27 thoughts on “He’s Baaaack

  1. What makes stopping a war with Iran a “non-cause”. I just ask because I expect that if Bush does attack you will be the first to tell us it is an awesome strategy.

  2. I guess Rick, like Weasly doesn’t mind Iran providing the means to kill American troops as well as Iraqi civilians.
    Can’t we all just get along?

  3. So Mitch stands accused of having his mind made up that whatever Bush does at some unknown future time is *just fine*. His accuser is Rick, who’s apparently awaiting further developments and will take a calm and rational approach when things start changing.

    Man, if I really believed either of those things, I’d encourage RickDFL to get a blog and promise to read it.

  4. Kermit:
    What do you think is the largest source of weapons to Iraqi forces trying to kill American troops in Iraq?

    1. Weapons depots left unsecured by the Bush administration.
    2. Weapons given to the Iraqi Army and National Police which were then turned over to insurgents or were simply used by the same people against our troops.
    3. Or the Iranian government.

    If you want to go after the source of weapons killing our troops in Iraq, start at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

  5. When are you guys going to start going after Saudi Arabia which is the real source of funding for weapons that are killing Americans and Iraqi’s in Iraq?

  6. We are handing over armour piercing munitions to the Iraqis? Oh, I forgot, Bush lied. America is evil. Angryclown is funny. That about covers it.

  7. Kermit: You missed one. Dougie is an “election observer”. That one always brings a smile to my face.

  8. To the left it’s always: “When are you guys going to go after ______?” And “blank” is whoever we are not “going after” at the time. When, in the course of events, we do “go after” _________, we’re in trouble for that and it’s on to the next ________ we should be “going after” instead.

  9. Really Coll? Cause I thought at some point we might try to take out the guy who killed 3,000 Americans. But I guess you have to be a wingnut to understand why we aren’t.

  10. And I’m sure if OBL was delivered to the White House lawn, trussed up with an apple jammed in his mouth, AC would rain accolades upon this administration. Rrrrrrriggghhhht.

  11. No, Col. Cathcart, I’d beat the son of a bitch to death with my clown shoes. Then I’d spray seltzer on any wingnuts within reach.

  12. Of course it would be different if ObL were offered on a silver platter by some African nation, and the President were worried about legal authority, would it not? Better to shoot a Tomahawk into a $10 tent and hit some camel in the ass.

    “Monica! You done with my cigar, girl?”

  13. Oh and Dave, as I have already clarified, I was there observing. I was not an elections official. I used the term incorrectly and I clarified what I meant dozens of times. You don’t seem able to comprehend that but I am curious; how do you feel about someone claiming to be a voter in a district they don’t even live in and who goes as far as sending letters to newspapers misrepresenting where they live?

    The difference of course being my statement was a mistake, his was intentional.

    Would you stalk him around the blogosphere like you do me taking opportunistic pedantic jabs at him the way you do me?

  14. No, Dougie. I love to pierce that over-inflated ego balloon of yours. Mostly, because you are a pompous liberal windbag with delusions of grandeur. You LIED to people, in an obvious attempt to create some air of credibility. And its even funnier when you realize you spouted off without even knowing what the election laws REALLY SAY. Read ‘em…they’re available on the SoS website.

    Now, please make sure the fryers are ready for lunch…and the grill is hot.

  15. Dave said,

    “You LIED to people”

    Go back to my original post nimrod. I used to term election observer and described exactly what I was doing which was sitting in a parking lot and checking in the people I had contacted over the course of the last week. If I was a liar, I would have claimed I was an election observer and said that I was inside the polling place executing the functions of an certified elections observer.

    Clearly, sitting in a parking lot observing an election does not make one an elections official now does it. In addition moron, I never claimed I was acting in an official capacity which is what you are accusing me of claiming. Let it go Davey.

    Now, to my question to you, how do you feel about someone who would INTENTIONALLY lie about where they lived and misrepresent themself as a voter in a district where they don’t live?

    Any comment or is the only thing you’re capable of is these childish fast food taunts?

  16. “how do you feel about someone who would INTENTIONALLY lie about where they lived and misrepresent themself as a voter in a district where they don’t live?”

    If I’m a democrat I think that’s how you win elections.

  17. That’s an interesting point Terry. The person I’m refering to lives in St. Paul but stated publicly that they are a voter in the 6th.

    Follows the Pattern… Accuse Democrats of doing something that they themselves do. Like the whole Tax and Spend meme.

  18. Oh fer gosh sakes Doug. Which party opposes strict voter verification schemes?
    If you think a law has been violated bring it to the attention of the proper authorities or pipe down.

  19. Doug said: “Any comment or is the only thing you’re capable of is these childish fast food taunts?”

    The reason we use these “childish fast food taunts” Doug is because of the fact that pompous, condescending liberals like yourself spent the 1980s ridiculing, denigrating and slandering such employment and the people that held those jobs. Today the same leftists, defending illegal immigration, claim those jobs are the ones “Americans won’t do.”

    As for using new material, why should we? You and Angryclown haven’t refuted any of the “old” stuff. If the best you can come up with in reply is “you need a new schtick,” then just like the 1960s Packers and their Power Sweep play, we’re going to keep running it until you prove you can stop it.

  20. Angryclown said: “I’d beat the son of a bitch to death with my clown shoes.”

    You wouldn’t run OBL down with your unicycle? Ping him upside the head with your juggling balls? Crack him on the knees with your stunt cane?

    You wouldn’t do any of these before beating him to death with your clown shoes?

    If you want to be known as Angryclown you gotta EARN it!

  21. Paul, Terry and Dave,

    I’ll take that as a gutless, no comment.

    And Paul,

    “condescending liberals like yourself spent the 1980s ridiculing, denigrating and slandering such employment and the people that held those jobs. Today the same leftists, defending illegal immigration, claim those jobs are the ones “Americans won’t do.”

    What the hell are you talking about? Are you off your meds again?

    As for your claim that I haven’t refuted any of the “old” stuff, I have refuted it, disproven it, squashed it and ripped it to shreds ad infinitem but you’re either too dimwitted or stuborn to admit it. I’m going with dimwitted based on the fact that you rarely have anything but screeds to offer.

    I foolishly identified my activities as election observer and I said I left the corporate world to work a retail job so I could spend more time with my kids so that’s the only thing you and your buddy have to focus your attention on with sophomoric taunts about me being a liar and working in fast food.

    You and Dave both come across as petty and angry but in this place with so many koolaid drinking syphocants, no one has the balls to point out to you what little pricks you are.

    Well numbnutz, I worked hard enough and had enough in savings that I was able to take a 2/3 cut in pay and still be able to make enough to be plenty comfortable and you know that because I’ve said it a dozen times. I’m perfectly content knowing that your jealous rants come from a sad, angry little thug.

  22. Ooo, I pissed Doug off again.

    “What the hell are you talking about?”

    I made myself clear. I thought you had a communications degree.

    “You and Dave both come across as petty and angry”

    That’s cute, coming in the middle of a seething, frothing rant.

    “you and your buddy”

    I’ve never met the guy.

    “I worked hard enough and had enough in savings that I was able to take a 2/3 cut in pay and still be able to make enough to be plenty comfortable”

    Good for you! I’m glad you are able to spend more time with your kids and still be comfortable. But it doesn’t change the fact you are a dishonest, disingenous, condescending liberal windbag. At least in most of the comments here.

    “I’m perfectly content knowing that your jealous rants come from a sad, angry little thug.”

    Oh really? What am I jealous of?

    When I’m not satisfied with some aspect of my life, Doug, I work to improve it. I don’t whine about how “it isn’t fair” or anyone who has success are “winner’s of life’s lottery.”

    I’ve told you this before, Doug: if you would simply stop posting staring-down-your-nose-at-rethuglican-hicks style comments, I would stop posting “sophomoric taunts” about you “being a liar and working in fast food.” I’ve praised you when you’ve made me laugh, or made a good point without the comment oozing condescension from every pore.

    “I’ll take that as a gutless, no comment.”

    Terry already answered your voter question, Doug: “If you think a law has been violated bring it to the attention of the proper authorities or pipe down.” I saw no need to comment because there wasn’t anything I could add to his answer, other than I agree with it. Maybe I should have added that in my previous comment so you wouldn’t accuse me of being gutless.

    So how about it, Doug? Since you observed this individual “claiming to be a voter in a district they don’t even live in and who goes as far as sending letters to newspapers misrepresenting where they live” is breaking the law, are you going to report it? Being a citizen in this country means taking the responsibility to notify the authorities, not post it in a discussion at SITD.

    As for your Saudi Arabia question, where’s your evidence? I didn’t comment on this either because I think Colleen is right: “To the left it’s always: “When are you guys going to go after ______?” And “blank” is whoever we are not “going after” at the time. When, in the course of events, we do “go after” _________, we’re in trouble for that and it’s on to the next ________ we should be “going after” instead.” Once again, I couldn’t add anything to her answer, other than that I agree. (Oh wait: I can’t simply agree because then I’ll be a kool-aid drinking sycophant!)

    If “Saudi Arabia is the real source of funding for weapons” I expect some proof of this provided by you. And simply quoting your third cousin twice removed doesn’t count.

  23. Paul said,

    “So how about it, Doug? Since you observed this individual “claiming to be a voter in a district they don’t even live in and who goes as far as sending letters to newspapers misrepresenting where they live” is breaking the law, are you going to report it?”

    No Paul, it’s not breaking the law. It’s misrepresentation which apparently, you and your buddies give a pass to when it’s one of your own.

    The issue isn’t that this person lied or broke the law. It’s that you have a different set of standards for your bretheren. You don’t hold them to the same standards that you demand from the left and when they actually pull the same stunts that you accuse us of pulling, you just let it go.

    Like Mitch, I’d sure be swell to see you guy display a little consistency for a change. That and quit screaming foul when you’re the person that keeps instigating the manuer flinging.

    As for your request to see “proof” that Saudi Arabia is the source of funding for weapons, how about the Associated Press citing the Iraq Study group?

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/08/world/main2240138.shtml

    Will that work for ya there Paul?

Leave a Reply