. If any of those generals Murtha supposedly represents had balls they'd speak up and force the military to court-martial them. Or resign their commission in protest. Not that I expect a Band-weenie to understand such things.
I expect you'll continue your flaccid rants, indulging your vapid fantasies about relevance while emitting additional obscenity-ridden diatribes about anyone who deigns to take notice of you. Thugs remain thugs whatever politics they adhere to, as the only way you know to handle diverse views is shout them down or beat them down. Brown shirts, Stalinists, Maoists, IslamoFascists - can't none of you actually build an argument using evidence, logic and reason. Rant away, it simply illustrates your intellectual impotence and reveals what a pathetic putrescent loser you are.
BTW - please note how simple it is to insult somebody without resorting to sexual or toilet imagery? All it requires is an intellect and a vocabulary -- oops, I forgot; you've neither of those, have you Friend?
Sigh, when one's foes are devoid of reasoning ability it seems the only recourse is to trade insults with them. How easily we are dragged down to the depths by our inferiors.
Posted by: RES at April 29, 2006 10:44 AM
Good God, Darleen - where on earth do these people come from? Geeze, louise, talk about moral relativism. Sheesh. Idjits, they are, all idjits.
Evil is the purposeful killing of innocent men, women and children as part of an attempt to force all men, women and children to join your "religion". Have you lefties any understanding of how the Islamofascists (not all Muslims, just those who want to force Sharia law on the rest of us or kill us)treat women? Homosexuals? people of other faiths? Athiests?
Posted by: Beth Donovan at April 29, 2006 07:37 PM