Does it make me a bad person to admit that this, reminds me of this?
Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!
His glib indifference at a Republican being nearly killed is proof to me that if Democrats are in control of Health Benefits Advisory Committees, or “death panels,” they would determine a patient’s benefits on the basis of their political affiliation.
@1 I have a suggestion, let’s change your screen handle to “Juvenile Political Analyst,” for the sake of plausibility.
All I know is three kids were gunned down by their dad yesterday because of a visitation dispute, and Republicans still have no moral quandary with giving every Tom, Dick, and Harry access to unregulated guns.
Does it make me a bad person to
nah. it just shows that you got nothing today.
@1 “they would determine a patient’s benefits on the basis of their political affiliation”
And you guys wouldn’t? [chuckling] You already do — you think only well-to-do Republicans should have access to health care.
Is that Karl Rove walking with Meg Whitman in the sidebar ad?
It seems like Goldy was more worried about Darcy Burner’s waterfront estate catching fire than a Republican politician being nearly killed.
http://horsesass.org/?p=5127
@5 “And you guys wouldn’t? [chuckling] You already do — you think only well-to-do Republicans should have access to health care.”
That can’t be true…You’re still around, for example. Surely no R around has any reason to want to save your miserable old hide. Or do you question every health care providers political affiliation prior to accepting their ministrations?
I dunno about Goldy, but I’m definitely way more concerned about bears than Rs. Unlike Rs, Bears actually contribute something to the world.
When the Rs get to endangered levels, then I guess we could put them in zoos and “rehabilitate” them and let kids see what sorry creatures they are. But I’d be good with just letting them go extinct. The kids will just have to be satisfied with photos. No big whoop.
@9
Except that *Liberalism* in this country is one (okay, maybe two) terrorist nuclear incident away from extinction. So I wouldn’t go picking out zoo exhibits for Rs quite yet.
Yes, Goldy, you are a bad man. But not for this reason.
You’re bad because you rudely point out the hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy of the GOP in this country.
This behavior is just not acceptable in the finer social circles of Seattle and the Eastside.
You should know your place.
Or do you question every health care providers political affiliation prior to accepting their ministrations?
That assumes you can get past the door to ask them, since now so many use their socially conservative political views to keep you out. And fear mongering about nuclear weapons is so, well… Go back to class please, you are truant.
@12
“That assumes you can get past the door to ask them, since now so many use their socially conservative political views to keep you out.”
Bullshit! Where have you, or anyone else, been denied medical care because of your political views? Not in this fucking country you haven’t.
Yes, let’s go ahead and deny the possiblity of nuclear terrorism. Afterall, it *can’t* happen here now, can it. Personally, I think it’s more likely a certainty, rather than a possibility. Still, you obviously do not. Shall we all sit around and sing kumbaya now?
@8 I pay for my health care. I don’t get no fucking subsidy from nobody.
@14
Then your original comment is a lie, isn’t it!
@15 How do you figure that?
I-Burn, you’re a fucking idiot. Here’s proof:
@10 “Except that *Liberalism* in this country is one (okay, maybe two) terrorist nuclear incident away from extinction.”
Really? Are you still arrogant enough to believe that conservatives actually protected this country? Let’s review what led up to terrorists flying 3 planes into buildings unhindered on 9/11/01:
“Bush’s approach in most situations seemed a reactive combination of calculations to avoid his father’s mistakes and to reject Clinton’s policies. This was especially clear in international affairs … by forsaking Clinton’s efforts to address the dangers of international terrorism.
“During the transition between administrations, National Security Adviser Sandy Berger arranged several extensive briefings on this last subject for Bush’s incoming national security adviser, Condoleeza Rice, and others on the Bush team, including Vice President Cheney. One briefing lasted half a day. Berger told them that Osama bin Laden was an ‘existential threat’ and told them that he wanted ‘to underscore how important this issue is.’ In another briefing, Richard Clarke, head of counterrorism in the NSC, the single most knowledgeable expert in the government, gave them a complete tutorial on the subject. In yet another briefing, CIA officials were brought in to go over all the intelligence available on terrorism.
“Don Kerrick, a three-star general and outgoing deputy national security adviser, overlapped for four months with the new Bush people. He submitted a memo for the new National Security Council warning of the danger of terrorism. ‘We are going to be struck again,’ he wrote. But as Kerrick explained to me, he received no answer to his memo. ‘They didn’t respond,’ he said. ‘They never responded. It was not high on their priority list. I was never invited to one meeting. They never asked me to do anything. They were not focusing. They didn’t see terrorism as the big megaissue that the Clinton administration saw it as. They were concentrated on what they thought were higher priorities than terrorism.’ The Principals meeting of national security officials took up terrorism only once, after constant pressure from Clarke, on September 4, 2001, and at that meeting they discussed using unmanned Predator drone spy aircraft, but no decision was made. ‘Unfortunately,’ said Kerrick, ‘September 11 gave them something to focus on.’”
— Sidney Blumenthal, The Clinton Wars (New York: Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux, 2003), pp. 797-798.
Now let’s review the GOP’s congressional anti-terrorism record:
Nov. 14, 2001: Senate Democrats propose $15 billion for homeland security; the White House warns against “permanent spending on other projects that have nothing to do with stimulus and that will only expand the size of government.”
Dec. 4, 2001: Senate Appropriations Committee votes 29-0 in favor of $13.1 billion for homeland security; the next day, Bush threatens to veto it.
Dec. 6, 2001: Senate Republicans reduce homeland security funding by $4.6 billion.
Dec. 19, 2001: Under pressure from White House, House-Senate conferees eliminate another $200 million of funding for airport security, port security, nuclear facility security, and postal security.
June 7, 2002: Senate votes 71-22 for $8.3 billion of homeland security funding; the next day, Bush’s advisors recommend a veto.
July 19, 2002: Under White House pressure, homeland security funding is further reduced by cutting money for food security, cyber security, nuclear security, airport security, port security, drinking water security, coordination of police and fire radios, and lab testing to detect chem-bio weapons.
Aug. 13, 2002: Bush decides not to spend $2.5 billion appropriated for homeland security on the grounds of “fiscal responsibility.”
Jan. 16, 2003: White House reacts to Democratic efforts to increase homeland security funding by stating, “The Administration strongly opposes amendments to add new extraneous spending.” Later that day, Senate Republicans vote against funds for smallpox vaccine.
Jan. 23, 2003: Senate Republicans cut security funding for the FBI, FEMA, INS, TSA, Coast Guard, and National Nuclear Security Administration.
Feb. 3, 2003: Bush submits a 2004 budget cutting homeland security funding by nearly 2 percent.
Feb. 14, 2003: Senate Democrats request money for smallpox vaccine, police and fire radios, and public transportation security; no Republicans support it.
March 21-25, 2003: Republicans defeat 7 amendments to bolster homeland security.
April 2, 2003: Senate Republicans reject Democratic amendment to provide $1 billion for port security.
April 3, 2003: Republicans reject protection of commercial airliners from shoulder-fired missiles and four other pro-homeland security amendments.
June 2003: House Republicans reject Democratic proposal to raise $1 billion for homeland security by reducing tax cuts for 200,000 millionaires by an average of $5,000 each (from $88,000 to $83,000).
Source: James Carville, “Had Enough?” (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2003), pp. 41-43.
“Although Bush took credit for creating the new Department of Homeland Security, he vigorously opposed the idea when Democrats first proposed it. He insisted that a presidential adviser with no accountability to the American people would be more effective than a new Cabinet member. White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said President Bush thought that a Department of Homeland Security was ‘just not necessary.’ Tom Ridge — then homeland security adviser — said that he would recommend that Bush veto legislation to create a Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security.”
Source: Democratic National Committee Newsletter, Jan. 29, 2003: http://www.democrats.org/news/200301290004.html
“While the Department of Homeland Security has issued new warnings of terrorist hijackings on commercial airlines this summer, Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee voted just last week against a Democratic amendment to add $50 million in funding to prevent the Transportation Security Administration from cutting the number of air marshals. The vote came during the Committee’s mark-up of the 2003 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill, which funds the TSA’s air marshal program.”
Source: Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee press release, July 31, 2003: http://216.25.5.15/press/newsr.....07-31.html
“Senate Republicans once again blocked a vote on homeland security legislation solely because it preserved collective beginning rights and civil service protections for the 170,000 federal workers who would make up the new department.Sixty votes are needed to end debate and bring the measure to a floor vote, the move failed by a 52-45 count, with almost solid GOP opposition. President Bush has threatened to veto any measure that does not give him unlimited power over the workers and Senate Republicans also rejected a bipartisan bill that gave Bush most of what he sought.”
Source: International Association of Machinists, Oct. 8, 2002: http://www.iamaw.org/publicati.....8_2002.htm
To recap, here’s what Republicans have done to protect Americans from terrorists:
Ignored warnings of the impending 9/11 attacks. Result: 3,000 Americans dead
Fought the wrong war in the wrong country against a dictator who posed no nuclear or terrorism threat against the U.S. and in fact was a check against Al Qaeda establishing a beachhead in the Middle East. Result: 4,000+ American soldiers dead
Refused to fund measures to keep illicit nuclear materials from entering the U.S. in cargo containers.
Delayed creation of the Department of Homeland Security by over a year because the GOP’s anti-union agenda was more important to Republicans in Congress than America’s security.
Set up a hopelessly inept airport screening program that inconvenienced passengers while working conditions for screeners were so bad the agency experienced 300% turnover in its first year.
And, of course, Katrina proved that a Republican-run FEMA can’t manage a natural disaster let alone a major attack.
That’s some terrorism record conservatives have compiled, pardner! With enemies like Republicans, terrorists don’t even need friends.
You don’t have to be a moron to be a Republican, but it helps.
@17
Nice strawman you just knocked down, old man.
@19
And very good job at answering a question that I hadn’t even brought up, dumbass.
My contention, and try to follow along here – I know it can be hard when you’re struggling with dementia – was that “Liberalism” as currently espoused by the Democrats would not, and will not, survive if/when terrorists manage to detonate a nuclear device in this country. I didn’t say a goddamned word about who has or hasn’t done a better job of protecting the US.
Whoa! The right wing is giving away the program.
Fire or expose enough Valerie Plames and you kill all the libruls..
I see a lot of attacks on gun owners in this blog, but there are many instances of honest people who own guns using their weapons to stop or prevent crimes.
In a monthly column labeled “The Armed Citizen,” the NRA’s magazine, “American Rifleman,” presents clippings from newspapers around the country where citizens have used weapons to save lives. Yes, it’s unfortunate that some people go crazy and shoot their families, but, on balance, having a weapon is a tremendous deterrent for the bad guys.
I believe having more guns in America would do a lot to deter violent crimes. More guns equal less crime.
More stories from Politically Incorrect’s favorite blog:
Penis Envy
Beating the Sword with a Gun!
We Need to Ban Fire Extinguishers!
Grandma Carries A Magnum
I believe having more guns in America would do a lot to deter violent crimes. More guns equal less crime.
Like the Robert Heinlein story element where everyone was armed and if people were shot, they probably deserved it.
Course he also said it took many generations of carnage till the stupid, the violent, the twitchy, the vengeful, the crazy and many, many of the unlucky were killed off and the people that remained, were very calm and respectful.
Another case of Darwin at work. Why do the conservatives deny that evolution exists yet want to install policies that would enforce it.
@23
No where did I advocate such an event YLB. So rather than sneer, why don’t you explain why I am incorrect?
I’d also point out that I did not provide any kind of value judgement on that occurance, only that it would happen. In fact, wrong headed as I think you all to be, I absolutely would defend to the death your right to your opinions. In fact, since I served in the military, I did put my life on the line to defend your right to say what you think.
My contention was simply that the day after a successful terrorist nuclear detenation in the US Liberalism will be effectively dead. I don’t know that it’ll get to the point of Liberals being hung from lamp posts, but certainly any kind of political credibility will be gone.
@26
Libertarians don’t deny it, and in fact we firmly believe in evolution in action.
27 – Sorry I-Burn that was one silly, sick right wing fantasy.
That was one for the ages.
Not grounded the least bit in reality.
It showed no understanding of ANYTHING that has happened in this country since 9/11 or any logical thinking whatsoever.
It’s so interesting to know that just one explosion by a couple of crappy nuclear weapons, let’s say two dirty bombs that’ll kill a few hundred people and sicken a thousand or more..
THAT – will end Social Security, Medicare, Head Start, the Peace Corp, WIC, Food Stamps, let BP of the world run wild in the Continental shelf
AND BEST OF ALL?
Keep your taxes and those of the Koch family very, very low forever…
@24
I’d like to see a comparative stack of news clippings documenting gun owners stopping crime, arranged next to a stack of news articles reporting crimes committed with guns.
I wonder which would be higher, and by what exponent.
@27, 29
I found the passing but deliberate image of liberals being hung from lampposts (ala Left Behind, perhaps?) to be the disturbing window into the dark violent eliminationist soul of a right winger.
re 7: “… waterfront estate…” You gotta be kidding.
(Sour grapes political analyst)
Hey stupid ooh… ylb, which DUMMOCRAPT outed Valerie Plame first again?
Stay stupid as dirt… you are doing a great job.
You are a moron if you are a DUMMOCRAPT.
PERIOD!
Oh my Roger Rabbit again repeated that DESTROYED Blumenthal article @17.
Moronic Moonbat! Memory Malady!
You can get the full destruction from ylb, TEH DATABAZE KEEPA! No need to repeat Puddyself.
SJ @ 25:
Thanks for the link. http://www.americanrifleman.or.....38;cpage=2
I had never ever been to that site until just a few seconds ago and didn’t even know of its existence. Thanks!
Keep your powder dry, SJ!
33 – Puddybud – all it takes is to let the terrorists bomb a couple of Democratic-controlled cities with nukular weapons and liberalism is destroyed – forever…
According to I-Burn anyway.
That should be a great comfort to you. If your guys get in in November or 2012 – you know what to do.
And Lewis Libby was convicted for lying, purgery and trying to obstruct Fitzgerald’s investigation. Libby was a Republican and so was Fitz.
Pu8ddy
Glad to help.
oops m….
argghhhh
I hear steps…..
Puddy .. get me a gun!!!
Nowwww………….
……….
….
..
.
.
.
.
@31
Probably as disturbing as I find someone who uses “Scientist” as part of their name when their response indicates anything but objectivity. More like incindiary and dogmatic. You’ve decided you know exactly who and what I am, and where I’m coming from, based upon a few posts? Way to go “Scientist”.
@39
Boo fucking Hoo, Burnsy.
Violent, eliminationist rhetoric is a staple of the right wing (see Dave Niewert’s body of work). You’re the one fantasizing about Liberalism’s “death” and proffering images of “Liberals being hung from lamp posts”. Recurring patterns of behavior like this from your side are predictable and suitable for making objective observation and analysis – the stuff of science indeed.
Your pitiful complaining about me making leaps of judgment about who you are ring totally hollow. I could care less who or what you are – I vehemently object, however, to the insidious and destructive tools you use to advance your views.
Your whining about being called on your violent, even murderous, fantasies is pathetically transparent – you got called on your shit and you don’t like it. Repudiate it if you’ve got the balls, and try to engage in civil conversation – or slink back to your bunker and your wanking off over sticky Sarah Palin posters.
Again, did you notice ylb can’t answer a simple question? Even when the evidence is right there?
That’s why Puddy has labeled him as dumb as dirt!
ylb, did you notice what Noam Chomsky said of Odumba… of course not. You are as dumb as dirt. Second posting… because you need weekly refreshers being dumb as dirt.
What are your thoughts on President Obama?
He’s involved in war crimes right now. For example, targeted assassinations are war crimes. That’s escalated quite sharply under Obama. If you look at WikiLeaks, there are a lot of examples of attacks on civilians.
BTW – The New Statesman is a British left-wing political magazine published weekly in London. They like the BBC are way out whack-jobs.
Nuff SAID Sucka!
What did you think when he was given the Nobel Peace Prize?
Considering the history of the Nobel Peace Prize, it’s not the worst example. It was given to him before he had the time to commit many war crimes.
43 – Chomsky said more or less the same things about Bill Clinton.
When a Dem gets into office they have to keep defense policy more or less the same as it was under a Republican predecessor. That shuts up the Darth Cheney’s going on Faux news and then the Congressional whackjobs from joining in on the chorus.
I respect Noam Chomsky and agree with him on many things and disagree with him on a few things.
@40
Tsk Tsk Tsk, what a foul mouthed little leftie drone you turned out to be “Scientist”. I do love your handle though, I have to admit. Nice dichotomy there, though I’m sure you think you’re being far more clever than the average conservative/Libertarian. Yeah, not so much, but still, it’s worth a laugh… if you were a real scientist, you’d be asking how I came to whatever conclusion I stated, rather than just assuming that you already know. That you showed not an iota of curiousity about my contention that a nuclear terrorist incident in this country would spell the end of your brand of liberalism, more than amply demonstrate the very hidebound and rigid thougt processes that dominate your worldview. More amusement as you can well imagine. Finally, don’t bother responding as I truly have no interest in whatever little rebuttal you might construct – You already know it all, and I simply don’t care to waste any more time on you.
“That you showed not an iota of curiousity about my contention that a nuclear terrorist incident in this country would spell the end of your brand of liberalism”
Not even an iota? heh- How can that be? I had far less interest in your wingnut wetdream of the death of liberalism than Liberal Scientist.
@44
What relentless whining, Burnsy.
Typical of the right – you guys have raised victimhood for political gain to an art form.
And what is the whining over? That I didn’t engage you on the merits of your violent fantasies?
My comments were specifically about your rhetoric, and I could make the same complaint – you have refused to engage my criticism of your eliminationism. And my criticism stands. An no, I don’t give a fuck how you grew to embrace such rhetoric – I just care about its destructiveness and the implications it suggests about your morals and that of your fellow travelers.
The “thesis” you put forward, that is, that liberalism will be dead if/when a nuclear terror attack occurs on a US city, isn’t a thesis at all, but rather a fragment of a fever dream you had after watching endless loops of Christine O’Donnell talking about masturbation and witchcraft. There is nothing to which to respond – you give us nothing to evaluate, no purported mechanism or process as to how those two events are linked, only the slathering over the image of “Liberals being hung from lamp posts”.
You’re one sick fuck, Burnsy.
“You’re one sick fuck, Burnsy.”
True.
I thought more or less what Obama himself thought:
He hadn’t done all that much to deserve it.
Then again turning away from all the war on terror, pre-emptive action neo-crazy talk would make a peace-maker out of a Rambo.