Dubya apologists, let's hear your spin P art II

“Yup. Rich, Marxist, Pinko, hypocrite in green tights. That's me.

strat - only the portion of any income above the cut-off for a tax bracket is taxed at the higher rate. It is a myth that you could lose money by earning more.”

“Seriously, strat, I pay about 15% to federal taxes when everything is said and done.

As far as the rest of your argument, it seems like you are more interested in ranting about "libs" than discussing alternatives.”

“Since NONE of this will ever happen, I'll just keep making as much money as I can, #&%!$ about paying taxes, observe more folks buying things with food stamps and then driving away in a brand new 2003 Caddy SUV, give to charities and voulenteer my time to the causes that legitimately help combat some of the crap from above, and laugh my a$$ off everytime we have to select between an Al Gore and George Bush for our leadership.

Buddha Bear
02:31:36 PM
01/16/03

Good point BB.

I would tend to agree with you, but I would add that major defense contractors will continue to rip us a new one on most military hardware; huge corporations will continue to cut employee benefits to appease Wall Street and drive stock prices; governmental spending will never make sense; and many, many Americans will cry in their cheerios about our system of government and never as much as cast a single vote.

Despite the shortcomings of America, I still love this place and haven't found any other system of government that seems to be better than what we have.

So, thanks to the First Amendment, all parties will continue to assert their respective positions and this country will continue to follow the winding road that diversity brings.

May we all forever support and defend the Constitution of these United States of America against all enemies, foriegn AND domestic.”

“I've changed my photo under my profile.”

“LOL!”

“i KNEW it! you do wear green tights.”

“LMAO @ violin.”

“by the way, thanks again for pointing out cook's corner. that place rocks.”

“Strat:

I'm sure the perverty level is high in your house :)

At any rate, the poverty level is $18,000 for a family of four and as the stats I posted state, there's a fair sized chunk of people in the country living in it. You're not one of them and as much as you think you're getting killed on taxes, welcome to the club. You've even got kids, a house, etc., in other words, deductibles. Guess what, I'm a single, kidless, apt. renter. I'm the one they rape in the tax bracket.

And as much as you'd like to think these people are milking off the system, I think most aren't. They're required by FEDERAL LAW passed under CLINTON to get off the welfare system after two years. Get that? TWO YEARS!

I also think the program has flaws as a lot of states are finding out. Let's say Joe Blow has a family of four. Wife works. He had a drinking problem, got laid off, went into a rehab system and after two years on the dole, has to get a job. The Welfare to Work program is mandatory for him. He rides a bus three hours each way to his measly minimum wage job in the city. Therefore, he neglects his kids for 6 hours a day, possibly creating all sorts of social problems, neglecting home life, etc. Aren't the ramifications of this greater then getting his monthly check? Not sure. Will his kids become criminals because dad's not around to deal with them? Not sure. Will his wife leave him becuase he's never home and she decides to have an affair? Not sure. But these are things to be considered when talking about getting people "off the system" and giving all these "handouts."”

“Sure that's one way to look at it. Another way would be that the father has overcome his drinking problem and is setting an example for his kids by showing them a good work ethic and how to overcome adversity. The kids in turn are inspired by their father's character, study hard, get into college and become successful. A fairy tale? Maybe, but it's better than having the old man sit at home getting drunk on his welfare check.”

“ok violin, i'll say your correct ......then you get a $10 dollar raise and take home $2 more than you were before. still take a screwing.

rosey, sorry dude, i don't buy that argument, i not really focussing on entitlements anywayz. i'm just adressing the idea that washington politicians(even republicans) think of my money as theirs. they say "WE CAN'T AFFORD A TAX CUT, WHO'S GOING TO PAY FOR A TAX CUT?" it's not their money, it never was their money. i earned the money. i am taxed when i get paid, then i am taxed when i spend it. i'm taxed when i invest it and make money on it. i don't even own my house. washington county does, i rent it from them. if i don't pay my taxes they'll take it from me and kick my family out and auction it at a huge profit.


paheddy, why does it bother you so much that i point out the truth concerning the liberal leadership in america today? and i wasn't talking about federal taxes only, i'm talking about your whole life. state taxes, local taxes, gas tax, beer tax, tax tax, death tax, marriage tax, taking a crap tax...add it all up dood, your gettin hosed. i'd love to talk about alternatives, have you ever offered one? i have one, how bout a flat tax and SCREW all middle men, all the red tape, all the loopholes, all the taxcodes, all the beurocrats, all the lawyers, fraud, waste and abuse.....just make it clean and simple and efficient. how much money you rekon we could save? billions.


chilie, i agree with most of that....





tilt, you eat worms for breakfast...”

“Or rather than taxing production (i.e. income), tax consumption (i.e. national sales tax). This would be fair since the rich man would spend more than the poor man.”

“Sorry strat. I'm not wasting my time with this crap THIS time around,

HAHAAHAHAhhaaahahahahahaha...”

“lmao tilt, gotcha! man, i burned ya bad that time.....



"Citizens by birth or choice of a common country, that country has
a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American,
which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always
exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation
derived from local discriminations." --George Washington”

“I’d like to point out that at the time he wrote that, there was no such thing as an Arkansan.”

“....and no confiscatory tax regulations....”

“And a footnote on all the Leftist class-warfare effluent being
spewed by the Demos, the wealthiest Democrat
could buy and sell the richest GOP senator more than 13 times.
Drum roll please.... First place goes to John "Ketchup King" Kerry
(D-MA) $675 million (more than half a billion inherited); In 2nd
place is bad-boy Jon Corzine (D-NJ), $400 million; 3rd place goes
to Herb Kohl (D-WS) $300 million; In 4th place, Jay Rockefeller
(D-WV), $200 million; 5th place goes to Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
$50 million. Finally a Republican, Lincoln Chafee, shows up in
6th position. (Oops, did we say "Republican." there is a Republican
majority in the Senate, but the richest guys are all Democrats,
you know, the "Party of the People." Shouldn't there be some
"affirmative action" plan to raise up more rich Republicans?


that's the top 5 richest senators, all democrats and worth a total of $1,625,000,000. yes, thats over 1 and a hlaf BILLION! hmmm....curiouser and curiouser”

“You didn't burn shit, Einstein.”

“how bout those evil rich liberals tilt...what , no comment?












i want your stuff......”

“gee stratdewd, that was interesting..... but this article leads me to believe that one of the richest politicians in the country is from......Arkansas? Did I read that right?”

“"Dewd," you're a boob and a waste of time.”

“chilie, obviously there are lots of rich people on both sides of the isle, but my point stands. the point which nobody seems to even acknowledge, let alone refute. your article listed more dems than repubs. i think it's time well spent to look at things for what they are, tilt. open your mind, there's still hope for you. to consider another veiwpoint is looked upon highly by some. let not your heart be hardened.”

“I don't bother to discuss these subjects with you anymore because It's The Same Rant Every Time, Dewd. Maybe your trailname should be "Broken Record" LOL”

“wrong answer tilt. there is no explanation to give so you quit...i love you anyway”

“chilie, obviously there are lots of rich people on both sides of the isle, but my point stands. the point which nobody seems to even acknowledge, let alone refute. your article listed more dems than repubs. i think it's time well spent to look at things for what they are, tilt. open your mind, there's still hope for you. to consider another veiwpoint is looked upon highly by some. let not your heart be hardened."
stratdewd
02:56:24 PM
01/19/03

WTF? 5 dems, 4 reps, 1 Ind....

Out of 10,,,,,10 out of 535,,,,if the sample is anything close to the population,,,it is pretty damn near even to me.”

“PRESIDENT BUSH'S 2003 ECONOMIC PLAN as explained by the white house.”

“Nice!”

“At least I’ll have someone to talk to in Gitmo.”

“I thought this was humorous:

”

“Bush as Uncle Sam rolling up his sleeves for war! Gufaw!

Where was Badass Bush during the Vietnam war?”

“Funny you should ask, mutt.”

“The message from the Bush camp: 'It's war within weeks'

· Washington now concentrating on timing
· State of union address to 'turn up the heat'
· Blair faces nightmare scenario over war decision

Julian Borger in Washington, Ewen MacAskill and Simon Tisdall
Friday January 24, 2003
The Guardian

President George Bush is determined to go to war with Saddam Hussein in the next few weeks, without UN backing if necessary, according to authoritative sources in Washington and London.
The US president is "to turn up the heat" in his state of the union address on Tuesday.

"The pressure comes from President Bush and it is felt all the way down," a European official said. "They're talking about weeks, not months. Months is a banned word now."

Mr Bush wanted the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, to force the issue of military action by presenting evidence of Saddam Hussein's violations of UN resolutions immediately after weapons inspectors give their report to the UN on Monday. In Washington circles such an event is being referred to as the Adlai Stevenson moment.

The "Adlai Stevenson moment" has become Washington shorthand for the US presentation of its intelligence case. Stevenson was the US ambassador to the UN at the time of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, who dramatically confronted the Soviet envoy with vivid aerial photographs of nuclear missiles being unloaded in Cuba.

Downing Street was alarmed by the Bush administration's sudden haste in moving towards a climax. It was adamant that the decision to go to war should not be declared before Tony Blair flies to Camp David for talks with Mr Bush next Friday.

An informed source in Washington said: "Blair is a good guy. They won't want to do that to him. They want it to look like he played a part in the policy-making but the decision has been made."

A key moment will now be the state of the union address. According to a Washington source, the US administration remains divided along old fault lines about the precise timescale of war. The defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, wants Mr Bush to set a clear and imminent deadline. But Mr Powell, is resisting, asking for a little more time for diplomatic coalition-building.

But both sides of the divide are making it increasingly clear that the end result will be military action, with or without UN backing.

The chief White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, yesterday brushed off mounting anti-war feeling across Europe, led by France. It was "entirely possible that France won't be on the line", he said, adding that Britain, Australia, Italy, Spain and "virtually all of the eastern European countries" would provide support.

Mr Powell echoed this, saying: "I don't think we will have to worry about going it alone."

The impatience within the White House for action against Iraq came on a day in which the cracks in the international coalition against Iraq widened. China and Russia joined France and Germany in warning the US against precipitate action and calling for Washington to work within the UN.

The German foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, revealed the extent of European anger over the US position when he told Washington to "cool down". The Russian foreign minister, Igor Ivanov, said: "Russia deems that there is no evidence that would justify a war in Iraq."

But Mr Rumsfeld's deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, ratcheted up the rhetoric by claiming that Iraqi scientists were at risk of death. "We know from multiple sources that Saddam has ordered that any scientists who cooperate during interviews will be killed, as well as their families," he said.

Britain believes it has won a short reprieve before the US presents its own intelligence evidence against Saddam Hussein, in effect a declaration of war, but only for a fortnight at most.

Mr Bush will lay out the broad case for toppling President Saddam next Tuesday but White House officials insist the speech, a year after the president coined the phrase, "axis of evil", will stop short of being a declaration of war. That will await a more detailed presentation of intelligence evidence in the next few weeks, after Mr Blair visits Camp David.

"We said that has to be a substantive consultation, not a fait accompli," one British official said. The British argument is that the longer the US waits before showing its hand, the better the case it will have to put before the UN security council, as the inspectors come across more Iraqi infringements.

The Foreign Office had initially sought to defuse the rising tension around next Monday's inspectors' report by denying that it represented a "moment of truth", but in recent days a source conceded: "That was never going to be realistic. Of course it's important."

At his meeting with Mr Powell yesterday, the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, clung to the official line. "There are still ways that this can be resolved peacefully," he said. Mr Straw repeated that the British preference is for a second UN resolution before any further action against Iraq but Mr Powell, in a change of tack, refused to commit himself to seeking a second resolution.

One of the factors behind Washington's haste appears to be the annual rise in temperatures in the Iraqi desert over the next few months. In theory, US and some allied troops have the capacity to fight in any weather but the effectiveness of both soldiers and equipment diminishes rapidly when the temperature rises over 35C.

"The planes have been designed for the cold war. They start losing lift, carry lighter loads, and must make shorter runs when the temperature goes over 35," said one government official involved in Anglo-American debates over the timing of an attack.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,881215,00.html”

“From Capitol Hill Blue

CHB Investigates. . .
Role reversal: Bush wants war, Pentagon urges caution
By DOUG THOMPSON
Jan 22, 2003, 01:18


Senior Pentagon officials are quietly urging President George W. Bush to slow down his headlong rush to war with Iraq, complaining the administration’s course of action represents too much of a shift of America’s longstanding “no first strike” policy and that the move could well result in conflicts with other Arab nations.

“We have a dangerous role reversal here,” one Pentagon source tells Capitol Hill Blue. “The civilians are urging war and the uniformed officers are urging caution.”

Capitol Hill Blue has learned the Joint Chiefs of Staff are split over plans to invade Iraq in the coming weeks. They have asked Secretary of Defense Donald Rumseld to urge Bush to back down from his hard line stance until United Nations weapons inspectors can finish their jobs and the U.S. can build a stronger coalition in the Middle East.

“This is not Desert Storm,” one of the Joint Chiefs is reported to have told Rumseld. “We don’t have the backing of other Middle Eastern nations. We don’t have the backing of any of our allies except Britain and we’re advocating a policy that says we will invade another nation that is not currently attacking us or invading any of our allies.”

Intelligence sources say some Arab nations have told US diplomats they may side with Iraq if the U.S. attacks without the backing of the United Nations. Secretary of State Colin Powell agrees with his former colleagues at the Pentagon and has told the President he may be pursuing a "dangerous course."

An angry Rumsfeld, who backs Bush without question, is said to have told the Joint Chiefs to get in line or find other jobs. Bush is also said to be “extremely angry” at what he perceives as growing Pentagon opposition to his role as Commander in Chief.

“The President considers this nation to be at war,” a White House source says,” and, as such, considers any opposition to his policies to be no less than an act of treason.”

But conversations with sources within the Bush administration, the Pentagon, the FBI and the intelligence community indicate a deepening rift between the professionals who wage war for a living and the administration civilians to want to send them into battle.

Sources say the White House has ordered the FBI and CIA to “find and document” links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the 9-11 terrorist attacks.

“The implication is clear,” grumbles one longtime FBI agent. “Find a link, any link, no matter how vague or unproven, and then use that link to justify action against Iraq.”

While Hussein and Iraq have been linked to various terrorist groups in the past, U.S. intelligence agencies have not been able to establish a provable link with bin Laden’s al Qaeda forces.

“There may be one,” says another FBI source. “There should be one. All logic says there has to be one, but we haven’t established it as a fact. Not yet.”

Pentagon planners privately refer to the pending Iraq conflict as a “Bush league war,” something that may be fought more for political gain than anything else.

“During Desert Storm, the line officers wanted to finish the job, wanted to march into Iraq and take out Hussein and his government, but President Bush and JOC Chairman (Colin) Powell pulled the plug on the operation,” says one Pentagon officer. “We had our chance. We had the justification. We had the support. We don’t have it now.”

Some Pentagon staffers point to last weekend’s antiwar rally in Washington, where they say the crowd included many veterans of Desert Storm.

“This wasn’t just a bunch of tree huggers and longhairs marching,” says Arnold Giftos of Huntington, West Virginia, who served in Desert Storm and who came to march. “Go to any meeting of veterans groups in this country and you will see serious discussion on whether or not we should be getting into this war.”

Reporters covering the marches on Saturday and Sunday say they counted about 500 marchers among the 30,000 who carried signs or other items identifying themselves as veterans.

“I served in Vietnam,” said Robert Brighton of Detroit, who marched in Washington. “I supported Desert Storm. I don’t support this. It’s madness.”

In addition, Capitol Hill Blue has learned that both House Speaker Dennis J. Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist have told the White House that they have “increasing” numbers of Republicans in both Houses raising doubts about the war.

“Nobody in the party wants to come out publicly and tell the President he’s wrong,” says one Hill source close to the GOP leadership, “but we don’t have the kind of unity we need on this thing. It could blow apart on us at any time.”

Public support for a war with Iraq is also slipping. In November of 2001, just two months after the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, 78 percent of Americans favored military action against Iraq. That support has slipped to as low as 52 percent in January polls. A Washington Post-ABC news poll taken last week shows Americans evenly split over Bush's handling of the crisis with Iraq.

Spokesmen for the White House, Pentagon and Congressional leadership offices would not comment on the record for this report.

© Copyright 2003 Capitol Hill Blue”

“What a mess. When the military is saying that this war should at least be delayed, then we know we're in trouble.

I sincerely hope we get a swift, decisive victory. If not, there's going to be a lot of neocons with mud on their face.”

“An exerpt from a post I did at another forum:

"...The Administration, though prepared for war, wants nothing more than a peaceful resolution. However, they are bound by the Constitution to defend and protect the people of America. 9/11 changed EVERYTHING. "Premption" has always been a military option, and alas, it will be used again.

"Again?" you ask?
"Yes, again" I reply.

In the yaddayadda century, the high seas were bereft with piracy. Pirates from across the globe were terrorizing busy shipping lanes and far away lagoons alike.

The seabourne terrorists were disrupting the economies of peaceful nations. They murdered and destroyed. They were a real and present danger to the good people of the planet Earth - they had to be stopped.


Imagine that. 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 square miles of oceans; as many uncharted islands as known. Wiping piracy from the face of the Blue Planet would be a monumental undertaking. Many believed that it could never be accomplished.

However, our President and the British Prime Minister joined forces and filled the sails of their war machines with the Winds of Justice. They scoured the far reaches of the seven seas - proclaiming to governments that if they harbored the terrorists, that they, too, would be dealt with justly. They let the world know, in no uncertain terms, that "you're either with us, or against us".

It was with nothing less than resolve and determination that this tremendous feat was, indeed, accomplished.

Think about that the next time you're puking over the rail of a Disney cruise ship...”

“i see the liberals are still squirming, what a surprise...ever notice how ya'll have nothing new to say? well, i'll give ya something to talk about.....

"To educate a person in mind and not in morals is to educate a
menace to society." --Theodore Roosevelt
"Shrewdness in public life all over the world is always honored,
while honesty in public men is generally attributed to dumbness
and is seldom rewarded." --Will Rogers

"Democrats will trample over
a thousand poor people to throw a rock at a rich man." --Tom
Adkins

Envy used to be just a human failing, but today it is a
major industry. Politicians, journalists and academics are all
part of that industry, which some call 'social justice'." --Thomas
Sowell

There are
worse things than an American-led war against Saddam Hussein's
regime in the next few weeks. Chief among them would be a war
that will have to be waged later, against either Saddam or a
no-less-dangerous successor whom the world has foolishly allowed
to pursue his tyrannical domestic policies, weapons programs
and ambitions for regional domination." --Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.


"Saddam has created a party state, and as party states go,
one that is more fascist than Communist, but as such you need
to dismantle it, not just decapitate it." --Joshua Muravchik

Even after their stinging rebuke in the 2002 midterm elections,
Leftist pundits still like to portray the President as a dimwitted
bumbler at the mercy of his handlers. But David Frum was in the
Bush White House as a speechwriter during the first tumultuous
year of the Bush presidency. He saw firsthand that the Leftists
are dead wrong: Bush is firmly in charge and holds the respect
and admiration of those who work for him. Initially skeptical
of the President's abilities, Frum is now able to say, "I would
trust George Bush to protect the dearest things I have, and since
September 11 he has fulfilled that trust, and obviously not for
me alone."
Frum's new bestseller, The Right Man, offers a convincing portrait
of the man whose leadership has been tested so severely in the
past year -- and who has prevailed. "He was not the obvious man
for the job," concludes Frum. "But by a very strange fate, George
W. Bush turned out to be, of all unlikely things, the right man."




"The ominous feeling of drift in American foreign policy at
the moment is, we hope, the product of two failed policies --
inspections in Iraq and appeasement of North Korea -- coming to
the end of the line, in one final whimper. The time for President
Bush to separate his administration from these policies is rapidly
approaching, especially in the case of Iraq. If he doesn't, the
consequences for America's standing in the world and for his own
presidency will be grave. ... The case against renewed inspections
in Iraq was always strong. Indeed, Bush administration officials
have in the past made the case themselves. Inspections were
designed to verify that cooperative states were complying with
international standards -- not to ferret out the truth from
recalcitrant regimes. As Vice President Cheney noted last fall,
we have learned more about Iraqi weapons programs from defectors
than from inspections. David Kay, former nuclear inspector for the
United Nations, said that the only 'inspections regime' that would
work in Iraq would be indistinguishable from an occupation. ... The
situation in North Korea is still more alarming. ... President
Bush famously said that 'time was not on our side,' and thus
implicitly was on the side of the axis. We have reminded him
often of those words, while also deferring to some extent to
his judgment. The hour is getting late." --National Review Online

America's enemies
within turned out in force on Saturday in Washington, DC,
and San Francisco under the auspices of the Communist Workers
World Party operating under its front organization, A.N.S.W.E.R.
Once again the demonstrators pretended to be peace activists,
who found violence abhorrent and a willing media played along with
the charade. Neither the New York Times nor the Los Angeles Times,
nor any media I saw, identified the organizers as Communists who
have a long record of support for world terror and its leaders,
including the Ayatollah Khomeini, Kim Jong Il, Slobodan Milosevic
and Saddam Hussein. As reported by the unfiltered cameras of
C-SPAN, the pretense, in fact, was pretty thin. One of the
featured speakers was a spokesman for the narco-terrorists in
Colombia...." --David Horowitz


here's a dandy..... "We think that military intervention
would be the worst possible solution. ... We believe that today
nothing justifies envisaging military action." --French Foreign
Minister Dominique de Villepin



David Letterman.... Top Signs Saddam Hussein Is Planning To Move
To Your Neighborhood: While watching CNN your daughter exclaims,
"That's the guy who brought my Girl Scout cookies!"; Predator
drones circling overhead; Your mailman made a mistake and gave you
a shipment of plutonium; Streets have fewer minivans, more tanks;
Sign on lawn: "Trespassers will be gassed and tortured"; Sean Penn
keeps coming over; Your address: 145 Murray Street; newspaper's
headline: "82nd Airborne Deployed To 148 Murray Street"; At Home
Depot, you notice four Saddam doubles arguing about carpet; In
driveway, Humvee with license plate "Ruthless 1"; Classified ad
seeks "The mother of all affordable split-level homes."”

“Jesus H. Christ, there's always one in every forum.

Stratdewd, if you're going to spam the thread, then at least make a point with it. I spammed the thread, and my intent was to show that Bush is gunning for a war soon, and that the Pentagon is trying to slow him down.

There's one thing from your spam that I want to comment on:

"The time for President
Bush to separate his administration from these policies is rapidly
approaching, especially in the case of Iraq. If he doesn't, the
consequences for America's standing in the world and for his own
presidency will be grave"

Exactly. If Bush doesn't go to war with Iraq, then America loses face - particularly with the "Arab Street" - and appears ever more the Paper Tiger. Bush has painted us in a corner. It's a political must that we have to go to war now. No matter which side you're on, this should be alarming.”

“gojo: 300 septillion square miles?

The point is, is Iraq truly a threat? And if it is, is it the most immediate threat?

To use your analogy, would it have been wise to eradicate the pirates from the South China Sea before eradicating the pirates in the Carribean? Are the SCS pirates truly a threat, and are they the most immediate threat?”

“mutt, i'll spam whatever i want. maybe you should just stay on a board that only lets liberals post if you can't handle opposing viewpoints.....the point i always make is that there's another side to the story..... try responding to this.....



America's enemies
within turned out in force on Saturday in Washington, DC,
and San Francisco under the auspices of the Communist Workers
World Party operating under its front organization, A.N.S.W.E.R.
Once again the demonstrators pretended to be peace activists,
who found violence abhorrent and a willing media played along with
the charade. Neither the New York Times nor the Los Angeles Times,
nor any media I saw, identified the organizers as Communists who
have a long record of support for world terror and its leaders,
including the Ayatollah Khomeini, Kim Jong Il, Slobodan Milosevic
and Saddam Hussein. As reported by the unfiltered cameras of
C-SPAN, the pretense, in fact, was pretty thin. One of the
featured speakers was a spokesman for the narco-terrorists in
Colombia...." --David Horowitz

note that david horowitz was once a flaming liberal in the 60's, then his concience woke him up to their deceptive ways and backwards thinking...



anybody?”

“I noticed that anyone who disagrees with stratdewd is a liberal.

What does this mean?”

“You're either with him or agin him.”

“sigh...whatta waste”

“mutt, i'll spam whatever i want.

I'm sure you will, and I'll continue to call you out on your banality.

maybe you should just stay on a board that only lets liberals post if you can't handle opposing viewpoints

And how do you know I'm a liberal? It's such an adolescent fallacy to pidgeonhole everybody who disagrees with your perspective into a virtually meaningless and simplistic label as "liberal."

.....the point i always make is that there's another side to the story

Uh, you need to learn that lesson for yourself. In fact you need the adult version of the lesson: there's multiple sides to every issue, and any two sides are not necessarily diametrically opposed.


And once again you spam, leaving the hapless reader to guess what point, if any, you have.

I'm guessing you're trying to link all people who oppose the war on Iraq with communist sympathizing America haters. It's self-obvious how absurd that is.

You're like the opposite of the communists' "useful idiot." You're the useful idiot for the Republican Propaganda machine.”

“What are liberals?
What are conservatives?
How can you define them?”

“mutt you bed-wetting liberal you, don't you know that the 65% of Americans who oppose Bush's rush to war are marxist pinkoes?”

“Yes I went to school with Dan Quaile.”

“Jeeze. Once again, Strat the walking contradiction.

"Oooh. The sanctity of human life. Stop the right to have an abortion now."

On the other hand....

"Oooh. A chance to kill and maim a bunch of FOREIGN innocents. Go for it!!"

What a clown.”

“What are liberals?
What are conservatives?
How can you define them?"

Such distinctions are only useful for testing poly sci students.”