Open Thread with links

  • This is the best AWV comment ever written. From my friend Lee:

    I have to admit, I haven’t been following this as closely as everyone else, but am I correct in noting that Nick Licata

    a) opposes spending $500 million to keep the Sonics from leaving town

    b) favors spending $3 billion to keep Ballard Oil from leaving town

    Perfect.

  • Elizabeth Edwards has cancer, again. I fully expect the right-wing trolls to attack John and Elizabeth for deciding to continue John’s campaign for president. You see, if John were a Republican, he’d leave his wife, just like Newt Gingrich did.
  • A few days ago I described right-wingers as being “retards.” I now know that this may have offended some people. I promise never to compare the developmentally disabled to conservatives ever again.
  • Newsflash: most people don’t really care about the WA presidential primary controversy. It won’t award any delegates, so let’s cancel it.
  • It’s really stunning to see the P-I’s map of Seattle’s March 13th election. It shows which neighborhood voted for and against which option. The heavy “No Rebuild” area looks almost exactly like a map of the 43rd LD.

    That’s Frank’s district.

    (h/t to Josh Feit)

Comments

  1. 3

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Geez, Will, I’ve come to expect better from you. Replacing the AWV isn’t about Ballard Oil, it’s about the 110,000 vehicles (mostly commuters) who use AWV on an average day.

    I wouldn’t spend $3 billion (or even $3) to keep Ballard Oil from leaving town, but what about those 110,000 vehicles? Are you serious about putting them on 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Avenues?

    AWV was built in the first place because Seattle needed a through state highway in 1954. Has our city gotten smaller, less dense, with fewer cars since then?

    If you turn SR-99 into a surface boulevard, when (not if) I-5 closures occur, how will ANYONE move through this city?

    Yeah, it makes a snappy sound bite, but it’s not reality-based. This isn’t an “argument;” it’s a bumper sticker slogan on the same level as “Pray for Whirled Peas” or “Free Tibet.”

  2. 5

    me spews:

    I work with folks with developmental disabilities and can vouch for the fac that they are way cooler than republicans.

    MC

  3. 6

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    What I notice about that map is a very strong correlation between income level and how they voted. The affluent neighborhoods supported a tunnel, and the working class neighborhoods voted for a viaduct. Our electorate is exceptionally well informed; everyone figured out who would pay for Nickels’ gold-plater.

  4. 7

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @6 In case you forgot, 2/3rds of the cost of “tunnel lite” would have fallen on City Light ratepayers, many of whom live outside the city limits and therefore didn’t get to vote in the advisory election. I’ll bet if you could color in a suburban map, it would be bright yellow.

  5. 8

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    “The heavy ‘No Rebuild’ area looks almost exactly like a map of the 43rd LD. That’s Frank’s district.”

    It’s also the district where Mark Griswold got 15% of the vote by running on a platform more or less like this:

    “Congratulations Speaker Pelosi, now let the bombs fall where they may. My prediction: terror attack on domestic soil passenger aircraft within the next six months. Casualties in the 2-300 range. And, unfortunately, maybe that’s just what we need. It’s obvious people don’t remember what happened 5 years ago. Posted by FullContactPolitics at November 8, 2006 10:52 AM”

    http://blog.usefulwork.com/cgi.....ry_id=7430

    (HA’s peripatetic sleuth, Richard Pope, has ID’d “FullContactPolitics” as Griswold.)

    Homeland Security needs to go into that district and conduct a door-to-door search until they find every one of those terrorist-huggers.

  6. 9

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the Griswold voters are out there right now wiring explosives to the AWV’s supporting columns.

  7. 10

    spews:

    Uh, Will?

    Did you read the comments over at WashBlog before making the comment “Newsflash: most people don’t really care about the WA presidential primary controversy. It won’t award any delegates, so let’s cancel it“? (Maybe that was sarcasm, and, as it’s been a busy day already, I’m just not catching it.)

    There are a number of folks on both sides of that issue, and I’ll probably put in my two cents worth over there as well, but it’s one of the more heated WashBlog threads. People may be pro or anti primary, but they do seem to care.

    For myself, I see the primary as a way of getting the input of a much larger segment of the party. We’re the party of inclusion. We’re the folks that get upset when the Republicans pull dirty tricks to keep people from voting.

    The primary is a way of including more people in the decision.

    Even if it is just a “beauty contest”, the results of that contest will carry a lot of weight in the caucuses. If one candidate wins by a decent margin, the people in favor of that candidate will have an excellent argument to make when the caucus votes.

    In fact, my impression is that at least some of the impetus for doing away with the primary is that some party folks don’t want to be put in the embarassing situation of having a clear primary winner that happens to be someone other than their favorite.

    Let’s do a primary along with every other state that is doing one in February, then have our caucuses, knowing what the party members want.

    And if we decide on someone other than the winner of the primary, we’d better be prepared to do some explaining.

  8. 12

    spews:

    @ 10

    I did read the comments. Most people, if asked, would not want to pay millions to run a primary in which zero Democratic delegates are awarded.

    If people who care about who wins WA’s delegtes want to participate, they can caucus. If someone doesn’t care enough to show up, they don’t get to complain.

  9. 13

    ArtFart spews:

    11 It’s likely that long before the end-of-life of whatever we build, we won’t have to worry about accommodating any “cars” of the sort we’re now familiar with, unless their owners are pushing them.

  10. 14

    spews:

    Will said:

    If people who care about who wins WA’s delegtes want to participate, they can caucus. If someone doesn’t care enough to show up, they don’t get to complain.

    Ok, how about the folks that have to work? If I have a client that wants to see houses that day, my choice is to participate or earn a living. Many people have jobs that do not permit them to be away for the amount of time that a caucus requires.

    Military folks overseas cannot caucus. Regardless of what some of our righties say, lots of them are Democrats. Being retired military myself, I tend to be rather protective of their votes.

    Single parents will end up in the position of having to decide whether to care for their children or participate in the caucus. Not all caucus locations have decent child care, and not all parents want to turn care of their children over to others.

    Even many families will be in the position of having to decide which family member will participate, and which will care for children. Either way, one of the adults will not get a say in the decision.

    Older adults may not have the stamina to deal with a caucus, and may also have transportation problems.

    The sick, the housebound, people that have to travel. I’m sure that if I thought for a while longer, I could come up with others. None of these folks will be able to participate in deciding who will be our party’s Presidential nominee.

    We’re Democrats, Will. We’re supposed to be the party that cares what the voters think.

    Or has that changed, now that we’re in the majority?

  11. 15

    Libertarian spews:

    I would think the Democrats might view John Edwards as a more likely winner in 2008 than any of the others. Good for Edwards to elect to continue his campaign.

  12. 17

    spews:

    Elizabeth Edwards has cancer, again. I fully expect the right-wing trolls to attack John and Elizabeth for deciding to continue John’s campaign for president. You see, if John were a Republican, he’d leave his wife, just like Newt Gingrich did.

    You must be a idiot, otherwise you would realize what a completely hypocritical statement that is. Why don’t you name a conservative who has actually said something, rather than shooting off your fat mouth and doing the very thing you find so appalling. Or maybe get all the facts regarding Gingrich and his wife, instead of ignoring the ones you don’t like, you asshole.

  13. 18

    Libertarian spews:

    APerson,

    This is one of the far-left blogs that Bill O’Reilly warns his audience about several times per week. Outrageous statements from the major players and the audience are very common.

    Don’t take it personally.

  14. 19

    headless lucy spews:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03.....38;emc=rss

    “David A. Stockman, a former congressman who served as President Ronald Reagan’s first budget director, is expected to be indicted on charges of accounting fraud related to his role as chairman of an auto parts supplier, people with knowledge of the matter said Wednesday.”

    Another Republican crook. This one from the Reagan administration.

  15. 20

    spews:

    Ok, APerson, here is the statement from his (then) wife:

    “”He walked out in the spring of 1980…. By September, I went into the hospital for my third surgery. The two girls came to see me, and said, “Daddy is downstairs. Could he come up?” When he got there, he wanted to discuss the terms of the divorce while I was recovering from my surgery.” – Jackie, his first wife.

    So, exactly what facts did we miss? The fact that after the hospital visit, Jackie had to take Newt to court to get him to contribute for bills, and The First Baptist Church in his hometown had to take up a collection to support the family Gingrich had deserted, as utilities were about to be cut off?

    How about the 22 bounced checks? Or maybe we missed the adulterous affair while he was attacking President Clinton for doing the exact same thing.

    How about that whole GOPAC mess that he was involved with? Then there’s the $4.5 million from Rupert Murdock while Fox was having problems with a complaint by NBC that Fox is a foreign owned TV network (in violation of US law).

    Yes, we missed a bunch of stuff about dear old Newt.

  16. 21

    World Class Cynic spews:

    Lee’s comment was stupid before and it’s still stupid now.

    Since this is an open thread, I’ll just throw this out as an FYI on another topic.

    And I’d like to make one suggestion: Could this blog change the color of hyperlinks to differentiate them more from regular text? I don’t need a bright hurt-your-eyes color, but something a little more different would be nice.

  17. 22

    Libertarian spews:

    Hey headless lucy,

    I remember that David Stockman guy. He was a greasy little s**t! The thing I remember most about him was that he avoided the Viet Nam War draft by studying for the ministry. After things started winding-down with the war and it looked like he’d avoid the draft entirely, he switched majors to economics and accounting. I’m glad to see him put his accounting skills to work!

    Heck, even Ronald Reagan eventually fired the little s**t. Maybe some time as a “guest of the state” might do him some good. I’m sure he’ll make a wonderful wife and girlfriend in prison!!

  18. 23

    spews:

    John-

    Political parties have the right under the US Constitution to define their rules of membership.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F.....ssociation

    Some Democratic primaries allow indepedants and Republicans to vote, influencing who gets delegates. Under the US Constitution, the Democratic Party (and other major parties too) have the right to demand that only Democrats participate.

    Whether you want a primary or a caucus isn’t the point. We’re having a caucus, and that caucus will award delegates. The primary will not award delegates. Therefor, it’s a waste of taxpayer money.

    We can debate whether or not to have a caucus that awards delegates, a primary that awards delegates, have both with both awarding similar numbers of delegates…. it doesn’t matter.

    If you like a primary better, great. Let’s have people register by party. Then those people can vote in the primary.

  19. 24

    spews:

    @ 21

    Lee did mention that you had a gigantic misunderstanding of the quote in question. You might want to reread it.

    I’ll check with Goldy about the hyperlink color.

  20. 25

    spews:

    Will, the fact that the primary will simply be a “beauty contest” is already understood. It will simply give us another tool to determine the will of the voters, in this case those voters that self-identify as Democrats.

    Yes, the Washington State Democratic Party has the option of deciding who is and is not a member.

    Do we really want to do that? Don’t we want to know who most folks that self-identify as Democrats want as the party nominee?

    Yes, if the caucuses choose a candidate that goes against the results of that primary, we’d better be ready to do some explaining. Whoever wins that primary, their proponents will come into the primary with a lot of horsepower, but that will be the only result.

    Using a primary, we can give a voice to all those folks that would otherwise be excluded from the process. Additionally, there is an old saying that “appearance is reality”. In canceling the primary, the appearance is that we do not care what those folks think.

    And, in fact, some proponents of canceling the primary have stated that they do not care what anyone that does not go to a caucus thinks. Your own comment “If people who care about who wins WA’s delegates want to participate, they can caucus. If someone doesn’t care enough to show up, they don’t get to complain” implies that you do not respect the opinion of anyone that cannot (for whatever reason) participate in the caucuses.

    Additionally, the voters of Washington have supported holding primaries. The parties are here to give the voters a voice. Parties answer to those voters, and determining the will of the voters is far more important than loyalty to either party.

    I really don’t think that you honestly don’t care what those folks think, Will, but that is the impression that is given.

    Not everyone can caucus. We need a way to hear what they want. A “beauty contest” primary may not be a perfect solution, but it is better than simply ignoring them, while telling them that if they can’t caucus, we don’t care about them.

  21. 26

    proud leftist spews:

    What is it about Ronald Reagan that still causes Republicans to get erect (assuming they’ve filled their Viagra prescriptions) at the mere mention of his name? The Reagan Administration was corrupt, made a virtue of deficit spending and growing the government, caused longterm damage to our relations in Latin America because of imperialistic forays, took credit when none was due for the disintegration of the Soviet empire, and otherwise did nothing but put a smiley face on greed and avarice. Despite his failed presidency, Republicans have deified the man. And, all Republican presidential candidates claim to be his heir. I truly don’t get it.

  22. 29

    spews:

    Proud Leftist asked:

    “What is it about Ronald Reagan that still causes Republicans to get erect (assuming they’ve filled their Viagra prescriptions) at the mere mention of his name?

    Reagan was known as the “Teflon President” even during his term of office. He said all the right things to all the right people. He made people think that there was nothing wrong, even while deception and scandals were going on all around him. The country was tired of feeling bad about government, tired of worrying about the problems of the world, and still hurting a bit from the debacle in Viet Nam.

    Reagan told us we were the greatest nation on earth, and people wanted to hear that. He told us we were virtuous and good, and people wanted to hear that. He also told us that the government could spend money like drunken Sailors on a short liberty, without worrying about paying it back, and people wanted to hear that too.

    Reagan could deliver a speech better than anyone else. He looked Presidential. He sounded good, and said what folks wanted to hear.

    He may even have believed the things he said.

  23. 30

    YO spews:

    JOHN
    YOUR AN IDIOT.PURE AND SIMPLE ILL BET YOU SPENT ALL YOUR TIME IN THE CHIEFS MESS OH THATS RIGHT YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE AT SEA.ASSHOLE

  24. 31

    YO spews:

    NO ONE IS GOING TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT A HER CANCER.HER HUSBAND HAS AS MUCH CHANCE OF BEING PRESIDENT AS A SNOW BALL IN HELL AND THAT THE WAY IT IS

  25. 32

    proud leftist spews:

    YO, buddy,
    I can steer you to an English as a Second Language program near your home if you’ll let me know where you live.

  26. 33

    ArtFart spews:

    26 Reagan was actually able to say that the United States won a war during his watch. A measly, piddly-ass little war based on trumped-up premises, on a tiny island nobody gave a shit about, where after “we got there…just it time”, the hardest part was finding any enemy to engage.

    But yeah…he could honestly say we won.

  27. 34

    RightEqualsStupid spews:

    This is rich. People are starting to turn up instances when Tony SNOWJOB said during the Clinton Presidency that Executive Privelege should never be invoked by a White House. NOW we know why the publicans hate transcripts. It’s because we can refer to them later to prove the GOP are all hypocrite assholes.

  28. 35

    spews:

    YO

    I’m always glad to listen to someone as literate and articulate as yourself. You truly represent what we Democrats have come to see as the rank-and-file of the Republican Party.

    Let me go further. I can see, in your comments and opinions, the driving force that makes the Republican Party what it is today. You are the epitome of the modern Republican, and with your help, and the help of others like you, I expect that the Republican party of today will go down in history. Decades from now, school children will be reading about the party that you have made. Your efforts will not go unnoticed.

    Thank you, YO. You are truly an inspiration to us all.

  29. 36

    headless lucy spews:

    re 27: Oh, we really “get it”. Make no mistake about that.

    http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

    “Who Are the Authoritarian Followers?
    Because this book is called The Authoritarians, you may have thought it dealt
    with autocrats and despots, the kind of people who would rule their country, or
    department, or football team like a dictator. That is one meaning of the word, and yes,
    we shall talk about such people eventually in this book. But we shall begin with a
    second kind of authoritarian: someone who, because of his personality, submits by
    leaps and bows to his authorities. It may seem strange, but this is the authoritarian
    personality that psychology has studied the most.”

  30. 37

    headless lucy spews:

    http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

    “It is one-sided if we conclude that authoritarians have no good qualities
    whatsoever, for they do. High RWAs are earnest, hard-working, happy, charitable,
    undoubtedly supportive of people in their in-group, good friends, and so on. Social
    dominators are ambitious and competitive–cardinal virtues in American society. It’s
    as big a mistake, I have to keep telling myself, to see people as all-bad as it is to see
    them as all-good.
    But the downside remains, and I want to emphasize that it’s really there. The
    presentation of the research in this book has not passed through any kind of theoretical
    or ideological filter. In almost every experiment, low RWAs and low Social
    Dominators had as much a chance to look bad as their counterparts on the high end.
    But they seldom did. I have not stole past any praiseworthy findings about
    authoritarians; I have always reported any bad news that turned up about lows. I know
    it seems very one-sided, but that’s the way the data tumbled. While authoritarian
    followers and authoritarian leaders have their good side, their bad side is pretty broad
    and hard to miss.”

  31. 38

    proud leftist spews:

    AF @ 33
    You’re correct, of course. We smashed Grenada and saved the medical students. Who gives a shit if ill will lingers for a generation or two in the Caribbean because of our victory? Who cares if our victory was about as inspiring as the Seahawks beating an 8-man league team from Brewster. I’ll give credit to Reagan for at least getting us into a conflagration we could get out of.

  32. 39

    RonK, Seattle spews:

    FLASH – More people care about the primary than care about caucuses. Not just bloggers. Not just activists. People!

    I’ll speculate that a majority of last cycle’s primary attendees care about the primary.

    The right answer is: both. A primary to let people have their say. A caucus series (later) to let party activists pick their delegates.

  33. 40

    spews:

    Will –
    What is really “stunning” about the expensive survey on the AWV is found past the P.I.’s snappy graphic and in the actual article:

    Whatever the voters thought and whatever the politicians do, most Seattle voters didn’t think enough of the election to vote.

    It was the city’s first all-mail election, and county officials anticipated 55 percent turnout.

    Instead, only 46 percent thought that giving their non-binding 2 cents was worth the 39 cents for a stamp.

  34. 41

    jsa on commercial drive spews:

    john @ 25:

    Something to bear in mind in this discussion is how much access to the candidate selection process is really necessary in the name of good governance.

    A caucus where any voter in good standing has to take three hours out of their day to participate in a caucus is a comparatively low bar.

    In most countries (including nice liberal Canada, where I’m writing from now), the candidate selection process is closed. Only bought and paid party members can participate. The dues for membership in any of the parties are non-trivial. In addition, it’s not done through a local caucus. If you care who the leader of your party is, you get to catch a plane to the convention.

    Just as you are concerned about how the closed caucus process pulls the party towards the fringes, I am concerned an open primary favors telegenic milquetoast candidates.

  35. 42

    YOS LIB BRO spews:

    WINGNUT QUIZ.

    CAN WINGNUTS TEACH HTML THE RIGHT WAY LIKE THIS:

    <a href=”url”>some text</a>

    OR, LIKE THAT MORON CALLED “TYPICALLEFTY”, LIKE THIS:

    [a href=”url”]some text[/a]

    “uh duh just swap the square brackets with the angle ones..”

    C’MON WINGNUTS EDUMICATE US.

  36. 43

    Dan Rather spews:

    ArtFart says:

    26 Reagan was actually able to say that the United States won a war during his watch. A measly, piddly-ass little war based on trumped-up premises, on a tiny island nobody gave a shit about, where after “we got there…just it time”, the hardest part was finding any enemy to engage.

    But yeah…he could honestly say we won.

    03/22/2007 at 5:15 pm

    Reagan also brought the commies to their knees. I notice you libs don’t like talking about the fall of the USSR…. I wonder why. I guess I wouldn’t say much either if I were a commie lib. hehehehe

  37. 44

    YOS LIB BRO spews:

    DOOFUS says:

    Reagan also brought the commies to their knees. I notice you libs don’t like talking about the fall of the USSR…. I wonder why. I guess I wouldn’t say much either if I were a commie lib. hehehehe

    NICE TRY DOOFUS. THE USSR WAS BROUGHT DOWN BY SOLIDARITY, POPE JOHN PAUL, GORBACHEV AND A COLLAPSE IN THE PRICE OF OIL.

    REAGAN HAD A LIMITED ROLE.

  38. 45

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @11 I don’t find The Stranger’s arguments persuasive. Their principal argument — that if we can live without a through-highway during the construction period, we can live without it forever — is logically flawed in that it assumes a detour is equal to a highway. To the contrary, detours ALWAYS are bottlenecks, causes of slowdowns, and sources of frustration for drivrs. A detour is NEVER the equal of a highway, so why would any rational person replace a highway with a permanent detour?

  39. 46

    Dan Rather spews:

    35 & 42

    Wowsers. A lib calling somebody dumb again. Isn’t that ironic. Oh no, I used that word again.

    is /ɪz/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[iz] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation
    –verb 1. 3rd pers. sing. pres. indic. of be.
    —Idiom2. as is. as1 (def. 25).

    I know you libs have trouble with that word. heheehheee

  40. 47

    Mark The Redneck KENNEDY spews:

    The Breck Girl is being a fucking idiot. He has about as much chance of being president as Empty Skirt Obama. He should stay home with his wife and help her.

  41. 48

    Dan Rather spews:

    NICE TRY DOOFUS. THE USSR WAS BROUGHT DOWN BY SOLIDARITY, POPE JOHN PAUL, GORBACHEV AND A COLLAPSE IN THE PRICE OF OIL.

    REAGAN HAD A LIMITED ROLE.

    Sure that’s what you libs believe. It is to bad you can’t convince the million of freed ex commies of that liberal taling point. That’s is just more revisionist history from the lefties.

  42. 49

    Delbert spews:

    Have a little vision and a dose of common sense. Build a damn suspension bridge straight out from the Battery Street tunnel, arch over and around and tie back in at S. Holgate St. Make the center high enough to clear shipping traffic.

    1) It lets you build without closing the AWV for years, weeks or months to do the tie-in at most.

    2) Bridges are easy and cheap compared to tunnels underwater level or elevated roadways on shaky ground.

    3) It could be beautiful, on par with the Space Needle, as the defining icon of Seattle.

    And it will never happen because the feeble minded “leaders” in Seattle, King County, and Washington State will fling dollars at bad ideas like monkeys fling poo.

  43. 50

    spews:

    Dan Rather says:

    NICE TRY DOOFUS. THE USSR WAS BROUGHT DOWN BY SOLIDARITY, POPE JOHN PAUL, GORBACHEV AND A COLLAPSE IN THE PRICE OF OIL.

    REAGAN HAD A LIMITED ROLE.

    Sure that’s what you libs believe. It is to bad you can’t convince the million of freed ex commies of that liberal taling point. That’s is just more revisionist history from the lefties.

    ————————-

    You forgot who really brought down the Soviet Union, more than anyone.

    His name was Osama I do believe. John Paul did help though.

    Not Ronnie Ray Gun wagging his finger, while raiding Social Security, and running up our debt…..

  44. 51

    spews:

    When Reagan took office, we were the world’s #1 exporter of goods. We had a trade surplus that was astronomical.

    Now we are the world’s #1 importer, and have a trade deficit of $900,000,000,000 a year.

    Reaganomics.

    Trickle UUUPPPP!!!!

    The world is not flat. In fact is owns us, thanks to Reagan’s insane policies, and union busting.

    Remember when only 1 parent had to work to earn enough money to raise a family. That was before Reaganomics…..

  45. 52

    YOS LIB BRO spews:

    DOOFUS says:.

    Sure that’s what you libs believe.

    OH I FORGOT. THE USSR’S OWN INTERNAL CORRUPTION PLAYED A MAJOR ROLE AS WELL IN THEIR DOWNFALL. KIND OF REMINDS YOU OF WHAT THE REPUBLICANS THAT DOOFUS WORSHIPS HAVE DONE TO THEMSELVES, E.G. CUNNINGHAM, NEY, SAFAVIAN, ABRAMOFF, FOLEY, HAGGARD, TOBIN, ETC.

    SEE NOV 7 2006.

  46. 53

    klake spews:

    John Barelli says:
    Military folks overseas cannot caucus. Regardless of what some of our righties say, lots of them are Democrats. Being retired military myself, I tend to be rather protective of their votes.
    John you are picking up the rabbit’s bad habits of stereotyping the military and you know the Democrats don’t want their votes counted. Now put your best foot forward and don’t stretch the truth like Roger.

  47. 54

    klake spews:

    John Barelli says:
    We’re Democrats, Will. We’re supposed to be the party that cares what the voters think.
    Or has that changed, now that we’re in the majority?
    John your friends have always been the majority in this state and look what we got to deal with. From my point of view they want to surrender to Osama bin Laden with in the next few days and practice to be a good Frenchman and kiss everybody on both cheeks. The Democrat Party really doesn’t care about the military but how to get elected into office at our expenses. When I entered this state we had a population of little over 1 million folks today it is over 5 million and the road infrastructure hasn’t added 30 miles of road. Yep the Socialist Democrats are doing a real fine job of making girded lock.

  48. 55

    Tree Frog Farmer spews:

    Um, another analysis points up the posting of the majority of the Red Army in Eastern Europe, and not INSIDE Mother Russia Proper, nor along the Sino-Russian border, where the Soviets had a real and serious security problem.
    That analysis points up the fact that while Soviet planners coveted an expansionist dream, and attempted to maintain a Red Army of 90+ Divisions, they simply did not have the economic engine to support it. . .By posting those divisions in The Eastern Bloc they could levy a defacto tax on those subject countries to feed and support those divisions.
    Conventional NATO wisdom said that we had to defend against the slavering hordes of Red Army tanks would surge through the Foldau Gap and attempt to conquer WEstern Europe. . .the view espoused by Condileeza Rice and Dummy Rummy. . .who were proven oh so wrong by the fall.
    The brutal truth was that at no point were any of those Divisions supplied with petroleum reserves sufficent to support field operations of more than two to three weeks at a time. In fact, their battle readiness was almost non-existent. It was a back-breaking effort to even mount system wide war games once a year. After the fall, it literally took months for some elements of the Red Army to pull themselves together and generate transport to get off the soil of Czechoslovakia, Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania.
    Several of those governments actually had to contribute money and resources after the fall to help these “fearsome” Divisions back home. Ronnii Raygun had little to do with this. . .

  49. 57

    spews:

    Klake. “surrender to Osama bin Laden”?

    Who is the president that is not that concerned about him? Who is the president that ignored 100 direct code red 10 out of 10 we are about to be hit warnings?

    Who invaded a non threatening muslim nation, against the opinion of almost the whole planet, lying about the reasons for the invasion, and directly, or indirectly causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent muslims?

    Who has made the world despise the U.S. klake? It sure wasn’t Clinton.

    If anyone is helping Bin Laden, it is the pathetic lying Chimp, and the Republicons that let him do his dirty deeds unchecked for all those years.

    If you think we are any safer today than we were on 9-10-2001 your are on crack….. We are 4 Trillion dollars more in debt though…..

  50. 58

    TypicalLefty spews:

    #42
    YOS LIB BRO says:

    WINGNUT QUIZ.

    CAN WINGNUTS TEACH HTML THE RIGHT WAY LIKE THIS:

    some text

    OR, LIKE THAT MORON CALLED “TYPICALLEFTY”, LIKE THIS:

    [a href=”url”]some text[/a]

    “uh duh just swap the square brackets with the angle ones..”

    C’MON WINGNUTS EDUMICATE US.”

    LOL. YOS LIB BRO thinks there’s an HTML “sarcasm” markup.

    Too funny. You can’t make this shit up. :D

  51. 59

    8th spews:

    Hmmm, the Clinton CrackUp. Sounds like a good read. Michael Medved said today he has friends in high places who can confirm everything that’s in that book.

  52. 60

    YOS LIB BRO spews:

    Too funny.

    YEAH, “TYPICALLEFTY” IS TOO STUPID TO FIGURE OUT ANGLE BRACKET RENDERING IN AN HTML TEXT BOX.

    WELL ONCE A MORON ALWAYS A MORON I SAY.

  53. 61

    YOS LIB BRO spews:

    HAS HE FIGURED IT OUT YET?

    TRY IT MORON!

    LIKE THIS:

    <BETCHA><CAN’T>

    BILL CLINTON!!

    THAT WAKE YOU UP?

  54. 62

    spews:

    Oh, klake?

    Exactly how am I stereotyping the military? Lots of us (and I’m still on the roles, and will be for the rest of my life) are Democrats. I want those Democrats to have a voice in choosing the next President. Since that choice is likely to be made at the Democratic National Convention (we could run Bill the Cat against just about anyone you folks might nominate and we’d still win) I think that we should make sure their voices are heard.

    This part of the discussion is simply a discussion among Democrats as to the best way to pick the candidate that will best represent the people of Washington, and on a larger scale, the United States.

    One thing that Will and I do agree on is that the decision will be made by Democrats, and you and your ilk don’t get a say in how we do it.

    You Republicans can pick whomever you wish to run against that person, and frankly, I don’t care if you draw the name from a hat. The chances of your finding a Republican that could win the next election are so slim as to be negligible.

    Most of the few decent folks you have left have been so marginalized by the neocons that they’re considering changing parties. That leaves you with Rep. Paul, who may be the last honest conservative Republican, and while I tend to admire his honesty and consistency, I also think that you folks would never nominate him, and also think that his policies would not be accepted by most voters (myself included).

    As to the rest of your spew, it’s been pretty much handled by Facts.

    Have a nice day.

  55. 63

    ArtFart spews:

    62 John, don’t waste your fingers. Klake wouldn’t recognize a fact if it jumped up and started humping his face.

  56. 64

    TypicalLefty spews:

    “YOS LIB BRO says:

    Too funny.

    YEAH, “TYPICALLEFTY” IS TOO STUPID TO FIGURE OUT ANGLE BRACKET RENDERING IN AN HTML TEXT BOX.

    WELL ONCE A MORON ALWAYS A MORON I SAY.”

    LOL. Still think “sarcasm” is an HTML markup?

    I will never use XHTML because it’s obviously driving you batshit.

    [question]Why did you pick such a gay username[/question]

    (Watch the moron go batshit crazy and tell me to USE ANGLE BRACKETS) :D

  57. 66

    YOS LIB BRO spews:

    Watch the moron go batshit crazy

    YAWN… I’M DONE WITH YOU. GO AMUSE YOURSELF WITH CPL SANCHEZ AND JEFF GANNON.

  58. 67

    RightEqualsStupid spews:

    FACTS the Publicans hope you will forget…

    1) 9.11 happened on GW Bush’s watch
    2) When 9.11 happened, Bush 41 was having a meeting with Osama bin Laden’s father
    3) Bush let the bin Laden family leave the country while the rest of us were grounded
    4) Bush still can’t OR WON’T find Osama
    5) The Bush regime still can’t find out who sent Anthrax to people after 9.11
    6) Nobody – not one person – has profited more by 9.11 than Bush
    7) When 9.11 hit, Bush was reading MY PET GOAT

  59. 68

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @38 Look at the bright side — maybe one of those offshore medical students is now YO’s personal physician.

  60. 69

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @50 I don’t know how much credit I’d give Osama for the assk-kicking the commies got in Afghanistan. I tend to think the 1.2 million Afghans who sacrificed their lives played a somewhat larger role than Osama did.

  61. 70

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    But don’t make the mistake of thinking the Afghan “freedom fighters” were fighting for “freedom.” They weren’t. They were fighting to impose their own authoritarian regime on their country.