Al Franken...is this for real?

[sugarpop]

Well, maybe it's just because I agree with you then. At least you always back up what you say. Maybe that's what I meant.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Actually, Redux seems to the voice of reason.

Originally Posted by sugarpop

maybe it's just because I agree with (him).

Hmm........... ya think?

[TheMercenary]

Sort of stating the obvious there.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Redux

Yep...I am partisan.....never denied it.

Is that your best defense of the failed neo-con policies or are you running away from that discussion now?

Now hold on there, son... there's been a lot of smugness and BS thrown around the nation about "failed neo-con policies" and I look around me and I don't see any failure except failure to adhere to left-wing lunacies. That adds up to successes.

The Left and the Democrats manifestly wouldn't have won the war. Sadly, they haven't the gumption even to try -- or at least they did not for the greater part of the Bush Administration. They are still manifesting the same bad habits nowadays.

Which means the Republicans are back in in 2012 or before -- in the mid-terms -- to try and fix the mess the Dem Party's myopia and irresolution has left.

Any example of so-called failures will boil down to "offends the left-liberals." Offending the left-liberals has a real tendency to benefit the Republic, as the left-liberals are generally economic illiterates and pretty much incapable of correctly identifying a national enemy, for two big reasons I'm not one. Of course, the beneficial effects of offending and marginalizing the hard Left are obvious, and so large as to be almost incalculable.

If I take my time replying to something, it's because I'm giving it thought, and the only difference it makes is I've given you a chance to sneer, and to pooh-pooh, and generally to be shallow, in accordance with the brummagem values so beloved of the left of center. You wanted linked material, and I said okay, fair enough -- and I'm sifting through what I find to filter out the idiot stuff that I wouldn't trust or be swayed by either.

Smugness and BS?
Look in the mirror, dude.

Filtering out idiot stuff?
You sure didnt filter out this one in our discussion about illegal or unethical acts of the Bush DoJ v the Clinton DoJ while in office:

One of your links about Reno.
Quote:
...Thompson also quotes John Gigliotti (from Pat Robertson's security detail) who says Michael Eppinger, an alleged organized crime figure in Miami supposedly has a video of Reno at a sex orgy...
http://www.laborers.org/NorCal_Reno.html
So person A quotes person B who alleges that person C is an organized crime figure who supposedly has a video of Reno at a sexy orgy....among other allegations.

Or this one....Janet Reno Uses Call Girls

Now thats really getting at the truth!

Idiot stuff, dude.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Hey, so no proof will ever suffice for you? That tells everyone just how honest Redux is or will be. Clinton got your vote at least once? What a shame. He never got mine. The Democrats just haven't been good enough.

That's okay, though. I'll just keep on finding the Dem perfidy recorded on the net, and for months. Plenty of material there. And of course there are the paper sources too: you know, inflammatory tabloids such as National Review, American Spectator, and The Weekly Standard.

Do you know anybody who's fucked Janet Reno long enough or often enough to say for sure she's heterosexual? Any-sexual? I can't think of anyone who could tell me, either. How can you be so sure Persons A, B, and C didn't have something there? Seems more like your prejudices are speaking than your thought.

Two kinds of Democrats really impress me these days, the present rector of my church excepted. Those Democrats in uniform is one. The other one is Joe Lieberman. The rest of the national Democratic Party leadership just makes me shake my head. That ain't how you get votes or campaign contributions.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Hey, so no proof will ever suffice for you? That tells everyone just how honest Redux is or will be. Clinton got your vote at least once? What a shame. He never got mine. The Democrats just haven't been good enough.

I give you 4-5 internal DoJ memos that found illegal acts or acts in violation of agency policy by Bush DoJ officials...the latest being the DoJ Office of Professional Responsibility report (to be made public in the next few weeks) that reportedly says the DoJ attorneys who wrote the torture memos may have deliberately slanted their legal advice to provide the White House with the conclusions it wanted....and if so, could be subject to disbarment.

And you give me sites about Reno and dancing girls....and absolutely no proof or even allegation of any illegal acts or wrongdoing by Reno (or any DoJ staff) while in office.

Instead, you want to focus on allegations of Reno's sexuality...wtf?

Proof? I expect better from a smart guy like you. The fact that you would even defend those links of yours says it all.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Hey, so no proof will ever suffice for you? That tells everyone just how honest Redux is or will be. Clinton got your vote at least once? What a shame. He never got mine. The Democrats just haven't been good enough.

That's okay, though. I'll just keep on finding the Dem perfidy recorded on the net, and for months. Plenty of material there. And of course there are the paper sources too: you know, inflammatory tabloids such as National Review, American Spectator, and The Weekly Standard.

Do you know anybody who's fucked Janet Reno long enough or often enough to say for sure she's heterosexual? Any-sexual? I can't think of anyone who could tell me, either. How can you be so sure Persons A, B, and C didn't have something there? Seems more like your prejudices are speaking than your thought.

Two kinds of Democrats really impress me these days, the present rector of my church excepted. Those Democrats in uniform is one. The other one is Joe Lieberman. The rest of the national Democratic Party leadership just makes me shake my head. That ain't how you get votes or campaign contributions.

1. Who gives a shit about Janet Reno? Unless you are able to show that she's finally being arrested for Waco, nobody cares.

2. Nice "concern troll". The votes and the campaign contributions seem to be doing just fine for the dems. Why should they take advice from losers?

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Now hold on there, son... there's been a lot of smugness and BS thrown around the nation about "failed neo-con policies" and I look around me and I don't see any failure except failure to adhere to left-wing lunacies. That adds up to successes.

The Left and the Democrats manifestly wouldn't have won the war. Sadly, they haven't the gumption even to try -- or at least they did not for the greater part of the Bush Administration. They are still manifesting the same bad habits nowadays.

Which means the Republicans are back in in 2012 or before -- in the mid-terms -- to try and fix the mess the Dem Party's myopia and irresolution has left.

Any example of so-called failures will boil down to "offends the left-liberals." Offending the left-liberals has a real tendency to benefit the Republic, as the left-liberals are generally economic illiterates and pretty much incapable of correctly identifying a national enemy, for two big reasons I'm not one. Of course, the beneficial effects of offending and marginalizing the hard Left are obvious, and so large as to be almost incalculable.

If I take my time replying to something, it's because I'm giving it thought, and the only difference it makes is I've given you a chance to sneer, and to pooh-pooh, and generally to be shallow, in accordance with the brummagem values so beloved of the left of center. You wanted linked material, and I said okay, fair enough -- and I'm sifting through what I find to filter out the idiot stuff that I wouldn't trust or be swayed by either.

Thanks to Bush and his cronies, Pakistan is now in very real danger of being taken over by the Taliban and al Qaeda, because they just had to go fight in a country that didn't attack us and wasn't a real threat to us, instead of keeping their eye on the ball where it needed to be and going after the people who DID. In addition, because they chose to not secure the borders, Mexico is also very unstable and there is a possibilty of collapse there. So tell us again how Bush kept us so safe? If the Pakistani government falls, the entire region will destabalize, OR if Mexico collapses, we will be in serious trouble, and that is on the head of the Bush administration.

[TheMercenary]

The sooner we invade and make Mexico our 51st the better.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

The sooner we invade and make Mexico our 51st the better.

HAW HAW!

America can't even hold down an area the size of California. Don't get bigger than your britches, kid.

[classicman]

But think of the areas to exploit, the drug revenues and the cheap labor...

You realize its your fault for not getting the damn concrete for the wall, right?

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by classicman

But think of the areas to exploit, the drug revenues and the cheap labor...

You realize its your fault for not getting the damn concrete for the wall, right?

I did that on purpose.

Because I hate America, and love terrorist illegal aliens.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by TGRR

I did that on purpose.

Because I hate America, and love terrorist illegal aliens.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by TGRR

I did that on purpose.

Because I hate America, and love terrorist illegal aliens.

You're in good company with tw then.