Via Diversity Lane.

..."bought" home?

zippy,

Thanks. I got a corrected version.

what about "Latinos"?

Bought made more sense. They don't cost much and moonmom can get it to clean the house when moondad has finished with it.

That's about right.

I always hear the following racist crap coming out of the pie holes of 'tolerant' liberals:

"Some of my best friends are (insert ethnicity and/or race here)!"

some fine upstanding moonbats from the right:

Minuteman kills father and 9 year old daughter

Oooo! You really stung us BRANDON!Now here's some of YOUR "heros" in Florida:

Attorney General Bob Butterworth successfully sued "big tobacco" for $368.5 BILLION also sued:
A top TOILET PAPER maker for raising prices while wood pulp cost went down.
Motzoh makers for selling motzoh for less in New Jersey than in Florida.
Contact lens suppliers for "over-charges.
A utilities company for charging for a national nuclear waste disposal sit that was never built.

I don't know about the other stuff, but the waste disposal plant wasn't built because of all the MOONBATS who protested it and forced the nuclear material to be stored at the POWER PLANTS.
And what about Yucca Mountain? It's been pronounced the most secure and up-to-date storage facility ever, but the MOONBATS are keeping it empty!

Eric "Rick" Kaplan fired five shotes into State Representative Bob Starks' home, hitting Judith Starks, his wife. Kaplan was running for office on a platform to BAN GUNS at the time.

"...brought home a latina friend for dinner". That's thinking like Hannibal Lechter! Now there's a solution to our illegal problem. nab'em off the street, filet them nice and thin, a bit of garlic, rosemary and butter and even some cumin to keep that spicy mexican food mexican tasting. Hunger problem and illegal problem solved. Killing 2 birds with one stone.

Brandon, you're a real libsnot putz. but keep stopping by here cuz we so so enjoy bitchslappin' you around with the logic paddle.

Diversity Lane: BEST-ANTI-MOONBAT-COMIC-EVER!

Nature or Nurture? Who cares?

(Fourth in a series in recognition of New York City’s “Gay Pride Week”)

I don’t think I have to take a backseat to anyone in my opposition to and condemnation of the gay revolution and agenda now sweeping our country. But, fair is fair and distortions of truths are still unacceptable.

One like-thinker in the quest to expose homosexuals for what they are and for what their aims and intentions are seems to needlessly shade the truth about them in this article: http://greggjackson.com/blog/?p=311.

The facts, the absolute, unvarnished, un-PC truth about gays is much more than sufficient to out them for what they are sans shadings of any sort.

In point of fact, although Gregg Jackson is clearly on the frontlines in seeking to preserve and protect American moral values, the American Psychological Association did not, as Gregg writes, definitively report what he reports as to the question of whether gays are born that way or not.

Gregg quoted the APA: “There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. . . no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors,” which is totally correct.

However, it was the American Psychological, not Psychiatric, Association which made that clarification on its website, http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html.

They are both “APA’s” and sister organizations which generally march in lockstep with one another but the Psychological association went on to say, “Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.”

However, both APA’s lack credibility. They were previously intimidated into changing their diagnoses on homosexuality. Not coincidentally, the flipflop occurred just a few years after the gay Stonewall riot of 1969.

After decades of describing homosexuality as “an abnormal mental disorder” and those afflicted with that disorder as “sexual deviants,” under severe pressure and threats from gays, they amazingly flipflopped beginning in 1973 and ultimately concluded that, Nah, it’s all very normal. See http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=635.

Since being gay had miraculously been transformed from deviancy to normality, any debate as to its “causes” were moot, to which I would agree but for vastly different reasons.

The point is, Who cares? Nature or nurture, genetics or environment, Who cares?

Few people object to what consenting adults do to and with one another behind closed, preferably locked doors in rooms without windows, . . .

(Read the rest at http://genelalor.com)

It's unfortunate that the father and daughter were killed, but I would still like to have secure borders. I guess that makes me a "right-wing crazie."

RE: Posted by: Brandon at June 23, 2009 12:43 PM

Brandon squeals with glee at the story of a home invasion, botched robbery and murder of a father and his 9 year old daughter, blaming it on "fine upstanding moonbats from the right"

Funny thing is, if you actually READ the article, you find that the prime suspect was not a "right winger" at all - she was someone who was KICKED OUT of the Minutemen for antisocial behavior more indicative of a Leftist:

".....Forde's tactics alienated even the most stalwart proponents of border security. "The screaming, hollering, calling names, we don't do that," said outgoing Washington state Minutemen president Joseph Ray. "She broke standard operating procedure too many times, she was too damn unreliable."

The Minutemen kicked Forde out of their ranks in 2007, Ray said. Around the same time, police said, Forde became embroiled in several bizarre incidents that remain under investigation in Everett."

In addition to the prime suspect (Ms. Forde) being a criminal and a whack job, we find out that her main accomplice was a member of the "Aryan Nation"....and suspected of at least one previous murder.

Do you really think these are "Fine Upstanding Right Wingers", Brandon?

What I find most troubling is not your intentional mischaracterization of these scumbags, but the self-righteous joy you take in doing it.

Thanks for the info, Tony. It's regrettable that Brandeen is so eager to smear the right he has to rely on such dishonest characterizations. The deaths are still unfortunate, and we still need secure borders.

The Teleprompter Messiah changes his tune.

This is what the TM said in today's Press Conference about Crap and Trade.

“At a time of great fiscal challenges, this legislation is paid for by the polluters who currently emit the dangerous carbon emissions that contaminate the water we drink and pollute the air we breathe.”

Yes, The iWon is so utterly ignorant of basic economics he thinks that "polluters" (i.e. the people who produce the energy we all use) will pay the crap and trade tax without passing the costs to consumers.

Beyond that, compare the above quote to what he told the San Francisco Comical in 2008:

"Under my plan of a cap and trade system electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Businesses would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that cost onto consumers."

Is the Teleprompter Messiah lying or just stupid? How do you reconcile the two contradictory statements. Brandeen, Gallstones, anonymous... help us out here.

(The strange part is... I am almost certain one of the Obama-cultists is going to come up with a weaselly rationalization or fantastical stretch to declare that the two statements are not contradictory.)

Helsing, if you'd really like to stir up your native flying monkey base, you may want to post a cartoon or two by Keith Tucker. A reality based cartoonist. I mean all of that respectfully, but hanging raw meat above most of your readers is like hanging homemade Hommus over myself. That said, I am curious to the Moonbattery reader's "opinion" on Gov. Sanford's disappearing act. He has been touted as the "hope" for the GOP in 2012, and also as an "odd duck" within his own party. Just curious on thoughts...

Good Lord, the man went on a hike, and his staff knew where he was. Talk about making your mountains out of molehills. The only reason the media is hyping this is because Sanford committed heresy against the Teleprompter Messiah by refusing Spendulus money.

kind of like Obama's disappearing act when he went to Pakistan on a foreign passport in his 20's, don't ya think?

Umm, for one thing when Barack Obama was in his 20's he was not running a state. Second, wasn't the "naked hike" starting this week? Third...blue, Alex Jones is calling, he wants his conspiracy back. 4th, this is a story because it is bizarre, this is a sitting Governor, and many of you railed on the President's Fathers Day ,w/o noting this guy disappeared. He was beat back by his own state on the stimulus, and felt so beat up he'd take a retreat? C'mon! This is news because it is disturbing on many levels, not a Democratic ploy.

The South Carolina legislative session had adjourned, the lieutenant governor was around, key staff knew where the governor was. The only bizarreness is the hype whipped up by a desperate media to smear the heretic.

This is almost, but not quite, as nutty as the bloggers who were trying to smear Sarah Palin by claiming she wasn't really Trig Palin's mother...

BTW Gallstone, can't help but notice you haven't explained the Teleprompter Messiah's economic ignorance or contradictory statements on crap and trade. Maybe you should worry more about that than spinning conspiracy theories that Mark Sanford was hiking naked to hide evidence of Trig Palin's true parentage.

And isn't it a little odd that a governor who takes some personal time gets more press scrutiny than a president who fires inspectors general?

V,is that Alex Jones calling? Maybe you should get that...?? Give me a break! So many of you are smart, yet so many of you jump at red meat like you are cannibals. It's baffling! The Sanford is confusing, and news, and yes, the Lt. Gov was around but was not notified of the actual Governor's "retreat" , is that not news? Or how about that he is another "family values" GOP hopeful who vanished for Fathers Day? V, I regard you as one of the "few" here, so stay on topic...it is an open thread...if this were a Dem, would you be so passive?

Oooo! You really stung us BRANDON!

Nope, just trying a little experiment to see how posters here would respond to something of the same format and style (although brief) as the regular main posts here at the moonbattery.

Now here's some of YOUR "heros" in Florida

Ahh, the classic moonbattery response, used by both the left and the right. The basic argument in this response is: "your side has more scumbags than our side!"

It's a pretty lame argument since it doesn't address the first post at all, and tends to sideline the conversation into a dumb argument over which side has more scumbags.

if you actually READ the article, you find that the prime suspect was not a "right winger"

(btw, notice the false quotations twice in a row - we got the "heros" from KHarn and now "right winger" from Tony. Kind of weird since I've never talked about my heroes or ever used the term "right winger".)

Interesting. From all of the many posts made on this website characterizing a scumbag's political alignment this is the first time you've found the characterization suspect (or is it the second, maybe you responded about that white supremacist who killed the holocaust museum guard).

What I find most troubling is not your intentional mischaracterization of these scumbags,

The first time it seems you've spoke up about mischaracterization. The countless comparisons of the left to the nazis don't bother you, the countless other comparisons that rely on a weak associations are also peachy keen. But when someone uses an example of someone from (arguably) the right - then suddenly it's a mischaracterization.

but the self-righteous joy you take in doing it.

damn, you've got some amazing psychological insight. Not only did you get the joy, but you saw the subtle self-righteousness in that joy, and all from a single sentence:

some fine upstanding moonbats from the right: Minuteman kills father and 9 year old daughter.

Actually, I was merely trying to emulate the sarcastic tone used throughout this site. Interesting that this is the first time you've mistaken sarcasm for self righteous joy and been offended at it.

*sniff* *sniff*

Stinks in here. Smells like perverse distortion of history, hate, intolerance, and complete denial of factual truth based on misguided feeeeeelings.

*sniff* *sniff*

Smells like silly liberals.

Thanks for the info, Tony. It's regrettable that Brandeen is so eager to smear the right he has to rely on such dishonest characterizations.

From my reading of the ubiased material here, I know that the left are a bunch of homo nazis that want our borders open for all the terrorists to come in and kill us. It only follows then that the people in the article are from the right...

Toasted n’ Wellstoned……
Use this against V the K to rationalize the two contradictory statements….
”Cap and trade electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket”….......In the future, energy costs will be comparatively negligible BECAUSE, our 3rd-World economy will need less, and…the high cost of oil won’t affect us like the seven larger industrialized nations, after our major industrial base was forced to move to China to pay off our national debt, and...only inexpensive solar and wind energy will be used to power our small collective farms as well as our government mopeds. Also, a ‘skyrocketing’ of our low-cost low-grade alternative energy rates would actually constitute a relatively minute increase when compared to the stupendous value of oil, which will have replaced the gold standard, and which the U.S. will no longer be able to afford.
“Businesses would have to retrofit their operations. That would cost money”………...It not that difficult for centralized government to retrofit national operations. Can you say ‘Stimulus’?

My comparison of these killers to the left follows a model that is common here. You take a political cause (anti illegal immigration in this case), find the most extreme example of that cause doing harm (killing the family), and use it to slander the cause or a larger political group aligned with that cause (the right).

Nearly every day this game is played out here, and not once do we see someone from the right challenge it. But as soon as I use the model against the right, I'm called out on it.

RE:Posted by: Brandon at June 23, 2009 10:44 PM

Yes, you are "called out on it", Brandon.

Explain your argument that "Anti Illegal Immigration" had ANYTHING to do with the attempted home invasion robbery of an alleged drug dealer, and resulting murders.

As I stated earlier, if you actually READ the article, one has nothing whatsoever to do with the other.

Wouldn't want to confuse you with the facts, though.

Also, thank you for recognizing my "amazing psychological insight". It's a lot better than you might imagine. I've got your number, that's for sure.

RE: Posted by: Brandon at June 23, 2009 10:19 PM

Brandon says, "From my reading of the ubiased material here, I know that the left are a bunch of homo nazis that want our borders open for all the terrorists to come in and kill us."

Ya know, kid - there just MIGHT be hope for you yet. A little over the top, but you're getting warmer.....

Ahh, the classic moonbattery response, used by both the left and the right. The basic argument in this response is: "your side has more scumbags than our side!"

The DIFFERENCE Brandon had you READ or LEARNED anything about the ACTUAL incident and COMPARED it to HISTORY you would see the PATTERN....

When Liberals comit adultery, crimes, lie, steal, murder, or otherwise play the "victim" card they are praised and worshiped by OTHER liberals. Does Willie Horton ring a bell? How about Charle Rangle both committed crimes and are LOVED by your side.

When conservatives do those things, they are SHUNNED and cast aside and so you dont have to I'll save you time and throw the "But Rush" card down for you.

Conservitive actualy BELIEVE in the rule of law and don't make distinctions about WHO commited the act. ONLY liberals like YOU do that. We really could care less if the criminal is Black, White, Asian, Mexican or anything else. Our first question is usually were they punished sufficiently.

YOU care more about where they grew up and how difficult their life was. For YOU it's ALWAYS those evil 'white or whatever' men/ laws/ policy/ discrimination/ education/ race/ age/ gender and blah blah blah who kept them down and pushed them over the edge.

We CONDEM criminals - YOU praise them!

Obama Suffering from HUHA Syndrome!

Sitting presidents in the last century have suffered from various lingering maladies and from sudden onsets of near-catastrophic health events. Wilson’s stokes, FDR’s polio, Ike’s heart attack, JFK’s Addison’s Disease, LBJ’s gall bladder issue all had some negative impacts on their administrations.

Our current chief executive’s continuing battle with HUHA Syndrome may be one of the best kept health secrets of our president, even if its symptoms are apparent daily to the most casual observer.

Tuesday’s scheduled Rose Garden news conference was held inside the White House instead, in deference to the humidity of Washington D.C., and a reminder that the capital was built adjacent to a swamp. Unfortunately, Obama’s HUHA Syndrome showed its ugly head early and often during the president’s 55 minute Q&A.

In deference to its Republican viewership, Fox News Channel declined to air the event, perhaps also fearing that a HUHA episode was in the offing and refusing to be party to televising a president’s physical flaws to the nation especially since it was a daytime affair and kids could be watching.

HUHA, as most people know, can be a-symptomatic in the perception of those afflicted but to witnesses it usually is quite obvious. The president’s feigned lack of awareness that his staged first and principal questioner was a set-up was a clear indicator of a HUHA attack.

The question came from a HufPo columnist, someone customarily relegated to the nosebleed section of the Washington Press Corps. The “exchange” went as follows:

“In what appeared to be a coordinated exchange, President Obama called on the Huffington Post’s Nico Pitney near the start of his press conference and requested a question directly about Iran.

‘Nico, [addressed as if Pitney were an old smoking buddy] I know you and all across the Internet, [sic] we’ve been seeing a lot of reports coming out of Iran, . . . I know there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet. Do you have a question?’Pitney, as if ignoring what Obama had just said, said: ‘I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian.’ ” (http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0609/Obama_calls_on_HuffPost_for_Iran_question.html)

Duh, Nico, back to the cheap seats for you! Evidently, Nico had not been briefed that his query was supposed to look spontaneous so that Obama could respond with equivalent spontaneity, but that was not to be.

HUHA symptoms were transparent thoughout . . .

(Read the rest at http://genelalor.com)

As I expected, Gallstone once again refuses to answer questions that put him or his Teleprompter Messiah in a bad light. But simply reiterates his stupid attack.

Then, he has the gall to accuse others of arguing dishonestly.

As for Brandeen, most of here really wouldn't care if the left were just a bunch of homo nazis. What we hate is the left using the power of government to indoctrinate everyone into being homo nazis, raising taxes to support their homo nazi programs, and demonizing everyone who isn't a homo nazi.

What you lefties really can't stand is that people are standing up to you and your stupid agenda... paying teachers millions to do nothing, nationalization of vast sectors of the economy (finance, automobiles, health care, energy), your stupid regulations to fight the imaginary monster known as manbearpig, and your systematic efforts to tear down Christians and families.

By the way, Brandeen, if it's unfair to tag the left as bad people... tell me what brutal murderer has the same iconic status on the right as Che Guevara and Mumia al Jamal have on the left?

@ Brandon

Don't waste your time here. As long as the country is 50/50 split in "us" vs "them", neither side will be happy. Both sides have shock jocks, and both sides are out of line.

In the mid-1700’s, French writer and philosopher, Francois-Marie Arouet said, “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.

Today, oddly enough, conservatives phrase it the same way.

Today’s progressive leftists however, declare, “I may disagree with what you say, and if I do I’ll have a hissy-fit, then I’ll denigrate, skewer, and sue you and your family, I’ll find a way to make your decision look bigoted, biased, or racist, and afterwards, I’ll use my brilliant attack to pad my resume and run for office”.

Both sides have shock jocks, and both sides are out of line.

Please cite examples of left-wing "shock jocks" you consider "out of line."

Today’s progressive leftists however, declare, “I may disagree with what you say, and if I do I’ll have a hissy-fit, then I’ll denigrate, skewer, and sue you and your family, I’ll find a way to make your decision look bigoted, biased, or racist, and afterwards, I’ll use my brilliant attack to pad my resume and run for office”.

Comment of the day. Props to you!

Good News from the Senate for once: Resolution celebrating the infanticide industry fails.

Thanks for posting that, Gregory, I hadn't seen that yet. I see the snarling Boxer was at it again on this.

And the blogger you linked to was correct when he in effect said liberals will jump all over anyone who voted against it by saying "You're against health care for women? What kind of a monster are you???!!!!!111" Of course, liberals have been doing this since time immemorial, and we're on to them by now.

When Liberals comit adultery, crimes, lie, steal, murder, or otherwise play the "victim" card they are praised and worshiped by OTHER liberals. Does Willie Horton ring a bell?

Willie Horton was sentenced to life in prison for murder. He was allowed a furlough weekend (wtf?!) during which he raped a woman. This was in Massachusetts when Dukakis, who supported the furlough program, was governor.

Apparently you do not realize that before the Bush campaign used Willie Horton to discredit Dukakis, Al Gore had already criticized the furlough program during a democratic nomination debate.

How about Charle Rangle

How about Ken Calvert, Tom Feeney, Jerry Lewis, or Rick Renzi?

both committed crimes and are LOVED by your side.

The great majority of Americans, left or right, have nothing but ill will towards rapists, murderers and corrupt officials. You've got to be out of your mind if you really think what you wrote.

YOU care more about where they grew up and how difficult their life was.

This is your imagination speaking. I have never stated anything to suggest the above. I do not agree with the statement. Maybe you are out of your mind...

We CONDEM criminals - YOU praise them!

Correction - you appear to be totally frickin nuts.

Wet me see. You ah pwobabwee wight. I can't sink of a singul wibuwal who fits dat descwipshun.

Wet me see.....You awe pwobabwee cowwect...I can't sink of a singul wibawull powitcian who is a cwiminal.

I wike um' boaf.....

I see Brandeen is not answering my question about what mass murderer is as iconic on the right as Che Guevara is on the left.

The great majority of Americans, left or right, have nothing but ill will towards rapists, murderers and corrupt officials. You've got to be out of your mind if you really think what you wrote.

Feel free to explain why Liberals have made Che and Icon, why they think Castro is great, and why they threw such a fit when we dethroned Sadam then?

Oh, and thanks for attempting to discredit me and PROVING that we are right about you.

You won't answer because you can't. reality is not something you liberals are familiar with.

The only reason Brandon is here is to try and hijack the thread and try and poke us with verbal sticks. He has no other real point or purpose here other than that.

Go take your hate someplace else, Brandon. Take your hate someplace else.

While to you Che Guevara stands as a murderer, to the people who wear his t-shirts, he stands as a freedom fighter. (does this mean I agree with that? No.)

While they are wrong about Che as a freedom fighter, this does not mean that in general they support murder and rape - they see his killings as a necessary evil, in the same way that killing was a necessary evil in our own revolution.

Obviously I am not going to find someone that has killed people that the conservatives support, and at the same time that person killed people for a cause conservatives don't support. You've asked me to do an impossible task.

But there are plenty of people who have killed for a cause and who conservatives support - in fact I'm sure most of the country, from the right and the left, would be proud to support any soldier who has killed and put their life on the line for our country. The yellow ribbon is an icon in support of every soldier.

Feel free to explain why Liberals have made Che and Icon, why they think Castro is great, and why they threw such a fit when we dethroned Sadam then?

With Che the icon, you've mixed up Liberals with dumb college kids.

Show me some proof that Liberals think Castro is great.

Regards to Saddam, maybe it was because the WMD issue was so obviously contrived, that we squandered the good will that other countries gave us after 9/11, that there was no connection between Saddam and 9/11 and that the politicians were obviously using 9/11 to attack Iraq for their own purposes, without an explanation to the American people.

Add to that a bunch of old fogies who thought they were still protesting the Vietnam war, a few idiots who thought it was about oil, and the people who wanted to avoid a much bigger conflict between the west and Islam.

Go take your hate someplace else, Brandon

Am I supposed to interpret your hyperbole as a rhetorical device, or are you really this delusional?

Brandon.....Get a clue!

"Show me proof liberals think Castro is great."

All the SDS radicals thought Castro was great, and a huge contingent went to Cuba to kiss his butt while they learned Marxist strategy and urban warfare. Those SDS radicals are your "old fogies" today, and they saturate the Obama support system. Sorry, but that statement is frighteningly naive.

While to you Che Guevara stands as a murderer,

He is! It's not a debatable issue. His primary role was to execute those who disagreed with Castro and were trying to save Cuba.

to the people who wear his t-shirts, he stands as a freedom fighter.

Further proof that liberals are uneducated and our "goverment run" education system as well as colledges are dismal failures. ONLY liberals have "Che" stuff.

While they are wrong about Che as a freedom fighter, this does not mean that in general they support murder and rape

REALLY? Liberals are TOTALLY in favor of abortion (murder of the unborn) on demand, want "rights" given to terrorists (protecting murderers), are against the death penalty for murderers (protecting criminals), willingly support NAMBLA (protecting rapists). Sure looks like support of rape and murder to me.

they see his killings as a necessary evil

Considering how liberals talk and act towords conservitives, that's an easy conection to make. Leberals often wish death and harm on conservitives, They vandalize our property and slander conservatives in the most vile ways. So I would guess most liberals would LOVE someone like Che to come along and kill all the "evil" repubplicans.

in the same way that killing was a necessary evil in our own revolution.

Wonderful attempt and changing the definitions of words there Brandon. Killing someone you dislike is done with MALICE, killing someone in battle is done without it. Our revolution was to break away from and opressive king. Cuba's was a Coup to install a dictator. You aparently don't know very much about the history of either conflict.

Obviously I am not going to find someone that has killed people that the conservatives support, and at the same time that person killed people for a cause conservatives don't support. You've asked me to do an impossible task.

No, that's not what I asked. I asked you to JUSTIFY the adoration liberals have for thugs, liars, murderers and criminals. It's not impossible, it's just difficult for you to admit that liberals HATE America and everything it stands for because it's not a socialist utopia.

But there are plenty of people who have killed for a cause and who conservatives support

Nice try but that's a false assertion. Conservitives don't support Killing anyone, unless they have been convicted of a crime. Conservitives also don't support criminal activity so it's not possible for us to support someone who has killed "for the cause" as you are implying.

in fact I'm sure most of the country, from the right and the left, would be proud to support any soldier who has killed and put their life on the line for our country.

So I guess the Veitnam protestors who called military people "baby killers" and spit on them and sabataged their efforts to liberate the North are what you consider "proudly supporting"? What about Cindy Shehan, John Murtha, Jane Fonda, etc, who called troops who are trying to liberate Iraq and Afganistan thugs, and murderers? Is that showing "pride" by your standards? You also clamed in another thread that conservative are often FAR more patriotic so you other statment puts you at odds with yourself.

The yellow ribbon is an icon in support of every soldier.

True, and it's something liberals are adamantly against in all cases. Democrats have ALWAYS cut the military budget, defamed soldiers like John Kerry did, and generally disliked military people.

With Che the icon, you've mixed up Liberals with dumb college kids.

Hardly, Obama staffers had pictures of him in their office and Cameron Diaz wears Che stuff so are they "dumb kids"? NOPE!

Show me some proof that Liberals think Castro is great.

Gee Brandon that's just TOOOO easy: Danny Glover, Cindy Shehan, Sean Penn, Hollywood, Obama staffers, Michael Moore, Golly should I go on and list all the shmoozing and glad handing fawning praise or just trust you to look it up?

Regards to Saddam, maybe it was because the WMD issue was so obviously contrived, that we squandered the good will that other countries gave us after 9/11, that there was no connection between Saddam and 9/11 and that the politicians were obviously using 9/11 to attack Iraq for their own purposes, without an explanation to the American people.

Iraq was INTENTIONALLY sabatoged just like Veitnam was by LIBERALS. Rather than suppost the military Democrats went out and condemed Bush for the SAME statements they made. Lied about the situation on the ground, Ignored the evidence THEY verified etc. Liberals made it a mess in an attempt to destry Bush because they DISLIKE him and WANTED hin to fail.

Add to that a bunch of old fogies who thought they were still protesting the Vietnam war, a few idiots who thought it was about oil,

All liberals attempting to harm the country

and the people who wanted to avoid a much bigger conflict between the west and Islam.

The conservitives trying to free a country from tyranny, and those who knew Sadam was a problem and needed to be dealt with NOW rather than later.

this sounds like philosophy 101, "If all socialists are liberals, and some socialists think Castro is great, then do all liberals think Castro is great?"

I would imagine even amongst socialists, there is debate over who represents good and bad forms of socialism.

While very few socialists would claim to be traditional American conservatives, and a significant minority of liberals may be socialist, this does not give conservatives sole ownership of capitalism. Capitalism is a fundamental American principal, and is fundamental to both the republican and democratic parties.

REALLY? Liberals are TOTALLY in favor of abortion (murder of the unborn) on demand, want "rights" given to terrorists (protecting murderers), are against the death penalty for murderers (protecting criminals), willingly support NAMBLA (protecting rapists). Sure looks like support of rape and murder to me.

I'll give you the abortion one.

The problem with detainees is definitely tricky. Back when the enemy wore a uniform it was much easier to know who they were. Now it's much more difficult, because many times an enemy is revealed by an informant, and how do you know if the infromant is credible? Sometimes you won't but you have to err on the side of caution right?

From a moral perspective it would be wrong to imprison, or use harsh interrogation methods against an innocent person, so if you could devise a system to reduce the number of innocent detainees, that would be good from a moral perspective. Of course you have to balance that against national security.

From a practical perspective, how many innocent people do we detain before it becomes a recruiting tool for the terrorists?

I don't know what the best balance point is , but I trust the people who've dedicated their lives to answering these questions to make the right decisions.

I had to look up NAMBLA- it doesn't have support from liberals, and is not even supported by other gay and lesbian groups. According to GLAAD, "[GLAAD] deplores the North American Man Boy Love Association's (NAMBLA) goals, which include advocacy for sex between adult men and boys and the removal of legal protections for children. These goals constitute a form of child abuse and are repugnant to GLAAD."

Leberals often wish death and harm on conservitives, They vandalize our property and slander conservatives in the most vile ways.

You're just showing me an example of 'the exception proves the rule', for educational purposes, right?

Just like conservatives, most liberals are too caught up with their life to bother with that kind of crap. Delinquent teenagers are the ones vandalizing, and you've got to be joking if you think any political party in the universe is free of slandering.

Wonderful attempt and changing the definitions of words there Brandon. Killing someone you dislike is done with MALICE, killing someone in battle is done without it. Our revolution was to break away from and opressive king. Cuba's was a Coup to install a dictator. You aparently don't know very much about the history of either conflict.

your misunderstanding me. I am saying that the error made by people who wear Che is they see him as a freedom fighter, not that I see him as a freedom fighter.

No, that's not what I asked.

You didn't ask the question originally, V the K did.

I asked you to JUSTIFY the adoration liberals have for thugs, liars, murderers and criminals.

Well I do like wild west movies, and yes, even pirate movies. I love some of those movies, but I don't think I would use the word 'adoration'. Please don't smear me like that.

Nice try but that's a false assertion. Conservitives don't support Killing anyone, unless they have been convicted of a crime. Conservitives also don't support criminal activity so it's not possible for us to support someone who has killed "for the cause" as you are implying.

I get the impression you're not thinking about what I write at all. Come on, I'll give you another chance. When do conservatives support killing? It's not a trick question.

So I guess the Veitnam protestors who called military people "baby killers" and spit on them and sabataged their efforts to liberate the North are what you consider "proudly supporting"? What about Cindy Shehan, John Murtha, Jane Fonda, etc, who called troops who are trying to liberate Iraq and Afganistan thugs, and murderers? Is that showing "pride" by your standards? You also clamed in another thread that conservative are often FAR more patriotic so you other statment puts you at odds with yourself.

I got the lesson about how the exception proves the rule already. Supporting the troops is only one aspect of patriotism. Liberals are more likely to support the troops while at the same time not support the war.

True, and it's something liberals are adamantly against in all cases.

well since you say it so adamantly it must be true.

Gee Brandon that's just TOOOO easy: Danny Glover, Cindy Shehan, Sean Penn, Hollywood, Obama staffers, Michael Moore, Golly should I go on and list all the shmoozing and glad handing fawning praise or just trust you to look it up

A representative sample, I assume?

raq was INTENTIONALLY sabatoged just like Veitnam was by LIBERALS. Rather than suppost the military Democrats went out and condemed Bush for the SAME statements they made. Lied about the situation on the ground, Ignored the evidence THEY verified etc. Liberals made it a mess in an attempt to destry Bush because they DISLIKE him and WANTED hin to fail.

I believe the decision to invade Iraq was a tactical one, based on military and political strategy with the goal of achieving long term security in the middle east and the world. Not once did I believe that Iraqi WMD were a real threat to our security.

Brandon...I give up on you. NAMBLA, whose motto is, "if they're eight, it's too late', is the sickest organization in America. While peodophiles will show up in both parties, when the ACLU decides to come to your defense 'pro bono', to protect your right to advertize your sick kiddie-porn agenda on the Internet, they're not coming to help conservatives. Don't come back with a short list of ACLU defenses of the right--this case was won by ass-kicking conservative Christian attorneys who not only despise child predators, they get pissed at verbal manipulators who stray from the truth.