As it turns out, there’s another bogus “best of” poll going on, the NWsource “People’s Picks”, and tomorrow, July 22 is the last day to vote. So if you feel like it, why not click on the link, select the “Blog” category (under “Entertainment & Nightlife” for some reason,) and vote for HorsesAss.org. (But whatever you do, don’t repeatedly erase your cookie and vote again. That would be dishonest.)
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!
But whatever you do, don’t repeatedly erase your cookie and vote again. That would be dishonest.)
A subtle hint to urge the true believers cheat and swing the vote your way. Well, I guess if it worked for Gregoire…
“But whatever you do, don’t repeatedly erase your cookie and vote again. That would be dishonest.)”
Even though I rarely go there, voted for Sound Politics a bunch of times. But don’t tell me to jump off a bridge, I might do that too.
pbj and ConservativeFirst,
You asswipes sure have no sense of humor, do you?
dj @ 3
“You asswipes sure have no sense of humor, do you? ”
That’s a rather ironic statement. Kinda funny too.
You asswipes sure have no sense of humor, do you?
Vote fraud may be funny to Democrats, but the undermining of Democracy is a serious thing. When vote fruad has become the modus operandi of the liberals, it is not surprising that you no longer take it seriously.
Whenever pbj is around I always smell something funny.
I believe the correct term for what pbj and ConservativeFirst have is “short memory.”
David@7,
I beleive that his post had this disclaimer:
“I posted Plan B back in January. Of course it was all tongue-in-cheek.”
And since the Democrat party has an history of vote fraud , it is easy to conclude that this was meant as a subtle hint to commit more vote fraud.
Donna@6,
Whenever pbj is around I always smell something funny.
You must smell your soiled britched as I shred your argument and scare the crap out of you.
pbj @ 9
No. That’s not it.
Goldy, your wit has ensnared a couple of trolls. LOL. If only you’d told them it was tongue-in-cheek, they might have gotten the joke.
Donna@10,
No. That’s not it.
Well if it isn’t your pants, then it’s gotaa be your brains.
David,
It is hard to differentiate between wit and fraud when it comes to Democrats.
Only for you, pbj.
pbj @ 8
How is that a “history of vote fraud”? Isolated incidences of vote fraud and voter registration fraud pop up all the time. Neither party is immune. The behavior is condoned by neigher party.
History of vote fraud. The donks have the republicans beat by a mile. Does voter fraud exist for each party. Yes. But to compare democrats to republicans is like comparing a herion addict to a social dinker. King county is not the exception.. it is the norm.
Lemons are ingredients too!
@ 12
No.. it is distinctly coming from your posts. No doubt about that.
RUFUS @ 16
“King county is not the exception”
Really? There is evidence of Democratic voter fraud in King County?
How is that a “history of vote fraud”? Isolated incidences of vote fraud and voter registration fraud pop up all the time. Neither party is immune. The behavior is condoned by neigher party.
Hardly isolated incidences. It is the way of life for Democrats.
pbj @ 20
“Hardly isolated incidences. It is the way of life for Democrats.”
You need your lithium dose adjusted, pbj.
2,000 more votes than voters is one for starters.
Donk sure do have a problem deciphering what the truth is. Hell they have a hard time with what is is.
Hey Rufus… help us “Donks” out: What is is?
RUFUS?
any help for a poor Donk?
Donna–
Learn that 1=1 first ie (if you have 1 registered voter you should only have 1 vote) Worry about the harder stuff later.
No REALLY Ruf, you seem to have a bug up your Butt concerning the meaning of is.
Please provide your definition for the enjoyment of the rest of us.
Really!
Ah Donna I am getting to you, is I.
@28, not really. It is just that if you ever are asked by a (presumably serious)nspecial prosecuter if you ever had an intern suck your dick… is might be a very important definition.
On the other hand, if you lied the only super power into a war with an unarmed muslim country, starting a decades long civil war, you might want to know how you can get pardon, or how your daddy can get you swafe haven in Brazil.
Or not.
But really Rufus… you seem to have trouble with the word “is”
If you have no response lets just consider your question meaningless.
Reps are pompous, self-important criminals and the world would be better off without you. I hope you do get Roe v. Wade overturned. You’ll all be out of office so fast it’ll make your head spin.
Rufus,
“2,000 more votes than voters is one for starters. “
But that did not happen (not here anyway). You may recall that the GOP spent millions of dollars, and the Judge did not find any evidence of fraud.
I believe you are making the erroneous assumption that the voter crediting process is more accurate than the ballot counting process. It is not. Your error was pointed out well before the trial by Judge Bridges. The ballot counting process is a public process with multiple observers. Voter crediting is not publicly observed—it is a low-stakes administrative function.
Or is the real problem that you are angry about losing the election?
Charmin
I like to compare the election to a football game you probably remember watching. Remember back in 1998 when the Seahawks played the Jets. The Jets had the ball with one second left on the four yardline with the Seahawks leading. Testaverde drops back and tries to make a run for it only to come a couple inches shy. Everyone knows he didnt make the camera doesnt lie, but the call on the field was a touchdown. After the extra point the Jets won. Now did the Jets officially win the game.. yes. Was it fair.. come on you watched the game. That game was the major reason we have instant replay today for the refs. You see Charmin you are right when you say you won the game by the rules, but to the average joe who knows how the game is played they all know who really won.
RUFUS @ 32
The big difference between that game and the election, of course, is that the “instant replays” actually reversed the original, faulty call. Then, a multimillion dollar probe of the final call turned up no reason to doubt the final outcome.
Win some, lose some, my right-leaning friend.
Skateboarder Branded by Manhole Cover Sues {Goldy, Could this young Democrat Jewish gal represented by Berman, ESQ be the perfect women for you?]
NEW YORK — A woman who was branded with letters from the Consolidated Edison logo when she fell off a skateboard onto a searing hot manhole cover in Manhattan last year filed a lawsuit Thursday seeking unspecified damages from the utility.
Elizabeth C. Wallenberg, 27, was burned just above her buttocks and on her left arm when she fell off her skateboard onto a cover over a steam pipe at Second Avenue and 13th Street in the East Village shortly after midnight on Aug. 11, 2004, said her lawyer Ronald Berman.
“It literally looked like a brand that had been applied by someone,” Berman said about the burn marks left on Wallenberg’s body.
He said she was treated for the injury in the Beth Israel Hospital emergency room and was released.
Wallenberg, then a Brooklyn resident who worked for Paper magazine, reportedly said she heard her skin sizzle and saw an “o” and an “n” from the hot cover impressed upon her body. Wallenberg has been told the scarring is permanent, Berman said.
The lawsuit, filed in Manhattan’s state Supreme Court, accused Con Ed of “negligence, carelessness, recklessness and culpable conduct” related to Wallenberg’s injuries.
Court papers said Wallenberg, now a factory worker who lives in Portland, Ore., is entitled to compensatory and punitive damages because of Con Ed’s “reprehensible and egregious failure and refusal … to protect the public from this manifestly clear and present danger.”
Donna @ 29
“unarmed muslim country”
I assume you mean Iraq. If they were unarmed, where did all the “insurgents” get the guns, RPGs and explosives?
re 34: Remember Kerry’s October surprise? I’m not surprised that you don’t.
Captain Pike (Star Trek reference?) @ 35
“Remember Kerry’s October surprise? I’m not surprised that you don’t”
I don’t remember a lot of what John Kerry said, but thanks for the reminder. After searching to refresh my memory, yes I remember the “tons of missing explosives” story. They were missing Iraqi explosives. Since your post was so terse, I’m not sure if you were refuting or supporting my post.
From an article on that topic (answering part of my original question):
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/
“U.S. forces have already destroyed, or have scheduled to be destroyed, more than 400,000 tons of all manner of Iraqi weapons and ammunition. But at least 250,000 more tons from Saddam’s regime remain unaccounted for, and some has undoubtedly fallen into the hands of insurgents.”
ConservativeFirst @ 36 and 34
Ummm. . . conventional arms and explosives were not prohibited by the U.N. resolution. Only certain types of weapons (specifically “weapons of mass destruction”) and their production tools and delivery mechanisms were banned.
But, in fact, because of a decade of economic sanctions, Iraq was poorly armed with conventional weapons as well.
I am not sure if Donnageddon’s comment @ 29 refered to Iraq’s state of depleted legal arms, or whether Donnageddon was refering to the fact that Iraq had no WMD. If the former, it might help you to read “unarmed” as “relatively unarmed,” “poorly armed,” or “arms-depleted.”
dj @ 37
“Ummm. . . conventional arms and explosives were not prohibited by the U.N. resolution. Only certain types of weapons (specifically “weapons of mass destruction”) and their production tools and delivery mechanisms were banned.”
Ummm . . . I never made the claim that the conventional arms were prohibited.
Heres the claim I objected to:
Donnageddon @ 29:
“On the other hand, if you lied the only super power into a war with an unarmed muslim country” (my emphasis)
Cleary this claim is untrue, unless Donnageddon is speaking of a country other than Iraq.
dj @ 37
“I am not sure if Donnageddon’s comment @ 29 refered to Iraq’s state of depleted legal arms, or whether Donnageddon was refering to the fact that Iraq had no WMD. If the former, it might help you to read “unarmed” as “relatively unarmed,” “poorly armed,” or “arms-depleted.” ”
If Donnageddon wants to revise this claim, that’s fine by me. Until then, I’ll take the claim at face value, as it clearly wasn’t an attempt at humor or sarcasm. If people don’t stand by their posts around here, why bother having a debate at all?
ConservativeFirst @ 38
What really matters is that there are now a lot of American soldiers (and even more Iraqi civilians) who are “unarmed” and “un-leged” because Bush ran headlong into the Iraq war that served no purpose. He did so illegally, and without serious consideration of the evidence, and without a real plan.
Bush broke it, and Americans will be paying through the nose for it for years.
dj @ 39:
I find it ironic that you’re bringing up Bush’s “lies” when debating the truthfulness of someone else’s statement.
That ground was well covered on the “Bush lied, people died” thread, which I presented a case (that no one seemed to want to refute), that Bush would have to have know that there were no WMDs in Iraq before the war to have lied.
Donnageddon @ 29
“On the other hand, if you lied the only super power into a war with an unarmed muslim country”? (my emphasis)
Is this statement a lie? Only if it was made knowing it wasn’t true. I doubt that is the case, but unless Donnageddon wants to respond, we can’t know for sure. I appreciate you defense of Donnageddon, but you can’t make the above statement true, without changing it first.
David @ 11
“Goldy, your wit has ensnared a couple of trolls. LOL. If only you’d told them it was tongue-in-cheek, they might have gotten the joke. ”
I did get the joke, but thought I’d play along with my own. Not sure why you think I’m a troll though.
ConservativeFirst @ 40
“I find it ironic that you’re bringing up Bush’s “lies” when debating the truthfulness of someone else’s statement.”
Ummmm . . . my post at 39 had no statements in defense of Donnageddon’s previous statement. But, while on the topic, Donnageddon’s statement is only untrue by one narrow interpretation, and true by other interpretations. Furthermore, you are picking nits about a statement that was not particularly germane to Donnageddon’s original point. So, your criticisms of his post are completely irrelevant.
“That ground was well covered on the “Bush lied, people died” thread, which I presented a case (that no one seemed to want to refute), that Bush would have to have know that there were no WMDs in Iraq before the war to have lied.”
Oh? I must have missed that post. The evidence is overwhelming that (1) Bush was determined to go to war all the while telling the American people (and the world) that war was a last resort, (2) Bush greatly exaggerated the “imminent” (or “grave” or “gathering” — all spin designed to suggest imminent so that he could try to legally justify an invasion) threat of Iraq to the U.S. He either outright lied or was incomprehensibly negligent in collecting, interpreting and verifying the evidence used to go to war. Nearly every piece of evidence that the Bush administration make public leading up to the invasion was contradicted shortly after being presented and in some cases was known to be false when it was given. In any case, all of the “evidence” could easily be dealt with by the IAEC and UNMOVIC inspectors who were on the ground in Iraq and were reporting excellent progress and cooperation.
Nearly every piece of evidence that the Bush administration make public leading up to the invasion was contradicted shortly after being presented and in some cases was known to be false when it was given. In any case, all of the “evidence”
And that would be… examples please.
Rufus @ 44
”examples [that nearly every piece of evidence that the Bush administration make public leading up to the invasion was contradicted shortly after being presented and in some cases was known to be false when it was given.] please.”
OK. I’ve pulled together a bunch of stuff. It is not complete, but it is past my bedtime.
1. Sept 2002 Bush stated that photos of Al Furat (former site of uranium enrichment) showed that Iraq’s nuclear program had been resurrected.
1R. At Iraq’s invitation, dozens of journalists visited and inspected the site, found no evidence of centrifuges. U.S. subsequently dropped the issue.
2. Sept 2002 U.S. releases a report that Iraq had procured aluminum tubes whose purpose was to build uranium enrichment centrifuges. (Also cited by Powell with some reservations in his infamous UN speech on 5 Feb 2003).
2R. U.S. Department of energy had dissented from this conclusion. The IAEA had examined the tubes and declared them useless for uranium enrichment (the tubes were anodized, making them unsuitable for enrichment). Iraq pointed out that they bought them for legal rocket production; IAEA agrees.
3. Sept 2002, U.K. releases report that says “Iraq had sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa despite having no active civil nuclear power program”. (The U.S. report in Sept 2002 did not mention this, but Bush later used this information in his Jan 28, 2003, State of the Union address). Jan 2003 C. Rice wrote about it and Powell addressed the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland saying, “Why is Iraq still trying to procure uranium?”
3R. White House later apologizes for Bush’s State of the Union claims. Contract between Iraq and Niger for delivery of yellowcake, used as primary evidence was known to be fraudulent by Jan 28 address (I have not located the source yet, so this is an unsubstantiated assertion at this point). Mar 7 2003, ElBaradei reported to the UN Security Council that the documents were fake. As Blix points out later, the idea is absurd on the face of it, since (a) Iraq had no facilities to undergo the extensive purification process, and (b) Iraq had plenty of their own yellowcake—Iraq has uranium mines of their own. And, Wilson’s trip on behalf of the CIA where he determined that there was no evidence to support the idea.
4. US Cites UNMOVIC report of a cluster bomb as evidence that Iraq had illegal weapons. New York Times Mar 9 said that Washington officials revealed that inspectors had discovered “a new variety of [cluster bomb] rocket seemingly configured to strew bomblets filled with chemical/biological agents over large areas.” Cited as “incriminating evidence.”
4R UNMOVIC report pointed out that the cluster bomb was a copy of South African munitions. It had been found in an old factory store and was, by all appearances, scrap from the past. No traces of chemical weapons on it. U.S. quietly drops the charges.
5. US Cites UNMOVIC report of a “drone” October 7, 2002, Bush states that Iraq might use unmanned areal vehicles for missions against the U.S. Powell, in his infamous Feb 5 UN Security Council speech echoes these concerns. On Mar 9, 2003, Powell is interviewed on Fox News and criticizes UNMOVIC for not making a bigger deal of the drone. Over the next week, Administration repeatedly mentions the drone. Mar 10, 2003, Fleischer says in press conference that U.S. would challenge before the UN Security Council that UNMOVIC left the drone out of its report. In the meeting Nagroponte claimed that Iraq should have declared the drone because it had a range exceeding the 150 KM permitted for missiles.
5R UNMOVIC reported (Mar 10, 2003) that the drone had a 7.5 meter wingspan, had been tested for a maximum of 55 KM (well within the legal range), had a payload of 30 KM, and a flight time of 30 minutes (which is not enough to reach the U.S. :-) ) UNMOVIC found no links between the drone and WMD. Appeared to be for aerial surveillance, targeting and electronic jamming (all legal purposes). UNMOVIC was continuing to investigate any possibilities of violations (WMD use) for the vehicle. March 11, 2003 Iraqi General Amin (head of the National Monitoring Directorte) showed the drone to the press. It had a 2-stroke motorcycle engine, a radio-control system with a range of 8 KM, and claimed it was used for reconnisance only (video camera was the only payload). AP reporter verified (March 12) that it had balsa wood wings and held together with duct tape, and states that it is farcical to describe the drone as something serious. July 2003, U.S Air Force announces that it all along doubted the drone was useful as a weapon.
6. C. Powell states before UN Security Council on 5 Feb 2003 claims overall that Iraq does, in fact, have an active nuclear weapons program.
6R. 14 Feb 2003, IAEA’s ElBaradei states that, based on field investigation, there are some technical issues, but no “unresolved disarmament issues” and no evidence of ongoing nuclear or nuclear related programs or activities in Iraq.
7 C. Powell, addressing the UN Security Council on 5 Feb 2003, claims a particular site was used for chemical weapons production, shows satellite photo. Powell provides graphic details, pointing out chemical storage bunkers, leak monitoring, and decontamination vehicles.
7R. 14 Feb 2003, UNMOVIC Chair Blix states that UNMOVIC inspectors had been at the site in question, they were very familiar with it, and had found no evidence of chemical weapons production. Der Spiegel magazine interviewed on UNMOVIC inspector who said the “decontamination vehicles” were ordinary fire trucks.
8. C. Powell states before UN Security Council on 5 Feb 2003 that “Iraq declared 8,500 L of anthrax, but UNSCOM estimates that Saddam Hussein could have produced 25,000 L. If concentrated into this dry form, this amount would be enough to fill tens upon tens upon tens of thousands of teaspoons. And Sadaam Hussein has not verifiably accounted for even one teaspoon.” No evidence cited for the quantities or even that Iraq had weaponized (powder) forms.
8R. UNSCOM and UNMOVIC never found any evidence for or suggested such massive quantities of anthrax. The anthrax growth media was procured in the 1980s and has a shelf life of ~ 5 years. Iraq quit manufacture of anthrax in 1991 and all production facilities were destroyed under UNSCOM supervision in 1996. Iraq made liquid anthrax (the U.S. is the only country to have weaponized anthrax into power form) which has a shelf life of 3 years (after that it germinates and becomes useless). UNSCOM monitored, inspected, and declared that Iraq had no capability of production by 1998.
9. C. Powell describes before UN Security Council on 5 Feb 2003 that Iraq has mobile production facilities for biological weapons. He claims that the U.S. has highly detailed and accurate descriptions. Shows drawings of vehicles from descriptions.
9R. I haven’t found any pre-war UNMOVIC information on these mobile labs. After the war, the labs were found, and the scientists who produced the labs were found. The labs were designed and used for producing hydrogen for weather ballons. This is a case where the UNMOVIC inspectors could have easily inspected the vehicles and would have found them to be compliant.