Saturday, September 17, 2011
Note to Rachel Maddow 1
Hey, Rach. I saw your penetrating expose of Scott Brown the other night. Holy DAMN! I had no idea that that stupid asshole was so frigging knee-deep in Wall Street. And the fact that it's seemingly affecting his votes, too. Excellent job, Rachel. And, yes, I sincerely mean it this time..............................................................................................Of course, I could also ask you, where in the bluest blazes were you three years ago - you know, back when it was revealed that then Senator Obama, despite having only been in the Senate for four years, was #3 in terms of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac....and then voted to bail the miserable sons of bitches out? Yeah, huh?..........................................................................................And even now, for Christ - where in the hell are you on a lot of this other crap; Operation Fast and Furious, Solyndra (527 million dollars GONE), this whole bandwidth and GPS fiasco? I mean, what, you're just not as interested in digging for the "truth" when it involves the Democrats? That is certainly what it appears to be, bra..................................................................................................P.S. And, yes, I refer to women as bra, bro, dude, etc. CONSTANTLY. It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you're a non bangin' hot, non lipstick lesbian. Nothing!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
The sister can only deal with so many outrages Will. Us libs gotta, you know, think. It's alot easier when all you gotta do is look angry and repeat less government and low taxes and nothing else.
Can anyone answer why government agencies should be allowed to make campaign contributions? Shouldn't this kind of waste be banned from the budgets of government agencies? It's extremely corrupt.
A conservative in answer to similar charges made against him explained something to me, which I will now paraphrase.
He almost said:
I am not int he business of exposing the folly of conservatives. That does not make me a hypocrite.
I don't think Rachel claims to be fair and balanced. She is partisan and she freely admits it.
And what's with the unattractive lesbian?
That's the answer I frigging want!
O/T but one more reason NOT to think about voting for Rick Perry;
The National Review Online reports that Texas GOP governor Rick Perry appears to be getting serious about running for president because apparently he is “brushing up on foreign policy.” And who is helping Perry with the brushing? None other than Doug Feith, whom Gen. Tommy Franks famously referred to as the “stupidest guy on the face of the earth.” Feith is also well known for leading the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans (a.k.a “The Lie Factory“) that cooked up faulty intel on Iraq’s WMD program before the invasion.
Not only is Perry dubious on science vs religion, now he wants the fools who lied us into Iraq giving him foreign policy advice?
Can't in good conscience vote for that.
Number Guy,
What does Mr. Perry stand for that you could in good conscious vote for?
Will said: "I just wish that we could all go back to the day when news was news and partisans actually had to debate each other and not simply propagandize."
or as was often the case back then, the news guys were partisan propagandists, but simply hid it better.
------------
Number guy: No one lied us into Iraq. For one thing, they were indeed secretly stockpiling WMD from the first Gulf War, in a significant violation of the cease-fire agreements. For another, "we" were already in Iraq, patrolling it, bombing WMD facilities, etc, dating back to the Clinton years.
The real liars are those who keep claiming Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with terrorism and that he never had any WMD.
"So former Bush press secretary who said there were no WMD's is a liar? Bush even admitted in his book there weren't any."
You can't admit what isn't true. Since WMD have actually been found in Iraq, the statements by Bush, Rove, and others that said there were no WMD were incorrect.
Since WMD have actually been found in Iraq,
Typical quibble from DM, state something that on it's face is true, but try to make it mean something different.
Left overs from the first Gulf War, that was all that was found.
Nothing new was created after the UN destroyed Saddam's WMD in the 90's, and destroyed much of his ability to create new weapons.
Saddam didn't have the VAST quantities of WMD especially ANYTHING nuclear like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld implied they had.
He did NOT have mobile chemical or bio labs, like Powel stated at the UN.
He didn't have large stocks of Chemical or Bio weapons like Bush and Cheney stated in their totally dishonest manufactured reasons for illegally invading a country and MURDERING it's citizens in an illegal immoral war.
YES illegally invading a country is MURDER when you kill people.
The stated reasons weren't true, and given the attempts to spin the reasons to something else, the truth is Bush ET AL wanted a war for different reasons then they stated, but couldn't get either the UN or people of the US to go along until they hyped the intell made up a few extra reasons, (like the mushroom cloud statements from Cheney), which is not telling the truth.
IE LYING
They lied and went to war illegally end of story.
God. I catch Dmarks in yet another fib and he does his best to stretch his fib to some realm of imagination that it's not quite as fibby as it was.
I suppose your next comment will be an anecdote about another imaginary friend of yours that went to Iraq and found WMD's but didn't tell anyone but you or Obama kept it secret.
Will it be the same imaginary friend you claim was in a union Dmarks?
Working: You haven't even caught me in one fib. You are making false accusations. You can't even name one fib.
As for anecdotes, while I have frieds who, as working people, were bullied by unions, none of my friends found WMD in Iraq. Though some have served.
You are flat out lying about my anecdotes. One of which involved a well documented experience which thousands of workers had. I catch you lying, so you make false accusations against me. Sorry, I still insist on being honest.
"Will it be the same imaginary friend you claim was in a union Dmarks?"
On this issue, it is like a moron has replaced the usually reasonable Truth. With millions of workers in the US in unions, is it so surprising I know some?
I know my own life. You do not. Stop lying.
Number Guy: They told the truth, and the retaliation against Iraq was entirely legal.
I'm with you guys... and Rush Limbaugh. Where do these unattractive women get off thinking they can be on TV?
Jeez... another low for the "Conra O'Reilly" blog!
Your phony outrage at being caught only serves to further prove what I say about you Dmarks.
I am totally reasonable and open to the opinions of anyone I deem, left or right, as honest and sincere. I have yet to detect either of those qualities in you.
As further proof of your embracement of dishonesty, your trying to make the Boeing situation as a union preventing a company from creating jobs is total bullshit. The members paid dues for the union to protect their jobs and that is what the union is doing. they had contract language preventing Boeing from moving jobs, yet you,and the right as a whole, embrace the thought of Boeing breaking it's word simply because you hate the one organization that stands up for working people. You embrace dishonesty if it serves your purpose of harming working people. Yet you all demanded government not void excessive compensation agreements with executives at bailed out banks because you say government had no right to break these agreements.
Keep trying Dmarks. This old workin man enjoys stickin it to you. Heterosexually of course.
Working: "Your phony outrage at being caught only serves to further prove what I say about you Dmarks."
Are you really this stupid in your arguments?
Name one thing I was caught at. Just one.
"I am totally reasonable and open to the opinions of anyone..."
No. You are lower than most because you engage in moronic and ignorant personal attacks for no reason at all.
----------
Working said; "As further proof of your embracement of dishonesty"
I was completely honest about the unions war against Boeing workers in South Carolina.
"your trying to make the Boeing situation as a union preventing a company from creating jobs is total bullshit."
This is exactly as the situation is.
"The members paid dues for the union to protect their jobs and that is what the union is doing."
The members of the union paid dues because they were forced to. They have no choice in the matter. Unless, of course, they are in South Carolina, where workers have a choice of whether or not to pay dues.
"they had contract language preventing Boeing from moving jobs"
Which is irrelevant. As Boeing in its new plant is creating new jobs. not moving them.
"...simply because you hate the one organization that stands up for working people...."
No, I do not hate any such organization. Surely you aren't talking about the union which bullies and extorts from some working people and tries to keep others from good jobs.
"You embrace dishonesty if it serves your purpose of harming working people."
There is not one lie I have embraced.
"Yet you all demanded government not void excessive compensation agreements with executives at bailed out banks because you say government had no right to break these agreements."
You really love to make up everything and avoid all facts don't you? I have consistently and strongly demanded that as a condition of the bailouts, the contracts you refer to be voided.
That's par for the course. You are just making stuff up.
"This old workin man enjoys stickin it to you."
Just like unions love sticking it to the working man. That's the only description for the prevalent situation where most union members are forced to join against their will.
Boeing was not creating jobs. It was trying to violate it's agreement. You admit this Dmarks. You think breaking one's word is acceptable. That once again proves you are dishonest.
Admit it dude. You have no friends in a union who are being bullied.
How can I admit what is not true? Boeing is creating thousands of new jobs in South Carolina. Thankfully, the union did not force Boeing to open the plant overseas.
"Admit it dude. You have no friends in a union who are being bullied."
This is true of any MEA or AFT member in my town. All of them are forced to join the union against their will. And yes I have a few friends who are teachers. One of them tried to exercise his protected right to not give money to the union and got harassed for it.
By the way, I'd like to see some evidence of your claim that the Boeing attempting to hire more workers violates a contract. Every single one of many references I find, pro or anti, refers to this reason for the NLRB effort to keep American workers unemployed:
"On April 20, the acting general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, Lafe Solomon, issued a complaint against Boeing for starting an airplane production line in South Carolina, alleging the company did so in retaliation for strikes at a unionized plant in Washington state."
This is a typical report. Where is the reference the contract violation?
wd, it was a joke, a guy joke, a guy-lesbian joke. I gather that you're offended yet again.
They told the truth, and the retaliation against Iraq was entirely legal.
No they didn't.
They spun half truths like you do here, then had intell crafted to fit their untruths. Then used the media whores, like Judith Miller, to sell then whole ball of crap to the American people.
Even Tommy Franks knew enough to tell a little truth about the guy Rumsfeld had running his intell ops;
Douglas Feith.
And people wonder why Gen Tommy Franks remarked this about Feith;
"the dumbest fucking guy on the planet."
As for the intell Feith pushed for Rumsfeld Bush and Cheney;
In February 2007, the Pentagon's inspector general issued a report that concluded that Feith's office "developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers."
The report found that these actions were "inappropriate" though not "illegal." Senator Carl Levin, Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, stated that "The bottom line is that intelligence relating to the Iraq-al-Qaeda relationship was manipulated by high-ranking officials in the Department of Defense to support the administration's decision to invade Iraq. The inspector general's report is a devastating condemnation of inappropriate activities in the DOD policy office that helped take this nation to war."
At Senator Levin's insistence, on April 6, 2007, the Pentagon's Inspector General's Report was declassified and released to the public.
The war was and still is illegal, the quoted reasons Bush gave did not stand either the test of time, or HONEST scrutiny.
In order to invade Bush had to push the UN inspectors out;
U.S advises weapons inspectors to leave Iraq
Saddam allowed them in Nov 2002, and BUSH advised them to leave in March 2003 so he could illegally invade based partly the reason on Saddam wouldn't allow inspections for WMD.
PS the weapons that Bush ET AL claimed were there were NEVER found, and the lies Fox News pushed about the weapons being sent to Syria turned out to be just as big a lie as the claim tons of weapons and a nuclear program was in full swing.
Nothing Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld claimed was true, even if a few 1990 era left overs the UN missed during the mid 90's when they disarmed Saddam were found later.
Try quibbling a few more half truths and right wing lies that have been spun by people like you for almost a decade, cause none of it is true now any more then it was true when Bush ET AL lied back then.
Saving dmarks, Rusty, and Will the trouble of composing a reply... below is what I think each of their replies to #37927 would probably be...
dmarks: bush told the truth and saved lives. He refused to let the terrorists run free. Anyone who says otherwise is an armchair attorney who anyone who is serious laughs at.
Rusty: I say nuke em all.The only good muslim is a dead muslim.
Will: Rusty, you're such a kidder! That was very funny, but, all kidding aside, I do agree with you to a point. I think we should have wiped out the training camps and then withdrawn. So what if a few thousand "innocent" muslims were killed in the process? Everyone knows all muslims support terrorism, which is why wd's suggestion that we should have accepted the taliban's offer to turn over bin Laden is crazy.
WD said I would say: "bush told the truth and saved lives. He refused to let the terrorists run free. Anyone who says otherwise is an armchair attorney who anyone who is serious laughs at."
I would say the first. But I would not connect the second sentence to it.
The second sentence applies only to those who slander George W. Bush as a "war criminal", or ignorantly label the entirely justified retaliations against Iraq and Afghanistan as "illegal"
Charges of "criminal" and "illegal" mean something. These charges you defended are not even worthy of being called charges. They are made by unqualified cranks, and are so sloppy and poorly thought out that they don't even pass scrutiny to become actual criminal charges, let alone convictions.
Sorry, WD. In the real world, the opinions of "criminal" and "illegal" CAN be incorrect opinions, if, as in this case, the actual authorities don't agree at all.
Number guy said: "The war was and still is illegal, the quoted reasons Bush gave did not stand either the test of time, or HONEST scrutiny."
It was quite legal, and there is no evidence that it was illegal. The reasons for the retaliation were sound, pass the test of time, and HONEST scrutiny.
And despite your spin, Saddam Hussein was violating the cease fire by stockpiling WMD.
Bush told the truth. The pro-terrorist advocates lied, and still lie.
"YES illegally invading a country is MURDER when you kill people."
Well, there is no evidence of any illegality. And the vast majority of the deaths were caused by the terrorists through direct execution or human shield policies.
My question to wd is, what would thousands of innocent Muslims be doing at a terrorist training camp? Serving refreshments? Face it, wd, you're to the left of even Dennis Kucinich on this one.
So you're disputing the fact that innocent people were killed when we bombed Afghanistan? The facts are not on your side bub.
The Wikipedia page "Civilian casualties in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present)" says, "The Project on Defense Alternatives estimated that in a 3-month period between October 7, 2001 and January 1, 2002, at least 1,000-1,300 civilians were directly killed by the U.S.-led aerial bombing campaign, and that by mid-January 2002, at least 3,200 more Afghans had died of "starvation, exposure, associated illnesses, or injury sustained while in flight from war zones", as a result of the U.S. war and airstrikes".
This is just the estimated deaths during the period of time YOU have said that we definitely should have been in there, in order to stop the terrorists from running free (to borrow dmarks' words).
These people were not serving refreshments, they were not even aware that the 9/11 attacks had occurred, let alone culpable for them!
There are only 2 possibilities here. Either the terrorist training camps were strategically placed in civilian areas OR the military purposefully targeted civilian populations. Which of these theories do you proffer, wd?......Well, actually there's also a third possibility. These innocent civilians were aiding and abetting the terrorists.............And I'd like you to name me one major military action that didn't have civilian casualties as a result. My God, if we were to strictly listen to you/Michael Moore, we would never be able to defend ourselves.
Post a Comment