Comments for Cheney has replaced Sarah Palin as Rogue Diva »
Posted By gamahuche 6 months, 4 weeks ago in Political NewsCheney has replaced Sarah Palin as Rogue Diva. Just as Jeb Bush and other Republicans are trying to get kinder and gentler, Cheney has popped out of his dungeon, scary organ music blaring, to carry on his nasty campaign of fear and loathing.
The man who never talked is now the man who won’t shut up. The man who wouldn’t list his office in the federal jobs directory, who had the vice president’s residence blocked on Google Earth, who went to the Supreme Court to keep from revealing which energy executives helped him write the nation’s energy policy, is now endlessly yelping about how President Obama is holding back documents that should be made public.
Cheney, who had five deferments himself to get out of going to Vietnam, would rather follow a blowhard entertainer who has had three divorces and a drug problem (who also avoided Vietnam) than a four-star general who spent his life serving his country.
Read Full Story at nytimes.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 196
-
96%
cowboygrandpa6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA
Reply
"He has no coherent foreign policy viewpoint. He still doesn’t fathom that his brutish invasion of Iraq unbalanced that part of the world, empowered Iran and was a force multiplier for Muslims who hate America. He left our ports unsecured, our food supply unsafe, the Taliban rising and Osama on the loose. No matter if or when terrorists attack here — and they’re on their own timetable, not a partisan red/blue state timetable — Cheney will be deemed the primary one who made America more vulnerable."
This guy is a portrait of insanity, being veiwed as relevant by the insane who believe him.
He thinks that America is the only viable country in the world.
What is scary is how many still back the raging lunatic.-
100%
Beau78906 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes, it is scary how many are fooled into thinking Cheney's rants are anything but politicking.
Reply
For someone who called dissent unpatriotic and anti-American and accused those who opposed his policies publicly of helping the enemy, Cheney certainly isn't following any of his own ideas.
To anyone who thinks Cheney's continual criticism about America being unsafe under Obama's policies reflects a genuine concern about the security of this country, I have to ask this:
Why is Dick on TV saying this, where our enemies can hear him? Why isn't he submitting his ideas for making us safer to Obama through private channels?-
0%
jimdoze6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Why is Dick on TV saying this, where our enemies can hear him? Why isn't he submitting his ideas for making us safer to Obama through private channels?"
Reply
Because Obama and company have succumbed to the au courant disdain for him and have chosen to ignore him.-
94%
GWHayduke6 months, 4 weeks ago
-
0%
jimdoze6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Except, Hayduke, that W administration did not "bungle every single attempt to provide security domestically and globally".
Reply
Only in the strange intellectual paradigm of the left can that case be temporarily made. Trust me... it is only temporarily that that case is being made.-
100%
GWHayduke6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
-"Trust me... it is only temporarily that that case is being made"-
Reply
Right from the Decider's playbook.
Should we trust your infinite wisdom and the ability to see the future...and MUST we be scared of the unknown because the terra-ists are a-comin' to git us?
Funny that the duration and policies of the W administration saw the largest growth of al Qaeda and the Taliban ever.
THAT makes us safer, huh?
Your inability to see the wheels spinning in an ever-circular, self fulfilling prophecy of increased animosity does NOT decrease the likelihood of security, it only increases it.
History proves it over and over again.-
0%
jimdoze6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oh Really?
Reply
In your intellectual paradigm the world would have been safer place with Iraq as continuing to have the only two possibilities it clearly had previously... either 1) a wildly destabilizing rogue state or 2) a wildly destablilizing imploding state. I see/saw it as having the higher probability for being the latter of the two.
There were only two choices the Bush Administration had regard to Iraq. 1. Re-arm and rebuild Iraq with Saddam and his lot at the helm (as in the old Realpolitik), or 2. clear the decks of Saddam and oversee the rebuilding of Iraq with a different, more humane model just as we had done with Europe.
The Taliban and Al Qaeda are clearly big problems. Now that Iraq is under control they represent the greater problem than Iraq now is. But, not compared to the danger Iraq had formerly been.
Iraq formerly had an extremely high probability of being catalyst for middle east regional war... and due the the strategic worldwide issue of the daily flow of massive amounts of oil from the region, of possibly world war. As such, it was the far greater issue when the Bush Administration made its move.
My wheels are not spinning as you would like to believe, Hayduke. They have excellent traction and my windshield is plenty clean for seeing clearly.-
100%
dunkirk6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No I'd say your wheel are coming off the axle considering your anlysis of Iraq isnt very valid. Prior to the invasion they had no ability to destabilize much of anything. His military was a shadow of its former self. The only argument made for its ability to destabilize the region was its possesion of WMD, which was a falsehood. What has happened is the check on Islamic radicals (Saddam viewed them as a threat to his power) has been removed. Al Queda IS present and influencing events and Iran has risen in influence from the bungling of the Bush administration.
Reply-
0%
jimdoze6 months, 4 weeks ago
-
100%
Progressive6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is why Saddam perpetuated the WMD ruse:
Reply
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/27/saddam.cbs/index....-
33%
jimdoze6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bingo, Progress!
Reply
""For him, it was critical that he was seen as still the strong, defiant Saddam. He thought that (faking having the weapons) would prevent the Iranians from reinvading Iraq," said Piro."
Saddam's fears were not idle hallucinations. The Iranian territorial threat was, and remains, very real.-
-
0%
jimdoze6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It is up to the likes of us (who can offer little more) to come to understand that those 5,000 did not die in vain... and, in coming to that understanding, sanctify their deaths. As is always the case with the military, there are those who die so that others may live. That is the case, in spades, with Iraq.
Reply-
-
0%
jimdoze6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Neither today, nor at the time of the invasion, was Iraq in a position to repulse a concerted Iranian effort to take territory. Perhaps their military was quantitatively in a slightly better position at the time of the invasion than they are today.. but, certainly not enough to make a difference.
Reply
I believe that, in due course, it will be on its way to a better position... and, as they get there, the rest of the region will have far less to fear that they will spin out of control like Saddam did a la his Kuwait adventure.
In the meantime, American presence is certainly provides a balance.
-
-
100%
gamahuche6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"It is up to the likes of us (who can offer little more) to come to understand that those 5,000 did not die in vain"
Reply
May I suggest that the people whom you need to be convincing of that are the relatives and nearest and rearest of those who died.
Good luck with that, btw!
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
jimdoze6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Dun, You got it right as well!
Reply
What would have happened when the Iranians figured it out?
What would have the Iranians have done had Saddam died or been incapacitated?
Do you really think it would have been better to wait until that happened?-
-
-
-
0%
jimdoze6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Perhaps it has, perhaps it hasn't. The one thing that is clear to me is that ignoring Al Qaeda was not an option either. If what we did in Iraq was a source of recruitment, surely anything we would and will do elsewhere to root them out will also be a source for recruitment as well.
Reply
Al Qaeda was at the time of our Iraq invasion, strategically, the lesser important of the two issues. Now that Iraq has subsided, Al Qaeda, Afghanistan, Pakistan in one corner... and Iran with nukes in the other... are clearly the hot issues now.-
Neutral
dunkirk6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It seems Al Queda wasnt the Repugs worst enemy until they decided to blame Clinton for not going after Bin Laden, ignoring the fact they stonewalled any attmept he made to shut him down. Seems the repugs believed Clinton was making a big deal out of terrorism because of Monica. The end result of their inaction was 9/11. Clinton was doing quite well in fighting terrorism thru a series of exec orders since the repugs were intent on stonewalling everything. His use of covert operations was very good, since it went after the perps and not the incedental causalites that Bush was noted for. The end result of that is no recruting propaganda for Al Queda. Thats a lesson the right never seems to grasp, unless bombs are falling from the sky and entire armies are moving the right doenst believe anyone is dong anything,
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
dunkirk6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The hilarious part is you're serious. We invaded on a premise he HAD WMD not based on the fact he didnt. If Bush truly wanted to wage a war on terror he would have followed Clintons lead (Terrorism worldwide went down under Clinton, it rose under Bush astronomically). Bush used WWII tactics to fight a guerilla war. Maybe you can elaborate on how we completely stopped Iran from invading Iraq. All we;lve done is increase their influence in the one area we needed to keep them out of,
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
100%
GWHayduke6 months, 4 weeks ago
-
0%
jimdoze6 months, 4 weeks ago
-
100%
Progressive6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Realpolitik is the belief that the pragmatic pursuit of self-interest and power, backed up by force when convenient, is the only realistic option for a great state.
Reply
The term was coined in 1859 to describe the German chancellor Bismarck's policies. -
100%
GWHayduke6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
From your specious argument, I'm trying to figure out whether you support it ot not.
Reply
That, and the fact that you toss it out every time you discuss foreign policy leads me to believe in your Nationalist intent.
Or should I just.....trust you, big brother?!?-
0%
jimdoze6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Realpolitik as it came to have meaning in the context of U.S. foreign policy during the cold war came to mean dealing with miscreants like Saddam Hussein for the simple reason that if we didn't, they would turn to the Soviet Union... which, of course in the case of Saddam, he happily did. There are many here who think that, even with the demise of the Soviet Union, we should have continued to deal with Saddam in the same way. Many of those people were quick to point out the supposed immorality of dealing in such a way with such leaders and rogue nation at the time... now, those same people are quick to shout of the immorality of dealing with the likes of Saddam Hussein and his regime in any other way than that.
Reply
Support it? as in Realpolitik? It was supportable while there were no other alternatives. Upon the demise of the Soviet Union, it was no longer necessary... in fact, in the case of Iraq it became nonsensical and morally vacuous.
Nationalist? Wrong again!
You and yours beggaring Globalization by calling for trade barriers in the guise of protecting American workers are far more about nationalism than I am... and, in fact, as growing government control of the economy proves counter-productive, I will guarantee that the Obama administration will feed into what will be a rising tide of economic nationalism to get quick fixes for the problems they are creating.-
100%
Beau78906 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You say you're not a nationalist. You imply you'd like free trade everywhere, which would cause increased globalization.
Reply
At the same time, you believe the U.S. should invade foreign countries in order to protect our economic interests.
That sounds like not only nationalism, but imperialism.-
0%
jimdoze6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There are other isms, Beau.
Reply
Did we "invade" Europe and set up shop there as a matter of nationalism and imperialism?
If by nationalism you mean that we got sick of feeding 1000 dead soldiers a month through the woodchippers of European wars, then "yes", you can call it nationalism.
Imperialism? No... there is no real case to be made for that. Unless you believe that being there to keep them from tearing each other apart, and dragging us into it, is imperialism. Are we being imperialistic in Korea? Japan? It's pretty tough to make that case, I would say.-
100%
Beau78906 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Your analogy of post-WWII Europe to Iraq is lacking. Europe after WWII did not have a leader (regardless of how brutal) keeping internal factions at bay, as Saddam did in Iraq.
Reply
We did not depose a Korean or Japanese government and set up our own.
-
-
0%
jimdoze6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Further, Beau, it was not just our economic interests being protected in Iraq. It was the world's economic interests and well-being protected in Iraq. Infofar as we are inextricably linked with the world's economic interests, yes we are protecting our own... but, my point is that it is a much wider umbrella than just simply our own interests. That, by the way, is one of the big pluses of globalism.... we are all in it together. Just one example... our navy patrols the Straits of Hormuz. The vast bulk of the oil we protect as it goes through that choke point is going not to the U.S., but everywhere else in the world.
Reply-
-
-
0%
jimdoze6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"why don't any other countries support our efforts there?"
Reply
Many have... and you are now pre-supposing that they don't... They do... at least tacitly. How many are calling for us to pre-emptorily pull out? None.
As far as who did or didn't prior to going in... take a real close look at the tentacles of Oil for Food for most of your answers.-
-
0%
jimdoze6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
They withdrew support because support was not politically popular...
Reply
and also because they knew that the U.S. would protect their interests.
Spain, for example, withdrew support because an attack on their train system caused their leadership to back away.
I do not believe the majority of world leaders are tacitly calling for us to pull out, no. And, that is particularly telling because most of their local popular sentiment would likely be, if put to the test, that the U.S. should pull out.-
100%
Beau78906 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Forgive me if I'm confusing you with hsomeone else, but haven't I heard you complain about the UN because the US bankrolls all its programs?
Reply
If that's you, why would you support the US unilaterally protecting other countries' economic interests in Iraq?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
gamahuche6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"or 2. clear the decks of Saddam and oversee the rebuilding of Iraq with a different, more humane model just as we had done with Europe."
Reply
I'd prefer to suggest that this is one of the most puzzling remarks, conceptually, that I have ever read on propeller - or anywhere else come to that - if you're talking about post-WW2 history..
Were you around at that time, by any chance?
There is NO viable comparison between the European situation then and the Middle Eastern one of the last 2 decades, or before .. It doesn't matter where you start or how far you go back in history.-
0%
jimdoze6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The comparison of the fratricidal relationship of the three major ethnic groups in Iraq to the fratricidal relationships of European nations prior to WWII is about as close a parallel as you will find in any historical context.
Reply
Furthermore, the implications of those three groups cleansing each other is of strategically greater importance for the whole world, than were the previously fratricidal conditions in Europe.-
100%
GWHayduke6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
When, exactly did these fratricidal relationships in Iraq begin occurring en masse?
Reply
Oh, of course, AFTER the US invaded and destabilized the region.
Realpolitik success?!?
I trust you are not a military strategist, although you would have fit in well with the W administration.-
0%
jimdoze6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The U.S. did not destablize the region. In fact, the U.S. presence has stabilized the region.
Reply
The fratricidal rampage that was kicked off by the bombing of the Al Aksari mosque was but a small taste of what would have gone on in that country with the demise of Saddam and what still could go on if we leave prematurely.
It could well be a couple of generations before the tensions between the three major factions of Iraq subside. However, the Iraqis have a unique carrot and stick situation. The carrot is that if they work together, they can share vast natural resource wealth. The stick is what they got a foretaste of in 2006 and 2007, i.e. if they can't get along, they will hang separately... first, by their competing factions and then at the hands of their hated neighbors, Iran and Turkey.-
100%
GWHayduke6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I do admire your consistency jimmy.
Reply
But one man's stability is another's chaos.
Choosing al Qaeda, suicide bombers, no water or electricity over Saddam is, I'm sure, a choice easy for you since you don't have to make it.
Now we have another nation building project that will ultimately fail due to the declining importance of the region.
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
gamahuche6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I do. I've been living at the cutting edge of the European crisis since I was born as a partially Jewish child in Nazi occupied Czechoslovakia, with an English mother who was working in Prague for the British Council.
Reply
That was a dangerous situation, believe me.
Paradoxically even more so when the Communist coup of 1948 took place.
-
-
-
-
-
100%
Candida6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
jimdoze: "clear the decks of Saddam and oversee the rebuilding of Iraq with a different, more humane model just as we had done with Europe"
Reply
I know it's flattering to see the US as a country that can remake the world in it's own image, but you should take a more careful look at the facts. The US helped to rebuild part of Europe, but for the most part the Europeans rebuilt Europe by themselves, even the parts where the US provided no help at all.
Iraq is far from stable now, and only time will tell how humane a country it will become. If it does become a more humane democracy, it will be mostly the achievement of the Iraqis themselves, but that outcome is far from assured at present.-
0%
jimdoze6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Candida, you are right on some counts...
Reply
1. Europe did rebuild itself. Key to maintaining the conditions for that were the Marshall Plan and NATO. You are wrong to say the U.S. provided no help at all.
2. It is true that Iraq is far from stable now. And, only time will tell whether it will be in the future. As the Marshall Plan, NATO and the rebuilding of Europe unfolded, no one could predict with 100% probability that it would all work out. However, you cannot argue that Iraq had a better chance of working out well under Saddam.-
100%
Candida6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What help did the US provide to Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania? They are part of Europe too.
Reply
A big difference between Europe and Iraq is that the hostilities were pretty well over in Europe by the time the rebuilding started. There is still fighting in Iraq, and we don't know when/if they will end.
Does Iraq have a better chance of working out well than it had under Saddam? I don't know. We should ask the Iraqis. About a year ago, many of them still said that they were better off under Saddam. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they ended up with a new "Saddam," or if the country broke to pieces, or if they allied themselves with Iran.-
0%
jimdoze6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
" big difference between Europe and Iraq is that the hostilities were pretty well over in Europe by the time the rebuilding started"
Reply
That's right. At the cost of roughly 250,000 American soldiers dead in Europe... to say nothing of the 40 to 50 million Europeans dead.
So, you figure with all the things you cite as domestic benefits provided by Saddam to his people, we should rather have undertaken to rebuild Saddams army as a counter-balance to Iran?
It is still possible to screw up Iraq, in which case you would see the south "ally" with Iran... if you can call what the Persian Shia will do with the Iraqi Shia as being "allied".
You would also see the Kurds go independent... as they would have no other choice. This would be followed by the Turks taking northern Iraq (reclaiming former Ottoman territory which is now vastly more valuable due to oil) and summarily crushing the Kurds.
If you can think of a better way to start a regional war, risk the daily flow of oil out of the Persian Gulf, and bring the worldwide economy to a halt.. thereby risking world war... I'd like to know it.-
100%
donald516 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes, doze, all you say, Dumya's Dad knew could happen and he withdrew, while dumya occupied... to allow the likely possibillity of what you mention... so disatrous for us, the region and the world! Only thing you left out is how much the Iranians have been empowered!
Reply
What failed diplomacy from Dumya to threaten from afar (axis of evil) then just send in the troops... destroying the last good will the world had toward us after 911. Heck even the Iranians offered to help in Afganistan and were, until Dumya inlcuded them in "the axis"!
You are unfaithful to your fellow soldiers to support such a failed Bush policy - but it helps with those contractor jobs doesn't it? Did you get one of those Dick Cheney/Rummy sole source contracts with your wife to move into with you when she retires?
-
-
-
100%
willottica6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why not? Far less of the population was subjected to daily violence than were in the last 6 years.
Reply
Infrastructure and education were in place. Saddam had established himself and though not a nice guy, didn't have to resort to much more violence to maintain power.
Now, if American troops ever leave the region, it will be a divided nation with a power-void. Small powers will vie with each other over control, likely with much bloodshed, and the eventual winner will likely have to be quite brutal to maintain control over the diverse factions that he beat out to attain power.
Or maybe all the hatred, mistrust, and violence will magically dissolve into a fairy-tale democratic society where everyone trades in their IEDs for a chamber of commerce membership and agrees to live happily ever after. -
100%
gamahuche6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
On one level of course the Marshall plan was extremely important and helped enormously the recovery of those countries which signed up.
Reply
However it also was a huge factor in creating the us and them situation which became the Cold War.
-
-
-
-
-
100%
cowboygrandpa6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
jd:
Reply
Nothing personal.
But I'm sick and tired of the failed policies of the 4th Reich.
From the time of Reagan the poltics have been about taking control of the world through a financial disaster.
It is happening.
Communism is again raising its ugly head in Soviet spheres, Capitalism has been replaced by corporatism.
And the right wing nut cases have hijacked Christianity into a torture and war belief system.
Get a clue man.
The setting is right for the anti -christ and both parties are harkening it with their foolish displays of power mongering from one extreme to the other. -
-
-
-
100%
Beau78906 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Jim, don't you think Dick would want to let everyone know how much he's been trying to help and that Obama's been ignoring his advice before blasting out BS over FNC? Wouldn't he want to make the case in the press with evidence that Obama has ignored him, if he were truly trying to change Obama's policies to make the country safer?
Reply
Nope. This is politicking and fear-mongering at their ugliest.-
100%
Desdamona6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
When its all he knows what can we expect. Perhaps all this talk of hope has made him uncomortable... Fear is what he lived and breathed for... well probably his whole life... its all he knows. If you are not a master of fear mongering how else would he get the man he shot to apologize to him... If you listen to what he says from this perspective his rants become somewhat comical...
Reply -
100%
Progressive6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That's right. Dick can run as well as he could hide:
Reply
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/200...
-
-
83%
cowboygrandpa6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
jd:
Reply
"Because Obama and company have succumbed to the au courant disdain for him and have chosen to ignore him."
No they are not ignoring him.
They are rejecting his insanity, as a sane person is want to do !!!!!
He has been shown the door and hates he cannot continue on with his plan to destroy our country.
But hey there are still those of you who seek to continue the destruction of American values by placing a Nazi like jack boot -GW Bush, Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Rice...- in positions of terrorizing the world and America for their sick and demented view of the world !!!!!!
They should be in prison awaiting trial on charges of terrorism, not out trying to place more garbage on the plate.
-
-
-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive1 Reply
-
-
100%
Radiofreeeuropa6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
8 years hiding in an undisclosed location...now glaring from behind the primordial ooze dripping from every TV screen spouting the most obtuse nonsense ever concocted by any collection of protoplasmic cells ever assembled. Go back to your undisclosed location please. Darken our towels no more.
Reply-
100%
gamahuche6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hi Beau, Radio, CBGP! I guess you guys are all burning the midnight oil while I'm in crack-of-dawn mode. I must say it feels reassuring to have some human company after having invoked the undead!
Reply
I think an extra shot of slivovice is called for this morning to ward off the other spirits!
Your health, gentlemen!
-
-
100%
gamahuche6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I like Maureen Dowd! Paul Krugman too, but Cheney as rogue diva was an irresistible image, even at 4 something a.m. after a late work session.
Reply
I got a picture of him in a blue dress and lots of scarlet lipstick, more Cockette than coquette, naturally (or presumably).
What the heck IS his game right now??
I would have expected him to have already been long gone - bags pre-packed for an immediate getaway to S. America the moment that his time was up. And here he is still cavorting around, flapping his lips, larger than life and somewhat less than half-as-natural. He was always scarier than GWB whose pungent farts-for-the-interns never allowed me(or probably poor Laura)to seriously consider him as a full-grown man..
What next! Can it get worse?-
100%
Radiofreeeuropa6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well the image of Cheney in drag is a bit much for my gastronomic system...which is detracting from the inherent humor. But he is contributing to turning the GOP into a quaint anachronism.
Reply
Since 1 party rule is not palatable, I would say now is the time for a new political party to take it's place. If libertarians focused on their social issues and didn't reveal their dark side (they are mostly GOPers who have been indicted, and their views on operating the federal government are less practicable and realistic than crossing Plato's Republic with Disneyland as a political model) they could easily become the new major party. The greens need more issues....maybe the socialists? There needs to be legitimate debate and watchdog-ing and the GOP is intellectually incapable of providing it in it's modern state.-
100%
Beau78906 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think Cheney's just protecting his business interests. The more turmoil in the U.S., and the worse our relations with oil-producing countries, the more money he makes.
Reply
I think it's less the Republic and Disneyland than it is The Prince and Twitty City.
Sorry to have missed you as you were having your "juice" at breakfast, g. That comment was my parting shot last night.
-
-
-
-
100%
antibrainwasher6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That's what's happening fr5, in his senile phase, the Murdering Coward Chickenhawk Cheney cannot resist the spotlight and camera, like a sick vampire cant resist virgin blood.
Reply
But, Jesus on a jetski, isn't it nice to not see the Villiage Idiot Chimpanzee's bumbling yet cocky face on the TV. Excuse me, I just threw up a little in my mouth writing that.
I hope Cheney lives a long and talkative live, since he is sucking the Repugs dry. That being said, should a glob of fat from his Yellow Belly Cowards arse squeeze through his hard arterys and clog his black heart and explode his diseased brain, I would be first in line to urinate on his grave.
-
-
-
100%
TheNewsseeker6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It belongs to the basic political talents to search for the right advisors, who are not only competent and reliable, but also have enough brain to see, where they are wrong and where they should rethink their strategy. Dick Cheney, up to now, hasn´t learned anything and was one of the disgusting ingredients that made the political mixture of the Bush administration so indigestible for the Democratic America and the rest of the world!
Reply -
100%
myfairlady6 months, 4 weeks ago
-
100%
antibrainwasher6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
A black eye for the party of black heart greed.
Reply
Jeb Bush called a special session for Terry Shivo, spitting on hundreds of years of precident law, and causing the collapse of the repug revolution.
That was the turning point, repugs legislating between and man and his brain dead wife.
Jeb Bush is a sellout, principle-less coward, and he reminds me of Glen Goebbles Beck. A chickenhawk coward who would say anything as long as his hyena pack of lockstepping greed merchants can get thier talons on power and government no bid money. -
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive14 Replies
-
-
7%
Hhussk6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Poor nihiliberals, is this all you got today?
Reply
It's humorous how easily you can be baited into a forum about Cheney or Palin, but scared off from talking the actual issues of the day.
This must be torture to you, because as we speak, Pelosi is trying to call the CIA a bunch of liars. Down she goes...
By all means, prove Cheney wrong. Oh wait, you'd have to actually release documents and be "transparent" for that. Let's see, which President ran on transparenecy? Oh, I guess not.-
100%
alakazam6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-t48kkwDhfw
Reply
*snicker* -
100%
CRYMTYPHON6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's hhusk!
Reply
Here to pity us!
And he is right; we are torturing ourselves over Mr. Dick .
At least my ribs hurt, and I am not the only one laughing.
But we aren't trying to prove him wrong.
We proved that long ago.
We were just laughing at the US's sad, bad, mad ex-VP;
- at him, and at his supporters. -
-
-
-
7%
jimdoze6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It is fun to watch the lunatic left go batsh*t about Dick Cheney.
Reply
Cheney is spot on... and the reason it gets the chattering class's knickers in such a twist is because deep down they know the argument is about how we view the world. How we view the world governs our actions... and our actions have everything to do with world peace and global prosperity. Cheney has garnered the moniker "doomsday Dick" because he sees clearly how bad things could get when a faulty world view produces counterproductive foreign policy actions. As such, he is far more in tune with reality than the chattering left could ever hope to be.
As a comparative note, it is too bad that the Senate and House of Representatives did not, over the last few years, have someone with a similar way of looking at things in charge of the Senate Banking Committee and as the ranking member on the House Financial Services Committee.-
-
100%
willottica6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Dick Cheney is far from spot on:
Reply
FTA: “Well, then you’d have to say that, in effect, we’re prepared to sacrifice American lives rather than run an intelligent interrogation program that would provide us the information we need to protect America,” Doomsday Dick said.
In short, you'd have to sacrifice American lives to protect American values and freedom. Exactly what patriots did in the Civil war. What people fought for in WWI and WWII. What Americans have claimed to be fighting and sacrificing their lives for in EVERY war the country has waged.
American soldiers are not risking their lives to support torture and oppression; they're risking their lives to try to end it.
-
-
6%
Commodore16 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm thankful for people like Cheney and Palin. It's interesting to see how much they scare liberals. To me Palin is a true American hero. She has character, intelligence, and raw nerve. Attributes like this are foreign to liberals. They are concepts that liberals simply can't grasp. The concepts that totally disrupt the brain washed drone-like thinking of the nazi liberals. It's almost like a comedy show to watch liberals react. I would say the liberals remind me of the Three Stooges when they react but I have more respect for the Three Stooges than I do for the liberals. A million miles more.
Reply-
100%
gamahuche6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This may be a lovely way to view the world from your particular little "mon repos" but unfortunately this very elementary black-white type of thinking is as impressive as a fart in a thunderstorm whenever you venture out from your sheltered enclave into the big bad world. Where in the rest of the world is the US currently, post Iraq, post Guantanamo - well almost post - actually making any headway whatsoever in regard to hearts and minds??
Reply
Obama did EXTREMELY well in Europe, starting with Berlin but the last politician from the US who actually won any respect for the US in the rest of the world was Bill Clinton!
Flawed as he may have been he did possess the common touch and his programme on his short visit to the Czech Republic was a flawless performance which touched the hearts of millions of people..
But I suppose in Peoria or wherever you hang your hat concepts like international friendship and relations are not valued so highly.
Oh and of course Mr McCain did manage to get his ass to some German diner in a shopping mall somewhere while Obama was in Berlin, in an attempt to stteal his thunder and had bratwurst with a couple of folks. Nice of him really..-
-
100%
Progressive6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually, it was in Ohio. (I only know this because I live near Scranton.)
Reply
http://www.columbusdispatch.com/live/content/local...
-
-
0%
BB646 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Where have you been? If you mean the masses of the EU possibly but their leadership isn't impressed. Snubs to the UK Prime Minister and Queen Elizabeth have hurt us. Obama sent a letter to Italian President Italian President Giorgio Napolitano rather than to Italian Head of State, Prime Minister Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. The letter was worded exactly like the letter he sent to former French President Jacques Chirac. So not only did he address the wrong person as head of the Italian nation, he send a form letter.
Reply
The Czech prime minister and president have openly criticized Mr Obama’s approach to the financial crisis. This doesn't sound like the flawless performance. Perhaps it's because President Obama canceled the state dinner and insisted on a very informal closed meal.
Obama is courting the old guard communist and socialist of Europe’s failed past and ignoring the more progressive thinking conservatives who are the current leaders in Europe.-
-
100%
gamahuche6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You could not be more wrong in almost EVERY single word you utter..
Reply
I'm not going to go through your post with a toothcomb but just as an example, re the Prague plans:
There was no "STATE DINNER" in the plans - ever.
On the day that the Obamas arrived what had been planned was that they would have a PRIVATE beer with the Prime Minister and his wife and a PRIVATE dinner with Vaclav Klaus and his long-suffering nominal wife.
In the meantime .. Topolanek had ceased to be the Prime Minister and Vaclav Klaus had made idiot of himself in Brussels as part of his PERSONAL feud against the EU.
As I stated in another post - whoever was on top of Obama's protocol made an absolutely BRILLIANT call to NOT compromse Obama by having him deal with these yesterday's men.
Absolutely f***ing brilliant.
As for the Queen.. she absolutely adored Michelle, especially, and if you want to know who she probably hates more than anyone in the world that would be George W. Bush, who insisted on flying his helicopter into the garden of Buckingham Palace and destroying it - in particular also frightening her greatly loved flamingos.
Time to get your feet on dry land!
-
-
-
-
0%
BB646 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
GWH,
Reply
Then you clearly have no clue about the GOP. Palin offered so much to the McCain ticket you can't imagine. John was and is a terrible candidate for the conservative base of the GOP. Without Palin, it would have been a landslide. She energized the base.
Using your handbook, Rules for Radicals, you're still attacking Palin. It's clear you realize how damaging a conservative female can be to your cause. Granted, she was a wee bit to schmaltzy for me but by your continued attacks, it's clear you still see her as a threat to your ownership of the NOW and other women groups. Wow, you dumped Hillary for Obama and then brought Biden on for VP. I can see why your only option was to attack, attack, attack. Biden was and continues to be a joke.-
100%
GWHayduke6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
All I know about the GOP is what I hear from its members.
Reply
They tell me that (and they voted the {R} ticket) they were concerned with her experience and her integrity.
And FYI, I consult the "Bomb Throwing Anarchists" handbook, not Rules for Radicals.
I looked for the library's copy of "The Corporate Socialists Guide to Governmental Handouts" but noticed that it was checked out to one BB64. -
100%
Progressive6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Palin was and continues to be a joke.
Reply
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#30733688 -
100%
Beau78906 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
BB64, what you seem to be missing is that the base of the Republican party is too small to make a difference anymore. (Just take a look at how many seats in the House and Senate Republicans have lost in the past five years.) Putting all efforts into energizing the dwindling base is the same bad bet Cheney and Rush are making by trying to "purify" the party. It's not going to make Republicans any more popular, and not going to win them any elections.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
100%
Radiofreeeuropa6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The mere fact that there is anyone not currently residing in a rubber room that contends that Palin is viable as anything other than breeding stock...that Cheney is capable of uttering a word of truth or acting in any way other than serving himself and his cronies bank accounts is what is frightening.
Reply
-
-
100%
Desdamona6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"She has character, intelligence, and raw nerve...." for a minute I thought you had switched the conversation Hillary... Did you really say intelligence? And character - if character is making rape victims pay for their own rape kits (police evidence gatering). Hmmm well you didn't say what kind of character.
Reply -
100%
dunkirk6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"She has character, intelligence, and raw nerve. "
Reply
ROFLMAO, that HAS to be one of the best spin jobs Ive seen in a while for Palin. But then again you need to consider the avg neo con on here, Palin has character? She used her position as governor to bypass the law and fire someone, Intelligence? She believed Africa was a country and that she had ample international experience watching Putin fly over Alaska not t mention being able to see Russia out her kitchen window. Raw nerve? that might be the closest since she did have the audacity to use GOP money to buy clothes for her family not to mention using a downs syndrome child as a political, prop.
-
-
100%
Poulenc6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's hard to know what exactly Chaney's game is (besides the usual need of the endlessly narcissistic/power mad to remain in the public eye): to redress wrongs; to cover his posterior; to keep a hand in the Repub machine and/or attempt to subvert Obama and the Dems; all of the above.
Reply
I think I just answered my own question. -
-
100%
CRYMTYPHON6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
not good enough, Poulenc.
Reply
Now you owe us another post.
Make it interesting, with a flavor of humour touched by human tragedy.
Throw in a kitten with a hurt paw trudging thru the snow on christmas eve,
but make it politicaly topicaly relevant too.
Also Gama wants something in there about Czech beer but you can skip that.-
100%
gamahuche6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Also Gama wants something in there about Czech beer but you can skip that."
Reply
Poulenc can skip it - though actually I owe him one! :)
But thanks for the reminder!
Its Friday night, which is "pub night" which I usually skip since my "group" disintegrated with people leaving town. And they tend to get overly smoky too..
However I have a couple of litre bottles of some special yeasted beer and an oversize crystal glass of the cardamom flavoured one in my hand right now..
CHEERS!
-
-
-
-
-
100%
alakazam6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The "buddy system" is just exactly what it is DW...he has been moving around behind the scenes for decades. The folks who signed on to the PNAC are thicker than thieves.
Reply
There is no telling what the man may have been involved in. He has clearly been operating above the Law. He has covered them...they have covered him. -
-
-
0%
BB646 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This simply makes me laugh. When Gore or Kerry attacked Bush, it was a patriotic thing to protest. Now "Cheney is being too negative."
Reply
We're using your rule book better get used to it:
1 ) Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
2 ) Never go outside the experience of your people. It may result in confusion, fear and retreat.
3 ) Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear and retreat.
4 ) Make the enemy live up to his/her own book of rules.
5 ) Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.
6 ) A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
7 ) A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
8 ) Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.
9 ) The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
10 ) The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
11 ) If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.
12 ) The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
13 ) Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.-
100%
dunkirk6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROFLMAO, maybe you better look over your rules those are the tactics of the Bush Administration and Republicans for quite a while now. Arent you ever afraid your Swiss Company will somehow figure out they emply you and that the tax losses you provide with your astute business sense arent really worth it?
Reply-
100%
alakazam6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It sounds like a bizarro world version of "The Art of War".
Reply
http://www.sonshi.com/learn.html -
0%
BB646 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The company, or more precisely conglomerate I work for, is very concerned with the current state of our economy. We used to supply robotics to the big three. Now the last buyer has been Harley Davidson and that's for plants in China and India. It concerns me greatly also.
Reply
As to the game plan, you've never seen the hate and bile from our side as we saw against Sarah Palin. The woman was running for Vice President. Yet you turned every resource of your party against her entire family. You never once questioned Obama on any of his past. You even claimed that Palin's husband molested the daughter. Oh, that was supposed to be a joke. I didn't hear anyone suggest since he's so much "like" Kennedy, he should take a ride to Dallas. Not only is that in poor taste, no member of the GOP sees the resemblance. Then again, this was a creation of Teddy's. The gin soaked sod that he is.-
100%
CRYMTYPHON6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yawn.
Reply
The 2008 election wasn't about Palin.
The fact that of the 4 main candidates,
she was the only one you liked,
- does not allow you to pretend she received a greater level of evil nonsense aimed at her than the others.
Were there lies about Obama's birth or abilities or sexuality or patriotism,
that you denounced?
Did you defend his wife from the fake interview transcripts,
the fake 'whitey rant?'
Did you laugh when we were offered idiot conspiracy theories about Obama's student loans or his best sellers?
Where the heck do you get off talking like an honest man bitter at the
success of lies ?
There were liberals on Propeller who said 'Lay off Palin's children'.
There were conservatives who said 'Leave Michelle alone'.
They get the privilege of moral outrage about lies.
That fake stuff you are swilling,
- pour it out.-
0%
BB646 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I can't tell you about Obama's birth certificate. Some of this was caused by the lack of vetting by your party and the media. I do know one very important thing you guys forget about. Had Roe v. Wade happened earlier, you might not have a President Obama. A white woman knocked up by a black man in the 1960's would have been a good candidate for abortion. Again, had it been legal, it would be interesting to know what her choice would have been.
Reply
I was at the woman's rally when Michelle expressed that this was the very first time she was proud of her country. Why because he's a Kenyan American? I thought skin color didn't matter. I guess it only matters when it works in your favor.
I don't know about student loans but I have read his books. I had a liberal working in my office who loved Obama. She gave me both his books. I read them. There are at least 2 different authors for each book. One is a very angry person, the other reminds me of a preacher or professor. Perhaps both books were written at different times of his life. Perhaps someone else wrote them. I don't know. I do know it read like 2 separate writers created the book.
As for liberals defending the Palins, I didn't see that too often. In fact when they were trying to destroy the Palins, the ratings for SNL were the highest for many years. Then again, SNL hasn't been funny since the 1970's.-
100%
CRYMTYPHON6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"white woman knocked up by a black man in the 1960's would have been a good candidate for abortion"
Reply
Wow.
You claimed once you attended a church full of black people.
Give them that observation about our president,
Perhaps they will still pray with you.
Or for you, anyway.
-
-
-
100%
dunkirk6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"you've never seen the hate and bile from our side as we saw against Sarah Palin"
Reply
Considering hate and bile is the only thing the right ever shows. Did you forget Whitewater? Attacks against Hillary? Chelsey when she was living in the WH? Please moral outrage coming from you is pretty humorous coinsidering you fully supported all the hate and bile directed at others.-
0%
BB646 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
First, Whitewater was a huge rip off that the Rose law firms handled badly. It was clear crimes were committed and I do think the Clinton machine was involved. Perhaps not Governor Clinton but his wife, almost certainly. Was it chargeable crimes? I don't know. Bad advise from a bad attorney may be protected.
Reply
Chelsey was hands off for the whole time. Try again. There were more stories on the Bush daughters from the first month in the White House than in the whole 8 years of the Clintons. There was bias but I do support leaving the children of the president alone. And the attacks on Hillary in the White House were simple. When you steel property from the White House and you won't give it back until the press asks you about it, you have a problem and need help. Also, there is no way Hillary didn't know about her husband catting around. He's had more sexual harassment suits than Hugh Hefner. I think what's more insulting is when he decides to have an affair with an intern he picked Monica. Monica? The most powerful man on earth and that's the best he could do? Monica? Really?
Don't forget about Vince Foster, the Pay for Pardons, and Johnny Chung. There's also the Clinton Sudden Death Syndrome. Come on, the press was easy on the only President to be impeached in the 20th Century.-
100%
Beau78906 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
When Whitewater failed to produce anything actionable against the Clintons, what happened? A six-year fishing expedition that resulted in perjury charges against Clinton reagarding a personal act that had no effect on the citizens of the country. Not to mention that no perjury would have been committed if the investigations had stopped when it was clear there was nothing to prosecute.
Reply
If Chelsea had been arrested for forging prescriptions or drunk driving, or if she'd been knocked up, you can be certain the right wouldn't have laid off her. Bush's and Palin's families were embarrassments for them. No one held off on making jokes of Billy Carter or Roger Clinton for being embarrassments.
Your last paragraph is full of unproven smears. If we made similar accusations about Bush or Cheney, you'd have a fit.
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
Beau78906 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have some questions about those rules you cited, BB64.
Reply
Do you honestly believe Republicans haven't been using Nos. 2, 3, 6, 8, 9 (especially 9!), 10, 11 and 13 since the 1980s? Do a llittle research on the tactics of Lee Atwater, Roger Ailes and Karl Rove.
And do you really have a problem with no. 4, making the enemy (or anyone for that matter) "live up to its own book of rules"? Do you believe Republicans shouldn't be held to their own standards? -
100%
donald516 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
BB, you argue for the party that starting with Newt's Contract With America as the beginning of continual lie to America.
Reply
It was Newt who was first to come up with a list of derogatives for addressing Dems which he handed out to his fellow Repugs...
It was Delay who called the Saipan sweat shops with approved prostitution and abortion a fine example of free enterprise just to get that "Made in America " label! Delay is still on trial for his illegal redistricting in Texas!
Why do you think so many senior repugs didn't even bother to run in the last 2 elections... they knew they abused the rules so much under Dumya that payback was due.
To tell the truth repugs don't need rules... they will always do the most expeditious - no rules, no scruples, no conscience involved!
-
-
-
100%
CRYMTYPHON6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have seen many good democrats run in my time.
Reply
I have seen many good republicans run.
I might be older.
Your inability to admit any virtue of inteligence or patriotism to Obama,
despite his incredible achievments, - is not news.
Like I said, it was why you lost.
I had no idea that all those networks were ours!
They keep annoying me with pics of Dick Cheney and his daughter and Rush and Steele all trashing my President.
If those are our networks we libs are incredibly more honest than I gave us credit for.
As for socialism, and communism - they are indeed failed systems.
They failed in Europe, and they will fail in China.
You believe American workers can not compete against a marxist slave
labour system;
- unless we abandon our labor laws, our clean air and water rules,
and all ambition to have a free and educated working class.
And so become temp slaves in global corportation sweat shops ourselves.
But Americans can compete against the chinese system.
They will fail; we will bury them.
Try and recover your investments before that happens. -
100%
CRYMTYPHON6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sorry, BB64;
Reply
but there is no victory in your weird list of tactics.
Your string of rules are 13 ways to say:
lie about your enemy .
If that had been a good strategy, you would have won in 2008.
You had a rain of lies in the air,
- the birth certificate idiocy
- terrorist-connection conspiracy,
- the 'elitist' label
- the 'not really a harvard scholar' libel.
- hates the flag nonsense
etc to sad etcetera.
Good Rove stuff; quality lies.
But you lost.
You had a good man for your candidate;
a war hero, an experienced political rebel;
You ignored him.
You put all your work into lies:
in cheap attacks and the fox-news frauds,
- and you lost.
We spent our time talking about our guy;
saying Obama was a brilliant young politician
with new ideas and a great grasp of the problems.
It worked.
Trash your list, BB64. Try this:
- Find good candidates and tell the truth about them.
Or get used to seeing your country run by those who do.-
0%
BB646 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well I haven't seen a good Democrat run in my entire lifetime.
Reply
As for losing, it is our party's fault. We ran the Rino and let the guy run his own campaign. McCain was a very poor choice. His war hero status didn't matter. His weakness was simply he stood too many times with the DNC to ever get the conservative support needed to win.
As for talking about your candidate, brilliant? You can't prove it by me. I've asked to see his transcripts but they're about as sealed as Kerry's official war records. I've searched for anything written by him during his work in Chicago but there's nothing available on line. Not even from the Harvard Law Review. His new ideas are little more than socialist ideas from a failed past. Socialism failed in the USSR. It's been a failed program throughout Europe for the last 50 years and it will fail here. I'm hoping we can resurrect the USA when he leaves office.
On the networks, you guys have CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, PBS, NPR, and God knows who else. Having one conservative network, FOX really bothers you guys. Not only do you have the regular news you have the "news shows" and entertainment shows all producing anti-GOP shows.-
-
100%
CRYMTYPHON6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
An honest question;
Reply
I will give it a try.
But first, - put some temp blinders on all the frauds it has been gut-pleasing to believe.
Accept for a moment, the facts as presented minus the conspiracy
explanations.
Obama is a anonymous kid who grew up in a weird family and worked through columbia and harvard to became a lawyer, writer, politician.
The kind of person who sets themselves dificult challenges;
and wins. .
And when he finaly ran for President,
- he did not appeal to fears, but to hopes.
He did not denounce his opponent,
- he talked about himself and America.
He was a capitalist who made his own fortune,
and when he spoke about America's promise
of oportunity
- it wasn't lip service from some 5th generation stock-holder.
And when he won,
he faced the problems of our country with calm and determination.
He was serious , when we had grown used to leaders playing with flags and slogans.
It has only been 5 months.
I don't agree with everything he has done;
I worry about the deficit, the war in afghanistan and pakistan,
I worry how many deals a pragmatist makes before he
sells out.
But there is much to admire about Mr. Obama.
even for an honest opposition.
Our country is justly proud of him. -
-
0%
BB646 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually, you haven't said much here. Yes he faced difficulties. As did all past leaders, good and bad. Clinton is a good example of this. Reagan certainly is.
Reply
He did attack McCain and John defended Obama.
I'm not sure where you think he's a capitalist. He's never run a business. In fact, I haven't been able to follow much of a real work record. He won his first big seat by some how getting the Trib to print sealed divorce papers of his opponent. As for the short time, he's following the Bush plan almost to the letter other than Pakistan.
But again, you haven't shown me one reason to blindly follow Mr. Obama.-
100%
CRYMTYPHON6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Who the heck asked you to blindly follow anybody?
Reply
Is that what you did for Bush?
No wonder the country declined.
A good American doesn't blindly follow anybody .
As you once said (and it was well said ) the president
is our employee. He works for us.
There is currently no national consensus on how to solve the nation's immediate problems.
All we have, is the consensus of who we should put in charge of solving those problems.
It's a plan.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ProgressiveComment removed: Spam
-
100%
Progressive6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Uncle Dick and his entranced followers:
Reply
http://www.caglecartoons.com/images/preview/%7B2d4... -
13%
thesatyr016 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Once again, the party that claims "tolerance" shows it's stripes as the party of hate and intolerance. Way to go,Dems. I guess anyone who doesn't goose step to Obama and his liberal agenda are now to be considered insane or demonized and thus marginalized. This is starting to feel like the early 1930s again.
Reply-
-
-
100%
NoWayMan6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
we're talking about torture here. try to stay on track.
Reply
so a woman doesn't get to choose what to do with her own body and you call that moral? or is that simply the same ol' same ol' from the religious right, where a woman is worth less than a man?
and then you'll sit there and defend the death penalty, right?
thanks for the (non) lesson in morals. nitwit.-
0%
BB646 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm simply asking if you have anyone left that doesn't feel abortion is right? I never said take any rights from anyone.
Reply
How about people who feel marriage is between a man and woman only? Are there any people left in the DNC who can claim that?
As to torture or the death penalty. I think when you become a non-uniformed combatant, which in the old days was a spy or 5th columnist, you were provided no protection under the Constitution. In the Geneva Convention, you were a spy and safe harbor was not offered nor was it expected. If captured you would be killed. I think that also holds true for murderers. I think if a man commits first degree intentional homicide or attempts to kill a police or other officer of the courts, you void your rights as a human being.
My point is that the DNC is the party of the fringe groups.-
100%
ADAGUY6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I'm simply asking if you have anyone left that doesn't feel abortion is right?"
Reply
My personal opinion of abortion is irrelevant until the supreme court agrees with me.
We currently have 7 republickins and 2 democrats on the supreme court, and they still keep ruling the same way on Roe V Wade. But this is all the fault of the democrats huh? (both of em!)
The issue of abortion and religion have been used as weapons to get votes for much too long. The time has come to learn that this is out of the hands of elected officials. -
100%
NoWayMan6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I'm simply asking if you have anyone left that doesn't feel abortion is right? I never said take any rights from anyone."
Reply
spare me the bullsh*t and quit acting like people on the right don't have abortions.
"How about people who feel marriage is between a man and woman only? Are there any people left in the DNC who can claim that?"
I dunno. hope not. that would mean they are anti-civil rights.
and then it came to torture and the death penalty and that's where you just start to dance.
non-uniformed combatant, 5th colmunist, blah blah blah.
wrong. BB64. you are the one who is out in the woods, all alone.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
BB646 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually, he's doing the job of a former Vice President. When the other side attacks the record of the past President, generally it's the former VP that plays attack dog. Carter really was the first president to break that rule. When he lost his bid for reelection he started sniping at Reagan from day one. Even while on the flight to Germany to meet with the hostages held by the Iranians, Carter took a shot or two at Reagan. Bush 41 didn't attack Clinton and Clinton didn't attack Bush 43 that much. Even when Clinton staffers damaged White House equipment and did around $2M in damage, Bush 43 never criticized Clinton. I am very unimpressed with Obama and his continued attacks on Bush 43.
Reply
As to Cheney, he will be around for a while. Who do you think released the info on Pelosi attending the Water Boarding meetings? Who do you think will release information concerning Dodd and Frank as the Freddie and Fannie collapse is investigated? Who do you think released the information concerning what the UAW contributed to the Obama campaign? If your side continues to go after the conservatives, it's only going to get messy. There's a lot more dirt on your side of the isles.
-
-
-
0%
BB646 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You know there's a few problems with that whole story. No one is willing to officially put their name on record for hearing him say this. One other important thing to know about President Bush is his respect for the Oval Office. He thinks of it as almost hallowed ground. He will not enter the office without a jacket and tie. He will never swear in it. He has publicly stated that he feels a connection to past leaders and understands the reverence the Office holds. The history made there is special to him. The last thing, he sees America as Reagan does. The shining city on a hill. Protecting that city are our laws based on our Constitution. He is right that it is simply a piece of paper, it's not a living document as some "scholars" try to claim. It is the basis of freedom. America is what dreams are made of.
Reply
Neg me all you want, I'm used to it being one of 4 conservatives still left here. I know President Bush never said that.-
100%
CRYMTYPHON6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The inability to enter the Oval Office without wearing a jacket and tie,
Reply
is not a sign that one respects the Office or the Constitution.
We determine these things by whether they issued secret orders to
cancel parts of the constitution like habeau corpus or the definition of
the executive branch in relation to the vice presidency or signing laws with loophole signing statements.
It is not Bush's tie that tells us his repect for the constitution I know I said that already but really it should be said again, - Not.... His..... Tie...... -
-
-
-
-
crazyolman70Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
crazyolman70Comment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
-
100%
donald516 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
OTHER REPUGS BEING DECENT? You have to be kidding!
Reply
Do you mean the ones that want to secede or are pushing revolution so everybody should get their assault weapons now while you can still get them without a background check at those right wing, gun shows?
Or do you mean all those senior repugs (at least 6 now) who have criticized Oxycontin Rush only to have to apologize to the evil man later?
Torture, preemptive war, loss of habeas corpus, eavesdropping, gitmo, etc..... Dumya said the "Constitution is just a piece of paper!"
Dumya only did what all the repugs in Congress supported him on, thus revealing the true terrorist nature of the repugs altogether! The RNC is a terrorist organization in America! -
eezzbeatComment removed: Hard Banned
-
sonofreasonComment removed: Hard Banned
-
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.