September 1, 2007

Presidential Race Discussion Pt. II

Have at it.


At 10/06/2007 7:47 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It looks like the coronation of Hillary, but, other than the entrenched liberals, can Hillary actually get (1) 50+ year old men to vote for her, (2) a majority of women to vote for her.

I am affraid that she is an extremely unattractive candidate to all but Democrat primary voters.

At 10/15/2007 9:01 AM, Anonymous Jim Mowen said...

I agree, I believe that the Dem's are pursuing the same lose-at-all-cost primary pattern (thankfully).

You nominate the most liberal, most un-electable candidate and then lose in the General Election when you should have won in a cake walk.

Obama can win in the General, because he is like-able. He reaches into the Independants and even the fringe Republicans (even though he is the more liberal of the two!).

Hillary, the opposite. She offends most people other than the left wing of the party - the Primary Voters.

I believe that Rudy will win by default. Likely a reasonable POTUS as he is really neither a Republican or a Democrat - and as the two parties are killing us, maybe this is a good thing.

At 10/18/2007 7:45 AM, Anonymous Sandy said...

I can't disagree. My concern with Hillary is that when she goes up against the Republican, she will have to face 20 different 'Swift Boat' groups.

She has so much baggage. I hope that Obama starts this process pretty soon, or we will lose a POTUS election that is un-lose-able.

At 10/18/2007 8:04 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

More and more as time goes by, I find John Edwards a very attractive alternative to both Obama (a bit too professorial) and Hillary (a bit too same-old-thing).

At 10/18/2007 2:55 PM, Anonymous John said...

I am going to stand by a real democrat with real morals and real integrity. His name is Dennis Kucinich, and we need him. I am very left, but I would find myself voting Green Party instead of Obama or Clinton.

At 10/18/2007 3:16 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Kucinich is right about so many major issues. He's truly the "ideal" candidate, as in "idealistic".

Sadly, by some miracle if he were elected, the sharks in D.C. would eat him for lunch. (and of course, a few of his ideas seem simply naive.)

I think his candidacy both this time and the last served to give a platform for at least getting the radical idea that this country could actually devote it's emmense energies towards peace and justice before the public.

At 10/19/2007 11:05 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"devote its emmense energies towards peace and justice"

Wow - if this is not the most naive thought that I have seen you express.

"Peace and Justice" - are we back to thinking that we should put the terrorists on our welfare system and 'if they were not so poor' they'd like us?

Are we talking about negotiating with Islamic-fundamentalist terrorists, or the Iranian President who spouts anti-American sentiments at every opportunity?

---PEACE AND JUSTICE--- yes, that has been the weakness of the United States for years!

At 10/19/2007 1:39 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

I suggest you run for office on a platform of war and injustice.

No wait, that's the subtext of the Republican platform.

I'm sure Jesus would approve.

Sick, sick, sick people.

At 10/21/2007 5:04 PM, Anonymous Bill said...

How would you suggest that America would devote its emmense energgies towards peace and justice?

I really do not understand. Can you provide three suggestions?

At 10/21/2007 7:09 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Seriously "Bill"... if your brain just can NOT think of anything this country could possibly do to promote peace and justice, then I'm not going to waste my time being baited into what promises to be a ridiculous exchange.

If you stayed awake in history class, you'd easily be able to list several things this country has already done to promote global stability and peace, and to promote justice and democracy over the past several decades.

Don't be dumb on purpose. It's not flattering.

At 10/21/2007 8:23 PM, Blogger nicodemus said...

This is my fantasy in a parallel political universe:
Oprah Winfrey supports Duncan Hunter instead of Barack Obama. She has Duncan Hunter on the show and fawns all over him exactly the way she did Obama. And she gets engrossed in his stories about flying fighter planes and she totally concurs with his views on the need for strong defense and she embraces Hunter's political views and what he will do for America. (And besides- Duncan Hunter has such charisma and stage presence!!!) Then Oprah has him on the show again and brings out a surprise guest, his friend Chuck Yeager. And she does the tv lovefest again, just like she did for Obama. Then she has a big fundraiser for Duncan Hunter, just like she did Obama.

At 10/21/2007 8:57 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dope you say that Kucinich is right about so many major issues. Then you say the sharks in D.C. would eat him for lunch.
Is your ideal candidate the one that would be eaten for lunch. That is so out there that I need some sort of a clarification from you. It is either brilliant or crazy. It seems crazy to me but you could clear it up easy enough.


At 10/22/2007 3:43 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Anon 8:23

Something tells me none of your dreams ever come true.

At 10/22/2007 3:51 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Anon 8:57

Well, you have one thing right.

I can easily clear up your nagging anxiety about what I think. (amazing that it matters, but....)

You jumped the rails right from the start when you somehow imagined that I ever suggested that Kucinich is a plausible candidate.

By saying he's ideal, as in "idealistic", I was simply saying that I believe a lot of his goals would most definitely make this country better, stronger, and make the entire planet a little safer and saner.

But where your problem lies is trying to figure out how I think Kucinich would be a great candidate, or a plausible candidate, or that I think he'd ever stand a snowballs chance of either getting elected, or even in that impossible event, that he'd be able to accomplish much, if any, of what he wants to do.

I think it's truly a shame that there are so many powerful interests that are currently making billions and gaining great power from war and conflict and they'd cut Kucinich off at the knees.

You might have read my words a bit more closely or at least given it a little more thought before concluding that I think Dennis Kucinich would be the absolute best person to be the Dem candidate.

His goals are noble, and even critically important and crucial to our future. But the sad fact is that anyone who fights for something as boring as peace and justice gets laughed off the stage, but if you pound your chest and threaten great violence against whatever enemy du jour they're serving up, then people fall right in line behind you.

I find it perverse.

At 10/22/2007 12:35 PM, Anonymous Bill said...

Dope, I was just asking you a simple question. Why can't you put forth a simple answer - I would really like to see what you consider,

"devoting emmense energies towards promoting peace and justice."

We already protect most of the world, we give more charity dollars than any other country on earth - and, apparently the world hates us.

Really, what would you think is needed, what more would be beneficial?

I very much would like to see what you have here - or are you just going to politiely duck putting something tangible forth?

At 10/22/2007 12:51 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Well, how abou for starters not launching wars of conqest around the globe?

And when we're not invading with massive military force, we're taking countries over via the IMF and World Bank, loaning them money they can never repay and then dictating their entire economic structure in return.

The U.S. is NOT a peaceful nation, no matter how much you subscribe to that myth.

And how about returning to a policy of agressive and active dimplomacy, rather than the utterly incompetent non-policy that is in operation under Bush, where diplomacy is scoffed at and we in turn will reap the consequences?

How can you stand in the United States of America, supposedly aware of what we reprented prior to 9-11 and supposedly aware of what Bush has done to our image around the world since then, and still say that there's nothing that could possibly be done that we're already not doing in the cause of world-wide peace and justice?

It strikes me as laughable.

And your assertion that we give more to charity than any other country is misleading if not false.

This country give a fraction of what many other developed countries do to charity and in foreign aid when taken as a percentage of GNP. So that's simply not true.

At 10/23/2007 10:17 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

We defend ourselves and the free world (Britain, Spain and others have been attacked) from terrorism. I appreciate that you do not agree with the means by which we have done so, but it is the truth.

So, who hates us so much?

North Korea

We have far more allies than countries that hate us - and, NEWS FLASH....

It is absolutely impossible to act in a manner that (1) is best for the U.S. and (2) have everyone love us.

Hillary knows this.
Obama knows this.
Edwards knows this.

This is why they all coward when answering the question of withdrawl from Iraq (they know that it cannot be done and still protect the best interests of the U.S.).

You really need to get away from the Bush-hatred, it clouds your thinking. Try to debate an issue without the hatred and throw in a little more logic.

At 10/24/2007 6:08 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Thanks anyway, but I choose not to confuse irrational, uninformed fear (based on swallowing propaganda from war mongers whole)
with "logic".

The fact is that it's anything BUT logical, it's suicidal. It's bent, warped, unecessary, based on literal paranoia that we're going to be attacked any moment.

We're not. Not by any of those boogie-men you mentioned.

If Bush and the neo-cons started a campaign to villifie the Fiji Islanders, you'd be the first to warn that we can't be foolih and ignore this threat, that it demans military action NOW.

The whole thing would be laughable if it didn't result in such appalling and massive carnage, destruction, and global destabilization and hatred of the U.S.

You can go on deluding yourself that only a few "evil" countries don't like us, but you're doing just that, deluding yourself.

The governments may tolerate us due to crucial economic ties, but the people can't stand our government. And neither can a large majority of Americans.

Bush hatred doesn't cloud my thinking. But your blindness to what is truly going on and gulliblity in believing the right wing tripe that is fed to you clouds your very conception of reality.

DO YOU REALIZE, that power hungry leaders ALWAYS need an enemy to rally the weak-minded. That they use this tool to gain more power and control, but striking fear of this "enemy" into the hearts of those they lead?

Do you know that Bush has demonstrated that he'll do this blatantly and repeatedly, even when shown to be an utter fraud and liar?

Don't you realize that because Dick Cheney says a country is a threat, it doesn't mean that it is?

Just because the enemy of the day is decided upon, then flogged by the right's own press organ, Fox "news", and repeated endlessly by their brigade of flying monkeys on cable and AM radio, that it doesn't make it true???

Thousands of people marched in the streets chanting "Death to terrorists!" in Iran after 9-11 and for the first time in years the chant of "Death to America!" was dropped from their prayer meetings.

But now their leaders are back to making America THEIR boogie-man, and not totally unfounded.

But by your unquestioningly accepting what this gang in the White House and their war-loving compatriots, you are NO DIFFERENT WHATSOEVER with the average guy in Iran who believes all the anti-American clap-trap and propaganda that HIS government feeds him.

Do you think Iranians should automatically believe all the often false things their leaders tell them about how evil America is?

Then WHY are you not only willing, but almost eager, to accept everything your govenment tells you about a country they're trying to gin up a war against?

Don't you have a brain of your own?

Don't you realize you're being a tool by accepting everything those in authority tell you without blinking an eye or bothering to find out what the situation REALLY is on your own?

Stop being the exact counterpart to the Iranians who mindlessly hate America because their leaders tell them to.

At 10/24/2007 10:07 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dope, I know that this will be virtually impossible for you to do, knowing that you are single-minded in your hatred of Bush/ Iraq, but...

The United States is more than just Iraq.

Outside of this issue, please explain to me why so many 'people' or countries across the world hate us so much?

Also, if people from around the world hate us so much, why are so many coming here? Legally and illegally?

Do some people hate us, sure. Come on, some people even hate chocolate.

However, even Arabs are coming to this country in large numbers...

You really need a little perspective. Again, please explain, without using Iraq (and all the "Bush lied" rhetoric) why we are so hated...

At 10/24/2007 1:32 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

I'm not here to help you dig your head out of the sand.

You need to look around, read, find alternative sources for your pollyanna-like view of the world. Wherever you're getting your information is really failing you.

You're obviously completely ignorant of U.S. meddling around the globe by both covert as well as economic means.

You apparently are unaware of the fact that our military literally covers the globe, making the rest of the world frightened and defensive.

We act as though we truly own the world and can and should do whatever we damn well please, never mind what the people or leaders of soverign countries may think.

We're bullies, to put it mildly.

The Bush regime has simply been more agressive, and in many ways more upfront about this beligerant and massive effort at empire and meddling in other people's affairs around the planet.

If Russia behaved in this way, we'd consider them a dire threat.

Yet you sit there thinking that it's only a few malcontents that hate the U.S. government and it's actions.

I can't imagine being more ignorant of the reality out there.

At 10/24/2007 5:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, again, if everyone HATES us so much, why do we have immigration issues?

Why are people coming here from ALL AROUND THE GLOBE?

From Socialist countries, from Arab countries, from Russia, from Thailand, from China, from everywhere.

Sounds like you have nice theory, nice propoganda - but when the proof is at your doorstep - you want to look right past it.


At 10/25/2007 11:18 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Because, goofball, as you might have realized had you worked hard enough to actually think before you spout, they don't hate YOU, they hate our leaders and the actions of our government.

Obviously you've fallen for the Bush tactic of trying to tell you that there's thousands, MILLIONS of "terrists" out there who really hate YOU personally, and want to come over and mess up your lawn mower, crap on your carpet, and put down your favorite sports team.
Maybe even take away your TV!!!!

They don't give a rat's ass about YOU or me for that matter.

People come to this country because they are told that the economic opportunities here are greater. And in many cases that's the truth. They want a better life.

But even those who come to this country to better the lives of themselves and their families might absolutely HATE our leadership and the way it runs roughshod over everything and everybody.

Can you fit that notion in your head somewhere?

It's our crazy-ass president and vice president who are doing the things that make people hate us.
And we are, correctly, blamed as well for supporting it with both our tax dollars, and in your case, with your unthinking nationalist fervor.

We have one religious nut, Bush, trying to pick holy wars with othe religious nuts all over the world.

People don't like it.

At 10/26/2007 8:32 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why are you so against peace. You attack Bush left and right. You hate him like he hates the other religions of the world.

At 10/26/2007 10:53 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Not that I really need to point it out, but that comment makes no sense whatsoever. Try harder.

At 10/27/2007 8:42 AM, Anonymous Drew said...

I heard the audio from Hillary's fundraiser/ birthday party. She said,

"This is a great and wonderful country, now let's go change it."

Nice to see that she thinks that this is a great country, but do you think that she really wants to change it to NOT be a great country?

At 10/27/2007 12:24 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Drew. Cute.

Yeah, I'm sure that's what she meant.


At 10/27/2007 7:49 PM, Anonymous Drew said...

I don't know what she meant, I just know what she said.

On another note. Yemen just released the mastermind behind the SS Cole bombing.

Rudy G. called for reduction in aid to Yeme to protest this slap in the face to the U.S.

While I am no great fan of Rudy's, I give him credit for doing this. I certainly hope that all other POTUS candidates will do the same (although I wonder why I will not be surprised if the Dem POTUS candidates remain silent).

At 10/28/2007 12:48 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Nobody gives a damn about Yemen. What are the candidates going to do about the country that is harboring Osama bin Laden?

At 10/28/2007 10:12 PM, Anonymous Drew said...

You dimwit, it is not Yemen, it's an issue of national security and how we are to deal with Countries that have made promises to us.

This issue deals with a potential leaders ability to be strong against terrorism.

They have released THE terrorist that planned and carried out an attack on the United States. I certainly hope that our POTUS candidates, from both sides, have the integrity to say something.

If they cannot stand up against a slap in the face to the U.S. such as this - then how can we expect them to stand up for our interests if elected POTUS?

At 10/29/2007 10:15 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Yeah, I'm sure that if they don't denounce this, they'll just do absolutely nothing about terror.

Good grief.

I suppose you'll want to go bomb Yemen next? Oh wait, they don't have much oil, do they?

And news reports on this story say that this guy apparently escaped from prison, then turned himself in just last week.

Yemeni authorities are denying this entire story and maintain that he's still in prison.

Better luck freaking out about another Muslim country next time.

At 11/03/2007 2:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I saw on tv where pakistan is about to explode. Given they have the nuke don't ya think we should send them a letter or something and warn them not to blow the world up, or is this to strong for you Dopey?

maybe the world is more dangerous than you think Dope?

At 11/03/2007 5:38 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

And this administration is going to do what now? What are your big, bad John Wayne's going to do about Pakistan that amounts to anything more than a letter?

Of course you have no answer.

And of course you need to totally misjudge my outlook on the world. The world is and can be a dangerous place, which is precisely why we don't need reckless and ignorant morons in charge of the country going around throwing gasoline on smoldering flames.

You apparently think escalation and belligerence is just a swell foreign policy in times as dicey as these.

I myself wish we actually had some "grown-ups" in charge instead of intellectually stunted ego maniacs who act from "the gut" and some misguided sense of messianic "mission". That hasn't worked too well.

At 11/05/2007 9:23 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The American flags flys freely in Afgahan and Iraq today. Our heroic efforts to stop the terrorist from harming our country once again has worked! That you want to turn over the world to the terrorist sickens me. Be glad the Germans didn't invade your house or you would be speaking German. Me, I'd rather speak the USA!

At 11/05/2007 9:33 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

yep, and your hero has kept us safe from robot sharks with lasers for eyes, meteor attack, plagues of locusts, attack by Iceland, and of course, alien invasion from Planet X.

All of which, of course, haven't happened and therefore we should credit the government for the fact they haven't occured. Right?

I mean, that's the exact logic you employ in your truly sad mindless assertions.

Of all the supposed thwarted terrorist attacks, NOT ONE was considered remotely serious by any authority, with the possible exception of the person intercepted at the Canadian border on the eve of the millenium. But of course, Bush wasn't in office yet then.

Cite any instance where any terror attempt has been prevented.

Every single one that has been reported has been later been shown to be so minor as to almost be laughable.

And you go on speaking USA (and don't forget the exclamation point when you do)

The rest of us will continue to speak normal human english.

At 11/05/2007 9:38 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

yep, and in exchange for shredding the constitution, attempting to rule as dictator by simply declaring himself beyond the rule of law, spying illegally and without authorization on his own citizens, endorsing torture and holding people without charge indefinitely, your heroes have kept us safe from robot sharks with lasers for eyes, meteor attack, plagues of locusts, attack by Iceland, and of course, alien invasion from Planet X.

All of which, of course, haven't happened and therefore we should credit the government for the fact they haven't occured. Right?

I mean, that's the exact logic you employ in your truly sad mindless assertions.

Of all the supposed thwarted terrorist attacks, NOT ONE was considered remotely serious by any authority, with the possible exception of the person intercepted at the Canadian border on the eve of the millenium. But of course, Bush wasn't in office yet then.

Cite any instance where any terror attempt has been prevented.

Every single one that has been reported has been later been shown to be so minor as to almost be laughable.

And you go on speaking USA (and don't forget the exclamation point when you do)

The rest of us will continue to speak normal human english.

And you're right, I sure am glad the Germans didn't invade my house. Boy, what a traffic jam THAT would have caused, not to mention that they'd probably trample flower beds and wreck lawns. The neighbors would have been SO pissed.

At 11/05/2007 2:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Amen brother! Anon 9:23 - you are dead on!

Come on Dope, quit being an idiot - London, Spain...there are many successful terrorist efforts that have succeeded and far more that have been thwarted.

Your brain is a little mushy if you think that there is "no threat" and any 'reported' terrorist threat that was prevented - is 'another Bush lie.'

Come on man, get a grip!

You claim that the right just falls in line with whatever is reported - you seem to fall in line with every conspiracy theory that is concocted!

At 11/05/2007 7:25 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

I'm afraid you're the one being a lemming.

You cite two instances where U.S. and other intelligence failed. That's not exaxctly examples that prove we've been somehow "saved" from attack. As a matter of fact, just the opposite. Thanks.

Then you casually toss in that there have been "far more that have been thwarted".

OK, back to my challenge. NAME ONE.

You can't. Period.

And those that Bush has mentioned were all proven to be little more than kooks who couldn't blow up a pop can, let alone a terrorist act.

You're the one who believes things that aren't even real and have never happened.

Again, name ONE instance where our government has "thwarted" any sort of terrorist threat.

At 11/05/2007 10:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are certifiably insane.

On one hand you say that when they make an arrest, there was never a threat.

Then when a terrorist attack happens (a threat carried out), you say that they failed.

1. No one can stop every attack. The inability to stop every attack is not failure - it is reality.

2. I am not going to name every arrest that has been made, because (1) I do not know of every arrest, and (2) you'll say that it was an illegal arrest, was not a real threat, etc.

You have an answer for everything. has it ever occured to you that maybe, just maybe, they are doing a reasonably solid job - given no attacks on U.S. soil in over 6-years?

(Your wonderfully brilliant response will go something like..."apparently, there is no threat." Tell that to those in Spain and London!

At 11/06/2007 2:26 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Well, I can see how your frustration with being utterly unable to put forward a rational rebuttal would lead you to resort to simply asserting I'm insane.

It's sad, really.

But the fact of the matter is you have NOTHING with which to counter what I've stated and challenged you to do. You're whipped like a rented mule.

As you say, "On the one hand", you put words in my mouth that were never there and never implied.

Slow down, THINK when you read instead of taking a glance and then popping your cork.

I never came close to saying that when there is an arrest that there was never a threat. Where in the hell did you get THAT?

What I'm saying is that in every instance where Bush and pals have trotted out some supposed story about having stopped a terror attack, it's proved to have been a bunch of idiots who couldn't attack a bag of chips, let alone the U.S. Remember those idiots in Florida who were asking an FBI agent how they could get all these sophisticated weapons even though they had NO money to pay for them? The rest of the details make you laugh. Yet that was pointed to as having "protected" us from the "evil-doers".

Then there was the incident where the Bushies solemnly told us that another "terror plot" had been thwarted due to their vigilence. This time it was some nut-jobs who were going to, get this, take over an entire Army base. This was like 4 guys with some pistols. Oooooohhhh kay.

This is the kind of ridiculous crap I'm talking about. And you can't cite ONE SINGLE instance where there's been ANYTHING prevented whatsoever. Admit it. There's no shame in admitting the truth. Don't try to weasel and spout off to cover for the fact.

And what really gave me the laugh of the day was you trying to suggest that the Bushies are keeping us safe because they've made arrests, broken up plots, whatever, AND WE JUST DON"T KNOW ABOUT THEM. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA freakin HA!

That's the best one yet. This gang MAKES SHIT UP to try to prove they're actually effective, and you're trying to say that they'd foil a terror plot and keep it secret?? That if they ever actually accomplished what they're spending billions to do, they wouldn't let us know? What a hoot!

And I must thank you for making my fundemental point, that there's simply no way to ensure that terrorist attacks are prevented.

But I must admit I find it interesting that you make this obvious point after having ruptured yourself screaming about how we've been protected COMPLETELY from attack, and trying to credit this gang of incompetent political hacks for the fact.

Which is it?

I'd suggest that given the fact that we can never be totally secure from attack, and even so, there hasn't been one in years in the U.S., that means to a near certainty that there simply either haven't been any seriously planned, or even more likely, these terrorists who they've gotten you pissing yourself about simply aren't capable of mounting such an attack.

Many very experienced people rationally consider the 9-11 attacks to be due to sheer luck on their part. We're absolutely wrecking our entire country in a mass freakout, when the only weapons of mass destruction used on 9-11 were a few box cutters.

The utter and total failure of the Bush administration to pay attention to or to act on what we now know were clear and unambiguous warnings both from FBI agents and other in the intelligence field is what led to 9-11. NOT the fact that we didn't have 50 billion dollars worth of worthless "Homeland Security" in place.

Have you ever read anything about the circumstances leading up to 9-11 in this administration? Much of it from people who were there and actually involved? That's a silly question, as you obviously haven't a clue what you're talking about.
(and I'm sure that doesn't bother you a bit.)

As to you saying I'd say any arrest was an illegal arrest, I have a simple answer. I'd only say it was illegal if it was illegal. How's that? Is that "insane"?

And how hard, exactly, should it be to arrest someone legally?

All that's required is that they list charges against a person and have a grand jury find that they're credible. As they say, anyone can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, so why would they choose to ignore the legal process when they have their hands on a supposed terror suspect? Surely that would be a slam dunk, right?

If they can't muster even that, then yeah, I have a problem.

And "reasonably solid job". Hmmm Not sure I could go that far. They're doing A job, I'll give you that. They're spending BILLIONS on it as well, which of course ends up in the bank accounts of connected cronies who instantly set up companies to grab the contracts.

You may have heard about the recent study by the CIA which found that you could smuggle bombs and weapons on board a plane almost at will at most major airports and how they're refusing to release it?

The ugly truth is that despite all the hassle, all the disruption, and all the billions of dollars spent, we're BARELY more secure than we ever were.

I'm convinced it's all nothing more than the result of A. mass pants wetting and hand wringing aided and abetted by the fear mongers in the Bush administration, in order to B. enrich people and provide a means to essentially loot the treasury to their hearts content.

Again, if we all know that it's impossible to be protected from an attack occuring eventually, then why are we wrapping ourselves into knots with phony, wasteful, and often ridiculous efforts to at least pretend to be doing something, even if it doesn't do a damn thing?

You shout about Spain and England. So what? I'm sure there was a terror attack or more than one yesterday somewhere that no one even paid attention to in some country that isn't in Europe.

"Terror" happens. Europe and to a greater extent, Israel, have been living with and dealing with terror threats for decades. But they're much smarter about it and much more effective and FAR less panicky.

They actually do SMART things, rather than just throwing millions at the problem, letting every Tom, Dick, and Harry try to cash in, and essentially not keeping anyone any safer.

Face it, to a very large degree, Homeland Security is a massive scam. But that's another subject entirely.

So sorry your left without a single real defense in this debate, but hey, when you start out asserting something that's just not so, that's what happens.

Better luck next time.

And by the way, this is the last word on this topic on this thread, which need I remind you, is NOT about terror security.

I know you have a really bad habit of never figuring out when something is over and done, but this one is over.

At 11/09/2007 8:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's unfair to blame commenter's for thinking you are "insane". Some haven't yet to figure out who or what you are. If they knew you were a raging drunk they would better understand your penchant for diatribe and mood swings.

At 11/10/2007 3:01 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Hmmm. Your comment shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that you don't have a clue who I am or anything about me, big surprise.

But if I WERE a "raging drunk", at least in the morning I'd be sober, while you'd still be a small, miserable asshole with a disturbing hangup with me and this blog.

And funny, but I could have sworn this thread was called "Presidential Race Discussion", not "Throw out looney personal smears because you feel threatened by a blog".

At 11/27/2007 6:59 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

For a blog that seems pretty well built on hating the President and the Administration, it's commenters are pretty silent on a post specific to replacing what they hate...

no comments in 2-weeks?

At 12/10/2007 6:09 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill Clinton - does he hurt or help Hillary?

At 1/05/2008 12:37 PM, Anonymous Virginia said...

I believe that Bill probably hurts Hillary... more of the same?

I saw a really funny joke from Letterman the other night about Bill soliciting votes for Hillary (involving 2 Iowa women).

At 1/06/2008 9:16 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Edwards is toast - could win Iowa where he'd spent 6-years. He'll be out after Feb. 5.

Hillary is now 10-points down in NH. She has a real battle on her hands. Losing two in a row is not the end of the world - but the momentum that Obama will have after NH will make the end of the world visible from where Hillary will be.

The Dem's are preaching 'CHANGE' and Hillary is anything but change. I believe that you'll see less and less of Bill very soon.

At 1/08/2008 10:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Agh young Virginia!! You are so wrong. You will have to believe that you need to reasses your comments!!!

At 1/25/2008 7:17 AM, Anonymous Jim M said...

Serious issues for the Dem's. The General Election is nothing more than 'the chase for the middle' (the Independent vote).

Obama most definately can win this.
Hillary has no chance here, especially as she (her and Bill) is now pissing off the black voters - and let's face it, she has tremendous negatives with every segment other than hard-core D's).

On the Republican side...
McCain has negatives among the hard-core R's (but they are not stupid, they will vote for whoever is nominated) and he has solid crossover ability to soft-D's and Independents.

Bottom-line is that I see a Billary vs. McCain General Election and unless Billary is smart enough to bring Obama on board,

Dem's, not understanding the principle of nominating the most electable candidate - lose the Presidency once again!!!

At 1/26/2008 8:10 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Well, anyone that can still delude themselves that Bush is a great leader can just as easily delude themselves into thinking America would ever want to risk another Republican in the White House.

Good luck with that Jimbo.

At 1/27/2008 7:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, anyone that can still delude themselves that the Democratic Party is a good one can just as easily delude themselves into thinking America would ever want to risk another Democrat in the White House.

Good luck with that Dope.

At 1/28/2008 11:16 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Anon 7:09,

How original! Did you learn that trick in 3rd grade?

And while you're running your mouth, care to put some money on which party occupies the White House next year? Well?

Didn't think so.

At 1/28/2008 2:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dope, I am not the person that you challenged with the bet, however, I do believe that it is now a 50/50 deal at this point.

I would make a wager, but let's be honest, if the Dem wins, I'd be losing too much money through increased taxes - why lose twice?

At 1/28/2008 2:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Should Hillary win, and Bill be the first-husband, what might happen?

When he was the POTUS, and had rules (morals and ethics) that should have governed his behavior, he was a mess (at best). If he were back in the White House with lesser rules, would he behave with lesser morals and ethics?

There is little reason to expect that he would respect the office any more than when he was in it...

At 1/29/2008 2:19 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Anon 2:19

Very clever way to back down from your blustering B.S. Glad you regained your senses.

Of course, you're more than welcome to come over from the dark side and join the wave of the future.

It's about to go back to the bad old days when you weren't encouraged to vent your prejudices and resentments and fears by hating various groups and "them".

It will be difficult, but in the end, you'll be glad you gave it up.

At 1/29/2008 2:26 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Anon 2:39,

Good, legitimate questions.

But personally, and I trust I'm not alone, I couldn't possibly care less about what Bill Clinton does in his private life, within limits.

I'm still utterly amazed that so many people STILL have such a soap-opera obsession with this guy's personal life.

I certainly doubt he'd EVER come remotely close to repeating what was, after all, a stupid mistake that allowed the Republicans to nearly drag the country to a halt, and which will always be a big part of his legacy in the White House.

Thinking that he'd do it again I find a bit preposterous and only part of an incredibly OLD, BORING, and stale attempt to mine that ancient history for political gain.

I think my thoughts on the matter are best summed up by a scene in last Sunday's "Simpsons".

The scene was of Homer and Marge back in the 90's. Homer mentioned that there couldn't POSSIBLY be a worse president than Clinton, after all, lying in a deposition in a civil suit.... what could POSSIBLY be worse????!!!

At 1/29/2008 7:56 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dope, FYI - Clinton also lied to a 'grand jury' - even if Homer did not say so.

Thank goodness he was not a professional athelete, otherwise he would be in jail for such an offense.

Shocking how liberals want to sweep this under the rug, yet make posts out of "935 lies" when this was (1) a worldwide accepted fact based on worldwide intelligence and Sadam's own (confessed) efforts and actions, and (2) only one (1) statement/ lie repeated 935-times.

Lies really do matter, huh?

But you are going to tell me that lying depends on who you are lying to? (I am glad I am not your wife).

How about "lying is not lying if you and the world understands your statement to be fact."

At 1/30/2008 2:15 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Anon 7:56 (Mowen)

You know what? You can imagine all the thoughts and put all the words in my mouth you want.

But you miss the point so badly it's embarassing.

You've heard this before, but this time actually think about it:

Bush lied, thousands died.

Now come back with your snappy response.

At 2/05/2008 2:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dope, you are just plain foolish. I know, it is easy to say, "lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie...

...and think that if you say it enough, peaople will believe it. You want to believe that because the world intelligence community was led astray by Sadam - anyone who believed the intelligence reports lied, well - that is awfully simplistic.

Keep up the good work.

At 2/05/2008 6:27 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Anon 2:56. No my friend, it's not a matter of repeating something that's false, it's repeating the truth, something that has been all too rare for far too long from this gang.

The notion that every intelligence service around the world was convinced Sadaam had all these WMDS is pure bunk. Simply NOT TRUE.

You can hear that lame excuse from your right wing mouthpieces, but that does not make it the truth.

British intel knew much of it was bunk, and even acknowledged that Bush/Cheney was "fixing" the intelligence to bolster their rush to war. How do you explain that away? (look up the Downing St. memo)

European intel agencies cast outright doubt on many of the sources Bush used to trump up the threat, often flat out saying they were utterly unreliable.

Ever hear of "Curveball"? He's the supposed high level Iraqi defector that told a tale about all these mobile weapons labs, etc. that formed the very basis for the lies told to the country.

And entire book has been written about this guy, who turned out to be nothing but a complete drunk with no credibility whatsoever, and the Europeans knew so from the start and said so. Yet this guy's fantastical stories were repeated by Bush and Cheney and Powell and formed the very rationale for rushing to invade Iraq.

Explain that away.

You can keep relying on your sorry lack of actual information to continue to excuse blatant liars and criminals whose lies has caused the loss of thousands of lives and billions.... trillions of dollars, and destabilizing the globe.

But you're being a fool.

At 2/08/2008 2:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, I get it...

1. Bush justified the Iraq-invasion based on WMD's.

2. He lied to accomplish this.
3. British intel knew that this was a lie.

4. Other European intel knew that this was a lie.

...yet, they all still followed 'Bush's little war, even though they knew that it was based on a lie.'

I think that this is your logic and justification for the 'Lie-theory' - it really does not make sense.

And, oh my goodness, a book was written about this? That certainly proves your point. Did you know that there were a couple of books about Ron Brown's death, stating that this was the work of Bill Clinton - is that true as well? (just going with your 'book theory).

Atta boy!
Thanks for the laughs!
(I fully expect that you'll happen to deem this worthy of censorship).

At 2/08/2008 5:04 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

You really think your stupid ass rebuttal is so strong I'd dump it?

Don't flatter yourself. I'm only too happy to allow you to look foolish.

You think Britain participated simply because they believed the phony intel? Hell no! They participated because it was in their own interest to go along.

They quickly realized it was a ridiculous disaster and got their asses out as quickly as was reasonably possible.

They didn't have to believe the intel to send troops to Iraq. Only a boob would believe that. There were other financial and political considerations which drove that decision.

You're aware I'd hope, that the vast majority of the British people were absolutely opposed to their participation in this bogus attempt at empire building, and were largely responsible for that country being smart enough to get their asses out of there. (along with every other member of the laughable "coalition of the willing". What a joke. Iceland sent troop. Yes, troop. They sent ONE soldier. But they withdrew them not long ago.

You can stand there like some fanatic in deep denial and continue to try to suggest that the invasion of Iraq was in any way legitimately justified, that launching an invastion against a soverign country in the complete absence of any solid proof that they posed even a remote threat to our security was a really brilliant move.

But you're being a fool.

At 2/08/2008 6:31 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

...and Bill Clinton had Ron Brown killed.

At 2/09/2008 7:31 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

... and the moon landing was staged, and the government is covering up captured men from Mars and spaceships at secret bases and the Queen of England controls the international drug trade and George Bush is a Chinese controlled robot.


At 2/09/2008 10:05 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Gullible 2:37.

You dismiss the book I mentioned as if it were some little-known book by some kook. As if it wasn't credible.

Well, here's what that famous liberal George F. Will had to say about "Curveball: Spies, Lies, and the Con Man Who Caused a War"

"By the time you finish this book you will be shaking your head with wonder, or perhaps you will be shaking with anger, about the misadventures that preceded the misadventures in Iraq. This book is so powerful, it almost refutes its subtitle: The man called Curveball did not cause a war; he became a pretext -- one among many."

The book, written by a prominent L.A. Times reporter, is critically praised and no one has suggested it's not entirely factual and credible.

Before you reveal your ignorance again, you may want to go take a look at the book yourself. I know you won't read it, but I'm sure if you did, you wouldn't continue to appear ignorant in your blind faith in what George Bush tells you to think.

Curveball:Spies, Lies, and the Con Man who Caused a War

At 2/10/2008 4:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dope, I still don't get it.

The world intelligence had Sadam with WMD's.

Sadam admitted that he was trying to make certain that the world believed that he had WMD's. He succeeded.

The Senate Intelligence Committee believed that he had WMD's (Dem's included).

Bill Clinton thought that he had WMD's and even made statements in support of the action in Iraq.

Democrats saw the worldwide intelligence and voted in favor of this.

So - George Bush orchestrated a worldwide intelligence mess and no one said a thing until a year or more after the invasion?

I bet that you believe in the 2nd gunman on the grassy knoll as well?

I appreciate that there are conspiracy theorists on all fronts, on all issues - knock yourself out.

Dig Bill Clinton play a 'Wag-the-Dog' with Bosnia to take the heat off the Monica-situation? (I have heard that conspiracy theory as well).

But, again, you are always right.
Bush created the lie.
Got the world to believe it.
No one questioned him.
So that...

He could fight a war that no one wanted?

Make millions in oil? (How?)

Create a great legacy for himself (not)?

So - what did he get out of this created lie anyway?

Why did he do it?
Cause he could?
Cause he was bored?
He didn't have enough to keep him busy at home?

Sorry, I just don't see the logic here, but I am certain that you will educate me...

At 2/10/2008 6:22 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

You're still messed up with your facts and your timeline.

Sadaam had some chemical agents and had used them in the past. Where did he get these, by the way? Well, they were given to him courtesy of good old Uncle Sam, back when we were his good friends when he was at war with Iran. (remember the famous photo of a younger Rumsfeld smiling and shaking hands with his pal Sadaam?)

So WE gave him these WMDs, and time passed.

Now we decide he's our enemy. And besides, his country has somehow ended up on top of our oil.

Bush I does his thing with Kuwait for his pals the dicatorial billionaire emirs, and Sadaam's entire military is destroyed along with nearly all his WMDs and any capacity to produce them.

Another fact conveniently ignored in all this is the fact that chemical weapons have a definite shelf-life and more than enough time had passed since we'd given Sadaam his little deadly toys that they were long since inert and harmless. Without the capacity to produce more, what he had was useless.

Listen, it's not my job to write you a book to try to educate you to what went on and how Bush lied us into this war.

The material is abundant and accessible. Try the library.

The fact of the matter is that foreign intelligence did NOT believe that Iraq had WMDs, or at least not any that posed any threat to them or us.

You continually repeat that somehow all these other countries were right along with us in acting as though there was rock solid proof that Sadaam posssessed all these nightmare WMDs.

That's because that's what Bush and his flying monkeys told you for years, and it's what Sean Hanity and the commedian Limbaugh has told you, and Fox Noise has told you, and on and on.

If you would seek out credible sources and read up on what actually happened and when, then I'd hope you'd be pissed that these sources lied their asses off to you as well.

They're nothing more than mouthpieces for the White House anyway, so why pretend they're any more credible than Bush and Co.?

Just face it, Bush lied and lied repeatedly, and he and his administration willfully and purposely set out to wage a campaign to misrepresent and distort intelligence to rig up a phony case for war.

It's accepted fact by all but the last of the die-hards. Don't be the last one on your block to get caught still beliving outmoded lies and attempts to distort history.

At 2/11/2008 7:11 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I appreciate the fact that you believe that Bush lied - let's not spend so much time debating this.

You ar enot going to convince me that he followed the same information that Hillary and most Democrats did when they voted for the war.

Apparently, you are not going to follow my thinking either, so why do you want to argue this? Let's agree to disagree.

However, I asked you why you think that Bush lied...

For the legacy?
For the adoration?
For the money?
For the oil?
'Cause he loves war?
'Cause he hates sand?

I just don't see the logic here - maybe you can enlighted me.

Maybe is just a psychopath?


At 2/12/2008 7:20 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Again, not sure why I have to spend endless time giving you history lessons, but....

Do a google search on "project for the new American century" and read up on that. That's a good place to start.

The fact of the matter is that the neo-cons, including Cheney, Wolfowitz, Pearle, et. al. were strongly agitating for an invasion of Iraq far before Bush came to office, and facts show that they were planning such an invasion after Bush got in but before 9-11.

That's who pushed him to do it.

Why he'd go along? That's for historians and psychologists to figure out.

Many have pointed to the fact that little George's entire life has been spent trying to emulate (and outdo) his father, whether it be going to Yale, at baseball, flying in the military, or in the oil business and politics, and routinely falling miserably short.

This suggests that perhaps he was so stung by those who said his Dad failed by wisely pulling up short of taking out Sadaam that once in office, he was determined to do his Dad one better.

There's likely several motiviations that all happened to converge, and he was surrounded by savvy neo-cons who found it only too easy to manipulate a president who, after all, was known for not liking to think too hard about anything and has no problem whatsoever sending others to their deaths.

At 2/13/2008 7:30 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did you censor me again?

I will restate...your response to why Bush made up the lie, why Bush attack Iraq, why Bush is fighting in Iraq, is...

"To one up his dad."

Is that it?
That is your explanation?
Are you kidding me?

At 2/14/2008 12:40 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

"Josh" (Jim Mowen)

I trash your garbage because you're simply a lunatic and are not capable of debating anything, but only of cherry picking things and mistating my responses in order to try to pretend you have a leg to stand on.

In short, you're full of it.

I gave a full and complete answer to your question, yet you ignore all the substantive parts and pretend that all I said was that Bush wanted to one-up his dad.

You only want to argue, and simply are incapable of addressing the facts when they tend to show you to be in the wrong.

I don't appologize for dumping such wastes of time in the garbage. I have better things to do than indulge your need to pretend that you're really making sense.

At 2/20/2008 8:08 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It now looks as though Obama has the momentum to win the nomination. Interesting speech last night after the Wisconsin Primary...

The 'agent of change' just opened the door to his biggest upcoming problem (at least in the General Election). Addressing the issue that McCain and Hillary put forth - that he has not done anything and that his 'change' is nothing - he rambled off a laundry list of change issues.

In this list, he identified the real Obama and thus gave McCain a lot of amunition. He showed himself as not a "there are no red states and no blue states" guy - he showed that he is very liberal, very liberal.

The Democrat party has always put forth the most liberal of the candidates and this appears to be no different.

This, combined with the fact that most Democrats are of the more conservative-Democrat mentality (especially in the south) has equated to a POTUS-election loss time and time again.

If he can continue to ride Oprah and sell that he is a 'no blue states/ no red states' guy, he will win in November. If he shows his true colors of his extreme liberalism (left of Ted Kennedy), he provides McCain ammunition.

It will be interesting.

At 2/20/2008 6:42 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...


A. Just what did he say that identified him as such a way-out there liberal?

B. Don't count on your old myth that the country is so conservative.

It's never been so, it's just that they're easily swayed by propaganda. But the propaganda tricks can only last so long before people start getting wise, and then they get really sick of the lies and deception and attempts to demonize people.

The south has been one of the strongest regions for Obama, and independents are flocking to him by the millions.

You're going to get sat down hard on your ass come November, mark my words.

At 2/20/2008 9:48 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

He just stated his agenda for spending, and spending, and spending, and spending, and spending...

He showed why he is left of Teddy Kennedy.

And if the Country were not so conservative - why does it take so much to get a Democrat elected POTUS?

If the Country were so liberal, how can you explain Bush winning twice - when he is a rather poor candidate?
(Hint - it's because you ran two extremely liberal guys against him and the Country chose the lesser of two evils).

Thanks for giving us a chance again (slim as it may be).

At 2/20/2008 10:51 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Listen and learn, Chester.

A. Al Gore won the presidency in 2000, both by the popular vote, and by every one but one of the 5 possible scenarios researched by a group of newspapers, would have clearly won Florida as well if the Supreme Court hadn't stepped in at the 11th hour to save Bush's ass.

B. Kerry was a bad candidate and even so, did very well against Bush. Bush was aided as well by some of the most dishonest negative campaigning in history, as well as those who were making mulitiple millions from Bush's breaks and war dumping hundreds of millions into his campaign and financing these disgusting negative efforts. Bush spent more on his campaign than any in history.

C. Americans aren't that bright and can be easily swayed. The Republicans employed divisive tactics to whip up anger and resentment of one group against another, peddled lies and propaganda 24/7 on radio and TV, and convinced the rubes that liberals were gay and worse, and that if you were a Democrat, you were gay or worse, and real macho men are right wing, and that if you voted for a Democrat, Arabs would eat your children.

But throughout these dark ages of Republican dominance, poll after poll after poll showed conclusively that these supposed "conseravatives" agreed overwhelmingly with Democratic positions on issues.

Now that people can see, hear, feel, and taste just how incompetent, corrupt, greedy, and utterly indifferent Republicans are to their plight and their real problems thanks to good old Dubya and pals, and thanks to the charisma of Obama, it's now "cool" to be Democratic.

That's all. It's the independents that swing elections, and they're usually so shallow and fickle that they blow with the wind.

They were never conservative, they were just told that they were, and were too dim to realize that they were actually conned into voting AGAINST their own self interest. Millions of them are going to vote for Obama.

Oh, and by the way. You don't have a chance.

Just remember you heard it here first.

At 3/31/2008 7:22 AM, Anonymous Orville Portforker said...

Dope, help me understand the mind of a liberal. You blather on about Bush's lies on WMD's, when, at best, that is a gross fabrication, as world intelligence indicated that there were MND's and Saddam himself admitted that he was putting on a front in an attempt to have the world believe that he had WMD's, yet, you totally look the other way when your two POTUS candidiates lie time and time again in an effort to puff themselves up.

Obama has been caught in lie after lie about Pastor Wright. He said that he did not know of what was said from the pulpit, when he himself wrote about Pastor Wright's comments in his book. He uninvited Pastor Wright to his announcement in Springfield because of Pastor Wright's comments, etc.

Obama said that he was a Law Professor, when he did little other than speak at the college a few times.

Obama said that his mother and father met at the Selma March, when Obama was born years before the Selma March!

Hillary invented sniper-fire to make her sound more Presidential. She was caught and kept the story up at least for another month.

Hillary said that Chelsea was jogging around the Twin Towers the day before 9-11 (when Chelsea was asked about this, she said that she had never jogged around the Towers).

What does a liberal mind say about these things?

Is Character and Integrity not important in a POTUS for you?

(And I would appreciate your response being about Liberal lying, as for you to spin about the 'WMD-lie' would be foolish when even Saddam admitted that he was propogating the lie - it would be beneath even you to continue to sell that story).

BTW, I do expect you to censor this, as I am certain that you do not have an answer for this as well.

At 3/31/2008 1:41 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

First of all Mowen, it really pisses me off when right wing know-nothings try to fling around this kind of written feces in an attempt to muddy and distort the facts. Apparently you think that the only chance you have is if you lie, cheat, and steal elections, and you're probably right.

But maybe this time around people aren't going to fall for it.

I have no idea how the "liberal mind" thinks about this, but I can show clearly that in YOUR particular mind, or what passes for one, you have no qualms about regurgitating things that you hear from right wing blow-hards without even the slightest effort to find out if they're true. (and trust me, at least three quarters of the time, if you look a little closer, they're not.)

But yet you truly, and sadly, accept all this non-sense as if it's solid fact.

How long does it take... how many times do you have to see all your sources proven dead wrong or else shown to be horribly distorting the truth before you stop making an absolute ass out of yourself?

When someone like yourself writes in here, seriously maintaining that it's a fact that Hillary Clinton was responsible for Vince Foster's death and that the Clinton's had Ron Brown (and several others) killed in a plane crash, or when you cite someone like Dick Morris as a credible source, or praise an absolute buffoon like Bill O'Reilly as a great journalist, you simply have forfeited the right to be taken with any seriousness at all.

Why don't you join up with the Lyndon LaRouche followers. You'd fit right in. You seem to believe anything.

Your comment is chock full of absolutely made up "facts", half-truths, distortions and out and out lies.

WMDS WERE NEVER FOUND AND MANY MANY MANY intelligence sources both here and abroad TOLD this administration that there was NO evidence that they existed. They were absoulutely certain that there was no credible proof that they did.

So why do you insist, against all evidence and now common knowledge, to insist that somehow the invasion of Iraq was based on a legitimate purpose?

There's reams and reams and reams of evidence from FIRST PERSON witnesses and government figures who clearly indicate that there were efforts to try to find a reason to invade Iraq begining literally the day after 9-11.

You keep saying all these foreign governmetts thought Iraq had these horrible WMDS. Then WHY did almost NONE of them believe it was worth invaading Iraq for? Why did they only offer tepid support, if at all?

You simply don't know what you're talking about. I'd ask you if you've read so much as one single book on the subject. Have you? Have you read ANYTHING that details the chronology and backstage efforts to gin up support or excuses for the foregone conclusion that we were invading Iraq no matter what?

Do you sincerely believe that this wasn't a case of Bush/Cheney simply trying to fix the evidence to justify what they'd already decided to do? You're a god-damned ignorant fool if you do.

You clearly don't know what you're talking about, but feel that bombast and false cockiness are a substitute for any sort of credible argument.

You're clearly not serious when you suggest that it's a "gross exageration" to say that Bush was lying his ass off all the way through this. It's been proven time and time again. And information continues to come out slowly that shows that he'd made up his mind to invade Iraq but continued to say publically that he hadn't made up his mind, etc.

He flat out admitted a lie when he said that he'd decided to fire Rumsfeld BEFORE he told a press conference that he hadn't made any decision. He flat out admitted it, saying he didn't want it to be "political" and wanted to wait until the day after the election to make the announcement.

That's only one of dozens of lies told by both Bush AND Cheney. Cheney continued to repeat long debunked and false stories about uranium from Niger and contacts between al Queda and Iraq YEARS after they were proven false.

There are dozens of books which chronicle and detail all this, which you would know if you weren't up to your eyes in right wing bullshit.

I could provide more details that prove your stupidity, but then you'd say you couldn't read it all because .. well.. I guess you're illiterate.

You demand responses, then expect them to be three sentences long. Sorry.

If that were the case, I'd simply tell you you're a hopelessly brain dead pest who's not worth wasting time on and leave it at that.

Weapons inspectors one after the other found no evidence of ANY of the bullshit WMD labs, the existence of which were all fabrications given to the U.S. by a drunken fool who made it all up, and a slew of inaccurate made up stories fed to them by Ahmed Challabi, a shyster and criminal which Bush wanted to hand over Iraq to after the invasion. It was all BULLSHIT... and I don't know what to tell you if you insist on remaining so stunningly ignorant.

If the best you can do is to repeat that Sadaam was attempting to bluff by not coming straight out and stating that he had nothing, as if THAT is a justification for what we've been through for 5 years now, then you're simply pathetic.

And that must be all you have because you keep repeating the same few incredibly lame and unsubstantial "justifications" over and over.

NO sane person would ever wage war based on the flimsy and ridiculous, not to mention completely unverified, "reasons" you cite.

As to your claim that Obama "lied" about Wright. You show me ONE source which shows that to be true from something other than some right wing rag, and I'll believe it.

He's NEVER said he "did not know of what was said from the pulpit", you asshole! Where did you hear that? Show us where he denied knowing what was said from Wright's pulpit. You can't!

He's said that he wasn't personally in church when the inflamatory sermons which were first broadcast were made. So?

He wasn't, and no one has ever come up with any evidence that he was. (and trust me, if they could, they would have by now.)

Secondly, if you truely believe that Obama is some racist or hates whites, or believes any of the other crazy stuff all your knuckle-draggers are spouting and supposing, then you're too damn stupid and out-to-lunch to bother with. Go vote for McCain and shut up.

Some people believe in UFOs, some people think pro wrestling is real, and you believe anything you hear about Obama.

There'll always be gullible morons. Sad that you've choosen to not only be one, but to publically proclaim it.

I don't know anything about your big law professor story. Is that like Bush saying he served honorably in the National Guard? Or him having one DUI and Cheney two? Or is it a much more serious indictment of his character?

Again, show me a LEGITIMATE source that quotes Obama on this.

And the next one is just sad. You're SO damned gullible and stupid that it's painful.

Obama never said his parents met during the Selma march. For you to distort it that badly is pathetic.

From what I recall he said that it was during that ERA of civil rights marches that gave them the inspiration to go ahead and get married despite the social ostracism (by the likes of yourself) they'd face.

If you have some way of suggesting that shows that Obama's a big liar, give it a shot. You managed to distort and lie about Al Gore so badly (with the aid of the press) that he was turned into a cartoon of someone who exagerated and lied all the time. (despite the fact that not one of the supposed stories were true.)

Gonna try the same thing on Obama this time, eh? Good luck with that.

Clinton did exagerate the facts about the visit to Kosovo or wherever. No doubt about that.

Your story about Chelsea and that being a lie is nothing more than your regurgitating some silly right wing distortion ONCE AGAIN.

(and I'm NOT going to waste my time with your dumb-ass non-sense again until you can manage to stick to facts and stop repeating the garbage Fox and the rest are filling your "mind" with.)

If you actually made a tiny effort (like 5 seconds to do a google search) to see if what they're feeding you is true, you'd find that Clinton's actual quote was,

"She'd gone, what she thought would be just a great jog. She was GOING to go down to Battery Park, she was GOING to go around the towers. She went to get a cup of coffee and -- and that's when the plane hit."

OK numbnuts. Where's the big lie there?

That's what a "liberal mind" says about your rank horseshit.

You don't know what the hell you're talking about, and until you do, don't bother mucking up this place with it.


At 4/02/2008 8:41 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

I hadn't bothered at the time, but it seems that with the exeption of observing that Clinton exagerated the condition of her visit to the Balkans, EVERY SINGLE one of your charges were flat out wrong.

So with your Obama smears, you're batting a big fat gooseegg. You must be so proud.

Just happened across this page which shows that even the story about Obama saying he was a "professor" when he wasn't is false.

Go here for the facts, (not like they matter to you, but...)


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home