Posting Towards Gomorrah

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This merely whets my appetite to find out about the traitorous acts you ascribe to Democrats. No doubt you prefer to let the whiff of the smear linger for a while, though.

Okay, so you're asking me to address that point? To flesh it out? Finally. You and Sidd just spent about 40 gigs bitching that I didn't answer that particular question when you asked, and I answered, another, different, question.

But, yes, I'm going to stretch out the smear until tomorrow, as the person with whom I'm going to explore Burger's point is now here, looking at me like "shouldn't we already be drinking?" In my world, that's a more urgent question.

Skol.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...TICLE_ID=52477

I'm telling you, it's only a matter of months before she comes clean on the cattle futures.

Has the statute of limitations expired yet?

Not sure, but certainly not for the Vince Foster or Ron Brown murders.

Also, when will she recant on the "I am jewish too!" and "I am a lifelong Yanquis fan" canards????

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by bilmore
I give up. I'm fairly sure you know exactly what I was saying, in all of those posts, even thjough we'd disagree on most of it, and I'm baffled that you would take this tack of announcing to me what I mean instead of advancing some substantive point.

Deep inside the rank and file kool aid drunken liberal sheeple know that the DNC and its dim bulb leaders are rotten to the core, but denial and the kool aid keep them from facing up to it publicly. Sadly, 911 has shown us how close that capitulation and appeasement brought us to destrcuction.

thankfully, the adults of the Bush admin are in charge and not susceptible to the treasonous ploys of Pelosi et al.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
Did I say the things that you pasted into your post? Yes.

Was that what I was addressing when I answered ty's specific question? No.

Read Ty's question. It helps. It will sooth you.

Bilmore's right that Ty's North Korea question had no mention of treason, etc., in there. [A number of Ty's other questions did.]

I was confused by that as well, and thus misunderstood Bilmore's answer, no doubt because the inflammatory rhetoric of his original post stuck in my head.

So give him a break.

And don't let a mere accusation that many prominent Democratic politicians are treasonous piss you off too much or throw you off your game. It wasn't personal.

After all, we've been criticizing the Dear Leader (U.S. version) , which has to be at least as inflammatory to him.

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
And don't let a mere accusation that many prominent Democratic politicians are treasonous piss you off too much or throw you off your game. It wasn't personal.

This, on the other hand, is Broderesque, and not in a good way.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This, on the other hand, is Broderesque, and not in a good way.

You are entirely too serious for your own good.

But , on the other hand, my attitude probably exemplifies why I will probably never be a political candidate. I just don't have the stomach for the game.

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Rumor has it that the New Jersey Supreme Court is about to deliver a little election-time gift to the GOP.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Rumor has it that the New Jersey Supreme Court is about to deliver a little election-time gift to the GOP.

Like it will matter. New Jersey is a cesspool of corruption and the Dems in the State are just plain better at it.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by bilmore
I give up. I'm fairly sure you know exactly what I was saying, in all of those posts, even thjough we'd disagree on most of it, and I'm baffled that you would take this tack of announcing to me what I mean instead of advancing some substantive point.

Bluntly, I don't have a clue why you would accuse Democrats of being traitors, of supporting terrorism, and of being "directly responsible" for the Iraq fiasco, etc.

The suggestion that an American "supported" terrorist attacks is outrageous, and the way you casually toss around such accusations is similarly so. Perhaps this should be the new disqualifying "Nazi" reference, but on the other hand it's more fun to watch you try to squirm out of having made such accusations.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Bilmore's right that Ty's North Korea question had no mention of treason, etc., in there. [A number of Ty's other questions did.]

I was confused by that as well, and thus misunderstood Bilmore's answer, no doubt because the inflammatory rhetoric of his original post stuck in my head.

So give him a break.

And don't let a mere accusation that many prominent Democratic politicians are treasonous piss you off too much or throw you off your game. It wasn't personal.

After all, we've been criticizing the Dear Leader (U.S. version) , which has to be at least as inflammatory to him.

S_A_M

I would accuse President Bush of many things. But not, for example, of supporting attacks on US troops. (Even though he specifically "encouraged" attacks on US troops.)

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Spanky says that once you drink the wine and it's gone, you're no better off than if you never had the wine at all. Personally, I'd rather drink with you.

Cite?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
Cite?

I wondered about the veracity of that assertion.......hmmmm.

[SlaveNoMore]

Here is an excellent blog entry from another guy, Confederate Yankee, I've barely heard of. I think he nails it:

As you read this, Darfur is a largely abandoned genocide. Supported by the Sudanese government, Arab janjaweed militias are exterminating Africans of the Fur, Zaghawa, and Massaleit ethnic groups. Estimates of the number of dead vary, and millions are thought to be displaced. We know that children and babies are among the targets of the janjaweed attacks, and that dismemberment is a not uncommon tactic. We also know that the violence in Darfur is projected to worsen throughout the rest of the year.

If current U.S. political trends hold, Iraq may become another Darfur, and Darfur well may be on its way to becoming another Rwanda.

As Victor David Hansen notes of unexpected outcomes today:

• "Where does all this lead? Not where most expect. The Left thinks that the “fiasco” in Iraq will bring a repudiation of George Bush, and lead to its return to power. Perhaps. But more likely it will bring a return of realpolitik to American foreign policy, in which no action abroad is allowable (so much for the liberals’ project of saving Darfur), and our diplomacy is predicated only on stability abroad. The idealism of trying to birth consensual government will be discredited; but with its demise also ends any attention to Arab moderates, who whined for years about our support for the House of Saud, Pakistani generals, Gulf autocrats, or our neglect of the mayhem wrought by Islamists in Afghanistan. We know now that when the United States tries to spend blood and treasure in Afghanistan and Iraq that it will be slandered as naïve or imperialistic."

Every major Democratic candidate in this fall’s congressional race—save one principled independent Democrat in Connecticut—is pushing for the United States to withdraw from Iraq. Some moderate Republicans are taking this tack as well. They claim that they want U.S. forces out of Iraq because our continued presence there only invites attacks against American soldiers, saps the national treasury, weakens our ability to respond to other threats such as Iran and North Korea, and weakens our image in the international community.

All of these points have some merit.

U.S. soldiers would be far safer if redeployed to Okinawa. There are no insurgents, no sectarian militias, and no roving bands of al Qaeda terrorists there.

The War in Iraq is indeed expensive, costing over 336 billion dollars and growing according to one anti-war web site.

Having such a large commitment of soldiers currently in, returning from, or preparing to go to Iraq certainly absorbs a significant portion of our current military strength, though it barely occupies our force projection from the Navy and Air Force to any extent.

And let us not forget that our international image is indeed tarnished, particularly among those nations of the world community run by strongmen, despots, and dictators that would see a weaker and more isolationist United States as a benefit for their own foreign policy desires.

But what no candidate in favor of withdrawal wants to address is what will happen to the Iraqi people if anti-war candidates do take control of Congress and attempt to live up to their campaign promises.

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) and other leading Democrats have already made their intentions abundantly clear:

• Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) will chair the powerful Ways and Means Committee if Democrats win control of the House next year, but his main goal in 2007 does not fall within his panel’s jurisdiction. "I can’t stop this war, " a frustrated Rangel said in a recent interview, reiterating his vow to retire from Congress if Democrats fall short of a majority in the House. But when pressed on how he could stop the war even if Democrats control the House during the last years of President Bush’s second term, Rangel paused before saying, "You’ve got to be able to pay for the war, don’t you?"

Rangel’s views on funding the war are shared by many of his colleagues – especially within the 73-member Out of Iraq Caucus.

Some Democratic legislators want to halt funding for the war immediately, while others say they would allocate money for activities such as reconstruction, setting up international security forces, and the ultimate withdrawal of U.S. troops.

"Personally, I wouldn’t spend another dime [on the war,] " said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.). Woolsey is among the Democrats in Congress who are hoping to control the power of the purse in 2007 to force an end to the war. Woolsey and some of her colleagues note that Congress helped force the end of Vietnam War by refusing to pay for it.

If Democrats take control of the House of Representatives, they will cut funding to the war effort. What they will not publicly admit is that the nearly immediate precipitous withdrawal that that would force will almost certainly destroy any hopes of Iraq being able to develop a representative form of government.

An impending, unimpeded civil war dwarfing the current level of sectarian violence will quite probably lead to genocide in Iraq, and yet, politicians in the House would not likely respond by reinserting U.S forces to help halt the violence. To do so would be to admit that they were wrong to force such an abrupt withdrawal.

The price of such short-sighted political miscalculations will be paid for with the blood of Iraqi, men, women, and children. They do not want an even wider civil war, but lack any authority or capability to stop it on their own. No one can predict just how bad the violence would become, but anyone addressing the situation honestly must acknowledge that the number of those killed, injured and displaced will be far greater than the already unacceptable casualties thus far.

The Democratic Party’s intention is not genocide in Iraq, but if they come to power in Congress, that is almost assuredly what they will cause. Their much-discussed and on-going drive for isolationism is precursor to mass murder.

And yet, Iraqi civilians will not be the only victims of a Democratic Congress. A Democratic House that refuses to allow American forces the opportunity to attempt to stabilize a situation we created will have no political capital to intercede in other conflicts where we have even less direct interests.

As Hanson notes in his article linked above, no action abroad will be permissible if we withdraw from Iraq. There can be no intervention to stop the genocide in Darfur. There can be no intervention in any other "hot spots" that may develop around the world, because a Democratic Congress that abandoned Iraq will have committed itself to a policy of non-intervention worldwide.

It is well within the realm of possibility that American voters will determine with their votes on November 7 whether or not we will see this mistake of inaction repeated in other nations in the Middle East and Africa in coming years.

The cost in blood and treasure of the current "Republican" war may yet pale in comparison to the human suffering imposed by a pending Democratic "peace."

[Spanky]

Originally posted by bilmore

You guys still doing the "make up shit as a team, post to each other laughing about the other poor rubes in place of logic or argument" thing?

I love tradition.

Just prior to your reappearance I was just experiencing this phenomenon with a discussion about Supply Side economics.

They love to mischaracterize what you have said, and then all laugh at the mischaracterization. Or pat each other on the back for "slamming" the argument you never made and completely ignore the argument you did make. Or accept as truth propaganda (which is usually unsubstantiated conclusions made on a some very subjective subject) made up by liberals and act completely incredulous when you question the veracity of the propaganda. Example: how could you possibly say that Iraq is not a complete irretrievable military and foreign policy disaster?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Well, Bilmore, here's your post and Spanky's take on it. FYI, FWIW, etc. etc.

Now, when weren't we talking about "traitorous acts"?


You may remember a certain Republican administration used to focus on making sure they had "plausable deniability" - what that means is, don't write down the things you're going to deny later on. Good advice for those who chant the Rove Mantra.

Don't you think Bilmore answered my question?