Bush's credit line is $0, so let's give hobby-commies some face time, in an ol' either/or gambit. The thinking is: "Bush is better than THESE folk, right? (pause) Am I RIGHT?"

Your wrong as usual //..

They all suck!

Please, just 2 minutes with these f***wads, that's all I ask...

I swear to God if I ever saw that in person I could not hold myself back. Jail or not, I'd be swinging and ripping masks off.

And where were our brave Eagles of "A Gathering of Eagles" -- in the nest keeping their eggs warm?

I live in Portland and there's only a tiny group of anarchists or leftist punk rockers who cause such violent demonstrations each time there's a peachful march or a presidential visit. These anarchists are so far to the left of even Communist or Socialist organizations such as the Trotskyite Socialist Workers Party that they offer no support to these people either. The Socialist Workers Party always has a small following at Portland State University. Far less popular is the extremist Maoist Revolutionary Communist Party which actively advocates revolution compared to the other organizations which only believe in education or democratic elections. The Socialist Party of Oregon is the most conservative of the leftist groups, and the same as Bernie Sanders of Vermont belongs to. The anarchists have no organization affiliation that I know of. And probably right wing leaning skin heads outnumber them by significant numbers, especially popular among Oregon's prison population.

Many of the anarchists are homeless or nearly homeless radical street kids who belong to gangs known as "families". But Portland has long been nicknamed "Little Beirut" by Bush 1 and others since a small group of anarchists always cause some minor problems.

Portland is an overwelmingly liberal city, but there is certainly no public support for homeless radical anarchists or looters who break store windows or engage in other lawless conduct.

"I live in Portland"

I believe it.

Rob, I've taught political studies lectures on the subject of political extremists before, and have just a little less than a Ph.d level of education. My information is highly accurate on these extremist organizations and their activities. What's your level of expertise on the subject?

There ya go, there's your liberals.

Bunch of assholes, still the same after 30+ years post-Vietnam.

You trust this crowd on Iraq???

Yeah, I'll accept those guys as representatives of the left when you accept the guys who blew up that building in Oklahoma as representatives of the right.

Tell me something the Republic Party has done to support the troops? I mean besides using them to support the president's policies (the policy ISN'T made by the troops, you know).

And what else? Other then sending them into a civil war to be injured, putting up red tape before providing them with criminally negligent health care "services"...and basically send our people to their deaths?

Name ONE THING that the Republic Party has done for them?

Getting people KILLED isn't supporting them. Trying to KEEP THEM ALIVE is supporting them.

Paul,
Once you realize that Rob in LA has sucked so much exhaust fumes down, all the comments he makes do make sense, just like most people who don't have a clue about anything except wanting to be noticed.

Getting people KILLED isn't supporting them. Trying to KEEP THEM ALIVE is supporting them.
Posted by: Publicus at March 25, 2007 09:01 AM

Pubic, you REALLY have no idea what the military does do you. Are you one of these brainiacs who says they support the troops but not the war. Kinda like supporting the police, but not crime-fighting (Jim Treacher).

Are you one of these brainiacs who says they support the troops but not the war.

Are you one of those idiots who can't tell the difference between a president's war policy and the lives of American soldiers?

You have evaded my question: name ONE thing that the Republic Party has done to support the troops.

BTW - tell me about how you support the troops in Kosovo by supporting clinton's war policies.

Kinda like supporting the police, but not crime-fighting (Jim Treacher).

Using a false analogy is no substitute for thinking. More accurately: "Kinda like supporting the policy, but not supporting a corrupt police-chief" would be an accurate analogy.

er, kinda like supporting the police, but not (etc.)

Support the troops = Let them DO THEIR JOB! Listen to the troops - THEY want to do their jobs!

BTW, lefties ... take out your history books please. Do note that history did not begin on January 20, 2001. Nor did the effort to oust Saddam's regime begin with George Bush. Ya'll just sound like a bunch of ignorant retards every time you spout the "Bush lied" meme and call this "Bush's War." If you want to oppose this thing, get an education on what you are talking about first. Otherwise you just sound stupid.

Anachist scum are homeless and on the street because parents and schools could not tolerate their insolence and violence anymore. To say they became anarchists because of being homeless is misleading. They are punks. They chose to be worthless punks. They want nothing from this society except to ruin what we want.

Also, someone DOES need to learn about the military. They join the military because they want to do for the country, not the other way around. This is why I say the lefties do not understand the military and hate them. ww

Support the troops = Let them DO THEIR JOB! Listen to the troops - THEY want to do their jobs!

Thanks for clarifying. So, you send these guys ill-equipped into a civil war that Bush has already lost, let them get injured and killed, and put them in maggot infested beds when those who survive get home.

You "support the troops."

Wow, some of these commenters a really full of hate for Republicans. I guess Howard Dean is a better leader than I thought.

Attention all liberals: When you stick up for hate mongering vandals, you have lost. In the immortal words of Maureeen Dowd, you have lost "complete moral authority". If you cannot find common ground with other Americans in condeming the behavior that Jim Addison writes about in the column above, I question your patriotism. We need to stop the civil war, in this country, or we will find out very soon that Abraham Lincoln was right.

For those that want to define a whole because of a part..Jim..then because of the actions of those troops recently convicted for premeditated rape and murder of a 14 year old Iraq girl and the murder of her father, mother and 6 year old sister can only mean that all are troops do this.

of course that isn't true..any more than this small handful represented the over 15,000 that gathered and marched in Portland.
We gather and march peacefully as a visible resistance to this madness
http://www.icasualties.org/oif/

I am still waiting for the right to call for a day of action for those that support our President and His war.

We've established that the right doesn't support the troops. They support the president's war policy in Iraq; they can't distinguish between the two.

So, if the president had our troops invade and carpet bomb, say, Norway, we'd have to go along with it----because we need to support the troops. (Unless the president ordering it was a Democrat.)

You have evaded my question: name ONE thing that the Republic Party has done to support the troops

It become quite apparent after eight years of Democrats calling Saddam a direct threat to the United States that their motives of doing a 180 was due to politics, thus emboldening terrorists by believing Democrats would pull the troops from the front and handing a defeat to the U.S. military.

Democrats and terrorists have shared the same talking points throughout this entire engagement, usually terrorists mimicking the American left.

No one will ever know how many Americans have died because of the Democrats giving hope to terrorists.

How many lefties have called terrorist's freedom fighters verses the amount of lefties that denounce the burning of effigies of American military?

I served (Army) from Jimmy Carter through almost all of Clinton's eight years. There has always been a distinctive difference in support for the military. The Carter years the military was getting broke down and it took Ronald Reagan to build the military back up.

Clinton's first military engagement in Somalia he and his secretary of Defense denied the commander on the ground armored vehicles and AC-130's. Those two things would have brought everyone back alive. Everyone in the military knew it. That's also why so many Rangers refused to shake Clinton's hand in the hospital.

When you claimed you were in the military Publicus, surely you recall the obvious distinction like the rest of us between the political parties and their support of the military.

That's the "duh" factor in why so many that serve in the military vote for Republican candidates. They know just like they did when you were in.

Thanks for clarifying. So, you send these guys ill-equipped into a civil war that Bush has already lost, let them get injured and killed, and put them in maggot infested beds when those who survive get home.

You "support the troops."
Posted by: Publicus at March 25, 2007 10:44 AM

First problem with your premise here is the assumption that this war has been lost. Until you learn the truth, there is no use in going any further. You make these statements as if they are founded in fact, which they are not, and then attempt to use those falsehoods as a response. That does not cut it. You just look stupid. Go, educate thyself. I will not debate ignorance.

Idiots/Pubic, when did we "lose" the war, I must have missed that. Maybe I was in the middle of 24 or something?

Or, are you hoping we lose the war? Or, are you omniscient, and know that on August 2, 2007 we will lose?

How can you know something that has not occurred, unless in the fevered mind of a libtard chump.

Thanks, jumpinjoe, for being there thru Carter and Clinton!

Pubic--and which President actually delivered body armor and up-armored vehicles? Clinton only had about 1,300 up-armored. We now have multiples of that, thanks to GWB.

Don't come on this blog and lie, and try to spin a bunch of crap you don't know anything about, perty please.

We've established that the right doesn't support the troops. They support the president's war policy in Iraq; they can't distinguish between the two

Go read DU, Kos and MoveOn. They are screaming to cut off funding for the troops.

They are Democrats primary base of supporters. You know, the people that claim they "OWN" the Democratic Party.

There is no doubt in my retired military mind that if these people left American troops without "beans and bullets" there would be collective cheers from the lefties.

This is not about "The Troops" for the left.

This is about lefty politics and the defeat of President Bush.

Just like there is a big difference in "Code Pinko" (communists) standing outside of Walter Reed taunting injured heroes' verses conservative groups supporting groups like Wounded Warrior, Soldiers Angels, etc, etc, etc......

How many lefty groups are out there supporting troops in the same way?

What a bunch of losers! Worse than Baghdad Bob.
IMPEACH!

It's not the point that "not all lefties act" like this turd dumper on the flag.

It's the reaction of the Lefties who don't go to this extreme--are you finding yourselves satisfied, envious, cheered, etc. when you see this occur? You might not do these things, but you wouldn't be upset if someone else did, would you?

You might not do these things, but you wouldn't be upset if someone else did, would you

Bingo.....the best the lefties here can do is claim it isn't representative of all those peaceful marchers.

Why not condemn them straight up? Call them for what they are which are "troop hating anti-American lefties".

Pubicus...the Republicans ARE the troops you shit stick.

Students at universities are taught by faculty that are 90% leftist in the social sciences, political science, philosophy, and modern language departments. They are never exposed to alternative points of view, other than in badly caricatured form. How could you possibly expect a young leftist to think clearly about political issues? They lack the preparation for it.

Leftists are intellectually inbred. In university, in the media, in politics.

I'll add one more point to this dog pile. There is group that paid the price of the Communist victory in Vietnam more so than even the Americans. They are the Vietnamese refugees and I live among them here in Southern California. In the last Presidential election they voted 90% for Bush. They know what happens when you lose a war, and it isn't pretty. Some Democrats know this (Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman come to mind).Other liberals burn the flag. Still other liberals support the flag burners and hate Zell and Joe. The War on Terrorism needs to be won. What's the plan? Impeaching Bush will not stop Iran from nuking Israel. If you really believe that moving the troops to Okinawa would help us win, flesh out the idea, place it on the table and we can debate it. If you really think the President is horrible, vote against him next time. We still need to win the war, because losing is going to make the killing fields of Cambodia look like a kindergarten squabble. There are more than a few liberals who are ashamed of their part in the 3 million deaths that followed the fall of Saigon. There are other liberals who burn the flag and scream, "Bush=Hitler". Given those two groups, which do you march with?

As I said, you can't distinguish between the troops and the war policy of the president. And you think that supporting Bush, (who sends our soldiers to die in a civil war, and puts the wounded into maggot-infested beds), you are supporting the troops.

Ah, Pubicus, if you repeat it enough, not only will no one believe it, they will tune you out.

Perspective was never the liberal strong suit. It's not a choice between Bush/Reps. and the ideal.

It's a choice between them and the Dems, who have demonstrated their unseriousness relating to national security since McGovern. With that track record, the Repubs. win on most votes, as they have for a while now, or hadn't you noticed the credibility problems haven't gone away for you guys.

It's like trying to educate the dumb, ain't it?

Paul Hoosen explained why he is incapable of thinking any other way than the way he does. It is is indoctrination. At university, they call it education, but it is education in left-think. To gain higher degrees, you must demonstrate full acceptance of liberal, therefore limited, parameters. Publicus, you are an idiot, no, a fucking idiot. The stupidity you display is beyond that dubious honor held here by Lee and BarneyG. Sorry Barney. You must get all of your facts from the liar that runs the daily kos. Here is a little history lesson for you. Saddam Hussein violated the 1991 cease fire accords by failing to meet the obligations he agreed to. Therefore, it was not George W. Bush or William Jefferson Clinton who started the war with Iraq, although some of you who do not understand treaties, peace accords and the like will disagree with. It was Saddam by his actions and his failure to meet his obligations. We have a military, troops, who's only job is to kill people and break things as directed by the President of the United States. A power given the President by the constitution. Bush decided it was time to make Saddam accountable. He did. That is his job.

"I will not debate ignorance."

Right on LissaKay . They are willfull ignorants and just plain stupid. The fact that they are here pretty much voids their being able to make such claims as to just being ignorant of the facts or what is the truth. Once they are fully indoctrinated into the Democrat Religion all prior knowledge is superceded by democrat talking points (democrat truth).

Take for example the response above to my being in simple aggreement with one "having just a little less than a Ph.d level of education" , Paul.

"I live in Portland"

I believe it.

"For those that want to define a whole because of a part of the sum..."

You democrats take this to a whole new level.

Democrats want to define a whole (President Bush/Republicans) because of a "NON EXISTENT" part of the sum, the ones they "MAKE UP". {PUBIC PUSS comes to mind}."civil war that Bush has already lost" Just STFU ok stupid.

"If you cannot find common ground with other Americans in condeming the behavior that Jim Addison writes about in the column above, I question your patriotism."

Question their Patriotism? Question to which Country they would like to call home or be Repatriated to.

Ah, Pubicus, if you repeat it enough, not only will no one believe it, they will tune you out.

True. You don't believe it because you don't want to. You tune it out because you don't want to hear something that conflicts with your beliefs.

Nobody has given a valid argument against what I said. There's no reason to repeat it; you refuse to hear it because you can't explain it away.

Sending people to their deaths is NOT supporting them. But, believe what you like.

Hey tyree, you wouldn't happen to be near Garden Grove/Westminister? Of the few worthy of being called a true friend and trustworthy , has the last name Pham. Patriotic and a True American through and through.

BTW -

I disapprove of the idiots (cited in the post) who say they want our troops to die. And I disapprove of those who sent them there to die.

"You don't believe it because you don't want to."

I BELIEVE YOU BELIEVE THAT. NOW STFU STUPID.

Oh and I don't believe you are wrong , I KNOW YOU ARE WRONG. Have a nice day.

NOW STFU STUPID.

Gee, that's the same "argument" Bill O'Reilly uses when he hears something he disagrees with. Sharp!

I don't see any of the "real" anti-war activists denouncing these people.

Funny, that.

Publicus might want to do some writing practice in privatus.

LOL, good one Jim.

Publicus, Bush didn't send our troops to Iraq to die, he sent them win. Something you have difficulty with. What would you have a military for Publicus. They volunteer knowing the requirements of military service and the dangers that may entail. Is it your contention that we should pay and support them so they could lay around the barracks eating pizza and drinking beer, never having to perform the acts armies have been created to perorm? I have one last question. Just how fucking stupid are you?

Publicus-

I never supported the Bosnia policy of President Clinton. It was nation building and it was built on "compassion." Regardless, I did a tour in Bosnia and was very happy that the Republican Party rightly criticized the mission. They were supporting the troops at the same time they were condemning the mission. I welcomed receiving the conservative publications in the mail and sincerely appreciated that Republicans wanted to end the mess I found myself in.

I do not support the nation building that has engulfed the original Iraq mission. (aka "Pottery Barn Mission") I fully supported the noble mission to finish the Gulf War which this was originally all about, the violation of a cease fire. FWIW, I have now completed two deployments in SW Asia post 9/11.

As a Conservative (libertarian strain), I find the current general Republican position to be hypocritical.

It has become ever so tiring to hear the terms "win" and "victory" when those terms have as much clarity as the liberal line "tax the rich." Just as I would ask yourself, what is "rich" I wonder what "win" and "victory" actually mean. The words are now hollow.

When the plug is pulled on Iraq, there will be a great many soldiers and families that will be extremely happy. Unlike many "conservatives." there are few soldiers or families that are looking forward to the 4th deployment with no end in sight for deployments number five, six, seven........ When "conservatives" imply that soldiers are eager to go back and back and back, they are making a very distasteful comment on the underlying character of a soldier.

In 2001, the Republican Congress and a Republican Administration had the power to prepare for a long war and support the troops by action. The chose not to. The United States did not prepare for a long war. The question is who will now "pay that bill." Will it be an American Soldiers family or an Iraqi family? I know what my answer is.

Rob said, "Hey tyree, you wouldn't happen to be near Garden Grove/Westminister?"

Yes, I grew up one mile from the "Welcome to Little Saigon" sign on the 22 Freeway. I live four miles from there now in Anaheim.
One of my middle son's friends came from Vietnam. About two years ago I was having dinner with them and the subject of the Vietnam War came up. The hardest heart in the world would have melted to hear these people speak of how and why they were forced out of their homeland by the victorious communists. I was even worse to hear a list of the family members who died or were killed on the way out.
When I hear some of the leftists, communists, socialists, muslims and other calling for our defeat in Iraq, I can only conclude that they don't know what defeat means (hint: talk to someone born south of the Mason-Dixon line), or they are on the other side. George Bush is a big fat laying idiot, ok, let's just say I agree with that, now how do we win the war?
P.S. Rob, if you have never talked to Pham about his families flight to freedom, be very careful bringing the subject up. I have known a refugee in Anaheim for years whose husband is still active duty U.S. Air Force and has never brought up the subject. I will listen if she or her husband ever brings it up, but I won't every start the conversation.

Oak Leaf..
Thanks for your service. My cousin just got back from "Clinton's War" a few months ago.
You wrote, "It has become ever so tiring to hear the terms "win" and "victory"..."
I agree with you, and as a conservative I am greatly disappointed in the adminstrations lack of understanding on how much the nature of warfare has changed. We won the military part of the conflict and underestimated the effort required to stabilize the country. However, you know better than most that "victory" goes to the side that makes the fewest mistakes. No one tells me these things, to be sure, but I think the military has to keep the definition of "victory" off the front pages. They are smart enough to know that the enemy can read english, and when we say "victory" consists of moving A to B, all they have to do is destroy A or B or the bridge between them and we can never achive "victory". "Victory" in the Iraq phase of the war will be for propaganda purposes only, as will "defeat". This will be followed immediately by the next phase of the war. If WWII is any indicator, we are not going to know if the President made the right decisions for about 25 years, maybe longer. Even then there will be disagreement. I just wish a few of the people in this country who exhibit so much hatred for our President demonsrated as similar hatred for the terrorists.

Under Pubis' twisted "logic", any time men are sent to war, the "senders" are not supporting the troops, because some will die.

Maybe he worked for the Carter or Clinton administrations.

"Maggot-infested beds"????

Hey dumbass pubicus, it was an OUTPATIENT clinic at Walter Reed. They don't have BEDS. lolol

Please also explain how maggots can infest a bed?

You don't really expect someone as pure and simpley stupid as old "pubic-hair" to answer simple questions do you? This would require him to back to his kos kiddies for the stock answer.

Mullah Cimoc say ameriki people republican party now waking and the fog remove of the brain.

How bush destroy usa too much. destroy mental and emotional of amriki people.

but usa media so control (google: mighty wurltizer +cia) never to asking how bush becoming president.

this called the media coverup. bush family long time so corruption with intel community. am him bush jr. real republican? who these eviling people making him the president?

This make the cure for republican freedom people making majority. love the god, and love the family and working so hard every day.

but controlling hims of republican not this kind good person. him the wicked and loving the power and the torturing people, children of god, this too wicked. hims also loving the LBT (low back tattoo) and the killing the baby of abortion and ameriki woman becoming the slut for taking all the man.

stop1984now@yahoo.com

"If WWII is any indicator, we are not going to know if the President made the right decisions for about 25 years, maybe longer"_Tyree

Earth to Tyree: the Axis powers declared war on the US. Should we have "declined"?

And if questioning the beneficience of the outcome: by 1948 and the breaking with Moscow of the various Weastern European communist parties, the die was cast: democratic and pro-American.

The Bush doctrine is bankruptcy and de-industrialization, with a quagmire on top.

And don't forget the Border! D-I-S-A-S-T-E-R

bryanD...
"Earth to Tyree:" Point 1. Opening with an insult loses major points in a debate, and I don't argue.

"Should we have "declined"? Point 2. Iran declared war on the US in 1979; we have "declined" to wage an all out war against them for almost 30 years. To answer your question: No, we should not have declined to wage war on Imperial Japan, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany.

"And if questioning the beneficience of the outcome:..." Point 3. I don't understand that statement as a response to what I wrote. You seem to be saying that by 1948 the way we won the war was accepted as being without major controversy. My reading of the history of the post WWII world has never revealed a consensus. That whole "atomic bomb" thing causes a big stir every year in August to this day.

"The Bush doctrine is..." Point 4. I already admitted that Bush has made mistakes, by agreeing with me you lose points. You have not rebutted my statement.

I am not trying to be snarky, you just have not responded at all to my premise. You attacked me and one sentence of my paragraph, allowing everything else I was talking about to gain points for my side. In a debate you would have lost the exchange by a huge block of points.

Openly defining what constitutes "victory" cannot be done as it would empower the enemy to deny us the very objective we were trying to achieve. That is my statement, and it stands unchallenged.

Oh, and to answer Jim's question, "How low can they go?" I submit this answer, "All the way down, Jim, all the way to the bottom and out the other side."

The right of anyone to take that stupid jackass out and paddle his rear and whipe it clean with a pinecone