All Hank, all the time.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Lieberman just fired his entire campaign staff, an odd thing to do for a guy who's running in the November election.

eta: One of the comments to that post says that some of the staffers were going to resign in protest if Lieberman stayed in the race, so maybe he was just getting out ahead of that there possibility.

I have had to call so many jerks like him in the past (but never at his level) to get them to pull out of a race so they won't spoil it. Everytime I make those calls I just want to scream at them that they are egocentric morons, but syrup always works better than vinegar with these idiots. I don't envy the saps that are going to have to call him to get him drop out (and be nice to them when they do it). Nothing worse than having to be nice to an egocentric jerk like him.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Spanky
The leaders of any zany movement come from the middle or upper classes... However, they only get support from the masses if things are really screwed up. These oil autorcracies aren't really developed economies, they are just large welfare states.

And what of the support for those "zany" terrorists among Western Muslims? A recent poll showed that 24 percent of British Muslims across all age groups (even more for those under 30) believe the terrorist murder of 52 innocent civilians in the UK subway on 7/7/2005 was justified b/c of the UK's political stance concerning Iraq, and 17 % said they "didn't know" when asked if it was justified. 41% of Muslims living in a developed Western nation aren't against the slaughter of innocents by terrorists? I have yet to see any evidence of widespread condemnation by Muslims of terrorism no matter what the socio-economic circumstance and whether their leader is a crusty old Sheikh or Tony Blair. You could throw all the money, booze, hot women, free sex and a lives of luxury at them, and you'd still have support for the eradication of Israel and support for people who blow up pizzerias filled with kids.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
do you think a lot of these differences between us and you flow from you seeing 9/11 as a a crime where we should try to identify the guilty few, and the rest of us seeing it as an act of war?

Sorry Hank, but I don't see it as an act of war. I see it as a crime. The Talibans assistance of the criminals was an act of war, but not the act itself. I think you can only wage war against countries. That is why I think the war on Drugs, poverty etc are all misues of the term "war" and the misuse of that word has led us to not deal with those problems effectively. A war implies that there is a sovereign government we need to take out (or at least a unified organization )and then the mission is accomplished. In this case we are not fighting against a sovereign nation but people all over the world, some of whom are even citizens of our own country.

The term "war on terror" makes me uneasy because we are not at war with a country. I would prefer the term Global fight against Terrorism. We have been fighting terrorism for decades and will continue to do so for years to come, but when we are not taking on a sovereign nation (and trying to replace their regime) I don't believe we are truly at war.

I also don't believe we are in a war in Iraq. Right now we are helping a weak democratically elected government defend itself against an insidious insurgency.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Spanky
I have had to call so many jerks like him in the past (but never at his level) to get them to pull out of a race so they won't spoil it.

Spanky - but what's the chance that Lieberman could, during the final election, end up getting a lot of the Republican vote? The Repub candidate seems to have some "issues" and maybe Lieberman thinks there's more issues to come out about the guy, causing a number of Repubs to throw their vote to Lieberman. He'd have his own supporters, some anti-Lamont dems and Repubs who hate Schlesinger. Isn't that a formula that could win?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
And what of the support for those "zany" terrorists among Western Muslims? A recent poll showed that 24 percent of British Muslims across all age groups (even more for those under 30) believe the terrorist murder of 52 innocent civilians in the UK subway on 7/7/2005 was justified b/c of the UK's political stance concerning Iraq, and 17 % said they "didn't know" when asked if it was justified. 41% of Muslims living in a developed Western nation aren't against the slaughter of innocents by terrorists? I have yet to see any evidence of widespread condemnation by Muslims of terrorism no matter what the socio-economic circumstance and whether their leader is a crusty old Sheikh or Tony Blair. You could throw all the money, booze, hot women, free sex and a lives of luxury at them, and you'd still have support for the eradication of Israel and support for people who blow up pizzerias filled with kids.

If the middle east were developed (like Malaysia) we wouldn't have these problems. These middle easterners are upset because their homelands are screwed up and they believe the west is either totally or partially responsible. If their homelands were developed stable democracies (or at least somewhat democratic growing capitalist economies) like Malaysia they wouldn't have anything to complain about (and they wouldn't have had to migrate to find or better life, and could migrate back).

There were all sorts of terroist groups in Western Europe and Japan after the war (red brigrades etc.) but as those econonies developed and became prosperous again the steam just dissapated from those groups (and from their support).

However, as far as Israel is concerned, no amount of economic growth and development is ever going to make middle easterners accept Israel or its right to exist. As far is Israeli security is concerned, they might be better of keeping the entire middle east poor and underdeveloped.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Spanky - but what's the chance that Lieberman could, during the final election, end up getting a lot of the Republican vote? The Repub candidate seems to have some "issues" and maybe Lieberman thinks there's more issues to come out about the guy, causing a number of Repubs to throw their vote to Lieberman. He'd have his own supporters, some anti-Lamont dems and Repubs who hate Schlesinger. Isn't that a formula that could win?

Republicans are very loyal voters. Much more so than Democrats. It is very hard to get them to switch partys in a general election. Your question assumes that most voters pay attention (like us) which they don't. Most don't pay attention, show up on election day, vote party line and forget about the whole thing.

Unless the Republican candidate is caught in bed with young boys, he will get ninety percent of the Republican vote.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Lieberman just fired his entire campaign staff, an odd thing to do for a guy who's running in the November election.

eta: One of the comments to that post says that some of the staffers were going to resign in protest if Lieberman stayed in the race, so maybe he was just getting out ahead of that there possibility.

Lots of your posts re. election running politics should really be redacted to you just admitting you don't know what you're talking about.

He will have little budget- those are paid positions and people in them tend to not want to piss off a party because then they won't get hired again.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Lots of your posts re. election running politics should really be redacted to you just admitting you don't know what you're talking about.

He will have little budget- those are paid positions and people in them tend to not want to piss off a party because then they won't get hired again.

Aren't you a little ray of sunshine?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
Republicans are very loyal voters. Much more so than Democrats. It is very hard to get them to switch partys in a general election. Your question assumes that most voters pay attention (like us) which they don't. Most don't pay attention, show up on election day, vote party line and forget about the whole thing.

Unless the Republican candidate is caught in bed with young boys, he will get ninety percent of the Republican vote.

I would vote for Lieberman as a thank you for fucking with the Dems collective head.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Aren't you a little ray of sunshine?

Hank on PST is not the sweetness and lite Hank of EST. Deal.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I would vote for Lieberman as a thank you for fucking with the Dems collective head.

As a loyal Republican, and one who understands that it is important to have a Republican Senate if we are going to finish the job in Iraq, I expect that you will support the Republican.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
As a loyal Republican, and one who understands that it is important to have a Republican Senate if we are going to finish the job in Iraq, I expect that you will support the Republican.

If it makes you feel better, McGavick has my vote (sorry-Uknowwho), and I may even break down and go to a fundraiser.

I just like fucking with the liberals (who post here) colllective head. Don't tell them.

[SlaveNoMore]

Spanky
If the middle east were developed (like Malaysia) we wouldn't have these problems. These middle easterners are upset because their homelands are screwed up and they believe the west is either totally or partially responsible. If their homelands were developed stable democracies (or at least somewhat democratic growing capitalist economies) like Malaysia they wouldn't have anything to complain about (and they wouldn't have had to migrate to find or better life, and could migrate back).

There were all sorts of terroist groups in Western Europe and Japan after the war (red brigrades etc.) but as those econonies developed and became prosperous again the steam just dissapated from those groups (and from their support).

However, as far as Israel is concerned, no amount of economic growth and development is ever going to make middle easterners accept Israel or its right to exist. As far is Israeli security is concerned, they might be better of keeping the entire middle east poor and underdeveloped.

Why then does the leader of "developed" Malaysia tow the Pan-Arab party line and often mention the "Zionist State"?

[SlaveNoMore]

Spanky
There were all sorts of terroist groups in Western Europe and Japan after the war (red brigrades etc.) but as those econonies developed and became prosperous again the steam just dissapated from those groups (and from their support).

We bombed Germany into oblivion and nuked Japan.

We're ignoring a good precedent here.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
U.S. Representative, District 4 -GA
Democrat
35% of precincts reporting Votes Percentage

Henry C. "Hank" Johnson, Jr. 11,295 61.5%
Cynthia McKinney 7,073 38.5%

So, I finally had a chance to listen to listened to McKinney's "concession" farewell tonight.

Typically true to form for a soreloserman Dem in that she had plenty of blame for everyone else and plenty of nutty conspiracy theories about the (Jewish) media cabal's plot to defeat her blah blah blah

Much like many in the Democrat party, I imagine that she will spend much of the rest of her life bitter and blaming everyone but herself for her personal and professional failures. It must be brutal to live lives of such massively low self esteem. I feel sort of sorry for all who live under the yoke of the culture of victimhood that the Dems propigate.

Caption?




"IT WAS BUSH AND ISRAEL, AAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYIIIIYIIIIII!!!"