Xtremehkr

NeoCons hiding behind Libertarianism while making childish attacks on "leftists"...

you bring up an interesting point...I've noticed a ton of neocons posting who vehemently insist they are "libertarian" instead of republican. Yet they consistently ape every piece of Rove's propaganda, follow the repub's platform almost to a tee, and consistently bash anyone who dares criticize the Bush administration, while never once offering any reason why one would believe they were anything BUT a neocon.

Perhaps its because the original "republican" party ideals have morphed so greatly that there isn't a party by that name in existence any longer. Perhaps its because they don't want to actually admit that they are part of Bush's party. I don't know, but it is kind of stupid that some people can't even admit to themselves what they are.

Miccosukee

Your bold type is ambiguous, and leads people to believe that I said something that I did not.

I didn't change the meaning of your words. Anyway, Farkers can scroll up to see the rest of your blather.

PS: I don't care if you're ever convinced....you are perhaps the most overwhelmingly negative person I've ever seen on these boards.

So? Another opinion. Why would I care? Emotion based people are of no concern to me. You trot out negative. We all know that all sides are equally negative. To paint me a more so, is simply part of your partisan outlook.

I disagree with you, thus I am negative. Kerry can say terrible things about Bush, and Bush responds. Bush is negative, your man is not.

All that you do in your attempt to insult, is prove to me that I am in opposition to you. That's fine with me.

Go yell 'meany!' at someone who cares what you think about them on an emotional level, for I do not.

21-7-b

so, i will infer, that if what you have just posted is your entire knowledge on the subject, that you know next to nothing about it

is that fair?

The way you go about things is always fair, LOL.

Let me break this down simply for you:

Semantics, ie your facts. Your facts can prove a possible connection, which is obvious to see, but those fact don't make it truth. See, I could go over all of the facts all day and night with you, but all it does is waste time, since none of that facts prove anything conclusively, only tenuously.

You think you're making some sort of point about the depth of my knowledge, but what you seem to be missing is that the depth of the facts you have do nothing to prove anything conclusively.

In the end, your standards are pretty low, and you're going to reach out and make the connection that fits your philosophy. It just so happens your facts fit my philosophy too, but unlike you, I'm gonna go the "high road" as it were and not decide with half of the story.

I don't know if it's sad, interesting, or both, but I totally understand what you're saying, but you continue to miss this one simple reality:

I'm not going to say something is true if I can't prove it beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt.

Anyway, I gotta go. Maybe later.

Miccosukee:
Damn, but you're a little ray of sunshine, aren't you? Please tell us some more about how voting for Aaron Russo is going to make it all better. I'm all ears.

Miccosukee

So you are voting for Kerry? It sure doesn't sound like it.......

Miccosukee

Answer me this, no opinion involved...

How could an intelligent person refuse to understand Kerry's $87B vote?

Why do you find fault with his position, and not Bush's?

pontechango writes:

Denying them body armor? He voted to pay for it, and some simple-minded tools prefer to blame him.

Actually, he voted against it.

And Bush threatened to veto it if it included health care for reservists. Glad to see that Bush cares so much about our troops.

Not your best counter punch. The problem with the funding for health care for the *families* of reservists, (reservists on active duty get free health care automatically) was that it would cost additional billions above and beyond what the bill was already going to cost.

In fact Kerry voted against the bill that had the funding for body armor in it because it also provided money in the form of foreign aide to Iraq. His thinking, and that of Congressional Democrats at the time was that Iraq would soon have billions in oil revenue coming in and they could afford to pay their own way.

Problem of course with stratling Iraq with a lot of war debt is that they still owe billions to France and Russia, assuming they still plan to pay that money back now. A country under a ton of debt tends to fall to shiat quickly. The Bush administration hoped that by giving the new government some "start up" money they could make things more stable more quickly.

Jury is still out on whether it will work.

Mr. Kerry biggest problem from a Defense issue perspective is that he seemingly wants the Army and other branches to make do with antique weaponry and equipment, based upon his *long* voting record of never finding a new weapons system he ever liked. Yet he also now wants to add 40,000 additional troops to the active duty rosters. While I applaud that (well over due in my opinion...as is a draft), I'm curious as to what they are suppose to use for weapons...muskets?

--h

2004-08-15 09:16:17 PM mikenola
Cause everyone knows, it's the job of the Federal Govt to find you a job.

They don't have time. They're busy cheering American companies and giving them tax breaks for making certain everybody in India and Mexico has a job. Formerly maybe your job.

Miccosukee

So? Another opinion. Why would I care? Emotion based people are of no concern to me.

Spock, is that you? Word to the wise: All humans are "emotion-based". Emotion is essential for reasoning.

True. But then again, when it comes to determining who should receive a medal and for what, I'll take the opinion of the Department of Defense over that of Karl Rove, thanks.

I too, take the word of the DoD, over that of Rove. I take the word of over 200 swift vets who knew the man over the DoD. Unfortunately, my opinion is based on what he did to his fellow soldiers when he came back. He admitted that he participated in war crimes, making him a war criminal in his own words, and then painted the entire armed services with the same brush. He then ran for office.

That makes him dishonorable, calling innocent draftees criminals of his own ilk, and then running for office as being above all of the muck.

He's still a selfish, dishonorable, opportunist. Democrats don't mind, he's their opportunist. Love and kisses to him, the big war hero who hung out with people who called draftees babykillers and spit on them, partially because of what he said about them. They did not spit on Kerry, though. He admitted to his war crimes.

hdhale

Not your best counter punch. The problem with the funding for health care for the *families* of reservists, (reservists on active duty get free health care automatically) was that it would cost additional billions above and beyond what the bill was already going to cost.

I'm sure we could find the money somewhere.

Miccosukee:

Your party has put themselves into the position of demoralizer, to benefit from failure overseas. You can say that you don't cheer, but every death benefits you, because you have put yourselves into that position.

it must be interesting to have a mind that works that way. First, you assign me to a party. Next you assume that I believe that I, or some group I affiliate myself with, would somehow benefit from "failure overseas". I can say that I don't cheer because I don't cheer. And don't tell me I want soldiers to die when I have an in-law farking over there right now, you miserable corksucker. I want him, and them, to come home. People like you, on the other hand, would like to see him come home draped in an American flag so you can use it in some emotional tribute to advance your bullshiat agendas.

Stings, don't it?

2004-08-16 11:17:55 AM Miccosukee

Miccosukee, do you know *anything* about Clinton's military? it was the most advanced army in the history of the world.

Yes, a whole bunch. It was never 'Clinton's military'. Just ask them. It was the most advanced army in the history of the world before he took office, and then it was his whipping boy during his term.

The best way that you can gauge the military is by asking them. No to Clinton, no to Gore, no to Kerry.

Yes to running out of cruise missles, blowing up important things like tents.

Besides, why would you care if the military was great under Clinton? Oh, I forgot, the military suddenly matters again to the leftists, since General Kerry 'reported for duty'.

ahahaAHAHAHahahaAHahaha! You people aren't convincing anyone that isn't already brainwashed.

nope, just trying to prove in tandem, how you were wrong, and your hypocracy. thanks for helping me prove me point. you agreed Clinton had a great army. it wasnt his? so is this army not Bush's then? guess we cant give him credit for his "success" in Iraq, now can we?

Kerry voted for the $87B if it came out of Bush's tax cuts. It is consistent with his "pay as you go" values. Bush threatened to veto that version.

Kerry had a version? Since he has not proposed one piece of legislation in the entire time that he has been in the Senate. So, it must have been an invisible version, since Kerry is such a leader.

A Senator's job is to propose and vote on legislation. Kerry has not proposed one piece of legislation in his entire Senate career, and has missed 2/3rds of the votes during his campaign.

Some leader he is. He has his priorities.

2004-08-16 12:15:16 PM Miccosukee

But you admit you are voting for Kerry, no???

fish are nice.

hdhale

Mr. Kerry biggest problem from a Defense issue perspective is that he seemingly wants the Army and other branches to make do with antique weaponry and equipment, based upon his *long* voting record of never finding a new weapons system he ever liked

That's funny because Dick Cheney has a similar record. Your not even attempting to learn the truth. You're just posting Republican dogma. It's pathetic and it's boring.

nope, just trying to prove in tandem, how you were wrong, and your hypocracy. thanks for helping me prove me point. you agreed Clinton had a great army. it wasnt his? so is this army not Bush's then?

I never said that this was Bush's 'army'. Thus, calling me a hypocrite is proof that you don't pay attention. It is the people's army. You're the one who was so outragious as to call it one man's army.

Miccosukee,

there is a problem with your statement, those swiftboat veterans didn't know Kerry. When they say "served with" they mean there were in the same war.

It's like asking the other 10,000 McDonalds managers what you think of a manager of the Grand Rapids McDonalds. Who just happened to tell headquarters that every manager was pissing in the french fry frier.

Yes, everyone that was on the actual boat with him is supporting him.

Are you gonna spin this too?

Miccosukee, but Clinton stripped the military right? which you admitted he had a good one. so either the man in charge has direct influence over the military or he doesnt...hence, "his" army. Did Clinton strip it or not? that was your original point. if no one can have direct influence over the military, like you said, then Clinton couldnt have stripped it. so which is it? or is this line of talk too boring to you to stay on topic? maybe I should just allow to continue your character assassination of Kerry.

pontechango writes:

Evolution ---> Social Darwinism

False. Evolutionary biology has come a long way since the 1800's.

Not false. One of the many outcomes of evolutionary theory was that it was incorrectly applied to political science.

And I could more cogently argue that
Laissez-Faire Libertarianism --> Social Darwinism

Except that the roots of Laissez-Faire Libertarianism reach back into the 1700s, long before Social Darwinism was alive as a concept. Indeed, some would argue that Laissez-Faire Libertarianism strongly influenced the American Revolution.

No, as a rule, when people try to apply scientific methods to human behavior, they are sadly disappointed with the results. Any sociologist will tell you that merely studying humans is part science, part art.

--h

To sum it all up:

http://www.jibjab.com

2004-08-16 11:04:39 AM Miccosukee

ok i re- read your post, glad to see your vote won't be for Bush.....

pontechango writes:

I'm sure we could find the money somewhere.

What does the fact that a British charitable organization *thinks* there might be something fishy going on without any facts to back it up have to do with anything?

Nice attempt to deflect, but there's nothing there, sorry.

--h

2004-08-16 11:04:39 AM Miccosukee

and I re-read the rest of your posts, and you are an idiot.

PacMan,

Hyernal is a weed in the lawn of political discourse.
He is a turd in the punch bowl of political discourse.
He is the ricin in the baby food jar of political discourse.
He is the Mike Tyson mouth munching on the ear of political discourse.

Hyernal has an advanced case of political rabies.

He is the Cujo of political discourse.

hdhale

Not false. One of the many outcomes of evolutionary theory was that it was incorrectly applied to political science.

It is false. It wasn't good evolutionary theory, Social Darwinism is crappy pseudoscience like Phrenology. It's a bogus anology, not an application of the science. And your reasoning is extremely weak. You could just as easily argue that Christianity is garbage because it caused the massacres of the Crusades. I don't buy into either argument.


Except that the roots of Laissez-Faire Libertarianism reach back into the 1700s, long before Social Darwinism was alive as a concept.

How the hell does that disprove the notion Social Darwinism came from Laissez-Faire Libertarianism? Are you dyslexic or something?


No, as a rule, when people try to apply scientific methods to human behavior, they are sadly disappointed with the results.

Could you please render your platitudes a little more trite? Thanks.

haha.. political rabies

Miccosukee

Kerry had a version?

Like I said, you're being intentionally obtuse. It's not that you don't get it, you refuse to. Then you try to change the subject to "bills sponsored" b/c you have no good answer.

Both Kerry and Bush opposed different versions of the bill. Yet you blame Kerry and ignore Bush. You also take the most negative possible interpretation of it, which also happens to be a GOP talking point. When pressed on it, you change the subject to a different GOP talking point.

I'll ask again, just so you can embarass yourself some more...

How can an intelligent person fail to understand Kerry's position on the $87B?

No, one side nominates a man who stabbed them in the back during Vietnam, again in Iraq, and now wants to command them.

No, they cheer the body count, and undermine the war effort by saying stupid things, like setting a date to pull out (Dear Terrorists: Hold out until such-and-such a date!), and saying to the world that the world is going to help out more, as if the world actually listens to Kerry anyway.

Kerry hardly "stabbed them in the back." Strikes me that he saw what was happening and spoke up. What a horrible person. How anti-American!!! Better he should stay silent and let others pay the price and die in a needless war.

There is a difference between supporting the troops and protesting the war.

And NO ONE cheers the body count. It's just a constant reminder that such actions have consequences, and that they are consequences that shouldn't be taken lightly. Bush is clearly in over his head, and America and Americans are paying the price.

If Americans don't elect new leadership in November, the rest of the world will turn our backs on you a little more, and you will begin to find yourselves marginalized.

edverb,

you make up so much shiat for political firebombing it's laughable. He said Mission Accomplished my ass. Show me where Bush said Mission Accomplished, bombastic boy.

A very
REVEALING
graphic



"oh look! georgie boy's bar has gone completely LIMP!"

For all the Lefties complaining that the Swift boaters against Kerry shouldn't matter:

Imagine that in 2000, Cheney was running for President based on how successfully he ran Haliburton. Now imagine that 254 Haliburton stockholders signed a letter saying he did NOT have good leadership, compared to a dozen stockholders that didn't.

Why not let France solve all the world problems? Surly they would be up to it...wouldn't they?

Kerrykabob:

I got the Kerry campaigns latest email. Didnt mention Nam at all.

Hey Corporate Mofo,

   How much did you pay for that link?

GregoryD - You couldn't be more wrong about that. It's not like Kerry performed his missions in issolation. They were group efforts involving more than one boat. More than 250 Swift boat veterans are on the record questioning Kerry's fitness to serve as Commander-in-Chief. They all knew him. It's a very small circle of individuals that were involved in swift boats. And that list includes his entire chain of command -- every single officer Kerry served under in Vietnam. Also, here's someone that did serve on his boat:



"My name is Steve Gardner. I served in 1966 and 1967 on my first tour of duty in Vietnam on Swift boats, and I did my second tour in '68 and '69, involved with John Kerry in the last 2 1/2 months of my tour. The John Kerry that I know is not the John Kerry that everybody else is portraying. I served alongside him and behind him, five feet away from him in a gun tub, and watched as he made indecisive moves with our boat, put our boats in jeopardy, put our crews in jeopardy... if a man like that can't handle that 6-man crew boat, how can you expect him to be our Commander-in-Chief?"

-- Steven Gardner

Ask yourself a question: If Kerry is so confident in his war record, then why won't he release his farking records????

hdhale

Nice attempt to deflect, but there's nothing there, sorry.

It wasn't a deflection. It shot to the core of Kerry's vote against the $87 billion. He wanted congressional oversight and accountabillity of the funds. He wasn't going to write Bush a blank check. Your just mouthing inane canards. You and Mikosuckee are almost as good as Milly-Vanilli.

See ya later, PacMan. Bon bannage!

Hey, could somebody please post a sfw transcript of the link?

This picture is to catch a scroller's attention:


Maher: "Well, listen, I certainly had planned to talk about the Internet, and I want to do that, however, a brief apology. Last week I called George Bush a bad name. I compared him to a bag of manure -- I did. I said the only difference between George Bush and a bag of manure is the bag."
Bill Engvall, comedian: "Im still trying to figure out what the bad name was."
Maher: "Im sorry, I should have said that hes a lying bag of manure after what he did today with the Kyoto protocol and global warming. This guy, okay, we dont have to talk about it, but I just had to get it off my chest. I mean, he never ceases to disappoint me in what a lying sack of [bleep] shiat he is."
Steven Weber, star of the NBC sit-com The Weber Show: "But during the election, what was your -- my favorite name for him was one that you coined, which was Drinky McDumb Ass."
Maher:: "Thank you very much."
Weber: "It was fantastic."
Maher: "Drinking McDumb Ass, yes, alright."
Engvall: "Feel better now?"
Maher: "I do. I got that off my chest -- while I can still breathe."

"Stop saying we've turned the corner. If we've turned the corner, then why are you still in office?" - Bill Maher.

/not that important, just thought it was funny.

Kerry's war records are on his campaign website.

Including letters awarding medals, signed by President Nixon.

Kerrykabob,

That isn't fair and you know it.

Imagine if Cheney exposed that 254 people of the Haliburton cheated on their taxes and then were asked if Cheney had good leadership.

Ski, Im pretty sure Kerry has released almost all of his records, many more than W has anyway.

Colgate: "Show me where Bush said Mission Accomplished, bombastic boy."

...well, he did sorta have that giant banner behind him during an important speech with those very words printed on it.

You could argue that he didn't technically say the words (I honestly couldn't tell you if he did or didn't), but let's at least be reasonable about it.

Kerry has indeed released all his records and they are publically available. W has not.