Even when they lose they win! AKA frances busby..

"I feel like I'm winning when I'm losing again" - Gordon Lightfoot, "Sundown", 1974

We'll see what happens in the fall. Here's to a civil, pleasant campaign season! Fuckin' wingnuts! =)

Oh the times, they are a-changin'...

Bemused you are completely deluded...America does not want what you preach.

The loony left will never learn because they are by nature unhinged from reality

What a great song Kirktoe and ohh so appropriate for the leftards.

"Rainy day people" Gordon Lightfoot 1975

With Murtha threatening to take the leadership they may win an election or two in France, or maybe Hugo is looking for a VP.

The 12 steps of Liberals Anonymous

1.) We admitted we were powerless over liberalism -- that our lives had become unmanageable.

2.) Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.

3.) Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understand Him.

4.) Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.

5.) Admitted to God, to ourselves and to another human being the exact nature of our liberal beliefs.

6.) We are entirely ready to have God remove all these liberal defects of character.

7.) Humbly asked Him to remove our liberal shortcomings.

8.) Made a list of all military persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.

9.) Made direct amends to troops wherever possible.

10.) Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.

11.) Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.

12.) Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to liberals, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

Delicious

Despite the popularity of anti-Americanism in Democratic circles and primaries, it is a much harder sell in the general elections.

I know, we should keep up with the Republicans because things have gotten really really great lately. The War is won, wages are up, the country isn't bitterly divided, Congress is tackling important issues, and up is down.

Did Byron York ever pull a boner.....

He wrote: " but 2004 was the year in which the DemocratIC presidential nominee..."

He forgot the wingnut vow to never use Democrat w/ "ic."

How long before York is tossed overboard by you crazies?

Jp2 - Hmmm?...lets see, employment is at 4.6%, Zarquawi killed,
Congress is tacking big issues...like Immigration, and the country
is divided...but do you really think if Al Bore or JFK were president that it wouldn't be? Come on? It would be more divided than it is now.

Michael

You've got to be kidding....

Bush campaign promise during the 2000 campaign: "It doesn't have to be the way it is in Washington. We need a uniter, not a divider, somebody who will bring us together and lead this nation to a better tomorrow."

What lying crap!

No President in memory has created this degree of division in the US save possibly Nixon. No President has had poll numbers like Bush where essentially his only support comes from the extreme right in this country. Look at the wrong track/right track poll results in any poll you choose.

PS Zarqawi's death, while deserved and long overdue, is hardly a Bush accomplishment. Hell, Bush & his NSC debated to death and then squelched 3 seperate opportunities prior to his Iraqi war to get rid of Zarqawi at his camp in the NE of Iraq before Zarqawi had had a chance to unleash his bloody campaign on Iraqi's or our forces.

The funniest thing about moonbat idiots like mak44 is that they really and truly believe what they say.

There is some serious pathology going on there . . .

Re; Byron York who wrote about Paul Hackett:

"What's more, some of them lost in part because they said the kind of things that bring cheers on the DailyKos but that turn off many voters. Hackett...said...'the Republican party has been hijacked by the religious fanatics that, in my opinion, aren't a whole lot different from Osama bin Laden.'"

I live in Dogpatch (Cincinnati) where Jean Schmidt is from and I can affirm that both districts in this DEPRAVED neck of the woods are so extreme Right Wing that the local Republican HQ is actually out on another planet.

That Hackett came as close as he did to defeating the dinosaur Schmidt was remarkable in itself.

And with such prominent party members as Dobson, Robertson, the pimmply Ralph Reed and Foulwell, the GOP has been hijacked by the End of Days-ers.

Dogpatch may not be the buckle on the Bible Belt but for certain it's the first hole.

Adjoran

Just FYI

Some ridiculous fool has been making asshole posts on here, using your name, that make you look like a retarded Turd.

Lorrie you can tell them all you want they either won't believe you or just ignore you. Witness Mak44,I rest my case.

Oh and Jp2 would just pretend that nothing was said,and just continue with his stupidity. Keep at it though Lorie because the sane appriciate you.

Dimo's don't lie...please!

Quote (by mak44):
"No President has had poll numbers like Bush where essentially his only support comes from the extreme right in this country."

You are, of course, talking out of your ass.

Current approval numbers for Bush hover in the low 30s. Here are the low water marks for presidents from Lyndon Johnson through Bill Clinton:

Johnson: 35%
Nixon: 24%
Ford: 37%
Carter: 28%
Reagan: 35%
Bush I: 29%
Clinton: 37%

And with such prominent party members as Dobson, Robertson, the pimmply Ralph Reed and Foulwell, the GOP has been hijacked by the End of Days-ers.

So who hijacked the DNC if not Dean, Gore, Kerry, radical environmentalists, and anti-Americanists.

Both parties are controlled to a large degree by extremists simply because such people have strong beliefs along with the willingness to enter the fray and donate their time and money to bring about the government they believe supports their beliefs.

The vast majority of voters really don't give a s*it which party is in power as long as they feel secure in their job, their kids are getting an education and necessities such as food, housing, medicine and energy are affordable. When either party fails to preserve that standard of living, then the apathy index of voters drops precipitously.

Hurricanes are good for the party out of power as are high energy prices. It could be the Republicans will be blown out of office this November by hurricane winds, but not by ideas or leadership from the DNC.

The dimo's are not returning power this fall or anytime soon. Not
until the party as a whole returns to the middle. The fact of the
matter is that they are no longer seen as a "acceptable alternative".

mak44,

• We weren't the ones who mistook a bug for a feature during the 2000 election, then completely freaked out...
• We weren't the ones who were shocked, shocked when Bush actually tried to implement the agenda he was elected on.
• We weren't the ones who blamed AMERICA for the actions of 20 muslim killtards.
• We weren't the ones who lied about Bush lying about the rationale for the Great Iraqi Liberation™
• We weren't the ones who confused Bush with one of History's biggest monsters.
• We weren't the ones who confessed that they hate America and everything it stands for.
• We weren't the ones who put reacquiring political power above winning a war.

What you have is called "projection". You need real psychological help. I'll pray for you tonight...

mak44 "No President in memory has created this degree of division in the US"

to add to PSGinfinity's dismanteling of your outrageous nonsense...

No LOSING candidate in history has refused to concede...conceded...UN-conceded...kinda RE-conceded...and then spent EVERY WAKING MOMENT for 6 years claiming they were robbed!! Nixon (you brought him up) actually WAS robbed in the 1960 election, but did NOT contest it because he felt it would (surprise) divide the nation! (p.s. this statement stopped being true when KERRY did the same damn thing Gore did...and he continues to claim the election was stolen!!)

No out of power Party in history has made it their SOLE PURPOSE to oppose EVERYTHING the other Party does...and propose ZERO alternatives. In fact Nancy Pelosi made "NO!" the official position of the Democratic Party.

No other political Party in history has staked its entire future on its loudly proclaimed VICTIM STATUS...and attempted to accumulate (or create) as many "victim" classes as possible to solidy a base in constant outrage.

In short, it takes TWO to tango. The Dims are committed to keeping as many wounds as possible open as long as possible.

Well, on the bright side for the young left, there are only 2.5 years remaining in this presidency.

Furthermore, a large percentage of them actually will be {gulp} voting Republican! -- 15-20 years from now.

Cool site, BTW.

PSGinfinity

In your post, you slobbered:

"We weren't the ones who confessed that they hate America and everything it stands for"

This is absurd, and if you don't know it, then it reflects just how deranged your mind is. This is the typical kind of unsubtiated snotty remark that you extremists make all the time on this blogsite and others. You couldn't prove this absurdity if your life depended on it. But the statement of yours is about the same as the Bitch of Bile, Ann coulter would make.

Further: "We weren't the ones who put reacquiring political power above winning a war."

Perhaps not, but you are the ones, under Rove's engineering, who used over 1000 American lives lost in a war of choice to retain political power in November of 2004 w/ the boast that only Republicans can keep America safe. Since then you have taken the toll to nearly 2500 because you have no answert to save American lives due to the war Bush started and now has no way to end w/out leaving the Middle East in a state of catastrophe. As the only man w/ an ounce of sense in this, the worst administration in American history, Colin Powell said, "You break it, yopu own it." That's the kind of warning a parent typically has to give to a rambunctious child, not someone even limitedly qualified to be president.

And further: "We weren't the ones who lied about Bush lying about the rationale for the Great Iraqi Liberation"

You couldn't prove that Bush didn't lie if for no other reason that you can't prove a negative, altho I am sure some of you etremists think you've done just that most of the time.

If Bush didn't lie about the war, then he is a retard for being dumb enough to listen to his war-mongering passle of neo-cons from the AEI think tank that the damn fool loaded his administration with.

And if you go to the Vanity Fair article, it is pretty clear that someone was lying or doing his devious best to use the Niger yellowcake BS over and over again as Bush and Der Cheney did. If this wasn't one of many lies then it was contemptably stupid and reflects a leader unfit & unqualified to hold office.

JJ -- I miss you terribly and so do many others. Thanks so much for stopping by.

Mak44 - do you think anyone pays any attention to your absurd posts?

mak44,

I have a linkfest for you, assuming it gets approved. Suffice it to say that your reply didn't impress me...

PSGinfinity

Bring it on

Mak44: If Bush didn't lie about the war, then he is a retard for being dumb enough to listen to his war-mongering passle of neo-cons from the AEI think tank that the damn fool loaded his administration with.

==========================================

Did I miss something or were the neo-cons also advising Preisdent Clinton when the policy of his administration was a regime change in Iraq? Perhaps you should do a little bit of investigation before just ranting. Like reading Clinton's 1998 speech where he warned of Saddam getting nuclear weapons. The difference between Bush and Clinton is that Bush is about more than just words.

You are typical of most liberals. Nothing ever happened prior to 5 minutes ago. That strategy worked pretty well 20 years ago when there were no alternative news sources. But these days Americans are becoming more educated by the day and see through this tissues of lies that you leftist keep spouting.

And as far as your comments about Bush dividing the country, that's what happens when Presidents LEAD and don't FOLLOW (i.e. Clinton). When you actively pursue your agenda, you're going to anger people (sometimes even those in your own party). Leadership is not easy. But those who do lead are judged to be a success thru the eyes of history. That's why Bill Clinton will just be a footnote in the history textbooks 100 years from now.

But the main reason the country is divided is because of the war on terror. One side is engaged in stamping it out while the other is engaged in simply stamping their feet in protest.

No President in memory has created this degree of division in the US save possibly Nixon.

Yes, it's ALL Bush's fault. God knows the left gave him even the tiniest chance.

No President has had poll numbers like Bush where essentially his only support comes from the extreme right in this country.

Truman did.

PS Zarqawi's death, while deserved and long overdue, is hardly a Bush accomplishment. Hell, Bush & his NSC debated to death and then squelched 3 seperate opportunities prior to his Iraqi war to get rid of Zarqawi at his camp in the NE of Iraq before Zarqawi had had a chance to unleash his bloody campaign on Iraqi's or our forces.,/b>

Yet, somehow, mentioning Clinton's refusal to get OBL for years before 9/11 is "mean".

Both parties are controlled to a large degree by extremists simply because such people have strong beliefs along with the willingness to enter the fray and donate their time and money to bring about the government they believe supports their beliefs.

I actually disagree. What influence does Robertson have in the GOP? Falwell? Reed?

Perhaps not, but you are the ones, under Rove's engineering, who used over 1000 American lives lost in a war of choice to retain political power in November of 2004 w/ the boast that only Republicans can keep America safe.

Seeing as how the Iraq War was the only thing that kept Kerry close --- please let me know how Iraq helped Bush in 2004. I'm curious.

And if you go to the Vanity Fair article, it is pretty clear that someone was lying or doing his devious best to use the Niger yellowcake BS over and over again as Bush and Der Cheney did. If this wasn't one of many lies then it was contemptably stupid and reflects a leader unfit & unqualified to hold office.,/b>

Forgive me if I don't take Vanity Fair seriously.
-=Mike

Kirktoe,

That post no doubt has left little Mak choking on his tongue. Choke em with the truth backed up by the facts. Only the loony left make a living making asses of themselves trying to convince you if you jump in swimming pool you won't get wet. Don't ever change losers.

Mak44 said:

"No President in memory has created this degree of division in the US save possibly Nixon."

Nixon, yes... the man who every president that came after him consulted with repeatedly, at first in secret and then openly, right up until his death. Why do you suppose they did such a thing?

Ideally, we'd have unity rather than division, but if doing the right thing causes division because the clueless, spineless, gonad-less portion of society doesn't like it, so be it.

mak44:

If 2500 American lives makes President Bush a bad president, then what does the 50,000 KIA's in VietNam make Kennedy/Johnson?

USMC Pilot

You forgot to attribute 50% of the VN death toll to Nixon. Remember, USMC, he's the one who had a plan in 1968 to end the VN war; it went on for another 6 years before he basically cut & run. Tricky Dick could have done the same thing in Jan 1989 and saved 27000 American lives.

Not sure who said this first:
"No President has had poll numbers like Bush where essentially his only support comes from the extreme right in this country."

Maybe that is true, but it looks to me as if Bush has lost some ground with the extreme right (over issues such as "amnesty" and Bush's habit of spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave), and Bush has also lost ground with Republican centrists, those "ex-democrat" baby boomers who moved right as they matured and outgrew their youthful idealism, and now are having difficulty sleeping at night over that decision.

Those who remain in Bush's camp are those who would stick by the guy if he murdered babies on national television. They are the one you see here on Whizbang! who don't even read a comment (or read it quickly but not understand it) and then just knee-jerk react to any criticisms of the right, firing back with arguments that are nonsense, and repeating lies, misquoting sources, and taking every opportunity to spin the news in favor of Bush.

They would, for example, claim that in this comment that I accused Bush of murdering babies. It appears that, in some cases at least, they harbor a hatred of the left that is so deep they must have problems with their blood pressure as a result. They are Bush's core, and won't leave his side no matter what he does.

JJYou posted: "Well, on the bright side for the young left, there are only 2.5 years remaining in this presidency.

Furthermore, a large percentage of them actually will be {gulp} voting Republican! -- 15-20 years from now."

JJ, generally speaking, the onset of Alzheimer's disease typically takes a lot more than 10 to 15 years. You'll just have to wait longer for the ripening of thos GOP voters.

Lee and Mak,

Do you two dopes ever tire of being complete morons and cry babies? Democrats are complete frauds and liars and they couldn't pay enough fools like you to lie enough to change their current and deserved position in the complete MINORITY. Telling the truth just might do your party some good , NAAA I DOUBT IT. Carry on losers.

Actually Lee the baby killers are in Your party, yknow abortionists..

Why do We have to wait for new voters? were winning now!

By the way Gore lied and Kerry tried..

This is why we believe everything you say, you Libs:

The Left Promotes Assertions That Turn Out to Be False
By John Leo

Writing in Rolling Stone, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. assures us that the 2004 presidential election was stolen. This popular conspiracy theory has attracted many Democrats, from the clearly unbalanced to John Kerry himself. (Professor and activist Mark Crispin Miller of NYU says Kerry told him he believes the election was stolen.)

Kennedy thinks it's fishy that the recorded vote didn't match the exit polls in four battleground states where Kerry was supposedly ahead. He also thinks the Republicans discouraged voters by creating long lines at voting stations in heavily Democratic areas. But bitter surmise isn't proof. And according to a long and detailed analysis on Salon.com -- no hotbed of Republican thought -- the evidence Kennedy cites isn't new, and his argument is filled with distortions and the deliberate omission of key data.

Why would Kennedy damage his credibility this way? This may not be breaking news, but if an assertion reflects a widely shared emotion, it can make great headway in this culture without any need to prove its truth. We have been through this many times. The 2000 election was allegedly stolen, though no credible investigation backed up the claim, not even the one by the Civil Rights Commission, which was then firmly in Democratic hands.

The Katrina theory that blacks died because of racism wasn't true, but it fit both the emotions and the beliefs of the political and media establishments. The Duke rape case also unfolded along the lines of conventional liberal beliefs about privileged whites and allegedly dumb jocks. The leadership at Duke should be ashamed. As the facts emerge, ever so slowly, it is becoming apparent that the prosecutor should be disciplined for his shocking behavior.

Assertion doesn't always beat facts, but it happens a lot. For example, many of President Bush's detractors are saying that his argument for keeping troops in Iraq -- to achieve a democratic transformation -- is a new rationale meant to distract from the missing WMDs. The New York Times made that charge in an editorial on April 27. But it isn't true. Bush listed democratic transformation in Iraq as one of his aims before the war, as the Times acknowledged in an editorial on Feb. 27, 2003. Distilling the president's various arguments on Iraq down to the one on which a lot of people think they were snookered -- the WMDs -- is a distortion, but it accurately expresses a popular feeling, so who cares if it isn't so? Not the Times, apparently.

Some fact-free assertion still fails. For a while, many people seemed to believe (wanted to believe) that abortions in the United States rose 25 percent after Bush was elected in 2000. Howard Dean was sure of it. Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, too. But no, facts unexpectedly intruded. Abortion continued to decline, albeit slightly, during the Bush years. And lots of people seemed certain that anti-Bush voters would flock to Canada after the 2004 vote. Despite the many predictions ("Canada Awaits American Influx," was one headline), the expected stampede turned out to be a trickle. U.S. migration to Canada declined in the six months after Bush won.

With a big boost from the news media, assertion managed to topple Larry Summers at Harvard. Some reporting mangled Larry Summers' controversial comments on women and science. A headline in The Washington Post magazine said, in part, "When Harvard's president questioned the scientific aptitude of girls ..." But Summers didn't say that the best women couldn't achieve at the level of the best men. He said that there are more males than females at the very top, "about five-to-one at the high end," which is roughly what the research shows. The bell-shaped curve for the distribution of intelligence is flatter for males than for females; there are more very bright males at the top and more very dull males at the bottom.

Discussing this evidence is a no-no at Harvard, so Summers would have been driven out even if he had been understood and quoted correctly. But he was ousted by yet another fact-free assertion -- that he had somehow demeaned women. He hadn't, but the strategy of his detractors worked. Summers apologized and then quit for hurting some people's feelings. That's what happens when emotions are allowed to beat facts.

And, Mr. Leo is a registered Democrat, albeit one of the few with any damn sense.

God bless him.

Mak

Time to throw out the Pavlovian puppy smears!

"Those who remain in Bush's camp are those who would stick by the guy if he murdered babies on national television. They are the one you see here on Whizbang! who don't even read a comment (or read it quickly but not understand it) and then just knee-jerk react to any criticisms of the right, firing back with arguments that are nonsense, and repeating lies, misquoting sources, and taking every opportunity to spin the news in favor of Bush."

Yada, yada, yada. Not only do we read the comments, our argumets are backed up with FACTS. Just because you refuse to let reality intrude on your fenced in world doesn't make them lies or mistortions. The fact of the matter is that you are the ones who rely on facts and distortions and you are angry because more and more of the population is learning the truth - and it ain't from you.

Examples of the left's lies:

- the CBS forged documents in 2004

- the whole Valerie Flame affair which we were told by you guys involved outing a covert agent yet even the DA wasn't sure she was covert at the time and led to one indictment of purgury (which has nothing to do with the original reason for the Grand Jury). By the way, wasn't Karl Rove supposed to be indicted 3 weeks ago? Still waiting on that one.

- The NSA program is "listening in" on millions of average Americans (this one is pariticularly stupid when you think about what it would involve to do that)

- The my latest favorite: Bush should have gotten Zarqawi in 2002; Really????? I thought we "CREATED" Zarqawi when we invaded Iraq - that's what we hear all the time - Al Qaeda was NEVER in Iraq before 2003 (never, ever, never); so how could Bush have gotten a guy that didn't yet "exist" as a major terrorist. Maybe someone on the left can answer that one.

- Bush lied to get us into the Iraq war (over the WMD issue) - if you read the actual resolution for the Iraq war (which I have), going into Iraq because they had WMD's was near the bottom of the list.

I could go on and on but frankly I've got things I need to do today.

Suffice it to say that reading what liberals say makes me feel more secure that they will not win this fall. The American people will reject their message of lies and pessimism.

Kirktoe; also that same report that the LLL is using to say Bush refused to take out the late departed scumbag, also said he was running a WMD camp manufacturing ricen and serin gas.there goes their argument that no WMD existed in Iraq. these idiot pose arguments that contrdict their other arguments. Go figure.

jainphx

Your Zarqawi WMD staement above is just plain crap. Zarqawi was operating his camp in the Northern no-fly zone totally apart from any connection to Saddam. Those "Zarqawi WMD's" could have been taken out at any time, along w/ Zarqawi. It's just that Der Bush did not want to screw up the opportunity to invade Iraq w/ this venture.

Goes to show how you extremists use a tiny nugget of fact to weave a new non-argument.

Mak44 just won;t realize what a horse's ass he is. No wonder his
side is always losing. Unbelievable.

Mak44 just won't realize what a silly boy he is. No wonder his side is always losing. Unbelievable.

"Zarqawi was operating his camp in the Northern no-fly zone totally apart from any connection to Saddam".

Really? The same "Northern no-fly zone" where our Airforce patrolled the skies and were frequently fired upon by Sadams Military.

There is one place for sure that all can agree that there are no connections. Bed wetting democrats and reality. I lied , there are at least two or more... Democrats and honesty ,speaking the truth only adds nails to the democrats coffin.

Saddam had no WMDs Mak? really now, what did He drop on the Kurds, Tapioca pudding?

virgo1

Oh really, and what WMD's were found sfter the Chimp's invasion?

Rob in LA Ca

Enjoying your weekend pass from the looney farm?

Mak, what we have here in the real world, and you're not familiar with that as we all know, is about 6 months or more with your friends in the UN Security council. What the hell do you think your boy Saddam was doing during that time.

Usually, out here in reality world, when the police tell the criminals "we're coming to get you in, oh say, 6 months . . .you're in big trouble!," the criminals don't wait around to ditch the evidence. Or had your little brain failed to take that into account.

Answer the question. Don't dodge it, Mak. It's a fair question which you probably won't answer, but I thought I'd give you one chance to be reasonable.

Mak has been beat down again. It's simply amazing that you choose to be lying loser with all the freedom in this Country. You do have a choice , you know that right ?