1. 3

    Mark The Redneck spews:

    Fuck you Goldy. Fuck all you terrorist appeasers and sympathizers. I hope they kill every one of you unpatriotic America hating fucks.

  2. 5


    Hey does anyone know if the uniteddonkmerican.blogs got permission from the families to show each fallen soldier. Probably not. You lefties should be ashamed of yourselves for dancing on the graves of our fallen soldiers.

  3. 6

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Reply to 4

    No. Jeb and Katherine Harris stole the 2000 election for Shrub by illegally purging 57,700 eligible black voters from Florida’s voter rolls. Fucking racists.

  4. 7

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Reply to 5

    Doofus, you should be ashamed of yourself for putting them in their graves. See you in Hell, you fucking anti-American fascist warmonger.

  5. 8

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Reply to 3

    Hey Mark, how does it feel to be a torturer and baby killer? Are you proud of yourself, you Nazi fuck? You look like shit in bedsheets.

  6. 9

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Hey Mark and Doofus, you scumbags murdered my buddies in Vietnam, you fascist warmongering fucks!!! Skunks!!! Baby killers!!!

  7. 10



    Those 2000 who died made it possible to put tens of thousands for terrorist in the ground where they belong. I know this irks the lefties since it is near impossible to hug a terrorist when they are six feet under but I don’t care. I hope we keep the fatalities slow down as we kill hundreds of thousand more terrorists.

  8. 12

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Reply to 10

    Doofus isn’t even a veteran and he has a metal plate in his head! Hey Doofus, where’d you pick up that shrap, pard? Did some kid in 1st grade hit you in the head with a paper clip fired from a rubber band?

  9. 13

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Republicans spit on veteran graves. They want to cut combat pay, medical care for wounded vets, and benefits for disabled veterans to give more tax cuts to the filthy rich.

  10. 16


    No rabbit. Some kid named Kerry shot me in the ass with a rice gun. I couldn’t get mad at him though… he gave this neat purple paper heart to make up for it. Hehehehe

  11. 17

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Republicans fight their dirty wars with OPM and OPC.

    OPM = Other people’s money
    OPC = Other people’s children

    Republicans give themselves tax cuts and deferments while sending poor kids to die in their wars of neo-colonialism.

  12. 20

    Goldy spews:

    MTR @18,

    I can’t wait for The Cleansing to start. Where to start????

    And people like you get offended when we call you fascist?

  13. 25

    fire_one spews:


  14. 26

    SP Fan spews:

    At least those 2000 died in honor of our freedom. When you Dumb Bunnies die, we’ll all laugh and sing.

    God Bless America!


  15. 27

    Mark The Redneck spews:

    Hey Wabbit – Once again, I decided NOT to come to your house today and rob you. Are you enjoying my subsidy you greedy arrogant selfish bastard freeloader?

  16. 28

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    It’s time once again to post the Chickenhawk Hall of Shame list:

    George W. Bush – went AWOL from National Guard
    Dick Cheney – 5 deferments, never served
    Phil Gramm – 4 deferments, never served
    John Ashcroft – 7 deferments, never served
    Jeb Bush – never served
    Karl Rove – never served
    Dennis Hastert – never served
    Bill Frist – never served
    Dick Armey – never served
    Tom DeLay – never served
    Newt Gingrich – never served
    Trent Lott – never served
    Saxby Chambliss – claimed “bad knee,” never served
    Mitch McConnell – did not serve.
    Rick Santorum – did not serve.
    Roy Blunt – never served
    Richard Shelby – never served
    Dana Rohrabacher – never served
    John M. McHugh – never served
    JC Watts – never served
    Jack Kemp – never served becaue of “knee problem” that didn’t keep him from playing in NFL for 8 years
    Arnold Schwarzenegger – went AWOL from Austrian army
    George Pataki – never served
    Spencer Abraham – never served
    John Engler – never served
    Elliott Abrams – never served
    Paul Wolfowitz – never served
    Vin Weber – never served
    Richard Perle – never served
    Douglas Feith – never served
    Rudy Guiliani – never served
    Kenneth Starr – never served
    Antonin Scalia – never served
    Clarence Thomas – never served
    Ralph Reed – never served
    Michael Medved – never served
    Charlie Daniels – never served
    Ted Nugent – never served
    Jon Kyl – never served
    Tim Hutchison – never served
    Christopher Cox – never served
    George Will – never served
    Chris Matthews – never served
    Bill O’Reilly – never served
    Sean Hannity – never served
    Rush Limbaugh – never served
    Michael Savage – never served
    Paul Gigot – never served
    Bill Bennett – never served
    Pat Buchanan – never served
    Pat Robertson – never served
    Bill Kristol – never served
    Ann Coulter – never served

  17. 29

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Hey do you guys want to see the list of Republican child molesters, wife beaters, and mother beaters? :D :D :D

  18. 30

    Roger Rabbit spews:


    Hey Mark, I was WAITING for you to come to my house and rob me today, you greedy fascist bastard! Are you coming tomorrow?


  19. 32



    Coming from the party who elected a rapist for president and protects child molesters through the public unions? Sure for shits and giggles.

  20. 33

    SP Fan spews:

    Dumb Bunnie, here’s a few more I found:

    Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State
    No military service.

    Strobe Talbott, Deputy Secretary of State
    No military service.

    William Cohen, Secretary of Defense
    No military service.

    John Hamre, Deputy Secretary of Defense
    No military service.

    George Tenet, CIA Director
    No military service.

    Sandy Berger, National Security Advisor
    No military service.

    Hilary Rodham Clinton, Senator (D-NY)
    No military service.

    Wolf Bilzter, CNN News anchor
    No military service.

    Tom Brokaw, NBC News anchor
    No military service.

    Alan Colmes, Hannity & Colmes host
    No military service.

    Al Franken, Political satirist
    No military service.

    Thomas Friedman, NY Times columnist
    No military service.

    Bill Maher, HBO, political satirist
    No military service.

    Chris Matthews, Hardball host
    No military service.

    Michael Moore, Political satirist, filmmaker
    No military service.

    Dan Rather, CBS News Anchor
    U.S. Army Reserve. (He later tried the USMC but did not complete boot camp.)

    Tim Russert, Meet the Press host
    No military service.

    Jon Stewart, Daily Show host
    No military service.

    George Stephanopoulos, ABC This Week host
    No military service.

    Bloggers (liberal)

    Joshua Marshall, Talking Points Memo
    No military service.

  21. 37

    Roger Rabbit spews:


    Tim Russert and Chris Mathews are Democrats? They sure fooled me! They look, waddle, and quack like Republicans.

  22. 38

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Hey, where are the trolls? I go away for an hour, and when I come back, there’s no fucking trolls. They all fled from Rabid Rabbit — guess you can’t blame ‘em. These fascist blowhard dickheads can’t even handle an 8 3/8 lb. bunny with pink ears and a cute cottontail!

  23. 39

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Public announcement: Roger Rabbit has never knowingly committed indecent acts of sexual perversion, such as fucking a Republican or getting blown by a Republican.

  24. 40

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Honor Roll of American Heroes

    Richard Gephardt, Democrat – served with honor 1965-71
    David Bonior, Democrat – served with honor 1968-72
    Tom Daschle, Democrat – served with honor 1969-72
    Al Gore, Democrat – served with honor 1969-71; Vietnam veteran
    Bob Kerrey, Democrat – wounded Vietnam veteran, Medal of Honor
    Daniel Inouye, Democrat – wounded WW2 veteran, Medal of Honor
    John Kerry, Democrat – wounded Vietnam veteran, Silver Star, Bronze Star, 3 Purple Hearts
    Charles Rangel, Democrat – Korean War veteran, Bronze Star
    Max Cleland, Democrat – wounded Vietnam veteran, Silver Star, Bronze Star, Purple Heart
    Howell Heflin, Democrat – wounded WW2 veteran, Silver Star, 2 Purple Hearts
    Ted Kennedy, Democrat – served with honor 1951-1953
    Tom Harkin, Democrat – active duty 1962-67, reservist 1968-74.
    Leonard Boswell, Democrat – Vietnam veteran (2 tours), 2 Distinguished Flying Crosses, 2 Bronze Stars, Soldier’s Medal
    “Pete” Peterson, Democrat – Vietnan POW, Silver Star, Purple Heart, Legion of Merit
    Mike Thompson, Democrat – wounded Vietnam veteran, Purple Heart
    Gray Davis, Democrat – Vietnam veteran
    Chuck Robb, Democrat – Vietnam veteran
    George McGovern, Democrat – World War 2 hero, Distinguished Flying Cross, Silver Star
    Roger Rabbit, Independent – Vietnam veteran, reservist

  25. 43

    RennDawg spews:

    I have a question to all the military haters on this blog. How come the re-enlistment rate of those who serve in Iraq is above 100% of the military’s goals.

    Also I heard a great line. Kirby Wilber of 570 KVI was asked “How do you remove the blood off your hands.” His reply “With purple ink.”

    If you do not support the mission you do not support the troops.

    Read 182 in Iraq, writtened by Phil Kliver who served in Iraq.

    RennDawg served in United States Navy from November 3rd, 1992 until January 4th 1997. Served in the United States Navy Reserves January 3rd, 1997 until November 1st, 1999. Medical Discharge. Wanted to re-join but can no longer pass medical. Eyes.

  26. 44

    Michael spews:

    I see you left Bob Dole and John McCain, along with thousands of others, off of the Republican list.

  27. 45

    Belltowner spews:

    @ 43

    If I don’t support the mission, I don’t support the troops? Where do you live, North Korea?

  28. 47


    The ugliness of the Viet Nam era seems to be coming back. With the shrillness of some antiwar people, and the deluded brownshirts who visciously attack dissent in this free country, I think there ought to be a concerted effort be respectful, or at least practice disciplined demogogery.

  29. 48

    Wayne spews:

    Typical right wing bull****. Everyone is entitled to freedom of speech so long as they agree with the Limbaugh-Hannity-Coulter party line. Anyone who disagrees is a traitor.

    Let me get this straight. If you disagree with the mission, you are not supporting the troops. So I guess all the righties who disagreed with our intervention in Bosnia or Haiti under Clinton are therefore disloyal to the troops who served there. Is that how it works?

  30. 49

    RennDawg spews:

    I never said anyone was a traitor. All I am saying is that if you do not support what someone is doing you do not support them. I was on active duty during Haiti and asked to go to Bosina. Also keep in mind President Clinton was the least respected President in a very long time. The Military did not like him. But thats OK, President Clinton Hates the Military. So in the end it’s all equal. Also I defend the rights of anyone to disagree and dissent. I defended those rights in the Navy. I also have the right to say you are wrong. And, yes after the mission starts, if you oppose it you are not supporting the troops. I does not mean you hate them or want to see thrm hurt, you just oppose what they are doing.

    Also for the record I do not listen to Limbaugh-Hannity or Coulter. The guy on the radio who’s ideas are closest to mine is Michael Medved,altho because I work graveyard I do not get to listen to him as much as I’d like.. So if you compair me to him I will take it as a compliment, thank you.

  31. 51

    Thomas Trainwinder spews:

    Renn @ 48 said ” And, yes after the mission starts, if you oppose it you are not supporting the troops.”

    That is 100% wrong. You can support the troops…and want them to have everything possible to be successful, yet you can oppose their mission.

    To combine the two otherwise is a typical Medved mental trick — to try and demonize good-thinking, well-meaning, soldier-supporting people. It doesn’t work logically and it’s a great way to further divide people.

  32. 52

    Mr. Cynical spews:

    Thomas says:
    “You can support the troops…and want them to have everything possible to be successful, yet you can oppose their mission.”

    We are talking about the psychological impact on those soldiers. And I really don’t see what you say is actually coming from the Hate Bush, LEFTIST PINHEAD crowd….not at all.
    What Thomas says SOUNDS GOOD. But that is NOT the reality of what is coming out of the mouths & bowels of the LEFTIST PINHEADS.

  33. 53

    Thomas Trainwinder spews:

    Mr. Cyn:

    It does sound good because it is good.

    It’s like workers at Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, Adelphia…. You could easily not support the company’s actual mission while supporting all the honest, hard-working people there who worked their tails off to support it.

    The parallel is the “actual” mission is not what the employess thought or realized when they signed up.

  34. 54

    Mr. Cynical spews:

    Goldy would rather discuss this than the most recent developments in Ron Sims KingCo Elections, the impact of CAO on rural property owners, and Sims complete lack of leadership in the KingCo Transportation crisis… know, things that really matter.
    You will not EVER see a thread here before the November 8th discussing any of the MANY issues Sims is vulnerable on.
    Fortunately, it doesn’t matter because everyone who posts and reads this blog already knows who they will vote for with PERHAPS one exception (although I don’t know who that is)!
    The reality is Goldy has not changed a single vote….although perhaps in his mind he has.
    This is a purely partisan LEFTIST PINHEAD Blog with a few of us calling bullshit on the knuckleheads. That’s it.
    Goldy is a self-absorbed smut peddlar and Sims butt-boy…perhaps in more ways than one!. That’s all–

  35. 55

    Another TJ spews:

    Fuck all you terrorist appeasers and sympathizers. I hope they kill every one of you unpatriotic America hating fucks.

    Careful there. Talking about the President and Vice President like that will earn you a one-way ticket to Gitmo.

  36. 56

    ConservativeFirst spews:

    My issue with this thread, similar to thread on the woman who had difficulty find the morning after pill, the troop deaths are used to make political hay. Instead of arguing against the war, many on the left use sensationalism to try and draw attention to their cause. In general, the Dems position on the war is much like their domestic agenda, all thunder and no lightening.

    I’m sure many people on the left support the troops, but don’t support the war. Sensationalizing the fallen troops in an effort to bring them home seems a strange way to show that support.

  37. 57

    Dr. E spews:

    “All I am saying is that if you do not support what someone is doing you do not support them. “

    No, actually, if you don’t support what someone is doing, then you don’t support what that person is doing. Supporting an action and supporting an individual in general are two different things.

  38. 58

    Dr. E spews:

    mtr @ 3

    “Fuck all you terrorist appeasers and sympathizers. I hope they kill every one of you unpatriotic America hating fucks.”

    Go ahead and justify that statement on logical and or moral grounds. And while you’re at it, why don’t you explain to us what this means:

    “I can’t wait for The Cleansing to start.

  39. 59

    Janet S spews:

    I notice a distinct lack of celebration for Fitzmas.

    22 indictments? Now that was fantasy!

  40. 60

    windie spews:


    I think the thing is, its an attempt to cancel out the Bush “No burials shown” Policy.

    Alot of people don’t really understand the costs of this war. This is a perfectly valid method to show people what it means.

  41. 61

    momus spews:


    I see it as more of the left celebrating this number instead of honoring their loss.

    There is nothing to be gained by our pulling out of Iraq and surrendering to Al Qaeda, which is ecactly what is being proposed by the by the left in this country.

  42. 62

    largeleo spews:

    OK, besides the same 100 photos recycling in the flash movie, here’s a rhetorical question for Goldy: IF…IF…IF WMDs had been found in Iraq, WHAT do you think would be different about the aftermath? If the answer is “Well, 2000 would not have died in vain,” you’re wrong. Less than 400 died getting to Baghdad. The rest died building a better Iraq than Saddam did. So, given my rhetorical ‘IF,’ WHAT would be different? Do YOU and your ilk actually think we would’ve turned around left Iraq after accounting for WMDs?
    I mean…what the FUCK?
    And by the way, I’ve lost 8 personal friends (and 30% of my hearing) in Iraq in 2004/05. So your answer is important to me.

  43. 63

    fire_one spews:

    momus @ 60 —- WHO? Who the fuck said that? Post a link. What? Can’t? Didn’t think so…. Moron! Now please take your NeoNazi ass and move out of my country.

  44. 64

    momus spews:

    Fire one,

    Who said what?

    That you are celebrating the number?

    Absolutely, 100%

    That you want to pull out of Iraq and Surrender to Al Qaeda?

    Are you kidding me?

  45. 65

    headless lucy spews:

    We have an economy that is largely dependent on defense spending. With the fall of the USSR we suddenly had no “DEBBIL” to justify all this defense spending(read: welfare for the rich) and a conservative government that morally opposed spending money on social welfare and pretty much philosophically opposed to any government spending that would help the general population. Since the Civil Rights revolution the Republican Southern Strategy had targeted both Southern and Northern racists who were Democrat up ’til then and really were not opposed to the social welfare programs of the New Deal. They were however more dedicated to racism than to social welfare. So we lost the “ignorant racist cracker” faction of the Democratic party.

    In order to maintain the defense spending( welfare for the rich ) we needed a new DEBBIL. Hence, the terrorist thing. They are the new fear-mongering tool for the defense(welfare for the rich)establisment.

  46. 66

    Janet S spews:

    Lucy – I have no idea what a “DEBBIL” is, but it sounds like you are angry that your welfare payments have come to an end.

  47. 67

    Dr. E spews:


    I personally wouldn’t want to marginalize your loss, but let me try to respond to your hypothetical question by reframing the situation more broadly:

    The most important rationale, at least as I see it, given for invading Iraq was that they had WMD’s and were a threat to their neighbors and a direct threat to the United States. Now, at the time (in 2002), there were many, many dissenting voices who felt the government was not being honest in their assessment of the WMD situation on the ground. These dissenting voices included those who should actually be in a position to know — people like Hans Blix and Scott Ritter. I, like many progressives, had read widely on the situation and did not feel that the government had presented sufficient evidence to make its case; moreover, it seemed to me that many of the alarmist claims being made were just that — alarmist — with little basis in either logic or factual evidence.

    Now, let me explain why I feel the administration made an insufficient case for war. Using WMD’s and a direct threat to neighbors/the US as a rationale, one could then argue that many other countries — North Korea, Pakistan, India, and China, for example — also fit that description. All of these nations are threats to their neighbors, and some (like North Korea and China) are potential direct threats to the United States. Why, then, was the decision made to invade Iraq, and not, say, North Korea?

    I don’t think it is in the government’s purview to pick fights with other sovereign nations. Peaceful nations don’t — or at least shouldn’t — start wars. But that is exactly what we did in Iraq. Attempting to find a moral rationalization for the war ex post facto — which is exactly what arguments like “spreading democracy in the Middle East” or “building a better Iraq” are — neither reverse nor erase the initial immoral (and, in my view, illegal) act of invading a sovereign nation without just cause.

  48. 68

    Janet S spews:

    Dr E:
    Iraq was daily violating the no-fly zone and firing on our military trying to enforce the peace settlement from the Kuwait war. As it turns out now, Saddam had the potential to have WMD’s in very short order, and so didn’t need to have them physically. Of course, evidence bio and chemical weapons have been found, which are WMD’s.

    Now it is becoming obvious that Great Britain, Australia, and the US saw Iraq as a threat to stability in the middle east, and therefore to the rest of the world. As long as Saddam was sitting over there shooting at US planes with impunity, the terrorists saw the US as weak. And they were right.

    Then Bush stepped in and said “no more.” Tony Blair agreed. Why didn’t the French and Russians agree? Because they were on the take, and reaping billions from Saddam and the oil for food program.

    A democratic Iraq is a stable Iraq. A stable Iraq removes one more haven for terrorists and breeding ground for Islamists.

  49. 69

    ConservativeFirst spews:

    Comment by windie— 10/28/05 @ 8:58 am

    “I think the thing is, its an attempt to cancel out the Bush “No burials shown” Policy.”

    I think that’s bunk. I’m fine with giving the families of our fallen military members privacy in their time of grief. Seems like there are other ways to discuss this issue other than opening up funerals to being politicized either way.

    “Alot of people don’t really understand the costs of this war.”

    For this to be true, they’d have to be ignoring the internet news sites, the newspaper, radio and TV. The number of military deaths in Iraq has been widely reported. You’d have to be living under a rock to avoid seeing the news of the 2000th military death. It was above the fold on the front page of the Seattle Times.

    Are you saying a lot of people are just too stupid to comprehend that during a war people die?

    “This is a perfectly valid method to show people what it means. ”

    The web site Goldy linked to is propaganda, plain and simple. To claim that it’s a tool to inform people about the cost of war is naive and foolish, IMO.

  50. 70

    ConservativeFirst spews:

    Comment by headless lucy— 10/28/05 @ 9:24 am

    “We have an economy that is largely dependent on defense spending. ”

    Defense spending was less than 4% of the US GDP in 2004. Given that figure, how can you say our economy is “largely dependent” on defense spending?

  51. 71

    Dr. E spews:

    Janet S @ 68
    “A democratic Iraq is a stable Iraq. A stable Iraq removes one more haven for terrorists and breeding ground for Islamists.”

    This is an example of a moral rationalization ex post facto — precisely what I objected to above. It is not in the purview of the government of the United States to export “democracy” to other parts of the world by force. That would be antithetical to the idea of democracy.

    Remeber, the case for war was based around the existence of WMD’s, which the administration unequivocally stated were actually there — physically there, waiting to be put on a drone plane (with insufficient range to come anywhere near the US) or to be passed along to some as-yet-undefined “terrorists” who might then use them in the US.

    That was the essential pounding of the war drum — fear mongering, in essence, and millions of people bought it. In my opinion, this is every bit as repugnant today as it was 70 years ago in continental Europe.

  52. 74

    Janet S spews:

    Dr E – I’m not understanding your reference to “70 years ago in continental Europe”.

    What I am trying to say is that the UN was and is a corrupt organization that no longer has the moral authority to make judgments about anything, especially whether or not the US has permission to defend itself. The security council had been bought off by Saddam. The US used WMD’s as a means of moral persuasion, figuring it was easy to understand. It was not the only reason. It never was.

    Are you sorry that Saddam was removed from office, and now will be tried in a Iraqi court for murdering citizens? Are you sorry that the Iraqi people are finally getting to vote on their own destiny?

  53. 75

    Dr. E spews:

    Read: Germany.

    Now, the question is not about corruption, perceived or otherwise, within the UN. Nor does it have to do with any sort of moral authority the UN might have to decide whether the US has “permission” to defend itself (from what?). The question is one of legal authority which, so long as the US remains a signatory to the UN charter, the United Nations does have in determining whether any such military action would be legal under international law.

    Your question about Saddam’s removal from office is not directly relevant, since this occurred after an illegal act of aggression. Again, one act does not morally validate the other. That’s the bigger issue. There are plenty of tyrants the world over that the world would better be rid of. Why Saddam? Was he more of a direct threat to the United States than, say Kim Jong-Il? Couldn’t the latter (and by extension, his father) be fairly viewed as much worse than Saddam in matters of human rights?

  54. 76



    First of all, there’s not a lot one needs to know in order to understand the historical reference to continental Europe. What exactly don’t you understand about the lead-up to World War II and what brought it about?

    Secondly, you wrote:

    The US used WMD’s as a means of moral persuasion, figuring it was easy to understand. It was not the only reason. It never was.

    Can I frame this? This is tantamount to saying that the whole WMD thing was manufactured in order to drum up support for an invasion of Iraq.

    Whatever was happening within the UN security council is irrelevant. Without the actual existence of WMD and the implied threat that they posed, our invasion of Iraq was illegal.

  55. 77

    headless lucy spews:

    re 70: But it was 30% of the government’s budget. A lot of defense spending is also not strictly defined as defense spending ( i.e., janitorial maintenance services that are contracted out), but is related to defense spending nontheless. If you point to social spending as being,say, 35% of the budget, you have to take into account that a lot of that is Social Security, and Medical programs ( more welfare for the rich, like the Frist family of rich government freeloaders.

    We are the only country in the world that has social welfare for the wealthy and free-market capitalism for the poor. And, yes, unwarrented tax breaks are direct welfare.

  56. 79

    headless lucy spews:

    We are not exporting freedom and democracy. We are creating conditions where poor people can be dominated by corrupt AUTHORITARIAN DEMOCRACY type regimes in return for cheap, slavelike labor. That Jean Kirkpatrick crank from the Reagan administration made it defensible by positing that democracy can only develop from a RIGHT WING authoritarian regime, but not a left wing one. She never offered any numbers to support this theory because none exist. It is just more right wing pseudo-science designed to justify the corporatist fascist state we live in thet used to be the democratic U.S.A.

  57. 80

    largeleo spews:


    what % of Federal/State TAX revenue do the poor pay?
    Why, exactly, WOULD the poor GET a frigging tax break?
    BTW- What do you think of Clinton’s puppet governments in Bosnia and Kosovo?

  58. 81

    Dr. E spews:

    “Why, exactly, WOULD the poor GET a frigging tax break?”

    So they can buy things like food.

  59. 82

    ConservativeFirst spews:

    Comment by headless lucy— 10/28/05 @ 9:24 am

    “We have an economy that is largely dependent on defense spending.”

    Comment by headless lucy— 10/28/05 @ 11:47 am

    “But it was 30% of the government’s budget.”

    I assume “it” is defense spending, and “it” makes up 19% of federal spending.

    “If you point to social spending as being,say, 35% of the budget”

    It’s actually much larger, Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare make up 42% of federal spending.

    You didn’t address my main point, your original assertion is wrong. The percentage of the federal budget is irrelevant to your original assertion.

    So I’ll ask again. How can we have an economy dependent on defense spending when defense spending is less than 4% of the economy?

  60. 83

    christmasghost spews:

    sad…so sad that you and your ilk would USE the two thousand that have died for their country for political fodder.
    since it’s an all volunteer military the left’s crazy use/abuse of the deaths of these people is so obscene it’s amazing.even for a group of people known for their crass usery.
    by the way? did you get permission from the family members to do this…..hmmmmmmmmmm?
    if it wasn’t for people like these you wouldn’t be able to sit on your ass all day goldy playing on your computer and “sharing” your vision of “reality”…..would you?
    this is truly a new low for you……it makes me sad.

  61. 84

    PAC spews:

    So Saddam was a saint…is that it?

    Do you defend the tens of thousands of mass grabes found in takrit?

    Do you defent the hundreds of thousands of people he bombed with nerve gas in northern Iraq?

    I don’t care about the WMD argument and I never did. What our brave soldiers are doing is freeing 25 million (MILLION!!) people from a sick, horrible twisted evil man.

    And all you people are doing is making their job harder and more dangerous because you want to score political points.

    It’s your right. I have also worn YOUR uniform for 6 years defending that right. Lucky for me, when I was risking my life against the USSR you were all behind me and our country was seen as a very united, determined and not to be fucked with power and we won my war.

    Sadly, our soldiers now do not get the luxury of your support and the people trying to murder them for bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq are spurred on and encouraged to kill 2000 more when they see crap like that.

    I would never say you don’t have the right to say what you are saying, but it does make me very sad that you are saying it.

  62. 85


    Flypaper 2000
    We’ve hit 2000 troops dead in Iraq now (link courtesy Horses’ Ass.) It’s the sort of milestone that just makes you want to put something through a wall. How many Iraqis have joined them in death? Probably over 100,000, but…

  63. 86

    Mark1 spews:

    What does 2000 look like? Not sure. Maybe try asking Dean Logan and Co. to go down into the basement of KC election headquarters and look. I’m sure they have a few thousand votes that will be “found” in case of emergency during a so-called “re-count”.

  64. 87

    christmasghost spews:

    @85…”It’s the sort of milestone that just makes you want to put something through a wall”
    violence? you are stating that something would make a whiney liberal commit violence? what did that wall ever do to you?
    god….you people are so funny………
    but of course…..not a peep out of you when saddam was really torturing people to death right? and not a peep when the taliban was commiting all those crimes against women, right? my guess is that you weren’t even aware enough to know it was going on. you hadn’t been given your marching orders from your “thought of the day” calendar from moveon.moron.

  65. 88

    christmasghost spews:

    dr. e @75………youy said….. “Again, one act does not morally validate the other.”
    oh hold the phones here. did you really just say that? because i thought that in another post you were making the point that the palestinians have a right and are justified in killing jews because they deserve it.
    try to remember that line “it’s not who is right, it’s WHAT’S right”
    then you won’t have these foot in the mouth moments where you show your true colors as an official for the “blame america first and if it’s american it must be icky” crowd.
    sheesh…….hypocrisy runs amok.

  66. 89

    Dr. E spews:


    I think you’re reading something into my comments (in a separate thread) that was never there. Nowhere did I say anything even tantamount to suggesting that Palestinians being justified in killing Jews. That was most certainly not the point I was making. The point was to differentiate between anti-Semitism and the opposition of Israeli domestic policy. I don’t know how any sensible reading of my comments would yield what you’ve suggested.

    By the way, I don’t really understand the “blame America first” idea, except as a kind of catchy right-wing talking point.

    As far as I know, all of my comments on this matter have been consistent, so if you can find some real evidence of hypocrisy, please bring them to my attention. I’ll then explain further if necessary, or eat those words if I really got it wrong somehow.

  67. 90

    Dr. E spews:

    And by the way, I never actually said that this was my position, but rather was attempting to explain the position of others.

  68. 92

    griley spews:


    I just discovered this blog today, thanks to the American Progress Report, and was intrigued by this take on Seattle politics. Nice blog Goldy.

    I’ve read most of November and most of October, but had not delved into any of the comments.

    In this case I made the exception, and expected to see comments about what a strong piece the 2000 website was, or how emotional it was, or grief for the poor soldiers that have fallen, despite the temerity of this “war” on terror. Instead I found name calling and foolish argument that really did nothing to further either sides causes or opinions.

    To all of you that fall into that category, I say, what a bunch of dickheads.