Ann Coulter

[PhillyKev 0]

I guess that's another difference I have with you right wingers. I'm not attracted to anorexia. Before I knew who she was, I saw her on some show and my first thought was, "ughhh, what a scrawny chick".

[billvon 3,111]

>If Cheney gets paid even if Halliburton goes under, why would the
> awarding of contracts to said company affect him in any way? Your
> argument as presented implodes upon itself.

So you would be fine with a political bribe as long as the bribee could keep the money no matter what? After all, then there's no possible influence on the bribee. Right?

In the real world, if someone gives you money, you are more likely to treat them favorably. This aspect of politics has been known for a little over 4000 years now.

Halliburton is still giving Cheney money. He could refuse the money so as to completely remove the immediate conflict of interest, or designate it to a charity. He chooses not to. His administration then awards contracts to Halliburton outside the normal bid channels. It's very hard to pick a spin to keep that looking good - but the conservatives are definitely giving it their best shot. I think the more intelligent people out there will see through that spin.

From CBS News:

Cheney's Halliburton Ties Remain

WASHINGTON, Sept. 26, 2003
(AP) A report by the Congressional Research Service undermines Vice President Dick Cheney's denial of a continuing relationship with Halliburton Co., the energy company he once led, Sen. Frank Lautenberg said Thursday.

The report says a public official's unexercised stock options and deferred salary fall within the definition of "retained ties" to his former company.
------------------

>My condolences to your friends - their situation would not have been
> affected by the ban as I read it.

It is a total ban on all of those evil partial birth abortions. I'm sure the supporters of the bill saw those very pictures you describe - how could those poor dead babies ever be a good thing?

If, however, the decision is left up to the doctor and parents then I'd support a partial ban.

>I stand by my statement - were the average Joe to see the
>procedure, it would NOT be a rallying point for the left.

If the average Joe could see Iraqi children with their arms and faces blown off by american bombs, the righteousness of the war would not be a rallying point for the right. Yet right wingers claim that such images are sensationalistic and without journalistic merit. I guess it all depends on your viewpoint, eh?

>Other than from the right, nobody seems to have a feasible plan to
>deal with the situation.

Bill's Plan (TM) -

Bush goes to the UN tomorrow, gives a speech along these lines:

"Six months ago, we gave up on trying to get cooperation from the UN. We thought the situation was too dire to wait, that Hussein had chemical and biological weapons that posed an imminent threat to us. We were wrong. Had we continued in our efforts to get a resolution for the use of force, we would likely have gotten one, and today we would be talking about how the world could help the Iraqis to rebuild their country, instead of talking about how the US will rebuild Iraq.

I am here to ask for help. We need assistance in bringing Iraq back to its people. I am willing to place our troops under UN command, open reconstruction contracts to other countries and support the early stages of the reconstruction with money we've already allocated - provided other countries are willing to help out in kind."

With such a speech he'd do three things - strengthen the UN through an admission that they _had_ been on the right track, give France and Germany (and all the other countries we spurned) a politically possible way to join the effort, and use greed (i.e. the possibility of making money) to entice other countries to get involved. And within a year the US would be just one country of several rebuilding Iraq. It would not speed up the process, but it would spread the cost (both human and monetary) around.

I know - the idea of UN having any good idea is anathema to you, but never fear. The words "we were wrong" will never pass GWB's lips in the UN.

> UN troops? Gimme a break - only a MORON
> would believe such garbage. Public ignorance exploited once more.

Uh, there are no UN troops literally, just as there are no separate "coalition" troops. There are troops that other countries send to support the UN mission.

>I disagree because you can't start production overnight. By beginning
> exploration now you set a foundation so we won't have to rush
> exploration in the future, ie. do it now safer and cheaper.

If you proposed passive exploration only I'd agree with you. We can map out the area pretty extensively without affecting very much.

>The tactic used by the left on this issue was the 'ruin Alaskan
> wilderness', 'Exxon Valdez', 'squander our natural treasures'
> garbage. Did the caribou population increase or decrease after the
> pipeline was built?

So did the rat population. The issue isn't whether there will be more caribou or rats, or will oil rigs take up millions of acres. The issue is that people will come to build the rigs, tens of thousands of them, and their wastes will end up in an area that is unable to deal with them. The impact is small but certainly noticeable, especially in an environment as fragile as ANWR's. There will come a day when we have to live with that impact, but that day is not today, with the cheapest gas on the planet.

>Since you mentioned the US-Iraqi relationship in the 80's I'm
> surprised you made this statement. We gave the man some chem's
> back then. I wonder where they went - other than Kurdish villages.

They were used on Iranians, who we wanted dead.

>I stand by my statement. An increased education level - drastically
> increased - in this nation would be the demise of the democratic
> party in its current form.

It would also be the demise of many of the planks of the republican party. No intelligent person can believe that animals do not evolve, or that god talks to people in their heads and tells them what to do. Nor can they believe that coal power plant emissions do not harm people, or that education is not critical to the country's future. Very few intelligent people will become dittoheads.

So perhaps in your vision of the future, the current (primarily liberal) universities would be replaced by something 'better.' And the people who left them would be smarter or better informed or something. You might well have a stronger republican party, but it would changed almost unrecognizably. Anyone who suggested teaching creationism would be laughed out of the party. Environmentalism would not even be an issue to be haggled over - it would simply be the responsible thing to do. Talk shows that give people prepackaged conservative opinions would disappear in favor of PBS-like documentaries on science and social issues.

Or perhaps the democrats would take over these positions, in the endless bipartisan fight to be the most popular party - in which case the republicans would be on their way out. But to think that one party would "take over" in its current form if drastic improvements in intelligence and education came about is silly - it's like arguing whether the democrats or republicans would win the first election after World War III started. The US would be so unrecognizably changed that the question would be meaningless. It's like asking whether you will vote Democrat-Republican or Whig in the next election.

[TheAnvil 0]

Religious based? I think not.

My own opinion on the issue is complex and pisses off pretty much everyone - liberals, conservatives, and my fellow Catholics. I base my opposition to early abortions (early referring to time elapsed in pregnancy) on faith. I base my opposition to mid and late term abortions of any sort on fact.

Because of the above, I do not believe in outlawing abortions early in the pregnancy because that would be imposing my faith upon others. I DO believe in legally limiting abortions after a certain (very very subjective) point to only cases in which the health of either the mother or a twin/triplet/quadruplet/you-get-the-idea-et is in danger.

I also disagree that the description itself of any medical procedure is disgusting in nature. If you support an issue you should be able to describe it to those who disagree with you. You don't have to go into every gory detail - just a basic description would do. A video - even better. I've read and seen the procedure and will happily show it or describe it and defend my views. Democrats cannot say the same - a generalization, but I believe a valid one.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I DO believe in legally limiting abortions after a certain (very very subjective) point to only cases in which the health of either the mother or a twin/triplet/quadruplet/you-get-the-idea-et is in danger.

No problem with that, either. Nor do most democrats. But that's NOT what the republicans pushed through.

[TheAnvil 0]

I can think of no other place where Whig, Halliburton, oil mapping, coal power plants, and United Nations all come into play logically. Dropzone.com is truly an open and interesting forum.

Quote

So you would be fine with a political bribe as long as the bribee could keep the money no matter what? After all, then there's no possible influence on the bribee. Right?

How is this a political bribe? If Jack Welch ran for Governor, should he give up his retirement check and that state never buy anything from GE? If any retiree from any company goes into public office, should they give up their pension? Are all retirees with pensions ineligible for public service? Absolutely not. I believe most people holding office actually have all of their investments in some sort of blind trust, truth be told.

I know a bit about the government contracting process. POM, PPBE, ADM, CPP, CPD, MNS, MAA, AoA, LRIP, FRP, IOT&E, and the entire alphabet/jargon soup of it are quite familiar to me. So do the folks trying to smear Cheney with this Halliburton garbage. They know better. The people cutting the contracts are not appointees - they are career civil servants for the most part. This Halliburton smear is a ridiculous exploitation of public ignorance. Nothing more.

Quote

In the real world, if someone gives you money, you are more likely to treat them favorably. This aspect of politics has been known for a little over 4000 years now.

And how is that relevant here? The company was contracted for LOGCAP under the Clinton administration! Did Cheney campaign for Clinton/Gore? Or is this some sort of admission that the relaxed technology transfer restrictions under the Clintonista Administration WERE due to the excessive campaign contributions made by Johnny Huang on behalf of the Chinese government? If so I'd agree with you on that point, but think it misplaced in this discussion.

Quote

Halliburton is still giving Cheney money. He could refuse the money so as to completely remove the immediate conflict of interest, or designate it to a charity. He chooses not to. His administration then awards contracts to Halliburton outside the normal bid channels.

So we should have put our invasion timetable on FED-BIZ-OPS? Dear God man! Get hold of yourself!

First the left bitches about how we didn't have full sewer/power/water services restored in Basra within hours of taking over. Then they bitch about not going through the regular bidding process for contracting out such services. Do you REALLY expect me to give these people ANY credibility?

Quote

It's very hard to pick a spin to keep that looking good - but the conservatives are definitely giving it their best shot. I think the more intelligent people out there will see through that spin.

No not at all. A passing familiarity with government contracting, knowedge of Halliburton's history with LOGCAP, and a bit of common sense on the part of the general public make any spin unnecessary.

Quote

If the average Joe could see Iraqi children with their arms and faces blown off by american bombs, the righteousness of the war would not be a rallying point for the right. Yet right wingers claim that such images are sensationalistic and without journalistic merit. I guess it all depends on your viewpoint, eh?

Name one major conflict in which civilian casualties were not incurred. It's kind of like finding one instance where prohibition has worked. Sad, yes? Absolute certainty in war, yes. Minimized in this instance better than any other conflict in recent history - yes.

Quote

Bill's Plan (TM) -

Bush goes to the UN tomorrow, gives a speech along these lines:

"Six months ago, we gave up on trying to get cooperation from the UN. We thought the situation was too dire to wait, that Hussein had chemical and biological weapons that posed an imminent threat to us. We were wrong. Had we continued in our efforts to get a resolution for the use of force, we would likely have gotten one, and today we would be talking about how the world could help the Iraqis to rebuild their country, instead of talking about how the US will rebuild Iraq.

I am here to ask for help. We need assistance in bringing Iraq back to its people. I am willing to place our troops under UN command, open reconstruction contracts to other countries and support the early stages of the reconstruction with money we've already allocated - provided other countries are willing to help out in kind."

With such a speech he'd do three things - strengthen the UN through an admission that they _had_ been on the right track, give France and Germany (and all the other countries we spurned) a politically possible way to join the effort, and use greed (i.e. the possibility of making money) to entice other countries to get involved. And within a year the US would be just one country of several rebuilding Iraq. It would not speed up the process, but it would spread the cost (both human and monetary) around.

I know - the idea of UN having any good idea is anathema to you, but never fear. The words "we were wrong" will never pass GWB's lips in the UN.

No the words never will. Given the UN's stellar[sic] track record, I don't want them managing things over there. Spanish, Italian, British, Polish, South Korean, and Japanese personnel have been killed in the 'non-coalition' over in Iraq right now. It's NOT an entirely US effort.

France should be pissed off at us if the Iraqi government's outstanding debt to them is not honored at least partially. Germany and Russia as well.

I'm all for opening up the contracts over there to international competition. Non-sequitur here, but related to international competition, I'm all for getting rid of Bush's stupid steel tariffs too.

Quote

Uh, there are no UN troops literally, just as there are no separate "coalition" troops. There are troops that other countries send to support the UN mission.

And all US troops would be replaced by such troops as Kucinich dreams? In 90 days such a force could be mobilized and put in place? I think not.

Quote

If you proposed passive exploration only I'd agree with you. We can map out the area pretty extensively without affecting very much.

Only a small amount of land was to be opened for exploration - not the whole area. I don't like the Energy Bill as written but do think this a critical part of it.

Quote

So did the rat population. The issue isn't whether there will be more caribou or rats, or will oil rigs take up millions of acres. The issue is that people will come to build the rigs, tens of thousands of them, and their wastes will end up in an area that is unable to deal with them. The impact is small but certainly noticeable, especially in an environment as fragile as ANWR's. There will come a day when we have to live with that impact, but that day is not today, with the cheapest gas on the planet.

Perhaps, but given the low level of exploration proposed and the scrutiny that would be placed on any drilling project undertaken, I doubt it. Setting a base infrastructure early has always been cheaper in the long run.

Quote

They were used on Iranians, who we wanted dead.

True. So the left's insinuations about former US support of Hussein being a damning thing for Republican foreign policy are null-and-void by your own admission.

Quote

>I stand by my statement. An increased education level - drastically
> increased - in this nation would be the demise of the democratic
> party in its current form.

It would also be the demise of many of the planks of the republican party. No intelligent person can believe that animals do not evolve, or that god talks to people in their heads and tells them what to do. Nor can they believe that coal power plant emissions do not harm people, or that education is not critical to the country's future.

These are planks of the Republican Party? Only in the dreams of the left.

Quote

So perhaps in your vision of the future, the current (primarily liberal) universities would be replaced by something 'better.'

We have the finest graduate education system in the world in my opinion. It is the lack of standards at the pre-collegiate stages of our system that most contributes to public ignorance. That and the erosion of admission standards to undergraduate schools. It is the dominance of left -wingers in our universities' liberal arts departments that I find worrisome.

Interesting predictions. Perhaps true. I maintain that a populace with an increased level of education would either destroy the democratic party or force it to drastically change almost all of its positions.

Edited for spelling error.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[billvon 3,111]

>How is this a political bribe? If Jack Welch ran for Governor, should
> he give up his retirement check and that state never buy anything
> from GE?

No; if Cheney wanted to buy an oil rig from Halliburton, and got charged the usual price, I'd have no problem with that. If Jack Welch got hundreds of thousands from GE in "deferred insured salary" and GE then ended up getting awarded several contracts out of the governor's office outside the usual bid system? Even though they involved electricity, which supposedly GE is good at? Then yes, there would be a problem.

>No not at all. A passing familiarity with government contracting,
> knowedge of Halliburton's history with LOGCAP, and a bit of common
> sense on the part of the general public make any spin unnecessary.

Ah yes. Any halfway intelligent person can see that Halliburton's million dollar contracts in Iraq have nothing to do with Cheney being in office, whereas the Occidental Petroleum issue is damning to Gore. Of course! Different rules apply to conservatives, since liberals are all so dumb.

>Name one major conflict in which civilian casualties were not incurred.

None; I made no claim that there could or should not be civilian casualties in a war. Yet the right is whining incessantly about how the media makes the war "seem bad" when so much good stuff is going on over there. They make it sound like showing pictures of children with their faces blown off is somehow distorting the news - yet you advocate showing people fetus fragments to convince them of the rightness of your position on partial birth abortions.

Take the same angle on abortion. Why do opponents always show pictures of dead babies? Why don't they show the pictures of the family with the two children they can afford to raise, sending one to Georgia Tech and the other to a good state school? Or the pictures of the family with seven kids, who can't afford even basic health care? Why is the right interested only in portraying a distorted, sensationalistic, one-sided picture of the abortion issue to push their agenda?

>No the words never will. Given the UN's stellar[sic] track record, I
> don't want them managing things over there.

Then we will, and just about all the caskets will contain American soldiers. That's the price you pay for your plan. I hope it's worth it.

>True. So the left's insinuations about former US support of Hussein
> being a damning thing for Republican foreign policy are null-and
>-void by your own admission.

Uh, no. They are indeed a damning thing for a former republican president's foreign policy, and make our claims that "anyone who supports terror is evil" laughable. We did; we will again. In the future another US envoy will shake hands with an evil despot and promise him support, and we will arm terrorists to do our killing for us. Unless, of course, we learn from history, something we sometimes resist doing.

>These are planks of the Republican Party? Only in the dreams of the left.


---------------------------------------------
"If the conservative majority on the Kansas school board prevails as expected, it will mark the most decisive victory in recent years for the creationist movement: Christians who read the book of Genesis literally and believe that God created human beings and animals fully formed."
http://www.dadi.org/creation.htm

-------------------------------------------------

Republicans Look To Defeat Power Plant "Clean Air" Bill
Reuters
06/28/2002

. . .

The panel voted 10-9 largely along party lines to send to the full Senate the "Clean Power Act," which also sets strict caps on three other pollutants spewed by many U.S. utilities.

The pollutants from electricity generating plants have been linked to asthma attacks and other respiratory illnesses.

----------------------------------------------------------------

>We have the finest graduate education system in the world in my
> opinion. It is the lack of standards at the pre-collegiate stages of
> our system that most contributes to public ignorance. That and the
> erosion of admission standards to undergraduate schools. It is the
> dominance of left -wingers in our universities' liberal arts
> departments that I find worrisome.

Hmm. Yet these very departments would produce new academics with the opposite political view? Interesting theory.

BTW liberalism (in its dictionary definition) has been running rampant at MIT during the time I've been involved with it (some 20 years now) - and they have a token liberal arts department at best.

>Interesting predictions. Perhaps true. I maintain that a populace with
> an increased level of education would either destroy the democratic
> party or force it to drastically change almost all of its positions.

Exactly the same thing would happen to the republican party - it would change or die.

[sducoach 0]

Same "sort" of sources?

Or just "Some" sort of sources?

Got to love it!

Blues,

J.E.

James 4:8

[captainpooby 0]

Quote

I have read all of her books, seeing as I am just about as far right as she is, and loved em. Even if you totally disagree with her, you would at least find them very humerous!

I'm glad there are good looking blondes getting into politics and making a name for us females in the spectrum.

I agree, that even if you don't understand where she is coming from, she does offer numerous sources to back her info. Something the left never does!

The left deals in feelings. The right deals in reality.
Paige, you are woman after my own heart!

[TheAnvil 0]

Quote

No; if Cheney wanted to buy an oil rig from Halliburton, and got charged the usual price, I'd have no problem with that. If Jack Welch got hundreds of thousands from GE in "deferred insured salary" and GE then ended up getting awarded several contracts out of the governor's office outside the usual bid system? Even though they involved electricity, which supposedly GE is good at? Then yes, there would be a problem.

The no-bid contract awarded Halliburton for the LOGCAP deal in the Balkans was outside the normal bidding process. Did that have something to do with the close Clinton-Cheney relationship or because Halliburton was the corporation best suited/situated for the job?

Like Presidents, Governors normally don't have a role in the awarding of contracts - it's career civil servants that do such things.

Quote

Ah yes. Any halfway intelligent person can see that Halliburton's million dollar contracts in Iraq have nothing to do with Cheney being in office, whereas the Occidental Petroleum issue is damning to Gore. Of course! Different rules apply to conservatives, since liberals are all so dumb.

When the hell did Occidental Petroleum come into this? Do you really want me to compare and contrast the two? I think that Hammer dude from Occidental once said something about Gore or his Dad - I forget which one - being in his pocket or something. I'd honestly have to look up some stuff on Occidental. All I remember is Gore getting some cash from leasing some mineral rights or something of the sort. I don't recall that being a major point in 2000 or '96, but I could just be drawing a blank.

Quote

None; I made no claim that there could or should not be civilian casualties in a war. Yet the right is whining incessantly about how the media makes the war "seem bad" when so much good stuff is going on over there. They make it sound like showing pictures of children with their faces blown off is somehow distorting the news - yet you advocate showing people fetus fragments to convince them of the rightness of your position on partial birth abortions.

I do advocate such viewings. Knowing a few folks over in Iraq right now, I can state unequivocally that what I've seen in the news over here really doesn't reflect what's in the mail I'm receiving. Lot's of good going on over there and not a lot of reporting on that. The last bomb dropped that incurred civilian casualties was when, exactly?

Quote

Take the same angle on abortion. Why do opponents always show pictures of dead babies? Why don't they show the pictures of the family with the two children they can afford to raise, sending one to Georgia Tech and the other to a good state school?

GT is not a good school? How dare you insult my alma mater? Insulting the Jackets. Weak Bill....very very weak...and so soon after our thumping by UGA... GO JACKETS!!!!!!!

Quote

Or the pictures of the family with seven kids, who can't afford even basic health care? Why is the right interested only in portraying a distorted, sensationalistic, one-sided picture of the abortion issue to push their agenda?

Because we know about adoption and birth control methods and have seen said pictures, sonograms, the nice new so-called 4D sonograms, and many of us are quite religious.

Quote

>No the words never will. Given the UN's stellar[sic] track record, I
> don't want them managing things over there.

Then we will, and just about all the caskets will contain American soldiers. That's the price you pay for your plan. I hope it's worth it.

Not my plan, but I don't want the UN running things at this point, nonetheless. The Iraq centered foreign policy the Administration pursued is not one I would have chosen myself, given my knowledge of the situation as it progressed from 2000. We're there now - and I believe we're more or less taking the right path now that we're there. The terrorists WANT the US out and the appeasement party is doing exactly what they desire.

Quote

>True. So the left's insinuations about former US >support of Hussein being a damning thing for >Republican foreign policy are null-and-void by your >own admission.

Uh, no. They are indeed a damning thing for a former republican president's foreign policy, and make our claims that "anyone who supports terror is evil" laughable. We did; we will again. In the future another US envoy will shake hands with an evil despot and promise him support, and we will arm terrorists to do our killing for us. Unless, of course, we learn from history, something we sometimes resist doing.

OK. I'll buy part of that. I too adhere to the theory that many of today's problems were created by US (and Soviet) actions during the Cold War. Support the US, we'll give you $$, be a dictator/royal SOB but support us, you get US $$. Look at how US/Soviet machinations screwed up many sections of Africa. Disgusting. Now the world is left to deal with the mess.

Now damning Reagan's foreign policy for that...I disagree. You're old enough to remember the Iranian hostage crisis AND the Cold War. Hindsight is bliss, Bill. I hope we did learn our lesson from doing that.

Quotes are bugging me. You present two articles. Nice. Neither changes my mind.

Back to quotes.

Quote

Hmm. Yet these very departments would produce new academics with the opposite political view? Interesting theory.

Folks with the opposite political view have not been hired because of those views - they instead work at think tanks.

Quote

BTW liberalism (in its dictionary definition) has been running rampant at MIT during the time I've been involved with it (some 20 years now) - and they have a token liberal arts department at best.

That's because the Massachussetts Institute of Trucking is located in the state that elected Ted Kennedy! OK, that was low. Sorry. Damned good engineers and scientists come from there, I admit it.

Quote

>Interesting predictions. Perhaps true. I maintain that a populace with
> an increased level of education would either destroy the democratic
> party or force it to drastically change almost all of its positions.

Exactly the same thing would happen to the republican party - it would change or die.

Agreed, but not to the extent of the opposing party.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

The left deals in feelings. The right deals in reality.
Paige, you are woman after my own heart!

Tell us more about the reality of the WMDs that would be found within a few hours of taking Iraq. Tell us about the reality of the claims in Bush's State of the Union speech. If that's the sort of reality the right deals in, I'm not impressed.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[captainpooby 0]

Quote

Quote

The left deals in feelings. The right deals in reality.
Paige, you are woman after my own heart!

Tell us more about the reality of the WMDs that would be found within a few hours of taking Iraq. Tell us about the reality of the claims in Bush's State of the Union speech. If that's the sort of reality the right deals in, I'm not impressed.

You dont suppose that while the left was screaming for us to wait for the UN to do its job and Saddam was violating resolution after resolution that maybe he hid some stuff?
Imagine if I'm the cops and I phone six months before I execute a warrant on your house.
We went in with the best intel we had. The UN agreed that Iraq had WMD or they wouldnt have been trying to put inspectors in all those years.
Oh look. They did bury things in the sand!

http://www.newsmax.com/images/headlines/mig25a.jpg

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I'm not attracted to anorexia. Before I knew who she was, I saw her on some show and my first thought was, "ughhh, what a scrawny chick".

Replace the words anorexia or scrawny with 'fat' and hear the flames of insensitivity cat calling and screaming. But here there is silence. What a double standard.

Either way it's not cool to insult someone's self image.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[PhillyKev 0]

Ummm...lighten up. It was in response to someone's description of a celebrity as hot. And no, I'm not attracted to fat women either. So what? There's something wrong with having likes or dislikes as to what you're physically attracted to?

[rehmwa 2]

Not an issue, just noting how it's acceptable in modern society to slam the skinny but you'd get flamed if you slammed someone fat - even though it's the same comment. It's all part of the PC patrol.

Your post just happened to trip that wire, could've been anybody. I'm actually feeling pretty light here already.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

The left deals in feelings. The right deals in reality.
Paige, you are woman after my own heart!

Tell us more about the reality of the WMDs that would be found within a few hours of taking Iraq. Tell us about the reality of the claims in Bush's State of the Union speech. If that's the sort of reality the right deals in, I'm not impressed.

***

We could ask all the members of Congress who voted to go to war. OOPPPS.......Some of them were Democrats weren't they? I like REALITY, don't you?

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The left deals in feelings. The right deals in reality.
Paige, you are woman after my own heart!

Tell us more about the reality of the WMDs that would be found within a few hours of taking Iraq. Tell us about the reality of the claims in Bush's State of the Union speech. If that's the sort of reality the right deals in, I'm not impressed.

***

We could ask all the members of Congress who voted to go to war. OOPPPS.......Some of them were Democrats weren't they? I like REALITY, don't you?

Yes I do. And just for the record, I don't support the Democrats either.

Hard to know which is better - a bunch of losers or an evil cabal.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,111]

> You dont suppose that while the left was screaming for us to wait for
> the UN to do its job and Saddam was violating resolution after
> resolution that maybe he hid some stuff?

Ah yes, the old "he must have massive stockpiles of weapons we can't find yet" argument. Heck, the longer we don't find them, the better he must have hid them and the more evil he must be! Thank god most of the world doesn't use logic like that.

In any case, that's not what happened. Bush actually found and eliminated all the WMD's, thus saving the world. Didn't you get that memo?

----------------------------------------------------------

Bush drops in on N.J., touts record, raises $1M
AP 12/02/03

. . .
Not breaking any ground, Bush highlighted the accomplishments of his administration, saying he had eliminated the terror threat from Afghanistan and weapons of mass destruction from Iraq and ensured that Medicare will remain solvent.

http://www.app.com/app/story/0,21625,863489,00.html

[Gravitymaster 0]

***Yes I do. And just for the record, I don't support the Democrats either.

Hard to know which is better - a bunch of losers or an evil cabal.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

***Yes I do. And just for the record, I don't support the Democrats either.

Hard to know which is better - a bunch of losers or an evil cabal.

Will have to take your word on that statement. However I can't seem to find where you've criticized the Dems very often. I can, however find volumes of criticisms of Reps.

[TheAnvil 0]

They manage to filibuster quite well.....and Dean did such a smashing job of making a fool of himself with Chris Matthews the other day. I wonder if he realizes the Soviet Union is no more?

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!