Archive for Monday, August 14, 2006

Bad column

August 14, 2006


To the editor:

It's rather telling that most of the folks who have their shorts in a wad over Joe Lieberman's Democratic primary loss in Connecticut are conservative commentators, members of the GOP and White House officials.

Cal Thomas even calls Ned Lamont voters "Taliban Democrats : willing to 'kill' one of their own (who) does not conform to the narrow and rigid agenda of the party's kook fringe."

It's a democracy. Incumbents lose sometimes. Lieberman lost because although he was once a well-liked senator and was a worthy vice presidential candidate in 2000, his early and persistent support for Bush's shortsighted foreign policy did not sit well with his constituents, many of whom are among the 60 percent of Americans (from all parties) now against the war. Hardly a "kook fringe."

Thomas' suggestion of anti-Semitism is absurd and insulting (wouldn't that mean Lieberman wouldn't have been voted into office in the first place?). And to call it the opposite of the Republican's "big tent" party "with room for everybody" : yeah, sure. I'd still be laughing, but just thinking of the Bush events with sanitized questions, prescreened answers and loyalists-only attendance makes me sick to my stomach.

Why is Cal Thomas so angry? Unlike when some GOP incumbents are voted out of office, at least there are no indictments involved. I think Cal Thomas is part of a kook fringe. Why does the Journal-World bother running his columns?

Christy Kennedy,



Terry Jacobsen 11 years, 10 months ago

Joe Lieberman was voted out by his own party, because of irrational, paranoid, Bush hating.

The man has given 20 years of his life in service to his state and his country and the loyalty he gets for that is being voted out of office because he agreed with the President on an issue. How pathetic. This is the reason that the democrats will continue to lose when rational thought is employed. Most Americans are able to disagree with the President on some issues, but still understand that there is value in his leadership on other issues. It's called common sense. It's the reason they voted him back in for a second term.

By the way, Joe Lieberman's position on the Iraq war is "Joe Lieberman's" position. I am certain that it has nothing to do with him wanting to be on the President's side.

oldgranny 11 years, 10 months ago

"Most Americans are able to disagree with the President on some issues, but still understand that there is value in his leadership on other issues. It's called common sense. It's the reason they voted him back in for a second term."

From looking at the polls it seems that most Americans are really sorry they put him back in for a second term. By the time he gets done screwing the country up for another 2 years I would imagine it will be even more.

classclown 11 years, 10 months ago

"From looking at the polls it seems that most Americans are really sorry they put him back in for a second term."


Historically, most Americans tend to be really sorry they put ANY president back in for a second term.

tell_it_like_it_is 11 years, 10 months ago

Why rightthinker? Do you need the "Conservative hero" to your rescue?

BigAl 11 years, 10 months ago

Christy had some excellent points. Cal Thomas, Rush Limbaugh, etc.. are as bad on the right as Michael Moore is on the left.

jonas 11 years, 10 months ago

Rightthinker: Have you noticed that you're just talking to yourself?

xenophonschild 11 years, 10 months ago

Dan Glickman.

Dan Glickman was one of the most able political figures in the history of Kansas. He served nine terms in Congress representing the state's 4th Congressional District, only to be cast aside by voters in '94 who chose instead a know-nothing pretty boy named Todd Tiahart.

Mr. Glickman did not whine or knash his teeth; he went to work as Agriculture Secretary in the Clinton administration, served on the faculty of Harvard, and now is the head of Hollywood's motion picture industry.

Tiahart is still a know-nothing pretty boy - he did shave his moustache - who regularly shills for Boeing and Koch, and applies to the National Republican Committee to tell him what to think and say about pertinent issues.

Joe Lieberman would do himself and his party a favor by going to work for the DNC, and work to see Democrats prevail in Congress in November.

xenophonschild 11 years, 10 months ago


Good point! Rebooblican hypocrites abound.

BigAl 11 years, 10 months ago

Also, this president has all but done away with press conferences. Apparently he cannot handle the questions unless they are scripted for him.

Curtiss 11 years, 10 months ago


Ms. Kennedy makes the obvious observation that JoeMentum's loss in the Democratic primary has filled the media with shrieks of horror from rabid right wingers.

And who shows up to defend Loserman's (GOP nickname, remember?) honor and dispute that premise? Just one right wing extremist. Sadly, it's the one righwingnut who occasionally shows this forum some capability for thinking things through rationally.

Funny, though, when the only objector to this letter, in just a few sentences, manages to accomplish so much:

1) Proves the point of the letter. (Funny how much conservatives want Lieberman in office.)

2) Calls the writer names. (RTr's worn copy of the Rove playbook has several chapters on character assassination; start with demeaning names. It helps their dimmer fans figure out who's the bad guy.)

3) Whines out for help.
(Obviously, some of our regular neoconservative commentors are still trying to figure out which side they're on first. They'll tune in to Rush today, he'll tell 'em, and they'll be back with comments by this afternoon. And it may take Kevin a few more hours to locate his notes on how it's Clinton's fault. After all, Clinton campaigned for JL, didn't he?)

4) Fills the column with posts. (Another chapter of RTr's dirty, ragged Xerox copy of the early version of the Rove playbook emphasizes the importance of fake grass roots movements. Too bad he lost the page that mentions your multiple posts are supposed to have multiple names.)

Personally, I think Cal Thomas is an intelligent guy who provides interesting perspective. When he's not running the playbook (he has the latest version) with insane illogic and fairy tale propaganda, he sometimes says something worth hearing. Not often, but sometimes.

I think the Journal World should run a balanced viewpoint by also printing the column of someone who's a lot smarter than Thomas, Molly Ivins. Like Thomas, she occasionally loses me in her tirades. But she talks more common sense and plain simple logic than all the columnists the JW publishes, and we really need some of that right now.

Porter 11 years, 10 months ago

Holygrailale- HST is one of my heros, but I don't think that he and Ms. Ivins would make People magazine's list of cutest couples.

Thanks for the laugh this morning!!

prioress 11 years, 10 months ago

by Christy "I hate Bush so bad I'm kooky and a serial Bush-hating LTE writer" Kennedy: "Why does the Journal-World bother running his columns?" Why, spoken like a true far-left, intolerant, socialist, sniveling liberal (flissl). HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

I'll proudly wear the "far-left" label, and continue to read Cal, Bill Buckley, Pat Buchanan, etc. It's important to have a variety of viewpoints in the paper, even if some of them are maddening to read. Incidentally, I often agree with at least part of what BB abd PB have to say. As for Cal, he had one cogent column a few years back when he picked on his 'christian' allies for spending money on their palaces and not on the poor as the master instructed them to do. Lighten up!

christy kennedy 11 years, 10 months ago


As always, you are trying to be clever while grasping at straws. Your position is weak. Your candidates, your party, and your president have failed miserably. Good Democrats, Republicans, and Independents are out there working very hard trying to change things, but those in power - the administration you voted for - are responsible for an immense amount of unnecessary death and suffering. They've ruined lives, countries, our military and the budget. And for that, yes, absolutely, I hate them. Anger, hate, disgust, whatever you want to call it wells up in my gut every time I think about the horrific and arbitrary losses inflicted upon our military families (btw, have you read about all the veterans suffering from exposure to depleted uranium?). It wells up when I see pictures of blood spattered sidewalks and dead Iraqi civilians. With all that's been exposed already, I am constantly worried about what, dear god, they are plotting at the moment. Yes, I'm angry with anyone who stubbornly maintains a failing position based on a shortsighted and self-serving agena that requires foolish and persistently wrong decisions. Why wouldn't I be angry? You can't tell me the invasion of Iraq was absolutely necessary, therefore, the resulting and never ending death and suffering was, and is, UNnecessary. You can't tell me that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Gonzolas, etc. followed all laws, the Geneva convention or even our Consittution, thererfor, much of what happened is not only a tragedy but also a war crime. Considering the subject matter, I find your attempts at humor callous and your persistent support of the Bush administration a sorry reminder of what decent and fair-minded people are up against. If your true purpose in life is to spend your days trying to be clever, all the while ANONYMOUS, dwelling in the comment section following letters to the editor, I believe you need to examine your soul and rethink your agenda.

with all due respect, Christy Kennedy

christy kennedy 11 years, 10 months ago

Let's go over this . . . sigh . . . one more time, just for righthinker. Yes, Saddam Hussein is a bad guy. A merciless tyrant and regional bully who gassed Kurds and Iranian soldiers and murdered and tortured countless individuals. Nobody's arguing otherwise. He was a bad guy who had bad guys doing bad things with and for him. If you have a humanitarian bone in your body you would have been very much against his reign of terror the same way you'd be against the suffering inflicted upon innocent people by tyants and oppressive regimes anywhere. Actively alleviating the suffering of innocent people has clearly not been a top proirity of this administration, however. This one has been plotting a reorganized Middle East from before Bush was "elected" the first time.

He wasn't complying with UN sanctions. We know this. He was, however, beginning to comply with weapons inspectors and THAT is when your guys in the White House panicked (having read reports of no WMD so far) and decided to fabricate "intelligence" about an "imminent" and possibly nuclear or biological threat-to us all the way over here- and overrulled anyone in the military and intelligence and diplomatic communities who knew otherwise or who knew the consequences of an unprovoked invasion of such a country. Hell, Bush I and his guys knew better.

All that said, I ask you this: Once Saddam Hussein was captured wouldn't that, by your argument, be the end of the bad stuff going on in Iraq? We're back to 2003 arguments here. Why can't you get beyond the fact that although Hussien was a bad guy the Bush administration lied and invaded when they should not have, made collosal mistakes and collosal miscalculations and has made a collosal mess from which there is no good exit?

Try using some substance in your arguements aside from the HAHAs and goat meat, that is, if you have anything valid to support your stand. Take a deep breath and try to be rational. It'll be easier on you in the long run.

Porter 11 years, 10 months ago

Holygrailale- Yes, it was a sad day when HST died. It was no shock to any of his fans that he went out violently.

I do agree that the HST/Ivins offspring would create some sort of freakishly good writing!

Back on topic -- Christy, great post. Great LTE.

Jamesaust 11 years, 10 months ago

I won't imagine that Cal Thomas will be chortling when a McCain/Lieberman ticket defeats both an extremist GOP and extremist Dems:

(Of course, Joe may need Condi to brief him on the "thousands" of errors made in the war by then - assuming the neocons haven't run that up into the 'millions' by 2008. Maybe he could start with the "rosy scenarios" that our SecDef never made and Joe never challenged when they weren't made (or Kerry or Kennedy or Clinton or Feinstein or Dodd, etc.). Or maybe some of those errors bottled up in Pat "DeLay" Roberts' memoryhole.)

rayikeo 11 years, 10 months ago

New Independant Ticket: Ross Perot/ Libberman with McCain as Sec of Defense.

Just kidding.....

Joe you lost, get over it and go into retirement.

Jamesaust 11 years, 10 months ago

Joe will do what Joe wants to do, but if he stays in the race, its his to win - for better or worse, even in a 3 man race, he has a chance of getting a majority. My guess is that the White House will not support the GOP candidate there. Of course, the GOP is going through its own ideological purity slaughter in Rhode Island as well. That said, it'd better be very silent Bush support as it looks like a GOP bloodbath in the East this November.

I did not catch Bush, who I assumed was on vacation - how can you tell? But I did catch Lieberman's opponent this weekend on tv. The only word that came to mind was 'nincompoop.' (That and 'filthy rich elitist dilettante' but thats not a single word.)

I suspect Karl Rove views Connecticut as a win/win situation. If Lieberman wins, Rove gets a see-no-evil of W, speak-no-evil of W monkey to pair up with characters like Pat Roberts. If Lieberman loses, Rove gets a public figure worth Michael Moore and Howard Dean put together.

BigAl 11 years, 10 months ago

Again, Rush Limbaugh, Cal Thomas and Sean Hannity are to the right what Michael Moore is to the left. The only difference is that Moore has a sense of humor. (even if it is a bit misguided)

ksmoderate 11 years, 10 months ago

Yeah, C-man, every liberal I talk to is always spoutin' off that they can't wait for america to lose the war. Right. Nitwit.

Porter 11 years, 10 months ago

Isn't it the "liberals" that you're talking about the ones that want this war to end??

How is that wanting Americans to die?

To me, the "yessirs" that want us to continue to occupy a country in civil war are the ones that are advocating American deaths. Soldiers that are supposed to be defending OUR freedoms are being killed. Rush and O'Reilly forget to mention that sometimes.

xenophonschild 11 years, 10 months ago

Con-man is extremely selective upon who he attacks.

Recently he attacked conscientious objectors as "cowards" in that they refuse military service. He denigrated them mercilessly and inferrred that they were less than human for their failure to take up arms for America.

However, when I pointed out that Jews in America rarely volunteer for military duty; that only two-tenths of one percent of our armed forces are Jewish - out of a total population that is five percent Jewish; and that only 1 in 3,000 Marines are Jewish (that's about 60 Jews in the entire U.S. Marine Corps; six-oh, five dozen, half a rifle company) there was no response whatsoever from the Cato of the right.

Can it be that con-man fears being labeled "anti-semitic"?

In any event, it must be wonderful to be so selective with your venom.

staff04 11 years, 10 months ago

"DNC uses images of dead Soldiers and caskets returning to raise funds."

President Bush uses images of dead firefighters and bodies covered with flags to raise funds and fears. 2004 election.

xenophonschild 11 years, 10 months ago


Even for a retired military flatfoot, you are a disingenuous liar.

You eviscerated conscientious objectors who choose, due to religious and philosophical reasons, not to serve in the U.S. military. . . but you decline to apply the same standards to American Jews.

You insulted conscientious objectors as cowards, even after observer took you to task for your error, and alluded that they are less than human for refusing to serve in the military.

But there is a specious difference in your attitude toward American Jews of military age serving in the US military. Why is that? Surely a fascist such as yourself secretly harbors animus toward all who decline to serve. Why not Jews?

On a personal note, I'm not a racist or an anti-semite; I am a realist not much affected by endemic propaganda. You fascists should be as objective.

xenophonschild 11 years, 10 months ago


Please address the issue.

You attacked conscientious objectors as "cowards"; yet, you decline to assign the same label to American Jews of military age who decline to serve in the military.

Why is that?

laughingatallofu 11 years, 10 months ago

Holy cow,

Rightthinker got its hiney kicked today by the author and subsequent comments. Even all of the HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH'S in the world won't rescue it from the drubbing it took today.

It's nice to see it get its comeuppance once in a while.

And it even had to wimper for Conservativeman to come to its assistance. How pathetic is that?

Rightthinker, you can buy Tucks in the drug store. Better buy two of them, because, after today, you have an extra orifice to take care of.

Jamesaust 11 years, 10 months ago

Some on this website have imagined themselves living in a country with about 5x as many Jews as there actually are. (People may make of this phobia as they wish - some already have.) Some find themselves "interested" in an underrepresentation of Jews in the U.S. military (but not Buddhists, Muslims, or Catholics & surprisingly Protestants) but curiously "uninterested" in the a gross overrepresentation of atheists in the same.

According to the U.S. military, 21% of service personnel claim to be "atheists" (where are the foxholes?) while only 14% of the adult public does the same. Some might ask: what is it about atheism that lures these creatures to militarism to slake their bloodlust, their moral void? What makes the servants of the god "I" into souless killers? (Or is that reading about 5x too much into the data?)

tell_it_like_it_is 11 years, 10 months ago

I don't even bother with those 2 (rightthinker and conman) anymore. They and there disaster of a party are on the way out. The only unfortunate part is it will take years to clean up the mess they've left behind.

xenophonschild 11 years, 10 months ago


The Jewish Virtual Library notes that, as of April 2001, 6,155,000 Jewish people lived in the United States, or 2.2% of the total U.S. population.

November 14, 2003 - (ACN) The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles made a startling revelation today when writer Phil Shuman wrote, "Only some 3,000 out of 1.4 million active duty servicemen and women are Jewish, about two-tenths of one percent. When it comes to Marines, the numbers are even more startling. It's one out of 1,000. One-tenth of one percent."

So, in actuality there are probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 180 Jews in the Marine Corp; not quite two rifle companies.

Not that I care, but one of our most reprehensible posters made a point recently of castigating conscientious objectors who choose not to render military service . . . and, so far, has pointedly refused to extend the same venom to young Jews of military age.

I remain curious as to why not.

Jamesaust 11 years, 10 months ago

xeno - Jews make up 2% of the population and close to 1% of what we once called "draft age" population. The Pentagon notes that those claiming Judiasm as a religion are less than 1% (almost perfectly proportional to Muslims in America.)

It has been my experience that those of Hebraic "extraction" are overrepresented among atheists, which as I noted are grossly overrepresented in the military. Further, adjusting for Jewish overrepresentation in "upper" socioeconomic and educational levels, and those same groups underrepresentation in the military, I would conclude that there is no significant shortfall in Jewish military service (perhaps even a weighted excess).

As to why a certain Texan has not called upon all College Republicans to disband and join the "crusade" of the "faith based" war against Evil, I cannot say except to speculate -- more bark than bite.

Jamesaust 11 years, 10 months ago

Now, holy -

Don't get me wrong - Lieberman isn't much better than your average neocon on the subject of Iraq (don't get me started). But for those sitting in the middle of both bands of extremist, the question is: which extremists is the most worrisome? A "warhawk" in the Democrat Party or a Peacenik in the Democrat Party? (Personally, I prefer a mix of both in both parties.)

Lamont is running for a 6 year job on a 1 time issue. When pressed over whether he's a 1-issue candidate, he first admits it and then give some blather about spending money here on national health care and grade schools, not in Iraq.

First, the feds don't spend money on grade schools. Second, we have national health care because its too expensive but rather the populace isn't persuaded that its a "better brand". Third, Iraq specifically and the Middle East in general is not a walk-away situation (indeed, its the height of immorality to adopt such a "Murtha"-like, break it and go home policy); Iraq isn't a Bush problem, or even a U.S. problem but a world problem - not that you'll get much assistance to what is after all the most democratic government in the Arab world from the likes of democratic France.

Besides, Joe votes the Democrat line 90% of the time. His primary troubles are a hyper-partisanization of politics. Its not just cut-throat between the two parties but now "consequences be damned" WITHIN them. (Indeed, note that Lamont's support rose sharply right after Bill Clinton began campaigning for Lieberman.) Witness the opposite situation in Rhode Island where the GOP "faithful" seem determined to lose control of the Senate by throwing away one of their own (as profile in this superb piece):

laughingatallofu 11 years, 10 months ago

Rightthinker's (forever to be known as "it") words of wisom on this thread:

Posted by rightthinker (anonymous) on August 14, 2006 at 7:03 a.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by rightthinker (anonymous) on August 14, 2006 at 7:39 a.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by rightthinker (anonymous) on August 14, 2006 at 10:23 a.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Forgive me if I missed any others, but that pretty much sums up what "it" had to say today.

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" said the Wizard of Oz

It really has nothing to say, but spends a lot of time trying to draw others into a "discussion" by (1) distorting their pseudonym: not_so_fast ---> not_so_smart (2) calling them names or otherwise disparaging other aspects of the poster, of whom it has absolutely no knowledge, or (3) wimpering for help from his equally ignorant buddies.

Do you remember "Cousin It" from the Addams Family? It was a 3 foot hairball (male or female---we don't know). Easy to talk to, but impossible to understand. Well, that's who I feel like I'm listening to when I read one of "its'" posts.

To be fair, the "Cousin It" on this forum is a child of God, and deserves respect, regardless of the fact that it doesn't extend that courtesy to others itself. Rather, when trapped (as it was in this discussion today) it resorts to downright rudeness. Let the rest of us not fall into the trap set by "it"!

If you're tired and want something stimulating to read before "it" boils your blood again, check out this link:

Good night, all.

laughingatallofu 11 years, 10 months ago

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" said the Wizard of Oz

It really has nothing to say, but spends a lot of time trying to draw others into a "discussion" by (1) distorting their pseudonym: not_so_fast ---> not_so_smart (2) calling them names or otherwise disparaging other aspects of the poster, of whom it has absolutely no knowledge, or (3) wimpering for help from its equally ignorant buddies.

christy kennedy 11 years, 10 months ago

Rightthinker and conservativeman,

Apparently you've found an outlet that has perhaps been unavailable to you since you're no longer, I assume, on a grade school playground. Taunting and name calling from the safety of your cubby is nothing to be proud of. Perhaps you should try counseling so you can interact with people face to face and leave the comment section open for those who actually want to converse in some sort of civilized manner. Really.

ksmoderate 11 years, 10 months ago


Liberals (and the majority of Americans) don't need dead soldiers to flame their hatred of Bush....he pretty much takes care of that himself. Always has.

And what constitutes the "failure of America" that you blame on Liberals? Is it their insistence on the existence of the Bill of Rights? Is it their common sense approach to a war gone terribly bad? Or is it their refusal to buy into the language of propaganda that the Bush admin. spouts constantly (see "cut and run")?

Anyone see the Daily Show last night? According to Ken Mehlman the RNC no longer uses the term "stay the course." Rather, the new newspeak term is "adapt and win."

Jesus Tap Dancing Chr!st.

xenophonschild 11 years, 10 months ago


Con-man - the retired military policeman - and his ilk are fascists. Period. The only individual rights they respect are their own. Franco in Spain from the mid-30's to the mid-70s is their model and hero.

They are evil, vicious monsters. In the late 60s a popular saying was: "Up against the wall, m.f'er"

Which is where all fascists belong.

ksmoderate 11 years, 10 months ago

Oh Goody! Now I've garnered a neat little play on my post name from C-man. Must mean I made him mad.

C-man, if you think I'm a liberal, then you have another thing coming. I am, in fact, a moderate (see: someone who holds political views of the mainstream. Also: someone who holds utter contempt against the lunatic fringes of the American political spectrum), hence the post name "ksmoderate."

If I'm a liberal, then you, C-man, are anything but conservative. You are Lunatic Fringe Boy!

All hail Lunatic Fringe Boy!

ksmoderate 11 years, 10 months ago

acg, that's the best thing I've heard yet. You made my day!

staff04 11 years, 10 months ago

Posted by rightthinker (anonymous) on August 15, 2006 at 7:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"it's OK, God loves (even) you."


xenophonschild 11 years, 10 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

acg 11 years, 10 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

ksmoderate 11 years, 10 months ago


Answer me this: Can you please elaborate on your previous statement about the DNC working in concert with muslims? What makes you believe this? Just curious!

ksmoderate 11 years, 10 months ago


Thanks for the "brush off."

And, like Bialystock, I am not a female.

christy kennedy 11 years, 10 months ago

JEEE. SUS. CHRIST! You people are still at it?? I'm starting to wonder if a couple of you live your parent's basements and sit around in your jammies night and day. Don't you have anything else to do? With that much excess time and energy, why not do something useful? Volunteer for LINK, deliver Meals on Wheels (ask mom or dad if you can borrow the minivan), walk dogs at the Humane Society. Get out and get some air for god's sake. Or at least fess up and introduce yourselves using your real names.

ksmoderate 11 years, 10 months ago

Yeah, I'm Abe Jefferson.

C-man, I'm smiling. Would you like to know why I'm smiling? Well, you'll hear it anyway. I'm smiling because your latest tirade on this forum probably took you at least a few minutes to type, thus keeping you from otherwise infecting the general populace with your brand of wingnut-ism for at least a little while.

Now, to take a cue from ckennedy, I'm out to work.

I'm a man, ksmoderate.

xenophonschild 11 years, 10 months ago

I'm a liberal Democrat, and I ache to destroy Islam, root and branch.

The fight between us goes back to the Crusades, which were a precursor of our fight to move away from theocracy. The Muslims never, or were never afforded the opportunity to, challenged the control of theocracy and are the pathetic wretches who give their loyality to a superstitious mythology that is just short of outright incredulity.

The only option we have is to kill as many of them as we can, as fast as we can.

Conservative Republicans can't do the job; they can't even go to the bathroom without instructions from Karl Rove.

Death to Islam.

Jamesaust 11 years, 10 months ago

Xeno - quite interesting.

A most useful "leftwing" attack on W's war on terrorism policy might be examining who wins when the war and homophobia collide.

As most everyone has heard, various military and quasi-military branches/groups have been dismissing or firing gay linguists (Q: what's a gay linguist? A: someone very good with their tongue). Despite living in a democratic country where (to the extent you can believe polls), 60, 70, or even 80% of the public disagrees with this, the military continues to seek out such persons and dismiss them from service.

What do we find this week?

'A senior career intelligence official says: the Brits are better in intelligence because they have people who speak Arabic, Urdu, etc.'

So ... on one hand we have W swearing that he will move heaven and earth to fight terrorism (alternative version: he will become a King to save our lives at the expense of our freedoms). On the other hand, we have an extremist band of faith-based, DixieCan, Southern-focused, big government types who are obsessed with gays. Who wins that battle? I believe everyone knows the answer.

This Administration is NOT serious about about a war on terror as much as they are serious about accumulating power and scoring political "points."

The only immediate question is: Where's Osama? When will you bring him to justice? When will he be stopped? Why is that not Question #1 at every press conference and (Fox News) interview? Perhaps if the White House received a hundred thousand letters a week demanding an answer to that question, some seriousness of purpose (rather than seriousness of consequence) might result.

xenophonschild 11 years, 10 months ago

drooling lickspittle:

Nothing like a "dry" snitch to make things interesting.

Unfortunately, the day will probably come when the sentiment "Death to Islam" will be fairly commonplace. I hope not, but suspect it will.

xenophonschild 11 years, 10 months ago

Ideology aside, we need to kill Islam.

Islam is the enemy. It seems that many of you simply do not grasp the reality that we have to kill our enemies - actually kill them, so they no longer exist on this planet - in order to survive ourselves.

I realize this is an onerous, messy, incredibly complex reality to assimilate, but we have to kill fundamentalist Muslims before they kill us.

Killing people is not something you who play on this site contemplate with equanimity. Killing other human beings is a bizarre, unearthly nuance that is not - in any way - part of your normal life experiences.

But 9/11 changed all of that, for all of you. You seem to have forgotten what it meant for human beings to deliberately fly other human beings in a jetliner into a building. No one convened Congress; no American president went to the media and declared war on fundamentalist Islam: they declared war on us.

It is war, and we have to fight it whether we like it or not. We have to kill our enemies, whether we like it or not. Pray that we get wise, competent leaders after the next elections who can lead us to victory against our enemies.

Death to Islam.

Lepanto1571 11 years, 10 months ago


"Too bad Cman and wrongdinker can't be banned for good!!!!!! Good bye redneck bible thumpers!!!"

Back at the firewater again half-fast? You're a model for all good, little, tolerant multi-cultural, birkenstock clad, neo-libs: endorse censorship of those you oppose. Why do you hate America?




Does your husband know you're doing "the internet thingy" again?

BTW Obtuse, I can vouch for C-man's service of 22 years. Don't be angry that he was an Army man and you were a love monkey on some battleship in the south pacific!

It's simply undignified.

Lepanto1571 11 years, 10 months ago


Long time no hear from. I wish I could say I've missed you.

Well, maybe a little.


"Lepanto1571 is just upset that he's been shown to not be the "intellectual" some of his cheerleader friends once thought he was. He lost a debate in Christian theology with an agnostic. It really stung him."

Good one grail. I have a small sack of STEM CELLS to sell to anyone who actually believes you.

Contact me at:



or better yet:

www.whenpressedtoanswer, discuss payment and arrangements for shipment.

xenophonschild 11 years, 10 months ago

Einstein killed Christianity; Greene is driving nails into the coffin.

Why not let it die a quiet, dignified death? Does anyone truly believe, or care about, that ridiculous creed and ideology?

Human beings create their own religions. Human beings created Christianity, and, once it molders into oblivion, will probably latch on to something else . . . like secular humanism.

Happy days.

xenophonschild 11 years, 10 months ago

.22 short:

Non-sequiturs don't cut it here. Human beings make their own religions. Human beings created Christianity.

Live with it.

xenophonschild 11 years, 10 months ago

Who cares?

When he was alive, he almost single-handedly destroyed the old sky-god religions.

They are dead; just don't know it yet.

But some of us are more than willing to help the process along.

Jesus was essentially a failed businessman. Paid one hell of a price for bankruptcy, though.

xenophonschild 11 years, 10 months ago


Seems like it. I responded to a post by .22 short, his standard xtian drivel - "I have to be good, or I'll go to hell when I die" - and it almost was off and running.

Some of Nancy Boyda's people called on friends of mine yesterday; they made a very good impression for their candidate.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if she were actually elected?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.