Read the commenting rules carefully because they will be enforced!
![\"Gravatar\"](\"http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=fd39eee4a9c30e6e370fc4de33b3b4f0&default=http%3A%2F%2Fec1.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FG%2F01%2Fx-locale%2Fcommon%2Ftransparent-pixel.gif&rating=PG&size=28\" "\\"Gravatar\\""){kind=avatar}
So what's your point? Unlike the MSM, we in the nutroots were always predicting that no Republicans would ever break with Bush on Iraq. It just doesn't happen. Republicans are like Bush: they want us to be defeated and humiliated by staying in Iraq forever.
The fact that there are a few pro-defeat Democrats is unfortunate, but still, most Democrats want us to leave Iraq and therefore avoid defeat. The real problem is still the Republicans.
Oh, and the thing is, no one -- R or D -- who goes for a two-day trip to Iraq should be believed when he says we're making \"progress.\" The actual facts show that Iraq is much more violent now than it was at this time last year. So, as usual, Iraq keeps getting worse, we can do nothing about it, and defeatists like Bush and Petraeus want to keep us in Iraq anyway because they don't want to admit they were wrong.
But anyone who doesn't hate America must support withdrawal, since, again, we're just making things worse every year.
![\"Gravatar\"](\"http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=c10e927ca659d25357e65b3873a1c525&default=http%3A%2F%2Fec1.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FG%2F01%2Fx-locale%2Fcommon%2Ftransparent-pixel.gif&rating=PG&size=28\" "\\"Gravatar\\""){kind=avatar}
You always based your comments on the \"assumption\" that we will lose.
With that mind frame, if this would have been decades ago, America would be saluting Hitler right now.
Quite a few Republicans have \"broken\" with Bush on policiy, but again, that doesn't fit your \"assumptions\" therefore you ignore it and do not mention it.
Your comment about making things worse also ignores the FACTS on the ground.
Surrender monkeys just cannot stand that everyone coming back from Iraq is coming back with GOOD NEWS.
Why on earth good news from Iraq should be horrible news for you only goes to show who hates America, and it ain't us.
Have a good day M.A. and just keep watching the news...your head might explode yet.
With that mind frame, if this would have been decades ago, America would be saluting Hitler right now.
Not every war is WWII. And a war with an actual clear enemy to defeat (who declared actual war on us, like Japan and Germany) is very different from the current situation in Iraq. We can defeat a specific bad guy, like Saddam or Hitler. But we're not fighting one specific bad guy in Iraq; we're fighting various groups of Iraqis (who will be there long after we're gone) and they're fighting each other. If you can't understand how that's different from WWII, no wonder you don't understand why we can't \"win.\"
Your comment about making things worse also ignores the FACTS on the ground.
But what are these facts? The actual numbers show that there are more deaths in Iraq -- of Iraqi civilians and American troops -- than at this time last year. So where's the good news? The glorious surge has succeeded in making Iraq worse than it was last year.
If you have facts to contradict that, produce them. But the only \"facts\" they're offering are that maybe Iraq is a bit better than it was in January -- ignoring the fact that violence tends to be lower in the summer anyway (because of the heat). So where's the evidence that things are getting better in Iraq because of the Glorious Surge? (Anbar was getting better last September, before the Surge started.)
Why on earth good news from Iraq should be horrible news for you only goes to show who hates America, and it ain't us.
Good news from Iraq -- real good news -- wouldn't be horrible news, since it would mean that we could start bringing the troops home. But Bush's \"good news\" isn't real good news at all (since Iraq is actually getting worse), it just means that we're going to keep our troops there even longer and keep making Iraq worse.
The fact that you think it's \"good news\" that Bush wants to keep us in Iraq forever is very sad. Why do you want what's worst for America?
![\"Gravatar\"](\"http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=7399fbc794594d5d957ba2ad414edc36&default=http%3A%2F%2Fec1.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FG%2F01%2Fx-locale%2Fcommon%2Ftransparent-pixel.gif&rating=PG&size=28\" "\\"Gravatar\\""){kind=avatar}
M.A. - Excuse me while I put on a tinfoil hat so I can understand you.
So, let's see. What you are saying is that Bush and the Republicans are hoping for a defeat in the War on Terror. Hum, I wonder what that would gain?
Hum, the Washington Monthly. Now there is solid proof. NOT.
I can tell you something about casuality figures. I am a member of the Patriot Guard Riders. Every time one of our fine young men takes a hit, I know about it. I have seen a substantial drop in notifications over the last 2 months.
The only people who want a defeat are such people as Reid, Pelosi, Murtha, Kerry, and of course Hillary. They know the surge is working. That is why they are changing their focus to the Iraq goverment.
Please, your crap may fly at the DailyKos but it won't fly here.
No, the facts show that deaths have been cut by 1/2. You simply are repeating tired old lines from bfore Petraeus took over.
Here are some more \"facts for you:
Iraqi civilian fatality rates are down. The U.S. military has reported throughout much of 2007 that extrajudicial killings -- largely revenge murders by Shiite militias against Sunnis -- were down substantially since January. During our trip, the Pentagon showed us data illustrating that overall death tallies from all forms of sectarian violence were down about one-third from last winter's average. That estimate is imprecise, and vulnerable to reversal from events such as the Aug. 14 truck bombings in Nineveh province, and Iraq remains roughly as violent as it was in 2004-05. But the trends are moving significantly in the right direction, and the military is now doing a better job of measuring actual casualty levels (whereas in the 2003-05 period, it failed to carefully track many types of violence, such as murders, and often failed to appreciate how unstable Iraq really was).
Counterinsurgency tactics are much better. Working closely with Iraqi partners, we are trying to provide security to civilian populations. Previous tendencies were to concentrate Americans at large forward operating bases and patrol in rapid, \"drive-by\" fashion. Our weekly numbers of joint patrols tripled early in the \"surge\" and remain high. U.S. and Iraqi security forces have widely adopted the extensive use of sand berms, concrete barriers and vehicle checkpoints in the tensest areas, further reducing fatalities.
Iraqi forces are improving. This finding admittedly must be more hedged than the first two. While U.S. forces are more satisfied than before with the collaboration they receive from Iraqis, huge problems remain. Most commanders of Iraqi battalions (perhaps three-quarters in the Baghdad area) are judged to be relatively dependable today by American counterparts, but we do not know how they would behave if U.S. forces left. And while the interior and defense ministries have approved firing some commanders who have been guilty of clear bias or corruption, they still protect Shiite militias. They also often interfere with the hiring of security forces, particularly in Sunni regions such as Anbar. It is for such reasons that bold ideas for shaking up Iraq's politics need to be taken very seriously this fall -- ranging from holding new elections to convening a major regional peace conference to considering a soft partition model for the country.
Economic reconstruction is improving. Militarily embedded provincial reconstruction teams now make our development specialists more effective by providing protection in the field. We are also placing greater focus on small-scale efforts rather than on massive infrastructure projects that are particularly vulnerable to single-point failures and thus sabotage.
Those facts come from people who have been ON the ground in Iraq, instead of people lik
Thanks Bob, I know. They amaze me, their ability to completely ignore anything they don't like and claim that THEY know more about the facts on the ground than those actually ON THE GROUND.
Can we say: Delusional?
So, let's see. What you are saying is that Bush and the Republicans are hoping for a defeat in the War on Terror. Hum, I wonder what that would gain?
The point is not gain; the point is that Bush would rather we be defeated and humiliated than admit his failure in Iraq. He's hoping he can stretch this out long enough to blame it on the next President (who will inevitably have to withdraw).
It's a bit like Democrats failed in Vietnam and then tried to blame their failure on Nixon.
Hum, the Washington Monthly. Now there is solid proof. NOT.
They're using stats from the Brookings Index. The Brookings institution is primarily pro-war (Michael O'Hanlon, for example). Do you have alternate figures?
I can tell you something about casuality figures. I am a member of the Patriot Guard Riders. Every time one of our fine young men takes a hit, I know about it. I have seen a substantial drop in notifications over the last 2 months.
Good. Do you have any statistics to show that Iraq is less violent than it was last year? Because all actual statistics show that it's worse.
Bob, do you also notice that according to them, victory in Iraq is \"the worst thing for America\"?
What does THAT say about them?
No, the facts show that deaths have been cut by 1/2.
What's your source on this? There was an article that said that \"spectacular\" bombings have decreased, and that's also shown in the statistics the Washington Monthly linked to. There are fewer huge, spectacular bombings.
BUT, Iraq is still more violent. Why? Because a) The spectacular bombings are killing more people, and b) The sectarian violence (the main source of the violence) has increased. So more people are dying this year than last year. That's just a fact.
Iraq is better this summer than it was a few months ago, but summer is a less violent time. Petraeus has just succeeded in making Iraq worse than it was at this time last year. If you have facts and figures to contradict this, produce them. Otherwise, I'm assuming you're so committed to American defeat and humiliation that you will do anything to keep the troops from coming home.
Bob, do you also notice that according to them, victory in Iraq is \"the worst thing for America\"?
Sigh. Once again. \"Victory\" would be good. (But you don't define \"victory\" in any meaningful way.) What we're doing in Iraq is not \"victory\"; we're just keeping our troops there and wasting money while Iraq gets worse year by year. That is, indeed, the worst thing for America, and that's what Bush wants.
I just provided your FACTS M.A, but you cannot seem to handle them. Either produce facts of your own to back up your idiocy or quit talking and making yourself look even more ignorant.
How about Baird? Ellison? McNerney? Durbin? Casey?
Are THEY Pro war also...
And HEY, how about James Webb?
Lets take a look at what HIS argument used to be......or WAS before it became political to him.
http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree....me-is-webb.html
Spree, you didn't produce facts and figures. Give me actual statistics showing that fewer Iraqis are dying this year than last year. I linked to statistics showing that more Iraqis are dying than last year. Those are facts -- not anecdotes.
If someone goes to Iraq for two days, talks to the military and says he saw \"progress,\" those aren't facts. (Remember when the New York Times reporter Walter Duranty went to the Gulags and came back saying they were wonderful? Was that a \"fact?\" Of course not.)
It's like sports. If I say a player is hitting great after watching him for two days, but the statistics show he's actually hitting .100, then it's just a fact that he's not hitting well.
We have defined Victory MULTIPLE TIMES... Here are just a couple of the latest:
Victory in Iraq:
Iraqi self government free from a repressive dictatorial regime, free from Sharia law, free from al Queda and Iranian attacks.
An Iraqi government by the people, of the people, for the people of Iraq. An Iraq where people are not afraid to express their views of politics or religion for fear of their heads being removed or their children baked in ovens and served to the families as dinner...
Are these not the same things we have been saying all along? Are these not the things that have been expressed to us as the desires of the majority of Iraqis who thank our troops for our help? Are these not the same things that all men and women who would desire to live in peace and live freely would fight for?
Freedom is a right and a responsibility. It is thus the responsibility of a free people to help other peoples who wish to be free in their fight for THEIR rights to be free.
THAT is victory in Iraq, in my mind.
Hawk | Homepage | 08.22.07 - 6:15 pm |
Kaye -- I certainly don't want to be rude, but did you actually watch these videos? And if you did, did you somehow miss the part where that wounded Marine very clearly answered that question?
I'll try to make the same point even stronger.
According to recently captured documents, which included messages and letters from senior leaders of Al-Qaeda -- including Ayman Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden and others, the war in Iraq is the central battleground in their efforts to establish a Caliphate in the Middle East.
They intend to work with both Iran and Syria to establish an Islamist Taliban-like state in Iraq, and subsequently in the entire region. They expect that the Democrats will win this battle for the hearts and minds of the American people and that we will, once again, retreat from the field of battle.
Forget about whether WE think the war in Iraq is important to win, just listen to what our sworn enemies have to say about it.
Remember -- they are counting on our pulling our troops out. They are counting on the Democrats winning. They our counting on our lack of will to stick it out.
Kaye, please -- forget for a moment about George Bush and Hillary Clinton and think about this -- Do you really want AL-Qaeda to win?
Roger W. Gardner | Homepage | 08.22.07 - 6:36 pm |
Now M.A. YOU answer your own question instead of asking and \"assuming falsely\" once again that no one has answered it, repeatedly.
What do YOU see as victory in Iraq?
M.A, We HAVE provided the facts and figures on dozens of occasions, browse through and find them, we researched them, found them and published them, it shouldn't be too hard on your abilities to actually READ the posts and find them.
Still waiting for YOUR answer to what victory in Iraq is M.A., we have provided just two of the MANY examples that WE consider victory.
How do I define victory? Well, first of all, this is war, not a video game. Sometimes, in real war, there are no winners. This may be one of those times.
I think a \"victory\" would mean leaving us in a better position than we were before we invaded. I find it hard to see how that could happen, given that before we invaded Saddam had no WMDs and was an enemy of the Islamists.
So even if Iraq gets an anti-Islamist government with no WMDs and no ties to Iran, that'll be no better for us than Saddam. And that's not going to happen: the Iraqi Shi'ites are friends with Iran (Iran is backing the same side we're backing), and the governments we've installed are more pro-Islamist than Saddam was. So no matter what happens, we will be worse off than before we invaded. I just can't see a \"victory\" happening under those circumstances.
As for your definition of victory, the first definition is something we can't provide for the Iraqis. The only way that can happen is if the Iraqis stop fighting each other. And that won't happen as long as we're occupying the country.
And the other... well, Al-Qaeda isn't a big factor in Iraq anyway, but if we should stay in Iraq just because the terrorists will call us names if we leave, then we're letting the terrorists run our foreign policy. I want to pull out of Iraq because it's right for America. You want us to stay to appease Al-Qaeda. Staying in Iraq just to show the terrorists that we have \"will\" is appeasement. I don't care what the terrorists think of us; I want to do what's right for our national security, which is to leave.
M.A.
Looks to me like spree provided you with facts.
The Brookings is pro-war??? They have always been a liberal trash bin
\"Michael O'Hanlon, for example\" Check your history on him. We was always ant-war until he made his recent trip.
I guess this tinfoil hat just isn't working.
\"Bob, do you also notice that according to them, victory in Iraq is \"the worst thing for America\"? He knows it's true but he won't admit it. Hum, several of the Dem congressmen admitted it though.
Bob, Michael O'Hanlon supported the invasion and the surge. He's a war supporter.
And Brookings people mostly supported the war. It used to be a liberal think tank, but then, Norman Podhoretz used to be a liberal too. It moved right.
Your second sentence once again proves without a doubt you never do your homework.
READ THE JOINT RESOLUTION:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/r...20021002-2.html
23 reasons for invading Iraq and only ONE was WMD's.
See, repeating talking points when you get them from palces that ignores the facts, means you are repeating information that do not address the facts.
Here are just SEVEN of the other reasons we went to Iraq:
1. Iraq's harboring of Al-Queda terrorists
2. Iraq's support for International Terrorism
3. Iraq's \"brutal repression\" of its citizens
4. Iraq's failure to repatriate or give information on non-Iraqi citizens detained and captured during Gulf War I, including an American serviceman;
5. Failing to properly return property wrongfully seized during the Kuwait invasion
6. The attempted assassination of former President Bush in 1991
7. America's national security interests in restoring peace and stability to the Persian Gulf
Then we have the statements from Bill Clinton and Hillary and Albright, made about iraq and Saddam before BUSH ever became president.
One the next comment because it will cut off.
Spree, I'm not saying that Clinton, Albright, etc. don't bear some of the blame for our decision to go to war (though Bush was the President and he has to take the main responsibility). But the point is, before we invaded, Iraq was ruled by a brutal dictator who didn't have WMDs, didn't like Iran and was secular. Now the best-case scenario is for us to set up a pro-Iranian, pro-Islamist government. How is that \"victory?\" How are we better off?
First before showing all of the Clintons and the Clinton's comments on Iraq...lets address Saddam and the terror ties:
http://www.husseinandterror.com/
The a quick trip down memeory lane, with video:
http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree....emory-lane.html
NOW, quotes from BEFORE Bush took office:
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
Madeline Albright, Feb. 18, 1998
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D,CA), Dec. 16, 1998
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
Spree, as I said, I'm happy to give Clinton, Albright, etc some of the blame for the disastrous decision to invade Iraq. (Though in 1998, Saddam actually had WMDs, unlike 2003.) Why should that change the fact that it was a disaster?
When some Democrats support a bad decision, it's still bad. Whether it's Hillary Clinton supporting the invasion or Brian Baird supporting the endless occupation, stupidity is bipartisan.
Once again, you should read the resolution before commenting... the 23 reasons listed show EXACTLY how we are better off.
I have provided you with the facts, ALSO a link to the actual document so you can see them for yourself, but you STILL do not bother to go read it.
hmmmmmmmmm
Maybe you don't WANT the facts because they will show you that all your premises are based on LIES and misrepresentation and distortions.
Try reading up on it.
Once again, you should read the resolution before commenting... the 23 reasons listed show EXACTLY how we are better off.
No, they don't. Most of them are inaccurate (WMDs), irrelevant (what Saddam did in 1991 has little to do with what he was capable of in 2003) or ironic (Saddam brutalized his people, but life has been even more brutal since he was deposed). To show we're better off you'd have to point to some strategic advantage we gained from deposing an anti-Islamist, anti-Iranian dictator. I mean, Iran is better off because we deposed their enemy Saddam. Us, not so much.
Not a matter of BLAME M.A.and that is what you are not getting.
Clinton did what he felt was right as has Bush.
War was declared on US in 1996 by al-Qaeda, after 9/11 we stated, IN THE RESOLUTION, that we would go after them AND any state than sponsored terror which we have provided links with ample evidence that Saddam did just that and the reasons that Clintons statements are SO important is to show that EVERYONE KNEW he was sponsoring terror. (Which is why we showed you their statements, NOT to place blame but to show you THEY acknowledged it bfore it became popular to ignore it and screams WMD's)
THAT is one of the major reasons we took him out.
Along with 20 others.
Again, it DOES show it...you just don't care to see it.
Just one that is made clear IF you bothered to read it, is they no longer SPONSOR TERROR.
The others are equally as obvious to anyone that is serious about the discussion.
Ignoring the obvious simply shows us all that you do NOT care for the truth, you only care to \"be right\".
(shrug) no skin off my ass.
Just one that is made clear IF you bothered to read it, is they no longer SPONSOR TERROR.
Saddam hadn't sponsored an anti-American act of terrorism since the assassination attempt of 1991. He had paid suicide bombers in Israel, true, but that's a different country. Saddam and Bin Laden had different goals (Bin Laden wanted a caliphate, Saddam wanted a secular dictatorship) and were often working against each other. Now we've turned a secular dictatorship into a possible haven for Islamism. Great plan.
![\"Gravatar\"](\"http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=cb724825d651fb677ded4c99cc4d58f2&default=http%3A%2F%2Fec1.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FG%2F01%2Fx-locale%2Fcommon%2Ftransparent-pixel.gif&rating=PG&size=28\" "\\"Gravatar\\""){kind=avatar}
This clown wants statistics so badly, yet doesn't have the balls to follow the bread crumbs...maybe he should go to the front page of www.VictoryCaucus.com and SEE all the statistics THERE...if he's got the nerve...
And why are you referring to OBL in the past tense (\"Bin Laden WANTED a caliphate...)...do you have special inside information the rest of the world doesn't have?
WE were attacked, repeatedly...starting under the democrat Carter. It took a REPUBLICAN to get our hostages OUT OF IRAN...then another 8 years of A DO NOTHING DEMOCRAT who left this mess for another REPUBLICAN to get us out of...
Get over your BDS and start producing viable, empirical data of your own--we have provided plenty of our own and all you want to do is argue.
Grow some gonads and follow some links--and take off your tinfoil hat so some actual knowledge and facts can be absorbed.
See M.A. why you cannot debate or discuss?
We have just provided links PROVING with documentation that you are wrong and Saddam DID sponsor terror wayyyyyyy after 1991...if you are not going to read the proof, then you will never be able to debate it.
So, you go through those links, ALL of them that you have been provided here.
Take a look at the copies of the checks SADDAM issued to terrorist suicide bombers families, as well as the letters and documents from the archives that are public records showing communications between Saddam AND al-Qaeda just 4 days after 9/11.
You actually READ the data you have been provided with, THEN you may comment here again...until you are actually willing to read the documents YOU demanded we show you...your discussion is worthless.
Feel free to email me AFTER you have read up on the documentation you have been provided.
He won't bother to read the data Beth, because it might go against his preconceived ideas and his ignorant assumptions.
Instead of being willing to read the documents, the letters, the proof he has asked for, he would rather keep repeating the tired old arguments that were debunked YEARS AGO.
He can either go do the reading he ASKED us for, or he can go play with the Kossacks who prefer their commenters to be mindless little robots.
HE SEEMS TO BELONG THERE ANYWAY.
Another one like my boss that feels he can screech louder and louder while ignoring questions posed to him to provide proof of his idiocy
Next he'll be telling us the best president is RP and an isolationist policy
LOLOL, until he does his reading, since he caused me to spend that amount of time hunting the information FOR him because he was too fucking lazy to do it for himself, he won't BE commenting.
I don't do that much work when someone asks me to, just to have them not bother to even read the facts they asked for us to provide.
Screw that.
No kidding...and, as you can tell from my more recent posts, I just don't have the patience to deal with these stomping, 2 year old children having major connips anymore...their utter laziness is totally beyond me....
I'll be off for a while in a bit...daughter giving me a couch (she just got a new one and I LOVE her old one, it's so comfy) and then son is going to do the brakes on the car--amazing how he decided not to just take the seats out of the van, but do a complete detail...now he has his permit, he doesn't want it to look like a mom-mobile...lol
Thats kids for ya. Have fun and enjoy your new couch.
With all the new furniture in my house since the move a few months ago, I would kill for something that has been work=n in a bit more.
Oh welll, the grass is always greener huh?
![\"Gravatar\"](\"http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=a384e13c2a1f9dae49dd8128053da3e8&default=http%3A%2F%2Fec1.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FG%2F01%2Fx-locale%2Fcommon%2Ftransparent-pixel.gif&rating=PG&size=28\" "\\"Gravatar\\""){kind=avatar}
Hi, everybody. Just caught up with this conversation and was getting prepared to jump right in -- but after reading that first incredible statement -- \"Republicans are like Bush: they want us to be defeated and humiliated\" -- in M.A,'s very first paragraph, I quickly lost interest.
However, out of respect for Spree and Bob, I forced myself to continue reading these other-worldly arguments.
But they only get worse.
This guy's gone over the edge long ago, and as we discovered with our good friend Kaye, there's really no point in trying to interject logic into this one-way monologue.
Also, and now I'm directing these remarks to M.A. personally --
The people who regularly contribute their interesting comments to this site do not need to be lectured on the truth about war with stupid condescending remarks such as \"this is war, not a video game\".
I don't know about you, M. A., but many of us who comment here have put in our time in uniform and/or have had their sons or daughters in harms way. And I for one have had enough of your inane rants.
And as for Spree, Spree has put in more research in one afternoon than you have probably done in your entire self-satisfied life.
You guys are just in a real tizzy over the Brookings Report and you've lost your minds.
And as I discovered long ago, it's a waste of time to argue with someone whose lost their mind.
- Roger
Roger, thank you for the compliments. It is truly appreciated that the research and the hours I spend finding links, verifying the veracity of them, is acknowledged.
What burns me the most is when I am asked to provide evidence, I take the time, hunt it all down again and provide it just to have people completely ignore it and not even bother to go read it, then they lay claims out there that were dispelled in the links I already provided!!!
They were just too lazy to click the links and go through the information.
It is mind boggling to me.
AMEN Roger...
Interesting he brings up video games...because that's the way the defeatist crowd seems to think this war should be fought..once the \"game over\" flashes, pack up the gear, put the game away and everything's hunky dory.
They don't seem to understand--and they are determined \"not to get it\"--all actions have a consequence as do inactions, nature abhors a vacuum and conservatives are FOR VICTORY--whether they be dems or repubs, although the vast majority has thus far been repubs. It's only now some responsible dems are getting their act together, starting to recognize the facts and get on board.
Show me a dem who is \"for victory\" (NOT one of the recently converted) and I'll show you someone who still suffers from rectal cranial inversion...
![\"Gravatar\"](\"http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=860368b5f03112ca6df12677fb330628&default=http%3A%2F%2Fec1.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FG%2F01%2Fx-locale%2Fcommon%2Ftransparent-pixel.gif&rating=PG&size=28\" "\\"Gravatar\\""){kind=avatar}
M.A. = brain-dead troll mutant feasting on turtle turd salad with a side order of Whiner ReidCo and The Murtha Worm.
No original thought.
Repeater of debunked BS THOUSANDS of times.
Stop feeding the troll. IT doesn't WANT to learn.
From experience, this M.A. Turtle Turd imbiber is a jihadist troll pretending to be a concerned \"american\"...all small caps intentional.
Sorry, should have clarified that...show me a dem who is \"for victory\" in MA's mind boggling statement and I'll show you someone who still suffers from rectal cranial inversion.
THANK GAWD I'M NOT EATING at the moment Snooper! My dog would have had a field day with the mess I would have spewed laughing!
I find ma's opening statement just as hilarious...\"...we in the nutroots were always predicting that no Republicans would ever break with Bush on Iraq. It just doesn't happen. Republicans are like Bush: they want us to be defeated and humiliated by staying in Iraq forever\"
Nutroots is right...if for one second ma thinks repubs march in lockstep he's WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY behind in his thinking...possibly locked up away from rational beings for quite some time and just now getting around to catching up.
Laptop went down, rebooting it. I think it is somehow linked to me and exploded instead of my head exploding..LOL
Be right back. (on desktop here)
OMG, all my bookmarks disappeared. OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG. PANIC ATTACK.
Bee careful Spree! I had to re-download drivers on my laptop last night...what a mess, going to do a full system recovery later
My bookmarks. Everything is there. All my news sources, all my research links. OMG.
HA!!
This morning, my laptop was in the doctor's office getting a tune up and an overhaul.
I now have 2G of RAM and clean \"other stuffs\".
Good to go!!
Do a search! DAMN!
I've got 2 4gb flashsticks and that's where I back up everything...try going into \"my computer\" then into \"favorites\"...that's where the bookmarks SHOULD be when you click on \"bookmarks\" (and don't show up--they may show up when you go in through \"my computer\" and then \"favorites\")
Just received this \"reply\" from an idiot at My Anti-Hillary blog:
\"# Jeremy Says:
August 25th, 2007 at 1:23 pm edit
The hatred expressed on this website is cloaked under the guise of political partisanship yet this website seems to have a much more sinister motive. Sexism. I know you won’t admit it and will probably knock this comment around with other people with similar hate issues. If you want someone to hate, G.W. Bush is your man. For good or bad, the Clinton’s are certainly skilled Democratic politicians. Still, G.W. Bush has harmed this country far more than two Clinton presidents ever could and you know it. Wake up!\"
Sounds like the troll M.A. must have graduated from the same School of Stupid.
ok, restoring to yesterday, then will look that way. Right now I am just trying to breathe
Head between your legs Spree...slow, deep breaths...get the tingling out of your extremities...get a paperbag and breathe slowly into that..
Snoop, that guy is a MORON
\"Jeremy\" fdidn't like the post...
http://stophernow.wordpress.com/...pitome-of-dumb/
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!
\"...Head between your legs Spree....\"
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Okay, so it is just my firefox/mozilla favorites that are gone. It isn't as bad as it could be, but that is where most of my stuff was.
Reinstalling it, then if that doesn't work, just will resave favorites as I go along.
Panic attack over and fixing it now..LOL
Thanks guys
GET A COUPLE of those flashsticks Spree! I think they go up to 8gb now, but now sure. I got mine on sale when they were $30 each (for the 4gb!) and talk about ease of backup...all three of us have had mysterious problems with our laptops lately, it's worth the investment....
Snoop, I just left jeremy a response
Jeez, Spree! Good luck! Let us know when you get it back!
Snooper -- you're just great.
And Miss Beth -- sorry, I should have included you on that list with Spree and Bob.
I didn't get it back... but I never panic for long, there are no disasters that cannot be fixed.
Re opening my stuff, and re bookmarking all of them.
Then I have a post to get to...LOL
![\"Gravatar\"](\"http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=fe666b9cc83ee05567de38c6ab10d7ad&default=http%3A%2F%2Fec1.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FG%2F01%2Fx-locale%2Fcommon%2Ftransparent-pixel.gif&rating=PG&size=28\" "\\"Gravatar\\""){kind=avatar}
Hey Spree, I can lend you some of my favorites until you get yours back.
Not a problem Roger...I happily defer to Spree...she is absolutely the top when it comes to research and I know it; I haven't seen Bob that much, but that doesn't mean anything..with everything I'm running around doing, there's a lot of people I miss.
I wonder if this guy has disappeared to actually go do some of the reading?
LOLOL Winston, thats appreciated but , no snark intended, but I doubt our bookmarks are the same and I would very much bet our favorites are a far cry from each other.
But thanks, I am working on it, one bookmark at a time.
Beth, Bon is one of our Gathering of Eagles heroes.
He is the tops!!
Thanks for the compliment.
I doubt it any of the hunting the data down for him will get read.
WOOHOO Bob! GOE ROCKS!
Yeah, I guess you're probably right...it's naive of ME to think ma might actually do some reading... ![\"\"](\"http://www.haloscan.com/images/smileys/lol.gif\")
ZERO, aka WS, is in da house.
Running a scan now, guys--geez Spree, you scared me into action with this laptop!--but left another message for dear jeremy
I left him one too. I run scans twice a week at least.
I see and learn oh learned one! I've had AVG on here forever and just now running a scan..I need to \"clean up\" my act in that regard..so far 196 infected objects have been found although only one, \"Hijacker\" has been labeled high priority...yeesh, you'd think I'd know better!
AVG is awesome, so is lavasofts adware scan.
Many of those objects if you right click and look at them, are just cookies, but the high risk ones, need to go.
![\"Gravatar\"](\"http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=1da11b64b505169db0b8b6b9e56a3012&default=http%3A%2F%2Fec1.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FG%2F01%2Fx-locale%2Fcommon%2Ftransparent-pixel.gif&rating=PG&size=28\" "\\"Gravatar\\""){kind=avatar}
I see M.A. has been back and is as inane as ever...
Yes, Hawk, it's unfortunately true...yech, I just want to spit on the sidewalk to rid my mouth of his \"taste\"...eeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwww
Spree, is lavasofts expensive? I have avg because I'm broke and it's free...lol
M.A has a homework assignment.
Beth, lavasoft is FREE.
http://www.lavasoft.com/
3rd one on the right, free download.
http://www.lavasoft.com/
go to the free adaware downloade, Beth, it'll set you right up.
MA IS a homework assignment.
He's a case study for advanced psychology students...
Just downloaded the lavasoft ad-aware and the spyware doctor..hopefully, with the three, there's a nice protection wall there now! Thanks for the pointers!
I still hate Harry Ried.
Wow, 72 comments. I need to stop working on Saturdays. I missed so much. Looks like ya'll handled it.
I bet he ran off to DailyKos and told them how mean we are here.
I hope so.
I AM mean.
Hey Miss Beth. I run ad-aware on my laptop as well as McAfee. Haven't had any problems.
M.A. is a jihadi scum which dines on turtle turd soup.
I see your name and put all foods and drinks away until after I read it...LOL
Thanks Bob...it's running like it's brand new again...and it's actually not even a year old, that's why I was so frustrated!
I have to maintain my sense of humor or that 223 beckons me.
Spree, we gotta help snoop open a turtle farm so we can be sure of having enough \"supplies\" for the christmas rush for our moonbat friends!
Laughing here. I am in!
I'm still looking for Kaye.
Anybody seen Kaye?
LOLOL. Nope.
Movie time for me, haven't seen 300 yet, so have a good night folks!
300 was sooooooooooooooo COOL!!
Watch it again and keep modern times in mind.
That's basically what NJ GOP was saying when she watched it...I tried to watch it but stepsis and I were catching up at the time...durn it
Hmmmmmmmm...turtle turd soup....hmmmmmmmm....what kind of appetizers does one serve with that snoop? do you squeeze in lime or lemon? tomato or corn starch gravy/broth for it? are you gonna serve it dehydrated with preparation directions (and do those directions include preparation H by any chance?)
C'mon man, inquiring minds want to know!
OK. I cannot stand the pressure any longer. I am SUCH a wimp!
Turtle Turd Soup:
A 16 ounce bowl of either fresh or stale turtle turds from a wide variety of turtles, except sea turtles. Collecting sea turtle turds is just too dangerous.
Place the turtle turds into a crock-pot.
Throw in a cup of worm dirt (not chewing tobacco...the real deal).
Take a one-gallon container (empty, naturally) and place a variety of liquids of your choosing. Naturally, to get the real flavors, one must add an equal amount of each fluid until the one-gallon container is full.
I choose to use, filtered cat urine, and an assorted collection of exotic monkey and camel vomit. Bovine curd will suffice in lieu of monkey vomit.
Slowly mix the fluids until there is a smooth blend.
Slowly mix the fluids in with the turtle turds until the mix resembles chilli and add some chilli peppers should yo so desire.
Noodles? All soups need noodles!
These are harder to come by. Baby tape worms will do but the store bought will suffice.
Heat to a tepid temperature.
Using a wooden ladle, apportion the soup accordingly into ceramic bowls.
Spoon feed if required.
Commenting by HaloScan