Compare footage of him speaking today with stuff filmed 15 years ago- it's really quite shocking.

And the man is running our country. Into the ground.

Democrats, Republicans (or vice versa) can both be equally belligerent and dogmatic. If people on either side(s) of the party lines refuse to work with the other then they are the sad, scary, and loathsome cretins. Government is not the solution. You and I are. Be upright and responsible human beings in your daily lives and do no harm. You can make a greater difference in someone else's life in the next 10 minutes than the government could in the next 10 years. Pax Americana.

Bush is by far the worst president ever because he and his cronies already had obscene amounts of wealth and they used his presidency as their personal lottery to make themselves even richer. And they knowingly did it at the expense of millions of middle and lower class Americans, millions if Iraqis and thousands of soldiers who wanted to serve their country.

Bush and Cheney should be hung as traitors.

The war on Iraq was fabricated in order to pursue the military's own agenda, which is clearly "Gotta kill Somethin'". Healthcare in the US is in the toilet, yet Bush spent Billions in order to finish the job his daddy was too much of a coward to do. Everytime he appears in public he humiliates the entire country as he's clearly an empty-headed puppet.

If the US doesn't get Obama as President they will slide further into the shitter - Clinton is a power hungry nutjob and McCain has backed his preacher who insists the people of New Orleans deserved Katrina. Obama is the only voice of reason in a crowd of oppertunistic jackals whom are only desperate for power.

Good luck with where you're going here Harry - it worked really well for Cruise/Redford.

Who?

Jack Burton. ME.

As for the "unjustified war", well that is a topic that is widely debated, and we as a country will never come to a consensus on that. I personally agree with the reasons for war, but thought the execution was horrendous. But I understand the anti-war sentiment. However, IT IS COMPLETELY IRRESPONSIBLE AND ARROGANT TO KEEP USING THE "BRAVE YOUNG MEN DYING" ARGUMENT ALL THE TIME, FOR MOST OF THEM ARE PROUD AND WANT TO BE THERE! Don't be so goddamned assinine to USE THEM to further your weak arguments. Every one of my friends in the military (and I know a good bit) hate the way people use them for their own gains. Enough already, you arrogant prick!

So start educating yourself before you speak, you moron. I come here for movie news, not you convoluted diatribes. If you could present ONE shred of evidence as to why W is the cause of the Oil prices and more importantly the Sub Market crisis, then I am all willing to read and accept some of what you say. Until then, shut your cum bucket up!

And Real American deserves to be dropped into Basra a la Bruce Willis in Die Hard 3 with a sign that says "I hate camel jockeys."

Dude, Jimmy Carter was a crappy president (this coming from a liberal) but he wasn't a degenerate douchebag who wiped his arse with the Constitution, went on vacation while one of his cities sank, fabricated a mountain of lies to convince the public to go to war and continued to protect corporations and the wealthy while the rest of the country burned.

Here's a nickel. Go buy a clue.

Fake American, respect is NEVER given. It is earned. I'll respect the office of the President when there's a person in it who does something to earn my respect. And if you think that by disrespecting the President a person is disrespecting the country, you're a Faux News tool that spends too much time chest thumping to Hannity and O'Reilly.

These talkbacks are always hilarious.

Anyone who TRULY believes that shit needs taken out back and sandblasted by Hancock's super sperm...

I love how you leftists lay all the world's problems at the feet of Bush, yet your pussy-ass worldview would solve nothing. I would love to hear some of your laughable solutions to, for instance, the gas price crisis. Probably something analogous to sucking OPEC's dick, or sucking Europe's 2 incher. But there will be no solutions, just moronic Bush bashing. Btw, I think he sucks too, but thats just because he's letting Third World shitbags into our country at alarming and ever-growing rates.

It's simple. When the government spends more than it takes in, it has to borrow that money. But the fed has a fixed interest rate policy because if they allow the free market to control rates, they would be well over 20% right now and economic growth would be at a standstill. So they print up whatever they need at artificially low interest rates, making responsible savers into suckers and encouraging people to take on as much debt as possible, with rates that don't even exceed real inflation.

Bush is not the only one to blame, but he has tipped the balance with trillions of dollars in war spending. Inflation is going through the roof because the dollar is backed by ever-increasing debt instead of a fixed commodity. Even if we had a growing GDP, it would never be able to catch up because everything is based on a heavily manipulated CPI figure. It WILL crater and soon. The crisis right now is a direct result of the Federal Reserve trying to cater to the Republicrats desire to enrich their buddies with massive government contracts. The democrats won't fix this, they'll only make it worse. Then a Republican will get in and he will make it worse. But they are all to blame.

Interest rates should be allowed to float, banks should be allowed to fail, and wars should be conducted by referendum (with all the people voting in favor of it personally responsible for ALL fighting and funding, the fucking chicken hawk cocksuckers!!). Same goes for nationalized health care and global warming carbon taxes, those in favor pay for it, while the rest don't. Stop putting my money where your mouth is.

Now I wonder why oil man like the one in the WH never considered that as a solution to foriegn oil. Maybe....hmmmmm...profit.

We know real world solutions, dick. They may not be able to be put on a bumper sticker so your simple minded ass can understand them, but they're real, they work, and they're coming!!

Take that you ignorant sack of shit!!

And yeah, Bush should be blamed for the mortgage crisis. Bastard went all over the country with a gun and put it to the temples of people forcing them to buy houses they could not afford.

You're not bright Harry. Never have been. You're emotional, that's pretty much it.

Bush has no direct control over his assets, as they were placed in a blind trust. Al Gore has more oil company shared then W. But honestly, blaming Bush for oil prices is as ludicrous as blaming Spielberg for Uwe Boll.

He was the most unfortunate president in history by being in that seat at that time. I'm not saying he was right, I'm only saying that the plan would have been the same under any government.

Oh and give him some credit for staying the course. Unlike our chickenshit bastard of a Prime Minister, he didn't run off when the heat was unbearable and leave Cheney in charge.

If were were truly living in the Dark Night of Fascism that hysterical liberal fascists (real meaning of the word, not the Newspeak def that the Left has warped it to as meaning anything they don't like) such as Harry, Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, Michael Moore, and Oliver Stone keep claiming non-stop in the media (spot the irony yet?), how come they are being disappeared by death squads or being imprisoned like critics of Castro and Hugo Chavez are? Hmmmm?!? What kind of Bizarro-World are all you fools living in where real tyrants are fellated by Hollywood and a hapless, inarticulate doof like Dubya is castigated as some sort of Sith Lord?

I don't feel there's a single disputable statement in my story. The dollar has crashed, mortgage crisis is grotesquely out of hand, we are in a completely unjustified war, and the United States is at an all time low in world opinion. - And defenders of this jackal astound me. What exactly has he done that you're proud of? What singular accomplishment can you herald? Did he do ANYTHING that he promised?

Coming from the foul-mouthed lunkhead who thinks "chocolate-covered pussy juice" is a phrase that will make Kael and Ebert weep with inadequacy, it reveals that the fantasy realms of comic books and sci-fi films extend to his mindless parroting of the Can'tMoveOn.Argh!/DailyKostex/ PuffinstuffHost shibboleths.

The dot.bomb boom and "balanced budget" (covered with SocSec revenues) of the Nineties that Clinton gets all the credit for came about because conservative Republicans (not the Dem Lite losers there now) restrained government expansion and free market capitalism was allowed to work. Unfortunately, it was a house of cards because while Clinton partied, Enron & Pals were not being watched by Janet Reno's Justice Dept. because to do so would reveal the impending collapse that the next President would have to mop after. Same with Clinton's non-response to repeated Islamofascist attacks upon the WTC, American Embassies, USS Cole, and Khobar Towers; militant Islam had declared war on us for a decade, it wasn't until 9/11 and Dubya that we fought back.

Al Gore is the luckiest guy on Earth. Instead of reaping the bitter harvest of Clinton-era fecklessness, he got to run around in his Gulfstream, frightening people with his ManBearPig fairy tale, collecting Oscars and Nobel Prizes for junk science that is being debunked right now by the fact that we've had the coldest winter in ages and no hurricanes of note since Katrina. Nice work if you can get it!

Harry - The dollar crashed after the Dems got Congress back. The "mortgage crisis" affects only 4% of homeowners and is the result of stupid people buying more houses than they could afford in the crazy hope that the housing bubble would just keep expanding and cover their bad bets. Other than the radical Marxist racist hate-monger, Barack Obamessiah, the vast majority of Dems thought the Iraq War WAS justified, only to go Orwellian and accuse Dubya - the "stupidest President evar!" according to you, Harry - of pulling a Jedi mind trick on them when it wasn't over in 60 minutes. (We would be out of their by now if we'd actually fought a war instead of shackling our soldiers with suicidal ROEs.) The world hates us because they envy us - they've been seeking to tie us down like Gulliver forever; morons like you just noticed when a guy with an (R) designation moved into the Oval Office.

Those are the inconvenient truths, Harry. Stupid partisan morons such as yourself won't accept them because that would violate your deepest held religious beliefs that only fascist Democrats should be permitted to rule over us. For people who want freedom, the fact that so many ignorant fools are falling for the Obamessiah's empty bromides of "HOPE!" and "CHANGE!" is terrifying to witness. I know why this is happening: People are ignorant and brainwashed by the Treason Media to accept the rhetoric. How do I know? Because I was a clueless Perot supporter in 1992 who bought into his nonsense. I didn't know any better. A few years later, after I'd started to study politics, I realized what a chump I was and the same will happen with today's Obamessiah cultists. Whether this happens before or after he is elected, surrenders the War against Islamofascism, and Israel and some American cities disappear in nuclear fireballs is the only open question.

As for Stone's movie - it's going to suck, flop, and waste millions of studio dollars and make its stars radioactive with at least half of the audience. I know people who refuse to see movies with anti-American stars. If Harry could stop visually inspecting his colon and sucking up to extreme Leftist Hollyweird types he calls pals, he might notice this for himself. Naw, probably not.

God, I hope this is true!

1) Cokehead

2) Likes to blow shit up

3) Has the personality of a fucking asshole

4) Appeals to lowest common denominator

5) Has substantial fanbase despite dismal quality of work

Oh, and Mohommed is Satan, which PROVES I'm right, eh? And Harry will just LOVE him!

All done? Okay. If you couldn't tell that he was being sarcastic, then you have been missing out on so much throughout your lives! There is so much subtext to what the people around you are saying, to what the dialogue in books and movies and TV shows means, that it totally flying over your radar! I only wish I knew a way to explain to you how to read a post like his and instantly understand that he is being sarcastic, and means the opposite of what he's saying, but I'm afraid I can't. You just have to get it.

And how many attacks were there before Bush took office? You can't honestly claim that the absence of terrorist attacks has anything to do with Bush. Take a moment and consider the myriad of ways that you personally could cripple this country if you had a grudge and nothing to lose. There are so many chokepoints in our infrastructure. It's freakin' trivial, even without a large well-funded network. Bush said that he only wiretaps terrorist suspects while defending his wiretapping of at least 10,000 people here. Do you really believe the world works like 24 and we always manage to get the terrorist right before the bomb blows up, each and every time, for each of the 10,000 terrorists hiding out there?

And let's not forget that our military had the independent authority to shoot down planes they deemed a threat before Rumsfeld rescinded that authority in July 2001. Instead, they managed to fly around for an hour and a half, waiting for authority from Cheney that never came (in time). During the Clinton years (not that I'm defending that fuck), when Payne Stewart's learjet went off course, we had F16s up there within 18 minutes.

I say that terrorism isn't quite the threat our government makes it out to be or we'd be seeing an incident every month here. Remember, terrorism is not about body count, it's about frightening us. So who's been doing the frightening? Who are the real terrorists? Seems like the media and the government to me. You'd have to be an off-the-charts paranoid cook to worry about your plane blowing up, but you only have to be capable of breathing to worry about the loss of liberties and economic freedom we've seen here.

So it's not Bush's fault that this is happening, but the myth that some of the conservatives like to cling to that the reason gas is so high is that we won't fuck up the Alaskan wilderness to get at another oil source is shortsighted. No matter what we do, oil will eventually run out, and Bush's downfall in this area has been his failure to take a leadership role in supporting the development of alternate energy sources. The problem is that we're still thinking in terms of "the price of gas", because the gasoline game is one that we're bound to lose eventually.

And I'm sorry, but if anyone from either side of the political spectrum denies that Al Gore would have done more to promote alternate energy, you're being delusional. Whether it's ethanol or hydrogen or solar power or nuclear power or whatever, this needs to be our number one priority, because it is tied to so many things, from the right's favorite punching bag of "Islamic terrorists" (funded by oil) to the left's favorite punching bag of global warming (increased by burning fossil fuels).

So even if four dollar a gallon gas isn't Bush's *fault* exactly, I think it's fair to say that if he had been more forward thinking about the issue, and made funding and encouraging of alternate energy a priority, we would be in a better position today.

I say supposedly, because it is my firm belief that the war was planned before the events of 9/11. There is ample proof from some of Bush's own former cabinet members who assert that plans were made at the very beginning of the Bush administration for war on Iraq.

The Neo Cons (your name being a coincidence?) within the administration, hatched a scheme of transforming the middle east into a democratic paradise - or at least one more conducive to American interests.

The problem was, 'how do we start a war that will transform the middle east, and make us all geniuses, when the region becomes more friendly to westerm ideals, even though it may take a generation or two, and cost untold American lives, and untold Iraqi lives, and billions upon billions of dollars?'

The answer, was to manufacture evidence. And if we get caught, blame it on bad intelligence.

9/11 in itself, was not a compelling enough reason to go with Iraq. Afghanistan, yes, but Iraq had to direct ties to Al Qaida.

So, the plans that had been put into place even before 9/11 - the now discredited 'intelligence' were ramped up.

/ 9/11 was camped onto and the legitimate outrage and revulsion that most Americans felt over that event, was turned into a war fever. Congressmen and Senators were no exception - hence your overwhelming support for war.

For an illegal war. For an immoral war. Afghanistan was legal and worthy. Iraq was and is nothing more than the pipe dreams of neo-cons intent on reshaping geopolitics to their own liking - while ignoring and trampling upon the constitution and laws of this country.

Sadly, the only Americans who will ever pay for the crimes commited in our name, are the soldiers and Marines and other servicemen and women, who died for a political theory hatched by men who have never fought in a war.

I find them and their defenders, pathetic.

Here are some FACTS for you to choke on, bitch! Take your ignorant ass over to the website www.wunderground.com and look up the 20 worst cyclones in world history. In fact, here they are for you:

1. Great Bhola Cyclone, Bangladesh 1970 Bay of Bengal 550,000

2. Hooghly River Cyclone, India and Bangladesh 1737 Bay of Bengal 350,000

3. Haiphong Typhoon, Vietnam 1881 West Pacific 300,000

3. Coringa, India 1839 Bay of Bengal 300,000

5. Backerganj Cyclone, Bangladesh 1584 Bay of Bengal 200,000

6. Great Backerganj Cyclone, Bangladesh 1876 Bay of Bengal 200,000

7. Chittagong, Bangladesh 1897 Bay of Bengal 175,000

8. Super Typhoon Nina, China 1975 West Pacific 171,000

9. Cyclone 02B, Bangladesh 1991 Bay of Bengal 140,000

10. Great Bombay Cyclone, India 1882 Arabian Sea 100,000

11. Hakata Bay Typhoon, Japan 1281 West Pacific 65,000

12. Calcutta, India 1864 Bay of Bengal 60,000

13. Swatlow, China 1922 West Pacific 60,000

14. Barisal, Bangladesh 1822 Bay of Bengal 50,000

15. Sunderbans coast, Bangladesh 1699 Bay of Bengal 50,000

16. Bengal Cyclone, Calcutta, India 1942 Bay of Bengal 40,000

17. Canton, China 1862 West Pacific 37,000

18. Backerganj (Barisal), Bangladesh 1767 Bay of Bengal 30,000

19. Barisal, Bangladesh 1831 Bay of Bengal 22,000

20. Great Hurricane, Lesser Antilles Islands 1780 Atlantic 22,000

How come only ONE of these occurred during the time where hysterical ManBearPig worshippers like you say that we've destroyed the world with our SUVs?!? Whoops!!! The recent cyclone will come in around #10 on this chart. If anyone has SCIENCE on his side, it's ME!!! All you have is your PROGRAMMING by the Goreacle, which you just rode into intellectual battle with only to discover it's like having a bulletproof vest made of Kleenex. PWNED J00!!!1!1!eleven!!

The Earth has warmed and cooled of its own accord for millennia. You know that Ice Age thing that covered the Northern Hemisphere? As the ice retreated – without any help from SUVs, capitalism, or Republicans, mind you – it revealed forests that the glaciers had covered. That means the planet was once very warm before becoming deadly cold and then warming back up. ManBearPig-worshipping nutjobs like you are systematically purging scientists who dare question their apocalyptic delusions of man-made global warming by pointing to the historical records of the Medieval Warm Period which was followed by the Little Ice Age. (Talk about an assault on reason!) Why Greenland is called that when it's now covered with ice? Did you know that grape vineyards used to exist in England but now (and for centuries) it has been too cold? DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING?!?!?

Bugger off, you sorry fool. You've got nothing and dicing your empty babbling up like the Black Knight is easier than sleeping for me. You didn't even bring a knife to a gun fight; you brought a raised middle finger to a 500-megaton thermonuclear weapon fight! Do yourself a favor, Bub: Learn some REAL FACTS before you get publicly beaten to death again. You're welcome. kthxbai!!!

Good news

The Viet Nam war was initiated in the Eisenhower administration - in 1959.

Better yet, answer this one simple question that trips up all you "Truther" lunatics: If Team Dubya faked all the intelligence to justify going to war, WTF didn't they plant some WMDs when they got there to prevent looking like idiots? If they were willing to lie to get there, why stop? Instead of saying, "Whoops!", they could've said, "SEE?!? TOLD YA SO!!! NEVER DOUBT US!!!" and been hailed as heroes for saving the world.

[crickets]

Yep, thought so. And spare us the BS that you thought Afghanistan was worthy; you jokers would've been screaming if Dubya didn't go to Iraq - I remember you twerps whining that Bush 41 didn't "finish the job" in the first Gulf War - and since he did, you've naturally taken the other tack.

Admit it, whatever Dubya does would be wrong in your blinkered eyes. He could give everyone a puppy that pooped gold bars and TV sets from which porn stars and anime characters step out to have sex with you and you'd demand that he'd be impeached and executed. OTOH, if Al Gore had managed to steal the 2000 Election and had reacted to all the disasters Clinton left him in the exact same way that Dubya has, tools like you would be demanding that all critics be rounded up and shot for treason against the Fearless Leader.

CLASS DISMISSED!!!

First off Iron, John McCain was not raising the most money, he was among the weakest fundraisers in the field. If it was all about money, then Ron Paul would be the nominee right now as he beat all the other Republican candidates combined in fundraising in the 4th quarter. He also had more contributions from active military and veterans than all the Democrat and Republican candidates combined.

And Pariah, we're still seeing pretty good turnout for Paul in the state conventions. He still doesn't have a chance, but the Republicans hate McCain so much that they aren't contributing money or showing up in many cases. We're getting much higher delegate numbers then the earlier straw polls would suggest. And here in Colorado, we have a few tricks up our sleeves for the state convention May 31st. Hopefully we can parlay that into a speaking spot at the national convention, but the GOP knows it's screwed. Paul supporters aside, the party filled with a bunch of old geezers and they know they're doomed unless they get fresh blood. They'll either have to embrace the Paul-types or wither and die as a party. Either way is fine by me, I suppose, but I suspect we'll trend democrat for years to come if they don't wise up.

If you are going to trumpet some neocon hero - like Douglkas Feith, it really should be one who is not hip-deep in shit. And just who is Douglas Feith? Read on. http://rightweb.irc-online.org /profile/1146.html "Douglas Feith is a former Pentagon official closely associated with the neoconservative political faction who has been investigated for allegedly distorting prewar intelligence on Iraq. Feith served as the deputy undersecretary of defense for policy, the number three position at the Pentagon, from July 2001 to August 2005. In May 2006, Georgetown University hired him to teach a course on the Bush administration's strategy in the war on terror. Feith's resignation from the Department of Defense sparked widespread speculation among observers that he was pressured to leave because of a number of then-ongoing investigations related to the administration's efforts to bolster support for the Iraq War. As Juan Cole, history professor at the University of Michigan and author of the widely read blog Informed Comment (JuanCole.com) wrote in January 2005, when Feith announced his resignation: "Feith has been questioned by the FBI in relation to the passing by one of his employees of confidential Pentagon documents to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which in turn passed them to the Israeli Embassy. The Senate Intelligence Committee is also investigating Feith. There seems little doubt that he operated in the Pentagon in such a way as to produce false and misleading 'intelligence,' that he created an entirely false impression of Iraqi weapons capabilities and ties to al-Qaida, and that he is among the chief facilitators of the U.S. war in Iraq. Feith is clearly resigning ahead of the possible breaking of major scandals concerning his tenure at the Department of Defense, which is among the more disgraceful cases of the misleading of the American people in American history." Nitwit

My favorite part about these blogs is how so many people (mostly the libs, but some repubs too) post arguments that are nothing more than jumbled curse words of insults, and this is supposed to win me over to your side? Very intelligent indeed.

Ok. I gotta go. My gun needs cleaning from all my clinging, and I have to polish my cross. Psycho-dimwitted-religious nut-southern redneck-racist republican signing out

Twit.

I am attempting to be a 'kinder more gentler' Toadkillerdog, hence, the less than inflammatory language in responding to nitwits - such as you.

And thank you for your concern with my sex life.

Well put. There are all sorts of legitimate problems that you can have with the things Bush has done (I've got a bunch of gripes, myself), but I think there are far more _evil_ politicians in (for example) Congress. And, when somebody uses a phrase like "worst president ever", they are willingly displaying an ignorance that makes it hard to give much weight to their opinions. It's like if somebody watched Cloverfield and declared it the "worst movie in a hundred years."

If I didn't imagine it, to whomever posted that- You officially win "The Stupidest Quote of the Talkback Award", so far. And believe me, on this board, that was no easy feat. Well done.

Some of us don't label ourselves that easily. Look at my dad, He voted for Bush Sr. and then he went and voted for Clinton!!! Oh no!!! The world is tearing apart at the seams!

George: Gadzooks, what the hell was that?

Laura: I think Ben from down the street just threw a rock through our window. I saw him running away yelling "Death to the windowpanes!"

George: Alright that's it, with God as my witness, I'm gonna find that sumbitch and teach him a lesson!

Laura: But George, it's dark, you're never going to find him...why don't we just call someone to fix the window and tomorrow we can try to get in touch with him and find out what-

George: SILENCE WOMAN! I'm going out there to get him, and that's all there is to it.

Cut to 8 minutes later. George returns home.

Laura: Oh George, thank god you're home. did you find Ben?

George: Nope, didn't find him at all. But I found this guy named Steve that I heard knew Ben, and so I killed him and set his house on fire. Heh heh heh, it's still burning, actually.

Laura: Steve? Next door? He doesn't know Ben, he's never even met him!

George: Well I heard he did, and I fixed him up good. He's never gonna-

Laura: Wait, Steve's house is next to ours, and you lit it on FIRE? You've put us in more danger than when we started, you idiot!

George: No rocks through the window in the last 8 minutes though, right?

Laura: No, but the house next door is on fire, and Steve's friends are going to-

George: Mission Accomplished!

The End

I honestly don't believe that either side (assuming you can reduce something so convoluted to two sides) really knows what the shit is going on anymore, American soldiers don't know why they're over there, I'm sure a lot of the so-called 'insurgents' don't really know what they want to accomplish, other than for us to leave them alone, so I don't really know if this is a 'war' in the traditional sense that can be defined by victory or loss. What, exactly, would a victory look like? We're well past expecting rose petals and dancing in the streets. As far as anyone can tell, the entire region is in total chaos, and after years, nothing seems to be getting any better. Are we winning? If we left would we 'lose'? Would we even know if one or the other happened? Could we tell the difference?

Consider, what if somehow the entire country was FOR the Iraq war? Would that mean that the insurgents would just say ' oh darn we should just lay down our arms and quit?' Hell no.

Do you really think that the insurgents, organized or not, huddle around the campfire at night debating U.S. policy?

The same false argument was made for Viet Nam - and the only thing it accomplished was to drive the American death toll up. And speaking of the death toll, I defy you to speak to any family that has lost a son or daughter and say 'only around 4000 troops lost in half a decade'.

I will not fillet you for that comment though, because I do not think you meant it to come out as cold as it sounded, but believe me, as a former and still very proud member of the military, there are no small number of deaths -especially in a war that should not have been fought.

No soldier or marine wants to be in Iraq fighting - no rational one that is. None that I know talk about staying there because 'it makes the next conflict easier.' At least none not reading from a script prepared for them by the DOD/

Every serviceman I know only wants to do their job and get home safely.

There are no flags being waved during a firefight, and no discussion of policy when a bullet is flying past your head, and damn sure no desire to stick around because it will make the next war easier.

THIS was supposed to be the easy war.

Welcome, mpd1958, you will be our new mascot.

I have seen you mention the Soc Security angle before, but a war that currently cost's 7.1 billion dollars a month - since 2003, is not trvial, even compared to the gargantuan Soc Security cost.

I am a Pro Iraq Invasion Rebublican, and I say this because I do not like war. I wish we never have to go to war. Unfortunately, war has defined our world since man walked his first bare foot on its soil. The reason for war is to bring peace. Yes, I know it's ironic, but it's the truth nonetheless. Legitimate wars are always started in order to end the reign of a true "war mongerer" dictator and to bring the peace that said dictator disturbs.

So same thing exists with this war. We had a series of small attacks before 9/11, but this attack was so severe and direct to us that our peaceful existence was raped. So, the only answer to protect us from future attacks was war. I still support the invasion of Iraq, because we established a foothold in the middle of the hive, and we have brought the war to them and away from our homeland. Contrary to propagandist opinion, we are NOT over there killing innocent Iraqis; we are, however, killing Al Queda insurgents who threaten the peaceful existence of the innocent Iraqis.

So to sum up, I am anti war, but completely support it when it is necessary to eliminate evil and bring peace. You don't stop a serial killer by ignoring him and letting him just live his life, all the while hoping he won't strike again. You start a fight to find, capture and put him away from innocent people forever.

Why should the Iraqi insurgents stop fighting? The surge has come and gone, and they have survived. We are still there, we are still a target.

Stevie Grant is partially right about Afghanistan - where Bin Laden got his training fighting with the Mooj - the Mujahdeen that is. We gleefully supplied weapons and assistance and the Mooj fouhgt the Soviets to a stalemate. But Iraq has no such superpower benefactor, and yet we are still there, and they are still fighting us.

They will continue to fight.

Darth Macchio has been calling for a left vs. right Battle Royale of nerdy talkbackers. Maybe we should get AICN to foot the bill for some flights/accommodations for those willing to take part in what is sure to be a HILARIOUS display of nerd-on-nerd action. Rumble in the Central Park!

Landspeeder, don't Bantha to Central Park to see the Battle of the Dorks!

With that said, I do support the Iraq Invasion, and I admire him standing his ground against unpopular public opinion. Unlike Hillary, whose positions change with the next polling, Bush has been steadfast on his beliefs and he stuck to them. I respect that trait in anyone, even if I disagree with them. I am not happy that McCain is the Republican nominee, but I have the utmost respect for his honesty, service to our country, and his strong opinions that he does not stray from.

The ultimate sign of hypocrisy in this upcoming election is how Libs say all the time we must stop partisan politics, and here we have a nominee who is anything but partisan! He and Leiberman are the two most known for ignoring their parties' standards and working across the isle to get things done. So why are Libs so hypocritical? Why not vote for the man who stands for non-partisanship that they proclaim to promote? The answer is that the LIbs are no less partisan than the Repubs. You will vote party lines regardless of who is running.

Very briefly, Iraq had zero to do with the events of 9/11. Zero.

Even the Bush administration backed off claims that Iraq had a hand in 9/11.

The reason they did use, was WMD -and that was a very flawed argument even if weapons had been found because a far more persuasive argument for attacking North Korea - which has been proven to be exporting nuclear technology -see Syrian nuclear reactor(Tech from N.Korea) that was bombed by the Israelis.

We knew N.Korea was exporting such nuclear technology to hostile gov't, but Iraq was chosen as the invasion target, not for WMD, but to further a geopolitical strategy.

Now Afghanisatn, was a legitimate invasion.

Please feel free to identify any factual errors or falsifications in the 2007 ICCC report.

Any suggestions as to why ICCC scientists would lie to the world are welcome.

I think we both know Steven Mackintyre won't be winning the Nobel Prize.

Contrast that with N. Korea. This is just a diversionary ploy by the Dems to say Bush is invading the wrong country. Now, aren't these the same Dems who kept saying we needed to let diplomacy play out in Iraq? Well, why not try diplomacy on N Korea? That's hypocrisy at it's finest. The fact is, Iraq was years of failed diplomacy, while N Korea was a new development. So, we are supposed to keep trying diplomacy with Saddam who kept snubbing his nose at it, but we were supposed to just rashly invade N Korea without ever trying diplomacy? How is that consistent?

last itme I heard, you were still in your convalescence, is that all done with?

Iraq was and is a failed geopolitcal manuever - and because of such stupid, careless, and dangerous policy making, we have made that region far more unstable an inimical to American interests.

neocons actually beleived there would be parades in the streets of Iraq welcoming us.

I do not advocate going into N.Korea, I do beleive in diplomacy, my point is that the reason given for the invasion was extremely hypocritical when compared with the genuine threat posd by N.Korea.

Where do I get my badge?

That said, the Democrats began with capitulating with idiots on Captiol Hill because the threat was open: You fuck with us on Iraq, and guess what? It's Veto Time Forever. So, the Dems said 'It's the wrong place, the wrong war'. But only one guy running for President had the guts to say so even today. The rest of them were gutless fucks.

As for the Dems changing their tune, it's like this, children. The Republicans wanted to fuck this pig called Iraq for all the pork they could bring home. They like to fuck pigs, what can a brother say? When they started fucking, they noticed its cornhole was lathered with superglue. So while the Republicans are embarrassed and grinning like the dogs they are, they continue fucking this pig and not admitting they were fucking duped.

FOR NEARLY A DECADE.

Meanwhile, the Democrats are trying to figure a way out. So the Republicans are screaming 'Don't cut our dicks off! You're a coward! You don't know how great it is to fuck a pig! Let's fuck this pig for a hundred years!'

Knowing damned well that their dicks are superglued to the pig's asshole, and there has to be a way to extricate the Republicrat's pecker from that pig's asshole without ripping off the dick.

The Dems then say...'Well, shit, man. You're balls deep in that pig, dummy. Let's try some solvent, from our buddies in Iran...'

'Are you fucking crazy?!' 'They hate us for our freedom!'

'The freedom to fuck a pig in the ass?'

'Precisely, Defeat-O-Crat! You're not chopping my dick off!'

So you see, it's the fact that the dicks of the Republicrats are on the line, their stupid fucking oligarchy and fucking pig-fucking corprotist whore masters are trying to figure out what to do...and STILL walk away from this illegal occupation with the money.

Meanwhile, their dicks are stuck firmly up that pig's ass.

Metaphors rule.

Remember, we are crazy "RIGHT-WING CUM CLOWNS" who "make up the rules as they go". You wouldn't like the rules we play by.

By the way, you make some very intelligent, well constructed contentions. Please enlighten me some more to your genius, logical liberal ways? I am ready to be educated!

And that picture of Brolin is intriguing. It's like what Llewelyn Moss would have looked like 20 years later...had he not died.

Very funny post though.

Can you say, multiple ID's?

I think you can.

RightSock, the tax hikes wouldn't affect you in a million fucking years, because I seriously doubt your dumb cracker ass makes millions a year.

By the way, it's scary story time: Let's say you make 50k a year. How long would it take to make your first million? Considering energy and food costs too Goddamned much now, and only rises because of the devalued dollar...Forever and ever seems a pretty good estimate. When your yearly income reaches 3 million, meaning you pull in 3 million in gains in a year, then you start paying those 'taxes for the wealthy'. So, yeah, good try. But let's not play with numbers, fuckbag. The wealthy get off light, and the thinning out middle class gets fucked for it. This system may collapse, and I for one would laugh all the way down...Just to see the looks on the douchebag's faces who think Bush and his whore masters give half a shit about them.

Get your facts straight.

Guess what? That shit's old news, man. Nobody's scared of the Red Threat anymore. It's really old school, man.

Second, you want to know how Karl Marx and Socialist/Communism gained a foothold in Russia? Because there they had a monarchy that financially oppressed the masses of people to the point of revolution. Now, we have a so-called Capitalist nation, running itself as a pseudo-monarchy...the worthless rich in the country removing the tax on their gains so they can bequeath their holdings to their worthless, shiftless children in perpetuity, to keep the wealthy wealthy, and create a peasant class.

The best part is, Right, is that all you fucking Dittoheads and Bush Backers and fucking Right Wing dipshits are PART of the peasant class they despise. Just because you're the 'manager' of your department, doesn't mean you're in charge of shit. The corporate ladder has a top, and that's far and away from where the actual financial power lies.

So, for idiots who despise Marxism, you sure as fuck are pushing it on the poor and desperate as an option. I have hope that not everyone is fucking stupid cow-folk, but hey, again, I'm loving this ride so far. I'm sitting here in my house with all the lights on, typing on the 'Net, feeding my fat face and watching Lost...I'm the picture of capitalistic glee, because I know that this is a dying system, mathematically it cannot continue growing exponentially into the future without some consequence. Man is not designed to allow for perpetual productivity.

I predict a dark age. (Check out the pictures of the GI Joe costumes for proof of THAT.) :)

Which census are we talking? Which IRS stats? Is it now, when the poverty level is around 24,000 bucks a year, and growing? What are we talking about the top 50% then? Show your work, man. Or it's just stating that there's a fact out there and it backs you up. Let's see the math, and go ahead and reference your source too, the year as well. Because I bet you're using old stats when it suits your argument, because intellectual dishonesty seems to be the only way for righties to gain any argumentative ground.

What's MORE intriguing to me is what's in this fight for you? Educating people? Making people love America? Making people hate terrorism and communism? What's in it for you guys that makes this so tempting? Do you think the wealthy's gonna 'trickle down' on you? I got news for you pal, that trickle you're feeling from the top 1% ain't money. Much love, man, but without actually referencing your facts, you're either mistaken or lying. (That's my MLA handbook talking. You probably are honest as Good Old Jeebus).

If people will not give him credit for creating the surplus, then at least give him credit for sustaining it with sound management.

More than 70 percent disapprove in CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll

Survey indicates support for Iraq war has never been lower Low approval numbers come five years after "Mission Accomplished" moment

By Paul Steinhauser CNN Deputy Political Director

WASHINGTON DC (CNN) -- A new poll suggests that President Bush is the most unpopular president in modern American history.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll shows 71 percent disapprove of President Bush's job performance.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Thursday indicates that 71 percent of the American public disapprove of how Bush is handling his job as president.

"No president has ever had a higher disapproval rating in any CNN or Gallup Poll; in fact, this is the first time that any president's disapproval rating has cracked the 70 percent mark," said Keating Holland, CNN's polling director.

"Bush's approval rating, which stands at 28 percent in our new poll, remains better than the all-time lows set by Harry Truman and Richard Nixon [22 percent and 24 percent, respectively], but even those two presidents never got a disapproval rating in the 70s," Holland said. "The previous all-time record in CNN or Gallup polling was set by Truman, 67 percent disapproval in January 1952."

Who would have thought anyone could (or indeed should) make Nixon look good ?

And to my 'adversary'...Uh, no thanks. I don't want to be your enemy, dude. Because at the end of the day we both want the same thing, I bet. We want our country to do the best it can for all of us, and allow America to be the best it can.

Your little remark about Unlimited Potential is also true of Myanmar, Iraq, and Bosnia. Everything has unlimited potential. Even the stock market says there's no way to base future earnings on past performance. So, you made it, you're making more than my wife and I, bravo; it just so happens that we're starting out, and we're in a very growth heavy industry (which is great), but there's guys out there who get their jobs shipped away to line the pockets of the wealthy. And it does happen. More and more now, for us to play pretend that capitalism is great for democracy, it depends on us pretending that these outsourcing companies are just part of that healthy growth. But they're bringing nothing back to us in the form of taxes, and there's nothing to stop them. It's fucked up, man. And again, as a guy lower than you on the ladder, it's easier to laugh when you got less to lose.

A wise man said 'Any country that goes without three meals a day for a week can easily slip into Anarchy'. And it looks like milk's more expensive than gas...The people are getting hungry, is all I'm saying.

And correct me if I'm wrong but I doubt Nixon was remembered for his highest poll ratings (whatever they were).

By any stretch and any poll, Bushie simply has the worst polling numbers of all time. And as some on the right are fond of saying, the Viet Nam war was far more unpopular than Iraq, yet Bush is still the lowest rated on any and every poll.

On the other hand, Exxon-Mobil earns record profits, and we are a little annoyed: They earn their money on a resource that they tout as finite, and increase the need for it by putting political pressure on our government to hack away at research that would change how we power our vehicles. These are facts as I see them. Pretty fucking crass to name a tanker after our Secretary of State, but hell, whatcha gonna do? These guys are fucking criminals in the merest shades of gray. So, what do I need more? Windows Vista? Or Gasoline? One is a product, an option for my lifestyle...the other is a utility. So yeah, we're both right on this one, man. I think that guys using the resources of our Commonwealth, and using our political system with their money to outweigh the will of the people (and yeah, misinformation through the media is also one of the ways they can manipulate with their vast wealth in a way that mere 'voters' cannot). So its imbalanced, man. That's all. And the more imbalanced it becomes, the more the desperate are going to be sharpening their knives. I'm not saying 'Yay! Marxism!' I'm saying 'Watch out, this is how revolutions begin.'.

And because if he isn't already, by November he and his Iraq Policy.

Also, amusing though it would be to take the credit for a massive chunk of the American Populations views, it's the Polls that say Iraq has never been so unpopular, not me or Toadkillerdog.

Nah! don't think your services will be required at Democratic headquarters as a strategist somehow.

This War is now very unpopular. Wishing the evidence away by blaming CNN, or anyone else who conducts an opinion poll that confirms it, just ain't gonna cut it I'm afraid.

And since you already know it's obviously been overshadowed by a car crash economy why ask me unless it's to try and paint a polyanna scenario yet again ?

B.T.W. The same Oil Analysts who were called Doom-mongers for predicting Oil would easily Top $100 a Barrel not so very long ago, are now saying the $200 Barrel is just a matter of time, so what do you think the chances of pretending there isn't a recession are then ?

Why is it that the people who peddle those theories never keep up with the current events of their own movement?

Just a random thought.

Unemployment is just one indicator which can lag behind an Economy teetering into or already in recession. Negative Growth per Quarter is generally held to be the key indicator and that is only keeping in positive figures by mere fractions of a percent. Most Economists consider the health of the Housing Market to be another fairly important Key indicator which no doubt you will also tell us is somehow doing just swell.

Actually the more the Republicans and their Pet Pundits keep trying to pretend everything is just peachy all the way till November the better the Dems chances will be.

Voters, a huge proportion of which will be having to make real financial sacrifices now and by November, will waste very little time punishing Politicians who try and them they have never had it so good.

Reality cannot be push-pulled or sculpted into a good news story when common sense and the facts on the ground stubbornly tell the same truth to everyone who doesn't have their eyes closed.

Now take a hybrid that gets about 40 MPG (my friend who has a Prius gets 44) ... $40 to cover 1,000 miles at $2 a gallon. $80 at $4 a gallon. $120 at $6, and $160 at $8.

So at $8 a gallon for the hybrid, it's just slightly more expensive than $2 a gallon for the SUV to cover that same distance.

And that's 62 gallons for the SUV vs. 25 for the hybrid. To do the same job. And because Shithead-in-Chief and his puppet master Cheney are deep in bed with the oil industry, from the Saudis to the Exxons, we have not heard one peep about conservation in the last 7 years.

How's that for leadership?

I'll bet the King of Saud had rarely felt so under pressure and no doubt Bush is on the phone right now ,whispering sweet nothings, I mean, strongly shaping America's interests and persuading his greatest Mid East Ally to make his case forcefully to OPEC.

The Iraq War is VERY unpopular. You know it. I know it. Bush certainly knows it. The overwhelming majority of Americans know it. Even FOX News knows it but will never of course admit it.

Just because the Dems aren't doing what you THINK they should be doing or believe what you THINK they should believe,it's not going to magically make Iraq any more popular.

Do you REALLY think it is some sort of Bizzarre proof that a War, which every Poll in the Land and common sense tells everyone else is unpopular, is in fact popular, simply because the Dems haven't enacted this frankly idiotic and pointless strategy, which only YOU are obsessed by and only YOU think they should enact?

The Political Genius of trying to cut funds to the Military in a time of War when the President will just Veto it anyway ????

Yes, the only possible reason the Dems haven't and won't do that is because the Iraq war is actually very popular !!!

This despite what the Dems say and what everyone else believes. Riiiiiiiiiiiight!

Perhaps there is a reason you aren't a Democratic Party Strategist Morbid ? And perhaps until I hear them actually say it I won't labour under the eccentric delusion you do that the Dems think the Iraq War is popular.

And according to you it's not just them lying because every Pollster in the land must ALSO be lying for your byzantine and frankly peculiar reasoning to be true.

The Strategy you have outlined is just weak and counterproductive. That is why they haven't done it. Not because they secretly think the War is popular and Public Opinion is lying about it.

You make Bizzarre assumptions at every turn. It's clearly not "taking political advantage of an unpopular war" because it's just a terrible strategy. Repeating McCains statement of a 100 year Iraq occupation every chance they get is self evidently "taking advantage of an unpopular war" and solid proof the dems KNOW Iraq is very unpopular.

Simply saying "taking political advantage" doesn't make your peculiar and feeble strategy any good or true and it certainly doesn't make the war popular. It's only what YOU believe they should do and for whatever strange reason you think it's a Brilliant strategy they MUST follow.

It's childishly poor tactics because it would play straight into the hands of anyone wishing to paint the Dems as unpatriotic by simply saying they aren't willing to fund the Troops in a time of War. Any half serious Political operative could see that coming a mile away.

Besides IT WOULD NOT WORK because Bush has already SAID he would VETO any attempt. Talk about flogging a dead horse.

In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

This is the very opposite of what Bush and Blair said in public.

Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of "containment" that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator - again the very opposite of what Blair said time and again. On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box".

Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

Not much concern for mass graves evident from the Bush administration there ? Or any signs of implacable opposition to an Apocalyptic Madman with WMD up his sleeves ?

The Bush Administration with Condaleezza and Powell considered Saddam no threat at all. And since he also had nothing to do with Al Qaeda Saddam himself was a poorly judged diversion from getting the real culprit. Or have you forgotten Osama Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 and is still at large in the NorthWest Frontiers of Pakistan ?

Osama Bin Laden didn't change the threat assessment for Iraq & Saddam because the terrorist atrocity used no weapons of mass destruction and had nothing to do with Saddam.

That dog just won't hunt anymore. Afghanistan is NOT Iraq. Saddam is NOT Bin Laden

And what are these "freedoms" you speak so glibly of in Iraq ?

You appeat to be woefully uninformed about what is actually occuring on the ground there. The Shia & Sunni Militias and Death Squads have set up DeFacto Sharia Law as harsh as any in Saudi Arabia and harsher than any Secular Rule.

Women are terrified to go out of thier homes and the Sunni & Shia enclaves are riven with gang warfare and the religious dictats of the clerics.

The Politicians of the Governing Council in the Green Zone are now little more than an irrelevance as the Tribal Leaders on the ground enact Policy (Policy being Territory grabs) via gunpoint.

The Mahdi Army openly defies President Talibani whose attempt to disarm Muqtada al Sadr's Mahdi insurgents and Death Squads was a hopeless failure that ended with him calling in American troops to help his remaining Government troops back to their base.

President Talibani is also making detente with Iran which I shouldn't have to remind flies completely in the face of the Bush Administrations PUBLIC statements about Iran and it's imaginary WMD.

Review movies. You're better at it than reviewing American politics. Not... exactly a compliment.

This is not hard.

The British Elections last week had absolutely nothing to do with Bush. The kicking that the current group of fucks got was down to corruption, Iraq, abolition of tax relief, crashing economy (including the collapse of a bank that is now been propped up by the tax payer- and can be directly linked to the sub-prime fiasco (thanks George)), that we were disenfranchised when Blair resigned, and most importantly the fat useless cocksuckers have been in power for too long. France was similar.

Just a correction, please carry on

It's surely clear that terrurist evildoers are going to place an Iranian (D.Y.E.)* Nuke into the San Andreas fault causing Califoria and most of the estern Seaboard to slide beneath the waves. *(Doesn't Yet Exist)

Where will yew libs be when a red underwear garbed flying volunteer is required to orbit around the earth backwards to turn back time and save the world from these evildoers ? Nowhere that's where!

Where's my Bunkerproof Tin-Foil hat ?

Mussolini himself (the man that coined the term): "Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism".

Now, can we please retire this nonsense about fascism being a left wing philosophy. Although I will grant you that Fascism and Communism share many features (the extremes appear closer than the middle), the term liberal Fascist is a complete oxymoron- and an utter fabrication by the right wing press. Unfortuantely, it was a necessary creation as the term "Commie" has been systematically devalued through overapplication to anyone on the left.

Really, the term Commie should be rehabilitated, but it is too late.

Here endeth the lesson.

I'm not saying either is not despicable, but this ludicrous crap you are spouting would make Hitler, Franco, Pinochet, Mussolini et al left wing dictators. A concept that is laughable and misinformed.

That might even be what happened to Bush. The man is incapable of orchestrating such crap by himself, we know that much.

If USA dares to attack Iran, it's gonna be a clusterfuck. A major FUBAR.

Fuck anyone who disagree with you. They're blind sheeple. It's not politics as usual, the policies have put USA in danger more than ever with integrity and national security compromised thanks to the selfish, vain fucks running the US government like tinbot despot morons.

There are certainly a few misguided and/or ignorant people who actually buy the "fascists are leftists!" deal, but the most vocal proponents of this position are anything but misguided or ignorant. What's at work here is much more sinister than that. What these people want is to equate any movement to the right along the political scale as a move towards more freedom, since there is "no such thing" as right-wing totalitarianism. When the idea of right-wing dictatorship is banished, there is literally no limit to how far to the right you could go since the right direction is also the "right" direction. The opposite then also holds true; that any move to the left along the political scale, no matter how small, is a move towards totalitarianism or "fascism", as they would have you believe. It's quite insidious, really.

We used to smarter.

and what is Nautzism anyway? My best guess is that it is a right-fin totalitarian underwater state. Vicious SS Sharks keep the other fish in line, and many a harmless crustacean has gone to the "Death Pots"

I agree with you about the reason for the seismic shift in the meaning of the term, but what I find especially worrying is the amount of TB folk that agree with it- and spout the line that Nazism/ Fascism is left wing.

Obviously, AnimalStructure and his equally vile cronies have underdeveloped brains so it is not surprising, but there is an element of TB'er that is swallowing this shit hook, line and sinker. Examples include 900Lb Gorilla, Nighthawke, Morbidobesity, Anchorite and countless others.

Some of these are, although pygmyish in their beliefs, are more than capable of rational analysis.

It is a frightening prospect that usually intelligent people are potentially walking into tyranny because they are simply swallowing an incredibly obvious piece of spin.

I blame hippies for this- if they hadn't been so useless forcing the overuse of the term "Communist" then the right would never be able to get away with it.

Who started this crap, anyway? the first time I'd ever heard it was on these boards.

If the left and the right merge into one appaling centrist mess, then extremism will become more popular due to frustration.

It's a lesson from history, and all too predictably inevitable.

To answer your question about the fascism revisionists, they are merely regurgitating talking points made by the likes of Jonah Goldberg and others.

He is the neocon author of Liberal Fascism. He is a radio and TV commentator, who is intent on rebranding terms that have always been associated with the extreme right wing, onto the left wing, and he is making progress - though not among serious scholars.

"To sort of start the story, the reason why we see fascism as a thing of the right is because fascism was originally a form of right-wing socialism. Mussolini was born a socialist, he died a socialist, he never abandoned his love of socialism, he was one of the most important socialist intellectuals in Europe and was one of the most important socialist activists in Italy, and the only reason he got dubbed a fascist and therefore a right-winger is because he supported World War I. "

Absolutely untrue on every level. The fact that such a historical fallacy is being swallowed wholesale, should be enough to discredit the whole argument. Especially laughable- 1)"fascism was originally a form of right-wing socialism." No it wasn't

2)Mussolini died a socialist- hugely wrong.

3)"Mussolini....was one of the most important socialist intellectuals in Europe". Hysterical.

4)"only reason he got dubbed a fascist and therefore a right-winger is because he supported World War I." Where did he get that from?

I am astounded that anyone with even the slightest knowledge of History could swallow this bile.

It's little more than fallacious propaganda horseshit.

Unfortunately, there are so many who do just that.

There was a nutter on here named DirkBelig, who touted Douglas Feith as his neocon hero. The same Feith who resigned in disgrace and was investigated for manufacturing evidence that helped spur the Iraq war - and the truly sad thing is that finding out about Feith is so easy. I posted a link and the contents that destroyed that argument, and DirkBelig never showed his face again.

But some people can be lazy, or just plain stupid.

The interview is even funnier, because he started it with "the book is historical revisionism". You don't say.

Darfur, I've always thought of Mussolini as the Italian Kant, so I'm glad to find out that he should be up there with Wittgenstein and the rest of them. What a load of horseshit.

It's not been used in ages and fully fits what you are aiming for.

He called me a nazi in the speed racer post as well.

I realize history is mostly written by the winners -hagiography is alive and well.

I also realize the true value of getting different perspectives - such as the Russian perspective on WWII.

In Short, the Russians have a legitimate gripe against the portrayal of how the war was won -not on Normandy's beach, but on the Eastern front were more people fought and died than in all of the other theatres combined. And most of those were Russian and German soliders.

The war would have been very different of not for the Russians. But in the west, we never really hear about that.

That type of perspective is welcome, but re-writing history to serve a political or personal purpose, is heinous.

A vegetarian that is, not monoballed. The song says "Goebbels has no balls at all"

On revisionism, yes history does often need revising, but only to remove the subjectivity form it. Not to add your own spin. It's heinous and gives some of these low-lifes the chance they've been waiting for.

Node - you're welcome and thanks too. You da man when it comes to these talkbacks. As is Toadkillerdog.

Douglas Feith wrote a book? The same guy working the Office of Special Plans to manipulate data to support the Iraq invasion? The guy who provided intel to AIPAC and Israel? Looks like a bunch of trees died in vain for those books.

Lost Jarv, if you're ever thinking of becoming a Yank, count me in as one of your sponsors. You'd make a fine citizen.

But I do realize that this is talkback, and no sense in getting holier-than-thou, because I damn sure aint holier than any!

Just keep up the good fight!

Of course, they're actually correct. I truly believe without question that if not for Bush we'd all be speaking Muslim in this TB. Oliver Stone is an operative of the USSR and since the fall he's been out of work in his quest to destroy America. And Jimmy Carter wasn't just the worst president ever. I have proof that he's actually the anti-Christ (or was anyway). Peanut farmer? FOOLS!!! It's a cover for acts so horribly vile you'd shit your pants with fear (or glee if you also worship Satan like any good liberal would). Know who else Bush has saved you from? Immigrants!! That's right all you haters! I know the right betrayed Bush on this by not agreeing with him that Immigrants are out to kill every non-immigrant on the Earth. You think I'm making this up? Being sarcastic? Wait and see when there's a platoon of immigrants outside of your front door with AR-15's, bazookas, grenades and machetes. Hope you don't also hate Blackwater cause they're the ones who will save your leftwing ass from the onslaught of the imminent immigrant apocalypse.

You know this how exactly? Or, are you deflecting your own reality onto them in the hopes of scoring some cheap TB point? It's nice you have AICN, too.

If you had made a sound and reasoned argument, instead of just posting rhetorical questions and ducking from answering a question, even when repeatedly asked - see the G100 questions to you above, then I would have given you the 'atta boy Morbid' that you seem to crave.'

Must be lonely only having BraneRobot as a friend.

Possibly because I don't know anyone stupid enough to propagate the Liberal Fascist nonsense that you have latched on to.

Thanks for playing.

And Jarv, I stand corrected, AnimalBraneBalls has no friends.

So, I would like to point out the irony of your last post. Having just said "proudly proclaim myself to be the winner of a debate here...or, even lamer, if I ever write a post marveling at how I've so thoroughly pwned somebody"- and what did you just send to MNG?

Contradicts the sentence I quoted both in spirit and fact- you put that up trying to show that you are winning with MNG, and now you've done it TWICE.

I would like to note that you are a humourless specimen, entirely without a sense of irony.

Haven't you guys ever had fireworks before? Melted a crayon for Christ's sake? Burning and exploding shit is like mad fun. Fire is the kewlest element EVER and using it to blow shit up and make loud noises is even better. BOOM! FIRE! BOOM!

Seeing as you are slumming it in the TB brawl, you really should drop the condescension because you come off as a self-important humourless prick.

Anyway, it's Friday, the Sun's out so I'm off to the pub.

I will make one point regarding taxes and slashing spending. If we stay in a war that has costs approaching one trillion dollars, how are we going to pay for it? McCain if elected, will not want to pull out of the war, but he promises not to raise taxes and slash spending - at the same time. While fighting a war.

Just how is this possible?

Sidenote: A highpoint in this talkback was seeing Total Fucking Destruction and ChickenGeorgeVII share their political views. Group hug for all my peeps!

Hi-fives all around folks.

We even have some new players in the ring and it looks like there's been an even trade on blows for a while now. I don't know about you guys but I'd like to see some more of the intra-party fighting too. McCain supporters versus the neo-cons. Obama supporters versus Clinton supporters. I don't think I've even seen the word "Wright" anywhere.

What would truly be the best tho....would be some ardent flag lapel pin wearers pummeling ardent flag lapel pin non-wearers. Or maybe "true" Republicans beating the shit out of "Bush" Republicans. Perhaps DLC progressives versus the liberal populists? Shit...why not good ole fashion communism versus fascism?

Hell, I'd have been happy with souless ahteists versus jesus crispies but here we get the whole ball game!

Still....it isn't quite the same as an actual cage match is it....think the chain link surrounded basketball court in the shitty EfNY sequel...put all the forehead-vein-throbbing partisan followers in the mix...put a fucking destruction proof mic on a hill and watch the fun unfold. The prize for round one is 5 minutes of free ass kicking for the pundit of your choice: Ann Coulter or Michael Moore! Talk about fun time people! NOW!

http://tinyurl.com/5gmuuy

So again, why is this not being done? Oil man in the WH, oil man as VP!

If you are going to spout this right winged bullshit, please back it up with facts. We're coming, and if it takes knocking your ignorant stuck in the past jackasses out of the way to advance instead of just being converse to good ideas, we'll do it.

Progress, not regress.

FOOL!!

"It's been a fine economy under Bush, and even the current much-hyped recession isn't fulfilling the doomsayer's fantasy. There simply isn't much recessing going on. "

So much for making up quotes.

Chew on that fukerz!

ANWR. Care to elaborate, o pointless one?

You are most definitely alive today because of Bush. Without Bush...none of us would be alive today. See? I'd be more descriptive but nobody wants to be shown how to make armpit farts...people just want to hear em and laugh like little girls on the prairie.

I'll tell you why - because you're full of shit, and you know that Republicans can't beat Obama, but they could beat Hillary because she's a polarizing figure, and even many Democrats hate her. Hillary supporters don't hate Obama, as you pointed out, many of them are abandoning her for him.

Discuss...

Also politics are dumb to talk about because McCain is going to win, and your are way to optomistic to think otherwise. So i got a better topic. Why does that banner ad for Redbelt look like a shitty DTV movie?

Monkey, thy name is Morbid.

Group hug again, just to alienate Morbid further.

There's no pop to your kick son!

Try and focus son, one inane argument at a time.

Do not try and open a second front in a war you are fighting with the same rhetorical rants after another.

If you EVER answered a direct question, it would be a first - and once again - since you are fond of saying BSB leaves a trail, so do you.

Once again I say, look at the posts where G100 asks you repeatedly to answer his questions, and you duck and dodge, and try and change the subject.

What is hilarious, is that you try and change the subject, by accusing someone else of doing the very same thing!

You are a funny little Morbid.

Go get a hug from BraneRobot.

Let's start the chant: B-A-T-T-L-E-R-O-Y-A-L-E (sung to the tune of Bay City Rollers "Saturday Night"...you can make it work..trust me).

B-A-T-T-LE R-O-Y-A-LE, Hey!

B-A-T-T-LE R-O-Y-A-LE, Hey!

B-A-T-T-LE R-O-Y-A-LE, Hey!

B-A-T-T-LE R-O-Y-A-LE, Hey!

Gotta keep on bashin' on the high death toll

On Battle Royale! Battle Royale!

Crushing mellon heads and we can watch em roll!!!

Battle Royale!

Battle Royale!

I, I, I, I have to bash your face!!

I, I, I, beat you into paste!!

At the Battle Royale!!!

Battle royale!!!

Yes? Then WE'VE GOT A PRESIDENT FOR YOU!

So what if he is officially the most unpopular President in modern history? So what if the slim minority you find yourself in is considered the most greedy, selfish, cowardly, goose-stepping lot of fucks this nation has seen in the modern age? You've got GOD on your side! Yep. God, Oil, and Cocaine; all the things that fuel your champion George W. Bush. It's too bad he acts like he actually snorts all of them, but hey- Our heroes can't be perfect. I mean, like grandad, like grandson, right?

If xenophobia, hate, and greed are your cup of tea, then Bush is the man for you. Wind him up and point him at a problem, and watch it get worse. Listen as he bungles even the most simple sentences, and be amazed as he turns our foreign policy into an international joke. Stand in awe as he personally racks up the highest civilian body count via his war policies. Hey! It's OK! They're just brown people who worship the wrong god!

Yep. If you like getting fucked in the ass with a pineapple, Bush may be the man to lead you.

As for the fight, Vain apparently accepted the challenge but didn't disclose being from L.A. So no psycho was going to show up at the zoo, and if he were to show, I would've had his ass arrested on the spot. That woulda been one less jackass on the streets.

Ok, so Snopes says he never said it. But it's pretty darned good nonetheless.

Twit

And I have only until 5:00PM Est to get your answer.

Or, are we justified for only starting a war, based on faulty evidence?

'Oops, my bad. Sorry i started a war based upon manufactured evidence and false beliefs that you are sponsoring terrorism. I will just tip-toe out of the country now. Here is a broom and a shovel.'

Prove that Saddam was training terrorists.

Show me any proof of that.

Saddam never tolerated terrorists, he was too paranoid, and realized they could undermine him.

That was the reason we left him in power in the first war. It was too dangerous and unstable without him.

The neocon twits thought they knew better.

Prove how we are in ANY way safer now that Iraq has become a haven for anti-American terrorists.

Enjoy twisting yur brain and logic around that.

I have to leave for the day now.

So how did the invasion "reform the Arab world"?

How was Saddam "ranting about all his WMDs"? Was he boasting about having them, or being vague to deter Iran, or even the US, from an invasion?

Which terrorists were Saddam training? "We know this"? Evidence?

Claims to have WMDs is not the same as evidence of having them, despite your rudimentary reasoning.

So Saddam wasn't training Al Qaeda, he was training ... his own army? And his army are terrorists themselves? A soverign military are terrorists? Am I understanding you correctly here?

Stevie, you need to hang with a better class of people I think.

I see you have no answer for my direct questions, yet again. Let me simplify them:

How do you define victory? What are the benchmarks so we'll know it when we see it?

This "reformation" you speak of ... how do you define that? Again, benchmarks? Will everyone in the Arab World be playing Grand Theft Auto?

Do you always equate claims with facts? If I told you your sister is riding my cock right now, does that make it true?

Saddam is an "unreasonable guy" ... and that is the greatest justification you have for this war? What differentiates him from other "unreasonable guys" whom we should be offing?

I'm saddened you're so quickly dodging again. That was a short-lived chance at redemption, monkey.

Oh well, I'll just chuck it in the waste bin along with the ANWR issue.

Boo fucking hoo.

Why wouldn't Harry be allowed to write whatever the fuck he wants on HIS SITE? Show me the chapter in the neo-con rule book that says the owner of a film geek site isn't allowed to make political comments.

If these assnoids had the courage of their convictions, and if politics on a geek site really bugged them so much, they'd leave the site because of the political posts of all colors which litter the talkbacks without being removed.

The real reason they leave (or come back under a different name) is because they belong to the "why do you hate America" club and cannot abide opinions they construe as being anti-American, that is, different from their own.