October 20, 2007

"You don't have money to fund the war or children but you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people..."

"....if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President's amusement." That's what Rep. Pete Stark said the other day. But it's not what Crooks and Liars (acts like it) heard.

IN THE COMMENTS: John Stodder said:
Good news! Crooks and Liars has just deleted virtually all the comments that don't fall into line with the host's take. Any criticism of it makes you into a troll, apparently.

Now they've manufactured a consensus over there. Rep. Stark was strong! He had a spine! And isn't this really about the children? Those wingnuts need a fainting couch!

Amazing. Just amazing.

157 comments:

The Drill SGT said...

so much for either "civil discussion" or "honesty in reporting"

Verso said...

You're right -- Crooks & Liars did not print every word Rep. Stark spoke that day, or this week, or this year. They only printed two paragraphs from his speech on the floor.

But those paragraphs are completely accurate; Stark said exactly what C&L reported.

So what's the problem? Is it that they omitted the elipses?

Torn ligament said...

Huh? Both of the sentences in quotes were verbatim as spoken by Stark.

...aside from Stark's comments being right on the money. No-one ever wants to speak to content but instead choose to natter about irrelevant.

Ann Althouse said...

If you're going to take a POLL about whether Stark should apologize, you damned well better provide the quote that people think he ought to apologize FOR. I can't believe verso and torn ligament think they can play that dumb here.

Palladian said...

Ok, let's speak about the content. Do you believe that the President is amused by our troops being killed in Iraq? Do you believe that our troops are "blowing up innocent people"?

Overblown, tiresome political rhetoric is one thing, but these statements are repulsive. Will Harry Reid pass a resolution condemning this smear on our soldiers?

Palladian said...

It's October, 2007. Imagine the lying and ugliness that will echo and belch through the land one year from now.

Verso said...

It's about the poll? I thought you said they were pretending to have heard something different from what Stark said, a claim for which there is no evidence. I thought the page you linked to claimed they were dishonest before it ever even mentioned the poll.

To paraphrase a blogger I once, knew, Ann, "I can't believe you're playing stupid!"

Listen, I understand Republicans are very, very sensitive to speech code violations and are great enforcers of politically correct speech. Hardly a week goes by that the entire right wing movement doesn't have a fainting spell of one kind or another.

But don't pretend the rest of us are hearing voices in our heads, too.

Palladian said...

And isn't it obvious that any hope for a reasonable and honest discussion here was over before it started?

Torn ligament said...

I'm not playing dumb I'm taking your post at it's word.
If your post addresses a larger issue then say so. I can't read your mind.

Palladin, I don't think Bush is amused et al. I think it's a pretty crappy thing to accuse him of.

SMGalbraith said...

I understand Republicans are very, very sensitive to speech code violations and are great enforcers of politically correct speech

(Okay, I'll try one time)

Speech codes? Republicans?

Exactly where in America - which university for example - over the past quarter century have Republicans enacted "speech codes"?

No one is arguing that a "speech code" should be enforced against Stark. Congressman Stark, on the House Floor, during a debate at a time of war stated that the president is "amused" by the heads being blown off of our soldiers.

Do you think that was an appropriate comment to make by public official during his public performance? On the floor of the US Capitol?

Should the, as Locke called it, "law of public opinion" be applied to his comments?

No penalties, no banishment, no exile, no fines. No "speech code" is being applied.

Sheesh.

(I know, the triumph of hope over experience; but I thought I'd give it a shot).

SMG

Verso said...

You know what's ironic? It's ironic that the right wing is dishonestly accusing C&L of being dishonest.

What C&L said was verbatim out of Stark's mouth. But conservatives are immune to evidence or facts, and will claim he was being dishonest even when the video and transcript are available to all.

It takes a lot of balls to lie about someone else lying. But this has worked for Republicans before, and it will work again, with the media more than willing to play along.

One other thing: Outside of wingnuttia, no one is going to believe Stark was accusing the troops of blowing up innocent people. (The troops themselves are the innocent people Stark was referring to.) I know you people will insist on your own self-serving interpretation, and I encourage you to enjoy your latest festival of righteous indignation. It's what sustains you, after all. Without your red-eyed fury, you'd have nothing.

Just don't expect normal people to read it that way.

Verso said...

SMGalbraith,
Listen, I understand you are deeply offended by politically incorrect speech. Your day, maybe your week, is ruined. I feel for you, I really do. But please don't change the subject to the appropriateness of Stark's remarks. That's a different story.

The question here is whether C&L is guilty of what Ann and Gateway Pundit say it is guilty of. And clearly it is not. It is THEY who are being dishonest. (Ann a bit more indirectly.)

This shows the supreme ballsiness of Republicans willing to lie to accuse someone of lying.

The reason Republians win so many of these manufactured controversies is because you people are willing to go on the offensive armed with nothing but lies and distortions, and for whatever reason.

reader_iam said...

Speaking of maws and earthly delights ... .

SMGalbraith said...

Listen, I understand you are deeply offended by politically incorrect speech. Your day, maybe your week, is ruined. I feel for you, I really do

I'm not Ann.

I simply asked whether you think it was "appropriate" for Rep. Stark to claim on the House floor during his official capacity as a elected official that the president (any president, Republican or Democrat) is amused by having our soldiers heads blown off.

It's not "politics" as you insist.

It doesn't matter whether the president is a Republican or Democrat, Bush or Clinton or Obama.

Again, the triump of (fading) hope over experience.

SMG

Revenant said...

It's about the poll? I thought you said they were pretending to have heard something different from what Stark said, a claim for which there is no evidence.

Here is a quote from Ann Coulter. You've probably heard of it:

It is preposterous to assume every passenger is a potential crazed homicidal maniac. We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.

Now imagine some right-wing blog only quoted this part...

It is preposterous to assume every passenger is a potential crazed homicidal maniac.

... and tried to gin up a controversy over how Coulter was being attacked for making a sensible and accurate criticism of airport security. Honest people would laugh at a stunt like that, just like we're laughing at you now. Quoting only the NON-objectionable parts of Stark's speech and then innocently asking why they merit an apology is dishonest. Nobody's demanding that Stark apologize for the quote C&L has posted. What we're demanding he apologize for is the claim that our goal is to blow up innocent people and get soldiers killed for Bush's amusement. We're objecting to the claims that we're cold-blooded murderers, not to the usual Democratic bitching about how Republicans are liars and meanies.

So go peddle your nonsense over on one of the lefty fruitcake blogs, because it isn't going to fly with normal people.

SMGalbraith said...

Asking for some (just a little?) sobriety, maturity, decency in discourse from our elected officials while executing their official duties is now characterized as demanding "politically correct" speech.

I guess for those that live in an environment where such concepts are completely alien, where vulgarity and smearing is the norm, nothing is off limits.

From their side, of course.

Defining deviancy down, Moynihan called it.

Yes, the Right does it too. I'm not absolving them of this mess we're in.

SMG

Palladian said...

"The reason Republians win so many of these manufactured controversies is because you people are willing to go on the offensive armed with nothing but lies and distortions, and for whatever reason."

LOL... It's hilarious for a political whore of any ideological persuasion to accuse the other side of having some sort of monopoly on untruth. Give us a break. No political ideology has ever been free from "crooks and liars"; don't pull the blanched, innocent, holy liberal act. It's laughable when anyone does it.

Stark said some stupid, repugnant things. "Crooks & Liars" finessed his statements to make them look innocent. People on the either side of the aisle use the Stark comments to their political advantage. Ann points out the hypocritical dishonest political tactics. Committed sinless (I presume) lefty Verso bats for his team, even if it means hitting a foul ball into the stands and beaning our troops in the head. Everyone, regardless of party, should feel like heaving in disgust at the spectacle!

It's politics as usual! Repeat until November 5, 2008!

Palladian said...

And, though it should be obvious to anyone with a functioning cortex and a jigger of honesty, not all offensive speech is offensive because it's "politically incorrect". Some of it (most of it) is just offensive. This is known as the William Mahr Fallacy.

I'm not offended that Stark's speech was politically incorrect. I'm offended because it was simplistic and offensive. I'm not calling for Stark to be silenced, nor am I calling for a Congressional resolution condemning his speech and I don't think anyone here is doing that either. What we're doing is answering offensive speech with more speech, as anyone who cares about freedom of speech will recognize as the best solution.

SMGalbraith said...

John Randolph, an eccentric (very) congressman from Virginia in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, used to point at other congressmen and cry, "Yazoo! Yazoo!" while Congress was in session.

These men had been involved in a massive land fraud, the Yazoo Land Scandal. It was a scheme where the Georgia legislature enabled a land company the Congressmen owned stock in to purchase vast amounts of land for pennies.

Making them very rich.

"Yazoo" to you Fortney.

SMG

John Stodder said...

Verso, et. al.

Just stop. Really. It's not working.

Stark's remarks were literally horrific. Not politically incorrect. Not offensive. Horrific.

And your response is to quote a different section of Stark's speech, a less-horrific section, and to pretend that's what the "rightwingthugosphere" or whatever you're calling normal people these days, is disgusted by?

Stark is a sick joke, but at least he has integrity. He thinks his comments -- "You don't have money to fund the war or children but you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President's amusement" -- are just fine. If he doesn't think there's anything wrong with it, he should not apologize.

But you're just full of shit. JFK once said "Sometimes party loyalty demands too much." That concept is alien to a weak-minded comformist like you. One question: Do you miss your balls?

MadisonMan said...

Stop manufacturing outrage. One angry sentence and everyone gets the vapors. Jeeze.

Ann Althouse said...

When I assumed you were playing dumb, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Ann Althouse said...

Obviously, C&L has a verbatim quote. But it's not the quote everyone's been talking about, so it's plainly manipulative. And desperate. Stark should be denounced soundly, yet C&L is displaying a poll where he's lured his readers into 99% support for stark, so everyone can say the "nutroots" are despicable. And you're defending him. Why?

Michael J. Mathias said...

Um, Palladian? Is it really your contention that US troops have blown up no innocent people? That's just a patently false statement.

Ralph said...

To be fair to C&L, they did post the video of Stark's whole speech, but to their readers, his dishonesty wasn't a bug but a feature.

Ralph said...

I meant Stark's dishonest characterization of the President's amusements.

Torn ligament said...

"Ann Althouse said...

When I assumed you were playing dumb, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt."

From your comments since the original post it's clear you were implying more.

I appreciate your graceful response.

Trooper York said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Revenant said...

Is it really your contention that US troops have blown up no innocent people? That's just a patently false statement.

Nice try, but no dice. What Stark said was that we "going to spend money to blow up innocent people" -- that the killing of innocent people is the goal of spending the money. That claim was both false and insulting to America.

antiphone said...

What standard should Crooks and Liars be held to? Is C&L practicing journalism or is it performance art? Performance artists can say whatever it amuses them to say. I believe there’s a precedent for this somewhere.

. said...

althouse, i love the new flickr pics! ..nice cleavage!

Trooper York said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Zeb Quinn said...

And you're defending him. Why?

When dishonesty is your strong suit you go with it nevertheless.

antiphone said...

A point on style:

If you're going to take a POLL about whether Stark should apologize, you damned well better provide the quote that people think he ought to apologize FOR.

Such self-righteous indignation runs the risk of appearing humorless and shrill while a simple –heh, indeed—communicates the proper sense of self satisfied superiority.

antiphone said...

C&L is displaying a poll where he's lured his readers into 99% support for stark, so everyone can say the "nutroots" are despicable. And you're defending him. Why?

To be fair, you are right to point out Gateway Pundit’s manipulative exploitation of C&L’s post.

Luckyoldson said...

If you take the quote..."You don't have money to fund the war or children but you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President's amusement"...and remove the words "for the President's amusement"...I have absolutely no problem with the message being absolutely true.

This is just another case of Ann once again proving she's as far from being an "Independent" as one can be.

I find it interesting that many here will defend Limbaugh calling soldiers "phony" or many of the Republicans describing anyone who wants us out of Iraq as "cut and runners" (or worse)...yet when someone takes a whack at the "King"...all hell breaks loose.

Another reason the Republicans are toast in 2008.

Luckyoldson said...

antiphone said..."To be fair, you are right to point out Gateway Pundit’s manipulative exploitation of C&L’s post."

That'll be the day.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

There is a huge difference between quoting someone verbatim and paraphrasing that quote. The first represents the exact words the person said.....the second represents what you wanted them to say or thought you heard through the filters of bias you have in your mind.

Pretending that they are the same is delusional at best or maliciously deceptive at worst. I tend to believe the worst from the Democrats....according to the filter in my mind and to the experiences of time. The trait of taking things out of context to misrepresent the statement or paraphrasing to alter the meaning is a typical and consistant strategy.

They used to be able to tell lies like this but you can't hide anymore from the reality, from YouTube or the Internet.

Ralph said...

you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people
to me implies he thinks we're deliberately blowing them up. Do you agree with him, or with my reading?

joe said...

What Stark said was ugly, vile and indefensible for anyone, much less a member of Congress. Even LOS cannot defend it, in its entirety at least.

Heir to the Throne said...

MadisonMan said...

Stop manufacturing outrage. One angry sentence and everyone gets the vapors. Jeeze.

You mean like "nappy-headed hos"?

hdhouse said...

Oh brother. Here we go again. READ ACCURATELY PLEASE

The quote is "for the president's amusement" NOT the president is amused. HELLO. CAN YOU READ?

The usage may be somewhat quaint and dated but for the president's amusement...anything that amuses; pastime; entertainment.

Once could argue and correctly that this war for Mr. Bush is little more than a divertissement, a bon bon, treated as a mere diversion from the humdrum of the day. His vacation schedule hasn't missed a beat. His fundraising until now when the body politic is in no mood to toss him a penny...The quote may actually be accurate but "the president is amused" is not what was said or meant.

Now to the poll and the accuracy. OF COURSE it is bait and switch. It is like vote.com, or when Rush or Sean has an opinion poll on their websites. It is worthless and meaningless and now we know better.

Titus24 said...

Good evening fellow republicans. How is everybody tonight? Let's stop fighting and begin to love.

I have returned from Lexington and Louisville Kentucky and here are my impressions:

Kentucky people are very friendly. You get out of your car and someone starts a conversation with you.
Many Kentucky people don't have all their teeth including the desk clerk at the Marriott in Lexington which is supposed to be the most sophisticated city in Kentucky.
Many counties are dry but the "wet counties have drive through liquor stores.
Waffle House, KFC, Pizza Hut, Bob Evans, Cracker Barrel, Popeyes, Wendys, and some other fast food joints I never heard of are everywhere.
Quite a few people smoke and they love their happy hours at Applebees.
The girl at the front desk at the Sheraton (not the one missing teeth) knocked on my door twice trying to get in on. She asked my mom if I was married.
85% of the 1400 horse farms around Lexington are owned by "fereigners" including many by AIRabs-told by my tour guide.
The Lexington Airport doubled the size of one of the runways to accomodate the AIRabs plane.

Once the horses are done competing in the Kentucky Derby they screw until they die. Approximately 140-200 times a year.

I saw two horses screw. The female horse has to put on booties so she doesn't kick the male horse while they are doing it. Two people hold the male horse so he doesn't fully penitrate the female and just as he is about to cum they take a cup and take some of his semen to make sure he isn't shooting blanks.

I saw a horse that makes 200 million a year screwing female horses. He screws approximately 200 times a year.

The gestation period for a horse is 11 months. The female gives birth and a week later she is getting screwed again. The colts leave the mothers after 3 months.

I went to Ft. Knox, where my dad was stationed during the Korean War and took my picture with him by the M4 tank he drove. I went to the Patton museum and he was fascinating. I missed the creation museum.

I am now in Boston at my company's corporate apartment in the Back Bay. It is fabulous here. Go Sox. Just got back from a walk around the Boston Garden and Common?

How are my little lepchans doing?

Love the new picture Althouse but would prefer to see more tit.

rhhardin said...

The trouble starts with an etymological mistake.

Outrage comes from French outre, beyond what is proper, made into a noun with -age.

English sees the -rage part and says that something beyond what is proper deserves rage, ``The word itself says so.'' Thus that doctrine comes into being.

This is so useful that it was reimported back into French.

Hardly anybody notices that the same word describes both a violation of propriety and a reaction to it. Which is to say that they don't notice a hidden doctrine.

Who cares what he says about Bush. You just learn how to judge what else he says from it.

Ralph said...

Titus, that's the life, ain't it?
Run around for 3 years and become a high class gigolo. What happens to the losers? Gelding?
The Queen makes regular visits to Lexington. Did you see her, and why wasn't she more careful breeding her children?

Titus24 said...

I had biscuits and gravy at Bob Evans and it was amazing.

The speed limit in Kentucky is 70 mph.

The governor of Kentucky is (I think) Ernie Fletcher and everyone around him as been indicted.

Lexington is supposed to be fabulous but it isn't. Rents are between 450-800 for a 1 bedroom. In other words cheaper than my monthly cost for the garage for my Beemer. UK is in Lexington and they are all excited because their football team beat LSU last week, who was #1. They lost to Florida though this week.

I paid for the trip for my parents for a 55th wedding anniversary. My dad has Alzheimers and repeats the same questions over and over. Specifically, when is my flight leaving and how do you get to the airport? I hope he wasn't asking because he wanted me to gone...no that wasn't the reason. The room I got my parents was the penthouse suite and I made them go into the jacuzzi outside overlooking the city.

Ralph said...

Next time we'll be outraged over an outrene.

Trooper York said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ralph said...

Titus, my 79 y.o. aunt's been doing that a couple of years. I'm hoping her kids have had her checked out. Is he taking that drug that's supposed to slow things down?

Ralph said...

Trooper, SS was reverting to colthood and thought Secretariat was a mare. His gait was long but his stance was narrow.

Titus24 said...

John Henry, another famous horse died last week. He was 32. I happened to be in Lexington on the day of his Memorial Service.

Any horse that makes it to the Kentucky Derby begins screwing shortly after. Their prices can fall shortly after if they don't sire a champion horse. Also, some of them are impotent and then go out to pasture or go to the Kentucky Horse Farm for tourists to look at.
I was somewhat sad when I saw them. They stay in a stall 23 hours a day and go out 1 hour a day. They each have their own fenced in area because they can't be together because they are territorial and aggressive and usually horny.


There is a "gigolo horse" that goes in the pen first with the female to get her horny. That poor things job is to get her horny and when she is ready they pull him out and one of the studs go in and do her. So all day he goes into a pen and gets all ready to screw and when she is finally ready they make him leave. Talk about an awful job.
They have huge penis's

Titus24 said...

I did see the horse farm where the queen goes to get her horses. It is right by the Whitney Farm.

Miss Whitney who is 89 just married a 40 year old man. She likes to dance.

Ralph said...

Perhaps he gets a handjob at the end of the day, but he's more effective when he's frustrated.

Ralph said...

Have you seen an elephant's? It's dragging on the ground.

Trooper York said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Randal Rogers (I. Ronin) said...

Miss Whitney who is 89 just married a 40 year old man.

Sounds like someone let Miss Whitney in on the secret of how to avoid inheritance taxes.

Maxine Weiss said...

I just saw a picture of Madonna without her makeup on.

Randal Rogers (I. Ronin) said...

Suzette [cough] [cough] I mean Maxine [cough], would you care to share the picture with the rest of us or is it too frightening to contemplate?

Trooper York said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Trooper York said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bilby said...

Equally as amusing as the attempt to simply omit what Stark said is the claim that even if he said it, Republicans are overreacting with faux outrage.

This from the very same people who were screeching most of last week about alleged smearing/sliming/swiftboating of Graeme Frost, which they knew damn well was a lie, but they put on their outraged act anyway.

antiphone said...

Poor Bilby, it must really suck being a wingnut.

Revenant said...

The quote is "for the president's amusement" NOT the president is amused.

Apparently you think that's a major point you just made, HD. But since either statement is something only a crazy person could actually believe, what difference does it make?

Trooper York said...

Most historian agree that the first lady who most resembled a horse was Eleanor Roosevelt. FDR was amused.

Ralph said...

They were certainly a mis-matched couple in the looks department, and FDR was rich, so he had plenty of choices.

Windbag said...

For what it's worth, even Pelosi rebuked Stark.

Torn ligament said...
I'm not playing dumb I'm taking your post at it's word.

No, you're not playing dumb and it's obvious, since you can't distinguish "it's" from "its". You must work hard at it.

Chip Ahoy said...

titus24, best threadjack ever.

However, must you open by calling us all Republicans? It's offensive.

LawGiver said...

Pelosi really gets savaged in the C&L comments for calling Stark's comments inappropriate. It makes LOS's comments look like Sunday School talk. The hate is on.

Sorry for calling you a dikhed LOS.

Fen said...

Verso: But those paragraphs are completely accurate; Stark said exactly what C&L reported. So what's the problem? Is it that they omitted the elipses?

Try another mental backflip please. The OBVIOUS problem is that C&L did not accurately present the relevant paragraphs for the poll, choosing instead to bury it inside a vid clip that few watched. Or are you claiming that 5,000+ of the nutroots voting agree that we are deliberately targeting innocents for the president's amusement? Go back to your college and demand a refund - you were robbed.

But forget that for a moment, look instead at the comments C&L did present fairly:

"The truth is that that Bush just likes to blow things up – in Iraq, in the United States, and in Congress."

1) Does any SANE person really believe that our President "just likes to blow things up"?

2) And WHAT has POTUS blown up in the United States? Are Stark and the nutroots at C&L all 9-11 "truthers"?

3) WTH has POTUS "blown up" in Congress?

5000+ have no problems with Starks delusional remarks? The Left needs free mental care more than ever.

Trooper York said...

The political opponents of Andrew Jackson said that more men had ridden his wife than had ridden his horse. President Jackson was not amused

Fen said...

Mathias: Um, Palladian? Is it really your contention that US troops have blown up no innocent people? That's just a patently false statement.

Strawman. The statement implies the US is DELIBERATELY blowing up innocent people. Stop being a word weasel.

Windbag said...

Jackson, one helluva President. Cock fights on the White House lawn. Michael Vicks would have felt at home. Chairs tossed through the White House windows during the inaugural festivities. They don't make them like that anymore.

Trooper York said...

James Buchanan also enjoyed cockfights in the White House. He did not have a first lady. His secretary of the Navy, Isaac Toucey served as his offical hostess. He was also the champion cockfighter, until he sprained his wrist in a bout against Edwin Stanton. Neither of the cocks were damaged, although Mr. Stanton decided to get circumcised and was out of the competition for the balance of the Civil War.

Kirk said...

Verso (at 3:32pm) said,

"Stark is dishonest. the rest of us are hearing voices in our heads."

Wow--see how much fun you can have by quoting people's exact words! Who knew that the simple expedient of omitting to show ellipses could yield such fabulous results???

downtownlad said...

Bush is amused at dead Americans. Who are we kidding? He makes fun of people when they're facing the death penalty, and he doesn't mind blowing up American teenagers if it means not having to admit he's made a mistake.

Why is this shocking? Our President is evil. Shocker.

Fen said...

"Downtownlad is amused by child porn. Who are we kidding? He makes fun of little boys when they're facing his NAMBLA support group, and he doesn't mind molesting American teenagers if it means not having to admit he's a liberal. Why is this shocking? Our DTL is evil. Shocker."

/hey, unsupported assertions and assumptions ARE fun rhetoric. Thanks DTL. Sorry I sicked the FBI on your NAMBLA postings [well, not really...]

Mr. B. said...

As Franklin supposedly said:

I know war.
I hate war.
I live with Eleanor.

Johnny Nucleo said...

Bush is evil. He loves blood and death and evilness. There will be no election in 2008. And he is building a Death Star.

Trooper York, what the fuck??? You keep calling me gay (Which I am not!). Also your comments are increasingly sexual, in an angry, strange way. I think it is you who is gay!

Not really. Gay people tend not to be not square.

Downtownlad. You don't really think Bush is a blood-thirsty ogre, do you? Is that realistic?

There are some Evil Dudes of course. Hitler, Stalin, Mao. But Bush? I love the guy, you hate him, but can we not agree - he ain't that smart. Ultimate Evil takes brains.

antiphone said...

There is an issue here beyond both Pete Stark’s ridiculous over the top statement and C&L’s flawed poll. Everyone seems to want to sidestep the question of unlimited funding for the occupation of Iraq versus “fiscal responsibility” when it comes to health care for children under the SCHIP program. Doesn’t anyone think this is worth discussing?

Fen said...

Everyone seems to want to sidestep the question of unlimited funding for the occupation of Iraq versus “fiscal responsibility” when it comes to health care for children under the SCHIP program. Doesn’t anyone think this is worth discussing?

Not really. Its not like there's a bargain basement where you can trade an aircraft carrier group in for health care programs. Doesn't work that way.

But if you insist, you need to first address opposition to the bill in good faith: why was it vetoed and why did Congress uphold the veto? Perhaps it was a bad bill?

Fen said...

antiphone, start here:

"It’s hardly controversial to point out that all children deserve access to the best available health care, regardless of their economic circumstances. Unfortunately, if Congress has its way, our country will actually move further away from that ideal.

...The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office reports that under the House bill 2.1 million people could be pushed out of private insurance and into government health care.

...Whatever Congress does, it shouldn’t erode the private health insurance that Americans already have, since that coverage provides access to superior private medicine. Anyone who is concerned about the quality of medical care individuals and families can receive should note that the House and Senate bills go in exactly the wrong direction."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295843,00.html

Fen said...

/more

"Congress should exercise common sense and restore SCHIP to its original intent. Let’s target federal funding to kids in low-income families, with sensible age and income eligibility requirements, while removing legal and regulatory barriers to affordable private health insurance.

This could easily be done through a new system of refundable health care tax credits or vouchers to low-income families, as well as direct tax relief to individuals and families, enabling them to choose the type of coverage that best suits their needs.

Congress should not increase the already hefty health care price tag faced by American taxpayers and make them fund the expansion of a government health care program that delivers substandard care."

John S. O’Shea, MD, MPA, is a practicing physician and a former Health Policy Fellow at the Heritage Foundation (heritage.org).

Fen said...

See, by Stark's own logic:

"The Left wants to force millions of children into low quality socialist health care, to linger and die for Congressman Stark's amusement"

;)

Kev said...

I went to Ft. Knox, where my dad was stationed during the Korean War and took my picture with him by the M4 tank he drove.

My dad was stationed at Ft. Knox as well, but he was lucky enough to be there between wars. His only "war wound" is a scar from when he split his thumb open playing softball on base.

ackson, one helluva President. Cock fights on the White House lawn. Michael Vicks would have felt at home.

Heh. I saw a great jersey tonight--on the front, it said ATLANTA FELONS, and the back had Vick's number and conVICKt on the back.

antiphone said...

I don’t think SCHIP forces anyone off private insurance as the Heritage Foundation would like us to believe. If it’s a good idea for Congress to “exercise common sense and restore SCHIP to its original intent” why characterize the program as “low quality socialist health care”?

former law student said...

Everyone seems to want to sidestep the question of unlimited funding for the occupation of Iraq versus “fiscal responsibility” when it comes to health care for children under the SCHIP program. Doesn’t anyone think this is worth discussing?

Not really. Its not like there's a bargain basement where you can trade an aircraft carrier group in for health care programs. Doesn't work that way.

Where exactly did the half-trillion dollars Bush spent for the War on Saddam come from? I only pay one set of income taxes -- the war tax is not collected separately from the health care tax. If the government has another set of funds to pay Blackwater, Halliburton, etc., I wish they would let me know.

But if you insist, you need to first address opposition to the bill in good faith: why was it vetoed and why did Congress uphold the veto? Perhaps it was a bad bill? 1. Government funds should flow to Bush's buddies, not kids who can't afford campaign contributions. 2. See 1.

Johnny Nucleo said...

Dammit. I must take back my hit at Trooper York. It was not intellectually honest. I was annoyed that Trooper York kept calling me gay (Which I am not!) so I thought I would hit back, but my hit was cheap and lame. I still think he is a hack. Nevertheless I must take my hit back.

The other stuff about "Bush Is Evil = Stupid," I meant, though.

antiphone said...

When you get the word “socialist” thrown around the way Fen does it’s almost impossible to take an argument seriously. The Republicans must have some serious socialist tendencies because they love socializing risk for their donors. The free market is for everybody else.

John Stodder said...

Good news! Crooks and Liars has just deleted virtually all the comments that don't fall into line with the host's take. Any criticism of it makes you into a troll, apparently.

Now they've manufactured a consensus over there. Rep. Stark was strong! He had a spine! And isn't this really about the children? Those wingnuts need a fainting couch!

Amazing. Just amazing.

hdhouse said...

former law student said...
Everyone seems to want to sidestep the question of unlimited funding for the occupation of Iraq versus “fiscal responsibility” when it comes to health care for children under the SCHIP program. Doesn’t anyone think this is worth discussing?

Not really. Its not like there's a bargain basement where you can trade an aircraft carrier group in for health care programs. Doesn't work that way.
Where exactly did the half-trillion dollars Bush spent for the War on Saddam come from? I only pay one set of income taxes -- the war tax is not collected separately from the health care tax. If the government has another set of funds to pay Blackwater, Halliburton, etc., I wish they would let me know."

Ladies and Gentleman, consider this to be example primo in the "I don't get it and don't care if I do" republican contest for least informed.

That half trillion - you just haven't paid for it yet. The money is spent but not part of the budget..its supplemental which means it is all borrowed. We just haven't gotten the bill yet.

But, you argue, its a piddling of our GNP..a minor percentage and debt it a good thing...hmmmm if its such a good thing put it in the budget..wouldn't you like a military spending 700 billion a year?

Read Frank Rich. Read about a mediocre hack who kills himself..that hack, that average guy dumps into a 13000 a month no show job while waiting appointment and security clearance so he can manage a 30billion dollar budget.. true true...all true...just about the amount needed for SChip that Stark was wailing about.

We can't get Bush out fast enough to get some priorities back to this country.

no one said...

Here's a short video clip posted at Crooks and Liars about hypocrite Hugh Hewitt.

rsb said...

Dig some graves at Golden Gate National Cemetery once. I have. In one of my myriad of occupations. This war is a travesty. Go on the front. Join the French Foreign Legion you cowards. You nauseate me. I hate you stupid hawks. You all suck and yes I am a veteran.

christopher said...

Let's cut to the chase.

Bush has a hardon for killing people, as anybody who's seen the clip of him talking about frying Karla Faye Tucker knows. He's a sociopath, and his bloodlust is one of the reasons he took us into this abominable war.

Stark was only stating the obvious...

christopher said...

John S. O’Shea, MD, MPA, is a practicing physician and a former Health Policy Fellow at the Heritage Foundation (heritage.org).


Comedy gold.

Bob said...

Trooper York said...

Some times they use a naked picture of Sarah Jessica Parker to get the stallions horny. They figure that horse faced bitch will get their motor running.


Damn, I thought that I was the only person to think that SJP was horse-faced. I normally refer to her as Sarah Jessica Horseface. She's got lovely blue eyes, though.

Ann Althouse said...

If you want to see Madonna without makeup, watch her movie "Truth or Dare." She does a whole scene without makeup, with a shower cap over her hair, and she's eating from a big bowl while talking with her father. It's really funny and she's completely open about it. She never hid it.

Paco Wové said...

"are you claiming that 5,000+ of the nutroots voting agree that we are deliberately targeting innocents for the president's amusement?"

That wouldn't surprise me. Does it surprise you?

Randal Rogers (I. Ronin) said...

John Stodder: Thanks for the update.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. - George Orwell

Ann: Yes, I know. I was just tweaking our "friend from Brazil," Suzette [cough], I mean Maxine [cough].

Trooper York said...

The vulcan statesman Sarek who was newly elected president of the United Federation of Planets, was very happy when his son Spock was born. However he refused to let his wife Amanda name him Nucleo, which as we all know means gay in Vulcan. President Sarek was not amused.

Pogo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Pogo said...

C&L has now declared Pelosi apostate (yes, Pelosi) for calling Stark's speech "inappropriate".

So apparently, yes, the far left believes, 99% to 1%, that
(a) US soldiers intend to blow up innocent people, and that
(b) Bush sends 'kids' to Iraq to get their heads blown off for his own amusement.

Things like this affect elections. The remaining adult Democrats need to act like Bill Maher and toss these guys out of the building. "Ass-kicking is what's called for."

Unless they don't really want the job.

former law student said...

So apparently, yes, the far left believes, 99% to 1%, that
(a) US soldiers intend to blow up innocent people, and that
(b) Bush sends 'kids' to Iraq to get their heads blown off for his own amusement.


This moderate believes that
(a) innocent men, women, and children died and will continue to die in Iraq as a result of Bush's War on Saddam, and that
(b) Bush should ensure the health care of today's kids, because in the absence of any Bush plan that will ever bring the war in Iraq to an end, today's kids will be tomorrow's cannon fodder.

Bruce Hayden said...

You really can't oppose the concept of the SCIP program. The problem is that in some states, a majority of those on the program are already adults. Plus, the income limits on the proposal are absurd. Why can't a family earning 80k prioritize and find their own insurance? Why should I pay for their lifestyle?

The giveaway that the program was about socialized medicine and not protecting children was that it would cover young adults up to 25 and the greatly increased income limits. Not surprisingly, it would have covered a large percentage of the kids in this country, regardless of their parents' ability to prioritize. That was intentional - the more people on the program, the more political support it will have, and the easier it will be to increase it.

If the program would cover 25 year olds, by any definition adults for at least 4 years, and eligible to vote for 7, then why not 26 year olds? Or 30 year olds? Or do like Congress has done with copyrights - peg coverage for a certain birth year, and just keep it moving up until it runs into Medicare? (Congress seems to have pegged copyright protection to about the time of the original Mickey Mouse cartoons).

SMGalbraith said...

Bush should ensure the health care of today's kids,

Gee, and I thought that responsibility belonged to parents.

If the parents can't do it, then we can - okay, should - assist them.

But if the parents can do it, we shouldn't.

One of the problems with the expansion of the welfare state has been that programs designed for the poor had their eligibility requirements loosened by politicians (both sides) in order to win middle class votes. And in order to fund that expansion, taxes had to be raised across the board. So we wound up with the perverse result of poor working families being taxed to fund middle class entitlements.

Not smart. At the very least, we can have some level of means testing.

But apparently if one believes in that, one doesn't care about the children.

Emotions trumps facts every time.

SMG

Dust Bunny Queen said...

"The giveaway that the program was about socialized medicine and not protecting children was that it would cover young adults up to 25 and the greatly increased income limits. Not surprisingly, it would have covered a large percentage of the kids in this country, regardless of their parents' ability to prioritize"

In addition, the other little dirty secret that no one has addressed about this program is that there is no asset test for eligibility.

The income figure thrown around is for "earned" income. If I have a portfolio of 2 million dollars providing me 5% interest and dividend income, that income isn't "earned" income. If I am a grandparent taking care of my grandchildren with just my meager social security income of $900 a month, supplemented by my "unearned" income of $100,000 a year, living in my Santa Barbara home worth 1.2 million. Guess what!!! I qualify. Warren Buffet could qualify.

Of course this is somewhat of a gross example but the fact is that there are no restrictions on this program that really limit it to the people who need it most, the truly poor and lower middle class.

SMGalbraith said...

the fact is that there are no restrictions on this program that really limit it to the people who need it most, the truly poor and lower middle class.

Exactly.

But if one raises this issue, one doesn't care about the children. Or Bush wants to kill people in Iraq (funny how the terrorists don't seem to have any culpability in these losses).

We've seen this movie before. Programs originally designed to help those who truly need assistance are expanded to help those that don't need the assistance. And expanded in order to win votes; either for that program or for the politician arguing for the enlargement of the program.


SMG

Luckyoldson said...

Who thinks this comment is as dumb and dangerous as: "bring it on"??

Luckyoldson said...

Chip Ahoy said......must you open by calling us all Republicans? It's offensive."

Are you embarrassed?

You ARE a Republican.

Luckyoldson said...

Dust Bunny Queen,
You have full health coverage, don't you?

And I bet somebody else is paying for it, too.

We're the wealthiest nation on earth, spend 1-2 billion a week in Iraq...and you're whining about kids getting coverage...or...how about the other 40 million+ who don't have coverage?

Another reason the Republicans are toast in 2008.

Just plain dumb.

Luckyoldson said...

christopher said..."Let's cut to the chase.

Bush has a hardon for killing people, as anybody who's seen the clip of him talking about frying Karla Faye Tucker knows. He's a sociopath, and his bloodlust is one of the reasons he took us into this abominable war."

*Thanks for taking some of the heat of liitle ol' me.

Luckyoldson said...

John Stodder said..."Amazing. Just amazing."

Are you talking about how many here continue to support George W. Bush?

Bruce Hayden said...

There are several reasons that I disagree with equating the War on Terror with this program. One is that the former is not open ended, while the later is not only open ended, but, as with almost all government programs, likely to continue to increase in cost and waste ad infinitem.

Those who would suggest that the War on Terror, esp. in Iraq is open ended would seem to ignore the significant progress made there during this calender year, and in particular, since Gen. Petreaus took over there.

Luckyoldson said...

Speaking of doing things that would damage American interests in the Mideast...anybody remember Scooter, Armitage, Cheney, Novak & Rove?:

CBS News has confirmed, in advance of a 60 Minutes interview with outed CIA agent Valerie Plame to be run this Sunday, that Plame "was involved in operations to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons."

According to current and former intelligence officials, Plame Wilson, who worked on the clandestine side of the CIA in the Directorate of Operations as a non-official cover (NOC) officer, was part of an operation tracking distribution and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction technology to and from Iran.

"Our mission was to make sure that the bad guys, basically, did not get nuclear weapons," Plame told 60 Minutes. Plame also indicated that her outing in 2003 had caused grave damage to CIA operations, saying,

"All the intelligence services in the world were running my name through their databases" to see where she had gone and who she had met with.

SMGalbraith said...

...how about the other 40 million+ who don't have coverage?

Don't have or don't want?

More than half that number are here illegally.

Another segment are young people who, for whatever reason, don't wish to purchase their own insurance. Even though they can.

Let's provide assistance to that group of American citizens who wish to have insurance but can't afford it.

Means testing. Legal citizens. Can't afford it. Need it.

Not just give free programs to illegal citizens or those who don't want to purchase their own.

SMG

Luckyoldson said...

Bruce Hayden said..."...the significant progress made there during this calender year, and in particular, since Gen. Petreaus took over there."

"significant progress"??

Based on what?

Petraeus, Bush, Cheney and Perino?

Luckyoldson said...

SMGalbraith said..."Don't have or don't want?"

Of course. Who in the world would WANT health coverage? I mean, the treatment and drugs are moderately priced...$500-1,000 a day for a hospital room)...so cheap...why bother?

Duh.

"More than half that number are here illegally."

That's nothing but another Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh type lie.

Provide one shred of evidence that there are over 20 million "illegal" immigrants in the America without health insurance.(The governemnt says there are ONLY about 12-15 million illegals here in total.)

Dumb.

LawGiver said...

LOS said,

Who thinks this comment is as dumb and dangerous as: "bring it on"??
Are you embarrassed?
You have full health coverage, don't you?
how about the other 40 million+ who don't have coverage?
anybody remember Scooter, Armitage, Cheney, Novak & Rove?
"significant progress"??
Based on what?
Petraeus, Bush, Cheney and Perino?


You ask a lot of questions. Apparently you are not very bright.

Bush is President. Deal with it.
Instead of whining about Bush tell me what the Democratic Congress has done to stop the war, or remove Bush. If you can't muster up a relevant and intelligent response to my counterpoint, why not just admit it?

Luckyoldson said...

SMG,
Let's take a guess: YOU have insurance, paid for by your employer...right?

And hey, how about Congress? Thank anybody would want what they've got?

hdhouse said...

lawgiver..that is a specious argument and you know it. the senate, due to the constant threat of filibuster is a 60 vote deal. there are 49 democrats. you do the math.

if we got to the simple majority like you neo-con hoodlums screamed about for years when you had absolutely control and a president who would sign a roll of toilet paper, you scream about a do nothing democrat congress like it was the truth.

what i dislike most about moronic arguments like you put forth (aside from moronics putting them forth), is that you repeat this bullshit like its the truth and you believe it and pretty soon it catches a footing because people trust people, like this trust this wretched lying administration, to tell the truth. but no. you can't.

go hug your kids and tell them their daddy is a liar. (and i'm calling anyone a liar who purposefully misrepresents the truth and knows better)

SMGalbraith said...

The US government states there are about 8 million or so, give or take 500,000.

Obviously, no one knows the real figure which is, of course, part of the problem.

Estimates of between 20 and 30 million are more accurate.

And very few of those have health insurance.

Which inflates the number tossed around greatly.

But, hey, why let facts enter one's fantasy world.

SMG

Randal Rogers (I. Ronin) said...

WARNING:

Never Wrestle With A Pig ...
... you'll both get dirty, and only the pig will enjoy it.


(The voice of experience tells me that, after a while, no one can tell the difference.)

dick said...

LOS,

who is telling you about the current status on the war on terror - Michael Moore, Tom Hayden, Dan Rather (so ethical a guy), Medea Benjamin? Sounds like your kind of sources of information - not an honest one in the bunch.

Cedarford said...

former law student said...

This moderate believes that
(a) innocent men, women, and children died and will continue to die in Iraq as a result of Bush's War on Saddam, and that
(b) Bush should ensure the health care of today's kids, because in the absence of any Bush plan that will ever bring the war in Iraq to an end, today's kids will be tomorrow's cannon fodder.


a. The Left (not moderates) loves to use the word "innocent" as much as possible in describing enemy civilian war casulaties.
Guess what?
"Innocent" is inane in context of war. A false dichotomy. Almost everyone, except those who are guilty of war crimes and those of "guilty" natures before the war started - are innocent by fact.
That doesn't mean the innocent on the other side should not be attacked, unfortunately suffer in the process, and those innocent brought to obey the will of the war's victor.

An Iraqi boy drafted against his will and subsequently whacked by a team effort involving yours truly - did not get a "guilty" stamp on his forehead as he donned his uniform.
A US guy volunteering for military service did not become a "guilty" person by that act.

War involves death and destruction as one set of innocent people attempt to impose their will on another block of innocent soldiers and civilians over differences that could not be peacefully resolved.

(Which touches on another fatuous Lefty belief that all war can be avoided if only enough talk and diplomacy goes on endlessly over irreconcilable differences. I guess in the Lefty universe, couples almost always resolve their differences, and in rare cases when they can't, they talk and negotiate with each other until all matters are peacefully resolved or compromised on...and the coercive power of the state is never needed to impose a divorce settlement on such innocents.)

b. Bush should ensure the health care of today's kids, Bush doesn't write legislation. Congress does, and SCHIP went down in defeat because it said health care was more important for kids than other citizens with health issues, did not distinguish between legal citizens and illegal alien children, proposed funding the law with huge regressive taxes on consumer items, left a GIANT LOOPHOLE allowing people with millions in assets and unearned income to join the program because in the absence of any Bush plan that will ever bring the war in Iraq to an end, today's kids will be tomorrow's cannon fodderHard to say that stopping the war is All About The Children! The Children (Lefty and liberal Dem code for expanding entitlements and regulations using the old "it's just for the children! the children! excuse to manipulate emotional women into supporting any such proposal knee-jerk fashion.)
Hard because any sustained Iraq post-war military effort, or any other future small to medium-sized war we have to fight - will only involve a small fraction of todays children, they will all be volunteers, and all will be covered by full GI health benefits when they join.


******************
On Sara Jessica Parker, my wife was asking who on Sex in the City I found most attractive. It was SJP of the 4. She shot back - "But she's horse-faced!!" But Arabians are some of the most beautiful animals in the world, graceful, elegant, leggy. Carrie's personality appealed to me...and I suspect her husband Matthew Broderick finds her exceptionally GIB. (Especially if she whinnies at the good points.)
I believe I was smart in just mentioning the personality argument to the wife.

LawGiver said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Trooper York said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
LawGiver said...

Why thank you house,

I agree it's a specious and moronic argument. That's why I used one of LOS's posts in an earlier thread as a template. His original statement was, "Instead of whining about me, tell me what Bush has done well over the past 7 years. If you can't muster up a relevant and intelligent response to my counterpoint, why not just admit it?" Obviously I changed a few nouns, but the moronic intent remains the same don't you think?

I try not to rationalize with the irrational. I just wondered if he would recognize his own crap. Appparently you didn't.

Trooper York said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Luckyoldson said...

dick,
Who do I depend on for my information?

Well, I read books, newspapers, and various periodicals. As for Moore, etc. I've seen his films, but where you come up with Tom Hayden??, Dan Rather?? and others, I haven't a fucking clue.

I also spend quite a bit of time discussing politics with a good friend who works for Homeland Security in Washing, D.C.

He certainly isn't in total agreement with me, but unlike the Bush sycophants here, he's realistic enough to understand what's going on, and tells me things are still very much out of control in Iraq...but then again, why would anyone at Homeland Security know more than a right wing suckass like yourself

If YOU think things are going well, and that Petraeus wasn't being used for political purposes, that's your opinion and you're welcome to it.

As for the "surge," exactly how long do YOU feel it should be employed and how long should we be in the middle of an Iraqi civil war?

Talking the talk, and repeating the Bush talking points has gotten us nowhere over the past 7 years, we're teetering on a recession, housing is flat as a pancake, people are dying every day in Iraq...and you continue to blather on about how well things are going...now that Petraeus is in charge.

It's bullshit...and you know it.

Luckyoldson said...

SMGalbraith said..."The US government states there are about 8 million or so, give or take 500,000. Obviously, no one knows the real figure which is, of course, part of the problem. Estimates of between 20 and 30 million are more accurate.
And very few of those have health insurance.

The only thing you said that made any sense was this: "Obviously, no one knows the real figure..."

Why not provide evidence of what you say?

*Oh, and you never responded to my question about YOUR insurance. Paid for by somebody else...right?

Luckyoldson said...

lawgiver,
I repeat:

"Instead of whining about me, tell me what Bush has done well over the past 7 years. If you can't muster up a relevant and intelligent response to my counterpoint, why not just admit it?"

C'mon, throw out ALL of the good things George W. Bush has done for America and out worldwide interests.

GFL.

Luckyoldson said...

cedarford says: "Which touches on another fatuous Lefty belief that all war can be avoided if only enough talk and diplomacy goes on endlessly over irreconcilable differences."

Where do you come up with this insanity?

The "left" favors diplomacy...versus what?

War? Invading sovereign nations?

Uh, yeah that's probably true...but not just of the "left."

Are you saying Reagan and Bush Sr. should have discarded any such diplomacy...in favor of doing what the nitwit in the oval office right now decided was best?

Again...this is why the Republicans are toast in 2008.

We've seen how you brand of handling problems works...and about 70% of America disapproves.

LawGiver said...

Why Lucky,

Bush has done NOTHING good in the past 7 years. He is evil incarnate and we are his minions. Yes, the plan is coming along quite nicely. Hide and be afraid for there will be no elections in 2008. It makes me feel good that the best you can muster is to continue to whine.

But Bush is still the President so deal with it.

Luckyoldson said...

LawGiver,
I ask you to give us examples of any good things Bush has done for America and all you can do is repeat your standard right wing bullshit...as usual.

Why not take the time to provide a defense, or at least a few examples of where YOU think the man has succeeded.

I realize it's getting tougher and tougher every day to defend the Republicans, but give it a shot, asshole.

*And please...no more of Sloan's silly retorts that Bush has not allowed a terrorist attack on American soil...because Clinton accomplished that, too...for an even longer period of time.

C'mon, chickenshit...talk or walk.

LawGiver said...

Well duh Lucky,

I asked you at 1:04 PM;

Instead of whining about Bush tell me what the Democratic Congress has done to stop the war, or remove Bush. If you can't muster up a relevant and intelligent response to my counterpoint, why not just admit it?

You never answered my question, why should I answer yours?

You aren't very bright are you?

Check your meds.

Where do you idiots come up with this insanity?

What a hoot...

Blow me.

Fen said...

rsb: Dig some graves at Golden Gate National Cemetery once. I have. In one of my myriad of occupations. This war is a travesty. Go on the front. Join the French Foreign Legion you cowards. You nauseate me. I hate you stupid hawks.

Go pound sand. If you REALLY felt this war was a "travesty", you would risk your life to oppose it. You play the chickenhawk card, but you're too much of a hypocrite coward to defend your "principles".

If you really think this war is "illegal" and "immoral", stage a hunger strike on the steps of Congress before calling war supporters chickenhawks. Fricken weasel.


You all suck and yes I am a veteran.

Yeah, you and Scott Beauchamp are "vets"... Shitbirds more likely.

former law student said...

Those who would suggest that the War on Terror, esp. in Iraq is open ended would seem to ignore the significant progress made there during this calender year, and in particular, since Gen. Petreaus took over there.

Whatever you're smoking, please pass it over here. No objective observer can believe that the surge has triggered a finite countdown for leaving Iraq.

former law student said...

Bush should ensure the health care of today's kids,

Gee, and I thought that responsibility belonged to parents.

If the parents can't do it, then we can - okay, should - assist them.

But if the parents can do it, we shouldn't.


But Bush needs Kanonenfutter. The war in Iraq needs bodies. You can't make parents wholly responsible for the raising of their kids and then expect them to cheerfully turn them over to Bush to have them killed. Kids are Bush's soldiers-in-training. Like any soldier going through training, the U.S. should provide their medical care.

Remember, George W. Bush was too precious to his parents for them to risk his life in Vietnam. W. served his country in Texas, and never missed a tee-time. That way he was able to provide G.H.W. and Barbara with grandchildren, and provide them a son who became President.

former law student said...

That doesn't mean the innocent on the other side should not be attacked, unfortunately suffer in the process, and those innocent brought to obey the will of the war's victor.

So you had no problem with Rep. Fortney 'Pete' Stark's statement. Fine. Why not just say so?

LawGiver said...

I tire of you tonight Lucy.

I will insult you again later on another thread. Good night.

Pogo said...

"examples of any good things Bush has done for America "

Well, I for one am grateful that the lunatics are much easier to spot now.

Before, such hard work! You'd have suspicions and bits of their true madness would be exposed, but it was difficult to be certain. So long it took!

But then Bush came and BDS sprouted, instantly raising the nuthousers to the surface, like fishing with a hand grenade. Now I just read the bumper stickers and listen to the radio and know within a few sentences (if that) when I am listening to another graduate of the laughing academy.

Just last night I was listening to the radio, and there was Jeff Daniels the actor on the Lake Superior Big Top Chautauqua, playing his quirky funny folk music. Ha ha, such funny stories! But then, within seconds, he reveals his rubber-roominess, saying that he "drove to Mount Rushmore so I could see what a real President looked like". Aha! He shows himself! Another benighted screwball, unable to recall that he is in stage to sing and tell stories and that I do not give a damn what he thinks about Iraq. Too bad he's nuts, cuz he sang rather well and told funny stories.

Anyway, thank you GWB for making my life so much easier in re: the unhinged.

Sloanasaurus said...

CBS News has confirmed, in advance of a 60 Minutes interview with outed CIA agent Valerie Plame to be run this Sunday, that Plame "was involved in operations to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons."

This is funny stuff.

Plame used her position to get her unemployed husband the job to go to Niger, where he did nothing but get drunk with friends. Plame has been covering for herself ever since (and getting rich in the process).

Sloanasaurus said...

Well, I read books, newspapers, and various periodicals.
I also spend quite a bit of time discussing politics with a good friend who works for Homeland Security in Washing, D.C.


Give me a break lucky. Reading the Nation and Mother Jones does not count as being informed. You are nothing more than an uninformed anti-war/socialist. I am surprised you bother to read anything written before 1968.

Your ilk was trashing Reagan in the 1980s using the same logic. You were wrong then. You are wrong now. You will be wrong in the future.

former law student said...

Plame has been covering for herself ever since (and getting rich in the process).

That reminds me: revealing the true identity of a CIA agent in time of war -- sounds like treason to me. Why aren't true patriots calling for Robert Novak to be hanged by the neck until he is dead, dead, dead?

Sloanasaurus said...

But Bush needs Kanonenfutter. The war in Iraq needs bodies. You can't make parents wholly responsible for the raising of their kids and then expect them to cheerfully turn them over to Bush to have them killed.

Funny these are the same things the Southern sympathizers were saying about Lincoln and Grant during the civil war. I assume you would have been saying it then too. Why send northern kids off to free slaves? What a waste.

Your ilk pops up in every war. You don't give a rats ass about soldiers. Everyone here knows that what you really fear is victory - a victory that might be used as political capital to crush your dreams of a Red America.

former law student said...

Everyone here knows that what you really fear is victory

??? We had victory, remember? May of 2003. W. put on a sailor suit and landed on an aircraft carrier.
Moments after the landing, the president, wearing a green flight suit and holding a white helmet, got off the plane, saluted those on the flight deck and shook hands with them. Above him, the tower was adorned with a big sign that read, "Mission Accomplished."

Four years later, we are further from leaving Iraq than we were then. That wasn't Bush's only brush with unreality.

Sloanasaurus said...

Are you saying Reagan and Bush Sr. should have discarded any such diplomacy...in favor of doing what the nitwit in the oval office right now decided was best?

Give me a break. Your lot was pissing on Reagan when he was trying to rebuild our military so we could talk to them. I still don't understand why you guys have so much love for people like Mao, Kim Il, Stalin, Castro, Che... They turned out to be exactly what we said they would be... yet you still cover for them????? Why is that? During the Reagan years you were saying stuff like "we should disarm first, then the Soviets will really know we are serious!" I kid you not.

The reason why your insane lefty position has been so prominant recently is because in prior generations your ilk was beaten into submission on the playground. With all of today's political correctness, some of you now make it to adulthood. Good for you... bad for America.

Sloanasaurus said...

Four years later, we are further from leaving Iraq than we were then. That wasn't Bush's only brush with unreality.

Cry me a river. We spent 10 years occupying the south after Appomattox and 40 years fighting the Reds and their sympathizers (like yourself) after Berlin.

former law student said...

Reagan when he was trying to rebuild our military

Now Reagan was a true American. No one can forget when his administration sold missiles to Ayatollah Khomeini's Iran -- oddly enough another country W. is planning to invade with his completely worn out ground troops. But Reagan was far smarter than W. RR invaded a Caribbean island resort, not Iraq. Reagan's war on Grenada was all over a month later.

Sloanasaurus said...

Now Reagan was a true American. No one can forget when his administration sold missiles to Ayatollah Khomeini's Iran --

You see, I was right about you. With you guys its all about world socialist revolution. Nothing else matters. Long Live Che!

Sloanasaurus said...

How did Schips get into this conversation?

In Lucky's world we would all have half the health care at twice the price... but at least there would be equality. And, after some time passes we won't even remember how good it was (how many fingers Winston.....)

Today at the supermarket I saw a woman buying groceries with foodstamps while holding on to her Starbucks grande mocha (Im sure she thinks we owe her for her suffering)..... In Lucky's world she will be slopping down a 10 count mcnugget while driving to have her free bypass (after a nine month wait of course...)

Oh, conservatives are so heartless!

former law student said...

In Lucky's world we would all have half the health care at twice the price

I love the efficiencies of our health care system. The mother of a friend of mine is one of two women who work full time filling out insurance forms for a solo family practitioner. The RN girlfriend of another friend of mine now works for an insurance company. After putting up with doctor's crap for ten years, she loves stamping DENIED when they try to get treatment plans approved.

Thank god health care decisions are not left up to a government bureaucracy, that's all I can say.

Pogo said...

I love the efficiencies of our health care system.

You are making the common error of confusing our current health care gumbo with a free market.

But it is not. Research by single payer health care proponents Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein shows that over 60% of our current health care is financed, controlled, or fully run by the US government. So to complain about inefficiencies therein must cast at least 60% blame on the US government itself.

But what makes people think that destroying the remaining minority 40% will fix all that? Economic illiteracy is my bet.

former law student said...

I love the efficiencies of our health care system.

You are making the common error of confusing our current health care gumbo with a free market.


I love my family dog.

- You are making the common error of confusing your family dog with a minotaur. But where your family dog is small and cuddly, the minotaur is big and fierce. So to love your family dog is in part, to love a minotaur.

Pogo said...

Cute, but nonsensical.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Dust Bunny Queen,
You have full health coverage, don't you?

And I bet somebody else is paying for it, too
Asked LOS

I'm self employed and have a major medical/catastrophic coverage only with very high deductibles. I pay 100% of my coverage. It still costs me over 450 a month. It irks me to see the poor union workers and government employees complaining because they have to pay a share of costs and their deductibles have been raised to $20 per office visit. Give me a break.

My husband is also self employed and has NO insurance becuase of pre existing conditions. He's flying without a net. Our only hope is that nothing serious happens to him and we can make it until Medicare age at which time he is eligible for SOME coverage.

So, your assumption is wrong as are most of your other assumptions.

Luckyoldson said...

Just look at the comments from Sloan, Fen, Lawgiver, FormerLaw Student and Pogo.

Can anybody tell them apart? Each and every one says damn near the same thing: Bush is great. Every thing is going great. We love George.

Like I've said a hundred times: This is nothing more than a gigantic BUSH SUCKFEST.

Luckyoldson said...

Dust Bunny Queen said..."
I'm self employed and have a major medical/catastrophic coverage only with very high deductibles. I pay 100% of my coverage. It still costs me over 450 a month....My husband is also self employed and has NO insurance becuase of pre existing conditions. He's flying without a net. Our only hope is that nothing serious happens to him and we can make it until Medicare age at which time he is eligible for SOME coverage."
And you're against national health care.

You're even dumber than I thought.

*Oh, and if your husband suffers some kind of horrible health problem...say hello to the emergency room, then the nice people at the bankruptcy courts:

Half of Bankruptcy Due to Medical Bills -- U.S. Study
by Maggie Fox


WASHINGTON - Half of all U.S. bankruptcies are caused by soaring medical bills and most people sent into debt by illness are middle-class workers with health insurance, researchers said on Wednesday.

The study, published in the journal Health Affairs, estimated that medical bankruptcies affect about 2 million Americans every year, if both debtors and their dependents, including about 700,000 children, are counted.

"Our study is frightening. Unless you're Bill Gates you're just one serious illness away from bankruptcy," said Dr. David Himmelstein, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School who led the study.

DUH.

So, your assumption is wrong as are most of your other assumptions.

9:15 AM