ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this holiday season!

With Friends Like These...

[ Posted Wednesday, August 11th, 2010 – 17:32 PDT ]

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs recently expressed his frustration with what he called the "professional left," in no uncertain terms. Which, ironically, means the White House and the "professional left" have now achieved parity in that both sides express withering contempt for the other. The irony lies in the fact that both are probably thinking the exact same thing about each other: "With friends like these, who needs enemies?"

From the White House's point of view, Lefties are not giving them sufficient credit for the things which President Obama has managed to achieve with a fractious Congress, and with an opposition party dedicated to the failure of any small shred of his agenda. From the Left's point of view, these are mostly hollow victories and were achieved at great price -- gutting the real reforms proposed, in exchange for something so watered-down it was barely worth passing (and certainly not worth praising). What all of this may mean is the opening round of the Washington game "Who's to blame?" which will likely start in earnest the day after the midterm elections this year.

Gibbs' comment was no mistake or slip of the tongue, though. He's certainly not the first White House official caught showing naked condescension towards his party's own base. As Mike Lux put it in the Huffington Post today:

There has been and will be a huge amount of commentary on this in the blogosphere and the media in general over the next few days, and Gibbs' quote will go right up there with the infamous "left of the left" quote during health care, Rahm's infamous "f'ing retarded" quote (he apologized afterward to advocates for those with mental disabilities, but of course not to progressives), the locker room gloating "organized labor just flushed $10 million down the toilet" quote, and a variety of other random insults that progressives have to chew over.

In other words, Gibbs wasn't exactly saying anything the Left hasn't already heard before from this White House, in various different ways. The only truly surprising thing is that Gibbs would feel that the time was appropriate to take another swing at the Left, less than three months before an election where Republicans have already built up a large "enthusiasm gap" over Democrats. Perhaps some will argue that Obama is playing multi-dimensional chess, and is making some crafty move to try to regain his appeal among independents, by showing his independence from the Left. If so, I'd have to say it's a bad political miscalculation.

To the White House's credit, Obama has gotten a lot done legislatively. But who would have thought, after witnessing his brilliant campaign, that Barack Obama's biggest problem in his first few years in office would be one of communication? There's a reason people aren't giving Obama credit, and that reason is he doesn't appear to fight hard for anything other than putting a bill on his desk. Endlessly willing to compromise means that, when the dust has settled, it's a little hard to take credit for the outcome. Which Obama's White House hasn't even done a particularly good job of.

While at the recent Netroots Nation "professional left" convention, two things stuck out to me. The first was a point Ed Schultz made -- that Obama has never even tried to reach out to the "professional left" at all. Obama, Schultz pointed out, has made time to sit down for an interview with late-night comedians and "Fox News Sunday," but he has yet to appear on a show like Rachel Maddow's or Keith Olbermann's. Obama rarely gives press conferences anymore (I think there's been a single one this entire year), and seems to have bought so far into the "Obama is dangerously overexposed" myth that he now actually appears to be media-shy. Which doesn't exactly get his message out. Which is why there is a lack of credit for his accomplishments out here.

In contrast to Schultz, Nancy Pelosi presented a personal video from President Obama during her Netroots Nation speech. It was obviously crafted along the same lines as Gibbs' frustration, and included a segment where Obama was given credit for his accomplishments. By way of a Rachel Maddow clip. In other words, the message is clear: the Obama White House will use Lefty media to prop themselves up, but don't bother holding your breath for an actual interview with the president, because it ain't going to happen any time soon.

After which, the White House has the gall to say the "professional left" will never be satisfied and doesn't give them any credit. Well, guys, how about making the attempt in the first place? How about tossing the Left a bone every so often? It's been a long time since Obama's biggest liberal achievement (the Lilly Ledbetter law), and I haven't noticed any push from the White House on any other Lefty issue since. Health care reform and Wall Street reform really don't count, as the White House severely disappointed the Left on both by arguing for weaker reforms instead of stronger in the final bill.

Legislation aside, how about giving an interview to a show or column with a Lefty audience? How about some genuine outreach to groups on the Left? Again, from the Mike Lux column:

Here's the other thing: other Democratic politicians in 2010 get the need to work effectively with progressives. I have had my share of disagreements with Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid, but they and their staff have never failed to work constructively and conscientiously with me and other progressives I know. This is politics 101 as far as I am concerned, but to my knowledge, this White House isn't engaging in much of it. I am on the board of many different progressives groups, and know a wide assortment of folks in the blogosphere, in organizations, in the progressive donor world, on Capitol Hill, and I rarely hear about any kind of high-level outreach of this sort going on. One other important point on all this: what worries me the most is that I am as insider-y as a person can get. I have known Rahm for 30 years, Axelrod and Plouffe for over 20. I have been a client of Jim Margolis, Anita Dunn, and Axelrod's firms. I was a co-founder of Strategy Group, the Chicago based firm that was one of the closest inner circle firms in the Obama Presidential campaign. I have worked in the White House, and I even worked on the Obama transition. I am one of the professional left (not at all the only one, by the way) who, in spite of my disappointments with some of the compromises made, ended up supporting, enthusiastically working for, and praising Obama on all those initiatives mentioned above. Now I know that some folks in the White House are mad at me and have shut me out because I have been critical at times of this White House, but I still have to think: if the relationship with the "professional left" is as shaky as it is, and someone like me is not being reached out to much or asked to help, what about all those bloggers and progressive media people and organizations who don't have much in the way of inside connections? It worries the hell out of me, and it ought to be worrying the White House.

What is really astonishing in all of this is the level of disconnect which apparently reigns at the White House. They see their polling numbers going south, and their knee-jerk reaction is to insult their own base? Really? That's the best idea you could come up with, at this point?

To which I have to say: no wonder there's an "enthusiasm gap." If anyone working in the White House doesn't get who is responsible for this, a quick look in a mirror may help clear it up for them. The White House seems to think that there's a small band of disenchanted Lefties who make a whole bunch of noise, but that their army of volunteers out there in America is still behind Obama, and isn't listening to the whining of a few cable hosts and bloggers. This is so misguided it is stunning.

Unlike some bloggers, I read and try to respond to people who comment on what I write. I may not answer every comment, but I try to at least read them all. And I can't count the number of times I have received some version of the following sad message:

"I was an Obama volunteer. I've never been involved in politics before, but I volunteered time (or traveled to a different state, or made phone calls, or walked precincts, etc....) for Obama and thought I was doing something important. But Obama's recent betrayal on (insert issue here, there have been plenty of them) is a bridge too far for me. When he said (rosy campaign promise) out on the campaign trail, I believed him. Now he says (some sort of milquetoast "compromise" statement), which for the life of me I cannot understand. He refused to stand up and fight for (again, choose any from a number of issues), and I forgave him that. He didn't get everything he wanted in (choose some watered-down bill that got passed), and I still kept supporting him. But now that he has given in to the Republicans on (insert first issue mentioned), I can no longer support him. I doubt I'll even go vote this year, since obviously there is no difference whether we elect Democrats or not, the big corporations are the only ones who win."

That's a generic version. I have lost count of how many specific versions of this I've read in the past year. Some are heart-wrenching. Some of these people fought on the political front lines for Obama, and would have walked through fire for him the day after he was sworn in. Now, they don't even see the point in voting for a Democrat.

In case the White House doesn't understand this, allow me to spell it out plainly. These people are not the "professional left." They are Obama's base. They are the people who not only voted for him, but got excited about him and worked their asses off to put him where he is today. And a large number of them are now disgusted. Look at the approval polls -- Obama is now far below the percentage of Americans who voted for him. That means he's losing his own voters. And a big portion of that are the voters who were most enthusiastic about voting for him in the first place.

It's really not all that hard to understand. Obama could turn this around, if he chose to. Give a few interviews to Rachel and Keith. Give a few primetime press conferences, and make your own case why you deserve credit for your accomplishments. Toss the Left a bone every so often by actually fighting hard for one of their pet legislative ideas in Congress -- even if you lose. And for the love of all that's holy, stop trashing the people who make up your base.

The calls for Gibbs to step down or be fired are ludicrous. Gibbs' job is to be the voice of the White House. That's exactly what he did in his recent interview. He articulated the White House's frustration with their own base. Many others from this White House have done the same thing, and not been fired (far from it). That is because that is how this White House (assumably, up to the man in charge himself) sees things. While scratching their heads at an enthusiasm gap less than three months from an election, someone had the bright idea: "let's go out and bash the Left, maybe that'll help things."

And you can't help but hear the sneering contempt on both sides -- both Gibbs' inner voice while giving the interview, and the immediate reaction from the Lefties he was bashing: "With friends like these...." Which does not bode well for that enthusiasm gap getting any better any time soon, I have to say.

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

-- Chris Weigant

 

76 Comments on “With Friends Like These...”

  1. [1] 
    Kevin wrote:

    Wow. Thanks for telling us how you REALLY feel, Chris :D In a perfect world you'd be the first advisor President Obama sees every morning (Liz and I can dream, can't we?). Now for 100+ CB and Michale comments reprising the Anvil Chorus. Ouch.

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    The Obama administration may have demonstrated an unbelievable failure to communicate, but can't the 'left' figure things out on their own and show at least a SHRED of apprceciation for all that has been accomplished under the most extraordinary circumstances? Is that too much to ask of them? You know what - don't answer that!

    Suffice to say that the Obama administration owes NOTHING to its so-called base. Absolutely nothing.

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    Kevin makes a very valid point and concern that I also was going to mention.

    I hope you enjoy the kind of nonsense that this post will most surely provoke.

    Count me out!

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kevin,

    Now for 100+ CB and Michale comments reprising the Anvil Chorus. Ouch.

    Don't blame us, just because ya'all can't muster the enthusiasm that we can..

    Come to think of it, that seems to be the entire theme for the upcoming mid-terms, eh?? :D

    Liz,

    but can't the 'left' figure things out on their own and show at least a SHRED of apprceciation for all that has been accomplished under the most extraordinary circumstances? Is that too much to ask of them?

    Obama hasn't done much but serve the agenda of Obama..

    The Right AND the Left see this..

    The question is, why do ya'all still support him??

    On another note...

    Allow me to salute the ingenuity of Canadian Traffic Enforcement... :D

    http://sjfm.us/temp/Canadian1.jpg

    http://sjfm.us/temp/Canadian2.jpg

    http://sjfm.us/temp/Canadian3.jpg

    Ya'all are a sneaky lot.. :D

    With much respect... :D

    Michale.....

  5. [5] 
    cbsunglass wrote:

    So, if Obama were just a little more concilliatoy to the left all of our disagreemtns with him would melt away? Please tell me you don't really believe this. The left's problems with Obama are substantive, deep abd, as far as I can tell, irreconcilable. He would have to change his whole approach to build a bridge to the left, and his fatal pridefulness would not allow that to ever happen. I have voted straight Democratic Party for my entire life, but the last two years have openenned my eyes to just how in the tank to the corporations the Dems now are. I quit.

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm sorry about that, Chris - that was completely uncalled for.

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sunglass,

    As I usually say to all JEEPs here..

    "Welcome to the party, Pal!!"
    -John McCane, DIE HARD

    :D

    As for your comment...

    Obama has become such a disappointment to the Right AND the Left.

    It's actually ironic, in a way. Obama has actually united this country in a way which (I assume) was totally unintended... :D

    Michale.....

  8. [8] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    The left's problems with Obama are substantive, deep abd, as far as I can tell, irreconcilable. He would have to change his whole approach to build a bridge to the left, and his fatal pridefulness would not allow that to ever happen. I have voted straight Democratic Party for my entire life, but the last two years have openenned my eyes to just how in the tank to the corporations the Dems now are.

    You sure do have that right: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PwqSCJmbxk One of the first things Obama did as president was crawl into bed with lobbyist Karen Ignagni and throw you guys, and your public option, directly under the bus.

  9. [9] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    The Dem party is comprised of 39% liberals, 37% moderates and 23% conservatives. And the 39% liberals are the ones Obama has been wiping his feet on since the moment you ushered him through the White House door.

    The only way you guys are gonna get him to work for you is to say to pollsters, "No, I don't approve of the job Obama is doing"; unsubscribe to his email newsletter; stop contributing to his campaign; and start marching in the streets with "Hillary/Kucinich for 2012" signs. Because as long as you guys keep acting like battered wives, the longer he's gonna keep drop-kicking you, knowing that you'll still pull that lever for him, no matter how many times he and his administration publicly humiliate you and ignore your agenda.

    That's the strategy you guys should have been working on, up at the Netroots conference (or whatever the heck it was called).

    The "professional Left" should be up in arms, flooding the White House with phone calls and demanding that Gibbs be fired; not sitting there, meekly, like "f-ing retards," as Rahm might put it. YOU hired that man into the White House. YOU pay his salary. And he can't win 2012 without you. You might think about reminding him of that.

    Try acting like businessmen instead of doormats and see if you don't get better results then ending up in handcuffs, like the last time you had the audacity to request that he listen to you.

  10. [10] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    From the White House's point of view, Lefties are not giving them sufficient credit for the things which President Obama has managed to achieve...

    The first thing President Obama "managed to achieve" was to promptly throw your public option out the window the minute the insurance lobbyist demanded it. And the White House is miffed that you're not giving Obama sufficient credit. Step back and look at that picture.

  11. [11] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Perhaps some will argue that Obama is playing multi-dimensional chess, and is making some crafty move to try to regain his appeal among independents, by showing his independence from the Left.

    Chris, there's a very big difference between a show of independence and show of contempt.

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    While I would probably put it a little more diplomatically than CB (or maybe not.. :D) you can't argue with the logic of her point.

    How many times will the "Professional Left" get kicked in the teeth before they say....

    "WHOAA!!! WAIT A MINUTE!!!"
    -Ralph Macchio, MY COUSIN VINNIE

    Now, it's too late to do anything for the Mid-Terms. That's a lost cause and the Left just has to accept that the GOP will get some really big gains and likely take control of the House and possibly the Senate.

    So, 2010 is a lost cause for the Left..

    BUT....

    Ya'all really have the power to decide 2012... If I were ya'all, I would start making it clear to Obama in no uncertain terms that, if he doesn't start meeting the needs of the "Professional Left" than the PL will start supporting Hillary for 2012..

    Hell, depending on who the GOP puts up, *I* might support Hillary in 2012..

    Stranger things have happened..

    I voted for Obama, after all... :D

    Michale.....

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Chris, there's a very big difference between a show of independence and show of contempt.

    "There is mimicry and there is mockery. And THAT was definitely mockery!"
    -Dr Leonard McCoy, YESTERDAY'S SON

    :D

    Michale.....

  14. [14] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Ya'all really have the power to decide 2012... If I were ya'all, I would start making it clear to Obama in no uncertain terms that, if he doesn't start meeting the needs of the "Professional Left" than the PL will start supporting Hillary for 2012..

    Two whole years they have! And the blogophere! And they're all sitting around, trying to figure out how to help Obama craft his message, pausing only to take it in teeth from his spokesperson, who very proudly announced that he ain't going nowhere:

    Gibbs stands by his words with feet on the ground and not in his mouth
    "...Gibbs was asked at Wednesday's briefing about media reports that Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison called for his resignation. Ellison released a statement Tuesday night calling those reports "inaccurate."

    The White House spokesman, who has become adept at using humor to deflect criticism, said "there's no truth to the rumor that I've added an inflatable exit to my office."

    The joke was a play on the Jet Blue Flight attendant who exited his flight in such dramatic fashion earlier this week...."
    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/11/gibbs-stands-by-his-words-with-feet-on-the-ground-not-mouth/

  15. [15] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    cbsunglass,

    You say that you quit.

    Good.

    Does that mean that we won't have to listen to anymore of your whining around here? I mean, there's plenty of that already.

    And, just in case that is wishful thinking on my part, it is quite clear that you don't fully understand what this administration is doing with respect to their economic agenda. So, think twice before you make any further asinine comments about Dems and corportations.

  16. [16] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    How many times will the "Professional Left" get kicked in the teeth before they say....
    "WHOAA!!! WAIT A MINUTE!!!"
    -Ralph Macchio, MY COUSIN VINNIE

    ROFL. Best movie ever. EVER.

    Y'know, I don't think our liberal friends understand that not every president can just simply "run to the center" come reelection time. You can't pull that off if people just plain have your number. And people do have Obama's number. 55% are calling him a socialist, and that's owed to such thing things as his having forced universal health care upon this country, despite a clear majority having screamed "no, no, no" all through the process — going so far as to send Senator 41 to Washington, to stop it.

    I think the sooner liberals come to see that they've got a genuinely "damaged-goods" president on their hands, the more time they'll have to organize and find someone with a fighting chance. Otherwise, they're gonna see a Newt Gingrich waltz right into that White House. And when I say that liberals are gonna have to do this themselves, Tea Party-style, I mean it. Because the establishment Dem party is gonna robotically support Obama. That's what parties do.

    It's a shame that liberals chose to sit back and mock the Tea Partiers instead of taking a page out of their book and cleaning their own house all this time. They could be "organized" by now, like the Tea Partiers are. And you KNOW the Partiers are gonna be marching for, like, a Newt Gingrich and a Michelle Bachmann, or some kinda pair like that, and giving a flat-out "no" to RINO's like Romney.

    Liberals have to remember that Obama ONLY won by 53%. It's not like 66% of an adoring nation sent him to the White House. A serious conservative, like a Gingrich, will mop the floor with Obama. But he'd have a bit of a tougher time with a Hillary Clinton.

    Liberals need to start facing realities and getting smart. Fast.

  17. [17] 
    Chris1962 wrote:
  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    CB,

    ROFL. Best movie ever. EVER.

    I don't know if I would go with "best", but certainly the funniest.. :D

    So many awesome lines come from that movie..

    "Oh yea. You blend."

    "I did not come down here just to get jerked off."

    And my personal fav...

    "What is a ute??" :D

    Hey, Chris, you made the Wall St. Journal:

    Holy crap, CW!!! Yer makin' the big time!!! :D

    Just remember us little people when you make it to the top... :D

    Michale.....

  19. [19] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Holy crap, CW!!! Yer makin' the big time!!! :D
    Just remember us little people when you make it to the top... :D

    ROFL. Chris should strike while the iron is hot. Contact the Wall St. Journal and ask if they're interested in adding a responsible Progressive voice to their blog section. Can't hurt to start a dialogue.

  20. [20] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    While I would probably put it a little more diplomatically than CB

    Hahaha. Diplomacy is not something I'm known for, in the real world. Bluntness is a little more like it. 'D

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hahaha. Diplomacy is not something I'm known for, in the real world. Bluntness is a little more like it. 'D

    Yea, I used to say the same thing about me...

    Til I met you... :D hehehehehehehehe

    Michale.....

  22. [22] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Hahahahahbfijo[n]jw90jn90]

    Best laugh of the whole afternoon. Love ya, Michale. You're too much. 'D

  23. [23] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, I know I've been neglecting you guys, for which I apologize, and plead exhaustion. Monday's column got 845 comments on HuffPost, a new record for me (my previous was just above 600). This column is about to hit 600 HP comments. Maybe it's all those WSJ fans... heh.

    Monday, I jumped into the fray and spent the better part of two days answering comments. Today, I've just mostly been sitting back and letting the fur fly. But I do have to single out both LizM/Elizabeth Miller and Chris1962 for making some very interesting and forceful arguments (from different perspectives, of course) on the HP debate. No, Michale wasn't there, but that's because they keep banning him (heh), so it's really not his fault.

    I did want to welcome cbsunglass to the site, and say that no, I don't believe all the problems will disappear overnight, but if Obama made more of an effort to reach out and talk to the Left, I bet you might feel slightly differently about things. I could be wrong, I fully admit.

    In any case, just wanted everyone to know I'm still reading what you're writing, but have been absolutely swamped this week.

    -CW

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, Michale wasn't there, but that's because they keep banning him (heh), so it's really not his fault.

    Holy crap, CW!!

    600 comments!!!?????

    I wish I coulda been part of THAT!! :D

    Michale.....

  25. [25] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    No, Michale wasn't there, but that's because they keep banning him

    Hahahahaha. That's our Michale. A true credit to the Right.

  26. [26] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Monday's column got 845 comments on HuffPost, a new record for me (my previous was just above 600). This column is about to hit 600 HP comments.

    Wanna double — possibly triple — that with your next article? Put "Palin" in the headline.

    "Could Palin Possibly Beat Out Obama in 2012?"

    3,000 responses, minimum. 'D

  27. [27] 
    Paula wrote:

    Hi Chris:
    I follow you on Huffpost - first time commenting here. Very much enjoy your posts.

    Anyhoo, not surprisingly, Gibb's comments caused a reprise of arguments all over the blogosphere that have been repeated over and over. The basic routine is that one group instantly defends Obama, usually with an emphasis on how much he's had on his plate from day one and what's he supposed to do with these repubs who thwart him at every turn? They often add swipes at Obama naysayers, usually to the effect that they're unrealistic, crazily "leftist" (always undefined), absurdly impatient, self-destructive, would rather lose and be right...

    The naysayers typically list what they're unhappy about and why and express frustration at the fact that they really have no options other than to NOT VOTE. Some say they won't. Others say they'll hold their noses and do their duty even it it's only because the republicans will be worse.

    First group virtually never respond to the actual contents of naysayers beefs (except to relieve Obama of all responsibility for the outcomes, given the united repubs, unmanageable blue dogs, depth of the problems...), they simply ratchet up the insults and apply the coup de grace: "I'm sure you'll be happy when Sarah Palin becomes president thanks to your staying home."

    Eventually everyone simmers down, time passes, some idiot at WH takes another swipe at "the left", and its lather, rinse and repeat time.

    So I'm not going to go down that specific alley right now, but I did want to post a thought that I had about the "bipartisanship effort" and why I think it's been so counter-productive.

    Among Bush & Gang's many affronts to Democrats was the non-stop scorn that was publicly and gleefully heaped on us by every branch of the republican machine. It wasn't a matter of being political opponents - it was ugly, nasty, constant abuse that was fully sanctioned by the president of the country. The right-wing media machine accused Democrats of every kind of crime and sin; they slung mud made up out of whole cloth, and the rest of the media swallowed this crap, spread it, and treated Rush Limbaugh and all his wannabees as legitimate voices worthy of respect and deserving of platforms.

    Against this backdrop we elect a shiny new Democrat and manage to get majorities in both houses. And the first thing our new President says is "thank you sir, may I have another?"

    One can argue that it's Obama that's swallowing the insults and being the bigger man by reaching out. But my feeling is that he represents ALL OF US and when he praises people who have crapped all over us repeatedly, or "pretends" they haven't said the kinds of things they most definitely HAVE said, well, it's as though someone came up to him and Michelle and said "your wife's a (something nasty)" and, instead of defending her he responds by chastising her for upsetting the nice man. That's how it feels.

    Because, see, WE DON'T HAVE THE PLATFORM TO DEFEND OURSELVES but he does. But he doesn't use it.

    In addition to just being hurtful, there's a kind of dishonesty at work. Bipartisanship, as he has attempted to practice it, has been based on a refusal to acknowledge how republicans have treated us. It's like knowing your kid was being molested by the neighbor and just pretending it didn't happen.

    Now, I don't think that Obama should be out there picking fights or unnecessarily escalating the negative tone that is already so unpleasant and that he, laudably, wants to improve. HE DOESN'T NEED TO BE LIKE THEM. There's more than 2 ways to act on this earth.

    But I think most of us know that you have to stand up to bullies. It's grade school playground 101. You either get their respect or their fear or you get beat up every day.

    Furthermore, the person in charge gets to lay down the ground rules. There are numerous ways he could have approached republicans that could have included a no-tolerance rule for unsubstantiated abuse and invective aimed at members of the Democratic party, left, right or center. And I don't think it would have taken a lot to have an dampening effect on the repubs, while having an electrifying effect on Dems.

    The Bush years were an assault, literally, on our democracy. Democrats, as far as I'm concerned, are like disaster survivors. I don't want to overstate this but I honestly feel like we were suffering from a kind of civic PTSD and we needed therapy. We needed to be reassured that we had worth and value again. What we didn't need was for our top guy to blow us off and make nice with our assailants.

    Whether Obama is comfortable with this or not, the position he holds includes a "fatherly" component. He's America's Dad. My Dad would never have tolerated some bastard abusing me. I would never have tolerated some bastard abusing him (or my Mom, or siblings, or husband, kids, friends). You stick up for your people.

    The WH doesn't seem to understand this simple human principle.

  28. [28] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, I can't resist. I'd have to add the other two top-comment-generating keywords to the title...

    "Was Palin Smoking Marijuana At Her 'Tea' Party?"

    Heh. OK, I apologize.

    Heh heh.

    -CW

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Was Palin Smoking Marijuana At Her 'Tea' Party?"

    20K easy.... :D

    Michale.....

  30. [30] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    LOL. See, now you've got it.

    "Could a Tea Party President Palin Put a Permanent End to Roe v. Wade?"

    5,000 hits. Betcha anything.

  31. [31] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Paula -

    Welcome to the site, and thanks for a truly excellent comment. Your comment was held for moderation only because it was the first you've posted, from this point on, they'll post automatically, just FYI.

    -CW

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hi Paula,

    Welcome to CW.COM.. :D

    Or, as I usually say to JEEPs...

    "Welcome to the party, pal!!!"
    -John McClane, DIE HARD

    :D

    Among Bush & Gang's many affronts to Democrats was the non-stop scorn that was publicly and gleefully heaped on us by every branch of the republican machine. It wasn't a matter of being political opponents - it was ugly, nasty, constant abuse that was fully sanctioned by the president of the country. The right-wing media machine accused Democrats of every kind of crime and sin; they slung mud made up out of whole cloth, and the rest of the media swallowed this crap, spread it, and treated Rush Limbaugh and all his wannabees as legitimate voices worthy of respect and deserving of platforms.

    I am constrained to point out, in the interests of fairness, that the Left has done the exact same thing to the Right..

    So, it's not as if the Left hasn't given as good as it's gotten...

    In addition to just being hurtful, there's a kind of dishonesty at work. Bipartisanship, as he has attempted to practice it, has been based on a refusal to acknowledge how republicans have treated us. It's like knowing your kid was being molested by the neighbor and just pretending it didn't happen.

    Oh, come now.. THAT's a real stretch...

    A more accurate analogy is that it's like a neighbor kid who beats up on your kid one week and the next week, your kid beats up on the neighbor kid..

    As the adult (that would be me in this scenario) just shakes their head and sighs something about kids being kids...

    When it comes to low down despicable attacks, the Hysterical Right is no different than the Hysterical Left.

    The Bush years were an assault, literally, on our democracy.

    My previous point, just proven...

    More logical and politically agnostic types (again, like me) would say of the Bush years, "Saving your ass, whether you like it or not."..

    That's a more accurate representation..

    Democrats, as far as I'm concerned, are like disaster survivors. I don't want to overstate this but I honestly feel like we were suffering from a kind of civic PTSD and we needed therapy. We needed to be reassured that we had worth and value again. What we didn't need was for our top guy to blow us off and make nice with our assailants.

    The "Professional Left" doesn't act like victims to me. And I have seen PLENTY of victims in my work...

    The "Professional Left" act more like a loud mob LOOKING for victims...

    Whether Obama is comfortable with this or not, the position he holds includes a "fatherly" component. He's America's Dad. My Dad would never have tolerated some bastard abusing me. I would never have tolerated some bastard abusing him (or my Mom, or siblings, or husband, kids, friends). You stick up for your people.

    Which "people" would that be?? Americans???

    Obama isn't a Democrat President.

    He is an AMERICAN President..

    Like it or not, Obama doesn't (or, more accurately, SHOULDN'T) serve the Democrat's agenda.

    He needs to serve the COUNTRY'S agenda...

    Once again, welcome to CW.COM :D

    Michale.....

  33. [33] 
    Shevek57 wrote:

    Long time lurker, first time poster. I, like Chris, found Paula's comment to be excellent. However, I see Michale has offered his thoughts and I feel a need to offer a response:

    I am constrained to point out, in the interests of fairness, that the Left has done the exact same thing to the Right..

    Specific examples please. (Note the "s" at the end of "example")

    As the adult (that would be me in this scenario) just shakes their head and sighs something about kids being kids...

    False equivalency arguments don't carry much weight whether they're proffered by children or "adults."

    When it comes to low down despicable attacks, the Hysterical Right is no different than the Hysterical Left.

    Go ahead, give me some specific examples of "low down despicable attacks" by the "Hysterical Left." (Note the "s" at the end of "example")

    My previous point, just proven...

    Sorry, asserting a statement is true without offering a scintilla of supporting evidence does not constitute "proof."

    More logical and politically agnostic types (again, like me) would say of the Bush years, "Saving your ass, whether you like it or not."..

    Tell me, specifically, how invading Iraq saved my ass.

    That's a more accurate representation..

    According to whom, the Tooth Fairy?

    The "Professional Left" act more like a loud mob LOOKING for victims...

    Specific examples please. (Note the "s" at the end of "example")

    Obama isn't a Democrat President.

    I've noticed a tendency among conservative Republicans—following Rush Limbaugh's lead—to substitute "Democrat" for "Democratic" as a term of derision or belittlement. Like, instead of saying "Democratic agenda," Rush will say "Democrat agenda." As a "politically agnostic" type, you certainly wouldn't be following Rush's lead here, would you?

  34. [34] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Hi, Paula! Welcome aboard the good ship CW. I'm another "Chris," so we call me "CB" to keep things sane around here. 'D

    I echo what Michale said in his last post, but I'll also add, on the subject of "bipartisanship," that any candidate hawking it on the campaign trail should be eyed with suspicion. The people who send (for instance) their Republican representative to Washington don't want that congressperson AGREEING with, and supporting, Democratic policies that they don't agree with. They send their representative to Washington to fight against such policies.

    This is why I always get a chuckle when I hear a Dem refer to the Republicans as "the party of 'no'." I think, "Well, duh, they're VOTING 'no' because that's what their constituencies want them to do. Why should they be voting 'yes' for something their voters back home are dead set against?"

  35. [35] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    cbsunglass: The left's problems with Obama are substantive, deep abd, as far as I can tell, irreconcilable.

    I think the same can be said for the Indies who have since abandoned him. I don't think there's any way in hell he's gonna be able to woo them back, because it's his big-government, socialistic, share-the-wealthy's-wealth policies that turned them off. It's not like he can say, "Okay, I won't be doing that anymore; no, really, I won't" and they'll simply come running back to him.

    This is why I'm convinced Obama is a one-termer. It's also why I encourage liberals/progressives to find yourselves a 2012 candidate and shove it down the Dem party's throat, Tea Party-style. Because the Dem party is gonna be backing Obama, and you're gonna have Newt Gingrich as your president for the next four to eight years.

  36. [36] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    "If Republicans Win in 2012, Could Tea Party Palin Become Secretary of State?"

    8,500 responses. Minimum.

  37. [37] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Specific examples please. (Note the "s" at the end of "example")

    ROFL. You can't seriously think somebody's gonna sit there and fill out your homework assignment. It's common knowledge that both the Right and the Left spin their own position while villifying the others; both block each others legislation; both transfer their own administration's failures onto the incoming administration; neither the Right or the Left are seeking "bipartisanship," as the parties' principles are opposite each others and elected officials have constituencies to answer to; and both the Right and the Left are in bed with Big Business, Wall St., and other assorted campaign-fund-generating entities.

    You think Obama and the Dems WEREN'T in bed with Big Insurance and Big Pharma?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PwqSCJmbxk&feature=player_embedded

    (You can watch that full Frontline episode at pbs dot org, if ya feel ya can stomach it. It's called "Obama's Deal.")

    You think the 2008 meltdown was Bush's fault? No, that was the fault of Clinton's guys — Greenspan, Rubin, Summers, and Geithner — who fought like dogs to keep the OTC derivatives market unregulated, despite the FIRST near-meltdown that occured on their own watch. You can see a Frontline episode of that, as well, entitled "The Warning," which refers to Clinton's CFTC chairperson, who foresaw this very crisis occuring and tried to regulate derivatives, only to get flattened by Greenspan/Rubin/Summers/Geithner and run out of town on a rail. They all knew, full-well, the danger of this growing, festering monstrosity of a secret market, yet kept their mouths shut for 10 years until the SECOND near-meltdown nearly occured on Bush's watch. Rubin was one of the guys whose Citigroup had to be bailed out by Bush.

    Yet THAT'S all Bush's fault? Bwaha. Yeah, it is, because that's how politics are played. Politics, spin and reality rarely have much to do with each other. The only way to know the actual facts is to read both left-leaning and right-leaning mainstream newspapers on a daily basis; read books authored by administration insiders and/or legitimate, established mainstream journalists who covered the events; watch documentaries created by legitimate, established mainstream producers, preferably with commentary from the players who were actually embroiled, themselves, in the given subject (such as you'll find in those Frontline episodes, with Howard Dean, Tom Daschle, and a bunch of NY Times reporters giving the inside scoop on events).

    That's how you get a clue of the actual facts. You don't get them by obeying the White House and not watching Fox (ROFL) or gleaning your "news" exclusively from rabidly partisan bloggers. 'D

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hi SheveK,

    Welcome to CW.COM :D

    All these new posters! It's awesome!!! :D

    Specific examples please. (Note the "s" at the end of "example")

    One only has to read the pages of DailyKos or HuffPo to see them...

    As far as specifics, they are just too numerous to list..

    However, I can point to some generalities..

    The old (and false) Bush lied accusations.

    Bush is a war criminal, is Satan, etc etc.

    The Tea Party is a racist organization.

    There are, literally, hundreds if not thousands of examples where the Left has falsely accused the Right of all sorts of criminal activity.

    False equivalency arguments don't carry much weight whether they're proffered by children or "adults."

    Claims of "false equivalency" doesn't carry much weight unless proof of said false equivalency is offered.

    Sorry, asserting a statement is true without offering a scintilla of supporting evidence does not constitute "proof."

    Yea, that's just what I said.. :D

    Regardless, it's up to the original poster to offer proof of her initial statement that Bush's actions were "an assault on our democracy"...

    Bush's actions were A) fully in keeping with the authorizations from Congress, B) fully legal, C) necessary and D) completely effective.

    Tell me, specifically, how invading Iraq saved my ass.

    Until they invent Alternate Reality machines, we'll never know what might have happened.

    However, having said that I will concede that, given what is generally known, it's possible that the Iraq campaign was a big mistake of the Bush presidency.

    I say what is generally known, because we don't know all that Bush et al knew. It's possible that there were some very good reasons for Bush doing what he did..

    Making black/white statements from a position of ignorance is not logical.

    According to whom, the Tooth Fairy?

    According to a Party agnostic such as myself. :D

    I've noticed a tendency among conservative Republicans—following Rush Limbaugh's lead—to substitute "Democrat" for "Democratic" as a term of derision or belittlement. Like, instead of saying "Democratic agenda," Rush will say "Democrat agenda." As a "politically agnostic" type, you certainly wouldn't be following Rush's lead here, would you?

    I have noticed a tendency amongst Democrats to be very sensitive to derision or belittlement. Especially where none exists..

    I chose that terminology because "Democratic President" was misleading and did not convey my meaning properly..

    However, to forestall any bruised egos or hurt feelings, I will amend my statement thusly:

    "Obama isn't a President just for Democrats."

    Better?? :D

    Anyways, welcome to CW.COM... Always a pleasure to have fresh m.... er... new faces around here. :D

    Michale.....

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    I've noticed a tendency among conservative Republicans—following Rush Limbaugh's lead—to substitute "Democrat" for "Democratic" as a term of derision or belittlement. Like, instead of saying "Democratic agenda," Rush will say "Democrat agenda.

    "There can be no offense where none is taken."
    -Sarek Of Vulcan, STAR TREK Journey To Babel

    Michale.....

  40. [40] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    >>>But I do have to single out both LizM/Elizabeth Miller and Chris1962 for making some very interesting and forceful arguments (from different perspectives, of course) on the HP debate.

    I think I resemble that remark.

    Seriously, Chris ... I don't know whether to thank you or throw something at you.

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Seriously, Chris ... I don't know whether to thank you or throw something at you.

    hehehehehehehe

    Now THAT was funny!!! :D

    Michale.....

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/114081-professional-left-not-ready-to-back-a-2012-primary-challenge-

    This is why the Left will always be dumped on by Obama..

    "What are they going to do? I'm the only caterer in town!"
    -The Flintstones

    Michale.....

  43. [43] 
    akadjian wrote:

    CW-
    Great article! One of my favorites.

    I don't even have any comments other than to say, congrats on the WSJ reference!

    -David

  44. [44] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Two high-profile liberals on Thursday said they are not interested in running against the president in 2012, and liberal bloggers say any challenge to Obama would be fraught with difficulty. - The Hill

    The Tea Partiers' agenda has been fraught with difficulties (to say the VERY least), and I don't see that stopping them.

  45. [45] 
    Shevek57 wrote:

    Michale
    >i>More logical and politically agnostic types (again, like me) would say of the Bush years, "Saving your ass, whether you like it or not."..

    <Shevek57
    Tell me, specifically, how invading Iraq saved my ass.

    Michale
    "Er, um, sputter, alternate reality machines, sputter, we'll never know, er, it's possible, um, big mistake, sputter, sputter, generally known, sputter, sputter, er, I got nothing specific. But, but, making black/white statements from a position of ignorance is not logical! So there!"

    I'm overwhelmed by your erudition.

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Shevek57,

    I have plenty of specifics...

    But to delve into them would require a common frame of reference.

    For example, you would have to have a knowledge of military matters and what constitutes the military chain of command.

    Further, a background in intelligence matters as it pertains to the concept of "need to know" would be helpful for you to comprehend the explanations I would give..

    Finally, you would have to be open-minded enough to concede that you could possibly, just possibly, be wrong. Frankly, from your responses, I don't think you have it in you.

    Until such time as you can meet these parameters, the best response I could give you is that you don't have enough knowledge of the specifics to condemn the Bush administration and are, therefore, speaking from complete ignorance..

    A common enough malady amongst the Left, to be sure...

    Michale.....

  47. [47] 
    Shevek57 wrote:

    Sorry Michale, this kind of blustery bullshit doesn't cut the mustard. Either you can offer specifics or you can't. Casting aspersions on my intellectual capacity, open-mindedness or knowledge base doesn't help you. The "common malady" you should focus on is your abundantly apparent and pathetic inability to support your bullshit when called on it. Give it a rest.

    Shevek57

  48. [48] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    hehehehehehehe

    Now THAT was funny!!! :D

    Somehow, I knew you would appreciate that sentiment. :D

  49. [49] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    The only blustery bullshoot going on around here is your questionnaire, demanding that perceptions, impressions, and opinions be "proven," Shevek.

    Paula's OPINION was that "among Bush & Gang's many affronts to Democrats was the non-stop scorn that was publicly and gleefully heaped on us by every branch of the republican machine." That's not a fact, Shevek: that's Paula's personal opinion. In response, Michale's personal OPINION was that he felt "constrained to point out, in the interests of fairness, that the Left has done the exact same thing to the Right," which is the conclusion he's formulated over eight years, based upon his own perceptions.

    And along you come, with your assignment, demanding that he prove to you that he's right to feel the way that he does. ROFL. Right, according to whom? You?

    Hey, here's an assignment: Prove that your ass wasn't saved by the Iraq war — and "saved" by whose definition, and by looking into whose crystal ball, and by whose assurance that WMD aren't sitting in Syria, via that convey we watched going in there, mere days before the bombing began. For that matter, prove that WMD aren't buried in the desert somewhere. If memory serves, we stumbled upon a frickin' air force:

    http://tinyurl.com/25arln2

    Get back to me once that entire desert has been dug up, therein proving that Saddam didn't bury any WMD out there.

    The FACT is, nobody knew for sure what Saddam did or didn't have. We were going on the only intel we possessed; plus, Saddam's own boasting (which turned out not to be the brightest thing in the world for him to have done). Intel offers no guarantees. It is what it is — whatever information operatives are able to glean. People have to make judgment calls, and Bush decided to take him out — which, to this day, I wholeheartedly support. With Saddam in violation of every U.N. resolution on the books, and refusing to allow inspectors back in, and given his track record for USING weapons in the past, and his claiming that he had them, and never having proved (beyond his personal say-so) that he'd actually destroyed a crapload of weapons that we knew he'd had, the decision was to offer him x-amount of time to leave Iraq himself or get himself bunker-bombed. He's the guy who made a really poor decision, in my OPINION, not Bush. So get busy proving my opinion is wrong (like there's even any such thing as a right or wrong opinion).

  50. [50] 
    Shevek57 wrote:

    What's the matter Chris1962? I merely come along and ask Michale to support his claims and all you can do is jump and down, wave your hands and act like a teenager who's been asked to take the garbage out when he's in the middle of his latest Wii game.

    It's real simple: Michale claimed that Bush saved our collective asses. I asked him to specifically tell me how the invasion of Iraq saved my ass. He chose to wave his hands, sputter and offer the usual kind of idiotic bluster one encounters when engaging rightwing blowhards. It's HIS claim, the onus probandi is his.

    If you want to step up to the plate and assume the task of demonstrating how the invasion of Iraq saved my ass, you'll have to do something better than offer speculation about where those WMDs disappeared to and/or demanding I prove a negative claim. Are you up to the task, Chris? Or, are you going to jump up and down and wave your hands again?

  51. [51] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    all you can do is jump and down, wave your hands and act like a teenager who's been asked to take the garbage out when he's in the middle of his latest Wii game.

    Oh, good. Another opinion.

    He chose to wave his hands, sputter and offer the usual kind of idiotic bluster one encounters when engaging rightwing blowhards

    In your opinion. In my opinion, I'm surprised he even bothered wasting time responding line-for-line to your "idiotic" challenge, since you're obviously predisposed to reject any answer he offered. And you're also likely equipped with "facts" that boil down to nothing more than regurgitated spin.

    If you want to step up to the plate and assume the task of demonstrating how the invasion of Iraq saved my ass

    I already gave you my opinion, which (color me shocked and amazed) promptly soared right over your head. Get back to me if and when you ever come to figure out the difference between an opinion and a fact. Like most know-it-all liberals, you seem to believe they're one and the same.

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Shevesky57

    Sorry Michale, this kind of blustery bullshit doesn't cut the mustard. Either you can offer specifics or you can't. Casting aspersions on my intellectual capacity, open-mindedness or knowledge base doesn't help you. The "common malady" you should focus on is your abundantly apparent and pathetic inability to support your bullshit when called on it. Give it a rest.

    My point is that your opinion that Bush DIDN'T save your ass is borne of ignorance.

    My secondary point is that it is useless for me to point out the reality of the situation if you refuse to even concede the possibility that you could be wrong.

    Hindsight is always 20/20, Sheve.. I can point to scores of Democrats who felt the exact same way about Saddam and Iraq that Bush did. In other words, it was universally accepted amongst the Right **AND** the Left that Saddam was a threat..

    The simple fact that he may or may not have been such a threat is completely irrelevant to that assessment.

    Finally, you harp on ONE aspect of the Bush Presidency in an effort to dis-credit the entirety of what Bush accomplished. Ironically enough, that one aspect was not even part and parcel to my original point..

    I get it. You hate Bush. You hate anything to do with the Right. I understand it.

    The fact that you can't see past your hatred is at the heart of this discussion.

    Did the Iraq campaign save your ass??

    I don't know..

    I don't care, as it is not relevant to my point..

    That point being that NEITHER of us have all the information necessary to make such a determination.

    The only difference between us is that *I* acknowledge such ignorance and refuse to state opinions as facts based on such ignorance..

    You wallow in it...

    Michale.....

  53. [53] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Did the Iraq campaign save your ass??

    I don't know..

    Aw, c'mon, Michale, you're just being lazy. Drag out your crystal ball, resurrect Saddam from the dead, stick him back in power, and tell us if the bio/chems he was planning to start cooking up again ultimately make their way into the hands of someone who successfully offs Shevek's ass with them, along with God only knows how many other people. Enquiring minds are itching to know.

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    While Sheve's arse may or may not have been saved, it is undeniable that this world is a better place without Saddam...

    It is also undeniable that Iraq is better off today than it would have been under Saddam..

    And it just absolutely KILLS the Left that Bush gets the credit for that..

    Future historians will look back and I am willing to bet that they will chalk up the Bush Presidency as one of the bests in the history of the nation.

    Michale.....

  55. [55] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Future historians will look back and I am willing to bet that they will chalk up the Bush Presidency as one of the bests in the history of the nation.

    I agree. I'm on record, on some board or another, as having said precisely that. He's gonna go down as one of the greats. That seems inconceivable when ya think about it at this point in time. But in the big scheme of things, he liberated two countries from tyrants, set up democracies, and made it a whole lot more difficult for the al Qaeda organization to conduct business.

  56. [56] 
    Shevek57 wrote:

    Chris1962
    Well I've looked high and low through your response and have found nothing resembling a demonstration of how the invasion of Iraq saved my ass. Just more hand-waving and whining about your opinions. I guess linking to even ONE external source supporting your point of view is beyond your capabilities. Oh well, it was to be expected. Thanks for playing the game. Alas, there are no consolation prizes for monumental FAIL.

    Michale
    Let me help you out here so that you might learn from your mistakes. When you write something as extraordinarily pompous and condescending like

    As the adult (that would be me in this scenario) just shakes their head and sighs something about kids being kids...

    and then follow it with an equally pompous and self-negating construct like this

    More logical and politically agnostic types (again, like me) would say of the Bush years, "Saving your ass, whether you like it or not."..

    you've already given the game away. Politically agnostic types, by definition (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic), don't make pronouncements or assertions like "saving your ass, whether you like it or not" because it's either beyond their ken or outside of their interest.

    And as if making that kind of sophomoric blunder weren't enough, you chose to compound your problems by failing to offer anything resembling an argument in response to a request to support your assertion. Instead, you danced and weaved and, of course, predictably started down the ad hominem whine path of "you're just not intelligent enough to understand me" right-wing pompous blowhards always follow when others fail to genuflect before their self-professed—and rarely demonstrated—brilliance.

    Now, in the first of your latest screeds, not only are you back riding your high horse of pomposity and spewing ad hominems, you've decided to indulge in mind-reading, speculation and projection:

    I get it. You hate Bush. You hate anything to do with the Right. I understand it.
    The fact that you can't see past your hatred is at the heart of this discussion.

    Have you already forgotten your earlier admonition: "Making black/white statements from a position of ignorance is not logical."?

    And most amusingly, in your second emission, you've decided to forgo the pretense of being a political agnostic to participate—along with your mutual masturbation society member Chris1962—in some good old-fashioned, "ain't G.W.Bush the greatest thing since sliced bread" adulation.

    So, remember in the future, when you want to pretend you're not a right-wing, conservative, pompous blowhard, try to respond to thoughtful, intelligent postings (like Paula's) with something a little more nuanced and substantive than mere proclamations of your maturity, neutrality and ratiocinative prowess. You never know when someone who's seen an act like yours countless times before might show up and embarrass you by making a few simple requests.

    Just wanting to help,
    Shevek57

  57. [57] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Well I've looked high and low through your response and have found nothing resembling a demonstration of how the invasion of Iraq saved my ass.

    Well, that's because your absurd question is unanswerable unless ya tighten the chin strap on your tin foil swami hat and gaze into your crystal ball. We made a preemptive strike, zippy, to ensure that the loss of your ass couldn't happen, duh. DO keep babbling, though. Nothing more entertaining than watching the point continually soar over the head of a liberal who's convinced himself that he's just about the brightest thing on two feet, but whom, in reality, possesses the deep-thinking skills of the average household pet.

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    Shevek,

    It's funny..

    You spent all that time making personal attacks and not one word went towards addressing the facts of my post, of which there are plenty..

    Thank you for your concession that you have no logical or rational response and must therefore resort to immature personal attacks.

    Your concession of my intellectual superiority is appreciated, albeit irrelevant...

    Michale.....

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sheve,

    One question, though..

    You DO realize that Bush's Presidency consisted of more than just the Iraq campaign, don't you??

    Please tell me you realize this...

    Michale.....

  60. [60] 
    Shevek57 wrote:

    Chris1962

    Sigh. Let me help you out here, Chris, you seem to be struggling with a very simple concept. This is Michale's claim presented as an affirmative statement Affirmative means Michale, like you, believes the statement is true (i.e., is a fact):

    The invasion of Iraq in 2003 saved Shevek57's ass.

    All I have asked is that you demonstrate the truth of this statement. I don't want your opinion. Your opinion means nothing to me. You are not—nor is Michale for that matter—a recognized authority in the matter of the Iraq war. Unless, of course, I've somehow missed those thousands of links and references pointing me to Chris1962 in the commments section at chrisweigant.com

    I want you to provide links—even ONE—to a source or sources that indicate your opinion is supported by something resembling evidence.

    Because, as you see, I'm very, very ignorant about such matters. In fact, I'm mentally handicapped; I lack the kind of mental firepower that would allow me to assert things as being true without, at least, pointing to something outside the confines of my skull so as to suggest I'm not just listening to the voices therein.

    However, given my mental deficiencies, I retain enough skepticism to doubt others when they claim soemthing is true without providing evidence. Funny how those things work, no?

    So, can you help me out here, Chris? Is it possible for you to link to something (anything?) that justifies—with incontrovertible (Oops, I know a big word. But it just means "can't be disputed" or "everyone agrees it's true.") evidence—that the invasion of Iraq prevented Saddam Hussein from delivering his WMDs to my doorstep?

    I mean, there has to be gobs of evidence showing how Saddam was planning to deliver those weapons to U.S. soil such that he could bypass all of our air, land and sea defenses, no? He wasn't planning on using magic carpets was he? Carrier pigeons? Hot air balloons?

    Oh, and this is really just something extra and silly, but last week, the latest issue of the Atlantic magazine was published and features a cover story (cf. http://www.chrisweigant.com/2010/08/11/with-friends-like-these/)* by Jeffery Goldberg (You know, one of those liberal types who was actually "gung-ho" about invading Iraq back in '03?). Goldberg's article, which discusses the chances Israel might launch a pre-emptive military strike against Iran, includes the following:

    I AM NOT ENGAGING in a thought exercise, or a one-man war game, when I discuss the plausibility and potential consequences of an Israeli strike on Iran. Israel has twice before successfully attacked and destroyed an enemy’s nuclear program. In 1981, Israeli warplanes bombed the Iraqi reactor at Osirak, halting—forever, as it turned out—Saddam Hussein’s nuclear ambitions; and in 2007, Israeli planes destroyed a North Korean–built reactor in Syria. An attack on Iran, then, would be unprecedented only in scope and complexity. [emphasis added]

    Now, when Goldberg says the 1981 Osirak attack forever halted Saddam's nuclear ambitions, is he lying or telling the truth? Does he have any clue as to what he's talking about? Do you believe him?

    *Hey, did you notice how I included a link to Goldberg's article to enable you to go and see for yourself whether or not the following quote is actually in the article? Nifty, eh?

  61. [61] 
    Shevek57 wrote:

    Michale

    Trust me, I really do feel your pain. But the good ship Credibility left port in comment#32 (as I DEMONSTRATED above in comment#56) and, unfortunately, you weren't on board!

    But please, by all means (because I'm always on the lookout for rich, comedic material), entertain me with more proclamations of your, uh-hum, "genius."(Shouldn't your handle be Wile E. Coyote?) While you're at it, tell me how your vaunted political and party agnosticism comports with this little ditty:

    Future historians will look back and I am willing to bet that they will chalk up the Bush Presidency as one of the bests in the history of the nation.

    But first, let me have another laugh at your expense: Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!

    Still just wanting to help,
    Shevek57

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sheve,

    The invasion of Iraq in 2003 saved Shevek57's ass.

    Actually, that was YOUR claim..

    When I made the statement of Bush's Saving your ass, whether you like it or not I was referring to the Bush Administration's remarkably successful record of ZERO terrorist attacks on US proper post 9/11..

    It was you who wanted to concentrate solely on the Iraqi campaign, even after I agreed with you that it was a distraction...

    I mean, there has to be gobs of evidence showing how Saddam was planning to deliver those weapons to U.S. soil such that he could bypass all of our air, land and sea defenses, no? He wasn't planning on using magic carpets was he? Carrier pigeons? Hot air balloons?

    Hindsight is always 20/20, Sheve..

    I am constrained to point out that PRIOR to the invasion of Iraq, there was UNIVERSAL acceptance that Saddam was trying to procure WMDs..

    Shall I list all the quotes from Democrats who MADE such claims???

    It's easy to play Monday morning quarterback.. Especially when you are, as you say, completely and utterly ignorant of military matters..

    I am not meaning to insult you...

    "There is no dishonor in not knowing everything."
    -SubCommander T'al, STAR TREK, The Enterprise Incident

    The dishonor comes when you PRETEND to know everything..

    In other words, those who THINK they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do. :D

    Irregardless, it's all moot because I did not mean the Iraqi campaign when I said, "Saving your ass whether you like it or not."

    Now, if you would like to discuss what I actually DID mean, instead of deflecting the point with an already conceded NON issue, well.....

    "I am all ears..."
    -Ross Perot, 1992 Presidential Debates

    In 1981, Israeli warplanes bombed the Iraqi reactor at Osirak, halting—forever, as it turned out—Saddam Hussein’s nuclear ambitions;

    Of course Saddam's ambitions were "halted forever". The psychotic scumbag was dead by the time it was written...

    Duuhhhh.....

    But, like with your points, it had the benefit of HINDSIGHT....

    It's pretty easy to be a genius when all you pontificate is hindsight...

    Real leaders have to make decisions based on reality...

    But first, let me have another laugh at your expense: Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!

    I am going to cut you some slack because you are new around here..

    This is CW.COM.. We have intellectual discussions that, while sometimes coarse and aggressive, always have an underlying foundation of respect. Respect for other posters as fellow human beings.

    It appears that you are used to sites where foul mouth personal attacks are the rule of the day and posts are censored if they don't toe the company line.

    This is not how things are done here..

    So, my advice is to act a little less of a jackass and more of a human being..

    You'll be treated in kind...

    Just a piece of friendly advice..

    Michale....

  63. [63] 
    Shevek57 wrote:

    Michale
    Sigh. Looks like I'll have to try, once again, to explain to you how these things work.

    >>>Actually, that was YOUR claim..<<<

    No, Michale. These are your words:

    "More logical and politically agnostic types (again, like me) would say of the Bush years, "Saving your ass, whether you like it or not."..

    "Saving your ass, whether you like it or not" is a CLAIM. You are "claiming" my ass was saved during the Bush years. You didn't preface this remark with any qualifiers or equivocations like "in my opinion" or "it's possible" or "evidence suggests" or "an argument could be made" etc. Instead, you pompously and arrogantly prefaced this claim with a self-negating proclamation of your superior intellectual acumen ("More logical...") and [purported] neutrality ("politically agnostic") in a transpicuous (and puerile) effort to arrogate authority unto yourself.

    I made a very simple request. Remember?:

    Tell me, specifically, how invading Iraq saved my ass.

    When presented with a clear-cut opportunity to demonstrate and indulge your self-proclaimed intellectual superiority by constructing a logical argument—replete with links to supporting evidence—you ran away and offered nothing BUT eqivocation:

    "...we'll never know what might have happened."

    "...it's possible that the Iraq campaign was a big mistake of the Bush presidency."

    "..generally known, because we don't know..." all

    "It's possible...'

    Now, not surprisingly, you want to shift the goalposts:

    >>>I was referring to the Bush Administration's remarkably successful record of ZERO terrorist attacks on US proper post 9/11..<<<

    In comment#38, in direct response to MY request, you wrote the following:

    Until they invent Alternate Reality machines, we'll never know what might have happened.

    However, having said that I will concede that, given what is generally known, it's possible that the Iraq campaign was a big mistake of the Bush presidency.

    I say what is generally known, because we don't know all that Bush et al knew. It's possible that there were some very good reasons for Bush doing what he did..

    First, I don't see ANYTHING in those three paragraphs referencing post 9/11 terrorists attacks.

    Second, the CLAIM there were ZERO successful post 9/11 terrorist attacks in the U.S. can be falsified with ONE example: the anthrax attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks).

    Third, I asked you to tell me specifically how the invasion of Iraq saved my ass, NOT whether Bush, et al successfully prevented terrorist attacks in post 9/11 America. Words have meanings, and "specific" does not mean "broad generalizations."

    >>>I am constrained to point out that PRIOR to the invasion of Iraq, there was UNIVERSAL acceptance that Saddam was trying to procure WMDs..<<>>Of course Saddam's ambitions were "halted forever". The psychotic scumbag was dead by the time it was written...<<>>This is CW.COM.. We have intellectual discussions that, while sometimes coarse and aggressive, always have an underlying foundation of respect. Respect for other posters as fellow human beings.<<<

    I'm sure intellectual discussions take place here. And in the future, you might want to try taking part in one of them. But as I noted in comment#56, when you wade into discussions with proclamations of your superior intellect, neutrality and maturity while issuing unsupported claims and broad generalizations (not to mention the immediate resort to ad hominem attacks when called on your bloviating), then you've already lost the game.

    And (of course), now you want me to treat you with respect; complain about my 'foul mouth" in one breath and then say I act like a "jackass" in the next, while issuing threats of censorship and speculating about the nature of the sites I'm "used to." According to Chris Weigant himself in comment #23, you have a history of being banned from posting comments at the Huffington Post site. Try not to take umbrage if I suggest you're in no position to lecture me about respecting other posters as human beings.

    Now, just because I'm a nice guy I will throw you a bone and pledge—if I choose to comment again—to afford you and Chris1962 the common courtesy of not openly mocking your efforts here at commentary. However, if you want me to respect your opinions, then give me something a little more substantive than "it's true because I say it is and you're an idiot." Just a piece of friendly advice.

    Shevek57

  64. [64] 
    Shevek57 wrote:

    Michale

    It appears a big chunk of what I wrote disappeared. Ah well. Quickly:

    Saddam Hussein was executed on December 30, 2006. Israel bombed Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981 which (according to Jeffery Goldberg) "forever halted" Saddam's nuclear weapons program. You'll note Saddam Hussein was, in fact, alive in 1981.

  65. [65] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Now, just because I'm a nice guy I will throw you a bone and pledge—if I choose to comment again—to afford you and Chris1962 the common courtesy of not openly mocking your efforts here at commentary.

    Hey, I'm still waiting for you to either strap your tin foil hat on and fire up your crystal ball or look up the word "preemptive," as in preemptive strike. Bush saved your ass from Saddam by ensuring that Saddam couldn't kill your ass. So, yes, your ass has, indeed, been spared death at the hands of Saddam Hussein.

  66. [66] 
    Shevek57 wrote:

    Chris1962

    A preemptive strike against a country with NO weapons of mass destruction (Did you miss Jeffery Goldberg's little bit about Israel destroying Iraq's reactor in 1981?); a country with NO demonstrable and/or credible way to deliver those non-existent weapons to these shores (http://www.iraqwatch.org/profiles/missile.html); a country with a population approximately 1/10th that of the U.S. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Iraq); a country whose military budget in 2001 was approximately 1/300th (http://www.siyassa.org.eg/esiyassa/ahram/2003/10/1/MILI2.htm) of that spent by the U.S. in 2001 (http://www.cdi.org/issues/usmi/highlightsFY01.html); a country where it took the world's mightiest military force all of about 30 days to conquer (http://usforeignpolicy.about.com/od/newsiss3/a/iraqwartimeline.htm)?

    There was about as much probability Saddam Hussein could have killed my ass (i.e., 0) as there is of you not hysterically running away from any request to provide evidence for your opinions.

    And Chris, the general consensus is tin foil hats are worn to prevent the reception of ethereal transmissions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_foil_hat); someone gazing into a crystal ball most decidedly wants to receive ethereal transmissions. If you want to cast aspersions on someone's intelligence through mockery, it generally helps if you do a little reflection first to make sure you haven't written something as egregiously contradictory as "strap your tin foil hat on and fire up your crystal ball." Those kinds of constructions usually deflate the power of the insult rather quickly.

    Just some friendly advice.

    Shevek57

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Saving your ass, whether you like it or not" is a CLAIM. You are "claiming" my ass was saved during the Bush years.

    And it was... However, YOU chose to dwell on just one small part of the 8 year Bush presidency.. Even after it was acknowledged that THAT is not what I meant..

    So, it's YOUR claim that Bush saved your ass by the Iraqi campaign, not mine..

    I made a very simple request. Remember?:

    Tell me, specifically, how invading Iraq saved my ass.

    And I told you, no less than 3 times that THAT is not what I meant..

    But, because you can't acknowledge the factual nature of what I DID mean, you have to harp on a non-existent point that has already been conceded..

    Second, the CLAIM there were ZERO successful post 9/11 terrorist attacks in the U.S. can be falsified with ONE example: the anthrax attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks)

    You are in error.. AGAIN..

    First off, it's common knowledge amongst those in the field that the Anthrax attacks were part and parcel to the 9/11 attacks, the public claims of the FBI notwithstanding..

    Regardless, even if you accept the FBI's story as gospel, then it is the story of a disgruntled scientist who wanted to make a name and therefore NOT a terrorist attack, as you claim.. You DO know the definition of terrorism, right??

    Therefore, either way, you are in error...

    Third, I asked you to tell me specifically how the invasion of Iraq saved my ass, NOT whether Bush, et al successfully prevented terrorist attacks in post 9/11 America.

    And I told you, specifically (3 times), that the invasion of Iraq is not what I meant when I made the original statement.

    But, as I said, you HAVE to harp on that non-sequitur issue, because you have been proven wrong at every other turn..

    According to Chris Weigant himself in comment #23, you have a history of being banned from posting comments at the Huffington Post site. Try not to take umbrage if I suggest you're in no position to lecture me about respecting other posters as human beings.

    I am in the PERFECT position to lecture you regarding respect for other posters, as my banning from HuffPo has absolutely NOTHING to do with lack of respect and EVERYTHING to do with defeating every opponent in an intellectual debate.. HuffPo moderators got tired of all the whinings from people who couldn't hang.. So, they figured it would be easier to ban the person who doesn't toe the line, rather than listen to all the whining..

    Same thing happened over at Bob Cesca's blog.. They couldn't handle getting their asses kicked all the time...

    So, as I said, this places me in the PERFECT position to lecture you on civility... You have none and are sorely in need of some manners...

    Saddam Hussein was executed on December 30, 2006. Israel bombed Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981 which (according to Jeffery Goldberg) "forever halted" Saddam's nuclear weapons program. You'll note Saddam Hussein was, in fact, alive in 1981.

    However, when the "forever, it seems" was added, that was due to the death of the psychotic scumbag you appear to admire so much..

    Ergo, my point stands..

    I see you conveniently left out the fact that practically every Democrat agreed with Bush with regards to WMDs in Iraq...

    It's the sign of a lazy intellect that always relies on 20/20 hindsight...

    A preemptive strike against a country with NO weapons of mass destruction (Did you miss Jeffery Goldberg's little bit about Israel destroying Iraq's reactor in 1981?)

    A perfect case in point... Only in hindsight does one know conclusively that there were no WMDs. Plenty of Democrats said there were.

    Try to put SOME effort into your arguments, k??

    Michale.....

  68. [68] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    A preemptive strike against a country with NO weapons of mass destruction

    I recall an awful lot of Dems agreeing that there were. And until such time as that entire desert is dug up, and Syria is turned upside down, nobody's ever gonna know. Because the inspectors analysis and conclusions were based NOT upon searching every square inch of that country but merely the places they thought they would most likely be.

    (Did you miss Jeffery Goldberg's little bit about Israel destroying Iraq's reactor in 1981?); a country with NO demonstrable and/or credible way to deliver those non-existent weapons to these shores

    I've got news for you and Jeffrey: Nukes ain't the only things that qualify as WMD. Saddam was in the bio/chem business. That's quite another story.

    There was about as much probability Saddam Hussein could have killed my ass (i.e., 0) as there is of you not hysterically running away from any request to provide evidence for your opinions.

    Tell it the congresspersons who've received envelopes of white powder. The Hazmat boys seem to perceive "white powder" as a credible threat. Won't they be relieved to know that you and Jeffery have decided there was nothing to have been worried about from the get-go. After all, it's not like anybody has a demonstrable and/or credible way to deliver a bag of some kinda bio/chem. Like inside a mayonnaise jar.

    Try expanding your tiny-teeny thinking a tad.

  69. [69] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    And Chris, the general consensus is tin foil hats are worn to prevent the reception of ethereal transmissions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_foil_hat);someone gazing into a crystal ball most decidedly wants to receive ethereal transmissions.

    Yeah, from inside his crystal ball, not from outer space. Do be sure to research the general consensus regarding inner crystal ball transmissions in your Wiki, now, while I try to pull myself out of the coma your scintillating tin-foil-hat analysis has put me in.

    If you want to cast aspersions on someone's intelligence through mockery, it generally helps if you do a little reflection first to make sure you haven't written something as egregiously contradictory as "strap your tin foil hat on and fire up your crystal ball."

    Ya forget to mention that a crystal ball doesn't technically require fire to activate it. Try not to embarrass yourself by leaving out such a critical fact like that again, k?

    Those kinds of constructions usually deflate the power of the insult rather quickly. Just some friendly advice.

    Roger that, Captain America. CB, signing off, now, from Planet Somebody-Call-The-Nice-Men-In-The-White-Coats-With-The-Butterfly-Net.

  70. [70] 
    Shevek57 wrote:

    Michale

    First off, it's common knowledge amongst those in the field...

    Where are the links to the sources that establish this "common knowledge amongst those in the field" claim as being something not borne of the voices in your head?

    ...that the Anthrax attacks were part and parcel to the 9/11 attacks...,

    Uh-huh. Al-Quaeda strikes again!

    the public claims of the FBI notwithstanding..

    Should I call the FBI and tell them someone identifying themselves as "Michale" and posting comments at chrisweigant.com has insider knowledge as to who really perpetrated the anthrax attacks?

    Regardless, even if you accept the FBI's story as gospel, then it is the story of a disgruntled scientist who wanted to make a name and therefore NOT a terrorist attack, as you claim..

    Uh-huh. The five who died and the resultant hysteria in D.C. when the Daschle and Leahy letters were found pretty much belies the notion the anthrax attacks could, in any way shape or form, be classified as a terrorist attack. Right?

    But, uh, Einstein, above you're telling me the anthrax attacks were "part and parcel" of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. And now, you'd like to pretend the link I provided to directly refute your claim that ZERO terrorist attacks took place after September 11, 2001 suggests I accept the FBI's story as gospel. Not the least of your problems is the moronic notion that the FBI's account somehow negates the idea that the anthrax mailings could also be designated (and were) as a terrorist attack (Timothy McVeigh wanted to make a name for himself too, ya know? http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/735994/Oklahoma-City-bombing)

    So, if you'd like to argue the anthrax attacks were "part and parcel" of September 11, 2001, then you are claiming they were terrorist attacks. Ergo, since they took place after September 11 and were successful (5 people died), your claim that there were ZERO terrorist attacks POST September 11, 2001 is FALSE.

    I am in the PERFECT position to lecture you regarding respect for other posters, as my banning from HuffPo has absolutely NOTHING to do with lack of respect and EVERYTHING to do with defeating every opponent in an intellectual debate.. HuffPo moderators got tired of all the whinings from people who couldn't hang.. So, they figured it would be easier to ban the person who doesn't toe the line, rather than listen to all the whining..

    Uh-huh, a legend in your own mind. Some day you'll be President and we'll all be sorry...

    Same thing happened over at Bob Cesca's blog.. They couldn't handle getting their asses kicked all the time...

    My heart bleeds for you. I feel your pain.

    So, as I said, this places me in the PERFECT position to lecture you on civility... You have none and are sorely in need of some manners...

    Yep, kicked-off of two sites sounds about perfect. Are you shooting for three here at chrisweigant.com?

    However, when the "forever, it seems" was added, ...

    Jeffery Goldberg:
    "In 1981, Israeli warplanes bombed the Iraqi reactor at Osirak, halting—forever, as it turned out—Saddam Hussein’s nuclear ambitions;..."

    I've parsed this passage several times and I'm not finding the phrase "forever, it seems." Do you normally have problems cutting and pasting? Or, were you hoping no one would notice your mendacity in changing Goldberg's language to create a sense of ambiguity in his meaning?

    ...that was due to the death of the psychotic scumbag you appear to admire so much..

    Trust me, mind-reading is NOT your forte. And I'm very much enjoying your expression of that "underlying foundation of respect."

    It's the sign of a lazy intellect...

    If I were you, I'd avoid using a phrase like "sign of a lazy intellect" anywhere near something with your name appended as the author. (Unless you want to adopt it as your tag line, then I'd say "go for it!")

    Try to put SOME effort into your arguments, k??

    I'll make the effort when you start referencing something other than the voices in your head as the source of your, um, "intellectual" acumen.

    Always trying to help,
    Shevek57

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sheve,

    Where are the links to the sources that establish this "common knowledge amongst those in the field" claim as being something not borne of the voices in your head?

    Personal experience..

    Should I call the FBI and tell them someone identifying themselves as "Michale" and posting comments at chrisweigant.com has insider knowledge as to who really perpetrated the anthrax attacks?

    Depending on who you get thru to, you won't be telling them anything they don't already know.. :D

    Uh-huh. The five who died and the resultant hysteria in D.C. when the Daschle and Leahy letters were found pretty much belies the notion the anthrax attacks could, in any way shape or form, be classified as a terrorist attack. Right?

    Uh... no...

    So your definition of terrorism is a couple people dying and hysteria...

    I can assure you. Over 2 decades in the field allows me to tell you that you are completely and utterly wrong..

    So, if you'd like to argue the anthrax attacks were "part and parcel" of September 11, 2001, then you are claiming they were terrorist attacks. Ergo, since they took place after September 11 and were successful (5 people died), your claim that there were ZERO terrorist attacks POST September 11, 2001 is FALSE.

    Logic is not your forte, is it??

    Using your logic, the Pentagon attack was a separate terrorist attack because it occurred after the WTC attacks..

    Your logic is faulty in the extreme.

    Allow me to break it down slowly for you so you can understand it better..

    Within the CT circles, it's accepted that the anthrax attacks were part of the 9/11 attacks. All part of the same plan.

    With me so far??

    Ergo, what is called the "9/11" terrorist attacks encompasses ALL the attacks that occurred in September of 2001, NOT just the attacks that occurred on the 11th.

    Is comprehension sinking in??

    Now, if you believe the "official" story as released by the FBI then you will have to believe that Ivins acted alone. Ivins was disgruntled, felt his work was not appreciated and there are indications of mental illness..

    As such, IF (and it's a huge IF) the official FBI story is the truth, then it's clear that the Anthrax attacks were the work of one mentally ill person, with absolutely NO ideological, political or economical agenda..

    Therefore, it was NOT a terrorist attack..

    In conclusion, no matter which story you believe (the factual one or the FBI cover story) it simply shows my assessment of Bush's CT activities to be dead on ballz accurate. And you are in error.

    Simple logic...

    Uh-huh, a legend in your own mind. Some day you'll be President and we'll all be sorry...

    Once again, thank you for your concession that you have no logical or rational response and must therefore resort to immature personal attacks.

    Your concession of my intellectual superiority is appreciated albeit irrelevant.

    I've parsed this passage several times and I'm not finding the phrase "forever, it seems." Do you normally have problems cutting and pasting? Or, were you hoping no one would notice your mendacity in changing Goldberg's language to create a sense of ambiguity in his meaning?

    And a grammar lame to boot. About par for the course.. :D

    I'll ignore the rest because it is clear I have backed you into an intellectual corner and your only recourse is more childish personal attacks.

    You have a lot to learn, grasshopper.. :D

    Michale....

  72. [72] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Using your logic, the Pentagon attack was a separate terrorist attack because it occurred after the WTC attacks..

    LOL. I was gonna say "It's like shooting fish in a barrel," but it's really more like dolphins.

    (BOLO for incoming Wiki research findings, informing me that dolphins are not fish, despite my never having said they were.)

  73. [73] 
    Shevek57 wrote:

    Chris1962/Michale

    I truly, truly feel your pain. Sure the "strap your tin foil hat on and fire up your crystal ball" is a simple kind of boneheaded mistake any 16-year-old could make.

    But this:

    Yeah, from inside his crystal ball, not from outer space. Do be sure to research the general consensus regarding inner crystal ball transmissions in your Wiki, now, while I try to pull myself out of the coma your scintillating tin-foil-hat analysis has put me in.

    and this:

    Ya forget to mention that a crystal ball doesn't technically require fire to activate it. Try not to embarrass yourself by leaving out such a critical fact like that again, k?

    is just, well, downright embarrassing. Now you're arguing YOU are an AUTHORITY on the usage of both crystal balls and tin foil hats. And for once, I BELIEVE YOU!! Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

    (And just as a little aside: When I "fire up" my computer in the morning, I don't use a match. And when I have to "re-boot" my computer after installing new software, I don't use my boot. When you get some spare time, you might want to look up terms figure of speech and metaphor. Having some grasp of those concepts might help you overcome your tendency to argue like a petulant 16-year-old.)

    But really, I find this most amusing:

    Michale—Comment #67:
    "Try to put SOME effort into your arguments, k?"

    Chris1962-Comment #68:
    "Try expanding your tiny-teeny thinking a tad."

    Chris1962—Comment #69:
    "Try not to embarrass yourself by leaving out such a critical fact like that again, k?"

    Why, looky there Ma! They walk alike, they talk alike and they use the SAME shorthand for "okay."

    Well, I guess that explains why the "two" of you have such a "close" relationship in your mutual masturbation society. Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!!!

    Not only did the good ship Credibility leave port early on, but apparently there were "two" passengers left behind on the docks. Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!!

    Alas, my work is done here, boys. You've provided great laughs and entertainment, but I have work to do elsewhere. I'll leave the "two" of you here to play in your sandbox. Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!!

    [Note to self: for future reference, file "Chris1962/Michale" under FAIL: MONUMENTAL]

    Always trying to help
    Shevek57

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, let me see if I understand this right...

    YOU think that CB and I are the same person???

    And your "logical" reasoning for this is because we say things to you regarding your debate technique or, in your case, lack thereof...

    Hmmmmmmmm

    Well, here's another conclusion that is a lot more logical..

    Since we both observe the same sort of illogical and childish ranting from you, perhaps it is YOU that is the problem. Did that ever occur to you?

    I mean, look at it logically.

    If you have a dozen people tell you that your posts are immature, childish and lacking in any sort of facts whatsoever, maybe that is because they are..

    But, as I pointed out in one of my first posts to you, you seem to have a completely close mind. You cannot even concede the possibility that you might be wrong..

    Therefore, you lose each and every debate before your fingers hit the keyboard.

    Hasta la' vista, baby. :D Don't let the door hit ya on the backside on the way out.. :D

    CB,

    5000 quatloos says Sheve's "work elsewhere" is not so pressing and he finds time to respond here again... :D

    Michale.....

  75. [75] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    is just, well, downright embarrassing. Now you're arguing YOU are an AUTHORITY on the usage of both crystal balls and tin foil hats.

    No, that would be you, the headcase researcher with the tin-foil-hat Wiki analysis.

    Why, looky there Ma! They walk alike, they talk alike and they use the SAME shorthand for "okay."

    Well, I guess that explains why the "two" of you have such a "close" relationship in your mutual masturbation society. Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!!!

    IOW, you made an ass of yourself by neglecting to factor bio/chems in as WMD, so now we get to sit through the predictable projection routine.

    Alas, my work is done here, boys.

    I'm not a "boy." Whoops. Again.

    You've provided great laughs and entertainment, but I have work to do elsewhere. I'll leave the "two" of you here to play in your sandbox. Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!!

    IOW, now that you're all done making a wholesale ass of yourself — courtesy of your inability to figure out, all by your lonesome, how dangerous a dedicated bio/chem maunfacturer is to the world — it's time for you to exit, stage-left. Somebody color me surprised.

    Perhaps if you were to invest a little less time in running your know-it-all yapper and a little more time in THINKING THROUGH THE OBVIOUS RAMIFICATIONS of allowing the likes of a Saddam Hussein to continue along his merry way, concocting God knows what new-n-improved WMD, in God knows which little secret lab — with a hungry black market salivating in the wings, hello — maybe you won't find yourself on the ground with a bloody nose again, yelling, "Take that, Michale and CB!"

    Big maybe.

  76. [76] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    CB,

    5000 quatloos says Sheve's "work elsewhere" is not so pressing and he finds time to respond here again... :D

    ROFL. I hope he does. I wanna see if he ever catches on to what "in the field" and "personal experience" mean.

Comments for this article are closed.
[Powered by WordPress]