• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Republicans are the party of chaos and catastrophe.

We’re not going back!

Spilling the end game before they can coat it in frankl luntz-approved dogwhistles.

Incompetence, fear, or corruption? why not all three?

There are consequences to being an arrogant, sullen prick.

They traffic in fear. it is their only currency. if we are fearful, they are winning.

Sitting here in limbo waiting for the dice to roll

I didn’t have alien invasion on my 2023 BINGO card.

The GOP couldn’t organize an orgy in a whorehouse with a fist full of 50s.

How can republicans represent us when they don’t trust women?

Their freedom requires your slavery.

Republicans are radicals, not conservatives.

… pundit janitors mopping up after the GOP

This fight is for everything.

Wow, you are pre-disappointed. How surprising.

Pessimism assures that nothing of any importance will change.

Joe Lieberman disappointingly reemerged to remind us that he’s still alive.

My years-long effort to drive family and friends away has really paid off this year.

White supremacy is terrorism.

Putting aside our relentless self-interest because the moral imperative is crystal clear.

That’s my take and I am available for criticism at this time.

Whoever he was, that guy was nuts.

A consequence of cucumbers

It’s a doggy dog world.

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / Nationalism Ate Libertarianism

Nationalism Ate Libertarianism

by Tim F|  May 5, 200611:21 am| 160 Comments

This post is in: Politics

FacebookTweetEmail

Sounds about right to me.

This helps explain how “libertarians” and “conservatives” buried everything that they supposedly stood for – small government, limited governmental intervention in private lives, limited federal government power in general – when their governing coalition found itself in power.

On a similar note, I never thought that we would seriously ask whether George W. Bush is a conservative. I guess that makes me that much less perceptive than Digby, who predicted this months ago. Via this characteristically important post by Greenwald, conservatives have a real problem in that they hitched their movement to the president when he seemed like an unbeatable juggernaut. As their designated representative slides from juggernaut to joke, conservatives have to find a way to get unhitched before he drags the movement down with him.

Let me illustrate. We have commenters of every political stripe who bring up the president fairly often. I have noticed that when somebody criticizes the president the defender will sooner or later label that person a ‘liberal’ almost without fail. That seems like a strange thing to say when Bush critics include dyed-in-the-wool libs, Reagan Democrats, independents, GOP expatriates and unreconstructed Republican conservatives who simply detest the current administration. If you follow the logic that opposing the president more or less categorically defines a person as liberal, by definition that makes the president conservative, even the living embodiment of conservatism. As long as the Republican star seemed on the rise and decades of hard work had made the word ‘liberal’ practically an epithet it made for a useful, if dishonest, rhetorical barb.

Obviously personifying conservatism is a bad idea if the person is a loser. That helps explain conservatives who have newfound problems with the president, but for sheer moxie points you can’t beat Jonah Goldberg, a guy who not only steps away from the president but tries to hitch Bush’s fading star to liberalism. Really? I get it now, those angry books from Hannity, Coulter, Savage et al ad infinitum actually called the president a traitor, an enemy of America and a closet sympathizer with the evil men who want to destroy our great nation. Try to parse that logic, and then take an advil.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Plame Flame War Thread
Next Post: Goss Out »

Reader Interactions

160Comments

  1. 1.

    blackfrancis

    May 5, 2006 at 11:25 am

    i had a headache before reading this.

  2. 2.

    Steve

    May 5, 2006 at 11:31 am

    Here is a very good post along these lines.

  3. 3.

    VAMark

    May 5, 2006 at 11:36 am

    I remember grumbling back as far as the runup to 2000 about why GWB felt the need to hitch “compassionate” to conservative in the first place. Then the drumbeat that he was “God’s man” for the job started (fellow listeners to Christian radio circa 1999-2000 can back me up on this) and he became the official candidate of the GOP powers that be. They’ll try to disassociate him from the brand now, and the real Kool-Aid drinkers will buy it and forget they ever supported him (“never did trust the guy, wasn’t he a cheerleader in high school?”). But if the Dems were smart they could run against him for at least the 12 years the GOP rode Carter, if not the 30 the Dems ran against Hoover. Given the Dems we have, of course, I expect GOP victories in 2006 and 2008.

  4. 4.

    canuckistani

    May 5, 2006 at 11:39 am

    It’s as if the right wing has spent so long conflating the words “liberal” and “bad”, that they can no longer criticize anything without calling it “liberal”, e.g. “The chicken in the fridge has gone liberal”, or “Red Dawn was a liberal movie”.

  5. 5.

    The Other Steve

    May 5, 2006 at 11:39 am

    Steve – How is a post about urine on sidewalks interesting?

  6. 6.

    Tim F.

    May 5, 2006 at 11:41 am

    Other Steve,

    Wait a minute and the page will automatically scroll down. The writer definitely has a more informed perspective on the nuances of conservative Bush criticism than I do.

  7. 7.

    Darrell

    May 5, 2006 at 11:44 am

    This helps explain how “libertarians” and “conservatives” buried everything that they supposedly stood for – small government, limited governmental intervention in private lives, limited federal government power in general – when their governing coalition found itself in power.

    It’s not that the conservatives buried their small govt ideals, it’s that we made a choice between the lesser of two evils. We had been attacked on 9/11 and the middle east was a cesspool breeding terrorists, and the left refused to take that threat seriously.. that is, unless “no blood for oil” constitutes serious political dialogue. Seriously, what were/are the left’s solutions? What is the left proposing to do about Iran, other than scream about Bush? Answer that if you want to have a serious discussion.. which is discussion the left avoids like the plague

    I have noticed that when somebody criticizes the president the defender will sooner or later label that person a ‘liberal’ almost without fail

    Yes, because “Bush is a fascist killer”, typical of ‘criticism’ of Bush on this site.. of which I can demonstrate with LOTS of examples if anyone claims otherwise. That sort of criticism, which is commonplace, is in fact usually made by hateful liberals who are too irrational to be taken seriously

  8. 8.

    Sojourner

    May 5, 2006 at 11:47 am

    That sort of criticism, which is commonplace, is in fact usually made by hateful liberals who are too irrational to be taken seriously

    Ah yes. Another confirmation of Tim’s thesis. It’s irrational, hateful liberals who believe Bush is the worst POTUS in history. Wow, almost 70% of the country have become liberals.

    Whoo hoo!!!!

  9. 9.

    The Other Steve

    May 5, 2006 at 11:48 am

    I’ve noticed that. They’re now all distancing themselves from the man.

    Which is not surprising. Whenever something goes wrong for Republicans, they blame someone else. In this case it appears that Bush is going to be the scapegoat.

    I agree with VAMark. The Republican party should have to remember Bush for the next 30 years. The failure of Bush has not been the man, it’s been the ideology. That is, whatever problem comes along they try to apply a hammer to it whether appropriate or not. I’ve been noticing this over and over again from their mighty “thinktanks”. They’ve got no new ideas, they don’t even want to understand the problem. It’s all about how can we turn this into a profit opportunity for a campaign contributor.

  10. 10.

    Darrell

    May 5, 2006 at 11:52 am

    Bush has abandoned small govt policies, and has alienated his base, which is why his approval ratings are in the dirt. One of the few responsibilities conservatives feel should be handled by the federal govt is enforcement of the borders, and Bush has f*cked that one up as well. If the Dems were not so infested with hateful extremists, they would mop the floor with the Repubs.

    Problem is, the extremists have more influence in the Dem party than ever before. I mean, when the Dems nominate John Kerry, whom Michael Moore points out is in fact the MOST liberal senator serving, not a mainstream moderate, and the left screams that Kerry is not nearly liberal enough, that says a lot about how extreme the left has become, and why John Cole rightly refers to them as “dangerous”. He’s absolutely right.

  11. 11.

    Blue Neponset

    May 5, 2006 at 11:54 am

    If you are a Conservative 9/11 is a lot like DiDi 7. There isn’t anything it can’t clean up.

  12. 12.

    Darrell

    May 5, 2006 at 11:56 am

    It’s all about how can we turn this into a profit opportunity for a campaign contributor.

    Here is another example. Other Steve is not particularly whacky or extreme compared to other leftists, but if you read his posts and the the opinions of other leftists, you will read that they actualy believe things like Bush “made” oil prices rise to benefit his oil crony buddies and other similar nonsense. Re-read these threads if you doubt me that many/most leftists believe that kind of crap. More evidence that they are too extreme to be taken seriously. It really would be dangerous if these types took control of govt.

  13. 13.

    Pb

    May 5, 2006 at 12:00 pm

    I get it now, those angry books from Hannity, Coulter, Savage et al ad infinitum actually called the president a traitor, an enemy of America and a closet sympathizer with the evil men who want to destroy our great nation.

    Awesome. Let’s look at some of the forthcoming revised book titles:

    Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and George W. Bush
    How To Talk To George W. Bush (If You Must)
    George W. Bush Is A Mental Disorder
    Unhinged: Exposing George W. Bush Gone Wild
    Godless: The Church Of George W. Bush
    Help! Mom! George W. Bush Is Under My Bed!
    Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles In George W. Bush’s Hypocrisy
    Treason: George W. Bush’s Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism
    Persecution: How George W. Bush Is Waging War Against Christianity
    Public Morality, Civic Virtue, And The Problem Of George W. Bush

    Sounds about right…

  14. 14.

    Pb

    May 5, 2006 at 12:06 pm

    Darrell,

    they actualy believe things like Bush “made” oil prices rise to benefit his oil crony buddies and other similar nonsense

    Well yes, Cheney was involved too. It’s indisputable that by their actions, they did make oil prices rise. Perhaps that wasn’t their intent, though–maybe they meant to make oil prices fall, and just bungled it up so horribly that their actions had the opposite effect. That thought doesn’t exactly cheer me up, though. But what do you expect from a bunch of neocon liberals, right?

  15. 15.

    The Other Steve

    May 5, 2006 at 12:07 pm

    Ok, I finally found hte note you were talking about on moonbatvolkoh.com

    This bit at the bottom though, it’s clear he doesn’t comprehend.

    With increasing affluence and technological advances, it has become more feasible to substitute private provision for a wide range of services previously provided by government. For example, this excellent recent book by Robert Nelson notes that some 18% of Americans (up from 1% in 1965) now live in private communities such as condominiums and homeowner associations that provide many or most of the services traditionally provided by local governments. Although the issues involved are complex, such privatization is likely to reduce support for the growth of government, at least at the margin.

    I live in a condo with a homeowner complex. Most all of these places are fairly new within the last 10-15 years. The only “services” that they have which government would otherwise provide is snow removal, and street maintenance. The other services is because we’re lazy.

    But I’ve been in two complexes now, and I’ve looked at many others when shopping around. In 20 years, this whole thing is going to come to a crisis.

    Most homeowner associations are not putting aside enough money in reserve to pay for replacements and repairs needed in 20-30 years. To the roofs, the siding, and in particular the streets.

    What we’ve seen with some of the original townhouse complexes, is that after 30-40 years they end up in such a bad state of repair that the city must take over the maintenance and then places a lean upon the property. That won’t happen to all the newer ones, but it’s going to happen to many of them.

    He just doesn’t get that issue.

  16. 16.

    Blue Neponset

    May 5, 2006 at 12:09 pm

    Re-read these threads if you doubt me that many/most leftists believe that kind of crap.

    Darrell,

    As a leftists I can assure you that the vast majority of us don’t believe Bush went to war for oil. Also, what leftists believe or don’t believe has little, actually nothing, to do with what Conservatives choose to do. If your gang can’t balance the budget or protect the borders it isn’t because Micheal Moore thinks John Kerry would have been a wicked awesome President.

  17. 17.

    Steve

    May 5, 2006 at 12:12 pm

    Argh! I don’t care about privatizing sidewalks.

    Read here.

  18. 18.

    Frank

    May 5, 2006 at 12:12 pm

    Tim- Yes Republicans are filthy criminal traitorous scum. So anything new?

  19. 19.

    The Other Steve

    May 5, 2006 at 12:14 pm

    Other Steve is not particularly whacky or extreme compared to other leftists, but if you read his posts and the the opinions of other leftists, you will read that they actualy believe things like Bush “made” oil prices rise to benefit his oil crony buddies and other similar nonsense.

    Actually this goes back to Tim F.’s comment at the top. You classify me as a Leftist, or Liberal because I detest Bush’s policies. I’m not even sure you know what that means. I guess if believing in a Free Market without Government interference to favor one industry over another makes me a Liberal. Then so be it. I’d rather be a Liberal than a Statist.

    It’s pretty common knowledge and quite clear from anybody who reads the Business Press, that Republicans favor certain companies over others and work their policies in order to direct government largess towards their friends. you can argue that perhaps Democrats do that to, but you don’t get to claim it doesn’t happen.

  20. 20.

    Sojourner

    May 5, 2006 at 12:17 pm

    Yes Republicans are filthy criminal traitorous scum.

    Nah. Just unable to govern. Which is unfortunate if you want to be a politician.

  21. 21.

    The Other Steve

    May 5, 2006 at 12:17 pm

    Argh! I don’t care about privatizing sidewalks.

    Yeah but Ilya Somin does. It was her point 3.

    I understand the other parts, but I have to agree with the commentators that the critics of Bush on the right only started criticizing when everything went wrong.

  22. 22.

    Otto Man

    May 5, 2006 at 12:19 pm

    That Goldberg column is a typical collection of flawed history and faulty logic. I especially like this swipe:

    Yammerers like Kevin Phillips point to Bush’s sincere Christianity and the rise of Christian conservatives to demonstrate he’s a “theocon.”

    Yeah, Kevin Phillips, what a yammerer. He was only Nixon’s chief political strategist for his two victories, the man who created the Southern Strategy and first identified the “Sunbelt” as the crux of political power (and coined the term). But Jonah Goldberg, whose chief triumph in life is being born to a well-connected mother, well, he is a Man To Be Listened To.

    Keep stamping your feet, little man.

  23. 23.

    MAX HATS

    May 5, 2006 at 12:20 pm

    I mean, when the Dems nominate John Kerry, whom Michael Moore points out is in fact the MOST liberal senator serving, not a mainstream moderate. . .

    What a complete load of bullshit. You know who the “most liberal senator” really is? Whoever happens to be the scream du jour in right wing talking points. A few weeks ago it was Feingold, a couple years ago it was Durbin, in two years it will be Clinton, and all points in between it’s Kennedy. Just one more example of the complete, instintive dishonesty that characterizes republicanism.

  24. 24.

    The Other Steve

    May 5, 2006 at 12:22 pm

    As a leftists I can assure you that the vast majority of us don’t believe Bush went to war for oil.

    I believe Bush went to war for two reasons:
    – Political… he thought it’d help in 2002 and 2004
    – Strategic… he thought shaking up the middle east would stabilize things over there

    The Political side I believe is treason, mainly because that was his primary reasoning.

    The Strategic side I believe is just plain nuts.

    The other aspects, the contracts to campaign contributors, the paying for reconstruction from oil revenues, etc. were just gravy to gain support for the endeavor.

    But the Strategic side of it, that he thought he could stabilize the region by eliminating Hussein… that was about oil. We need the whole middle east because of oil. Otherwise we’d just leave them all alone and let them kill each other, like we have Africa.

    Also, what leftists believe or don’t believe has little, actually nothing, to do with what Conservatives choose to do. If your gang can’t balance the budget or protect the borders it isn’t because Micheal Moore thinks John Kerry would have been a wicked awesome President.

    Agreed.

    Besides. I’d rather have a beer with Michael Moore than Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh any day. And I don’t really like Moore.

  25. 25.

    Otto Man

    May 5, 2006 at 12:22 pm

    It’s not that the conservatives buried their small govt ideals, it’s that we made a choice between the lesser of two evils. We had been attacked on 9/11 and the middle east was a cesspool breeding terrorists, and the left refused to take that threat seriously..

    You can blame this on 9/11 all you want, Darrell, but Bush’s big government ways were there from the beginning (NCLB?) and they exist well outside the realm of national security.

    If you factor out military spending, real federal outlays under this president have averaged 8.4% per annum. That’s the biggest spending rate by any president in the past 50 years. Period.

  26. 26.

    The Other Steve

    May 5, 2006 at 12:24 pm

    If you factor out military spending, real federal outlays under this president have averaged 8.4% per annum. That’s the biggest spending rate by any president in the past 50 years. Period.

    That’s because Compassionate Conservativism means…

    Nobody trusts us to be compassionate so we have to make up for that perception by spending lot’s more money.

  27. 27.

    Otto Man

    May 5, 2006 at 12:25 pm

    Yes, because “Bush is a fascist killer”, typical of ‘criticism’ of Bush on this site..

    Darrell, can you find me one example of a liberal here saying that? One?

    The only time the “Bush McHitlerburton!!!111one!!!!” comments ever come up on this site is when you or MacBuckets invoke them to mock the liberal viewpoint. Since you seem to believe those claims are “typical” of the criticism of Bush on this site, please go find us some examples. (From someone besides you and Mac.)

    Just because the voices in your head keep saying this stuff, it doesn’t mean we do.

  28. 28.

    Punchy

    May 5, 2006 at 12:27 pm

    That sort of criticism, which is commonplace, is in fact usually made by hateful liberals who are too irrational to be taken seriously

    Wow…Tim’s hypothesis proven in 5 minutes.

  29. 29.

    Pooh

    May 5, 2006 at 12:32 pm

    So was that the Cherry or Raspberry Kool-aid, Senator?

  30. 30.

    Darrell

    May 5, 2006 at 12:33 pm

    What a complete load of bullshit. You know who the “most liberal senator” really is? Whoever happens to be the scream du jour in right wing talking points.

    See what I mean.. To the left, a far left liberal like John Kerry is not ‘really’ a liberal, but only called one by the right wing smear machine with no basis in reality. Rove bought off Michael Moore, right?

    But the left doesn’t see themselves as extremists

  31. 31.

    Darrell

    May 5, 2006 at 12:35 pm

    It’s indisputable that by their actions, they did make oil prices rise.

    You’re right. Evil genius Karl Rove schemed to grow the Chinese and India economies so that they would demand more oil, which in turn would line the pockets of his big-money oil crony contributors.

    Makes perfect sense.. if you’re a whackjob

  32. 32.

    The Other Steve

    May 5, 2006 at 12:35 pm

    But the left doesn’t see themselves as extremists

    Do you see yourself as an extremist?

  33. 33.

    Punchy

    May 5, 2006 at 12:36 pm

    Besides. I’d rather have a beer with Michael Moore than Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh any day. And I don’t really like Moore.

    That’s a somewhat misleading statement. Limbaugh doesn’t drink beer; he prefers a Oxycontin milkshake with a side order of fat, and Coulter, I think, drinks Adam’s Apple Growth Wine…

  34. 34.

    Brian

    May 5, 2006 at 12:38 pm

    I liked Clinton because I saw him as a conservative in liberal clothes. Bush is the opposite, with the exception that he’s strong on defense in a way the Democrats would never embrace. If it weren’t for the war, I think the Left would like Bush a lot more than now. He’s big guv.

  35. 35.

    Blue Neponset

    May 5, 2006 at 12:40 pm

    Darrell,

    If every Democrat in the known Universe was to the left of Michael Moore, it wouldn’t make Tim’s point any less true. Your Conservative buddies in DC have abandoned their supposed Conservative priorities.

    I wonder if the only thing that matters to you is that Conservatives are keeping our country safe from Lefty extremists. Maybe that is the only Conservative priority?

  36. 36.

    Pooh

    May 5, 2006 at 12:41 pm

    I don’t think Darrell has priorities beyond his ‘team’ winning.

  37. 37.

    Darrell

    May 5, 2006 at 12:44 pm

    Pooh Says:

    I don’t think Darrell has priorities beyond his ‘team’ winning.

    Such a cogent rebuttal

  38. 38.

    Pooh

    May 5, 2006 at 12:45 pm

    I’m not rebutting anything, I’m offering an opinion based on observation.

  39. 39.

    Pooh

    May 5, 2006 at 12:45 pm

    You could always prove me wrong by demonstrating a capacity for cogent argumentation yourself, but the “MOONBAT” key seems to be stuck on you keyboard.

  40. 40.

    Blue Neponset

    May 5, 2006 at 12:48 pm

    I don’t think Darrell has priorities beyond his ‘team’ winning.

    I think Darrell has a lot of company.

    It is hard for me to admit this, but I actually have an little bit of respect for Senator Coburn from OK. He is a wackjob for sure but he at least has been walking the conservative talk since he got into Congress. Most of his conservative buddies have chosen party over policy since Bush got in office and they haven’t looked back since.

  41. 41.

    Punchy

    May 5, 2006 at 12:48 pm

    If it weren’t for the war, I think the Left would like Bush a lot more than now. He’s big guv.

    I agree. He acted as expected after 9-11, in Afghanistan, and months afterwards. Few probs with him up until that point.
    It was his manipulation of the whole Iraq mess that made liberals go from indifferent to frustrated to miffed to livid. And now it’s even Repubs that are seeing this betrayal.

  42. 42.

    Candidus

    May 5, 2006 at 12:48 pm

    Big-government conservatism is the final triumph in American politics of the progressive principle that government exists as a tool of social change and should be expanded as necessary to serve that end. There is no longer an ideological struggle — such as there ever was — over whether there should be a communal cannibal-pot. Rather, the struggle now is entirely over who gets thrown into it.

    The left thought that they could create a wonderful engine of social “justice” and keep it all to themselves. After being the dominant force in politics for several decades they didn’t much consider the possibility that their creation would be turned against them. That something as insignificant as NPR wasn’t totally defunded in 1995 should’ve been their first clue that the right, once in power, would decide that it is preferable to wield the tools than to destroy them.

    As far as I’m concerned, the voting public, in its entirety, is getting exactly the government it deserves in W, and it’s only going to get worse after 2008.

  43. 43.

    Par R

    May 5, 2006 at 12:49 pm

    In what has become routine for Tim, he chooses to mischaracterize Goldberg’s writings and opinions, perhaps because he was looking to Greenwald for a degree of honesty that was sadly lacking yet again. For anyone interested in where Goldberg really stands, here’s a Link.

  44. 44.

    Punchy

    May 5, 2006 at 12:50 pm

    In other news….I see Pete “I want TWO hookers, perferably blondes” Goss of CIA fame has just resigned.

    Dominoes keep falling…one by one by one….

  45. 45.

    jg

    May 5, 2006 at 12:53 pm

    Classic. Tim puts up a post about the way the right labels all opposition as liberal (I think they do it because their base can’t handle complex issues so they dumb it down and make liberal the uber bad guy for them) and Darrel shows up and proceeds to call Other Steve a liberal. Maybe I’m wrong but AFAIK Other Steve doesn’t represent the left here. He’s usually defending the right if not actully Bush. I thought it was odd when friends turned on me and started calling me liberal (I used to go to Harvard Square and taunt liberals, I can’t be one, I won’t be one) but then I saw it happen to John Cole and now Other Steve. Sad.

  46. 46.

    LITBMueller

    May 5, 2006 at 12:53 pm

    Punchy, would it be wrong of me to say this hooker thing seems to have…legs? heh heh! How much you wanna bet that Dusty Foggo has or will be quitely let go, too.

  47. 47.

    Punchy

    May 5, 2006 at 12:53 pm

    Pete “I want TWO hookers, perferably blondes” Goss

    Sorry, I meant Porter Goss.

  48. 48.

    Pb

    May 5, 2006 at 12:53 pm

    Darrell,

    You’re right. Evil genius Karl Rove schemed to grow the Chinese and India economies so that they would demand more oil

    Well those weren’t the particular actions I was thinking of, but that works too.

  49. 49.

    Nikki

    May 5, 2006 at 12:54 pm

    Hookergate is alive and real.

    Oh my.

  50. 50.

    Perry Como

    May 5, 2006 at 12:56 pm

    I wonder if Porter Goss just resigned because he’s another liberal Republican?

  51. 51.

    jg

    May 5, 2006 at 12:58 pm

    Darrell Says:

    What a complete load of bullshit. You know who the “most liberal senator” really is? Whoever happens to be the scream du jour in right wing talking points.

    See what I mean.. To the left, a far left liberal like John Kerry is not ‘really’ a liberal, but only called one by the right wing smear machine with no basis in reality. Rove bought off Michael Moore, right?

    Kerry isn’t the most liberal senator. He wasn’t when he ran or before or since. He’s liberal, only an idiot like you would think anyone is saying he isn’t. But he ain’t the ‘most’ liberal. Just another bullshit talking point used during the election to scare people who don’t know shit about politics but are certain they hate liberals. Just say liberal over and over about him and certain people will never entertain the thought of voting for him.

  52. 52.

    gratefulcub

    May 5, 2006 at 12:59 pm

    I thought it was odd when friends turned on me and started calling me liberal

    I was thinking about this phenomenon at BJ. It was once split about 50/50. It has become one sided in the comments section. I believe that there hasn’t actually been a shift in commenters. The middle just now agrees in part with the left of center posters, and there are only a few solid right posters left.

    Isn’t that how W went from 71% to 32%? The middle has seen the light. They haven’t become liberal, and their political leaning hasn’t actually changed. Their love of this batch of republicans has disappeared.

  53. 53.

    Punchy

    May 5, 2006 at 12:59 pm

    Punchy, would it be wrong of me to say this hooker thing seems to have…legs?

    Let’s see…how many stupid, juvenile, yet funny things can we drag from this? I’ll start:
    “Howdy, Ms. Streetwalker, if I show you Foggy Bottom, can I see yours?”

    “Me and my buddies were only playing ‘poke her’…er..I mean, poker”

    “I work for the CIA, which stands for Crotch Inspection Agency”

    “I thought when she said she was a hooker that meant she was a fisherman”

    Hooker’s testimony “I tried Goss, but I didn’t inhale”

  54. 54.

    Perry Como

    May 5, 2006 at 1:08 pm

    “Did you know my official title is Senior Pooper Snooper?”
    “The CIA is filled with alot of cunning linguists.”
    “I found a Weapon of Mass Destruction. In my pants!”

  55. 55.

    gratefulcub

    May 5, 2006 at 1:11 pm

    “Hey, do you have a boyfriend for Duke?”

  56. 56.

    Paul Wartenberg

    May 5, 2006 at 1:12 pm

    You nailed it exactly on the head, Tim F.

    Let me illustrate. We have commenters of every political stripe who bring up the president fairly often. I have noticed that when somebody criticizes the president the defender will sooner or later label that person a ‘liberal’ almost without fail. That seems like a strange thing to say when Bush critics include dyed-in-the-wool libs, Reagan Democrats, independents, GOP expatriates and unreconstructed Republican conservatives who simply detest the current administration. If you follow the logic that opposing the president more or less categorically defines a person as liberal, by definition that makes the president conservative, even the living embodiment of conservatism. As long as the Republican star seemed on the rise and decades of hard work had made the word ‘liberal’ practically an epithet it made for a useful, if dishonest, rhetorical barb.

    These ‘Defenders of Conservatism’ need to be recognized for the hypocrites they are. You can’t spend 5 years hailing Your Boy Bush as a paragon of conservative leadership only to turn around and label him a LIBERAL once he slides under 35 percent popularity.

    And, here’s my point to make, Bush isn’t even the biggest problem the ‘Defenders of Conservatism’ are going to have. It’s not only Bush: it’s Congress as well. For 12 years Congress has been for the most part run by the Republicans, run by congressional leadership hailed as the best and the brightest among the conservative true believers, am I right? So here it is, for 5-6 years of Bush’s rule the conservatives have had control of both Congress and the White House. And what have they done? They spent money in the trillions, raised deficits beyond all previous levels, expanded government bureaucracy, entered into aggressive warmaking that made the paleos wince in horror, and on top of it all made it all an incompetent cronyist mess. If a CEO company had been run like this it would have failed years ago. Oh that’s right, Enron was run like this. But I digress.

    So for 5 years, the conservative leadership of both the WH and Congress behaved in ways that the ‘Defenders of Conservatism’ would now label as ‘Liberal’. Well, can someone suggest to these ‘Defenders of Conservatism’ that maybe, just maybe, it’s not the people but the ideology itself that’s corrupt and wrong?

    Because that’s the only explanation that makes sense right now.

  57. 57.

    gratefulcub

    May 5, 2006 at 1:12 pm

    “I will trade you a $300 million dollar contract for a defense system the country doesn’t need if you will give me a boat and some hookers.”

    Wow, it isn’t really funny when you think about it.

  58. 58.

    VAMark

    May 5, 2006 at 1:14 pm

    If it weren’t for the war, I think the Left would like Bush a lot more than now. He’s big guv. [sic]

    You miss the point. The “Left” isn’t for big government on principle, it thinks certain things are worth doing and that government is best positioned to do them. Bush has expanded the government, but very little of what he’s done strikes the Left as either worthwhile or well executed. A negative twofer.

  59. 59.

    MAX HATS

    May 5, 2006 at 1:15 pm

    See what I mean.. To the left, a far left liberal like John Kerry is not ‘really’ a liberal, but only called one by the right wing smear machine with no basis in reality. Rove bought off Michael Moore, right?

    But the left doesn’t see themselves as extremists

    Darrel, you lying sack of shit, I did not say Kerry was not liberal. That would be dumb. I said it’s ridiculous to call him “the most liberal senator” when that very lable gets applied to large number of senators, when that label is, of course, exclusive.

    Just for the record, do you beleive Kerry is more liberal than Feingold?

    Please answer. Or don’t. I hardly expect honesty in discourse with you.

  60. 60.

    MAX HATS

    May 5, 2006 at 1:16 pm

    TAGS, ugh

    See what I mean.. To the left, a far left liberal like John Kerry is not ‘really’ a liberal, but only called one by the right wing smear machine with no basis in reality. Rove bought off Michael Moore, right?

    But the left doesn’t see themselves as extremists

    Darrel, you lying sack of shit, I did not say Kerry was not liberal. That would be dumb. I said it’s ridiculous to call him “the most liberal senator” when that very lable gets applied to large number of senators, when that label is, of course, exclusive.

    Just for the record, do you beleive Kerry is more liberal than Feingold?

    Please answer. Or don’t. I hardly expect honesty in discourse with you.

  61. 61.

    D. Mason

    May 5, 2006 at 1:17 pm

    Coulter, I think, drinks Adam’s Apple Growth Wine…

    You mean testosterone? If so I agree.

  62. 62.

    Pb

    May 5, 2006 at 1:21 pm

    National Journal: Most liberal senators, lifetime voting
    1. Mark Dayton, D-Minn.
    2. Paul Sarbanes, D-Md.
    3. Jack Reed, D-R.I.
    4. Jon Corzine, D-N.J.
    5. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.
    6. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.
    7. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa
    8. Richard Durbin, D-Ill.
    9. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.
    10. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt

    Kerry doesn’t even make it into the top ten.

  63. 63.

    gratefulcub

    May 5, 2006 at 1:21 pm

    do you beleive Kerry is more liberal than Feingold?

    Hell no. Maybe privately, but Kerry is/was scared of his liberalness.

    Feingold for President in 08. A real liberal that openly supports gay marriage. no civil unions, marriage. He isn’t scared of his own ideas. He is the first politician that actually excites me since Wellstone.

  64. 64.

    farmgirl

    May 5, 2006 at 1:23 pm

    Brian Sez: “I liked Clinton because I saw him as a conservative in liberal clothes. Bush is the opposite, with the exception that he’s strong on defense in a way the Democrats would never embrace.”

    If by “strong” you mean “squanders soldiers and money in completely counterproductive ways”, then hell no, I’m not embracing that.

  65. 65.

    Darrell

    May 5, 2006 at 1:26 pm

    I said it’s ridiculous to call him “the most liberal senator” when that very lable gets applied to large number of senators, when that label is, of course, exclusive.

    Just for the record, do you beleive Kerry is more liberal than Feingold?

    It appears that Michael Moore’s admission that Kerry is the most liberal senator is based on a lot of truth. At the very least, he is far to the left of mainstream. But so many on the left are so extreme, that from where they stand, Kerry isn’t close to being far left enough.

  66. 66.

    Darrell

    May 5, 2006 at 1:29 pm

    The “Left” isn’t for big government on principle, it thinks certain things are worth doing and that government is best positioned to do them

    Sure they are.. the left looks to the govt to solve all our problems. They are socialists at heart. Few but the most extreme would deny that

  67. 67.

    Cyrus

    May 5, 2006 at 1:31 pm

    Brian Says:
    I liked Clinton because I saw him as a conservative in liberal clothes. Bush is the opposite, with the exception that he’s strong on defense in a way the Democrats would never embrace. If it weren’t for the war, I think the Left would like Bush a lot more than now. He’s big guv.

    You’re not wrong about this, but only because “the Left would like Bush… more than now” says very, very little. If Bush had stopped with Afghanistan, or played by the rules with Iraq, (if you disagree with that assessment, consider it shorthand for “didn’t give up on U.N. and inspections”; we don’t need a 50-comment argument about the legality of the invasion) he still might have the Andrew Sullivans on his side, maybe even the Kevin Drums and Matthew Yglesiases.

    But conduct of the war or even the war itself aren’t the only complaints about him from The Left. Underfunding NCLB? Florida 2000? The Medicare corporate welfare? Terri Schiavo? Gutting FEMA? Social Security privatization? Treating intelligent design like it’s credible? The unnecessary tax cuts? (I know that’s opening a can of worms too, but to me at least, it just looks like a slightly smoother version of Frist’s $100 gas rebate, and we know how popular that is.)

    We don’t like big government for its own sake, we like it for the sake of accomplishing stuff, and in my view Bush has accomplished nothing with it that was worth doing. In fact, now that I’ve written all this, your statement almost seems absurd. If you take the biggest complaint two or three complaints about Bush off the list, then you’re left with… a list.

  68. 68.

    ppGaz

    May 5, 2006 at 1:41 pm

    What is the left proposing to do about Iran, other than scream about Bush?

    As long as the lying, incompetant alcoholic piece of shit is in the White House, he has to be dealt with, he’s the first problem we have.

    Until you get rid of him or disempower him by taking his rubber stamp congress away, he is Problem Number One.

    We have to hope that he doesn’t fuck up the Iran situation before he can be reined in. We don’t really have a choice.

    It’s not like the crazy sonofabitch is going to listen to good advice, is it?

  69. 69.

    ppGaz

    May 5, 2006 at 1:42 pm

    the left looks to the govt to solve all our problems. They are socialists

    Again, Tim and John … what the FUCK?

    This is not even parody, or satire. It’s just crap.

  70. 70.

    ppGaz

    May 5, 2006 at 1:43 pm

    the left looks to the govt to solve

    You are defending a lunatic who has done more to try to consolidate federal and executive power than any president in history, you moron.

  71. 71.

    Blue Neponset

    May 5, 2006 at 1:45 pm

    But so many on the left are so extreme, that from where they stand, Kerry isn’t close to being far left enough.

    Darrell, I think you may have a nasty case of LDS (Liberal Derangement Syndrome). Tim’s post is about Bush being called a liberal by your Conservatives buddies because his poll numbers suck. It has nothing to do with John Kerry, Micheal Moore or any of the other nasty liberals you seem to be so afraid of.

  72. 72.

    Steve

    May 5, 2006 at 1:45 pm

    If it weren’t for the war, I think the Left would like Bush a lot more than now. He’s big guv.

    I was a big fan of how he handled Katrina, for example. Who wouldn’t be?

    There were a lot of folks on the left who felt like the war was about the only thing Bush got RIGHT… at least for a while.

  73. 73.

    John S.

    May 5, 2006 at 1:46 pm

    Sure they are.. the left looks to the govt to solve all our problems.

    Don’t you mean the right looks to the government to solve all our problems?

    After all, the Bush administration has increased the size of the federal government more than anyone in history.

  74. 74.

    Perry Como

    May 5, 2006 at 1:48 pm

    Don’t you mean the right looks to the government to solve all our problems?

    I for one look to the government to tell me what I can and can’t do in my bedroom. I think we need a Federal Sex Toys Amendment. It will outlaw all devices intended for sexual gratification.

  75. 75.

    Darrell

    May 5, 2006 at 1:51 pm

    Tim’s post is about Bush being called a liberal by your Conservatives buddies because his poll numbers suck.

    Bush has been criticized for his big spending from conservatives starting his very first year in office. It’s dishonest to assert that such criticsim has ‘suddenly’ appeared. As I said in my first post, conservatives backed Bush as the lesser of two evils when faced with the alternative nominated by Dems

  76. 76.

    ppGaz

    May 5, 2006 at 1:55 pm

    conservatives backed Bush as the lesser of two evils when faced with the alternative nominated by Dems

    As I said …

    You are defending a lunatic who has done more to try to consolidate federal and executive power than any president in history, you moron.

  77. 77.

    Candidus

    May 5, 2006 at 1:57 pm

    You miss the point. The “Left” isn’t for big government on principle, it thinks certain things are worth doing and that government is best positioned to do them.

    That’s correct, and neither is the right for big government on principle. To the ideologues on both “sides,” government force is only the means to their ends.

    There was a time when Republicans in general didn’t think the ends justified the left’s preferred means — or at least they made noises to that effect. No longer.

    “We’re all statists now.”

  78. 78.

    Blue Neponset

    May 5, 2006 at 1:58 pm

    Bush has been criticized for his big spending from conservatives starting his very first year in office. It’s dishonest to assert that such criticsim has ‘suddenly’ appeared.

    Calling the policies of the Bush administration “liberal policies” is a sudden develolpment. I don’t recall hearing anything about this during the 2004 election.

  79. 79.

    Darrell

    May 5, 2006 at 1:58 pm

    You are defending a lunatic who has done more to try to consolidate federal and executive power than any president in history, you moron.

    I recall a President named Lincoln that suspended Habeus corpus and imposed martial law..

    At least Bush takes islamic terrorism seriously. Tell me, what has the left, or even mainstream Dems proposed we do differently in Iraq? How about in dealing Iran? Honest answers to those questions are why Dems keep losing elections

  80. 80.

    ppGaz

    May 5, 2006 at 2:00 pm

    How about in dealing Iran?

    I already gave you my answer to that, you just don’t like the answer. So you ignore it.

    Bush doesn’t exactly have a confidence-building track record going here, in case you haven’t been paying attention.

  81. 81.

    Steve

    May 5, 2006 at 2:04 pm

    Yeah, the fact that invading Iraq wouldn’t have been the Democrats’ first step in combatting Islamic terrorism sure shows how unserious they are. Everyone except deranged moonbats agrees that had to be our first priority, right?

  82. 82.

    Darrell

    May 5, 2006 at 2:06 pm

    Steve Says:

    Yeah, the fact that invading Iraq wouldn’t have been the Democrats’ first step in combatting Islamic terrorism

    What then, was there proposal instead? What are they proposing to do now, besides scream “Bush lied”?

  83. 83.

    ppGaz

    May 5, 2006 at 2:06 pm

    What’s amazing to me is that any sentient person can look at Iran …. or any real problem in the world …. and imagine going to George Bush and his band of hyenas and expecting them to handle it without completely, utterly fucking it up in every possible way.

    I mean, how many times can you repeat an experiment and expect a different result before you have to declare yourself mentally ill? I think whatever that number is, we’ve exceeded it with these crazy fucks running the country now.

  84. 84.

    ppGaz

    May 5, 2006 at 2:07 pm

    What are they proposing to do now

    Asked, and answered.

    Move on.

  85. 85.

    Blue Neponset

    May 5, 2006 at 2:08 pm

    I recall a President named Lincoln that suspended Habeus corpus and imposed martial law..

    I recall a President named Reagan that didn’t suspend Habeus Corpus or impose martial law during the Cold War.

  86. 86.

    Pb

    May 5, 2006 at 2:09 pm

    Darrell,

    I recall a President named Lincoln

    If Bush is considered ‘liberal’ now, then that would make Lincoln a socialist commie terrorist-lover.

  87. 87.

    ppGaz

    May 5, 2006 at 2:13 pm

    Darrell doesn’t get the fact that there is only one real threat to the future of this country in the next two and a half years, and it’s not Tehran. It’s in Washington, DC.

    Bush is the greatest threat to this country. Do we have a plan? You bet. Take his congress away in November. That effectively saves the nation for at least two years.

    At the rate he’s going, most Republicans are going to agree with us by election day.

  88. 88.

    Steve

    May 5, 2006 at 2:13 pm

    What then, was there proposal instead? What are they proposing to do now, besides scream “Bush lied”?

    I believe the first steps included finishing the job in Afghanistan, catching bin Laden, and holding the Saudis accountable for their financing of terrorism.

    It’s understandable you aren’t aware of any of these things because your side isn’t really into meaningful engagement of Democratic proposals. It’s all about demonizing liberals and slinging around bullshit like “John Kerry wants to be more sensitive with the terrorists!” Oh wait, you probably believe he said that, don’t you.

  89. 89.

    jg

    May 5, 2006 at 2:14 pm

    Sure they are.. the left looks to the govt to solve all our problems. They are socialists at heart. Few but the most extreme would deny that

    The left can’t win elections because they have no message yet they all think alike. Weird.

    BTW Lincoln apologized for his extreme moves.

  90. 90.

    ppGaz

    May 5, 2006 at 2:21 pm

    they have no message

    That’s right, if we’d come out in favor of torture, gay bashing and cracking down on Mexicans, we could win elections too.

  91. 91.

    Darrell

    May 5, 2006 at 2:26 pm

    I believe the first steps included finishing the job in Afghanistan, catching bin Laden, and holding the Saudis accountable for their financing of terrorism.

    It’s understandable you aren’t aware of any of these things because your side isn’t really into meaningful engagement of Democratic proposals.

    Let’s be clear what Steve is saying. According to you, the Dem position is:

    1. We can’t take any further military action until the job in Afghanistan is “finished”.. and of course the Dems offer no such definition of what ‘finished’ means. And you want others to take you seriously, right?

    2. Catching bin Ladin. I’ve seen no evidence that Iraq took away from the pursuit of Bin Laden, and I’ve seen no Dem proposals on how to better pursue and capture him if he is alive. After all, he could have been in Northern Iran since 2001 for all we know or dead in a cave. This is another blathering excuse to do nothing

    3. Hold Saudis accountable for their financing of terrorism – Well I guess you didn’t notice, but we did a pretty aggressive shut down of Saudi charities. As for further steps in ‘holding them accountable’, please elaborate what more should have been done, as toppling of royal family would create a power vacuum vulnerable to takeoever by islamic terrorists.

    I think it’s clear from Steve’s summary, which is basically the Dem position, that they have no serious plans or proposals on the table to deal with islamic terrorism. Unless ‘catching bin Laden’ is considered a serious foreign policy proposal.. unless you have inside info on how to do a better job in catching him than is already being done

  92. 92.

    Pb

    May 5, 2006 at 2:30 pm

    Darrell,

    I’ve seen no evidence that Iraq took away from the pursuit of Bin Laden

    And now it’s time for another edition of ‘Spoof, or Ignorance’!

  93. 93.

    ppGaz

    May 5, 2006 at 2:35 pm

    According to you

    What is the administration’s position, according to you, Darrell?

  94. 94.

    Steve

    May 5, 2006 at 2:35 pm

    Right, because Darrell disagrees with the merits of the Democratic proposals, the Democrats have no proposals.

    I could make a long speech about how the war in Iraq is completely counterproductive in the war on terror, and I’d even have the advantage of being correct. But I wouldn’t be so vacuous as to make the claim that “this proves the Republicans have no ideas.” They have plenty of ideas, I just think they’re terrible ones.

    I’d be happy to discuss, among other things, what we could do to hold the Saudis accountable aside from “toppling the royal family,” but I think that statement already speaks volumes about how Republicans aren’t willing to engage with any rational position. On Planet Darrell, the only two choices are (1) do nothing or (2) invade someone, and unless you’re willing to invade someone, you’re the party of no ideas!

  95. 95.

    ppGaz

    May 5, 2006 at 2:36 pm

    And now it’s time for another edition of ‘Spoof, or Ignorance’!

    Is it Dareell?

    Neither. Darrell just lies. If you catch him, he runs away or changes the subject.

  96. 96.

    Darrell

    May 5, 2006 at 2:36 pm

    And now it’s time for another edition of ‘Spoof, or Ignorance’!

    What amazing about the left is their cult-like approach to issues. Whether it’s mankind’s effect on climate change or the hunt for Bin Laden, they hold wrongheaded beliefs which cannot be be factually defended. Dogma over reality every time

    Tommy Franks said he had all the troops he needed to hunt down Bin Laden. But those on the left know better. At least try and make an argument why more troops in Afghanistan would have been a net positive.. especially when Bin Laden’s whereabouts and status as a living being is in serious question

  97. 97.

    Darrell

    May 5, 2006 at 2:45 pm

    I’d be happy to discuss, among other things, what we could do to hold the Saudis accountable aside from “toppling the royal family,”

    then do so, as we’ve heard a lot of carping from Dems, but no specific proposals on what they propose we should be doing differently.

  98. 98.

    Steve

    May 5, 2006 at 2:46 pm

    Bin Laden’s whereabouts and status as a living being is in serious question

    Maybe if your name is Stormy. Seriously, to talk about a “cult-like approach to issues,” and then to toss out the meme that we’re not even sure bin Laden is alive no matter how many confirmed audiotapes he churns out, that takes cojones.

  99. 99.

    Darrell

    May 5, 2006 at 2:54 pm

    and then to toss out the meme that we’re not even sure bin Laden is alive no matter how many confirmed audiotapes he churns out, that takes cojones

    that’s what I thought. You and your side have no specific proposals, just carping.. oh, and “Bush lied”

  100. 100.

    ppGaz

    May 5, 2006 at 2:56 pm

    What amazing about the left is their cult-like approach to issues

    How can you say shit like this with a straight face?

    You are the most narrow-minded, doctrinaire butthead on this whole blog.

  101. 101.

    Pb

    May 5, 2006 at 3:03 pm

    Darrell,

    What amazing about the left is their cult-like approach to issues.

    Ok, ignorant spoof, then. Now fuck off.

  102. 102.

    Steve

    May 5, 2006 at 3:03 pm

    that’s what I thought. You and your side have no specific proposals, just carping.. oh, and “Bush lied”

    Huh? “We don’t have to worry about bin Laden, because he may be dead” is what passes for a specific proposal in your book?

    The only two responses you and your ilk have to actual policy proposals are “that won’t work” and “Bush is already doing that,” so I’m not going to waste my time. There are plenty of conservatives I can have a great discussion with on foreign policy… but you’re sure not one of them.

  103. 103.

    Darrell

    May 5, 2006 at 3:11 pm

    The only two responses you and your ilk have to actual policy proposals are “that won’t work” and “Bush is already doing that,” so I’m not going to waste my time

    I’m not going to waste my time = I know my side has no good proposals on fighting terrorism that can stand scrutiny, so I’ll whine like a little bitch about how mean you and your “ilk” are

  104. 104.

    ppGaz

    May 5, 2006 at 3:12 pm

    Well, Pb, you’ve sold out to USA Today, which is
    Gannett
    , which is MSM and obviously left-leaning and biased.

    Shame, shame on you.

  105. 105.

    ppGaz

    May 5, 2006 at 3:14 pm

    You need some new material, Darrell. That crap you are posting went out of style about two years ago.

    my side has no good proposals on fighting terrorism

    Again, to Tim and John: This is what you let represent the right on your blog?

    If that’s the case, you might as well give up and just become diarists at DKos. You have no righty representation at this point.

  106. 106.

    Steve

    May 5, 2006 at 3:24 pm

    I’m not going to waste my time = I know my side has no good proposals on fighting terrorism that can stand scrutiny, so I’ll whine like a little bitch about how mean you and your “ilk” are

    It’s not that you’re mean, it’s just that you’re not interested in having a serious conversation. From this thread alone:

    Darrell Says:

    That sort of criticism, which is commonplace, is in fact usually made by hateful liberals who are too irrational to be taken seriously

    Makes perfect sense.. if you’re a whackjob

    They are socialists at heart. Few but the most extreme would deny that

    What amazing about the left is their cult-like approach to issues

    whine like a little bitch

    But right, you’re just sitting there waiting to have a serious discussion on the merits of the Democrats’ foreign policy ideas… the ideas that you’re so interested in, you somehow need me to educate you that they even exist. Right, I’m real sorry I’m passing on this opportunity for an educational dialogue.

  107. 107.

    Darrell

    May 5, 2006 at 3:25 pm

    Let’s see, Dems tell us we ‘should have’ stationed tens or hundreds of thousands more troops in Afghanistan to concentrate on catching Bin Laden, at a time when it was unknown whether or not Bin Laden was in even in that part of the world. How brilliant. And of course, the possibility of faked OBL tapes with voice overs is not even a possibility. We’ve all seen the tapes of OBL holding up current newspaper headlines, right? OBL may be alive, but again he may not. I believe there was a Time magazine feature story not long ago that OBL was dead

    But with regards to actual specific terrorist leaders, the logical followup question is, do Dems believe that al-Zarqawi is as dangerous or more dangerous threat than Bin Laden?

  108. 108.

    Darrell

    May 5, 2006 at 3:27 pm

    Steve, how honest of you to truncate my quotes, intentionally removing the specific Dem comments I was criticizing.

  109. 109.

    Steve

    May 5, 2006 at 3:32 pm

    And that was very mature, substantive criticism of those “Dem comments” you offered, right? The same kind of mature, substantive criticism you want to offer regarding the Democrats’ foreign policy proposals, the ones you like to pretend don’t exist?

    Frankly, even if it was really a choice between a guy who says “I’ll fight the war on terror by invading Iraq” and a guy who says “I have no idea what to do about the war on terror, but I won’t be invading Iraq,” I’d still take the second guy. Most of America agrees at this point; you do not, Darrell, and that really says it all.

  110. 110.

    ppGaz

    May 5, 2006 at 3:33 pm

    , Dems tell us

    What the fuck is wrong with you?

    Why do you talk all the time as if you are having a conversation with somebody called “Dems” and “The Left?”

    Are you “GOP” and the “The Right?”

    Why can’t you talk like a real fucking person, and take responsibility for your own opinions, which you refuse to acknowledge when it’s inconvenient for you? Why don’t you talk to other people like they are people, like you, with ideas and opinions like you, who happen to disagree with you?

    Why do you shit on everybody who talks to you and then bitch when you get no respect?

  111. 111.

    Darrell

    May 5, 2006 at 3:35 pm

    Frankly, even if it was really a choice between a guy who says “I’ll fight the war on terror by invading Iraq” and a guy who says “I have no idea what to do about the war on terror, but I won’t be invading Iraq,” I’d still take the second guy. Most of America agrees at this point

    Yeah, that’s exactly what Americans were “agreeing” with when they reelected George Bush in 2004.

  112. 112.

    ppGaz

    May 5, 2006 at 3:37 pm

    that’s exactly what Americans were “agreeing” with

    Why do you talk all the time in grandiose terms about “Americans” and “most people?”

    Why can’t you talk as if you are the voice of one person, and treat your adversaries as if the are the same?

    Why can’t you answer simple questions about your views?

    Why can’t you provide basic facts to back up the gross assertions you make all the time when asked to do so?

  113. 113.

    Tim F.

    May 5, 2006 at 3:39 pm

    ppGaz, stuff it. I cannot tell you how sick I am of these constant appeals for censorship.

  114. 114.

    Tim F.

    May 5, 2006 at 3:41 pm

    I should quote the original:

    Again, to Tim and John: This is what you let represent the right on your blog?

    If that’s the case, you might as well give up and just become diarists at DKos. You have no righty representation at this point.

    We don’t ‘let’ anybody on the blog. Anybody who wants to come or go is free to do so. If I missed a joke then fine, egg on my face, but you do this a lot and I feel the same every time.

  115. 115.

    ppGaz

    May 5, 2006 at 3:42 pm

    Why does Darrell get away with this shit?

    The constant disrespect, the interminable talking points.

    Get a clue, man. The calls to you guys is theater. I know damned well you won’t do anything about the sob.

    But take a look. This moron is just about the only regular righty representation on the blog.

    Seriously, that doesn’t bother you?

  116. 116.

    ppGaz

    May 5, 2006 at 3:45 pm

    Anybody who wants to come or go is free to do so

    Not quite. I’ve seen bannings, and I’ve seen some pretty hard smackdowns from management.

    On the one hand, I’ve said myself that the freedom of speech here is considerably more than we deserve. On the other hand …. do you read Darrell’s crap?

    Okay, of course you won’t censure him. But you could take the time to point out that he’s a horse’s ass 95% of the time.

  117. 117.

    Darrell

    May 5, 2006 at 3:46 pm

    Why does Darrell get away with this shit?

    The constant disrespect, the interminable talking points

    ppgaz, why do you have to drag everything down to such a personal level? Sure, I give as good as I get, but at least I try and put forth an argument. This is about the gazillionth time you have described me as the righty ‘representation’ on BJ, as if John and/or Tim solicit my comments. Newsflash – they don’t

  118. 118.

    ppGaz

    May 5, 2006 at 3:51 pm

    but at least I try and put forth an argument

    You can’t be serious? You can’t answer a simple direct question. You make stuff up and then ignore the callouts.

    You refer to every view that isn’t like yours as “Dem” or “The Left” and dismiss with a sneer.

    You can’t enter a thread without your patented “Bush lied” bullshit.

    That’s your idea of putting forth an argument? That everything you don’t like is just “Bush Lied” stuff made up my “Dems” on the “The Left?”

    That any grotesque idea is okay as long as a lot of other people agree with it? That if Bush won an election in 2004, everything he does now is supposed to be okay?

    That “Dems” have no ideas? Let me ask, Mister Political Scientist, what idea do you have for rescuing a country you think is being run by crazy people …. other than getting rid of the crazy people?

  119. 119.

    ppGaz

    May 5, 2006 at 3:52 pm

    as if John and/or Tim solicit my comments. Newsflash – they don’t

    Heh. Yes, I’m quite aware of that.

  120. 120.

    Pb

    May 5, 2006 at 4:33 pm

    Darrell,

    I give as good as I get

    Spooftastic. What you ‘give’ isn’t nearly as good as what you get. All I’ve seen so far is you trying to pick fights by making ridiculously ignorant, arrogant, and false statements, and then invariably change the subject to something equally ludicrous when you get smacked down and caught. I’m beginning to agree with ppGaz here–if you want to have a real discussion, you can start it anytime now, but until then, get lost and grow up.

  121. 121.

    Andrew

    May 5, 2006 at 4:49 pm

    I think Darrell is right. We had to choose the lesser of two evils after 9/11 and so now we have Medicare Part D.

  122. 122.

    Darrell

    May 5, 2006 at 5:23 pm

    Andrew Says:

    I think Darrell is right. We had to choose the lesser of two evils after 9/11 and so now we have Medicare Part D.

    Which the Dems keep telling us is not ‘fully funded’. Tranlation – they want to spend even more

  123. 123.

    terry chay

    May 5, 2006 at 5:27 pm

    ppGaz,

    We’re talking about a person whose very first post on this thread proved Tim’s thesis. This same person links the National Journal’s 2003 vote rankings for his “Kerry is a liberal” argument*, ignores nearly every argument posted on this thread, applies the epithet “liberal” so “liberally” that every person reading here is now a “liberal” or a “Dem”, including people who voted for Bush in 2004 like John Cole (who I guess now must be a “yellow-bellied liberal”). I think most of us are intelligent to realize he is trying to push yours (and others) buttons because of he has such great insecurities and his world-view is collapsing. I am accosted by people like him all the time on sidewalks, the only difference is this one has an internet connection and people are actually engaging in discussion with him.

    My point is, there is no purposed served in complaining about him when you know John and Tim aren’t going to do anything about it. I advise that when he spews his froth in every thread that you rightly beat him down a couple times (especially since his standard response to anything is an ad hominem attack on everyone who has posted previously), but continuing to do so is just playing whack-a-mole. I don’t know about the others, but continuing to respond to him makes me feel the discussion is being thread-jacked.

    After all, Tim brought an interesting point about how, this late in the game these so-called “conservatives” are “tagging” of Bush as a “liberal.” And there were a couple interesting comments on that—I especially liked the one referencing the titles of some of the new books we can expect. Now the discussion is about whether we should ban someone who most of us are trying our best to scroll past. It’s easy to avoid posts by “Darrell”; it is much harder to avoid otherwise interesting posts by you and others when you continue to respond to his incoherent ramblings.

    (*) The funny thing here is that the article Darrell linked already explained why Kerry received such a high “liberal” rating in 2003: absenteeism because he was on a presidential campaign.

  124. 124.

    jg

    May 5, 2006 at 5:28 pm

    Ironic?

    Which the Dems keep telling us is not ‘fully funded’. Tranlation – they want to spend even more

    Its translation like these that keep people voting republican. Can a respected republican like JC please correct this for Darrell?

  125. 125.

    Darrell

    May 5, 2006 at 5:28 pm

    All I’ve seen so far is you trying to pick fights by making ridiculously ignorant, arrogant, and false statements, and then invariably change the subject to something equally ludicrous when you get smacked down and caught

    Yes, such as your own ‘smackdown’ of me in which you argued that the Bush admin. is the cause of high oil prices. You humiliated me with your erudite argument and persuaded everyone to change their minds

    Quick, get me some ice to put on those smackdown injuries!

  126. 126.

    Darrell

    May 5, 2006 at 5:36 pm

    It’s easy to avoid posts by “Darrell”; it is much harder to avoid otherwise interesting posts by you

    yes of course, let’s review ppgaz’s “interesting” posts on this very thread:

    As long as the lying, incompetant alcoholic piece of shit is in the White House, he has to be dealt with

    Again, Tim and John … what the FUCK?

    This is not even parody, or satire. It’s just crap.

    You are defending a lunatic who has done more to try to consolidate federal and executive power than any president in history, you moron.

    You are the most narrow-minded, doctrinaire butthead on this whole blog.

    What the fuck is wrong with you?

    and so and so forth

    I advise that when he spews his froth

    you asking me to ‘spew my froth’ on you?

  127. 127.

    ppGaz

    May 5, 2006 at 5:37 pm

    My point is, there is no purposed served in complaining about him when you know John and Tim aren’t going to do anything about it.

    Heh. So many straight lines packed into one sentence.

    “Purpose served?” Time will tell.

    “Purpose served?” You mean, like the “purpose served” by most posts, most posters, and most threads? Like beer threads? Like threads started by John for the explcitly stated purpose of pissing off his commenters?

    Like the “purpose served” by Darrell’s posts?

    One hardly knows where to start with this trainload of material ……

    Yeah, sounds like a Neil Young song: “The Purpose Served.”

    Please, help a brotha.

  128. 128.

    Steve

    May 5, 2006 at 5:41 pm

    No, of course the Bush administration hasn’t done anything to cause the high oil prices. You’d have to be completely batshit insane to believe something like that, right Darrell?

    With oil prices above $70 a barrel fouling the world economy, dismay is focusing on Iraq, whose exports have slipped to their lowest levels since the 2003 invasion.

    ‘’Iraq could be making a tremendous difference,’’ said Dalton Garis, an economist at the Petroleum Institute in Abu Dhabi. Instead, its shortfall is ‘’a significant contributing factor to the high price of oil,’’ he said.

    What a raving moonbat that economist must be. Why, you’d have to believe that the invasion of Iraq has affected Iraq’s ability to supply oil, and then you’d have to believe that lowering the supply of oil raises the price of oil! We know that’s all a bunch of moonbat idiocy, right Darrell?

  129. 129.

    ppGaz

    May 5, 2006 at 5:48 pm

    You can quote me all day, Darrell, won’t do you any good.

    No matter ho obnoxious I am, I’m right, and you’re wrong, and there is nothing you can do to deflect from it.

    You are sitting here defending a president and administration that is a failure by every objective measure available. More than two thirds of Americans believe that the country is on the wrong track, or disapprove of the president’s handling of major issues, or think the country was misled into war, or think the war was not worth it, or think the government can’t manage anything and can’t be honest about anything. Bush is now flirting with low approval numbers that may set records that will never be broken. The country is angry, disillusioned, pissed off … and yet here you sit defending these sorry incomeptant assholes every day and acting like you are king shit on turd island for doing it. Calling other people dismissive names for stating the obvious. Propping up stupidity and bigotry on the grounds that “most people” agree with you. Talking about every issue as if you were some cosmic journalist writing about a foreign planet, as if you yourself had no actual opinions or thoughts or accountability for anything, as if you didn’t vote for this catastrophically failed government and shouldn’t be held to account for it.

    You suck, Darrell. You and every post you make here, suck.

    If you went out and picked out every naughty word I’ve ever used in my whole life, it wouldn’t change that simple fact: You suck. What you do here, sucks. Your posts suck. Your whole attitude here sucks. You make this place suck just by showing up.

  130. 130.

    Pb

    May 5, 2006 at 6:01 pm

    Darrell,

    Yes, such as your own ‘smackdown’ of me in which you argued that the Bush admin. is the cause of high oil prices. You humiliated me with your erudite argument

    More or less–you spouted nonsense, I made my case, you sputtered more, I backed my case up, and then… nothing more from you, and on to the next distraction. It’s pretty clear that you can’t come up with a real argument in the face of reality, so you just switch to a different bogus scenario–from allegations of liberal Bush-bashing, to your own Kerry-bashing, to oil prices, to Lincoln, to bin Laden, to your current sarcastic ad-hominem non-response, etc., etc. ad infinitum–you’re spinning like a top, but you aren’t going anywhere.

    So go somewhere.

  131. 131.

    Andrew

    May 5, 2006 at 6:23 pm

    Which the Dems keep telling us is not ‘fully funded’. Tranlation – they want to spend even more

    Thank God that Bush has the backbone to stand up to those big government liberals and say, “We’re doing this half-assed, or we’re not doing it at all.”

  132. 132.

    Steve

    May 5, 2006 at 6:34 pm

    It’s awesome to be against fully funding programs. I mean, DougJ couldn’t make this stuff up.

  133. 133.

    r4d20

    May 5, 2006 at 7:51 pm

    Too much of what passed for the small-government right hated “the left” more than they loved small government.

    Too true.
    The worst part is the way the right has co-opted all the tactics of the very enemy they claim to despise.

  134. 134.

    r4d20

    May 5, 2006 at 8:03 pm

    Besides. I’d rather have a beer with Michael Moore than Ann Coulter

    I’m sorry but you just know Ann Coulter likes to be spanked and called a “dirty little liberal”.

  135. 135.

    r4d20

    May 5, 2006 at 8:08 pm

    I recall a President named Lincoln that suspended Habeus corpus and imposed martial law.

    You’re a lot older than I had imagined.

    When I was around 6 I asked my grandmother if she cried when Lincoln was assassinated. She was not amused.

  136. 136.

    r4d20

    May 5, 2006 at 8:11 pm

    Whether it’s mankind’s effect on climate change or the hunt for Bin Laden, they hold wrongheaded beliefs which cannot be be factually defended. Dogma over reality every time

    Talk about dogma…..

  137. 137.

    r4d20

    May 5, 2006 at 8:18 pm

    I got it. A new mantra for conservatives.

    “We may walk, talk, and act like the left….but at least we aren’t the left”

    I turned my back on this WH when their rheotiric started sounding like it was coming from the Kremlin.

  138. 138.

    Darrell

    May 6, 2006 at 2:23 pm

    Why, you’d have to believe that the invasion of Iraq has affected Iraq’s ability to supply oil, and then you’d have to believe that lowering the supply of oil raises the price of oil! We know that’s all a bunch of moonbat idiocy, right Darrell?

    Uh yeah, anyone arguing that the invasion of Iraq is a significant reason why oil prices went from $30/barrel to $70/barrel since the toppling of Saddam, would be engaging in a bit of moonbat logic in my opinion. If Iraq’s oil production jumped from 1.5 million/barrels a day to 3 million barrels (more than the production pre-invasion), that would increase world supply by maybe 2% (roughly same as ANWAR could produce?) at a time when Chinese and India demand is rising so quickly.. hardly a rational justification for screaming the Bush is to ‘blame’ for $70/barrel oil in order to line the pockets of Bush’s oil crony buddies. And that’s not even factoring in Saddam’s years of neglect of Iraq’s oil producing infrastructure which was held together with chewing gum and rubber bands.

    But your side doesn’t tend to be particularly rational or well informed. Lefties tell us how ANWAR drilling would be too insignificant to help meet our energy needs, but those same lefties now scream over a similarly small drop in production from Iraq as a “significant cause” of $70/barrel oil. How rational of them

  139. 139.

    Darrell

    May 6, 2006 at 2:35 pm

    Steve Says:

    It’s awesome to be against fully funding programs

    ”
    Not fully funded = Not spending as much as Dems demand be spent, no matter how far the program exceeds initial budget estimates.

  140. 140.

    Steve

    May 6, 2006 at 3:58 pm

    Oh, right. So when you pass legislation that promises a certain benefit, and then you don’t provide enough money to actually supply the benefit, that’s not a problem.

    I bet you’d love it if you submitted a claim to your insurance company, and they said “Well, it’s covered, but we’re out of money for the month so you don’t get anything.” You’re fine with Medicare not having enough money to pay its obligations, so you’d be fine with your insurance company not having enough money to pay your claim, right?

  141. 141.

    Steve

    May 6, 2006 at 4:07 pm

    Let’s recap.

    ‘’Iraq could be making a tremendous difference,’’ said Dalton Garis, an economist at the Petroleum Institute in Abu Dhabi. Instead, its shortfall is ‘’a significant contributing factor to the high price of oil,’’ he said.

    Darrell Says:

    Uh yeah, anyone arguing that the invasion of Iraq is a significant reason why oil prices went from $30/barrel to $70/barrel since the toppling of Saddam, would be engaging in a bit of moonbat logic in my opinion…

    But your side doesn’t tend to be particularly rational or well informed. Lefties tell us how ANWAR drilling would be too insignificant to help meet our energy needs, but those same lefties now scream over a similarly small drop in production from Iraq as a “significant cause” of $70/barrel oil. How rational of them

    Seems like a mismatch to me. Clearly, this economist from the Petroleum Institute in Abu Dhabi has no business trying to argue with Darrell, the recognized authority on world oil prices.

  142. 142.

    Pb

    May 6, 2006 at 4:09 pm

    Darrell,

    Uh yeah, anyone arguing that the invasion of Iraq is a significant reason why oil prices went from $30/barrel to $70/barrel since the toppling of Saddam, would be engaging in a bit of moonbat logic

    Also known as, ‘logic’. Yeah, Darrell, oil prices haven’t gone up at all because Bush destabilized the Middle East, that “war premium” thing that economists and financial experts have been talking about since 2002 is all a ridiculous liberal myth. Please ignore the extra $10-$20 that’s now built into the price of every single barrel of oil because of it.

    at a time when Chinese and India demand is rising so quickly

    Now that’s an interesting point as well. Of course they don’t use nearly as much oil as we do–We’re #1, China is #2, but we use 3x the oil they do, and actually India is behind Japan, Russia, and Germany as well, and in fact we use more than all of the other countries I’ve mentioned *combined*. But it’s important to note that that demand is rising (chiefly ours and China’s), and perhaps more important to note *why* it’s rising–because we’re paying for it! That’s just America’s trade (deficit) policies working for you, to keep bringing you those extra-low prices!

    hardly a rational justification for screaming the Bush is to ‘blame’ for $70/barrel oil in order to line the pockets of Bush’s oil crony buddies

    Well, what can I say, he’s the President, and to the extent that it’s due to his policies–foreign, economic, or otherwise–it is his fault. Raising CAFE standards would have helped as well, but instead he thought a big tax break for SUVs would be better. Hint: it totally wasn’t.

    But your side doesn’t tend to be particularly rational or well informed.

    Glass spoofs shouldn’t throw rocks! :)

    Lefties tell us how ANWAR drilling would be too insignificant to help meet our energy needs

    And on that point, they’re right again–it would be too little, too late–so let’s hear it for being rational and well informed! Yay logic!

    but those same lefties now scream over a similarly small drop in production from Iraq as a “significant cause” of $70/barrel oil

    Which ‘lefties’ would that be? The imaginary ones you enjoy misrepresenting when you willfully misunderstand their arguments, or the real ones who correct your ignorance as you spin to avoid the reality of the situation from creeping in?

  143. 143.

    CaseyL

    May 6, 2006 at 4:43 pm

    Oh my: the formatting buttons must’ve been doin’ something naughty the last few weeks, because now there are, like, 25 of them. And I don’t know what most of them do. H1-4? NOBR? Can someone translate??

    Darrell’s being a stalwart, in his way: he’s Standing by His Man, even though no less a light of the Right than Jonah “Not of Human Woman Born” Goldberg has decided Bush is actually a liberal, which of course explains everything.

    No amount of schadenfreund can make up for the death, destruction and despair the Bushists have wrought, but that doesn’t change the fact that I am loving every minute of watching one implosion after another.

    I would love to see true justice done. Unfortunately, the odds of seeing every Bushist in power stripped of every last cent and sent off to the Hague are absolutely nil.

    I’ll settle for the names associated with this regime to become so eponymous for “corrupt, brutal, incompetent, miserable failure” that even generations from now, calling anyone a Bush, a Cheney, or a Rumsfeld is enough all by itself to render that someone a pariah.

  144. 144.

    Darrell

    May 7, 2006 at 11:11 am

    I bet you’d love it if you submitted a claim to your insurance company, and they said “Well, it’s covered, but we’re out of money for the month so you don’t get anything

    A better analogy would be the Dems demanding that the insurance company pay claims for everyone, even the uninsured, then screaming about the ‘underfunding’ when there’s not enough money to pay for it all .. then of course, blaming Bush for it all.

  145. 145.

    Darrell

    May 7, 2006 at 11:13 am

    No amount of schadenfreund can make up for the death, destruction and despair the Bushists have wrought

    Yet the left sees themselves as rational

  146. 146.

    ppGaz

    May 7, 2006 at 11:14 am

    At a White House press briefing in May of last year, three months before the F.D.A.’s nonruling on Plan B, Press Secretary Scott McClellan was asked four times by a WorldNetDaily correspondent, Les Kinsolving, if the president supported contraception. “I think the president’s views are very clear when it comes to building a culture of life,” McClellan replied. Kinsolving said, “If they were clear, I wouldn’t have asked.” McClellan replied: “And if you want to ask those questions, that’s fine. I’m just not going to dignify them with a response.” This exchange caught the attention of bloggers and others. In July, a group of Democrats in Congress, led by Representative Carolyn Maloney of New York, sent the first of four letters to the president asking outright: “Mr. President, do you support the right to use contraception?” According to Representative Maloney’s office, the White House has still not responded.
    excerpt, NYT Magazine 5/7/06

    I guess we can stop wondering where Darrell learned that silence in the face of legitimate questions was an acceptable response: He’s the Scott McClellan of Balloon-Juice.

    Have an embarassing, backward, bigoted, sociopathic view? Not a problem! Just …. don’t answer.

    Right, Darrell?

  147. 147.

    ppGaz

    May 7, 2006 at 11:18 am

    Yet the left

    Still can’t carry on a conversation, Darrell?

    The stealth Dobsonite, homophobic bigot still has to get up on Sunday morning and fashion a response to “the left.”

    Do you fancy yourself William F. Buckley, Darrell?

    Or are you really just a redneck gay-baiting piece of Texas trailer trash with a computer?

    “The left?”

    When was the last time you had an original thought, man?

  148. 148.

    Darrell

    May 7, 2006 at 11:19 am

    Raising CAFE standards would have helped as well

    So according to leftist ‘logic’, raising CAFE would have helped LOWER the rise of energy costs. How rational

  149. 149.

    ppGaz

    May 7, 2006 at 11:22 am

    So according to leftist ‘logic’

    Are you insane? Do you actually have a thought, or an argument, other than this kind of crap that you’ve been posting here for the entire year that I’ve been here?

    “Leftist logic?”

    What is the matter with you?

    Are you so incapable of making a point that you can’t do any better than label every opinion you don’t share as “leftist?” Are you posting from a mental institution?

  150. 150.

    ppGaz

    May 7, 2006 at 11:29 am

    So according to leftist ‘logic’, raising CAFE would have helped LOWER the rise of energy costs. How rational

    So, according to rightist, trailer-trash redneck bigot Texas ingrate-with-computer logic, just what is the actual relationship between mileage standards and fuel prices, Darrell?

    Apparently you rednecks know a lot of really smart stuff. Why don’t you share it?

  151. 151.

    Darrell

    May 7, 2006 at 11:32 am

    Are you insane?

    I’m sure many have wondered that about you

    As long as the lying, incompetant alcoholic piece of shit is in the White House, he has to be dealt with

    Again, Tim and John … what the FUCK?

    You are defending a lunatic who has done more to try to consolidate federal and executive power than any president in history, you moron.

    You are the most narrow-minded, doctrinaire butthead on this whole blog.

    What the fuck is wrong with you?

    Or are you really just a redneck gay-baiting piece of Texas trailer trash with a computer?

    Draw your own conclusions

  152. 152.

    ppGaz

    May 7, 2006 at 11:42 am

    I’m sure many have wondered that about you

    Perhaps.

    But you didn’t answer the questions, Darrell.

    Do you think it is not safe to send kids camping with gay scout leaders?

    Do you think that CAFE standards have any effect on fuel consumption and costs, and if so, what is the effect?

    Do you know exactly how much your imaginary Joe Taxpayer actually spends on the education of illegal alien children, or do you just raise the issue as an exercise in fear-mongering without having any facts to back it up?

    Do you have some reason for labeling every opinion you don’t agree with as “leftist” and slandering it as illogical, stupid or some other bad adjective, without ever engaging in actual conversation and debate about the opinion itself?

    Do you think it is “rational” to post an never-ending series of opponent-bashing slurs without ever taking the time to answer simple, direct questions about the facts and your views of the facts?

  153. 153.

    Darrell

    May 7, 2006 at 11:57 am

    But you didn’t answer the questions, Darrell.

    Do you think it is not safe to send kids camping with gay scout leaders?

    I think without question there would be a higher risk of sexual abuse to young boys if their scout leader was homosexual. Similarly, I think there would be a higher risk of sexual abuse to young girls if their scout leader is a man. I know that belief, which I’m confident is shared by an overwhelming majority of parents, qualifies me as a ‘homophobe’ in your book.. But that just demonstrates what an extremist whackjob you are

    Do you think that CAFE standards have any effect on fuel consumption and costs, and if so, what is the effect?

    I believe CAFE standards have ‘fueled’ the SUV buying boom, as many people don’t want to drive in tiny matchbox cars which often are deathtraps when involved in auto accidents. But federal regulations rather than the market are the answer, right?

    Do you know exactly how much your imaginary Joe Taxpayer actually spends on the education of illegal alien children

    As others on your side have pointed out, the cost may not be precisely quantifiable, but it’s likely to be significant

    Do you have some reason for labeling every opinion you don’t agree with as “leftist”

    I believe liberals are far more likely than conservatives to lie their ass off about being a ‘moderate’ or ‘former’ Republican. When I read far left opinions being spouted by someone, I think that person should own up to being a liberal.. that’s all

  154. 154.

    ppGaz

    May 7, 2006 at 12:22 pm

    I think without question there would be a higher risk of sexual abuse to young boys if their scout leader was homosexual. Similarly, I think there would be a higher risk of sexual abuse to young girls if their scout leader is a man.

    So, where to begin? Are you saying that it’s reasonable to confine kids’ camping to supervision only by straight adults of the opposite gender?

    In other words, sending your daughter and other camping with your neighbor’s dad is not prudent? And sending the girls camping with your neighbor’s lesbian sister, not prudent?

    And, “without question?” Do you have facts which support any conclusion that gay adults are more prone to child abuse than straight ones? Where does your “without question” come from? To the contrary … WITH question, and lots of questions, Darrell. That’s what arguing on the basis of facts leads to …. lots of questions.

    I believe CAFE standards have ‘fueled’ the SUV buying boom, as many people don’t want to drive in tiny matchbox cars which often are deathtraps when involved in auto accidents. But federal regulations rather than the market are the answer, right?

    You believe this …. based on what? I follow the automobile industry rather closely, Darrell … I am not aware of any link between CAFE standards and SUV marketing. I am aware of market drivers such as safety, load carrying capacity, perceived vehicle flexibility, etc. But CAFE standards? Facts, please.

    As others on your side have pointed out, the cost may not be precisely quantifiable, but it’s likely to be significant

    I know of one poster here who has produced facts, tax rates, and numbers to support his position … me. I don’t know of another poster who has declared his school district, his county and its property tax rates, his personal property tax bills, his state’s school funding breakdown, California’s school funding sumary, demographics in the relevant state, and two sets of numbers leading to reasonable estimates of actual cost to Joe Taxpayer in two different states …. except me. Nobody challenged my numbers, nobody produced alternative numbers, nobody produced a single verifiable fact to counter my argument. And you? You ran away completely. Check the thread, it was only a week ago. Once I started talking about tax rates and school funding and numbers, you were gone, Darrell. I asked you one simple question, which was, what is the ACTUAL cost to your “Joe Taxpayer” for the big “problem” you were trying to pimp, and you said NOTHING, produced NOTHING, answered NOTHING. The reason why people “on my side” were even talking to me about it is because they got tired of me asking you to talk about it. Good for them, because they are going to get more tired of it. You still have never answered the simple question, or produced any evidence or facts to support your drive-by claim that somehow Joe Taxpayer has a problem here.

    Bottom line: Can you show me that it costs Joe Taxpayer more than one or two dollars a week, in any state in the union, to educate alien kids? And if my estimates are in the ballpark, why would any taxpayer shirk his duty to pay a few dozen dollars a year to educate ANY kids, regardless of where they came from? Isn’t the education of kids the best bargain society ever got? A few bucks a year in return for a taxpaying, responsible member of society? Isn’t that what public education and funding are all about in the first place?

    I believe liberals are far more likely than conservatives to lie their ass off about being a ‘moderate’ or ‘former’ Republican. When I read far left opinions being spouted by someone, I think that person should own up to being a liberal.. that’s all

    Okay, I’ll ignore the fact that this answer is clear out in left field with respect to the question I asked. Let me just say this: If you are really concerned with the basis for anyone’s opinion, why don’t you spend more time explaining your own positions, and engaging in debates about them on the facts, instead of on personalities and on gross generalzations about imaginary “leftists”?

    People who respect facts talk about facts, Darrell. That’s why I spent an hour loading up that imigration thread with facts and links that could be dissected, cussed and discussed, and maybe improved upon. The thread that you suddenly disappeared from.

    You want to have arguments based on facts and not rank opinion and ideology (you know, lefty stuff)? Then stand your ground and argue on the facts.

    Who knows, you might actually win. But I guarantee you, arguing about “lefties” will never win you an argument here.

  155. 155.

    ppGaz

    May 7, 2006 at 12:28 pm

    tiny matchbox cars which often are deathtraps when involved in auto accidents

    Have ya seen my url, Darrell? Then you know what kind of car I drive …. a tiny matchbox. One of a handful of cars that is considered in the “gold” class of occupant protection in front, side and rear impact collisions. That’s IIHS and NHTSA talking, not me. Considerably higher ratings in crash protection than most SUVs …. precisely because crash protection is not a factor just of vehicle size unless the people designing the smaller vehicles let it be that way. With better engineering, passive and active restraint devices, these small vehicles provide some of the best crash protection ever seen in any vehicles in this country.

  156. 156.

    Steve

    May 7, 2006 at 2:32 pm

    A better analogy would be the Dems demanding that the insurance company pay claims for everyone, even the uninsured, then screaming about the ‘underfunding’ when there’s not enough money to pay for it all .. then of course, blaming Bush for it all.

    The Medicare law says what it says. You have to be pretty partisan to argue that when the Democrats insist on enough money in the system to pay all the claims that are covered under the law, it’s a case of “the Dems demanding claims be paid for everyone,” as opposed to the LAW demanding that claims be paid for everyone.

    If your claim is covered under your insurance policy, you want it to be paid, even if the insurance company says “sorry, we’re not fully funded this month.”

    The only reason Republicans stay in power is because of suckers like Darrell. They pass a law promising people a benefit, run for reelection based on that benefit, and then when Democrats say “hey, you should actually deliver the benefit you promised in that law,” here come the partisan idiots spewing some bullshit about how the Democrats always demand more government spending. IT’S ALREADY THE LAW.

  157. 157.

    Pb

    May 7, 2006 at 4:09 pm

    Darrell,

    I believe CAFE standards have ‘fueled’ the SUV buying boom

    I agree–since the normal CAFE standards for cars didn’t apply to SUVs, the automakers were able to push these huge, gas-guzzling, unsafe, high-margin monstrosities, and the President again did his part in encouraging Americans to buy them.

    Perhaps if CAFE standards had been raised, or if SUVs had been categorized as cars in the first place, (or both!) then this waste could have been avoided, and we’d be both using less gas and paying less for gas.

  158. 158.

    ppGaz

    May 7, 2006 at 4:30 pm

    automakers were able to push these huge, gas-guzzling, unsafe, high-margin monstrosities

    Apropos of nothing in particular, but I have a friend at work who totalled his Excursion last weekend.

    He described how the accident happened, and that he had hit a Subaru Forester, and that even though his excursion had suffered $20k worth of damage, when you looked the two vehices, he said, “I won.” He was quite pleased with himself over it, actually. To him, the crushed Subaru was the symbol of victory … and exacly why he plans to buy either another Excursion, or the new larger Expedition, or possibly even get his old one fixed.

    (We can all joke about this since both drivers walked away from the contest).

  159. 159.

    Pb

    May 8, 2006 at 8:31 am

    ppGaz,

    he had hit a Subaru Forester, and that even though his excursion had suffered $20k worth of damage

    That is to say, roughly the price of a Subaru Forester…

    when you looked the two vehices, he said, “I won.” He was quite pleased with himself over it, actually

    Ugh. I hope he has collision insurance.

  160. 160.

    Bob In Pacifica

    May 8, 2006 at 9:26 am

    I think it’ll be General Hayden.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Political Action

Postcard Writing Information

Recent Comments

  • Ramalama on In Legal News Today (Sep 27, 2023 @ 5:36am)
  • Tony Jay on Late Night Open Thread: Rude Mechanicals (Sep 27, 2023 @ 5:28am)
  • lowtechcyclist on Late Night Open Thread: Rude Mechanicals (Sep 27, 2023 @ 5:16am)
  • HumboldtBlue on Late Night Open Thread: Rude Mechanicals (Sep 27, 2023 @ 4:14am)
  • Baud on Late Night Open Thread: Rude Mechanicals (Sep 27, 2023 @ 4:07am)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
What Has Biden Done for You Lately?

Balloon Juice Meetups!

All Meetups
Talk of Meetups – Meetup Planning

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Cole & Friends Learn Español

Introductory Post
Cole & Friends Learn Español

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!