Thanks for the memories....

[iconoclasticity]

To: Michael Moore, George Soros, Al Gore, Howard Dean, Bruce Springsteen, MoveOn PAC, ACT, and the Media Fund
From: The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy

Thanks for everything, guys. We couldn't have done it without you.

--john

Comments

Civil liberties?

[anonymous]

You have the same ones today that you had 4 years ago. The same ones you will have in 4 years. Really, the scare tactics are scraping the bottle of the barrel. Against the Patriot Act? do you know all that it does? Even your candidate kerry voted for it. Did he represent you? Economy is improving (as evidenced by over 300,000 new jobs last month) and the recession that began under clinton has abated. Deficit? Check the books, you are supposed to run one during a recession (less taxes coming in and need to add more benefits when tax payers are unemployed). What else? War? You think that we'd have been better off with a Jewish VP after 9/11? One who was the most vocal senator favoring war in iraq? You don't think the war in afghanistan when a veep is democrat would not have started a major anti-US movement that equates or exceeds what we have seen in iraq? but wait, with lieberman, we'd still be there. but gore would have been defending why the clinton/GORE administration did not go after bin laden for 8 years. then gore would have feared being soft (since he is a poll following pol), and still gone after iraq.

what was different again? oh, a tax cut that helped jumpstart the economy (check the money multiplier effect in your econ textbook again) and cleaning up the clinton mess (where was that blue dress).

many, many reasons to vote for bush. you don't give americans enough credit. it wasn't just republicans that voted for bush. it was a majority of americans. funny, but there are more democrats in the US than republicans. hmmmm

Re: Civil liberties?

[frogonmytoe]

Um, I'm totally not going to justify this bigoted entry with a response except to say shame on your for saying something so blatantly anti-semitic. I hope your parents raised you better than that.

Re: Civil liberties?

[iconoclasticity]

You know that wasn't me...right?

Kat would beat my ass. ;-)

Re: Civil liberties?

[frogonmytoe]

Hee hee... yeah, I knew it wasn't you. I was actually thinking "does this guy even know ANYTHING about John's life?" Then my second thought was... "Oh.... Kat's going to regulate all over somebody's ass pretty quick...."

:)

Re: Civil liberties?

[starfyer]

Obviously not you. You speak, and therefore write, more coherently than a brick wall.

Re: Civil liberties?

[anonymous]

not it was not bigoted or antisemitic. the point was that joe liberman support the military actions in iraq and afghanistan, correct? with lieberman as vp and jewish, the response in the arab world would quite likely been that the jewish vp was running the country. a country led by a jew had invaded a muslim country. lieberman then was ardently supporting the invasion of iraq, correct? with gore reeling from 9/11, since he is accountable for what the clinton admin did/did not do for 8 years, there is a decent chance that lieberman would have talked him into the very same thing that bush did. my point is that whomever won in 2000, the situation would have been just as bad or worse. there is nothing anti-semitic in facts. everything that i have stated is a fact, not opinion. if you think that stating lieberman was in favor of the war is anti-semitic, i am stultified. or that the arab world would have viewed the afghanistan intervention as the act of the jewish vp, then again, you are misrepresenting my words. address the issue, please, not emotion. geez, liberals can dish it out, but get uncannily defensive when they are not the ones making a point.

Re: Civil liberties?

[starfyer]

stul·ti·fy
tr.v. stul·ti·fied, stul·ti·fy·ing, stul·ti·fies
To render useless or ineffectual; cripple.
To cause to appear stupid, inconsistent, or ridiculous.
Law. To allege or prove insane and so not legally responsible.

hahahahahahaha.

Re: Civil liberties?

[iconoclasticity]

Oh, man...as much as it pains me to have to side with two liberals against you, I'm going to have to do it.

1.) Dictionaries are your friend, as are complete sentences.
2.) Since when does your conjecture about what a Gore administration would have done qualify as fact? Let me submit that you are incorrect in your assertion that your entry is "fact, not opinion". It is *completely* opinion, aside from you stating Lieberman is a jew.
3.) A christian in the white house (Bush) is nearly as intolerable, if not equally so, as a jew to members of radical islam. Lieberman being a jew is totally irrelevant. Besides, I don't think they can hate us any more fully then they do now. I don't think you're anti-semitic. I do think you are ignorant and ill-informed at best, and completely insensitive at worst.
4.) No one is misrepresenting your words. You're the one tripping over your own shoelaces, pal.

I'm sure the president would shake your hand and thank you for your support...while simultaneously sending a staffer running for some duct tape.

Leave the hard discussions to the big kids.

Just my 2c.

--john

Re: Civil liberties?

[anonymous]

don't worry about grammar. your sarcasm evades the point. fact, lieberman was a vocal supporter of both the iraq and afghanistan wars. you forgot that. or is that an opinion? it's a FACT. please do not claim that is an opinion. and no, the arab world does NOT hate christians as much as jews. check the history and comments coming from the arab countries. there are millions of christians living in some of the countries in the middle east. do you hear about christian/muslim riots as often? in fact, jerusalem and the middle east is just as holy to christians, yet they are not laying claim to jerusalem. when arab countries argue against the US, they say it's run by a bunch of jews, hence being a jew is worse to them.

those, my friends are facts, not conjecture.

bringing in gore is important because i was drawing a parallel to what liberals claim is a mess that the democrats would not have wrought. because of liberman's views, gore's needing to defend the clinton/gore admin. regarding how they allowed osama to attack US interests for several years without taking action, he would have reacted nearly as strongly.....

don't talk down to me, son. check the facts, recheck your logic, then report back. don't be a hypocrite.

Re: Civil liberties?

[iconoclasticity]

You're confusing the plight of the palestinians with that of al quaeda. Al Quaeda just takes up their cause publicly because it's convenient. As far as Al Quaeda goes, you still didn't answer why it would make a difference if we had a jewish veep. What are they going to do, kill us twice?

Re: Civil liberties?

[anonymous]

not exactly. palestinians do not have as many issues with christians as with jews, correct? okay, well what is al qaeda's beef with the US? that they are a country run by jews that is keeping the holy land in jewish hands. the entire issue of al qaeda centers on US policy in the middle east, which they see as run by jews. so it is related.

bin laden declared a jihad because: a. the US was in saudi arabia and b. the US supported the israeli actions to deny jerusalem to palestinians.

so you are right, it would not have made a difference if we had a jewish veep. but that is my point, my friend. liberals claim that bush is the antichrist (okay, hyperbole, but not far off) because of what he got us into, yet things would have been nearly as bad or worse if bush was not in office. liberman's presence and his views after 9/11 would have had matters just as bad. so the holier than thou of the liberal left is misleading america with these claims. they wouldn't kill us twice, but they'd still want to kills us, bush or no bush (gore).

my original post was just to debunk these misconceptions. first that bush made us unsafer than if he'd not been elected, that civil liberties are disappearing (they are not and will not), that the economy is bush's fault (he inherited a recession that was due to economic circumstances beyond any president's control), he is the only prez since hoover to lose jobs (another 150,000 jobs in 3 months and this will be proven to be false as well) and that tax cuts only help the upper class (i know i received my tax refund check and it was welcome).

what of this is a claim (not a fact) and which do you disagree with?

Re: Civil liberties?

[iconoclasticity]

>> they'd still want to kills us, bush or no bush (gore)

That's exactly what I'm saying. Lieberman being jewish is *irrelevant*, which is why I came down on you for bringing it up. I don't disagree with your final paragraph, but that's not what we're discussing here. Al Quaeda's purpose isn't to exterminate the jews, it's to exterminate or convert everyone to their fringe branch of Islam.

I guess you're the kind of person that many on the left talk about when they say conservatives "don't do nuance". There is a major difference between terrorists using the palestine issue as a wedge issue to further their main cause, and it being the cause itself.

The claim that liberals make that all conservatives are racist and insensitive is nonsense, but is fueled by comments like you made.

You also ought to be careful about lumping everyone that doesn't agree with you into the "liberals" category. It really seems to me that according to your definition, I would be one. As frogonmytoe, starfyer, and snarkysnark can attest...I most certainly am not.

I'm not afraid of ideas. I have Naomi Klein and Gore Vidal on my bookshelf. Do you?

Re: Civil liberties?

[anonymous]

you are pretty young to make such claims about me. nuances? you are the one making a blanket claim about racism when you glaze over the facts. lieberman is NOT irrelevant, you are missing the nuance entirely. the mere symbol of the veep being democrat if the US entered afghanistan makes a HUUUUGE difference. al qaeda claims the US is run by jews. having a jewish vp then would seemingly (and mistakenly) prove their point. al qaeda's purpose, as laid out by bin laden was to fight the Jewish led US government because the government supported israel's intention to eliminate a palestinian state. what i was saying is that after 9/11, lieberman's position and beliefs (as stated by himself) would have exacerbated the problem.

so yes, it wouldn't have mattered. a war mongering bush or a war mongering jew in lieberman (not classifiying either, that is how they would be advertised)would have been equally bad. so the fact that it was bush is probably better. liberals claim it'd have been different, i am claiming it not.

insensitive? see you in hell is sensitive? that is hypocrisy of the HIGHEST degree. i claim no ill will towards jews. where did i make a comment toward jews or a single person? yet you did 100 times worse in your arafat post. you, my friend, made a comment that fuels the claim that conservatives are racist and insensitive. as for me, i am not conservative. in fact, i have voted democratic in 2 of the past 4 presidential elections. i don't gloat when a republican wins and i don't thank michael moore for helping the republicans. you are the self avowed conservative and you just told arafat you'd see him in hell. hmmmmmm, i can add 2 and 2 here.

Re: Civil liberties?

[iconoclasticity]

oh i see! you must be one of those librarians!

Re: Civil liberties?

[anonymous]

yes, i am a librarian. you hit the nail on the head with that one.

Re: Civil liberties?

[iconoclasticity]

i knew it! aren't you guys all about legalizing pot and stuff?????