I think it's quite obvious that the worst foreign policy mistake in the history of the country was made by the dinosaurs who didn't sign the Pangea Treaty limiting greenhouse gasses and were subsequently wiped out by global warming.

Speaking of harbringers of the end times, any chance you'll be posting the first chapter of Hellbender at Baen's Bar anytime soon?

Speaking of harbringers of the end times, any chance you'll be posting the first chapter of Hellbender at Baen's Bar anytime soon?

Later this week. I thought I had the first chapter done, but Sarah convinced me it needed more work. The revision is done, and I'll put it up later this week whether she has time to look over it or not since I really want to get moving on it.

I'll post when it's up.

So the fact that the war has lasted longer than WW2 and cost more than vietnam is a sign of success?

The worst mistake in history about the Iraq war is that congress chose to fight it LIKE the Vietnam war. You can't win a war by having it lorded over by burocrats trying to make it a police action. Untie the hands of the soldiars, and it will be wrapped up in a couple of months (the other problem is that the Clinton years both purged the military of anyone in command who had a pair, and bound it in endless red tape).
Harry Reid...masterbate? That's an image I could do without, if it were even physically possible...without a microscope and a mountain of viagra. I hope he's up for re-election soon, so that we here in Nevada can rid ourselves of the worst political mistake our state has ever made.

The worst foreign policy ever was the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. We had taken all of Mexico by fairly killing their army. We had Mexico City, Puerto Vallerta, and all the cool Aztec ruins. Today there would be no illegal immigrants, we would have a really big wasteland where we could test our bombs, Ducky wouldn't have to worry about getting back from Tijuana, and the residents of Santa Poco would never had to have dealt with El Guapo. Oh the humanity.

The question isn't whether Harry Reid is going to declare Iraq as bad as the holocaust, it's whether George Bush is going to make it worse than the holocaust by extending the war into Iran and possibly Pakistan. The commonest complaint about the war you hear about from the right is that the administration is not acting with sufficient ferocity in a situation that calls for real barbarism. Well, there are a lot more than 6,000,000 Muslims in Iraq, Syria, and Iran so Bush could beat Hitler's numbers if he decided to play to his base. After all, the half a million or so deaths he is already responsible for in Iraq are a pretty good start.

It is hard to imagine how Iraq could not end up being a worse mistake than VietNam. Despite the violence that followed our departure from VietNam, it worked out rather well for the US. The central hawk justification for the war--the domino theory--turned out to be nothing more than another paranoid fantasy. Instead of leading to communist domination of all of southeast Asia, or loss in VietNam was followed by the collapse of the Soviet Union and a steep decline in communist influence worldwide.

But in Iraq, it now seems that the best that anybody is seriously hoping for at this point is establishment of some form of stability in a democratic Iraq that will undoubtedly end up being dominated by religious Shiites and allied to Iran. The consequences of this for American interests are likely to be far more grave than were those of our loss in VietNam.

Looks like "madmatt" went to publik skool, since apparently he can't count. (Sure, I did as well, but in the UK, where there are still such things as educational standards)

Timeline for WWII: 1939-1945 (For "madmatt", that means six years)
Timeline for the Iraq War: 2003-present (That's a little less than four years, only two if you go by the Clintonian definition of action following the initial invasion as "peacekeeping")

Financial cost of WWII: $2,091.3 billion (adjusted for 1990 dollar values)
Fifnancial cost of Iraq War to date: $100 billion (Again less if you go by the Clinton definition of post-invasion action as "peacekeeping")

In summary: "madmatt" needs some actual maths classes vice self-esteem classes. Because feeling good about your stupidity still won't land you a job at Mickey D's, kiddo.

Oh, goodie, the trolls are back! My monkey-faced liberal punchin' hand needed a work-out.

*PUNCH*

*PUNCH*

Ah, that's better.

Oh, and Jim, did you just make up that comparison between Bush and Hitler? It's so brilliant that I bet it's the first time a leftard troll has ever used it.

Hey, maybe you could come up with one about Bush looking like some form of primate. Oh, I don't know, like a "chimp" or something. I'm sure you're creative enough to go somewhere with that one too!

(I really wish they'd take internet access away from those lefties we put in detention camps. I mean, we put them there so we wouldn't have to keep putting up with their ignorant rants....)

The worst mistake in history about the Iraq war is that congress chose to fight it LIKE the Vietnam war.

Would the resident neo-conservative genius please explain the statement above to me?

Last I checked, Bush had blind fealty from the Rethug majority in the last Congressional class. So just how is this Clinton and the Democrats' fault?

Some people here need to brush up on their history before blindly spewing spittle soaked rhetoric all over the Internets.

Gee, and I was sure that fighting the mooselimbs overseas was a sure way to limit civilian casualties for Americans... my bad! I'm sure I can count on all the brave ex-hippies to back me up when the jihadists come looking for my head since I'm a conservative and don't even like regular taxes let alone "head taxes". What is a head tax you might ask, if your a dirty brown rice eating hippy, well let me tell you. A head tax is what mo-ham-head requires you to pay if you won't convert to islam and still want your head to remain perched atop your neck. BTW the tax is so large you can't pay it and live as anything more than a beggar. Why worry though, like I said, I'm sure the hippy next door has your back.

Dear Home page.

It's funny.... I tought with all the failed plans that the Right has implemented over the years in Iraq you guys were the experts in the masturbation department.

Go figure.

Timeline for WWII: 1939-1945 (For "madmatt", that means six years)
Timeline for the Iraq War: 2003-present (That's a little less than four years, only two if you go by the Clintonian definition of action following the initial invasion as "peacekeeping")

So either you are as uneducated as the person you are purportedly schooling in the history of WWII, or you're guilty of lying by omission.

The U.S. was attacked in December of 1941, and by the end of the month was at war with Germany and Japan.
Japan surrendered in 1945, ending the U.S. war effort (for all intents and purposes). The subsequent occupations of Germany and Japan took place with international cooperation and was something the defacto Japanese government agreed to as a condition of our acceptance of their surrender.

In any case we are talking about 3 years for the American war effort in WWII, thus meaning that the ongoing "war" in Iraq has outlasted that.

What part of this do you not understand? Or would you rather split hairs and talk about the differences between the occupation of Japan and that of Iraq?

I reject your premise that criticism of our involvement in Iraq constitutes "hyperbole". Comparisons vis a vis the Vietnam war need to be put into context to have any validity. The major difference between Vietnam and Iraq is that the Vietnam war took place in a rather out of the way little country where the brutish business of war could take place, safely removed from any proximity to strategic resources critical to the world economy. On the other hand the Iraq war is taking place at the very source of the world's (especially the USA's) economic lifeblood, OIL! In Iraq, we are literally playing with matches in a powder magazine.

What all of you bush/CHENY apologists need is to do a little side reading (Google the term "peak oil")and learn about the absolute dependence we have upon the uninterrupted flow of petroleum from that region. Everything in our economy relies upon the damned stuff and nowhere is there a denser, richer collection of targets, critical to the world petroleum markets, than the Persian gulf countries. They don't have to do that much damage to any of several critical facilities to initiate a financial panic that would make the Great Depression look like a day at the beach.

So go ahead and lay off of the GOPer talking points get exposed to some facts. If your going to be afraid of the radical muslims, at least be afraid for the right reasons.

Apparently when Reid became majority leader, all of his catamites recieved free internet access.

So, why do you idiots think going to Iraq and helping the Shias set up Sharia Law is some kind of victory for the United States? How is Sharia Law something worth fighting for? I guess you are all Sharia Law lovers? That's what I'm calling you all from now on. Seriously. That's what the new Iraqi government wants so it must be what you idiots want since you all seem to support this mistake and think like Cheneylicious does that this is some kind of "marvelous success story." Cheneylicious = Sharialicious. You idiots must be so proud that the the new country will be run under anti-Christian laws. Bush says over and over that the Iraqis want "freedom." Some freedom Sharia law is. What a complete joke the Bush administration and you losers are. Let's get the troops out of there so they aren't dying for Sharia Law anymore.

Apparently when Reid became majority leader, all of his catamites recieved free internet access.

And with that I have the answer to my questions.

I think I'll go watch the "1/2 Hour News Hour" on Rupert Murdoch's Fox News Channel next time I want a laugh - and inevitably end up disappointed.

"...and inevitably end up disappointed." Of course! As you whackjob liberals ought to be! mike...er i mean...my k'unt! --go play with it!

Yes, "Mike", we're "uneducated" or "lying by ommission" because we took the statement "So the fact that the war has lasted longer than WW2...." to mean the, you know, actual length of World War II, rather than your undeclared subset of the war.

And yet, despite the war lasting longer, we've lost approximately 3,100 soldiers as compared to 407,300 in WW2.

Not that either comparison has any actual relevence, of course. Or are you saying that WW2 was a foreign policy blunder, so by being longer the Iraq War is an even bigger blunder?

Just trying to see if you have a point (other than under your hat).

>"After all, the half a million or so deaths he is already responsible for in Iraq are a pretty good start."

cite please

>"It is hard to imagine how Iraq could not end up being a worse mistake than VietNam."

Seeing as the estimates for the number dead in Iraq right now are ~70,000 (and that's including people dead as a result of crimes, not just from fighting, which is a lot lower)--and given that the estimates of civilian dead (not just soldiers, strictly civilians) were 1-4 million in Vietnam, not counting the hundreds of thousands who died after we bailed on them--the two aren't comparable.

>"Despite the violence that followed our departure from VietNam, it worked out rather well for the US. The central hawk justification for the war--the domino theory--turned out to be nothing more than another paranoid fantasy."

The people of Laos and Cambodia would dispute that.

>"But in Iraq, it now seems that the best that anybody is seriously hoping for at this point is establishment of some form of stability in a democratic Iraq that will undoubtedly end up being dominated by religious Shiites and allied to Iran."

If the Iraqi alliance towards Iran = an Iraq that attacks Mahdi Army and allows us to capture Iranian officials who are aiding the insurgents in Iraq--then I'll take that alliance, but it doesn't seem like much of an alliance to me.

>"going to Iraq and helping the Shias set up Sharia Law is some kind of victory for the United States?...That's what the new Iraqi government wants so it must be"

Again, cite please

Here, I'll provide me own

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/02/19/video-the-kurdish-miracle-on-60-minutes/

"It is hard to imagine how Iraq could not end up being a worse mistake than VietNam. Despite the violence that followed our departure from VietNam, it worked out rather well for the US. The central hawk justification for the war--the domino theory--turned out to be nothing more than another paranoid fantasy. Instead of leading to communist domination of all of southeast Asia, or loss in VietNam was followed by the collapse of the Soviet Union and a steep decline in communist influence worldwide."

Right, because Laos were never involved in bloody, Communist genocide, right? Pol Pot says, "Hi."

I guess I wasn't clear. I wasn't likening Bush to Hitler. I was likening you guys to brown shirts. This site has an definite SA flavor, which is to say, it is not only hard right but also low brow, as opposed, for example, to the rather prissy Neocons with their intellectual pretentions. Bush doesn't worry me half as much as the prospect that the next candidate for maximum leader will find in you guys a street army of thugs primed and ready for use.

Laos and Cambodia*

My bad.

"Bush doesn't worry me half as much as the prospect that the next candidate for maximum leader will find in you guys a street army of thugs primed and ready for use."

Sounds like fun to me! Get your daisies, roses, bongs, and free love chants ready jimmy boy! We're comin' to getcha!! LOL...what BS!

>"On the other hand the Iraq war is taking place at the very source of the world's (especially the USA's) economic lifeblood, OIL! In Iraq, we are literally playing with matches in a powder magazine.

What all of you bush/CHENY apologists need is to do a little side reading (Google the term "peak oil")and learn about the absolute dependence we have upon the uninterrupted flow of petroleum from that region."

Fascinating, I don't think it ever occurred to any of us that oil was a key factor in the U.S. economy.

Did you guys know this?

Frank, have you been keeping us in the dark? Why didn’t anybody ever tell me this?

If only I had known that oil was vital to the U.S. economy before the war . . .

I would have made sure to keep U.S. troops away from there. American forces should only go to places like Haiti and Bosnia. They should never be put in a place that is vital to our economy.

We should **not** disrupt this region ever again; we should leave it in the hands of local dictators. After all, it’s not like liberals didn’t spend a couple decades calling us hypocrites for doing exactly that before the war.

Boy, if I thought the war has only cost $100 billion and it was keeping us safe from those crazy Muslims who want to kill us, I'd think all this liberal blather was, well, liberal blather. But then there's those inconvenient truths that it's closer to $400 billion (in direct costs only) and that Al Qaeda didn't get the memo that we're serious and they need to stop now.

"I was likening you guys to brown shirts. This site has an definite SA flavor..."

Godwin's Law

You won't "here" anything the dems say.

You might "hear" it though...if you listen carefully. Though you won't really understand what you are hearing given the comprehension abilities of most conservatives.

As for Reid's statement...it's obvious that the consequences of losing Iraq are worse than the consequences of losing Vietnam. An emboldened Iran, a fundamentalist country where there was previously a secular government, bin laden shown to be correct, etc.... In fact, we don't even have to lose anymore...those consequences exists regardless of what happens from here on out. (so yes, it's worse than vietnam)

When some dem actually makes the absurd statement that the war in Iraq is worse than the Holocaust, call them out on it, please.

Until then, you can take your petty self-righteousness and stick it. Dems don't need your rediculous crocodile tears over hyperbolistic statements...the right wing calls them "IslamoFascists" for christ's sake. If that isn't hyperbole, I don't know what is.

You show a real lack of logical thinking and proper comprehension, but that's no surprise for a conservative.

Gee WAL, you let loose with both barrels from the winger shotgun : SNARK and SMARM. You hit the bullseye too, got me right between the eyes. Funny thing is I didn't feel a thing, it tickled a little I guess because you made me chuckle a bit.

Hmmm ... winger bullets bounce right off of me. Now that I think about it, that can only mean one thing.

I must be SUPERLIB !!!

3y3 pwn yoo, Phe4r m3

It is my view that George Bush and his cohorts Cheney and Rice went into Iraq for the oil. They violated international law and agreements introduced mainly by us to prosecute the Nazi war criminals. To now spit in the face of those rules is disturbing and shows that greed has captivated the most powerful man in the world, our commander and thief. I suggest we discuss this because in the long run, we could pay a heavy price for this greed.
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/43045/

It is my view that George Bush and his cohorts Cheney and Rice went into Iraq for the oil. They violated international law and agreements introduced mainly by us to prosecute the Nazi war criminals. To now spit in the face of those rules is disturbing and shows that greed has captivated the most powerful man in the world, our commander and thief. I suggest we discuss this because in the long run, we could pay a heavy price for this greed.
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/43045/

"Untie the hands of the soldiars, and it will be wrapped up in a couple of months"

We've got a military genius on our hands!

Clearly (though without any evidence whatsoever to back it up), our soldiers have been to constrained to win the war. Obviously use of whiskey pete is nothing but child's play. Obviously the insurgents that we're fighing would just give up tomorrow if we actually "untied the hands of soldiers".

My god you conservatives live in a cartoonishly simple world where there's a simple obvious answer to every problem (and usually that answer involves commiting some kind of war crime). Nice.

Sorry, eiother the link is not working or it is being blocked. You can cut and paste it for the real story.

Frank,
The Moonbat trolls are correct. We need to end the American occupation of Germany and Japan immediately! Once we do that, we can go back to a policy of isolationism because that worked out so well for the world before. That way, dictators will have the freedom to decimate their own people and freedom is what moonbats and the ACLU are defending, right?

That's why I didn't hear about it! I'm not fluent in hax0r pwn4g3!

Well, my informative friend, I have lots of studying to do!

"They violated international law and agreements introduced mainly by us to prosecute the Nazi war criminals."

You should report him to the international police.

It is my view that Bush is Hitler because he Iraq War has lasted longer than World War 2. And who started WW2? HITLER!

That's why you Rethugs wear brown shirts.

And steal oil.

Just like HITLER!

Damn, I wish my welfare check didn't always run out this early in the month. I need more weed.

Halliburton!

Remember to support our troops. The brave Iraqi freedom fighters couldn't kill filthy American Christianist crusaders without your support!

I guess I've dropped enough science on you for today.

Hail Satan!
Monkey Faced Liberal

I've always resisted the claim that the right wing of the Republican party was fascist because fascism was a very specific political movement with many features that don't match up with the characteristics of even the most extreme conservative outfits. The hostility to civil rights, the authoritarianism, the rabid nationalism, and the glorification of violence and even torture were very much in evidence; but a crucial element was missing, a large-scale paramilitary mobilization. With the Klan and the skinheads over the hill, I didn't think anti-abortion terrorist or hapless militia types could take up the slack. Reading the rightwing blogs has made me question my complacency on this issue. Maybe you guys are all talk, but you sure sound like the kind of people that were mobilized all over Europe in the 20s and 30s. I certainly hope I'm wrong about that or that you will simply become marginalized as the majority of Americans reassert tranditional values such as prudence, tolerance, and pragmatism over chest-thumping machismo.

By the way, that the picture of Bush as a cowboy in the ad is remarkably gay. I know that homoeroticism is normal in a Mannerbund, but the illustration looks like a poster for the Republican remake of Brokeback Mountain.

Not that either comparison has any actual relevence, of course. Or are you saying that WW2 was a foreign policy blunder, so by being longer the Iraq War is an even bigger blunder?

It's a commonly made point that the Iraq war, as it is presently defined had gone on longer that WWII did based on AMERICAN INVOLVEMENT. So I'll grant you that the previous poster may have mis-spoken, but American involvement in WWII is most definitely what he/she referred to.

Was WWII a "foreign policy blunder"? Are you really asking for my opinion? There were some "blunders" during the war, but nothing like the fake-ass, cooked up intel that the neocon right and complicit left allowed the likes of Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and their incompetent, utterly un-distinguished forefathers in neoconservatism were allowed to perpetrate in the form of "plan b" and other alternate intelligence reports - inflating the Soviet threat and that of "Islamofacism" respectively, CIA backed and funded coups and the overthrow of democratically elected governments worldwide, the sale of chemical and biological weapons, not to mention nuclear technology to Iraq and Iran respectively - all of which we are paying for today. Drat that pesky Clinton and Bosnia, huh?

The sad fact is that 90% of right wing neocon apologist losers posting on this site will never have to live to deal with the consequences of Iraq and the fact that it was a Republican administration in league with a Republican Congress that has so badly mismanaged and mangled our foreign policy.

There simply are no more excuses for the abjectly unqualified Rumsfeld/Cheney run war in Iraq, nor the excuses they used to get us into it. Not that Rummy and Cheney aren't the experts on exactly how Saddam and Iran got to be where they're at.

The best part about being an ideologue neocon is thinking that the rest of the country doesn't laugh when you throw the next bogeyman that your policies created in all of our collective faces and expect us to be scared for you.

Monkey Faced Liberal,

for the life of me, I can't figure out if you are a liberal making fun of conservatives' beliefs about liberals... or if you are just a conservative making fun of liberals. Was that a parody of liberals, or a parody of a parody of liberals?

Just goes to show how bad it's gotten... conservatives are now largely indistinguishable from parodies of conservatives.

Once we do that, we can go back to a policy of isolationism because that worked out so well for the world before. That way, dictators will have the freedom to decimate their own people and freedom is what moonbats and the ACLU are defending, right?

Yeah. exactly. The isolationism practiced by the US Government while the likes of Prescott Bush were padding their own pockets as the Nazis came to power, right?

The right wing in this country is comedy gold.

Sorry, not done with you wingnuts yet.

Y'all are a bunch of gay Nazis!

We now return to "The Simpsons", already in progress....

Hail Satan!
Monkey Faced Liberal

(This message was sent from Liberal Internment Camp K-ME. They keep bringing in more of my friends every day. At least I have company when I watch Brokeback Mountain now!)

Just trying to see if you have a point (other than under your hat).

The main, laughable underlying point is that, after the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld debacle I get to "fight you mooselimbs" here in "the right wing nutcase blogosphere" instead of in any real political forum.

Because nobody but 28% of the 28% would still even consider your ideologies remotely relevant or likely to be successful in any real foreign policy sense.

Just continue to fall back on "the left hates America" and "it's Clinton's fault". It's easy, and it makes it easy for the rest of us to spot you.

As you were.

Who are you to question me, "ME"?

I bet you're one of the camp guards!

Racist!

Sexist!

Homophobe!

Islamophobe!

Zionist!

Rethug tool!

No blood for oil!

Unless it's for my limo or private jet!

Hail Satan!
Monkey Faced Liberal

You neocons are all just a buch of meanies out to support the Bu$Hitler oil theft war machine of ultimate doom & general discomfort. Because of the racist war in Iraq, the space-time continuum will be disrupted thereby causing a feedback loop for liberal and stopping us from having any original ideas or solutions since the early 60's...whoa! I just experienced deja vu... anyway, you neocons are all just a buch of meanies out to support the Bu$Hitler oil theft war machine of ultimate doom & general discomfort. Because of the racist war in Iraq, the space-time continuum will be disrupted thereby causing a feedback loop for liberal and stopping us from having any original ideas or solutions since the early 60's...whoa! I just experienced deja vu... anyway, you...

Mad Magazine presents:

Mad-Libs!

“The Neocon Conspiracy”

Want to post on a rightwing blog?

Don’t have a rational argument relevant to the post?

No Problem!

You can provide your own rant, relevancy-free

(the longer it is, the more likely others won’t bother to fact check!)

Words: - Insert 1-10:

Neocon, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Islamofascism, CIA, Halliburton, Michael Moore, Jooos

There were some "blunders" during the war, but nothing like the fake-ass, cooked up intel that the ______1_____ and complicit left allowed the likes of _____2______, _____3______, _______4____, and their incompetent, utterly un-distinguished forefathers in _____5______ were allowed to perpetrate in the form of "plan b" and other alternate intelligence reports - inflating the Soviet threat and that of "_____6______" respectively, _____7______ backed and funded coups and the overthrow _____8______ worldwide, the sale of chemical and biological weapons, not to mention nuclear technology to _____9____ and ______10_____ respectively - all of which we are paying for today. Drat that pesky Clinton and Bosnia, huh?

Repeat until the Brown Shirts get too bored to reply! fun for the whole family!

No fair making fun of us true progressives.

So don't do it again.

Otherwise, I'll have to clean myself off from wallowing in my own filth, climb the stairs out of my parents' basement, and tell my mommy!

Whoops, I forgot the Rethuglicans put us all in camps.

I mean, otherwise, I'll have to wait for visiting hours and tell my mommy!

Hail Satan!
Monkey Faced Liberal

You fucking Rethiglican't fuckers. Fuck you, you godbag phallocratic Duke U jerkoffs. Keep yer filthy oil-stained hands off my cunt, breeders. The only thing worse than Chimpy McHitler's war-a-thon is someone with a penis.

"Yeah. exactly. The isolationism practiced by the US Government while the likes of Prescott Bush were padding their own pockets as the Nazis came to power"

Yeah, because Prescott Bush was President in the 1930s.

Quit trolling here and get back in the bathhouse where you belong! I've been waiting for over two hours now. I didn't want to be majority leader for nothing, you know.

Ah,Mike H... So much troll fodder, so little time. If feeding trolls wasn't so much fun, I suspect the internet would be ONLY porn intstead of mostly.

Let's take a look at some of your stated propositions (many identifying themselves as 'facts,' but perhaps our definitions of that word differ.

MH: It's a commonly made point that the Iraq war, as it is presently defined had gone on longer that WWII did based on AMERICAN INVOLVEMENT. So I'll grant you that the previous poster may have mis-spoken, but American involvement in WWII is most definitely what he/she referred to.

K: Okay. Only mind-reading so far, but nothing too far off the reservation.

MH: Was WWII a "foreign policy blunder"? Are you really asking for my opinion? There were some "blunders" during the war, but nothing like the fake-ass, cooked up intel that the neocon right and complicit left allowed the likes of Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and their incompetent, utterly un-distinguished forefathers in neoconservatism were allowed to perpetrate in the form of "plan b" and other alternate intelligence reports - inflating the Soviet threat and that of "Islamofacism" respectively, CIA backed and funded coups and the overthrow of democratically elected governments worldwide, the sale of chemical and biological weapons, not to mention nuclear technology to Iraq and Iran respectively - all of which we are paying for today. Drat that pesky Clinton and Bosnia, huh?

K: Kudos for getting so much swill into a single paragraph! The intel issues you refer to must be the ones cleared by every independent report and used by that pesky Clinton (either one) prior to 2003. The rest of it was kind of hard follow, as I coudn't tell if you were sharing the blame for tranfer of technology to now-hostile countries with Clinton or not.

MD: The sad fact is that 90% of right wing neocon apologist losers posting on this site will never have to live to deal with the consequences of Iraq and the fact that it was a Republican administration in league with a Republican Congress that has so badly mismanaged and mangled our foreign policy.

K: Here we see 'fact' raise it's head... 90% of a an ill-defined group feels a certain way? I trust you've sold your methodology to Gallup, 'cause they often have a hard time getting much smaller slices of much better defined groups pegged down. Since this series starts on this 'fact,' I'm not going to bother looking at the rest of it. GI/GO.

MH: There simply are no more excuses for the abjectly unqualified Rumsfeld/Cheney run war in Iraq, nor the excuses they used to get us into it. Not that Rummy and Cheney aren't the experts on exactly how Saddam and Iran got to be where they're at.

K: And the qualifications for SecDef and VP are? Surely you aren't suggesting that Al Gore and Les Aspin were MORE qualified (and perhaps Shirly applies, so I'll let it stand for now). Some sort of objective criteria to support such a proposition (or whatever else you have in mind).

MH: The best part about being an ideologue neocon is thinking that the rest of the country doesn't laugh when you throw the next bogeyman that your policies created in all of our collective faces and expect us to be scared for you.

K: Ah, back to the mind-reading of the ill-defined group! Such twaddle. There wasn't even any need to trot out actual things (like USS Cole, WTC93, etc. ad nauseum)... yep, it's all 'bogeymen.' Sleep well, little brother, for I'll be out there letting you dream your sad, small dreams.

MikeHunt (so clever- you deserve a cookie!),
You illustrate my point very well. American isolationism is the last thing that we need in the world. If you just look at the situation rationally, you might understand. Instead, you're obsessed with undermining our President. It's sad that there is no dialogue with the far left as you've resigned yourselves to live in a false reality where you're the victims. Not everyone agrees with you so stop whining at me about it. Go commiserate at DU or Kos.

WHAAAAA!!! Our butts hurt!!! The war has drivin up the cost of petroleum, a key ingredient in our preferred intimacy lubricant!!! WHAAAA!!!

Answer to Matty G

Matt you can hardly call what is going on today "isolationist". With troops in the Korean Peninsula, Japan, The Phylipines, Afghanistan, the UAE, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Germany, Spain, England, just to name some countries.

Does that sound like isolationist to you? If anithing (and that's the VALID COMPLAINT) of the Military we are over extended.

Another point. If you call yourself a Republican Conservative.... Go back and look at what they stand for (isolationism).. This new Republican policy of shooting first, and asking questions later is called Neo-Conservatism (That's why the Neo), and is by now a policy that has lost all credibility in America, and never had any traction around the world.

Neo-Conservatism is still here only because in our form of Democracy we can't trow out an elected Government before the end of it's period like the Europeans do in their Parlamentary . system.

If we could do it Bush and the Neo- Cons would be trown out of Power so fast, they would not even have time to fix up the cavern where they came out from, and make it home sweet home again.

Sarcasm Man

My friend get a grip. I guess is very funny that gasoline has gone up, and it spikes to the roof at least twice a year.... But pardon me for not laughing.

I notice that this gas to the roof price is another of those partisan issues. That is to say if Bill Richardson is in charge of the Energy Department under Clinton and Gas goes up.... Republicans savaged Clinton, Richardson, and Richardson's mother... If on the other hand the problem falls on a Republican.... is just the Democrats whining as usual, and It's those damn Chinese fault.

Here we go again. Right wingers are Nazis. Bullcrap! Nazi; National Socialist. Socialism. Left wing. The only difference between Nazi and communist is the rhetoric behind the brutal oppression and confiscation.

We've all been misinformed for far too long on that convenient little lie. Think about it.

You're hardly the first to do this - I don't blame you for it - but as a pet peeve of mine:

Neo-conservatism is not an ideology

Neo-conservative was used to refer to ex-marxists/leftists in the 1950-1970s who moved rightward (Irving Kristol, Nathan Glazer, Bill Bennet, etc.). The common thread was that they had become more conservative, not that they had become a specific type of conservative or that they advocated specific viewpoints.

Yeah, I know-conservatives are responsible for muddying the term also (Project for the New American Century). But there is no defined ideology called neoconservatism. There are no scholars of neoconservative doctrine. There are no treatises and never were to begin with.

Neoconservative as it's used today means everybody on the right outside of Pat Buchanan and little else.

on,
You haven't caught on that I'm making fun of the left's attempts at isolationism and it's just a joke, I'm not inferring that it's part of your party's platform! I also mentioned that our military is stationed all over the world. Side note: it's Philippines, not Phylipines. Funny how you ended up making yourself look foolish with that one, eh? Also, the Republican Party is not isolationist. Where did you get an idea like that? From the promotion of free international trade? Oh wait, protectionism would encourage isolationism. Now who would encourage a thing like that? I mean other than certain European countries with a double digit unemployment rate.

Neo-conservative was used to refer to ex-marxists/leftists in the 1950-1970s who moved rightward (Irving Kristol, Nathan Glazer, Bill Bennet, etc.). The common thread was that they had become more conservative, not that they had become a specific type of conservative or that they advocated specific viewpoints.

I was aware of the original leftist members of the "neoconservative" school of thought.

Yeah, I know-conservatives are responsible for muddying the term also (Project for the New American Century). But there is no defined ideology called neoconservatism. There are no scholars of neoconservative doctrine. There are no treatises and never were to begin with.

I beg to differ. Neoconservatism is an ideology. The ideology of American hegemony and a unilateral American foreign policy, along with the extension of the policy begun after WWII to garrison the planet and make foreign leaders and populations amenable, if not friendly to American interests (especially Energy and Corporate).

It's hard to say that there aren't any scholarly pursuit of the neo-conservative ideology. Too early to really tell, especially since the term as used is largely used by its detractors in a derogatory manner.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Neo-conservative

Not even close.

"The worst thing ever" was said to me in late 2002.
"You shouldn't question the President when he's taking us to war."

Can you imagine how big of a moron you have to be to utter such a statement?
Unbelievable!

BTW, how much of that $15 Billion it's going to take to win this war do we have remaining?

Hey, I'm sorry, but if you're gonna show up with a busload of cripples you gotta call ahead...

Krans,

I got a real kick out of the drivel that poured from your fat, stubbly little fingers onto the Internet.

You are so good at erecting strawmen and knocking them down that you lose sight of what it is you are even arguing against.

And yet you fail so successfully to say anything of any substance whatsoever in your first two neat little dialog-style rebuttals, that I'll confine my response to the less absurd.

K: Kudos for getting so much swill into a single paragraph! The intel issues you refer to must be the ones cleared by every independent report and used by that pesky Clinton (either one) prior to 2003. The rest of it was kind of hard follow, as I coudn't tell if you were sharing the blame for tranfer of technology to now-hostile countries with Clinton or not.

No. Intel issues I refer to were referred to clearly. Plan B, Rumsfeld's independently commissioned report on the state of the Iraq WMD program between the Gulf War and the latest debacle, and many many more. What here doesn't make sense to you? Because I'd love to explain it.

K: And the qualifications for SecDef and VP are? Surely you aren't suggesting that Al Gore and Les Aspin were MORE qualified (and perhaps Shirly applies, so I'll let it stand for now). Some sort of objective criteria to support such a proposition (or whatever else you have in mind).

Looking back on Rumsfled and Cheney's careers, one only sees careerism, greed, and an ideology and ruthlessness blinding in their scope even to Richard Nixon. Then there's McCain's all-too-late admission that Rummy will likely be seen as the worst Sec. Def. of all time. But as I mentioned, and you prove for me, neocons live in denial.

K: Ah, back to the mind-reading of the ill-defined group! Such twaddle. There wasn't even any need to trot out actual things (like USS Cole, WTC93, etc. ad nauseum)... yep, it's all 'bogeymen.' Sleep well, little brother, for I'll be out there letting you dream your sad, small dreams.

Are you really as stupid as you think we are? Actual things, huh? You mean like the actual things I trotted out? Rummy, Cheney, et al and their documented (though largely still classified) efforts to arm Saddam, create and promote terrorists in Afghanistan - including funding and training Bin Laden, send nuclear technology to Iran, chemical and biological weapons to Saddam etc. etc. etc.?

Yet you short sighted dimwits seem to think that if you deny it enough, and that if Bush can classify more and more information, that this history will never be discussed, and that we can conveniently blame the f'ing mess we're in now on Clinton! When a lifetime of policy blunders under the belts of Reagan, Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, and Rummy are the real causes, and the only solutions in your minds are to continue the garrisoning of the planet, allowing the executive power grab, pumping more and more money into the military contractors' pockets and continue to fool ourselves into thinking that America can act unilaterally in the face of the NEWEST BOGEYMAN?

"Neoconservatism is an ideology. The ideology of American hegemony and a unilateral American foreign policy, along with the extension of the policy begun after WWII to garrison the planet and make foreign leaders and populations amenable, if not friendly to American interests (especially Energy and Corporate)."

for starters, though - the phrase neoconservative wasn't invented until the 1970s. Could you make an argument that the ideology above is being advocated? Sure. At the same time, there are people who now use it to refer to domestic policies. The word's even being used to refer to non-Americans (e.g. European neoconservatives).

You could call anything you want neoconservative. But that's my point. If you had gone back to the 1970s and asked these guys about neoconservative ideology, they would have looked at you cross-eyed. Today it's reaching the point where it's just an amorphous term like fascism / being used to describe any government action on right that somebody doesn't like.

Damn, haven't seen this many new trolls on IMAO commenting a single post in ages. Fess up guys, who put you up to it? Multiple trolls posting multi-paragraph anti-Bush screeds on a humor site???? Sounds like you all drank from the same kool-aid last night.

And learn to lighten up, it'll do wonders for your blood pressure.

Holy shiznit! Figures, we have a government holliday, and all the trolls come out of the woodwork. I guess abolishing Washington's and Lincon's birthdays and consolidating them into "President's Day" wasn't enough...they're going to remain angry until "Predident's Day" is changed into "Evil, dead, opressive, white man's day".
"Last I checked, Bush had blind fealty from the Rethug majority in the last Congressional class." What? There wern't any democrats in congress at the time? Red Ted wasn't drunkenly babbeling on in a fassion that would make "Hanoi Jane" proud? No shrill shreeks from Yancy Pelosi? Hairbrain Reid just wnet along with the whole thing? No RDDB's from the New York Crimes eager to take pictures of our boys shooting Iraqi soldiars that they claimed were civilians? No screams of "this war is for oil?" Sorry. I didn't have any medical marajuana to short my memory.
"So just how is this Clinton and the Democrats' fault?" Gee, besides the Clintonistas having Osama in their sights and so much intel, they didn't drop the ball? You mean Clinton LOVED the military? He kept the best and brightest? He didn't do everything he could to gut the command who actually posessed a pair? I guess I'm the one who drank the kool-aid and got out of the Air Force a couple months after Clinton was elected, because many of us felt the ill wind blowing. I guess all the ex-SEALS, Navy regulars, Marines and Air Force guys I know were full of it when they told me how bad things went after I left.
"Would the resident neo-conservative genius please explain the statement above to me?" Done in part...it would take me all night to explain it to someone who doesn't want to hear it. BTW...I'm not "neo"...I lived through VietNam. I didn't have a socialist professor tell me Hanoi Jane's version.
"Untie the hands of the soldiars, and it will be wrapped up in a couple of months We've got a military genius on our hands!" It doesn't take a genius to see we can't win when our soldiars are contantly told, "Oh...oh...no, you can't shoot into that mosque where the bag guys are hiding! Noooo...don't shoot at that insurgent who's hiding behind a woman's skirt! Let's give Saddam nearly a year to move his WMD's to Iran before we take action, and then try to find them." Every war until Koria...let loose the dogs of war and let them do what they do best = win. VietNam: act like the ACLU encumbered police = loss. Oh, yeah...it takes a genius to figure that out. Tell you what...Let's unmercifully bomb the Suni Triangle, and let's see how much longer things tend to linger. Let's go back to the Reagen policy of "Screw with us and you get several missiles down your throat" and see how long Iran and Kim Jong Ill tends to try to mess with us.
Brown shirts? No, you guys are the Brown Pants. Go back to Kos where they don't mind you taking bong hits between every other word. All you guys are doing is making us laugh. However, if you can manage to inject some humor (if you know what that is), please proceed.

Just goes to show how bad it's gotten... conservatives are now largely indistinguishable from parodies of conservatives.

Don't you mean "Just goes to show how bad it's gotten... liberals are now largely indistinguishable from parodies of liberals?"

That was in fact the point you were making, believe it or not.

//...Bush and the Neo- Cons would be trown out of Power so fast...//

"Trown"? What, are you from Brooklyn?

//Another point. If you call yourself a Republican Conservative.... Go back and look at what they stand for (isolationism).. This new Republican policy of shooting first, and asking questions later is called Neo-Conservatism (That's why the Neo), and is by now a policy that has lost all credibility in America, and never had any traction around the world.//

Oh, thank you, anon whiny man. Who the hell cares? Argue semantics all you want, dipshit, because at the end of the day, we are the ones who get things done, rather than argue semantics or talk shit & run away, which is pretty much all you leftists & this new congressional majority wants to do. One sure-fire way to lose a fight is to lay down & say "I give up".

And that's why we seem so gung-ho to you retards. We have to clean up the messes created by liberal Democrat policies in all levels of government. And we have to get that done before we can focus full attention on day to day affairs.

//Neo-Conservatism is still here only because in our form of Democracy we can't trow (again, "trow")out an elected Government before the end of it's period like the Europeans do in their Parlamentary . system.//

Yeah. Stupid ol' democracy. LOL! If that statement alone doesn't expose your traitorous leanings...unless you're another one of those Euro trolls that bitches incessantly about America, and if so, then your appallingly ignorant statements mean even less.

BTW, what have you got against the letter h? I mean, I might understand your aversion to the letter w (BDS & all that), but stop being so discriminating. Oh, that's right; YOU CAN'T.

Don't expect us to "trow" in the towel. Don't even expect us to THROW it in, either; that's your way, not ours.

Right, because Laos were never involved in bloody, Communist genocide, right? Pol Pot says, "Hi."

Ah, but you see, he didn't come over here and say "Hi" or do any serious damage to American geopolitical interests. So which part of "Despite the violence that followed our departure from VietNam, it worked out rather well for the US" did you not understand? The consequences for US interests of setting Iraq up for domination by Iran are likely to be far more grave.

Yes, the US bears moral responsibility for creating the conditions that made the rise of Pol Pot possible, particularly now that it is now obvious that our fundamental national interests were never at risk in VietNam. Whether the human rights disaster that we are now creating in the Middle East will be less catastrophic remains to be seen.

Seeing as the estimates for the number dead in Iraq right now are ~70,000 (and that's including people dead as a result of crimes, not just from fighting, which is a lot lower)--and given that the estimates of civilian dead (not just soldiers, strictly civilians) were 1-4 million in Vietnam, not counting the hundreds of thousands who died after we bailed on them--the two aren't comparable.

If you are careful to pick and choose your estimates. I notice that you don't mention the upper end of estimates of the dead in Iraq in the war that is still going on (400,000 to 900,000 according to the one rigorous statistical survey to date, published in the Lancet).

So yes, our mistake of intervening in VietNam undoubtedly greatly inflated civilian casualties over what would have occurred if we'd stayed out of it, but we may yet manage to equal that humanitarian disaster with our debacle in Iraq.

But of course, that wasn't the point. Our mistake in VietNam had no serious long-term consequences for US foreign policy. It is almost certain that we will not be so fortunate in Iraq.

"If you are careful to pick and choose your estimates. I notice that you don't mention the upper end of estimates of the dead in Iraq in the war that is still going on (400,000 to 900,000 according to the one rigorous statistical survey to date, published in the Lancet)."

My estimates come from the Brookings Institute.

http://www.brook.edu/iraqindex

1. The Brookings Institute is not exactly a conservative friendly outlet.

2. The Iraq Index has been maintained since the start of the war and is a far more thorough compilation of stats than anything else that has been put out on Iraq, including Lancet. That one's been heavily criticized.

It's the upper end by an order of several standard deviations from everybody else. If you want to handle this objectively, I'll stick with Brookings.

Re: Vietnam:

"Yes, the US bears moral responsibility for creating the conditions that made the rise of Pol Pot possible, particularly now that it is now obvious that our fundamental national interests were never at risk in VietNam."

This is the same approach the left takes with the Middle East, and especially with Saddam Hussein.

We bear responsibility [I'd argue that, but for the sake of the argument here I'll leave it alone here] . . . but, at the same time, we should just bail and leave them to clean up the mess.

Since when did you guys become realists?

Now all of a sudden, it's alright that Cambodia happened because it didn't hurt our national interest?

One the one hand, we're attacked as being hypocrites for doing business with dictators. On the other, when we go in and do something about we're attacked for going in and causing a mess. It's not Pol Pot's fault, it's ours! Come on, spare me. In any event your original argument included the statement that the domino theory had no merit. If you're interested in recanting that, I'll pay a little more attention--but between Chinese support North Vietnamese support, communism, Pol Pot, it's the U.S. (the one who was fighting these guys) who you want to single out; I'm sorry-but you have a warped view of this.

I guarantee you the people who bled to death in the killing fields did not blame the United States.

I bet I'm not alone in admitting that I never read lengthy screeds from you fine citizens. Wonder how many do?

Is it laziness? Not laziness--resignation. I came to the realization that nothing you say will convince me I'm wrong, just as nothing I say will convince you you're wrong. I'm comfortable with my postions on everything important to me. I do know that the bulk of my pessimism comes from self-absorbed little retards like Sarcasmo who have the ear of the truly dangerous people in all levels of government.

Rot in hell.

The first two Cambodians I ever met were a couple of grad students at Yale who were sitting on the steps of a lecture hall weeping because they had just heard about our invasion of their country. Although I thought they were overreacting at the time, they were certain that Nixon had doomed their nation to years of misery. They were quite right. We do have a lot of responsibility for Pol Pot, who never would have come to power if we hadn't bombed Cambodia for temporary political advantage. In a just world, Nixon would have swung for that one.

"The first two Cambodians I ever met were a couple of grad students at Yale who were sitting on the steps of a lecture hall weeping because they had just heard about our invasion of their country. Although I thought they were overreacting at the time, they were certain that Nixon had doomed their nation to years of misery. They were quite right. We do have a lot of responsibility for Pol Pot, who never would have come to power if we hadn't bombed Cambodia for temporary political advantage. In a just world, Nixon would have swung for that one."

Dear God,

1. the Khmer Rouge was founded in 1960 and active for years before the U.S. invaded. It launched a national insurgency to overthrow the government in 1968. We bombed a few positions since 65, but serious efforts in that lasted a grand total of two months in 1970.

2. Even with that, the amount dead added up to 11,349. This was not exactly a large-scale operation.

3. Our bombing consisted of attacking Khmer Rouge and VC positions positions...

So since we attacked the Khmer Rouge, we bear a lot of blame...but if we had left them alone, we'd be morally okay.

Leaving aside the complete Orwellian nature of that argument, what **would** you have done besides just sitting home and allowing the Khmer Rouge to come to power?

The first two Cambodians I ever met were a couple of grad students at Yale who were sitting on the steps of a lecture hall weeping because they had just heard about our invasion of their country.

A good friend of my family's (I should mention, a Democrat before you guys start gloating) was killed by a Khmer Rouge soldier lobbing a grenade onto a bus. Unlike you, I have the balls, the class, and enough merit for my own argument, to read a little history and not to use that sort of thing as the foundation of my political positions.

What happened? I thought Sarcasm Man was the only liberal here, but it looks like the trolls are taking over. This is very dissapointing.

These trolls can't make an "argument," the term used loosely, without comparing us to nazis and "neocons." Maybe they need a lesson in debate etiquette.

Here are the Wikipedia rules for etiquette, but they can apply to any website:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette

Unfortunately, Political Correctness has decried that the war MUST be fought like the Viet Nam war.
If it were fought like WWII, it would already be over.
For those who disagree, look at old WWII newsreels.
When assaulting an enemy position, first toss grenades, then cover the area with a flamethrower. Anything still moving is shot. We let the civillians decide for themselves if they would be used as "human shields" and they quickly decided not to (they ran away when the war approached instead).
That is how to win, instead of allowing the enemy to disburse and fight them again, but good old PC will not allow us to do so.

How did I end up at Balloon Juice? I'm sure I typed in www.imao.us.

Since when did you guys become realists?

I think it sort of happened by default, when the right wing abandoned realism.

Now all of a sudden, it's alright that Cambodia happened because it didn't hurt our national interest?

The VietNam war was sold to the American public on the basis that it was crucial to our national interest, and our national investment, in both lives and dollars, was predicated on that claim. It is now clear that VietNam was never crucial to American interests, although fortunately it probably didn't do grave harm to those interests.

Iraq was also sold as crucial to our national interests. It now seems fairly clear that the net result will be severe damage to those interests, again with a large cost in American lives and dollars.

Perhaps the American public would be willing to invest in a nation-building effort to achieve humanitarian goals in VietNam or Iraq, if it were presented to them in that manner, with a realistic analysis of both the costs and the likelihood of success. But I think that it is fairly unlikely that they would be willing to invest what VietNam cost us, or what Iraq is costing us, both in dollars and American lives, even if we were successful in improving the lives of ordinary Iraqis.

"The VietNam war was sold to the American public on the basis that it was crucial to our national interest, and our national investment, in both lives and dollars, was predicated on that claim. It is now clear that VietNam was never crucial to American interests, although fortunately it probably didn't do grave harm to those interests."

Trll, for Vietnam, I disagreed with you on the domino theory and being just a concoction. That's what my argument was over.

Was that crucial to our national interest? No, I don't think so. As for playing a role in it, I wouldn't go as far--not acquiescing and putting up the fight, even if we didn't win it, is something I think helped, at least, to wear them down and prevent them from accomplishing more than they did.

But would we be living in a much different world today if it hadn't happened? I doubt it. My argument was over the domino part. That's it.

"I think it sort of happened by default, when the right wing abandoned realism."

That was a branch of the right, but it always was just a branch. A large amount were never realists [I know-insert joke here]. Parts of the Republican Party hated Nixon and Kissinger's policies as much as the Democrats did (though often for different reasons).

"Perhaps the American public would be willing to invest in a nation-building effort to achieve humanitarian goals in VietNam or Iraq, if it were presented to them in that manner..."

Agree, that's one of the things that annoyed me about Bush.

"...with a realistic analysis of both the costs and the likelihood of success. But I think that it is fairly unlikely that they would be willing to invest what VietNam cost us, or what Iraq is costing us, both in dollars and American lives, even if we were successful in improving the lives of ordinary Iraqis."

While I'm not so sure, no-I can't work up much of argument against it. (I honestly don't think the money or the casualties would bar this if we could convince everybody that we're accomplishing something; that's our bigger problem). Our biggest problem is that we can't go back in time and change any of this-whether it should have been done differently, not at all, or against a completely different enemy, that won't prevent what will happen to the place if we bail (and that's why I still support sticking around).

Our biggest problem is that we can't go back in time and change any of this-whether it should have been done differently, not at all, or against a completely different enemy, that won't prevent what will happen to the place if we bail (and that's why I still support sticking around).

I still support sticking around, at least for the moment, even though I have no hope that the outcome will benefit the US and very little hope that it will benefit the people of Iraq. At this point, I think there is little question that things can go one of two ways, and it is hard to see which is worse for US interests: a spiral into ever worsening civil war fragmenting Iraq with huge civilian casualties, or stabilization as a fundamentalist Shiite dominated country aligned with Iran. Nevertheless, I feel that we have a certain obligation to work to prevent the former outcome, on the "we broke it, we are obligated to do our best to fix it, even if we probably can't" theory.

And there, in a nutshell, is why liberals are effin' morons. Their moral vanity decrees that it's more important to avert a civilian bloodbath than to prevent the birth of an enemy state allied with Iran.

Sadly, I believe Colin Powell's legacy will be that Pottery Barn chestnut the libs love to quote. The Marshall Plan was an unprecedented act of beneficence - but the U.S. doesn't HAVE to fix Shiite...

And there, in a nutshell, is why liberals are effin' morons. Their moral vanity decrees that it's more important to avert a civilian bloodbath than to prevent the birth of an enemy state allied with Iran.

It's not a matter of one being more important than the other, because I don't think that we have that choice anymore. We made that outcome inevitable when we chose to invade Iraq. I think that the best we might be able to accomplish at this point (and even here the chances are not great) is to reduce civilian casualties. But whatever we do, I think that the end result of our efforts will be the creation of a fundamentalist dominated Islamic state allied with Iran.

trolls!

whee!

Let's "whee" on them!

Name calling? Must mean you got nothing!

"Poo-poo on you! You're a doodie-pants!" - any fundy with a computer or syndicated colunm.

Gotta love conservative, high-brow humour. Sike!

VC

"No worries World, they'll all be bred out!" - Liberal America

"No worries World, they'll all be bred out!"

You don't pay attention to demographic trends - Our birth rates are beating yours

"Poo-poo on you! You're a doodie-pants!" - any fundy with a computer or syndicated colunm. Gotta love conservative, high-brow humour."

When I think of the Lincoln-Douglas, I think I most fondly remember Lincoln's exhortion that his opponents were all "neocon-Brown shirt Nazis" as the key point that won the abolitionists' argument.

That's been the avg for liberal posters on this thread.

We [the right-wingers on this site] are all dicking around here. Not only are you guys being serious with this sort of stuff, but you've gotten so far into it, that you couldn't even tell when we were parodying you - at least one had to ask whether "Monkey Faced Liberal" was a joke or an actual Democratic poster.

"Lincoln-Douglas debates"...whatever

WAL, didn't you get the memo? When you make a mistake, (or rather, someone who preceded you) you're not allowed to correct it! See, Liberal "logic" is just so...logical.

I bet I'm not alone in admitting that I never read lengthy screeds from you fine citizens. Wonder how many do?

Not when they keep C&P-ing the same DU shill that was debunked sometime around early 2004, no. Something Emperor Misha said a while back...what was it? Oh yeah:

Please, for the love of all that’s beautiful, would you America-hating, seditious shitweasels PLEASE come up with a new Talking Point from time to time like, say, once every three years? His Majesty is getting sick and bloody tired of chewing on the same old leathery morsels that were torn to bits and pieces right about the time the dust from 9/11 settled. They’ve been debunked so many times and in so many places that it’s practically impossible NOT to bump into a solid rebuttal on the ‘Net, even if you’re not even looking, ferchrissakes.

It’s getting boring, that’s all we’re saying, and we’re quite frankly surprised that nobody has yet built a database of definitive rebuttals and hooked it up to an automated news ‘bot. Set up one of those, hook it into a blog and you’re set. You can refute Loony Liberals 24/7 without ever having to power on the computer, because you can rest assured that they’re not going to come up with an original thought this side of The Rapture at which point nobody sane will be around to listen to their spew anyway.

And dammit if that doesn't become self-fulfilling prophesy, as we can see from the speshul trolls here.

I think it sort of happened by default, when the right wing abandoned realism.

NO U!

"No worries World, they'll all be bred out!" - Liberal America

So says the side without the guns and supports unconditional abortion. It's nice to have dreams....just some are more attainable than others.

"Lincoln-Douglas debates"...whatever

So says the side that claims that "You rubes don't know anything about history!"

I think the left invented a new form of satire: unintentional self-parody. At least, it would be if they didn't take themselves just sooooooooooo seriously, OMG!