Since November. Ok, so it started at 3% and the rest of the poll is positively heinous. In particular look at that drop among Republicans and conservatives – 70% to 47% among the GOP. Soon enough the Bush camp will mostly be bloggers and commenters trying not to eat their earlier triumphalism.
But hey, they’ll always have Baghdad Tony.
***Update***
That wasn’t entirely fair. 20-30 percent of Chileans remain nostalgic for the government of Augusto Pinochet (Word doc, citing this book) in spite of the rampant torture, disappearances and sham trials that characterized his ugly reign. I guess there is a constituency for just about anything.
Zifnab
Proving that Republicans will tolerate incompetence, stupidity, feckless immorality, and a complete lack of all values conservative or otherwise, but what they won’t tolerate is a loser.
Also proving that Bush is a loser.
Mike
What a scumbag…it is hard to imagine how he can go home at night and sleep. I guess it is a good thing I can’t imagine it after all.
scarshapedstar
Soon? Will?
Zifnab
the?
jake
No wait, we’ve already passed that point…
Jess
tee hee!
TenguPhule
The Future is now.
Salty Party Snax
Anybody remember when Barry Goldwater and a few other Republicans went over to the White House and informed Richard Nixon that they would vote to impeach?
Too bad there are no such patriots in the GOP anymore.
Salty Party Snax
Just when you thought Texas had already set the unbeatable world record for stupidity …
Texas Legislator Introduces Bill To Allow Blind People To Hunt
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16157202/
Pb
Salty Party Snax,
I wonder what the personal evidentiary standard is like for the Texas legislature…
Oh snap, stop the presses! He’s seen this on TV before? Well, what are you waiting for, pass the bill already!
TenguPhule
As long as they’re only partnered with Republicans in the field…I approve. After all, it’s not like they could possibly have worse aim then Dick Cheney.
lard lad
Long as we’ve already wandered from the thread topic…
Light a fart, one and all, in memory of Augusto Pinochet, fascist scumbag supreme.
If there’s a hell, here’s hoping he’s roasting on a spit right in the heart of it, with a skewer right next to him reserved for his enabler Henry Kissinger. (Here’s cookin’ at ya, Henry.)
Wonder how long it would take me to Google up some pro-Pinochet douchebag like Krauthammer, Kristol or Steyn, defending Old Fingernail Yanker for standing tall agin the Commies.
“Sure, Pinochet tortured, terrorized and slaughtered his people for decades. But Salvador Allende was a (shudder) M-Marxist!”
Hmmm — maybe Darrell or scs will mount the defense…
The Other Steve
Clearly this is a bipartisan scandal.
pie
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!
Salty Party Snax
New WP-ABC News Poll erupted this morning. 7 in 10 disapprove of the handling of the war, 6 in 10 say it was not worth fighting. 36% Bushie approval, down from 40% in the last go ’round.
Bush is one big old albatross around the neck of the GOP.
Faux News
Yep. I imagine the Repubs are excited about what Bush can do for them in the 2008 elections.
Gray
Totally OT, sry:
Tom, John, would you pls consider endorsing The Moderate Voice for ‘Best Centrist Blog’ at the Weblog Awards 2006?
http://2006.weblogawards.org/2006/12/best_centrist_blog.php
Of course, I would prefer to vote for Balloon Juice, but, sadly, you’re not on that list…
And I know, this hunting for awards is a bit ridiculous, and I usually don’t participate in this. But this year, Ann Althouse has somehow managed to trick the panel into letting her run as a centrist. A total travestie, in my eyes. Seems like she is p***ed about Joe Gandelman’s site because of a single story she didn’t like:
http://www.themoderatevoice.com/posts/1165782277.shtml
Don’t let her get away with this. !No Pasaran!
Vote The Moderate Voice, pls!
Gray
“Tom”!??? Oops, sry, Tim…
Zifnab
Not be on the ballot? Didn’t seem to help them in ’06.
ThymeZone
Dangerous times. I think Bush is a serious mental case, and he’s becoming more and more powerless and more and more isolated. His “administration” is basically over, other than the fact that it rolls downhill for two more years until his term expires. But he has no power to actually govern anything. The government functions, when it does, despite him.
He has a “big speech” coming up this week or early next, supposedly, when he’ll describe his “way forward.” Of course we’ll compare and contrast with the “big speech” he gave last year around this time, describing the new plan for Victory in Iraq. That plan lasted about five minutes. How long will this new one last?
The biggest danger now is that he’ll be hitting the bottle and do something really crazy just to prove how macho he is.
Darrell
Allende was not just a Marxist, but the kind of Marxist who sent goon squads to take private factories and ranches, pretty much like Robert Mugabe (another marxist) has done in Zimbabwe.. The Chilean Senate and Judiciary had called for Allende’s removal as he was bankrupting the country, violating the constitution, stealing private homes, factories and ranches, and running his own parallel judiciary in true dictator fashion.. A nice primer here for the little minds like lardass.
Darrell
Well given that his predecessor Allende had invited thousands of Cuban insurgents into Chile along with Cuban arms, running the country into bankruptcy, 500% inflation, parallel judiciary and all, it wasn’t just 20-30 percent at the time his was removed. It was most Cubans. Which is why the Chilean and Senate and Judiciary had already voted to remove Allende from office.
Pinochet was an brutal ahole, but keep in mind that at that time he had to fight a Cuban backed insurgency within his country which threatened to take over. How many of those who were killed/tortured were actively working with Cuban forces to accomplish that treasonous takeover is anyone’s guess. But the number is definitely not zero.
For all the talk about Pinochet’s wrongdoings, and there were plenty, don’t you lefties find it a teeeny bit inconsistent not to say one word regarding Che Guevara, whose face is on your tee shirts?.. a sadistic mass killer if there ever was one.
Darrell
It was most Chileans, not Cubans. mistype
ThymeZone
Darrell’s here. Thread closed.
Tim F.
Some days I wonder whether you are even capable of making an argument without obvious fallacies, Darrell. Give it a try sometime.
Bombadil
I don’t f*cking believe it. He quotes a snarky post suggesting he’ll defend Pinochet and then actually defends Pinochet.
While Darrell’s clueless idiocy may not be infinite, it’s edges cannot be seen through any telescope yet devised. Absolutely mind-boggling.
Darrell
What’s so “obvious” about it? Just because you feel uncomfortable when I point out obvious leftist hypocrisy and double standards doesn’t make it a fallacy.
Leftists to a man roundly denounce Pinochet as the embodiment of all evil, while at the same time not saying one damn word over Che, another latin American mass killer of that era. Because Che’s mass killings were the ‘good’ kind, right? Entirely relevant observation.
grumpy realist
Darrell, you are wrong. In discussions with friends, have denounced Pinochet. I have done similarly against Che. I am a leftist.
Therefore, you are wrong. Please apologize.
Bombadil
Fixed
Darrell
I’ll apologize to you, as you are the rare exception, but my point still stands tall. All you have to do is look at any leftist cause or march to see tons of Che flags and Tee shirts. With damn few exceptions, the same leftists who decry Pinochet never say jack sh*t about Che. If anything, they glorify him. This is not opinion, it is a fact.
Tim F.
Good question. Let’s see if we can find it in the same post.
Yup, there it is. I don’t think you even realize the defective thinking that you are showing here.
Darrell
Bombadil, you need to do a better job of keeping up with the number of aliases under which you post. There was only one snarky post suggesting I might defend Pinochet, and that was made by an entity calling itself “lard lad”.
Prior to lard lad’s post and my response, you had not posted anything under your ‘Bombadil’ name. Why do you jackasses feel you need to post under so many different aliases? Is it mental illness?
Bombadil
I do rebuke him. Despite the fact that he’s been dead for 39 years and is relevant only to peabrained, right-wing shithooks who need something to hit lefties with and have to go back four decades to find it, I do rebuke him.
Feel better?
Darrell
TimF as usual, skirts around all substance of my argument, pretending he’s so above it all. Typical.
Darrell
Do you see any irony that others are going back almost 4 decades to Pinochet’s rise to power?
Salty Party Snax
Darrell’s Rule # 210A – If you mention a right wing tyrant, you are required to note that there were left wing tyrants just as bad.
Otherwise you’re not being fair to right wing tyrants.
Or something.
Bombadil
And yet here you responded to one of my posts.
I’ve been using this alias, and only this alias, for months now. Prior to that I used my own name; this was the only place I did that, and I made the decision to go with the same name I use everywhere else I post.
What other aliases are you suggesting are me?
Tim F.
The substance of your argument, Darrell, is the exact same composition fallacy that you make every single time that you post something.
Let me illustrate. Have I ever worn a Che Guevara shirt? Defended Che Guevara? Let’s stipulate that you have no way of knowing. In fact I would be surprised if you had any evidence that a single person with whom you have interacted here ever defended Che Guevara.
The “substance” of your point is that we are obligated to bring up Che every time we mention Augusto Pinochet because of our collective guilt over defending Che, even though you don’t know whether any of us have ever done so. Amazingly you even have the nerve to state your fallacy in the baldest terms, as I quoted above.
There have been many bloody killers in Latin America and elsewhere, Darrell. Do you demand that people recite a list of bad people every time that we name one of them? That could take awhile. You only think that you have a point about Che because you believe that every leftist, “to a man” (your words), is tainted with the sin of Che-philia.
This is defective thinking, Darrell. It’s lazy and, to use a word that you obviously cherish, it is dishonest. Sadly more often than not your “argument” depends on the exact same habit of pitching all “leftists” into a homogenous category defined by a stupid few and then attacking individuals based on your invented category.
Steve
It’s just amazing to see the glorification of Pinochet by so many right-wingers, including mainstream publications like NRO. Absolutely stunning. Is it any wonder we call bullshit when they try to cite humanitarian reasons for deposing Saddam?
This can’t be surprising to anyone. Every tyrant has a favored class of people who prosper under him; ask the folks back home in Tikrit and they’d probably tell you Saddam was the greatest leader EVAR. Likewise, there are plenty of people doing well economically under Bush who could give a shit about anything else.
les
Fixed. And redundant.
Darrell
I misread your post. Apologies, as you weren’t claiming to have written the snarky remark.
Darrell
I haven’t seen anything that could honestly be characterized as “glorification” of Pinochet by right wing sites.. What I have seen from leftists is dishonest characterizations of Allende as some benign leftist.
chopper
yeah, that’s totally the same as sending goon squads to round up and torture/kill people.
i forgot, according to conservatives property is more important than human life.
Darrell
Show us Tim, where I ever suggested you all are obligated “every time” to bring up Che when mentioning Pinochet.
You’d be hard pressed to find more than a tiny handful of denunciates of Che from leftist sites. That, combined with the plethora of Che flags and Che t-shirts at virtually every leftist event and protest march, indicates serious double standards.
Zifnab
I will be the first to admit that I was seduced by Che Guevara and his valiant communist struggle, but only because of his super cool hat.
He was pro-torture, pro-war, anti-freedom of speech, pro-executive controlled judicary, anti-election reform, and for low taxes. Do these policies sound familiar?
Bombadil
Does that apology extend to being totally wrong about this?
And is it also an apology for this?
There are so many things in that one little post about which you were wrong — just what is it you’re apologizing for?
jenniebee
sigh… the WaPo beat him to it anyway. Take it away, Glenn.
Steve
It’s like a caricature of a conservative, something DougJ might write. “Yeah, he had flaws, but at least he was dedicated to free-market principles, and by the way there are leftists who were worse!” If I didn’t see evidence of such people all over the Internet, I truly wouldn’t believe they exist.
Darrell
Allende was driving the country into bankruptcy including 500% inflation, he had invited Cuban insurgents and arms into the country creating instability, and was running a parallel judiciary system in violation of the constitution.
The Chilean Senate and Judiciary had voted for Allende’s removal and they got it. It’s entirely reasonable to argue that as a result of Pinochet taking power, despite the brutality, that overall, Chile is far better off as a result than if Allende had been allowed to stay in power.
Darrell
Of course it’s a lie to characterize position as such, as evidenced by what I’ve written on this thread. But as a typical leftist jackass, Steve feels more comfortable attributing cliched strawman positions to me rather than addressing my points directly.
Zifnab
You know what the difference between Che Guevara and Pinochet was, Darrell? Che wasn’t a power hungry SOB. He was a combat medic, a populist, a brilliant speaker, and an idealist of the best/worst sort. Che killed a bunch of people and got a bunch of people killed, but at least he didn’t do it sitting on a throne. He was a revolutionary’s revolutionary, a guy committed to the idea even if his means were cheap and brutal and his ends a failure. And he was no more bloodthirsty than Washington crossing the Potomac or Paul Reverie rallying the “insurgents” against God’s England.
You’d love to staple Guevara’s head up beside Pinochet’s because deep inside you know what an evil little fuck Pinochet was, and it comforts you to think Che was no better. Having good men in your faction is hard, but pissing on the next dude’s grave is so much easier.
Darrell
Clue to Steve: Running a parallel judiciary in violation of the constitution while inviting Cuban insurgents and arms into the country is a wee bit more threatening than the argument you attribute to me “but at least he was dedicated to free-market principles”
I don’t blame you though, for not addressing my points forthrightly. When you’re not standing on solid ground, it’s probably best to make sh*t up like you’re doing.
Darrell
Case in point of what I’ve been saying. Similar examples and exuse making abound among leftists. Che was a sadistic mass killer who would torture and taunt his victims for hours, clicking the gun trigger with empty chambers and the like.
I’ve got to run for now, but later I will so address this “noble Che”, “Che wasn’t so bad” crap so firmly believed by so many on the left.
pie
If only Zimbabwe produced a Pinochet-like leader to take this Mugabe character out and deal with his Marxist policies and supporters, the nation, the region, and the world would become a better and safer place.
Tim F.
Now you’re skirting the point of my argument. Talk about irony.
Zifnab
Ok, let’s have the Pinochet/Guevara-off Darrell. I’ll await your return. I’m fairly confident I can come up with a few more pros and a few less cons from my leftist guerilla mass-murderer than your right-wing tyrant king.
Darrell
The world would be better off without Robert Mugabe. In comparison to Mugabe, Pinochet was an angel of light.
Steve
Well, actually, I think the historical record documents that Che was quite a bit more bloodthirsty than, say, Washington. On some level, his goals may have been noble, but on the micro level he was pretty brutal to a lot of people.
This kind of brings up the point, though, that to many people Che is nothing more than a symbol. Now, personally, I don’t long for worldwide socialist revolution (which presumably sets me apart from “every other leftist in existence”), but heck, Che isn’t even a symbol of THAT any more; in the eyes of many he’s just a symbol for the idea of revolution in general, the idealized thought of rising up against The Man. It’s amusing that when a college student wears a Che t-shirt some conservatives fall over themselves to proclaim “see! yet another leftist glorifying Che’s brutality” when the likely reality is that they probably know zilch about Che himself aside from the fact that he was a revolutionary.
This is an important difference. If the people defending Pinochet were a bunch of clueless College Republicans saying “hey, at least he was against Communism, dude that’s awesome!” then I’d just kind of shrug it off. But we’re talking about grown adults who are fully aware of Pinochet’s historical record, still finding a way to praise his economic policies and to point out that there were leftists who were worse. It’s the kind of moral emptiness that causes some conservatives to think they’re scoring points by showing that Stalin killed more people than Hitler.
We’re talking about a guy who brutally executed any number of opponents of his regime, and when the graves were discovered, defended himself by pointing out how efficient it was to bury people two to a grave. What a glorious enemy of Communism. What a credit to all the conservatives who turn over rocks in search of the “good” parts of his record.
nongeophysical Dennis
Darrell,
You are a foul tempered and foul mouthed boor.
No, I’m not addressing your points, why, you might ask (probably in a foul mouthed and foul temeprd fashion)?
Here’s why not–if you don’t feel like sticking to the given topic (Pinochet–who is in the news because he just died) I don’t think I need to stick to your topic whether or not Che was, like, totally f*#king awesome.
Yeah sure Tamerlane built mounds out of the skulls of the slaughtered, but Hugo Chavez called Bush the devil.
One topic at a time. That’s what open threads are for.
The Other Steve
Pointing an empty gun at someone looks like a humanitarian gesture compared to the shit Bush has endorsed.
The Other Steve
I don’t know if I’m right or left anymore, but I’m not in favor of a worldwide socialist revolution.
Allende was worse!
Steve
Ok, fine, that’s the two of us, but surely everyone else on the left wants to march into battle against our capitalist oppressors with Zombie Che at the head of the formation. Practically everyone who votes Democratic fits this description, I’m fairly certain.
The Other Steve
This is another sad example of Moral Relativity. It’s ok for Pinochet to kill people, but not for Mugabe. Because well, uhh, Pinochet helps me personally profit.
From my perspective they’re both evil.
wilfred
I did some work recently on a documentary film that compares the post-September 11th experiences of Chile and the US, Pinochet’s coup having occurred on September 11, 1973. What happened to Chile under Pinochet is the grossest sort of crime – to hear the families of the desparacidos would make most humans weep. 30 years from now people will make documentaries about Bush and post-9/11 America, we’ll have plenty of our own ‘disappeareds’ by then.
The Other Steve
I think there are like maybe 12 people that fit that description. Maybe 15, if we include their children.
Hyperion
could we get back to the real point here?
read Greenwald who is as usual on target.
Some time ago Fearless Leader told us that we were no longer going to support leaders like Pinochet. i don’t recall him qualifying this with “but only in the ME”. How is Pinochet significantly different from the Shah? He served US interests at the expense of the citizenry.
I love well-written snark…
chopper
it’s the sort of thing you’d expect to see at a fraternity party.
The Other Steve
Damn, it looks like Bush won’t announce his Great Leap Forward plan until after X-mas.
Steve
Maybe. I mean, personally, I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone in my life who revered either Che or Castro. But I’m assured that the overwhelming majority of liberals feel this way, by people who surely wouldn’t exaggerate, so I’m not sure what to believe.
p.lukasiak
I once had a che guevera “Venceremos” poster on my wall — because it was cool-looking (early 70’s day-glo), and was free. I still don’t know what “Venceremos” means, however.
Gold Star for Robot Boy
Darrell’s firebombs, and everyone else’s reaction to such, make this site damn near unreadable.
There, I said it.
Krista
Che Guevara’s picture is on the t-shirts of a bunch of students who have no idea who he was, just that he was a revolutionary, and that his picture is kind of cool-looking. Why don’t you just accuse all lefties of playing hacky-sack and wearing dreadlocks while you’re at it?
Steve
“Vencer” means “to conquer.” “Venceremos” means “we shall conquer.” Now you know!
Krista
During my dorm days, I tended to gravitate towards Monet prints (which coordinated with my quilt and my hand-sewn curtains.) It was a rather peaceful setting for the debauchery, really.
Zifnab
That’s hot.
Zombie Santa Claus
Mugabe… gets… no… toys… I… want… BRAINS!
Faux News
Well personally I’m happy about this. It gives me time to plan for making home made steel in a wok in my backyard.
Darrell
In some cases, yes, like Zifnab, they like Che only because he had a cool hat or in their eyes, stood up to THE MAN. But there are just too many Che flags and Tshirts at leftist supported rallies and protest marches not to acknowledge that many other leftists know damn well the atrocities Che committed, but still support him.
With regards to Pinochet, there is a valid argument to be made that Allende was running the country into the ground economically to an extreme degree (growing unemployment, 500% inflation, investment dried up with factories and ranches siezed, etc), and threatening Chile’s stability by inviting Cuban insurgents and arms into his country. I’ll have to look up the exact numbers again, but under Allende, the Cuban embassy in Chile had grown to thousands, and arms shipments from Cuba had been discovered. The question is, all things considered, is/was Chile better off overall with Pinochet taking control from Allende? And it’s not morally bankrupt to ask the question, particularly with Pinochet’s ascension to power being fully supported by the Chilean Senate and Judiciary at that time.
First of all, since you have characterized conservatives of “glorifying” Pinochet as an embracer of ‘free market principles’, let me point out to you that Pinochet supported the nationalization of the Chilean copper mines, the largest component of the Chilean economy at that time, and perhaps the largest part of the economy in Chile even today. No way can one square Pinochet’s nationalization of the copper mines with embracing free market principles, and those that attempt to do so, on the left and the right, are simply ignorant of the facts.
Pinochet did embrace free market principles more than Allende, and he turned around the economy in chile from what Allende had destroyed.. but nationalization of the copper mines clearly eliminates Pinochet from being a true free market advocate.
Darrell
It also means “to overcome”.
And a minor quibble: use of the -emos for future tense verb conjugation is usually equivalent to “we will”, not “we shall”, except in Mexico where it does come across as “we shall”. In Mexico, they would typically say “vamos a vencer” instead of the -emos future tense verb conjugation.
Darrell
Although I think your analogy is reasonable, I’d point out that things were better in Iran under the Shah, than they are with the mullahs in control.
The Other Steve
You are so right, Darrell. The People of Iran were much better off when they were being tortured by the Shah’s secret police, than they are being tortured by the Mullahs.
At least under the Shah they had free booze and could drink themselves into unconciousness while tortured.
TenguPhule
What do you expect from an idiot like Darrell?
He has a bad habit of being unable to tell people apart and confusing his own personal delusions with reality.
TenguPhule
Oh sweet irony. Darrell who claims Iraq is better off without Saddam believes Iran was better off with the Shah.
Spoofers, you’re out of a job here.
Darrell
Are you so ignorant to think the Mullahs aren’t torturing and killing? Of course you are.
Bombadil
TOS says, “The Mullahs are torturing people”. And Darrell says, “You’re wrong, the Mullahs are torturing people”.
And Darrell things TOS is ignorant.
Unlimited asshattery.
Darrell
TOS mocked the statement that Iranians were better off under the Shah than they are under the mullahs. That is the very crux of his post. Sorry you are too stupid to understand that.
Darrell
And it wasn’t just TOS who mocked it
Stupid is as stupd does I suppose.
Zifnab
Ironic POTD
Bombadil
I’m seriously beginning to wonder if English is Darrell’s primary language.
Darrell
The Shah was modernizing Iran, moving towards more secular govt and more rights for women. Compare that to sharia law under the mullahs. I think you leftists mocking the idea that things in Iran were better for the average Iranian compared to life now under the mullahs.. well, you’re just ignorant. I don’t know any other way to put it.
SeesThroughIt
Mark Noonan, wingnut extraordinaire, at your service.
Remember: The most important thing about Pinochet’s death is that it didn’t result in condemnation of Castro. And just where do these radical leftist assholes get off attempting to try Pinochet for his crimes? That’s total pussy behavior (unless we do it in Iraq, in which case it is make benefit glorious nation America). Also, as per the first part of Steve’s quote:
If you denigrate Pinochet, you denigrate democracy, freedom-haters!
Darrell
That’s actually a good point. Leftists, by and large, are hypocrites for focusing such a disproportionate amount of criticism on Pinochet. And the left screams like stuck pigs whenever you point out their double standards.
Faux News
Is this a bad time to remind Darrell that the CIA overthrew the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran in 1953 and installed the Shah?
(Goggle “Operation Ajax”, I’m not going to do it for you)
That went pretty well for us didn’t it?
Steve
Isn’t it hilarious that anyone could be stupid enough to see this as a good point? Yes, I really think we should put in a request for Cuba to extradite Fidel Castro for trial. What an awesome idea. Why more people don’t devote their time to this effort, I don’t know, but I’m pretty sure it’s liberal hypocrisy!
Darrell
I’m not sure what that has to with the subject being discussed – whether or not Iranians by and large are better off under the mullahs compared to life under the mullahs..
Overthrowing the Iranian govt at that time was a mistake. The Brits, who were the ones with the oil interests in Iran at the time, pushed us to do it. We shouldn’t have listened to them, but we did.
Darrell
Why so many leftists spent so much energy to go after Pinochet, with no similar corresponding efforts to go after Castro is hypocrisy.
SeesThroughIt
It’s because the left fucking loooooooooves Castro. Duh.
Darrell
Pinochet, unlike Castro, willingly gave up power. Chile, under Pinochet, grew to be the economic star of south America. Under Castro, Cuba went from one of the richest latin countries to the poorest. Then there’s the killings, the imprisoning of political opponents, and the imprisonment in Cuba for selling vegetables on the black market.
Why is that so much leftist energy was focused on Pinochet, with so little on Castro? Leftists don’t like their hypocrisy being pointed out to them.
TenguPhule
Darrell doesn’t seem to realize how silly he looks arguing out of both sides of his mouth at the same time.
Darrell
Damn it, I’m making too many typos today. Should have been whether or not Iranians by and large are better off under the Shah compared to life under the mullahs
TenguPhule
Sigh, damn missed closure.
TenguPhule
Fixed.
Darrell
TenguFool says Saddam was “modernizing” Iraq. Modernizing = building palaces throughout the country filled with cash and guns, and monuments to Saddam. Perhaps Saddam was also considering redecorating the childrens’ prisons as part of his modernization efforts.
Just curious..are the few smart liberals here ever embarrassed by how damn stupid most of the other liberals posting here are?
TenguPhule
Darrell is pursuing a new low in irony here.
TenguPhule
Sometimes Darrell makes it too easy.
Zifnab
Mortified.
Bombadil
Constantly.
Bombadil
Just curious..are the few smart conservatives here ever embarrassed by how damn stupid Darrell is?
The Other Steve
Are you so ignorant to think it’s not overcast outside?
Of course you are.
The Other Steve
I suspect it’s the reason why they stopped coming here. Darrell is the reason why I’m no longer a republican.
Darrell
You’ve posted before that you switched away from the Republican party back in the 90’s. TOS is so dishonest, his lying is almost pathological.
Steve
My wife (who is more liberal than me) is constantly puzzled by my complaints that there are no longer any Republicans I could consider voting for. For her whole adult life, she’s looked around and seen nothing but one Darrell after another, so she doesn’t understand the concept of a sane Republican.
TenguPhule
Oxymoron in this day and age.
Steve
Yes, dear.
Richard 23
Hahaha, what a fun read! Darrell is a stupid poopyhead! An obvious outcast from Scrutator and Shelley the Republican.
cellar door
I’m mostly a lurker here and a seldom commenter, but I agree very much with te commenter above that Darrell renders the comment threads here virtually unreadable. Someone a bit back posted a script for the Greasemonkey extension that blocks selected commenters from showing in Firefox – does anyone here remember what it was?
I enjoy a lot of the discussions here until Darrell and the people who continually goad him on start up. Usually any comment thread with more than 50 or so replies is toxic Darrell-and-company sludge.
It’s a shame, really. The posts here are great – they show actual thought about politics, without slavish regurgitation of talking points.
pie
I miss Scrutator. Sometimes, I wonder what those krazy kids would’ve made of all the current fun and games.
me
Darrell is the only person here with any sense and grasp of reality. The rest of you lefty liberals can read and cheer on Cole’s leftist defeatist rants. A sad case of BDS.
Zombie Santa Claus
Fuck you, me.
Wait, that doesn’t make sense. Fuck me, you. No! Wait…