"The liberals who are taking such pleasure in seeing the president embarrassed are not realizing that this is an insult to the United States and her people. In other words, the jokes on you, dummies."
Meh. The guy started a poorly-conceived poorly executed war that is going to cost us three trillion dollars and untold dead and maimed on both sides. All of this in order to secure a foothold for US energy corporations to have access to vast middle eastern energy reserves.
The fact that he claims to not know the significance of the shoe insult is par for the course. The joke has been on the American people for quite some time now. This does little to change that.
Were you in the Wizard of Oz? That's the last time I saw a walking talking strawman.
ed.Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 15.12.2008 @ 13:39
I still think all of these nations would have stronger al queda factions if the US hadn’t taken action in Iraq.
Al Qaeda is a 98% myth. Iraq was on the chopping block regardless of 9/11. That just made the process easier to sell to the American People.Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 15.12.2008 @ 12:41
"Caught in a couple of lies before you’re even sworn in as president would not be good but is hardly impeachable.
I'm pretty much convinced by now that there isn't really a whole lot that the President of the United States can actually be impeached for anymore.Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 12.12.2008 @ 15:25
However, they NEVER reported this to the Feds...
How are you so sure of this?Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 12.12.2008 @ 10:22
Additionally, do Republicans still erupt in a blind fury when someone accuses George Bush of lying about the Iraq war?
It's sort of transitioned from blind fury to total indifference. Which is interesting because it's exponentially more horrible than the monumental corruption of Governor Blagojevich.Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 11.12.2008 @ 01:17
Why is it arrogant to believe that human activity could have an effect on global climate?
Let’s just get real here. If we could control the climate in any way, why do we continue to allow catastrophic hurricanes? Why are earthquakes tolerated?
Discussing the tolerability of earthquakes is about the exact opposite of "getting real". Throwing the issue of control into the discussion is intellectually dishonest. The notion of human activity having an effect on global climate is quite different from controlling it.
Being concerned about climate change is intelligent. Conducting scientific experiments to determine if/how humans can affect the climate is intelligent. Labeling those who are concerned about such things as "idiotic liberal twits" is a poor way to further your point of view.Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 5.12.2008 @ 15:22
Rick, I don't understand why you're wasting your considerable blogging talents writing about this guy...Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 1.12.2008 @ 18:47
Nice diversion there John. I refuse to allow you to frame my discussion. Keep trying, but your intellectual dishonesty is as pathetic as your attempts at sarcasm.
And Dale, maybe you're right. If all it takes is for someone to put the word gay or god on a ballot and 80 million of you come running to the polling place, then maybe your party does have it figured out.
Just because the dems treat minority voters the same way doesn't make it right. You're equivocating, and making absurd assumptions to justify how the republicans use your religious group.
If the party is going to reform itself, then it should do so. In my eyes, reform does not mean - figure out a way to get a tiny bit above the 50% threshold. Reform means sitting down at the table and saying, ok we had nearly eight years of absolute and total power. We squandered it in a spectacular way and were systematically removed from power because of it. What the hell went wrong?Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 29.11.2008 @ 01:53
Evangelicals aren't Republicans though. They vote a certain standard of hot button (for them) issues and that's it.
My main suggestion for how to disconnect from them is simple. Have a new Republican party that takes no official stand whatsoever on issues that have nothing to do with responsibly governing the country. Why does a party have to have a stance on every issue? Thus, the core beliefs of the party are preserved without all the baggage of the other stuff.
If it's a hot button issue for the evangelicals, then drop it from the platform and take no stance. This might take a small portion of the evangelicals out of the equation, but I guarantee that you'd get a migration of people like me who share a great deal of the fundamentals of conservative ideology, but simply can't stomach the other baggage.Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 26.11.2008 @ 16:49
Hey, while you guys are at it (rebuilding your party, that is) could you do the rest of us a favor and disconnect yourselves from the evangelicals? Please?
We know you hate them and think they are a necessary evil, but I assure you, they're not. If you build a better party based on actually conserving something... anything, people will just come. You won't need scare them into voting like you do with the Evangelicals.
Heh - you dating Kathleen Parker?
You are talking about 15% of the party - if that. And perhaps you could give the GOP some ideas on how to "disconnect" from the evangelicals? Maybe line them up against a wall and shoot them? Reading my site you know what I bemoan is their influence. Decrease their influence to what it was prior to George Bush #41 caving in to them in 92 and I think people wouldn't care as much that they were Republicans.
ed.Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 26.11.2008 @ 15:20