Mitch, you start out with things that are satirical, and move into those which you believe..

John Hinderaker I don't know from Adam, and each of us loses our cool from time to time, but I've once heard the line that it is how we treat those who we perceive as our lessers as a true measure of a man's character..nuff said. If he's so darned smart, the opinions of leftyblogger Kossacks shouldn't bother him much. Your excusifying for him...well I'll believe until further notice that the NARN needs to provide the righty wall of denial for any misdeeds of any neo-nons.

Femi-Nazi is hardly 17 years old. I actually heard Limbaugh confrontted on it at one point right before I left Pru(dential) which would have been 91, where he then went on to say it's only 2-4 REAL people, to which the response was, well then why bring it up, unless it is to conflate an insignificant problem with something fairly decent (the idea of treating women equally) in the minds of those who react viscerally to anything equating the woman's movement, and to do so in a way that tries to disguise responsibility for the innuendo.

He's used the term repeatedly since, and uses MANY others, including calling Nazi's communists, calling liberals Nazis (gee that's not inflamatory huh?). It is something he continues to do (both using the term and generally being slimey-suckey - by implying and inferring things WAY beyond just the text, but not having the balls/guts to say what is on his mind, while having his ditto brains make the assumption and say it themselves.

Beyond that, saying that's the only, primary, or even most significant example, or that it's 17 years old, is all wrong. You didn't say it was said as the most important, but you are essentially creating the impression that this is an important one to the libs, and it's no longer valid. It's not anywhere near as important as being called a traitor for disenting against a poorly conceived, justified, and run war, and it's hardly dated. I'll do a search on text on limbaugh.com and what do you bet I find a hit a heckuva lot more current than 1987.

PB

Speaking of inflamatory rhetoric, I hear that some provinces in Iraq may have favored the Constitution by a tally of 99% to 1%... Gosh, and we thought we could get rid of obviously fixed elections by ousting Saddam.

Clearly, this was not the desire of the Administration, but it is the unfortunate reality of trying to force a democratic process on people interested first and foremost in protecting their own powerbase. I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised, and had it been ballot shenanigans by Bush, I wouldn't have been (though with election auditors there which weren't allowed in 2004 - I guess that's probably not really true)..

Anyway, it's a damned shame, truly. If it turns out that this thing would have passed easily anyway, then the Kurds and Shiites just drove a nail in the coffins of fair power sharing and credibility, thereby making our job another measure of immeasurably harder.

PB

Oh.
For.
Eff's.
Sake.

Whatsa matter Badda? You upset because someone pointed out that controlling elections in a country lacking in cohesion MAY result in election irregularities, or is it that "things are SOO much better now" clap-trap.

I suspect it's the latter, and frankly, they certainly are, so what..once again we're back to the lame argument that making Iraq a democracy was worth the effort.. which of course begs two questions, first, is Iraq going to be a democracy, an issue still in serious doubt, second, worth it.. in what context, our world position, no, strategic interest, probably not, terrorism defusing act, no, definetly not..

But whatever, duck and cover..

Facts are still facts.. there are some pretty serious problems, and it won't be happy if it's as bad as they are initially reporting. Despite what you think, I would very much love for the strife in Iraq to end.. or do you REALLY think folks desire death for innocent people?

PB

I realize I didn't give you much to work with, but you just had a conversation with yourself based on a HUGE assumption. (Put another way, you just barked up the entire length of a Redwood while I'm resting in a hammock beneath a Silver Maple.)

Take.
Thy-
-Self.
Less.
Seriously.

Badda, meet PB. He is to "taking himself seriously" as Madonna is to "grandstanding".

You may proceed.

Geoff,
I bet that ain't the HALF of it! ;)

By the way, I'm wondering what "whatsa matter" is supposed to indicate? I suspect PB types so fast and furious (and off the cuff) he doesn't bother to check his on spelling... and that last sentance of his doesn't really make sense. At the very least it might sound okay when spoken by the writer, however it thuds when read by the reader.

Well, Badda - maybe, just maybe, there is a kernal of truth hidden somewhere in your assertion that I take myself too seriously or it's related to my lack of desire to check spelling or grammer or anything else.

Second, grow some guts, if you don't like what I wrote, rather than have folks guess.. state your position, take your whacks, and then be ready to take your lumps (such as they may be).

PB

"grow some guts"

???

That's an interesting taunt... however, I don't have much faith in it.

Look, for the most part the post I made was merely saying you take yourself far too seriously.

Madonn'!

(That means 'Mother of Christ'... just so you know what I mean this time. Oi gevalt!)

As for Things I Have No Choice But To Believe Until Further Notice...

PB will not embrace "word economy".

(A phrase so nice I had to use it twice.)

Things I will believe until shown otherwise..

Badda would rather prattle from the sidelines than put his own view out for disection/derision.

As for too seriously.. scroll up.. the question remains, why would I not chose to proof-read, edit, spell-check, streamline?

Answers (at least my answers)
a. I don't care - thereby =not really seriously engaged.
b. I'm sooo frothing at the mouth I can't stop myself

Take your pick, I don't care.

PB

BTW, anyone besides me notice that Mitch didn't exactly reply to the facts.. he just shot from the hip at me..

Pretty typical Neo-Non stuff.. attack your critic, change the topic when it's going against you, ignore the facts..

This stuff should be called "propoganda" not blogging. This isn't the musings of a radio dad, it's the prostelitizing of a committed zealot with occasional drops of a personal life.

Try talking about the fact that Femi-Nazi is used now and has been used commonly over the past 17 years, or that you all call liberals traitors, Mitch.. Defend calling 50% of the enlisted soldiers (the 50% that are Democrats or Independents) traitors some time. Try saying the only epithet you throw out is a 17 year old one. No, that's not PRECISELY what you said, but considering how liberally you put words in my mouth, my twist on your's is kindergarten stuff. You did say it was the one that SOOOO many libs bring up, as if it's the primary or only or first. It's none of those, but you try to spin the message to infer it is.

Ahhh, well, typical right-wing jingoism. For a while I actually thought, because you allow commentary (to your credit), that you were perhaps one of the very few intellectually engaged, dedicated conservatives. Instead it's become increasingly obvious, you are just here to be a water carrier for the pretend conservative, pretend democracy crowd.

What a shame, I'm bored, this is too easy.