Dems have a knack for picking incredibly annoying Senate leaders. I actually long for the (relative) dignity of Tom Daschle.

Dennis Miller? The lousy comedian, the right's version of Rosie, an even worse fottball commentator? That Dennis Miller? As with Rosie, who in the world cares what he thinks about anything, any time, anywhere?

Hot Air couldn't be a better named site for this guy to say nothing about nothing.

...who in the world cares what he thinks about anything, any time, anywhere?

Sort of like your post.

He tore Reid a deserved new one.

Miller made the rubes stand up on their hind legs and bark. What's new?

Lee, kinda like what markos does to you assclowns. We think it's funny, you take it as marching orders.

Can anybody quote a few of his rants? I don't have a soundcard on my computer here at work!

Lee==wizbang's harry reid.. by the by Lee, did he say anything that wasn't true? LOL!

JFO

The lousy comedian, the right's version of Rosie

No, he's the right's real life example of a liberal who paid attention on 9/11. Before that he was insufferable.

Dirk
I think you have to go back to George Mitchell to use the word dignity in the same sentence with the term "(Democrat) Senate Leader"

Looks like Harry Reid is angering all the Right people.

Looks like Harry Reid is angering all the Right people.
-----------------------------------------------
So Harry Reid is pleasing all the wrong people (including the terrorists).

The laughs sounded canned. So what if Miller's right, that wasn't funny. Yawn.

So Harry Reid is pleasing all the wrong people (including the terrorists).

I didn't realize they were voters.

Jim

Looks like Harry Reid is angering all the Right people.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117752895118782401.html?mod=politics_primary_hs

"Approval for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) slipped to 22%, from 23% in February but up from 19% a year ago."

These numbers are two weeks old ...still searching for the google bombed results from today that reflect immigration...think they are around 17%

"I didn't realize they were voters."

If they asked , I have no doubt the Democrats would send them an Absentee Ballot with return postage paid if they haven't already.

Dick Tracy , Mickey Mouse and Daffy Duck are all known to vote Democrat.

If they asked , I have no doubt the Democrats would send them an Absentee Ballot with return postage paid if they haven't already.

Well, considering how great Bush has been for Al Qaeda, including pulling US troops out of Saudi Arabia just like Bin Laden wanted, it seems just as likely Bin Laden et al might vote for the GOP.

Quid pro quo, you know...

Well Hugh, looks like he's still up from February, doesn't it? At least until the new figures are in.

Yeah Dennis Miller is mildly funny.

But he's no Keith Olbermann.

Now some funny stuff.

>that's

You know what I mean.

Jim

Well Hugh, looks like he's still up from February, doesn't it? At least until the new figures are in.

Well, they're in. At 19%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/harry_reid_s_favorables_fall_to_19

Thanks so much, that was a breath of fresh air!

Well, considering how great Bush has been for Al Qaeda, including pulling US troops out of Saudi Arabia just like Bin Laden wanted, it seems just as likely Bin Laden et al might vote for the GOP.

Quid pro quo, you know...

No,Jim
AQ has been voting consistently Democrat since the early 1990's:

WTC Bombing I
African Embassy Bombings
Khobar Towers Bombing
USS Cole Attack
WTC attack 9/11

They lost the Afghanistan Primary post 9/11 and have been running a foreign financed campaign in the Iraq primary.
What's really interesting is that I don't see any AQ marching around Iraq with painted fingers...except the unfortunate ones from Anbar and Falluja (bad choice of colors, those guys)

"it seems just as likely Bin Laden et al might vote for the GOP."

Now this is exactly how Jim and his Crats have earned the tiitle "Lying Criminal Frauds". The Terrorists are pissed off you did not carry your part of the deal for their part in putting you into power. Democrats not only betray their Country they betray anyone who partners up with them or peuts the slightest amout of trust in them. The Rats are incompetant and untrustworthy which is why they must lie to get elected.

Democrats are ripping the people off any way they can. It's what they do , it's all that they do. Oh besides buying votes with said money.

So Harry Reid is pleasing all the wrong people (including the terrorists).

I didn't realize they were voters.
------------------------------------------------
Obviously there are liberal voters.

Well, considering how great Bush has been for Al Qaeda, including pulling US troops out of Saudi Arabia just like Bin Laden wanted, it seems just as likely Bin Laden et al might vote for the GOP.
-------------------------------------------------
This is simply another example of the hypocritical dishonesty of the liberals. Liberals have been criticizing the US for having an airbase in Saudi Arabia where our female soldiers don't have the freedom to drive around. Now one of the windfall of the Iraq war is to allow us to take our troops out of Saudi Arabia.

Jim,
If you don't know about this, then it can be forgiven. If you do, then this is simply dishonest doublespeak again. As another poster has pointed out, if Bush didn't remove Saddam Hussein, liberals would have attacked him all these years for not taking out Saddam when he had the best chance. Liberals can not simply be honest and consistent. They are still trying to defend the liberal culture of corruption by Reid/Pelosi.

"Thats going to leave a mark..."

I do so like seeing a politician getting busted for what he is and it got delivered in spades by Dennis Miller.

BTW, Reid believes the illegal immigrants are "undocumented Americans" a direct quote.

LOL, couldn't have been said about a nicer criminal/traitor.

Funny watching liberals going ape crazy when a public person disembowels one of their political leaders. It forces them out of their realm of relatively and into the black and white area that makes them look so very weak.

So much disinformation, so little time...

WTC Bombing I

You mean the one where all the attackers were caught, prosecuted, and jailed?

USS Cole Attack

Right - so Clinton is to blame for not responding to this attack in October of 2000; but Bush is not to blame for doing nothing in January of 2001.

Embassy bombings
Do you mean the Somalia attacks, where the GOP started panicking and demanded Clinton leave the next day?

WTC attack 9/11

Nope, wrong President. And I do mean, the wrong one in every sense of the term.

Let's not forget that Osama Bin Laden is still alive in Pakistan. Heckuva job...

Oh, and as usual, you forgot the Anthrax terrorist attacks, which have yet to be solved.

Now let's look at what else the Bush administration has done for Al Qaeda:

1) increased their funding, in real numbers
2) increased their recruiting, in real numbers
3) increased their prestige
4) taken Iraq, one of the few places that Al Qaeda was not welcome, and made it a place where Al Qaeda can train against US soldiers as live targets.

So, if Clinton is somehow to blame for terror attacks in his administration, then Bush is responsible for all the ones under his - including every single one against our soldiers in Iraq.

Quite a record to stand behind - but feel free if you want to.

Hi, Rob. I fixed your fact-less post again.

Now this is exactly how Rob and his Repugs have earned the tiitle "Lying Criminal Frauds". The Terrorists are overjoyed you carried out your part of the deal for their part in putting you into power. Republicans not only betray their Country they betray anyone who partners up with them or peuts the slightest amout of trust in them. The Pugs are incompetant and untrustworthy which is why they must lie to get elected.

Republicans are ripping the people off any way they can. It's what they do , it's all that they do. Oh besides buying votes with said money.

Now one of the windfall of the Iraq war is to allow us to take our troops out of Saudi Arabia.

It allows us to? riiiight. More like, we are in such desperate need of soldiers that we need to take them from Saudi Arabia; **and** Bush's invasion of Iraq has so increased anti-US hatred in Saudi Arabia, that we're safer without soldiers there.

As another poster has pointed out, if Bush didn't remove Saddam Hussein, liberals would have attacked him all these years for not taking out Saddam when he had the best chance.

Were liberals calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein by unprovoked invasion, when Clinton was President? No.

There goes that theory. Got any others?

Dennis Miller is kinda funny, and actually kinda good-lookin' (better with age)

Aside from that, what he said about Reid is right on!

"Vague, translucent shade that barely matters..."

Excellent!

Jim

In your own words....

"Quite a record to stand behind - but feel free if you want to."

Thanks, and I will.

You mean the one where all the attackers were caught, prosecuted, and jailed?

No, I mean the one (WTC I) where we did not declare war on the attackers. The attackers that were subsequently jailed were no risk to our country, but their brothers who saw jail as a cowardly response by the US did attack us.

Right - so Clinton is to blame for not responding to this attack in October of 2000; but Bush is not to blame for doing nothing in January of 2001.

No, Jim. By then Clinton was a disgraced and impeached president who bore no resemblance to Bush in 2001. And Bush certainly had no evidence to anticipate 9/11...unless you have some Truther info for us.

Nope, wrong President. And I do mean, the wrong one in every sense of the term.

I won't bite on this one. Bush won the election. Go eat at the children's table.

Let's not forget that Osama Bin Laden is still alive in Pakistan. Heckuva job...

Is he alive? Hell if know, but if he is, WHAT A LIFE! Call Regis.

Oh, and as usual, you forgot the Anthrax terrorist attacks, which have yet to be solved.

Good point: do you have a lead? I think we should kill the perps. What do you think we should do with them?

1) increased their funding, in real numbers.

By whom and by how much? I really want to know the answer to this.
2) increased their recruiting, in real numbers.
By whom and by how much? I really want to know the answer to this.

3) increased their prestige...only among your own Jim.

Dennis Miller ripped Harry a new one, and HughS just ripped Jim a new one as well.

This is fun. :)

Dennis gets huge laughs when he appears on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno. He regularly rips the Clintons and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and the audience goes wild with laughter and applause.

I love it!

I don't know which is funnier: the "with no due respect" line or that Reid is at 19%. Actually both are hilarious.

Jim

Embassy bombings:

Do you mean the Somalia attacks, where the GOP started panicking and demanded Clinton leave the next day?

Oh my, I left bait on the table: THESE US territories,

I meant Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya. Not Somalia, where the Commander in Chief did in fact leave post haste.

Jim, OWN your leadership. OWN your vote. OWN you opinion.

Jim, OWN your leadership. OWN your vote. OWN you opinion.

OK, sounds good.

How about: I voted for Clinton, twice, so I own responsibility for the good and bad that Clinton did while in office.

And you (I presume) voted for Bush twice, so you own responsibility for the good and bad that Bush has done while in office.

Fair?

No, I mean the one (WTC I) where we did not declare war on the attackers.

What, which responsible attackers were not gone after? Got a list?

...The attackers that were subsequently jailed were no risk to our country,

I'm going to give you a chance to retract that statement.

Do you really think that the people who almost brought down the WTC in the middle of Manhattan were no risk to our country? Seriously?

...but their brothers who saw jail as a cowardly response by the US did attack us.

Please show some statements that the prosecution and jailing of these attackers, was viewed as cowardly.

Jim, doodikins, moochki, ... the topic is about a man named Reid, and a man named Miller. I know they have 4 letters and 6 letters, just like bush and clinton, but they are different letters and different people.

Boy, you really got confused there. Please double check the led before you post; you may want to look for another thread or another year.

And Bush certainly had no evidence to anticipate 9/11...unless you have some Truther info for us.

You already have all the evidence; it's all in the public domain.

Had Bush taken ***some*** action, and failed to stop 9/11, then you might have an argument. It could at least be said that he tried.

But the reality is that Bush had all the information he needed to take ***some*** action...and he did nothing.

-> Richard Clarke, served under 4 administrations, 3 of which were Republican; and was never called a partisan until he the second he contradicted GW Bush.

He tried repeatedly before 9/11 to get ***one single meeting*** with Bush on terrorism, and get him Bush to listen to the mounting evidence re: Al Qaeda.

It didn't happen.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/22/clarke.bush/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke#Pre-9.2F11_memo_about_Al_Qaeda_threat
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml

-> August 6th report. You know, the one titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack in US".

The one that Bush didn't find the time to look at during his ****one month**** vacation on his magical playtime Crawford estate, that is somehow called a "ranch" even though it has no animals.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html

According to the 9/11 Commission report:

" [President Bush] did not recall discussing the August 6 report with the Attorney General or whether Rice had done so.[p. 260]

"We have found no indication of any further discussion before September 11 among the President and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States. DCI Tenet visited President Bush in Crawford, Texas, on August 17 and participated in the PDB briefings of the President between August 31 (after the President had returned to Washington) and September 10. But Tenet does not recall any discussions with the President of the domestic threat during this period. [p. 262]"

Other pre-9/11 warnings ignored by Bush:

-> Tenet's meeting with Rice, in July of 2001:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/washington/30tenet.html?ex=1335585600&en=fa241ad0eb00c843&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Rice initially claimed this meeting never took place. Later evidence proved she wasn't telling the truth, and it did take place.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/911_widows_blast_Bush_Administration_over_1006.html

But you know all this.

So, believe what you want to believe; just don't say you have the facts behind you.

But, hey, prove me wrong. Find ****one single positive action**** undertaken by Bush before 9/11, to attack Bin Laden or Al Qaeda. Even a meeting where he ***talked about taking**** action.

Jim, doodikins, moochki, ... the topic is about a man named Reid, and a man named Miller.

Sho, sho. Just that Rob made some ridiculous comment about terrorists loving Democrats, and then HughS' posted some fact-impaired myths at 11, 2007 07:03 PM. That's what I'm responding to.

So if neither Hugh, Rob or I are to be responding on this separate track, sounds good to me.

X-ray, I ahve been challenged by Hugh S to put up or shut up re: Al Qaeda's funding incease.

So Hugh, just to finish up, here's the Al Qaeda numbers you asked for:

"Iraq war 'helped al-Qaeda recruit'"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3756650.stm

"Influx of Al Qaeda, money into Pakistan is seen"
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-na-binladen20may20,0,5046563.story?coll=la-home-center

"In one of the most troubling trends, U.S. officials said that Al Qaeda's command base in Pakistan is increasingly being funded by cash coming out of Iraq...The influx of money has bolstered Al Qaeda's leadership ranks at a time when the core command is regrouping and reasserting influence over its far-flung network."

only among your own, Jim.

I know a man who died on 9/11. Do you?

Other friends of mine escaped by chance. A proper response to this statment is a string of curses. I will restrain myself to saying: you have no idea what you're talking about. And for you to accuse me of being a terrorist because I dare to point out the emperor has no clothes, is beyond ridiculous, it is obscene.

Facts will do. YOu are so sure of your position? Refute mine and post your own. Or, admit you don't know, and you might be wrong. It feels dangerous to the ego, but it is better for you once you've done it.

Also, here's some good reading for you, in general:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85202/paul-r-pillar/intelligence-policy-and-the-war-in-iraq.html

Find ****one single positive action**** undertaken by Bush before 9/11, to attack Bin Laden or Al Qaeda. Even a meeting where he ***talked about taking**** action.
------------------------------------------------
Like Clinton didn't want to take Bin Laden when the Sudanese offered Bin Laden to him.

Jim,
Again, you tried to derail this thread from the corruption of Harry Reid to spin for the liberal sewage again.

You want my opinion. Here it is. Liberals are dishonest and despicable for aiding the terrorists with their propaganda. Now you are again trying to lie to cover up the lack of actions against the terrorists by Bill Clinton. YOur dishonesty is simply astounding. Bush was in office barely 8 months with all the constraints left by Clinton administration and you are trying to blame him and whitewash Clinton? What did Clinton and the dems do after all the attacks during his 8 years (the 1st WTC, the Embassy, the Cole attack etc....)?

Harry Reid and his fellow liberal senators are terrorist cheering leaders. Here is another example of the dishonesy of the liberals wrt the terrorists and torture. Liberals spent all these years slandering the US military with torture (compared the military to Nazi etc..). Yet liberals have been strangely silent about the AlQ torture manual! Taranto called them all and liberals hid behind the "we expected them to torture" arg. Liberals cannot be honest. They simple speak on both sides of their mouth. Liberals argued that we should expect the terrorists to be "brutal animals" that would torture people. So why should we give "brutal animals" human right? If we consider the terrorists as human beings, then we should demand of them the same standard of decency. So to be consistent, liberals should spend ten times the effort to denounce these terrorists. The strange silence of liberals show that they are simply too dishonest.

http://opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110010187

The response from America's detractors (e.g., Glenn Greenwald) to our point about al Qaeda's actual torture vs. phony accusations of American torture was, essentially this: Well, of course al Qaeda tortures people! What do you expect? America is supposed to be better.
To this way of thinking, terrorists are wild animals--violent, yes, but that's just the way they are. Americans and Israelis are human and obliged to treat "animals" humanely because we are better than they are. It is this double standard--holding America or Israel to an impossibly exacting moral standard while holding their adversaries to no moral standard at all--that dehumanizes the enemy.

"admit you don't know, and you might be wrong. It feels dangerous to the ego, but it is better for you once you've done it."

HA HA HA ! And you know this how?

You must have read that somewhere. Ya just got to love the arrogance of the criminal democrat who stands there saying "show me proof" while their still commiting treason , felonies and destroying evidence of their incompetance and crimes some 6 years after they looted and caused $500,000.00 in damage to the White House.

"My Goodness, how do they do it"?

Jim and fellow diaper wearing poopy pants do not dispute the fact that Democrats are the party of perpetual fraud, serial liars propped up by their liberal media and Hollywood blowhards. They can't and they know it so they just stand there and cry out "Show me Proof". Proof smacks them upside the head all day long and they pretend they didn't feel a thing.

Perpetual lying frauds. Like "ABSCAM MURTHA" always says: "No question about it"

This is why the democrat party should be disolved and it's leadership in a dark cold prison cell.They can take their loyal nitwits like jim with them. They have no ideas of their own at all. They agenda is nothing more than the Communist goals written in 1963. They are criminal frauds, Un-American and shameless despicable liars. Did you say prove it? No problem loser.

"Now this is exactly how Rob and his Repugs have earned the tiitle "Lying Criminal Frauds"."

My Repugs? MY REPUGS?

Asshole , I'M REGISTERED DEMOCRATIC YOU IDIOT.

Poor Jim has soaked up a lot of CNN propaganda and revised history. His BDS is in the advanced stage so if you know him, stay away, he is now too dangerous to be on the street without a white coat with many straps.

"They agenda" He He He.

My, but all the little quisling scumbags are upset by this, aren't they?

:-D

And you bozo's did nothing more than waste a lot of your personal time and destroy a thread. Great job.

Will none of you lefties even TRY to defend Harry?

jim likes Saddam, hey go clone the remains, and is too old or infirm or he would go join al-Qaeda instead of just talking them up.
=============================

I think it is appropriate to list what Clinton's administration did against terrorists to stop attacks:
1. Nothing
2. Absolutely nothing.
3. For sure nothing.

His actions were successful weren't they?

This post is about Reid who is just a puppet for Schumer and Durban. Now there is a weak bulb. When Reid speaks he sounds like a rapidly aging grumpy grandfather that loses his thought in mid sentence. That is the democrat leader. ww

Oyster:

When an unfunny (alleged) comedian on a site which is approproiately called Hot Air puts forth his opinion, no response/defense is necessary. He's just a male version of Rosie - completely irrelevant and not funny. He hasn't been funny since the news desk at SNL - and even then he was mediocre.

Millers comedic approach is pure genius. I couldn't agree more about Ol' DH!! Re: Clinton on terror? The best factoid and most telling for me is "How many times did AL Gore mention terrorism during the 2000 campaign?? Answer: Zero

Think about it.

xray,

I apologize for being one of those bozos. It's temporary insanity I tell ya.

I do not understand why the lefties were not the least bit entertained by the linguistic talents of thier once fellow traveler. After all they do think themselves the super intellectual party and all.

Miller was 100% correct and that is why they find no amusement to one of the greatest verbal ass kickings I have ever heard. Leaving them absolutely brain dead with their mouths wide open it will be a while before they come up with a response. Polls will be taked and models tested before they have the nerve to respond.

Hey, check out the links HotAir got. JFO, ain't them grapes turrible tasting? Hey JimmyJet, what's the state of your soul?
======================

kim

No sour grapes here - just a sunny disposition about the future. The worm is turning and soon will be gone from the WH and many more from the halls of Congress. :-)

Miller is about as amusing as, well a Republican is amusing.

The worm is turning and soon will be gone from the WH and many more from the halls of Congress. :-)

Miller is about as amusing as, well a Republican is amusing.
-------------------------------------------------
Just like the liberal trolls as honest as, well a liberal is less than honest.

I was referring to your criticism of Miller, not your delusions about the future. The sort of thing Fred Thompson and Dennis Miller are saying are what the 61 million poeple who voted for Bush hoped to hear from him.

See what Koch wrote yesterday about the New York Times. You are sheltered, well fed, and watered, and you are a hothouse plant.
=============================

LIA

As usual you make no sense.

But you are right about a worm turning. You are the party of phony global warming, of dhimmitude, and of socialism. Why you think that is a progressive future is a mystery to me.
============================

They turn because the wrong rends them inarticulate. You are wrong, JFO, wrong.
==============================

For the first time ever you're right about one thing - I am hot.
Is Fred, Take A Nap Hourly, Thompson going to be the new savior of the failed policies/politics and philosophy of the right? He does so look like character right out of Mayberry, No Ronnie is he.

a progressive future
--------------------------
Venezuela, Sudan, Zimbabewe, and Palestine are modern examples of a progressive future.

Is Fred, Take A Nap Hourly, Thompson going to be the new savior of the failed policies/politics and philosophy of the right? He does so look like character right out of Mayberry, No Ronnie is he.
------------------------------------------------
Yet JFO is here to defend/excuse the liberal culture of corruption by Reid/Pelosi. Yet liberals can support the phonies like Obama, Clinton, Edward. Liberals must love the liars, so they kept Clinton in the lead. Remember the liberal press simply admired Clinton for his natural ability to lie/fool them.

JFO

1. Expression of intemperance.

2. Strawman about 'failed policies'

3. Disses power naps.

4. Ad hom about appearance.

Why don't you just stick with 'hot'. Welcome to Hell.
===============================

I'm not sure why I responded to you LAI - your hatred and irrelevance are an interesting combo. Kind of a sicko version of all that is wrong with america today. Perhaps I am a little sicko too - giving anything you say a shred of credibility. But there is hope for me.

kim

I am offended.

Maybe he was Barney's uncle, or was it Andy's hound dog? That's all I meant.

Lame, JFO, lame. Cancel your subscription to the New York Times, they are leading you on where there is no hope, only defeat, danger, and dhimmitude.
============================

Perhaps I am a little sicko too - giving anything you say a shred of credibility. But there is hope for me.
-------------------------------------------------
Look at yourself in the mirror. Why are you here derailing the thread on Harry Reid? Because he is a leader of your liberal culture of corruption.

Quick Kim, look under your bed. There might be one next to the old commie. Did commutude ever happen? You building a shelter in your backyard or are you going up into the mountains when the invasion happens? Perhaps you could share a bunker with LAI.

JFO is another typical example of the liberal spin. When you don't have an answer to an argument, then change the subject. Here is another one from Taranto

http://opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110010197
Now Rudy Giuliani is running for president, and he is drawing a similar analogy. He has been arguing with the lovely and talented John Edwards, who, in a play for the votes of his party's extreme left, has denied that there is such a thing as a global war on terror. ABC News quotes Giuliani's dissection of the liberal mindset Edwards represents (we've deleted a comma and added the words in brackets to make Giuliani's meaning clearer):

"We are not in a war where the root cause of this war is poverty. Bin Laden comes from one of the richest families in the world," Giuliani added. "Mohamed Atta, who was the guy principally responsible for 9/11 was based in Germany and he was well educated. I don't think he was exactly drinking dirty water. And the reality is, is that [Democrats] are coming at it from their liberal mindset of what must cause crime and [the assumption that] they are not wrong about that. But terrorism is not caused by poverty. The Islamic terrorist movement, the root cause of it has to do with ideology and a perversion of religion, an idea that they are intolerant of the way we live. And to be a leader, if you lack clarity it is very very dangerous."

Liberal blogger Greg Sargent tries but fails to be dismissive, describing Giuliani's argument as "absurd and simplistic" and as evidence that "he has, well, no idea what the heck he's talking about." But, he concedes, "it's an argument all the same. We'll be hearing a lot of it. And if Dems don't rebut it, no one will."

Perhaps you could share a bunker with LAI.
-------------------------------------------
ANd liberals can be the information ministers for AlQuaeda. JFO should be proud.

Doesn't take long! Liberals already at work on multiple fronts on behalf of the terrorists. JFO is simply helping his liberal allies in Congress and at the ACLU.

http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010198
Divide and Litigate
The ACLU sues an American company for helping the war effort.

Ah, JFO, you silly. Why do I even bother to take you seriously? You are no longer lame, you've fallen, and no one wants to help you up.

C'mon leftists. Substance. You got anything but sour grapes and abuse?
=========================

Please, JFO, for your own sake, read Ed Koch trash the New York Times. It's All the News that's Left to Print.
=============================

OK.. But YOU DO concede that Dennis "Bitch Slapped" Hairy like a misbehaving hooker from North Hollywood, right?..LOL

I read Koch's nuanced piece on nuance. What's the point? Was Rudi for something before he was against it or not - would Mitt, "I wanna look just like JFK", be for something before he was against it. Is that the "nuance you're referring to?

Ed Koch was, is, and always will be a buffoon. Maybe he was Thompson's brother and Barney's other uncle on Mayberry.

Oh, and by the way most of "Hot Air" Miller's piece was an ad hom attack on Reid. So, you think it was inappropriate, right? Of course you do, you're no hypocritical conservative are you?

So your saying Read is an outstanding representative of the dim's party then? a yes or no would be nice.. *S*

(correction).. "outstanding BITCH SLAPPED rep of the dims"..*S*

I read Koch's nuanced piece on nuance. What's the point?
-------------------------------------------------
The point is that the NYT is a dishonest newspaper. And if the NYT is the liberal newspaper of record, what can we say about the rest of the liberal media and liberals in general?

Okay, I'll say it. I share Miller's opinion of Reid.

There, I took a position.

Now it's your turn.

And "funny" is like beauty; it's in the eye of the beholder. I found it to be uproariously funny. But that might be because I understood all the big words.

And I'm sure Rosie will not like Dennis' comments either, as soon as her girlfriend explains all those big words..LOL

News: Half-Hour News Hour is still on the air? Holy @#$%!

More news: People still think Dennis Miller is funny? Holy @#$%!

News: Half-Hour News Hour is still on the air? Holy @#$%!

More news: People still think Dennis Miller is funny? Holy @#$%!
-------------------------------------------------
More news: liberals hid behind cartoons and joke to depict Condi Rice as ape or being rape. Wonder about the strange silence from liberals.

My Repugs? MY REPUGS?

Asshole , I'M REGISTERED DEMOCRATIC YOU IDIOT.

Then why are you calling democrats traitors and terrorists??

Here's what you just said about yourself, then, Rob!

Democrats not only betray their Country they betray anyone who partners up with them or peuts the slightest amout of trust in them. The Rats are incompetant and untrustworthy which is why they must lie to get elected.

I mean, do you just hate yourself or something?
It's enough to make Freud's head spin!

I would think it more likely that you register as Democrat to be a spoiler in the primaries.

But, hey, you can think and call yourself a traitor and a terrorist sympathizer, if you want. Whatever floats your boat. But I am a Democrat, and I am ***not**** a traitor nor a terrorist sympathizer. So insult yourself but don't insult me.

Oh, and Dennis Miller can be funny.

But Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert are constantly hilarious.

Instantly, Jon Stewart occasionally has Dennis Miller on, even though they clearly differ widely in their politics. That sets a great example, well worth following: those who disagree with you aren't necessarily evil people who want to destroy America.

those who disagree with you aren't necessarily evil people who want to destroy America.
------------------------------------------------
So Bush and Lieberman disagree with the liberals on the GWOT. So they are not evil people right? And it is no excuse for folks like Pelosi, Clinton, Carter going around the world to disparage the current pres and his foreign policy. Disagreement stays within the country. Pick that up with your corrupt leaders. Again, these liberal leaders are hypocritically dishonest wrt your rhetoric.

So they are not evil people right?

Correct, they are not evil people. And I have never said they were.

And you agree that Clinton, Carter, Pelosi, and Reid aren't evil people, right?

More news: liberals hid behind cartoons and joke to depict Condi Rice as ape or being rape. Wonder about the strange silence from liberals.

More news: LoveAmerica Immigrant attributes actions to me that I've never heard of and didn't know existed until LoveAmerica Immigrant claimed that I am partly guilty for them.

Who knew?!

Maybe I killed JFK, too. You never know! Hell, I don't even know, apparently!

More news: LoveAmerica Immigrant attributes actions to me that I've never heard of and didn't know existed until LoveAmerica Immigrant claimed that I am partly guilty for them.

Who knew?!

Maybe I killed JFK, too. You never know! Hell, I don't even know, apparently!
-------------------------------------------------
Yet liberals can believe that Bush was behind 9/11.

Correct, they are not evil people. And I have never said they were.
-----------------------------------------------
Were you one of the liberals pushing the conspiracy that Bush was behind 9/11? Basically you said that Bush was evil enough to intentionally plan 9/11!

No, LAI, that was not me.

Yet liberals can believe that Bush was behind 9/11.

My my, LA-I, aren't you just a walking GOP talking point. Tell me, do you ever actually converse with people who don't agree with you? Or have original thoughts every once in a while? Or do you just think in blind stereotypes 24/7?

"I would think it more likely that you register as Democrat to be a spoiler in the primaries.

But, hey, you can think and call yourself a traitor and a terrorist sympathizer, if you want. Whatever floats your boat. But I am a Democrat, and I am ***not**** a traitor nor a terrorist sympathizer. So insult yourself but don't insult me."

My Goodness your really are Dumb as a Rock.

"you register as Democrat" Are you sure you are a democrat? Hey you loyal rats out there , better school this punk a little better.

"Then why are you calling democrats traitors and terrorists??"

Because that is exactly what they have done like fiending crack heads clueless and not giving a damn so long so long as they get what they are after , (POWER) one more hit.

This seems to be a habit or some sort of addiction "and terrorists??" . Can you complete a single post without telling a lie? Or are you just simply lazy or in a hury to complete a sentence?

You said: "But I am a Democrat" Noooo! you don't say?

Then you wrote..... "and I am ***not**** a traitor nor a terrorist sympathizer."

Ya right , I believe you believe that.

Now , just so you can tell your mother you learned something today , I AM AN AMERICAN FIRT AND FORMOST. A much better informed American than I was before. I never called myself "A Democrat" and I never allowed anyone to call me one all those ignorant years that I voted. Must have been my subconscience trying to tell me something , I was just too busy , ignorant and and didn't give a shit about politics al those years. Funny they call it the "Rat Race" back then.

Now you can claim you actually know something. Just for today that is.

My my, LA-I, aren't you just a walking GOP talking point. Tell me, do you ever actually converse with people who don't agree with you? Or have original thoughts every once in a while? Or do you just think in blind stereotypes 24/7?
------------------------------------------------
Look at yourself in the mirror and your post. Your post has no substance. I thought you want to post typical distracting posts. So I tried to use your very own way of posting and you don't seem to like it.

I made substantial points and back them up. You made meaningless silly distractions. I used exactly your own way of posting and you protested it. In essense, you are simply a liberal talking point. I don't see any substance in your posts in this thread. Until you can give me some substance, your post is simply spin at best.

Nice, LAI, how JFO completely dodged Koch's point that the Gray Lady has aged disgracefully.

And JFO, have you ever noticed that a lot of humour is ad hominem? Now we do know what has happened to humour in public discourse; it's become inappropriate, just as you say. Well, that's progress.
=================================

You're all twisted up like a pretzel Kim. You have Romney/Clinton/McCain/Kerry Disease - you're for things before you're against them and you're against them before you're for them. JFO's "ad hom" not OK - Dennis Miller's ad hom OK cause it's humor? Now you've become nothing more than a panderer just like those folks.

You out clevered your cleverness this time and as I said last week it's growing old and way un-clever now. Get a new schtick.

As for the Gray Lady - a more beauteous and wonderful daily there is not. If for nothing else than it tees off the wingnuts of the world.

'A more beauteous and wonderful daily there is not'; as I say, All the News They See Fit to Print.

Do you seriously not understand the difference between an ad hom used to fallaciously support a rhetorical point, and an ad hom used humourously. I can be against one and not the other because they are different things.

No wonder you called Koch's piece a nuancy about nuance. I think you fail to distinguish nuance and nuisance.
============================

Kim

One would think you are an addict in denial when reading you rationalize, justify and minimize when you get caught being clever xs once too often. Do you actually ever go back and read what you write? You might try it sometime and you'll see; (!) you're not near as clever as you think and (2) you frequently condemn in one comment what you laud in another and (3) whenever challenged to provide facts to some inane allegation about the big bad New Yorkers running the DOJ you go silent - which is actually a blessing.

Have a nice day.

Naw, I'm pretty consistent, and Schumer's control of the DoJ is now over, and something neither side is likely to broadcast publicly.

Have your usual sour day; mine will be nice, I gawrawntee it.
===========================

What I find particularly amusing, though, is that sometimes in archives I find a double underlined kim and the comment is way too cryptic for me.
==========================

Uhm LA-I, what the HELL are you talking about? You make baseless accusations against somebody you've never talked to before. Period. No stop trying to defend it and actually fess up to your errors. Now that would be a comment with some "substance." Nitwit.