Not So Young But Angry Conservatives Unite

Getting sick of the progressively worse slant and obvious bias of the media? Got booted out of other sites for offending too many liberals? Make this your home. If you SPAM here, you're gone. Trolling? Gone. Insult other posters I agree with. Gone. Get the pic. Private sanctum, private rules. No Fairness Doctrine and PC wussiness tolerated here..... ECCLESIASTES 10:2- The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of a fool to the left.

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

IN CASE YOU FORGOT....

In case you forgot, those who did not vote, or those who are hungover with victory (it's 2 years til next election) there is still a war on Terror going on.

And yes, you who want to make peace with Hamas, read this.....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,228086,00.html

Hamas urges Muslims around world to wage war on U.S. ........

What does the new Congress intend to do about this?

32 Comments:

  • At 7:28 AM, Blogger Ranando said…

    I can tell you one thing the New Congress won't do...

    They won't send our troops to war with no intention of winning.

    The American People Have Spoken...

    They not only spoke, they screamed!


    They are fed up with the:

    Hatred.
    Corruption.
    The do nothing leaders.
    Bush.
    Cheney.
    Rumsfeld.
    Rice.
    Soldiers dying because they’re not allowed to fight and win.
    Fox News.
    The Christian Right.
    Evangelicals.
    Sean Hannity.
    Man Coulter.
    Neo-Cons.
    Tom Delay.
    Michelle Malkin.
    Rush Limbaugh.
    The Bush is God Crowd.
    Economy.
    Osama bin Laden still being alive.
    Trashing people who have served in our military.
    People who want War as long as someone else is doing the fighting.
    Laura Bush.
    Lynn Cheney.
    Leaders that take us to War but have never served.
    Stay the Course.
    Chickenhawks.
    Karl Rove.
    Open borders.
    Saudi Arabia.
    A divided America.

     
  • At 8:05 AM, Blogger NDwalters said…

    Ran, just hope the new Congress goes non-partisan on national security, like they did in WWII.

    To quote one general, 'Will they let us win, this time?'

    And some of the GOP ousted, were do-nothings, and needed to go. One or two, I was shocked by.

     
  • At 10:21 AM, Blogger Mooneyguy said…

    We shoulkd we be non-partisan. The repiglicans sure as hell haven't been.

    Bush said that if the Democrats win, America loses. Where is he planning to have his surrender ceremony to Osama? Ha ha!

     
  • At 10:35 AM, Blogger Mooneyguy said…

    Gosh, I sure hope the door doesn't hit Rummy on the butt on his way out!

     
  • At 12:10 PM, Blogger NDwalters said…

    Yeah, everyone's glad, except Israel..... Wake up you victory drunk bunch of twerps, you're playing into the hands of the enemy......

    http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/08/D8L92G300.html

    Oh, here's the Wicked Bitch of the West's gracious statement on Rummy being offered up.....

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,228201,00.html

     
  • At 2:07 PM, Blogger blamin said…

    RANANDO

    You truly have no clue do you? Is there anything you believe that’s based in the real world? I mean, your whole persona is a fake.

    Still haven’t read the Orson Scott Card piece have you? That’s because you’re a pathetic coward.

    MOONEYRON

    I think you need to change your panties, they’re getting way too wet. That comment about surrendering to Osama was totally despicable and goes to show how twisted and warped you far left little bitches really are.

    You better pray to your humanistic gods that our politicians don’t go insane and abandon the Iraqi people.

     
  • At 3:14 PM, Blogger Kevin said…

    ..or maybe we should just praise our humanistic gods for not abandoning the American people? :-)

     
  • At 3:43 PM, Blogger Les said…

    My initial reaction as I watched election returns last night was, "Holy crap! Is this real?"

    Then I started thinking about it a little, and the results we're seeing give me pause as an American citizen who truly wants the best interests of our country to prevail. What do you mean, you ask? Simple - I hope what we saw was a genuine indication of who people want to see occupying positions of leadership in our government, and not simply a petty, knee-jerk reaction to their own dissatisfaction with the Republican party as a whole. Do they really agree with Democratic policy? Do they really share the same values as those they elected? To "rebuke" a government through something as important as a mid-term vote strikes me as foolish, simply because such behavior can result in the same mess we've been in if the people elected aren't the real deal. Again, I pray that the scourge of partisanship - and partisan disenfranchisement (sp?) - isn't the sole motivation for these election results. If it is, then we all lose.

     
  • At 5:20 PM, Blogger Mooneyguy said…

    We got rid of a lot of crooks and cowards. And Bush's crazy judicial nominees are going to get some very rough treatment from now on.

    I wonder how quickly we can get our soldiers out of Iraq. they have no business in a war we cannot win.

     
  • At 8:41 AM, Blogger blamin said…

    looneytooney

    Let's see just how informed you think you are.

    Why, exactly, can we not win this war?

     
  • At 9:11 AM, Blogger Kevin said…

    haha.

    I'm thinking perhaps because it's like the war on drugs. ...semantically that is. Ever see the movie Traffic? It does a great job of explaining what a ridiculous concept declaring war on a thing (not person or place) is.

    I wonder when we're going to win THAT war?

    ...I guess so long as we 'stay the course' we'll be okay? =]

     
  • At 10:03 AM, Blogger Mooneyguy said…

    We lost the war because Bush and Rummy used too few troops and made seriously bad judgements on the ground in Iraq. The situtation is sufficiently out of control that even a million US troops couldn't suppress the Iraqi people now...and we don't have even a tenth of that available.

    The Iraqi army is too ill-trained and too ill-equipped to be useful and the police are riddled with insurgents. They're not going to be stepping up anytime soon.

    We lost and there's no going back. You conservatives had it all, the presidency, the Congress and the best trained and equipped military the world has ever seen...and totally bungled this war.

    Added to Bush's unwillingness to protect us from al Qaeda before the 9/11 attacks, it's a sorry spectacle. He should be impeached and sent tot The Hague for trial.

     
  • At 11:33 AM, Blogger blamin said…

    Kevin

    You know as well as I do that we call it a war on terror because it would be politically incorrect to call it by its real name. And very simply we can win the war we are fighting, because we are winning it. At least we were before this last election. If the Iraqi’s now believe we will abandon them, then the militant Islamist(?) will win.

    Mooney

    We’re not in this war to “suppress the Iraqi people” you freakin’ imbecile!!! Jeeze, try to be serious and I’ll try not to point out the obvious.

     
  • At 4:14 PM, Blogger Mooneyguy said…

    If you don't like my definition of defeat, why don't you tell me your definition of victory in Iraq?

     
  • At 5:16 PM, Blogger Marshall Art said…

    Hi Les! How 'bout dem Bulls?

     
  • At 9:31 PM, Blogger Marshall Art said…

    Currently, the violence is occurring in roughly a 30 mile radius from the center of Bahgdad. There are only 5 provinces experiencing violence out of how many?

    According to Maj Gen Wm B Caldwell IV, Spokesman, Multi-Nat'l Force, Iraq in a briefing on Oct 26, 06:

    Multi-Nat'l Force has moved from a leadership position to support.

    -90 of 112 Iraqi army battalions are now in lead positions
    -6 of 10 divisions are in lead positions
    -30 of 36 brigades are in lead positions

    This means that the goal of the Iraqi people taking control of their own country is happening. There are incidents of violence being quelled by Iraqi security forces with the help of local leaders and people. This means that buffooney is a very, very stupid man as this does not indicate that the Iraqi army is ill-trained or ill-equipped or that they Iraqis are not stepping up. Hardly sounds out of control to me, but then one can hear so much better when one's head isn't firmly up one's ass. No bungling of the war here. What there is is bungled reporting from the media and shit for brains losers like mooney believe every word because of their chronic BDS. It's like the Tet Offensive where we heard all about the 1500 or so dead GI's but narry a thing about the 25,000 dead NVA. Hard to get behind anything when all you hear is the negative shit. And speaking of negative shit, get a clue, mooney.

     
  • At 10:18 PM, Blogger Mooneyguy said…

    ma, what a load of conservative crap. Even Rummy admits it's not going well. You must be watching Fox News

     
  • At 3:30 AM, Blogger Ranando said…

    More Americans died in October 2006 then any other month since this war begain...

    Flamin, Mooney,

    Your both Fucking Idiots.....

    If we're not willing to win, I mean WIN this Cluster-Fuck, bring our troops home.

    This so called War should've been over in a day or two with not one American dead.

     
  • At 8:53 AM, Blogger Les said…

    Yeah, yeah, yeah, Arturo. Bulls laid a wuppin' down on my Bucks. They're pretty impressive, I must admit.

    That sucks. Go Bucks.

     
  • At 10:40 AM, Blogger blamin said…

    Marshall

    Did you actually believe confronting LooneyTooney with the facts would make a difference? Yah I know, ya hafta try! I’ve often wondered if he has a sign at both ends that reads: “insert here”.

    Ranando

    (Hey Marshall, I’m doing it to!) “This war should have been over in a day or two” Every time I think you can’t possibly be more simple-minded you prove me wrong. Is there anybody in there?

     
  • At 11:19 AM, Blogger Mooneyguy said…

    Yesterday in Iraq:

    A roadside bomb targeted a police patrol and killed a policeman and wounded three others on Wednesday in Baiji, 112 miles north of Baghdad.

    A total of eight people were killed in different parts of Baquba, 40 miles north of Baghdad.

    A civilian was killed and another three wounded when a bomb exploded near their car northeast of the southern city of Amara.

    The bodies of four people were found, bound and gagged, in the town of Latifiya, in an area dubbed "The Triangle of Death" south of Baghdad.

    A roadside bomb targeting a police rapid reaction force wounded four of them on Wednesday in Kut, 105 miles southeast of Baghdad.

    Police recovered four bodies, three of them in police uniforms, from the Tigris river near the town of Suweira, south of Baghdad.
    Gunmen killed a police officer on Wednesday in Tikrit, 110 miles north of Baghdad.

    A total of six people were shot dead, including a police officer, in Mosul, 240 miles north of Baghdad.

    A rocket landed in a residential district and killed two policemen and wounded four civilians in the town of Tal Afar, 260 miles north of Baghdad.

    A roadside bomb targeting a police patrol killed four people, including a policeman, and wounded eight others, including a policeman, in Tal Afar.

    Assailants stormed a primary school as classes were starting in Muqdadiyah, north of Baghdad, killing a policeman, a guard and a student.
    -----------------------
    I thought you said that all the violence was in Bahgdad and its near environs.

    You're an idiot and still haven't defined what victory will mean.

    Bush lost his war and their should not be a single American serviceman or woman in Iraq. Bring them home.

     
  • At 1:44 PM, Blogger NDwalters said…

    Shit, I've been away a while. My thread's got a life of it's own. I say WIN this thing, now, because we got Iran down the road. Closer than we think....

     
  • At 3:50 PM, Blogger Mooneyguy said…

    If Bush can lose to Iraq, how the hell is he going to beat Iran?

     
  • At 11:41 PM, Blogger Marshall Art said…

    Blamin,

    It is futile talking to the stupid, but on the chance there are those who just read without posting, as well as for the rest who actually have open and functioning minds, I'll struggle on.

    As we can see, I've posted info from a source involved with the actual situation, and cartooney lists news items, which as we know and regret, always report only the bad shit happening to our guys and allies, but never the numbers of dead scumbags. The point of which is to join shitheads like looneygirl in making the situation seem worse than it is. Somehow, those chuckleheads think the enemy will just give up. This too is stupid but typical for nimrods who don't realize or care that their negative attitudes are seen as proof that we'll leave before the job is done.

    And spitooney,

    Victory has been defined for you countless times going back to the Museum days. Your a fuckin' idiot for trying to pretend otherwise.

    Hey look everybody! It's mooneyguy! The village idiot!

     
  • At 9:22 AM, Blogger Mooneyguy said…

    MA, you sure use a lot of words to dodge the subject. Define victory or STFU.

    BTW-I ride my horse on an army fort every day. I spend time in the O club and hear what's going on from the locals. You have no idea...

     
  • At 9:34 PM, Blogger Marshall Art said…

    Being a horse's ass, I'm not surprised. There's a distinction between progress and perfection. You, being the very, very stupid man you are, expect, like Renando, that there should be no setbacks, every possible variable accounted for, I guess fucking magic. Do you assume every guy with rank has the big picture just because they have rank? Are you that stupid to believe that every complaint or differing opinion is proof of failure? Do you think these people might be freaked if they realized a circus geek like yourself is evesdropping on their converstations? Can you even hear them adequately with your head so far up your ass? Everybody thinks they're smarter than the boss. Why would these guys be any different. If they're so smart, why aren't they running the war? And for the billionth time, I'll use small words:

    Victory comes when the Iraqi people can take care of business on their own. As my previous post pointed out, these goals are being achieved. That it isn't happening on YOUR timetable is not a sign of failure on the part of our military. But to assume such is another sign of your stupidity (One of so very many.).

     
  • At 9:02 AM, Blogger Kevin said…

    MA,

    I won't badger you, but let's be fair on that last point you made. It's not a question of my timetable vs. yours vs. Mooneys. The fact remains that as the financial backers of this was [us - the American people], we deserve to have SOME timetable provided.

    I honestly think you'd have seen much less complaining from the American people if we started quantifying things, but the traditional response has been '...when the job is done'.

    Imagine if Bush actually came out and said: 'This conflict may last another 10 years before the Iraqi people have the stability to manage their own country'. Do you think people would accept that and support continuing the war effort? What if he said 15 years? ...20?

    ...point is, there is an unacceptable timeframe to everyone (even to you I hope) - and thus far any true disclosure of it has been avoided.

     
  • At 9:03 AM, Blogger Kevin said…

    sorry:

    "financial backers of this was"

    =

    "financial backers of this war"

     
  • At 9:21 AM, Blogger Mooneyguy said…

    No, MA, rank isn't what makes the difference. It's whether they've been to Iraq and how often. The guys just back from their first tour are all excited about how well things could eventually turn out. By the end of the second tour, they've figured out that it's getting worse, and by the end of the third tour they say that there's no hope whatsoever of winning. That's what the guys on the ground in Iraq are saying. What's your escuse?

     
  • At 6:58 PM, Blogger Marshall Art said…

    Once again moon, you're hot to take the words of those with whom you're in agreement, yet they don't speak for the whole fucking military. How do you know they didn't just experience a surge in the scumbags offensive? Should that be their last experience, it would certainly appear that there's a problem. But even aside from that possibility, it still doesn't mean progress isn't being made. Unless they are at the top of the food chain, they have a limited perspective of the total operation. In addition, while they complain, others have been pleased with the results, such as they are. Before you post another long list of negative shit, be it known that I'm aware nasty shit still happens. That's why it's a war.

    Kevin,

    There's no doubt that everybody (talk of those who want war for profit is crap---I don't buy it for a second) wants to see an end ASAP. But two points are ignored.
    1. Wars are incredibly unpredictable. To set a timetable assumes finite variations that don't exist. I don't think there's been a war that ever went as planned. Heck, even fist-fights can never be 100% certain in the most mismatched pairing. And in this war, there remains an enemy that doesn't resemble any other we've faced and that multiplies the difficulty. 2. Anything short of victory will leave the scumbags with the knowledge that we are indeed paper tigers and the rest of the world with the attitude that we cannot be counted upon to see the hard tasks through. This gives carte blanche to evil to continue as they see fit. If we've ever faced evil in the world, we face it now. They've made their threats known and they've demonstrated that they mean what they say in that regard. Assuming they won't fuck with us in the future is the epitomy of stupidity. (I know I've said mooney was, but that's for fun.) And of course, whatever happened to JFK's "pay any price, bear any burden"? Should there be a timeframe for how long we'll battle evil? And if the use of the term evil bothers you in any way, view a beheading video.

     
  • At 7:37 PM, Blogger Kevin said…

    ...I've seen one. It was not a pleasant video.

    The use of evil only bothers me because it gives no real definition. I pushed my little brother down the stairs once when I was about 3. That was a pretty evil thing to do, and yet I'm not hunted for it.

    I guess what I'm getting at is that I don't entirely agree with the semantics that follow the word. Take for example:

    Should there be a timeframe for how long we'll battle evil?

    Well of course not, thats the problem. You CANT define the. The world has seen evil since the dawn of man and will until the very end.

    I am curious though, if we've done such a good job in the war effort thus far, what's the problem? I hope we all know we can't kill every terrorist in the world - it will never happen - it's illogical to think otherwise.

    If we've done our job, then we should have shown what we can and will do if necessary. We shouldn't be chasing 'evil' for the sake of making a cause.

    In fact, I'm not a biblical man, but isn't it a point of fact that biblically speaking, there will ALWAYS be evil until jesus returns? (and then perhaps a few years after that too =] )

    ...if so, then why do we think we can rid the world of it? Moreover, why does the Christian right think they can rid the world of it?

    ^^ thats not sarcasm, I'm really curious.

     
  • At 10:48 AM, Blogger Marshall Art said…

    It's a matter of making this particular evil, adherents of the radical Islamofascist doctrines, so tired of taking a beating that the lion's share of 'em will no longer have the stomach for such treachery and the consequences it brings. It will leave only an impotent remnant that will then perhaps be manageable through civil law enforcement techniques. It's a matter of severely limiting, if not eliminating, any support from governments so that they have fewer, if any, welcoming countries from which to recover and rebuild.

    To use the term "evil" in this case is descriptive of their mentality and attitudes. What a three year old does to a sibling can't be termed "evil" as the child hasn't the capacity to understand good and evil. If you were doing such a thing in your teens let's say, then indeed "evil" could be an appropriate appellation, particularly if you did such things regularly for little reason.

    So the scumbags we fight are evil by the level of brutality of their actions, the targets of those actions, and the motivations behind it. It's not difficult to see that it totally fits in this case. We know evil by these things. And Christian or no, always being prepared and willing to battle against such people who manifest such evil seems to me to be a minimum stance for those who desire better for their world. Debating those who suggest evil without engaging in it is equally important. For example, mooney is no terrorist (he doesn't have what it takes to get radical about anything but himself), but he's evil in his attitudes concerning life, when it's deserving and how to deal with the physically less fortunate. Though he specifically is too far gone and too very, very stupid to convince otherwise, others who may share his opinions need to be convinced or shown the error of their ways as best we can.

    "Evil" is not an easy term with which to deal by those who are non-religious or even barely religious, but it exists without question. I think everyone (or most people---there's sure to be other mooneys in the world) know of evil intrinsically and prefer there be less of it. Thus, the fight must go on and the evil that is Islamic radicalism needs to be quelled as best we can.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home