Well, now we know how much Republicans really support the troops.

That's all right---Bush is aching to put on a uniform and join his boys on the front. If only he weren't too old. Or too famous. Or too rich.

Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, a presidential contender, said the rejection of the plan was related to U.S. Iraq commander General David Petraeus' and Ambassador Ryan Crocker's testimony to Congress last week and their "sound argument that we are succeeding" in Iraq.

McCain argued that Webb's plan was unconstitutional. "We have one commander in chief and one only."

I always thought it would be a good thing if prospective presidents were of sound mind.

Too bad McCain remembered to show up to vote. And here I thought he forgot where Washington is.

McCain argued that Webb's plan was unconstitutional. "We have one commander in chief and one only."

UNCONSTITUTIONAL?!?! And since when have these bastards paid atention to the Constitution anyways? I don't remember something being unconstitutional stopped these people from passing the PATRIOT ACT, the MCA, Warrantless Domestic Espionage, etc. Now all of a sudden they are sooo concerned about the Constitution?

The fact is that congress does have power over the purse strings, and is authorized to raise armies. I think that regulating things like troop readiness, how much breaks they get, etc, is very much Constitutional.

The typical well to do Republican holds soldiers in contempt. They are like the maid or the hired help, - meekly expected to do as told. I do not for one instant underestimate the condescension rightwingers feel for our soldiers.

Note for us Lefties : The Dem leadership does try to effect change... but we don't have the magical 60 votes... yet... the elections will draw closer (grin).

This really angers me. Remember this the next time the Republicans put on their continual phoney act they care about our troops.

...The measure to give troops as much rest time at home as they spent on their most recent tour overseas needed 60 votes to pass in the Democratic-controlled Senate; it received just 56 votes, with 44 against.

It had been offered by Sen. Jim Webb, a decorated Vietnam veteran and former Navy secretary. The Democrat said U.S. troops are being "burned out" by repeated redeployments to Iraq, with tours of up to 15 months and less than a year off in between....

Article 1, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution is pretty clear. McCain has his head up his ass.

Why would an American soldier ever vote for a rethuglican again?

Republicans Kill Soldiers Leave Bill while they allow the same soldiers to be killed because of fatigue. Ironic Dontcha think??

Larry

The Fools on the Hill can't do their job. So they'll throw more cannon foder at the problem. Lowlife scum sucking turds.

The Fools on the Hill can't do their job. So they'll throw more cannon foder at the problem. Lowlife scum sucking turds.

Posted by nutcase at 2007-09-20 12:43 AM

Our troops will never be coming home while Republicans carry enough votes to deny passage of any bill to help bring them back. Only getting a veto proof majority is going to wrest the Republicans' war profiteering fingers clenched tight on this war. They are entrenched too deep with corporate profiteers along with their own profits on the side. MONEY RULES.

This Is Why I'm No Longer A Republican !!

Barry Goldwater Is Rolling In His Grave, These Chickenhawk Ass Clowns Don't Give A Fuck About The Military, They Are Just A Vehicle For Their Own Device. This Country Is Turning More And More Like The Roman Empire As Each Day Passes.

-Sarge

Trying to give the troops more leave at home is highly politically lame and wouldn't change policy. First of all, from a tactical viewpoint, the troops in the field depend on the rotation. It should be up to military commanders to decide if extended home leave is a viable option...It depends what's going on in the theater, not what the Dems want or anyone else.

The violence has gone down, the violence will continue, benchmarks are not a factor in determining whether or not the troops should come home...The current policy is, once Iraq is able to secure it's own country then a new direction of a pullout. This doesn't mean the violence has to end totally either for a pullout. It doesn't mean failure if the benchmarks are not accomplished if they troops pull out of Iraq while the Iraqi forces take over.

All that matter is, the Iraqis taking back their country! The President is saying that's the policy, and the Dems? A very weak solution similar to that of Afganistan where the US left after the Russia was defeated, and a corrupt government who later helped terrorists like Bin Laden build attack cells. Then we had to go back into that country and remove that government in order to deter other attacks...

All that matter is, the Iraqis taking back their country!


Sigh.

Fox news?

Change the channel.

Iraqis taking back their country!....
Ya, they are taking it back from the US military, and Blackwater.

Repubs Kill Soldiers Leave Bill

Yeah, fuck 'em. I got mine and my kin aren't going over there anyway. They signed up and cashed their checks didn't they? Free market, all the way around. Wage slaves of empire.
Yrs,
The GOP

"Fellow Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a co-sponsor of Webb's plan, said Republican senators were heavily lobbied by the administration against the measure.

"The White House has been very effective of making this a loyalty test for the party," Hagel said after the vote."

What a bunch of cowards these Republitards are.

Considering the war's waste of lives and money thus far, perhaps the headline should read:

Republicans kill soldiers, leave bill.

MIKEWARRIOR sure has them talking points down.
The REpublican Party has enjoyed the support of the military for decades but they have managed to end that for themselves. Politically speaking they couldn't do more to insure a Democratic majority.
Too bad so many more of our troops will die for nothing before a Democratic Congress can get a veto proof majority and end this fiasco once and for all.
If George Bush isn't held accountable for his crimes it will be a stain on American history that will never go away.

The typical well to do Republican holds soldiers in contempt. They are like the maid or the hired help, - meekly expected to do as told. I do not for one instant underestimate the condescension rightwingers feel for our soldiers.

Posted by moder8

Especially the soldiers who drive trucks.

what a bunch of puke comments....

we all know that the left doesnt really give a shit about the troops having longer to rest....that is not what this is about and we know it.....we know how you work.

they didnt have the votes to stop the funding so they came up with this to attempt to manage the war from the democrat caucus room........thats all this is.......and it comes with the usual leftists bullshit about how its the right who doesnt support the troops when its the left who is all about and nothing but the defeat of these same troops....

and I believe that the right as well as me.....would love to give them plenty of rest....and just how much would that put the ones left in jeopardy......of course the left doesnt give a good god damned about them either........

again.....its just a stunt to take over the commander in chief duties from bush...(WHICH IS WHAT MCCAIN WAS SAYING).....and to bring about the defeat of the US...........which would make them right.....

and remember when it comes to elections.....people are wrong all of the time such as.

media virtually pronouncing the election of john kerry...( he was in viet nam you know)..

and YES ME>........pronouncing sekulla gibbs as the one to win in this district.......

sekulla gibbs


Is that for real?

BLT how does Bush's ass taste this morning???
You stupid sheep. Most sheep are smart enough not to make the idiotic claim that Jim Webb doesn't care about the troops, one of whom is his own son.
Just when you think the right wing losers have sunk as low as they can go they surprise you and prove they can dive even farther into Bush's ass.

I dont care what you say.....I know all about the liberal bullshit lies that come from dc and this site...

so call me anything you want......it doesnt make the slightest difference.....

We all know that you and the left dont GIVE A DAMN ABOUT THe troops if you can abuse the COMMANDER IN CHIEF and take control.......and little you can say will change that.......

BLT

You seem a lot crankier than what I remember of you. The job isn't getting up your nose these days is it?

I recall our discussions (at least I think it was you) around the incredible lightness of being an investment broker. Anything change to bring on this new you?

I think I recall you've never been through a real down market. Not like the bruising ones that rubbed out years of gains and danced in the depths of death valley for 18 - 20 months at a time.

Smile my friend. You're alive and providing ample fodder to your sworn enemies - those who want to rob your bank account and steal your standard of living (oh, sorry - that would be the present spend-like-theres-no-tomorrow governing body).

Investing will be fun again. But in the meantime, grousing at the likes of Danni here isn't going to get you better returns.

Regard,s
etc.

and sure....how convienent is it that webb sponsored this bill........I dont think he just drew the short straw...or called heads and it came up tails

they put his name on this bill for just the reason you said....his son........so the asshole is using his own son as political fodder....nice job dipshit...

""I dont care what you say.....""

Gee, you sound like an eight year old. BLT forgot that Webb's son is serving in Iraq when he made his post and now he feels like an ass. As he should.

BLT how does Bush's ass taste this morning???
You stupid sheep. Most sheep are smart enough not to make the idiotic claim that Jim Webb doesn't care about the troops, one of whom is his own son.
Just when you think the right wing losers have sunk as low as they can go they surprise you and prove they can dive even farther into Bush's ass.



DAMN!!

Sounds like something I would have written (or wish I would have). Nice work!!!

well perfect.........you see.....I THINK ANYWAY that danni and I have reached an acceptable level of discourse between each other.

she calls me a name and I respond by telling her that I dont care, that I know I am right.....
and neither one of us wishing ill for the other.....we just disagree on every issue but immigration and agree that we wish for every hurricane for the next 20 years to move north and east of florida...

I just get a little tired of the left pulling all this nonsense about how they are so worried about the troops when they would have a mass orgasm with thier defeat in shame.........they get all wet with just the thought of helicopters swirling over the embassy.........

and ANY bi partisian talk is seen as nothing more than a sign of weakness and a hope for a return to the good old days in the land of chronkite.

yeah midi....it does sound like the middle school response you would add..........thanks for the help

My estimation of Hillary just rose higher. DArth may have won this battle but he is losing the war for the REpublicans. He's radioactive and the rest of the Republicans will be too if they don't get away from that lying (see '94 video) scumbag.

so corky....does that number mean that a dem or two also voted against the bill....
so where is the outrage for them?

I guess libermann voted no, but who else?

the articles you gave only mentioned the six republicans who pussied out to liberal nonsense.....

so with the numbers like they are....there has to have been some dems who voted no.....or were they absent.......

yeah midi....it does sound like the middle school response you would add..........thanks for the help

Posted by bushlovertwo


Ooh ... I feel ashamed.

If I really wanted to embarass you, I'd repost some of your classics.

Tell us again about Sharia law in Minnesota.

yeah but let cheney call her a bitch or call obama by one of his names......hussein......and watch the calls for cheney's castration........that ole double standard would rise up one more time......


HEY WERE IS THE NEWS ABOUT THE RECORD DAY ON WALL STREET THE OTHER DAY.................


oops........I forgot......its really bad when that happens.......and if a dem were in the white house, all of the parades would have been today at 2 pm.

Record day on Wall Street? Well, it's all good now, but with the infltion that the Fed's action will create, it will take a lot higher interest rates in the future to fix this screw up.

Bernake is testifying before Congress as I type this. He says the housing market will not come back for quite some time. I think that the markets will soon realize that the lowering of interest rates, though welcome, will not cause Americans to start spending again because equity is vaporized. The markets will start going back down soon because of it.

This bill got 56 votes and still didn't pass?? It only takes 51 votes to pass a bill. The 60 votes for cloture, to avoid a fillibuster is complete bullshit. It doesn't take 60 votes to pass a bill.

Make the GOP fillibuster. Make them stand there and talk for days, make them sleep on cots. The bill got 56 votes, it should be headed to Bush to make him veto it.

For not making the GOP actually fillibuster, the Dem leadership deserves nothing but ridicule.

Well, it's all good now, but with the infltion that the Fed's action will create, it will take a lot higher interest rates in the future to fix this screw up.


Danni suggested a couple of days ago that the fed is over concerned with inflation.

He and Burnake's primary concerns are inflation, inflation, inflation.

dammit norm.........did you find one of our posts from the nuclear option days and just reprint it and put dems where republicans were.......

the more things change, the more they stay the same, or something like that.........


so member,..I would assume that you are all over the government taking care of the people who are in the moratage trouble from the papers a week or so ago..........

and just how bad will inflation get because of this.....

and what part does bush play when the fed does something like this......I am not being antagonistic.....TEACH ME........

Apparently Bernake agreed with me Goat. It's better to have some inflation than deflation. Last month wholesale prices actually shrank.

""and what part does bush play when the fed does something like this......""

Bush's part is to keep borrowing and spending.

and of course that is an area that the most conservative of right wingers have gone after him on.........

when president thompson is in the oval office and cutting spending........the left will be at his door because he ISNT spending money........

Danni suggested a couple of days ago that the fed is over concerned with inflation.

He and Burnake's primary concerns are inflation, inflation, inflation.

Bernanke is an inflation dove. Wholesale prices going down in August? Big deal. Gold, oil and other commodities are high, the dollar is tanking. Make no mistake, inflation is comming. Far be it fro me to challenge someone as important as Bernanke, but this is my opinion.

Danni, regarding 10:03 am, there is another problem, lowering interest rates does not cause lenders to be less risk tolerant. Lenders are afraid to lend out money even if consumers found the new interest rates attractive.

In the future, interest rates will have to go up more than they would have, had the Federal Reverse not touched the fund rate.

Here's a list of those who voted to kill this bill. Bush is pleased with them. The soldiers affected, not quite so certain of that. No doubt they will carefully study the nuanced positions that led these super patriots to their decision.

Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thune (R-SD)
Voinovich (R-OH)

A few in bold who really need to be retired and Crapo from Idaho just because of his name which tells you everything about the Republicans that you need to know.

"when president thompson is in the oval office and cutting "

On the other hand, President Ron Paul would act to get rid of this nefarious and unconstitutional Federal Reverse system that destroys the dollar and hurts the middle class and poor.

Apparently Bernake agreed with me Goat. It's better to have some inflation than deflation. Last month wholesale prices actually shrank..

Danni -- that's NOT inflation. It was probably a large influencing factor on lowering the prime .5 points

There is one Commander in Chief. Congress has spending authority. Either side can disagree with the strategies of the other, but it's not up to Congress how to prosecute the war. Nor can the President force Congress to generate funding. Am I missing something?

A few in bold who really need to be retired and Crapo from Idaho just because of his name which tells you everything about the Republicans that you need to know.

Which Democrats in your opinion need to retire, binb?

From the post by Blueinbushland, you can see why congress has such a low rating. They needed 60 votes to pass this legislation. Maybe after next election they'll have those 60 votes and they can improve their approval rating.

Gee, all Republicans (including Lieberman) but gosh, Republicans wouldn't play politics with the troops would they??? Nah! It's just a coincidence that they all voted the same way.

Putting "Republicans" "Kill" and "Soldiers" in the headline?

Go fuck yourself Rcade...

On the other hand, President Ron Paul would act to get rid of this nefarious and unconstitutional Federal Reverse system that destroys the dollar and hurts the middle class and poor.

Posted by member2586 at 2007-


ah .....good one.....

its nice to see debate in such a clever way.....which is why since buffalo bob is here now, its a cinch that we wont get much of that clever stuff..

(its a joke, BB....relax)........




yeah that middle class is really hurt all right....

well they will be IF dems are in and taxes go UP AND UP AND UP...........

Temper temper Rob!

Temper temper Rob!

Posted by member2586


Fuck you and fuck him... That title is a scumbag move and everyone knows it...

BLT, you're blind partisan support for Bush makes you the worst sort of all. You're gonna hate '08

Rob, well just because you're an A_Hole.

For you and the likes of you.


Go piss up a rope.

That title is a scumbag move and everyone knows it...

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at


The title is as a title should be, brief, succint and accurate. If this were a tighty righty blog I'm sure it would be something like: Brave Republicans Fight back against godless liberal hordes.

"There is one Commander in Chief. Congress has spending authority. Either side can disagree with the strategies of the other, but it's not up to Congress how to prosecute the war. Nor can the President force Congress to generate funding. Am I missing something?

Posted by OohRah"

Yes. Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution which says, in part, that Congress is responsible...

"To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces "

The title is as a title should be, brief, succint and accurate

Republicans BLOCK soldiers leave bill
Republicans STOP soldiers leave bill
Republicans OBSTRUCT soldiers leave bill

Kill, is put in the title for a very different purpose...

To kill a bill has long been a correct vernacular use of the english language. If it doesn't sit well with you may I recommend Maalox.

BL2

Obama says there is an 80 billion dollar tax cut for the middle class if he is elected. Of course republicans don't count tax cuts for the middle class as a "tax cut". I would imagine that the other dem contenders have similar tax cuts in mind while rolling back the tax cuts for the rich that Bush gave his buddies.

Gee--a fair tax system and an end to the war---good reasons to vote dem.

Twoof hurts, eh, Rob?

How many soldiers lives would have been saved by this Bill?

Funny how those who produce the most heat can't take it themselves.

Kill, is put in the title for a very different purpose...

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

So you will use that as a red harring not to discuss the issue at hand.

""Kill, is put in the title for a very different purpose...""

Suuure because it isn't typical political jargon to speak of "killing" a bill. What universe do you come from Rob?? Any highschool kid knows that "kill" is a normal term for blocking a bill in Congress.

And anyway, your phony outrage at the terminology falls on deaf ears when the right continually claims the Democrats want defeat, are troop haters, traitors, etc. etc. so take your mock outrage and insert it into your....oh, never mind.

To kill a bill has long been a correct vernacular use of the english language. If it doesn't sit well with you may I recommend Maalox.

Posted by Reagan58

Hey Reagan, why don't you do yourself a favor and click on the actual story link?

Oh what the fuck I'll paste it in for you:

Senate Republicans block Iraq bill

So why was block, changed to kill?

Yeah, exactly... go fuck yourself too you fucking hack...

I still like mine better:


Republicans kill soldiers, leave bill.

For not making the GOP actually fillibuster, the Dem leadership deserves nothing but ridicule.

Posted by Norm_


Agreed.

Funny flag midiman ! I am sure Rob will blow a gasket now, ha!

Any highschool kid knows that "kill" is a normal term for blocking a bill in Congress.


I direct you to the headline of the article too.

Why was Block changed to Kill?

Rob the Ahole

The republicans have killed lots of soldiers in Iraq. Over 3700 at last count. All dead because of republican votes and a republican president. Not one democratic vote was needed.

THEIR VOTE ON THIS BILL WILL KILL MORE OF THEM

So get over yourself with your sanctimonious bleatings about the headline. The headline is accurate in that republicans have voted to kill more soldiers---soldiers that would be alive in the years to come without this particular vote

How about
THE LEAVE NO SOLDIER ALIVE BILL

So you will use that as a red harring not to discuss the issue at hand.

Posted by member2586


If Rogers will change the title back to its original and get this bullshit, "Repubs Kill Soldiers" line out of it, I will gladly discuss it... until then..

Why was block changed to kill?

""Why was Block changed to Kill?""

Obviously to piss off Rob. Why else??

Actually though, it's because RCADE hates the troops.

The republicans have killed lots of soldiers in Iraq. Over 3700 at last count

How many have died since the DNC took over congress?

How many democrats voted for war?

Why was block changed to Kill, Rogers?

It was changed to kill because this is RCADE'S sandbox and we are playing in it. Complain all you want, but utlimately the sit owner makes up whatever headline he wants. If you had your own site, you would naturally use the word kill when dealing with Democrats and no one would blame you.

The headline is accurate in that republicans have voted to kill more soldiers

Is this your opinion too Rogers?

"How to hijack a thread and make it all about me"

By ROBTHEAHOLE

Republicans kill soldiers, leave bill.

It's like the old joke I heard from my HS english teacher 35 years ago. A panda leaves a restaurant after killing the waiter. His defense is that he is a panda. A panda, he says, "eats, shoots, and leaves". (eats shoots and leaves)

Punctuation matters.

How many have died since the DNC took over congress?

How many democrats voted for war?

Why was block changed to Kill, Rogers?

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2007-09-20 11:08 AM |

The dems don't control congress dummy---look at the votes of the republicans who want more dead soldiers so their portfolios look good.

The headline is accurate--the republicans vote for more dead soldiers.

So do you Ahole.

How to hijack a thread and make it all about me"

By ROBTHEAHOLE

Posted by danni

I would just like an explanation why BLOCK was changed to KILL...

it has nothing to do with me but the subliminal bullshit headline Rogers chose to put on his front page...

If getting an answer to that means blowing up a thread, well I can live with that...

I would like to thank a few of you lefty kooks for reaffirming what I've always thought about you.

Hijacker Caution Notice Level orange

Hijacker Caution Notice Level orange

Posted by geehowdyfrommo


Oh its bright motherfucking red at this point... and flashing...

Why was block changed to kill?

Which Democrats in your opinion need to retire, binb?

Good question. I've always had a problem with Ted Kennedy and the whole Chappaquiddick thing so there's one, for sure. I'm sitting here without googling trying to think of another.....Nope, been two minutes and I honestly can't think of another one. I have reservations about Boxer and Feinstein, but not for any reason you might endorse, quite the contrary. Help me out here.

"Why was block changed to kill?

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole"

Why do you think anyone owes you an explanation for anything?

Grow up and deal.

Kennedy jumped to my mind within milliseconds as well. If Cynthia McKinney was still there, that would be a no brainer.

The headline is correct---block would have been incorrect and hid the meaning of the article.

REPUBLICANS VOTE FOR MORE DEAD SOLDIERS.

The reason he keeps asking is because we keep explaining. Just move on and let's discuss the issue at hand, Republicans talk a good game abour supporting the troops, but they don't wnat our troops to be properly rested when they go to war.

Why do you think anyone owes you an explanation for anything?

Grow up and deal.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue


They don't owe me anything... Doesn't mean I have to stop asking though...

Here's the opening paragraph from the story:

Senate Republicans blocked a plan on Wednesday to give U.S. troops in Iraq more home leave, defeating a proposal widely seen as the Democrats' best near-term chance to change President George W. Bush's Iraq strategy.

At no point anywhere in this story does the word Kill or any of its conjugations appear in the entire story... so why was block changed to kill, when KILL appears no where.

I'm not entitled to an explanation, but I'm asking for one... And will probably continue to do so until I get one.

Oh its bright motherfucking red at this point... and flashing...


Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at


Noone asked about the sign you take to the public men's room with you Rob.

The reason he keeps asking is because we keep explaining

Nobody has explained shit yet... and there is really only one person who can explain.

Noone asked about the sign you take to the public men's room with you Rob.

Posted by Reagan58


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA... Gay jokes... awesome...

I'm sure rogers will be right around to ban you like he banned me for gay jokes right?

Who let all these crickets in here?

well....the thread has now reached the point where it takes WAY too long to move along, so this may be my last post.

NO NO>......stop begging me to stay....it cant be helped...

but..........

BLT, you're blind partisan support for Bush makes you the worst sort of all. You're gonna hate '08

Posted by Reagan58 at 2007-09-20 10:51 AM | Reply

typical........my partisan support is not blind because I dont have moveon.org telling me what I can support and what I cant.........

and also typical.....you make that charge without one comment about the left and thier blind support, but thats okay....we are used to it...

and BOB>.......here is what obama says he will do as well as what edwards and clinton and rudy and mitt...

these comments go as far as anything besides national security as to why I support the right......and ITS NOT BECAUSE I AM BLIND ABOUT ANYTHING>....
from the LA TIMES......

obama.....all of his ideas sound okay for the middle class except for one little thing....."his advisors were vague when asked for the source of money to cover the tax cuts"

and that means that all of our taxes will go up......

hillary.....focused on SOCIALIZED health care, INCLUDING TAXING A PORTION OF BENEFITS......

edwards.......tax free savings accounts for low and middle and the GOVERNMENT MATCHING 500 in savings.....(WHO PAYS THAT EXTRA 500, as if we dont know)......raise rate on capital gains....( cant have those successfull people making money...unless its scumbag lawyers like himself).....repeal tax cuts...AUTOMATIC TAX INCREASE FOR ALL>........

and now rudy........make cuts permanentm, eliminate inheritence taxes....thats the money and stuff that ALREADY HAD THE SHIT TAXED OUT OF IT, income deduction of 7500 to defray health care costs.......

mitt........eliminating capital gains, do away with estate tax........

so you see the class warfare raging from the left....I KNOW you do because the left here supports that war,but not the one against our enemies which is a nutshell of why I support conservatives......AND NOT BLINDLY EITHER....

but thanks for playing..

and now its off with the boys to baost and brag.........

Go ask Fred Phelps, he can explain it to'ya.

I'm sure rogers will be right around to ban you like he banned me for gay jokes right?

Who let all these crickets in here?

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole


If he does, he does. No problem for me. Just flag it as offensive.

Go ask Fred Phelps, he can explain it to'ya.

Posted by Reagan58


He looks like the creepy preacher from poltergeist... scares the crap out of me.

Why was BLOCK changed to Kill?

To make you ask....repeatedly:

Why was BLOCK changed to Kill?

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

Just flag it as offensive.

Posted by Reagan58


Nah, I don't do that anymore...

Why was BLOCK changed to KILL?

To make you ask....repeatedly:

Why was BLOCK changed to Kill?


Mission Accomplished...

"Caution Notice Level orange"

DEFCON Chartreuse is when you really better start worrying.

Chartreuse? Is that the color that looks like a small child tossed chunky beef?

have to bow to the wishes of the masses and make one more comment...

have to amend my first post but only slightly...

the left cares VERY LITTLE about the troops on this issue because all of us would like to make sure that the troops are taken care of and that means plenty of rest, but this is a war even though the left doesnt believe that...

and this bill was designed to do one thing and one thing only..

to manage the war from the democrat cloak room and to take as much of the commander in chief away from bush as possible because they cant get the support to stop the money....

and for you newbies to today's festivities.....I will go even further.

webb was chosen BECAUSE HIS SON IS SERVING.....and then of course we cant call him a sack of shit pussy because of his and his son's HONORABLE AND NOBLE service to our country,which we all respect....

its all planned out and if you dont see that, then you arent looking..............

Kennedy jumped to my mind within milliseconds as well. If Cynthia McKinney was still there, that would be a no brainer.

I was only thinking about the Senate. I don't agree with you about Cynthia McKinney but it would be tedious and difficult to explain why. Real douchebags and fruitcakes exist in the House on both sides of the aisle, just thinking about them makes my brain hurt.

"...repeal tax cuts...AUTOMATIC TAX INCREASE FOR ALL..."

BL2, you're not giving credit where credit is due. The Republicans proposed, wrote, and passed those tax increases. They chose to put the sunset clauses in the tax bill, and passed it without a single Democratic vote. It takes a lot of koolaide and an extra large tinfoil hat to ignore the driver of the car and instead blame the guy tied up in the trunk.

"and now rudy........make cuts permanent, eliminate inheritence taxes."

Oh, great...the former has gotten us into this mess, and the latter is a tax break only for multi-multi-millionaires. Just what we need at a time of record annual outlays of federal spending to service the debt.

BLT, I thought you'd left to go play with the rest of the Texas Goatfuckers Society?

Okay here's what I think... I think you libs don't care about this bill, or the soldiers in question, or else you would have just let the original title and story speak for itself. So by changing block to kill, you get the idea of soldiers dying in your heads, and that does get you upset because nobody likes our soldiers being killed, and if you can attribute their deaths to the political party you hate then all the better.

Am I right rogers? Or do you have a differnt explanation for why block was changed to kill?

NO Rob, once again let me explain it to you so that a six year old could understand it:

To make you ask....repeatedly:

Why was BLOCK changed to Kill?

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

Hmm seems to me that the term "kill" is a regular term used to describe bills that don't make it out of the legislative branch. Just google "democrats or republicans" "kill" "bill"

"Why was BLOCK changed to KILL?"

Because in parliamentary-land, block = kill. By blocking cloture (i.e., getting less than 60 votes), the clear message is given: there will be a fillibuster if this goes to the floor. That, in effect, "kills" the bill.

Do you need any more of a primer in Robert's Rules of Order?

BL2,

Sometimes you can be a real asshole. If you can't acknowledge that Webb is one of the most admirable and honorable Senators to serve in that institution in its history then......shit, I can't be bothered with you.

Because in parliamentary-land, block = kill.

No where in the story is the word kill used. The headline is Senate Republicans block Iraq bill, and kill appears no where in the story.

Hmm seems to me that the term "kill" is a regular term used to describe bills that don't make it out of the legislative branch.

And yet in the article blocked was used... not kill anywhere...

Can you at least concede there may have been an alterior motive in changed Block to Kill?

REPUBLICANS VOTE FOR MORE DEAD SOLDIERS.

-an alterior motive


Hahahahhaahha!!

Ahhhh, good one!

No such word as alterior

Why doesn't this headline read:

REPUBLICANS VOTE FOR MORE DEAD SOLDIERS

That is exactly what happened. That is exactly what they vorted for.

Hmmm---there may have been an ulterior motive for the original article to have not used the correct word---KILL.

The conservative press strikes again. At least here the truth can be told.


REPUBLICANS VOTE FOR MORE DEAD SOLDIERS.

No such word as alterior

. . .vorted for.

No such word as vorted, either.

Can you at least concede there may have been an alterior motive in changed Block to Kill?

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole


First, if you're gonna bitch about words, it's ulterior not alterior.

Sure, I believe that using "kill" more accurately describes the ultimate result of the defeat of the cloture motion by the Republic Party plus Joe Loserman. So yes, that could be construed to be ULTERIOR.

Spelling corrections? is that all we have here...

Okay

Y wuz da titel chanegd to kill wen it wuz orignaly blok?

First rule of journalism - headlines should be succinct and attention grabbing. You don't like the word "kill", fine. But the headline meets the criteria, and did its job.

And, it is not Bowa-inaccurate.

Reagan, thanks for the spell checking. You bring so much to the table.

First rule of journalism - headlines should be succinct and attention grabbing. You don't like the word "kill", fine. But the headline meets the criteria, and did its job.


Hmmm... maybe you should write to the author of the story and tell her the rules...

Reagan please spell check this post and return with any corrections... fucking loser...

Thanks Rob, I do try. Usually it's said that I'm just the driver of the crazy train.

No such word as alterior

. . .vorted for.

No such word as vorted, either.

Posted by goatman


Funny Flag...

nice catch.

Y wuz da titel chanegd to kill wen it wuz orignaly blok?

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at


Nice ebonics there dude. Oh yeah, the Iggles suck.

Reagan, thanks for the spell checking. You bring so much to the table

Like we've been saying, punctuation matters. Spelling mutters too, sometimes it shrieks.

Rob the Ahole

No one corrected your spelling---they told you about a new word---a word you were trying to use but thought it was spelled with an "A" instead of a "U". The correction has stopped you from being laughed at for a fool in the future. You should be grateful for the education. You never knew the word was ulterior---you always thought it was Alterior. It was no typo.

Now go back to your support for the


REPUBLICANS WHO VOTE FOR MORE DEAD SOLDIERS.

On topic though, weren't the repubs the party griping about fillabusters when they were in power? Weren't they in favor of a straigh up-and-down vote? That's politics for ya.

"Hmmm... maybe you should write to the author of the story and tell her the rules..."

Of course you do know that the authors of news articles don't write the headlines, right? Headlines are written by the editor.

No one corrected your spelling---they told you about a new word---a word you were trying to use but thought it was spelled with an "A" instead of a "U".

LMAO... What?

Headlines are written by the editor.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue


Okay well that guy doesn't know the rules either apparently... And since its the first rule, I think you should write to him too... If he doesn't know the first rule, chances are he doesn't know the rest.

Weren't they in favor of a straigh up-and-down vote?

On judges...

"No one corrected your spelling---they told you about a new word---a word you were trying to use but thought it was spelled with an "A" instead of a "U"".

Thats known as Bobbonics

No one corrected your spelling---they told you about a new word---a word you were trying to use but thought it was spelled with an "A" instead of a "U".

LMAO... What?


Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2007-09-20 11:57 AM


ALTERIOR----ULTERIOR. Look at the first letter. "A" "U"---get it yet. Hey don't forget to support your

REPUBLICANS VOTE FOR MORE DEAD SOLDIERS.

Rob, I googled "democrats kill bill" and this was the first result:

www.denverpost.com

Nowhere in the text of the article does it mention the word "kill".

I haven't looked into the other results yet because I am a little busy.

Posted by taxman


But you can't kill Math or Science... its not alive, so there isn't anything wrong with that.

If I see a headline starting with, "Dems Kill Soldiers..." I would find that just as scummy, because its trying to put a different message in the story then it actually tells.

"Okay well that guy doesn't know the rules either apparently.."

Sure he/she did. Succinct and attention-getting. Doesn't say every word in the headline must be contained somewhere in the article. Doesn't say you can't use synonyms. Doesn't say check with Rob to make sure he approves of the wording.

REPUBLICANS VOTE FOR MORE DEAD SOLDIERS


Facts are facts.

Look at the first letter. "A" "U"---get it yet.

Yes, I get it... I spelled it wrong, and you felt the need to correct it... because your a grammar nanny spelling douche.

If spelling bothers you this much that you feel the need to correct other posters (Corky and Reagan you too) I can switch to FireFox if you would like... If IE had built spellchecker into IE7 then we wouldn't be down this road... then of course you'd be out of your job as grammar nanny spelling douche...

New and Improved Spellchecking Trolls. Daily saving assholes from spelling faux pas' and the heartbreak of psoriasis.

Sure he/she did.

He used "Block" not "Kill." Kill is more attention getting then block, so if its rule #1 as you say, then why didn't he use kill?

He didn't, it was changed here... I'd like to know why.

Reagan58

No one is correcting spelling---pay attention.

"your(sic) a grammar nanny"

Folks, you just can't make this shit up.

Why wasn't this headline more accurate and say

REPUBLICANS VOTE FOR MORE DEAD SOLDIERS.

New and Improved Spellchecking Trolls. Daily saving assholes from spelling faux pas' and the heartbreak of psoriasis.

Posted by Reagan58


sentence fragment

BBob,

As I may have mentioned earlier, it's very difficult to pay attention from the front seat of the crazy train.

sentence fragment

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole


Oh shit! Sentence fragment is also a sentence fragment... (god bless the simpsons)

"He didn't, it was changed here... I'd like to know why."

Because just as the editor of the original piece chose the words to use in the headline, Rcade is the de facto editor of his blog site and has the right to choose the words to use in headlines here.

He changes them all the time - just like the one on Rudy G. being so awesomely famous. The rest of us, somehow, manage to deal with it.

No one is correcting spelling---pay attention.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2007-09-20 12:06 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


"your(sic) a grammar nanny"

Folks, you just can't make this shit up.

Posted by Zatoichi


No, you can't...

I wish I could be a spell checking douche like Zatoichi...

Aww, crap, the weekly virus definiton update and full system scan just kicked off. I might as well go take a nap.

No one is correcting spelling---pay attention.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2007-09-20 12:06 PM


Spelling mutters too, sometimes it shrieks.

Posted by BlueInBushland at 2007-09-20 11:55 AM

BiB -- Buffy is calling you a nobody. Are you going to let him get by with that?

Because just as the editor of the original piece chose the words to use in the headline, Rcade is the de facto editor of his blog site and has the right to choose the words to use in headlines here.

That is the Who, not the Why...

He changes them all the time

I've never seen one before implying republicans are killing soldiers...

Sure you have Rob, I've long and often implied(or accused)that members of the Republic Party kill soldiers.

Off topic but thanks for the Kill Bill deleted scene, Zat. Probably right to delete it. Must have been just before he took Beatrice to Mei-Ping(?). IFC did I and II a couple of weeks or so ago. Just got round to watching them. Tarantino is great and loved the anime but he sure is one sick SOB.

"I've never seen one before implying republicans are killing soldiers..."

Perhaps the real answer then, is that you are overly sensitive, and defensive about the entire issue?

Rob can't defend the Republicans who killed this bill so he tries (and unfortunately succeeds) to distract the thread into a discussion about the headline RCADE chose to use as if it really matters.
Why do Republicans hate the troops so much???
Why do the Republicans care so little about the troops' families???
How many tours of duty can a soldier endure before he truely is too exhausted and is at a higher risk because of it??? Do the Republicans even care???

I believe that a real case can be made that the Republican action against this bill will unnecessarily cause American soldiers, too exhausted for safety, will die and be maimed.
I think that pretending that they are being forced to accept such a risk because it somehow makes America safer is an absolute lie and I don't believe that even most Republicans believe that lie, though some will claim to.
I have to say, I doubt the honesty of anyone who makes the claim that Americans dying in Iraq make America safer. No, I just don't believe them any more, it is far more likely that politics trumps soldiers lives in war supporters views.

Sure you have Rob, I've long and often implied(or accused)that members of the Republic Party kill soldiers.

Posted by Reagan58


I don't care what individual posters say... if I did, I'd have had a heart attack about B-Bob and JeffNDouchemarks writings long ago...

If spelling bothers you this much that you feel the need to correct other posters (Corky and Reagan you too)

I think misspellings are expected by democrats, so Bob doesn't correct them. A republican OTOH is expected to be better educated and not commit the deadly sin of misspelling.

Is that your logic, Bob?

How many democrats voted for war?



Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole



None. The war was never put up to a direct vote.

You're ordinarily smarter thatn that, AH.

Perhaps the real answer then, is that you are overly sensitive, and defensive about the entire issue?

Posted by SanAntonioRogue


I'm a little sensitive to a title implying Republicans are killing soldiers... yeah I guess you could say that...

Its a scumbag move and you know it is... if a title started: "Democrats Kill Soldiers" and the word Kill was no where to be found in the entire article you guys would be pissed too.

Rob can't defend the Republicans who killed this bill

You don't know that... I haven't even tried... If the thread title gets changed we can have at it, but until then I'm going to continue to call for an explanation to this fucked up title.

Every soldier and civilian that has died because of the war in Iraq is dead because of republican votes. Not one democratic vote was needed for those deaths.

That republicans vote to kill more is not a surprise.

How many democrats voted for war?

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

None.

Posted by midiman


War would not have been possible without the authorization from Congress... certainly not on the scale that it was...

People like Kerry, Clinton, Edwards, etc are just as responsible for this war as the Republicans who voted for it.

The Title is accurate.

REPUBLICANS VOTE FOR MORE DEAD SOLDIERS

Not one democratic vote was needed for those deaths.


Doesn't change the fact that many demcorats including the last Presidential nominee and the likely 2008 nominee voted for this war and supported it greatly.

I will bet you that in Iraq today there are soldiers who will tell you that the REpublicans did, by their obstruction of that bill, in fact kill American soldiers who are too exhausted to be as alert as they need to be.
They did just ruin some soldiers marriages.
They did just break up some families.
They did just insure that some soldiers will suffer from post traumatic stress syndrome for the rest of their lives.

I would be ashamed to be a Republican today.

They can say whatever they want about the strategy, etc. but Bush and the REpublicans have had five years during which they could have raised a larger military and thereby alleviated the stress on the soldiers. They didn't, so now they can't pass the buck of responsibility for the suffering of the troops sent back over and over without the necessary down time.

The Title is accurate.

You're in great company Rogers...

Care to tell us who attacked us on 9/11 Rcade?

"I think misspellings are expected by democrats,"

Yes, we do expect them - from Republicans!

Gotcha! (I say this in jest as one who once retorted to somebody about correcting grammar - and then typo'd it "grammer".) Sigh.

I agree with you Rob, the title should be changed.

Something more appropriate would be.

For Nearly 14 Years, Republican's Have Butt Fucked US Troops

""People like Kerry, Clinton, Edwards, etc are just as responsible for this war as the Republicans who voted for it.""

I won't argue the point about them authorizing the invasion, however doing it with too few troops, making the egregious errors that Bush/Rummy/Cheney/Bremer made cannot be blamed on any of the Dems (with the possible exception of Lieberman).
Had Bush/Cheney listend to shinsecki we would probably not be in Iraq today, you can't escape that fact.

There is no war. There was no war vote. Not one democrat voted for war.

Voting to give the President certain powers as a last resort is not the same as voting for war. Especially when the President lies and attacks before "the last resort " was reached.

He should be impeached for that lie.

As you concede---no democrat votes were needed for those deaths so the headline

REPUBLICANS VOTE FOR MORE DEAD SOLDIERS

would be entirely accurate. You need to quit whining and accept the fact that the republican party is responsible for these deaths--republicans alone. No democrat votes needed.

Danni the ultimate responsiblity for the War in Iraq rests on the shoulders of President Bush... There is no arguing against that. But that doesn't change the fact that a very large number of Democrats were in favor of this war, and wanted it.

President Bush had around a 70% approval rating when our troops took Baghadad.

No democrat votes needed.


Posted by Buffalo_Bob


That should tell you how much Democrats wanted and supported this war...

Their votes were not necessary... but they were given anyways...

Also they could have filibustered the bill, and the GOP didn't have enough votes to stop it...

Care to tell us who attacked us on 9/11 Rcade?

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2007-09-20 12:25 PM


Another hijack attempt? Why don't you tell us who attacked us---and what proof you have that they did it?

Gotcha! (I say this in jest as one who once retorted to somebody about correcting grammar - and then typo'd it "grammer".) Sigh.


i deserved it

Another hijack attempt?

Attempt?

I'd say I've been pretty successful...

... making the egregious errors that Bush/Rummy/Cheney/Bremer...

I don't believe they were egregious "errors" as much as they were cold and calculated plans to do this war on the cheap -- less supplies/arms/food/clean water for our troops coupled with a cost plus, no bid war contract equals more money in the pockets of the war profiteers.

Everything from short changing the number of troops needed originally to fight the war to cutting their supplies, their tents, all the way down to giving them lousy drinking water -- all that money went instead into Halliburton's profits. They lied when they took those contracts. And when investigations went on to find out what happened the Bush thugs in the Justice Dept. (at Bush's urging) thwarted those investigations at every turn.

We still paid for all those supplies, arms, trucks, and other desperately needed items for our fighting men via no bid, cost plus contracts to Halliburton, KBR and other Bush/Cheney cronies -- but the supplies never got to the men they were suppose to -- our troops. They helped kill those men with lousy arms and inadequate bad armored humvees as sure as if they pulled the trigger themselves.

"Their votes were not necessary... but they were given anyways..."


You seem to forget the part where they were lied to---the WMDs---the mushroom cloud smoking gun. Memory lapse?

I would have voted for it too after those lies

I'd say I've been pretty successful...

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2007-09-20 12:37 PM


I agree.

REPUBLICANS VOTE TO KILL MORE SOLDIERS

It's really amusing to watch the people who painted Kerry into a flip-flopper with deceptive and carefully edited quotes now whining about their perception that a perfectly descriptive headline paints Republicans with a similar implicitly negative brush. Then fell over themselves with self-congratulation on their "cleverness" while sniggering at Democrats.

Shorter version. Payback is a bitch. Get over it.

War would not have been possible without the authorization from Congress... certainly not on the scale that it was...

People like Kerry, Clinton, Edwards, etc are just as responsible for this war as the Republicans who voted for it.

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole


You are the one objecting to inaccurate language, so you need to practice what you preach.

You revised point may true enough, but they are no longer of the same opinion, and are trying to correct their error. In addition, they CERTAINLY did not have all of the same info that Bush had, which is also a falsehood perpetrated by the right wing.

Califchris

How can you think those things are more important than a headline that says

REPUBLICANS VOTE TO KILL MORE SOLDIERS

You seem to be concerned about the troops----please---can't you see that the important thing is the headlines, not the facts?

REPUBLICANS VOTE TO KILL MORE SOLDIERS

How many more times are you going to post this, Bob? Are you waiting for an original thought to enter your head, is that it?

How about just do your cut and pasting a hundred times in one post instead of one time in a hundred posts. It'll be a lot easier on you. And if you don't ever get that original thought . . . well, we'll miss you.

BBob


How can you think those things are more important than a headline that says


REPUBLICANS VOTE TO KILL MORE SOLDIERS

I keep seeing that headline you wrote referenced but that's not the headline on this thread. Are you speaking tongue in cheek? (I'm still waking up although I'm running around here like a nut right now trying to get stuff ready so bear with me on my question.)

a very large number of Democrats were in favor of this war, and wanted it.

President Bush had around a 70% approval rating when our troops took Baghadad.

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2007-09-20 12:33 PM



That's because the democrats were lied to and the people still believed his lies at the time. Only thiry percent knew what a liar he was.

and are trying to correct their error.

Really? That's new to me... Hillary and Kerry haven't voted to bring them home immediately...

Hell Congress has an approval rating of what? 11%? Partly because they did promise to correct their mistakes and haven't done so...

Hell Hillary has been quoted as saying we are safer today then we were before 9/11...

That doesn't sound like correcting her mistakes to me.

That's because the democrats were lied to

LOL... okay... that's why.

Califchris

No, it isn't the headline of this thread. It is the headline Ahole sees as the headline. The actual headline is quite accurate.

"Attempt?

I'd say I've been pretty successful...""

Can't deny it, you were. Congrats. You ought to run for Congress as a Republican. Just today they were doing the same as you, distracting the public with bull shit about MoveOn to take attention away from the bill they KILLED yesterday.

"How many more times are you going to post this, Bob? Are you waiting for an original thought to enter your head, is that it?"

Lord knows there's plenty of room in his head.

Can't deny it, you were. Congrats

Thank ya!!! I would honestly like an explanation from Rogers...

But completely wrecking the thread is fun too

Geez, I don't know how I forgot about this, but there is another thread on the Retort about a similar action taken by congress...

Its title is: Senate Denies Court Access to Detainees

here is the first paragraph from the article:

A Republican filibuster in the Senate yesterday shot down a bipartisan effort to restore the right of terrorism suspects to contest in federal courts their detention and treatment, underscoring the Democratic-led Congress's difficulty with terrorism issues.

Okay, so why isn't the title of that thread: Repubs KILL court access to detainees

If Kill is the acceptable word, why wasn't it used there Rogers?

Oops...

LOL... okay... that's why.

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2007-09-20 12:51 PM



I'm glad you think that lies costing the lives of hundreds of thousands of people are amusing. I don't share your sense of humor.

distracting the public with bull shit about MoveOn to take attention away from the bill they KILLED yesterday.

Danni -- the glass house thing I quoted for Buffy applies to you, too. But you've never deflected, have you?

I'm glad you think that lies costing the lives of hundreds of thousands of people are amusing

I find your hyperbole amusing...

If what you say is true, it would be a slam dunk case for impeachment... The Democrats control congress.

Bush is not going to be impeached... so maybe you're full of shit...

Or maybe they and Bush and Xenu were all in on 9/11 together and Bush is threatening to go public about the alien attack on 9/11 if they don't cooperate with him...

No, it isn't the headline of this thread. It is the headline Ahole sees as the headline. The actual headline is quite accurate.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2007-09-20 12:52 PM

Thanks, BB, I got ya.

Although it doesn't say that in the headline, in a way Rob is right. The Republicans are killing our troops by running them into the ground with barely any time off between deployments and no R&R.

Maybe in his own odd way he's agreeing with us that his Republican party do indeed cost the lives of our soldiers. Every day the war continues those war profits keep adding up and their bank accounts get fatter and fatter

Now our troops know what it's like to DIE for CEOs rather than for the CiC they think they are fighting under.

Can anyone answer that? Why isn't the other thread: Repubs kill detainee court access, like it is here Repubs kill soldiers leave bill?

I don't get it... if Kill is the word to use, why wasn't it used there? Its the exact same tactic and both bills were "Killed." So why is "Kill" only used in the soldier story?

Did you find the Campo el Montalban, Chris?

Maybe in his own odd way he's agreeing with us that his Republican party do indeed cost the lives of our soldiers.

That's retarded... I'm just finding out why this thread got a fucked up title...

According to your logic, every day the war goes on without the Democrats proposing legislation for an immediate pullout, they are killing soldiers...

The democrats control congress

Bullshit

Not with Lieberman as the deciding vote.

You are full of shit.

The democrats will control congress after next election. People want out of this war. The vote today by republicans to kill more soldiers will seal the election.

From the Senate Denies Detainees Court Rights thread...

here is what a Poster said:


The headline is misleading.

A better one would be....

GOP Blocks Bid on Rights Of Detainees

Posted by JimmyWallback at 2007-09-20 12:58 PM


I think Jimmy meant kill... or perhaps he hasn't heard rule #1 in journalism either.

The democrats control congress

Bullshit

Not with Lieberman as the deciding vote.

You are full of shit.


The senate is not the Congress, it is but one house.

The Democrats by far control the House, and if what you say was true they could draw up articles of Impeachment, and Joe Lieberman couldn't do anything about it because he is a Senator...

Wow... no American should have to have that explained to them...

GOP Kills Detainees Rights


If you want to be succinct.

Or, if you were a leftwing version of Bowa, GOP Kills Detainees?

Does anyone still believe now that the Dems will continute the war???

If you agree that is very unlikely then it follows that keeping the troops there now is pointless and thus any dying are doing so for nothing.
The reality is that the Dems will pull out of Iraq at the earliest opportunity so the Republicans ought to recognize the handwriting on the wall and go ahead and join us now to prevent more Amricans dying for nothing.

Robtheahole

Let's try some logic here.

If the dems don't control both houses---they don't control congress.

The dems don't control the senate because Lieberman is the deciding vote.

The dems don't control both houses of congress---the dems are not in control of congres.

You are full of shit.

Get it yet?

But its not "GOP Kilss Detainees Rights." Kill is only used in this thread about soldiers...

Why?

But they won't because defending Dumbya's legacy is more important than soldier's lives. Can't let Dumbya have the pull out on his watch cuz it would look like a failure which it is. He couldn't then strut around like he does saying "we're kicking ass." I swear I'd like someone to kick his ass when he says things like that.

The dems don't control the senate because Lieberman is the deciding vote.

Actually in regards to impeachment you would need 16 GOP Senators and Lieberman to vote for conviction so he is hardly the deciding vote.

Both majority leaders in the House and Senate are Democrats... the Democrats control congress... So clearly what you say is crap, because if it were true the DNC would have impeached Bush months ago.

The democrats will control congress after next election. People want out of this war. The vote today by republicans to kill more soldiers will seal the election.

I remember 2006 so well. The rallying cry was exactly the same, "The democrats will control congress after next election. Things are gonna change!".

But now the "next" election is now 2008. two years from now the "next" election will be 2010. Funny, but predictible. Then the pendulum will swing to the right again.

And the parting on the left
Is now parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight.

The Who
Won't Get Fooled Again

Rogers used that headline as a Darwinian evolutionary filter, knowing that the whiniest bitch would surface.

""The Democrats by far control the House, and if what you say was true they could draw up articles of Impeachment""

And what would that accomplish???
No, it's better they keep trying to pass bills like the Soldier's Leave Bill and force Republicans to take sides. They sided with the president yesterday, as elections near they will begin siding with the troops.

Lieberman is the deciding vote.

Wrong. Cheney is. Lieberman is not VP.

Ahole

"Actually in regards to impeachment you would need 16 GOP Senators and Lieberman to vote for conviction so he is hardly the deciding vote."



We weren't talking about impeachment--you were talking about impeachemnt---I was talking about control of congress. You said the dems controlled congress---I said they don't---nothing about impeachment except to say that bush should be impeached for his lies that caused so many dead..

Rogers used that headline as a Darwinian evolutionary filter, knowing that the whiniest bitch would surface.



Posted by Corky


And here you are... to flag all my posts as abusive or offensive and cry to have me banned...

You said the dems controlled congress---I said they don't---

You should talk to Reid and Pelosi... they have a differing opinion.

lmao!

And all Wobbie can come up with is, "yeah, you're one, too".

There are black holes out there that are brighter.

Ahole

I don't have to talk to anyone---facts are facts. Lieberman is the deciding vote. Lieberman is pro killing more soldiers also.

""You should talk to Reid and Pelosi... they have a differing opinion.""

Harry Reid has explained this many times. The Dems do not hold a majority, they have a one seat plurality which is due to an independent caucusing with the Dems.

That's unfair Bob, he loves the troops alrigh, he just loves Israel more.

"they could draw up articles of Impeachment"

And I'm sure nobody would point out the collossal waste of time or the fact it'll ultimately have as much teeth as a non-binding resolution.

The Republicans have laid down the gauntlet. They are going to use the full power of the parliamentary system to get their way. One President, suddenly finding his veto pen, combined with 41 Senators can keep us in Iraq as long as they want. They can flaunt the law, knowing they can play out the judicial system past 1/20/09. And if the Dems want tax reform, or soldier's comfort, or the return of habeus corpus, the Republicans won't even close debate.

And all Wobbie can come up with is, "yeah, you're one, too".


Coming from a spell checking douche, who has to follow me around flagging all my posts as offensive, you don't have much room to talk fucko...

fucko?

What, is Michael Moore doing a movie about you?

There are black holes out there that are brighter.



Posted by Corky


RACE FLAG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What, is Michael Moore doing a movie about you?


Posted by Corky


This one time, I saw a dog get hit by a car... and at the time I thought it was the saddest, unfunniest thing I'd ever see... and then I read Corky's last post.

Next time you throw a dog in front of a car, film for Wissy, eh?


Be sure that it's not a black dog, though, lmfao!

film it

"Rogers used that headline as a Darwinian evolutionary filter, knowing that the whiniest bitch would surface."

I like that line. It is so..... you.

But its not "GOP Kilss Detainees Rights." Kill is only used in this thread about soldiers...

Why?

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2007-09-20 01:20 PM | Reply

Can't answer a relevant question can ya?

Can't answer a relevant question can ya?

Posted by JimmyWallback


I want to know why we have similar stories, but Kill is used in the Soldiers story and the Detainee one gets a completely different story.

Can you explain that to me, guy who wants to see kids murdered in classrooms?

I like that line. It is so..... you.




Posted by Corky


Wow... pat yourself on the back a little harder...

LMAO... holy crap I've never seen that here before... complimenting your own posts... that is a first...

Ohhh SNAP!!! You put him in his place Rob...

FF

-Can you explain that to me, guy who wants to see kids murdered in classrooms?

- signed, guy who wants to commit mass murder on whole countries.

They sided with the president yesterday, as elections near they will begin siding with the troops.

Posted by danni at 2007-09-20 01:23 PM | Reply

Some will. Most will side with the party interests which include going down with the Bush ship. It is clear that the strategy of the Dems is make the Repubes vote down as many bills as possible that the American people see as important.

I say that instead of tying up the headlines with an impeachment vote that will not pass the Senate what they are doing is brilliant.

Giving the republicants enough rope to hang themselves come 2008.

Can you explain that to me, guy who wants to see kids murdered in classrooms?

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2007-09-20 01:59 PM | Reply

Again the asshole does not answer the question.

BTW stop lying about what I have said.

Being a lying asshole is not flattering.

Jimmy I think you are right about that. If some REpublicans want to go down with their sinking ship then good riddance.

BTW stop lying about what I have said.

You want to make it easier for kids to be killed in classrooms... you're a scumbag... its not a lie.

Again the asshole does not answer the question.

I'm not going to talk about the subject of the thread until the title is changed or explanation given for use of the word Kill

"I'm not going to talk about the subject of the thread until the title is changed or explanation given for use of the word Kill"

Whiny little bitch takes ball, goes home.

Crowd cheers!

Film at 11:00.

Corky attempts humor again.

Crowd walks out in disgust.

Wissy sticks up for butt-buddy yet again.

Ain't love grand?

You want to make it easier for kids to be killed in classrooms... you're a scumbag... its not a lie.

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2007-09-20 02:08 PM | Reply

Again you lying asshole, post where I said I want kids killed.

Liar.

Wissy sticks up for butt-buddy yet again.
Posted by Corky

No, just calling them as I see them Milton Berle.

Whiny little bitch takes ball, goes home.


Posted by Corky


I'm still here... getting douchechills from your bombed jokes... but still here...

A quick look at the topic of this thread and the majority of posts though shows I clearly do have the ball.

- I clearly do have the ball.

Yes, but you should spit it out.

You know Wissy only has the one.

I never thought anyone could make Carrot Top look funny by comparison... wow corky...

You know Wissy only has the one.




Posted by Corky

Beats none. Stick to carrying Hillary's water Cork.

Is this thread kicked? Seems like it is...

and yet no explanation on the title... oh well...

Where's the third Douchketeer, Ride?

Now that you South Parkers have aborted this thread, maybe you can find someone to gang up on, eh?

Now that you South Parkers have aborted this thread, maybe you can find someone to gang up on, eh?



Posted by Corky

Are you in one of your "flagging" moods?

Since, as far as I know, it isn't possible to know who flags what and who emails Rogers, you and Wobbie's perpetual whining about people doing that only makes you look all the more ignorant.

If that's even possible.

Since, as far as I know, it isn't possible to know who flags what and who emails Rogers, you and Wobbie's perpetual whining about people doing that only makes you look all the more ignorant.

Posted by Corky

Hell, you were whining the other day about Trees getting gang raped. Come on, pretend you have a pair and admit it.

Wow... that sure was an outright denial...

Funny stuff Uncle Milty.

Thread Dominated Stamp

I win

Is this thread kicked? Seems like it is...

and yet no explanation on the title... oh well...

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole


No one really gives a shit, rob.

The typical well to do Republican holds soldiers in contempt. They are like the maid or the hired help, - meekly expected to do as told. I do not for one instant underestimate the condescension rightwingers feel for our soldiers.

Posted by moder8 at 2007-09-19 11:32 PM




YES YES YES !!! I was satisfied with the new videotape of our leader of Global War on America. He sounded more like a true leftist than I had ever heard from him! He didn't spare the evil corporations, or their puppets in the White House. DAMMIT BUSHITLER! BIN LADEN UNDERSTANDS THAT 647739% OF AMERIKKKANS WANT TO LOSE!!!

I haven't seen Madam Speaker on here lately, but Nancy, if you read this, take note that Osama is appealing for your help! He's doing his best to defeat America, but he needs YOUR help! HE CAN'T DO IT ALONE!

Maybe we could start an Osama bin Laden book of the month club, where the stuff we read is anything by Chomsky, or that former CIA guy the heroic freedom fighter mentioned.

Professor Bates
Eager Socialist For Wider Redistribution

Professor Bates

That wasn't Osama. The 2004 tape wasn't Osama. There is nothing that would convist Osama in any American court. Osama is not wanted by the FBI for 911.

There is nothing that would convist Osama in any American court.
Posted by Buffalo_Bob

What would it take to get him convisted?

I would think you would need a Convistigator to convist him.

redirecting back on topic-

The Dems made a Bold move to show that the Rethuglicans do not really care about the troops.

They were in a tight spot vote to give the troops much needed rest and undermine Bush's ability to keep them on station (which by the way is NOT his call and it IS the Congress's job to protect the troops as they are voters too) or to continue to support Bush at all costs.

Once again they have made their choice and now have to live with it ( as do we all).

The strategy is sound. Make those costs be felt more and more and ratchet up the pressure.

Rethugs say Fuck the Troops?

Including "Ach du Lieberman" aka AIPAC's bitch?

Quel fuckin' suprize!

Well, at least the Dems tried and at the very least they did manage to make it painfully obvious to all but the truly brain-dead among us that the GOPhers are really the problem not the solution here.

The grim reality is that most Gophers view the troops as expendible cannon fodder to be re-used over and over until death or PTSD occur.

GOPhers say they care about the troops.
Their actions tell another story entirely.

Actions speak louder than words.

These actions scream bloody blue murder.

Be Well.

so corky....does that number mean that a dem or two also voted against the bill....
so where is the outrage for them?

I guess libermann voted no, but who else?

the articles you gave only mentioned the six republicans who pussied out to liberal nonsense.....

so with the numbers like they are....there has to have been some dems who voted no.....or were they absent.......

Posted by bushlovertwo at 2007-09-20 09:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

Piece and parse as needed to fit your "Bush can FLIP FLOP and never do wrong" agenda.

How convenient.

The Dems made a Bold move to show that the Rethuglicans do not really care about the troops.


That's sad. I would've hoped the Democrats made that move to help the troops. But it seems they did it to "show" the republicans.

I'd say this makes them and their agenda no better than the Republicans if this is the case.

Day two of this bullshit headline...

Will there be an explanation today?

""That's sad. I would've hoped the Democrats made that move to help the troops. But it seems they did it to "show" the republicans.

I'd say this makes them and their agenda no better than the Republicans if this is the case.""

Sen. Jim Webb doesn't do things just for "show" in regards to the troops. His proposal was a sincere effort to help the troops and their families.
The defeat of this bill does, however, "show" the Republican's care more about their political agenda than they do the troops.
Talk about cynicism, some Republicans have even admitted openly that they will probably switch sides after the primary elections. Thus the troops dying are doins so for cynical political reasons in a war the Republicans won't support when they have to defend it in the elections. That is truely disgusting and I am amazed that reasonable Republicans, like you Goatman, tolerate such cynical partisanship in your party.

Hey, Rob! How's the government teat taste this morning? Sweet--my tax dollars at work so you can watch blinking lights and spend the entire taxpayer-paid workday at your keyboard posting such gems as yesterday's "fuck you and fuck him" homily to rcade. Your very host here.

OK, Rob, you've met your match today. I happen to write headlines for a living. For like 35 years. I'm told I'm extremely good at it. There's nothing wrong with the headline to this thread except perhaps the angle of your tinfoil hat. "Kill" is the "bon mot" to describe a bill that did not come to a vote--therefore "Defeat" would not apply. Blocked, maybe. But headline writers go for the active verb, and often the most concise and hard-hitting.

And accurate. "Blocked" does not convey the rancor that goes into "Killing" a hated oponent's bill. "Blocked" is for a would-be goal in soccer. Good headline writing, rcade.

Now go twist those panties and twist 'em good. On my tax dime, of course, this workday. I gotta go work honestly--for private enterprise, where it's against policy to post to blogs, and I comply. Sorry if I can't answer you today.

Mmmm--actually, I'd offer this improvement to the headline:

Repubs Kill Soldiers' Leave Bill

Needs the apostrophe for the possessive.

Blocked, maybe. But headline writers go for the active verb, and often the most concise and hard-hitting.


Jimi, click on the fucking link. The title of the story is: Senate Republicans block Iraq bill

Blocked was the word chosen by the people who published the fucking article. the only place where "Kill" is used is here at the Drudge Retort... and it was used here as a subliminal dig at the Republicans here to say that we are killing soldiers.

OK, Rob, you've met your match today.

LOL... How did I miss this...

Met my match... no dumbass... you didn't even click on the link to see the original title.... you are far, far beneath me.

"it was used here as a subliminal dig at the Republicans here to say that we are killing soldiers."

Why should it be subliminal? Any actuary would tell you it's absolutely true.

How funny that Jimi would toot his own horn about how great he is at writing headlines, critiques how "Block" really isn't the best word and how kill is so much better of a choice when the actual title not the Drudge one is "Block."

You suck at your job Jimi, that's why you work for a shitty local newspaper and never will make it big time.

Why should it be subliminal? Any actuary would tell you it's absolutely true.

Posted by Danforth


If Rogers wants to just come out and say it, that's fine... we can discuss that for hours on end... But here it was backhanded and sneaky and pussy-esque...

Normally, a bill is "killed" prior to a vote on the floor. This is more game playing by the appeasers.
This is such a cheap shot. When you start believing your own propaganda, you are in danger of total meltdown. It is obvious that the "move on" socialist,democratic, progressive party has the idea that the majority of Americans are blind, deaf and will be mute.

Just think about move on and Joe Lieberman.

"...the idea that the majority of Americans are blind, deaf and will be mute."

Let's review:

Before November, 2006, it was GOP majorities in:

US Senate
US House
Governorships
State Legislatures

As as a consequence of the November, 2006 elections?

US Senate: Majority Democratic
US House: Majority Democratic (including TX-22: Democratic)
Governorships: Majority Democratic
State Legislatures: Majority Democratic

... and ...

The GOP failed to pickup a single House or Senate seat formerly held by a Democrat - the first time a major party has failed in such a spectacular manner since 1980.

... and ...

Two-thirds of the districts that flipped to the Democratic side of the ledger were carried by Bush on the presidential ballot just two years earlier.

Blocked was the word chosen by the people who published the fucking article. the only place where "Kill" is used is here at the Drudge Retort... and it was used here as a subliminal dig at the Republicans here to say that we are killing soldiers.

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

You tellum Rob!

Tell all them non-loyal, terrorist lovin, antiamerican, gay Nazi scumbags!

We loyal americens have feelings.......

"I know I was shocked... SHOCKED!!!"

Apparently, some here were:

Aaron Broussard is a perfect example of why you libs are out of power for good.
Posted by 2ndcrusade at 2005-09-26 01:23 PM

Which is why the Democrats are losing elections all over the country
Posted by americanply at 2005-10-27 03:05 PM

And that is why you loose and we win...nothing sweeter and seeing a liberal booo hoooo,
Posted by aplusmnt at 2005-09-13 07:54 AM

Get ready for this upcomming political battle. You Libs are not going to like how this story ends.
Posted by BradyO321 at 2005-10-28 04:18 PM

a microcosim of why libs will not win another election in a loooooooooong time.
Posted by bushlovertwo at 2005-08-18 09:40 AM

1) dems wont win in 06 or 08
2) liberalism really is a mental disorder
Posted by bushlovertwo at 2005-08-21 02:10 PM

Hollow left wing drivel, with no agenda, like Kerry that piece of shit. Desperate, out of power,losers all.
Posted by controlledpairs at 2005-09-10 08:14 PM

The liberidiots are the definite LOSERS, hands down!!!
Posted by DarkSwan at 2005-10-09 05:05 PM

The libs can't deal with the reality that they are Losers, and poor ones at that!
Posted by DarkSwan at 2005-10-22 04:14 PM

Well lets see....no indictments handed out today...a day after the 'Washington Note' said it would be. Keep dreamin,
Posted by formerlib at 2005-10-26 02:03 PM

Hans,
Do you think that those folks are happy with the representation they have now? The far left has taken over the Democratic party. The leadership of the party is in moveon.org's pocket. There are Dems that were elected as moderates who can work with the opposition. The sticker is the party leadership. There is no room for moderates in the party.

I don't think that the majority of Americans are "blind, deaf and will be mute."

Hans

I said,the party leaders do.

Apparently, some here were:

Doesn't change the fact that the 2006 election fell right in line with historical precedent...

"Do you think that those folks are happy with the representation they have now?"

My Congressman (a Democrat) and my Senators (a Democrat and a Republican) enjoy record high approval ratings. Apparently, my "folks" are happy.

"The far left has taken over the Democratic party."

Heard that before the November, 2006 elections. Didn't work. Apparently, time to get new "talking points."

"There are Dems that were elected as moderates who can work with the opposition." followed by "There is no room for moderates in the party."

Oops.

Hans

"Doesn't change the fact that the 2006 election fell right in line with historical precedent..."

And the response to that fact, when it was pointed out before November, 2006?

Aaron Broussard is a perfect example of why you libs are out of power for good.
Posted by 2ndcrusade at 2005-09-26 01:23 PM

Which is why the Democrats are losing elections all over the country
Posted by americanply at 2005-10-27 03:05 PM

And that is why you loose and we win...nothing sweeter and seeing a liberal booo hoooo,
Posted by aplusmnt at 2005-09-13 07:54 AM

Get ready for this upcomming political battle. You Libs are not going to like how this story ends.
Posted by BradyO321 at 2005-10-28 04:18 PM

a microcosim of why libs will not win another election in a loooooooooong time.
Posted by bushlovertwo at 2005-08-18 09:40 AM

1) dems wont win in 06 or 08
2) liberalism really is a mental disorder
Posted by bushlovertwo at 2005-08-21 02:10 PM

Hollow left wing drivel, with no agenda, like Kerry that piece of shit. Desperate, out of power,losers all.
Posted by controlledpairs at 2005-09-10 08:14 PM

The liberidiots are the definite LOSERS, hands down!!!
Posted by DarkSwan at 2005-10-09 05:05 PM

The libs can't deal with the reality that they are Losers, and poor ones at that!
Posted by DarkSwan at 2005-10-22 04:14 PM

Well lets see....no indictments handed out today...a day after the 'Washington Note' said it would be. Keep dreamin,
Posted by formerlib at 2005-10-26 02:03 PM

"I said,the party leaders do."

Oops:

It is obvious that the "move on" socialist,democratic, progressive party has the idea that the majority of Americans are blind, deaf and will be mute.

'd say this makes them and their agenda no better than the Republicans if this is the case.

Posted by goatman at 2007-09-20 10:16 PM

haven't the the troops been a political football for a while now? Are the Dems any Diff from th Gops when it comes to Polictics?

hardly but I have not seen the Dems use Generals as footballs for a while...

Wasn't General Patraeus just used as a political football by Bush?

At least the Dems were trying to get the troops some rest AND stick it to Bush at the same time showing what callous asses the Gophers are?

I'd say that was a good 2 fer...

And the response to that fact, when it was pointed out before November, 2006?

Confidence in face of overwhelming odds... hope... who knows...

The fact is that in the sixth year of a presidents term his party can expect to lose around 6 senate seats and 30 house seats...

The only time in the last hundred years it didn't happen was in '98 due to jackass republicans like Gingrich overplaying Clinton's scandals and pissing off the American people... which is why many of the GOP leaders resigned after the elections...

"There are Dems that were elected as moderates who can work with the opposition." followed by "There is no room for moderates in the party."

Oops.

Hans

The point is they will not be allowed to have anything close to a moderate bill to even be considered, let alone supported by the party. They were elected as a moderate, but the party will not allow them to be effective. Hence,"There is no room" in the party. Just because they were elected doesn't mean that they will have a voice in the party. The voice of moderation is not heard by the move on money machine.

"The point is they will not be allowed to have anything close to a moderate bill to even be considered..."

Oops:

Repubs Kill Soldiers Leave Bill...It had been offered by Sen. Jim Webb, a decorated Vietnam veteran and former Navy secretary. The Democrat said U.S. troops are being "burned out" by repeated redeployments to Iraq, with tours of up to 15 months and less than a year off in between.

"Wasn't General Patraeus just used as a political football by Bush?"

Wasn't the first time:

Hans, I am impressed with your posts on this topic. I think you have hit the nail on the head on several points. Which is perhaps why so many of different political persuasion are attempting to pretend you are mistaken.

Al Queda's most effective weapon is the Democratic Party!

Horse hocky, Last. Complete and total horse hocky.

"Hans, I am impressed with your posts on this topic."

Thank you, Moder8.

Hans

"The Saudi central bank said today that it would take "appropriate measures" to halt huge capital inflows into the country, but analysts say this policy is unsustainable and will inevitably lead to the collapse of the dollar peg.

"As a close ally of the US, Riyadh has so far tried to stick to the peg, but the link is now destabilising its own economy.

"The Fed's dramatic half point cut to 4.75pc yesterday has already caused a plunge in the world dollar index to a fifteen year low, touching with weakest level ever against the mighty euro at just under $1.40.

"There is now a growing danger that global investors will start to shun the US bond markets. The latest US government data on foreign holdings released this week show a collapse in purchases of US bonds from $97bn to just $19bn in July, with outright net sales of US Treasuries.

"The danger is that this could now accelerate as the yield gap between the United States and the rest of the world narrows rapidly, leaving America starved of foreign capital flows needed to cover its current account deficit - expected to reach $850bn this year, or 6.5pc of GDP.

Ooops.

Hmmm. That would be the sound of our national checkbook asking to be balanced, no? The don't tax but spend wildly GOP.

Hans,
By using the word "media" are you in fact saying the rightwing and or neocons?

I believe Al Qaeda's recruitment headquarters are now located at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, with a branch office on Capitol Hill. Oh, and I guess one at Blackwater, North Carolina that opened recently.

"I'm really not that concerned about him."

"By using the word "media" are you in fact saying the rightwing and or neocons?"

I wasn't the one using the word "media."

Hans

Hans,

Help me out. I can't find where you used the word "media" above.

That would make it easier for me to identify the strawman du jour here.

Rob, BTW, I work for the "Wall St. Journal" of one of the most important international industries. It's basically recession-proof, too. And I played a key part in many of the tech industry's leading pubs over the years. Half of what you know probably went across my desk.

You're welcome. Glad to be of service to you.

Hans,

Help me out. I can't find where you used the word "media" above.

Posted by Jimi_left at 2007-09-21 07:18 PM

Ahemmmm. I was asking in regards to your 1:56 post. Which was responded to by moder8 at 3:16. Then you responded to moder8 at 6:58. Which at the time was the last post and since I didn't refresh I was under the impression it was in sequence at the time of my 7:10 question. Can't figure how you guys missed that.

Dang, Rob, you sure sound like crickets tonight.

OK, Crisp, I'm trekking up the thread now.

"Ahemmmm. I was asking in regards to your 1:56 post."

To which I responded, "I wasn't the one using the word "media" in my 1:56 post.

Hans

To which I responded, "I wasn't the one using the word "media" in my 1:56 post.

Hans

Posted by Hans at 2007-09-21 07:34 PM

In regards to steps 1-3 and 5-7?

Lesseee--there's a 1:55 and a 1:57. Back up...

3:14 and 3:17...must be from yesterday. Back up...

Yesterday, Buffalo Bob and Taxman at 1:56...Back up...

No 3:16 yesterday, let's look for...ah, yes, Moder8 at 3:16 today! To wit:

"Hans, I am impressed with your posts on this topic. I think you have hit the nail on the head on several points. Which is perhaps why so many of different political persuasion are attempting to pretend you are mistaken."

I still don't get your 7 o'clockish question. Hans said nothing I can find about "media." So, I'm drawing a blank here; I guess you weren't addressing me after all, but Hans, though you copied my post.

Good night. Things to do. Carry on.

I still don't get your 7 o'clockish question. Hans said nothing I can find about "media." So, I'm drawing a blank here; I guess you weren't addressing me after all, but Hans, though you copied my post.

Posted by Jimi_left at 2007-09-21 07:44 PM |

Read steps 1-3 and 5-7 on the post by Hans at 1:56 pm. Replace the word "media" with rightwing or neocon. Thats all I was asking. Wasn't baiting or trying to pull a Hannity. Just was curious.

"In regards to steps 1-3 and 5-7?"

Those steps were from an article I posted on my blog. The link ("source") takes you to my post, which is originally from Top 10.

And, no, I don't believe the author was intending to substitute rightwing or neocon. I believe he was referencing the uncritical (until too late) media.

Hans

The wealthy may soon beg to be taxed so they don't lose even more in a meltdown. So far, the Saudis, the Chinese, the Japanese, and the Europeans have been the big ones buying U.S. Treasuries to finance the Iraq adventure. This article talks about the possibility of a reverse "carry trade" on the yen. That would likely hurt the dollar hard, since the Japanese economy has been at zero percent interest for years.

The Telegraph article also predicts that home prices in the U.S. are set to plunge. That would be inconvenient, to say the least.

I'm thinking the ability to finance the Iraq war might be severely curtailed. What then?

Hans, I think I read that article. As I recall, the writer's intent was that the media were...

Complicit.

Help, I'm stuck on the Drudge and I can't get off--

Only one thing to do: Pinch nose, hold breath, and exit--"as ya do"--stage left.

Wonder where Rob is? Musta found some cheese to go with that whine. Gummint cheese? My tax dollars, hard at work, in the defense contractor industry. Anybody seen "Why We Fight"? Cameo by Ike, the last real Republican and the last true conservative.