The politics of personal idiocy. The PPI ticket. Good stuff.

How accurate and representative is this poll, really? I don't know. I hope the reality is a little better than that. But I don't know. If true, it's very disturbing.

This is the primary reason I self-identify as a conservative nowadays. It wasn't all that long ago that you could be a Democrat and still be a conservative: Zell Miller and VDH are both Democrats of long standing. But at some point during the Clinton Holiday, the Democratic Party hitched its wagon to the far-Left Berkeley wing of the Left.

I've learned to ignore that "we support the troops" bulldink that the Left trots out -- it's a lie that even they don't believe any more. I hope and pray that they never regain the levers of power until they get serious about national defense, and learn some respect for the men and women who do violence to keep them safe.

Older Democrats should ask themselves if this is a party that someone like Harry Truman would even recognize.

Do I question your patriotism? You're goddamned right I do.--Ace

And please continue to do so. As you pointed out previously, by taking the patriotic card off the table the 'left' has insulated itself against its own moral bankruptcy.

And the 'conservatives' let them do it in plain sight. Unless you want to LOSE this war, it's well past time to call a patriot a patriot and more importantly to call people like that 23% something else entirely.

"it's well past time to call a patriot a patriot and more importantly to call people like that 23% something else entirely."

How about if we call them what they really are? Traitors!!

Give a "war reception?"

I can't help thinking they'd prefer something calmer.

"Do I question your patriotism? You're goddamned right I do.--Ace"

I don't think there's a need for a question, any longer. These anti-war people are not merely liberals, they are hard leftists. There is no love for America amongst any of them.

The ONLY reason the leftys keep bleating the "We support the troops" line, is they don't want to get hung with the 'troop spitter' image, like they did after Vietnam. That one backfired on them, so they go out of their way to spin their image.

Traitors is a very apt term to describe them.

I don't question their patriotism.
They have none.
No question.

And yet, I'd be willing to bet that same 23% is chock-full of Mother Sheehan fans, who really, really, sincerely "honor" the late Casey Sheehan's service and just want the rest of the troops to come home safely. Honest, they do.

The exit polling done by CNN during the presidential election shows 37% identified themselves as Democrats. If both polls are close to the truth, 62% of Dems would give a cool reception or look away. They are worse than you think.

Just a random check, 9pm Central:

Democratic Underground - 0 - ZERO posts about Veterans day (on the "Latest" page)

Free Republic - 10 posts or Notes honoring our Veterans.

Interesting, although because it is random it doesn't prove anything, but it is reflective.
DKK

They're still celebrating Fitzmas Eve at the DU.

But the Kossacks, DUers, Olbermann watchers (all 6 of them) want you to believe they are the true "patriots" because they side with the terrorists. Actually, they are a*(holes who will be shocked when Zarqawi doesn't give them a break if he gets ahold of them.

My litmus test is to ask them which side they are on in the Iraq war and if they scoff at the idea of having 'sides' in any way, then they have answered the question as I suspected they would, and it ain't looking good for their patriotism.

When (not if) Iraq is free and democratic and the bulk of the troops have returned:

They will carry themselves with pride for their service.

Their contribution to a better world will be honored by the overwhelming majority of Americans.

Their POV on the history of the WOT will lead public opinion.

The revisionists will appear small and mean.

That's why revisionists want to cut and run too soon, so it can fail and they can escape their doom.

Hey now, they support the troops. Now which troops they might be is anyone's guess. They probably support Hassan Akhbar (the guy who rolled a couple grenades into the officers' quarters at one of the bases in Iraq).

Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics:

While I wouldn't dispute the fact that some, or possible many anti-war liberals would not treat veterans as returning heros, interpreting this

poll as suggesting that:
So, let's put it in stark terms: almost half of all Democrats wouldn't warmly welcome Iraq War veterans, and, we can deduce, around 90% of

lefties and self-identified liberals.

First of all the poll asks:

These days, do you think most Americans give veterans of the Iraq war a
warm reception, a cool reception or look the other way?

The questions did not ask if the responder themself give a warm of cool reception - but if they thought Americans, as in the rest

of the country, would.

The next question then asked:
Do you agree or disagree that veterans of the Iraq war deserve respect
for having served their country in the armed forces?

98% Agreed: 94% Somewhat agreeing, and 4% somewhat agreeing.
1% Disagreed, and 1% Didn't know.

Hardly the huge numbers of cool reception-giving liberals. Even if that wasn't the case, to take the 23%, and assume they represent the majority

of the ~25% of self-identifying liberals is a falicious jump to make - unless they actually correlated that to their answer to your question

(which is not the one they actually asked).

Hardly the huge numbers of cool reception-giving liberals. Even if that wasn't the case, to take the 23%, and assume they represent the majority
of the ~25% of self-identifying liberals is a falicious jump to make - unless they actually correlated that to their answer to your question...

To -may-toe , to-mah-toe. Personally I am weary of forever being nuanced and understanding while the perfidious defeatists run amok and place my future in jeopardy.

Let the 'progressives' defend themselves if they can from what I consider based upon their performance and statements to be a legitimate questioning of their 'patriotism. I am surely not going to leap to their defense or dot the i's on each and every statistical observation.

23% bears a suspicious correlation to the self-identified Dean-O wing of the wing-nut Party. Close enough for me.

The form of the question is a simple psychological ruse to bypass self censorship when acquiring statistical data on controversial subjects.

Of course the 23 % are drawn from the moveon deaniac moonbats.

From Harpers Index:

Projected cost of disability payments to Iraq War veterans by 2050, based on rates for Gulf War veterans: $285,000,000,000[Linda Bilmes, Harvard University (Cambridge, Mass.)]

Number of “veterans of the global war on terrorism” that the VA budget assumed for 2005: 23,553[U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs]

Estimated number today: 103,000

------------------
Who's Standing Up for Our Veterans?

Senator Daniel Akaka of Hawaii proposed an amendment to the 2006 budget to increase spending on veterans medical care by $2.8 billion. Despite the fact that we’re in the middle of a war, the resolution failed with a 53-47 vote, with every Democrat voting “Yea” and all but two Republicans voting “Nay”.

A month later, Senator Patty Murray offered a similar amendment to the Tsunami, Defense, and War on Terror appropriations bill that would provide an additional $1,975,183,000 for veterans medical care. This one also failed, largely along party lines, with only one Republican Senator voting to support veterans.

Wrap-up of post above:

Republicans wrap themselves in the flag, and vote against veterans.

Democrats vote to support the veterans.

Bluster vs. deed. You decide.

More lies from me to you.
See how sneaky I am?
I fail to acknowledge that those bills were loaded with pork-spending that has absolutley nothing to do Veterans.

In other words, senate democrats pretend they care about vets by using them to create ridiculous bills packed with funding for Liberal causes. When the Rethuglicans oppose the farcical legislation, the Democrats simply announce that the Republicans don't care about the vets.

Then, assholes like me can point to these atrocities on blogs. Thus proving how smart I am, and how stupid you are.

But you're all stupid and will believe anything.

yeahp. tubby's drinking the kool aid from a firehose.

Uh, kids...

those bills were loaded with pork-spending that has absolutley nothing to do Veterans.

Evidence? Got anything? Okay, try to understand this. Check the senate link. The vote was a proposed amendment to Appropriations resolution FY2006, Budget. The repubs did not vote against the bill, they voted against the proposed amendment to a bill they intended to vote FOR.

So... you lied.

Which party controls both houses of Congress?

Which party could push a bill through to fund veterans?

Which party has a solid pattern of voting against vet interests?

Which party PROPOSED LEGISLATION to CUT veterans benefits?

Anyone who supports veterans would be ashamed to admit being a republican.

Need another bitchslap of reality?

Of course I provided the links, but ... you couldn't be bothered.

Here you can see the roll call vote for a proposed amendment to H.R. 1268 (Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005 ) Purpose: To provide $1,975,183,000 for medical care for veterans.

Okay, now that your lies have been exposed, what have you got to say for Repub support for veterans?

Need more evidence of Repub hypocrisy on veterans?

LOTS MORE where that came from.

Even when I argue with myself I lose.
I'll never admit to being wrong. I'm just a lying liar who will not acknowledge the content of all the versions of the bill.

Also in today's Spin-101 class, the use of the word "cut" by the Left: When we say "cut," we actually mean "not increase by (x)%."

Dems introduce legislation, for example, for veterans, to increase the VA budget by 8% in the next fiscal year. The White House already intended for an annual increase of, say, 3%.

When they don't agree to the 8%, we scream that they are CUTTING vets benefits.

See how simple it is to lie and mislead?
And if anyone calls you on it, simply accuse them of being a liar and misleading people.

If I had any integrity at all, I would admit that the VA budget has increased at a faster rate under Bush than any other president.

admit that the VA budget has increased at a faster rate under Bush than any other president

Yes, but that would be looking at the big picture, and who has time for that when there's a republican in the white house?

Nice spin, boys -- but quite outdated.

You may have heard that we are at war. Yes?

You might have heard that medical expenses are going up much faster than inflation. Yes?

Care to look at what happens to vet needs with returning vets? Oh wait, I already provided a projection:

Projected cost of disability payments to Iraq War veterans by 2050, based on rates for Gulf War veterans: $285 BILLION.

$285 Billion.

Imagine for a moment that this is about NEEDS of VETS, and not about scoring points on a blog. Makes you look pretty idiotic, doesn't it?

Keep adding to your record of shame and denial. Or start doing the right thing, and support vet benefits.

Now, shall we look at more voting records?

Hmmm?

Let's cut to the chase. Do you think Vet medical care and benefits are adequately funded, and that the Dems wanted to overfund them?

Or do you think the repubs are a bunch of hypocrites?

Up is down, black is white, Democrats support the military.

Y-y-y-y-yeah.

SJKevin:

Here's an old FactCheck.org article on Veteran's benefits.

C'mon, geoff, everyone knows that FactCheck.org is a bigger shill for Bush than the New York Times.

geoff's link is good for a part, but what about the big picture? Are NEEDS being met, in light of increasing numbers of vets, increasing med costs etc?

Do you think Vet medical care and benefits are adequately funded, and that the Dems wanted to overfund them?

Gotta work with my son on homework now, but will try to post info links later.

"Increased funding for veterans health" is another way to say Jobs Program for Underutilized VA Hospital workers.

As the last of the WWII generation crosses the final frontier, the number of beds required to adequately serve veterans is plummeting. But there are a great many health care workers who depend upon a wildly inefficient VA system for jobs.

The proper way to serve our veterans is providing quality care, not keeping beds open so orderlies and janitors can keep their cushy jobs.

Liberals don't give a fuck about soldiers or veterans, they care about jobs for the half-wits who vote for them.

Hey, what did I say?

No replies to the Asshole Who Shall Not Be Named (AWSNBN).

Geoff, didn't you take the pledge...twice?

Geoff, didn't you take the pledge...twice?

Actually it was three times. Because I'm weak and I like bony women. But in this case I responded to SJKevin, so I was only enabling, not falling off the wagon.

But... but... I know, I know. Please forgive me, Bart, but I have so little will power.

So the leftist argument has been reduced to this:

Well, sure, OK, maybe overall spending did increase. So, you know, technically the left's accusations about this are, you know, "dishonest". But spending was reorganized in the process and are you willing to stand behind every single specific little detail I could possibly ever dig up? Because if the answer isn't yes, then Bush obviously hates our troops.

Geoff and Kevin,
Don't make me come back there.

The AWSNBN makes preposterous accusations and we're dumb enough to keep responding.

AWSNBN knows that we know he has only contempt for the troops. His hatred for the troops is almost as much as his hatred for us (and himself).

Geoff, no luck finding boyish women tonight? Try Craigslist.

Geoff, no luck finding boyish women tonight?

I'm happily married and well past my horn-dog prime, but thanks for the concern.

So the conservative argument is reduced to this:

okay, republicans DID repeatedly vote against democratic amendments to start properly funding vet benefits and med care, but but but...

we *did* vote enough of an increase to keep up with irrelevant measures! Okay, not enough to match the actual increase in need, and certainly not enough to match any projections of increased need, but...

we have Support the Troop magnets on our cars! And if you don't you hate the troops!

--------

IOW, not one of you can manage the intellectual honesty to address your party's votes on vets, even on Veterans Day.

Instead you vow to dodge uncomfortable facts by taking a pledge.

It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

Apparently you all think vet benefits are adequately funded.

TEACHER: Tubino Jr, I'm having problems with your homework assignments. For history you wrote that the Christopher Colombus landed in Colombus, Ohio... for math you wrote that 2+2=5 and instead of completing your science project you wrote a paper titled "Nice Try, But I Won't Be Distracted From The Real Problem Which Is That I Should Get Two Chocolate Milks At Lunch"...

TUBINO JR: Here is a long list of internet URLs backing up that paper. Do you think I'm getting enough calcium, or are you a Republican sock puppet?

TEACHER: *sigh* Your dad was helping you with your homework again, wasn't he?

U.S. Veterans Denied Health Care, Retired General Hoar Says

Nov. 12 (Bloomberg) -- The Bush administration is shortchanging U.S. military veterans in health care, providing insufficient psychological support and other aid to troops returning from Iraq, a former head of U.S. Central Command said.

President George W. Bush ``has consistently refused to provide enough for veteran's health care,'' retired Marine General Joseph Hoar said today in the Democratic response to the president's weekly radio address.

``Thousands of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan will require mental health care services, yet the Bush administration has not taken action to deal with this emerging problem,'' said Hoar, the commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East and Southwest Asia under President George H.W. Bush, the current U.S. president's father, and Marines Corps Chief of Staff of Operations during the 1991 Gulf War.

Demand for veterans' health care has surged in recent years. During the seven years after the Veterans Healthcare Reform Act was enacted in 1996, enrollment grew 141 percent to 7 million, while funding increased 60 percent, a 2004 report by the Harvard/Cambridge Hospital Study Group said.

Congress in July approved an extra $1.5 billion for veterans' health after the Department of Veterans Affairs revealed a funding shortfall.

About 103,000 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan are currently receiving care from the system, far more than the 23,500 the VA predicted. The surge contributed to about one- quarter of the funding shortfall, Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson told Congress in June.

Sortelli,

By sticking with silly personal insults, you just make it look like you can't address the question of adequate funding. It's a legit question.

You got an answer?

For you, tubino? My answer is that I will never, ever, ever, ever take your word on anything. If you ever say something that is true, it would have to be by accident or in the course of setting up another one of your fantastic whoppers.

I'm not troubled by the question of adequate funding at all, nor do I think for a micro-second that it would be better under a Democratic administration. Especially one that isn't trying to clumsily out-flank the Republicans on an issue your base doesn't actually give a shit about.

There's an angle for you: Without a Republican in the White House, the Dems won't even try to fake it for the vets anymore. Why do you hate the vets, tubby?

Just because I'm one of the few people left who hasn't taken the pledge to ignore you, don't think that means your slippery bullshit gets any traction.

PS: No matter what you hear from anywhere else, even George H W Bush? Joe Wilson lied.

It has been answered, you fucking liar.
So you point to a story about a Dem operative using Veteran's Day to take a cheapshot at the president.
So what?

You have proven nothing except that you are willing to lie and use our dead to propel your propaganda.

Show me one, just one, piece of evidence that a vet has been denied healthcare for a legitimate illness.

What a bunch of horseshit. First you claim the VA is underfunded. When that was shot down, you then claim it will be underfunded in the near future. Horseshit.

Show me the pics of all the veterans dying in the streets from the lack of healthcare. Show me just one veteran that has been turned away for lack of funding.

Fucking liars. All you do is make up shit. And yes, General Hoar is a fucking liar, too. He's a liar for the Dean party.

Clown.

Oho, Bart:

What is this I see? If you hurry you can still catch the wagon. To all who haven't taken the pledge, if you follow the links from the H.R. 1268 link above, you'll see the real story emerge. I think in the end it's more damning for the Dems than for the Republicans.

Fucking liars. All you do is make up shit.

I linked to roll calls on votes, on senate.gov. That's not the same as making up shit.

You have proven nothing except that you are willing to lie and use our dead to propel your propaganda.

I proved that the republicans voted as a party against amendments for vet benefits.

I pointed out that one source projects $285 BILLION (with a B) for disability payments to Iraq War veterans by 2050, based on rates for Gulf War veterans.

The reaction here was classic rightwing: first deny, then lie, then attack the messenger, then use distractions and irrelevant points.

Then vow never to pay any attention to someone so dishonest as to use voting records to raise a question about adequate funding.

Okay, that about covers it. I'm completely disgusted that not one of you can honestly address the funding question, because you might have to criticize your party. That's fucking lame.

Bart, you might check this out to understand one important reason why costs are projected to rise so much: PTSD. Check out the survey numbers at the bottom.

You got me, Joffrey.
Forgive me. I couldn't help it.

At least I didn't mention it's name.

The reaction here was classic rightwing: first deny, then lie, then attack the messenger, then use distractions and irrelevant points.

Ladies and gentlemen, a new definition for chutzpah.

Oh one more thing. Some of you seem to think I said repubs CUT benefits. What I said was, "Which party PROPOSED LEGISLATION to CUT veterans benefits?"

And that's what happened, in spring 2003, till they ran into a firestorm of public protest.

From 2003

Late into the night of March 20, the U.S. House heard speech after passionate speech in favor of a resolution proclaiming support for U.S. troops in Iraq, but offering them nothing substantive.

Minutes after passing that symbolic resolution, Republicans passed their budget calling for a $28 billion cut in veterans' benefits and health care, with Republicans providing all but one vote. This huge cut was reduced on Friday to $6.2 billion, the amount originally proposed for veterans' cuts by President Bush in his 2004 budget.
-------------------

I could do this all night, but why not just google it yourself. Then you can scream at your computer that the facts are biased against republicans.

Have to say the vets in Iraq are less interested in hospital beds than they are outraged by the kind of PR the left is giving to their enemy encouraging more murderous attacks.

I'm wondering if tubby remembers what happened to the U.S. military the last time we let one of his ilk control it.

...you don't? Well, let me refresh your memory.

Tubby, saying democrats support the vetrans more than republicans do with this as your most recent evidence as to what you DO for our troops when your party is in power is kind of like saying you were for it after you were against it....

Wow that sounds familiar!

I wonder where that came from....

Veritas

"More lies from me to you. See how sneaky I am?
I fail to acknowledge that those bills were loaded with pork-spending that has absolutley nothing to do Veterans."

I'm glad to see you guys finally acknowledge that Kerry was right when he voted for the $87 billion appropriations bill, then voted agaiunst it after the Republicans loaded it with pork for Halliburton. Too bad you couldn't have been this honest during the election.

I think it's amazing that Turbino keeps providing you with actual records of votes and bills, and all you can do is keep saying he's a liar who doesn't support the troopsd. So apparently this has turned into a completely fact-free zone.

And a pledge to not answer a guy who says things you don't agree with? I guess this is the Internet version of high school. Who are you taking to the prom? Oh, and if he says something you really don't like, call him a girl. Too bad there's not a Pulitzer for blog comments, you guys would be the frontrunners.

And if you're so concerned about "exploiting the dead," you must be really pissed that Bush used the occasion of his Veteran's Day speech to attack Kerry. He really let you down there, didn't he?

And by the way, since we're accusing people of being liars, how do you excuse the fact that Ace completely misstated the poll question in his post in order to create an answer that worked for him? And then took his misstatement and twisited it in a way that no statistician would ever support. Assuming what the politics were of people answering the poll and then extrapolating from that may be pleasing to you, but it's based on nothing. Especially since Ace lied in his post.

I think it's amazing that Turbino keeps providing you with actual records of votes and bills

As usual, the links provided do not tell the story that he thinks they do. If you pursue the H.R. 1268 link chain, for instance, you find that the vote was whether to suspend rules previously defined in the Senate Budget Resolution for FY2005 (S. Con. Res. 095).

From the Senate records:

STATUS: 4/12/2005: Amendment SA 344 proposed by Senator Murray. (consideration: CR S3451-3455, S3456-3458, S3461-3462, S3468; text: CR S3451; text as modified: CR S3457-3458) 4/12/2005: Point of order that an emergency designation within the amendment violates Sec. 402 of S.Con.Res. 95 of the 108th Congress raised in Senate with respect to amendment SA 344. 4/12/2005: Motion to waive Sec. 402 of S.Con.Res. 95 of the 108th Congress with respect to amendment SA 344 (the section within the amendment regarding an emergency designation) rejected in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 46 - 54. Record Vote Number: 89. 4/12/2005: The emergency designation within amendment SA 344 was stricken. 4/12/2005: Point of order that the amendment violates the Budget Act raised in Senate with respect to amendment SA 344. 4/12/2005: Motion to waive the Budget Act with respect to amendment SA 344 rejected in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 46 - 54. Record Vote Number: 90. 4/12/2005: Amendment SA 344 ruled out of order by the chair.

Why did the amendment violate the Budget Act? Because the 2005 Budget Act defined an 'emergency' as:

(2) CRITERIA- (A) IN GENERAL- Any such provision is an emergency requirement if the underlying situation poses a threat to life, property, or national security and is-- (i) sudden, quickly coming into being, and not building up over time; (ii) an urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring immediate action; (iii) subject to subparagraph (B), unforeseen, unpredictable, and unanticipated; and (iv) not permanent, temporary in nature.

And where did the 'emergency' provisions that violated the Budget Act come from? Here they are:

SA 345. Mr. LEVIN submitted an amendment . . . At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. The Secretary of Labor shall convey to the State of Michigan, for no consideration, all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the real property known as the ``Detroit Labor Building''

and,

SA 346. Mr. CORZINE (for himself and Mr. BROWNBACK) submitted an amendment . . . {there follows an entire resolution condemning the genocide in Darfur as genocide}

The upshot is that two senators tried to cram some unrelated items into the amendment on an emergency basis, thus invalidating the amendment. The Senate then voted against suspending the existing rules to allow the tainted amendment to pass. That does not appear to constitute a clear up-and-down vote on medical benefits for Veterans.

And by the way, since we're accusing people of being liars, how do you excuse the fact that Ace completely misstated the poll question in his post in order to create an answer that worked for him?

I actually agree with you on this: the original poll question asked how people 'thought' the veterans would be treated, not how they would treat them. I attribute it, however, not to a malevolent intent, but to a careless reading/interpretation during a flurry of postings. You are right to call him on it, though.

Tubby doesn't adduce facts so much as indulge a footnote fetish. His links often don't say what he claims, proving that even he hasn't read them. When you call him on his arguments and "proof," he'll either try to change the subject with another long dump full of dubious "sources" or he'll slink off for a while and then start from scratch with the same BS on another thread.

He starves.

In Tubby's first link (the 2006 appropriations link), he doesn't tell you that the Republicans proposed and passed an alternate bill which increased Veteran's Benefits by $410 million. That bill was their replacement for the $2.85 billion bill proposed by the Dems.

"I'm glad to see you guys finally acknowledge that Kerry was right when he voted for the $87 billion appropriations bill, then voted agaiunst it after the Republicans loaded it with pork for Halliburton. Too bad you couldn't have been this honest during the election."

HALLIBURTON!!!

Somebody ought to amend Godwin's Law to cover Halliburton references too.

Tubino, I've tried. You just aren't being intellectually honest.

You can accuse us of ignoring your truth. But when we do sift through the enormous amount of links you post and address it, as Geoff heroically did above, you ignore it.

We have already answered your question, and you ignore it.

Man, look at this thread again, from our point of view. When you make a good point, I acknowlege it. Look at Geoff, above, noting that your fellow leftist traveller Chris makes a good criticism of Ace. You never do the same.

I've tried, but I think the others are right. I think it probably is just a big waste of time debating with you. Honestly, if you were just a tiny bit more intellectually honest, we could get into some good discussions. But you're not. You act like you're performing in front of an audience, scoring points rather than actually having a fair discussion.

I'm not a far right wingnut. I'm pretty liberal. For example, I think we should try allowing gay marriage. I'm in favor of legalizing pot. I think we should have generous social safety nets. I voted for Clinton. I think Bush should have fired Rumsfeld over Abu Ghraib. I think we should shut down those secret prisons. I think we should not use torture. I think "intelligent design" is inappropriate in public school science classes. Etcetera. I'm no right-wing extremist. You and I surely have a fair amount in common. And if even I can't have a discussion with you, maybe that should give you some pause to think.

SJKevin:

Sounds like you're ready to take the pledge. It is too bad, since Tubino often raises interesting points. But actually engaging in a discussion with him has been very unsatisfying.

Is there some sort of cool secret ceremony involved with the pledge? Can I get a fancy robe?

Honestly, if you were just a tiny bit more intellectually honest, we could get into some good discussions. But you're not. You act like you're performing in front of an audience, scoring points rather than actually having a fair discussion.

It's the one thing that has me convinced that he really is in academia. Probably just a TA, but still in that game.

Can I get a fancy robe?

No, you have to take the pledge naked.

Seriously. Yes, naked. Trust me, I'm a cop. Now strip. That's a direct order from a law enforcement officer!

you must be really pissed that Bush used the occasion of his Veteran's Day speech to attack Kerry. He really let you down there, didn't he?-Chris

Oh, you poor pathetic man. You mean to tell me that you listened (or read) that whole speech and all you got out of it was, "that BASTARD! HE'S ATTACKING THE GREAT JOHN KERRY!" Give me a fucking break.

But just for your benefit, I'll let you in on a little secret: that speech wasn't for Kerry, it was for people like YOU.

People who accuse the president they call chimpy of enacting a genius plan which includes fabricating information that would lead us into a war they claim is only being conducted because Halliburton!!!!! wants to make 5 billion dollars profit instead of 1.

People who forcibly protest in front of military recruitment centers, engaging in physical acts like throwing blood on recruiters who are only trying to defend their country in the best way they know how

People who are so quick to pronounce our soldiers guilty of the most heinous crimes imaginable simply because it fits into their view of America as the "Great Satan" (which coincidentally is shared by the people they champion as "minutemen, freedom fighters," and the like)

People who scream for the death of our men and women fighting for America, so they can be proven right.

Those are the people the speech was meant to reach.

And the message? Simple: We will never give up, never stop fighting this enemy that seeks nothing less than the total destruction of everything not muslim. And all of those who feign patriotism while calling for more American blood can rest assured that you can sleep well in your beds at night, knowing that another young man or woman is shedding American blood for your chance to defame their memory.

So sleep well in the blanket of freedom we provide, Chris. Because one day, you and your ilk may finally get your wish to see what these "freedom fighters" are really like.

...Right before they releave you of your infidel head.

Veritas

Older Democrats should ask themselves if this is a party that someone like Harry Truman would even recognize.

Are you kidding me? They're all a bunch of crazy bastards. Not a single commie-fighter among them. Except maybe Ralph Hall - TX.

Wait, he switched to the Rs.

shit.

Veritas, thanks for the blustery hyperbolic BS. I'm waiting for even one of you McCarthy wannabes to call upon Ace to issue a correction. As Chris pointed out above, Ace changed the wording of the poll question, accidentally or otherwise, to create--in his mind, at least--"proof"of something he desperately wants to believe: That many or most of the Americans who oppose this war are somehow traitors who want our troops dead. Ace, your entire post is based on a poll question that doesn't exist. But then, why would you start letting facts stand in the way of the usual slash-and-burn tactics now?

GC,
Hyperbolic? Let me get this right:

Liberals can hold protests in which they call 9/11 a government conspiracy,and tell the families of those who were so savagely murdered that they were not victims, but "little Eitchmans", chant that those 3,000 victims deserved it, accuse the military of killing 100,000 civilians, (funny isn't it, how that number hasn't gone up in the year or so since its 'inception' to liberal talking points), call for the blood of more American soldiers, so they can smear their faces with it and yell "GOTCHA" at republicans,

But you're NOT anti-American.

I'm really at a loss for words here, but let me see if I can relay to you a verbose response that you can understand. Ok, here goes:

FUCK YOU, YOU PIECE OF SHIT.

(I hope you can understand that)

Veritas

Veritas, you wrote:

"Liberals can hold protests in which they call 9/11 a government conspiracy,and tell the families of those who were so savagely murdered that they were not victims, but "little Eitchmans", chant that those 3,000 victims deserved it, accuse the military of killing 100,000 civilians, (funny isn't it, how that number hasn't gone up in the year or so since its 'inception' to liberal talking points), call for the blood of more American soldiers, so they can smear their faces with it and yell "GOTCHA" at republicans..."

More absurd exaggerations and generalizations. Do you actually KNOW anyone who opposes this war? Have you ever TALKED to them? Do you really think even 5% of those who identify themselves as liberals hold the ridiculously extreme beliefs you're citing? Ward Churchill's rants doesn't represent my views, nor those of anyone I know. I bet you know that, you're just too scared to confront the idea that millions of reasonable people--not the raving lunatics you describe--oppose this war. Either that, or you need to pull your head out of your ass. And take an anger management course while you're at it.

"McCarthy wannabes"

McCarthy was right, Commie.

McCarthy found a "commie" or two in the State Dept., but then he flew off the rails and dragged everyone he didn't like in front of HUAC. (Ken Starr put his own spin on this tactic.) Tell me Sue, was it "right" for McCarthy to ruin the lives of so many innocent people?

And sorry, but I'm not a commie; disagreeing with right-wing orthodoxy doesn't make me one. You want to be part of the Thought Police, move somewhere else.

Name an innocent person whose life was destroyed by MCarthy, Commie.

McCarthy found a "commie" or two in the State Dept., but then he flew off the rails and dragged everyone he didn't like in front of HUAC.

Really? So, SENATOR McCarthy was dragging people in front of a HOUSE committee?

Your understanding of history, and the present for that matter, is noted. Don't make a maniac outta me.

That was I, BTW. (NB: "r-a-s-p o" as in "g-r-a-s-p o-f" is also a forbidden term. I didn't even know it was dirty.)

Tell me Sue, was it "right" for McCarthy to ruin the lives of so many innocent people?

More absurd exaggerations and generalizations. Do you actually KNOW anyone who McCarthy destroyed? Have you ever TALKED to them? Do you really think even 5% of those who identify themselves as conservatives would support the ridiculously extreme acts you're citing? Your distorted version of McCarthy's record doesn't represent my views, nor those of anyone I know. I bet you know that, you're just too scared to confront the idea that millions of reasonable people--not the raving lunatics you describe--oppose your government-knows-best preferences. Either that, or you need to pull your head out of your ass. And take an anger management course while you're at it.

Moonbats. With all those voices in their heads, it's hard to see how they even have time to talk with other people.

Eh. When I tried to comment on Allah grabbing Ace's joint, allegedly, it wouldn't let me use the word g-r-a-s-p because it contained the banned word r-a-s-p.

VRWC: Your attempt to apply my response to Veritas to the McCarthy situation makes no sense. His hearings are a matter of public record, y'know. But if you prefer the sanitized version spoonfed to you by Ann Coulter, go ahead. Meanwhile, Veritas' nutty rantings about liberals apply to a few fringe wackos--the kind that couldn't get elected dogcatcher--at best.

If I believe that government knows best, how come you trust the White House and GOP-controlled Congress regarding this war?

And yeah, I know that there are plenty of reasonable people who oppose my views. But they sure as hell aren't on this board.

GC, I have to eliminate you as a suspect. Assume the position. I speak for the dead.

His hearings are a matter of public record, y'know.

A record you haven't read. When you do get around to some reading, which I'm confident won't be more than a few minutes of googling, you might want to try the key word "Venona" too.

But if you prefer the sanitized version spoonfed to you by Ann Coulter, go ahead.

Considering that my version has McCarthy in the right house of the legislature and your response blatantly fails to meet Coulter's and Sue's challenge so far, I can live with that.

how come you trust the White House and GOP-controlled Congress regarding this war?

Because I listen to our people in the field.

there are plenty of reasonable people who oppose my views.

Probably hard to find one who doesn't.

No names. Big surprise, yawn. Typical Commie, repeating Commie lies and avoiding any sort of thought or work. Perfect drone for any future Maoist Cultural Revolution. I hope you've been practicing with your scythe for the agrarian worker's paradise. If you don't have 20/20 vision, you might want to get LASIK while you still can. Some Dear Leaders could have... issues... with eyeglasses.

GC, I have to eliminate you as a suspect. Assume the position. I speak for the dead.

You're just mad at your Dad.