« DUmmies Dream of Silencing Fox News | Main | Open Thread »

OMG! Waxman?

He looks like a recycled turd from a broken septic tank with ground glass for teeth and a cat's old fur ball for his comb over.

Damn right I'm rooting against this country, at least as envisioned by its current "leadership". Is this poltroon seriously trying to appeal to our patriotism to shut us up? Start the hangings, douchenozzle, we'll finish them.

I will always show other countrys the same respect and friendship they will show the United States.

If the obamaites don't like that, they can FREAK OFF.

I woke up freezing my buns this morning. It's now rocketed up to 63 degrees... at the end of June... in Summer... (or so it says here on the calendar).

WHAT F***ING GLOBAL WARMING NUMBNUTS!!???!!

It's been like that all Spring into Summer. Last two southern winters hundreds of people froze to death due to the harshness of the Winter down there. Ice packs are regrowing at legendary rates at both poles. Etc., etc,. etc.

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." Or in this case, the global cooling hidden behind the lame stream media.

We exhale co2 so waxman should stop breathing. Done.

Traitors against the Earth! Damn, Waxman has stumbled onto Republican plans to sell Earth to the K'tarian people of Draxalax VI! Alert Lord Zornath!

Operation Pink Slip Mail-In Campaign - Let Congress Know What's In Store For THEM For A Change!
http://www.kickthemallout.com/article.php/Story-Pink_Slip_Mail-In_Campaign

Why don't the moonbats go save their own God damned planet?

Motto of the Left 2008: “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.”

Motto of the Left 2009: “Dissent is the highest form of Terrorism.”

Waxman gets a little pissy when others won't play his imaginary games.

This was posted at RealClearPolitics. As I mentioned in another thread earlier, the commenters are howling with rage. Not one comment to support this asshat.

Whats obama thinking to includ this blabbering scatterbrain in his cabnet Look like the fox is guarding the hen house again and those chickens better be carrying a 45 automatic

Its eerily familiar ... sounds something like:

"If you don't support the war, you don't support our troops and therefore are unAmerican."

Anyone here remember that one? Guess dissent wasn't patriotic then either.

I don't believe anyone on the right ever actually said what Anonypussy is claiming (I'd like to see a link instead of the usual left-troll bullsh-t), but note, he is admitting the point that the left is calling dissent from the Obamagenda unpatriotic.

Besides which, I thought it was the hypocrisy that made it so very wrong when Mark Sanford cheated on his wife. I thought it was the hypocrisy that made it okay to beat up on Sarah Palin.

But when it comes to free speech and dissent, I guess it's okay for the left to be hypocritical.

"I don't believe anyone on the right ever actually said"
Gimme a break. Of course you do, everyone does. And if you can't remember that that was the tactic and the tone, then no link is going to convince you.

"the left is calling dissent ... unpatriotic"
He doesn't use that word unpatriotic at all. He's trying to get done what he thinks is right. You don't like his language ... boo hoo. All I'm saying V is that its nothing new.

How you're linking this to the missteps of some idiotic Republicans nobodies is beyond me ... but oh well, feel free to talk about those blunders more if you wish. I don't care about either of them.

Numbskull, the point was that many leftists - e.g., Joel Stein, in the LAT, and practically everyone on Kos or DU - admitted that they did not support the troops or the war or American victory in it, and that's why they were called un-American and traitors.

Which they were. Which they are.

For the record what's wrong about cheating on your wife is the "cheating" part, not the spin or hypocrisy.

What's wrong about your teen daughter getting pregnant is the "teen pregnancy" part, not the high moral ground that's lost because of it.

"ractically everyone on Kos or DU - admitted that they did not support the troops or the war or American victory in it"

Talk about a claim that needs a little support. That one was a whopper.

THE AMAZING NOSTRILMAN - PROTECTOR OF THE ENVIRONMENT, FRIEND TO SOCIALISTS, ENEMY TO CAPITALIST AMERICA AND GLOBAL WARMING DENIERS EVERYWHERE.

The Earth is in trouble ... quick, a cow just farted. Who can we call? (to the tune of Ghostbusters)

Nostrilman.

When your SUV, gets less than 18mpg, who can we call?

Nostrilman.

When you electricity rate, is about to abate, who can we call?

Nostrilman.

When Congress is about to ram through an unread 1,000 page energy bill, and Chris Matthews's leg is getting a thrill, who can we call?

Nostrilman.

It's .... Nostrilman ... to the rescue. Doing the damage patriotic and productive Americans wouldn't dream of doing to their country. Taxing the rich out of existence at every chance, for a more peaceful, pathetic and socially just America.

He'll tax and spend those foolish carnivores, users of electricity, and the evil domestic energy producers out of existence under the guise of global warming, as well as combat the hate-filled heretics and deniers of climate change. Watch him, his protectors in the state run MSM, and his backer Algore combat the Wingnut Conservative Deniers in the latest episode. Be sure to tune in next week, as Nostrilman trims his nasal hairs before he kisses Nancy the Beauty Queen, teams up with Barry and his magic unicorn and gets some special aid to save mankind from global warming from the Despicable 8 Rino's.

Fun fact: Nostrilman's first big break was when he was cast in the role of Matthias (no makeup required) in the Omega Man (1971), but it was decided that Anthony Zerbe would replace him when no other member of the family could reach his level of goulishness.

If we're "rooting against the country" by opposing Cap and Trade I wonder what he'll say about us when we inevitably will have to oppose an Obama bid to be President for life?

So, anonypussy can't find any links to prove his assertion, he just claims it's "what everybody knows."

Full on bullsh-t.

"he just claims it's "what everybody knows.""

Jay/Ghost of Journalism sure knows it. I think most people on this site remember it, although probably unwilling to admit it on this particular string.

I remember an anonymous troll saying "I like to shove my fingers in my pants when I fart and smell them later." I can't provide any links to prove this assertion, but I'm sure everybody remembers it.

Though I will concede that rooting for an enemy to win a war is unpatriotic. Repeating the enemy's propaganda points is also unpatriotic. Protesting and trying to blockade where vital materiel is being sent to troops is treasonous.

Those that participated in those activities ... as many on the left did ... was unAmerican.

Also, once again, the lefties forget... we went to college with you guys. We know what you really think of America and patriotism and toilet paper, all of which are roughly equivalent to you. We know that when you're among yourselves, you regard patriotism as a silly attachment to a country one was accidentally born into. And we know you're embarrassed that America isn't a socialist state like those in Western Europe.

The internet is not our only interaction with the left, and we know your limp-wristed claims that you actually care about this country are just a little charade because admitting how you really feel would be conceding that we're right about you.

Looks like I need to dust off my shibboleth again, so here goes:

Anonymous, do you love America? Yes or no.

Look folks, as usual its come down to personal attacks.

My point was that as usual you've twisted someone's statement about "rooting" for or against something into treason. How you got there is confusing.

The one simple assertion I made — that this tactic has been used before by Republicans — was met with "show me proof!" (when we all know it was done) and "nostrilman" (funny, but pointless) more claims of my wanting Socialism, and of course, we had to squeeze in the "limp wrist" comment, which no post here is complete without.

You could have just admitted that the tactic was used and moved on to make more important points, but here we are again, with what you think about me being more important than making a point. Who I am isn't important. I certainly don't care who you are ... we are talking to make points clear and relevant to one another. At least that's what I hope for.

So, to answer your question: I love the United States of America. That's why I'm here, talking to my fellow Americans, even though they want to call me a limp-wristed Communist. You can't take America away from me and claim it your own Jay. Quit it with your idiotic "you're not American" bull ... America is mine too, so step off!

Quit worrying about what you think you know about me. It isn't important to the discussion. Your fantasy of discovering that I'm an anti-corporate Communist welfare state enthhusiast who lives with his parents is about as right on as the left idea that you all are uneducated, government fearing, gun-toting religious freaks who all live in trailers.

Sometimes its simpler to just concede a point (it wasn't that big a point I was making in the first place) and move on and make a new point instead of this ridiculous name calling.

Your "shibboleth" ... did my answer fit?

Oh wait, I don't give a crap, because I'm not here to try and "fit in" I'm here to talk. Apparently you're just interested in "who doesn't belong?" to be determined by Jay's personal Q&A.

How do we belong to your special group of Americans Jay? Is there a list of prescribed answers one can give to your question? What are the consequences of a wrong answer?

Well said, V the K, especially with July 4th coming up in just a few days. The perfect day for liberal trolls to to feign patriotism, (when conservatives are watching, that is). Other than that, patriotism is a dime store accessory to the libs, worn once a year on July 4th.

Enjoy watching the televised fireworks from Boston or Philadelphia. One of the few programs on PBS worth watching is the July 4th concert and fireworks in Washington D.C.

A great patriotic movie: "Yankee Doodle Dandy."

Happy 4th of July, Moonbattery readers!

that this tactic has been used before by Republicans — was met with "show me proof!"

Which you completely totally failed to provide, dumbass.

That's why you fail to convince anybody, because we deal in the language of facts here. And the definition of a fact is not: something all the left-wing dumbasses agree on.

OK, fair enough. If you love America, then while may disagree, I've got time for you.

Sometimes its simpler to just concede a point (it wasn't that big a point I was making in the first place) and move on and make a new point instead of this ridiculous name calling.

Too bad you don't have an ACTUAL name we can call you.

I find the whole, "I'm a liberal, I don't have to bring proof" argument somewhat unpersuasive.

So, anonypussy can't find any links to prove his assertion, he just claims it's "what everybody knows."

I find the whole, "I'm a liberal, I don't have to bring proof" argument somewhat unpersuasive.

The thread where conservatives insist that homosexuals are far more likely to be child molesters is full of the "what everybody knows" and "I don't have to bring proof" type arguments.

Back to this treason stuff. Try googling 'site:moonbattery.com treason' (if you didn't know this is a great way to search individual domain names).

here is an example

A Yardstick For Measuring Treason

In times so warped by moonbattery that treason has become politically acceptable, it provides a useful yardstick to determine who is acting in our country's interests, and who is acting in the interests of our Islamofascist enemies.

Hale gives an obvious example: setting an arbitrary date for retreating from Iraq, as advocated by Democrats. Will this undermine our terrorist enemies' will to fight? Hardly

Want proof of leftards actively rooting for the other side? Check out the Declaration of the Jury of Conscience.

http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2005/06/27_jury-of-conscience-declaration.htm

Finding number 11:

"the occupation and its brutality that has provoked a strong armed resistance and certain acts of desperation. By the principles embodied in the UN Charter and in international law, the popular national resistance to the occupation is legitimate and justified. It deserves the support of people everywhere who care for justice and freedom."

Endorsed by groups such as Code Pink and Democracy Now!, amognst others.

"I'm a liberal, I don't have to bring proof"

You can't give on even the smallest thing. Denying that this was the prevailing rhetoric around the country at the time is silly. We were all there. To state you were against the war brought the inevitable reply "You're against the troops" and what became the new subtext of the yellow ribbon. What once had simply meant "bring my soldier relative home safely" was converted into the somewhat more pointed: "If you don't support the war, you don't support the troops"

I do not have a problem with that message at all.It just didn't fit the situation for me. All I'm saying is, you worked this same exact angle. That's something that is for sure.

"Feign patriotism, (when conservatives are watching"
For goodness sake, I came here, its not like you're spying on me. I already have the wherewithall to come here and disagree, why bother feigning anything after that? If you really think someone is lying their ass off, why bother responding?

"Too bad you don't have an ACTUAL name we can call you."
That's the point. And here I've gone and written this whole message, and never mentioned anyone's handle, and still covered what I needed to. You don't need to call any names at all, real, imagined or insulting.

btw, if anonymous is an anonypussy, does that make the rest of us pseudonypussies?

huh, that was remarkable timing

Ugh, the "who-has-the-worst-fringe-groups associated with them" game. So fun. Not really, actually, because there never seems to be any agreement about who they "belong to"

Code Pink? Democracy Now? Are you kidding me? I know you can do better than that. C'mon bring out those big guns. I know you're dying to.

nazis, they're all nazis.

That's the point. And here I've gone and written this whole message, and never mentioned anyone's handle, and still covered what I needed to. You don't need to call any names at all, real, imagined or insulting.

God, you're dumb.

Let me 'splain it to you. Again. "Anonymous" means exactly that. You're not willing to take even the token effort of picking a screen name.

How do I know that Anonymous 12:27 is the same person as Anonymous 2:41? if I call you on something you say in one message, how do I know I'm replying to the same person in another message?

At this point, I think the only reason you stick to the Anonymous handle is because you get a chuckle out of it. You're not here to discuss, you're TROLLING. You should be treated as such.

So, since you refuse to pick a name, I'm going to pick one for you. From now on, you are "Larry." Why Larry? I don't know, you just seem like a Larry to me. Hopefully, I won't mistakenly call ANOTHER Anonymous poster "Larry" by mistake, but then, I have no way of knowing, do I?

BUCK YOU FARNEY!!!

Brandon...

I entered a comment for you a moment ago in "Chairman Zero deploys ACORN Thugs", a few entries down the scroll--the space was available.

I reposted an article I threw together yesterday out of a few old snippets. I earlier put on an unreadable version--this is easier to read.

Print it out. Over the next couple of weeks I'd be willing to chat. So let the dialogue begin.

Disregard my previous post. I mess up when I'm pissed. WUCK YOU FAXMAN!!!

"how do I know I'm replying to the same person in another message?"

Who cares? You want to win a fight with a particular person. I say that fight you want to pick with Larry is irrelevant and its about being able to talk. Its about more than you and me. Who is Larry, by the way?

"if I call you on something you say in one message," The proof is always in the pudding, Otto. Its there for everyone to read. Many people with handles often conveniently disappear only to pop up under another name. Or to post in mockery of a name, for their uglier comments. What kind of honesty is there in that?

"because you get a chuckle out of it."
Isn't that a big part of this site? Am I supposed to frown and stomp my foot when I see Barney brand Franks? Its funny. I do try and keep it all non-insulting and to the point.

Oh, yea! Brandeen showed up. And he brought his strawman! He wants to pretend like, "Here I have every study ever done on the issue of pedophilia, all peer reviewed, and none done by anyone with an agenda. And all of them conclude with 100% certainty that homosexuals are almost never pedophiles." And every one of us dumb rubes said. "We don't care. We just hate homos 'cos we are dumb and hateful."

It was somewhat more nuanced than that. Brandeen talked about studies, but was skimpy on the details. As for the opposite side, I think we were skeptical of the studies and pointed out ways in which the results could be biased; for example, pedophiles who claimed to be straight because they didn't want to admit they were gay.

And some of us pointed out that we had personal experiences that led us to think things were less black and white than the way Brandeen presented them. Also, we pointed out such facts (oh, there's that word again) like the fact that there is no organized heterosexual equivalent to NAMBLA, which suggest that pedophilia is more tolerated among homosexuals.

But I'm sure Brandeen departed comfortable in his myopic triumphalism.

Not when you can't find a single damned instance of it.

And Brandeen, as per is usual modus operandus, cites a legitimate criticism as though it were a beyond the pale accusation of treason. Many of us believe telling the enemy when we plan to pull out is bad strategy and have criticism of those who would push such a strategy.

Denying that this was the prevailing rhetoric around the country at the time is silly.

Not when you can't cite a single damned instance of it.

Let me illustrate something for the anonymous dumbass...

Here are some left-wingers attacking the troops.

Left Wingers Attack Military Recruiters

Berkeley Moonbats Vandalize Recruiting Center

"Anti-War" Protester Signs.

"Death to America"

"Support the Iraq Resistance"

"I (HEART) NY Even More Without the WTC"

Finding examples of left-wingers doing what the trolls deny that they do was easy. Finding right-wingers who said anyone who opposed the war was unpatriotic should be easy, too... if such an attitude was all-pervasive as anonypussy claims.

Who cares?

Everyone except you, Larry.

You want to win a fight with a particular person.

(I swear, it's like talking to a pull-string doll. How many times do I have to explain this?)

I WANT TO KNOW WHO I'M TALKING TO. Even if it's just a screen name. Trying to discuss anything with you is like talking to someone with multiple-personality disorder. If we have an Anonymous troll come in here and start insulting us, do you want to take the blame for what he said? As far as I'm concerned at this point, all Anonymous posters are the same person: you. You should be treated the same way as the typical foul-mouthed insult-trolls we see all the time, because you are one.

I say that fight you want to pick with Larry is irrelevant and its about being able to talk. Its about more than you and me. Who is Larry, by the way?

You are. You are Larry. If you don't like it, tell me what to call you.

"if I call you on something you say in one message," The proof is always in the pudding, Otto. Its there for everyone to read. Many people with handles often conveniently disappear only to pop up under another name.

And 9/10 times, it's easy to tell, as in your ill-fated attempts to mimic someone else's screen name a few days ago. Most of the time, you see the same people over and over again... V the K, Jay, me... even other lefties pick screen names... Ghost of Wellstone, Brandon.

Or to post in mockery of a name, for their uglier comments. What kind of honesty is there in that?

Aww, poor baby. You're arguing politics. ON THE INTERNET. On a conservative blog. Do you expect to be treated with kid gloves? This is hostile territory, Larry. If I went into a liberal site and made conservative comments, they would treat me the same way. Get over it, and get over yourself.

Isn't that a big part of this site? Am I supposed to frown and stomp my foot when I see Barney brand Franks? Its funny. I do try and keep it all non-insulting and to the point.

Man, you want it both ways... you want things to be non-insulting, except that you expect things to be insulting? Make up your mind.

This is why you are Larry. Because not choosing a screen name doesn't make you immune to being made fun of. Now, I'm not going to bug you about this anymore. You're obviously having fun being a stubborn prick, and who am I to get in the way of that? I'll simply treat you as just another disposable leftist troll. We get them in here all the time, and they vanish just as quickly, forgotten. You're no different.

Brandeen talked about studies, but was skimpy on the details. As for the opposite side, I think we were skeptical of the studies and pointed out ways in which the results could be biased; for example, pedophiles who claimed to be straight because they didn't want to admit they were gay.

As I said the onus is on the accusers to bring forth the proof supporting their accusation. There still is no evidence in the thread for the link between homosexuals and pedophiles or pederasts.

As for the opposite side, I think we were skeptical of the studies and pointed out ways in which the results could be biased; for example, pedophiles who claimed to be straight because they didn't want to admit they were gay.

By all means, be skeptical.

And some of us pointed out that we had personal experiences that led us to think things were less black and white than the way Brandeen presented them.

Since when do conservatives not see things as black or white? This is something new.

But it is black or white - either you have evidence to support your accusation or you don't. Would you accept from me an anecdote of talking to a random person in a chat room as evidence backing up my argument?

there is no organized heterosexual equivalent to NAMBLA

You mean like the Mormons? Here's a random chatroom conversation to back it up:

Child Brides

oh look, an affidavit for a Mormon was filed just today, Accused polygamist had nine underage brides

Hey V the K that is exactly why I get hostile at socialist liberals.

If I was witness to that bullshit I'd be bustin heads. Confrontation!!!!!

That's right you idiot liberal trolls it's time for a confrontation against all of you.

Isn't it obvious that Mormons are more likely to molest children than non Mormons? I'm not saying all Mormons are pedophiles, just that they are more likely to be. This certainly means they shouldn't be allowed to adopt children or teach in schools.

Uncalled for, Brandon.

Equating Mormons to faggots is definitely over the line.

A more precise analogy would be that polygamy is to Mormons as pederasty is to fags, namely a problem that each group has had historically, and that is out of proportion to the group's incidence in the population.

Larry is why it's a waste of time to beat your head against a libtard wall!! We use logic, fact, and history, to justify our positions, libtards don't live in a world of logic and fact, they drift in a cloud of shit...sucking it in.....and loving every minute of it! (And America always sucks in that cloud) Some do get tired of it, but you can tell when they are ready to join the ranks of the sane. When a libtard finally gets it, they get it big, but it's a very rare thing.

The one simple assertion I made — that this tactic has been used before by Republicans — was met with "show me proof!" (when we all know it was done) and "nostrilman" (funny, but pointless) more claims of my wanting Socialism, and of course, we had to squeeze in the "limp wrist" comment, which no post here is complete without.

Good grief what is it with you people?

When American soldiers were fighting in Fallujah, an American political group, Code Pink, raised money to send to the other side.

Actively working to have soldiers of one's own country killed, is the opposite of patriotism. You may look up the word in the dictionary if you don't believe me.

Thus, it is fair to call such actions unpatriotic.

Favoring a law that would hamper domestic industry (while de facto favoring industries in competing economies which won't be affected by such regulations, such as in China), in the name of saving the environment, does not constitute patriotism.

At best, it constitutes environmentalism.

Opposition to such a law is not unpatriotic, by definition. It's un-'environmental', if it's anything.

The fact that you think it's okay to call our side unpatriotic for opposing a climate law, because your side were called unpatriotic for supporting enemies in a time of war, demonstrates quite clearly how little thought goes into leftist arguments.

Ah, and so now Brandeen is throwing a little temper tantrum. Unfortunately for him, the official LDS church excommunicates anyone who practices polygamy or takes a child bride.

Number of gay groups who have condemned bringing children to the outdoor orgy at Folsom Street Fair: 0

And then, there was the program in Massachusetts where adult gays led sex workshops for kids as young as 12.

So, unfortunately, the real world stubbornly refuses to conform to Brandeen's prejudices.

Buy more ammo and eat more animals!

So, while there is no proof positive, there is certainly a pile of circumstantial evidence that would support a reasonable conclusion that the gay community may be more tolerant of pedophilia than the straight community.

- The existence of NAMBLA
- The APA Study in which gay "researchers" attempted to assert that adult-child sex was not harmful and could be a positive experience.
- The Massachusetts sex workshops
- The presence of children dressed in fetish gear at Folsom Street Fair and the lack of gay condemnation thereof.
- Gay Hollywood director Victor Salva, still welcome in the community despite a conviction for child molesting.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 30, 2009 2:41 PM

Look folks, as usual its come down to personal attacks.

Um, that's what happens when you troll the internet buddy. No-one here likes you or is remotely interested in what you have to say. If we were, we'd be on democratic underground, not here. So like it or lump it (preferably option b)

My point was that as usual you've twisted someone's statement about "rooting" for or against something into treason.

Waxman didn't say rooting against *something.*

He said rooting against *America.*

Would you like to enlighten us with some other words besides 'treason' that describe the act of working against one's own country?

How you got there is confusing.

It's only confusing if one is, like you apparently are, a f*cking retard.

The one simple assertion I made — that this tactic has been used before by Republicans — was met with "show me proof!" (when we all know it was done)

Sure, it was done. It was done based on *facts.* John Murtha, for instance, accused U.S. Marines of rape and slaughter, without proof. Code Pink raised money to send to terrorists in Fallujah. The entire left has, since the start of the war in Iraq to the finish, maintaining that the war was for the purpose of stealing oil, that American soldiers were committing war crimes, that Bush lied to trick America into going to war.

Throughout the war the left claimed that establishing democracy was never a legitimate goal, that America had imperial aims - the left cheered when someone tried to kill Dick Cheney, and were only upset that the attempt failed.

The left's talking points throughout the war were solely negative - your side managed to create complaints with every single aspect of the entire war, even when fifty million people went to the polls to choose their own leaders for the first time in a generation.

Throughout the entire war the left's message was indistinguishable from that of al Qaeda and every other Islamic fundamentalist group: America went to war for oil, is committing war crimes, is butchering babies and innocent civilians, wants to set up an empire, went to war on a lie. Your rhetoric was so indistinguishable from the Islamic fundamentalists' that it's impossible to tell which of you said what first. Who knows how much support it gave people like bin Laden to know that his message against America was being repeated in America itself, by half the population?

And what was the upshot of it all?

America does not have a single new oil deal with Iraq. Chinese and European oil majors have so far signed oil deals there, and make up the bulk of the bidders for remaining contracts. America will as likely as not get zero oil whatsoever from Iraq.

Iraq is now stable enough that control is being handed back to its own forces, who are able to protect their democratically elected government. It is no longer divided along sectarian lines to an unsustainable degree, nor do fundamentalist or terrorist groups have sufficient support to thrive there.

The extremely small minority of American soldiers accused of crimes were tried, and those found guilty were punished.

In other words, every single claim the left made over the last six years, about every single aspect of the war, was demonstrably an utter lie.

The exact same lies were used throughout the war by people like bin Laden, right down to echoing the left's calls for Rumsfeld to resign. It's impossible to distinguish the rhetoric of leftist politicians and commentators from that of bin Laden and other Islamic extremists throughout the war. And all of it, every single last talking point, was an utter lie and has been proven to be so. We told you so at the time, we are telling you now; you probably still believe the antiwar rhetoric regardless of the evidence. So perhaps you could tell us if you can think of a reason we said some of you were unpatriotic.

...more claims of my wanting Socialism,

Prove that you don't.

and of course, we had to squeeze in the "limp wrist" comment, which no post here is complete without.

And? You weren't immediately provided with specific answers to your specific questions, so you're having a fricking cry? Did it occur to you that maybe people were simply posting about the topic of the thread, and that it's not all about you, and that no-one has to answer you or even read what you wrote if they don't feel like it? Get over yourself.

You could have just admitted that the tactic was used and moved on to make more important points,

Right, we could have just let you validate what you thought was your point by acknowledging your lame little throwaway line. But we didn't. Get over it. I'm answering you now, other people have answered you earlier in the thread.

but here we are again, with what you think about me being more important than making a point.

I assure you that none of us here spend any time whatsoever "think[ing] about [you]." Trolling a conservative site with worn-out old lefty talking points is hardly a fresh new schtick, it's a bit tedious to answer the same silliness that we've all heard a million times from leftists elsewhere. Why don't you go post on DU? You'd find heaps of friends there who would agree with you about how conservatives are evil hypocrites and were soooooo mean to call you unpatriotic when you accused your own country's soldiers of murdering babies with no proof.

Who I am isn't important.

That may be the truest thing you've said on here.

I certainly don't care who you are ... we are talking to make points clear and relevant to one another.

You're not trying to do that. You're trying to present a misleading argument with a false air of sincerity in order to completely derail the topic and obfuscate the crap that your side of the political aisle comes out with on a daily basis.

Case in point: The first thing you did on this thread was change the subject, away from the claim that opposition to a climate law is opposition to America, to "but yooooouuuu guyyyyss said we were unpatriotic toooooo so it's the same tactic."

At least that's what I hope for.

No you don't, you dishonest little shit.

So, to answer your question: I love the United States of America.

Then it seems you'd take offence to its politicians calling others unpatriotic, for opposing a law that will crush America's industries and economy, and favor China's. Just a thought.

That's why I'm here, talking to my fellow Americans, even though they want to call me a limp-wristed Communist.

You know, you could probably avoid that, by being less of a limp-wristed communist.

You can't take America away from me and claim it your own Jay. Quit it with your idiotic "you're not American" bull ... America is mine too, so step off!

Then why are you people trying to change it into western Europe?

Hell I'm not even American, and I love America more than any Democrat I've ever talked to.

You know what they say about love?

If you love someone, you don't try to change them into someone else, nor do you constantly criticise them and refuse to acknowledge their good points.

If you can't avoid that, then it probably wasn't meant to be. But hey, you can probably hook up with one of those foxy party girl states in western Europe with free gummint healthcare and wind turbines, I hear they're easy.

I see some moonbats wearing one of those CHE GUVERA T-Shirts well ide rather have one with a eagle on it

*slow clap for Mandible Claw*

mandle claw's post was like watching one of those tedious innercity dance movies, Anonymous: "You just got served!"

Bravo, Mandible Claw. That is what what I wish I could have written.

"No-one here likes you or is remotely interested in what you have to say. If we were,"

If you were, you'd spend an inordinate amount of time writing back?

"Bush lied to trick America into going to war."
You're getting it. It was never about Democracy, it was never about oil. The whole thing was to give a post 9-11 America the action it rightfully wanted. The public wanted a target for revenge, and so the administration gave us one. The wrong one.

"rooting against" is a far cry from "treason" like most of the things you folks post, you exaggerate just for the sake of making your readers more outraged. Keep stirring the pot with your mandible claw.

" support it gave people like bin Laden"
Again, that was Bush baby. He was in the Saudi's pocket the whole time. I won't belabor that one since we're light years apart on it.

"The first thing you did on this thread was..."
To make a fairly innocuous comment, that was short and to the point. That you're complaining about political tactics that you employ. Your point of view makes your use of it righteous to you, but to others they're just the same tactics for a different side. Talk about needing to get over yourself.

"Then it seems you'd take offence to its politicians calling others unpatriotic" I got so tired of the label being applied to me, maybe I think its fine now that the shoe is on the other foot. You try wearing it for a while and see how you like it. Apparently it isn't so great from the amount of grumbling I just read through.

^--
I feel dumber for reading that steaming pile.

Yeah, Bin Laden didn't exist until President Bush's election, and Bin Laden hadn't been living in Sudan/Afghanistan because he had been ousted by the Saudi Arabian government since the mid-nineties.

Another well informed troll I see, hey Anonymous why don't you just post
"BUSH LIED, SOLDIERS DIED" you putz.

It doesn't fit on a bumper sticker quite as well, but how about:

"Bush lied, made money off our enemies, gave our money to our enemies, and cost us thousands of lives"

Anonymous:
Or you could have one that really sums up how liberals feel about the military:

"BRING THE SOLDIERS HOME -- SO I CAN SPIT ON THEM"

dirtbag.

Thats a disgusting sentiment coming from a supposed patriot.

Not to mention a perfect example of the very thing I expressed at the beginning. You there V? You wanted proof of this sentiment? xantl has just provided an instance.

Wanting to bring the soldiers home and out of a wrong-headed war is to value them for their rightful use. If you want to spit on them, I'll definitely stand between you and them and take the loogie. The very least I can do since they're dodging bullets.

Sure, its Conservatives spitting on the troops, and sending money to terrorists in Fallujah, I bet they're also the ones bombing the recruitment centers, running ads in the paper calling a decorated general a liar, and telling people that soldiers are terrorizing families in iraq, I bet they call marines cold blooded killers before their trial.

Its your side. You own the issues and the fact you fake concern about soldiers, while your party and ideology treats the troops disgracefully, go suck a whole bag of dicks buddy no one here buys your feign concern.

to value them for their rightful use.

Like using them to deliver sacks of grain directly into the hands of Somali warlords? or having them bomb some people on behalf of Europe and the U.N? Perhaps have a few pilots risk their life to bomb Iraq, when it was a problem (for President Clinton)

"Sure, its Conservatives spitting on the troops"

I'd say sending them into this war was way, way worse than spitting on them. You sent them, and you keep touting Democracy as the reason. If Democracy sticks, then it is a wonderful thing, but I don't think anyone is foolish enough to think that its going to stick.

They aren't ready and they aren't willing. All we are doing is fostering further anti-American sentiment. You can't remake a culture into something the people do not understand or relate to.

Congrats! Your war has been so fruitful!

Yeah those people don't like freedom! we should have built them a jail and put them all in it. What a dumb douchebag you are.

Read up xantl, it won't last. They don't want what our country represents in their eyes. What you call "freedom" they call barbarism. We are free to do everything that they find despicable.

I'm surprised radical Muslims and American right-wingers didn't join hands earlier than the Bush administration. You guys have a ton in common.

Yes, they all hate freedom and the West just like Qatar, Jordan, Bahrain, UAE, kuwait and Lebanon.

I'm surprised that Al-Qaeda and the left haven't joined forces against America -- oh they did, with Code Pink.

Ah, and so now Brandeen is throwing a little temper tantrum. Unfortunately for him, the official LDS church excommunicates anyone who practices polygamy or takes a child bride.

V the K, you know these groups only distance themselves from their more extreme sides for political reasons.

Posted by: V the K at June 29, 2009 3:24 PM:

Is NAMBLA excluded from gay pride parades because all the barebackers and leathermen and drag queens are appalled by the immorality of sex with children? Or would it just be bad PR to include them?

Posted by: V the K at March 26, 2009 10:52 AM:

The reason NAMBLA is excluded from Gay Pride parades is strictly because of public relations, not because there's any moral outrage about them.

The prophet of the Mormons was a pervert who had a 14 year old wife.

The leader of the 10,000 member strong FLDS had a 12 year old wife.

You have to be blind not to see the great number of cases against Mormon pedophiles. The sickest part may be the claim that they are called to molest these children by god.

This isn't just a few cases here and there, these people have been led by example. Why else would the marriage age in Utah have been 14 for so long?

Just because they don't advertise their sick and twisted practices on a street in San Fransisco doesn't mean they don't participate in them in their secretive enclaves in the south west.

Things are so demented in Utah that even members of the legislature support pedophilia. The republican from Elberta said, "I would be opposed to raising the age, it's totally unecessary ... I can think of two or three of the best families I know that married when they were 15. So a young man or young woman makes a mistake, you're going to condemn the whole society?"

I'm sure NAMBLA would agree with him.

Posted by: Mongrul at June 30, 2009 7:27 PM

Moonbat post. Not me. Isn't there a way to police this crap?? Or do I need to feel honored to have a retard use my name to post brain dead bullshit??

"Congrats! Your war has been so fruitful!
"Posted by: Anonymous at July 1, 2009 12:49 PM"

No, we should congratulate YOU for SABOTAGING the war and keeping it going for years.

"I'm surprised radical Muslims and American right-wingers didn't join hands earlier than the Bush administration. You guys have a ton in common.
"Posted by: Anonymous at July 1, 2009 1:08 PM"

We find it strange that YOU LIBERALS have not joined US in fighting the muslims since you SUPPOSEDLY love gays and women, the people muslims routienly OPPRESS. Instead you SUPPORT muslims, so you Liberals must really HATE gays and women.

the muslims

that covers a lot of people, who have a lot of different beliefs and values.

I think each side has it's extremists. You've got the crazy right wingers, who want to kill all the Muslims, and you've got the crazy left wingers, who can't understand the need to fight the terrorists.

And I know people around here love to jump to assumptions, so I'll just clearly state that I'm not trying to say that KHarn wants to kill all the Muslims. The way he phrased things just reminded me of those who do.

"since you SUPPOSEDLY love ... you Liberals must really HATE"

Let's declare war against the right people is all I'm asking. In this case, its a particularly difficult target that doesn't come down to a country or a race. Its an ideology that spans religion, race and country lines.

I'm all for fighting the enemy. Let's kick their ass. But lets not invent an enemy out of someone because we can't identify the real target.

It was actually quite common for girls in the 19th Century to marry in their early teens; life expectancy was much shorter then.

A 19th century man who made a lifelong commitment to a teenage girl is way different than a 21st century gay serial predator preying on young boys.

And the FLDS group is no more Mormon than Sister Boom Boom and the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence are Roman Catholic.

But in his hate-filled "LDS = NAMBLA" Brandon amply demonstrates how the left is hate-filled, ignorant of history, and devoid of morality, perspective, or basic decency.

The difference between NAMBLA and the Mormon Church is that gays don't hate someone for being a member of NAMBLA.

I think you're missing the point V.

Give me 20 minutes and an internet connection, I can find a few examples that could paint any group to have an association with child molestation.

Give me a small army and a couple of decades, and then my best facts will be more compelling. For example I'm sure I could find an example of a Mormon telling kids something awful in the past decade, it might not be fisting, but I don't know what it would be.

Now, give me a group of people who have already predetermined that Mormons are filthy disgusting pigs, and let me present my 'evidence' of the child molestation association to them. It will fit right in with what they already think, so they will have little need to question it. (And I stress, give me at least a decade and the equivalent of the Family Research Council to find the worst (and most infrequent) facts, polish them, and fit them together.)

The problem is, you can't judge an entire group by its most extreme members, or the most extreme acts committed by those you associate with that group.

No, I see the point, Brandon; the point is you have to be fundamentally dishonest to make your argument.

But of the numerous gay advocacy groups ... HRC, NGLTF, P-FLAG, and gay media outlets like The Advocate, exactly none have condemned the sex workshop in Massachusetts and exactly none have condemned the presence of minors at the Folsom Street Fair. The fact is, a convicted pedophile like Victor Salva is welcome in the gay community and has no trouble finding work as a director in Hollywood.

But the Mormon church condemns pedophilia and polygamy under no uncertain terms, without equivocation.

Bwandon at June 30, 2009 5:47 PM- "As I said the onus is on the accusers to bring forth the proof supporting their accusation. There still is no evidence in the thread for the link between homosexuals and pedophiles or pederasts."

It is pretty straight forward. If a man (or rather, an excuse for one) engages in sex with a boy, he is a homo. Here's the evidence in an equation- male+male+sex= FAG. It follows that all pederasts, and all pedophiles who molest boys are homosexual.It doesn't matter what they say about who, or what else they gratify themselves with.
Man on boy molesters are queers. All of them. Poncing around with leftist academic weasel definitions doesn't change the bottom line one iota.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 1, 2009 11:00 AM

"No-one here likes you or is remotely interested in what you have to say. If we were,"

If you were, you'd spend an inordinate amount of time writing back?

It took me all of five minutes to write that. Don't project your illiteracy onto me.

"Bush lied to trick America into going to war."

You're getting it. It was never about Democracy, it was never about oil.

So why did your side spend the last six years shouting "no war for oil" ?

And why is Iraq now a democracy?

And why does the House Joint Resolution authorizing use of force against Iraq clearly state the following:

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

The whole thing was to give a post 9-11 America the action it rightfully wanted. The public wanted a target for revenge, and so the administration gave us one. The wrong one.

As nice as it is to have an admission that the left were only interested in revenge after 9/11, please don't presume to speak for the approx. half of "the public" that don't share your way of thinking.

The rest of "the public" (including those in my country who supported the war and the Armed Forces) wanted to negate the threat of further terrorism.

Remember how leftists supposedly believe terrorism is engendered by hopelessness, disenfranchisement, and bad government?

Well, that's what the half of "the public" that thinks beyone emotive knee-jerk responses set out to change, and succeeded.

As for your concept of the war being a failure, you are aware that sovereignty is being handed back to Iraqis as we speak, as they are now capable of protecting their own democracy from the fundamentalists and terrorists who worked so hard to prevent them from ever having one... Right?

"rooting against" is a far cry from "treason"

Please explain how.

like most of the things you folks post, you exaggerate just for the sake of making your readers more outraged. Keep stirring the pot with your mandible claw.

Invest in a dictionary.

" support it gave people like bin Laden"
Again, that was Bush baby.

Was this support given before, during or after Bush's massive military operation to destroy bin Laden's network?

He was in the Saudi's pocket the whole time. I won't belabor that one since we're light years apart on it.

We certainly are, just not in the way you think we are. (By the way, I watched Fahrenheit 9/11 when it came out too. In fact I've seen it several times.)

"The first thing you did on this thread was..."
To make a fairly innocuous comment, that was short and to the point.

Sure. But the point that it was 'to', was deflecting the argument into something unrelated to the topic of the thread.

That you're complaining about political tactics that you employ.

Um no, not quite. We are complaining about deliberately misusing a concept to smear opponents. That's not the same as using the term it in its correct context. I thought I'd explained all that in some detail in the previous post, but I guess it went over your head.

Your point of view makes your use of it righteous to you,

No, the dictionary makes our use of it the correct one.

...but to others they're just the same tactics for a different side.

I'm well aware of the left's penchant for moral equivalency. That doesn't make anything you've said any more accurate, however. Again, invest in a dictionary.

"Then it seems you'd take offence to its politicians calling others unpatriotic" I got so tired of the label being applied to me, maybe I think its fine now that the shoe is on the other foot.

Riiiiight. A couple of points: perhaps, if you didn't want the label to be applied to you, you should have stopped saying things like "we're at war because Bush is in the pockets of the Saudis and American soldiers are killing babies." That might have helped. Secondly, if someone suffers from something being inflicted on them, the general reaction of a well-adjusted human would be to *not* wish others to suffer the same thing.

All of which is moot, of course, since the point is that Waxman is deliberately misusing the concept of 'rooting' for or against one's own country, to apply to a climate law that imposes higher taxes on industry.

You try wearing it for a while and see how you like it.

You know what? If I found myself going around spouting about how Australian soldiers were murdering babies for oil, with no evidence whatsoever let alone proof, I'd probably expect Australians to call me traitorous.

Apparently it isn't so great from the amount of grumbling I just read through.

Hm, okay, let's see if we can break this concept down a little more simply for you.

The left behaving in a treasonous fashion for six years, including giving financial and moral support to people that America is fighting against in a war, is indeed treachery, or treason if you will. It is, in fact, the exact definition of the word.

Opposing a law that imposes higher taxes on American industries, in order to limit the amount of carbon being emitted, is not treason. Nor, by definition, is supporting such a law patriotism.

You may confirm this in any dictionary. They are freely available at most libraries and bookstores, or even on the internet.

Read up xantl, it won't last. They don't want what our country represents in their eyes.

Like you would know. When was the last time you traveled to a Muslim country? Are you implying that Arabs, or Muslims, or both, would choose to live under a despotic regime and have no say in the running of their country?

What is it that makes you believe something so stunningly bigoted and condescending?

And how do you reconcile that belief with the fact that, when the despotic, tyrannical regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq were removed, the people of those countries have chosen to incorporate more aspects of free societies into their lives than they previously were able to?

What you call "freedom" they call barbarism.

What on earth makes you think you are qualified to know such a thing? You are ludicrous.

We are free to do everything that they find despicable.

That must be why so many Iraqis were so upset when Saddam Hussein was removed from power, then. Oh, and it must also explain why there is so little emigration from Muslim and Arab countries to the west.

I'm surprised radical Muslims and American right-wingers didn't join hands earlier than the Bush administration. You guys have a ton in common.

Lay off the drugs, dumbass.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 1, 2009 12:49 PM

I'd say sending [the troops] into this war was way, way worse than spitting on them.

You would be wrong. You see, America has what is known as a volunteer armed forces, as do its allies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

People who are in those armed forces are there because they have chosen to be there. It's not like they thought they were signing up to paint houses or something.

Being sent to war is, in fact, what soldiers do.

It's kind of the *point,* if you will, of being a soldier in the first place. The two concepts are quite difficult to separate from one another.

Perhaps you should speak to some actual soldiers, as opposed to the headcases who post on democratic underground about how they were forced into signing up for the volunteer armed forces that were fighting in Iraq, and then against all logic and reason, were sent to fight in Iraq with the armed forces, that they signed up for, which were fighting in Iraq, and how all of this means Bush is a war criminal.

Try talking to the other 99.9999% of veterans who don't pretend they didn't know what they were getting into, and are proud to have served their country and to have done their part to bring democracy to oppressed people.

You could try asking this guy. Or you could ask this guy, from my own country. Or, to be honest, you could go to pretty much most military blogs or message boards and ask any of the vets there.

Spitting on a soldier of one's own country, for the act of fighting the spread of communism across the world, which is when the concept of spitting on soldiers first became prominent in America, is an incredible show of disrespect and could be, in fact, thought to be treason.

You sent them, and you keep touting Democracy as the reason. If Democracy sticks, then it is a wonderful thing, but I don't think anyone is foolish enough to think that its going to stick.

You also were too smart to be duped into thinking democracy would ever be established in Iraq in the first place. "Those people" don't like stuff like freedom and ability to choose their leaders, you see. To them, democratic elections are just as barbaric as chopping off infidels' heads are to Americans (well, maybe not those right winger types.)

Yup, it was all going so well for your side for a while there, right up until there was that small setback of the free and fair democratic elections, and forming of a democratic government, and powersharing, and overcoming of sectarian tensions, and whatnot.

But hey, I guess if down the track it all goes to pot, and the Iraqis no longer have freedom to choose their own leaders, and their sects start murdering one another again, and it turns out that thousands of Iraqis, Americans, and their allies all died in vain, it'll all be worth it. Because you will have been right! Hooray!!!

They aren't ready and they aren't willing.

Hm. It's a little strange that "they" have already held free and fair elections, with high voter turnout despite security threats, and formed working governments, and started reviving their economies, and so forth.

But hey maybe on some metaphsyical level you're actually correct and 'they' are just playing along so no more Marines kill their babies and Bush doesn't steal their oil and collaborate with his friend and life partner bin Laden. Or something. I kinda lost track of what your argument was supposed to be somewhere along the track there.

All we are doing is fostering further anti-American sentiment. You can't remake a culture into something the people do not understand or relate to.

You fucking racist piece of shit. I try to stay away from obsessive profanity but sorry, there's not really any other effective way I can describe someone who would express such an opinion.

Congrats! Your war has been so fruitful!

Yup. 50 million people who haven't known freedom in decades chose their own leaders in free and fair elections, and enjoy freedoms they haven't had in a lifetime, in a region where many people thought democracy could never succeed, all thanks to the US and its friends and allies.

Oh, and what has the political left accomplished recently?

Oh that's right you nationalized some banks and car companies, and spent a trillion dollars on absolutely nothing.

Oh, and you just said that Muslim Arabs can't understand freedom and democracy, which I guess is about equal to risking one's own life to provide Muslim Arabs with freedom and democracy.

So shall we just call it a tie, then?

I try to stay away from obsessive profanity

EXcessive profanity. Ugh.