The Vengeance Syndrome.

TREASON!

Ignorance.

Zeros trying to act like twos.

Actually, Doc Sanity, shrinkwrapped and neo-neocon have all examined this issue and come to the conclusion that it is a form of narcissism and is an actual mental illness.

Impeach Bush? Are you nuts? Then you get Cheney and he is really, really scary. Can you say Nuclear Destruction?

A long time ago, James Dean was interviewed by a newspaper reporter, and asked: "What are you rebelling against, anyway?"
James Dean replied: "Waddya got?" Bwahahaha!

Um, it's not Carl Rove.

It's Karl Rove as is KKKarl Rove, you know, the Chimpy McHitlerian spelling?

And don't forget, if something goes wrong

Blame Bush

Because Bush is to blame for everything.

Actually, the correct medical acronym is known as BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome). I believe that it will be added to the DSM in a forthcoming edition despite aggressive lobbying from leftist splinter groups within the American Psychiatric Association.

I thought the leftys ultimate goal was to control all of our money, lives and thoughts. Impeaching W is just a bump on that ultimate goal.

I would diagnose them with "Soviet style thinkology".

Why bother, by the time they get the impeachment proceeding off the ground, it will be Nov. 2008

the whackier these nutjobs get, the more middle of the road Americans will support the republicans.

I'd start some secret funding for some of these whackos to get them out in the public eye . . scum, disease & bacteria hate the light, but these morons could easily be tricked into stepping into the focus.

its like shooting ducks at the fiar . . all nicely lined up in a row, same spacing, constant speed . . .

Thanks Doug: Carl has now magically become Karl... that'll confuse them even more.

I once heard a distant relative proclaim that GWB was sitting across the street watching the twin towers collapse with a smug look on his face - she proclaimed that she knew this from a reliable source!

That was when I realized how looney the left really is and how they will clamp onto any consipiricy tidbit and idiotic idea - no matter how assanine - to advance their partisan cause.

What syndrome - hmmmmmm - "I'll beleive anything if it is against the right" syndrome or more to the point - maybe - Micheal Moore syndrome!

Bush Derangement Syndrome

Impeachment is a non-starter. The wiretapping is being done (apparently) for national security. You'd have to be truly nuts to defend a citizen's right to take a call from Al-Qaeda.

I always find it amusing when the right accuses the left for "hating" them when they in turn feel the same way.

Since George Soros is behind most , if not all, of this with his money and his resolve to ruin the democracy of the United States for his own stated ends not to mention his questionable affiliations, it isn't surprising the level of irrational rhetoric. It is like Pelosi and Reid have a hand in their backs working their mouths.
That is how idiotic most of what they say sounds.

While the likes of Clinton ( and Carter) travel the globe basking in the sunlight and adoration of the ignorant, all the while rejecting and betraying every democratic concept so hard won in past conflicts. The young, impressionable, those ignorant of what actually happened during Clinton's eight years in the white house,( and Carter's spectacular failings) can fall under the barrage of mis-information, lies and outright subterfuge employed and engaged by the Soros crowd. Add to that the likes of a Feingold
(whose McCain/Feingold campaign finance law made it possible for Soros and other left wing idiots to raise money in the carloads under the guise of "reform") and there you have a horde of ignorant and elitist foot soldiers only too happy to march themselves off the cliffs under Soros mad maneuverings and only too happy to embrace the Michael Moore propaganda mindset while they plummet to their doom.
They are all just as ignorant of reality as Saddam himself who proclaims himself "head of state" ..seemingly unaware he has been in prison for nearly three years.
Madness and illusion seem to have gripped many of the democratic party leanings, from Maniacial Howard Dean.. who makes the most outrageous and false statements on the Sunday talk shows and anywhere else he can be used to further the cause of 'getting' Bush, to the Clintons , who are not mad, but do have a clear goal in mind for control
( and in that much more dangerous than your run of the mill ordinary democratic party follower.)
Can any of us say that rational thought would actually follow the likes of a Kerry or a Hillary Clinton? KNOWING what they have done in the past to undermine the very hinges of democracy all the while pretending to uphold them?)
Those who do the talking in the major media are thankfully , so far, not listened to by the majority of Americans. They are hoping that will change, by hook, crook , or manipulated ballot in 08.
If we allow it and do not counter every crazy ranting and raving, no matter who it comes from, we will not have to worry about the War on Terror, for the War for Global Governance will have been won without our even knowing that it was fought.

Jose: "hate" is not the point; it is how you express it. Nobody matches the loony left in antics, violence, and outright pathologic behavior in its expression of hate.

Soros Syndrome

"What syndrome"?

As psych nurse, I'll lay out the clinical information. Draw your own conclusions. I'm pasting straight from the DMS IV:

Narcissistic personality is characterized by behavior or a fantasy of grandiosity, a lack of empathy and a need to be admired by others. Narcissistic personality has a pathological unrealistic or inflated sense of self-importance, has an inability to see the viewpoints of others, and is hypersensitive to the opinions of others. As indicated by at least five of the following:

1.Grandiose sense of self-importance.
2.Fantasies of and preoccupied with beauty, brilliance, ideal love, power, or unlimited success.
3.A belief of being special and unique and can only be understood or a need to associate with people of high status.
4.A need for excessive admiration.
5.An unreasonable expectation of being treated with favor or excepting an automatic compliance to her/his wishes.
6.Will use others to achieve her/his goals.
7.Lacks empathy.
8.Believes others are envious of he/him or is envious of others.
9.Contemptuous or haughty attitudes/behaviors.

Histrionic personality disorder is primarily characterized by exaggerated displays of emotional reactions, approaching theatricality, in everyday behavior. Emotions are expressed with extreme and often inappropriate exaggeration. Persons with this disorder are prone to sudden and rapidly shifting emotion expressions.

A pattern of excessive emotionality and attention seeking, as indicated by at least five of the following:

1.Uncomfortable if not the center of attention.
2.Interaction with others in a inappropriate provocative or seductive manner.
3.Shallow and rapid changing of emotion.
4.Uses appearance to draw attention.
5.Speech that lacks in detail and excessively impressionistic.
6.Theatrical, self dramatization, or out of proportion expression of emotion.
7.Easily influenced, suggestible.
8.Feels even a sociable relationship is intimate.

For the sake of space I've left out Borderline and Anti-Social PD's that added to the above make up the personality d/o's in Cluster B.

Remember, you only have to have 5 characteristicts on a specific list to qualify for that disorder.

Is it not hilarious that our own beloved American-hating Liberals love nothing more than to behave exactly like them?Just look at their most recent campaign tactics if you need another example.

These and similar stories in Canada,at least to my mind,demonstrate clearly the MSM's general tendency to either promote or downplay certain stories along a partisan bias.It is dishonest to say the least.Where is the press's ethics?

Having grown up a westerner I have been stung by the left's wild insults and slurs lobbed at us over the years like so many partisan hand grenades.How dare we support a conservative movement?We are therefore uncanadian,racist,redneck....you've all heard or maybe felt them yourselves.

Sure as hell never witnessed the CBC come to our rescue,but God forbid,a prominent Conservative let something stupid slip out(which did happened all too often)and most the MSM made sure it was a leading headline the next day.The Libs?Well,the CBC didn't seem to have much of a problem with Chretien's millions?(sorry,don't remember exact amount)recorded on a cocktail napkin,did they?

Not that the Cons are completely innocent,I have seen plenty of shit flying the other way too.

BUT,at least to my experience,it is mostly the left-minded in this country(US too)who seem to be consumed with contempt and hatred for anyone who dare think differently.Want proof?Try and point this out to a radical leftist.Just be prepared for a nasty attack to come flying back at you....DUCK!!!

Look, I'm no leftist, but the man is an idiot and not fit to manage a McDonalds let alone lead a superpower (even a moribund one like the U.S.)

I am 100% certain that if it were not for his family connections he would be pumping gas in some dustbowl filling station down in Texas. America, and the world in general is no more secure (and arguably much less so) than before 9/11 despite billions of dollars and thousands of lives wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan, outrageous "security" regulations, draconian new laws, secret trials, secret charges, secret wiretaps and so on.

The "war on terror" is nothing more than a replacement for the failed American "war on drugs". Drugs won that one, so the president needs a much scarier and more lethal boogeyman to convince the people that asset forfetiure, militarized police, extrajudicial detentions and secret star chamber courts are needed "to protect the homeland". Too bad that sheople are so easily led as long as there is an ample supply of sports, scandal and sitcoms to keep them occupied.

(Tongue in cheek) Not only is GWB responsible for everything that goes "wrong," he is to be no credit for good events either. The Democratic/Left are partisan and trying to win back White House, so don't expect them to be objective. On the other hand, the Chomskys of the world will never get it. They apply ethnocentric logic - we are nice so everyone else must be. We would never resort to violence unless we had a good reason. So Bush is the reason. They are so sheltered in their worldview that they don't understand there are cruel, hateful bigoted killers out there who hate, hate hate. They oppose modernity, labelling it as oppression, occupation. Poverty and misery are virtues. A good example of this thinking is the Israel/Palestine struggle. Ignore the fact that the Arab states invaded Israel from day one, that Israel launched a pre-emptive strike in the seven-day war; that Israelis are subjected to first military, then paramilitary murder attacks on civilians. They ignore the fact that Arabs left Israel of their own accord in 1947 (so where is "right of return" - the final card to be played to ensure continuing conflict). Anything Israel does (rightly or wrongly) in their defence is occupation, any atrocity committed by Hamas et al is some romantic struggle. The West teaches plurality, tolerance and thought, the radicalized East teaches authoritarianism, hatred and indoctrination, and thus a culture of death; then they blame the West. To Hell with them! Let them wallow in their misery; it's what they seem to prefer to peace.

I don't hate the left Jose, if it wasn't for the left, where would I find migrant workers to do my laundry.

What would I do with all the money I wouldn't have to pay in tax's if it wasn't for the Left. Hell, I might actually keep more than 50% of it...

I don't think my heart could handle that kind of shock. (Please note, tax time is here and I'm really grumpy)

Hell, the money I'm saving in bullets I can't buy alone...

Now if you really want the right to like the left, give us 24 hour a day NFL... you'll never get a peep out of me again.

Course the wife might have something to say to you:)

Hey, people have been trying to impeach Bush since Jan. 21, 2001, the meme continues.

As an American, I'm really quite distressed about this sort of nonsense, b/c for some reason it's driving the Dem Party right now, which is terribly destructive to them, and that destabilizes the Rep Party too. The U.S. needs two strong, healthy parties. Fringe-y ideas, if they're any good, eventually get co-opted by one of the big parties. However, as we're seeing, sometimes one of the big parties can be taken over by a radical element, and then the other party just gets icky b/c it stops having a serious opponent to fight. The utter irrelevance of the Democrats is why the Republicans will win in November, although many (most?) candidates do not deserve to - and I say this as a longtime Rep activist.

The first two d/o's I really feel characterizes many aspects the looney left's collective behavior.

And clogging up the jails/prisons:

Antisocial personality disorder is characterized by a lack of regard for the moral or legal standards in the local culture. There is a marked inability to get along with others or abide by societal rules. Individuals with this disorder are sometimes called psychopaths or sociolpaths.

A. Repeated acts that could lead to arrest.
B. Conning for pleasure or profit, repeated lying, or the use of aliases.
C. Failure to plan ahead or being impulsive.
D. Repeated assaults on others.
E. Reckless when it comes to their or others safety.
F. Poor work behavior or failure to honor financial obligations.
G. Rationalizing the pain they inflict on others.

Phil:
"They oppose modernity, labelling it as oppression, occupation."

Well, what exactly would you call invading a sovereign state for no reason, deposing its leader, destroying its infrastructure, installing a puppet government and touching off a civil war? If the Iraqis wanted to be "free" was that not their job if they felt so inclined? If a people wish to live in a backwards theocracy is that choice not up to them?

I find it funny that the people crowing on about "freedom" and "democracy" (from countries that are growing less and less free by the week nonetheless) have such situational ethics. Hamas was freely elected, but somehow that doesn't count because they are on the other team? I despise hypocrisy in all its forms and Bush regime has exhibited same for the entire duration of the "war on terror" so far.

Penny,
Your first post read just like a description of nearly 100% of university professors.

Stan,
You say Hamas was freely elected (it wasn't) bu then people exactly like you "crow" about GWB NOT being freely elected.

That's YOUR double standard.

"A. Repeated acts that could lead to arrest. (fraud)
B. Conning for pleasure or profit, repeated lying, or the use of aliases. (liar)
C. Failure to plan ahead or being impulsive.(Iraq)
D. Repeated assaults on others.(destroyed the economy)
E. Reckless when it comes to their or others safety. (Katrina)
F. Poor work behavior or failure to honor financial obligations. (deficit)
G. Rationalizing the pain they inflict on others."
(definitely anti-social and a drunk)
Sounds like Bush..a thief who has committed fraud. Man, I hope I see the day he does the perp walk.

makes sense on paper

Revenge by the Democratic Underground.

Impeached? Yes. Guilty? No.

Acquitted? Yes.

Bill Clinton
42nd U.S. President
...
On Friday, February 12, television cameras were once again turned on inside the chamber and senators gathered in open session for the final roll call. With the whole world watching, senators stood up one by one to vote "guilty" or "not guilty." On Article 1, the charge of perjury, 55 senators, including 10 Republicans and all 45 Democrats voted not guilty. On Article 3, obstruction of justice, the Senate split evenly, 50 for and 50 against the President.

With the necessary two-thirds majority not having been achieved, the President was thus acquitted on both charges and would serve out the remainder of his term of office lasting through January 20, 2001. +
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/clinton.htm

Four words.

Weapons of mass destruction.

Doug:
"You say Hamas was freely elected (it wasn't) bu then people exactly like you "crow" about GWB NOT being freely elected."

Well, I would like to see proof that Hamas was not freely elected. An international team of inspectors seems satisfied that they were so, so if you have any evidence to the contrary let's see it.

As for GWB, I never said that he was not freely elected so I'll thank you to no put words in my mouth.

And by the way, just because I oppose this insane "War On Terror" and see it for what it really is, do not assume that I am a loony leftist. I am fiscal conservative and civil/social libertarian, and personally feel that the resources currently being wasted on fanning the flames in the middle east would be better spent back home in the form of tax cuts and investment in domestic energy production.

Do you ever stop and wonder WHY these people hate us? Hint: it's not "our freedom". They want nothing to do with us, and if not for the oil we need not have anything to do with them either. It's the constant western meddling in the region and support of the "Zionist Entity" that gets them riled up. If we had not been doing this in the first place, there would have been no 9/11.

William "Now if you really want the right to like the left, give us 24 hour a day NFL... you'll never get a peep out of me again."

I don't want the right to "like" the left. But let's put things in perspective. While I've been here I've had the vilest of slurs made against me. Including a generous helping of "I hope you get your head chopped off".

I in turn haven't insulted anyone and bear no ill will to someone who doesn't split the same political hairs I do.

Occasionly a few of you guys take a break from spitting in my face to tell me that I'm an overly emotional partisan nutcase who can't think straight because I hate the right so much. So you'll have to excuse me if I wipe the spittle off my face with a little bemusement.

Maz,
Clinton WAS guilt of perjury, but was it really grounds for impeachment? No, not really.

But were Repubs threatening to storm the White House--LITLERALLY--like the Loony left is?

Was former president Bush galavanting around the world proclaiming that Clinton is brining the US and the world to ruin, like AlGore and Jimmuh Carter are, bordering closely on treason?

The answer is no because for the most part, there are mature and responsible adults (maybe some are TOO mature and TOO responsible) on the right side of the aisle and the left harbors spolied, immature, self-centred children.

BTW, this speaks volumes about a left-dominant generation:

Canadian Baby Boomers Prefer TV Over Sex

Stan, is it reasonable to expect any Western government to provide aid money to Hamas, a government who's stated objective is the destruction of the Israeli State?

Democratically elected or not, I think the west should be able to expect some sort of retraction of this position. If only for the optics of it.

It shows a certain stupidity on the part of Hamas that they would stick to their principles on this at the cost of being annointed an international "Pariah", and placing in jeopardy the aid money they need to rebuild.

You state that "America" is acting autocratically in it's invasion of Iraq, and while I will grant you the reasons Bush uses turned out to be pretty lame, at the end of the day, the oil supply was being disrupted, and in the case of insuring the sovreignty of the nation, it becomes of case of "us" before "them".

Don't fuck with the juice.

Protecting national interest is a justifiable reason to war on another, and if there is a crime on Bush's part in this regard, it's that he kept using the WMD excuse, when he should have just called a spade a spade and said it's about the oil, it's supply, and our need for it.

At the very least, between Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush has made being an Islamic terrorist a running headache.

I personally can accept the "might makes right" position in that case. Hussein fucked around, and got his clock kicked for his trouble.

In the end, the Kurds are happier, the Iraqi's are rebuilding, albeit slowly. The money their oil brings in is actually starting to go where it's supposed to, instead of into the hands of people like Paul Demaris, and Kofi Anon's son, and all the other crooks in the UN.

Most importantly, the Iraqi nation can once again become a bullwark against the nutbars running Iran.

It's not alway's pretty, I'll grant you that, but there is protecting your own to consider, and whether you agee with Bush or not, in his mind he's doing just that, looking out for American interests. My heart goes out to the parents who have lost children over there, but in the end, I think it was the right thing to do.

Right or wrong, he believes he is doing whats right for the nation. I may not always agree, but I can't fault his motivation.

It's amazing how fast the world is to berate the US for this, that or the other thing. Yet when the shit hits the fan, they all come running to the same white house on the hill.

The world can't have it both ways, you can't ask America to help, and then get mad when it decides to help it's way.

The system works in the US, it just takes a little time sometimes.

Would you rather people like Pat Buchanan, or Jesse Holmes be calling the shots.

You think Bush is bad... there's way worse in the wings my friend. There's people in the states with true political clout, that would make isolationism seem like a walk in the park.

Hey,I just came up with an idea that everyone should support.

How about instead of abolishing the gun registry we do this:
Collect all the names and addresses of the self-rightious anti-American lefties in Canada and store them in case,knock on wood,we are ever attacked or suffer a massive natural disaster.
That way,when our good friend and neighbor to the south rushes to our aid(as you KNOW they will)they can save valuable time and assetts saving those who are worthy.Also,these lefties would have their dignity left intact.
Believe they call this a win/win situation.

Jose, don't be a baby,

if your going to walk into the middle of a conservative blog, attempt mass conversion and launch salvo's against the stated position, then you have to expect some smackdowns.

It wouldn't be any different if a conservative logged onto a Liberal blog. In fact, it would be worse.

And you do to get some respect... occasionally... not necessarily for the reasons you might like:)

You leftwing loser.

COMMON SENSAPHOBIA

Meg, the most likely scenerio evolving is a final stake in the heart of the Democratic party with the Republicans and Liberatians picking up the pieces. That will start an eventual split in to two parties which will share a common goal in seriously winning the WOT.

Here's a mind game. Match the groups or individuals to the party they are most likely to vote for:
*smut/porn peddlers
*ex-cons
*leftist academics
*Ward Churchill
*public service workers living off the taxpayers
*Hollywood
*mainstream journalists
*angry blacks that want slavery reparations/ resent welfare's demise/respect the achievements of Al Sharpton and not Condi Rice
*O.J. Simpson
*teacher's unions
*Al Qaeda

Hopefully nothing will fill the void for these people when the Dems collapse.

OPERATION SWARMER the largest assault since the Iraq invasion is now underway in Samarra.

Godspeed to the brave men and women of the 101st.

I lifted the following post from FR.

DEATH SPEAKS:

There was a merchant in Bagdad who sent his servant to market to buy provisions and in a little while the servant came back, white and trembling, and said, Master, just now when I was in the market-place I was jostled by a woman in the crowd and when I turned I saw it was Death that jostled me. She looked at me and made a threatening gesture; now, lend me your horse, and I will ride away from this city and avoid my fate. I will go to Samarra and there Death will not find me. The merchant lent him his horse, and the servant mounted it, and he dug his spurs in its flanks and as fast as the horse could gallop he went. Then the merchant went down to the market-place and he saw me standing in the crowd and he came to me and said, Why did you make a threatening gesture to my servant when you saw him this morning? That was not a threatening gesture, I said, it was only a start of surprise. I was astonished to see him in Bagdad, for I had an appointment with him tonight in Samarra.

.— W. Somerset Maugham

You know, the funniest thing about it is the Democrats are destined to be Republicans anyway.

The purse is in such a massive shithole, that whoever forms the next government, Rep. or Dem., is going to have to cut social spending by such massive amounts that they will end up looking terrible anyway.

The national debt is going to trump partisan politics, and penny, the Porn companies are going to vote Rep. cause at least the Republicans will let them exist to pay tax's. The dems will shut them down despite the coffers in the name of womens exploitation.

Bush hasn't exercised his veto power as he should have done. His prescription drug giveaway was stupid.

The nitwits in Congress still fund their pork projects with abandon too.

But, keep in mind the next administration, like his, is still going to have to fund expensive military technology, troops, Homeland Security, etc......we are in a war deficit economy. The WOT isn't cheap.

"the Porn companies are going to vote Rep"....and endorse the Christian Right?, I doubt it.

Stan:

Well, what exactly would you call invading a sovereign state for no reason, deposing its leader, destroying its infrastructure, installing a puppet government and touching off a civil war? If the Iraqis wanted to be "free" was that not their job if they felt so inclined? If a people wish to live in a backwards theocracy is that choice not up to them?

Your reaction is precisely what I am arguing about. Ignore what Saddam did to his own people, the fact that he never allowed proper inspections, as he promised, etc etc. Let's ignore the killer meglomaniacs and assume Iraqis elected a "puppet government." which in your parlance probably means not hostile to the West. Did you honestly expect the Iraqi people to rise up against Hussein, when he had the military and money pouring in from his blood (sorry, food) for oil program?

Later you make a bigoted comment about a "Zionist entity." And you wonder why "opponents of modernity" don't move forward.

BTW who elected OBL, Hussein, all Muslim leaders except Turkey? Do you honestly think the Iraq insurgency is a popular movement.

Give your head a shake.

Maybe take a look at the percentage of Iraqis that came out to vote and give your own head a shake.

I think perhaps I'll go and read Stan's post and yours again and make a more intelligent post.

Penny, thanks for the DSM IV criteria. Had no difficulty locating your.

Sorry, Penny, momentarily could not resist the temptation to post like a right-wing nut. I've got myself under control again.

Phil, I apologize. I did not know you were quoting Stan.
My point about voter turnout in Iraq should have been aimed at Stan. If the Iraqi people didn't give a care for democracy they could have stayed at home like Canadians. GWB should go down in Iraqi history as the single most important reason they are free.

Twas in jest Penny.

the "Whimper" syndrome. Can't get what I want, so I'll just go over here and pout.

In the end it won't matter what anyone thinks of Bush, history will remember him as a War President, and right or wrong, he did what he did.

The simple fact is this is not Vietnam, or Korea, and Bush is not fighting Communist insurgency, he's fighting religious zealots, and there is a world of difference.

If I were a President, and I had the choice to either fight at home, or take the fight to them, I would alway's take the fight to them.

The US has enough trouble without having terrorists running around blowing shit up. Last time I checked, the US didn't try to hide the fact that it has international interests, and woe to the nation or person who chooses to interfere with that.

Is George Bush right? I'm not certain that right or wrong plays towards the decision making process of the (in truth, not fiction) largest democracy on earth. 300 million people live to achieve a dream of freedom, and it's not a static dream.

You don't just wake up one day and say "okay, I'm free now, I don't have to do anything else, I've achieved my goal". It's a dynamic process which continues to take on new meaning and new manifestations as time rolls by.

America was built on the ideal and quest for self-determination. No one says it's finished that journey, but how can it take that stance, if it doesn't attempt to promote it at every chance. Sometimes you have to hit a person on the head to see the roses for the flowerbed...

When you have a country like Iraq, which has been ruled in one way or another by dictators, and the dictator of the moment is a royal pain in the ass to the entire world, you might say to yourself "they are not getting it, so we'll just have to show them".

Should the west allow ourselves to be threatened by extremism, should we bow to fanatic's. Who in their right mind would trust the fanatic's to keep their end of the bargain, and stay away from us.

Someone said it here earlier, and I agree, Sadaam had the chance to take the easy road, and he decided to spit in our eyes instead. This is a man with his thumb on an enormous source of wealth. Do we dare trust someone like that not to seek power through weapons of mass destruction? Does it even make sense to expect him not to pursue that avenue?

Can you honestly say that if you were Sadaam, and you'd pissed everyone off, that you wouldn't find anyway possible to strengthen the hand dealt to you? I know I would. When your back is to the wall, you come out fighting or you make peace.

He decided to fight. His people decided to support him, and the ones who didn't, didn't try to stop him. He made his bed, and we burned it out from under him.

America stood up against tyrants on it's own, America fought a war over civil rights, America has walked the walk. It has a right to protect what it paid for in blood, and if the rest of the world wants America to stop sticking it's nose in where it isn't welcome, then the world had best stop asking for assistance.

When the meglomaniacs, butchers, and freaks come out of the woodwork to screw everyone up, they always scream for the states. When America preceives a threat to America, it has a right to act. Just because the French and Germans think it's high handed doesn't mean it's unjustified.

They were just pissed because Sadaam owed them money.

Twas in jest Penny.

I figured as well. But, any opportunity to get my licks in on the leftists I'll take.

Not meaning you, William.

If there was any justice in the world, in 100 years the Iraqis will have erected a statue of GWB in their country as big as the one that they tore down of Hussein.

You got a problem?

Blame one of these three and you'll find the culprit.

Bush, Global Warming, the Devil.

haha

Wait, Bush causes global warming, and Bush is the Devil, so yep its ALL BUSH'S FAULT! That logic should play well with the left.

Moral Mauler. Thanks. I should have put quotation marks around what Stan said. Iraqi people showed amazing courage voting, and calling their goverment a puppet is a real insult to them, and gives ammunition to Islamo fascists and other American-haters. BTW I didn't support US invasion of Iraq. Containment as doctrine working fine; however, I believed likely he would have to be dealt with later. I am proud as can be of our military in Afghanistan and our PM for giving then a needed boost. I believe this is where nexus of war on terrorism should be, not necessarily Iraq. What's done is done, so US must finish job in Iraq too. Just real tired of US=bad, anti-US=good argument. US has done a lot of good, just with a bad habit of invading someone every five years or so. Military action should be used when no other action will work, ie-we are dealing with group that hates us and wants to kill us. Deterrence doctrine of choice for Iran and North Korea. In the end, the forces of anti-modernity cannot prevail unless we let them.

I thought Ralph Nadar was the devil? Or was it Anne Coulter... I get the two confused, they look so much alike, in a scarecrow sort of way.

I see Ryan has this figured out. Clever fellow. You see how it works. It makes it easier to ignore the trolls.

The Democrats are too embedded in the nation's history to just collapse. It's been a long, slow, painful letting-out of air - see Mark Steyn's obit of Gene McCarthy in the March Atlantic (and his great comment, to the effect that it was too bad "McCarthyism" was already taken as a descriptor in American politics in 1968). And 35 years after "fusionism" (if you don't know this term, look it up, very important), it's still holding together somewhat. So I don't see major realignments. But I have friends who are real (economic) mid-to-leftists and they are deeply disturbed that the party of Jefferson and Jackson has been taken over by these one-issue (Bush is EVIL!) nuts. What happens after Jan 21, 2009? Talk about not building for the future. And in the meantime, they are forcing anyone who is not psychopathic into the Republican Party for the time being, but how big can the tent get? It's as true of the Republicans now as it was of the Democrats back in 1988, when P. J. O'Rourke wrote: (quoting from memory) "Jesse Jackson says the Democrat party needs both wings to fly, but a bird with Lloyd Bentsen way out on one tip and Michael Dukakis out on the other is not one I'd care to stand under when it flies over." Of course the Lloyd Bentsen "wing" has been killed off long ago, and even Dukakis seems rather moderate these days. But when we Republicans have an Alabama county commissioner on one tip, and Michael Bloomberg on the other, it doesn't augur well for our political health, either, is what I'm saying. And practical Libertarians will still be stuck with "fusionism" in the Republican party, while idealistic Libertarians will still be stuck with looking for tenth-of-a-point percentage improvements here and there. Sorry, majorly major realignments only happen just before really nasty internal events in the U.S., so we'd better hope there's no major fall-apart in 2008, anyway. More co-op-tation, only faster, please! I just want the grown-ups to take back the Democrat party, is all - but maybe they're all "over here", that's my worst fear.

Just a handy hint to near and far: Anyone who depends on Lewis Lapham for their understanding of the American scene will end up having a very poor understanding of the American scene. Just FYI.

Snowbunnie: "Since George Soros is behind most , if not all, of this with his money and his resolve to ruin the democracy of the United States for his own stated ends not to mention his questionable affiliations, it isn't surprising the level of irrational rhetoric."

That was the funniest bit of unintentional irony I've ever seen.

More mind games: Match the groups or individuals to the party they are most likely to vote for.
smut/porn consumers
ex-cons from enron, world com., watergate, iran/contra,...oh yeah, they're already in the Bush administration, or on right-wing open mouth radio.
david duke
farmers living off the taxpayer
angry rich white men
the KKK
conrad black
augusto pinochet

Meg, good points, but.........

I still think the Dems are DOA. What American(besides the losers on my list) will put them in the WH as long as the WOT rages and threatens us?

They exist only because via gerrymandering on their part and public service unions they can make it on a local, state and congressional level. The gerrymandering is being dismantled, granted not fast enough.

As blacks rapidly fill the middle class, they too have kids at risk from Anthrax and a dirty bomb. The Dem plantation vote shrinks just on that issue.

Every stinking corrupt state in our union is Dem controlled - PA, NJ, NY, etc. They are heavily taxed and that is pissinging the weary locals off.

Hillary is dead meat. Men of every party hate her. Poll after poll says she'll lose. America ain't putting a Clinton back in the WH. Their triangulation bs isn't workig now. Joseph Lieberman, a liberal hawk, the Dems have vilified. Lard-assed Michael Moore was seated with Carter, another loser, at their last convention. Re-run that in '08 for public scorn.

Who are these birdbrains going to run?

Dems morphed into pathetic craven creatures. Consider that they own the airwaves, print and campuses and we still defeat them.

They need to die. History has overtaken them. Christ, they now act like collaborators and appeasers to the public. How dead can you get?

They got only the braindead left as supporters.

For those of you that think the Iraqui people should have freed themselves from Saddam, do you also feel that battered women and children should free themselves from their abusers---even in the face of death? From what I've heard, Saddam was capable of wiping out 5000 or so at a time on suspicions alone.
In my experience its usually the "left" that sing that song and then proclaim themselves the saviors of the poor and downtrodden.

Agreed.
My 'favourite' Saddam story is the 100+ people that were tried and executed for being involved with the assassination plot.
It just makes sooo much sense. I know, if I was an Iraqi and wanted Saddam dead, I'd round up as many of my friends as I could to help out. After all, when it comes to secret plots, the more people involved has to influence the outcome towards the positive.
BTW, I heard that today is the 18th anniversary of the chemical attacks on the Kurds.

William "if your going to walk into the middle of a conservative blog, attempt mass conversion and launch salvo's against the stated position, then you have to expect some smackdowns."

Damn someone just caught me saying a hypocritical statement. So let's just pretend like he said something else shall we?

People...will you please leave poor Jose alone? Can't you see he is just trying to right the wrong that his country did with their imperialist/colonistic policies? What better way to build up a country you have destroyed through your policiies then to blame the results on somebody else? And BTW...Bush is responsible for global warming on Mars too. Its all that crap from the space station getting out of our orbit. The Martians are not pleased!!

Justthinkin: You can add to that the fact that the entire Solar System is warming up; I can't see Bush being smart enough to pull off an entire Solar warming... it's gotta be Rove!

Steve in bc said in regards to GWB - lets try it with Paul Martins name

A. Repeated acts that could lead to arrest. (fraud - part of govt involved in scandals too numerous to mention)
B. Conning for pleasure or profit, repeated lying, or the use of aliases. (lying about not knowing anything about sponsorship scandal; conning lefties about Conservative plan to reintroduce abortion and take away same sex marriage.)
C. Failure to plan ahead or being impulsive.(impulsive - Paul Martin with guitar in hand)
D. Repeated assaults on others.(Guns in our cities, In canada - we are not making this up (could be applied to B)
E. Reckless when it comes to their or others safety. (Banning handguns?)
F. Poor work behavior or failure to honor financial obligations. (using polls to develop policy)
G. Rationalizing the pain they inflict on others." (cuts to health and numerous other programs so he could show a "surplus")

Sounds like our Paulie. (Man, I hope I see the day he does the perp walk) - In Canada - that will never happen - he will just fade away - good riddance.

Don't throw stones if you live in a glass house Stevie.

While these fools play games .. we are losing our western culture ... Sorry to get off topic here but you have check out this item.

It's here
http://tinyurl.com/napr3

and I did a post on it at Duke's Place

Scary shit my friends.

Att: Doug

Clinton Impeached by the House; Acquitted by the Senate where Clinton's trial was held.

(Stage 1) Impeachment of Clinton on two articles by vote of the House of Representatives. Carried.

The articles were sent to the Senate (Stage 2).

The Senate voted Not Guilty on one article and split evenly on the other; thus, the Senate acquitted Clinton. +

Impeachment is conducted in two stages. Impeachment proceedings begin in the House of Representatives (art. I, sec. 2). This stage satisfies the Framers' belief that impeachment should be a public inquiry into charges against an official, and it involves fact-finding at hearings. After accumulating all the evidence, the House votes on whether or not to impeach. A vote against impeachment ends the process. A vote to impeach formally advances the process to its second stage through what is called adoption of the articles of impeachment. Each article is a formal charge with conviction on any one article being sufficient for removal. The case is then sent to the Senate, which organizes the matter for trial (art. I, sec. 3).

During the trial, the Senate follows unique rules. There is no jury (art. III, sec. 2). Instead, the Senate is transformed into a quasi-judicial body that hears the case, and the impeached official can attend or be represented by counsel. The vice president presides over the trial of any official except the president, and the chief justice of the Supreme Court presides over the trial of the president. To convict, a two-thirds majority is needed. The punishments for conviction are removal from office and disqualification from holding office again. No presidential pardon is possible (art. II, sec. 2). Additional criminal charges can be brought against convicted officials, but these are pursued in court and are separate from the impeachment process. +
http://www.answers.com/topic/impeachment

While the Arabs demanded that Europeans respect the religious, political and human rights of Arabs in the West, not a peep came from the Europeans about the absence of freedom in the Arab world, not to mention the abhorrent treatment of women and other minorities in countries like Saudi Arabia. No demand was made that Muslims should learn about the glories of western civilization as Europeans were and are expected to learn about the greatness of Islamic civilization. In other words, according to Fallaci, a substantial portion of Europe’s cultural and political independence was sold off by a coalition of ex-communists and socialist politicians.

Duke, Fallaci nails it. The Dems/Liberals in NA with their self-censoring dhimmitude attitude during the Cartoon War proves it.

France being France has a riot on their hands today involving their young socialist slackers - check out Brussels Journal - for their ongoing war with their youth, also keeping in mind that 20% of their population now Muslim.

Too be a socialist is to have burned down your civilzation and never having to say you are sorry.

Look, I'm no leftist, but the man is an idiot and not fit to manage a McDonalds let alone lead a superpower (even a moribund one like the U.S.)

It's always funny when leftists say this. The "idiot" beat them not once, but twice.

Doesn't make them a very attractive alternative.

There is no relief from this total incompetence. If Bush is impeached we get the booby prize, Cheney. It may be a good thing though, with the entire world watching in horror and disgust, we all get to see how far Bush melts down and takes the Republican Party with him. As a bonus we get to watch how many of his underlings get indicted. I think it is instructive and important to see how laughingly incompetent Conservatives are in power. This is a thing of perfect beauty because Bush has been aided and abetted by a Republican controlled Congress and Senate the leaders of which are both under investigation. Then of course, there is Abramoff, the corrupt Conservative Lobbyist who just might help bring down even more Republicans. All this without Democrats laying a finger on them, they didn't have to, they did it all themselves.

Osama said: "Aren't smut/porn peddlers free enterprise, free market entrepreneurs?"

Hardly, Osama.

They are criminals who contribute nothing to the tax base for the good of the rest.

They do all they can to *avoid* paying the same costs that credible businesses must..

Alberta Girl, I agree with all you said except for F for financial obligations.

a library is vilified because it is public sector, a porn shop lauded because it is private.

You say. I didn't say. A library is a necessary public service. Porn/smut demeans us all. You missed the post on the internet child pornographers arrested earlier. They sure as hell aren't taxpayer funded(the worst operate on the tax free internet), not that the Dems wouldn't accept their checks and haven't in Hollywood. The Bent One with his cigar fetish was a porn aficionado.

"osama" the Lessor, beat it.

Chase the trolls out of here Penny!... You are doing a great job and making alot of sense while you do it. I somehow expect that they twits enjoy being dumped on by virtually everyone here, and they have no plans to leaev anytime soon. That's too bad!

Steve in BC, Our dear Jose, and Osama must have some strange fettish for abuse.I have a mental image of them sitting at their computer pushing pins in their bodies to reach some sense of fullfillment from pain. Why else would they keep lipping off with some of this B.S. in it's purist form. If they think they are going to change any minds on here, I think they are sadly mistaken.

Some of the shit they spew cannot be what they believe. I really do think they have to be playing with us, just trying to raise some to anger... for the simple fun of it. I cannot believe that anyone could really believe some of this gunk they write on here. If they are sincere, then the world is getting to be a more scary place.

Hey let the "trolls" speak, just don't encourage them too much.

You can't defeat your enemy unless you understand him.

Healthy debate should only strengthen your convictions, if it doesn't then do some more research, and if that fails you may be forced to consider other points of view.

How boring would these threads be if all we did was repeat the same things over and over, and write little posts patting each other on the back? They might be less annoying but, they'd get boring real quick.

If nothing else the so-called trolls fend off complacency, and keep our arguements fresh. Don't force silence on someone just because you disagree with their opinion, let them tie they're own rope, then hang them with your own well concieved thoughts.

mind you there is a lot of "unhealthy deabte" going on too, and I have no time for that.

On the porn business

Just curious. For the gay porn (I understand there is a lot of it) someone must be being exploited. Which one if not both? Can we assume both males and females are being exploited for the gay stuff ... or is it only the females like the hetero stuff?

We get cable TV ... lots of channels/shows with soft porn. At what point is it exploitation? Does it depend on the pay? If pay is a factor, at what $ point is it art? Is it art on one channel and exploitation on another?

Just want to know how the left thinks.

Ryan,

When you water the lawn, you also water the weeds. The price we all have to pay.

Just want to know how the left thinks.

Leftists don't think, they feel.

As to the main article and who Al Qaeda. This is far from scientific but I heard insurgents in Iraq speaking to journalists repeatedly saying they hoped Bush won the election over Kerry. They said that Bush was "good" for them.

Its funny how some on the right like to delude themselves that there's some kind of partnership between Al Qaeda and the left. It's is pure adolescent partisanship and wishful thinking.

Grant "If they think they are going to change any minds on here, I think they are sadly mistaken."

I managed to convince 1 person that global warming isn't a marxist conspiracy. That's actually more than I was hoping for.

No I don't expect to convince everyone to my point of view. Arguing with people with an opposing point of view is a good way to test your ideas to see if your opponents can find flaws in your thinking. The "abuse" you refer to doesn't bother me in the slightest.

ural

point taken, i wasn't expecting to get blasted by osama, after sticking up for his right voice his misguided opinion.

won't happen again.

....although, maybe with a tag like osama i should have expected it.

Its called pathetic neurosis.

Those on the left don't stand for anything, they just stand against everything - they call this destruction progressive.

And in fact Ol' Hoss is right, leftists don't argue with facts, they don't know any. Rather, they rely on their feelings, assorted conspiracy theories and revisionist myths that they present as fact. The best way to deal with the little buggers is with facts. Typically, after calling you a few expletives, they go scurring back down the hole they came from, without a futher peep.

It kind of makes you feel sorry for them.

Ryan.... you are right. Totally right. I will allow the trolls to speak. Reading their strange twists of logic helps us all recognize what the left thinks and supports. How they get to those opinions will, to me, always remain one of the great mysteries of free society.

Hey Osama, I have some more names to add to your list of "who would they vote for?"

- Maurice Strong
- Koffi Annan
- Pol Pot
- Michael Moore
- Noam Chomsky
- Ted Kennedy
- Paul Martin
- Buzz Hargrove
- Angry lefties everywhere
- Stalin
- George Galloway

Hope this helps!

Castro, Che, Heather Mallick, Chretien, Jack Layton, Al Gore, George Clooney Tunes (Hollywood, for that matter), Haroon the Maroon, Janine Garfolo, Jesse Jackson, REM, Svend, ballet dancers, Harvard professors, and other so-called 'artistes' and 'intellectuals' at the public trough, the list goes on.

Heroes of the left. A list of diseased minds.

sarge, your comment theatre is over.

Not subtle, off the mark and a bad impersonation of rednecks. They don't talk like you.

Bet, you've never been farther than Toronto.

Great try though.

"More mind games: Match the groups or individuals to the party they are most likely to vote for."

OK Osama, I'll play your game. ^_^

"smut/porn consumers"

Tend to be liberals.

"ex-cons from enron, world com.,..."

Given that 4 of the 5 in the Keating Five were Democrats, I think we can safely say that they would vote the Democratic ticket by the same margin. :p

"david duke"

Is a Cindy Sheehan fan. No wonder that since she echoed so many of his sentiments. Doesn't it make you good to know that the "anti war movement" is in lockstep with David Duke? ^_~

"farmers living off the taxpayer"

Farmers tend to live off the land and allow other people to do so as well. You didn't think all that food is just grown by the supermarkets, did you? o_O

"angry rich white men"

Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Al Gore and George Soros are all Democrats. ^o^

"the KKK"

Senator Byrd's support group has always been a very *liberal* supporter of the Democratic Party. :p

"conrad black"

Ooooo! A newspaper publisher. Looks like "Osama" hates newspapers. Why am I not surprised? ^o^

Thanks for the game, Dude! ^_~

Read George Orwell's animal farm or 1984. Which could read 911. When stupidity took over the world.

I think the Rolling Stones coined the phrase "I can't get no satisfaction" about a cigarette. I should imagine that that would be politically incorrect in this day of tobacco fanatical aversion to a LEGAL activity. The 'great' heros (Rolling Stones) would be expected to sing about 'deeper meanings and revolts". Makes me laugh when I watch the self righteous "Anti Freedom for adults" people Spin, Spin, Spin. Whirling Dirvishes!!