Apparently things are more dire than we thought, and if we do not have the Gas Tax Holiday, the good folks at Corrente will be forced to survive on ramen noodles and ketchup packets. I think we will all agree that is a better choice than their current diet of paint chips and bullshit election year talking points, but still a pretty sad situation.
At any rate, Sen. Clinton, I beg you to introduce your bill so we can get it passed immediately.
What? There is still no bill? What? It won’t get passed? What, even if it did, no one would see any real savings anyway?
Shit. As a newly minted member of the creative class, I am fresh out of ideas, because, let’s face it- what gets more creative than pretending people are starving to death and won’t find relief unless Obama is beaten rhetorically with a mythical gas tax holiday proposal? I mean, it is pretty hard to top that.
*** Update ***
Read August. I went down that rabbit hole once. Not this time.
*** Update #2 ***
Eureka! We have a bill!
MobiusKlein
“Let them eat rhetoric!”
To be fair, I hear rhetoric goes well with a side of change.
Pb
Hey now, leave Hillary alone — if she had to propose a bill every time she made some stupid, half-hearted pander, she’d be… an accomplished Senator with an impressive legislative record by now? See also, her consistent lack of support for Sen. Lautenberg’s anti-OPEC efforts over the years (h/t to empty for mentioning him) — that goes for S.2964 (introduced this week), S.752 in 2005, S.2624 in 2004…
Dennis - SGMM
Um, maybe Congress is indeed against her. Surprising that if this is such a grand idea not one Representative from either party has introduced the bill.
cleek
seems like a great opportunity for her to demonstrate some of that leadership!
Throwin Stones
Off topic –
Anyone else hearing about FBI searching the Office of General Council, and Special Counsel Scott J. Bloch’s home?
Throwin Stones
link here
cleek
i’m sure it’s just a partisan witch-hunt ginned-up by the demonrats during an election year. they probably have a book to sell, too.
nepat
Salon.com actually attempted to make a case for the silly “proposal.” Meanwhile, at one of the few blogs that dares to let the bright light of reality shine through (like you, Steve!), please read this expert analysis of how today and rest of the week will play out: http://208.76.84.21/thefield/?p=1160
MSM – we’re onto you!
Jen
To quote, I believe it was Rose Kennedy, re: her son being in Virginia…
“Who’s Virginia?”
Thanks, I’m here all week.
4tehlulz
TPM has it on the front page. Apparently DOJ gets bitchy when someone outside the White House scrubs his/her computer.
Dennis - SGMM
You run for president with the legislative record you have – not the one your constituents wish you had.
Jen
Does, “Who’s Carolina?” work better…?
Tom Hilton
I have tried like hell not to call the ODS sufferers racist…but this whole ‘elitist’ bullshit has pushed me over the edge. Tell me: if you characterize Obama supporters as ‘elitist’, whom do you leave out? Oh, yeah: African-Americans. In other words, the ‘elitist Obamaniacs’ meme is predicated on the assumption that African-Americans don’t count. What a bunch of disgusting racist fucks.
demimondian
Where’s Bill? Why, you worrying about Monica *again*? That’s *so* over…
Keith
If I’m living off $30/month for food and spending so much more than on gas that taking out just part of the tax doubles my food budget, I’m selling my car & taking the bus.
jake
That’s too involved a process John.
Only the out of touch “creative class” would consider indulging in the luxury of drafting, introducing and lobbying for a bill. People are hurting and they need help right now. Elitist non-bowling legislators who hate the working class might consider doing things your way but what about the millions of men and women who can’t pay for gas? How’s your precious process going to help them John? Huh?
chopper
god, i just love the tornadic spin the hillbots are throwing around in this whole situation. it’s like the bosnia nonsense. just admit its an idiotic, pandering idea and move on.
Blue Buddha
Hillary did introduce a bill a few days ago, as was pointed out in this S,N! post
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-2971
I guess the text of the bill isn’t available yet.
myiq2xu
I fully expect that when Hillary wins in November there will be news reports of a WVU faculty member running through the woods of West Virginia screaming “She’s a lesbian! A lesbian!”
Rick Taylor
I remember when Clinton supporters roasted Obama for his reckless words about going into Pakistan with out Musharraf’s permission, and rightly, I felt; even if we would I don’t think it was diplomatic to say so to score points in a debate. Of course now when Clinton threatens to obliterate Iran and defends her remarks, when she makes off-the-cuff proposals to expand our nuclear shield to Saudi Arabia (except now her campaign staff says she didn’t), to sue opec, and of course the gas tax holiday, it’s all evidence of her incredible policy acumen.
The vidoe at that link is enlightening, it really is the old politics, as Obama said. She even invokes the cold war.
Dennis - SGMM
Yeah, time to climb up into the bed of another borrowed pickup and belch forth with another idiotic, pandering idea. Has she tried the “free chicken and dumplings for every American” gambit yet or is she saving that one?
Jen
Have you connected the dots to her winning the primary yet? Tell me how that plays out. Be sure to break down your delegate and superdelegate totals.
ThymeZone
As I said to an adjacent thread, this asshole of a woman is not just embarassing and hurting the Democratic Party at this point, she is actually endangering the United States with her reckless talk of breaking up OPEC and pimping an energy strategy that can only end in higher oil prices and reduced availability of the resource.
She’ll obliterate Iran, and then …. start a war with the rest of the Middle East over oil?
The woman is fucking crazy and dangerous right now, and somebody needs to shut her the fuck up.
Pooh
myiq2xu, artist’s rendition.
Seitz
This was by far the best post:
Is this dude making deliveries to Buenos Aires? $276 at .18/gallon is 1,533 gallons. If this person drives a real gas guzzler, like 10 mpg, that’s 15,000 miles, in fifteen weeks! Double that if the car gets less than great mileage (20 mpg). I’ve had my car for five years now (paid off!) and it’s got less than 40k on it (I know that not exactly run of the mill). Gotta love the intellectual honesty of Hillary supporters.
Grand Moff Texan
Lambert:
They were up your butt, you dumb
.
Dave
Has anyone even asked Hillary how she’ll pass the SECOND part of her Magical Gas Plan?? Passing a feel-good tax suspension that does shit is easy. But do you think the GOP in the Senate will let a windfall tax bill on the oil companies even get to the floor?
So her big idea is one part bullshit and one part fairy dust. I’ve already had eight years of that, thank you very much, and I’m ready for a change.
jrg
If HRC is still running tomorrow, someone should compile a “guess who said it” list comparing Hillary Clinton to Ann Coulter, in the style of the Falwell/Bin Laden quiz.
HRC sounds more and more like Coulter with each passing day.
That said, I’d almost rather this country elect Coulter over Clinton. At least Coulter had the creativity to come up with the original “latte libel”. All Clinton is doing is re-hashing it.
I’m starting to think that I would not even vote for a ticket with Clinton as V.P. I’m not going to vote for someone who has this much contempt for the people she’s supposed to be “leading”.
Grand Moff Texan
Get me! I’m an elitist! I can read!
.
Grand Moff Texan
Hillary Rodham Coulter. Perfect.
.
jake
Jesus Christ. I had to hack through the jungles of her website to find this thing.
The text of the bill. [pdf]
PeterJ
Being able to count is elitist.
Clinton supporters can’t count, if they could, they would have been able to understand that it’s over. Clinton supporters aren’t elitists.
Start the purge!
Blue Buddha
You’ve got a point there.
Mary
Look who’s co-sponsoring the bill.
Off Colfax
Well, isn’t that just bloody convenient for her. She can shout to the rooftops about how she has a bill, and be so very elusive as to what the bill actually contains. Meanwhile, she’ll pump this into a whole two point swing from the undecideds and launch back into her “moral victory” diatribe.
clussman
I’ve seen debate about how much or little of Clinton’s gax tax credit would be passed forward to consumers and, frankly, I’m baffled. It’s not a retail tax. It’s an excise tax imposed at production. What Hillary is saying is that instead of charging the oil companies a gas tax, she wants to charge the oil companies a gas tax. Oh, but she’ll call it a windfall profits tax.
Since nothing actually changes, consumers won’t realize any savings.
Why hasn’t anybody brought up the fact that it’s an excise tax?
I’ve heard her supporters talk about state level gas tax holidays where at least some of the savings were passed on to consumers. Those are retail taxes that the consumer is paying to the government. No middle-man involved. And in those cases usually only about half of the savings were realized with the retailers pocketing the other half.
w vincentz
Pander, pander, pander…
Follow the money…
If I knew how to post a link, I would. Just go to the Boston Globe and read for yourselves the amounts that BIG OIL has contributed to each of the three candidates.
McSame 1st, Hillshit 2nd, Bammy 3rd.
Oh…shoulda warned ya…they’re all takin’, not sending any dollars back.
chopper
so how does her bill pass constitutional muster? the senate can modify tax bills (like cutting an excise tax), but a new tax such as taxing the oil companies must be proposed in the house. i noticed in her bill she calls it a ‘fee’, but is that gonna cut it?
cleek
hey, lookee that! it even has the “windfall profit” stuff in it!
Zuzu
I like August J. Pollack a lot.
His comic about Jonah’s fantasy Pulitzer “nomination” was priceless.
Zifnab
I’ll say this. If McCain had been allowed to pitch this ridiculous idea in a vacuum, it would have been held up as the gold standard for economic integrity and fiscal good sense. Fortunately, Hillary Clinton swooped in to steal the idea, which is now about as dead as a fucking doornail. Any GOP flunkie who agrees with a gas tax cut can be safely labeled a Hillbot. And the media can turn the camera on everyone from nobel prize winners to Chuck, the guy who owns the convinence store on the corner of Bing and 6th Street, that think this is a stupid move.
I hereby propose that every wingnut retarded thought McCain announces should be parroted by Clinton at the earliest possible convenience to ensure all his ideas are properly vetted.
nightjar
Hillybear in her natural environment.
John S.
You do realize how insane this sounds, right?
Unless – as I suspect – you’re just full of shit and trolling for the fun of it.
Pug
whom do you leave out? Oh, yeah: African-Americans.
I’m thinking the AA’s may have their say in North Carolina today and they will count.
chopper
and hills – this windfall profits ‘fee’ in your bill…what’s it gonna pay for? you said it’d pay for alternative fuel research, now you’re saying it’s gonna pay for the highway fund. which one is it?
PeterJ
The time when he trolled just because it was fun passed months ago, now it’s just the mental illness and the alcohol talking.
Grand Moff Texan
Uh-huh.
And the Illinois gas tax cut? Was that a retail tax?
.
jake
Why propose that which is already inevitable?
You
Clinton supporters have no more a brain than Bush supporters. They just parrot the latest crap put out from the campaign.
Jon H
Seems to me the key point in the gas tax cut ‘savings’ is that anyone paying attention will realize that, considering only the recent rate at which the price of gas is rising, any savings would last maybe a week.
This isn’t a case of gas being expensive just because of domestic concerns, or temporary issues like a refinery fire cutting production.
The tax cut would only have a chance of making sense if the price of gas had gone from one stable level to a higher stable price level. Key word: stable.
That’s not what we have right now. Oil prices are climbing. Oil just broke $100/barrel this year. Now it’s already hitting $120.
Even if a tax holiday goes through, pretty soon the fools demanding one will be complaining “where’s that gas tax holiday you promised us”?
(And anyway, I hardly think taxpayers should subsidize the lifestyle choices of people who bought SUVs and sports cars for no good reason.)
Jon H
“GENERAL RULE.—For purposes of this chapter, the term ‘excess profit’ means the excess of the adjusted taxable income of the applicable taxpayer for the taxable year over the reasonably inflated average profit for such taxable year.”
That’s some fancy language. Better not let the commoners see it. They might think she traffics with ‘elites’.
orogeny
First, I thought that was a sensible statement from Obama. If Pakistan sheltered terrorists that are attacking American interests and refused to allow us to defend those interests, I don’t think we’d have any choice but to attack them (the terrorists), once we’ve exercised our other options (the UN, sanctions, etc.)with or without Musharraf’s blessing. I didn’t think we needed the Taliban’s permission to hit the Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan either.
As far as what Hillary said about obliterating Iran if they attacked Israel with a nuclear weapon, exactly what was so terrible about that? I always thought that it was a given…if any country attacked one of our closest allies with nuclear weapons, killing millions of people, the US would respond in kind or support a massive response on the part of our ally if they were capable. MAD was an effective US policy throughout the cold war; is there any reason to think that Iran is more suicidal than the old USSR?
Rick Taylor
Orogeny:
Well at least that’s consistent. And I agree that if we knew where Osama was in Pakistan, and if Musharraf refused to let us respond, we would almost certainly respond anyway, it’s just as a matter of diplomacy it’s not a wise thing to say. First it’s insulting to Musharraf, who’s an ally, as it’s implying he might not cooperate with us if we found the location of terrorists in his country. As people, including many Hillary supporters, pointed out at the time, other countries are listening to what the American President (or possible future President) is saying, and he or she has to always have that in mind when speaking. It was used as an example of Obama’s inexperience in foreign affairs. I bought that argument at the time. So I’m slack jawed now, with Hillary talking about “obliterating” Iran (which is not even a nuclear power at this point), and running up proposals to expand our nuclear umbrella.
flyerhawk
So HilRod finally submitted a bill. I see she threw in a suspension of adding fuel to the SPR. I guess she’s hoping that cutting demand and selling more domestic oil would drop prices thus making her holiday tax seem great.
And a 50% tax on oil company profits? Why not just take all of their profits?
But don’t worry there is so much ambiguity on what is a reasonable profit that the oil company’s won’t eve pay a dime.
4tehlulz
You mean other than the fact that Iran is not a nuclear state and not a threat? Or explicitly and publicly putting genocide on the table is one of the most appalling things imaginable?
If I’m Iranian, I’m thinking “Fuck it. Let’s just do what we want. It’s not like we’re not going to be threatened if we don’t get nukes.”
Gus
orogeny, I think that the statement about obliterating Iran is unhelpful diplomatically. It doesn’t help the U.S. in Iraq, and it makes the average Iranian think that the U.S. is out to destroy Iran. I think it’s pretty well understood that if Israel needed our help (and it’s pretty obvious that they don’t) in that area, they’d get it. It’s better to leave such things unspoken. Remember the diplomatic shitstorm Bush started by saying that we would fight China over Taiwan? I’m almost glad she said it, though. It’s a nice contrast to Obama’s stated interest in meeting with Iranian leaders.
orogeny
4tehlulz,
Clinton was asked the question on the context of “If Iran succeeded in getting nuclear weapons and then attacked Israel with them.” Here answer was identical to the logic I have seen coming from other liberals, including myself, that while it would be a good thing if we could convince Iran to abandon its nuclear program, it would not be the end of the world if they got them.
I’m sorry if you disagree, but I think it is a good thing when a candidate is willing to make our position clear to the world. I think the talk about attacking Iran in order to prevent them from getting nukes is far more irresponsible than saying, “Listen, Mahmoud, if you get nukes and then use them against one of our friends, you’re committing suicide.” There are some indications that the religious leaders in Iran may not be happy with Ahmadinejad’s confrontational attitude. Making it clear to Iran that even if they spend a few billion and manage to develop a nuclear capability, it won’t make them any more powerful than they would have been without them might make the mullahs decide against pissing away the money.
I wouldn’t have had a problem if Obama had said it and I don’t have a problem with Clinton saying it.
BTW, the simple fact that we have nuclear weapons in our arsenal puts genocide on the table. Otherwise why have them?
ThymeZone
Not only that, but your food budget has gone up more than $30 a month in the last year just to keep pace with rising grain prices. And it’s still going up. You are completely fucked.
But don’t worry, the Democrats will bomb Iran and break up OPEC to set it all straight. Well, if the HBeast wins, I mean.
ThymeZone
They’re a deterrent.
Which makes electioneer-chest-beating just a little repellent.
We laughed at McCain for suggesting an attack on Iran. But you seem happy with Clinton doing essentially the same thing.
We decried the Bush-Cheney Lunatic Asylum for their chest beating and saber rattling, but you seem happy with Clinton doing essentially the same thing.
We despised Joe Lieberman for this crap, but you seem happy with Clinton doing essentially the same thing.
And doing it just for a few votes in a primary election.
You fucking Hillabots have no shame when it comes to this stuff, do you?
Jon H
“As far as what Hillary said about obliterating Iran if they attacked Israel with a nuclear weapon, exactly what was so terrible about that?”
Apart from the fact that Israel has nuclear armed subs that can take care of it themselves? (One in the mediterranean, one in the Persian Gulf, and one on standby.)
And the need for sub-launched nukes for deterrence assumes that an Iranian nuke could take out Israeli long-range missiles in hardened silos.
Frankly, I’d much rather we be clear about that, than pussyfooting around pretending that Israel doesn’t have nukes, which results in poses like Clinton’s.
orogeny
Sometimes, Thymezone, your attachment to your candidate and your hatred of Hillary leads you to be just a tiny bit obtuse. You can be a real jerk sometimes, but I don’t hate you for supporting Obama. Why does my support for Clinton piss you off so much? Are you that insecure about your candidate that someone simply defending theirs sends you into a rage?
Out nuclear arsenal is indeed a deterrent, because of the plain threat that we would use them to obliterate a country that used nukes against our interests. They are a deterrent because it is clear that we will use them to defend our interests.
What McCain and Lieberman have done is exactly what I called irresponsible…threatening to attack Iran preemptively in order to prevent them from getting nukes. This is quite different from saying that if Iran were to get nukes and then used them against one of our allies, we would respond in kind. That is a simple statement of fact.
orogeny
“Our nuclear arsenal”, not “Out.” Mea culpa.
Brachiator
And if we had a mainstream media (and blogosphere) that didn’t have its head up its ass looking for Rev. Wright, it would be clear that Obama was right on Pakistan, while Senator Clinton was long on policy analysis, but short on anything remotely resembling realistic Pakistan policies. As I recall, she was here playing Pacifist Momma, promising to convince Pakistan to place all its nukes under UN control, a proposal as nutty as Blue Collar Momma Hillary’s insistence on a fantasy gas tax holiday.
Before Musharraf’s defeat, US military planners were strongly considering unilateral strikes into Pakistan.
Point to Obama.
Of course, now the situation in Pakistan is more dire, but I guess you have to look to elitist news organizations to get the skinny on this (U.S. Military Seeks to Widen Pakistan Raids):
And both Obama and the Tuzla Tigress might be be making more on information such as this, if only the media weren’t so interested in pointless new math allocations of delegates (U.S. Lacks a Pakistan Plan, Report Finds):
Obama also let an opportunity slip. In both Indiana and North Carolina, he should have asked how many people had sons and daughters, husbands and wives, in the military, and asked directly if they really wanted to spend time debating the merits of Clinton’s phony gas tax holiday, or did they want to vote for a candidate who would do all in his power to get their loved ones back, and who would craft a coherent foreign policy.
Jon H
“Get me! I’m an elitist! I can read!”
Ooooh! Get Her!
Jon H
orogeny wrote: “Out nuclear arsenal is indeed a deterrent, because of the plain threat that we would use them to obliterate a country that used nukes against our interests.”
The problem is that Clinton’s statement is the kind of political grandstanding belligerence that ends up making Iran more likely to target us in ways that don’t measure up to a nuclear response.
Of course, it’s easy for her to talk shit when the Iranians have our troops’ nuts in a vise, thanks to the idiotic war she voted for.
orogeny
So, since she said we’d respond to an Iranian nuclear attack with nukes, you think the Iranians will assume that the US will ignore anything less than a nuclear attack? Jeebus, people, this is getting silly…it’s as bad as John at Americablog claiming that the increase in gas prices was a result of her statement.
Jon H
“So, since she said we’d respond to an Iranian nuclear attack with nukes, you think the Iranians will assume that the US will ignore anything less than a nuclear attack”
I think they have a pretty good idea just what they can get away with, and how much hurt they can put on us, and they know they have sufficient ‘plausible deniability’ and murky chains of connections that they know they can do us some damage, especially through attrition, with little fear of effective response.
Jon H
via Yglesias, a moment of Clinton down-home commoner lingo:
“We’re going to knock balls out of the country’s park,” [Mrs Clinton] says, standing in a minor-league baseball stadium, “for the home team, which is America”.
orogeny
And…until Clinton made her statement, they would have never taken advantage of that, right? I’ll bet her statement caused the cyclone in Myanmar, too.
Jon H
“And…until Clinton made her statement, they would have never taken advantage of that, right?”
No, but it might give them incentive to tweak us.
ThymeZone
Because she is a liar, and you are a liar.
Just as an example, she did not state that the United States would “respond in kind.” In fact, the only way I know to state that there will be a response “in kind” is to call it a “response in kind.” Or “proportionate.”
Nope, she had to jump the shark, and make a grotesque gaffe which was called as much by much of the editorial community in the country … whereupon some idiot like you comes along and calls it something else entirely, something it absolutely was not.
Fuck off man, you suck and you lie.
The lying bitch called for a country to be “obliterated” for unspecified transgressions, language that I have never heard any responsible presidential candidate or any reasonable government official or even military offical use in public, for good reason: It’s repellent and irresponsible.
Go fuck yourself with your smarmy defense.
orogeny
So, let me see…we’ve got a President that has declare Iran part of the “Axis of Evil” and has already invaded one of the other two axis countries. He has repeatedly threatened to start bombing them unless they abandon what they claim is a peaceful nuclear program. The Republican candidate for his job has been recorded publicly singing that old classic “Bomb, bomb,bomb Iran,” his bff Joe L. has indicated his support for preemptive bombing, the neocon establishment is frothing at the mouth to start a new front on the GWT in Iran, and the reason Iran is pissed at us is because Hillary answered a hypothetical question? You’re joking…aren’t you?
Brachiator
Interesting how quickly the goalposts move here, and sadly, interesting how successfully Hillary Clinton appropriates Bush Administration patriotic paranoia.
Her original nonsense about “obliterating Iran” was in response to a hypothetical nuclear strike against Israel, horrible enough, but not a direct attack on the U.S.
Now, you are free to speculate on all kinds of shadowy attacks initiated by Iran against the U.S. But sweet Jesus on a pogo stick, such empty fantasies have nothing to do with anything that Clinton originally said.
Oh yeah, and when you can find a way to “obliterate” Iran with nuclear weapons, and still keep Iranian oil reserves in the world market, let me know.
Or better yet, give us an estimate of the price of a barrel of oil if Iran’s 2006 production of 3.8 million barrels per day of crude oil suddenly stopped.
ThymeZone
Tom Robberson of Dallas Morning News says it well.
This isn’t about “responding in kind,” it’s about abusive use of language in order to electioneer and demagague votes at the expense of America’s national security.
That’s Hillary Clinton. A person who claims to know what this stuff is all about, but clearly does not.
Either that, or knows, but just tosses judgement aside in order to grab a few votes in a primary election. Either way, somebody you laugh at, not sombody you lie for and support on a blog.
orogeny
Thymezone, Thymezone, Thymezone…
You sound so butch when you talk like that.
The so-called “unspecified transgressions” that you mentioned were specifically defined in the question and answer as a nuclear attack on Israel by Iran. Do you feel that you have to make things up in order to make Obama look good? Really, TZ…it’s not necessary, he’s a good candidate and I’m sure if he’s elected, he’ll make a much better president than McCain would.
ThymeZone
The fucking woman is obviously crazy.
What would you do if they attacked our ally? “Obliterate them.”
It’s my opinion that this crazy old lady has disqualified herself from holding public office in this country.
Any office.
ThymeZone
You are a lying sack of shit.
I am quoting her, and you, and making nothing up.
The editorial community was generally shocked by her grotesque and disturbing gaffe, as it should be, and continues to be, and as you should be.
You yourself had to LIE about the statement in order to sugar coat your fucked up defense of it, calling it “responding in kind” when it was nothing of the sort.
Her statement was reckless, irresponsible, dangerous, and completely unacceptable. It was in the same class as the stupid “Bring it on” remark by George Bush, the kind of thing that world leaders don’t say because they are foolish and unseemly.
There is no defense of it, and your calling it something it wasn’t isn’t getting the job done.
ThymeZone
Chicago Sun-NewsHerald
ThymeZone
CanadianContent.net
ThymeZone
Cleveland Plain Dealer
ThymeZone
D-Chance.
I drive well over 1000 miles per week and I seldom stray more than 20 miles away from my point of origin. In fact, the farthest point in the two routes I’m currently auditing go no more than 14 miles out of town. And yet I put upwards of 200 miles on the odometer every night.
185K in under 4 years (and counting). If you don’t work on the road for a living, you don’t know that the Hell you’re squawking about. I get well over 10 mpg (thankfully); but even so, I pay upwards of $25-30 per night on fuel alone.
And talk to some OTR guys about how much .18/gallon adds up when you’re covering 3000 miles per week at 6 mpg…
Jon H
Brachiator wrote: “Now, you are free to speculate on all kinds of shadowy attacks initiated by Iran against the U.S.”
I was talking about attacks against our troops in Iraq, by Iranians, Iranian proxies, Iraqi militias, Iraqi police, or who the hell knows. That’s kind of my point. We can’t even tell if Iranian weapons in Iraq were provided by the Iranian government, or were sold by the Iranian government, or were stolen and sold by Iranians without government approval.
dadanarchist
Add New Jersey senator and general HRC ass-kisser Bob Menendez to the list of pandering morons who are supporting this turd. He is apparently signed on as a co-sponsor.
Corner Stone
“185K in under 4 years (and counting). If you don’t work on the road for a living, you don’t know that the Hell you’re squawking about. I get well over 10 mpg (thankfully); but even so, I pay upwards of $25-30 per night on fuel alone.”
Sorry D-Chance, the best answer you’ll get from these deluded OFB is “Well then maybe you should look into getting another job.”
You see, in their world of total love it’s just like the characters in the movie Cocoon. Through the truth and unity of The Empty Suit Express ™ when they get where they’re going, “We’ll never be sick, we won’t get any older, and we won’t ever die.”
As for you? Well, they don’t give a fuck about you.
Corner Stone
“I have tried like hell not to call the ODS sufferers racist”
Tom Hilton – I have enjoyed all the amazing artwork you put on your website. Fantastic places I may never be lucky enough to visit, so thanks for sharing them.
Unfortunately, now that you have declared I’m a racist because I did not vote for your crush, well, you can fuck right off and fuck your fuckety self.
Rick Taylor
Except that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad isn’t the main power in Iran, and he never threatened to wipe out Israel in the first place; that was a translation issue. See Juan Cole’s blog.