You terrorists suck a ton more than the liberal bloggers on this sight. Lets not lose perspective.

I'm John Kerry and I support this message...I'm think...and if you don't understand my ramblings it is Karl Roves fault.

The Republicans are worser.

It's funny how people can deny that there is a global threat of terrorism. Think of all the countries that have had terrorist attacks from Islamic Radicals. Yet Dobermann would have you believe that Republicans are the real threat.

Terrorism is bad, mmkay?

BTW, Summer 2006? It's now Fall...

Keith Olbermann is the turd you stepped in while walking your dog and didn't discover until you walked inside and noticed the smell. Sure, it makes you mad at the time that you not only stepped in poo, but you also have to clean it. But, fortunately, once the poo has been cleaned and the smell has dissapated, life goes on.

Keith: You are a schmuck. A total, Ass- (as in donkey)Pimping schmuck who's too stupid to realize that we're not nodding our heads because you are opening our eyes; rather, we're nodding our heads to signal for the guys in the white shirts to take you back to your "happy place."

I finally placed it….that feeling I get when Im watch’in “Keith’s Comments”. It’s the same feeling I get when I stumble across Pat Robertson when I’m flipp’in around. When I listen to Pat Im saying GEZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ about a 100 times… The same GEZZZZZZZZZZ I say when Keiths “all bent up”.

So you leftwing Nutjobs, Fruitcakes, Wackos have got your own “little Pat Robertson” 700 club. Its called COUNTDOWN.

So don’t kid yourself your as dumb and gullible as the folks you like to rip on.

Seriously the real problem that we have here is a bunch of old washed up hippies who are trying to relive their youth. Iraq is NOT VIETNAM, Bush is NOT NIXON and these folks need to GROW-UP A LITTLE

All these terroristic acts... how many of them took place with a republican president, congress and senate in the most powerful nation in history ?

Hey, O'Lamely- how many terrorist acts have taken place HERE since that evil Bush started his "illegal" war?

(psssst.... the answer is: ZERO.)

Hey, Bill: Just one attack with the criteria you mention.

Let's see, with a Dimmocrat president...hmm... let me think here... Ummmmm, oh yeah! The first WTC bombing; January 1993, two CIA agents are shot and killed as they enter CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia; November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a US military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing seven service men and women; June of 1996, another truck bomb explodes only 35 yards from the US military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, destroying the Khobar Towers, a US Air Force barracks, killing 19 and injuring over 500; simultaneous attack on two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224; and, finally, the USS Cole.

Need more???

(With apologies to Dan Ouimette, from whom this information was gathered.)

Oh, and don't forget Pearl Harbor, Billy Boy.

But before you respond Billy, the attacks above were when the US was not at war... (I can hear you now, as you type, re-telling all attacks during this war on terror- which don't count since WE ARE AT WAR- screaming, "D'oh!"

How appropriate you invoke my dad Homer. You're even stupidider than he is.

How appropriate you invoke my dad Homer. You're even stupidider than he is.

Lisa said: "You're even stupidider than he is".
That's it? That's all you got? No rebuttal, no facts, not even a BUSH IS HITLER?
Pathetic.

Lisa, your lack of a mature rebuttal says far more than any wisecrack I could ever think of. You and John Kerry are truly the best things to ever happen to Conservatives!

You rock, Lisa!

Iraq is NOT VIETNAM, Bush is NOT NIXON and these folks need to GROW-UP A LITTLE

Posted by: Brian at November 2, 2006 12:59 PM

Your correct. It is not Vietnam. This war is doing much more damage to our military readiness than Vietnam. Bush is not Nixon. Nixon would have kicked Rumsfield and Cheney out long long ago. I grew up more than a little long long ago.

Way to not address the question posed, coduh...
you and O'lamely add a lot.
Great Thanks.

Lets see... with a republican president...The last five or so years of Vietnam, 250 some marines killed in Beruit. WTC 2900 dead,3000 dead soldiers in Iraq. MASSIVE DEBT! Oh, but no bj. And they always wear a tie in the oval office.

I know you're a liberal, coduh... so I'll go slow... the question was:
"how many terrorist acts have taken place HERE since that evil Bush started his "illegal" war?"

O'Lamely remained silent. What say you?

coduh... do I hear crickets?
Chirp. Chirp.

So it makes you feel safer because nothing has happened over here. Does it matter to you that probably while you wrote your last post that some marine just got killed over there? Do you think "they" might be happier to have a whole crop of military deaths caused by them rather than some civilians here? "They" love the cost that we are paying in lives and dollars. They also no they can count on patriots like some people here to keep sending our money and our blood over there. God forbid, but what are you going to say if after all that has been spent something does happen here? Do you really think they are in a hurry?

CoDUH said: "So it makes you feel safer because nothing has happened over here?"

Yes. The fact that there have been no attacks here MEANS that I AM safer. Safer than I was under Clinton. Safer than I would be under a Jon Carry administration.

So, since you and O'lamely WON'T answer a direct question (the answer is ZERO attacks here), I'll say that we are ABSOLUTELY safer. And the more savages we can kill over THERE, the safer we will all be over HERE.

Even the liberals.

All these terroristic acts... how many of them took place with a republican president, congress and senate in the most powerful nation in history ?

Ahhhhh... good ol' O'Lamely.
Like a good little Liberal- he doesn't like the actual question posed, so he just makes one up himself.
Good little liberal.

I figured you'd welcome answering a question about that evil NEOCON, Bush, and his illegal war.

It really something how it gets over looked or somehow justified "how, I don't know" that BUSH WAS THE PRESIDENT UNDER THE WORST TERRORIST ATTACK we ever had in this country. Are you delusional? Do you have a class to go to now?

Look, fellas- I've got to get going (classes and all), but you guys have a good time bashing the administration. It seems the NEOCONS are actually working so, you libs just chat.

I will conceed this, however- once there's a House Speaker Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Reid, I guarantee you'll see a LOT more attacks.

Just remember- Osama votes DEMOCRAT.

I know, I know, NEOCON fear mongering.

sheet,,,, a guy cannot leave for a while before you people think someone is giving up on an argument ? Pathetic .. let me get this straight the first WTC attack takes place 6 weeks into Clinton's term and he is responsible for that, however when 9/11 happens 8 months into Bushs' reign of error it is the fault of Clinton.. goddamn you rightwingers are ignorant.

you wanna fuck with me a--hole?? I don\'t think you do.

ok,, that was not me... but a gallon of bleach poured down the throat of BO would be a nice start.

ok,, that was not me... but a gallon of bleach poured down the throat of BO would be a nice start.

Just remember- Osama votes DEMOCRAT.

Posted by: LawStudentSteve at November 2, 2006 02:49 PM

What a moronic thing to say. How stupid really. Just denial of any real truth. Sort of like the leaders that you worship. It is all just a politcal game to you. The reality that you deny will one day bite you right in your ass.

ok,, that was not me... but a gallon of bleach poured down the throat of BO would be a nice start.

When the savages saw they could get away with ATTACK after ATTACK under Clinton, they figured they could still get away with it under Bush.
Silly, terrorists.

That evil NEOCON Bush, fought back. And since that time, (say it with me) WE HAVE NOT BEEN ATTACKED.

I'm sorry. I know that it hurts you libs to know that we haven't been hit again, but its the truth.

One more time: WE HAVE NOT BEEN ATTACKED since 9/11. As opposed to the mulitple attacks under our wonderful Dem's administration. (See: The first WTC bombing; January 1993, two CIA agents are shot and killed as they enter CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia; November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a US military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing seven service men and women; June of 1996, another truck bomb explodes only 35 yards from the US military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, destroying the Khobar Towers, a US Air Force barracks, killing 19 and injuring over 500; simultaneous attack on two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224; and, finally, the USS Cole- thanks to wilderness fox).

Now- I have to go to class.
Good bye, and Good luck.

LawStudentSteve,

You have not been attacked since 911 you selfish selfcentered goofball. Our military gets attacked every damn day. They have to fight for your right to talk shit on over half the country who is not with you on the war. You make excuses for Bush and 911. He was in charge. He was asleep at the wheel. You can try all you want to deny it. Only your brainwashed friends are with you now.

Folks, get a grip. Terrorists don't care about political parties. Yes, Bush was President during 9/11. The planning for that attack started long before that, and the seeds were sown even before Clinton was president.

Clinton was President for the WTC attack in 1993, the Cole Attack in 2000. Bush 41 was the President was Sadam invaded Kuwait.

Osama doesn't vote democratic or republican. He doesn't vote period. He espouses a radical theology that places the Koran above any constitution. They attack no matter who's in charge.

Look, Olbermann is an idiot. His rantings about 9/11 occuring on Bush's watch are inane and simplistic. But we conservatives (and I say conseratives, not neocons for the twits who think they've learned a new word) run the risk of sounding as foolish as KO when we just point the finger at Clinton.
Can we disagree with his foreign policy? Yes, absolutely. But the radical fundamentalist who have declared war on us draw no distinction between Clinton or Bush. And whoever is President after January 2009 will immediately become the center of evil for these lunatics.

Monarch,

I will say that you make more sense than most.

MSDNC

Speaks for itself.

If "the radical fundamentalist who have declared war on us draw no distinction between Clinton or Bush." Then what's up with this headline from Consortiumnews.com.

"On Oct. 29, 2004, just four days before the U.S. presidential election, al-Qaeda leader Osama bin-Laden released a videotape denouncing George W. Bush. Some Bush supporters quickly spun the diatribe as “Osama’s endorsement of John Kerry.” But behind the walls of the CIA, analysts had concluded the opposite: that bin-Laden was trying to help Bush gain a second term."

The piece open by noting, "This stunning CIA disclosure is tucked away in a brief passage near the end of Ron Suskind’s The One Percent Doctrine, which draws heavily from CIA insiders. Suskind wrote that the CIA analysts based their troubling assessment on classified information, but the analysts still puzzled over exactly why bin-Laden wanted Bush to stay in office."

Maybe you ought to rethink your position.

Sincerely,
Josh

Josh,

Just because we're dealing with a sophisticated enemy who understands our media cycles, doesn't mean we're dealing with an enemy who is pro-Democrat or pro-Republican.

Think Osama has an opinion of deficit financing? Stem-cell research funding? Immigration? Think Bin Laden is watching MSNBC and saying, "I like this Olbermann guy. We should invite him to join our jihad."

Bin Laden's comments are directed at Bush because Bush is President. Similar comments were directed at Clinton when he was President.

They hate us. We are the infidels, whose mere existence is an affront to them. They don't give a damn about our politcal parties or processes. They just want us all converted or dead.

I wonder if al Jazeera is running Olby's "Special Comments" as positive reinforcement for the terrorists.

hursday, November 02, 2006

President of National Association of Evangelicals accused of 3-year sexual relationship with gay hooker, and of taking drugs
by John in DC - 11/02/2006 11:03:00 AM

UPDATE: This guy is reportedly as important as James Dobson:

The press tends to regard Dobson as the most powerful evangelical Christian in America, but Pastor Ted is at least his equal.

UPDATE: Here is how big this story is.

Christian evangelical leader Ted Haggard... one of the nation's most influential evangelical Christians, whose overstuffed agenda includes a weekly conference call to the White House.

He also claims to have direct access to George Bush:

"We have direct access," says Mr. Haggard, senior pastor of the giant New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colo. "I can call [Mr. Goeglein], he'll take my concern to the president and get back to me in 24 hours."

And he's virulently anti-gay. This guy was on TIME's list of the 25 most influential evangelicals in America. It doesn't get any bigger than this. And he's from Colorado. Wonder what Marilyn Musgrave has to say about this?

From 9News in Denver:

A gay man and admitted male escort claims he has had an ongoing sexual relationship with a well-known Evangelical pastor from Colorado Springs.

Mike Jones told '9 Wants to Know' Investigative Reporter Paula Woodward he has had a "sexual business" relationship with Pastor Ted Haggard for the past three years.

Haggard is the founder and senior leader of the New Life Church in Colorado Springs. The church has 14,000 members.

He is also president of the National Association of Evangelicals, an organization that represents millions of people.

Haggard is married with five children and an outspoken critic of gay marriage....

Jones started talking to 9 Wants to Know two months ago. He claims Haggard has been paying him for sex over the past three years, even though Haggard preaches that homosexuality is a sin.

Jones also claims Haggard used methamphetamine in his presence on several occasions....

Former NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw profiled Haggard in 2005 in a series on mega-churches. Haggard was also listed by Time magazine as one of the 25 most influential Evangelicals in America last year.

True Monarch...

Except that my point was that Osama does distinguish. He knows which of the parties is more likely to assist him in advancing his agenda and, last election cycle he bet it was the republican party. From my perspective he was right. He and others have been able to stir up antiamerican sentiment across the middleeast (if not further), all while Conservatives have consentrated their efforts on Iraq instead of Al-Qaida.

Sincerely,
Josh

That video was just playing the fear card. Remember the fear card should never be played.

Ted Haggard the jesus freak with direct connections in the white house.. a meth freak sucking off another guy... nice to see who has access to the president.

Oh, and for those who haven't seen it. AOL is reporting that Ann Coulter may be brought up on felony charges of knowingly voting in the wrong district. Investigating officers are saying that she refused to help with their investigation and so they will be turning over the file to the DA. It'll be interesting to see how this pans out. The feloney comes with a sentence of up to 5 years if convicted. But, at this point we can't be certain she'll even be charged. Here's hoping.

Sincerely,
Josh

Oh, and for those who haven't seen it. AOL is reporting that Ann Coulter may be brought up on felony charges of knowingly voting in the wrong district. Investigating officers are saying that she refused to help with their investigation and so they will be turning over the file to the DA. It'll be interesting to see how this pans out. The feloney comes with a sentence of up to 5 years if convicted. But, at this point we can't be certain she'll even be charged. Here's hoping.

Sincerely,
Josh

Hell,, I am hoping that she is put in a man's prison where she belongs.

Hell,, I am hoping that she is put in a man's prison where she belongs.

And you O'lie-lie, deserve to be lowered, quite slowly, into a plastic shredder. Waterboarding with hydrofluoric acid is the second option.

Some really smart person posted this:

"It really something how it gets over looked or somehow justified "how, I don't know" that BUSH WAS THE PRESIDENT UNDER THE WORST TERRORIST ATTACK we ever had in this country. Are you delusional? Do you have a class to go to now?"

How can I continue to lie to myself in the face of such brillance? Oh, the shame!

If England had replaced Chamberlain with Churchill, then Hitler never would have invaded Poland.

Is we had replaced FDR with 'whatizname' the republican canditate in 1940, the Japanese would not have bombed Pearl Harbor.

Of course. I see it now. If we had elected Al Gore no way those peace loving Muslims would have flown planes into the Twin Towers.

Please OW fans. Join me in spreading the new gospel. If only stupid Republicans would vote for the right person, all would be right with the world.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Janet. You usually have a better response than that. That was directed at mister lawstudentsteve trying to blame Clinton for everything. The truth is frustrating. If Clinton was president when 911 happened there are people on this site who would have him convicted of treason or something. You know it's true. Bush gets a pass in your minds but not in the rest of America.

The Monarch @ 4:16 PM. Hear! Hear! Well said. Unfortunately, nothing can penetrate this pathological hatred of President Bush et al.

I don't understand it. I really think that many of the president's opponents truly believe that GWB is more of a threat than Islamofascists, The Great Leader of North Korea and Iran all put together.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Codas, there you go again. I responded to your post @ 2:46 PM and I will copy and paste it in its ENTIRETY below:

"It really something how it gets over looked or somehow justified "how, I don't know" that BUSH WAS THE PRESIDENT UNDER THE WORST TERRORIST ATTACK we ever had in this country. Are you delusional? Do you have a class to go to now?

Posted by: codas on November 2, 2006 02:46 PM.'

You are welcome to revise and extend your remarks. Or you could deny them. Or you could parse the meaning.

But I am responding directly to your words.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

But I am responding directly to your words.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Posted by: Janet Hawkins at November 2, 2006 09:11 PM

My words were directed at lawstudentsteve. I don't wish to change them at all. I stand behind them. I hear how this and that happened under Clinton. September 11, 2001 was a date when a Republican was president. Correct? I agree with "Monarc" that "they" don't care who is there, democrat or republican. I just think some people seem to act like Clinton was president for 911. He wasn't. Bush was. Why does he get a pass? Was he busy?

"Codas, there you go again."- Janet

Janet, is there a day when you don't use the "there you go again" line? Everyone knows that was a famous quote from President Reagan, so stop lifting it from him. It's time for you to get a thesaurus.

Codas and Indieik, and your point is? Indierik, I don't keep count. Thanks for coming to the defense of Codas. But MANY GREAT THANKS for informing me that that was a phrase used by Ronaldus Magnificus. I wish you could have cited the context. I had no idea. But, as they say, great minds think alike.

And Codas, there yo.-.-.-. Oh well, you know what I mean. I responded to a stand alone post by you:

""It really something how it gets over looked or somehow justified "how, I don't know" that BUSH WAS THE PRESIDENT UNDER THE WORST TERRORIST ATTACK we ever had in this country. Are you delusional? Do you have a class to go to now?"

Now you respond with what you really meant was, and I quote in its entirety:

But I am responding directly to your words.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Posted by: Janet Hawkins at November 2, 2006 09:11 PM

"My words were directed at lawstudentsteve. I don't wish to change them at all. I stand behind them. I hear how this and that happened under Clinton. September 11, 2001 was a date when a Republican was president. Correct? I agree with "Monarc" that "they" don't care who is there, democrat or republican. I just think some people seem to act like Clinton was president for 911. He wasn't. Bush was. Why does he get a pass? Was he busy?"

Perhaps if you said what you meant and meant what you said you wouldn't confuse people. I could debate either statement with you. But first you must make a rational argument that others can understand.

And, Indierik, are you Codas's mother? I have some bones to pick with you and responded to them in two posts. Surely if you can step in to defend Codas (a big boy I have no doubt), you can respond to me for yourself.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

You know, there is something to be said for the danger the president poses to the world. Especially when his own officials put out reports consistantly contrary to Bush's goals in Iraq. If Bush has made the world any safer, I and his own administration are unaware of it.

Sincerely,
Josh

Janet- I wasn't sticking up for codas, he has no problem taking down wingnuts by himself. I was commenting on your lack of creativity for constantly using lame cliches.

indierik, My mistake. I assumed you knew what you were talking about this time. I only use that phrase with Codas and you posted directly after I had addressed Codas with 'there you go again'.

How very kind of you to help me become a more creative person.

Now, if you would comment on the several posts I directed to you in an effort to help you overcome a tendency to hypocracy I'll be able to return the favor.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Grammie: You know you have a moonbat right where you want them when their best comeback to a serious question is to chastise your "lack" of creativity.

Indierek: Here's another quote from Reagan: When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When you have neither, change the subject and question the motives of the opposition.

Okay, so maybe Reagan didn't say that. But I'm too lazy (and sooooooooo creatively-challenged) that I didn't bother to verify the source of the quote.