• 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.

Too often we hand the biggest microphones to the cynics and the critics who delight in declaring failure.

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

I’d hate to be the candidate who lost to this guy.

Usually wrong but never in doubt

A sufficient plurality of insane, greedy people can tank any democratic system ever devised, apparently.

But frankly mr. cole, I’ll be happier when you get back to telling us to go fuck ourselves.

Republicans choose power over democracy, every day.

It’s always darkest before the other shoe drops.

Do not shrug your shoulders and accept the normalization of untruths.

Whatever happens next week, the fight doesn’t end.

Stamping your little feets and demanding that they see how important you are? Not working anymore.

Accused of treason; bitches about the ratings. I am in awe.

Nancy smash is sick of your bullshit.

Good lord, these people are nuts.

If you’re pissed about Biden’s speech, he was talking about you.

It’s the corruption, stupid.

We’re not going back!

The revolution will be supervised.

The words do not have to be perfect.

You don’t get to peddle hatred on saturday and offer condolences on sunday.

Within six months Twitter will be fully self-driving.

… pundit janitors mopping up after the GOP

I conferred with the team and they all agree – still not tired of winning!

Republicans want to make it harder to vote and easier for them to cheat.

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 / Humorous / Comedy Gold

Comedy Gold

by John Cole|  July 27, 200610:44 am| 545 Comments

This post is in: Humorous, Politics, Democratic Stupidity

FacebookTweetEmail

This was unintentionally funny:

Down with divisiveness was the message Wednesday delivered by Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean as he told a group of Florida business leaders that Republican policies of deceit and finger-pointing are tearing American apart.

Dean called President Bush “the most divisive president probably in our history.”

“He’s always talking about those people. It’s always somebody else’s fault. It’s the gays’ fault. It’s the immigrants’ fault. It’s the liberals’ fault. It’s the Democrats’ fault. It’s Hollywood people,” Dean said. “Americans are sick of that. Even if you win elections doing that, you drag down our country.”

Divisiveness is bad! Don’ be like those evil jerk meanies over there! Umm, yeah!

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Say It Ain’t So
Next Post: Oedipus Tex »

Reader Interactions

545Comments

  1. 1.

    Pb

    July 27, 2006 at 10:47 am

    heh. What was Dean thinking, hasn’t he heard that President Bush is a uniter, not a divider? Is his fax machine broken? I could have sworn we sent out those talking points already…

  2. 2.

    Daebo

    July 27, 2006 at 10:47 am

    Wow, I read the whole thing and the only reference I found to “evil jerk meanies” was from the resident Dick with Ears.

  3. 3.

    John Cole

    July 27, 2006 at 10:50 am

    Before this thread gets wqholly queered by the resident lefties who think I am picking on Dean unfairly, what was funny is he spent the whole speech decrying divisiveness in a speech telling you why you should vote for one party over the other.

    If you can’ see the irony and humor in that, then you are soooo partisan that you are beyond any hope.

  4. 4.

    Daebo

    July 27, 2006 at 10:55 am

    Wow, guess I’m the only one that bothered to read the whole thing.

    Oh well, we’ll always have Sheehan…

  5. 5.

    John Cole

    July 27, 2006 at 10:59 am

    Why did you change your name, Davebo?

  6. 6.

    Steve

    July 27, 2006 at 11:02 am

    This is like comedy bronze at best.

  7. 7.

    neil

    July 27, 2006 at 11:04 am

    Honestly, John, I think you are misguided about the irony thing. The key difference is that Dean is not talking about divisiveness in terms of merely acknowledging a distinction between the parties and choosing them. His examples are all categorical: turning people against ‘the gays’, ‘the liberals’, ‘Hollywood.’ Is his answer to this that ‘all Republicans are bad’ or ‘all conservatives are divisive?’ No — he talks only about the current Republican leadership.

    I know, John, that you do not believe that all politics are, by definition, as divisive as those practiced by the Republican Party of this decade. Do you really believe that it is impossible for a politician to criticize them for this divisiveness without being hypocritical?

  8. 8.

    Pb

    July 27, 2006 at 11:04 am

    John Cole,

    Yes, your point is obvious. I’d just find it funnier if Dean wasn’t right on target about this one.

    What’s worse is that Bush babbled incessantly about how he was going to bring people together, unite them, blah blah blah, but apparently–like anything else–he didn’t really have a plan for it–or at least, not a sane or rational plan. No, his plan was this:

    Bush was going to make his proposals, and people were going to agree with him. If they didn’t agree with him, then he’d convince them. If he couldn’t convince them, then he’d ignore them (obviously they’re beyond reasoning with–they have their opinions and he has his). And as far as working with Congress goes, he’d also do his part to strong-arm his own party into agreeing with him, which to date is generally enough to get anything he wants passed.

    So, yes, he’s a uniter, insofar as you already agree with him. But what’s missing is any attempt at compromise, or even discussion. He’s The Decider. He makes life-and-death decisions for people in fifteen minutes or less–he’s famous for it–and he stands by those decisions. And that’s it–either you’re with him, or you’re against him.

    Now here are the words of an actual uniter:

    in an American election, there are no losers, because whether or not our candidates are successful, the next morning we all wake up as Americans. And that — that is the greatest privilege and the most remarkable good fortune that can come to us on earth.

    With that gift also comes obligation. We are required now to work together for the good of our country. In the days ahead, we must find common cause. We must join in common effort without remorse or recrimination, without anger or rancor. America is in need of unity and longing for a larger measure of compassion.

    I hope President Bush will advance those values in the coming years. I pledge to do my part to try to bridge the partisan divide. I know this is a difficult time for my supporters, but I ask them, all of you, to join me in doing that.

    Now, more than ever, with our soldiers in harm’s way, we must stand together and succeed in Iraq and win the war on terror. I will also do everything in my power to ensure that my party, a proud Democratic Party, stands true to our best hopes and ideals.

  9. 9.

    Jim Allen

    July 27, 2006 at 11:05 am

    Before this thread gets wqholly queered by the resident lefties who think I am picking on Dean unfairly, what was funny is he spent the whole speech decrying divisiveness in a speech telling you why you should vote for one party over the other.

    If you can’ see the irony and humor in that, then you are soooo partisan that you are beyond any hope.

    Great. Dean, the chairman of a political party, decries the way an administration uses divisiveness in the way that it governs, and you think it’s humorous.

    Seems fairly typical of right-wingers, I suppose. Let’s just ignore the substance of what he’s saying, and jump on the fact that it’s He Who Screamed who’s saying it, making it comedy gold. No need to address the content, let’s just comment on the messenger, shall we? Look, something shiny!

    OK, we’ve all had our giggle. Now, care to comment on what he said?

  10. 10.

    neil

    July 27, 2006 at 11:06 am

    Or, to pull an analogy from the headlines, is it ‘ironic’ for Israel to deplore Lebanese missiles killing its people while Israel is itself shooting missiles at Lebanon? No, I think if someone said that you would call them an Israel-hating hippy.

  11. 11.

    chopper

    July 27, 2006 at 11:09 am

    i guess you can’t complain about others’ divisiveness w/o being divisive yourself. rove is writing that in a notepad as we speak.

    next to ‘note to self: dean is a gay frenchman? look into it’

  12. 12.

    neil

    July 27, 2006 at 11:09 am

    OK, we’ve all had our giggle. Now, care to comment on what he said?

    Why bother? It was a stump speech. Yawn-o-rama.

  13. 13.

    chopper

    July 27, 2006 at 11:10 am

    Let’s just ignore the substance of what he’s saying, and jump on the fact that it’s He Who Screamed who’s saying it, making it comedy gold

    michael moore is fat.

  14. 14.

    LITBMueller

    July 27, 2006 at 11:14 am

    No no no no no. That’s not irony. Irony is:
    1) Preaching about the right to life while encouraging armed conflict between nations.

    2) Sending aid to Lebanon while sending bombs to Israel.

    Stuff like that!

    “BYAAAAAAAH!!!!” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0RqvLya_p8

  15. 15.

    Davebo

    July 27, 2006 at 11:18 am

    Didn’t mean to change the moniker John. It seems the site remembered it wrong.

  16. 16.

    The Other Steve

    July 27, 2006 at 11:19 am

    Charles Barkley… now a Democrat… thinking about run for Alabama Governor

    Barkley was the Poster Child of Republican outreach to African-Americans. What happened?

  17. 17.

    The Other Steve

    July 27, 2006 at 11:20 am

    Before this thread gets wqholly queered by the resident lefties who think I am picking on Dean unfairly, what was funny is he spent the whole speech decrying divisiveness in a speech telling you why you should vote for one party over the other.

    There’s a difference between partisanship and divisiveness.

    You don’t understand the difference because you’ve been drinking the Republican kool-aid for too long.

  18. 18.

    LITBMueller

    July 27, 2006 at 11:20 am

    Barkley was the Poster Child of Republican outreach to African-Americans. What happened?

    Bush happened.

  19. 19.

    Pb

    July 27, 2006 at 11:21 am

    Barkley was the Poster Child of Republican outreach to African-Americans. What happened?

    He found out that “George Bush hates black people”?

  20. 20.

    Punchy

    July 27, 2006 at 11:23 am

    Before this thread gets wqholly queered by the resident lefties who think I am picking on Dean unfairly, what was funny is he spent the whole speech decrying divisiveness in a speech telling you why you should vote for one party over the other.

    If you can’ see the irony and humor in that, then you are soooo partisan that you are beyond any hope

    Uh, maybe he said that becuase he knew the other party WOULDN’T be as divisive? Did you ever think of that? Nothing like a post so ambiguous and dishonest that it requires a follow-up post just to so poorly explain it again…

  21. 21.

    Steve

    July 27, 2006 at 11:25 am

    We think the role of government should be to give people the tools to create the conditions to make the most of their own lives. And we think everybody should have that chance.

    On the other hand, the Republicans in Washington believe that American should be run by the right people — their people — in a world in which America acts unilaterally when we can and cooperates when we have to.

    They believe the role of government is to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of those who embrace their economic, political and social views, leaving ordinary citizens to fend for themselves on important matters like health care and retirement security.

    Now, since most Americans aren’t that far to the right, our friends have to portray us Democrats as simply unacceptable, lacking in strength and values. In other words, they need a divided America.

    But we don’t.

    Americans long to be united. After 9/11, we all just wanted to be one nation. Not a single American on September the 12, 2001, cared who won the next presidential election.

    All we wanted to do was to be one country, strong in the fight against terror, helping to heal those who were wounded and the families of those who lost their loved ones, reaching out to the rest of the world so we could meet these new challenges and go on with our democratic way of life.

    The president had an amazing opportunity to bring the country together under his slogan of compassionate conservatism and to unite the world in the struggle against terror.

    Instead, he and his congressional allies made a very different choice. They chose to use that moment of unity to try to push the country too far to the right and to walk away from our allies, not only in attacking Iraq before the weapons inspectors had finished their work, but in withdrawing American support for the climate change treaty, and for the international court on war criminals, and for the anti-ballistic missile treaty and from the nuclear test ban treaty.

    What a divisive asshole that Bill Clinton is. Because to be non-divisive, you need to say both parties are the same.

  22. 22.

    Tulkinghorn

    July 27, 2006 at 11:25 am

    If you can’ see the irony and humor in that, then you are soooo partisan that you are beyond any hope.

    Not much humour, or irony, as far as I can tell. It is one thing to advocate for one party over another due to divisiveness, and a very different thing to accuse the loyal opposition of treason. Leftist cranks say all sort of ridiculous things about conservatives, but these leftist cranks are not prominant in the Democratic party and they do not control the three branches of government.

  23. 23.

    Pb

    July 27, 2006 at 11:28 am

    Steve,

    Bill Clinton is far too nice sometimes:

    Not a single American on September the 12, 2001, cared who won the next presidential election.

    Karl Rove did.

  24. 24.

    Andrew

    July 27, 2006 at 11:29 am

    Barkley was the Poster Child of Republican outreach to African-Americans. What happened?

    Barkley: “I was a Republican until they lost their minds.”

  25. 25.

    Pb

    July 27, 2006 at 11:35 am

    Andrew,

    Yeah, that’s the short version; here’s a longer one:

    “The word conservative means discriminatory practically. It’s a form of political discrimination. [Conservatives are] against gay marriage and for a war that makes no sense. A war that was based on faulty intelligence. That’s all they ever talk about. That and immigration. Another discriminatory argument for political gain.“
    […]
    “My No. 1 priority is to help poor people,” Barkley has said. “In this country, 90% of the money is controlled by 10% of the people, and that’s not right.”

  26. 26.

    Jack Roy

    July 27, 2006 at 11:44 am

    Yeah, count me among those who think John’s fulla shit on this one. (Sorry John; I love ya, but this is ridiculous.)

  27. 27.

    Jack Roy

    July 27, 2006 at 11:48 am

    Let me clarify further: Arguing that voters should prefer one party or another is not, emphatically not the same thing as divisiveness or polarization. You can run for office by calling for more spending or less taxes or better schools or whatever; or you can run for office by characterizing your opponent as loving gay marriage, flag burners and terrorists. George W. Bush, simply as a matter of objective fact, has been the most divisive president in a generation—it’s a matter of political style, not a matter of him just being a politician. This supposed unity between Bush and Dean, simply on account that they’re both politicians, profoundly misses the point.

  28. 28.

    KC

    July 27, 2006 at 12:04 pm

    You know, I’ve gotten to appreciate Dean more lately. For all his off-the-cuff remarks, at least you know he’s a real person, not some polished PR idol. Weren’t we told that’s what made the president so cool, after all?

  29. 29.

    SeesThroughIt

    July 27, 2006 at 12:10 pm

    That’s a great Clinton quote, Steve. As I’ve said before, I didn’t think that much about Clinton either way while he was president–he seemed pretty good, not amazing, not awful–but as the Bush administration limps on, Clinton seems better by comparison every day.

    As for Barkley…well, he fuckin’ rules. I don’t know that he can win an election, but his statements are great. I remember he recounted an exchange he had with his grandmother when he told her that he was a Republican. “But Charles,” she protested, “Republicans only care about rich people.” “But Grandma,” he replied,” I am rich.” Awesome.

    Finally, the quote that jumped into my head as I read this thread: “WacArnold’s is tearing this family apart!”

  30. 30.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 12:18 pm

    It’s obvious that Dean, by talking about the divisiveness of the modern GOP, is being devisive. Only a partisan would disagree that pointing out a fault of one party means you are guilty of that fault yourself.

  31. 31.

    El Cruzado

    July 27, 2006 at 12:18 pm

    It’s only cool if you were already one of the cool kids, it seems.

  32. 32.

    Mike in SLO

    July 27, 2006 at 12:19 pm

    Okay, so Dean and Cindy Sheehan bug the shit out of John. We all know that, so I won’t join the gaggle into what or what is not “irony”. But I protest the headline “Comedy Gold”. That moniker definately belongs to Bush, who’s proven time and time again that he’s the Champ of Unintentional Halarity.

  33. 33.

    RSA

    July 27, 2006 at 12:21 pm

    I didn’t think that much about Clinton either way while he was president—he seemed pretty good, not amazing, not awful—but as the Bush administration limps on, Clinton seems better by comparison every day.

    You’re not the only one. A recent Gallup poll showed that since 2002, Clinton’s approval rating has gone up 10 points. It’s partly nostalgia, I imagine, but it’s worth noting that Nixon’s approval has sunk even further in that time. One speculative but obvious hypothesis is that Bush is causing people to revise their standards for the President.

  34. 34.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 12:23 pm

    I didn’t think that much about Clinton either way while he was president—he seemed pretty good, not amazing, not awful—but as the Bush administration limps on, Clinton seems better by comparison every day

    I didn’t care for Clinton, but compared to this administration, he was a genius. Barkley is interesting. Looks like I need to pay more attention to him.

  35. 35.

    SeesThroughIt

    July 27, 2006 at 12:25 pm

    One speculative but obvious hypothesis is that Bush is causing people to revise their standards for the President.

    That’s certainly what’s going on with me. By normal standards, Clinton was pretty good; with standards revised down (way down) by Bush, Clinton is looking pretty damn spectacular.

  36. 36.

    Davebo

    July 27, 2006 at 12:25 pm

    One speculative but obvious hypothesis is that Bush is causing people to revise their standards for the President.

    It’s The silent bigotry of low expectations at work.

    It sure isn’t lacking around here!

  37. 37.

    Pb

    July 27, 2006 at 12:26 pm

    SeesThroughIt,

    That’s a great Clinton quote, Steve. As I’ve said before, I didn’t think that much about Clinton either way while he was president—he seemed pretty good, not amazing, not awful—but as the Bush administration limps on, Clinton seems better by comparison every day.

    Judging by the results, I’d say that Clinton was the best President we’ve had in at least the past 40 years. The problem, though, isn’t that he was incredibly smart and competent, but that he made it look so incredibly easy to be competent.

    Personally, I know that I got complacent and spoiled–I was so sure that in such a time of peace and propserity, neither Al Gore nor George W. Bush could screw it up that much in only four years. And I’ve never been more wrong about something in my life. Never again.

  38. 38.

    jg

    July 27, 2006 at 12:32 pm

    Yes its funny. How else would he put it I don’t know but there is humor there if you’re in the right mood.

    On the other hand do you realize that you are just following in the footsteps of every other republican blogger by making a post that makes fun of Dean? You’re not going ‘ha ha he’s a goof, yearggghhhh!!’ but still.

    I have no troouble laughing at Dean or any democrat but its hard to share in the joke when it comes form your direction. Yes you aren’t the typical right wing blogger but you still are over there.

  39. 39.

    SeesThroughIt

    July 27, 2006 at 12:33 pm

    Personally, I know that I got complacent and spoiled—I was so sure that in such a time of peace and propserity, neither Al Gore nor George W. Bush could screw it up that much in only four years.

    True. Of course, I also watched the first Gore/Bush debate and thought, “Gore trashed that guy. Who the hell is going to vote for that jabbering idiot with the fake Southern accent?” Whoops.

    But yeah, I too took it for granted that the president would be smart, engaged in government, and above all, competent. That was probably my bad–the only thing a president need be is electable. Competence is just a happy fringe benefit.

  40. 40.

    jg

    July 27, 2006 at 12:34 pm

    I didn’t think that much about Clinton either way while he was president

    I hated him until he gave the repubs the finger when they tried to embarass him into resigning.

  41. 41.

    Nutcutter

    July 27, 2006 at 12:35 pm

    what was funny is he spent the whole speech decrying divisiveness in a speech telling you why you should vote for one party over the other.

    I’m sorry, I must have missed a meeting.

    1) It’s funny that a party chairman advocates voting for his party? I’m going to need to be let in on the joke that makes it funny.

    2) It’s funny that we describe the party of Rove and Bush as divisive? Are they not divisive? Is it not appropriate to say so?

    Is it possible to be a snark artist and NOT look at every goddam fucking thing that happens through the lens of stupid snark?

    I’m just asking.

  42. 42.

    Pooh

    July 27, 2006 at 12:37 pm

    I understand John’s point – there is a certain inherent hypocrisy in using ‘divisiveness’ as a wedge issue (as opposed to using divisive wedge issues, I suppose) – however I shockingly agree with the lefty commentariat for noting that Dean is in fact right on this issue

  43. 43.

    Nutcutter

    July 27, 2006 at 12:41 pm

    there is a certain inherent hypocrisy in using ‘divisiveness’ as a wedge issue

    Okay, let’s park the car for a minute. We are on a blog where people are arguing with a straight face that firing rockets into civilians to kill terrorists is sorta okay.

    But after years of deliberate divisive politics by liars who claim to be “uniters,” it’s “hypocritical” for their adversaries to point that out?

    You know what, Pooh? You need to take a day off and get your damned head together.

  44. 44.

    Jim Allen

    July 27, 2006 at 12:45 pm

    But after years of deliberate divisive politics by liars who claim to be “uniters,” it’s “hypocritical” for their adversaries to point that out?

    You know what, Pooh Cole? You need to take a day off and get your damned head together.

    Amended.

  45. 45.

    Pooh

    July 27, 2006 at 12:45 pm

    If you want to just come out and say “fuck you” everytime I post something, do that and save us all time.

    “I understand” does not equal “I agree with”

    You could at least make an effort to understand my points, but you choose to Darrell.

  46. 46.

    Davebo

    July 27, 2006 at 12:46 pm

    I will say that it’s much easier to understand Cole’s enjoyment of Goldstien’s posts when you realize that this qualifies as “Comedy Gold”.

    Sort of like how a lot of folks find Will Ferrell funny I guess.

  47. 47.

    Nutcutter

    July 27, 2006 at 12:47 pm

    If you want to just come out and say “fuck you” everytime I post something, do that and save us all time.

    Take off the hair shirt, pal. First of all, everybody knows me well enough to know this: If I wanted to say Fuck You, I would. Make no mistake about that.

    Second, you want nicer responses? Then don’t post mealy mouthed shit like you did above.

    And if you post mealy mouthed shit, and get dinged by me for it, then either defend the mealy mouthed shit, or shut up. Don’t whine at me for saying what I think.

  48. 48.

    Davebo

    July 27, 2006 at 12:52 pm

    Hey PP, what’s with the new moniker? And I don’t even want to think about the meaning of it…

  49. 49.

    Pb

    July 27, 2006 at 12:53 pm

    Davebo,

    Sort of like how a lot of folks find Will Ferrell funny

    Hey now… Will Ferrell is like a zillion times (intentionally) funnier than Goldstein, there’s really no comparison.

    Because if there’s one thing I’m good at, it’s punishing evil-doers. You don’t believe me, there’s over 200 guys in Texas you can ask. Well.. you can’t ask them right now, but you’ll have a chance real soon. And I’m sorry I wasn’t there to see your face when you went to the Kabul ATM to get some Quick-Cash. I bet it said “Insufficient Funds”. That’s right – we froze your assets. It probably ate your card, too.

    Make no mistake: we’re coming for you, bin Laden. I’m gonna make you my own personal “Where’s Waldo”. And unlike those frustrating Waldo books, I’m gonna find you.

  50. 50.

    Nutcutter

    July 27, 2006 at 12:54 pm

    Sort of like how a lot of folks find Will Ferrell funny I guess.

    Interesting observation.

    I find Farrell funny because he is physically funny. It’s slapstick. But intellectually, it’s just ….. well, let’s just say, lowbrow.

    I enjoy Mort Sahl, but a guy like Jerry Stiller can make me laugh just by walking into a room.

  51. 51.

    Nutcutter

    July 27, 2006 at 12:55 pm

    what’s with the new moniker

    Tired of the old one.

    A nut cutter is a device for cutting betel nuts. You can buy them on e-bay, mostly as antiques.

  52. 52.

    Davebo

    July 27, 2006 at 1:06 pm

    OK, I could see how some might find Ferrell funny. But to me he’ll always be the lamest prime time player ever.

  53. 53.

    jg

    July 27, 2006 at 1:08 pm

    ‘Go fuck yourself San Diego’

  54. 54.

    Nutcutter

    July 27, 2006 at 1:08 pm

    OK, I could see how some might find Ferrell funny

    I understand that. Just standing there, I find him very unfunny. Unlike, say, Stiller, who can just stand there and have me in hysterics.

    But Farrell can get into that manic slapstick mode and be pretty funny.

    I’m no big Farrell fan, though. I am just trailer trash who is easily amused by high-energy physical humor.

  55. 55.

    Jim Allen

    July 27, 2006 at 1:09 pm

    Wonderful. Threads can be darrelled without Darrell.

  56. 56.

    John S.

    July 27, 2006 at 1:10 pm

    Before this thread gets wqholly queered by the resident lefties who think I am picking on Dean unfairly

    Uh-oh. Looks like Saint John is bracing for the heathenous liberals to crucify him and make him pay for all the sins of the Republican party.

    At least he’ll get to be a martyr.

  57. 57.

    Mac Buckets

    July 27, 2006 at 1:12 pm

    If you can’t see the irony and humor in that, then you are soooo partisan that you are beyond any hope.

    John, as if you couldn’t tell from the comments section, you had it absolutely pegged!

    How dare we all not readily accept gratefully this lesson on the horrors of divisiveness from the Little Ball of Hate who brought us:

    “I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for.”

    “This is a struggle between good and evil and we are the good.”

    “You know, the Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people. They’re a pretty monolithic party. Pretty much, they all behave the same, and they all look the same.”

    “You think people can work all day and then pick up their kids at child care or wherever and get home and still manage to sandwich in an eight-hour vote? Well Republicans, I guess can do that. Because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives.”

    But he’s all about the building bridges and the tolerance and the hugs.

  58. 58.

    The Other Steve

    July 27, 2006 at 1:16 pm

    Sort of like how a lot of folks find Will Ferrell funny I guess.

    I think people who find Ferrell funny also enjoyed the Three Stooges.

    People who don’t probably are more likely to enjoy Laurel and Hardy.

  59. 59.

    Nutcutter

    July 27, 2006 at 1:16 pm

    Well, Mac, the thing is, you are talking to a guy who helped bring us the unmitigated disaster that is the government of George Bush, and with it, its devisive and destructive political methods.

    Now, basking in the glory of that accomplishment, he wants to sit back and call the opposition “divisive.”

    There’s humor here, all right. It’s just that you and John are not likely to see it. You are immersed in the endless self-referential snarky bullshit that got us here in the first place.

    Check the polls today. Two thirds of this country is ready to fire the entire government.

    But please, more of your useless jackalopes, it’s what you do.

  60. 60.

    The Other Steve

    July 27, 2006 at 1:17 pm

    John, as if you couldn’t tell from the comments section, you had it absolutely pegged!

    Well there you have it.

    Mac “Bush is the Greatest President Ever, and you’re all Bush-Haters for saying otherwise” Buckets agrees with John.

  61. 61.

    Nutcutter

    July 27, 2006 at 1:18 pm

    I think people who find Ferrell funny also enjoyed the Three Stooges.

    People who don’t probably are more likely to enjoy Laurel and Hardy.

    Subtlety is everything at BJ.

    I mean, Subtlety rules!

  62. 62.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 1:23 pm

    But he’s all about the building bridges and the tolerance and the hugs.

    Dean has been reaching out to the Republican Black Caucus, but they haven’t returned his phone calls.

  63. 63.

    srv

    July 27, 2006 at 1:24 pm

    I will say that it’s much easier to understand Cole’s enjoyment of Goldstien’s posts when you realize that this qualifies as “Comedy Gold”.

    Sort of like how a lot of folks find Will Ferrell funny I guess.

    Yeah, plenty of smart people think Will is funny. But smart and intelligent are two different things.

  64. 64.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 1:25 pm

    Republicans tackle the issues that matter.

    In its continuing crackdown on on-air profanity, the FCC has requested numerous tapes from broadcasters that might include vulgar remarks from unruly spectators, coaches and athletes at live sporting events, industry sources said.

    Now that’s divisive.

  65. 65.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 1:29 pm

    Well there you have it.

    Mac “Bush is the Greatest President Ever, and you’re all Bush-Haters for saying otherwise” Buckets agrees with John.

    Of course genius, that was exactly his point. How intelligent and insightful of you.

  66. 66.

    Nutcutter

    July 27, 2006 at 1:30 pm

    Now that’s divisive.

    OMG, that is too funny.

    At sporting contests, they often announce that the use of profanity might result in the ticketholder being asked to leave.

    But if the FCC goes really all Ashcroft on broadcasters, they may have to do all events tape delayed.

  67. 67.

    RSA

    July 27, 2006 at 1:31 pm

    I can see the irony John points out, though the humor in it is a matter of taste and political preference. One subtlety that I think might be missed is that I see Dean as advocating that political divisions (Democratic versus Republican positions) be recognized, while when Bush has talked about uniting versus dividing, it’s been more general than just across-the-aisle gestures–he was supposed to unite people of different cultural, religious, and economic backgrounds as well. Hasn’t worked out too well, except perhaps in the sense that almost everyone is now agreed that he’s an incompetent boob. Your mileage may vary on my interpretation.

  68. 68.

    Nutcutter

    July 27, 2006 at 1:32 pm

    Oh ho! Darrell “Alfalfa” the Decider, fresh from his complete and utter ass-whipping late last night on the Lebanon thread, shows up to talk about Dems and divisiveness.

    Do you think that Cole phoned him and told him to get in here?

  69. 69.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 1:32 pm

    But if the FCC goes really all Ashcroft on broadcasters, they may have to do all events tape delayed.

    Yet Mac and Darrell will still defend and vote for these nanny-state asshats. It’s what they do.

  70. 70.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 1:32 pm

    How dare we all not readily accept gratefully this lesson on the horrors of divisiveness from the Little Ball of Hate who brought us:

    “I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for.”

    “This is a struggle between good and evil and we are the good.”

    The irony is about as rich as it gets.. that so many libs are in denial about it says it all about what blind hacks they truly are

  71. 71.

    Richard 23

    July 27, 2006 at 1:34 pm

    Darrell’s right as always. Good post, double D!

  72. 72.

    Nutcutter

    July 27, 2006 at 1:34 pm

    America hates pretense. That’s why we stuck it to Al Gore for his pretentious self-puffery over invention of the Internet.

    It’s why Bush gets it in the ass now for divisiveness. You can’t go around calling yourself a “uniter” and then being the most divisive piece of shit in history, and not have people jump all over you. It’s America, that’s what we do.

    We don’t want people who are pretentious, pompous kings and giant egos running the country. At least not ones who are dumb enough to makea big claim and then do the opposite.

  73. 73.

    Nutcutter

    July 27, 2006 at 1:36 pm

    that so many libs are in denial about it says it all about what blind hacks they truly are

    How much is Cole paying you for this shit?

    How do you get paid for doing the same fucking material over and over for a year?

    The rest of us have to get new material once in a while.

    I call upon BJers to go on strike. This shit is unfair to labor.

  74. 74.

    Pb

    July 27, 2006 at 1:37 pm

    Move over everybody, Darrell’s here to show us how a real uniter behaves!

  75. 75.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 1:37 pm

    Oh ho! Darrell “Alfalfa” the Decider, fresh from his complete and utter ass-whipping late last night on the Lebanon thread

    Hilarious how so many leftists claim to have “ass whipped” others in debates. Third grade taunts, with claims of victory always coming from the ‘progressive’ side. What a coincidence huh? You know ppgaz, with leftists being the sole judge of who ‘wins’, I predict you lefties are going to continue your undefeated win streak. What do you think about that?

    In the meantime, I need to get some ice for that ‘spanking’ that you libs gave me

  76. 76.

    Tom

    July 27, 2006 at 1:38 pm

    Howard Dean calls for end to divisiveness

    Dean Calls Iraqi PM an ‘Anti-Semite’

    Howard Dean Compares Katherine Harris To ‘Stalin’

  77. 77.

    Nutcutter

    July 27, 2006 at 1:39 pm

    You know ppgaz, with leftists being the sole judge of who ‘wins’

    Oh yeah? Ask around. Who thinks Darrell won last night?

  78. 78.

    Nutcutter

    July 27, 2006 at 1:39 pm

    I need to get some ice for that ‘spanking’ that you libs gave me

    Careful, don’t freeze your brain.

  79. 79.

    Steve

    July 27, 2006 at 1:41 pm

    Dean Calls Iraqi PM an ‘Anti-Semite’

    That was really outrageous, wasn’t it? Next he’ll be saying Yasser Arafat had it in for Israel. The man simply cannot keep his trap shut.

  80. 80.

    Doktor Doolittle

    July 27, 2006 at 1:43 pm

    This was fun, but I can’t wait for Friday: Cats-in-the-Beer day! This site wouldn’t be shiite without Cats and Beer.

  81. 81.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 1:45 pm

    Steve Says:

    Dean Calls Iraqi PM an ‘Anti-Semite’

    That was really outrageous, wasn’t it? Next he’ll be saying Yasser Arafat had it in for Israel. The man simply cannot keep his trap shut.

    How about Dean comparing Katherine Harris to Stalin? Or Dean’s statement that he “hates the Republicans and everything they stand for”. Hilarious to hear so many leftists squeal like whining bitches when someone dares to call them on their hypocrisy.

  82. 82.

    Mac Buckets

    July 27, 2006 at 1:47 pm

    you are talking to a guy who helped bring us the unmitigated disaster that is the government of George Bush, and with it, its devisive and destructive political methods.

    Unless you are twelve years old, you should know better than to insinuate that somehow Bush invented what you call “divisive” and “destructive” methods when he came to Washington. For how many decades have the Democrats been playing the race card and the class warfare card?

  83. 83.

    Kimmitt

    July 27, 2006 at 1:47 pm

    This is why I love this site; Constitutional crises over FISA, an ongoing currency crisis waiting to happen; war in the Middle East; the total collapse of the Iraqi occupation . . . and we’re talking about the least charitable possible interpretation of an entirely correct quote by Howard Dean.

    This is also why The Editors pick on this site’s owner.

  84. 84.

    DougJ

    July 27, 2006 at 1:48 pm

    John, start taking your anti-moron pills. This is weak bullshit. That’s two idiotic posts in a week. We haven’t seen that since your little bout of Bush apologism at the time of Hurricane Katrina.

  85. 85.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 1:52 pm

    DougJ Says:

    John, start taking your anti-moron pills. This is weak bullshit. That’s two idiotic posts in a week

    Yeah John, don’t you dare point out extreme hypocrisy on the part of the Dems. Because by doing so, according to leftists here, you are being a “Bush apologist” bootlicker. Comedy gold.

  86. 86.

    IU1995

    July 27, 2006 at 1:54 pm

    The Other Steve Says:

    Charles Barkley… now a Democrat… thinking about run for Alabama Governor

    Barkley was the Poster Child of Republican outreach to African-Americans. What happened?

    July 27th, 2006 at 11:19 am

    Charles already told the world what happened. He “was a republican until they lost their minds”.

  87. 87.

    Nutcutter

    July 27, 2006 at 1:55 pm

    you should know better than to insinuate that somehow Bush invented what you call “divisive” and “destructive” methods

    I didn’t insinuate any such thing. I said right out, Bush and Rove have deliberately used divisive and destructive political methods. And they have.

    Did they invent them? Who cares who invented them. Is this a political science history class? Why don’t you write us an essay and tell us who invented them?

    ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

    Who gives a fuck who invented them? That’s as far from the point here as it can be. The point is, here’s a guy who pimped himself as a “uniter” and then goes and employs the most divisive methods and turns Americans against Americans. Has his people go out and call his detractors traitors. Gins up religious groups.

    But please, mount a defense of the cocksucker. Like I said, it’s what you do.

    Or, pretend you are at the Jackalope Race Track and do a Darrell imitation — “Down the stretch the Jackalopes come!”

  88. 88.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 1:57 pm

    This is why I love this site; Constitutional crises over FISA

    I love this, #1 on the list – the constitutional crisis over FISA. How dare Bush not disconnect the wiretaps whenever terrorists in Yemen or Libya receive phone calls from Boston or Atlanta. Quick, get a warrant! Criminal Bush is shredding the constitution I tell you.

  89. 89.

    Andrew

    July 27, 2006 at 1:57 pm

    You know, I can’t believe how awesome Journey actually is.

  90. 90.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 1:57 pm

    Yeah John, don’t you dare point out extreme hypocrisy on the part of the Dems.

    How’s the largest increase in Federal government since FDR doing for ya? How about the largest debt in the history of the country? You want to talk about extreme hypocrisy?

  91. 91.

    RSA

    July 27, 2006 at 1:59 pm

    For how many decades have the Democrats been playing the race card and the class warfare card?

    “Playing the race card.” “Class warfare.” You gotta admire the conservative ability to attack an opponent’s strongest point, not to mention turning reality on its head. I’ll paraphrase: “Democrats’ support for the civil rights of minorities is just an example of their playing the race card.” “Support for increases in the minimum wage and other aspects of the social safety net are just examples of class warfare.” Let me ask this: Is there any way that a liberal politician might show concern for issues that affect minorities and the poor without being accused of hypocrisy?

  92. 92.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 2:00 pm

    How’s the largest increase in Federal government since FDR doing for ya?

    I agree that whenever you’re exposed for being the phony hypocrites that you are, the best strategy is to completely change the subject.. just like you’re doing now.

  93. 93.

    VidaLoca

    July 27, 2006 at 2:01 pm

    Howard Dean Compares Katherine Harris To ‘Stalin’

    I couldn’t believe my eyes when I saw the headline, but yup, it looks like he did:

    “Thank God for Bill Nelson, because we’d have another crook in the United States Senate if it weren’t for him. He is going to beat the pants off Katherine Harris,” Dean said. “She doesn’t understand that it’s … improper to be chairman of a campaign and count the votes at the same time. This is not Russia and she is not Stalin.”

    … hmm. Well, maybe he’s got a point.

  94. 94.

    Steve

    July 27, 2006 at 2:01 pm

    I love this, #1 on the list – the constitutional crisis over FISA. How dare Bush not disconnect the wiretaps whenever terrorists in Yemen or Libya receive phone calls from Boston or Atlanta. Quick, get a warrant! Criminal Bush is shredding the constitution I tell you.

    Perfect example of why you are utterly unqualified to comment on any issue of public significance.

    Where do we find these people? People who are so opposed to everything America stands for that they will RIDICULE the concept of getting a warrant? A republic, if you can keep it, indeed.

  95. 95.

    Mac Buckets

    July 27, 2006 at 2:02 pm

    and we’re talking about the least charitable possible interpretation of an entirely correct quote by Howard Dean… This is also why The Editors pick on this site’s owner.

    Yeah, Kimmitt, if John knew how to prioritize world events, he’d be posting bad 1980’s hair-band videos, like The Editors! Or calling people chickenhawks!

  96. 96.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 2:03 pm

    I agree that whenever you’re exposed for being the phony hypocrites that you are, the best strategy is to completely change the subject.. just like you’re doing now.

    The subject is hypocrisy. You have an all GOP government that has increased the size an power of the Federal government the most since FDR. You want to talk about hypocrisy, bring it.

  97. 97.

    Slide

    July 27, 2006 at 2:04 pm

    John just loves to make fun at Dean don’t he? Guess it gives him an aire of superiority. But John? Comdey Gold? Wow… you must be real desperate for entertainment in dem thar hills of West Virginie. Oh, and does everyone remember how Dean was attacked when he dared to suggest that the capture of Saddam Hussein did not make us any safer? Whoooo nellie… the ridicule. The attacks heaped upon him. Lets remember what good Republican Democratic Senator Joe “the kisser” Lieberman said at the time:

    “Howard Dean has climbed into his own spider hole of denial if he believes that the capture of Saddam Hussein has not made America safer. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal maniac, brutal dictator, supporter of terrorism and enemy of the United States, and there should be no doubt that America and the world are safer with him captured.”

    Hmmmmm…. and now where are we? Well…. the good Senator is in a fight for his life in a Democratic Primary after having been the party’s VP candidate and the vast majority of American’s (excluding the moronic MacBuckets and the clueless Darrell) agree with what Dean had said about the Iraq war has NOT made us safer. Interesting ain’t it?

  98. 98.

    RSA

    July 27, 2006 at 2:04 pm

    This is not Russia and she is not Stalin.

    I’m entertained by the plausible deniability of his phrasing. “Hey, I said you weren’t Stalin.”

  99. 99.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 2:04 pm

    Of course, here we go again with nanny state apologists and their dissembling. The head of the DNC talking is equivalent to the generational debt the GOP is inflicting. Talk about whiny ass titty babies.

  100. 100.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 2:05 pm

    Let me ask this: Is there any way that a liberal politician might show concern for issues that affect minorities and the poor without being accused of hypocrisy?

    Well, they might start by not screaming that Republicans want the elderly to ‘eat dog food’, just because they disagree with Repub spending policies.. they might also stop running so many ads on black radio stations telling listeners how Republicans want to ‘turn back the clock’ on civil rights, just because they oppose affirmative action. No, when it comes to divisiveness, the Dems are the undisputed world champs. Hilarious to see the side most guilty point their dirty fingers at Republicans without accepting any guilt whatsoever from their own side. That is why you are such phonies.

  101. 101.

    HyperIon

    July 27, 2006 at 2:05 pm

    As for Barkley……I don’t know that he can win an election, but his statements are great.

    My favorite Sir Charles statement occurred during the Trent Lott dustup (IIRC) when I heard him talking about recent visits to Alabama. As he de-planes he always gets the feeling that it’s still 1970 there (which is exactly what I think when I visit central Florida).

    I took his meaning to be: Many (white) people in the South still share Lott’s nostalgia for the old days and Senator Strom. Which I think is true.

  102. 102.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 2:07 pm

    Or calling people chickenhawks!

    Mac, what’s your opinion on the hypocrisy demonstrated by the actions of the GOP and the increase in the size of government? Or are the hurtful words of Dean doing more harm to our country?

  103. 103.

    Pb

    July 27, 2006 at 2:08 pm

    Darrell,

    I agree that whenever you’re exposed for being the phony hypocrites that you are, the best strategy is to completely change the subject.. just like you’re doing now.

    Comedy gold! Now what were you saying about FISA?

  104. 104.

    Dedgeorge

    July 27, 2006 at 2:09 pm

    John is correct — the truth is always ironic and funny……..

    Which explains there are no Republican or rightwing comedians—

    The “Right” doesn’t recognize the truth.

  105. 105.

    chopper

    July 27, 2006 at 2:10 pm

    Hilarious how so many leftists claim to have “ass whipped” others in debates. Third grade taunts, with claims of victory always coming from the ‘progressive’ side.

    well, since you get your ass kicked so often, somebody’s bound to bring it up.

    i don’t know why we need dean. darrell is more than enough ‘comedy gold’ for BJ.

  106. 106.

    neil

    July 27, 2006 at 2:12 pm

    Good job Mac Buckets, you actually made the case.

    This is

  107. 107.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 2:12 pm

    Where do we find these people? People who are so opposed to everything America stands for that they will RIDICULE the concept of getting a warrant?

    The President has NEVER needed a warrant to monitor foreign enemies overseas. Explain for us whackjobs, why then he suddenly needs to get a warrant, just because a terrorist being monitored in Bahrain receives a phone call from Miami?.. never mind the sheer volume of voice and data being monitored. I’m sure it makes perfects sense logistically to do that, right libs? Please make this a priority in your midterm elections. Because ‘truth’ is on your side, you’ll want to make sure all Americans see how you really feel

    What’s more, soldiers on the battlefield don’t need to get FISA warrants to search houses where there “may” be suspected terrorists. Isn’t that also a ‘shredding’ of the constitution lefties?

  108. 108.

    neil

    July 27, 2006 at 2:13 pm

    Oh shoot, I hit enter. Ok, well, Dean’s comment was certainly just as ironic as Kerry criticizing Bush for running a negative capaign.

    And still…

  109. 109.

    Mac Buckets

    July 27, 2006 at 2:15 pm

    Let me ask this: Is there any way that a liberal politician might show concern for issues that affect minorities and the poor without being accused of hypocrisy?

    Let’s not pretend that we are talking about rational discussions of “issues that affect minorities and the poor.” Please. But if the left wants to appear less hypocritical when they talk of Bush “dividing the country,” they can start by stopping this:

    It was the Democratic Party and the NAACP that sponsored millions of dollars of ads on Television and black radio accusing George Bush of killing a lynch victim a second time

    And this:

    And it was Al Gore who in an election campaign attack on Bush’s alleged judicial preferences repeated the libel claiming that the Framers of the Constitution regarded a black person as “three-fifths of a human being.” (This is one of the most widely believed myths in black America today. In fact, it was the anti-slavery Framers who insisted on the three-fifths figure in order to diminish the electoral power of the slave South.)

    And this:

    And it was Democratic and NAACP spokesmen in Florida who described the voting booth mess as a “return to slavery.”

    And this:

    A LIBERAL BLOG run by a black writer has posted a doctored photo of Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele (pictured) in minstrel makeup, an image the Steele campaign blasted as part of a coordinated Democratic attack against him. Steele, a Republican, is running for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Paul S. Sarbanes (D).

    And this:

    WASHINGTON –– Click on a Democratic National Committee Web site and watch an animated image of President Bush pushing a wheelchair-bound individual off a cliff.

  110. 110.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 2:18 pm

    Which explains there are no Republican or rightwing comedians

    There’s Chris Muir, who has knee slappers like “Kantian Nihilists”. Unintentional comedy, but comedy nevertheless. The intellectual honesty of such comedians requires they remove the cartoon.

    It would suck to have such idiocy immortalized on your own site.

  111. 111.

    neil

    July 27, 2006 at 2:18 pm

    Mac Buckets, I must protest about your examples. They are completely irrelevant, because while they are negative attacks, they are against actual political adversaries — not about unrelated Americans.

    Look at Dean’s examples. The Republicans attack gay people as a group. They attack immigrants as a group. They attack Hollywood as an entity. They tell their base that these people are evil and wrong and bad for America.

    Now look at your examples. They attack President Bush. They attack the partisan Florida electoral officials. They attack Republican Senate candidates. They tell their base that these people are evil and wrong and bad for America.

    This is not the same kind of ‘divisiveness,’ and you know it.

  112. 112.

    neil

    July 27, 2006 at 2:20 pm

    Although I hasten to add that the idea that attacking President Bush means attacking the nation (or at least, attacking the military) is so ingrained that perhaps Mac Buckets can’t tell the difference any more.

    L’état, c’est lui.

  113. 113.

    DougJ

    July 27, 2006 at 2:20 pm

    Yeah John, don’t you dare point out extreme hypocrisy on the part of the Dems. Because by doing so, according to leftists here, you are being a “Bush apologist” bootlicker. Comedy gold.

    You’re about as comfortable with irony as Alanis Morisette is.

  114. 114.

    RSA

    July 27, 2006 at 2:22 pm

    Good examples, Mac Buckets, and I find all but the Gilliard example (IIRC) reprehensible, if true. But you’ll doubtless notice that they’re all talk. Do Republicans do much, as I wrote, about “issues that affect minorities and the poor”, compared with Democrats? And if you give Medicaid Part D as an example, I will just laugh.

  115. 115.

    neil

    July 27, 2006 at 2:23 pm

    Oh, here’s a good analogy. Maybe it will end the thread

    Hitler wanted to wipe out the Jews; but Roosevelt wanted to wipe out Hitler. So really, they were both bigots.

  116. 116.

    Nutcutter

    July 27, 2006 at 2:23 pm

    I think we should honor John Cole by following the example of unity that he has given us here at Balloon-Juice.

    If we would just listen to the patient ministrations of Mac and Darrell, John’s Cabinet, our country would be stronger and safer today.

  117. 117.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 2:23 pm

    Dem Presidential candidate John F. Kerry tell us that the current Israeli/Lebanese conflict would not have occurred if he were President

    U.S. Sen. John Kerry, D- Mass., who was in town Sunday to help Gov. Jennifer Granholm campaign for her re-election bid, took time to take a jab at the Bush administration for its lack of leadership in the Israeli-Lebanon conflict.

    “If I was president, this wouldn’t have happened,” said Kerry during

    Too funny. Libs have no shame.. they really don’t.

  118. 118.

    Pb

    July 27, 2006 at 2:24 pm

    Heh. Mac Buckets’ first quote without attribution–David Horowitz. After that… yawn. Get thee back to the jackalope preserve!

  119. 119.

    Zifnab

    July 27, 2006 at 2:25 pm

    The President has NEVER needed a warrant to monitor foreign enemies overseas. Explain for us whackjobs, why then he suddenly needs to get a warrant, just because a terrorist being monitored in Bahrain receives a phone call from Miami?.. never mind the sheer volume of voice and data being monitored. I’m sure it makes perfects sense logistically to do that, right libs? Please make this a priority in your midterm elections. Because ‘truth’ is on your side, you’ll want to make sure all Americans see how you really feel

    By that logic, just because a terrorist being monitored in Miami makes a phone call to Kentucky, why should the President need to get a warrant for that too? These are terrorists after all. They should be given any civil rights, right?

    Why should the President need to honor habeus corpus when dealing with domestic terrorists? Or courts of law for that matter? Just because a terrorist is on American soil, or god-forbid, somehow managed to become an American citizen, doesn’t mean he stops being a terrorist, does it?

    I’m right behind you Darrel. Terrorists have no rights, here or abroad. And anyone who would defend a terrorist’s right to have rights… he’s probably a terrorist too.

  120. 120.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 2:25 pm

    neil Says:

    Mac Buckets, I must protest about your examples. They are completely irrelevant

    And thus demonstrates liberal detachment from reality.

  121. 121.

    Nutcutter

    July 27, 2006 at 2:26 pm

    Kerry tell us that the current Israeli/Lebanese conflict would not have occurred if he were President

    Hell, if Ralph P. Mogriani, delivery truck driver of Wilkes Barre, PA, were president, we could do better.

    Anybody could do better.

    My mother could do better.

  122. 122.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 2:26 pm

    Explain for us whackjobs, why then he suddenly needs to get a warrant, just because a terrorist being monitored in Bahrain receives a phone call from Miami?

    It’s a pesky thing called a “law”. You see, members of the Legislative branch creates a bill, then that bill gets voted on. If the bill passes both houses of Congress, then it is handed to the President who either signs it or vetos it. If the President signs the bill, then it becomes a law, and everyone in the United States is bound to follow the law, including the President. If this is too confusing for you, check this out.

  123. 123.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 2:27 pm

    By that logic, just because a terrorist being monitored in Miami makes a phone call to Kentucky, why should the President need to get a warrant for that too?

    Actually, that would fall under the FBI, and yes, I believe a warrant would be required in that case. With that example of yours. we can see you have a really ‘deep’ understanding of the issues zifnab.

  124. 124.

    LITBMueller

    July 27, 2006 at 2:29 pm

    Alright, can we get off Dean? I know John is obsessed with him n’ all, but can’t we discuss something MUCH MORE important? Like the fact that Mr. Family Values, Sen. “Smilin'” Norm Coleman’s 81 year old father got arrested for banging some 38 year old woman right outside of a pizzeria????

    Now THAT’S comedy gold!!!!!!!

    “…these conservative kids don’t fuck or get high like we do (purity, you know)… Already the cries of motherhood, apple pie, and Jim Buckley reverberate thorough the halls of the Student Center. Everyone watch out, the 1950s bobby-sox generation is about to take over.” – Norm Coleman, running for Student President at Hofstra in the early 1970’s. (From wikipedia – I love the pics of Norm in his hippy days! :) )

    Heh heh. Norm’s a chip off the old block!

  125. 125.

    Davebo

    July 27, 2006 at 2:29 pm

    I don’t know about all you guys but I for one feel much more secure realizing that Howard Dean has convinced John that his only choice in November is the Klingon party.

    Bonehead’s gotta stick together.

  126. 126.

    Steve

    July 27, 2006 at 2:30 pm

    The President has NEVER needed a warrant to monitor foreign enemies overseas. Explain for us whackjobs, why then he suddenly needs to get a warrant, just because a terrorist being monitored in Bahrain receives a phone call from Miami?

    Because there’s a law named FISA, that says you need a warrant to eavesdrop on Americans. The fact that you don’t think there’s even a debatable issue here, because your cute little blogs have told you there’s this thing called Article II with magic powers, just shows how unserious you are.

    You should stick to parroting quotes from liberals and asserting how ridiculous you find them… that’s about the highest level of discourse you can aspire to.

  127. 127.

    Nutcutter

    July 27, 2006 at 2:31 pm

    Actually, that would fall under the FBI, and yes, I believe a warrant

    Here’s Darrell with the call from Jackalope Downs!

    “Down the stretch they come! Terrorists making phone calls by three quarters of a length! Howard Dean’s Scream second by a length!”

  128. 128.

    DougJ

    July 27, 2006 at 2:32 pm

    Hitler wanted to wipe out the Jews; but Roosevelt wanted to wipe out Hitler. So really, they were both bigots.

    Roosevelt suffered from Hitler Derangement Syndrome. And why did he have to be shrill about the dangers of the Nazis? I mean, calling 6 million jews is one thing, but calling they guy a “butcher”, a “monster”, a “murderer” — that’s out of line.

  129. 129.

    Pb

    July 27, 2006 at 2:32 pm

    Darrell,

    Too funny. Libs have no shame.. they really don’t.

    You’re so right. No bar is too low for them to limbo under. I remember during the campaign when John Edwards was using reprehensible fear mongering by arguing that if Bush and Cheney got another four years, that America would be attacked, possibly by nuclear weapons!

    Oh wait, that was the other guy. Please disregard…

  130. 130.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 2:33 pm

    Mr. Family Values, Sen. “Smilin’” Norm Coleman’s 81 year old father got arrested for banging some 38 year old woman right outside of a pizzeria????

    I think it’s entirely fair for you Dems to try to hold your political opponents responsible for the behavior of their parents or siblings. And good for the old man btw. I though you libs believed consenting sex between adults was their private business. Oh well, more typical liberal hypocrisy it appears.

  131. 131.

    neil

    July 27, 2006 at 2:33 pm

    I wonder why people like Darrell never drive John to vote for Democrats.

  132. 132.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 2:34 pm

    You should stick to parroting quotes from liberals and asserting how ridiculous you find them… that’s about the highest level of discourse you can aspire to.

    It’s one of the reasons I miss serious conservatives. These days the best I find are unserious, nanny-state apologists that love increasing the power of the Federal government — like Darrell. Conservatives used to like things like laws. These days, self-described conservatives feel it’s okay to ignore laws at will.

  133. 133.

    Pb

    July 27, 2006 at 2:34 pm

    Darrell,

    And thus demonstrates liberal detachment from reality.

    …because–according to Darrell–no one is more in touch with reality than him and David Horowitz!

  134. 134.

    DougJ

    July 27, 2006 at 2:34 pm

    Who would you rather have a beer with: Hitler or Al Gore?

    I’d go with Hitler, personally. I know he doesn’t drink, but I’d rather listen to his anti-Semitic ravings than sit through some endless Gore monologue on global warming. And you’ve got to give the Nazis this: they never wore earth tones.

  135. 135.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 2:34 pm

    You’re so right. No bar is too low for them to limbo under. I remember during the campaign when John Edwards was using reprehensible

    I remember how during the campaign John Edwards told us that if John Kerry were president, Christopher Reeves would be walking. Yes, he did say that.. leftist scumbags have no shame, none whatsoever.

  136. 136.

    RSA

    July 27, 2006 at 2:36 pm

    “If I was president, this wouldn’t have happened,” said Kerry

    Um, right. Substance aside, this is like attributing a quote from Shakespeare to President Bush.

  137. 137.

    DougJ

    July 27, 2006 at 2:36 pm

    I remember how during the campaign John Edwards told us that if John Kerry were president, Christopher Reeves would be walking

    Okay, now that’s much worse than anything Hitler ever did. Can we all agree on that much at least?

  138. 138.

    RSA

    July 27, 2006 at 2:38 pm

    And you’ve got to give the Nazis this: they never wore earth tones.

    Or Earth shoes. No slaves to ’70s fashion, those guys.

  139. 139.

    Steve

    July 27, 2006 at 2:38 pm

    I remember how during the campaign John Edwards told us that if John Kerry were president, Christopher Reeves would be walking. Yes, he did say that.. leftist scumbags have no shame, none whatsoever.

    No shame whatsoever.

  140. 140.

    DougJ

    July 27, 2006 at 2:40 pm

    And at least Hitler had a solution to the Jewish problem. The Social Democrats wouldn’t even admit there was a Jewish problem. Voters will take a final solution over no solution any day of the week.

  141. 141.

    Nutcutter

    July 27, 2006 at 2:40 pm

    And good for the old man btw

    Yeah, but we wouldn’t let our kids go camping with him.

  142. 142.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 2:40 pm

    The fact that you don’t think there’s even a debatable issue here, because your cute little blogs have told you there’s this thing called Article II with magic powers, just shows how unserious you are.

    Yes, because it’s not like I haven’t explained and justified my position or anything, right? I just pray you libs make the FISA ‘shredding of the constitution’ your top priority issue in the midterm elections. Because I want average Americans to see how whacked you libs truly are..How you really think. You believe you’ve got a winning issue, fine. ‘Bring it on’. Let’s have a national debate and see which side the American people support.

  143. 143.

    chopper

    July 27, 2006 at 2:43 pm

    nice, steve. speaking of having no shame, darrell takes the cake.

  144. 144.

    Nutcutter

    July 27, 2006 at 2:44 pm

    I just pray you libs make the FISA ‘shredding of the constitution’ your top priority issue in the midterm elections

    Read the polls, idiot. I linked one for you last night.

    The people already know what the top issue is. It’s the fact that the US government has failed and the country is on the wrong track.

    But please, let’s get you back to the Breeder’s Cup at Jackalope Downs:

    “It’s FISA moving to the outside!”

  145. 145.

    Jim Allen

    July 27, 2006 at 2:44 pm

    I don’t know what bothers me more — that Cole seems incapable of posting anything other than lame-ass drivel anymore, or that he hides behind Darrell, Mac Buckets and Par R for his defense.

    Pretty pathetic really.

    Tim F., be sure to let us know if you get your own blog.

  146. 146.

    neil

    July 27, 2006 at 2:44 pm

    EDWARDS: Well, if we can do the work that we can do in this country — the work we will do when John Kerry is president — people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk. Get up out of that wheelchair and walk again.

    Typical Darrellian detachment from reality.

    But of course, let’s see whether Edwards is right. Would the state of stem cell research be different if John Kerry was president?

    Duh.

  147. 147.

    Pb

    July 27, 2006 at 2:45 pm

    John Cole,

    I’ve got your comedy gold right here, and you never even had to go looking for it.

    If only Howard Dean and the Democrats weren’t so shrill and divisive, maybe then they could start winning elections! They should take the hint and calm down, and start acting calmly and rationally and civilly, like Darrell and Horowitz and Mac Buckets and Cheney!

    Comedy gold.

  148. 148.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 2:45 pm

    Let’s have a national debate and see which side the American people support.

    The sad thing is that the Republicans will play the fear card and convince Americans that more government power is a good thing. It’s how authoritarians work. Somehow us “libs” (is that libertarian or liberal? I know you hate both, but I suspect your hatred of libertarians stems from your support of unfettered Federal power) think that the President should actually follow the law, rather than ignore it, as he has done on multiple occassions.

    How’s that debt doing for you? See any hypocrisy on the GOP’s part?

  149. 149.

    Jim Allen

    July 27, 2006 at 2:45 pm

    Oh, and by the way, John, we’re all still waiting for you to demonstrate your much-vaunted “integrity” by eliminating everyone from your blog roll who didn’t sign The Pledge.

  150. 150.

    Zifnab

    July 27, 2006 at 2:47 pm

    I remember how during the campaign John Edwards told us that if John Kerry were president, Christopher Reeves would be walking. Yes, he did say that.. leftist scumbags have no shame, none whatsoever.

    If you don’t look directly at the Veto, it almost becomes invisible.

  151. 151.

    Slide

    July 27, 2006 at 2:47 pm

    And thus demonstrates liberal detachment from reality

    .

    yes.. and we all know how YOUR side is soooooo in touch with reality. Like:

    We will be greeted as liberators – chency
    We know where the WMD are..they are around tikrit – Rummy
    Iraq oil will pay for the war for the most part – Wolfowitz
    Iraq has reonstituted nuclear Weapons – cheney
    Wanted dead or alive – the decider
    six days, six weeks but not more than six months – Rummy
    democracy is messy – Rummy
    Mushroom clouds – Rice

    yada yada yada…. this administration is the most out of touch administration in recent history. Naive is not a strong enough word to descibe the morons that got us into this mess of a war. And you have the unmitigated audacity to say the Dems are out of touch with reality? lol…

  152. 152.

    Nutcutter

    July 27, 2006 at 2:47 pm

    I’ve got the entrepreneurial spirit today. I’m thinking of a Web-marketed product called “BJ Comedy Gold Bond Powder” which can be applied to athlete’s foot, heat rash …..

    Thoughts?

  153. 153.

    DougJ

    July 27, 2006 at 2:48 pm

    You’re all a bunch of anti-Semites here. None of you will even admit that what Hitler did was wrong.

  154. 154.

    neil

    July 27, 2006 at 2:48 pm

    Good point, Jim Allen. Hopefully he will start with Protein Wisdom. An example needs to be set.

  155. 155.

    Jim Allen

    July 27, 2006 at 2:49 pm

    I’ve got the entrepreneurial spirit today. I’m thinking of a Web-marketed product called “BJ Comedy Gold Bond Powder” which can be applied to athlete’s foot, heat rash …..

    Thoughts?

    [Add to cart]

  156. 156.

    DougJ

    July 27, 2006 at 2:50 pm

    We will be greeted as liberators – chency

    Ha ha, you spelled “Cheney” wrong. If you can’t get that right, why should we believe anything else you say? These shrill left-wingers don’t even know the vice-president’s name. And they call themselves “reality-based”.

    Comedy Gold.

  157. 157.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 2:50 pm

    The sad thing is that the Republicans will play the fear card

    As if you dishonest liberal pricks haven’t already played your fear card telling Americans NSA is all about wiretapping them without warrants?

    What I love about liberals, is that most of you are so self-righteous and dishonest to the core, that you are utterly unwilling to see or acknowledge the same or worse hypocrisy coming from your own side. Keep up the good work

  158. 158.

    PeterJ

    July 27, 2006 at 2:51 pm

    I remember how during the campaign John Edwards told us that if John Kerry were president, Christopher Reeves would be walking

    Okay, now that’s much worse than anything Hitler ever did. Can we all agree on that much at least?

    Obviously Kerry/Edwards are much worse than Hitler. If they had won in 2004 then we could have had anything between 4 and 16 years of defenseless embryos being murdered. I don’t think Hitler would come close to that carnage. Thank God (and the Supreme Court) for Bush.

  159. 159.

    Mac Buckets

    July 27, 2006 at 2:52 pm

    They are completely irrelevant, because while they are negative attacks, they are against actual political adversaries—not about unrelated Americans.

    Sorry, but you’ll have to explain why this makes my examples in any way “irrelevant.” Why is only attacking “unrelated Americans” divisive? You really can’t just declare that and move on.

    They attack President Bush. They attack the partisan Florida electoral officials. They attack Republican Senate candidates. They tell their base that these people are evil and wrong and bad for America.

    So lying and hyperbolizing to attack Republicans as racists or wanting to kill the poor is NOT DIVISIVE, but attacking the individual constituencies of the Republicans IS DEVISIVE… Wow, these are difficult rules to follow!

    But let’s look at Dean’s statement:

    It’s the gays’ fault. It’s the immigrants’ fault. It’s the liberals’ fault. It’s the Democrats’ fault. It’s Hollywood people…”

    Hmmmm, I wonder why you included gays, immigrants, and Hollywood in your response, but ignored the “liberals” and “Democrats” part? Because it really doesn’t suit your point, does it?

  160. 160.

    DougJ

    July 27, 2006 at 2:53 pm

    Obviously Kerry/Edwards are much worse than Hitler.

    At least Hitler wasn’t shrill.

  161. 161.

    Jim Allen

    July 27, 2006 at 2:55 pm

    Hopefully he will start with Protein Wisdom. An example needs to be set.

    I’m not going to hang by my thumbs waiting. I sent a spreadsheet to Cole and Tim F. some weeks ago, listing the links on his blog roll and which ones had and hadn’t signed The Pledge — figured I’d do the legwork for him if he couldn’t be bothered. Still nothing.

    At the time, I pointed out it was a pretty hollow gesture, especially given his reaction to the uproar over Malkin posting those college kids’ phone numbers (which was pretty much a yawn), and I got called a “dick” and other sundry names, and was banned from posting for a while. I wouldn’t be surprised if that happens again, but it’s his blog.

  162. 162.

    Zifnab

    July 27, 2006 at 2:55 pm

    Rice plans serious piano recital at ASEAN meeting

    Now, this is funny.

    In keeping with her mood and to reflect the world crises she tackles daily, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice plans to play a somber piece of music to her Asian colleagues in Malaysia this week.

    Nothing says you’re serious about foreign policy like Brahms.

  163. 163.

    neil

    July 27, 2006 at 2:55 pm

    Let’s go back to the original topic, of divisiveness. Look at all of Darrell’s posts in this thread. You’ll notice that practically every one of them makes a _categorical_ attack. It’s not the particular antagonist who’s a hypocritical lying idiot. It’s all the liberals and leftists, always.

    I think there’s another way in which this is relevant. Democrats, I think, tend to believe that if we had a different President and a different Congress, the situation in the country would drastically improve. On the other hand, Republicans, who are in complete control of the federal government, are still obsessed that the country is being ruined, not by any individual Democrats (because they have all had their betel nuts cut by now) but by The Liberal Scourge. Darrell, in particular, seems to think the fact that John Kerry had the audacity to run for president must never be forgotten, like Pearl Harbor.

    This is what Dean means by divisiveness.

  164. 164.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 2:56 pm

    As if you dishonest liberal pricks haven’t already played your fear card telling Americans NSA is all about wiretapping them without warrants?

    Yes, liberals — like the Cato Institute — are concerned about NSA wiretapping of Americans. Just admit it Darrell. You fawn over a strong Federal government that can make you feel safe from the evul turrists. No right is too precious that the President can’t abrogate it in order to make you feel safe.

    It’s why you refuse to criticize the largest increase in the size and power of the Federal government since FDR.

  165. 165.

    RSA

    July 27, 2006 at 2:56 pm

    Darrell and Steve:

    I remember how during the campaign John Edwards told us that if John Kerry were president, Christopher Reeves would be walking. Yes, he did say that.. leftist scumbags have no shame, none whatsoever.

    No shame whatsoever.

    Good catch, Steve. I find it remarkable that Darrell could remember what he wrote above, given that at the time Edwards was being misquoted, Reeves had just died. In the reality-based world, people don’t rise from the dead and walk much, these days.

  166. 166.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 2:56 pm

    EDWARDS: Well, if we can do the work that we can do in this country—the work we will do when John Kerry is president—people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk. Get up out of that wheelchair and walk again.

    Elect us Dems and people like Christopher Reeves will walk.. no different than TV preachers claiming to heal the crippled. Hilarious, yet pathetic.

    “Rise from your wheelchair, ye afflicted cripple!” So that you can walk to the polls and vote Dem

  167. 167.

    Mac Buckets

    July 27, 2006 at 2:56 pm

    Heh. Mac Buckets’ first quote without attribution—David Horowitz. After that… yawn.

    That’s unbelievably lazy rhetoric, even by your standards, Pb. You don’t deny that the event happened. You only remark that you don’t like the guy who mentioned that it happened.

    Yeah, great point!

  168. 168.

    Steve

    July 27, 2006 at 2:57 pm

    As if you dishonest liberal pricks haven’t already played your fear card telling Americans NSA is all about wiretapping them without warrants?

    See what I mean when I say you have no understanding of this issue?

  169. 169.

    Zifnab

    July 27, 2006 at 2:57 pm

    So lying and hyperbolizing to attack Republicans as racists or wanting to kill the poor is NOT DIVISIVE, but attacking the individual constituencies of the Republicans IS DEVISIVE… Wow, these are difficult rules to follow!

    You need more font tags, Mac. You totally lost me.

  170. 170.

    Punchy

    July 27, 2006 at 2:58 pm

    What I love about liberals, is that most of you are so self-righteous and dishonest to the core, that you are utterly unwilling to see or acknowledge the same or worse hypocrisy coming from your own side. Keep up the good work

    This is some serious Grade-A spoof. Well-done, DougJ.

  171. 171.

    jaime

    July 27, 2006 at 2:58 pm

    ‘Bring it on’.

    I wonder how the last person who used that phrase is faring?

  172. 172.

    neil

    July 27, 2006 at 2:59 pm

    So lying and hyperbolizing to attack Republicans as racists or wanting to kill the poor is NOT DIVISIVE, but attacking the individual constituencies of the Republicans IS DEVISIVE… Wow, these are difficult rules to follow!

    No, you are wrong. Not constituencies. Did Howard Dean say the problem was ‘the NASCAR fans’ or ‘those guys with the Confederate flags on their pickups?’ No, in fact, he took some heat for saying the Democrats should try to _reach out_ to these people.

    If you’re going to oversimplify this to the point where Dean is a hypocrite if he’s ever made a negative statement about anything, you’re just going to get a muddle.

  173. 173.

    Mr Furious

    July 27, 2006 at 3:00 pm

    Barkley was the Poster Child of Republican outreach to African-Americans. What happened?

    “I was a Republican until they lost their minds,” [Barkley] said earlier this month at a celebrity golf tournament in Nevada.

  174. 174.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 3:01 pm

    It’s not the particular antagonist who’s a hypocritical lying idiot. It’s all the liberals and leftists, always.

    It’s worse than that. Anyone that disagrees with the President is automatically a liberal and/or leftist. So is anyone that points out the obscene debt the GOP government has wrought.

  175. 175.

    Mac Buckets

    July 27, 2006 at 3:01 pm

    You need more font tags, Mac. You totally lost me.

    You’re right, Zif. That was awful. My apologies.

  176. 176.

    Pb

    July 27, 2006 at 3:01 pm

    Mac Buckets,

    That’s unbelievably lazy rhetoric

    Mac, Horowitz is not to be trusted–he’s a liar and a shill. And your cowardly parrotting of his bullshit without attribution does not reflect kindly on you either. If you want me to listen, then find a credible source and cite it, if you can. You can at least do that much, can’t you?

  177. 177.

    The Other Steve

    July 27, 2006 at 3:01 pm

    I must say Darrell’s posts in this thread have been some of the most enlightening, intelligent and thoughtful I’ve ever seen.

    Keep up the good work!

  178. 178.

    Punchy

    July 27, 2006 at 3:02 pm

    Nothing says you’re serious about foreign policy like Brahms.

    Maybe she’ll bust out “Piano Man”…she can really emphasize the “…talking to davey, who’s still in the Navy, and probably will be for life”…

    Be even funnier if she busted out some Easy-E or Tupac in C-minor…

  179. 179.

    RSA

    July 27, 2006 at 3:03 pm

    Darrell:

    As if you dishonest liberal pricks haven’t already played your fear card telling Americans NSA is all about wiretapping them without warrants?

    You have a funny idea about fear. That’s concern for civil rights. Playing the fear card would be more along the lines of raising the terror alert level in the election season, overriding the judgment of the director of Homeland Security. Or maybe trumpeting success in breaking up terrorist groups at the aspirational stage.

  180. 180.

    Zifnab

    July 27, 2006 at 3:03 pm

    I think there’s another way in which this is relevant. Democrats, I think, tend to believe that if we had a different President and a different Congress, the situation in the country would drastically improve. On the other hand, Republicans, who are in complete control of the federal government, are still obsessed that the country is being ruined, not by any individual Democrats (because they have all had their betel nuts cut by now) but by The Liberal Scourge. Darrell, in particular, seems to think the fact that John Kerry had the audacity to run for president must never be forgotten, like Pearl Harbor.

    It’s the vaunted culture war. The Republicans aren’t satisified with a political monopoly over the country, they want a philosophical and cultural monopoly as well. After all, controlling both Houses of Congress, the Presidency, the Judicary, and large swaths of the media still haven’t allowed them to ban gay or outlaw abortion or shut up Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan.

    So long as flag burning, pastel wearing, anti-war hippies continue to exist in this country, the right wing will never be happy. Why do you think Ann Coulter wants to kill Supreme Court Justices? Why do you think Michael Savage is constantly stoking the flames of his white-wing anti-Hispanic listeners? These pundits aren’t pushing for political hegemony – they’ve already got that. They’re pushing for full-on 1984 police-state thought-crime legislation. Being Democrat is the sin.

  181. 181.

    The Other Steve

    July 27, 2006 at 3:04 pm

    I think it’s ironic to hear someone complaining about Divisive Democrats quoting David Horowitz.

    It’s like Stalin accusing Mao of not remembering his birthday.

  182. 182.

    jaime

    July 27, 2006 at 3:04 pm

    Elect us Dems and people like Christopher Reeves will walk

    Elect us Dems and people like Neil Armstrong will walk on the moon.

    Ya see…there’s a much greater chance for people like Christopher Reeves will walk with someone who’s willing to properly fund the right research than with someone who isn’t. Edwards’ quote was 100% correct.

  183. 183.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 3:04 pm

    Be even funnier if she busted out some Easy-E or Tupac in C-minor…

    Boys in the Hood

  184. 184.

    neil

    July 27, 2006 at 3:05 pm

    I don’t understand where Darrell is coming from. I guess he must believe that embryronic stem cell therapy will not help people like Christopher Reeve walk again. Or is it something else?

  185. 185.

    Nutcutter

    July 27, 2006 at 3:07 pm

    Nothing says you’re serious about foreign policy like Brahms.

    Absolutely. The Second Piano Concerto, third movement, especially. It’s very beautiful. Every diplomat should know how to play it.

  186. 186.

    Jim Allen

    July 27, 2006 at 3:07 pm

    I don’t understand where Darrell is coming from. I guess he must believe that embryronic stem cell therapy will not help people like Christopher Reeve walk again. Or is it something else?

    Fuck Darrell. Nothing he says has any meaning or relevance.

  187. 187.

    jaime

    July 27, 2006 at 3:08 pm

    No, you are wrong. Not constituencies. Did Howard Dean say the problem was ‘the NASCAR fans’ or ‘those guys with the Confederate flags on their pickups?’ No, in fact, he took some heat for saying the Democrats should try to reach out to these people.

    The people most insulted by this horrible stereotype of ‘NASCAR fans’ with gun racks and confedrate flags on their pickups, were ‘NASCAR fans’ with gun racks and confedrate flags on their pickups. THAT’S irony.

  188. 188.

    Mac Buckets

    July 27, 2006 at 3:08 pm

    No, you are wrong. Not constituencies. Did Howard Dean say the problem was ‘the NASCAR fans’ or ‘those guys with the Confederate flags on their pickups?’

    No, but he did include “the liberals” and “the Democrats,” didn’t he? So, obviously, he regards attacks on liberals and Democrats as “divisive,” right? I mean, it’s right in his statement.

    So how does Bush’s “blaming” of the liberals and the Democrats (which, not so incidentally, exists largely in the gap between Dean’s brain and his word-hole) mean he’s divisive, but Dean’s own rancorous comments like his expressed hate of the Republicans and the left’s playing the race/class cards against Republicans doesn’t mean they’re divisive?

    Hence, the irony John pointed out in the original post.

  189. 189.

    Par R

    July 27, 2006 at 3:09 pm

    This thread is a pretty good illustration of what was recently characterized on another blog as: “Leftist partisan tolerance”. The writer described it as a refusal “to tolerate opinions other than their own, while demanding tolerance for their opinions. The idea is to make differing opinions go away by making theirs the only ones acceptable in polite company.”

    The post just above by Pb is a near perfect encapsulation of that definition.

  190. 190.

    Mr Furious

    July 27, 2006 at 3:11 pm

    Dean drawing distinctions between divided political parties is not the same as Republicans dividing the population against one other.

    End of story.

    (Sorry for the Barkley thing, I scrolled down to answer without seeing that several others had covered it.)

  191. 191.

    Tom in Texas

    July 27, 2006 at 3:12 pm

    The writer described it as a refusal “to tolerate opinions other than their own, while demanding tolerance for their opinions. The idea is to make differing opinions go away by making theirs the only ones acceptable in polite company.

    You mean like dismissing the majority of the media sources as dishonest partisan shills and insisting that only a select few sources can be trusted? That kind of attempt to make differing opinions go away?

  192. 192.

    Zifnab

    July 27, 2006 at 3:16 pm

    Dean drawing distinctions between divided political parties is not the same as Republicans dividing the population against one other.

    End of story.

    In John’s defense, the irony was noted.

    Anyone (from the compassionate conservative to the two Americas liberal) talking about being divisive and not… um… unisive, in a two-party system inevitably contracts a bit of foot-in-mouth disease. Thus is the nature of a bi-party system.

    I did get a chuckle out of it.

  193. 193.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 3:16 pm

    You mean like dismissing the majority of the media sources as dishonest partisan shills and insisting that only a select few sources can be trusted?

    If this thread is any indication, seems the “progressives” here are the ones most likely to ‘dismiss’ a media source as partisan without even attempting to read the source.

  194. 194.

    Mac Buckets

    July 27, 2006 at 3:17 pm

    If you want me to listen, then find a credible source and cite it, if you can. You can at least do that much, can’t you?

    Do you deny that such an ad was run? Of course not. Do you deny that the Byrd ad was a blatant play of the race card? Of course, you don’t. So since the point is made already, I won’t waste my time finding a source whose politics you find more palatable.

  195. 195.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 3:19 pm

    If this thread is any indication, seems the “conservatives” here are the ones most likely to ‘dismiss’ the largest increase in the Federal government since FDR.

  196. 196.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 3:19 pm

    Dean drawing distinctions between divided political parties is not the same as Republicans dividing the population against one other

    Yeah, because Dems would never try and divide the population against one another using dishonest race tactics or anything.. you know, like running anti-Bush ads featuring a black man dragged to death in a racist murder and then trying to blame Bush. Any ads from Repubs even REMOTELY equivalent to that?

  197. 197.

    Tom in Texas

    July 27, 2006 at 3:20 pm

    The only source I’ve seen dismissed so far in this thread is David Horowitz by PB, referenced by Par. I was referring to the near universal dismissal of any and all sources by the right due to liberal bias that do not conform to their opinion. David Horowitz is not the New York Times, Darrell.

  198. 198.

    DougJ

    July 27, 2006 at 3:20 pm

    Maybe she’ll bust out “Piano Man”…she can really emphasize the “…talking to davey, who’s still in the Navy, and probably will be for life”…

    I like that.

  199. 199.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 3:22 pm

    But let’s not forget, Dean’s rhetoric is the real problem facing America. Not an out of control Congress that spends like a drunken sailor. Dean is using words to hurt America, whereas the GOP is merely doing things that will effect our grandchildren.

  200. 200.

    Zifnab

    July 27, 2006 at 3:22 pm

    If this thread is any indication, seems the “progressives” here are the ones most likely to ‘dismiss’ a media source as partisan without even attempting to read the source.

    Yeah. What’s up with all the hate on those Faux News guys? They’re Fair and Balanced. Fair. And. Balanced. How dare you suggest Bill O’Reily is anything less than a hardened centerist! If you disagree, you’re probably just a crazy liberal. Or Dan Rather. Which is really six of one and half a dozen of another.

  201. 201.

    Nutcutter

    July 27, 2006 at 3:23 pm

    Do you deny that the Byrd

    Oh Jesus. Not just jackalopes, but hundred year old jackalopes.

    Just the fact that you are not embarassed for posting this shit makes me have just a little tear in my eye for you.

  202. 202.

    Kimmitt

    July 27, 2006 at 3:24 pm

    Um, the media is supposed to report the facts on the ground, not present opinions. Your statement reveals precisely the problem with movement conservatives these days — to them, reality is what they say it is, and denying them a podium is literally denying them their fair chance to create reality.

  203. 203.

    jaime

    July 27, 2006 at 3:24 pm

    Any ads from Repubs even REMOTELY equivalent to that?

    I seem to remember…I remember…(dreamy music plays)…the mother of all race baiting commercials by Mr. Bush’s daddy. Something about a black prisoner.

    I remember…I remember…a war hero who lost three limbs having his commitment to defending America questioned and being compared to…Osama Bin Laden.

    I…remember a bunch of angry Vets saying “I served” with a certain candidate, but many of them never actually served WITH that candidate…and accused him of cowardice and self injury to avoid combat.

    I remember…

  204. 204.

    Mac Buckets

    July 27, 2006 at 3:25 pm

    Dean drawing distinctions between divided political parties is not the same as Republicans dividing the population against one other.

    End of story.

    Only if you are a moron. The hypocrisy (John would be kinder and say “irony”) is that the Democrats (and Dean in particular) divide the population (rich v poor, black v white, “good” v “evil”???) against one another every bit as much as the Republicans do, and they have done so for decades.

    If the Democrats were really concerned about “divisiveness,” and of course they are not, they’d stop with the race and class cards.

    …And to the poster who said Dean’s remarks were only about Republican politicians, not constituents, I can’t believe I forgot to note the “never worked an honest day in their lives” quote and the “they all look the same” quotes!

  205. 205.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 3:25 pm

    I was referring to the near universal dismissal of any and all sources by the right due to liberal bias that do not conform to their opinion

    The NY Times is without question, a heavily liberal biased newspaper. I hope we can agree on that point. I don’t believe most conservatives believe in dismissing “any and all” articles and editorials coming from the NYT as you claim. In fact, I think many, if not most conservatives would probably agree that the NYT, liberal bias and all, is the most important newspaper in America, or at least in the top 3.

    What conservatives are claiming is liberal bias, not a dismissal of everything coming out the paper. I thought you liberals took pride in making these sorts of ‘nuanced’ distinctions.

  206. 206.

    Mac Buckets

    July 27, 2006 at 3:26 pm

    I remember…I remember…a war hero who lost three limbs having his commitment to defending America questioned and being compared to…Osama Bin Laden.

    Surely you don’t think you are getting away with this blatant lie while I’m on the board. Silly boy!

  207. 207.

    jaime

    July 27, 2006 at 3:26 pm

    But why am I arguing with Darrell? This is the same retard who questioned whether Chuck Schumer boycotted Maliki’s speech AFTER reading an article about Chuck Schumer boycotting Maliki’s speech.

  208. 208.

    RSA

    July 27, 2006 at 3:28 pm

    I wrote:

    Good examples, Mac Buckets, [of bad behavior by Democrats]. . .

    I take it back. As Pb pointed out, the first quotation is from an article by David Horowitz, and contains no sources. Oddly enough, the second quotation, after “And this:”, is from the same article. The third quotation, after “And this:”, is also from the same article. It would have been nice to know that three separate block quotes were all from the same place, especially given the nature of the claims and the lack of support for them. Ironically enough, the title of the article is “How Leftists Play the Race Card Against Conservatives – And Increase the Flow of Drugs to the Inner City At the Same Time.” Sounds like an objective piece of reporting to me.

    The fourth quotation is from the National Vanguard, a white nationalist group. I guess I don’t mind if you want to cite press releases from racist organizations, but you might give a little warning, you know, to put it into context.

    The last is from the Washington Post. I guess 20% credibility isn’t that bad; Dick Cheney for one would probably be happy to have it.

  209. 209.

    Steve

    July 27, 2006 at 3:29 pm

    Yeah, because Dems would never try and divide the population against one another using dishonest race tactics or anything.. you know, like running anti-Bush ads featuring a black man dragged to death in a racist murder and then trying to blame Bush.

    Let’s see if Democrats really tried to blame Bush for a racist murder… not that I would ever question the “unimpeachable” David Horowitz, or claim that he is prone to hysterical exaggerations.

    Renee Mullins: I’m Renee Mullins. My father was James Byrd, Jr.

    I still have nightmares thinking about him, the day three men chained him behind their pickup truck and dragged him three miles over pavement.

    I can see skin being torn away from his body.

    I can hear him gasping for air.

    I can feel the tears in his eyes, the struggle of his brain as images of his life painfully bang through his head as the links of a heavy chain clinched around his ankles dragging him bump by bump until he was decapitated. [pause]

    On June 7, 1998 this happened to my father, all because he was black. I went to Governor George W. Bush and begged him to help pass a hate crimes bill.

    He just told me no.

    I’m doing this commercial to ask you to call Governor Bush at 512-X and tell him to introduce a hate crimes bill in Texas.

    Let him know that our community won’t be dragged down by hate crimes.

    Male Voice: Funded by Americans for Equality, a project of the NAACP National Voter Fund.

    Yeah… obviously that ad tried to blame Bush for the man’s death.

    Any ads from Repubs even REMOTELY equivalent to that?

    Republicans never, ever, ever play the race card.

    In the North Carolina Senate campaign, Republican incumbent Jesse Helms was several points behind Democrat Harvey Gantt in polls taken shortly before the election.

    Over a weekend, political consultant Alex Castellanos wrote and produced an ad called “Hands.” Gantt’s support of affirmative action had been identified on surveys as an unpopular position.

    The controversial “Hands” featured a close-up shot of two hands holding a letter and crumpling it as a narrator says “You needed that job, but they had to give it to a minority.”

    Helms made up the difference in the polls and won re-election.

    What’s even better is the conservative clowns who will try to tell you there was nothing racial about the Willie Horton ad. That just shows you how divorced from reality some people are.

  210. 210.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 3:29 pm

    I thought you liberals took pride in making these sorts of ‘nuanced’ distinctions.

    Liberals are still trying to figure out the nuance of sending newspaper editors to a gas chamber.

  211. 211.

    jaime

    July 27, 2006 at 3:29 pm

    Surely you don’t think you are getting away with this blatant lie while I’m on the board. Silly boy!

    What blatant lie?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxby_Chambliss

    Chambliss ran for the Senate in 2002 and won a close race, defeating the Democratic incumbent, Max Cleland, 53% to 46%. His campaign was based on themes of national defense and security, but drew criticism for television ads that paired images of Cleland and Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, and for questioning the commitment to homeland security of his opponent, a triple amputee and decorated Vietnam veteran.

    Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona said of one ad, “[I]t’s worse than disgraceful, it’s reprehensible”); Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska said the ads were “beyond offensive to me.” [2]

  212. 212.

    neil

    July 27, 2006 at 3:29 pm

    Mac, I think you’re really trying hard to miss Dean’s point and that’s unfortunate. You’re trying to parse the accusation into something meaningless that could be said about any political party anywhere, and I’m sure it is possible. I mean, like Zifnab just noted, there is a fundamental divisiveness at the heart of politics. But _that isn’t what Dean was talking about._ He was making a valid point about a difference between the two parties today.

    And I don’t think the difference is even one that people would dispute. Obviously the way Dean phrased it (vote for us, we’re not divisive) rubs Republicans the wrong way, but just take a look at it.

    Bush’s favorite rhetorical device is to warn us that “there are some.” There are some who don’t want to defend this country. There are some who don’t believe in marriage. There are some that hate your freedom. There are some that would shelter al-Qaeda members. There are some who don’t want our mission in Iraq to succeed. This is also a tremendously powerful trope in contemporary conservative commentary. Andrew Sullivan’s ‘fifth columnists’ for instance — he thought nothing was more important in the aftermath of 9/11 than to warn us that some Americans supported al-Qaida. The threat is within!

    This is simply without parallel in liberal commentary Obviously there are plenty of people blaming Republicans for the state of the country, but it doesn’t really go beyond that. Categorical statements about the threat from within are not palatable to liberals, and that’s just the way it is. Want to try? Go on DailyKos and post about how the gun-toting redneck NASCAR idiot Christians are ruining the country, and see what a warm reception you get. Then go to FreeRepublic and post about how gay adopting atheist war protester anti-Semitic liberals are ruining the country.

  213. 213.

    Pb

    July 27, 2006 at 3:30 pm

    Darrell, Par R, Mac Buckets,

    You guys might not realize this, but there actually is a difference between ‘opinions’ and ‘outright lies’. There’s also a difference between a ‘news source’ and ‘propaganda’. Horowitz is a liar and a shill–he’s a Republican-funded propagandist–and I could easily prove all of that in detail–in fact, I have probably done so on here before. However, seeing as how none of you are at all interested in ‘proof’, I’ll just state it instead:

    Horowitz is not a reputable source. Neither is your ass. The next time you want to make an argument, try pulling it from somewhere else, like an actual news source that might deal in what we call ‘facts’–and cite it, too!

  214. 214.

    Zifnab

    July 27, 2006 at 3:30 pm

    Yeah, because Dems would never try and divide the population against one another using dishonest race tactics or anything.. you know, like running anti-Bush ads featuring a black man dragged to death in a racist murder and then trying to blame Bush. Any ads from Repubs even REMOTELY equivalent to that?

    No.

    Never.

    The very idea…

  215. 215.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 3:30 pm

    seem to remember…I remember…(dreamy music plays)…the mother of all race baiting commercials by Mr. Bush’s daddy. Something about a black prisoner

    Guess who first raised the issue of that black prisoner named Willie Horton to make a political point? It was Al Gore in the Dem primary. Sorry you were too ignorant to know that.

    And actually, from what I’ve read, it was a totally legit issue.. Dukakis instituted a weekend release program for felons, including violent felons, which resulted in Willie Horton raping (and killing?, can’t remember) innocents during his furlough. It’s entirely fair for Bush Sr. to have raised that issue as a prime example of liberals’ mushy attitude towards punishment of violent criminals.

  216. 216.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 3:30 pm

    Not that suggesting we send newspaper editors to the gas chamber is divisive. It’s rational commentary that we can all agree on.

  217. 217.

    Zifnab

    July 27, 2006 at 3:33 pm

    Surely you don’t think you are getting away with this blatant lie while I’m on the board. Silly boy!

    Max Cleland. Georgia. 2002.

    The poster child case-study, of course, was the Georgia Senate campaign between noted Republican Draft Avoider Saxby Chamblis and Democratic incumbent Max Cleland, who came home from Viet Nam without an arm and both legs. One of the Chamblis ads that received wide play challenged Cleland’s patriotism and diligence against terror while showing his face morphing back and forth with that of Osama bin Laden. It was brutal and ugly, not to mention remarkably audacious for a fella who grabbed at deferment opportunities like a drowning man to avoid his opportunity to display patriotism when it was presented, but at least it was vaguely on-topic (although the ad misrepresented Cleland’s position, which in itself is fair game to a point).

    Case in point.

  218. 218.

    Pb

    July 27, 2006 at 3:34 pm

    RSA,

    I take it back. As Pb pointed out, the first quotation is from an article by David Horowitz, and contains no sources. Oddly enough, the second quotation, after “And this:”, is from the same article. The third quotation, after “And this:”, is also from the same article. It would have been nice to know that three separate block quotes were all from the same place, especially given the nature of the claims and the lack of support for them.

    ROFL! Bully for you, for checking it out. I just stopped after identifying the first Horowitz quote, because I didn’t need to waste my time tracking down that bullshit again. However, it’s nice to see that nothing has changed!

  219. 219.

    RSA

    July 27, 2006 at 3:34 pm

    Not that suggesting we send newspaper editors to the gas chamber is divisive. It’s rational commentary that we can all agree on.

    I disagree. There’s always lethal injection.

  220. 220.

    Pb

    July 27, 2006 at 3:38 pm

    Guess who first raised the issue of that black prisoner named Willie Horton to make a political point? It was Al Gore in the Dem primary.

    What are the odds that Darrell is actually right about this… I mean, I’m familiar with his reputation for integrity around here, so I’m sure he wouldn’t say something like this unless he had incontrovertible video proof of it or something…

  221. 221.

    jaime

    July 27, 2006 at 3:39 pm

    Guess who first raised the issue of that black prisoner named Willie Horton to make a political point? It was Al Gore in the Dem primary

    That’s odd, Darrell, because that’s not the question you put forth. That would be this:

    Any ads from Repubs even REMOTELY equivalent to that?

    but to answer this, I turn to wiki again

    Another view is that Al Gore did indeed bring up Willie Horton in the primary campaign. Several journalists have presented this view – though some sources, such as Novak, Gigot, Kristol and the Washington Times have strong ties to the conservative movement – but there is no hard evidence such as transcripts or position papers in which Gore mentioned Horton specifically in the context of criticizing the furlough program in general.

    Daddy Bush just put the scariest black man he could find to drive the point home, that Dukakis’ support of the furlough program allowed a scary black man to rape a white woman.

  222. 222.

    Pb

    July 27, 2006 at 3:40 pm

    Oops!

  223. 223.

    Steve

    July 27, 2006 at 3:41 pm

    And actually, from what I’ve read, it was a totally legit issue.. Dukakis instituted a weekend release program for felons, including violent felons, which resulted in Willie Horton raping (and killing?, can’t remember) innocents during his furlough. It’s entirely fair for Bush Sr. to have raised that issue as a prime example of liberals’ mushy attitude towards punishment of violent criminals.

    Yes, that’s why Lee Atwater apologized on his deathbed for the ad campaign… because it was a “totally legit” and “entirely fair” ad.

    But yeah, try and pretend that it was only a commentary on the effectiveness of Massachusetts’ parole laws. Tell us how it was a pure coincidence that the TV ads included a mugshot of Willie Horton the scary black man. Tell us how there was nothing racial about Lee Atwater’s vow to “make Willie Horton into Dukakis’ running mate.” Tell us how the ad’s creator didn’t mean anything by calling Horton’s mugshot “every suburban mother’s greatest fear.”

    Ed Rollins, the chairman of Ronald Reagan’s 1984 Presidential re-election campaign, stated in his book “Bare Knuckles And Back Rooms” that Atwater ‘was no racist, but he played the race card with Willie Horton and George Bush looked the other way.’

  224. 224.

    neil

    July 27, 2006 at 3:43 pm

    I’m also surprised you didn’t bring those two Dean examples up before, Mac Buckets, because they were by far the softest targets. But those two examples were also condemned by a pretty wide variety of Democrats.

    Can you find me an example of a Republican condemning Bush, or Ken Mehlman, for his categorical statements about the opposition, or about anything else?

  225. 225.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 3:43 pm

    Chambliss ran for the Senate in 2002 and won a close race, defeating the Democratic incumbent, Max Cleland, 53% to 46%. His campaign was based on themes of national defense and security, but drew criticism for television ads that paired images of Cleland and Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, and for questioning the commitment to homeland security of his opponent, a triple amputee and decorated Vietnam veteran.

    Oh I see, because he’s a ‘triple amputee’ and Vietnam Vet, his voting record can’t be questioned. Max Cleland voted like 11 times against a Homeland Security bill ONLY because he objected to the clauses which objected to unions. Cleland, in point of fact, made union sops a priority over national security. Draw your own conclusions as to what that says about his patriotism. Cleland was a fucking Dem partisan hack in a conservative state who got called on his actual voting record.

  226. 226.

    Steve

    July 27, 2006 at 3:44 pm

    What are the odds that Darrell is actually right about this… I mean, I’m familiar with his reputation for integrity around here, so I’m sure he wouldn’t say something like this unless he had incontrovertible video proof of it or something…

    Here’s the Media Matters page on this particular bit of zombie wingnuttery that never dies.

  227. 227.

    neil

    July 27, 2006 at 3:46 pm

    Max Cleland voted like 11 times against a Homeland Security bill ONLY because he objected to the clauses which objected to unions.

    Sounds like it doesn’t have to do with Homeland Security, then.

  228. 228.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 3:49 pm

    RSA Says:

    I disagree. There’s always lethal injection.

    Rational people can disagree on the best method of executing newspaper editors.

  229. 229.

    Steve

    July 27, 2006 at 3:50 pm

    Max Cleland voted like 11 times against a Homeland Security bill ONLY because he objected to the clauses which objected to unions. Cleland, in point of fact, made union sops a priority over national security.

    And the anti-union provisions were in that bill… why? Surely not for political reasons!

    People like to conveniently forget that Bush opposed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in the first place. And then mere months after he flip-flopped, his part ystarts running ads like the Cleland ad claiming that, of course, every true patriot supports creating a Department of Homeland Security!

    How sad is it that dishonest attack ads like this actually work?

  230. 230.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 3:50 pm

    Tell us how it was a pure coincidence that the TV ads included a mugshot of Willie Horton the scary black man.

    Al Gore was the first to raise this issue, which he did in the Dem primaries, so this issue can’t have racial overtones, right?

    Let me ask you Steve, were there other prisoners furloughed at that time who raped and/or murdered during their weekend furloughs? No? Then how in the fuck is it “racist” to show the pic of the very person guilty of rape (and murder?) during that period of weekend furloughs. I might see your point if there were several others guilty at the same time, and the photos targeted the black guy, when there were white guys just as guilty. But were there others at that same time? If not, you’re dishonestly spinning

    According to mushy headed libs like Dukakis, it’s not fair that those violent felons stay cooped up inside without release. So he instituted a weekend release ‘vacation’ for these rapists and murders. Classic liberal idiocy with predictable consequences. But Republicans are ‘racist’ for daring to point this out. Got it.

  231. 231.

    neil

    July 27, 2006 at 3:50 pm

    Or rather, sounds like he doesn’t lack commitment to Homeland Security — just too much commitment to some of his other ideals.

  232. 232.

    RSA

    July 27, 2006 at 3:50 pm

    Cleland, in point of fact, made union sops a priority over national security.

    The irony is thick enough to cut, here: Remind me what one of Bush’s major holdups was in starting up the Department of Homeland Security?

  233. 233.

    neil

    July 27, 2006 at 3:51 pm

    ‘Raising the issue,’ Darrell, is not the same as ‘ads including a mugshot of Willie Horton the scary black man.’ HTH.

  234. 234.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 3:56 pm

    Uh oh. David Frum has become unserious and unhinged.

  235. 235.

    neil

    July 27, 2006 at 3:56 pm

    Let me ask you Steve, were there other prisoners furloughed at that time who raped and/or murdered during their weekend furloughs? No?

    Please, Darrell, more like this!

  236. 236.

    jaime

    July 27, 2006 at 3:56 pm

    Al Gore was the first to raise this issue, which he did in the Dem primaries, so this issue can’t have racial overtones, right?

    About furloughs…not about scary blacks that will plunder and rape white women.

    BTW, did you read any of what has been posted or linked to. YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY ZERO PROOF that Al Gore ever mentioned Willie Horton. Darrell, even the CREATORS of the ad admit to playing the race card. Give it up.

  237. 237.

    Pb

    July 27, 2006 at 3:57 pm

    Darrell,

    Al Gore was the first to raise this issue

    Comedy Gold!

    Nothing outlasts the Pathologizer–it just keeps going, and going, and going!

  238. 238.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 3:57 pm

    neil Says:

    ‘Raising the issue,’ Darrell, is not the same as ‘ads including a mugshot of Willie Horton the scary black man.

    Oh my, if a violent prisoner on weekend furlough rapes someone, we can’t dare show his pic if he’s black. That would be too scary! And racist too!

  239. 239.

    Pb

    July 27, 2006 at 3:58 pm

    jaime,

    BTW, did you read any of what has been posted or linked to.

    Did you even have to ask?

  240. 240.

    Pb

    July 27, 2006 at 4:00 pm

    Darrell,

    Oh my, if a violent prisoner on weekend furlough rapes someone, we can’t dare show his pic if he’s black. That would be too scary! And racist too!

    That’s right, Darrell. Mugshots of rapists aren’t scary. And if they happen to be black, it isn’t racist either. Similarly, running attack ads with Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein featured prominently isn’t scary or racist or exploitative or fearmongering. And you aren’t a moron. And Michael Moore is skinny.

  241. 241.

    Pb

    July 27, 2006 at 4:02 pm

    We need more troops? *Now* they tell us!

  242. 242.

    neil

    July 27, 2006 at 4:03 pm

    I think what Darrell is trying to say is that the real racists here are the liberals, because they’re implying that Horton’s picture would not have been used if he was white. Also Al Gore is a racist, since he brought up the furlough program to begin with.

  243. 243.

    Pb

    July 27, 2006 at 4:04 pm

    Oh, and now that Darrell & co. is here:

    Before this thread gets wqholly queered by the resident lefties

    Comedy Gold!

  244. 244.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 4:06 pm

    Al Gore first raised the issue of weekend furloughs for violent felon criminals in a Dem primary debate against Dukakis. I didn’t realize that Willie Horton’s name was not specifically mentioned in that debate. If that’s the case, point taken, but it’s a minor point, since once the issue was raised (Republican strategists at the time claimed this issue “fell into their lap” as a result of Al Gore bringing it up), it doesn’t take much research to track down a prominent example of a crime perpetrated by a weekend release prisoner.

    Again, if white felons were released and committed rapes and murders at the same time, and Repubs focused on the pic of the black criminal, that would be unfair. I haven’t seen a shred of evidence that is the case.

    Willie Horton raped a woman while on his weekend vacation, and even after this became known, Dukakis STILL resisisted ending the weekend release program for violent felons. Classic liberal idiocy. And he was called on it, and deservedly so.

  245. 245.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 4:09 pm

    Let me ask you Steve, were there other prisoners furloughed at that time who raped and/or murdered during their weekend furloughs? No?

    Actually, there was. But don’t let facts get in the way. They never do with nanny statists.

  246. 246.

    jaime

    July 27, 2006 at 4:13 pm

    I didn’t realize that Willie Horton’s name was not specifically mentioned in that debate. If that’s the case, point taken, but it’s a minor point, since once the issue was raised (Republican strategists at the time claimed this issue “fell into their lap” as a result of Al Gore bringing it up), it doesn’t take much research to track down a prominent example of a crime perpetrated by a weekend release prisoner.

    I can’t tell if you’re lazy or stupid. I’m sure you have been told before that GOre never brought up Horton’s name…and I’m sure you will have to be told again. And it’s not a minor point. It is THE point. The argument over the Horton ad was never the issue of weekend furlogh was never the issue of the furlough, but the playing of the race card with the Scary Black Man mugshot.

    It was intentionally used that way, and the creators of the ad have admitted so and apologized for it.

    How you can say there was no racism involved in the ad WHEN THE CREATORS ADMITTED IT shows me that you are both lazy AND fucking stupid.

  247. 247.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 4:14 pm

    Actually, there was. But don’t let facts get in the way

    Do you have a link to back that up? Or did you pull that “fact” out of your ass?

  248. 248.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 4:15 pm

    How you can say there was no racism involved in the ad WHEN THE CREATORS ADMITTED IT shows me that you are both lazy AND fucking stupid.

    Facts are routinely ignored by the Darrells of the Right.

  249. 249.

    Pb

    July 27, 2006 at 4:16 pm

    Darrell,

    Al Gore first raised the issue of weekend furloughs for violent felon criminals in a Dem primary debate against Dukakis. I didn’t realize that Willie Horton’s name was not specifically mentioned in that debate. If that’s the case, point taken, but it’s a minor point

    Was it a minor point five minutes ago, when you were trying to use it to smear Gore, and discredit someone else who actually knew what he was talking about?

    Guess who first raised the issue of that black prisoner named Willie Horton to make a political point? It was Al Gore in the Dem primary. Sorry you were too ignorant to know that.

    Too ignorant!

  250. 250.

    Zifnab

    July 27, 2006 at 4:17 pm

    It was intentionally used that way, and the creators of the ad have admitted so and apologized for it.

    How you can say there was no racism involved in the ad WHEN THE CREATORS ADMITTED IT shows me that you are both lazy AND fucking stupid.

    Yellow flag. Excessive bold faced text and capital letters. Watch it buddy. Next one and you’re out of here faster than a World Cup headbutt.

  251. 251.

    Pb

    July 27, 2006 at 4:18 pm

    Darrell Says:
    […]
    Do you have a link to back that up?

    Heh!

  252. 252.

    jaime

    July 27, 2006 at 4:20 pm

    Hey Darrell, did you know that Chuck Schumer boycotted Maliki’s speech? I know no one’s told you or ever provided you with a link.

  253. 253.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 4:20 pm

    It was intentionally used that way, and the creators of the ad have admitted so and apologized for it.

    Actually, Willie Horton’s race was never mentioned by Bush, and the infamous photo of Willie Horton didn’t come to light as a result of a Republican ad, but when a cable tv station dug up his photo and posted it. Let me say it again, the media dug up and published Willie Horton’s pic, not the Bush campaign. But don’t let that fact stop you dishonest jackasses. You couldn’t care less about the truth

  254. 254.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 4:21 pm

    Do you have a link to back that up? Or did you pull that “fact” out of your ass?

    Why should I bother? You’ll ignore it — like the Schumer/Maliki issue — or pull out another jackalope. Still waiting on your opinion of GOP hypocrisy about the largest increase in Federal government since FDR.

  255. 255.

    jaime

    July 27, 2006 at 4:22 pm

    Next one and you’re out of here faster than a World Cup headbutt.

    Did you just call my Mom and Sister terrorists????

    My apologize. I need all the emphasis and visual aids as far as Darrell is concerned.

  256. 256.

    Nutcutter

    July 27, 2006 at 4:23 pm

    I have no problem with (a) making a disctinction between political tricks and (b) divisive politics.

    I don’t know all the details of the Horton case, but as long as the advertising was true to the facts, it was fair game.

    However, “Defense of Marriage” is not in the same category.

    It’s one thing to say that you’re opposed to gay marriage. It’s a lie to say that you are “defending marriage.” The former is a legitimate position that any citizen can hold or not hold. The latter is a lie.

    I’d have no problem with Darrell, the candidate, saying that he’d be against letting kids go camping with gays. Let him expose that view, and more importantly, answer questions about it, unlike what he does here, which is to run away. He doesn’t want to talk about it, because it’s just based on bigotry.

    But he can hide behind the veil of what he calls “most people” and pretend that it’s a legitimate view. The next step up is to hide further behind something called “defense of marriage.” That’s totally dishonest, there is no evidence that gays have any effect on the marriages of other people whatever. Or ever have, or ever will have. It’s the classic divisive ploy, deliberate and calculated …. and evil.

  257. 257.

    John D.

    July 27, 2006 at 4:25 pm

    Explain for us whackjobs, why then he suddenly needs to get a warrant, just because a terrorist being monitored in Bahrain receives a phone call from Miami?

    Jesus.

    Back in one of our earlier back-and-forths, I specifically linked to THE FUCKING TEXT OF THE FISA STATUTE. One would think that you would have taken the incredible effort to click the link. I guess I expected too much from you.

    Since you can’t be bothered, I guess I’ll make another effort to remove your reality-distorting field. From the actual, real law of the land:

    (1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
    (A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
    (i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
    (ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
    (B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
    (C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and
    if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.

    Note how the law specifically CHANGES once a US citizen gains “a substantial likelihood” of being a member of the communication? Wouldn’t a call from the USA — specifically, Miami — be enough to induce such a supposition? Why, yes, it would.

    In this, much like every other thread I’ve seen you derail, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

  258. 258.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 4:25 pm

    and the infamous photo of Willie Horton didn’t come to light as a result of a Republican ad

    Bullshit.

    But again, don’t let facts get in your way. It’s almost like there’s dishonesty coursing through your veins, rahter than blood.

  259. 259.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 4:26 pm

    Bullshit.

    But again, don’t let facts get in your way. It’s almost like there’s dishonesty coursing through your veins, rahter than blood

    Willie Horton’s photo didn’t come to light until the press dug it up and published it. That fact still stands.

  260. 260.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 4:29 pm

    Darrell amends:

    Willie Horton’s photo didn’t come to light until the press dug it up and published it. That fact still stands.

    Darrell originally Says:

    Actually, Willie Horton’s race was never mentioned by Bush, and the infamous photo of Willie Horton didn’t come to light as a result of a Republican ad, but when a cable tv station dug up his photo and posted it. Let me say it again, the media dug up and published Willie Horton’s pic, not the Bush campaign.

    For fuck’s sake, you are blatantly dishonest. I just posted the fucking ad. It shows Horton’s mugshot. Are you blind? You dishonest fuckwad.

  261. 261.

    jaime

    July 27, 2006 at 4:29 pm

    Did “The Media” insert it into a Bush Campaign ad? Or was it a Bush Operative?

  262. 262.

    neil

    July 27, 2006 at 4:32 pm

    By the way, Darrell, you’ve racked up a substantial amount of lies and errors so far. Let’s go through them.

    * Horton did not commit a murder on his furlough. He beat the husband of his rape victim.
    * Dukakis did not ‘institute’ or even modify the furlough program; it was instituted by the Republican Governor in 1972
    * Horton’s original jail sentence was for accomplice to murder, not murder — apparently he was eligible for parole
    * Horton is not the only criminal to escape in the 16 years of the furlough program, and certainly not the only criminal who committed a crime while on parole

  263. 263.

    neil

    July 27, 2006 at 4:33 pm

    I like Darrell’s portrayal of Lee Atwater as a kindly old Mr. Magoo who serendipitously had every aspect of this textbook attack ad foisted on him by the media and the Democrats.

  264. 264.

    neil

    July 27, 2006 at 4:34 pm

    Oh, also, there’s the famous Roger Ailes quote that ‘the only question is whether we portray Willie Horton with a knife in his hand or without one.’ But of course that doesn’t prove that the visual imagery of the ad was.. oh screw it

  265. 265.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 4:35 pm

    For fuck’s sake, you are blatantly dishonest. I just posted the fucking ad. It shows Horton’s mugshot. Are you blind?

    For fuck’s sake jackass, who FIRST dug up and posted that mugshot, CNN or the Bush campaign? Once the media makes an issue out of it, so what if the Bush campaign ran with it

  266. 266.

    neil

    July 27, 2006 at 4:36 pm

    And what’s more, I’ve unearthed that the Massachusetts Department of Corrections was responsible for originally _producing_ that mugshot. This certainly proves that the Republicans have never used racially divisive ads.

  267. 267.

    Steve

    July 27, 2006 at 4:36 pm

    This thread needs a mercy rule.

  268. 268.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 4:38 pm

    who FIRST dug up and posted that mugshot

    Mmmm. Dissembling. Largest increase in the Federal government since FDR. Vote GOP!

  269. 269.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 4:40 pm

    And what’s more, I’ve unearthed that the Massachusetts Department of Corrections was responsible for originally producing that mugshot.

    And Mrs. Horton, Willie’s mom, produced Willie!

  270. 270.

    Steve

    July 27, 2006 at 4:40 pm

    For fuck’s sake jackass, who FIRST dug up and posted that mugshot, CNN or the Bush campaign? Once the media makes an issue out of it, so what if the Bush campaign ran with it

    Notice how Darrell heroically leaps from one defense (“Al Gore did it first!”) to another (“There were no other furloughed prisoners to show!”) to another (“CNN posted the mugshot!”) without batting an eye, or realizing that he’s losing any credibility by offering one factually false defense after another. Not even remarkable, really, since I can’t recall a single day he’s posted at this site without the exact same pattern taking place. He’ll just keep googling up talking points, and if they happen to be complete bullshit, he’ll just google another.

  271. 271.

    RSA

    July 27, 2006 at 4:40 pm

    For fuck’s sake jackass, who FIRST dug up and posted that mugshot, CNN or the Bush campaign?

    CNN reporter: “I didn’t dig it out, it was given to me. They thought it was significant.”

  272. 272.

    Andrew

    July 27, 2006 at 4:43 pm

    Look guys, Darrell’s gonna keep running from the truth until there’s a gay boy scout troop leadering coming at him from the other direction.

  273. 273.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 4:46 pm

    He’ll just keep googling up talking points, and if they happen to be complete bullshit, he’ll just google another.

    Isn’t that how honest debate works? Well, that and calling someone a whackjob.

  274. 274.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 4:47 pm

    neil Says:

    By the way, Darrell, you’ve racked up a substantial amount of lies and errors so far. Let’s go through them.

    Horton did not commit a murder on his furlough. He beat the husband of his rape victim.

    I never said he committed murder, I put a (?) question mark to indicate I wasn’t sure.. to flag that this point is in question. How honest of you to claim otherwise

    Dukakis did not ‘institute’ or even modify the furlough program; it was instituted by the Republican Governor in 1972

    True, he did not initiate it. But Dukasis endorsed and defended the program. He vetoed at least one Mass. state legislature program to end it. And worst of all, most importantly he fucking fought to maintain the weekend release program for violent felons AFTER Willie Horton’s rapefest became widely known. That is what distinguished Dukakis as a classic liberal idiot

    Horton’s original jail sentence was for accomplice to murder, not murder

    I suggested otherwise. “Accomplice to murder” certainly falls under the violent felon category. Furthermore, Horton had a history of in-prison violations, a history which Dukakis tried to block after Horton was caught

    —apparently he was eligible for parole

    Many violent felons are “eligible” for parole, and never receive it for decades. Haven’t you seen the Shawshank Redemption?

    Horton is not the only criminal to escape in the 16 years of the furlough program, and certainly not the only criminal who committed a crime while on parole

    I have asked for links to any violent criminal acts perpetrated by the weekend release of violent felons during Dukakis’ term in office. As of the time of this post, no one has been able to produce even one, and you can bet your life that if there was another equivalent or more violent example during Dukakis’ term, Dems would have brought it up by now. No, Willie Horton appears to be the most violent act perpetrated under this program under Dukakis’ watch

  275. 275.

    jg

    July 27, 2006 at 4:49 pm

    Comedy gold. Was John referring the the Dean quote or what would happen to his thread when Darrell showed up?

  276. 276.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 4:49 pm

    Notice how Darrell heroically leaps from one defense (“Al Gore did it first!”) to another (“There were no other furloughed prisoners to show!”) to another (“CNN posted the mugshot!”) without batting an eye, or realizing that he’s losing any credibility by offering one factually false defense after another.

    What I actually wrote was this:

    Darrell Says:

    Al Gore first raised the issue of weekend furloughs for violent felon criminals in a Dem primary debate against Dukakis. I didn’t realize that Willie Horton’s name was not specifically mentioned in that debate. If that’s the case, point taken, but it’s a minor point, since once the issue was raised (Republican strategists at the time claimed this issue “fell into their lap” as a result of Al Gore bringing it up), it doesn’t take much research to track down a prominent example of a crime perpetrated by a weekend release prisoner.

    Again, if white felons were released and committed rapes and murders at the same time, and Repubs focused on the pic of the black criminal, that would be unfair. I haven’t seen a shred of evidence that is the case.

    Willie Horton raped a woman while on his weekend vacation, and even after this became known, Dukakis STILL resisisted ending the weekend release program for violent felons. Classic liberal idiocy. And he was called on it, and deservedly so

    What facts from that post are in “dispute” jackass?

  277. 277.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 4:50 pm

    65 percent of Americans are whackjobs. I hope the looney left runs on this “children’s future” issue so Americans can see just how extreme the left truly is.

  278. 278.

    Par R

    July 27, 2006 at 4:50 pm

    This thread has deteriorated to the point that something else should be discussed. How about the Senate race in Connecticut, where Ned Lamont, the Greenwich multimillionaire who is challenging Senator Joseph I. Lieberman in next month’s Democratic primary, has finally released part of his tax returns.

    It has been reported that “…he had an adjusted gross income of more than $2.8 million last year, according to the 2005 tax return his campaign released yesterday.

    “Mr. Lamont paid $621,213 in federal taxes and $43,074 in real estate taxes in 2005. He claimed $5,385 in charitable contributions. ”

    Now we know why he tried to avoid releasing these returns, the cheap bastard.

  279. 279.

    Punchy

    July 27, 2006 at 4:50 pm

    This thread blog needs a mercy rule killing.

    Fixed. Can anyone pull a Kevorkian on this site? For the sake of humanity?

  280. 280.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 4:52 pm

    Whackjobs!

  281. 281.

    Steve

    July 27, 2006 at 4:54 pm

    What facts from that post are in “dispute” jackass?

    You mean the post where you walked back your prior arguments? What an “honest” question.

  282. 282.

    neil

    July 27, 2006 at 4:55 pm

    I never said he committed murder, I put a (?) question mark to indicate I wasn’t sure.. to flag that this point is in question. How honest of you to claim otherwise

    How interesting. A lot of people, if they were not sure whether or not somebody committed murder, would simply not make the accusation. But not Darrell the neo-Nazi sympathizer(?).

    True, he did not initiate it. But Dukasis endorsed and defended the program.

    So when you said he initiated it, that was fake but accurate?

    Haven’t you seen the Shawshank Redemption?

    That must be a documentary of some sort?

    you can bet your life that if there was another equivalent or more violent example during Dukakis’ term, Dems would have brought it up by now.

    I wouldn’t bet a nickel on the accuracy of your broad-brush stereotypes.

    Willie Horton appears to be the most violent act perpetrated under this program under Dukakis’ watch

    Willie Horton, a play in one act.

  283. 283.

    Andrew

    July 27, 2006 at 4:55 pm

    Wow, Barkley is on PTI and he just gave the best political rundown and media analysis I have ever seen on TV outside of Comedy Central.

  284. 284.

    Pb

    July 27, 2006 at 4:59 pm

    Andrew,

    Wow, Barkley is on PTI and he just gave the best political rundown and media analysis I have ever seen on TV outside of Comedy Central.

    Is that some sort of local station, or something that only the cool kids get? I guess I’ll have to look for it on the internets later…

  285. 285.

    neil

    July 27, 2006 at 5:01 pm

    ESPN’s Pardon the Interruption, I’m guessing.

  286. 286.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 5:01 pm

    Horton’s original jail sentence was for accomplice to murder, not murder

    I characterized Horton as a violent felon. Explain for us neil how I “lied” about that

  287. 287.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 5:07 pm

    Did you know that if we don’t support English as the official language of the US we are all going to descend into chaos?

    Serious issues tackled by serious conservatives.

  288. 288.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 5:08 pm

    Notice how Darrell heroically leaps from one defense (“Al Gore did it first!”) to another (“There were no other furloughed prisoners to show!”) to another (“CNN posted the mugshot!”) without batting an eye, or realizing that he’s losing any credibility by offering one factually false defense after another.

    1)Al Gore did raise the Mass. weekend furlough program first. He did so in the Dem primaries
    2)I have asked for links that show ANY other violent felons released under this weekend release program, particularly white prisoners, who committed violent acts during Dukakis’ watch. So far, no one has produced any. If one such criminal exists, it’s likely Dems would have dug it up and highlighted it long ago. Point still stands
    3) Willie Horton’s mugshot was first brought to light by the media, not in a “Republican” ad. That point still stands

    Yeah, my credibility is really battered over that, huh?

  289. 289.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 5:15 pm

    Of over 80 Massachusetts convicts listed as escaped and still at large, only four had actually “escaped.” The rest simply walked away from furloughs, prerelease centers and other minimum-security programs. These convicts included murderers, rapists, armed robbers and drug dealers.

    For the dishonest prick that can only seem to Google up GOP talking points.

  290. 290.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 5:18 pm

    And yes, I’m baiting you with that last quote Darrell. Let’s see if you fall for it.

  291. 291.

    Steve

    July 27, 2006 at 5:21 pm

    Al Gore did raise the Mass. weekend furlough program first. He did so in the Dem primaries

    Kinda cute how you just gloss over what you actually said…

    Guess who first raised the issue of that black prisoner named Willie Horton to make a political point? It was Al Gore in the Dem primary. Sorry you were too ignorant to know that.

    Here’s a tip. Making incorrect statements hurts your credibility. But trying to gloss over the fact that you made the statement altogether… actually hurts your credibility more, would you believe it?

    Here’s another gem from Darrell in this very thread.

    Yeah, because Dems would never try and divide the population against one another using dishonest race tactics or anything.. you know, like running anti-Bush ads featuring a black man dragged to death in a racist murder and then trying to blame Bush.

    Then after the transcript of the ad was posted to show that no one tried to blame Bush for the murder… not another word from Darrell. On to the next jackalope! He doesn’t even realize that repeating false statements he googled from some right-wing website, over and over again, destroys his credibility. It’s right on to googling the next allegation.

  292. 292.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 5:24 pm

    For the dishonest prick that can only seem to Google up GOP talking points.

    From your link

    But in 1976 Governor Dukakis vetoed a bill to ban furloughs for first-degree murderers

    ..On the average, convicts who had been sentenced to “life without parole” spent fewer than 19 years in prison. By March 1987, Dukakis had commuted the sentences of 28 first-degree murderers.

    Those poor dears, they must have had a bad childhood and libs like Dukasis “felt” these violent felons needed another chance. Perry, NOT ONE EXAMPLE in that link of yours showing a prisoner committing a violent felony during the weekend furlough. Some felons just disappeared (surprise! Dukakis idiot), but no other prisoners besides Willie Horton committed a violent act during the weekend release furlough program.. at least none listed by your source. I blame Bush.

  293. 293.

    jaime

    July 27, 2006 at 5:25 pm

    Willie Horton’s mugshot was first brought to light by the media, not in a “Republican” ad. That point still stands

    Explain that to me. How? In what context? In the context of a presidential race or a news story? When you say brought to light, what do you mean by that? That “the media” took the picture.

    It was purposefully used to play on racial prejudices and the people who created and ran the ad in the campaign admitted so.

  294. 294.

    neil

    July 27, 2006 at 5:25 pm

    Since Horton was eligible for parole, the furlough program is largely irrelevant. He could and would have gotten out eventually.

    were there other prisoners furloughed at that time who raped and/or murdered during their weekend furloughs? No?

    None that showed up in any political campaign commercials, anyway. You realize that over the course of 35 years, a lot of people commit rape and murder, so not all of them will show up on a cursory Googling.

    Again, if white felons were released and committed rapes and murders at the same time…

    No question mark.

    Willie Horton raped a woman while on his weekend vacation…

    The rape happened a month after he failed to return from his (tenth) furlough.


    you can bet your life that if there was another equivalent or more violent example during Dukakis’ term, Dems would have brought it up by now.

    Looks like I would’ve won that bet. Mobster Vincent Flemmi is one of the felons who used the furlough as an opportunity to escape and continue his life of crime. He was reapprehended in 1978, though, so you’ll have plenty of opportunity to walk this one back.
    ref

  295. 295.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 5:25 pm

    Then after the transcript of the ad was posted to show that no one tried to blame Bush for the murder

    Sure they did, they blamed it on Bush for not signing the “hate crimes” bill.

  296. 296.

    jaime

    July 27, 2006 at 5:27 pm

    Guess who first raised the issue of that black prisoner named Willie Horton to make a political point? It was Al Gore in the Dem primary. Sorry you were too ignorant to know that.

  297. 297.

    Steve

    July 27, 2006 at 5:28 pm

    Yeah, because Dems would never try and divide the population against one another using dishonest race tactics or anything.. you know, like running anti-Bush ads featuring a black man dragged to death in a racist murder and then trying to blame Bush. Any ads from Repubs even REMOTELY equivalent to that?

    Here’s another charming campaign tactic by Republicans, ripped from the headlines:

    Gubernatorial campaign in gutter? E-mail suggests it is

    GOP disavows anti-Strickland memo, but to a point

    Responding to what Democrats and a political expert alike are calling a smear campaign, the state Republican Party is verbally disavowing an e-mail sent by one of its staffers that makes personal allegations against Democratic gubernatorial candidate Ted Strickland and his wife.

    But Republican party officials did not distribute a follow-up e-mail or take any other action to repudiate the e-mail, which suggests that the Stricklands are gay.

    “Every time we think we’ve reached the sewer, there’s a lower level of sewer,” said Larry J. Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, who has written about dirty campaign strategies in both parties.

    The e-mail, obtained by The Dispatch, was sent to an undisclosed group of GOP supporters — with instructions to forward it to others — by Gary Lankford, whom the party hired in July as its “social conservative coordinator.” He was paid $16,000 as a “voter contact consultant” for the primary-election campaign of GOP gubernatorial candidate J. Kenneth Blackwell before taking the party job.

    Among other things, the e-mail says Strickland married his wife, Frances, at 46, has no children and lives apart from her. It also links readers to an Internet blog that directly questions the sexual orientation of both Stricklands and notes accusations he is “soft on those who sexually assault children.”

    Party spokesman John McClelland said the message was sent without party approval, isn’t part of the party’s strategy, and that the party has made it clear that all future messages must be vetted before they are distributed.

    “He was acting on his own,” McClelland said. “Ted Strickland’s record is bad enough on its own merits; we don’t need to add anything to it.”

    Strickland didn’t buy that.

    “This is coming from the Ohio Republican Party. This is not a blog or some intern. This is someone who works for the Ohio Republican Party,” he said…

    The e-mail in question was sent from a computer at Ohio Republican headquarters by Lankford, one of several paid “outreach coordinators” targeting groups such as social conservatives and sportsmen leading up to the Nov. 7 general election, McClelland said. It was labeled “10 Things to Know About Ted Strickland.”

    Party officials are accepting some responsibility because they did not explicitly tell Lankford he must have all materials approved before sending them, McClelland said. He couldn’t say how many people received the e-mail but said the party would not send out a follow-up e-mail or take any other action to repudiate it besides making public statements.

    “Oh, gee, we disavow it… but, uh, we won’t be sending out another email to retract it.” How completely sleazy.

  298. 298.

    neil

    July 27, 2006 at 5:28 pm

    By the way, you did fall for Perry Como’s trick. That link _was_ GOP talking points, defending the Willie Horton ad.

    As Republicans once used to be fond of telling us, absence of proof is not proof of absence.

  299. 299.

    neil

    July 27, 2006 at 5:29 pm

    Sure they did, they blamed it on Bush for not signing the “hate crimes” bill.

    Sorry Darrell, that’s your second yellow card. You’re tossed out of this thread and the next one.

  300. 300.

    Steve

    July 27, 2006 at 5:29 pm

    Sure they did, they blamed it on Bush for not signing the “hate crimes” bill.

    Read the transcript of the ad again, and let me know if you want to stand by this patently false remark. I’ll be waiting.

  301. 301.

    Pb

    July 27, 2006 at 5:29 pm

    He doesn’t even realize that repeating false statements he googled from some right-wing website, over and over again, destroys his credibility.

    What credibility?

  302. 302.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 5:30 pm

    Looks like I would’ve won that bet. Mobster Vincent Flemmi is one of the felons who used the furlough as an opportunity to escape and continue his life of crime. He was reapprehended in 1978, though, so you’ll have plenty of opportunity to walk this one back

    Great point, he was re-arrested in 1978 for “assault”, not rape. And he died shortly thereafter. Willie horton committed RAPE the year (or was it just one year before?) Dukakis ran for President. If you want to hang your hat on that one, knock yourself out.

    Btw neil, I’m still waiting for you to explain how I “lied” about this which you accused me of

    Horton’s original jail sentence was for accomplice to murder, not murder

  303. 303.

    Steve

    July 27, 2006 at 5:32 pm

    Sorry Darrell, that’s your second yellow card. You’re tossed out of this thread and the next one.

    Well, she did say Governor Bush had refused to sign the hate-crimes bill, after her father had already been murdered. Obviously, she must have been blaming Bush for the murder through some sort of time-travel theory.

  304. 304.

    Zifnab

    July 27, 2006 at 5:33 pm

    Hey guys, remember that time, when that Republican Administration went deficit spending like the End Times were coming and wracked up a record debt that would get passed on to their grandchildren’s grandchildren?

    Remember how they spent all that money on military budgets and defense contracts – trillions upon trillions – but then claimed they couldn’t find the money for Social Security, Universal Medicare, or Public Education?

    Remember that time we were viciously attacked by a terrorist mastermind capable of turning our own civilian aircraft into suicide cruise missles aimed at the heart of our society? And how our Republican President swore to capture the perpetrator dead or alive, and at all costs? And in order to catch said terrorist, he justified spending through the nose on defense while cutting back social programs with the fiscal Scythe of Death himself?

    How’d all that work out?

  305. 305.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 5:33 pm

    In a despicable ad, scum of the earth Dems tried to link Bush with the dragging death of James Byrd. Dems introduce divisive race baiting ads like that FAR more than Repubs. Why the fuck link Bush at all with the dragging death of a black man, when Bush fucking executed them for their crimes while he was governor?

  306. 306.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 5:35 pm

    I blame Bush.

    Are you finally addressing my point about the increase in the size of Federal government? If so, you’re right! Under the Bush administration the size of the Federal government has massively increased!

    btw, since I’m not in the mood to teach you how to use a search engine, here are some names, re furloughed inmates commiting crimes:

    Michael Kelley
    Ronald Leftwich
    Paul Nolin

  307. 307.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 5:35 pm

    Well, she did say Governor Bush had refused to sign the hate-crimes bill, after her father had already been murdered. Obviously, she must have been blaming Bush for the murder through some sort of time-travel theory.

    Oh, I see, you cut at one point, to try and discredit the larger issue, which is lowlife Dems trying to link Bush with the dragging death of James Byrd.

    Where is the equivalent Republican ad this kind of divisive Dem campaigning?

  308. 308.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 5:36 pm

    By the way, you did fall for Perry Como’s trick.

    The best part is I can tell Darrell that I’m baiting him, in plain English, and he’ll still bite.

  309. 309.

    Nutcutter

    July 27, 2006 at 5:40 pm

    I can tell Darrell that I’m baiting him, in plain English, and he’ll still bite.

    That’s not just a fish, that’s a pet.

  310. 310.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 5:41 pm

    Where is the equivalent Republican ad this kind of divisive Dem campaigning?

    Do you really want to start digging up dirty ads? Really?

  311. 311.

    jaime

    July 27, 2006 at 5:42 pm

    Dems introduce divisive race baiting ads like that FAR more than Repubs.

    I will mail you a hundred dollars if you can find three independent sources to back up that claim.

  312. 312.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 5:42 pm

    Among other things, the e-mail says Strickland married his wife, Frances, at 46, has no children and lives apart from her. It also links readers to an Internet blog that directly questions the sexual orientation of both Stricklands and notes accusations he is “soft on those who sexually assault children

    To summarize: you have an “ad” which Republicans REPUDIATE, which questions the sexual orientation of a political opponent and suggests that they are soft on child sexual predators. And that is your ‘shining example’ of an ad which compares to the Dem ad linking Bush with the dragging death of a black man? Or this:

    Al Gore who in an election campaign attack on Bush’s alleged judicial preferences repeated the libel claiming that the Framers of the Constitution regarded a black person as “three-fifths of a human being.”

    Nope, not even close

  313. 313.

    DougJ

    July 27, 2006 at 5:45 pm

    How anyone can blame any of this on Bush is beyond me. He has, at most, 1/10th the power of Ward Churchill, let alone Cindy Sheehan.

  314. 314.

    Steve

    July 27, 2006 at 5:45 pm

    Oh, I see, you cut at one point, to try and discredit the larger issue, which is lowlife Dems trying to link Bush with the dragging death of James Byrd.

    Where is the equivalent Republican ad this kind of divisive Dem campaigning?

    Notice, yet again, how Darrell tries to walk back his false claim behind the cover of angry rhetoric. Oh, you mean it’s utterly false that the ad tried to blame Bush for the murder? Well, okay, on to argument #2, those scummy Dems tried to “link” Bush with the murder.

    Again with the ad:

    Renee Mullins: I’m Renee Mullins. My father was James Byrd, Jr.

    I still have nightmares thinking about him, the day three men chained him behind their pickup truck and dragged him three miles over pavement.

    I can see skin being torn away from his body.

    I can hear him gasping for air.

    I can feel the tears in his eyes, the struggle of his brain as images of his life painfully bang through his head as the links of a heavy chain clinched around his ankles dragging him bump by bump until he was decapitated. [pause]

    On June 7, 1998 this happened to my father, all because he was black. I went to Governor George W. Bush and begged him to help pass a hate crimes bill.

    He just told me no.

    I’m doing this commercial to ask you to call Governor Bush at 512-X and tell him to introduce a hate crimes bill in Texas.

    Let him know that our community won’t be dragged down by hate crimes.

    Male Voice: Funded by Americans for Equality, a project of the NAACP National Voter Fund.

    So the ad isn’t even a Democratic campaign ad, it’s an ad by the NAACP National Voter Fund to try and gain support for hate crimes legislation. But why deal with facts when you can just “blame the Dems.”

    Why the fuck link Bush at all with the dragging death of a black man

    Gee, I dunno, Darrell. Why bring up Bush? Possibly because he was the Governor, and they wanted to put pressure on the Governor to support hate crimes legislation… but I could be wrong. Clearly, any reasonable person reading that transcript would say “how dare they try to blame Bush for that racist murder” – right?

  315. 315.

    Steve

    July 27, 2006 at 5:47 pm

    To summarize: you have an “ad” which Republicans REPUDIATE, which questions the sexual orientation of a political opponent and suggests that they are soft on child sexual predators.

    It was an email from a Republican Party employee, and they refuse to send another email retracting it… but they tell the papers “oh, of course we repudiate that mean old email”… so there’s no dirty tactics here, right?

  316. 316.

    Pb

    July 27, 2006 at 5:47 pm

    Zifnab,

    Hey guys, remember that time, when that Republican Administration went deficit spending like the End Times were coming and wracked up a record debt that would get passed on to their grandchildren’s grandchildren?

    Remember how they spent all that money on military budgets and defense contracts – trillions upon trillions – but then claimed they couldn’t find the money for Social Security, Universal Medicare, or Public Education?

    “That time”? You mean, like, from 1980 on, minus Clinton? You’ll have to be more specific.

    Remember that time we were viciously attacked by a terrorist mastermind capable of turning our own civilian aircraft into suicide cruise missles aimed at the heart of our society? And how our Republican President swore to capture the perpetrator dead or alive, and at all costs? And in order to catch said terrorist, he justified spending through the nose on defense while cutting back social programs with the fiscal Scythe of Death himself?

    Oh yeah, *that* time! I remember that. Man, what a total clusterfuck that was. But I’m sure we’ll all be laughing about it in like 50 years or so. Or maybe if I ever wake up to be incredibly wealthy on a far-away tropical island, whichever comes first.

  317. 317.

    jaime

    July 27, 2006 at 5:50 pm

    This argument is almost as fiery as the one where someone claims point 9 Repeating equals 1.

  318. 318.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 5:52 pm

    So the ad isn’t even a Democratic campaign ad, it’s an ad by the NAACP National Voter Fund to try and gain support for hate crimes legislation.

    In all fairness, I don’t think the Republican Black Caucus supported the ad.

  319. 319.

    Steve

    July 27, 2006 at 5:52 pm

    This argument is almost as fiery as the one where someone claims point 9 Repeating equals 1.

    I’d like to hear where Darrell stands on that one.

  320. 320.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 5:55 pm

    Notice, yet again, how Darrell tries to walk back his false claim behind the cover of angry rhetoric. Oh, you mean it’s utterly false that the ad tried to blame Bush for the murder?

    No, not “utterly false”. It was a despicable ad made by Dem vermin that you and other Dems refuse to repudiate, which linked Bush to the racist murder of a black man by white racists. Byrd’s daughter said when Bush didn’t sign the hate crimes legislation, “it was like my father was killed all over again.” Wonderful Dems. How fucking proud you assholes must be. Don’t you EVER again complain about ‘divisive’ Republican ads after that shit. Dems are so self righteous and so dishonest to the core, that they can NEVER see or acknowledge the divisive hatred coming from their own side. This thread is a classic example of that leftist tendency.

  321. 321.

    Andrew

    July 27, 2006 at 5:56 pm

    What credibility?

    I think that if you try hard enough, you can actually go below zero.

  322. 322.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 5:58 pm

    It was an email from a Republican Party employee, and they refuse to send another email retracting it… but they tell the papers “oh, of course we repudiate that mean old email”… so there’s no dirty tactics here, right?

    They repudiated it. Unless you have evidence to the contrary, that email was never approved to be sent out.

  323. 323.

    The Other Steve

    July 27, 2006 at 6:00 pm

    According to mushy headed libs like Dukakis, it’s not fair that those violent felons stay cooped up inside without release. So he instituted a weekend release ‘vacation’ for these rapists and murders.

    According to wikipedia that was signed into law by Republican Governor Francis W. Sargent. So I think that constitutes as a lie. Darrell you’ve been caught lying again, and you really shouldn’t do that.

    Anyway, I suspect the discussions leading up to Sargent’s decision were similar to the ones happening now. After years of abusive prison systems, and overcrowding of facilities, the elected politicians were faced with trying to change things.

    And it worked for most of the people involved for many years.

    Then George Bush in a desperate attempt to win the election against Dukakis pulled out the Willie Horton race card. Easy to do, you just look for the one failure in the system, and accuse someone unrelated of being responsible. Shortly after this the public was outraged, they demanded more Supermax prisons, and Three Strikes and your out laws.

    And now we’re back there again, with abusive prisons which are overcrowded and out of control. So we have discussions again like in California where they’re going to start letting people go early. That is, after training them to be even meaner and nastier. Great idea, that.

    This is the problem with extremists. They’re never happy with the middle ground, they want their way or nothing else.

    That’s why myself, Charles Barkley and others can no longer be Republicans. You simply don’t respect the ideas and opinions of others, and you don’t wish to include them as part of the debate to make our country better.

  324. 324.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 6:00 pm

    Did anyone hear that Ann Richards is gay? Did you know that Hillary Clinton killed Vince Foster?

  325. 325.

    Demdude

    July 27, 2006 at 6:02 pm

    Don’t forget Clinton’s gay also!

  326. 326.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 6:02 pm

    I think that if you try hard enough, you can actually go below zero.

    I think Darrell’s credibility can be mathematically described as the square root of -1.

  327. 327.

    jg

    July 27, 2006 at 6:03 pm

    Byrd’s daughter said when Bush didn’t sign the hate crimes legislation, “it was like my father was killed all over again.”

    To get ‘Bush is responsible for Byrds death’ out of that quote you have to want it to be there.

  328. 328.

    Zifnab

    July 27, 2006 at 6:04 pm

    So the ad isn’t even a Democratic campaign ad, it’s an ad by the NAACP National Voter Fund to try and gain support for hate crimes legislation.

    We all know the NAACP is a giant front for the Communists. In that sense, siding with James Byrd, Jr. is a little like siding with Communism itself.

    Now that I think of it, there’s nothing more American about the dragging death of James Byrd, Jr. than perhaps Apple Pie or Crack.

  329. 329.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 6:05 pm

    Did you know McCain is emotionally unstable? He has an illegitimate black baby too. And his wife is a drug addict.

    This is fun, Darrell.

  330. 330.

    Steve

    July 27, 2006 at 6:05 pm

    No, not “utterly false”. It was a despicable ad made by Dem vermin that you and other Dems refuse to repudiate, which linked Bush to the racist murder of a black man by white racists. Byrd’s daughter said when Bush didn’t sign the hate crimes legislation, “it was like my father was killed all over again.” Wonderful Dems. How fucking proud you assholes must be. Don’t you EVER again complain about ‘divisive’ Republican ads after that shit. Dems are so self righteous and so dishonest to the core, that they can NEVER see or acknowledge the divisive hatred coming from their own side. This thread is a classic example of that leftist tendency.

    Notice how many times Darrell says the “Dems” made this ad, even after it’s been pointed out that he didn’t. No wonder his credibility fell to zero long ago.

    Remember, when an email is sent out by a Republican Party employee on a Republican Party computer, you can’t blame the Republicans for that, as long as they say “gee, even though we won’t be sending out a retraction, rest assured we repudiate it.” But when the NAACP makes an ad, well, that just proves the Democratic Party is a bunch of scumbags!

  331. 331.

    Davebo

    July 27, 2006 at 6:06 pm

    I realize you guys are having fun with Darrell and all but perhaps you haven’t noticed that, once again, Perfessor Cole has done some world class Seagulling here.

    Definition of Seagulling: Fly in, crap on everything and make a lot of noise, then fly away leaving a mess

    Then again, I wouldn’t want to respond to the comments this idiotic post generated either. How exactly does one defend the terminally inane?

  332. 332.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 6:06 pm

    According to wikipedia that was signed into law by Republican Governor Francis W. Sargen

    And I have acknowledge as such upthread. What distinguished Dukakis, is that he vetoed a Mass state legislature bill that would revoke the free weekend furloughs for murderers, and worse, he fought to keep the furlough program even AFTER Willie Horton’s rapefest came to light. Do you see that problem with that? of course not

  333. 333.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 6:07 pm

    How exactly does one defend the terminally inane?

    Vote Republican.

  334. 334.

    chopper

    July 27, 2006 at 6:07 pm

    It was a despicable ad made by Dem vermin that you and other Dems refuse to repudiate, which linked Bush to the racist murder of a black man by white racists.

    the naacp, darrell. don’t make it out like it was a democratic ad. that’s just a lie.

    and i’ll give you that it ‘linked’ bush to byrd’s death, only in that it used the example of byrd’s death to specifically ask bush to back a specific bill. of course, it didn’t lay any blame whatsoever on bush for the murder.

  335. 335.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 6:08 pm

    Notice how many times Darrell says the “Dems” made this ad, even after it’s been pointed out that he didn’t. No wonder his credibility fell to zero long ago.

    The NAACP acts as a subsidiary of the Democrat party. No Dem repudiated the ad to my knowledge, and both Lieberman and Gore (moderates?) were asked to repudiate it and didn’t

  336. 336.

    chopper

    July 27, 2006 at 6:09 pm

    And I have acknowledge as such upthread. What distinguished Dukakis, is that he vetoed a Mass state legislature bill that would revoke the free weekend furloughs for murderers, and worse, he fought to keep the furlough program even AFTER Willie Horton’s rapefest came to light

    what i love is how you just dug up that fact yet act as if it’s been your point the whole time. cause so much else has been knocked down. you’re doing your country proud, darrell.

  337. 337.

    Andrew

    July 27, 2006 at 6:10 pm

    I think Darrell’s credibility can be mathematically described as the square root of -1.

    But in Darrell’s case we must use the engineering symbol, j, because i is already used by the word “intelligence.”

  338. 338.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 6:10 pm

    If John Kerry had been elected, he would have banned the Bible.

  339. 339.

    chopper

    July 27, 2006 at 6:11 pm

    The NAACP acts as a subsidiary of the Democrat party

    the hits keep comin’. darrell’s batshit-crazy knob really does go to 11.

  340. 340.

    Davebo

    July 27, 2006 at 6:11 pm

    Bush’s campaign manager, Lee Atwater, bragged that “by the time this election is over, Willie Horton will be a household name.” [1] Media consultant Roger Ailes was reported to remark “the only question is whether we depict Willie Horton with a knife in his hand or without it.”

  341. 341.

    Nutcutter

    July 27, 2006 at 6:12 pm

    Do you see that problem with that?

    Sure, it was dumb.

    But as I said upthread, it’s off topic.

    This thread is about divisiveness, not political gotchas.

    And I defined the difference.

    So why are you going on and on about this? It has nothing to do with the point of the thread.

    Oh, wait, I think another race is in from Jackalope Downs:

    “And down the stretch the jackalopes come …..”

  342. 342.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 6:12 pm

    Remember, when an email is sent out by a Republican Party employee on a Republican Party computer, you can’t blame the Republicans for that, as long as they say “gee, even though we won’t be sending out a retraction, rest assured we repudiate it.” But when the NAACP makes an ad, well, that just proves the Democratic Party is a bunch of scumbags

    Note how in the ‘reality base’ community, and unapproved email which was REPUDIATED, alleges that someone might be gay and soft on child molesters. Dems, through their NAACP subsidiary run an ad linking Bush to the fucking racist murder of a black man, and no Dem repudiates it.

    Do you see the difference? Because there’s HUGE difference between these ‘analogous’ events, whether you admit it or not

  343. 343.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 6:14 pm

    chopper Says:

    The NAACP acts as a subsidiary of the Democrat party

    the hits keep comin’. darrell’s batshit-crazy knob really does go to 11

    .

    If you lying jackasses can’t admit that, then I don’t what more can be said.

  344. 344.

    The Other Steve

    July 27, 2006 at 6:15 pm

    To summarize: you have an “ad” which Republicans REPUDIATE, which questions the sexual orientation of a political opponent and suggests that they are soft on child sexual predators.

    I don’t understand. If the Republicans repudiate what the email says…

    Why did they send it out in the first place?

    Seems to me that they repudiate getting caught.

    Could you give me a link showing that this ad was produced by the Democratic party?

    All the information I’ve found indicates it was the NAACP.

  345. 345.

    Steve

    July 27, 2006 at 6:16 pm

    I never really feel like getting into substantive discussions with Darrell, because he’s simply not capable of having an honest discussion. But TOS makes an interesting point.

    Then George Bush in a desperate attempt to win the election against Dukakis pulled out the Willie Horton race card. Easy to do, you just look for the one failure in the system, and accuse someone unrelated of being responsible. Shortly after this the public was outraged, they demanded more Supermax prisons, and Three Strikes and your out laws.

    Now, let’s return to one of Darrell’s own arguments.

    Perry, NOT ONE EXAMPLE in that link of yours showing a prisoner committing a violent felony during the weekend furlough. Some felons just disappeared (surprise! Dukakis idiot), but no other prisoners besides Willie Horton committed a violent act during the weekend release furlough program.. at least none listed by your source.

    Now, it seems from other comments that there were, in fact, other crimes committed by furlough participants… but let’s follow Darrell’s own chain of logic for a moment. He asserts the presumed fact that Willie Horton was the only person to commit a violent crime on furlough to argue that, gee, the Willie Horton ad was fair game since there was no other prisoner they could have made the ad about.

    But it never even occurs to him – because he’s stuck in the cartoony stereotype world where liberals are “soft on crime” and that’s always bad – that if there really was only one single example of a furlough participant committing a crime, it would be pretty fucking dishonest to criticize the entire program based on that! The equivalent argument is saying that if one solitary prisoner commits a crime after being released from prison, that proves we should lock every single prisoner up for life – and it’s liberal idiocy if you believe otherwise.

    Parole is clearly a good idea – I can make the case if anyone cares – but we no longer have parole in the federal system for exactly this reason, a couple high-profile cases of parolees committing crimes and politicians shut down the whole system because they don’t want to take the heat.

    As someone with a lot of experience on all sides of the justice system, it seems to me that more bad policies have been made in the name of being “tough on crime” than for any other reason. It’s kind of a failure of the democratic system, to tell you the truth.

  346. 346.

    Zifnab

    July 27, 2006 at 6:17 pm

    Byrd’s daughter said when Bush didn’t sign the hate crimes legislation, “it was like my father was killed all over again.” Wonderful Dems. How fucking proud you assholes must be. Don’t you EVER again complain about ‘divisive’ Republican ads after that shit.

    Little did we all know, Byrd’s daughter was, at the time, offical spokeswoman for the Democractic Party in Texas. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the Byrd dragging death was just a political stunt by Texas Democrats to rally support for their diminishing minority.

    Why black people voted for Dems in Texas at all continues to amaze me. Bush did black people in Texas a favor by vetoing that legislation. He said to them, “Its important to encourage black people to work for themselves so that one day they can afford powerful attorneys and file multi-million dollar wrongful death suites, like pretty white women do when they get dragged to death off the back of pick-up trucks.”

  347. 347.

    jaime

    July 27, 2006 at 6:17 pm

    And John Kerry signed up for the military during the Vietnam war to further his political career once he came back, because surving combat was a sure bet.

  348. 348.

    Steve

    July 27, 2006 at 6:19 pm

    Absolutely fucking hilarious. The Republican Party bears no responsibility for an email a Republican Party employee sends out using a Republican Party computer – because they claim they didn’t approve it in advance – but “obviously,” the Democratic Party bears full responsibility for an ad produced by the NAACP, no evidence required!

  349. 349.

    Steve

    July 27, 2006 at 6:20 pm

    And John Kerry signed up for the military during the Vietnam war to further his political career once he came back, because surving combat was a sure bet.

    Well, sure, if you shoot yourself to get out early.

  350. 350.

    The Other Steve

    July 27, 2006 at 6:20 pm

    The NAACP acts as a subsidiary of the Democrat party. No Dem repudiated the ad to my knowledge, and both Lieberman and Gore (moderates?) were asked to repudiate it and didn’t

    It’s interesting. An ad which is run because the NAACP doesn’t think Bush did enough to condemn the Nazis who killed a black man…

    You think ought to be repudiated by Democrats.

    Do you see the irony here? your whining about Democrats not repudiating an ad which is whining about Bush not repudiating Nazis.

    So if two negatives cancel out one another. Your complaint is that Democrats don’t support Nazis enough?

    This belongs on the Daily Political WTF list, I think.

  351. 351.

    Andrew

    July 27, 2006 at 6:21 pm

    Well, sure, if you shoot yourself to get out early.

    He knew he could always windsurf to safety.

  352. 352.

    Zifnab

    July 27, 2006 at 6:22 pm

    The NAACP acts as a subsidiary of the Democrat party

    Some people would suggest that because 90% of blacks vote Democrat, the NAACP is a Democratic Organization. But I would disagree. It’s not that 90% of blacking voting Dem that makes the NAACP a Democratic organization, its that 90% of Dems vote black.

    This is a classic chicken-and-egg connundrum. Very easy to say affirmative action, hate crimes legislation, and welfare reform are Dem policies the NAACP champion, when it fact it is so often the other way around.

  353. 353.

    Steve

    July 27, 2006 at 6:23 pm

    To tell you the truth, nothing Darrell has said in this thread approaches the “comedy gold” value of this from yesterday…

    That the Saudis, Egyptians, and other arab nations have condemned Hezbollah is a tribute to Bush diplomacy, although you’ll never find a leftist honest enough to give Bush credit for this unprecedented reaction from those arab nations

    I think the man should retire, frankly. He’s unlikely to ever top that.

  354. 354.

    The Other Steve

    July 27, 2006 at 6:24 pm

    Why black people voted for Dems in Texas at all continues to amaze me. Bush did black people in Texas a favor by vetoing that legislation. He said to them, “Its important to encourage black people to work for themselves so that one day they can afford powerful attorneys and file multi-million dollar wrongful death suites, like pretty white women do when they get dragged to death off the back of pick-up trucks.”

    Just like they ought to be happy about slavery because it gave their ancestors to come to such a wonderful country.

  355. 355.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 6:25 pm

    cause so much else has been knocked down. you’re doing your country proud, darrell.

    Only insignificant details have been “knocked down”. Let me list the “knock downs” for you in detail:

    1) The weekend furlough program was initiated by a hairbrained Republican, not Dukakis. Although this is true, the larger point is that Dukakis vetoed legislation forbidding first degree murderers to take part in the weekend furlough program, and worse, he fought tooth and nail to preserve the weekend furlough program for violent felons even after the details of Willie Horton’s rape during weekend furlough became well known. So in leftist fantasy world, that point was “knocked down”. Got it.

    2) George Bush was not accused directly in the murder of James Byrd as I initially stated, but in an ad using gruesome details of the racist dragging death, Bush was linked to the death, with the daughter of victim stating that after Bush refused to sign hate crime legislation, it felt like her father was “lynched all over again” thanks to Bush. When asked to repuditate the ad, both Al Gore and Lieberman refused. Yeah libs, you really “knocked” me down with that one
    3) The ad was made by the NAACP, not Dems. The NAACP acts as a subsidiary for Dems, doing their dirty fucking racially divisive work for them. My question: If the NAACP is not acting as a subsidiary of the Dem party with those ads, then do you refuse to link actions of the Christian right with Republicans? No?

  356. 356.

    chopper

    July 27, 2006 at 6:25 pm

    Absolutely fucking hilarious. The Republican Party bears no responsibility for an email a Republican Party employee sends out using a Republican Party computer – because they claim they didn’t approve it in advance – but “obviously,” the Democratic Party bears full responsibility for an ad produced by the NAACP, no evidence required!

    this is darrell-world. up is down, black is white. ham is made from chicken. republicans are compassionate and responsible with people’s money. and, they keep us safe.

    hello!

  357. 357.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 6:26 pm

    Steve Says:

    But it never even occurs to him

    That’s because Darrell can’t see a trap being set up even when you tell him that’s what you are doing. Nothing is certain but death, taxes and Darrell being an utter tool.

  358. 358.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 6:27 pm

    An ad which is run because the NAACP doesn’t think Bush did enough to condemn the Nazis who killed a black man…

    He execute them as governor. He put them to death. Only in dumbassland, that’s “not enough”. God you’re stupid

  359. 359.

    Zifnab

    July 27, 2006 at 6:27 pm

    Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg revealed in February that she and former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor were threatened a year ago by someone who called on the Internet for the immediate “patriotic” killing of the justices.

    Threats Against Judges On the Rise

    It’s nice to see someone is finally getting proactive on the whole Ann Coulter thing.

  360. 360.

    chopper

    July 27, 2006 at 6:28 pm

    3) The ad was made by the NAACP, not Dems. The NAACP acts as a subsidiary for Dems, doing their dirty fucking racially divisive work for them.

    i thought it was the stupid, naive jews. darrell hates on so many people, i can’t keep it straight anymore. BJ needs to sponsor him at the hater’s ball. ‘silky johnston’ won’t know what hit him.

  361. 361.

    The Other Steve

    July 27, 2006 at 6:29 pm

    Some people would suggest that because 90% of blacks vote Democrat, the NAACP is a Democratic Organization. But I would disagree. It’s not that 90% of blacking voting Dem that makes the NAACP a Democratic organization, its that 90% of Dems vote black.

    I think Darrell feels freedom and opportunity for blacks is a partisan issue, and as such he is immediately opposed to it.

    That would explain how he confused the NAACP with a Democratic party group, instead of the Issue Advocacy group that it really is.

  362. 362.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 6:29 pm

    ham is made from chicken.

    Mmmm, cham.

  363. 363.

    jaime

    July 27, 2006 at 6:29 pm

    STEVE:

    To tell you the truth, nothing Darrell has said in this thread approaches the “comedy gold” value of this from yesterday…

    I would submit him asking if Chuck Schumer boycotted Maliki’s speech.

    TOS:

    Just like they ought to be happy about slavery because it gave their ancestors to come to such a wonderful country.

    That almost tops this:

    Almost everyone I’ve talked to said we’re going to move to Houston. What I’m hearing, which is sort of scary, is they all want to stay in Texas. Everybody is so overwhelmed by all the hospitality. And so many of the peoples in the arena here, you know, they’re underprivileged anyway, so this–this is working very well for them

  364. 364.

    The Other Steve

    July 27, 2006 at 6:30 pm

    He execute them as governor. He put them to death. Only in dumbassland, that’s “not enough”. God you’re stupid

    Bush himself pulled the switch on all three of them?

  365. 365.

    Steve

    July 27, 2006 at 6:30 pm

    I wonder if Darrell ever closes his eyes and imagines how much better race relations would be in this country if we didn’t have that goddamn NAACP.

  366. 366.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 6:31 pm

    Parole is clearly a good idea – I can make the case if anyone cares – but we no longer have parole in the federal system for exactly this reason, a couple high-profile cases of parolees committing crimes and politicians shut down the whole system because they don’t want to take the heat.

    This program was a special “weekend parole” for those murderers and rapists who couldn’t get traditional parole. How typical of you not to mention that ‘minor’ detail

  367. 367.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 6:31 pm

    Bush himself pulled the switch on all three of them?

    That’s a partisan smear and I won’t stand for it! Harumph.

  368. 368.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 6:32 pm

    Steve Says:

    I wonder if Darrell ever closes his eyes and imagines how much better race relations would be in this country if we didn’t have that goddamn NAACP.

    Ah there you go Steve, embrace your inner race baiter. It’s who are. It’s who the Dems are too.

  369. 369.

    Zifnab

    July 27, 2006 at 6:33 pm

    On the flip side of all this, it’s a well known fact that over 90% of blastolysts and nearly 60% of dead people vote Republican. Probably one of the reasons Bush fought so hard to beat down stem cell research. That’s two constituencies who would have gone right out the window otherwise.

  370. 370.

    chopper

    July 27, 2006 at 6:33 pm

    It’s who are

    deep, darrell. very deep.

  371. 371.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 6:34 pm

    I think Darrell feels freedom and opportunity for blacks is a partisan issue, and as such he is immediately opposed to it.

    More liberal Dem race baiting. Go ahead libs, tell us how all Republicans are racist.

  372. 372.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 6:34 pm

    Now that Darrell has called Steve a race baiter, I think it’s time to bring up illegal immigration again. I still stand by my plan for executing illegal immigrants. We need to be tough in the War on Immigration.

  373. 373.

    Steve

    July 27, 2006 at 6:35 pm

    Ah there you go Steve, embrace your inner race baiter. It’s who are. It’s who the Dems are too.

    Right, so it’s ok for you to criticize the NAACP as harshly as you want, but anyone who thinks less of you for doing so is a “race baiter.” Well played.

  374. 374.

    Nutcutter

    July 27, 2006 at 6:35 pm

    embrace your inner race baiter. It’s who are. It’s who the Dems are too.

    So you’d say “no” to a gay man going camping with the kids, but not to a Negro?

  375. 375.

    Steve

    July 27, 2006 at 6:36 pm

    Go ahead libs, tell us how all Republicans are racist.

    You posted this two minutes after you accused all Democrats of being race baiters?

    Could you be any more of a clown?

  376. 376.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 6:37 pm

    Could you be any more of a clown?

    That depends on if he takes my illegal immigration bait.

  377. 377.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 6:37 pm

    And yes, Darrell, I’m baiting you. Again.

  378. 378.

    Andrew

    July 27, 2006 at 6:38 pm

    Some people would suggest that because 90% of blacks vote Democrat, the NAACP is a Democratic Organization. But I would disagree. It’s not that 90% of blacking voting Dem that makes the NAACP a Democratic organization, its that 90% of Dems vote black.

    Other people, such as myself and Charles Barkley, would suggest that since 90% of blacks vote Democrat, it’s probably because Republicans don’t care about black people.

  379. 379.

    neil

    July 27, 2006 at 6:38 pm

    It wasn’t a special program only for murderers, Darrell. You really have trouble seeing through spin. The Massachusetts furlough program was exceptional because it _didn’t exclude_ violent felons, not because it was _aimed exclusively at_ violent felons. That’s simply the sinister implication that the 30-second ad tried to convey, and it apparently did a bang-up job.

  380. 380.

    chopper

    July 27, 2006 at 6:38 pm

    Go ahead libs, tell us how all Republicans are racist.

    well, if all liberals are anti-israel ‘scum’, then sure, let’s all pull a ‘darrell’.

    “all republicans are racist”

    hell, let’s let the lumped insults fly!

    i’ll start: all irishmen are assholes. and fijians like the little boys.

  381. 381.

    Zifnab

    July 27, 2006 at 6:39 pm

    Go ahead libs, tell us how all Republicans are racist.

    You’re all a bunch of racists.

    There. Now you’ve got it in writing.

  382. 382.

    Andrew

    July 27, 2006 at 6:40 pm

    I think Darrell’s actually mad about the Massachusetts furlough program because it let out black murderers, but not white murderers.

  383. 383.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 6:40 pm

    You posted this two minutes after you accused all Democrats of being race baiters?

    TOS clearly stated that “freedom and opportunity for blacks is a partisan issue”. Like a typical lib Dem, he injected race and partisinship. Race baiting is when you make an insinuation without basis. TOS’ comment again was definitely basis:

    I think Darrell feels freedom and opportunity for blacks is a partisan issue, and as such he is immediately opposed to it.

  384. 384.

    jaime

    July 27, 2006 at 6:40 pm

    So you’d say “no” to a gay man going camping with the kids, but not to a Negro?

    The Negro in question would have to be Alan Keyes or J.C. Watts.

  385. 385.

    Steve

    July 27, 2006 at 6:41 pm

    TOS clearly stated that “freedom and opportunity for blacks is a partisan issue”. Like a typical lib Dem, he injected race and partisinship. Race baiting is when you make an insinuation without basis. TOS’ comment again was definitely basis:

    So that proves that all Democrats are race baiters. Good argument.

  386. 386.

    Zifnab

    July 27, 2006 at 6:41 pm

    Go ahead libs, tell us how all Republicans are racist.

    You’re all a bunch of racists.

    David Horowitz referred to Princeton University professor Cornel West as a “black airhead,” adding that he “is blessed with these unearned and undeserved perks solely because he’s black.” Horowitz further described West’s work as “useless” and claimed that he “hasn’t written as scholarly paper or book in twenty years (if ever).”

    There. Now youv’e got it in writing.

  387. 387.

    Zifnab

    July 27, 2006 at 6:42 pm

    I’ve got, like, a dozen more of those. But it moderates me if I post too many links.

  388. 388.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 6:43 pm

    well, if all liberals are anti-israel ‘scum’

    Strawman! Strawman! Get yer red hot strawman right ‘chere!

  389. 389.

    The Other Steve

    July 27, 2006 at 6:43 pm

    Bush himself pulled the switch on all three of them?

    Come on, answer the question, Darrell? Did Bush execute all three of the men involved?

  390. 390.

    Nutcutter

    July 27, 2006 at 6:45 pm

    That’s simply the sinister implication that the 30-second ad tried to convey, and it apparently did a bang-up job.

    Works for me. I am strongly in favor of politicians being held accountable for governing.

    So we can hold some old Mass pols accountable for a faulty furlough program? Good.

    Now I have a failed war, a failed budget, a failed foreign policy, a failed promise to be a “uniter,” failed intelligence operations, failed Social Security “reforms,” failed disaster preparedness, failed handling of prisoners in a war zone, charges of torture, charges of corruption, failed curbs on the deficit, failed enforcement of civil rights laws, failed Secretary of Defense, and a failed Middle East crisis management to talk to you about. Who is taking responsibility for those things?

    Anyone? Darrell?

  391. 391.

    Pb

    July 27, 2006 at 6:46 pm

    I think Darrell feels freedom and opportunity for blacks is a partisan issue, and as such he is immediately opposed to it.

    More liberal Dem race baiting. Go ahead libs, tell us how all Republicans are racist.

    I’d rather talk about how all Republicans aren’t Darrell–although some days you wouldn’t know it around here, we could use a few more honest ones.

  392. 392.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 6:46 pm

    You’re all a bunch of racists.

    Let it all out libs.. Zifnab embraced his inner race baiter and accused Republicans of being racists, “You’re all a bunch of racists”, isn’t referring to one or two, it’s a broad smear. It’s who lowlifes are. I hope to hear more of how you really feel about race (Republicans=racists) during the campaign season.

  393. 393.

    The Other Steve

    July 27, 2006 at 6:46 pm

    TOS clearly stated that “freedom and opportunity for blacks is a partisan issue”. Like a typical lib Dem, he injected race and partisinship. Race baiting is when you make an insinuation without basis.

    Interesting.

    You’re the one who attacked the NAACP for being a wing of the Democratic party. How is it race baiting to explain your position?

  394. 394.

    Nutcutter

    July 27, 2006 at 6:47 pm

    I hope to hear more of how you really feel about race (Republicans=racists) during the campaign season.

    Why? Voters are ready to vote right now. Throw the bums out. Who needs a race issue?

  395. 395.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 6:48 pm

    Elect James Hart for the Tennessee 8th!

  396. 396.

    The Other Steve

    July 27, 2006 at 6:48 pm

    Anyone? Darrell?

    Bush really can’t be blamed for the policy failures while he was President.

    After all, it’s not really his fault. Circumstances happened well beyond his control.

  397. 397.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 6:48 pm

    Andrew Says:

    I think Darrell’s actually mad about the Massachusetts furlough program because it let out black murderers, but not white murderers.

    Oh my, is this liberal race-bait Thursdays? or do you whackjobs race bait like this all the time?

  398. 398.

    Zifnab

    July 27, 2006 at 6:48 pm

    On his radio show, Glen Beck claimed that one reason different races are “afraid to hang out with each other” is that “we’re afraid … somebody’s gonna sic the NAACP on us.” Beck also urged people to “drop the Ebonics crap” because, he said, “[t]here’s times that I’ve gotten into conversation with people, and I don’t know what they’re saying to me … and I don’t wanna say, ‘What the hell are you even talking about?’ … Let’s speak the same language.” He also stated that “what I say is not racist.”

    http://mediamatters.org/items/200607220001

    Savage on possible Hillary Clinton run for president: “Her campaign will be one long hate crime against white people”

    http://mediamatters.org/items/200606150009

    Former Reagan administration Secretary of Education Bill Bennett: “[Y]ou could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.” [Salem Radio Network’s Bill Bennett’s Morning in America,

    Radio host Neal Boortz on the execution of Stanley “Tookie” Williams: “[T]here will be riots in South Central Los Angeles and elsewhere. … The rioting, of course, will lead to wide scale looting. There are a lot of aspiring rappers and NBA superstars who could really use a nice flat-screen television right now.”

    Neal Boortz, suggesting that a victim of Hurricane Katrina housed in an Atlanta hotel consider prostitution: “I dare say she could walk out of that hotel and walk 100 yards in either direction on Fulton Industrial Boulevard here in Atlanta and have a job. What’s that? Well, no, no, no. … Well, you know what? [laughing] Now that you mention it … [i]f that’s the only way she can take care of herself, it sure beats the hell out of sucking off the taxpayers.” [Cox Radio Syndication’s The Neal Boortz Show, 10/24/05]

    Accuracy in Media editor Cliff Kincaid: “Have you noticed that many news organizations, in honor of former ABC News anchorman Peter Jennings, have embarked on a quit smoking campaign? So why don’t our media launch a campaign advising people to quit engaging in the dangerous and addictive homosexual lifestyle? … It appears that the homosexual lifestyle is as addictive as smoking.” [Accuracy in Media column, 12/14/05]

    That last one was a little off-topic, but I just liked it so much I couldn’t help myself.

  399. 399.

    Nutcutter

    July 27, 2006 at 6:49 pm

    While all of you are being used as fish food for Darrell, you are missing the best show on tv.

    Liddy Dole is on Hardball right now, trying to explain our policy in the Middle East.

    You cannot invent material like this.

  400. 400.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 6:49 pm

    Strawman! Strawman! Get yer red hot strawman right ‘chere!

    Yeah Steve. It’s only the ‘majority’, not ‘all’. How dishonest. No bites yet on immigration yet. Darn.

  401. 401.

    Zifnab

    July 27, 2006 at 6:50 pm

    Let it all out libs.. Zifnab embraced his inner race baiter and accused Republicans of being racists, “You’re all a bunch of racists”, isn’t referring to one or two, it’s a broad smear. It’s who lowlifes are. I hope to hear more of how you really feel about race (Republicans=racists) during the campaign season.

    $5 says Darrell didn’t read any of the blockquotes.

  402. 402.

    Nutcutter

    July 27, 2006 at 6:50 pm

    Circumstances happened well beyond his control.

    True enough. Nobody could have anticipated that the job of being president would be this hard.

  403. 403.

    chopper

    July 27, 2006 at 6:50 pm

    well, if all liberals are anti-israel ‘scum’

    Strawman! Strawman! Get yer red hot strawman right ‘chere!

    god, you’re an idiot. you can actually hear the whistle as it goes over your head.

  404. 404.

    Nutcutter

    July 27, 2006 at 6:51 pm

    “Iraq is the central battleground in the war on terrah.”

    Liddy Dole.

    No, seriously, she actually said that. Today. In public.

  405. 405.

    jaime

    July 27, 2006 at 6:52 pm

    I grow weary of Darrell. Next topic…

  406. 406.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 6:52 pm

    Darrell, this guy needs your help on immigration. That’s some serious crazy there. Amazing that he got 26% of the vote.

  407. 407.

    Pb

    July 27, 2006 at 6:54 pm

    Darrell,

    isn’t referring to one or two, it’s a broad smear. It’s who lowlifes are

    Aha, so lowlifes engage in broad smears. I’ll remember that, then. Who would do such a thing, anyhow…

  408. 408.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 6:55 pm

    god, you’re an idiot. you can actually hear the whistle as it goes over your head.

    Amazing, isn’t it? I added a spinning lure to that http://www.jameshartforcongress.com/ link. Let’s see if Darrell will bite now.

  409. 409.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 6:55 pm

    $5 says Darrell didn’t read any of the blockquotes.

    I read them all, and they definitely prove that all/most Republicans are racist. Especially the Glenn Beck ‘racism’ example

    “afraid to hang out with each other” is that “we’re afraid … somebody’s gonna sic the NAACP on us.”

    Such blatent Republican racism must be opposed by principled liberals ASAP! You libs are the noble champions of racial harmony. That NAACP ad proves it.

  410. 410.

    Steve

    July 27, 2006 at 6:57 pm

    “Dems are all race baiters” = reasonable, adult rhetoric

    “Repubs are all racists” = outrageous, election-losing extremism

  411. 411.

    chopper

    July 27, 2006 at 6:57 pm

    Oh my, is this liberal race-bait Thursdays? or do you whackjobs race bait like this all the time?

    only when it gets you all riled up and stupid. well, riled up; you’re stupid all the time.

  412. 412.

    Steve

    July 27, 2006 at 6:59 pm

    You libs are the noble champions of racial harmony. That NAACP ad proves it.

    If the white governor refuses to support hate-crime legislation, that’s his right.

    But if black people get upset by his refusal, it just shows that they really don’t want race harmony. If they cared about race harmony, they wouldn’t make ads to complain.

  413. 413.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 7:00 pm

    I feel like Steve Irwin, hunting the elusive Darrell-a-gator. The spinner isn’t working, maybe I need to add a weight to the line.

  414. 414.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 7:02 pm

    But seriously, go listen to this nutcase James Hart (video is on the front page of the site). He got 26% of the vote in TN’s 8th district.

  415. 415.

    Andrew

    July 27, 2006 at 7:04 pm

    But chopper, it’s only Thursday once or twice a week.

    Also, I’m pretty sure that it’s only right for white Republicans to decide for blacks what is offensive racism.

  416. 416.

    Punchy

    July 27, 2006 at 7:20 pm

    I don’t know how you guys do this, hour after hour….

  417. 417.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 7:24 pm

    I don’t know how you guys do this, hour after hour….

    You know how you pic at a scab? It’s kinda like that.

  418. 418.

    Zifnab

    July 27, 2006 at 7:43 pm

    But seriously, go listen to this nutcase James Hart (video is on the front page of the site). He got 26% of the vote in TN’s 8th district.

    To be fair, put a name on the ballot and SOMEONE will vote for it. If it’s got the right party credientials a bunch of people might even vote for it.

    I don’t think Hart is some sort of referendum on crazy.

  419. 419.

    Zifnab

    July 27, 2006 at 7:55 pm

    Wow. This guy has no stage presense.

    Oh man. He’s totally a pro-Union, anti-War, anti-immigration, bigot. He’s, like, an evil populist. It almost hurts to watch someone spout psycho-propoganda side-by-side with some of the more liberal nativist positions.

    War with Mexico. White race baiting. Right along side perfectly sane arguements for tariffs and trade barriers to compensate for Social Security and US taxes. Hurts my brain.

  420. 420.

    Krista

    July 27, 2006 at 8:05 pm

    Oh, so it’s not civility Thursday, then? Damn.

  421. 421.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 8:06 pm

    But he’s tough on immigration. I wonder if Darrell will go and help with Hart’s campiagn?

    /me replaces the sinker with a bobber

  422. 422.

    Tulkinghorn

    July 27, 2006 at 8:11 pm

    “I was a Republican until they lost their minds,” [Barkley] said earlier this month at a celebrity golf tournament in Nevada.

    “I think they’re CRAAAAAAZY….”

    Ooops, wrong *arles Barkley.

  423. 423.

    demimondian

    July 27, 2006 at 8:15 pm

    Perry, since Hart is pro-union, he must be pro-civil-union, which means he’s pro-gay-marriage. Even Darrell would realize that is much more important than factors like his immigrant bashing.

  424. 424.

    demimondian

    July 27, 2006 at 8:18 pm

    By the way, Perry, you need to keep in mind that Darrell is the Benighter, not the Decider.

  425. 425.

    Krista

    July 27, 2006 at 8:19 pm

    Tulkinghorn – that song is catchy as hell, isn’t it?

  426. 426.

    Tulkinghorn

    July 27, 2006 at 8:22 pm

    It is on an infinite loop in my brain for an hour after I hear it. Scary.

  427. 427.

    Krista

    July 27, 2006 at 8:27 pm

    Shit, and now it’s in my head too. Oh wait, now it’s been knocked out by “Hunger Strike” by Temple of the Dog. Either way, at least I’ve got some good music rattling around up here.

  428. 428.

    Richard 23

    July 27, 2006 at 8:35 pm

    This thread reminds me of an ancient riddle:

    What is the sound of one troll clapping?

  429. 429.

    Richard 23

    July 27, 2006 at 8:37 pm

    Sorry, I always get that mixed up.

    What is the sound of one troll farting?

  430. 430.

    Rusty Shackleford

    July 27, 2006 at 8:41 pm

    DougJ Says:

    And at least Hitler had a solution to the Jewish problem. The Social Democrats wouldn’t even admit there was a Jewish problem. Voters will take a final solution over no solution any day of the week.

    July 27th, 2006 at 2:40 pm

    Now that’s HA HA funny!

    DougJ for President!

  431. 431.

    Pb

    July 27, 2006 at 8:51 pm

    SOUND THE KLAXONS SHEEHAN ALERT WOOP WOOP

  432. 432.

    Andrew

    July 27, 2006 at 9:02 pm

    Can’t we rent her a place in WV too?

  433. 433.

    Punchy

    July 27, 2006 at 9:13 pm

    Oh, so it’s not civility Thursday, then? Damn

    And on thee Thursday…they rested, as the Lord instructed. Until Darrell showed up. Like Satan, only manifestly more obstinate.

    And slayed he was, many times over. His sword, weak and constructed of Horowitzian feces, was no match for the sharp wordsmithing of the Nut and myriad Steves, as they tag-teamed him in a way that only Ms. Jameson could relate. Darrell thusly and wisely gave up, as his strength had been zapped and his shift at the car wash was soon to commence…

  434. 434.

    Pb

    July 27, 2006 at 9:17 pm

    Punchy,

    as they tag-teamed him in a way that only Ms. Jameson could relate. Darrell thusly and wisely gave up, as his strength had been zapped and his shift at the car wash was soon to commence…

    POTD!

  435. 435.

    Steve

    July 27, 2006 at 9:34 pm

    Now that’s HA HA funny!

    That WAS funny. If you can’t laugh at the Holocaust, what can you laugh at?

    Did you guys know they staged The Producers in Israel this year?

  436. 436.

    Pb

    July 27, 2006 at 9:43 pm

    Steve,

    That WAS funny. If you can’t laugh at the Holocaust, what can you laugh at?

    9/11? Or have we been over this one before.

    Did you guys know they staged The Producers in Israel this year?

    Maybe they could get Gilbert Gottfried in there to tell The Aristocrats joke instead.

  437. 437.

    Bruce Moomaw

    July 27, 2006 at 10:19 pm

    Dean topped himself today by comparing Katherine Harris to Stalin. I remain firmly convinced that he and Cynthia McKinney are GOP moles.

  438. 438.

    Steve

    July 27, 2006 at 10:28 pm

    Dean topped himself today by comparing Katherine Harris to Stalin.

    I think I’m going to go with the talking point that he actually said Harris was not Stalin, which someone else came up with. If I was going to go to some wingnut site and be a Darrell, I’m pretty sure I’d run with that one.

  439. 439.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 10:29 pm

    The House has passed more critical legislation.

  440. 440.

    Nutcutter

    July 27, 2006 at 10:38 pm

    Dean topped himself today by comparing Katherine Harris to Stalin

    I think he is a very shrewd guy. He knows that the GOP is reeling right now, their fascia of bravado and chest thumping masks the truth, which is that their internal polling is telling them that they are toast. He is taunting them, and pleasing a very angry Dem base.

    I don’t judge what he does by what Mac Buckets says. I will judge him by how many seats are in the Dem majority in the House next January.

    Dean knows that the reign of horseshit is over, and he knows that the way to handle that is to just rub their noses in it.

  441. 441.

    Pb

    July 27, 2006 at 10:58 pm

    Nutcutter,

    Dean knows that the reign of horseshit is over, and he knows that the way to handle that is to just rub their noses in it.

    And I think Glenn Greenwald might agree. In any case, there’s some good Dean coverage there.

  442. 442.

    Andrew

    July 27, 2006 at 11:03 pm

    Yeah, Harris is way worse than Stalin. Stalin was competent.

    But really, we should be helping her win the primary.

  443. 443.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 11:10 pm

    Steve Says:

    Dean topped himself today by comparing Katherine Harris to Stalin.

    I think I’m going to go with the talking point that he actually said Harris was not Stalin, which someone else came up with

    Talking point? Or typical liberal Dem leadership hysteria? Draw your own conclusions. Howard Dean speaks truth to power:

    “She doesn’t understand that it’s…improper to be chairman of a campaign and count the votes at the same time. This is not Russia and she is not Stalin.”

    He’s a whackjob without question, but he speaks for all the rest of you liberal whackjobs who pretend to be normal human beings.

  444. 444.

    DougJ

    July 27, 2006 at 11:15 pm

    Nuke ’em. Nuke ’em all. That’s the only way those mullahs will ever get the message.

  445. 445.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 11:22 pm

    If the white governor refuses to support hate-crime legislation, that’s his right.

    But if black people get upset by his refusal, it just shows that they really don’t want race harmony. If they cared about race harmony, they wouldn’t make ads to complain

    Let’s be crystal what you’re doing here Steve.. you are actually defending the NAACP for creating and running ads which link then governor Bush to the racist dragging death murder of James Byrd. Hey, if they’re upset, you’re cool with it, according to what you wrote. Please stop pretending you’re not a piece of shit..

  446. 446.

    Nutcutter

    July 27, 2006 at 11:28 pm

    you are actually defending the NAACP for creating and running ads which link then governor Bush to the racist dragging death murder of James Byrd

    What do you care, asshole? If he could have done the same to them, and it would have benefited him, he would. And then you’d be right here defending him for it.

    So who gives a shit what you think?

    George Bush is a piece of detritus, a moral cancer on the ass of the world. He’s dirt. Fuck him and fuck you for sucking his dick in public.

  447. 447.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 11:41 pm

    Please stop pretending you’re not a piece of shit..

    Why is the Right so Angry?

  448. 448.

    Darrell

    July 27, 2006 at 11:42 pm

    What do you care, asshole? If he could have done the same to them, and it would have benefited him, he would. And then you’d be right here defending him for it.

    No I wouldn’t, and that’s what separates me from you lowlife sacks of shit. To you lowlifes, it’s all about “defending your side”, to hell with doing what’s right. Look at Steve’s defense of the NAACP ad and Nutcutter’s “everyone does it” post to see this leftist tendency plain and clear.

  449. 449.

    Nutcutter

    July 27, 2006 at 11:49 pm

    No I wouldn’t

    Nobody here believes you, and you haven’t earned the right to ask them to believe you.

    Case closed.

  450. 450.

    Perry Como

    July 27, 2006 at 11:50 pm

    Let’s give a big round of applause to the GOP government!

    Lawmakers say that since the Homeland Security Department’s formation in 2003, an explosion of no-bid deals and a critical shortage of trained government contract managers have created a system prone to abuse. Based on a comprehensive survey of hundreds of government audits, 32 Homeland Security Department contracts worth a total of $34 billion have “experienced significant overcharges, wasteful spending, or mismanagement,” according to the report, which is slated for release today and was obtained in advance by The Washington Post.

    The value of contracts awarded without full competition increased 739 percent from 2003 to 2005, to $5.5 billion, more than half the $10 billion awarded by the department that year. By comparison, the agency awarded a total of $3.5 billion in contracts in 2003, the year it was created.

    Whoo! Way to go conservatives!

  451. 451.

    Darrell

    July 28, 2006 at 12:04 am

    If the white governor refuses to support hate-crime legislation, that’s his right.

    “White governor” asshole?

  452. 452.

    Nutcutter

    July 28, 2006 at 12:09 am

    Last week, as Israel’s armed forces pounded Lebanon and worries of a wider conflagration mounted, Mr. Hagee presided over what he called a “miracle of God”: a gathering of 3,500 evangelical Christians packed into a Washington hotel to cheer Israel and its current military campaign.

    ….President Bush sent a message to the gathering praising Mr. Hagee and his supporters for “spreading the hope of God’s love and the universal gift of freedom.” The Israeli prime minister also sent words of thanks. Israel’s ambassador, its former military chief and a host of U.S. political heavyweights, mostly Republican, attended.

    ….The following day, [Hagee] mobilized evangelicals representing all 50 states in a lobbying blitz through the Capitol. Armed with talking points scripted by Mr. Hagee and his staff, they peppered senators and congressmen with arguments for Israel and against its enemies, particularly Iran.

    ….When addressing Jewish audiences, Mr. Hagee generally avoids talking about Armageddon. But his books, whose titles include “Beginning of the End” and “From Daniel to Doomsday,” are filled with death and mayhem. “The battlefield will cover the nation of Israel!” he writes in “Jerusalem Countdown,” his recent work, describing a “sea of human blood drained from the veins of those who have followed Satan.”
    WSJ via Kevin Drum

    So Darrell, you do know that you represent these crazy fucks here at BJ, right? Here, you are the poster boy for crazy, delusional, fucked up liars who are out to completely fuck up the world in keeping with their insane superstitions?

    Since you refuse to separate yourself from the evil crazy fucks who are running this country, why should anyone here pay you any respect or believe anything you say?

  453. 453.

    Pb

    July 28, 2006 at 12:18 am

    If the white governor refuses to support hate-crime legislation, that’s his right.

    “White governor” asshole?

    What’s your claim here, Darrell–that George W. Bush isn’t white, or that he didn’t govern? I agree that he’s an asshole too, so that’s two out of three anyhow.

  454. 454.

    Steve

    July 28, 2006 at 1:04 am

    Let’s be crystal what you’re doing here Steve.. you are actually defending the NAACP for creating and running ads which link then governor Bush to the racist dragging death murder of James Byrd.

    The ad told the absolute truth – after the racist murder of James Byrd, Governor Bush refused to sign a hate crimes law. Now maybe you think that’s just peachy keen, but it’s still the truth.

    I’m well aware from hearing about Saddam and Osama for all these years what “link” means in wingnut land – whatever you want it to mean – so yeah, I’ll apologize for the NAACP when you apologize for “linking” Max Cleland to Osama.

    At least you’ve abandoned your ridiculous claim that the Democrats are responsible for what the NAACP does. That was a real howler.

  455. 455.

    Kimmitt

    July 28, 2006 at 2:31 am

    To you lowlifes, it’s all about “defending your side”, to hell with doing what’s right.

    Freud would have a field day.

  456. 456.

    ImJohnGalt

    July 28, 2006 at 3:14 am

    I have to wash my fucking eyes out. I’ve just read this thread from top to bottom. Anyone have that Greasemonkey script or a link to it?

    By the way, I just checked EDGAR, and I didn’t see anywhere on the Democratic Party 10-K where it says the NAACP is a subsidiary. Maybe they just have a strategic partnership? Just *once*, I’d like to see our gracious host Mr. Cole at least *comment* on the outrageousness of a Darrell thread. But I’m sure he loves the page hits Darrell generates.

    If Mr. Cole is Darrell, he’s a fucking genius, because it takes genius to be that stupid.

    And that, motherfuckers, is irony.

  457. 457.

    Tom in Texas

    July 28, 2006 at 4:38 am

    You’re all a bunch of inner racists. It is not racist to oppose the advancement of colored people, or any organization that advocates such a concept. Such a group, after all, is surely in the pocket of the eeevil libs, and probably not even worth speaking to for five or six years. All these uppity negroes don’t know what’s good for ’em anyway. After all, Republicans do plenty for blacks. Hell, Bush executed dozens of them while in office, some of them for commiting crimes against other blacks. This shows he is concerned for their welfare, you see.

  458. 458.

    Tom in Texas

    July 28, 2006 at 4:57 am

    “You know, the Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people. They’re a pretty monolithic party. Pretty much, they all behave the same, and they all look the same.”
    Dean

    I love how Dean is divisive and cruel for pointing out that the Republican party is monolithic. This is a party with a grand total of zero elected black congressmen — a party whose most famous black representatives are Colin Powell and Michael Steele (both of whom are outrunning Floyd Landis in an attempt to distance themselves from the modern GOP), Alan Keyes, whos just batshit insane, and Condi, whos marooned on her island for three more years. For a party that clearly resents the implication of being a plain sugar cookie, they don’t seem to be working very hard at introducing chocolate chips (and don’t even bring up the Tres Leches).

    Fun fact: there are 43 members of the Congressional Black Caucus (all D’s obviously). Of the thousands upon thousands of elected Republicans in America — from County Clerk in Waatahoochie TN to President of the United States — there are 59 black members of the GOP.

  459. 459.

    Tom in Texas

    July 28, 2006 at 5:01 am

    It astonishes me that I sit next to more blacks on the bus going to work than there are in elected office as Republicans.

  460. 460.

    chopper

    July 28, 2006 at 7:02 am

    If the white governor refuses to support hate-crime legislation, that’s his right.

    “White governor” asshole?

    jesus, you’re right, darrell. i’ll change it:

    If the white governor asshole refuses to support hate-crime legislation, that’s his right

  461. 461.

    chopper

    July 28, 2006 at 7:08 am

    you’ll notice that byrd and bush have similar last names. both 4 letters, starting with ‘B’. therefore, the NAACPdemocratic party was blaming byrd’s death solely on george bush.

    life is so much easier with my darrellator3000. you apply it to your head and it allows you to understand all the twisted, shitty logic. it’s easy to apply, too; you just take the medical grade clawhammer that comes with the kit and strike your temple a few times, real hard.

    it even comes with test statements you can read to determine your progress into dumbassedness. like clinton is a serial rapist. vince foster was murdered. extended warranty? how can I lose??

  462. 462.

    Jim Allen

    July 28, 2006 at 7:15 am

    ImJohnGalt:

    Just once, I’d like to see our gracious host Mr. Cole at least comment on the outrageousness of a Darrell thread. But I’m sure he loves the page hits Darrell generates.

    If Mr. Cole is Darrell, he’s a fucking genius, because it takes genius to be that stupid.

    And that, motherfuckers, is irony.

    Hear, hear!
    Amen!
    Right on, brother!

  463. 463.

    Steve

    July 28, 2006 at 7:43 am

    Of the thousands upon thousands of elected Republicans in America—from County Clerk in Waatahoochie TN to President of the United States—there are 59 black members of the GOP.

    Can that possibly be correct? Wow.

    I see Janice Rogers Brown is on the list, and as a federal judge, she can’t even be counted any more. The number might be too high!

  464. 464.

    John S.

    July 28, 2006 at 7:50 am

    If Mr. Cole is Darrell, he’s a fucking genius, because it takes genius to be that stupid.

    Cole has repeatedly sworn that he is NOT Darrell.

    If Darrell is a sockpuppet, my money is on Jeff Goldstein – he’s the only one shrill enough, and he has commented about BJ posters frequently enough over at his circle jerk, stating that we are a “band of dickless fucktards” and inspiring his readers to proclaim that:

    John Cole is a whore. He’s just sucking up to all the limousine liberals who visit his site to vent their anti-Bush rage and then click through to buy overprice Kona coffee from his scummy liberal BlogAd advertisers. George Bush knows what’s best, whether the wibwuls and their RINO bend-over buddies like John “Juan” Cole know it or not. Questioning the presidet’s policy can only help the terrorists. Don’t ask questions and nobody gets hurt.

    Sounds like Darrell to me.

  465. 465.

    Slide.

    July 28, 2006 at 8:15 am

    ahhhh…. that Howard Dean… such a fool ain’t he? For instance here is what that moron said about Iraq before the invasion (sorry for the long post but it’s worth reading)

    I believe it is my patriotic duty to urge a different path to protecting America’s security: To focus on al Qaeda, which is an imminent threat, and to use our resources to improve and strengthen the security and safety of our home front and our people while working with the other nations of the world to contain Saddam Hussein. . . .

    Had I been a member of the Senate, I would have voted against the resolution that authorized the President to use unilateral force against Iraq – unlike others in that body now seeking the presidency.

    To this day, the President has not made a case that war against Iraq, now, is necessary to defend American territory, our citizens, our allies, or our essential interests.

    The Administration has not explained how a lasting peace, and lasting security, will be achieved in Iraq once Saddam Hussein is toppled.

    I, for one, am not ready to abandon the search for better answers.

    As a doctor, I was trained to treat illness, and to examine a variety of options before deciding which to prescribe. I worried about side effects and took the time to see what else might work before proceeding to high-risk measures. . . .

    We have been told over and over again what the risks will be if we do not go to war.

    We have been told little about what the risks will be if we do go to war.

    If we go to war, I certainly hope the Administration’s assumptions are realized, and the conflict is swift, successful and clean. I certainly hope our armed forces will be welcomed like heroes and liberators in the streets of Baghdad. I certainly hope Iraq emerges from the war stable, united and democratic. I certainly hope terrorists around the world conclude it is a mistake to defy America and cease, thereafter, to be terrorists.

    It is possible, however, that events could go differently, and that the Iraqi Republican Guard will not sit out in the desert where they can be destroyed easily from the air.

    It is possible that Iraq will try to force our troops to fight house to house in the middle of cities – on its turf, not ours – where precision-guided missiles are of little use. . . .

    There are other risks. Iraq is a divided country, with Sunni, Shia and Kurdish factions that share both bitter rivalries and access to large quantities of arms.

    Iran and Turkey each have interests in Iraq they will be tempted to protect with or without our approval. . . .

    Some people simply brush aside these concerns, saying there were also a lot of dire predictions before the first Gulf War, and that those didn’t come true.

    We have learned through experience to have confidence in our armed forces – and that confidence is very well deserved.

    But if you talk to military leaders, they will tell you there is a big difference between pushing back the Iraqi armed forces in Kuwait and trying to defeat them on their home ground.

    There are limits to what even our military can do. Technology is not the solution to every problem.

    wow.. what a joke heh? The guy can’t seem to get anything right. Thank god we have Rumsfeld, Cheney and the Decider in charge and not some idiot like Howard Dean.

  466. 466.

    Jim Allen

    July 28, 2006 at 8:25 am

    wow.. what a joke heh? The guy can’t seem to get anything right. Thank god we have Rumsfeld, Cheney and the Decider in charge and not some idiot like Howard Dean.

    And that, my friends, is “Tragedy Gold”.

  467. 467.

    reno

    July 28, 2006 at 8:43 am

    Hello !

    I write to you just to say that it’s very funny to read you from where i live : Brussels (belgium).

    You have a very good website !

    Thanks for that and congratulations !

    Best regards.

    Reno

  468. 468.

    chopper

    July 28, 2006 at 8:46 am

    no wonder the goopers hate dean so much. that speech was spot-on.

  469. 469.

    Punchy

    July 28, 2006 at 8:52 am

    What’s your claim here, Darrell—that George W. Bush isn’t white, or that he didn’t govern?

    George Bush hates white governors.

  470. 470.

    Jim Allen

    July 28, 2006 at 9:08 am

    Coming soon to Balloon Juice: Cindy Sheehan buys property in Crawford, TX, and John Cole asks why real estate agents hate America!

    Anyone care to predict what Darrell’s first ad hominem straw man will be?

  471. 471.

    Andrew

    July 28, 2006 at 9:14 am

    Also, remember when everyone, including all Republicans, and even John Kerry and the other moron Democrats, mocked Dean when he said that the capture of Saddam wouldn’t make American any safer?

    I suspect Dean has a time machine. My other theory is that almost all politicians are evil, pandering assholes.

  472. 472.

    chopper

    July 28, 2006 at 9:26 am

    Anyone care to predict what Darrell’s first ad hominem straw man will be?

    something about how she represents everyone to the left of him, therefore all leftists are traitorous scum. except for the stupid, naive jews.

  473. 473.

    chopper

    July 28, 2006 at 9:27 am

    My other theory is that almost all politicians are evil, pandering assholes.

    in other news, the sun is hot.

  474. 474.

    Krista

    July 28, 2006 at 9:27 am

    John Cole is a whore. He’s just sucking up to all the limousine liberals who visit his site to vent their anti-Bush rage and then click through to buy overprice Kona coffee from his scummy liberal BlogAd advertisers. George Bush knows what’s best, whether the wibwuls and their RINO bend-over buddies like John “Juan” Cole know it or not. Questioning the presidet’s policy can only help the terrorists. Don’t ask questions and nobody gets hurt.

    Sounds like Darrell to me.

    Actually, it sounds more like DougJ to me. I’ve never seen Darrell use the word “wibwuls”. He tends to prefer the epithets “kooks” and “moonbats”.

  475. 475.

    Steve

    July 28, 2006 at 9:33 am

    It isn’t so much that Dean was right, although I certainly give him credit. The larger issue is that there is almost zero correlation between one’s credibility on foreign policy and whether one gets these issues right or wrong. A guy like Dick Cheney, who has been wrong about virtually everything in his life, he passes for a respected elder statesman. Bill Kristol, who said Iraq would be a cakewalk, predicts that Iran will be a cakewalk, and everyone sagely nods their heads.

    It’s like we’ve lost all sense of accountability in this country. You can lose credibility for screaming, but you can’t lose credibility by being flat wrong about the major issue of the day. Does this make any sense?

  476. 476.

    Jim Allen

    July 28, 2006 at 9:39 am

    Actually, it sounds more like DougJ to me. I’ve never seen Darrell use the word “wibwuls”. He tends to prefer the epithets “kooks” and “moonbats”.

    I honestly hope it’s not DougJ. Far too many interesting threads have been queered by Captain Asshat, and it would be infuriating to find out it was just someone’s idea of a joke.

  477. 477.

    demimondian

    July 28, 2006 at 9:43 am

    Fresh off the VRWC fax tree, today’s talking point:

    Isn’t America a great place? The Secret Service is allowing “Mother Sheehan” to buy land in Crawford, despite the real threat that the terrorist sympathizers among her followers might pose a threat to the President. That shows how much faith the Government puts in the people of Crawford to keep watch on her and the cult she’s built around her, to keep the leader of the Nation safe.

  478. 478.

    Jim Allen

    July 28, 2006 at 9:47 am

    Isn’t America a great place? The Secret Service is allowing “Mother Sheehan” to buy land in Crawford, despite the real threat that the terrorist sympathizers among her followers might pose a threat to the President. That shows how much faith the Government puts in the people of Crawford to keep watch on her and the cult she’s built around her, to keep the leader of the Nation safe.

    Maybe the local newspaper will publish pictures of her birdhouses.

  479. 479.

    Krista

    July 28, 2006 at 9:49 am

    Jim, would you rather it be someone who genuinely believes this:

    Questioning the presidet’s policy can only help the terrorists. Don’t ask questions and nobody gets hurt.

  480. 480.

    Jim Allen

    July 28, 2006 at 10:02 am

    Jim, would you rather it be someone who genuinely believes this:

    Questioning the presidet’s policy can only help the terrorists. Don’t ask questions and nobody gets hurt.

    Yeah, it is a bit of a Hobson’s choice, isn’t it?

  481. 481.

    Perry Como

    July 28, 2006 at 10:09 am

    ImJohnGalt,

    Greasemonkey script.

  482. 482.

    ImJohnGalt

    July 28, 2006 at 10:17 am

    Perry.

    Thank you! It’s hard to feed the trolls when you can’t see them.

  483. 483.

    Jim Allen

    July 28, 2006 at 10:24 am

    Perry, do you have something that works with IE?

  484. 484.

    Darrell

    July 28, 2006 at 11:01 am

    For a party that clearly resents the implication of being a plain sugar cookie, they don’t seem to be working very hard at introducing chocolate chips (and don’t even bring up the Tres Leches).

    Tom, being from Texas, you should know that Bush has been drawing 40+ of the latino vote. How honest of you to characterize the situation as a white “sugar cookie”. Also, here in Houston where the Vietnamese-american vote is big (along with fantastic Viet restaurants), you’re too ignorant to know that Repubs took that vote in a big way last election… keep up the good work with your “white bread” Republican characterizations. It exposes you assholes for the race baiting scum that you are

  485. 485.

    Darrell

    July 28, 2006 at 11:05 am

    At least you’ve abandoned your ridiculous claim that the Democrats are responsible for what the NAACP does. That was a real howler.

    Where did I “abandon” that claim. Oh that’s right, you just made it up, lying your ass off again as usual Steve. The NAACP does in fact act as a Dem party subsidiary… and you know what? Everyone outside the ‘reality based’ community knows it’s true.

  486. 486.

    demimondian

    July 28, 2006 at 11:05 am

    Perry, do you have something that works with IE?

    Regrettably, due to the way IE works, that hasn’t proven easy to do. I’m waiting to see if there’s a mechanism in IE7 which permits me to write a similar script.

  487. 487.

    Darrell

    July 28, 2006 at 11:06 am

    Should have written “40%+ of the latino vote” above

  488. 488.

    demimondian

    July 28, 2006 at 11:07 am

    Oh, by the way: no, I’m not Perry. I work for the other guys and I don’t like to see a -lousy-competitor’s browser like Firefox do anything better than IE.

  489. 489.

    Steve

    July 28, 2006 at 11:13 am

    Where did I “abandon” that claim. Oh that’s right, you just made it up, lying your ass off again as usual Steve. The NAACP does in fact act as a Dem party subsidiary… and you know what? Everyone outside the ‘reality based’ community knows it’s true.

    I apologize for giving you more credit than you deserved.

    I hope everybody sees that Darrell, who says the Republican Party isn’t responsible for an email sent by a Republican Party employee on a Republican Party computer because they didn’t “approve it in advance,” continues to assert that the Democratic Party is responsible for ads run by the NAACP because they’re a “Dem party subsidiary.”

    I don’t need to criticize the argument; it clearly speaks for itself.

  490. 490.

    Darrell

    July 28, 2006 at 11:14 am

    All these uppity negroes don’t know what’s good for ‘em anyway. After all, Republicans do plenty for blacks. Hell, Bush executed dozens of them while in office,

    It’s fair to say that this sums up the attitudes of most of you leftist jackasses. Please continue to pretend that you’re normal human beings, because as long as you you continue to believe you are only speaking ‘truth to power’ with this kind of shit, spreading your “message”.. the better for Republicans. Carry on whackjobs

  491. 491.

    Steve

    July 28, 2006 at 11:23 am

    Yes, Republicans would never argue that minority voters are stupid for supporting the Democrats… that’s obviously a cartoony strawman, never mind the link.

    Here’s a question I strongly doubt Darrell will answer: Do you think black voters know what’s good for them, or not?

  492. 492.

    Darrell

    July 28, 2006 at 11:24 am

    To be clear, Steve has defended and endorsed the NAACP ad which tried to link Bush with the racist dragging death murder of James Byrd

    The ad told the absolute truth

    Like I said, I hope you aholes keep pretending to be normal human beings, speaking ‘truth to power’ with your noble message of truth. Everyone else can see what you really are.

  493. 493.

    Darrell

    July 28, 2006 at 11:27 am

    Here’s a question I strongly doubt Darrell will answer: Do you think black voters know what’s good for them, or not?

    I think one of your fellow leftist whackjobs answered that quite well already:

    All these uppity negroes don’t know what’s good for ‘em anyway. After all, Republicans do plenty for blacks. Hell, Bush executed dozens of them while in office

    Yep, that says it all. Any other questions?

  494. 494.

    Steve

    July 28, 2006 at 11:45 am

    I knew Darrell would dodge the question.

  495. 495.

    Perry Como

    July 28, 2006 at 11:50 am

    I work for the other guys and I don’t like to see a lousycompetitor’s browser like Firefox do anything better than IE.

    So you stopped following Firefox a couple years ago? ;)

  496. 496.

    Perry Como

    July 28, 2006 at 11:52 am

    Jim Allen,

    I don’t know of any scripting plug-ins for IE. Not that I would open IE, but I still haven’t run across anything.

  497. 497.

    chopper

    July 28, 2006 at 11:56 am

    It’s fair to say that this sums up the attitudes of most of you leftist jackasses.

    well, i think it’s just as fair to say ‘jews are stupid and naive’ sums up the attitude of most of you rightist douchebags.

    i didn’t realize how much fun broad brushes are to paint with. this is great.

  498. 498.

    demimondian

    July 28, 2006 at 12:00 pm

    So you stopped following Firefox a couple years ago?

    I wish, but hemidemimondian (the eldest of the demi-offspring) insists on running it, so I have to support it at home.

  499. 499.

    John S.

    July 28, 2006 at 12:01 pm

    i didn’t realize how much fun broad brushes are to paint with. this is great.

    Brushes?

    Darrell prefers to paint with 2 X 4 of Truthiness®.

  500. 500.

    Pb

    July 28, 2006 at 12:32 pm

    Yep, that says it all. Any other questions?

    Just one–have you heard of any of these words before: sarcasm… irony… hypocrisy…

  501. 501.

    John D.

    July 28, 2006 at 12:34 pm

    To be clear, Steve has defended and endorsed the NAACP ad which tried to link Bush with the racist dragging death murder of James Byrd

    That “ad” was an request by the NAACP to drum up public support for hate crimes legislation in Texas, at the time that Bush was governor of that state.

    Who, exactly, should they have asked people to contact to attempt to get said legislation enacted?

    They never linked Bush to Byrd’s death. They never even tried to do so. They asked the citizens of Texas to contact their governor and request hate crimes legislation. AS IS THEIR FUCKING RIGHT AS US CITIZENS, you insufferable jackass.

    I’m getting really tired of you willfully misinterpreting everything to deflect criticism of you and those you support. How the fuck do you live with yourself, knowing you have no honor at all?

  502. 502.

    Steve

    July 28, 2006 at 12:50 pm

    I have to retire from this thread, as it has gone over 500 posts. I’m sure I’ll see Darrell again elsewhere.

    To tell you the truth, I’m not a big fan of the NAACP ad, although Darrell is obviously an idiot for insisting the Democrats are responsible for it. The 1998 ad, in which the murder victim’s daughter told people to call Bush and ask him to support hate crimes legislation, I have zero problem with that. The subsequent 2000 ad, in which the NAACP used imagery of the murder to urge people to vote against Bush because refused to sign hate crimes legislation, I thought it was over the top, particularly the bit where the daughter says that Bush’s refusal to sign the law felt like her father was being murdered all over again. I mean, maybe she 100% honestly felt that way, but it’s still an over-the-top ad.

    It reminded me, frankly, of the 2005 ad in Virginia where the Republican candidate for governor ran an ad where a murder victim’s father said that the Democrat was so soft on crime, he wouldn’t even give Hitler the death penalty. (How well I remember the crazies at redstate.com gloating that this was an awesome ad that would surely win them the election.) This heightens one of the reasons why I was disinclined to criticize the ad; I could say it was the worst ad ever, and people like Darrell would still say the Willie Horton ad was perfectly fair, the Ohio email from a Republican Party employee was irrelevant because the Republicans claimed they hadn’t approved it in advance, and so forth. It’s a charade and if Republican partisans aren’t going to even attempt to be reasonable about the actions of their own side, I don’t see why I should give them any satisfaction.

  503. 503.

    Tom in Texas

    July 28, 2006 at 1:18 pm

    Tom, being from Texas, you should know that Bush has been drawing 40+ of the latino vote. How honest of you to characterize the situation as a white “sugar cookie”. Also, here in Houston where the Vietnamese-american vote is big (along with fantastic Viet restaurants), you’re too ignorant to know that Repubs took that vote in a big way last election… keep up the good work with your “white bread” Republican characterizations. It exposes you assholes for the race baiting scum that you are

    And those numbers are sure to go nowhere but up. I mean, they’re only criminalizing the latino’s language and flag and culture. When the Republicans start losing the Cuban vote because they are too anti latino, you know their policies may be a little too harsh for most. Not Darrell, but most. And don’t mention to Darrell that the only elected Vietnamese in Houston is a Democrat. Or that Houston (the most diverse part of Texas) is majority Democrat and voted for Gore. You’ll hurt his head.
    Again, if you take every elected black republican in this country you wouldn’t have enough to field a football team. There are more blacks in a holding cell in downtown Houston than there are representing you Darrell. Does this say something about your party, blacks, or both? And if it is all the blacks fault for not realizing how much better off they would be voting for you, what can be done?

  504. 504.

    Darrell

    July 28, 2006 at 1:41 pm

    I mean, they’re only criminalizing the latino’s language

    Tom, can you please direct us to any legislation, Republican sponsored or otherwise, which is attempting to “criminalize” Spanish? Because if that’s the case, I need to turn myself in to the authorities.

    And don’t mention to Darrell that the only elected Vietnamese in Houston is a Democrat

    Well that “proves” that the Vietnamese vote Dem.. doesn’t it you race baiting jackass?

    And if it is all the blacks fault for not realizing how much better off they would be voting for you, what can be done?

    You leftist idiots are the only ones here insisting that it’s the “blacks fault” for not realizing how much better of they’d be voting Republican.

    Look, I can barely wrap my brain around the concept of so many self righteous aholes seriously proclaiming themselves to be the “reality based” community. How the hell then am I then supposed to explain why blacks vote the way they do?

  505. 505.

    Jim Allen

    July 28, 2006 at 1:45 pm

    Look, I can barely wrap my brain around the concept of so many self righteous aholes seriously proclaiming themselves to be the “reality based” community. How the hell then am I then supposed to explain why blacks vote the way they do?

    If it was of normal size, I would think you’d have no trouble wrapping your brain around anything. As it is, I’m surprised you could wrap it around a corn flake.

  506. 506.

    Tom in Texas

    July 28, 2006 at 1:49 pm

    Darrell, you clearly don’t believe that it is the Republican Party at fault for failing to attract black voters. Your argument is that it is the Dem‘s NAACP’s fault for spreading slander about the GOP and causing blacks to run in droves. You have made no mention of a policy shift that might bring blacks into the fold, which says its not the policies you think need changing. What needs to change, Darrell? Other than eliminating all political opposition, which is your impractical solution to everything, what can be done to convince blacks to vote Republican?

  507. 507.

    Darrell

    July 28, 2006 at 1:54 pm

    It reminded me, frankly, of the 2005 ad in Virginia where the Republican candidate for governor ran an ad where a murder victim’s father said that the Democrat was so soft on crime

    I honestly hadn’t heard of that ad until you mentioned it. From what I read, it looked like sleazy move by the Republican which backfired on him.

    Willie Horton I believe, was an entirely fair issue. It symbolized Dukakis’ core soft-on-crime beliefs which were out of synch with most Americans. You might have had a valid point if Dukakis had merely inherited that law and done nothing.. But Dukakis vetoed at least one Mass. state legislative proposal which would have prevented murderers from taking part in the weekend furloughs, and worse yet, Dukakis defended and fought for the weekend furlough programs (which included violent felons like Willie Horton) even after Willie Horton’s rapefest was widely known. Dukakis defended the program, he endorsed it, he vetoed legislation to limit it and fought like hell not to end it.

    ENTIRELY fair on the part of Bush Sr. to use Willie Horton as an example of out-of-touch liberal ideas regarding punishment of criminals

  508. 508.

    Tom in Texas

    July 28, 2006 at 1:54 pm

    And while an elected Democrat Vietnamese-American may not prove that all Vietnamese vote Dem , neither does an article from before the election quoting two Vietnamese in California prove Vietnamese voting patterns in Houston, you dishonest shill. How you can just gloss over the fact that he didn’t run as a Repub, when according to you the vast majority of Vietnamese are Republicans, I’ll never understand.

  509. 509.

    Darrell

    July 28, 2006 at 2:04 pm

    What needs to change, Darrell? Other than eliminating all political opposition, which is your impractical solution to everything, what can be done to convince blacks to vote Republican?

    Well, with the exception of gay rights and abortion, blacks by and large, tend hold liberal beliefs. And Dems are the more liberal party. I’m not sure what more can be done other than to continue explaining and trumpeting conservative messages (assuming some Repubs can still consder themselves ‘conservative’). Furthermore, there is a lot of inertia involved. “My dad voted Dem, just like his father did…etc.”. Hell, I see that voting inertia in play in my own family with uncles and aunts telling me how Repubs are the “party of the rich”, etc.

    That Dems have embraced black racists like Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson, has resulted in a number of otherwise Dem voters to jump to Republicans or independent. I think if the ideas and values you libs express here at BJ, DailyKos and elsewhere ever took hold in a major Dem candidate for President, many more mainstream Dems would jump ship too.

  510. 510.

    Darrell

    July 28, 2006 at 2:08 pm

    And while an elected Democrat Vietnamese-American may not prove that all Vietnamese vote Dem , neither does an article from before the election quoting two Vietnamese in California prove Vietnamese voting patterns in Houston, you dishonest shill

    Let’s see, a survey in more liberal California showed:

    A recent poll conducted before the debate by Bendixen and Associates and New California Media — a part of Pacific News Service — found that a whopping 71 percent of Vietnamese American said they would vote for George W. Bush, and only 27 percent for Kerry.

    Overwhelming majority of Viet Americans in CA vote Republican, but here in more conservative Texas, we’re supposed to believe that our Vietnamese Americans here are going to vote Dem? Got it. And I’m the the “dishonest shill”?

  511. 511.

    Darrell

    July 28, 2006 at 2:11 pm

    You see Tom, you can’t honestly acknowledge that large percentages of non-whites vote Republican, because that reality doesn’t square with your ignorant cartoonish stereotypes. You, like most libs, suffer from LDS(Liberal Derangement Syndrom)

  512. 512.

    Tom in Texas

    July 28, 2006 at 2:12 pm

    Darrell; apparently here in conservative Texas the Vietnames DID vote Dem. They elected one. The article you have referenced twice (and dishonestly tried to infer it as an entirely different article) says how they plan to vote. People change their minds Darrell. An article from October does not show how people vote in November. Sorry to break your heart.

  513. 513.

    Jim Allen

    July 28, 2006 at 2:12 pm

    Got it. And I’m the the “dishonest shill”?

    You got it.

  514. 514.

    Darrell

    July 28, 2006 at 2:18 pm

    The article you have referenced twice (and dishonestly tried to infer it as an entirely different article) says how they plan to vote. People change their minds Darrell. An article from October does not show how people vote in November. Sorry to break your heart.

    You’ve got a real “solid” point there Tom.

  515. 515.

    Tom in Texas

    July 28, 2006 at 2:19 pm

    Darrell:
    “large percentages of non-whites vote Republican”

    Total elected black Republicans: 59
    Total Hispanic Republican Congresspersons: 8
    Total Asian Republican Congresspersons: 5

    Percentage of America represented by minorities: 24.9%
    Percentage of GOP represented by minorities:

  516. 516.

    Tom in Texas

    July 28, 2006 at 2:20 pm

    Hmm cut it off sry

    Percentage of GOP represented:

  517. 517.

    Tom in Texas

    July 28, 2006 at 2:21 pm

    Wierd block. apparently the “less than” symbol is verboten. That line says”

    Percentage of GOP represented: less than 1 percent.

    And A a quote from Darrell’s source:

    The Bendixen poll also found that among Asian Americans aged 18 to 39, only 27 percent would vote for Bush, versus 51 percent for Kerry.

  518. 518.

    Darrell

    July 28, 2006 at 2:24 pm

    Tom in Texas Says:

    Darrell; apparently here in conservative Texas the Vietnames DID vote Dem. They elected one

    How the fuck do you know that Vietnamese American voters voted for Gordon Quan? I guess there’s no white, latino, black or other Asian groups in his district huh? God you’re an idiot

  519. 519.

    Tom in Texas

    July 28, 2006 at 2:25 pm

    And Darrell, when you use a source to back up your claim that “Repubs took that (Vietnamese) vote (in Houston) in a big way last election.” And your source is:

    A) not from Houston
    B) taken before the election

    it pretty much negates whatever point you thought you were making. So yeah I think my point is solid. Your source has nothing whatsoever to do with your point.

  520. 520.

    Tom in Texas

    July 28, 2006 at 2:27 pm

    You are trying to tell me how Texas-Vietnamese voted, and proving it by showing me how Californians planned to vote in October. Good point.

  521. 521.

    Tom in Texas

    July 28, 2006 at 2:32 pm

    Yes Darrell Quan intentionally ran against his entire ethnic community, who are all Republican, and then made that community a huge part of his campaign. Clearly no Vietnamese could have voted for him, because the Pacific News Service told me that some old Vietnamese in California are voting for Bush, so all Vietnamese are voting for Bush. And since we are on the subject, can you guess how many of the five Republican Asian Americans in Congress are Vietnamese? Since they are such a crucial voting bloc to y’all and everything. I’ll giver you a hint. It’s equal to the number of substantive points you’ve raised today. Or the number of wars Bush has won.

  522. 522.

    Darrell

    July 28, 2006 at 2:34 pm

    The Bendixen poll also found that among Asian Americans aged 18 to 39, only 27 percent would vote for Bush, versus 51 percent for Kerry.

    My specific points were relating to “Vietnamese” Americans which have a big presence here in Houston, not all Asians. Apparently they all look alike to you.

  523. 523.

    Darrell

    July 28, 2006 at 2:37 pm

    Clearly no Vietnamese could have voted for him, because the Pacific News Service told me that some old Vietnamese in California are voting for Bush

    Do you see what an idiot you are? Has it dawned on you yet? I can certainly see how someone of your mentality would vote Dem

  524. 524.

    chopper

    July 28, 2006 at 2:40 pm

    Apparently they all look alike to you.

    see, this is solid evidence that the right as a whole loves to use race-baiting tactics.

  525. 525.

    chopper

    July 28, 2006 at 2:42 pm

    Do you see what an idiot you are? Has it dawned on you yet?

    shorter darrell: shit, he noticed my source had nothing to do with texas.

  526. 526.

    Tom in Texas

    July 28, 2006 at 2:44 pm

    SAN FRANCISCO–Outside of a Vietnamese coffee shop in the Tenderloin district

    Too bad we are voting in California.

    How exactly these Vietnamese Americans relate in any way to Vietnamese in Houston is beyond me. Apparently you tend to confuse them easily as well. See California isn’t Texas Darrell. People have different opinions there, and if a poll is taken in California, it doesn’t necessarily show what people in Texas think. I know this seems kinda basic, but I think in your case it bears repeating. If you would like to show how important this Vietnamese presence in Houston is, please reference Houstonians, not Californians.

    To the larger point, Darrell, the Vietnamese do still vote larger Republican than Democrat, though the gap has been shrinking. The prevailing theory for this is older Vietnamese have supported the Republicans due to their support for South Vietnam, and as their children are acclimated into American society, they care less for their ancestral homeland and more for their new one, and change their political beliefs accordingly. The same thing is happening with the Cuban vote.

  527. 527.

    Tom in Texas

    July 28, 2006 at 2:46 pm

    As an aside, I think the Republicans may have wrapped up the Shiite American vote for a few generations, but the Sunni bloc might be hard to convince. Not that it matters — those Saddam lovers were voting Dem anyway.

  528. 528.

    Darrell

    July 28, 2006 at 2:58 pm

    The prevailing theory for this is older Vietnamese have supported the Republicans due to their support for South Vietnam, and as their children are acclimated into American society, they care less for their ancestral homeland and more for their new one, and change their political beliefs accordingly. The same thing is happening with the Cuban vote.

    I’m not sure where you’re coming up with your “prevailing theory” Tom, but I have similar theory myself – the older hippie flower children of the 60’s and 70’s vote liberal, but their children tend to vote more conservative

  529. 529.

    Tom in Texas

    July 28, 2006 at 3:02 pm

    “the older hippie flower children of the 60’s and 70’s vote liberal, but their children tend to vote more conservative”

    Which would of course explain why Kerry took such a huge percentage of the youth vote. And that theory wazs referenced in your own source D-Train:

    Calitoday publisher Nam Nguyen says that within another generation, Vietnamese Americans may become less conservative “as more and more are born in the United States, and their concerns are more domestic and not formed by Vietnam.

    To be fair and quote the entire article (anyone else find it odd that I am referencing more of Darrell’s article than he is? Why did he ignore so many passages in his own reference? Who knows), this guy doesn’t buy the theory wholeheartedly:

    But,” Nguyen adds, “I don’t know. The next generation may just be as conservative as their parents.”

  530. 530.

    Darrell

    July 28, 2006 at 3:03 pm

    See California isn’t Texas Darrell. People have different opinions there

    Thanks for enlightening me. I lived 4 years in the SF Bay area and currently work for a CA based company. You’re like a living cartoon Tom, you really are. I can see why someone of your mentality would vote Dem

  531. 531.

    Tom in Texas

    July 28, 2006 at 3:08 pm

    It would help your argument if I did vote Dem Darrell — I just don’t vote Bush. I’ve voted Republican before, I may do so again if they manage to distance themselves enough from this current train wreck.
    Why oh why can you not admit that projected election results in California do not equate to real results in Texas? What is wrong with you? If you honestly believe that Vietnamese voted Bush because a pollster projected they would, why not buy into all the projections that had Kerry winning? Oh yeah, because we go by results, not projections.

  532. 532.

    Darrell

    July 28, 2006 at 3:10 pm

    Which would of course explain why Kerry took such a huge percentage of the youth vote.

    Did he? Where are the stats? I found this from 2000:

    According to a nationwide poll of 1,008 young people conducted for Medill News Service by the nonpartisan research firm Campaign Study Group, vast majorities of 18- through 24-year-olds agree with George W. Bush on issues such as school vouchers and some aspects of abortion. And young people decidedly favored the Republican over Democrat Al Gore (44 percent to 32 percent) in November’s presidential election.

    I would imagine that the 25 – through 35-year olds would be even more likely to vote Repub than the 18 to 24, but that’s just a guess

  533. 533.

    Darrell

    July 28, 2006 at 3:15 pm

    Why oh why can you not admit that projected election results in California do not equate to real results in Texas?

    Tom, voters in CA tend to be more liberal and lean more toward Dems. Pretty much any voting pattern there in CA among a particular demographic.. that same demographic will generally vote more conservative, more Republican here in Texas.. Did that really need to be spelled out for you?

  534. 534.

    John D.

    July 28, 2006 at 3:19 pm

    Which would of course explain why Kerry took such a huge percentage of the youth vote.

    Did he? Where are the stats? I found this from 2000:

    Amazingly enough, Kerry was not the Democratic nominee in 2000. Shock.

    I found this from 2004:

    VOTE BY AGE
    BUSH KERRY NADERTOTAL
    2004 20002004

    2004
    18-29 (17%)
    45%
    n/a
    54% 0%
    30-44 (29%)
    53%
    +4
    46% 1%
    45-59 (30%)
    51%
    +2
    48% 0%
    60 and Older (24%)
    54%
    +7
    46% 0%

  535. 535.

    Tom in Texas

    July 28, 2006 at 3:20 pm

    Did he? Where are the stats?

    If only 18-29 year olds had voted, Kerry would have won by over 200 EVs. The kids aren’t voting GOP Darrell. Seriously man Puff wouldn’t let ’em. They would all DIE.

  536. 536.

    John D.

    July 28, 2006 at 3:21 pm

    Aaaaaaaand, the formatting got hosed.

    2004 Election results

    Age Bush Kerry Nader
    18-29 (17%) 45% 54% 0%

  537. 537.

    Darrell

    July 28, 2006 at 3:33 pm

    The kids aren’t voting GOP Darrell

    They did in 2000, but not in 2004. And as soon as they get a job and have to deal with the real world, they’ll be even prone to vote Repub.. P. Diddy or not

  538. 538.

    John D.

    July 28, 2006 at 3:51 pm

    They did in 2000, but not in 2004. And as soon as they get a job and have to deal with the real world, they’ll be even prone to vote Repub.. P. Diddy or not

    Math time!

    In October 2000, 18-to-24 year olds planned to vote 44-32 in favor of the R.

    How old were those people in 2004? Answer below
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    22-28. Which means, Darrell, that they were entirely accounted for in the 18-29 bracket that was discussed for the 2004 election.

    So, not only are you illogical, you’re innumerate as well. Congratulations.

  539. 539.

    DougJ

    July 28, 2006 at 4:01 pm

    I honestly hope it’s not DougJ. Far too many interesting threads have been queered by Captain Asshat

    Am I Captain Asshat or is Darrell?

    I think it must be me, because Darrell is really Supreme Allied Commander Asshat, IMHO.

  540. 540.

    Perry Como

    July 28, 2006 at 4:13 pm

    They did in 2000, but not in 2004. And as soon as they get a job and have to deal with the real world, they’ll be even prone to vote Repub

    If they aren’t too busy paying off the $8.5 trillion debt the GOP has given us.

  541. 541.

    Jim Allen

    July 28, 2006 at 5:09 pm

    Am I Captain Asshat or is Darrell?

    I think it must be me, because Darrell is really Supreme Allied Commander Asshat, IMHO.

    It’s so hard to keep up with the promotion list. Of course, I was refering to LarryDarrell&Darrell.

    Unless you’re really him. Then you can be captain. Or blackboard monitor.

  542. 542.

    BIRDZILLA

    July 28, 2006 at 11:01 pm

    Its amazing just how igorant HOWARD DEAN is this dumb jackass needs to get hit over the head with a 2×4

  543. 543.

    Bender

    July 29, 2006 at 9:21 am

    There’s also a difference between a ‘news source’ and ‘propaganda’. Horowitz is a liar and a shill—he’s a Republican-funded propagandist—and I could easily prove all of that in detail—in fact, I have probably done so on here before.

    So if Horowitz says the sky is blue, and you can’t dispute it, then we must assume that the sky is NOT blue? Insanity. Horowitz is not dishing out opinions where he was cited — he was stating historical fact which you have not disputed. Again, since we both know the stuff happened, I don’t feel the need to find another source.

    You can quote Kos saying that Bush Sr ran the Willie Horton ad. Fine with me, because it’s a fact.

    Meanwhile, back in If-We-Do-It-It’s-OK-ville, some genius quotes as a source some blogger’s opinion of the Cleeland ad, and you guys let him get away with it:

    One of the Chamblis ads that received wide play challenged Cleland’s patriotism and diligence against terror while showing his face morphing back and forth with that of Osama bin Laden. It was brutal and ugly,

    Sweet. Look, this happens every six months or so here. Someone posts this old Democrat Talking Point lie about the “morph” Chambliss ad, and gets his panties knotted. Then I post a link to the actual ad for everyone to look at, everyone sees that there’s no “morph” or comparison, and all the lefties disappear back into the crawl space with no apology. They pretend they never spread the lie.

    Do we really have to do this all over again? It’s really easier if you just admit you lied and got caught. Again.

  544. 544.

    Redleg

    July 29, 2006 at 12:19 pm

    Bender,
    So when is your hero Bush gonna get caught for his many lies, deceptions, and utter bullcrap? Bush is divisive in the sense that he and his braintrust, KKKarl Rove, and their proxies (Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly, Coulter, and so on) want conservative Americans to actually hate, despise, and discriminate against liberals, gays, agnostics, and others who dissent from Bush’s increasingly dictatorial rule. Howard Dean hasn’t called for this level of hatred against anybody.

  545. 545.

    scs

    August 1, 2006 at 1:44 am

    Howard Dean hasn’t called for this level of hatred against anybody.

    Unless you count Howard Dean’s actual statement “I hate Republicans.”

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • Spanky on Sunday Morning Garden Chat: Exotic Orchids (Sep 24, 2023 @ 6:42am)
  • lowtechcyclist on Open Thread: Exciting News — Andy Kim Is Contesting Menedez’s Seat (Sep 24, 2023 @ 6:24am)
  • satby on Sunday Morning Garden Chat: Exotic Orchids (Sep 24, 2023 @ 6:16am)
  • Betty Cracker on Open Thread: Exciting News — Andy Kim Is Contesting Menedez’s Seat (Sep 24, 2023 @ 6:11am)
  • satby on Sunday Morning Garden Chat: Exotic Orchids (Sep 24, 2023 @ 6:09am)

🎈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!