December 31, 2005

Why The Democrats Can't Gain Traction
— Ace

I spoke to my friend Steve_in_HB yesterday. He's not a Republican; he's a sort of extreme libertarian with some Republican leanings. But not enough to be a Republican. He's pretty down on organized religion and the religious right agenda, for example.

When I've tried to argue politics with him, he's generally argued against me 50% of the time. Sometimes a little more. Sometimes a little less.

The point he made is that he is the Democrats' target for recruitment. Born in a Blue State, raised in a Blue State, living in a very Blue State. And yet, when he got involved in arguing with some of the liberal posters here, and checking out Fire Dog Lake blog, he was completely turned off.

He's open to the Democratic message -- whatever the hell that might be -- but they just don't seem particularly willing to engage him with anything other than insults and unhinged Get-Bush-At-All-Costs-isms.

Anyway, he wrote something to this effect on the blog today:

I'll tell you some of what I've seen. A string of people coming here not to discuss issues, but rather to hurl canned insults.

Typically the first sentence contains "fascist". There is also a generally sneering use of mock hick phrasing. Some type of allusion to gun racks and trucks. Also, some variation on the Chimpy McHitler when referring to Bush.

Frankly, there is no reason to take these people seriously. They start out with the assumption that Republicans or Conservatives are evil and stupid, not that their fellow citizens are good people who have different political beliefs. How can you have serious discussions with this type of person?

As for "unpatriotic" -

Having reservations about surveillance activities, counter-terrorism tactics, etc is not unpatriotic. However, many of the "liberal" commenters don't really want to talk about trade-offs between privacy vs security, regime change vs realpolitik, etc. They instead take glee in US setbacks, misteps, etc because it helps their political side. That is unpatriotic.

I'm not even a Republican and disagree with a lot of their positions. In other words, I'm the Dems/Libs target audience. But all I see from them is blind anger, petty politicing, sneering elitism, and, at times, a lack of patriotism.

This isn't just the Internet, either. Sure, it's worse on the Internet, and there are a lot more dummies in cyberspace than working at the DNC, but it's just all part of the Big Democratic Message, which seems, to many, to consist of little more than "Impeach Bush, Give Us Back Power, We'll Make Things Better, Though We Have No Idea How, Or Else We're Too Afraid To Share That Information With You For Fear You Won't Like Our Actual Ideas."

The Republicans got their noses bloodied in 1998 when, as many people believed, they seemed to have de-emphasized advancing actual policy debates in favor of pursuing their bete noir, Bill Clinton, with an Ahab-like intensity. Hey, I was part of that madness myself, so I can't point fingers. I do know, though, that whatever the complaints were against Bill Clinton, Republicans failed to convince a majority of the country that we had anything to offer that was better as a substantive matter.

There's little point in giving advice to your opponents -- you don't want to give them useful advice, and besides, they won't listen anyway -- but really, hatred and spite are just not selling, guys. Even at the steep discounts you're offering based on volume, volume, volume.

You don't like Chimpmaster McHalliburton, Fascist Emperor of Hegemonic Terrorism. We get that. You also despise conservatives, anyone more religious than, say, Michael Newdow, and anyone who's ever taken a shot at a deer.

You say you have trouble "getting your message out;" trust me, that part of the message has come through loud and clear. Message received, roger wilco.

Now-- can we skip down a bit to the bullet-points lower on the list?

Posted by: Ace at 12:09 PM | Comments (311)
Post contains 666 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Good post Ace. I don't know why Liberals cannot follow your example of 100% objectivity, and the devotion all of us here give to clear, rational discussion, without even a hint of animosity directed to our fellow brethren on the evil side of the political spectrum.

Posted by: Sortelli at December 31, 2005 12:19 PM (Vs585)

2 Don't make a fucking maniac out of me, Sortelli.

Posted by: ace at December 31, 2005 12:20 PM (UxtY9)

3 Well, I have a probem with "anyone who's ever taken a shot at a deer" since I think it's a sadistic and cowardly practice, but I'm yet another ex-democrat who now votes Republican.

If the democrats want my vote, all they need to do is support free market capitalism, support the war on terror, and tone down the hatred for their right-wing neighbors. I want to defect. Come on, donkeys, give me a reason to vote for you.

Posted by: SJKevin at December 31, 2005 12:23 PM (6hzCC)

4 I do see a difference, though. Most of our "insults" are pretty lighthearted. Dave in Texas is doing nothing but offering Chris Klein and paul anka quotes.

There's a real level of hatred coming through their posts that just isn't present in most of ours. Yes, there's some ragging and jabbing, but it's pretty jovial.

No one's calling them PUSSY and fag every three words.

Posted by: ace at December 31, 2005 12:24 PM (UxtY9)

5 Bingo.

On the nose.

It is the Democrats and their raving, rabid hypocrisy that are making me shun them like a hooker with an obvious case of the crabs.

Anyone who doesnt buy into their BS is immediately labeled trailer trash, Nazi, PNAC goon, stupid, etc.

God forbid any one of them *ever* look in the mirror.

But hey, at least Clinton got to bang the office help.

Posted by: Scott at December 31, 2005 12:25 PM (/93R6)

6 Ace -

Isn't technology great. Before we used to have to get on the phone to talk about how smart we were and how everybody else is stupid. Now we can do it on the internet and share it with everybody.

Posted by: steve_in_hb at December 31, 2005 12:26 PM (spTw1)

7 SJKevin if you didn't equate the illegal invasion of Iraq with the war on terror you probably wouldn't have a problem. Anyone familiar with the facts knows that Liberals did, and still do support the war on terrorism. We just have a problem attacking people who had nothing to do with it.

Posted by: No Name at December 31, 2005 12:27 PM (Vs585)

8 But hey, at least Clinton got to bang the office help.

It would have been better if she were hot. The most powerful man on the planet and he can't get a 10 to do him? That's embarassing.

Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at December 31, 2005 12:27 PM (AlU3k)

9 That wasn't me. I would have cussed more.

But it's pretty cool that PLV is targeting me specifically now, because that lets me know he's hurtin'. Hurtin' baaad.

Posted by: Sortelli at December 31, 2005 12:28 PM (Bjdtq)

10 Lookit Ace. There's three kinds of meat: meat that gets meat; meat that begs for meat; meat.

If you're hungry, just ask nice.

Posted by: ergastularius at December 31, 2005 12:29 PM (AuKcO)

11 SJKevin if you didn't equate the illegal invasion of Iraq with the war on terror you probably wouldn't have a problem. Anyone familiar with the facts knows that Liberals did, and still do support the war on terrorism. We just have a problem attacking people who had nothing to do with it.

So when the ACLU sues to keep police from searching bags of subway passengers that's just part of the liberal support for the war on terror? No wonder you don't want a name.

Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at December 31, 2005 12:31 PM (AlU3k)

12 "So when the ACLU sues to keep police from searching bags of subway passengers that's just part of the liberal support for the war on terror? No wonder you don't want a name."

The ACLU also comes to the defense of fascists to protect their civil rights. The thing that separates us from tyrannies is our constitution and personal freedom. You may want to give away your rights but I certainly don't. There is nothing that excuses a President, who swears allegiance to the constitution, to then turn around and openly and unapologetically violate it. That makes us equivalent to any other totalitarian regime. It is no wonder so many real conservatives are looking for alternatives.

Posted by: No Name at December 31, 2005 12:35 PM (Vs585)

13 I only do women who are not 8-10's.

Posted by: Bill Clinton (The Anti-Chris-Klein) at December 31, 2005 12:37 PM (UxtY9)

14 Republicans failed to convince a majority of the country that we had anything to offer that was better as a substantive matter.

And that's why they failed. They focused on Kill Bill. Not "why we have better ideas". They didn't offer any better ideas.

I'm a lighthearted conservative. I think our ideas work better. I like advancing them. I love my country, and the principles of liberty, however flawed the men were who advanced them.

Picking at the flaws, and ignoring the ideals is just pussy shit. To quote a famous man.

Advance some ideas. Let's talk about them. But if all you got is "Rethuglican", well, pardon me and the rest of us for ignoring you at the polls.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at December 31, 2005 12:37 PM (k9YTD)

15 Yes, "real conservatives" like Pat Buchanan and David Duke. Way to go, guys. Big tent you got over there.

Posted by: Sortelli at December 31, 2005 12:38 PM (Bjdtq)

16 No Name:

First of all, I do equate the war in Iraq with the war on terrorism. The fact that democrats can't see this is a big mark against them in my book. But let's assume for the sake of argument that the Iraq war was a mistake...

In that case, what have the democrats done to help us recover from that mistake? I remember the John Kerry making fun of interim president Allawi (one of the more disgusting episodes of the 2004 campaign). I remember that we needed more troops, no, we need less troops, no, wait... Anyhow, John Kerry said he had a plan, but never revealed it. They offer nothing.

But anyhow, as to the war on terror outside of Iraq...

The left has whipped up ignorant paranoia against the Patriot Act. They should have provided an alternative which does the things that need doing, with only the objectionable parts reworked. Instead, they voted for it and now are trying to veto it, with nothing in place to replace it, to the detriment of our national security.

The left has consistently conflated Gitmo with makeshift prisons in the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, undermining the important intelligence work there and slandering our troops with comparisons to gulags and the like.

Does the war in Afghanistan count as the real war on terror? Well, the left has feted Michael Moore's F911 movie, which slanders our troops and claims that the war in Afghanistan was just a plot to build an oil pipeline. Michael Moore was given a seat of honor at the DNC convention, and the DNC chair and the minority leaders in both the House and the Senate endorsed his film.

Yeah, democrats. Thanks a lot for your help.

It wasn't 9/11 that made me a republican. 9/11 didn't really change my world-view at all, to be honest. It was the left's reaction to 9/11. (Sorry this post is so long.)

Posted by: SJKevin at December 31, 2005 12:39 PM (6hzCC)

17 oh, full disclosure. I shot a deer once, 22 years ago. I just couldn't get into it.

I harbor no ill will towards those that do. Just not my thing.

Still a fan of the second amendment and firearms, and in my opinion it has nothing to do with hunting.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at December 31, 2005 12:40 PM (k9YTD)

18 NO NAME: So, correct me if I'm misunderstanding you, but are you saying that suing to stop bag searches is indeed a part of liberal support for the war on terror? Your answer earlier wasn't clear enough for a simple Rethuglican like myself.

Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at December 31, 2005 12:42 PM (AlU3k)

19 I can honestly say I have never commented on a Left/Liberal blog.

I wouldn't waste my time arguing or insulting other people...at Left-wing sites. Those who come here for sole purpose of hurling insults are diseased. Have they nothing better to do with their time?

By the way, anyone else have trouble reading the comments on dogpisslake?

Posted by: Bart at December 31, 2005 12:42 PM (wUpr4)

20 "But hey, at least Clinton got to bang the office help.

It would have been better if she were hot. The most powerful man on the planet and he can't get a 10 to do him? That's embarrassing."

Posted by digitalbrownshirt at December 31, 2005 05:27 PM


I guess after looking at Hillary for all those years Monica could appear to be a cookie. And that is me being generous.

No sh** though, if he had at least tagged Sharon Stone, or like Kennedy, Marilyn Monroe, he might not have been taken to task. We might have even been proud. Good thing he didnt do Pamela Anderson, eh? He would be in the same league as Kid Rock and Tommy Lee (which would have been a step up).

As it is, he was an embarrassment to the nation, and men in general. The other thing was the blue dress. Can you imagine your daughter coming home with "the blue dress" and advising her to save it, and then providing a plastic bag?

You *know* the French and Italians were embarrassed for us, between laughing their asses off and toasting his stupidity.

Clinton and Monica *alone* guaranteed a Republican victory.

Posted by: Scott at December 31, 2005 12:43 PM (/93R6)

21 in my opinion it has nothing to do with hunting

I agree. For example, it's illegal to shoot bald eagles, but the NRA doesn't object. The second ammendment is about weapons for killing people.

Posted by: SJKevin at December 31, 2005 12:44 PM (6hzCC)

22 The "illegal invasion" thing always makes me giggle. President went to Congress. Congress said go ahead. That's is legally how you go about invading a country. I don't know, maybe No Name just has something against Kurds and Shiites.

Posted by: Alex_fs at December 31, 2005 12:44 PM (V5U8u)

23 NoName: The ACLU also comes to the defense of fascists to protect their civil rights.

Godwin's Law. You lose.

Posted by: marcus at December 31, 2005 12:45 PM (mq+EB)

24 damn, some great posts, and I gotta go do the NY thing.

To each and all of you, even Gene and PLV, I wish you and yours a Happy New Year.

and ace, thank for the fun.

Dave

Posted by: Dave in Texas at December 31, 2005 12:46 PM (k9YTD)

25 SJKevin, I hope you're a vegetarian.
It's not like any other animals we eat are killed in much more of a 'humane' fashion.
And shooting at a deer doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to hit it, therefore, unlike cattle, sheep, pigs, chickens, etc at slaughter, the deer has a chance to get away.
Most hunters eat what they shoot, and abhor those who simply trophy hunt.
As for No Name, please tell us all how the Iraq war is illegal, and all about how many freedoms you've lost...

Posted by: Uncle Jefe at December 31, 2005 12:47 PM (w9g/S)

26 SJKevin I won't dismiss your arguments as straw men right out of the shoot. However, I think I am going to need a few facts to understand what you are pointing to. It is incorrect to point to one Liberal and conclude that they represent every Liberal. The right's obsession with Michael Moore is a case in point. I don't think Rush Limbaugh represents the thoughts of all conservatives does he? Do you want me to assume that you agree with everything he says? I thought Moore referred to himself as a Libertarian. I don't know if he is even a Democrat. Obviously there is a great deal of disagreement within the Democratic Party. We don't all sing out of the same hymnbook. Iraq is a good example of where there is a great deal of disagreement.

Posted by: No Name at December 31, 2005 12:47 PM (Vs585)

27 It would have been better if she were hot.

I think Bubba's one of those guys who likes that kind of southern belle. She was probably a 10 to him.

Posted by: sandy burger at December 31, 2005 12:48 PM (6hzCC)

28 Hey, Sortelli,

The only serving Klansman is a Democrat.

Robert Byrd ring any bells?

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Posted by: Scott at December 31, 2005 12:50 PM (/93R6)

29 SJKevin, I hope you're a vegetarian.

I am. Anyhow, having posted that comment about hunting, though, I kinduv regret it. I don't think people really hunt for food, so I think that sadism is part of it. But I think it's a lot more humane than eating factory-farmed food. So, uh, I guess I kinduv mostly retract my comment. It was poorly thought out and poorly worded.

Posted by: SJKevin at December 31, 2005 12:50 PM (6hzCC)

30 Michael Moore got prime seating at the Democrat's national convention, that might be considered a signal that he's part of the Dem mainstream.

Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at December 31, 2005 12:53 PM (AlU3k)

31 We don't all sing out of the same hymnbook.

I understand that. I sure have my differences with the right.

But that's why I brought up the DNC convention, the DNC chair, the Senate minority leader, and the House minority leader, to demonstrate that it's not just about one person. It's about a message from the Democrats.

Rush Limbaugh has never had that kind of support from the Republicans.

Posted by: SJKevin at December 31, 2005 12:54 PM (6hzCC)

32 Scott- Yes, that was my point. I posted in response to No Name saying :

It is no wonder so many real conservatives are looking for alternatives.

The "real conservatives" he's referring to are the ones we can do without.

Posted by: Sortelli at December 31, 2005 01:00 PM (Bjdtq)

33 Rush Limbaugh has never had that kind of support from the Republicans.

For that matter, Rush Limbaugh has never slandered our troops, to my knowlege. (And no, I am not a Rush fan. I've never listened to his show, and from what I've been told, I doubt I'd like it much.)

Posted by: SJKevin at December 31, 2005 01:00 PM (6hzCC)

34 SJ I think I saw Moore at the Republican convention as well. However, I'm glad you can accept a difference of opinion in your Party unlike Sortelli.

Posted by: No Name at December 31, 2005 01:04 PM (Vs585)

35 You guys can make out that Rush is a fringe right0wing shill, but he's not. If you listen to him on a regular basis, you'd understand he is level-headed and quite brilliant.

Rush only acts pompous to get under the skin of his liberal listeners. Unfortunately, some conservative listeners don't stick around long enough to get the joke. Or they're elitists without a sense of humor.

Either way, those who consider Rush Limbaugh a blow-hard are flat wrong. He has a keen ability to organize his thoughts and express them quickly, neatly, and eloquently.

The hunting thing: I kind of agree with. There's no "sport" in a man with a firearm (with scope!) stalking a timid woodland creature. A man with a knife hunting a bear...now that's different.

Posted by: Bart at December 31, 2005 01:07 PM (bkMzk)

36 Good for you, then, SJKevin.
Although I don't personally know one hunter who does not love to eat that which he hunts, and I've grown up in hunting camps.
Y'all.
As for No Name, although Rush Limbaugh is a better version of Bill O'Reilly (who I find to be an ass), there is no comparison to FatAssMoore.
Limbaugh and O'Reilly pose opinions based in fact, while Mooreon is an outright lying propagandist, and as noted, was given a prime seat at the Dem convention.
His propaganda is swallowed hook line and sinker by the left, and regurgitated as 'fact'.

Posted by: Uncle Jefe at December 31, 2005 01:08 PM (w9g/S)

37 SJ I think I saw Moore at the Republican convention as well. However, I'm glad you can accept a difference of opinion in your Party unlike Sortelli.

Selective memory? Moore covered the RNC for USA Today. He was an honored guest at the DNC. If you can't be honest, at least be careful in your lies.

Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at December 31, 2005 01:10 PM (AlU3k)

38 I think I saw Moore at the Republican convention as well.

Why would any of you want to argue with this person?

Posted by: Bart at December 31, 2005 01:11 PM (bkMzk)

39 The hunting thing: I kind of agree with. There's no "sport" in a man with a firearm (with scope!) stalking a timid woodland creature. A man with a knife hunting a bear...now that's different.

Make no mistake, if the deer had a chance it would eat you and everyone you love.

I don't listen to Rush because I've got a job and it doesn't include listening to the radio. The couple of times I've listened I didn't see why people hate on him so much. He's kind of funny, and he's obviously trying to be entertaining. It must be working because he's still getting paid for talking.

Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at December 31, 2005 01:14 PM (AlU3k)

40 Uncle I don't see much difference between Moore and Limbaugh. The only real difference between Leftwing Nuts and Rightwing nuts is the fact that there are way more on the right who get airtime. Luckily there are more of us in the middle than there are on either end of the spectrum. The fact is the mainstream of the Republican Party is far more influenced by their extreme than the Democrats are.

Posted by: No Name at December 31, 2005 01:16 PM (Vs585)

41 Why would any of you want to argue with this person?

Not really arguing, just poking him with the stick of truth. They go away if you throw enough light on them. Just like shadows.

Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at December 31, 2005 01:16 PM (AlU3k)

42 No name dude: Nobody here is believing you're in the middle, not even yourself.

Posted by: at December 31, 2005 01:17 PM (AlU3k)

43 Likewise, Bart, I would hope that you too are a vegetarian, for I'm sure that you'd find slaughterhouses a lot less 'sporting' than tracking, stalking, and then trying to hit a wild animal.
Again, said wild animal doesn't just pose for you in the open, especially ones that fly.
Then of course, there is the dressing of the animal when you do kill it, and later the butchering etc.
It is sport, it is a skill, it is damn fine eating.
And come the day that the shit hits the fan, you may want a friend who knows how to hunt and gather.

Posted by: Uncle Jefe at December 31, 2005 01:19 PM (w9g/S)

44 However, I'm glad you can accept a difference of opinion in your Party unlike Sortelli.

Yes, it's true. I cannot tolerate anti-semites.

As for differences of opinion, it's my opinion that vegans, vegetarians and anti-hunting animal rights enthusiasts are morally retarded, yet me and SJKevin co-exist. Funny, that.


Man, hearing the things people like No Name have to say to justify themselves never ceases to amaze me.

Posted by: Sortelli at December 31, 2005 01:24 PM (Bjdtq)

45 Sorry, No Name, the left has all the airtime in the world.
It's called the mainstream media (MSM).
And people can debate Rush and Bill, and as you've seen just in these postings alone, many conservatives disagree with much of what they say.
The MSM does not stand for dissent, and the left just nods its collective head yes to all the mooreon and MSM propaganda.

Posted by: Uncle Jefe at December 31, 2005 01:24 PM (w9g/S)

46 Discussions here are indicative that Ace is exactly right.

Concerned about civil liberties? Fine but don't pretend that protecting civil liberties absolutes won't get (possibly millions) of Americans murdered. Brutally. NY Post reported the Feds and NYC had an exercise about what to do in response to a Midtown nuke of Hiroshima size. Conclusion: 1.6 million dead.

That's the ultimate downside of going about the War on Terror by protecting civil liberties absolutes most. You ask most Americans they don't want us cutting off body parts, but don't have a problem with listening in to the (then unknown) person that Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the 9/11 Architect, was advising on how to maximize casualties in blowing up the Brooklyn Bridge.

Message to Dems:

1. You can't have it all. Anymore than you can eat chocolate cake all the time and not get fat. Offer a balanced program of civil liberties and anti-Terror that's SERIOUS and addresses peoples #1 priority (to live, not get murdered) and you'll get serious consideration.

2. ALL Bush has is the War on Terror. Dems should consider May 1945 when the Brits turned out Churchill for Labor. By WINNING decisively, you enter the post-Bush phase. By saying all the time you're unwilling to: go to war with Pakistan and or Iran to get bin Laden; go to war with Iran to prevent them from nuking us; objecting to Senate resolutions against Iran wanting to "wipe Israel off the face of the Earth" etc you are useless in winning the war against Islamic Caliphate terror and get pushed aside.

Dems act as they do because they are a coalition of wealthy, "write a check make the bad men go away" liberals, "lifestyle" twenty-somethings without families to protect and care for, and special interest groups and Tammany-Hall style ethnic spoils groups. Middle class (and especially straight white working class-middle class guys) have gotten the "drop dead and go away" message very well thank you. Until Dems drop the Soros-Jackson-Dean-o Alliance and get populist they will be unable to even consider military force to defend America (quick name the one time Dems were able to consider ground force casualties to defend America and destroy it's enemies in the last 30 years) or find average people worth protecting.

Clinton? Bagged Gennifer Flowers (local anchorwoman), Elizabeth Gracen (former Miss Arkansas and "Amanda" on Highlander), but that has to be balanced against both Monica and Paula Jones. It's rumored he DID bag Sharon Stone but that can cut both ways. He did however make life easier for the comedy writers on the Tonight Show, Letterman, and Conan O'Brien. Need a closing joke? Go to Clinton. Which is his true legacy.

Posted by: Jim Rockford at December 31, 2005 01:25 PM (4878o)

47 Most of our "insults" are pretty lighthearted.

As one of the resident whipping boys of AoSHQ, some of the insults aren't too lighthearted. But they are generally more civil than the profanity and spittle laden stream of cliches and insults hurled on left wing blogs. Condescending here? Sure. Aggressive? Yeah. Stupid-as-all-get-out? Sometimes. But all I have to do is go over to Pandagon for 5 minutes to fall in love with Brewfan all over again.

I'm not sure what it is, but even the worst wingnut forums on the internet (the worst threads from FreeRepublic? LGF? Schlafly?) don't even come close to the nastiness on most average liberal blogs, even the reasonable ones. Look at Kevin Drum's comments section sometime - I don't agree with Drum that much, but he's a civil, reasonable guy. But for some reason, even his comments section is a sewer of nasty invective, even on threads where he solicits comments and specifically asks for civility! It's like the inmates can't stop themselves.

I think this paradigm has something to do with more young, dissatisfied "rebels" against authority gravitating towards left wing ideology as their form of personal expression of uniqueness/unconventional belief/intelligence. Like your average college kid that starts learning that the history of America is more complex than apple pie and freedom, and feels BETRAYED and unable to contextualize the "bad" with "good" and still rationally arrive at "good."

It's the only explanation I can think of for the peurile nastiness of the discourse.

Posted by: Bill from INDC at December 31, 2005 01:27 PM (hDDCf)

48 Happy New Year to you nice folks.
Hope you get what you need and want next year.

Posted by: harrison at December 31, 2005 01:32 PM (ZBys+)

49 On the contrary, I am the anithesis of a vegetarian. I have an addiction to red meat. If PETA knew that I personally eat about 500 lbs of red meat per year, they would surely be protesting outside my home.

There's a difference between a guy sporting fatigues and skulking in the woods waiting for Bambi to put his sweet little lips into the stream for a drink of water than a guy raising and slaughtering tasty steer on a ranch.

I have no objections to people going out and shooting animals -- keeps the population in check. Torturing and abusing animals is very wrong and immoral. I do not equate hunting with torture and abuse. But there's really no contest or challenge in modern hunting.

Sure, it's hard to kill a deer*. But, apart from being shot by another hunter or falling out of a tree, there is no risk or danger for the hunter.

*I killed a deer in 1995. That bastard did a lot of damage to my old BMW, and I'm glad it was dead -- it could have killed me!

Posted by: Bart at December 31, 2005 01:34 PM (NYAeF)

50 2006 babeeee!

Posted by: Karl Rove's Id at December 31, 2005 01:34 PM (Bjdtq)

51 Bill:

Funnily enough, I always considered my right-wing values to be part of MY expression of uniqueness/unconventional belief/intelleigence/what-have-you, though that's certainly not the reason I believe what I believe. I suppose that's a function of growing up in Montgomery County and not knowing a SINGLE person who wasn't a liberal Democrat until I went to college, though.

Posted by: Jeff B. at December 31, 2005 01:40 PM (SpD3r)

52 Bill, you sure are a pussy. Other than that, I agree with most of what you wrote.

Jm Rockfish, good post!

Posted by: Bart at December 31, 2005 01:44 PM (NYAeF)

53 Bart-
Filet mignon tonight, leg of lamb tomorrow, with homemade pork-venison sausages for starters.
Likewise, it's hard to get injured in the slaughterhouse, unless you're in line.
However, I was with a buddy who put down his rifle to take a crap.
Mr Buck came out right behind him, and tried to drive his rack up my friend's ass. It was quite the wrestling match, and there was nothing to do but watch from where I was. By the way, you also don't want to be on the wrong end of those bambi hooves...
Anyway, my buddy got ahold of the rack from above, and kept driving the antlers down until he tired the buck out enough so that he could reach his buck knife and kill him.
Awesome sight.
Same guy likes to go wild boar hunting with dogs and his knife. (Keeps a .45 on his hip.)
Now I know you can imagine how deadly those tusks are...
Yeah, I hang out with an extreme crowd.

Posted by: Uncle Jefe at December 31, 2005 01:45 PM (w9g/S)

54 I thought Moore referred to himself as a Libertarian. I don't know if he is even a Democrat.

And these leftist twits can't understand why no one here wants to have a civil discussion with them.

When everything that comes out of your mouth is a lie, people aren't generally willing to be civil, you know? Saying Michael Moore isn't a Democrat is like saying Sean Hannity isn't a Republican.

Obviously there is a great deal of disagreement within the Democratic Party. We don't all sing out of the same hymnbook. Iraq is a good example of where there is a great deal of disagreement.

Bwaaaaaahawhawhaw!!!!!!! Yes, such an OPEN-MINDED group. Say, where's Joe Lieberman been lately, anyway?

Take a hike, jackass.

Posted by: The Warden at December 31, 2005 02:03 PM (Zxtyv)

55 To all the "illegal war" children of the liberal persuasion, I have three simple questions. If you answer to the affirmative, then you are allowed to continue your "illegal war" rants. If not, STFU.

One - did Bill Clinton illegally bomb Iraq throughout the 90's? Yes or no will do just fine.

Two - are the majority of Democrat Senators and Congressmen also guilty of crimes, as they voted with the Republicans to authorize use of force in Iraq?

Three - did Clinton illegally attack the Serbs in Kosovo? Please recall that there was no UN resolution for that action, unlike in Iraq? Again, yes or no will suffice.

If you honestly say yes to all of the above, you have credibility and may continue. If not, you're just a power hungry turd who will do and say anything to get the democrats back in power.

I'll wait.

Posted by: Jack Burton at December 31, 2005 02:13 PM (5m29+)

56 Jack can I suck your cock?

Posted by: The Warden at December 31, 2005 02:41 PM (4XV/D)

57 Well, just like Steve discovered some things here that he didn't know, he needs to hop over to my blog and get a sense of what the religious right is really like, not what the media paints us out to be.

We all aren't Pat Robertson, or agree with him at all. We aren't as rigid as the media makes us out to be either. My favorite bloggers are Ace, Protein Wisdom and Beautiful Atrocities. All are NOT religious in the least and Jeff at BA is a gay Republican.

I don't judge. I will leave that to God. We want what everyone wants. A better world. So Steve, come visit and learn a bit about organized religion. My blog is usually more political than religious, but this week it may a bit more religious since I am going to be live blogging the Family Research Council's "Justice SundayIII" on Jan.8th in Philly.

Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at December 31, 2005 02:57 PM (VGhak)

58 Obviously there is a great deal of disagreement within the Democratic Party. We don't all sing out of the same hymnbook. Iraq is a good example of where there is a great deal of disagreement.

Bwaaaaaahawhawhaw!!!!!!! Yes, such an OPEN-MINDED group. Say, where's Joe Lieberman been lately, anyway?


Nah, there's a whole range of opinion. It goes from BUSH IS EVIL to BUSH IS STUPID. You can see where this vibrant discussion comes from.

Posted by: Sortelli at December 31, 2005 02:57 PM (Bjdtq)

59 I think Liberals could learn a real lesson from how open-minded conservatives are. Take Sortelli for example. Have you ever seen anyone as open-minded as him?

Posted by: at December 31, 2005 03:01 PM (4XV/D)

60 I feel for Steve, having been there on occasion.

You'd think a pro-choice, pro-SSM, pro-strict church/state separation, blah blah sort of woman would also be in their target demographic.

You'd be so wrong.

Posted by: ilyka at December 31, 2005 03:02 PM (c0ZqE)

61 It's like I have told the Commissar many times. You need us to win and we need you to win so we are going to have to figure out a way to get along under this big tent of the Republican party.

And that's the truth.

Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at December 31, 2005 03:09 PM (VGhak)

62 Even many of us who do not hunt know that the deer population needs to be managed or it will expand and result in more starvation and accidents.

All of the hunters I know do not leave their kill, they take it for processing, and eat it.

Try as I might I cannot find a moral difference between this and eating a Big Mac.

Posted by: robert at December 31, 2005 03:20 PM (Rb4Qc)

63 Do you know what will help the Dems sort through these issues?

Orange-mocha-frappuccino!!

Posted by: Madfish Willie at December 31, 2005 03:30 PM (SyfL7)

64 Given Bush's poll numbers I'm at a loss to figure out what the hell the problem is the Democrats are supposed to have. There isn't a single issue we are not currently leading in.

Posted by: at December 31, 2005 03:34 PM (4XV/D)

65 The demacrats have no plans for what they want to do for the nation all they want to do its tax and spend us into poverty

Posted by: spurwing plover at December 31, 2005 03:41 PM (rAMmL)

66 Given Bush's poll numbers I'm at a loss to figure out what the hell the problem is the Democrats are supposed to have. There isn't a single issue we are not currently leading in.

Amazing how none of those polls translate into winning elections.

Posted by: at December 31, 2005 03:47 PM (AlU3k)

67 Have you ever seen anyone as open-minded as him?


I even support your right to get married someday, PLV.

Posted by: Sortelli at December 31, 2005 03:47 PM (Bjdtq)

68 "The demacrats have no plans for what they want to do for the nation all they want to do its tax and spend us into poverty"

You mean as opposed to not taxing and spending us into poverty?

The Republicans are a spent force. Not only are they incompetent, they are corrupt. Bush has screwed up just about everything he has touched. The nation knows it. The polls reflect the reality. In 2,006 we get a chance to start cleaning up the mess. Hopefully there will still be time to save the nation.

Posted by: at December 31, 2005 03:48 PM (4XV/D)

69 Dude, I think you're a dick and all, but in good faith I feel I should point out that you're arguing with Spurwing Plover, who is either a random text generator or 8 years old. We haven't figured out which yet, and he's never gonna answer.

Posted by: Sortelli at December 31, 2005 03:52 PM (Bjdtq)

70 Sortelini, why do you dis the Plover like dat? He cool.

Nuggets of wisdom are in every comment by Spurwing. (I just can't seem to locate them.)

Posted by: Bart at December 31, 2005 03:58 PM (LZ5Oz)

71 Well, even as closed-minded as I am, I can learn to accept the Spurwing... I guess. But it has been a battle.

It's just that the dude's a walking strawman, so I figure it's probably helpful to point out that he isn't exactly a good person to have policy discussions with. But hey, if you want a guy to say

string them all up next too MICHEL MORE and CINDY SHEEN and make them watch the originl GOZILLA with RAYMOND BYRR

Spurwing is your man!

Posted by: Sortelli at December 31, 2005 04:03 PM (Bjdtq)

72 I support the President and the Administration in the GWOT. 100%. After all we have not been attacked since 911 and there is sufficient evidence that scores of terrorist plots have been thwarted.

However Bush gets failing grades on controlling spending and the growth of the gummint. He got my vote the last time simply because he was not John Kerry.

Open invitation for the Dems to post what they stand for. The only thing I can determine the Dems stand for is obstruction. They have not proferred one single idea in the last six years. All they have done is to be against Bush.


Posted by: rls at December 31, 2005 04:38 PM (Lh7Vt)

73 Spurwing a random text generator? Surely no program can guarantee at least one typo in every post, even if it's only 2 words long.

My guess is that he's ace or more likely Michael.

Posted by: max at December 31, 2005 05:10 PM (lin9B)

74 Since the question has been raised so often, I once looked around the web a bit. I'm pretty sure Spurwing's for real.

Posted by: geoff at December 31, 2005 05:53 PM (f+QmI)

75 Warden, can I suck yours?

Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at December 31, 2005 05:55 PM (/Rdy2)

76 Me too. Spur is legit.
There's an innocence about Spurwing. Never any foul language or references to sex. Evidence suggests Spurwing is a 25-30 year old male, living with his parents, not a big reader, loves television, video games, comic books, and movies.

When you think about it, there's not much difference between Ace and Spurwing. Except we know who the virgin is of the two.

Posted by: Bart at December 31, 2005 06:00 PM (fJGoa)

77 Let's see, David Duke declares that he is a Republican and is running for office. He is quickly rebuked and given no support from the RNC and is veiwed as an embarrassment by mainstream republicans.

Al Sharpton perpetrates an enormous hoax (Tawana Brawley) and is successfully sued for this, he causes a riot in which 2 people die and numerous businesses are destroyed. Even though he is a race baiting, thug and charlaton (gee sounds like he's a black David Duke) he announces that he is running for president as a democrat and he is regailed by the DNC and is given adulation and credibilty by mainstream democrats.
He is only one of many, many such people that have made the democrat party their home. The differences are glaringly obvious, the republicans recognise scum and deal with them accordingly. The democrats on the other hand either praise and worship these types or they extoll their victimhood.

Posted by: The Real Steve at December 31, 2005 06:04 PM (Z2KQp)

78 "Dude, I think you're a dick and all, but in good faith I feel I should point out that you're arguing with Spurwing Plover, who is either a random text generator or 8 years old. We haven't figured out which yet, and he's never gonna answer."

Oh man, Sortelli. I should not have been drinking the diet 7-up (crazy new year's eve, eh?) when I read that. Spurwing is one of the best attractions of this site! I scour the comments searching for his nuggets. We should copyright him (or patent or trademark or whatever, I'm sure one of the hundreds of lawyers who hang around here will be happy to lecture us on which is correct). Don't listen to them Spurwing, we love you!

Posted by: Doc at December 31, 2005 06:48 PM (6AcTX)

79 "The differences are glaringly obvious, the republicans recognise scum and deal with them accordingly."

Yes the Republicans make their scum the head of their Party.

Posted by: at December 31, 2005 07:39 PM (4XV/D)

80 It doesn't matter how you feel or vote,

we've got it under control.

Posted by: Diebold at December 31, 2005 07:42 PM (VGnNm)

81 In other words, I'm the Dems/Libs target audience. But all I see from them is blind anger, petty politicing, sneering elitism, and, at times, a lack of patriotism

And as evidenced above, the Left continues to make the same mistakes, expecting different results.

Thank God for freedom of speech. Every Moonbat should be given his own rooftop to shout from.

Posted by: Fen at December 31, 2005 10:08 PM (DR3vR)

82 Followed ilyka's link where she essentially put out the same message as me. Below is part of one of the charming responses. This is what I mean by "sneering elitism".

"I am, unfortunately, related to conservatives. Real jackass Fox News watching, muslim hating, midwestern yokels who were born with a silver head up their asses."

This is why I sometimes sarcastically say "I was born in NYC, grew up in NJ, have a masters degree from NYU, and currently live in California. Am I allowed to express an opinion and have it be respected? Do I have the qualifications to be in the club?"

It kind of reminds me of the jackasses I would meet in NYC who turn up their noses at folks who live in the NJ suburbs of the city. Meanwhile they just moved to NY from Oklahoma less than a year ago. I don't have anything against Oklahoma, but putting on the airs of a snobby cosmopolitan because you lived in NYC all of 4 months is pretty comical.

Posted by: steve_in_hb at December 31, 2005 11:02 PM (spTw1)

83 Yes the Republicans make their scum the head of their Party.

Yes, fucktard, and Howard Dean is a clear-thinking, brawny hands-on leader who has a strong foothold in the real world.
Happy New Year, dickcheese.
You studs are on a roll.
2006 should be a watershed, neigh, a brokeback ridge for you.
Neighhhh.
Bahhhhh.
Whatever animal you like.
Or manimal.

Posted by: Uncle Jefe at January 01, 2006 12:13 AM (w9g/S)

84 Everyone knows it is the Republicans who are the condescending traitors in this country. They have no respect for the constitution. They come out in public and wipe their ass with the constitution and say, try and stop me from trashing the principles this country is based on. They don't want to pay any money to keep this country going. They are in the process of bankrupting the country. They start wars against people who have done nothing to us, and then refuse to send any of their own to fight the wars. They elect draft dodgers to office and call them war heroes. But, the most disgusting thing about the traitors in the Republican Party is even though they refuse to support the country financially, openly disobey the laws of the country and run away and hide when it is time to fight for the country, they are the first to wrap themselves in the flag and pretend they are patriots. What a foul stench these lowlife cocksuckers are.

Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 04:11 AM (mpIFY)

85 PLV - another perfect example that liberal=mentally unstable.

Posted by: at January 01, 2006 04:21 AM (ofzm+)

86 You call that a response you ignorant little cow?

Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 04:25 AM (mpIFY)

87 I call it the truth. Sorry if you can't handle it, but some of us have to be responsible adults.

Posted by: Jenny at January 01, 2006 04:27 AM (ofzm+)

88 We have a bunch of cowardly crooks robbing the country blind and these fools don't even realize it.

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

The jokes on you morons.

Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 04:38 AM (mpIFY)

89 Heh - you're funny like Margaret Cho.

Posted by: Jenny at January 01, 2006 04:51 AM (ofzm+)

90 Really, who is Margaret Cho?

Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 04:54 AM (mpIFY)

91 > Make no mistake, if the deer had a chance it would eat you and everyone you love.

Amen! Don't let the doe-eyes fool you; deer are cynical, manipulative bastards. Just look at the statistics on cars hitting deer -- no way is that an accident! They're the kamikaze jihadists of the animal world.

Posted by: Guy T. at January 01, 2006 05:11 AM (o21lR)

92 Ace, I thought you always said a libertarian was no more than a liberal who liked pot. What does that make Steve_in_hb? Sorry, answered my own question.

Posted by: not_steve_in_hb at January 01, 2006 05:43 AM (voGDC)

93 "They're the kamikaze jihadists of the animal world."

lol You're not kidding.

If ever there was an arguement against Evolution, it is that the f'ing deer never get that the safest route to survival is AWAY from the oncoming car.

BTW, love guns, love meat, just can't get myself to shoot Bambi. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Posted by: Gordon at January 01, 2006 06:00 AM (i0N3d)

94 Never under-estimate the effect of personal unhappiness on one's political views. When people start yelling that their country is going to hell in a hand-basket, what they are often saying is that their life and personal sense of happiness is going to hell in a handbasket. Invariably, such people can't identify a single thing that has happened to them personally since Bush became President.

A recent poll asked Republicans and Democrats whether 2005 had been better for them personally than 2004 and whether they expected 2006 to be better than 2005. The question aimed solely at their personal lives yet Republicans responded overwhelmingly more optimistically than Democrats. A sense of optimism is generally a genetic predisposition that parents recognize in their children at a very early age. The modern Democratic message seems tailored to people in need of an external target for their inner rage.

The media doesn't help matters. I understand that airplanes landing safely isn't newsworthy, but I think modern liberalism has embraced (at least to an extent) the philosophical view that happiness is for idiots (to paraphrase DeGaulle). After all, happy, well-adjusted, energetic people are usually content to be left alone, rather than in search of the secular religions the Left offers its followers.

I don't know about you, but I've met very few activist liberals who were fundamentally happy people. This excerpt from an article by Martin Seligman touches on coverage of the concept of personal happiness in the NY Times:

Martin Seligman, "Misreporting Science in the New York Times: Against Happiness" July 29, 2004.

"The New York Times Book Review has always reviewed the latest wrinkles on Freud, Jung, and (just today) the sexual abuse of children But no review of Barry Schwartz’s The Paradox of Choice, no review of George Vaillant’s Aging Well, no review of David Myer’s The American Paradox, no review of David Whitman’s The Optimism Gap, no review of Kahneman, Diener, & Schwartz’s Well-Being (the Nobel Prize is apparently not enough to make it “heavyweight”), no review of Howard Gardner, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, and William Damon’s Good Work. Only one of the dozen or so recent serious books on happiness has been reviewed, Gregg Easterbrook’s The Progress Paradox. It is a balanced and thoroughly researched study of striking economic and social progress since 1950 juxtaposed to no increase in happiness over the same time period. Finally taking notice, the New York Times Book Review denounced it as “slapdash nonsense.”

What do these books and stories have in common? They are good news. They suggest that virtue, well-being, nobility, happiness, and meaning are all within the realm of human possibility, and that life is not just unmitigated tragedy, violence, and meaninglessness. And they are based on solid, painstaking science involving hundreds of thousands of subjects, hundreds of refereed articles, and scores of doctoral dissertations from the most reputable universities in the world.

If it bleeds, it leads

But take a shoddily researched and truly lightweight account that can be run as “Against Happiness,” and it leads.

Yes, there are professional pessimists. Yes, there are nattering nabobs of negativism. There are media dedicated to the dividends of darkness that both reflect a cultural bias toward despair and simultaneously shape it. They are enormously influential, and if you wonder why our young people are in the midst of an epidemic of depression and meaninglessness in the presence of unprecedented wealth, education, and opportunity, you might start with what they read in the New York Times."

Posted by: The Raven at January 01, 2006 06:05 AM (Msel+)

95 Good points, Raven. I have always advocated the Cosmic Test of the Political Affiliation (on account of, I invented it). Go out on a cold, clear night and look up at the stars. Does the view make you:

...feel tiny, insignificant and humbled before the sheer size and power of the universe? You are, at heart, a lefty.

...feel awed, uplifted, as though your very heart will explode with the joy and power and amazement of being part of such a thing? You are, at heart, a righty.

Posted by: S. Weasel at January 01, 2006 06:12 AM (epZHU)

96 ProudLiberalVet:They start wars against people who have done nothing to us, and then refuse to send any of their own to fight the wars.This moonbat is referring to Iraq of course.

I always wonder what mental contortions someone has to accomplish to arrive at such an absurd conclusion.

It must rival what those little 85lb women do in the circus when they twist their selves in the shape of a Coney Island pretzel.

A couple Q's for ya PLV:

1. How many US citizens visit Israel as tourists each year?
b. Were they not under threat of being blown to Reeses Pieces size by Palestinian suicide bombers whose families were "rewarded" by Saddam with a cool $25,000? (A figure that went up BTW to 35k just before the war)

2. How many US warplanes were shot at patroling the northern and southern no-fly zones?

3. How many US Presidents did Saddam plot to assassinate?

4. How many US warships did Saddam damage (and nearly sink) with air launched Exocet missiles?

5. I presume you would agree Saddam signed a ceasefire agreement at the end of hostilities in 1991.

If so, under internationl law why would Bush NOT have every legal authority to resume combat?

This should be interesting, assuming PLV has the guts to even attempt a coherant response.

Posted by: Marc at January 01, 2006 06:22 AM (Jmli5)

97 The Republicans are the party of stupid, naive, happy people.

Good point guys.

Posted by: at January 01, 2006 06:25 AM (mpIFY)

98 Everyone knows it is the Republicans who are the condescending traitors in this country.

Democrats are more man-of-the-people types, you know, like George Soros and Howard Dean and multimillionaire Hollywood actors and Ivy League snobs, always willing to offer the shirt off someone else's back for those in need.

They have no respect for the constitution. They come out in public and wipe their ass with the constitution and say, try and stop me from trashing the principles this country is based on. They don't want to pay any money to keep this country going. They are in the process of bankrupting the country.

Funny stuff. If there is any principle this country is founded on, it is that the government should leave people the hell alone and not tax them. The Boston Tea Party was over a 3% tax. You use 'country' as a synonym for 'government', but I reject that equivalence. Hey, did you know that tax receipts in 2005 were at an all time high? Cutting taxes can bring in more revenue, because people risk capital to start businesses only if the potential windfall from that business is not taxed out of existence. And I only wipe my ass with the Constitution in private, thank you very much; I have a special room for it so that I can use my Dom Perignon bidet immediately afterwards.

They start wars against people who have done nothing to us, and then refuse to send any of their own to fight the wars.

You can argue the wisdom of the Iraq war, but it is silly to argue that Hussein did 'nothing' to us. The 1993 bombers of the WTC fled to Iraq afterwards, and Hussein gave them asylum, and there is strong evidence he assisted them beforehand, because they entered the US with Iraqi and stolen Kuwaiti passports. Iraq regularly commited acts of war against our pilots patrolling the no fly zone by firing missiles at them. There are innumerable other examples, but these alone are not 'nothing'. It's not like Hussein was innocent of provocation of the US like, say, Milosevic or anything. Since the majority of soldiers vote Republican and support Bush, we do send our own to fight the wars.

They elect draft dodgers to office and call them war heroes.

Draft dodgers like Clinton? W did not dodge the draft. Joining the National Guard is not 'dodging'. Bush's unit could have been called up at any time, just as today's NG units are serving in Iraq. W didn't volunteer for combat before joining the guard, but that is not the same as dodging the draft. And W's father was a bonafide WWII war hero, one of the youngest pilots ever (16 years old when he joined), and was shot down in combat. It's not like the Bush family was indisposed to serving their country.

But, the most disgusting thing about the traitors in the Republican Party is even though they refuse to support the country financially, [i.e. pay 100% tax, Ed.] openly disobey the laws of the country [?] and run away and hide when it is time to fight for the country, [see above] they are the first to wrap themselves in the flag and pretend they are patriots.

At least we're not rooting for American defeat against Al Qaeda.

What a foul stench these lowlife cocksuckers are.

Well, you got that right at least. I am very much a foul stench.

Posted by: caspera at January 01, 2006 06:31 AM (jylGY)

99 Marc, you moron, the Saudi's support Palestinians as well. In fact we send them millions of dollars each year. When are you gutless wonders going to attack Saudi Arabia, or us for that matter, for supporting terrorists?

You tell me what the legal justification for the war in Iraq was. I've been through this before with idiots like you to no avail, but who knows, maybe you can make something up. While you are inventing an argument can you also tell us where all the WMD are, that your idiot leaders kept telling us were over there? Maybe that moron Bush has found them under his desk by now.

Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 06:32 AM (mpIFY)

100 Yep, just as I expected!!


Thanks PLV for you non-response. 5 questions, no answers and a bunch of hate filled bile and invective.

THAT my friends is THE poster child for the Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Cindy Sheehan arm of the Dem. Party.

And may I say as a 20 year Vet, you're a disgrace to whatever Mil uniform you may have worn for however little or long. (that refers to your lack of knowledge of civil discourse not your personel views)

Posted by: Marc at January 01, 2006 06:41 AM (Jmli5)

101 Legal justification for the war in iraq? Hmmm.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

Here you go - Senate voted 77-23 in favor.

And please, sir, show me prior to the war where you stated that there were no WMD's in Iraq? Because if you did so, you wd have been the only one at the time to believe that. In fact, I forsee 06 being the year in which the elected officials of Iraq uncover a lot of these weapons, whether in Iraq, the Baka'a valley or elsewhere.

Posted by: H at January 01, 2006 06:43 AM (TSiQu)

102 You guys are really engaging PLV? Might as well debate spurwing. In fact, we should leave PLV to spurwing.

At least spurwing doesn't pretend to be a vet.

Posted by: geoff at January 01, 2006 06:45 AM (f+QmI)

103 "You tell me what the legal justification for the war in Iraq was."

Hey PLV, in all seriousness, are wars justified legally? I mean, Congress voted for it in this country, so that angle was covered. I think though, that what you're getting at is that the U.N. didn't approve it. Is that your point, that any act of aggression not sanctioned by them is "illegal"?

Posted by: Andrew at January 01, 2006 06:45 AM (irxhK)

104 geoff go fuck yourself moron. I don't want to waste any time on an idiot like you anyway.

Andrew, are we or are we not part of the UN? If the answer is yes, tell me which act justified our attack against a nation that did not attack us first?

Marc aren't you the guy who claimed to know every officer who ever served in the Artic. You are a lying piece of shit and you have the nerve to call me a disgrace. Get lost idiot.

Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 06:50 AM (mpIFY)

105 "The Republicans are the party of stupid, naive, happy people."

Ah, the pseudo-sophistication of a liberal, usually encapsulated on a bumper sticker to the effect of "If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention." Thoughtfulness equals misery - this little non sequitur has been making miserable people feel better about themselves since western civilization began.

And when you've wasted your limited time on this planet screaming about demons that exist only in your head, who exactly was stupid? The modern Left's problem is very definitely not that they are too thoughtful - the point of Ace's post. It is that they've transformed politics into personal therapy, a much-needed balm for the turmoil, anxiety and fear they feel.

Politics as Prozac. And if the Left is feeling really, really emotionally out of sorts, then Bush (or Reagan, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. It doesn't matter.) becomes really, really evil, while more well-adjusted people wonder where all this rage is coming from.

Posted by: The Raven at January 01, 2006 06:51 AM (Msel+)

106 No need to use those two references "H" that ilk always spin that to mean everything up to BUT NOT including removing the bastard by the use of force. Surely you have heard that out of Kerry's mouth, in fact I think he holds the patent and trademark rights.

The definitive, and legal, reference is the 1991 ceasefire agreement.

And BTW PLV how many of the captured Kuwaiti soldiers/citizens did Iraq return to their home country as mandated by that ceasefire?

Posted by: Marc at January 01, 2006 06:54 AM (Jmli5)

107 Hey Raven check the polls. We are doing just fine. You and your corrupt, incompetent lot are on the way out, with the rest of the garbage.

Posted by: at January 01, 2006 06:56 AM (mpIFY)

108 Andrew, are we or are we not part of the UN? If the answer is yes, tell me which act justified our attack against a nation that did not attack us first?Why yes we are, and not so happily pay over 20% of their yearly budget.

We already told you which "act" (the UN has resolutions not "acts.") The '91 ceasefire.

And please PLV point out my "lies" and just one more question, just where the hell is the "artic?"

Posted by: Marc at January 01, 2006 07:03 AM (Jmli5)

109 I don't have to tell you anything, fag! I don't post here anymore anyway. Fag!

Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 07:05 AM (/Rdy2)

110 "Hey Raven check the polls. We are doing just fine. You and your corrupt, incompetent lot are on the way out, with the rest of the garbage."

This sort of makes my point, doesn't it. I can't imagine any time in my life when I would have written a paragraph like that - both substantively meaningless and childishly insulting. This is exactly Ace's point and the one I was trying to make - there's an over-the-top animosity on the Left that can't be explained by substantive policy disagreements.

If by "doing just fine" you mean you have neither house of Congress, the Presidency, the majority of governorships nor any clear message on any serious topic, I guess we just define "fine" differently.

Posted by: The Raven at January 01, 2006 07:05 AM (Msel+)

111 "Andrew, are we or are we not part of the UN? If the answer is yes, tell me which act justified our attack against a nation that did not attack us first?"

Yeah, we are definitely part of the U.N. That's the problem, though. Which laws are we talking about? Like I said before, the government in this country used the democratic process to go to war. So, from that angle, it wasn't illegal. So are you arguing that the United States law is actually superceded by U.N. policy?

Posted by: Andrew at January 01, 2006 07:07 AM (irxhK)

112 . . . and there you have it. I wouldn't have a problem with PLV, profane and illiterate though he is, if he didn't masquerade as a veteran. But I think pretending to be a vet is one of the most callow, reprehensible things a commenter can do.

As far as his credentials: you're talking about someone who knows nothing about the military, can't spell the locations of his supposed 'assignments,' and constantly lapses into the idioms of the current generation.

Leave him(?) to spurwing or let him starve.

Posted by: geoff at January 01, 2006 07:07 AM (f+QmI)

113 Andrew any international agreements we sign become part of our constitution. They don't supercede it.

Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 07:15 AM (mpIFY)

114 You people are way too cocky. All political parties cycle in and out of favor. You are the same people who felt republicans were secure in office post Regan. It doesn't work that way.

Posted by: at January 01, 2006 07:15 AM (7AJk5)

115 So Andrew there was no act of the UN that provided the legal basis for our attack on Iraq.

Thanks for clarifying that.

Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 07:16 AM (mpIFY)

116 run away and hide when it is time to fight for the country

Republicans do this? Really?

The military serves at the pleasure of whatever administration is in office; whether its Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan, it does not matter.

However, military ballots do trend overwhelmingly Republican.

So when Clinton engaged in military action against a country which did not pose any aggressive threat to the US- without going on bended knee to ask the UN for approval, mind you- he was sending WHO to war (illegally, based on your criteria for 'legal' wars)?

Democrats? I think not.

Not that it matters, since its a volunteer military, and they serve the Country, not any particular part or party.
Which you do not seem to understand.

They serve all of us.
They protect YOU, even if they don't agree with you.
If you are an American, its their job to protect YOU.

I bet it cheers you up when you think of people who disagree with you being killed, even if they are your countrymen.

Posted by: lauraw at January 01, 2006 07:18 AM (6krEN)

117 geoff I thought you said you were no longer talking to me.

I'd prefer it if you stuck to your promises and simply fucked off.

Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 07:18 AM (mpIFY)

118 "Andrew any international agreements we sign become part of our constitution. They don't supercede it."

Are you fucking serious?

Posted by: Andrew at January 01, 2006 07:18 AM (irxhK)

119 I mean, if you're going to argue that treaties become U.S. policy that we have to stick to, then fine, but honestly--part of the Constitution?

Posted by: Andrew at January 01, 2006 07:20 AM (irxhK)

120 "Are you fucking serious?"

Obviously you have never bothered to read it.

Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 07:20 AM (mpIFY)

121 UN Res 1441 authorized the use of force.

Let me ask you Proud Liberal Vet - what was your rank, MOS and what does your dd214 list your discharge as? Because after reading your idiocy, i call bullshit - either you are a deranged fuck or a 14 yr old jack off, pissing around with Mommy's computer.

So which is it?

Posted by: H at January 01, 2006 07:21 AM (TSiQu)

122 By whoever:Hey Raven check the polls. We are doing just fine. You and your corrupt, incompetent lot are on the way out, with the rest of the garbage.OK I checked, Bush's numbers have gone up to just under 50%

Or maybe you meant these numbers, or was it this poll taken during the sixth year as President.

Posted by: Marc at January 01, 2006 07:21 AM (Jmli5)

123 I suspect, Andrew, they didn't get to the Constitution chapter in Social Studies last term.

Posted by: S. Weasel at January 01, 2006 07:22 AM (epZHU)

124 The fact is the mainstream of the Republican Party is far more influenced by their extreme than the Democrats are.

No Name,

Your "fact" is an immense crock of Pelosi.

Cordially...

Posted by: Rick at January 01, 2006 07:23 AM (t5P1h)

125 "Obviously you have never bothered to read it."

Okay, I'll bite. I have read it, but I'll go pull out my copy. Any particular section or Article you want to point me to?

Posted by: Andrew at January 01, 2006 07:24 AM (irxhK)

126 They start out with the assumption that Republicans or Conservatives are evil and stupid, not that their fellow citizens are good people who have different political beliefs.

And that is spot on.
It really does make it nearly impossible to have a civil conversation with somebody when they start with that assumption.

I may think that the end result of Dem policy is socialism and loss of freedom.

But when I talk to a Democrat, I can't hiss and sneer at them, tell them that they will be the end of the American Dream, and that they are Stalinist supporters, and expect them to engage me in thoughtful discourse.

I think I could expect the next round of conversation to be uhhh... brief, loud, and pithy.

And it would hardly reflect badly on the Democrat to be rude right back to me, since I would be the one who put him/her in that situation.

Posted by: lauraw at January 01, 2006 07:28 AM (6krEN)

127 H I've got a big cock for you to suck on your sorry piece of shit.

Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 07:29 AM (mpIFY)

128 And I really love it when guys suck my cock. But not as much as when I take a big throbbing schlong up my poopchute.

Fags!

Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 07:32 AM (/Rdy2)

129 By the way where were you patriots when Clinton was breaking the law and bombing Kosova? Oh yes, you were accusing him of breaking the law, wagging the dog, demanding time tables, etc., and then you tried to impeach him.

Payback is a bitch isn't it?

Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 07:32 AM (mpIFY)

130 PLV, you and the rest of your liberal friends could use some Jesus in your life.

Posted by: Jenny at January 01, 2006 07:38 AM (ofzm+)

131 PLVAndrew any international agreements we sign become part of our constitution. They don't supercede it.Can we assume then you believe Clinton violated , trampled on, or otherwise desecreated the US Constitution when he violated the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty
and National Missile Defense?

Posted by: Marc at January 01, 2006 07:40 AM (Jmli5)

132 Clinton did break the law, and he was impeached.

I don't blame you for not remembering, though. you were, what, about 8 or 9 when that happened?

Posted by: zetetic at January 01, 2006 07:40 AM (/Rdy2)

133 Ace-acolytes are nothing but equanimous. There's proof in preceding threads where little-dick, fag, and bitch-slappin jokes eclipse "placation" (read: fuck the facts!).

Anyhoo. Let's disabuse the view "the democrats" are the dark angels of republican heaven. You people here spend much too much time finding dialectical tension in the idea of what you call "the liberal." Both parties, since the 50's have played the legitimation game with voters: SS, "defense" and government investment accomplished in large part to help capital externalize unwanted costs.

About the "fiscal state," read one of your rightwing prophets: Herbert Stein.

And murdering kosovars, and iraqis, and....for "our interests."

Posted by: ergastularius at January 01, 2006 07:40 AM (AuKcO)

134 Still haven't found the relevant passage, PLV. A little help?

Posted by: Andrew at January 01, 2006 07:40 AM (irxhK)

135 and then you tried to impeach him.

Failed history class also, Clinton WAS impeached.

Posted by: Marc at January 01, 2006 07:42 AM (Jmli5)

136 "Still haven't found the relevant passage, PLV. A little help?"

Try section 3, article 2.

Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 07:44 AM (mpIFY)

137 ergastularius:

Not sure what your point is, and your link doesn't work. Can you elaborate?

"Placation," BTW, is an inside joke based on a Chris Klein interview.

Posted by: geoff at January 01, 2006 07:45 AM (f+QmI)

138 Sorry I mean article 3, section 2.

Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 07:45 AM (mpIFY)

139 I don't have to tell you anything, fag! I don't post here anymore anyway. Fag!
Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet on January 1, 2006 12:05 PM


Doncha love it when a liar unmasks himself? How many posts have you made since that one PLV?

Posted by: Marc at January 01, 2006 07:46 AM (Jmli5)

140 Jenny I am a Christian, that's why I am a Democrat. I believe in helping the poor, not the rich, especially rich draft dodgers.

Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 07:47 AM (mpIFY)

141 You mean draft dodgers like your beloved Bill Clinton? Or doesn't he count?

Posted by: zetetic at January 01, 2006 07:49 AM (/Rdy2)

142 Lee Atwater, I think you're right: treaties don't amend the Constitution or 'become part of it,' they become the law of the land. From the American Society of International Law:
As a matter of domestic law within the United States, Congress may override a pre-existing treaty or Congressional-Executive agreement of the United States.

Posted by: geoff at January 01, 2006 07:50 AM (f+QmI)

143 PLV,

Article 3, section 2 says exactly nothing about what we're discussing.

Seriously dude, I'm trying real hard here to take you at your word and be reasonable, but you've got to come to the table with something better than that.

Posted by: Andrew at January 01, 2006 07:51 AM (irxhK)

144 Personally I didn't have much respect for Clinton simply because he was a Republican pretending to be a Democrat. He didn't do much for the poor in this country. Republicans, are Evil, and run against all the Lord's teachings. They are useful idiots for the rich.

Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 07:52 AM (mpIFY)

145 From Article 2, section 2:

"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme court..."

SNAP! I've have been OWNED!

I'm such a fucking newb.

Posted by: Andrew at January 01, 2006 07:54 AM (irxhK)

146 equanimous . . disabuse . . dialectical . . Posted by ergastularius at January 1, 2006 12:40 PM



equanimous: in full control of your faculties
disabuse: free somebody (from an erroneous belief)
dialectical: of or relating to logical disputation

Thanks for the vocabulary lesson, erg.

Posted by: just trying to help at January 01, 2006 07:55 AM (v1LqI)

147 It's like PLV and I are playing Quake, and he just got the quad and the mega-health while I'm still running around with the gauntlet.

No contest.

Posted by: Andrew at January 01, 2006 07:57 AM (irxhK)

148 and run against all the Lord's teachings.

So tell me Holier than thou, what Chruch has taught you how to call people liars, fags, etc, etc?

Posted by: Marc at January 01, 2006 07:57 AM (Jmli5)

149 Jenny I am a Christian, that's why I am a Democrat. I believe in helping the poor, not the rich, especially rich draft dodgers.
Posted by Proud Liberal Vet at January 1, 2006 12:47 PM


Thanks for the attention, now get out of my face.

Posted by: Jesus Christ at January 01, 2006 07:57 AM (v1LqI)

150 So Andrew are you saying we have no obligation to follow any of the international treaties we enter into?

Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 07:59 AM (mpIFY)

151 This isn't the same PLV that was here before.

Posted by: zetetic at January 01, 2006 08:01 AM (/Rdy2)

152 "So tell me Holier than thou, what Chruch has taught you how to call people liars, fags, etc, etc?"

I treat people the same way they treat me. I don't feed diamonds to pigs.

Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 08:01 AM (mpIFY)

153 What I'm saying, PLV, is that Congress ratifies them and can decide to withdraw from them. In a roundabout way, then, that could be a "yes."

Although I'm still not sure which treaty we violated by going into Iraq, and I'm definitely not sure what the hell you're talking about with this "Article 2, section 2" stuff. Maybe you meant a different Article?

Posted by: Andrew at January 01, 2006 08:03 AM (irxhK)

154 Andrew I thought you were serious there for a moment. However, it looks like I was wrong. You are just another wingnut running around claiming victory when you haven't said a thing. Therefore, you can fuck yourself just like the rest of Satan's children in your traitor party.

Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 08:03 AM (mpIFY)

155 Jenny I am a Christian, that's why I am a Democrat.

I find that very hard to believe. And BTW - it's "pearls before swine. " I think you're actually supposed to read the Bible.

Posted by: Jenny at January 01, 2006 08:05 AM (ofzm+)

156 The only thing I'm claiming is that treaties do not become part of the Constitution when ratified. Can you, I ask again, point me to a part of the Constitution that contradicts that statement?

Posted by: Andrew at January 01, 2006 08:06 AM (irxhK)

157 Herb Stein

There's little difference between both parties. wrt, the "fiscal state," both parties have expanded command/control state investments in order to win electoral legitimation and improve capital accumulation at the expense of working families and global development.

Stein refers to "fiscal crisis" as in part the failures of both parties to better induce keynesian stimulus. Both parties got it assbackwards: in good times capital raided revenues, in bad times deficits expanded even more.


Just one ex. the diff. between D&R is mirage.

Posted by: ergastularius at January 01, 2006 08:10 AM (AuKcO)

158 PLV - might I also recommend that you actually read the Constitution before you try arguing using it as a source?

Posted by: Jenny at January 01, 2006 08:11 AM (ofzm+)

159 Jenny it doesn't look like I need to read the constitution when there are so many constitutional experts right here.

Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 08:14 AM (mpIFY)

160 the link worked in preview. I used < a href=>< /a>.

Stein's book: The Fiscal Revolution in America: Policy in Pursuit of Reality

Posted by: ergastularius at January 01, 2006 08:15 AM (AuKcO)

161 "keynesian stimulus"

Is that like when I rub my copy of "The Economic Consequences of the Peace" against my wang?

Posted by: Andrew at January 01, 2006 08:15 AM (irxhK)

162 Ergastularius:

Link still doesn't work, but that's OK - your synopsis didn't seem too contentious, at least to me. I'd say that the constituencies of the parties, however, *do* have substantial differences, as described by Lakoff. So you have the parties playing to those differences in order to promote their power structures.

Posted by: geoff at January 01, 2006 08:16 AM (f+QmI)

163 PLV,

I concede defeat. There, I said it.

Your pretty smart. Would you be willing to join my pub trivia team?

Posted by: Andrew at January 01, 2006 08:19 AM (irxhK)

164 Ahh. It's a new year and already my minions are out in force, making sure the Democrats won't control Congress this year.

Thanks, PLV, your check is in the mail.

Posted by: Karl Rove's Id at January 01, 2006 08:19 AM (Bjdtq)

165 That should have been "you're."

Posted by: Andrew at January 01, 2006 08:20 AM (irxhK)

166 andrew

no. it's like when slam your balls between the covers of My Pet Goat.

or when you hump your mag thatcher fuckdoll.

Posted by: ergastularius at January 01, 2006 08:21 AM (AuKcO)

167 Hey Karl do they let you mail checks from mail, because hopefully that is where you will be in 2,006, traitor?

Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 08:22 AM (mpIFY)

168 Sorry I should have said from jail not mail.

Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 08:23 AM (mpIFY)

169 "no. it's like when slam your balls between the covers of My Pet Goat."

See, I already tried that. Doesn't work--the book just doesn't have the weight I need.

The O.E.D., on the other hand...that's my kinda Friday night, baby!

Posted by: Andrew at January 01, 2006 08:25 AM (irxhK)

170 because hopefully that is where you will be in 2,006, traitor

Keep right on hoping, asshat. And feel free to off yourself when it doesn't happen.

Posted by: at January 01, 2006 08:28 AM (/Rdy2)

171 That should have been "you're."

Yeah, but the we're not implementing the false transition to Internet Idiotese until 2008, in order to trick the Democrats into changing their platform from "BUSH SUCKS, FAGS" to "BU$H SUXXORZ FAGG0TZ LOL" in time for the campaign.

I tell you, it's hard to stay ahead of the curve with these guys, as the chaps at DU have already started.

Posted by: Karl Rove's Id at January 01, 2006 08:32 AM (Bjdtq)

172 geoff

good. as far as the fiscalization of the state goes, really, as far as the welfare state goes, no diff. between the parties.

The policy is bad in any case for bottom four income quintiles.

But, good for capital.

Posted by: ergastularius at January 01, 2006 08:33 AM (AuKcO)

173 Don't worry Karl once a pudgy white boy like you gets behind bars you are going to have too many other things on your mind besides the election. However, I imagine a fag like you will enjoy it.

Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 08:39 AM (mpIFY)

174 The fag-baiting, constant sexualization, women bashing "humor" here is a drag.

But, I'll play your your games.

Posted by: ergastularius at January 01, 2006 08:42 AM (AuKcO)

175 ergastularius are you the one pretending to be Karl because I wasn't addressing you?

Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 08:43 AM (mpIFY)

176 Conservatives are men who discovered the wheel and built the Eiffel Tower out of metal and brawn. That's what kind of men we are. PLV is just a liberal with a small brain. With a brain a third the size of us. It's science.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at January 01, 2006 08:47 AM (KX4TE)

177 Nah, posting as Karl Rove's Id is my gig. Yes, PLV, now that I'm here you can start impersonating me too to cover up your inability to reason or even post something clever.


You're probably not smart enough to notice this, by the way, but erg isn't exactly on "our side" here as you imagine it.

Posted by: Sortelli at January 01, 2006 08:48 AM (Bjdtq)

178 "But, I'll play your your games."

My favorite is Scrabble. But PLV always kicks my ass.

Posted by: Andrew at January 01, 2006 08:49 AM (irxhK)

179 I think Dave is right. Look how deftly he uses personal insult to make his arguments. Only a scientist of the highest order, trained in logic, can perform acts of intellectual rigor such as that.

Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 08:49 AM (mpIFY)

180 With a brain a third the size of us. It's science.

I blame ID.

Posted by: geoff at January 01, 2006 08:50 AM (f+QmI)

181 My favorite is Scrabble. But PLV always kicks my ass.

It's that "new spelling" they're teaching in 4th grade.

Posted by: Sortelli at January 01, 2006 08:50 AM (Bjdtq)

182 This is your doctor PLV. I have your pregnancy report here, and guess what. You got knocked up.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at January 01, 2006 08:53 AM (KX4TE)

183 "You're probably not smart enough to notice this, by the way, but erg isn't exactly on "our side" here as you imagine it."

Is that why he appears so much brighter than the rest of you ankle biters?

Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 08:54 AM (mpIFY)

184 so, at the sandbox, the one little kid, let's call him karl rove id, says to the other little kid: you love your daddy? yes, little kid responds demurely. but he pisses in your mouth! other little kid pushes up sand slowly into a pile. pensively says: I know. but daddy says when I get big I can piss in my son's mouth.

karl rove id: heheheeee!

It's a theory of power here: acenomics: Nietzsche without virtue.

Posted by: ergastularius at January 01, 2006 08:55 AM (AuKcO)

185 I swear, this one time he used all seven letters to spell "shithead," running it off of "zebras" AND hitting the triple word score square. He got, like, nine hundred points.

Posted by: Andrew at January 01, 2006 08:55 AM (irxhK)

186 "This is your doctor PLV. I have your pregnancy report here, and guess what. You got knocked up. "

I only go to you because of what a genius you are Dave.

Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 08:56 AM (mpIFY)

187 And don't even get me started on Boggle.

Posted by: Andrew at January 01, 2006 08:56 AM (irxhK)

188 The policy is bad in any case for bottom four income quintiles.

I'm not sure I agree entirely with this - it's certainly not tailored to help them, but the second and third quintiles aren't doing badly, and there are indications that there is significant mobility within the classes. In the bottom two quintiles we should attempt to distinguish between the mobile immigrants and the indigenous indigents.

Posted by: geoff at January 01, 2006 08:57 AM (f+QmI)

189 Is that why he appears so much brighter than the rest of you ankle biters?

Appears to whom? You didn't know otherwise until I pointed it out to you.

Stick around us, PLV, you might learn something else today, and that would make the second time knowledge has entered your brain in a year.

And could I suggest going back to your "Unapologetic Liberal" handle, which at least is true?

Posted by: Sortelli at January 01, 2006 08:57 AM (Bjdtq)

190 significant mobility within the classes

ah - should read "among the classes."

Posted by: geoff at January 01, 2006 08:59 AM (f+QmI)

191 He got, like, nine hundred points.

Yeah. It's that "new math" they're teaching these days...

Posted by: Sortelli at January 01, 2006 08:59 AM (Bjdtq)

192 "Stick around us, PLV, you might learn something else today, and that would make the second time knowledge has entered your brain in a year."

I imagine if I sit at your table eventually some crumbs of wisdom will flow down my way, unless of course you insist on keeping a monopoly on it.

Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 09:00 AM (mpIFY)

193 I imagine if I sit at your table eventually some crumbs of wisdom will flow down my way

Be thankful we're not as frugal with our diamonds as some.

Posted by: geoff at January 01, 2006 09:01 AM (f+QmI)

194 The fag-baiting, constant sexualization, women bashing "humor" here is a drag.

That's a feature, not a bug.

Posted by: geoff at January 01, 2006 09:05 AM (f+QmI)

195 Don't act like you're not impressed!

Posted by: Dave in Texas at January 01, 2006 09:06 AM (KX4TE)

196 It's okay, ergastularius, by the time Georg Groddeck came up with the idea of the "id" I was totally off my rocker. So I didn't know what that was either.

Posted by: Nietzsche at January 01, 2006 09:06 AM (Bjdtq)

197 "I imagine if I sit at your table eventually some crumbs of wisdom will flow down my way"

"Be thankful we're not as frugal with our diamonds as some."

Yes but you have so much more to give.

Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 09:06 AM (mpIFY)

198 PLV - Yeah, thanks for the attention, but get out of my face.

Posted by: Sortelli at January 01, 2006 09:07 AM (Bjdtq)

199 Geoff


Income mobility increase? certainly not.

If you refer to Glenn Hubbard's eightees research, you're in trouble, because his sample wasn't scientific.

Posted by: ergastularius at January 01, 2006 09:08 AM (AuKcO)

200 I don't think I said "Income mobility *increase*," but here's an article supporting the point. The intro:

The dynamic U.S. economy is characterized by an extraordinary degree of income mobility that has been all but ignored in the recent debate on reducing federal income tax rates and phasing out the death (estate) tax. Opponents of tax relief are criticizing commonsense reforms because they claim that "only the rich" will benefit. Yet the notion that low-income or high-income groups are composed mostly of the same people over time is an illusion.
Again, I'm not saying that the system is designed to help the lower income strata, but I don't think you can presume that it's harmful without quantifying the harm.

Posted by: geoff at January 01, 2006 09:27 AM (f+QmI)

201 I have seen some of this income mobility.

Thanks Nike!

Posted by: Tiger Woods at January 01, 2006 09:32 AM (KX4TE)

202 What we've learned about PLV from this thread:

1. He's a Christian, but he hasn't read the Bible.

2. He's an expert on the Constitution, but he hasn't read that either - and doesn't think he needs to.

Posted by: Jenny at January 01, 2006 09:33 AM (ofzm+)

203 Ahhh. that's where hubbard fucked up, because his sample was scientific at the start of study but the "mobility" of the group overtime resulted in an unrespresentative sample.

Isn't it adequate to locate income disparities by the simple distribution of all incomes? Doing so shows 1979 to be the apex for distributive equality. vDownhill ever since.

Seldom do people escape an initial class position. Despite what O'Reilly says.

Posted by: ergastularius at January 01, 2006 09:39 AM (AuKcO)

204 Jenny:

Combine that with what we knew previously:

3) He claims to be a veteran but knows nothing about the military, and calls himself an "American Hero," something no self-respecting vet would do.

4) He says he lives in SF, and he's got an obsession with calling people 'fags.'

I think it's a cry for help.

Posted by: geoff at January 01, 2006 09:39 AM (f+QmI)

205 Oh, PLV, you are my little gentleman. I'll take you to foggy London town 'cause you are my little gentleman. Wow, this burrito is delicious, but it is filling.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at January 01, 2006 09:40 AM (KX4TE)

206 Ahhh. that's where hubbard fucked up

So which of the studies referenced in the article didn't have adequate sample sizes?

Isn't it adequate to locate income disparities by the simple distribution of all incomes?

That doesn't say anything about mobility, and isn't definitive as far as the root causes. But let's start there. Can you give me a link, or did you pull it off a gov't site?

Posted by: geoff at January 01, 2006 09:46 AM (f+QmI)

207 I really look forward to the day when we can get back to saying the problem with the American left is not the spittle lipped hatred of folks like PLV, but that they think distributive equality of income is a good thing.

Posted by: Sortelli at January 01, 2006 09:59 AM (Bjdtq)

208 "What we've learned about PLV from this thread:

1. He's a Christian, but he hasn't read the Bible.

2. He's an expert on the Constitution, but he hasn't read that either - and doesn't think he needs to."

Where did you learn that Jenny, in the feverish imaginations of your wingnut mind? And what did we learn about you today, besides nothing? I've never seen people with nothing to offer, other than their hatred, brag so incessantly about their contributions. If I were you I would worry more about your own salvation, rather than pointing out the faults in others. Didn't you read that in your Bible?

Posted by: at January 01, 2006 10:45 AM (Y53pz)

209 Um, Sortelli, I hate to break it to you, but that ain't spittle...

Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 10:45 AM (/Rdy2)

210 PVL glad to see you back. Can I suck your cock now please, pretty please.

Posted by: Sortelli at January 01, 2006 10:47 AM (Y53pz)

211 And what have we learned about the castrato troll I like to call Donk Felcher? What more is there to learn? He's a BDS-infested piece of shite who has nothing better to do than hang out on conservative blogs to get insulted.

Posted by: zetetic at January 01, 2006 10:48 AM (/Rdy2)

212 Get in line Sortelli. His Liberal dick is all mine.

Posted by: zetetic at January 01, 2006 10:49 AM (Y53pz)

213 I just love to pretend to be other people. I'm a pathological liar, you see.

Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 10:49 AM (/Rdy2)

214 No I'm serious, this is really me. I'm an angry little pussy that loves manly Liberal dick.

Posted by: zetetic at January 01, 2006 10:51 AM (Y53pz)

215 What is it about the modern democrat party that makes it attract so many nutty, illogical and downright vicious types?

It used to be you could argue issues with them in a civil manner. Now it seems they merely rant, rave, and finally call you a vile name. Theories, anyone?

Posted by: Log Cabin at January 01, 2006 10:51 AM (gETp4)

216 Oh, I ran out of ideas long ago. I just like to pretend to be other people because I hate myself so damn much. And I know I'm not alone. Lots of people hate me too!

Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 10:52 AM (/Rdy2)

217 geoff

I'm trying to locate a recent study, I think IMF, showing declining mobility in u.s. and the methodology parses the variables well as I recall. Do you know it?

I did a double take on the heritage article because EPI data is based on nominal income-inflation? I'm not sure, but don't think so. There's not enough there to make a judgment.

I'm aware inequality is not immobility. As you are no doubt aware, and asfaik, the two insinuate each other in what I believe is commonly referred to as "generational mobility"--do children exceed parents real incomes? One widely used method is to find whether what amount a parent's economic advantage (measured by income, education investment, etc.) is passed on to children. U.S. and Britain are double that of nordic countries.

I've read chunks of this book: Generational Income Mobility in North America and Europe, Edited by Miles Corak. Really good lit rev. of methodology and wideranging studies show growing immobility.

"Pete" Apeterson's '93 book is also a good one: Facing Up: How to Rescue the Economy from Crushing debt and Restore the American Dream.

About the '79 figure. No time to find the cite I culled from the Green Book. But I'm confident I'm right.

I'll try and find that other report.

p.s.: even if incomes rising and equality falling, I would still argue against the present arrangement of marketplace "opportunities" because, among other things, the real losers are people like those who live in iraq.

Posted by: ergastularius at January 01, 2006 10:53 AM (AuKcO)

218 Personally I like Liberal dick up my ass.

Posted by: Log Cabin at January 01, 2006 10:53 AM (Y53pz)

219 Ace, could you please ban my worthless ass? It's bad enough I'm a lying sack of shit, but now I'm projecting my homosexuality onto the posters here and in some cases making up stupid obviously fake e-mail addresses for them.

Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 10:56 AM (/Rdy2)

220 This exchange is more satisfying than watching two retards go at it with safety scissors.

Posted by: Andrew at January 01, 2006 11:00 AM (irxhK)

221 ergastularius:

This is very interesting to me (particularly the larger discussion, though sorting out the income mobility/maldistribution situation is also of interest), but I'm going to have to beg off for a bit. Supposed to be revolutionizing cooling and desalination technology today, but I'm ditzing around here procrastinating.

So I'm going to unplug the router and try to get some serious work done. Let's try to continue this later.

Posted by: geoff at January 01, 2006 11:02 AM (f+QmI)

222 Ace could you please ban me so I will stop pretending to be someone I'm not doing a very good imitation of pretending to be?

Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 11:04 AM (Y53pz)

223 Ace, could you please bang me so I can stop pretending I miss it.

Posted by: Jenny at January 01, 2006 11:21 AM (ofzm+)

224 I don't hunt but I wish I did. I think I don't have time, but then again I seem to have time to post on a moronblog like this so maybe my priorities are messed up.

I admire the kind of hunting where people eat what they kill. If they don't eat it, seems a little wrong. I know hunting isn't really often done today as a survivalist thing, but it is nice to know some people have the skills to eat that way if they had to somehow. Someday all the conveniences we are used to will be interrupted for a while.

Posted by: Village Idiot at January 01, 2006 12:00 PM (N5NIk)

225 A freezer full of nearly-free meat is a beautiful thing.
One of these days hubby and I should take up the hobby.

Haven't had venison or pheasant or wild duck in prolly ten years.

I'm always thinking about the doves under my bird feeders. Never had them before, and I hear they're crazy delicious.

Posted by: lauraw at January 01, 2006 12:07 PM (6krEN)

226 LOL! Heh.

Posted by: Jenny at January 01, 2006 12:56 PM (ofzm+)

227 gee lauraw, I wish you lived near me. I enough venison and pheasant in my freezer to last until I have grandchildren. I would share!

Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at January 01, 2006 12:59 PM (VGhak)

228 *making a list*

Lessee...styrofoam coolers, dry ice, and prepaid shipping labels...anything else you need RWS?

Posted by: lauraw at January 01, 2006 01:03 PM (6krEN)

229 Personally I like Liberal dick up my ass.

Not only is that not me,
everyone knows that GOP gays are tops,
not bottoms.

This known as the Gannon Rule.

Posted by: Log Cabin at January 01, 2006 01:31 PM (gETp4)

230 Like vikings!

Posted by: Sortelli at January 01, 2006 01:39 PM (Bjdtq)

231 All who nominate Log Cabin for the best Ace inside joke troll-retort, say AYE!

Posted by: lauraw at January 01, 2006 01:40 PM (6krEN)

232 First rule of thread-killah club; don't talk about thread-killah club.

Oops.

Posted by: lauraw at January 01, 2006 02:39 PM (6krEN)

233 Aye!

Although I kind of liked my anonymous Jesus comment to PLV, but I'm not bitter.

Posted by: adolfo velasquez at January 01, 2006 02:41 PM (/zGfa)

234 "Not only is that not me,
everyone knows that GOP gays are tops,
not bottoms."

That's so true Log. You took the words right out of my mouth.

Posted by: zetetic at January 01, 2006 02:42 PM (Y53pz)

235 Guys, I'll bet a donut that PLV, currently hiding under Zet's name, has absolutely no idea that Log Cabin is actually gay.

Posted by: Sortelli at January 01, 2006 02:46 PM (Bjdtq)

236 I did giggle at that remark, but I didn't know who it was.

Posted by: lauraw at January 01, 2006 03:01 PM (6krEN)

237 You can take the words out of my mouth, but not the penis!

Fags!

Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 03:06 PM (/Rdy2)

238 Coming from someone with such a rich history of snappy comebacks, lauraw,

I am honored. Thanks for the pat on the back.

Posted by: Log Cabin at January 01, 2006 03:23 PM (gETp4)

239 Anyone who doesnt buy into their BS is immediately labeled trailer trash, Nazi, PNAC goon, stupid, etc.

Well, on the flip side, why don't Republicans care about Halliburton and PNAC? We get angry about $100 Halliburton loads of laundry and gallons of gas, clear-cut war profiteering. Republicans respond that if you wanna make an omelet, you gotta break a few eggs, and surely it was an honest mistake. And they just keep on breaking eggs. The difference is, each example of cronyism and graft infuriates liberals like myself even more, whereas it seems to soothe Republicans somehow, to the point where Halliburton can do no wrong.

And PNAC, well, can you blame us for being a little suspicious? Read that manifesto; the short version is, "We, the undersigned (Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Jeb Bush, etc) want to take over the world. Our best bet is to invade Iraq after a terrorist attack." Seriously, I'm not making this up -- that's the gist of it. And this was written in 1999. Two years later, well, we all know what these guys did, but it was supposedly all about WMD, and we know how true that turned out to be. It's pretty obvious that the PNAC crew didn't deviate much from their original plan they wrote before they got into the White House.

Now, whether or not the PNAC plan is a good one is a matter of opinion, but what really scares people like myself is that Republicans act like it's some kind of Da Vinci Code conspiracy mumbo-jumbo. As if it's not right there on pnac.org? How does that work?

Posted by: scarshapedstar at January 01, 2006 05:01 PM (sOfYg)

240 scarshapedstar,

We don't care about Halliburton because there is no reason to. As to "but it was supposedly all about WMD" well, you need to stop drinking the Kool Aid. The cats out of the bag you know.

(replace the * with a c)

Posted by: BrewFan at January 01, 2006 05:31 PM (0AD+O)

241 I'm fairly certain that most of them either believe WMD have already been found, or will be shortly. There isn't much in the way of independent thought demonstrated in the group as a whole.

Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 05:50 PM (Y53pz)

242 You notice that I never disagree with any other liberals that post here, which of course is just a coincidence. Fags!

Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 05:58 PM (/Rdy2)

243 scarshapedstar as you can see the best they can do is attack anyone who does exhibit a free and independent mind. It must be part of the brain washing process.

Posted by: at January 01, 2006 06:06 PM (Y53pz)

244 We don't care about halliburton...

From DoD's own unredacted audit of K&R:

It is illogical that it would cost
$27,514,833 to deliver $82,100 in LPG fuel.

KBR proposed $252,808,547 for unleaded gasoline and kerosene...The supporting schedule reflected costs of $225,599,379, a difference of $27,209,168.

There's a good summary of audits here.

The nigerian bribery scandals, preferential treatment by pentagon, sordid hiring practices...one could go on.

see: http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/audits.html, if the link doesn't work. it works in preview.

Posted by: ergastularius at January 01, 2006 06:11 PM (AuKcO)

245 HALLIBURTON! QUAGMIRE! BUSH LIED!

Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 06:13 PM (/Rdy2)

246 One can't even call this robotic, non-critical behavior, conservative. I'm not sure what it is. On the one hand they cut taxes, but then increase government expenditures. It is either a deliberate attempt to bankrupt the nation, or just stupid. Then there is the nation building, which flies in the face of most conservative thought. Do they really believe their own rhetoric, which sounds more like idealism, or are they simply caught in the web of their own deceit. Once it became obvious to everyone that there were no WMD in Iraq, they started rolling out new justifications for the war, and settled on spreading freedom and democracy as the one to sell. Perhaps they really don't believe in it, but they have to play along because that's the new excuse. This isn't conservatism. The non-critical acceptance of anything their leaders feed them, and their attempted demonization of anything that stands in it's way, smacks of more totalitarian ideologies, rather the individual freedom we normally associate with conservative or liberal thought.

Posted by: at January 01, 2006 06:22 PM (Y53pz)

247 also, brew's link to c-trib opinion piece disingenuously omits ref to Office of Special Plans/Iraq Planning Group. Because Senate Intel Comm continues to delay 'phase two' of investigation, we don't yet know the status of prewar intel gathering funneled through cheney.

Posted by: ergastularius at January 01, 2006 06:26 PM (AuKcO)

248 All who nominate Log Cabin for the best Ace inside joke troll-retort, say AYE!

here I've been, working my fingers to the bone coming up with Chris Klein and Anchorman jabs, retorting cleverly, with panache even, and I'm very gracious for that.

And Log Cabin beats me with one original line.

dammit.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at January 01, 2006 06:39 PM (xd73D)

249 scarshapedstar:
As if it's not right there on pnac.org?

Yes, the Pontifical North American College is surely a grave threat to all of us.

Posted by: sandy burger at January 01, 2006 06:47 PM (yYYVZ)

250 Hah!

I was expecting you, Dave.

From the moment I pressed 'post' for Log Cabin.

And this is the statement I have prepared:

I'm a nobody. My opinion has no bearing on anyone's well being.

Do with that as you will.
But speaking pubescently of course, you have this thing that's working for you, and we're all gracious for that.
Aren't you glad that Hollywood hasn't given up on making craptastic movies?

Posted by: lauraw at January 01, 2006 06:53 PM (o6H31)

251 scarshapedstar:
And PNAC, well, can you blame us for being a little suspicious?

Neoconservatives have never advocated colonialism or tyranny. They want to increase US strength and influence while supporting the spread of liberal democracy.

I know that the left is suspicious of that. That's why I don't vote democrat anymore.

Now, whether or not the PNAC plan is a good one is a matter of opinion

I haven't read the exact plan you're talking about, but I have read various neoconservative essays. I do know that some of them have been advocating the invasion of Iraq for a long time. Well, good for them! They were right. They saw what was brewing long before 9/11 woke up the rest of us.

Posted by: SJKevin at January 01, 2006 06:56 PM (yYYVZ)

252 Groan.

http://www.newamericancentury.org, not pnac.org.

Posted by: scarshapedstar at January 01, 2006 06:58 PM (sOfYg)

253 As to Haliburton, the common complaint that they somehow caused us to go to war is ridiculous.

I also hear reports of them over-charging the government. Some of it is just the left trying to get Cheney somehow. Some of it may be true. I don't know the details and more than I know the details of the bridge to nowhere in Alaska.

Pork barrel politics and cronyism are nothing new. I'm concerned about it across the board. If Cheney had never worked at Halliburton, the left wouldn't care about them any more than any other government contractor.

Posted by: SJKevin at January 01, 2006 07:01 PM (yYYVZ)

254 lauraw,

I'm Not Anyone

watch the fucking cutoffs.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at January 01, 2006 07:03 PM (xd73D)

255 http://www.newamericancentury.org

it's so cute when a troll vomits up an Air America talking point, about the PNAC white paper, the one that says "fighting wars in the 21st century will be difficult and we better be ready"

and that's the plan for global domination!!

it's all the more special when you know not a one of them have read the damn thing.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at January 01, 2006 07:22 PM (xd73D)

256 Yes, we all know Michael Moore is a bloated hypocritical lying sack of shit, but he's a liberal so naturally he gets a pass.

Posted by: at January 01, 2006 07:27 PM (/Rdy2)

257 Brewfan, I think ergastularius kinda has you dead to rights in re: Halliburton. 25 million here, 25 million there, pretty soon you're talking real money, like the 9 billion in cash that disappeared into thin air. I know people would be pissed if two supercarriers were destroyed, and that's the kind of price tag we're talking about here. Note: not saying Halliburton stole all of that money, but there's this attitude on the right that none of it matters that I find deeply troubling. Case in point, your remark that "We don't care about Halliburton because we don't need to." I know, I know, it's terribly unfair to suggest that $9 billion could have saved at least one soldier's life, but you know what? It's true.

As to the claim that nobody ever mentioned WMDs. Well, that comes as a great surprise to me; it's the only reason I initially supported the war, back when I read Instapundit and all that. Seemed like every day there was some new story about nuclear plans being discovered nefariously hidden in some scientist's house, and vials of anthrax being waved, and of course aluminum tubes and imminent threats. Turns out that none of that actually happened, and it was all about liberal democracies from day one. Was I dreaming? Guess it was the dreaded kool-aid.

SJKevin,

I'm not so sure the neocons are all about spreading democracy. You must at least admit it's democracy at the point of a gun, and that's problematic. But when you have statements like this in bold at the center of the page: (all taken from their web site)

At present the United States faces no global rival. America’s grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible.

...well, it doesn't exactly sound Jeffersonian. In fact, PNAC is mostly concerned with goals like ensuring our military can

fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars

Not to say that this is a bad idea; you never know, after all. But somehow I get the feeling the PNAC crew kinda likes starting wars. Recent events haven't exactly convinced me otherwise, come to think of it. After all, who else could view this as a problem:

After the victories of the past century – two world wars, the Cold War and most recently the Gulf War – the United States finds itself as the uniquely powerful leader of a coalition of free and prosperous states that faces no immediate great-power challenge.

Oh no! Because, you see...

Underlying the failed strategic and defense reviews of the past decade [i.e., Cheney's DPG and follow-on polemics from neocon hardliners] is the idea that the collapse of the Soviet Union had created a "strategic pause." In other words, until another great-power challenger emerges, the United States can enjoy a respite from the demands of international leadership. Like a boxer between championship bouts, America can afford to relax and live the good life, certain that there would be enough time to shape up for the next big challenge. Thus the United States could afford to reduce its military forces, close bases overseas, halt major weapons programs and reap the financial benefits of the "peace dividend." But as we have seen over the past decade, there has been no shortage of powers around the world who have taken the collapse of the Soviet empire as an opportunity to expand their own influence and challenge the American-led security order.

Well, what does PNAC suggest? That we just go around looking for wars to start? I give you their words, not mine.

Over the decade of the post-Cold-War period, however, almost everything has changed. The Cold War world was a bipolar world; the 21st century world is – for the moment, at least – decidedly unipolar, with America as the world’s "sole superpower." America’s strategic goal used to be containment of the Soviet Union; today the task is to preserve an international security environment conducive to American interests and ideals. The military’s job during the Cold War was to deter Soviet expansionism. Today its task is to secure and expand the "zones of democratic peace;" to deter the rise of a new great-power competitor; defend key regions of Europe, East Asia and the Middle East; and to preserve American preeminence through the coming transformation of war made possible by new technologies.

...

From 1945 to 1990, U.S. forces prepared themselves for a single, global war that might be fought across many theaters; in the new century, the prospect is for a variety of theater wars around the world, against separate and distinct adversaries pursuing separate and distinct goals.


Yeah, pretty much. You can throw in bits about peace and democracy, but it sounds like an endlessly escalating arms race against everyone and no one -- any enemy will do. (Saddam is mentioned several times, but China seems to be their dream enemy.) Anyway, I know "military-industrial complex" is a liberal conspiracy code word, but hell, Eisenhower knew what he was talking about. He was talking about guys like this. I guarantee you the average American did not support the war because of the kind of thinking this paper advocates. They supported it because they thought Saddam had WMDs. I know, I know, Bush never said anything remotely suggesting Saddam had ever even thought about WMDs, but somehow the American public had this crazy shared hallucination... anyway, my point is, PNAC (whose membership overlaps nicely with the Bush Administration) has stated the real reasons for the war and I do not approve of them.

Posted by: scarshapedstar at January 01, 2006 07:36 PM (sOfYg)

258 scars

excellent post

Posted by: ergastularius at January 01, 2006 07:44 PM (AuKcO)

259 Dave,

I've read most of it. It is, admittedly, 90% wonkish discussion about which artillery platforms should be on the chopping block and I'm not really in a position to disagree with their conclusions about such matters. But their overall goal of US hegemony (give me a break for using such "liberal codewords", I mean, they said they don't want to have a global rival, ever.) through military invincibility... I suppose you can see that as a benevolent democracy-loving tyranny, and hey, it could happen, but it's really hard for me to give these guys that kind of benefit of the doubt. I don't like it one bit.

Posted by: scarshapedstar at January 01, 2006 07:44 PM (sOfYg)

260 yeah, whatever. they don't placate either.

but really, be serious scar. and you almost are, and I'll give you that,

what fucking hegemony are we pursuing? c'mon.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at January 01, 2006 07:51 PM (xd73D)

261 You must at least admit it's democracy at the point of a gun, and that's problematic.

I hear this over and over from leftists, and it makes no sense to me. We're not gonna shoot any Iraqis or Afghanis if they don't vote.

Posted by: SJKevin at January 01, 2006 07:57 PM (yYYVZ)

262 a variety of theater wars around the world, against separate and distinct adversaries pursuing separate and distinct goals.

Exactly right. You can read something nefarious into this if you want to, but count me out. Just look at the military engagements Clinton lead us into (Balkans, Somalia, Iraq, Sudan). What PNAC is describing is reality. I don't like it, either, but that doesn't make it the neocon's fault.

The neocons didn't create evil in the world. But they expect it, and they want us to be ready for it.

Posted by: SJKevin at January 01, 2006 08:02 PM (yYYVZ)

263 PLV: "You tell me what the legal justification for the war in Iraq was."

ok, here.

Posted by: at January 01, 2006 08:07 PM (l1oyw)

264 like the 9 billion in cash that disappeared into thin air<.i>

Ferchrisakes folks, read the effing audits! The $8.9 billion never 'disappeared into thin air' - that's unmitigated crap. The $8.9 billion was properly delivered to the Iraqi Ministry of Finance. AFTER it entered the Iraqi's system, the SIG determined that the CPA should have more closely monitored the disposition of the money.

There's no lost $9 billion.

Posted by: geoff at January 01, 2006 11:04 PM (HJ3Oq)

265 Oh, and Halliburton had *nothing* to do with the $8.9 billion. So please avoid mixing and matching the complaints. And as far as the KBR issue: KBR was told to start work before negotiating the billing rates. When they proposed their billing rates, the DCAA disagreed with their accounting of actual rates and their proposed billing rates. Disagreements between DCAA and defense contractors happen all the time - they happen to me on bad days.

So the Army said they would withhold KBR's payments until the dispute was resolved, putting KBR at risk, not the American taxpayer. This is the system working in a pretty routine fashion, although the dollar amounts are quite large. I believe that the whole situation was negotiated, though I'm having technical difficulties pulling up the article from KBR's website.

Posted by: geoff at January 01, 2006 11:22 PM (HJ3Oq)

266 So then we review the PNAC document, looking for the neo-con evil that scarshapedstar senses. Basically the document makes the case that the US has vital international interests, that neglecting those interests will lead to unfortunate consequences, and that the military ought to redefine its mission and force structure to accommodate a world where multliple, smaller-scale engagements might be required.

This is pretty mundane material. When I served in the early '80s, the military was supposed to be able to support one large-scale conflict and a second small-scale conflict simultaneously. This document recommends a shift from that strategy to a more responsive, flexible force structure capable of handling many smaller scale engagements. Despite sss's claims of extrasensory perception, I see no indication that they are "looking for wars to start."

Posted by: geoff at January 02, 2006 12:03 AM (HJ3Oq)

267 "PLV: "You tell me what the legal justification for the war in Iraq was."

ok, here."

I read the whole link. I didn't see a resolution authorizing the attack on Iraq. That might be because there is none. Was there a resolution I missed in your link, or are you simply wrong, but because of the grip of totalitarianism that has over taken you, you cannot bring yourself to admit it?

Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 02, 2006 03:42 AM (6f65Q)

268 like the 9 billion in cash that disappeared into thin air.

geoff beat me to the punch. We've had this discussion here with tubby about 30 times. I thought for a moment scarshapedstar and ergastularius were going to reverse the trend of the trolls who pop in and spout the MoveOn talking points, but, alas, its not meant to be. How sad that otherwise intelligent people just can't parse through the propaganda.

Posted by: BrewFan at January 02, 2006 04:55 AM (0AD+O)

269 I see no indication that they are "looking for wars to start

You see what you want to see geoff. They're just projecting, and running a bit with the Air Amerikkka rhetoric. PNAC is one of their favorite talking points.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at January 02, 2006 05:55 AM (4pHf1)

270 You see what you want to see geoff.

should probably re-read it now that the effects of champagne and beer have subsided (we had a belated New Years' celebration), but my head's all fuzzy and in no inconsiderable pain. But it's like they've never read a military strategy or advocacy white paper before. Shocking - they're talking about war!

And what's with Spurwing's rampage this morning?

Posted by: geoff at January 02, 2006 06:02 AM (HJ3Oq)

271 One of your great rightwing heroes, Eisenhower, warned about the intersection of commerce and war. "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence..." he said. Some of us suspect, with good reason, Halliburton's aggressive exploitation of permanent war economy is not that great for civilization, even if pointy-headed auditors are happy with services rendered.

Posted by: ergastularius at January 02, 2006 06:08 AM (AuKcO)

272 Some of us suspect, with good reason

Then list and link the reasons.

even if pointy-headed auditors are happy with services rendered.

Since the auditors have actually looked at the billing practices and the numbers, unlike every liberal critic we've ever entertained on this site, your snarky remark seems blindly arrogant.

Posted by: geoff at January 02, 2006 06:18 AM (HJ3Oq)

273 Some of us suspect, with good reason, Halliburton's aggressive exploitation of permanent war economy is not that great for civilization, even if pointy-headed auditors are happy with services rendered.

lol! ol' ergs putting some distance between himself and scars but still can't quite admit they're full of crap about Halliburton. I'm with you guys, though, in spirit. I think you should continue to pursue your political dreams by pursuing the evil Halliburton.

Posted by: BrewFan at January 02, 2006 06:34 AM (0AD+O)

274 lol! ol' ergs putting some distance between himself and scars

Yeah, what happened to "excellent post?"

Posted by: geoff at January 02, 2006 06:44 AM (HJ3Oq)

275 Sorry. Should give the accountants around here props.

I'll concede to you no proof halliburton and subs are crooks. Both the no-bid contracting and the persistent underperformance of the company makes some of us suspicious. The GAO itself confirmed last Spring the no-bidding was aboveboard. One fairly comprehensive piece in Fortune (The Truth about Halliburton) from last April I think supports both your view ("it's ok!") and my view the extraordinaly underperformance of the company combined with connections the company has to the admin. are cause for concern.

But like I said, the structural pressures of the "military industrial complex" on business is what is fundamentally rotten. Pursuit of war in its endless preparation and the growing orientation of corporate capital to the expenditure of capital in armaments is an evil. And Halliburton is a fine example of this problem.

As Ike well knew.

Posted by: ergastularius at January 02, 2006 06:51 AM (AuKcO)

276 Sorry. Should give the accountants around here props.

Don't know how many we have around here, but several us work within the military-industrial complex and are familiar with defense acquisition practices. But when they're auditing my little company, you can feel free to disparage them as you wish.

As far as Halliburton goes - their performance and conformance to acqusition regulations needs to be monitored constantly. This is the job of the Army & DCAA, but could only benefit from additional scrutiny from the public. But irresponsible accusations like those of scarshapedstar should be soundly rejected regardless of one's political stance.

Posted by: geoff at January 02, 2006 07:03 AM (HJ3Oq)

277 Brew


tyrrants make laws untransgressible by tyrants.

it's called power.

the fact proof cannot be satisfactorily produced often means nothing can satisfy "the burden of proof."

It's good to be the king.

Posted by: ergastularius at January 02, 2006 07:03 AM (AuKcO)

278 As Ike well knew.

When Ike was president defense spending was ~12% of GDP; Now its ~5%. The amount of that ~5% that goes to any given corporation is, to use a technical economic term, chump change. Maybe that's why conservatives aren't concerned by the fictional 'Military-Industrial Complex'.

Posted by: BrewFan at January 02, 2006 07:03 AM (0AD+O)

279 the fact proof cannot be satisfactorily produced often means nothing can satisfy "the burden of proof."

No. It often means you're paranoid.

Posted by: BrewFan at January 02, 2006 07:07 AM (0AD+O)

280 It often means you're paranoid.

Or have your head up your ass.

Posted by: zetetic at January 02, 2006 07:09 AM (/Rdy2)

281 geoff

like I said, you can create a "procurement process" accommodating the needs of the preferred contractor.

"cost-plus" and guaranteed returns are good for capital, no doubt. And these practices are anti-market because so friendly to monopolies/ologopolies. The practices are fraught with inefficiencies and open invitation to fraud and price-fixing/gauging/monopoly rents. 75 years of telecomm reg of AT&T serves as a lesson.

No. soicialize the production of defense. And socialize "service." While we're at it.

Posted by: ergastularius at January 02, 2006 07:12 AM (AuKcO)

282 Pursuit of war in its endless preparation and the growing orientation of corporate capital to the expenditure of capital in armaments is an evil.

Pragmatic nations have always prepared for war, and have thus been more able to avoid it. As far as the "growing orientation" statement - do you have a source for that, because I don't see it.

Posted by: geoff at January 02, 2006 07:12 AM (HJ3Oq)

283 brew

gotta go.

whittle your bs down later.

Posted by: ergastularius at January 02, 2006 07:21 AM (AuKcO)

284 it's theory, geoff. crisis of capital accumulation determines shape of "garrison-state."

late.

Posted by: ergastularius at January 02, 2006 07:24 AM (AuKcO)

285 whittle your bs down later.

Translation: "I have no response to the logic and reason I encountered here. They promised me at MoveOn that these talking points were bulletproof but geoff and BrewFan just slapped me around like a redheaded stepchild. Oh, the humanity!"

Posted by: BrewFan at January 02, 2006 07:32 AM (0AD+O)

286 There's no doubt that the military procurement system sucks. It has gone through many incarnations over the past 50 years, but there's no way to overcome the fundamental problem. Which is, of course, that you're developing specialized items which are rarely produced in large quantities. The overrun potential is huge and the design requirements are an order of magnitude more taxing than for civilian products. On the other hand, the opportunities for fraud and waste are huge.

Enter the government, which futilely tries to regulate every facet of the contractor's business, with predictable results. The honest contractors are bogged down by hundreds of regulations, and the dishonest one's find loopholes anyway.

For a guy like me with negligible capitalization, the FAR (Federal Acquisition Regulations) limit my profit to 6 - 6.5% (depending on the contract type). Not exactly a bonanza, but I like the work. And of course there's the chicks.

Posted by: geoff at January 02, 2006 07:32 AM (HJ3Oq)

287 it's theory, geoff. crisis of capital accumulation determines shape of "garrison-state."

Oooohhh, he got Marx on me! Get it off! Get it off!

Posted by: geoff at January 02, 2006 07:34 AM (HJ3Oq)

288 Garrison state? You mean like that gay teacher on South Park?

Posted by: zetetic at January 02, 2006 07:59 AM (/Rdy2)

289 LOL, geoff

Posted by: lauraw at January 02, 2006 08:00 AM (o6H31)

290 I'll concede to you no proof halliburton and subs are crooks. Both the no-bid contracting and the persistent underperformance of the company makes some of us suspicious.

Dude, all you gotta do is look at Brown and Root's P&L for the last two years. They ain't even pulling 6%.

geoff, at one time in my life I was intimately familiar with the DFAR, parts 1 though 52. Those books took up most of my little cubicle.

good times, good times.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at January 02, 2006 08:04 AM (4pHf1)

291 --and let's not pretend that your real-world knowledge trumps theory.

The guy has marxist theory on his side, which as we know has proven itself again and again, when all you have is actual experience in the defense industry.

Posted by: lauraw at January 02, 2006 08:06 AM (o6H31)

292 geoff, at one time in my life I was intimately familiar with the DFAR, parts 1 though 52.

You have my sympathies. But you're right, once you get the hang of things, it's not too bad, and you can even develop a perverse fondness for the system.

Posted by: geoff at January 02, 2006 08:07 AM (HJ3Oq)

293 The guy has marxist theory on his side,

Which may be the ultimate weapon - I don't think my constitution can cope with a discussion of the defense industry as seen through the prism of Marxism.

Posted by: geoff at January 02, 2006 08:11 AM (HJ3Oq)

294 I should mention that my complaints above don't mean that I have any viable ideas for revamping the system (I've got a lot of ideas for tweaking it, though). It seems like a necessary evil to me. And in as much as the military has been able to do its job with unmatched competence and success, you have to say that the M-I complex is getting the job done.

Posted by: geoff at January 02, 2006 08:26 AM (HJ3Oq)

295 "I should mention that my complaints above don't mean that I have any viable ideas for revamping the system"

It doesn't matter no one is interested anyway.

Posted by: at January 02, 2006 09:10 AM (6f65Q)

296 It doesn't matter no one is interested anyway.

I'm interested.

Any time the government spends money, it's a mess. The defense industry is no exception. I'm sympathetic to some of what the lefties are saying, but I just can't follow them off the cliff into conspiracy-theory land when there simply isn't any evidence whatsoever for it. I do think that the present arrangement stinks, though, although I have no idea what, if anything, I'd want to change. So yeah, I've found this whole discussion quite interesting.

Posted by: SJKevin at January 02, 2006 09:25 AM (yYYVZ)

297 The ONLY thing that voters care about it the Economy (their job, their family's jobs, their retirement, how much money they have). The republicans have been pushing tax cuts, social security reform. Democrats have been pushing ... uh ... a plan ... a plan that John Kerry's dog ate ...

Seriously, what recent issue suggests that the Democrats can be trusted to leave me alone, leave my money alone and leave business alone to make money? At least the Republicans, in principle and theory, are pro-economy.

Posted by: aj at January 02, 2006 12:04 PM (eXk/K)

298 Just wanted to point out use gdp as a gauge of defense spending is misleading. By 1960, 13% gdp, sure, but economy was one-sixth the size . During economic dowturn, the % of gdp consumed by defense expenditures of course grows.

More important is why and how, the context, of defense spending. I don't find any uses of american military might in postwar period explained as defense. Rather, what I see is the fist of empire.

And yes, there is a very good argument, not just "marxist" but also libertarian, accumulated capital made idle by lack of investment opportunity, is expended by preparation for war and war. The defense industry in this sense is crucial to capital accumulation. War is a solution to the crisis of investment.

Ike was right.

I'll mostly only use the narrow resources familiar to readers here. For ex." I'll refer to the business press rather than cite to Mother Jones, or whatever.

Because I "placate."

Posted by: ergastularius at January 02, 2006 12:49 PM (AuKcO)

299 Plus why would any sane person link to Mother Jones for anything other than further proof that the left is completely bugfuck?

Posted by: zetetic at January 02, 2006 12:52 PM (/Rdy2)

300 zetetic

letters, a few verbs separated by spaces; and a question mark.

you made a sentence.

Posted by: ergastularius at January 02, 2006 01:04 PM (AuKcO)

301 War is a solution to the crisis of investment.

Crisis of investment? What does that mean?

Look, if we're sitting on a wad of cash and need something to invest it in, I have tons of suggestions: biotech research, a cure for cancer, nanotechnology, alternative energy sources, space travel, a moon colony, etc. There is no lack of investment opportunity.

Posted by: SJKevin at January 02, 2006 01:07 PM (rGBYl)

302 also, you recoil, like you do when mommy says no more tit for you son, at the name of mother jones.

I've read your rightwing heroes. I know them. And I use them to shoot the policeman in your head.

Posted by: ergastularius at January 02, 2006 01:09 PM (AuKcO)

303 Rather, what I see is the fist of empire.

Like when Clinton tried to stop the starvation in Somalia? Or when Clinton tried to stop the genocide in Europe?

Posted by: SJKevin at January 02, 2006 01:10 PM (rGBYl)

304 There is a glut of capital "liquidity." Most economists agree., Some of course do not. Excess capital puts inflationary pressure on economies. War is an anodyne.

That's the basic arg.

Posted by: ergastularius at January 02, 2006 01:12 PM (AuKcO)

305 Can we get over this "clinton as other" bullshit? Clinton is Bush is Kerry is...

The "left" despises clinton.

Posted by: ergastularius at January 02, 2006 01:14 PM (AuKcO)

306 Just look at the the flood of m123, however measured.

awash in capital. so much, chinese central bankers are financing u.s. consumption. fucking crazy.

Posted by: ergastularius at January 02, 2006 01:18 PM (AuKcO)

307 I've read your rightwing heroes. I know them. And I use them to shoot the policeman in your head.

This is pure genuis, folks. Just sit back and watch how Ergastularius rolls. Like a f'n hammer.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at January 02, 2006 01:22 PM (w4Bx4)

308 "The "left" despises clinton."

I wouldn't go that far. We despise Republicans, Clinton we tolerated because at least he was articulate. However, it would be ridiculous to claim Clinton or any other DLC member is a Liberal.

Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 02, 2006 01:23 PM (6f65Q)

309 I've read your rightwing heroes. I know them. And I use them to shoot the policeman in your head.

I for one welcome our new Rush Limbaugh-packing lizard overlords.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at January 02, 2006 01:31 PM (w4Bx4)

310 letters, a few verbs separated by spaces; and a question mark.

Posted by: Paul at March 20, 2006 09:05 PM (zlyDz)

311

stuff

stuff™

™ss

stuff™

Posted by: Guy With Crap Life at June 14, 2010 11:15 AM (sjkX9)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
247kb generated in CPU 0.57, elapsed 1.7312 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.3822 seconds, 547 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.