News-Record.com

Hollis Bensen speaks my mind!

Hollis,

More than a little over the top wouldn't begin to describe your reaction. You sound a bit...Oh, dear, how do I put this politely...hysterical, unglued, completely undone. What immense stress this insignificant incident has caused you. Bless your heart.

"Al Gore and John Kerry have offered the United States absolutely nothing but disgrace in their never-ending spin of the facts."

Like "Mission Accomplished", "Stay the course", "Stay the course","Stay the course","Stay the course","Stay the course","Stay the course","Stay the course", "Stay the course was never our policy".

Oh yeah that was the other guys.

Read the Friedman article & then read Hollis. Then decide where the laughs belong.

I cut folks who don't use English as their first language a lot of slack, so I'll give Hollis that benefit. Anyone who has heard enough of Kerry's remarks to have an informed opinion understands exactly what he was talking about: Smarmy the Clown's incompetence, not our troops overseas.
The Editor did us all a real favor by printing Hollis's remarks beside Friedman's commentary. This comparison shows how local reactionaries ignore easily accesible information and spout ignorance instead of contributing intelligent and responsible views.

Amen, Yvonne, Rufus and Chris.

Again, I urge those who still support our role in Iraq to listen to this interview.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6435503

The Military Times Media Group, which publishes the influential Army Times and other military periodicals, is calling for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign. In a coming editorial, the papers say active-duty military officers have misgivings about war planning in Iraq. Robert Hodierne, senior managing editor of Army Times, speaks with Debbie Elliott.

"That he would ridicule our men and women in the U.S. military is far beyond his normal sleaze."

I disagree. I think it's well within his normal sleaze. We just don't often see how deeply his sleaze runs. His mistake of speaking what he really thinks has given us more insight into the Dems/libs hatred of the military and those who bravely protect our freedoms.

"The Editor did us all a real favor by printing Hollis's remarks beside Friedman's commentary. "

Preceisely. It was quite enjoyable to see Friedman tear apart that feeble argument with ease.

Nice juxtaposition, editors.

"His mistake of speaking what he really thinks has given us more insight into the Dems/libs hatred of the military and those who bravely protect our freedoms."

Anything to keep from talking about the massive screwup that is Iraq, eh? Didja read Friedmans' article? If not, I suggest you do.

Also, didja see the ratings given to our Congressional leaders by the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America? Interesting stuff there... As they say, the proof often lies in the pudding:
http://iava.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2023&Itemid=210

Republican desperation: It's what's for breakfast.

I agree with others that Kerry's comments were fairly insignificant when compared to other issues we face when we pull the lever tomorrow.

However, I still find his 'dog ate my copy of the joke' excuse to be just silly. Did he have no idea what he was saying when the words came out of his mouth? For folks who make their livelihood by running their mouth, Kerry and Bush sure do a lousy job of it.

If you want to comment on the N&R stories online, check out my new blog: http://nitpicked.blogspot.com/.

OK, one more and it's back to work for me...

"Senator Kerry does not support our troops. If he had won the election, there wouldn't be any troops left in Iraq. President Bush, on the other hand, has given our troops an opportunity to fight without end. That's creating jobs. In fact, the president's policies helped create 104 more job openings last month. Now who's stupid, Senator?" --Stephen Colbert

Den, that is sad, funny, and true.

Kerry's words show just how high the bar is set for him and how low we have all set the bar for Bush.
"I know what it means to put food on your family"--Bush

The Crawford Clown is still our President, and that is far more egregious than any syntax errors.

It's fairly obvious Kerry never knows what is coming out of his mouth.

I buy the Looser Missed His QueCard Story,for no reason other than I just cannot imagine anyone saying that all military are stupid. That just doesn't work for me.

Only one conceipt given: It is more unbelievable that he was the alternative choice given to America in 2004.

When you think of it, if Bush could just squeek by in an election against Kerry, that's not saying much for Bush either.

I believe Kerry's "botched joke" is insignificant only because Kerry has made himself insignificant. Unlike JDR, after listening to the remarks, I believe Kerry meant exactly what he said. He was saying that those who are serving in the military are uneducated dolts and cannot do any better for themselves.

The VP hd the best rejoinder.... "...Kerry was for the joke before he was against it."

JDR,

Didn't read any threads yesterday......

Surprised it took this long for someone to recognize and comment on the ID source! I actually tried to make the name "regnadkcin" as he read it from the wrong side of the door, but screwed it up when I was signing up. I dropped the "k" since these screen names are commonly known as a "nic."

NicDanger,

That's a really great comparison since

"Dick" Cheney had five (5) military deferments!!!! Not one, two, three, four, but FIVE.

Yes, your man "DICK" Cheney is a paragon of military virtue.

Of course, they don't call him "DICK" for nothing!

Here's one of my faves on "DICK" from the campaign of 2004.

Top 11 things that prove Dick Cheney is not a coward. - 08/18/04

11. Cheney relentlessly pursued four educational deferments even while dropping out of college multiple times.

10. Courage under fire: "earned" expectant father deferment with child born exactly nine months and two days after that deferment was instituted.

9. During Picture Day on the Senate floor, Cheney told Patrick Leahy to, "go @#$%! himself" with only a 51-48 Republican majority.

8. Has had sex with Lynne Cheney. At least twice.

7. The "other priorities" Cheney cited on his military deferment applications included: slaying dragons, tracking the wolfman and keeping Dracula out of Wyoming.

6. Sure, he only hunts birds, but what would prevent a wounded duck from charging?

5. When Satan calls, Dick Cheney doesn't just let the machine get it.

4. Cheney has the fortitude to say no to corporate contributors when their demands are not in the public interest. He just chooses not to.

3. Have you ever eaten a baby? It's not a delicacy for the squeamish.

2. His heart is purple.

1. Getting five deferments isn't cowardly. Ask John Ashcroft about his seven deferments.

Yeah Nic, ol' "DICK" Cheney is just the man to denigrate a veteran.

Carol,

Why in the world are you concerned about Donald Rumsfeld? Even if he is removed, Gandhi is dead and the chances of us getting a Frenchman for Secretary of Defense are slim. There is no one else that you could possibly approve of! Even the liberals agree that at sometime or another fighting ones enemies is necessary. I would love to see who’s on your list to replace him.

Neocon,

the lte was copied right from fox news. if hollis really spoke your mind, i find that sad since i thought your were a person of intelligence. i stand corrected.

How about these folks, WAJ:

Former Senator Alan Simpson
Former Armed Svs Chair Sam Nunn (cross party)
Soon to be former Senator Joe Lieberman

That should get you started...

DON,
You could have asked ANYONE who blogs here (sans Dan) and we would have saved you the effort above!
:)

It's getting kind of vicious in here.

I didn't really take Kerry's comments as saying soldiers were stupid even in the manner he actually said them. I think there is a difference between uneducated and stupid. I think he was trying to get a jab in about the war in Iraq and somehow tie it into a speech about education and he just didn't think it through very well.

I don't think in Kerry's line of work, he would have ever come out and say that soldiers are stupid.

DON,
I once knew a county coroner named Donald B. Conrad---he was down in Gaston County. Is that you?

"Why in the world are you concerned about Donald Rumsfeld?"

Are you not concerned with the execution of the war in Iraq, you know, his job?

dd,

no that was not me. although, after reading neo cons and jackbars posts from saturday and today, a post mortum would find absolutely nothing inside in either of them.

Well, DD, you've proven me wrong again! By keeping access to your list for more than 2 years, you've shown me that you have an obsession other than Republican homosexuals.

I'll be glad when this election is over so we can end all this paritsan vitriol.

Aside from an allowable period of gloating and salt-in-wound rubbing, I think things will calm down in a few days.

Just heard from MrProduce. He sends his greetings. He thinks the step up in voilence is aimed at election, I disagree. He thinks Rumsfled need to be replaced, I agree.

Hugh, I hope you are right.

"I'll be glad when this election is over so we can end all this paritsan vitriol.

Aside from an allowable period of gloating and salt-in-wound rubbing, I think things will calm down in a few days."

Is this a truce being offered? I don't expect much difference, personally. I've been participating in this forum for a year and a half, and I don't think the vitriol is any more pronounced one day before the election than it was last year at this time.

I predict that if the Republicans win, we'll be called whiners and cry-babies, and if the Dems win, we'll be the reason nothing gets done in Washington. Same as yesterday and the day before.

There's an election?

"i find that sad sinse i thought you were a person of intelligence. i stand corrected."

Don, I have never seen a comment made by you about anyone with whom you disagree that indicated you thought they were "a person of intelligence". You always spew some half baked bs about "how you were wrong about them" when you thought better of them. Apparently you lack the nuts to just come out and say you don't like me... that's fine. But don't spew some garbage about "how you were wrong about me".
By your standard anyone who listens to fox news is beneath your intelligence. Btw, I've been waiting for the blog police that always demands "links" to ask you where your proof is that this lte was "coppied from fox news", but I forgot they never question a fellow liberal.

Here's a scoop for you: I don't give a big rat's ass what you or anyone else thinks of me. I question the intelligence of anyone who sucks up to the likes of the world traveler. (I thought you were more intelligent than that! I stand corrected! lol)

lol, indeed, neocon. lol.

Carol - I heard from MRP today too. I do like that ol' man.

Here's what he sent me ...

==
I was reading some of the remarks on the (LTE’s), America’s enemies make electoral choices known and found that you just brushed them off. Well, it is not just the LTE writer’s opinion but the opinion of others who are much better informed than the LTE writer. It seems that there are many out here in the real world that understand history, have read history and know when it is being repeated. It seems that many know but somewhere along the way you have forgotten history either because of time of just do not wish to remember. I watch the news regularly and read many newspapers and when all the violence increased in the ME, I saw a repeat of what happened in the elections in the US during the Viet Nam War era. I found this article and it speaks of the very same thing. Read it and perhaps you will see that the LTE writer made a valid point in his own way, clumsy as it may have been. Here is the article:

Jihadists using lessons of Tet
OPINION
Greg Sheridan, Foreign editor

October 21, 2006

TO think intelligently about Iraq right now, it is necessary to understand that absolutely everything in the world today, including politics here in Australia, is distorted by the US mid-term congressional elections on November 7.
This is what President George W.Bush meant when he agreed with Thomas Friedman of The New York Times that the present spike in violence in Iraq may be analogous to the Tet offensive in Vietnam in 1968. The Tet offensive was all about the brilliant use of extravagant violence by America's and Australia's enemies to change US policy by changing US politics.

The Tet offensive came in 1968. It was a joint effort by the North Vietnamese army and the Viet Cong to strike all across South Vietnam, which was supported by the US. Tet was a military catastrophe for the communists but a decisive political and psychological victory. For more than three weeks the communists took control of the ancient city of Hue. Thousands of innocent civilians - clergymen, nuns, Buddhists, civil administrators, teachers, anyone thought to be unsympathetic to the communists - were rounded up and killed.

This slaughter never gave the slightest pause to the peace movement in the West, which was campaigning for a communist victory in Vietnam. But Tet was a military disaster for the communists. The Viet Cong was crippled. South Vietnam was eventually invaded in 1975 in an entirely conventional military operation by the North Vietnamese army.

Tet was the first of the television victories over battlefield realities. Tet's scope and savagery shocked Americans and demoralised a large portion of the US governing elite. Although US tactics improved greatly after 1968, while US force numbers were drawn down and the South Vietnamese army became an effective fighting force, Congress ultimately decided that it was against any further resistance to the Indochinese communists, including Cambodia's Pol Pot. It refused to fund the war and cut off all aid to South Vietnam, with the inevitable results.

All Vietnam analogies are suspect, but you can see what Bush was driving at. The global jihadists have a very sophisticated sense of Western politics, especially US politics. It is indeed a central point of jihadist ideology that the US is weak and cannot stand sustained casualties. It's clear the jihadists want the November 7 elections to develop an unstoppable momentum against Bush so that the mood for the US to withdraw from Iraq becomes irresistible. And they want the US to withdraw in defeat and humiliation. There can be little doubt that John Howard is right to say that this would be a massive boost for terrorists worldwide. Similarly, it is hard to believe that this is what Kim Beazley really wants.

On the other hand, it is clear that US tactics in Iraq have not worked.

Strategically, the US was right to intervene in Iraq. Operationally, it has made grievous mistakes: not establishing a provisional Iraqi government straight after the invasion, not sending in enough troops to secure order and deliver services, disbanding the Iraqi army, sacking too many civil servants because they had associations with the Baath party, and never sorting out the differences between the great US agencies of government, the Pentagon with its uniformed and civilian wings, the State Department, the CIA and so on.

The US public is growing frustrated with Iraq not because they cannot bear casualties in a good cause, but because they have been repeatedly told things will get better, only to find them getting worse. They doubt whether there is a coherent and effective plan. They will endanger their soldiers for a good cause, but not for a folly. The interaction of the enemy with domestic politics is a danger for a democracy, as the Tet offensive showed. Yet at a broader level, the fact that US leaders - and Australian leaders - need to take public opinion with them to some extent in matters of war is a good thing. It is part of the genius of democracy, a system with checks and balances leads to course corrections that are more likely than not to produce effective policy.

The Bush administration will be driven to course corrections in Iraq because of the realities in Iraq as well as the realities of the mid-term congressional elections.

But these interactions are extremely complex and anyone who confidently tells you what will happen is selling snake oil. It is possible that anti-Bush Democrats will utterly rout the Republicans and this will lead to a repudiation of Bush's position in Iraq. But even then, Bush will not be completely without power. He can sack Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, express general humility, appoint a bipartisan figure like former Democrat Joe Lieberman, and pledge a new policy in Iraq.

The new policy might look a lot like the old policy: trying to set up a new Iraqi government. It's very unlikely Bush will simply disengage from Iraq. Apart from anything else, US strategic interests are too great. By this I mean interests in Iraq, in the broader Middle East and in US credibility. In one sense Bush has to remain engaged in Iraq until the end of his term, then Iraq becomes his successor's problem. The US will want to draw down the number of its troops in Iraq, but it cannot abandon Iraq.

The way the US goes about drawing down is critical. As others have said, jihadists will be inspired much more by a US defeat than by a US victory. Any new president, as much as Bush, will want to avoid creating a vacuum in Iraq, and to protect US interests and credibility.

There are two ways Bush will likely have a difficult last two years. The Democrats, if they control Congress, will criminalise politics, launching endless investigations into everything the Bush administration has done. The Valerie Plame case shows even when nothing wrong has been done, the process of guerilla litigation can paralyse an administration.

Finally, because Bush's vice-president is not running for president, no domestic actor in US politics has much to fear in the future from antagonising the administration. On the other hand, if in the face of all this the Republicans somehow retain control of Congress, Bush will be re-energised. We can but watch and wait.

... and my pissy response, one word edtited for obvious reasons

==

well maybe. I'm not sure how I brushed it off, but I'm so pissed at the Whitehouse that irrational is well within my range.

First off, if the stuff below is correct, then all the comparisons to 'nam are correct.

I have also read that some of the current violence is tied to Ramadan, when one is closer to heaven so acts that might not get you there other times of the year, get you there now. It may also be they are really clever; as the gooks clearly were. Who knows.

It's correct that "The US public is growing frustrated with Iraq ... because they have been repeatedly told things will get better, only to find them getting worse.", I but I strongly disagree "Strategically, the US was right to intervene in Iraq".

Bush and his bastards put us there because they thought it would be a cake walk. They cavalierly blew off the advice of those that actually knew what was going on and they have been playing political games ever since. They have destroyed America's credibility and exposed the bully side of American politics.

F' 'em. I cannot contain my hate.

All that said - I am totally in support of sending another 100,000 in or what ever it takes to stabilize the country - but I do not think they have the balls for that. They are half assed pussies.

I am also in support of letting the Iraqi gov't asking us to go - although that will cause huge problems down the road it will give us a change to regroup and then when it really goes to hell go in again and do it right. I've not really thought that out.

Worst of all it the bastards stopped all debate - attacking every idea that wasn't there's and even the suggestion of talking about ideas. I have no solutions - but they have savagely nixed anyone that puts anything on the table - and then they chant "they have no ideas."

I really hate 'em. They have to go and discourse needs to happen. I'm not talking UN - just let's figure this out 'cause an emboldened al Qaeda is a true danger.

I'm done

Denzein carrying water for Don... how sweet.

Neocon,
It seems you are down to Dan and he's not posting today. My offer still stands to help you take the wheels off when you move. LOL!

Carol & JDR,
Can't say that I miss "Mr. Produce" posting. He was always the armchair expert and seemed to be out there in the land of Walter Mitty--with hubris. I am, however, hurt that he hasn't shown his name since things got rougher on Bush and in Iraq. He was always one to bring up the Military mags that are being quoted this week about Rummy--does he still walk lockstep with Bush?

"down to Dan"?... this is just one of many examples where you and I differ. You see world traveler unlike you, I don't need or depend on others to prop me up. Nor do I run like a scolded puppy and stop posting for days when someone I respect chastises me. For example - If memory serves it was Denzein who told you to "grow up" over some adolescent remark you had made and not only did you drop off the thread, you were nowhere to be found for several days. And when you DID return it was with a whimper...just like a puppy that that had been scolded and was now looking to make amends. lol

As for my trailer wheels, I have only to round up a couple of more nice flat rocks and they will be ready to come off. Cousin Billy Ray needs to borrow them as he is being evacuated from his space. But I caution you: it takes a stiff wrist to remove them and the chances of breaking a nail are high. Are you up to the challenge?

Oh, btw world traveler, mrproduce was serving in the military when you were but a gleam in daddy's eye. While you were frattin' around at WF he was in the 'Nam taking care of business so pussies like you wouldn't have to go.

But this is why the liberals like Mr. Heinz so much... his handlers let him loose in front of a mike for a few minutes unscripted and we found out what he really thinks of the military guys...a bunch of uneducated losers... just like you think world traveler.

James,

I got the exact same response from Mr. P. The way I see it is his article was written by someone who had an opinion and published it. I have an opinion also, one that is based on the here and now. And I figure, right or wrong, since I live in America I am free to express those opinions. Therefore I am chalking it up to Mr. P's oversensitivity any time the military is involved in an opinion, directly or indirectly.

Yvonne,
Here is a great commentary for Election Eve:

Olbermann: Where are the checks, balances?
Bush has been 'making it up' for too long, and the people have let him

Updated: 8:27 p.m. ET Nov 6, 2006

We are, as every generation, inseparable from our own time.

Thus is our perspective, inevitably that of the explorer looking into the wrong end of the telescope.

But even accounting for our myopia, it’s hard to imagine there have been many elections more important than this one, certainly not in non-presidential years.

And so we look at the verdict in the trial of Saddam Hussein yesterday, and, with the very phrase “October, or November, Surprise” now a part of our vernacular, and the chest-thumping coming from so many of the Republican campaigners today, each of us must wonder about the convenience of the timing of his conviction and sentencing.

But let us give history and coincidence the benefit of the doubt—let’s say it’s just “happened” that way—and for a moment not look into the wrong end of the telescope.

Let’s perceive instead the bigger picture:

Saddam Hussein, found guilty in an Iraqi court.

Who can argue against that?

He is officially, what the world always knew he was: a war criminal.

Mr. Bush, was this imprimatur, worth the cost of 2,832 American lives, and thousands more American lives yet to be lost?

Is the conviction of Saddam Hussein the reason you went to war in Iraq?

Or did you go to war in Iraq because of the weapons of mass destruction that did not exist?

Or did you go to war in Iraq because of the connection between Iraq and al-Qaida that did not exist?

Or did you go to war in Iraq to break the bonds of tyranny there, while installing the mechanisms of tyranny here?

Or did you go to war in Iraq because you felt the need to wreak vengeance against somebody, anybody?

Or did you go to war in Iraq to contain a rogue state which, months earlier, your own administration had declared had been fully contained by sanctions?

Or did you go to war in Iraq to keep gas prices down?

How startling it was, sir, to hear you introduce oil to your stump speeches over the weekend.

Not four years removed from the most dismissive, the most condescending, the most ridiculing denials of the very hint at, as Mr. Rumsfeld put it, this “nonsense.”

There you were, campaigning in Colorado, in Nebraska, in Florida, in Kansas -- suddenly turning this ‘unpatriotic idea’ into a platform plank.

"You can imagine a world in which these extremists and radicals got control of energy resources," you told us. "And then you can imagine them saying, 'We're going to pull a bunch of oil off the market to run your price of oil up unless you do the following.'"

Having frightened us, having bullied us, having lied to us, having ignored and rewritten the Constitution under our noses, having stayed the course, having denied you’ve stayed the course, having belittled us about "timelines" but instead extolled "benchmarks," you’ve now resorted, sir, to this?

We must stay in Iraq to save the $2 gallon of gas?

Mr. President, there is no other conclusion we can draw as we go to the polls tomorrow.

Sir, you have been making this up as you went along.

This country was founded to prevent anybody from making it up as they went along.

Those vaunted Founding Fathers of ours have been so quoted up, that they appear as marble statues: like the chiseled guards of China, or the faces on Mount Rushmore. But in fact they were practical people and the thing they obviously feared most was a government of men and not laws.

They provided the checks and balances for a reason.

No one man could run the government the way he saw fit -- unless he, at the least, took into consideration what those he governed saw.

A House of Representatives would be the people's eyes.

A Senate would be the corrective force on that House.

An executive would do the work, and hold the Constitution to his chest like his child.

A Supreme Court would oversee it all.

Checks and balances.

Where did that go, Mr. Bush?

And what price did we pay because we have let it go?

Saddam Hussein will get out of Iraq the same way 2,832 Americans have and thousands more.

He’ll get out faster than we will.

And if nothing changes tomorrow, you, sir, will be out of the White House long before the rest of us can say we are out of Iraq.

And whose fault is this?

Not truly yours. You took advantage of those of us who were afraid, and those of us who believed unity and nation took precedence over all else.

But we let you take that advantage.

And so we let you go to war in Iraq to oust Saddam or find non-existant weapons or avenge 9/11 or fight terrorists who only got there after we did or as cover to change the fabric of our Constitution or for lower prices at The Texaco or…?

There are still a few hours left before the polls open, sir. There are many rationalizations still untried.

And whatever your motives of the moment, we the people have, in true good faith and with the genuine patriotism of self-sacrifice (of which you have shown you know nothing), we have let you go on making it up as you went along.

Unchecked and unbalanced.

Vote.
***********************************

And as Evangelical/GOP operative, Ted Haggard, might say, "AMEN"!

I've been out making a living all day and DD only mentioned me twice. I'm heartbroken :( Last time I was out he mentioned me about at least four times. Neocon doesn't need me DD, he takes care of himself quite well.

I flew Dan's Airline to Richmond, VA, worked all day and returned recently, hence no hopping into the conversation today. I'm tired, too tired to deal with the sniping, especially the predictable same 'ol same 'ol sniping of our wfu supporter. I think I'd rather watch Monday Night Football.

Let's see what happens tomorrow, whether San Fran Nan becomes speaker of the house or not. If so, then unfettered govt. paid abortion for all!! Well at least for women and 11 year old girls (w/o parental notification). I'll feel just like I was living in France again.

Dan,
I just hope the election makes all your "over the top" partisan drivel about the new House Speaker come true! God Bless you Dan!

"for example - If memory serves it was Denzein who told you to "grow up" over some adolescent remark you had made and not only did you drop off the thread, you were nowhere to be found for several days."

That's true, though admittedly I didn't follow up on DeamonDeacon's responses.

Also true: I've called on you to put up or shut up at least a dozen times when you've made some bullshit argument and you have never. bothered. to respond. A couple of times, you posted, "zzzz", indicating that you were way too deep in dreamworld to respond to reality, much less any points I may have made. I worried there for a while that you may have succumbed to the baby blues that clouded Rush's skull...

I like that about you, though- so enrapt in what you believe that facts don't get in the way...

So, in summation: Keep on believing, neocon....

Oh, and by the way, what's up with Mr. Produce? Why the proxy prose?

Well, at least you found something about me you like.

"baby blues that clouded Rush's skull... not sure of the point you're making here, but let me say that Limbaugh-if he is who you are referring to-is a johnny come lately. I've held my political views since the mid-60s. I too was once a bleeding heart liberal, but instead of following the politicians who preached about a "great society" like sheep, I took a good look at what the welfare state can do to a population and changed my stripes.

Yesteryear's liberals truly had good intentions when they hatched up the idea of wealth redistribution. It didn't work, but their hearts were in the right place. Fast forward to today and I see liberals who look down their long elitist noses at the general population and think of them lacking the intelligence to understand what is best for them. (IE Mr. Heinz's and Don's remarks)

Rush, Hannity et al are hated by the left because they are products of a society that is fed up with the liberal lamestream media feeding them DNC talking points labeled as 'news'.

Well, I'm off to vote before going to work. Vernon Robinson, here I come.

DD, If the Dems win today there will be one advantage. After a 2 year taste of San Fran Nan perhaps people will realize how dangerous it is to put people like this in power and it would help Republicans in '08.

If something happened to Bush and Cheney had a coronary then San Fran Nan is president. Unlikely to happen but she would be third in line.

I remember the chapter on San Fran Nan in "Do As I Say Not As I Do." I recall she is a big champion of unions yet she won't employ union labor at her hotels and winerys.

Dan,

I'm thinking the best thing that can happen to the republican party at this point is to lose both the senate and the house. Then, we'll once again be reminded that the democrats don't have a plan either. (notice i said either).

there really is only one party and that's the party of the rich and elite. the rest is just window-dressing while they strategize on just how much they can sack away for themselves.

I miss mrproduce's post. He, like all of us, is biased but most of the time his posts were well thought-out and reasoned arguments. His knowledge of history is impressive and from what I've seen unmatched on this blog.

I agree with neocon 100% on this statement: "I don't give a big rat's ass what you or anyone else thinks of me." If there is someone here looking for my approval about the way they feel, that's pretty sad. :)

Pelosi as president? I need a valium....stat!

Poor Dan,
We'll add dementia to the myopia problem.

Gingrich--resigned due to sexual affair
DeLay--resigned due to criminal conduct
Hastert--will resign. Covered up sex scandal
Ney--criminal conduct
etc.etc.etc.

Good try on the "scare" tactics of Rush Limbaugh and the RNC. You have no room for talk on Pelosi with the awarding winning crew above. You just don't like her because she's not Republican--you're an inch deep and mile wide. Try reading.

DD, would it be possible for you to post an idea without insults and actually express an idea? Give it a try please, then folks might take you more seriously.

Remember this?

Thanks Yvonne.
I will watch my own words more carefully, as I have entered the gutteral areas heretofore held firmly by the right wing.
Posted by: DemonDeacon at June 26, 2006 01:31 PM

BTW, I do remember a certain politician who engaged in a sexual affair and criminal conduct (perjury) but didn't resign. Noticed you didn't mention him.

Here is why I don't like Nancy Pelosi:

http://www.ontheissues.org/CA/Nancy_Pelosi.htm

Rated:

100% by NARAL

87% by ACLU

88% by CURE (Pro rehab for criminals instead of jail time. Reminds me of the guy in VT who brutally raped a little girl for 4 years and got a 60 day jail sentence. The judge said he has a disease and needs rehab instead of jail time. Finally got a 3 yr. sentence after the outrage, but he guy should have gotten life IMO).

100% by NEA

8% by Christian Coalition

Nancy Pelosi may share your values but not mine. That is why she is a Dem and I'm a Repub.

Well, as Oscar Mason used to say,
"I'm a Democrat. You're a Republican. I'll hug your elephant, and you can kiss my ass!"
:)

*************
BTW,
For all the "thinking" folks out there, nothing is more scary than having Richard "DICK" Cheney as second in line!
When he shot the guy in Texas, he admitted to having a few beers that day, but he didn't tell you how his heart medication says, "DO NOT DRINK ALCOHOL WHILE TAKING THIS MEDICATION". It impairs ones ability to react, but ol' DICK, who is NEVER wrong didn't mention that. Did the drug addict who had his maid getting "hillbilly heroin" for him, say anything about it? NO, Rush Limbaugh was quiet about that, but was very vocal defending Cheney.
Dan, you need to read more and listen to Rush less. Until then, you are an inch deep and a mile wide.

DD, you bore me as usual. Read more, don't parrot Rush, blah, blah, blah, blah. Try something more original in your reportoire svp.

I post a website (not Rush's btw) with Nancy Pelosi's voting record and ratings with various organizations and explain why I prefer her not to be Speaker. Current relevant argument.

You reply with a year old story Cheney hunting story. Non-current irrelevant straw man argument.

Tis you who need to read a bit more and offer something fresh other than insults and old news.

Knowing that as today moves on, you will become even more "touchy", I suggest you retire from posting.
Had you been paying attention, you would realize that Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum come before Nancy Pelosi. Can't remember worrying about the rum hound, Carl Albert of Oklahoma, becoming President during Nixon administration! Reading would do you a lot of good. By the way, have you read Orwell's 1984?

(JDR, just checking before you ask him!)

Guess what DD? I'll decide when to quit posting thank you.

Posting something relevant unrelated to my reading habits would do you alot of good as well. Gee I do vaguely remember from school that the Speaker of the House was 3rd in line for the presidency, but yep....let's see now...there are two others in front. Hmmmmmm......I wonder who?

Hang on a minute.......

Ok I'm back, I just checked the book of facts on Rush's website and it indeed told me the president and the VP were ahead of the Speaker.

*************************************************Now for something more relevant.........

For starters did you look at the Pelosi link? I'm sure her ratings by the various organizations I mentioned are spot on with you but not me. 100% accolades from NARAL, that speaks for itself.

Do you support rehab for criminals? I can agree with it as for drug offenders & such, but do you agree with the judge who gave the guy a 60 day sentence and rehab as punishment for raping a child for 4 years?

Dan,
Bless your heart. You still don't get it.

During Watergate, we went through a VP and a President and NEVER got down to the Speaker of the House. That Speaker would have been a small, in stature, man by the name of Carl Albert. Over the years we have had so many tepid folks as SOTH the likes of whom include, Newt Gingrich, and Dennis Hastert. For you to be worked into a lather about Nancy Pelosi shows just how you have been manipulated. What you'd better get in touch with, is the mood of the REST of the country toward Iraq, spiraling deficits, stagnant wages, corruption in government, having the government in your bedroom, ----you know the things that USED to matter to REAL conservatives. And what is your hot button? NANCY PELOSI! Save up all your copies of The Limbaugh Letter, as they will be collectibles one day. LOL!

DD, I thought I saw a red light in my bedroom last night, musta been the govt. Let's see where the chips fall and I'm sure there will be plenty of discussion.

Meanwhile, go ahead out on the limb and answer my question about the child rapist sentence. Do you agree with it? Seems like CURE does, who gives Pelosi an 88% rating.

Damn right I get worked up about Pelosi, she must represent your values so no problem with you. Sad truth is many people have no clue who she is. If the Dems win they will find out soon enough.

BTW, kudos on being civil in the last few posts and not calling me myopic, demented, etc. My ratings for you hover around 2%, but I don't resort to insults to make my point.

Where is everyone else? Stuck on the sprinkler system and Gboro college stadium debates?

Dan,
You've found YOUR "Willie Horton" and it makes you feel better to thump your chest over it. It is nothing but a distraction from the news that keeps crawling across the bottom of my television screen which, when translated, says, "Country sends Bush and GOP a message".

In the words of "DAN" who once said, "Bush won. Get over it", I would like to be much more open to ideas contrary to my own. To heal the country, Bush should fire Rummy and put a moderate Republican or a Sam Nunn Democrat in as Secty of Defense. That would be Lincolnesque, and really is too much to ask of Bush. As the old saying goes, "You can't make chicken salad out of chicken sh_t". Bottom line Dan, is that you can harp on a great pre-election soundbite from Rush or Hannity, but the polls are closed. The people have spoken. You can whitewash the outhouse, but the stink is still in there.

Prior to advancing any more of your Bill O'Reilly 'Talking Points' I would encourage you to read "Team of Rivals" by Doris Kearns Goodwin. It is about Lincoln putting his political opponents in his cabinet. He was not afraid of listening to opposing opinions, in fact he was empowered by it. It is quite the contrast to the Crawford Clown, who lives in a bubble. Many have said, Lincoln was the last good Republican. I don't think he was necessarily the last one, but he certainly was a good one.
Go on to bed, as tomorrow is another day that you can begin to read read read! :)

...and even this morning, Dan is stuck in political disbelief!

God bless the United States of America!

Dan,
Listened to conservative radio host Michael Savage spouting the EXACT same drivel you did about Pelosi! I should have known!

Mission Accomplished
Last throes
dead enders
stay the course, stay the course, stay the course, we never said stay the course,
Rumsfeld will stay throughout my term
Rumsfeld fired

LOL!:)