Join The Debate!

Spinsters

"Only a blithering idiot would characterize that position as "reflecting the popular view". In fact, the polls indicate that only 20% (!) of voters endorse that position (though obviously a much greater percentage among Sonnecticut Democrats). "


Bold headline from CNN.com (8/16): "60 percent of Americans oppose Iraq war".
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/09/iraq.poll/index.html

Where is your 20% figure coming from?

"It boggles the mind that anyone would suggest (seriously or not) that Britain or Hamburg or Dearborn."

Right, why would we suggest the actual location of the terror cells when we can invade an uninvolved country. The point is the bad guys are not in any one place, Fletch. If so, this "mission" would be "accomplished" by now. They are in secret places and we've been attacking countries we think that sorta mighta been sponsors, but who have oil reserves.

"Over and above the inability to distinguish between countries, cities and towns, is the imbecilic notion that there isn't a vast difference between city-states that are SPONSORS of terrorism and locations from which terrorists operate in secret. It exposes a crucial falw in basic reasoning skills sadly all-too-common among liberals."

You prove the sponsorship and let's attack! Yee haw! But don't lie to the people, that's unethical.

"The list of nicknames provided ostensibly as a rebutal to the one applied to Lamont fail with typically liberal flair. On the one hand we have a nickname for a candidate ACCURATELY describing the central position of his campaign. In response we get "George 'Gynegologists Love Their Women' Bush"? Yeah, THERE'S a critical policy stance."

Okay how about George "I Do'nt Think About [Osama] That Much" Bush. Is that a critical enough issue?

"Then we get "Donald 'Show Me Where I Said That' Rumsfeld", which might be amusing if the notion that he HAD said what Hillary claimed hadn't been thoroughly discredited."

Which "Show Me" are you talking about??? I was talking about this painful lie caught on live TV:
http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=2042


"Similarly, "Colin 'These Are Facts, Not Allegations' Powell" might be an amusing handle if the items he were describing had been anything BUT facts (again, context is everything)."

They were not facts! Anodized aluminum tubes? Bacteriological agents placed in the tip of a missile? All wrong, disproven - "mistakes were made". Did you hear Powell's chief of staff Col. Wilkerson expose him pre- and post-UN speech as knowing the data wasn't vetted on the PBS show NOW? Powell had NO confidence in the testimony according to his old friend, right wing Republican chief of staff and 30 year veteran.

"Or, perhaps "Dick 'They're East, West, North and South of Tikrit' Cheney" might be amusing if Cheney hadn't admitted that he had misspoken and CORRECTED HIMSELF."

Oh! I hadn't heard that, could you show me the correction. I won't use it anymore if so.

"The dishonesty inherent in the complaint of a liberal that ANYTHING is "putting our kids into debt" is cause for hysterical laughter. While it is certain that the current administration has been by no means fiscally conservative, the additional spending on health care, education, agriculture and truckloads of pork has been on things near and dear to the hearts of liberals and, ultimately, has cost more than even the war in Iraq."

Defense spending, even in peacetime is by far the biggest expense in teh budget. Sure cut the pork, but health care, education, agriculture?

"Then Ann's brief comment regarding Lamont's grandfather is denounced with the statement: "The left never slimed Bush with his grandfather's mistakes..." which is evidence of either mental derangement, persistent amnesia or blatant dishonesty. "

There I was talking specifically linking Prescott to Hitler, as Ann did Ned's grandpa to Stalin. This link was ignored by the left, possibly considered "below the belt"? Sorry for the confusion, I didn't mean any sliming of Bush based on anything Prescott did, just arming and funding the Nazi buildup.

"One accusing another of "unethical" attacks should either eschew such tactics as well or do a little basic research into the validity of one's own assumptions. I know, I know, that's anathema to liberals."

I thought we were learning from Ann here... do I have to be better? What about you guys?

"Ann's inference that Maxine Waters would have a job working in a paper hat without affirmative action was perhaps over the top (this is what polemicists do - a concept completely lost on liberals and the feeble-minded, but I repeat myself). It would be fairer to say that, were she not in politics, she probably would have an orange jumpsuit with a number stenciled on the front. She has, after all, been named one of the most corrupt members of Congress, having funneled federal moneys to the companies of family members."

I hadn't heard that! Who named her corrupt? Was she convicted?

"She once famously, and unintentionally, make one of the most compelling cases for preserving the legality of abortion when she announced, "I have to march because my mother could not have an abortion". Liberals at least DO have entertainment value...."

That's a good line. Of course legalized abortion is being theorized as the reason for the decrease in crime over the last decade or so. But why do you only criticize criminal politicians on the left? Let's do it in balance, throw them all out and see who's left, using honesty, not political affiliations as a metric of worthiness. Too simple?