to promote the thing.
Apparently President Allen is supposed to be an Independent, who was picked for VP to balance out a Republican ticket. The fake blog describes her as a "centrist." The plan is clear: get middle-of-the-roaders used to the idea of a female president in time for Hillary's run.
i won't watch that show with Emelio Estevez as president. But i'm a big fan of both Geena Davis and Donald Sutherland, so i'll have to give this propaganda reel a chance tomorrow night. Hopefully it won't be too sickening.
1
I always got wood for Gina Davis, but really, why bother. You know it will suck a lot. Its not worth your time. Let me fill you in. Evil old white conservative Donald Sutherland will be the foil, while virtuous progressive Gina Davis at first stumbles a bit, and then manages to get a new big socialist medical bill through.
Posted by: Kyle N at September 26, 2005 08:44 PM (22maq)
2
Hey, Kyle, didn't you get the memo? New, big socialist medical bills are Republican territory now.
My guess is that she negotiates peace with all our enemies after doing something to prove that she's not afraid to take forceful military action when it's
"necessary" (to "free child laborers, perhaps?). Then everyone sings Kumbaya and lives happily ever after -- or would, if it weren't for those evil, power-grubbing, Talibanesque Republicans wanting to subjugate women and repeal the Thirteenth Amendment.
Speaking of Emilio Estevez, what happened to
that guy? His career has been in the shitter since, what?
The Breakfast Club?
Posted by: Matt at September 27, 2005 03:45 AM (knVLu)
3
Never ceases to amaze me how people can be sharp enough to see thru thinly disguised propoganda, but still wanna to give it ratings anyway.
Posted by: Mark at September 27, 2005 06:42 AM (Vg0tt)
4
Your analysis is surely dead on the mark - similar to Geanna Davis in an Olympic qualification shooting event.
Posted by: gcotharn at September 27, 2005 07:12 AM (ywZa8)
5
"Talibanesque Republicans wanting to subjugate women and repeal the Thirteenth Amendment", hawt damn, where do I sign up?
Posted by: Casca at September 27, 2005 07:17 AM (qBTBH)
6
Gee, Anni,
I woulda thought that Donald's stoner, acid taking hippy previous life would have put him off your A list. Or is it because his son stars in a silly RW “save America” melodrama that promotes torture as an effective law enforcement tool?
Posted by: Strawman at September 27, 2005 07:47 AM (0ZdtC)
7
Oddly enough, I would say this rings just as equally of a Condi push. She's certainly not as conservative as Bush (even though they are certainly working on her), and who knows, maybe Bush will ask her not to run when he's choking on a pretzel on Air Force One. And I don't know anyone who would call Hillary an Independent.
I would certainly welcome an Independent woman candidate, as I don't see my self voting for either of the two female frontrunners. And I have a history of voting for someone other than a Rep/Dem candidate.
Posted by: will at September 27, 2005 08:04 AM (GzvlQ)
8
Will, its much more subtle than that. Polls show that many Americans still have lingering (though unfounded) doubts about a woman's fitness for the job. My own observations bear this out. One might say that ABC is trying to help out Condi, but Condi has been very clear about not wanting to run. Hillary on the other hand, everybody knows she's going to run.
Strawman, being a stoner or a hippy is no bar to getting on my A list...
Posted by: annika at September 27, 2005 09:29 AM (zAOEU)
9
Anni,
That's good to know! Now, if being a lying crook were enough to get people off your A list I would be having a nicer lunch than I already am.
Posted by: Strawman at September 27, 2005 09:37 AM (0ZdtC)
10
Lying crook? So, are you talking about Bill or Hillary?
Posted by: Blu at September 27, 2005 11:58 AM (1XoU0)
11
... or Jimmy, or Lyndon, or Harry, or FDR?
Posted by: Casca at September 27, 2005 12:05 PM (qBTBH)
12
I'm actually shocked that Annie thinks America is not ready for a woman President. I won't say I disagree with her, as I've given little thought to the subject. It just caught me offguard. I thought hype over America being ready for a woman was just Dem/media propaganda which was designed to pump up both ratings and Hillary's chances. I figured America was ready not just for a woman, but for a black woman! After all, Britain has already had Thatcher, why would America not be ready? Mulling this over...
Posted by: gcotharn at September 27, 2005 12:30 PM (6krEN)
13
g, the parenthetical in my above comment was meant to indicate that i disagree with those Americans who think a woman should not be president.
Posted by: annika at September 27, 2005 01:04 PM (zAOEU)
14
gcotharn,
When I read your post, I agreed with you. But then I started thinking that maybe I agreed with you because I am a GenXer who has grown up in California his whole life and who, due to the field in which I work, has had as many females bosses as males. My point is this: one's perception of a female leader is likely informed by his particular cultural surroundings and experiences. I know that I have spoken with people who have told me very candidly that they would never vote for a woman----and most of these people were woman!
Regardless, I don't give a shit if our President is a man or a woman----just as long as he or she is a solid conservative and qualified. Discussions about race/gender tend to get folks off-track about what is important: philosophy, policy, and competency.
Posted by: Blu at September 27, 2005 01:13 PM (1XoU0)
15
I'll bite, there is no way in hell that there ever should be a woman President. Hell, they make piss poor military officers. Most jobs like that require masculine virtues, not feminine ones, and the female vices would be our undoing because, "The female of the species is more dangerous than the male".
Posted by: Casca at September 27, 2005 01:19 PM (qBTBH)
16
Casca, I would vote for an American version of Margeret Thatcher in a heartbeat.
Posted by: Kyle N at September 27, 2005 01:53 PM (tlVeb)
17
I have been noodling a post on how this is an effort to soften the culture to the idea of a woman president. Something they wouldn't be doing if there wasn't a woman around the desperately want to be president.
I mean I doubt they are trying to pave the way for Condi Rice.
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at September 27, 2005 03:32 PM (ics4u)
18
casca,
I wonder what you would have said had a women president sat on her ass gazing like a dear grazing for for 5-7 minutes while America was under attack? Guess she would have been demonstrating her feminine nature and lack of fitness for command, eh?
Posted by: Strawman at September 27, 2005 04:46 PM (0ZdtC)
19
...or if a woman sat around banging interns and playing with cigars all the while having specific information about the whereabouts of Bin Laden but refusing to act on it in order to capture or kill him. actually, i guess they are not the same. the former made absolutely no difference while the latter has ultimately led to the deaths of thousands.
Posted by: Blu at September 27, 2005 05:03 PM (dK7EU)
20
Christopher Hitchens said it best:
[More interesting is the moment where Bush is shown frozen on his chair at the infant school in Florida, looking stunned and useless for seven whole minutes after the news of the second plane on 9/11. Many are those who say that he should have leaped from his stool, adopted a Russell Crowe stance, and gone to work. I could even wish that myself. But if he had done any such thing then (as he did with his "Let's roll" and "dead or alive" remarks a month later), half the Michael Moore community would now be calling him a man who went to war on a hectic, crazed impulse. The other half would be saying what they already say—that he knew the attack was coming, was using it to cement himself in power, and couldn't wait to get on with his coup.]
Wow, Bush was stunned for 7 whole minutes! At least he wasn't petrified for several hours(like Clinton?) like the time Nixon got drunk while the 1973 Arab-Israeli War was going on!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5069430/
Posted by: reagan80 at September 27, 2005 06:06 PM (K9tdw)
21
I'm afraid that you're wrong about this; "At least he wasn't petrified for several hours(like Clinton?)". It was eight years.
Posted by: Casca at September 27, 2005 06:17 PM (qBTBH)
22
As if there's any doubt that the shows writers might support Hillary, Steve Cohen used to work for her.
Madam President
Not that it means the show will be entirely pro-Billary, but if it does become that will it be accounted for under campaign financing? OK, OK, even I know the answer to that one...
Posted by: Trevor at September 27, 2005 06:24 PM (GtBBB)
23
Oh Ray and Casca,
You are such dumb and crazy guys. All the shit you throw, to blur the TRUTH. It says NOTHING about the bush moment. He sat. End of discussion. He did not lead or exibit leadership qualities. Not a general, not a commander in chief. A joke of a put up job talking chip of the Right. A duty doger, an almost pilot, an almost businessman, an almost President.
Fuck Clinton. whatever he did it does not make Bush a better president because he did not do as badly? I don't care and it has nothing to do with what BUSH DID DO. Clinton was an ass, made many mistakes and lied to the country about sex. Bush is na ass, made plenty of mistakes and lied to get the country into a war. I guess thats comprable? Not what others would have said about it had he did something different, not that his only (HItchens) move would have been to jump to his feet like a crazy guy and grabbed a gun, this is all BULLSHIT- just rehtorical attemps to change the argument, shift the picture of the dumb ass sitting on his ass. HIS ASS, not Clinton's ass. Not Moore's description of a different behaviour had he chossen to move.
Yea, I guess your right, he sat there because he thought if he stood to fast the liberals would paint a picture of him charging off to war. Hitchen's is such an ass, such simpleton logic.
And you Ray are by association a simpleton too.
This is all retorical bullshit. Tell me why he sat? Tell me if you would have sat?
Sorry I had no time to spell check and re-read. You get my points non the less.
Posted by: Strawman at September 27, 2005 07:14 PM (0ZdtC)
24
You need to absorb some reality strawboy. I have a highly developed BS/Dumbass/flamebait detector, and I simply don't read past the first few lines and sometimes even words of some child's egotistical rant. That's why I never read Publicola. You rank somewhere way below him.
If America were a just country, you'd be in a ditch somewhere. Universal suffredge has done this to us.
Posted by: Casca at September 27, 2005 08:45 PM (qBTBH)
25
Mike,
You again? I honestly don't know why I bother, given your propensity for quietly skulking off in the middle of a discussion.
If Bush had been sitting on the shitter when the second plane hit, and had stopped to wipe his ass before charging off -- to do what, exactly, in those seven or so minutes? -- I suppose you'd find something to criticize in that, too. Much better if he'd run in circles shrieking like a little girl and tearing clumps of hair from his head.
You goofy fuckers never cease to amaze me.
Posted by: Matt at September 27, 2005 10:13 PM (jXLSe)
26
Matt you are a guffy fucker if ever I read one.
If if if if if if if if if if if, that's all you have to offer?
Just answer the question. DOn't tell me about what I would have said had he done this or that. He DID do one thing, not wipe his ass, not get blown by Karen Hughes, not excuse himself from a classroom of children, nothing, he did nothing but wait for his boss to tell him what do. I know this is hard, but what are the implications of that behavior?
DEAL with it you cowards and stop talking about all the crap that did not happen. What children.
Same for you CASCA you piece of RW detritus. What is the answer to the question on the table. Not the questions you wish were on the table, not the actions of Bill CLinton, and not reactions that never happened, just the facts in evidence or is that too difficult.
Answer the fucking question.
Posted by: Strawman at September 28, 2005 10:47 AM (0ZdtC)
27
You really do have a full-blown case of BDS, don't you? You're so fucked-up that you can't even identify a non-issue. Let me help you. I'll take this slowly. Try to follow along.
The "implications of that behavior" are that when you're sitting in a classroom in Saratoga, Florida, and two airplanes have just hit the World Trade Centers, 900 miles away, there's not a single goddamned useful thing you can do in the next ten minutes except to stay out of the way of the people on the scene who're responding. And if you have even a tiny clue about leading large organizations in crises, you know that the worst thing you can do is to start trying to micromanage those people from nearly a thousand miles away, especially since you don't know shit about what's actually happening on the ground and necessarily won't for quite a while. (The fact that all of this is so far beyond your imagination tells me that you've never worked in an organization of more than ten people -- or not, at least, one that ever operated under any real stress.) If you have any personal leadership qualities you also know that bearing counts, and the second-worst thing you can do is start acting like a blithering, deranged ninny in front of cameras and a classroom full of little kids during a national emergency. So you finish what you're doing, excuse yourself, and move on to deal with the emergent situation.
Yeah, it's pretty mysterious all right -- to a fruit bat.
Posted by: Matt at September 28, 2005 12:31 PM (10G2T)
28
OK, Strawperson. First of all, the fact that the President of the United States didn’t leap off his chair upon hearing of an extraordinary event, the details of which were not yet known, is hardly an indictment of his intelligence, decisiveness, leadership, or cognizance. It is more likely evidence of his command presence for remaining cool under fire, his intelligence for not leaping to conclusions and assuming a completely erroneous perpetrator, his leadership for maintaining a cool demeanor even in a situation that would have driven others, perhaps even you, to assume the “Chicken Little” posture of pure panic, and his self-control for not leaping from his seat, scaring the children, and running out to expose himself to an unknown, perhaps deadly, situation that had not been cleared by his Secret Service Agents. He must have felt like jumping up and “doing something,” but denied himself that childish luxury in the interest of not projecting the image of the leader of the most powerful nation on earth, who was sitting in the glare of international media cameras, being sent into an ‘out of control’ frenzy by a bit of bad news. We had no way, at that time, of knowing that the World Trade Center would collapse. We knew that planes had crashed into the WTC, but we didn’t even know at that time whether the planes were Cessna’s or airliners, or even military aircraft. At the time that concerns you and your partisan political cronies, no one, not even you, knew what was going on. How can you criticize President Bush?
The Secret Service has specific security procedures for handling such situations. One of the considerations is to provide for the eventuality that sudden events that would tend to motivate the president to “run” in a certain direction may be a setup for an assassination attempt. Therefore, in the interest of protecting the president, there are procedures that are strictly followed in such situations. The president cooperates with the Secret Service unless there is clear reason to not do so, which is his prerogative as president. During the couple of minutes (seven?) that it took for the president to conclude his meeting with the children, President Bush was obviously concerned about the implications of the incident that had been described to him by his aides; you could see it on his face. But, he avoided showing panic while he gave the Secret Service time to ensure that the path to his vehicle and subsequent road to Air Force One were secure. Upon being informed by the Secret Service that it was safe for him to leave, President Bush excused himself and calmly walked to his vehicle. He did precisely the correct thing in all instances.
I am absolutely amazed by the ability of Michael Moore, MoveOn.org, George Soros, and their propaganda machine to brainwash the simple-minded masses of asses into believing their fairy-tales about how President Bush was “frozen like a deer in the headlights,” frightened out of his wits, and “unable to get out of his chair.” What kind of simpleton would believe such drivel? I would be embarrassed to let anyone know that I was so lacking in common sense and ability to think for myself that I actually allowed myself to be used as a stooge for Democrat propaganda … poorly done propaganda at that.
To believe that George W. Bush, a man who has more testosterone than the entire Democrat Party leadership combined, who was an accomplished fighter pilot, who is a real Texan, and who is not known for being a ‘scaredy-cat,’ would let some nut crashing an airplane into a building in New York “freeze him to his seat,” you would have to be a genetically challenged idiot. This is nothing but a bunch of Democrat propaganda designed to feed the simplistic political fantasies of their core constituency, morons.
Posted by: Nono Namo at September 28, 2005 12:34 PM (Jf28C)
29
That's a nicely put-together discussion of the relevant facts. But, dude, you give Mike way too much credit.
Posted by: Matt at September 28, 2005 01:13 PM (10G2T)
30
Over a lifetime I've cultivated the ability to ignore the noisome child until at that precise moment when nobody is watching, one may strike him a blow ala Mr William C. Fields.
Posted by: Casca at September 28, 2005 01:25 PM (qBTBH)
31
You're right, Matt. I guess it's like my old Grandpappy always said, "Never argue with an idiot. People watching can't tell which is which."
Posted by: Nono Namo at September 28, 2005 03:16 PM (Jf28C)
32
Casca, Matt,
Self congratulatory claptrap.
As if I said, “he should act like a blithering idiot” or micromanage the staff, or get in the way, or “leap from his seat and scare children", or anything of the sort. But that is the way you guys argue, put words an ideas in my mouth and then rebut. Why do you think I changed my name from Mike to Strawman?
Casca your whole post is idle speculation. You have no fucking idea what he was doing as he sat there. You wish it was the result of his great executive skills and the futility of the moment but you have to admit it could be something else. The fact is that as things were unfolding no one could say, as you have, that it would have taken a long time to know what is going on. You are using hindsight and calling it prescience. Decisions, serious presidential decisions, might have been necessary. Shooting down a plane full of Americans is a pretty serious decision.
I KNOW only one thing, the putative leader of the free world sat in a chair, unable or unwilling to communicate: un-needed by anyone, while the country he is putatively the commander in chief of, was under attack.
You can sing the silly rationalizations all you want no other facts than what I describe are in evidence.
You choose to think it was a wonderful example of his deep inner strength and discipline, I think it was an indication of his superfluous relationship to the actual team that runs this country. (Btw he is no expert fighter pilot, just a dropout from the ANG training program.)
Why you think the alternative was for him to run amok and get criticized for being a ninny? Do you think he sat calmly laughing at his critics who he thought expected him to act badly?
There obviously was another course of action and that was to politely disengage from the kids and join his staff in assessing the data, analyze what the next short term steps should be and so forth. It may sooth your tortured soul to think sitting was strategic but it is a childish fantasy. He sat comfortably because he knows he is not part of the team, he knows his limitations, why canÂ’t you see them?
This is not a non issue-its about his relationship to government and the illumination of the scam.
He sat like the actor he is waiting for new lines. He is the front man, a shill who, time and time again demonstrates his weak grasp of government and ignorance of the issues every time he attempts to speak off the script, repeatedly embarrassing himself and this country.
Posted by: Strawman at September 28, 2005 07:35 PM (0ZdtC)
33
Oh, substitute Nanu Nanu for Casca in my last post, you RW sycophants all look alike.
Posted by: Strawman at September 28, 2005 07:37 PM (0ZdtC)
34
Yes, yes we do. So I'm putting together my Christmas card list, and I'd like to include you Strawboy. Got an address? Next of kin? Anni, could you forward me his IP?
Posted by: Casca at September 28, 2005 07:50 PM (qBTBH)
35
Mike,
"Self-congratulatory claptrap"? A thoroughly thought-out and convincing retort. Where do I sign up? Oh, never mind --
I found it.
I'm so glad you finally deigned offer something slightly more substantive than your usual, uninformative, infantile squalling. Now we no longer need speculate about what the great and magnificent President Mike would've done. You've finally put some words in your own mouth.
But the operative words here are "
slightly more substantive," because your brilliant retort consists of nothing but a lot of meaningless buzzwords that boil down to, "hurry up and hold a fucking meeting!" and "Assess the data!" But a meeting for what purpose, precisely? To engage in uninformed speculation, like the rest of the world? To conference call Giuliani and Petaki, who were neck-deep in shit and didn't need anyone fucking with them? To slow down the Joint Chiefs with asinine, unanswerable questions while they were trying to start making things happen? And what data, jackhole? "The data" was what you and I saw on CNN, which repeated every ten minutes or so. You think the Director of the CIA had a brief for POTUS 10 minutes after Tower Two was hit? Or perhaps you think he should've held a press conference to reassure the likes of you -- even though there was nothing meaningful to say. But hey, if so, that's OK: I'd fully expect you to elevate form over subtance.
Furthermore, suppose the guy needed a few minutes to collect himself. So what? What did
you do for the first ten minutes after the second plane hit? What did your hero, John Kerry do? What did Roosevelt do for the first eighteen minutes after he received news of Pearl Harbor? What did Eisenhower do the morning of D-Day? (Hint: He sat with his thumb up his ass, waiting for information while arguably the most critical events of the 20th century -- which he had personally set in motion -- unfolded just a few tens of miles away. 90 minutes after the first wave hit the beach he wrote Bradly, saying, "I don't know if we have troops ashore." 90 minutes. And
we had the initiative!)
Fuck off, Mike. You're a petulant child, so absorbed in your tantrum that you don't even realize how pathetic you sound. Go tell it to Michael Moore. At least he'll take you seriously.
Posted by: Matt at September 28, 2005 09:04 PM (jXLSe)
36
Oh, and Casca: You disappoint me. Mike/Strawman always uses the same e-mail address: mb@mbda.com.
Mbda.com is the website for Michael Bernstein Design Associates, Inc. What're the odds that Mike is anyone other than Michael Bernstein himself? I mean, it's
possible -- e.g., he could just be some disgruntled employee roaming the Internet under his boss's identity, trying to piss people off -- but it seems unlikely.
Posted by: Matt at September 28, 2005 09:58 PM (jXLSe)
37
Hi Matt,
Thanks for the link and the PR. I wonder why people like you think that breeching a personÂ’s anonymity on the net is such a hoot or more to the point a way to smack them. I have always been transparent. As you say I have used my real email address and name. My address and phone number are there as well. How about you? Give me a call some time-we'll have a chat.
Oh, and the christmas cards are more than welcome, atheists love christmas cards, especially the one with the cuddly baby J on them-cute little jew boy that he was.
Anyway, you seem so stuck in your hypotheticals that I think it is pointless to continue shaking the tree to see if I can break you grip on the fantasy.
You of course no nothing more about the incident than you saw on TV. Just like me. But you WISH to think multitudes about what it meant while I gleaned only one thing-a disengaged leader, indecisive and superfluous. That is what the film tells us. You can cling to whatever you want and tell me long stories about good managers and their style, staying clear of the fray whilst others take care of business, and all the crap you hoped took place.
I didn't see any of that so I won't speculate. Why don't you try to isolate the picture of the man sitting and feel in your gut what you are looking at and forget how much you love the GB and need to defend him against any criticism?
And mostly stop the comparisons to Historical figures. It is a meaningless exercise and only supports the theory that your guy is as bad as a bunch of other people who may have acted badly. It don't make him OK.
Posted by: Strawman at September 29, 2005 07:06 AM (0ZdtC)
38
Shit Matt, I never read far enough, or was curious enough to look at the email address. As for the self-loathing shitstain by any other name, in the words of Kirk Douglas in "In Harm's Way", "Bums like him are with us always". Ignore him, and he'll wander off to a Cindy Sheahan site.
Posted by: Casca at September 29, 2005 07:48 AM (qBTBH)
39
Mike,
So you claiming it was a "breach" of your "privacy" for me to have pointed out something that -- as you acknowledge -- you've never shown any desire to hide? That pointing out the silliness of a silly question was an effort to "smack" you?
You see,
that's what makes you entertaining: Your funhouse-mirror view of reality; the nearly unique way you mentally isolate meaningless little factual nuggets from any sort of context, then distort them into something entirely new and unrecognizable. Bravo, sir! Bravo!
Posted by: Matt at September 29, 2005 10:22 AM (10G2T)
40
LMAO, I went to the site! This guy is a bonafide gerbil stuffer. Who buys that Ikea shit?
Posted by: Casca at September 29, 2005 11:17 AM (qBTBH)
41
Casca, you make me laugh. "Bonafide gerbil stuffer"? That's friggin' priceless. I'm almost in tears. You just don't hear people say stuff like "bona fide gerbil stuffer" or "shut your man-pleasin' mouth" often enough in the civilian world.
Posted by: Matt at September 29, 2005 12:32 PM (10G2T)
42
Ah laddie, that is my aim, ya shoulda been one a mine. My oldest reports to an OCC class on 9 October. How close are you to Quantico these days?
Posted by: Casca at September 29, 2005 11:08 PM (qBTBH)
43
Go Matt!!
Casca, Matt is right. You crack me up, man. "Bonafide gerbil stuffer," indeed. I laughed out loud when I read that and my wife had to come and see what I was laughing at.
The problem with 'Strawputz' is that he is suffering from the liberal Democrat disease. It rots your mind and corrupts rational thought. It also apparently destroys literacy and your ability to apply English grammar, express coherent thought, or use your computer's spell-checker. Of course, this may be a "chicken and egg" question. Which came first, being an idiot or being a Democrat? i.e., Does being an idiot make you a Democrat, or does being a Democrat make you an idiot? It's hard to tell. So, which is it, "Gerbil Stuffer?"
OK. Here's my theory about why the Dems are running around doing ridiculous stuff, like trying to make a big deal about GWB's seven minutes, or whatever it was.
The Democrats are practically hyperventilating in their panic at watching the American electorate desert them in droves and, as a result, they are grasping at every political straw that floats by. Yes, they represent mainstream New York City and Hollywood, but they are woefully out of touch with the vast majority of Americans out in "flyover country." Each election sees them lose more seats in Congress, in state legislatures, and governorships across the country.
Democrat party leadership is out of control. The Democrat party was hijacked by the radical left and Americans have witnessed the scary result of this.
[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16284] "In a December 9, 2004, e-mail signed by “Eli Pariser, Justin Ruben, and the whole MoveOn PAC team,” the Soros front group stated: “In the last year, grassroots contributors like us gave more than $300 million to the Kerry campaign and the DNC, and proved that the Party doesn't need corporate cash to be competitive. Now it's our Party: we bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back.”"
As a consequence of such disturbing arrogance, average patriotic, God fearing, honest Americans have become disgusted by and disaffected from the Democrat party. To the rest of us, they seem like a bunch of goggle-eyed, reptillian, space-aliens, babbling nonsense in some other-world language.
America is rapidly becoming a Republican country and this trend is not likely to reverse anytime soon. Why? Because the Democrat party doesn't "get it." After losing one election after another, they remain unable to understand why Americans don't accept their loony leftist ideas, so they respond by lurching even farther to the left, becoming even more strident in promoting nutty political positions that deeply offend mainstream America, such as same-sex "marriage," partial birth abortion, attacking the Boy Scouts, euthanasia, socialism, political correctness, thought control, radical feminism, racial quotas, outlawing private ownership of guns, and eliminating God from the public square. And, that is only a very short list of actively promoted Democrat positions antithetical to mainstream American values. The more ferociously Democrats defend these scurrilous positions, the wider the gulf becomes between them and mainstream America. Hence, the more elected offices they lose.
George W. Bush has become an iconic target of Democrat party desperation and frustration. He confounds them. They have literally spent BILLIONS trying to defeat him by painting him as the illiterate, ineffectual, dishonest, bumbling buffoon son of a rich family, and they keep failing to make these absurd charges stick with the voters. Why? Because GWB is anything BUT the person that Democrats try to accuse him of being and it doesn't take long for voters to figure that out. The result is that the Democrats end up discrediting THEMSELVES by their vicious lies instead of discrediting GWB. So, they end up HELPING him get elected instead of defeating him.
For the last twenty-five years, Democrats have consistently failed to understand that they hoist themselves on their own petard by their hubris and dishonesty when they tell these incredible lies. Now, it's too late. Bush is in the last office he will ever hold and the Democrats are STILL barking up that old tree. Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Like a brainless dog barking at the moon, they go on and on and on with their ridiculous noise, still trying to make their ancient, discredited lies stick to the political wall. But, their lies wonÂ’t stick because everyone has already heard these tired old baseless-accusations so often that it sickens them to have to listen to them yet another time.
These partisan morons should do themselves a favor and realize that GWB isn't going to run again. No matter how much money they spend or how many lies they tell, it is no longer possible for them to defeat him. It's over. They would be well served by getting over it and getting on to the next political war instead of continuing to fight the last one, which they already lost ... miserably. But, they won't.
They have become CONSUMED by their hatred of George W. Bush. The Democrat party has SO successfully focused their simpleton stooges on HATING BUSH that the very intensity of that hatred is preventing them from refocusing their efforts. Oh, well. Once again the Dems are going to run themselves on their own political sword, and it couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch. I can hardly wait to watch them squirming as they rip out their own guts with their lies and radical leftist propaganda, like a delusional, self-destructive psychopath who imagines himself murdering other people while he is actually enthusiastically stabbing himself. Sweet.
Posted by: Nono Namo at September 30, 2005 12:14 AM (Jf28C)
44
Do I accurately understand from the above banter that Casca and Matt are Marines? Same here. Been to Quantico, done that, instructed OCs. 1st MarDiv Rifle Pistol Team. Japan. Assigned to the staff unit to reactivate the 5th MarDiv at Twentynine Palms. 3rd Mar Div in 'Nam, I Corps '68-69 ... Nav Sec Group ... noname, snoopin' an' poopin' in unknown places with weird unknown others, from unknown organizations, doing unknown things, for unknown reasons. What you don't know you can't tell. All very mysterious.
Semper Fi
Posted by: Nono Namo at September 30, 2005 01:04 AM (Jf28C)
45
Casca,
Actually, I'm only about fifteen miles north of Quantico. If there's anything Casca, Jr. needs, let me know and I'll see what I can do.
Nono: Indeed. My own seven years were fairly uneventful, though. A tour at Lejeune in an arty battery, a Med float, and a tour with a security force company at a Naval sub base. That's about it.
Posted by: Matt at September 30, 2005 04:43 AM (BkVa4)
Posted by: Matt at September 30, 2005 05:51 AM (10G2T)
47
Putting aside for the moment Hillary's likely run on a Dem ticket, do you think the Republican Party would be less likely to field a woman candidate than other Parties?
I realize that women are placed in certain high visibility positions in the Bush Administration; do you think that this could signal a change from the good old boy networks, or that there is still a glass ceiling in that Party?
Posted by: will at September 30, 2005 06:29 AM (GzvlQ)
48
Thanks Matt, for the record he's not "Jr". He's Casca Model 82A2.
Yes Nano, Misguided Children.
I'd only differ with you on some minor points. Nearly every seat held by a Democrat is held by someone elected from a rotten burough where there is a dysfunctional electoral process (read ballot box stuffing). The roof is about to fall in on these folks as certain voting reforms take hold that will make it impossible for the D's to continue as they have for the past seventy years. Federal Law says that voter records must be computerized by January.
California votes Republican with the exceptions of LA & San Francisco. I posit that it is voter fraud that maintains this pattern.
Posted by: Casca at September 30, 2005 07:19 AM (qBTBH)
49
Matt, Casca, Nono,
Now I undestand why there was so much talk and love of gerbils- You are all marines! Figures.
Posted by: Strawman at September 30, 2005 07:34 AM (0ZdtC)
50
Women of Quantico, look out! i've seen pictures.
Posted by: annika at September 30, 2005 07:46 AM (qBVjN)
51
Mike, sometimes you make me laugh, too. Unfortunately, in your case it seems to be unintentional, and you apparently are oblivious to the humor in your own best lines. But then again, if it were intentional it wouldn't be interesting. So you just keep on keepin' on, man, and don't let us wingnuts get you down.
Posted by: Matt at September 30, 2005 08:12 AM (10G2T)
52
Is it just the women of Quantico that have to worry? Tremble before the ex-Marine below!
http://www.lisamariebickels.com/gallery/lisamariebickels17.jpg
You can see the USMC tattoo in this pic:
http://www.lisamariebickels.com/gallery/lisamariebickels20.jpg
Posted by: reagan80 at September 30, 2005 08:26 AM (k0ik3)
53
Shit, and she lives in the neighborhood.
No fear of the 82A2 chasing tail for the next three months. The Marine Corps will keep him occupied to the state of exhaustion until Christmas.
Posted by: Casca at September 30, 2005 03:54 PM (qBTBH)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
People are fascinated by giant slimy things i guess. The giant squid has always held a particular mythological importance. Mainly, i think, because so little is known about it. As a monster it was known as the Kraken, and you can see it in the corners of those old time maps, usually clutching a square rigger within its tentacled death grip.
i had a nightmare last night in which monsters and evil things were featured. i half woke up and thought to myself "why am i dreaming in horror?" Then i rolled over on my other side, which allowed my unconscious to switch genres. 
seriously I did hear it. wondered if I misheard for a sec but upon reflection he used a naughty word. Well not terribly naughty, but non-family show friendly to be sure.
