‘Tea parties’ show hypocrisy of GOP

By POWERPLAY: 7/6/09 at 4:08 a.m.; Suggest removal

Yea right Mike >>>>> The Democrats are blameless on everything and don't cater to special interest groups at all I must have missed that one. So you want us to give President Obama a chance to install SOCIALISM yea that should be enough to wake anybody up including the dead But hey he's a people person right.

By LasVegasRocks: 7/6/09 at 5:16 a.m.

Comment removed by staff.

By jlb101: 7/6/09 at 6:12 a.m.; Suggest removal

Hypocrites? The protestors simply listened to what Obama promised and don't like it. I am paying too many taxes now, I don't want to be forced to pay more. I have good affordable health care now, I don't want to be forced into inferior care. I drive a nice car, keep my home warm in winter and cool in summer, I don't want to be forced to drive a lawnmower, freeze in winter and swelter in summer. I have a comfortable standard of living, I don't want to be forced to help those who by their own fault do not have one. Hypocrite? No just sensable. Maybe because I listened to what Obama really said and ignored that stupid "change".

By Future: 7/6/09 at 6:41 a.m.; Suggest removal

At least President Obama is trying to work for the people, and not for the special interest groups.

LOL

The lobbyist are bigger and worse then they ever were with weekly White house meetings and press conferences.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/070...

Washington Post publisher Katharine Weymouth admitted plans for an exclusive "salon" at her home where for as much as $250,000, the Post offered lobbyists and association executives off-the-record access to "those powerful few" --Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and the paper's own reporters and editors.
"salons" must refer to the fact that the meetings are only skin deep.

Obama has been campaigning for 3 year on what and how to change the ecomony. And now he claim it not what he thought it was. Oops

Vice President Joe Biden said 6-14-2009 that "everyone guessed wrong" on the impact of the economic stimulus, but he defended the administration's spending designed to combat rising joblessness.

Biden said inaccuracies in unemployment predictions shouldn't undercut the White House's support of the $787 billion economic revival plan that has not met the expectations.

7-5-2009 - The vice president says the Obama administration "misread how bad the economy was" but stands by its stimulus package.

Biden, in an interview that aired on ABC's "This Week," said the 9.5 percent unemployment rate is "much too high." The administration had predicted unemployment would stay below 8 percent with its stimulus plan.

"The figures we worked off of in January were the consensus figures and most of the blue chip indexes out there," Biden said.

By mschaffer: 7/6/09 at 7:05 a.m.; Suggest removal

While apocryphal stories are entertaining, the plural of anecdote is not data. What were the totals under the corrupt Bush administration versus now?
More importantly, lol and non-sequitor do not make a logical argument. You morphed from an argument about lobbyists to another topic. Try to remember what the discussion was about Future.

By Patrick_R_Gibbons: 7/6/09 at 8:56 a.m.; Suggest removal

Mr. Parker,

The left was highly critical of government power when Bush was in office, and rightly so. The government was evil, it lied, it cheated, it fabricated information, it put peoples lives at risk, and was slow to act on Hurricane Katrina.

So maybe Republicans who cheered Bush are hypocritical now, but so is every liberal Democrat who thought government was so awful but now cheers every swoop and swish of Obama's mighty pen.

The underlying problem is that government doesn't suddenly become good and effective just because your guy is in power -- but this is EXACTLY what you have implied. Both groups are full of hypocrites, including yourself Mr. Parker.

By Patrick_R_Gibbons: 7/6/09 at 9:07 a.m.; Suggest removal

MsShaffer,

US unemployment numbers from the BLS

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.2 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.1 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.8
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.9
2008 4.9 4.8 5.1 5.0 5.5 5.6 5.8 6.2 6.2 6.6 6.8 7.2
2009 7.6 8.1 8.5 8.9 9.4

By DouglasDemocrat: 7/6/09 at 9:39 a.m.; Suggest removal

Patrick

Unemployment is a lagging indicator - has been for as long as they've been tracking it.

The fact that you keep using it as a cudgel, frankly, is disturbing.

By DouglasDemocrat: 7/6/09 at 9:42 a.m.; Suggest removal

"I have good affordable health care now, I don't want to be forced into inferior care. I drive a nice car, keep my home warm in winter and cool in summer, I don't want to be forced to drive a lawnmower, freeze in winter and swelter in summer."

Well, good for you.

You do realize that there are millions of others who don't have these things - not because they aren't willing to work for them, but because they CAN'T get them no matter how hard they work.

21,000 people die every year as a result of a lack of health insurance. That's seven 9/11's EVERY SINGLE YEAR. That's UNACCEPTABLE in this country.

I should know - I want health insurance. I need health insurance. I CAN'T GET HEALTH INSURANCE!

But you and you "let them eat cake" attitude. It's annoying. Where's your compassion? Or did you sell that for a nice house and a nice car?

By WillieTanner: 7/6/09 at 10:07 a.m.; Suggest removal

jib101: You obviously don't drive that nice car to church where you would be asked "What would Jesus do"?
Stay healthy in your little world because if you become ill you'll find out in a hurry how good your affordable health insurance is. Private health insurance is great until you need it. Read your policy carefully as you may already be eliminated from many coverages you think you have. Also, if you want to be well prepared for future illness you should get familiar with the bankruptcy laws. Remember Bush made it tougher to file.

By henderson: 7/6/09 at 10:24 a.m.; Suggest removal

There are so many things wrong with this letter I can't believe he wrote it with a straight face! If he didn't hear republicans complaining about bailouts, illegal immigration, and a slew of other Bush policies he has selective hearing. If he thinks Obama is not actively pursuing "special interest groups" he is not paying any attention. If President Obama's plan for getting us out of this mess includes quadrupling Bush's deficit in just six months, I really don't care to sit back and see what else he can do to further cripple our economy. This stimulus is not bringing either relief, nor jobs, nor an end in sight for the unemployment numbers which are continuing to skyrocket. His lies to the public about not raising taxes on the poor or middle class have been completely exposed with the cap and trade energy tax. Obama is a liar, and he is not improving anything. He is hobbling an already crippled economy. We can't afford to "give it more time." He needs to rein in his spending and start thinking about how his policies are going to be paid for, and how long it will take.

By stevem: 7/6/09 at 10:36 a.m.; Suggest removal

how many terrorists have flown an airplane into a building lately?

that's right.

none.

you have george bush to thank for that.

By mschaffer: 7/6/09 at 11:02 a.m.; Suggest removal

Patrick,
I was not questioning the unemployment stats but rather this claim by Future:
"The lobbyist are bigger and worse then they ever were with weekly White house meetings and press conferences."
Now go away like a good boy and let Future defend his own assertions.

By DouglasDemocrat: 7/6/09 at 11:51 a.m.; Suggest removal

"how many terrorists have flown an airplane into a building lately?"

Non-sequitor and irrelevant.

If you want give him credit for keeping us safe for 7 years, then he also gets the BLAME for falling asleep at the switch on September 11th.

He doesn't get a free pass for the 1 terrorist action that happened on his watch. And it's deceptive to claim otherwise.

By Patrick_R_Gibbons: 7/6/09 at 12:45 p.m.; Suggest removal

Doug,

1) I was quoting BLS unemployment numbers for MsShaffer, not hammering them on her...but needless to say its been up, up, up even with a years worth of bailouts and stimulus. She claims now that she wasn't talking about unemployment but something else - fine.

2) 85% of Americans have health insurance - so how many do you reckon die with health insurance coverage?

3) Are you really equating a lack of health insurance coverage to the violent attack against our country? Are you really going to go there?

By Patrick_R_Gibbons: 7/6/09 at 12:48 p.m.; Suggest removal

http://freedomchannel.blogspot.com/2007/...

John Stossel - Whose Body Is It Anyway? (on health insurance and healthcare)

By henderson: 7/6/09 at 12:49 p.m.; Suggest removal

One quick thing I'd like to add about special interests is that Obama criticized the Bush and Clinton administrations' records on open government during the campaign and vowed to do a better job. "Let me say it as simply as I can: Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency," Obama said. However, he is fighting to keep secret the White House visitor logs. So much for open government.

By just_an_average_joe: 7/6/09 at 1:05 p.m.; Suggest removal

patrick,
excellent point on government. not just the right. not just the left.

too bad too many americans think MORE and BIGGER government is a good thing, as long as it's done in the name of "helping us".

"I'm from the federal government, and I'm here to help you....."

government ALWAYS screws up things. just wait and see what they do to GM. in just a couple of years they will be as "efficient" as the US Postal Service.....

By DouglasDemocrat: 7/6/09 at 1:54 p.m.; Suggest removal

"2) 85% of Americans have health insurance - so how many do you reckon die with health insurance coverage?"

They at least have a chance. Without health insurance, I and tens of thousands of others like me have a 100% chance of dying quickly and painfully. That's not hyperbole, that's fact.

"3) Are you really equating a lack of health insurance coverage to the violent attack against our country? Are you really going to go there?"

No, I'm pointing it out for statistical comparison. To point out the SCOPE of the problem. But if you don't see a problem with that many people just dropping dead every year when that could be EASILY prevented...

And Stossel's a hack - he's proven to fudge his statistics and outright LIE in his reports (such as his report on how youth voters are uninformed voters - distortion after distortion).

By Terrible_Swift_Sword: 7/6/09 at 1:56 p.m.; Suggest removal

DouglasDemocrat: are you sure you want to name yourself after Lincoln's opponent in the 1858 Illinois Senate race? Surely you are aware that Stephen Douglas (1) stated the U.S. "Government was made by our fathers on the white basis"made by white men for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever," (2) supported the infamous Dred-Scott decision (in which the U.S. Supreme Court sided with plantation owners who insisted that African-Americans fleeing the chains of slavery were the "property" of white men and could be returned to their owners), and (3) once asserted that the Declaration of Independence does not include minorities? And yet you still chose to adopt as a moniker this foul-tongued charlatan who stands in stark opposition to the rightly-revered Lincoln?

Accordingly, your name is now Pukeball Racist Arseface DouglasDemocrap (PRADD for short). And now your arguments, PRADD, pathetic though they may be...[A] You whine that 21,000 people die each year due to a "lack of health insurance" "isn't it more correct to say they died because of whatever it was that ailed them? Apart from oxygen or water, does it even make sense to say that we die due to a "lack" of anything? Did you offer this semi-retarded quote because (1) you are in fact semi-retarded yourself? (2) you are a ferocious intellect, and, being aware that it is impossible to prove a negative, you have surreptitiously placed an impossible burden of proof on your interlocutors? Or is it (3) you are incapable of critical thought, preferring instead to pollute the Earth with your facile musings? (which explains your choice of political parties). [B] How many of these 21,000 would have died anyway? (i.e. with or w/o health insurance, some diseases are terminal, a fact that God-hating types such as yourself may find hard to believe). [C] Where did you find the cajones to invent such a silly number? Why not 21,456? Is this because the number was simply plucked out of the air, similar to the way in which Obama arbitarily picks which Americans he will punish with taxes and which he will favor with handouts?

Uggh. While I began this retort with the noblest of intentions, fully prepared to counter your pathetic arguments one by one, I am no longer able to continue crushing you. Emotionally I have hit a wall, a rhetorical event horizon if you will, where the breathtaking stupidity of your propaganda requires me to stop typing lest my soul be ripped asunder. Nevertheless, I shall depart with some vitriol in my wake, in the hopes that it may convince you of the merits of a self-inflicted early demise.

Thus " PRADD: You are almost as dumb as Joe Biden. Your genitals don't function properly. Your family hates you. Your favorite President is Warren G. Harding. You think the Cold War could've gone either way. You will not be remembered when you leave us. You are a Democrat (I know that last one is the worst of all, but hey, I call it as I see it).

Late.

By WillieTanner: 7/6/09 at 2:07 p.m.; Suggest removal

stevem: how many terrorists have flown an airplane into a building lately?
How many terrorists flew an airplane into a building in 2001?

Approximately 3,000 people died and two magnificent buildings that were symbols of American trade were destroyed while Bush gave little or no attention to domestic terrorism.

By Patrick_R_Gibbons: 7/6/09 at 2:31 p.m.; Suggest removal

Doug,

"They at least have a chance. Without health insurance, I and tens of thousands of others like me have a 100% chance of dying quickly and painfully. That's not hyperbole, that's fact."

No that is hyperbole, for one we all have a 100% chance of dying. For another, a lack of health insurance DOES NOT MEAN a lack of health care.

But if you want to extend your life you can pay for your own healthcare, your family can help, your friends can help. Where are they? Are they so uncaring that they won't help?

Helping one another is great, but that is voluntary. You don't want a voluntary system you want to force people to give you money and that is just wrong. That means some people have to deal with less income, less goods or services they want, there could be fewer innovations as a result of a stagnating or slower growing economy and that could mean more misery and more death than there otherwise would have been.

But we can help you by getting government less involved, I would be all for that. Government currently prohibits you from being covered because it would tax you for the coverage, it mandates things you may not need, and it prohibits competition between providers.

"No, I'm pointing it out for statistical comparison. To point out the SCOPE of the problem. But if you don't see a problem with that many people just dropping dead every year when that could be EASILY prevented..."

Then why don't you pick a logically consistent comparison? You attempted to compare death by natural diseases to a violent attack on innocent people. That is just a wrong and misleading comparison.

PS, if your concern is stopping preventable deaths, why not outlaw cars? Swimming pools? Trampolines? Home cooked meals? Fluffy pillows?

"And Stossel's a hack - he's proven to fudge his statistics and outright LIE in his reports (such as his report on how youth voters are uninformed voters - distortion after distortion)."

A hack like Michael Moore? Well prove it. I'm betting the evidence is soft at best.

By DouglasDemocrat: 7/6/09 at 2:48 p.m.; Suggest removal

"Where are they? Are they so uncaring that they won't help?"

They don't have $50,000 a year for the medication and doctor's visits. My parents have already stretched their finances to the limit. So has their church. So have my friends.

And I can't get insurance in the private sector because now I have a pre-existing condition.

Wait, why am I even bothering? Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. In fact, I'd have more fun talking to the wall.

By just_an_average_joe: 7/6/09 at 3:06 p.m.; Suggest removal

Willie,

the attacks happened 7 and 1/2 months into the Bush administration.

the planning for these attacks took YEARS.

I guess u don't think the Clinton administration has any culpability after 8 years of decimating our military and intelligence communities.

by that same logic, i guess u speak out loudly and set anyone straight if they believe Obama and Biden when they blame all of our current economic problems on the PAST administration, right?

By Patrick_R_Gibbons: 7/6/09 at 3:39 p.m.; Suggest removal

Doug,

That is great that your friends and family are helping. That is the way it should be.

Next, why don't you advocate the government reduce mandates, drop barriers to health insurance competition, reduce compliance costs with drug manufacturers etc? Advocating high deductable health insurance policies like health savings accounts would even help put a downward pressure on healthcare costs by getting people to shop smart, ask questions of their doctors and prioritize their medical needs to ensure they get the best service at the lowest price.

Did you know that "preexisting condition" problem wouldn't have been a problem if government didn't encourage health insurance to be a benefit of employment? The fact that it is attached to your job (untaxable benefit) means that you lose the coverage if you change jobs"or even move. At the very least you can get government to ensure that this terrible situation doesn't happen to other people and you can do it without putting a gun to peoples heads.

By DouglasDemocrat: 7/6/09 at 3:57 p.m.; Suggest removal

"Next, why don't you advocate the government reduce mandates, drop barriers to health insurance competition, reduce compliance costs with drug manufacturers etc?"

Because the system is BROKEN. And asking the architects of that system to fix it is idiotic.

It's like asking a pyromaniac to be fire chief, or a kelptomaniac to be in charge of the police department.

By just_an_average_joe: 7/6/09 at 4:07 p.m.; Suggest removal

So instead u advocate asking the government to step in and take over and do a better job than the private sector?

why, that's like asking the US Postal Service to run as efficiently as UPS or FedEx and actually turn a profit!

Government run systems will NEVER function efficiently, as the premises they are operated on are contrary to what motivates us as humans.

u really think the answer is a large expensive bureaucracy? you're just creating MORE middlemen, and giving doctors LESS incentive to work hard, and destroying any incentive for innovation in health care.

By POWERPLAY: 7/6/09 at 4:14 p.m.; Suggest removal

Hey Willie Tanner >>>>> F.D.R. Was President for 2 full terms was 11 months into his 3rd term when Pearl Harbor was hit some people said that he knew ahead of time most say no he did not. ANY MORE COMMENTS WILLIE!

By Patrick_R_Gibbons: 7/6/09 at 4:53 p.m.; Suggest removal

"Because the system is BROKEN. And asking the architects of that system to fix it is idiotic."

So you'd rather leave all the problems in place?

This doesn't make any sense. Government creates these problems and your solution to the problem is more government intervention?

"It's like asking a pyromaniac to be fire chief, or a kelptomaniac to be in charge of the police department."

Right, like having government - which has a legal monopoly on the use of violence be put in charge of our health.

By mschaffer: 7/6/09 at 5:06 p.m.; Suggest removal

DouglasDemocrat,

While I appreciate your efforts to educate Patrick it is useless as he suffers from Dunning_Kruger and is incapable of recognizing his own incompetence. All problems for him stem from the government of the United States and the marketplace is magic.
Modern political conservatives have helped elect a string of incompetent representatives that think government is the problem when the United States as a nation exists only because of our government. To destroy government is to destroy the nation which makes them the worst form of traitor.
I am puzzled why anyone would vote for a person expressing a view that "all government is bad" because such views within government will bring harm to citizens. Childish opinions as given by just an average joe or POWERPLAY fit well within this dysfunctional world.

By just_an_average_joe: 7/6/09 at 5:24 p.m.; Suggest removal

gee mschaffer!

thanks for enlightening us all! obviously u are another genius in the mold of Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, or Barbara Boxer....

if u love and trust complete government control so much, maybe u should move to North Korea!

I hear it's a "worker's paradise"!!!

By DouglasDemocrat: 7/6/09 at 7:20 p.m.; Suggest removal

"you're just creating MORE middlemen, and giving doctors LESS incentive to work hard, and destroying any incentive for innovation in health care."

How could they have LESS incentive than they have in the current system, which essentially demands they treat as many patients as possible without regard to quality of care? Where they have to spend an excessive amount of time fighting with a bean-counter with NO medical training over a procedure that they believe is in the patient's best interest?

We have a system now where insurers can do whatever they want - they testified before Congress that they DO drop people from their policies if they develop serious (and costly) conditions, and would continue to do so because it's in their best interest.

We have the most irrational system of health care imaginable - if you can't pay for treatment, you don't get treatment. Oh, you can go to the ER...but ERs are already admitting they are well past operating capacity, and spend too much time handling "bad outcome" cases that come from people trying to choose between getting the medicine they need or keeping the roof over their heads. And of course, the cost then gets passed on to YOU and others who do have health insurance.

So in effect you're already paying for it - just in a backwards and inefficient manner.

By SgtRock: 7/6/09 at 8:22 p.m.; Suggest removal

According to the Obama calculator, he has saved or "not destroyed" over 42341324123,123410234913241,013241324 ka trillion jobs.

Smashing success........

By DouglasDemocrat: 7/6/09 at 9:25 p.m.; Suggest removal

Your hyperbolic and asinine point has been noted for future reference in the circular round file.

By mschaffer: 7/6/09 at 10:09 p.m.; Suggest removal

just an average joe,
Last time I checked, we are supposed to be a nation of laws. Laws are instituted through government action by legislative means, signed into law by an executive branch, and interpreted by a court system. If the government does not do this well nothing functions worth a d*mn as there is no cop on the beat to insure trust in any institution. You can see this at work in the deregulated marketplace where a Hobbesian choice has led us to a war of all against all and no one trusts the bond raters, banks, insurers, mortgage lenders, etc.
In other words my narrow minded friend, without government, anarchy and idiocy prevail. Capiche??

By just_an_average_joe: 7/6/09 at 10:34 p.m.; Suggest removal

so by your twisted logic, those of us who believe in less government, less taxes are somehow unpatriotic? I believe you called us traitors.

I also don't recall anybody here advocating complete anarchy and the dissolution of the United States of America or a functioning government. what we are trying to do is preserve the ideals which made us the greatest nation in world history. our current administration with its run-amok spend-for-all is destroying the american dream.

get a grip.

By WillieTanner: 7/7/09 at 2:29 a.m.; Suggest removal

The divisiveness created in the mid 90's by the chief hypocrite in charge Newt Gingrich has caused our country too lag behind other countries in areas of technology, economics, education, etc. Our infrastructure is crumbling, and our economy is driven by greed. The drive to accumulate personal wealth sacrifices the good of the nation as a whole and capitalism gone wild has brought us to a point where we can no longer claim to be the greatest nation on earth. We are now # 1 in only one category, defense spending. Our life expectancy is going backwards, infant mortality rates which are already poor are increasing, 37th in healthcare, poverty increasing, and bridges falling down.
With the rancor now present in our political system we have little chance of regaining our status and other nations are surpassing us everyday in crucial areas like technology, quality of life, and care for the sick and aging. If we don't change our ways soon our glory days might be over.

By mschaffer: 7/7/09 at 6:36 a.m.; Suggest removal

Oh I have a grip less than average joe,
When, exactly, were we ever "the greatest nation on earth" and what made us so? Please make sure you take into account our past with slavery, women, indians, immigrants, and civilian populations in war torn countries. Keep swallowing the myth.

By just_an_average_joe: 7/7/09 at 7:37 a.m.; Suggest removal

ah now there u have it....

another bleeding heart self hating apologist...

yes the US of A is always to blame, we are just the dark evil empire aren't we?

u would be so much happier in a nation with complete government control like North Korea, Iran, or the like. too bad the Soviet Union collapsed, because we all know socialist countries with complete government control are such bastions of humanity.

By henderson: 7/7/09 at 9:54 a.m.; Suggest removal

mschaffer,

If the USA isn't the greatest nation on earth, please tell me who is and why.

By jaesun: 7/7/09 at 10:17 a.m.; Suggest removal

<<"how many terrorists have flown an airplane into a building lately?"

Non-sequitor and irrelevant.

If you want give him credit for keeping us safe for 7 years, then he also gets the BLAME for falling asleep at the switch on September 11th.

He doesn't get a free pass for the 1 terrorist action that happened on his watch. And it's deceptive to claim otherwise.
>>

while it is irrelevant to say that Bush prevented any more major terrorist attacks on US soil, it is also irrelevant to say that Bush didn't stop 9/11 either. you could have had Obama or Clinton in there and the attacks still would have happened.

By darthbry: 7/7/09 at 11:39 a.m.; Suggest removal

average Joe-

"ah now there u have it....
another bleeding heart self hating apologist.. "

this is a very common thing in all of mschaffer's posts. she will always question the "greatness" of the USA. It is sad to see such hatred toward this land that gives her free speech. I would love to see her express her views in another country such as those you mention. If she was North Korean, Chinese, Iranian or whicever and stated "what makes _____ so great" into prison for re-education she would go...

Of course BHO would state on her behalf, "We should not meddle in other nations affairs"....

By SgtRock: 7/7/09 at 12:02 p.m.; Suggest removal

"If you want give him credit for keeping us safe for 7 years, then he also gets the BLAME for falling asleep at the switch on September 11th.

He doesn't get a free pass for the 1 terrorist action that happened on his watch. And it's deceptive to claim otherwise.
"

There has been already 2 terrorist attacks in the USA since Obama has been in office.

Are you going to give him credit for that?

It would be deceptive to claim otherwise.

By mr__meowington: 7/7/09 at 12:27 p.m.; Suggest removal

People, wake up. Some of you talk of socialism if you knew what it's about.

Some of you can't do thinking of your own and rely on the mighty Fox News to know what things are.

But once again, what is the Republican party doing about this? Hmm?

I wish the Republican party would adapt the John McCain campaign slogan of "Country First" rather than "Party first" since they're not doing anything for us and just want the 2012 election won since that's all it matters.

By DouglasDemocrat: 7/7/09 at 12:51 p.m.; Suggest removal

"There has been already 2 terrorist attacks in the USA since Obama has been in office."

Name them.

By SgtRock: 7/7/09 at 6:13 p.m.; Suggest removal

A US solider was killed by a self-professed Muslim extremist at a recuriting station.

Tiller the Baby Killer (lefty hero who drilled holes into babies heads right seconds before they were about to take their first breaths) was killed by a Christain extremist in a church.

By ksand99: 7/7/09 at 6:38 p.m.; Suggest removal

Got it, so your previous statements as your other personality about there being no other terrorist attacks on U.S. soil after 2001 were lies, then, SgtRock, err, jfNance32, err, James F Nance Jr?

Bush takes all those anti-abortion extremist bomb threats, arsons and property crimes that happened between 2001 and 2009 under Bush's watch.

Oh, don't forget all the neo-nazi hate crimes, ALF attempted murders, etc, too.

Furthermore, as of a month ago, and a week after Dr. Tiller's murder, SgtRock, err, jfNance32 didn't think it was a terrorist attack. "Will people like WillTanner apply their logic to Obama IF another terrorist attack happens in the USA?" (emphasis mine)

On that same thread, he even references Dr. Tiller, but doesn't say anything about it being a terrorist action. Seems 'ol jfNance32, err, SgtRock, err, James F Nance Jr has suddenly changed his tune!

Thanks for admitting that your previous statements were just lies.

By DouglasDemocrat: 7/7/09 at 7:57 p.m.; Suggest removal

Rock, the fact you STILL call him "Tiller The Baby Killer" while trying to claim him as a victim of terrorism DISCREDITS YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT.

I love how he's only the victim of terrorism when it's convenient to your position. When it was a discussion of right-wing extremist groups, your position was that he was just a victim of a nut. Now that we're talking about whether terrorism has occurred on Obama's watch, Tiller is a victim of a terrorist.

By SgtRock: 7/7/09 at 8:30 p.m.; Suggest removal

Being the Tiller the Baby Killer does not exclude him from being a victim of a terrorists.

Generally, drilling a hole in baby's head seconds before it is about to take it first breath of life is a sign that one is a baby killer. Of course, that also qualifies one to be a hero of the Democratic party.

Terriorist A can be a victim of Terrorist B.

And while talking about lies....can either DouglasDemocrat or ksand99 list any quote from my postings where I argue that it was not a terrorist act.

You can't. I never argued that point.

Too bad, you guys have to make up stuff.

Just shows how pathetic you are.

By ksand99: 7/7/09 at 8:38 p.m.; Suggest removal

I'm glad you agree your hero George W Bush presided over many, many terrorist attacks after 2001, and even your weird, split personality can acknowledge your prior lies. Thanks, jfNance32!

By thebs: 7/7/09 at 9:03 p.m.; Suggest removal

Yup, Nance is entangled in his own catch-22. If he says Tiller's death was terrorism, then he directly contradicts his previous rhetoric about the fantastic protection of Dubya.

Give some people enough rope...

Of course he didn't say anything about Tiller being a victim of terrorism. He walked into that position just to be able to hold Obama responsible for terrorist acts during his watch. Does Nance THINK it was a terrorist act? Of course not! He probably applauded Tiller's death.

Unfortunately, in taking that position, he sold out over a year's worth of his rhetoric that Bush had kept us safe after 9/11. Even Nance doesn't believe himself anymore.

Why else would he abandon his screen name?

By SgtRock: 7/7/09 at 9:03 p.m.; Suggest removal

I am not aware of any terrorist attacks in the USA after 2001 until Obama came into office.

By ksand99: 7/7/09 at 9:19 p.m.; Suggest removal

Because you pick and choose what you consider to be a "terrorist attack." When it suits your rhetoric, it's whatever you want it to be. You didn't claim Tiller's death was a terrorist attack a month ago. You called it a murder.

By DouglasDemocrat: 7/7/09 at 9:54 p.m.; Suggest removal

"I am not aware of any terrorist attacks in the USA after 2001 until Obama came into office."

2003 - Letters containing the biological agent ricin were mailed. One was found in South Carolina, the other was intercepted prior to arrival at the White House.

By SgtRock: 7/7/09 at 10 p.m.; Suggest removal

Again, you make up stuff.

Where did I say it was not a terrorist act?

Tiller the Baby Killer killed by a Christain extremist and the solider killed by a Muslim extremist. Those are acts of death to promote a political and/or religious points of view.

Since 2001, I am not aware other similar violent acts occurring on US soil.

Of course, the Obama horde will look the other way.

Hypocrites....yes they are. TheBS pointed over and over and over and over again to the Anthrax attacks in late 2001 that killed a few people as terrorist acts even though no terrorist group claimed them and now it looks like a work of a crazy person. Hmmm...funny that his rhetoric has flipped 180 degrees. I guess that means he is full of BS like his name says.

By ksand99: 7/7/09 at 10:12 p.m.; Suggest removal

Thank you for proving my point, jfNance32.

So cowardly, you won't define terrorism. So naive, you think only acts which result in death are terrorist acts?

Bomb threats are terrorism. Targeted arson is terrorism. Death threats are terrorism. Biological weapons are terrorism.

thebs said the anthrax attacks were terrorism, and you agreed! You changed your rhetoric! Originally, you said there were no terrorist attacks since 9/11, but when cornered with proof of the anthrax attacks, your tune changed. You even wrote it a few minutes ago. "Since 2001..."

And, as DouglasDem pointed out, the Ricin envelope in 2003. "The note threatened to poison water supplies if demands were not met."

According to jfNance32, err, SgtRock, err, James F Nance Jr, threatening the water supply isn't terrorism? What a joke!

By mschaffer: 7/7/09 at 10:19 p.m.; Suggest removal

Can any of you uber patriots point to any factual errors in what I wrote? Did we not have slaves? Did we not enfranchise the vote for women in the early 20th century? Is what this nation did to Indians just? And how about those immigrants?
Don't you idiots know your own countries history good and bad? Sheesh!

By just_an_average_joe: 7/7/09 at 10:25 p.m.; Suggest removal

that's right mschaffer, after all, we ARE the EVIL EMPIRE!!!

but now that the government is headed by Obama, it is all good and pure and benificent! so we need to continue to allow them to increase government powers to a point that has only been rivaled in countries like the old Soviet Union!

only then, can everything be "fair", and peachy-keen-swell for all the descendants of indians, slaves, and women in this terrible, evil nation we live in!!!

By DouglasDemocrat: 7/7/09 at 10:25 p.m.; Suggest removal

Rock, talking to you is like trying to nail Jell-O to a tree.

"Moving target debate" isn't debate. It's gamesmanship. And I've had my fill of that too.

By mschaffer: 7/7/09 at 10:32 p.m.; Suggest removal

just an average joe,
What kind of idiot are you?

By SgtRock: 7/7/09 at 10:39 p.m.; Suggest removal

"Originally, you said there were no terrorist attacks since 9/11, but when cornered with proof of the anthrax attacks, your tune changed. You even wrote it a few minutes ago. "Since 2001..."

I never said that the anthrax were not terrorist acts. You just keep making up stuff again. I have said that the motive behind them has never been proven which would be key in determing whether they are terrorist acts or not. Most of the evidence points to non-political/religious motives but the evidence is not conclusive. I am Ok if you want to call it a terrorist act.

Just a FYI to help you bone up on facts, the anthrax attacks occurred in 2001.

Again, I am not aware of actual terrorist acts on US soil that resulted in deaths since 2001 other than the 2 that I listed which occurred on Obama's watch.

"the Ricin envelope in 2003. "The note threatened to poison water supplies if demands were not met."

I am glad that this was pointed out. It was a terrorist attack that was successfully handled and resulted in zero damage. It was a smashing success that resulted from the new procedures that the Bush adminstration put into place to deal with such threats.

Sadly, Obama was not successful in preventing the damage that resulted from the two terrorist acts that occurred on his watch.

By Patrick_R_Gibbons: 7/7/09 at 10:41 p.m.; Suggest removal

Ksand did you forget about this sock puppet account? I haven't seen you in awhile.

By just_an_average_joe: 7/7/09 at 10:42 p.m.; Suggest removal

gee i guess since anyone who disagrees with your premise that the US is such an evil country which has only committed awful acts is an idiot, I guess I am guilty as charged. maybe u should send me to an education camp.

oh i forgot, they only have those in socialist countries with near complete government control. completely different from the complete control Obama is trying to obtain, which is pure, innocent, beneficent and all-good!!!

By ksand99: 7/7/09 at 11:07 p.m.; Suggest removal

jfNance32, do you agree with the following. If not, why?

"Bomb threats are terrorism. Targeted arson is terrorism. Death threats are terrorism. Biological weapons are terrorism."

Patrick, it's nice to know I have an admirer. I'll try to let you down easy: I'm taken.

By thebs: 7/7/09 at 11:07 p.m.; Suggest removal

"I never said that the anthrax were not terrorist acts."

Yes, when you made the statement, several times, that there were no terrorist attacks after 9/11, a logical extension of that comment was that the anthrax attacks were not terrorist attacks, as they happened AFTER 9/11.

This is basic logic, Nance. Try to keep up.

"Just a FYI to help you bone up on facts, the anthrax attacks occurred in 2001."

Late 2001. After 9/11. And when that was pointed out, your rhetoric changed. The fact remains, your original assertion that there were no terrorist attacks after 9/11 is false.

Now you note that the Ricin attack was a terrorist attack, further proving you wrong.

"Sadly, Obama was not successful in preventing the damage that resulted from the two terrorist acts that occurred on his watch."

You know what's somewhat ironic about that, Nance? When the Department of Homeland Security released a report of extremism, Fox News and the Republican commentariat had a hissy fit because it acknowledged the dangers of extremism on the right. It noted the threat of both anti-abortion extremists AND the lone-wolf type extremists.

The Limbaugh-Hannity-Malkin-O'Reilly cabal lost their mind whining about it and how WRONG it was.

Turns out, it wasn't wrong, was it?

By SgtRock: 7/8/09 at 12:01 a.m.; Suggest removal

"Yes, when you made the statement, several times, that there were no terrorist attacks after 9/11, a logical extension of that comment was that the anthrax attacks were not terrorist attacks, as they happened AFTER 9/11."

I have stated often and repeatly that there were no successful terrorist attacks on US soil after 2001 (not until Obama). I do not where you get the "after 9/11" thing.

Why should I list a failed attack? Bush protected us from the Recin attack. If you want me to bring up that success story then I guess I will.

After 2001, Bush either prevented attacks or thwarted attacks.

Since 2008, Obama has allowed successful terrorist attacks to occur.

Of course, you have no opinion on the matter (Mr. Punt King). It would require you to either say there were no terrorist attacks since 9/11 or say that Obama allowed terrorist attacks.

I just chalk it up to another punting session from the kool-aid goose stepping left crowd.

By ksand99: 7/8/09 at 12:20 a.m.; Suggest removal

"I have stated often and repeatly that there were no successful terrorist attacks on US soil after 2001 (not until Obama). I do not where you get the "after 9/11" thing."

Maybe when you changed screen names you thought you could escape your own words, but unfortunately, you didn't try hard enough.

jfNance32: "Bush: No loss of civilians in the US due to terrorism since 9/11." 6/22/08 at 12:10 a.m.

Five civilians died in the Anthrax attacks after 9/11. As for denying anthrax was terrorism: "The anthrax has not been proven to be terror related. "

You even gave a definition of terrorism, jfNance32: "According to the Webster's dictionary, which is much different than your slang dictionary, terrorism is defined as the systematic use of terror as a means of coercion."

All of the crimes I listed fit that definition. And all of those crimes had happened after 2001.

How stupid is this:

"After 2001, Bush either prevented attacks or thwarted attacks."

Okay, then:
Between July 1-7, 2009, Obama either prevented attacks or thwarted attacks..

You say Obama "allowed" the Tiller killing but you don't use the same rhetoric with Bush and 9/11. That's a giant double standard.

But all of us expect that from you, anyway.

By formervegas76: 7/8/09 at 3:44 a.m.; Suggest removal

douglas, hang it there, we're never going to illuminate some of these folks. my son lives in u.k., people of uk were asked who was the greatest person in their history- churchill-no, tony blair-no, princess dianna-no. it was the father of their health care system. no lines, and all the other maddness the nut jobs tell us. you know the rich and powerfull influence some people to hate others, doing their dirty work for profit.

By mschaffer: 7/8/09 at 6:39 a.m.; Suggest removal

just an average joe,
You just keep tilting at that strawman argument while the adults work on our problems.

By SgtRock: 7/8/09 at 7:10 a.m.; Suggest removal

"You say Obama "allowed" the Tiller killing but you don't use the same rhetoric with Bush and 9/11. That's a giant double standard.

But all of us expect that from you, anyway."

So, I guess you DON'T have a gaint double standard or are you PUNTING.............AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!

On one hand, you seem to say the anthrax attack is terrorism. In the next breath, you excused terrorist acts on Obama's watch.

Talk about DOUBLE STANDARDS.

Oh...I get it......you have no opinion.

Typical kool-aid goose stepping lib......punt..punt..punt whenever they have to take a stand and it reveals that they are hypocrites.

It is like...Bush broke the Constitution..he should be impeach or he is a war criminal. Yet when Obama does similar things or the exact same things or when previous democratic presidents have done much worst things then it is silence.

By DouglasDemocrat: 7/8/09 at 7:29 a.m.; Suggest removal

Rock,

Look up Godwin's Law.

Debate over. You lose.

By henderson: 7/8/09 at 7:38 a.m.; Suggest removal

I'm still waiting for mschafer to enlighten us by sharing with us what the greatest nation on earth is.

By ksand99: 7/8/09 at 8:17 a.m.; Suggest removal

"So, I guess you DON'T have a gaint double standard or are you PUNTING.............AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!"

What's a gaint double standard?

I'm trying to wrap my head around your rhetoric. First you argued that using weaponized anthrax wasn't terrorism. Then you wised up and admitted that was wrong and said it was. Then you wrote about Dr. Tiller's murder. Now you write it's a terrorist act. And you seem to deny that the Ricin attack was terrorism.

Using the dictionary definition that YOU gave, all of those are acts of terrorism. YOU effectively proved yourself wrong. Don't be angry at others for your own words.

By just_an_average_joe: 7/8/09 at 8:57 a.m.; Suggest removal

i'm waiting too mschafer, please enlighten us....
no, DAZZLE us with your keen intellect and rapier wit!

and btw, i WILL stick to the same argument everytime you insist on crying about what a terrible nation with a terrible history u think we are!

By ksand99: 7/8/09 at 10:13 a.m.; Suggest removal

That's quite a straw man argument, joe.

mschaffer never said we were a "terrible nation with a terrible history." Either you need new reading glasses, or a few reading comprehension courses.

By henderson: 7/8/09 at 11:01 a.m.; Suggest removal

He didn't say it outright, but it's certainly the impression he left. What did you take it to mean when he said the following?
"When, exactly, were we ever "the greatest nation on earth" and what made us so? Please make sure you take into account our past with slavery, women, indians, immigrants, and civilian populations in war torn countries. Keep swallowing the myth."

I'm guessing he's not a fan, he sounds very bitter towards our nation.

By ksand99: 7/8/09 at 11:45 a.m.; Suggest removal

"He didn't say it outright, but it's certainly the impression he left. What did you take it to mean when he said the following?"

Acknowledging our mistakes is hardly calling the U.S. a "terrible nation with a terrible history."

No country is perfect, and to ignore our flaws will bring peril to us all. The point is to learn from our mistakes, not ignore them because of some misguided sense of patriotism.

But then, that's my rational take on mschaffer's words. Those who lack such rationality might take leave of reason and distort what he said.

By SgtRock: 7/8/09 at 12:20 p.m.; Suggest removal

ksand99:

I understand why you do not want give your own opinion and just want to be critical of others.

It would reveal what a big fat hypocrite that you are.

By ksand99: 7/8/09 at 12:37 p.m.; Suggest removal

"I understand why you do not want give your own opinion and just want to be critical of others."

On what part of my opinion are you unclear?

"It would reveal what a big fat hypocrite that you are."

Surely you can understand why the opinion of someone so discredited they have to hide behind two different screen names means very little to me, jfNance32, err, SgtRock.

By just_an_average_joe: 7/8/09 at 12:44 p.m.; Suggest removal

mschafer's comments leave an obvious impression with anyone who reads them. he takes every chance to attack and criticize elements of our nations past which he finds distasteful (as though every OTHER country in the world is either a "victim" or just a "good guy" who has never done anything negative). obviously he has an axe to grind against our country.

do u REALLY think anyone reading his posts would conclude: "gee what a great patriot! they sound like somebody who really loves their country and would do anything for it!"

of course they wouldn't think that. they would think exactly the opposite.

and THEN, after criticizing and tearing down this nation anytime anybody says a positive thing about the United States, he attacks those who would criticize the actions of his precious Obama administration by labeling us as anarchists.

"To destroy government is to destroy the nation which makes them the worst form of traitor."

WHO here advocated destroying the government?? and yet u imply we are traitors???

"....without government, anarchy and idiocy prevail."

i guess this follows from your belief that although our entire history and government up until the point Obama was elected was evil and treacherous, but NOW, now that Obama is in charge, the government is to be beloved and trusted and given greater powers, as it is benevolent and loving.

Get a grip.

By just_an_average_joe: 7/8/09 at 12:45 p.m.; Suggest removal

and BTW, we're still waiting for u to enlighten us as to your opinion of which nation is the greatest in the world, and why.

By ksand99: 7/8/09 at 1:40 p.m.; Suggest removal

"mschafer's comments leave an obvious impression with anyone who reads them."

Um,no, no they don't. They leave that impression to those who could willingly misconstrue his words.

"he takes every chance to attack and criticize elements of our nations past which he finds distasteful "

Really, a handful of words is "every chance to attack and criticize?" I've read mschaffer's posts for awhile now. He's hardly the America-hating ideologue you desperately are trying to portray him to be.

"(as though every OTHER country in the world is either a "victim" or just a "good guy" who has never done anything negative). "

Did he say other nations had "never done anything negative?" Nope. More straw man reasoning.

"obviously he has an axe to grind against our country."

That's only obvious to those who willingly misconstrue his words.

"do u REALLY think anyone reading his posts would conclude: "gee what a great patriot! they sound like somebody who really loves their country and would do anything for it!""

"do u"? What are you, twelve? Can't take a second to type out "you?" I don't feel the need to question his patriotism. That's the tactic of cowards who think excusing past misdeeds is the same as patriotism.

"and THEN, after criticizing and tearing down this nation anytime anybody says a positive thing about the United States"

"anytime anyone says a positive thing about the United States?" Sheesh, your hyperbole is on overdrive, joe. Didn't your precious Sarah Palin just whine about the politics of personal destruction... those same politics you are employing right here?

"i guess this follows from your belief that although our entire history and government up until the point Obama was elected was evil and treacherous"

At this point, I'm convinced that when I write "I like pie," you see "God is dead." There's a compete and total disconnect from rational thought and comprehension with joe.

This is just borderline hysteria, joe.

By just_an_average_joe: 7/8/09 at 2:36 p.m.; Suggest removal

oh right, bringing the treatment of slaves and indians and women into this discussion is relevant and not "borderline hysteria", as u like to call it.

you've obviously been drinking the same KoolAid as your buddy.

By ksand99: 7/8/09 at 3:13 p.m.; Suggest removal

"oh right, bringing the treatment of slaves and indians and women into this discussion is relevant and not "borderline hysteria", as u like to call it."

Hey, I'm glad you're proud of America's history of slavery and genocide against the indigenous population of North America. USA! USA!

Is it unpatriotic to acknowledge the history of the United States? Those of us who really love our country love it... warts and all.

Those of us who think rationally can criticize parts of the history of the United States while still believing the good outweighs the bad. You might try it sometime.

By just_an_average_joe: 7/8/09 at 3:30 p.m.; Suggest removal

what, exactly, is the purpose of discussing slavery, native americans, and women's rights in this discussion?

borderline hysteria, as u like to call it!

By ksand99: 7/8/09 at 3:48 p.m.; Suggest removal

"what, exactly, is the purpose of discussing slavery, native americans, and women's rights in this discussion?"

He was engaging a previous assertion. That's common when discussing any issue. Try to keep up.

My question is, why do you think it unpatriotic to acknowledge the history of the United States?

By just_an_average_joe: 7/8/09 at 3:59 p.m.; Suggest removal

my question is, why does mschafer imply that those of us who would dare to question the current administration are "traitors"?

"to destroy government is to destroy the nation, which makes them the worst form of traitor"

this comment directed at those of us who argue for smaller government with less powers, NOT for anarchy.

try to keep up.

and is mschafer unable to speak for him or herself? or are you the appointed protector of the downtrodden liberal?

By ksand99: 7/8/09 at 4:14 p.m.; Suggest removal

I answered your question and asked one. Twice. The fact that you continue to evade it indicates you have no answer... that your caterwauling was no more than posturing. Typical neocon arguing, as it were!

And you've so severely and intentionally misinterpreted mschaffer's words, it's clear there's nothing that can be said to convince you otherwise. Isn't that lead helmet a little heavy?

By henderson: 7/8/09 at 4:51 p.m.; Suggest removal

joe,

It's like Michelle Obama saying that for the first time in her life she's proud of her country. mschafer is ashamed of our country. He doesn't believe that we have ever been the greatest nation on the earth. Still trying to figure out who is!!

By SgtRock: 7/8/09 at 7:02 p.m.; Suggest removal

America does have several black eyes.

Not allowing women to vote, slavery and then giving blacks 2nd class citizenship are all black eyes along with the fact that nearly 50% of murder victims are black even though blacks only make up 13% of the population.

You have to add the millions of abortions, especially late term abortions where they drill a hole in the head of the baby moments before it is about to take its first breaths.

The rampant use of drugs is another black eye.

The high rate of violent crime is another black eye.

The significant occurance of STDs amoung those under 18 is sad, too, along with the abundance of sexual abuse for those under 18.

Dumping trillions of debt on our children is not an award winning move either.

By SgtRock: 7/8/09 at 7:12 p.m.; Suggest removal

ksand99:

"On what part of my opinion are you unclear?"

Do you consider the anthrax attack to be a terrorist act?

Do you consider the Tiller the Baby Killer Attack by a Christian extremist to be a terrorist act?

Do you consider the death of the US solider in the USA by a Muslim extremist to be a terrorist act?

I know your answers.....PUNT!!!!!!!!

Yet, you want to have the balls to criticize others for having an opinion on those matters.

What a dufus........

By ksand99: 7/8/09 at 7:33 p.m.; Suggest removal

I answered that at 12:20. Sorry you lack the reading comprehension to understand. Go back and read, rather than impotently calling people names.

By SgtRock: 7/8/09 at 8:42 p.m.; Suggest removal

Oh.....Thanks for agreeing that terrorism on US soil has occurred during Obama's watch.

That was really big of you.

By ksand99: 7/8/09 at 9:35 p.m.; Suggest removal

So, to recap: your talking point about no terrorist attacks after 9/11 was false.

Your talking point about no terrorist attacks after 2001 was false.

Your statements that an anthrax attack wasn't terrorism were false.

And I'll leave it up to you to compare/contrasts two lone-wolf extremist murderers with an international conspiracy to end the United States and murder thousands of civilians.

By SgtRock: 7/8/09 at 10:12 p.m.; Suggest removal

Thanks for that post....it reveals that you have two standards. You have FINALLY decided not to punt on the subject. It was like pulling teeth.

How can you claim that the anthrax attacks are terrorism and then claim the "lone-wolf" terrorists are just murders?

The evidence in the anthrax attacks points to a "lone-wolf" whose motive was not political or religious....he was just a deeply depressed and distrubed person.

The two Obama-era terrorist attacks had political and religious motives which are hallmarks of a terrorist act.

Thanks for showing your true self.

Again, under Bush there were no successful terrorists attacks on US soil since 2001.

So far, Obama has allowed two successful terrorsist attacks to occur on US soil.

What is so funny

By ksand99: 7/9/09 at 8:20 a.m.; Suggest removal

"How can you claim that the anthrax attacks are terrorism and then claim the "lone-wolf" terrorists are just murders?"

According to your definition, they are both successful terrorists. Why haven't they both been charged with terrorism, then?

"The evidence in the anthrax attacks points to a "lone-wolf" whose motive was not political or religious....he was just a deeply depressed and distrubed person."

Based on your thorough and in-depth knowledge of the case, right? LOL! You still deny that the anthrax attacks which killed 5 people were terrorism. Your hypocritical double standard is SO OBVIOUS! Ha!

"Again, under Bush there were no successful terrorists attacks on US soil since 2001."

Not according to your definition of terrorism. Your definition is very broad. An attack based on political or religious motives? THOUSANDS of hate crimes share those hallmarks. The abortion clinics that were firebombed under Bush's watch share those hallmarks. The actions of the Earth Liberation Front under Bush's watch share those hallmarks. The ten Baptist churches that were burned down in 2005 in rural Alabama share those hallmarks. All, under your definition, terrorist attacks.

By SgtRock: 7/9/09 at 8:35 p.m.; Suggest removal

Funny that somebody that likes to accuse others of double standards seems to be the King of the Double Standard.

By DouglasDemocrat: 7/9/09 at 9:06 p.m.; Suggest removal

"Funny that somebody that likes to accuse others of double standards seems to be the King of the Double Standard."

Howzabout you answer the question first?

By ksand99: 7/9/09 at 9:37 p.m.; Suggest removal

Sorry, but for someone who loves to whine and complain about punting, I have to call you out as a giant hypocrite, jfNance32, err, SgtRock, err, James F Nance Jr.

The FACT remains, you debunked your entire rhetoric of over two years, just to try to score a political point. It proves what most of us already knew: you don't believe a word that you write. You throw it all away. No values or morals, just empty bankruptcy.

I'll wait for your next PUNT!

By just_an_average_joe: 7/9/09 at 10:02 p.m.; Suggest removal

ksand99

what is your obsession over calling SgtRock jfNance32 or James F Nance Jr?

i'm assuming his real name may be James F Nance, and maybe he decided he would rather post under a pseudonym, like the vast majority of posters here.

YOURSELF INCLUDED. unless your momma named her baby ksand99?

SO FREAKIN' WHAT???!!! and why do u appoint yourself the "identity police" and keep dragging that into your posts?

the pseudonyms we all choose to post under have absolutely no bearing on the points of discussion we raise as part of this forum.

I would suggest u drop it. your continued "calling out" of what may or may not be SgtRock's real name only makes u look like a pathetic weakling.

even weaker looking by the fact that you yourself have chosen to post under a pseudonym.

grow up.

By ksand99: 7/9/09 at 11:30 p.m.; Suggest removal

I've identified myself several times on the Sun's website, Joe. My name is Kevin Sandoval, hence "ksand." 1999 was the year my son was born. What's your name?

SgtRock is jfNance32 who is James F Nance Jr. I'm addressing him, therefore I use his name. This is simple stuff, Joe.

By just_an_average_joe: 7/9/09 at 11:53 p.m.; Suggest removal

so what is your obsession with pointing out his real name, when the fact he ignores your "jfnance32, err, SgtRock, err, James F. Nance Jr." salutation would lead one to believe he prefers to go by his chosen pseudonym of SgtRock? and let's be perfectly clear, you are NOT addressing him by his name as a form of respect, or a friendly salutation.

perhaps he doesn't want to offend his boss, who may have strongly liberal beliefs, or perhaps he owns a public business and doesn't want to alienate any customers or potential customers with strongly liberal beliefs, or perhaps he just likes the sound of "SgtRock."

it doesn't matter. what does matter is that is HIS choice. and you should respect it. the fact that he posts under a pseudonym (again, as do MOST of the posters on these forums, by an overwhelming majority) has NOTHING to do with the content of his posts, nor does it matter in the context of the discussions we are participating in. so what business of yours is it to make that an issue?

again, who makes u the identity police?

By ksand99: 7/10/09 at 12:52 a.m.; Suggest removal

Joe, he posts at the Review Journal using his full name, thus your concerns over his use of an alias are unfounded.

I guess I have to ask: since he has yet to make an issue of this, why are you? I mean, I get that you don't like me and would rather attack me than the relevant points I've made... but it's curious that you would spend so much time "defending" (If that's what you want to call what you're doing here) someone who is capable of their own defense.

You seem to be awfully concerned with how I address SgtRock, err, jfNance32, err, James F Nance Jr. Since we know he's fond of pseudonyms, perhaps you're #4?

By DouglasDemocrat: 7/10/09 at 7:27 a.m.; Suggest removal

"again, who makes u the identity police?"

If you read the TOS for this website, it states that you can have ONE and ONLY ONE account to use for comments.

Rock has two - SgtRock and jfNance32.

In other words, joe, he's breaking the rules.

By SgtRock: 7/10/09 at 12:18 p.m.; Suggest removal

Kevin Sandoval (ksand99) is just throwing another one of his hissy fits.

By car_1: 7/10/09 at 12:58 p.m.; Suggest removal

Mr. Parker,

Exactly what constitutional rights were lost under Mr. Bush? I keep hearing the left repeat this over and over again, but upon perusing the Constitution I have yet to find any rights that I have lost. So, for the thousandth time, I have to ask: What rights were lost?

By DouglasDemocrat: 7/10/09 at 2:14 p.m.; Suggest removal

"What rights were lost?"

Read "Bill of Wrongs" by Ivins. That'll answer your question.

By henderson: 7/10/09 at 2:39 p.m.; Suggest removal

I still want to know who mschaffer thinks the greatest nation on earth is.

By ksand99: 7/10/09 at 5:40 p.m.; Suggest removal

See, Joe, James F Nance, err, SgtRock, err jfNance32 doesn't mind a bit.

Now that he's acknowledged that, by his own definition, there were THOUSANDS of terrorist attacks while Bush was President, we can move on.

By SgtRock: 7/10/09 at 7:37 p.m.; Suggest removal

Kevin Sandoval..ksand99....he has no clue or no opinion except to make opinions on other opinions because he is void of any opinions himself.

Because if he actually had a opinion then it would reveal that he is Mr. Double Standard Hypocrite.

By ksand99: 7/10/09 at 10:13 p.m.; Suggest removal

It is my opinion that John Ensign is not the most popular politician in the state... like you claimed yesterday with no evidence.

Now please, deconstruct that and explain how I have a double standard.

By LasVegasFlyer: 8/19/09 at 4:58 a.m.; Suggest removal

Wow What a angry bitter man. Its funny because most of the liberals are the same way. They also have a bad habit of lying. The beleive the end justifies the means. Liberals to include the author of this article are the hipocrites. I'll clarify a point about tea parties. The people that attend are not primarily Republican nor are they primarily affiliated with any party. They are most likely all conservative . May I state being conservative is a great thing . They are people who have standards and morals and do not allow others to change their mind because its politically correct or because people like you threaten them. Obama is the worst president in the history of the U.S. and will not be re-elected nor will any other liberal . Americans taught the Republicans a lesson by throwing them out of office. Maybe we will get candidates that reflect conservative values of Americans instead of candidates that are promoting a communist agenda. The current President is tha biggest hipocrite and the biggest liar I have ever seen in my life. The american people are onto him and are as sick of his lies. For those people who like to threaten and intimidate people at the tea parties it would be a mistake in the upcoming weeks. I for one will be there and will not allow you to scare or hurt anyone. Feel free to respond if you do not like my opinion . If you want to threaten me then be prepared to back it up. I will gladly give you my address and will look foward to meeting you and your acorn mob buddies.