Friday, December 02, 2005

DEATH THREATS and JOSEF STALIN

I don't want to live in fear, but I got my second death threat today, and also a strange man came to my door. My kids were home from school and almost opened the door. For Coulter to put my FAMILY'S home phone number on her front page, knowing it would incite her fans, is unconscionable, and it continues to get worse. I have run the gamut from feeling horribly guilty, stupid for putting our home phone number on a private letter to Coulter, (but I wrongly assumed she was a normal person with the class to realize this was a private communication) and now -- very frightened for my children -- for writing what I thought was a comedic article about my frustration with this war & utter bewilderment over this new militant form of Christianity. Click here to read my original Ann Coulter article at BRAD BLOG The Coulter fans who have been contacting me are rabid hate-mongers, because every nasty e-mail and call I have gotten has been someone telling me Coulter is "enlightened and speaks the truth and I am nothing but an idiot and a failure whose films & TV shows no one cares about." One guy threatened to shoot me and another said he woudn't have minded if I had been blown up in the World Trade Center attacks. "You liberal idiots and your ilk should have been standing in a line at the WTC when they were hit. I for one would not have minded." I honestly wouldn't think of publishing this guy's e-mail address because I don't want him to get hate mail from wackos like I'm getting. Although I am saving the letter just in case anything happens to me or my family.

We are not all despicable, Godless abortionists. Most liberals are so meek, so full of desperation to help the poor, they come off as a bit mushy and disorganized, wearing bad sweaters. I am new at this but as a mother of boys and a Christian (well, at least I love the Christ truth, but the religious right-wing is turning the world off to Christianity.) I have to speak out against corruption and a truly illegal war that is rapidly killing off our best and our brightest. I wish our troops were home to protect our own borders.

Edmund Burke said, "Evil triumphs when good men do nothing." So by speaking out against this woman, I feel I am at least doing my duty to young people. People wonder how the Nazis took over: because good people remained silent early in the game. Fear. But Love casts out fear. And it's not just Coulter alone we are concerned with; it's the fact that she is the most vitriolic voice in support of the lies and the rush to war. She is directly linked to the brain-washing and the smearing of good people who are trying to have an open dialogue. And she wears the cross on TV. These new type of mega-chruch Christians are packaged to believe she is "on the side of good" because they are spoon-fed this new twisted version of Christianity based on this abortion myth -- that all liberals are unborn baby-killers. I am not pro-abortion! I am liberal in my open-mindedness and love for humanity. And I am sad for these wonderful people -- they have good hearts and think this new corporate form of Christianity is truth, but if they really, REALLY study Christ's own words and see behind the letter to the spirit, they will know things in their heart that no fire and brimstone-rapture-invoking preacher can tell them. I always have to look at my hidden motives: what am I protecting and in fear of losing? For example, these dangerous "Left-Behind" books warm the hearts of people who care about eternal life, their own salvation. Looking down on those sinners left behind who didn't declare Jesus as their savior, makes them feel superior. But true Christians would not worry so much about saving their own lives; you have to lose your life to save it, which means get off thinking about your own salvation so much! And do you think a God of Love would really throw one of his own children who had lived a life expressing the very love Christ came to show us -- a person who feeds the hungry, gives to the poor, loves his neighbor as himself -- do you think he would throw him into eternal hell simply because he was Jewish or Hindu... or Ghandi? Simply because this person didn't declare jesus as their savior -- while walking as Jesus walked? Jesus himself said not to focus on the letter (rules) but the spirit of his law. It's LOVE, he himself was pure love. Abide in love is what he meant. He could have cared less if you said his technical name -- because if this is true, what happens to all the unborn babies on the way who never learned his physical name yet? By the way, Jesus LOVED the heathens, the lepers (AIDS victims of this day), the sinners, the prisoners - these are the meek ones no one wanted to touch. Please see "Walk the Line" - the Johnny Cash movie. The best line in the movie is when the record exec says to Johnny (paraphrasing): "Your fans are church-goin' Christians; they wont' like it if you sing to prisoners (at Folsom prison)." To which Johnny says: "They they aren't Christians are they?" It dawned on me that God used Johnny Cash BECAUSE he was broken; the other brother who died as a young boy, was already going to be a preacher, too perfect, too by-the-book. Cash went to hell and back and could serve the world better with his form of "preaching" -- singing to the downtrodden heathens that no Pharisees would touch.

Here is a still from the recent episode I did of "Curb Your Enthusiasm" on HBO see "The Christ Nail" video clip right here And you can click on another promo called "Bra Tease" under Featured Clips. Larry David made me laugh so hard I couldn't keep a straight face doing improv with him; he's a comic genius. So was Ted Knight, of course, who played my dad. He taught me wondrous things, like how to do a "spit-take" without drooling. I miss him so much (and Audrey Meadows); we used to laugh until we cried everyday. And I miss John Ritter, who used to pop his head in during rehearsals. Hard to believe all these great comic actors are gone. God Bless Dorothy Knight, Ted's wife, who recently died. My brother Paul died ten years ago yesterday. He was my angel. (I love you and miss you so much.) I remember when he showed me in a vision that there is no death; we are spiritual beings having a human experience and our soul's growth is all that matters.


I do standup comedy and have written comedy for years. Most of what I write has a tinge of humor to it. I wrote a book on Stalin's plot to kill Trotsky. Stalin feared Trotsky because he knew the "pen was mightier than the sword"; Trotsky was a brilliant writer and could sway people to his side. Obviously I am not accusing Coulter of being Stalin or physically killing 60 million people. That was a bit of my humor or "satire". But the dictator was a narcissist (a person so full of self-hate he projects it onto others and cannot bear imperfection). Stalin had no humility or empathy for others, and no true interest in other's lives or opinions. It was HIS way or the highway. You know how wonderful a good conversation is -- when you can share each other's viewpoints and consider new ideas? Well normal human beings that are not sociopaths; they engage in conversation with a certain delighted inquisitiveness and open-minded interest in others. I love people who can admit they're wrong, that they make mistakes. God knows I screw up all the time; I need forgiveness everyday. Admitting your mistakes is a sign of strength, not weakness. Only those who have shaky self-esteem have to always appear to have the upper-hand, to be"right" and in control. There were many qualities about Stalin's personality that were pathological, socio-pathological: an inherent disinterest in other human beings, a disregard for other's feelings entirely. A superiority, an elitism that disdained underlings. Doing research at the library one day I looked in the card catalogue under Stalin's name and the strangest thing came up: Alcoholism. Stalin was a delusional alcoholic who grew power-mad. Other names that came up under alcoholism: famous writers like Dorothy Parker (barbed wit), HItler and Mussolini.

"By their fruits you shall know them". (Scripture-quoting is not really my thing, but this seems relevant.) What constructive thing has a destructive critic ever shown us that she has created with her God-given talent? Destruction -- tearing down others -- to promote a war that has increased our enemies around the world. I love this country. America is the best nation in the world and I am tired of apologizing for being upset over this war! How can anyone in their right mind not want our troops home? I can't bear to hear of another young soldier dying! I fly the American flag, I am a patriot, I have family in the Marines, this beautiful goodness and light we used to represent to the whole world has changed. We are no longer the nation people look to for protection, for moral "rightness", or fundamental laws of faith in the universe. I wanted my children to be able to travel the world someday -- to London, Paris, Rome, Madrid and Athens -- even to Egypt to see the pyramids -- without fear of being called the "Ugly American" or worse, attacked. We have carpet-bombed entire cities, white phosphorous on little Iraqi children, ruined ancient Babylonian treasures and glorified corruption in government: these are the fruits of this administration. Corn syrup sweetner and Ambien are not constructive! And Bush has the chance to join the great minds in finding a solution to global warning but he doesn't seem to think its a priority. A new Kyoto treaty -- and we are not involved!

Here is a link to the most inflammatory Coulter hate-speak. http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001939.htm. The reason we are speaking out, and I am writing this book with a conservative Christian who has been working for over four years on every single statement Coulter has ever put in her "books" -- is because we believe Coulter is the most verbal evidence of what is wrong with our beautiful country. I am frightened for young people to be swept up in a tide of hatred, because young students are so easily influenced by charismatic speakers. I am so sad anyone would hire Coulter to speak -- because her words are very provocative and stimulating and ugly; she incites people to go against an entire group of fellow Americans. A house divided does not stand. This woman is not a patriot; she divides people. My whole point was to shine a light on Coulter's hate-speak (and some of you don't do your research.) And of course her defenders, (who think they are defending America) are turning it around and saying I am spewing hatred toward her. I know my intentions are loving. I intend to show love toward Coulter and pray for her. But first I must speak the truth and not hide what I know. God is very personal to me -- I had a catastrophic spiritual awakening and a series of spine-tingling miracles through prayer. Now I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that God exists -- in fact this may be the only thing I know for sure. But God is love and should never be used to justify war, hatred or judgment by humans. And the bible is still being written because we are still living our history. Why do people think it all ends -- it's still going on! Every godly person is writing the living Bible right now. We are spiritual, not material and our battles are truly within ourselves. Love is the essence of everything.

Others, here on my own site have said I am an idiot to confront Coulter, a person doing this just to get attention." Attention like this no one needs. I have spent all these years staying out of the limelight to find my soul, get rid of my obnoxious ego, fall in love, raise children, gain a real life, experience pain and the death of loved ones, deepen myself -- I have never posed nude, have turned down countless offers to cheapen myself with reality TV or by selling products I don't believe in. I am raising a child with a genetic defect whose mother abandoned him -- and I've had a major crash and burn which turned out to be the best thing that ever happened to me. Now I figured out the key to life, and I want to share it -- just like other people before me in their own way, but this article came out way before I had a chance to tell the real story. I never intended my article on hate-speech to reach anyone but a few Dems. I never expected anything like this.

Extra stuff: I had no idea the comments on blogs could become so venomous! Some are wonderful, but others are bizarre. But how can one prevent free speech and open dialogue? Actually the ugliest and most personal attacks against me have come from the right-wing, and all I ever wanted to do was shine a light on Coulter's hate-speak. I never call for the hurting of Republicans, I would never incite or jokingly provoke people to hate a whole group of people, but Coulter does this to Democrats.

Frankly I am new at this, and all ever want to write about these days is about God. I have had a remarkable journey of faith, and the last thing I ever wanted to do was create hatred and division.

I read this comment on Huffington Post somewhere: "For perversely hypocritical reasons, the misguided Christian right has convinced itself that the way to emulate the most gracious man to ever live is to be exceedingly ungracious to others." And if I have been ungracious or offensive in any way, I am deeply sorry. I will work on this pundit thing.

God Bless you! Sorry this is so long.

90 comments:

  1. Lydia,

    It's amazing that the liberals want to deny Miss Coulter her right to free speech when they themselves accuse her of wanting to do the same thing.

    Check out any links from Media Matters for America.

    So is it safe to say you agree?

    I'm a Republican, but I'm not here to threaten you, harass you or your fellow Dems. I'd like to say you should have done more research before spewing out what you think is right.

    The problem with the Democrats is they whine, bitch and moan about us and call us hatemongers, blah, blah, blah.

    If you all put as much energy into your political campaigns as you do your schtick, perhaps you would win an election or two.

    Geez.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Rebecca8:00 AM

    Ken, thank you for using your own words to prove Ms. Cornell's point.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Lydia,

    As has been pointed out a thousand times: When you send an email to a well known pundit, and then 2 weeks later churn out a "piece" comparing her to Stalin, you should expect somewhat of a retort.

    You, in a professional disguise, sent Coulter a message that included contact information. When a messsage is sent in a professional disguise with contact information, it is assumed that the contact information is professional as well. Would a Dr. do this? Would an accountant do this? How was she supposed to know this was your personal home phone?

    Looks like you need to change it. Unfortunately, I think Ann - being an attorney and all - knows that this email is her property and when you chose to click the send button and then write and compare her to Stalin weeks later - you opened yourself up to attack.

    As far as the threatening phone calls, I am sure even Coulter is not endorsing these. How do you know that the attention brought to it by Bradblog or yourself even has not put ideas in the heads of the compulsive types that read his webpage. Read some of the comments Lydia to see where these people are standing in terms of actual speech...misspellings...grammar...and profanity.

    Coulter uses INVECTIVE to make a point....she jokes in a way that conservatives understand. Last night Maureen Dowd, without proof, declared that "Cheney was guilty". The liberal audience laughed and applauded. Yes it hit a sore sport with me, but it's free speech! No she doesn't have proof, but she still got to say it! Write a column and call her "Stalin".

    As far as Ann's repression of liberal free speech, I think she pretty much rebutted it last night on the O'Reilly Factor when she told O'Reilly about these smear sites that are actually helping her.

    I am all for you, having your right to speak your mind. Just curious, how long have you studied Coulter?

    I also admire all of your bumpy stumps in the road and your triumphs. However, why should it be assumed that Ann's life is or has never been "challenging" as well.

    I don't know, you should attack the members in your own party, Lydia. That would be an incredible project that nobody on your side has done yet. Make a list of all the Senate Democrats whining about "Bush Lied" and the mainstream liberal pundits like Moore, Franken, or Vandenheuvel and explain in detail why these individuals are hurting your party.

    Trust me! It's a fresh idea, and since you obviously have a problem with invective and humor...what better place to start than with your own party for this? I guarantee it'll pay off. Not only for you, but for your party's chances of winning the next Presidential Election!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous9:41 AM

    Lydia..

    So how do you feel about abortion?

    You seem intelligent enough and some Christians might agree with you on the Iraq war, Ann Coulter and especially those obnoxious Assembly of God enclaves churning out all the Amway neocons, but you're hard to take seriously given the uber-liberal company I suspect you keep.

    I bet if I Googled I'd find out you habitually attend these stupid vanity affairs for fringie causes that seem to be a magnet for the D-list--are Mike Farrel and Ed Begeley on your speed dial?

    www.derspiel.com

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ken and Steve Flasher, I did not hear any whining in Lydia's words.

    Pointing out that people are threatening her life and the life of her children, is not whining, it's just showing how irresponsible and downright malicious the nasty little trick Frau Coulter pulled on Lydia.

    Coulter KNEW that number was not to be published with the letter. I get emails all the time with peoples contact information, that for one reason or another, I need to forward.

    And I don’t include the contact information when I forward them, unless otherwise directed by the author of the message.

    Ms. Coulter had nothing intelligent to say, so she stooped to dirty tricks. And that dirty trick could get someone hurt.

    As for Anonymous, maybe you should actually read some of what Lydia has already written, she has made her feelings about abortion clear.

    And as for the next elections? I think America is pretty well fed up with the scheming, lying, murderous politics that have steamrolled over our constitution in the last 6 years.

    Now, what’s that old saying?

    “Fool me once, shame on …you…
    Fool me twice…..er….uh…..
    Can’t git fooled again.”

    ReplyDelete
  6. Why is it that former "stars" are always so quick on the draw to take up the liberal causes i.e. Ed Begley Jr., Ed Asner, Mike Farrel, Morgan Fairchild and dare I say Ms. Cornell?

    Could this be a surreptitious attempt to keep their names in the flickering spotlight? I mean do they really believe in their causes?

    Why didn't they all do this WHILE they had their 15 minutes of fame? And when they do manage to get on the tube, why is we see the tagline "Mike Farrell - Actor/Activist?"

    Just what I need. Former stars telling me I'm wrong because I have a different matter of opinion on certain things.

    Just lovely.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Worfeus,

    Granted Lydia said her life was threatened, where did it mention her kids? She said they almost opened the door. There were no threats mentioned against them--and if there were she should have said so.

    I'm sorry there's a few idiots out and running amuck. Yes, the Republican Party has them. So does the Democrats (does the name Howard Dean mean anything to you?)

    Was it wrong to put her personal information out for all to see? Yes it was, but Ms. Cornell should have known better than to put her HOME number there. She bears the blame with that and she herself called it "accidently" (I could have sworn she said "absent-mindedly."

    She calls it accidently, but some better words come to mind--stupidly, irresponsibly, blonde moment (just kidding on the last one).

    Now what source do you have that Ms. Coulter "KNEW that number was not to be published with the letter?" Instinct?

    You forgot to include "IMHO" at the end.

    And as for the next elections?

    Well I guess we'll find out now won't we?

    Murderous? Talk about hyperbole mate!

    Regards,

    Ken

    ReplyDelete
  8. Trust me, Frau Coulter knew what she was doing.

    If you doubt that, then I suggest you are not a insightful as you assert.

    As for the next elections, yes, well see. Assuming that is someone decides to institute a "paper trail" this time. (Funny how the first time EVER we had a computerized election, the President who also happened to be a "candidate" ordered that their be NO paper trail.

    But I am sure it was all above board. I mean, how could one possibly alter a computer program?

    And as for Howard Dean, if you aren't aware at how Fox news took that speech, and edited down the roar of the crowd to augment his own little cheer, then you are truly a "good republican".

    See Dean, an Emergency room physician, knows something about life and death, and about science, and study, and facts.

    Something your little mediocre Lt. Busch, could not even fathom.

    I would take Howard Dean over a billion of your little Busch's.

    ReplyDelete
  9. And the Liberals talk about us insulting them!

    I'm sure Ms. Cornell is proud of your rant Worfeus.

    But who am I to stop you? I love a good laugh and thanks for providing that mate!

    Regards,

    Ken

    ReplyDelete
  10. I don't care if you insult us or not, Ken.

    But where in that post did I insult you or anyone? The spelling of Busch is correct. That was their name prior to having their assets siezed during WW2 under the "Trading with the Enemy Act".

    And lil George? He WAS medicore in everything he has ever done in life. His only claim to fame was his daddy was the president. So what's your point?

    Sometimes I do insult in my posts, but in that post, I don't see one insult.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Lydia

    This is your best post yet. It really talks to the “heart” of the matter. You clearly and eloquently illuminate the common fallacies that permeate modern “religion” and that are carefully leading our country down to hell.

    These were a few of my favorites;

    “These new type of mega-church Christians are packaged to believe she is "on the side of good" because they are spoon-fed this new twisted version of Christianity based on this abortion myth”


    “God is love and should never be used to justify war, hatred or judgment by humans”

    “For example, these dangerous "Left-Behind" books warm the hearts of people who care about their own salvation, and being superior to others -- looking down on those sinners left behind who didn't declare Jesus as their savior. True Christians would not worry so much about saving their own lives; you have to lose your life to save it”


    Fact is, this is exactly what Christ himself warned us about. He knew the trappings of religious zeal, and doctrinal constraints. And he knew, that in the last days,

    “For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect”
    Mark 13:22

    And as Matthew records,

    “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves”
    Matthew 7:14 – 15

    And how would one know these “false prophets”?

    Jesus gave us one, foolproof formula. He said “by their fruits ye shall know them”.

    And we have all seen the fruits of the so called “Christian Right”.

    See no one really wants to talk to the points. The points in “Death Threats and Josef Stalin” are first rate. But since they can’t talk to the message, they try to dismiss the messenger.

    Your message rings loud and clear to me, and it’s right on the money. You have in my humble estimation, clearly articulated the actual teachings of Christ, and the spirit of his message. And you have illuminated the dangerous shoals the so called Christian right has steered us towards.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Worf, at least Ann Coulter comes up with new jokes everytime she makes a comment. Isn't your "Frau Coulter" line getting a little old?

    Ken's exactly right. Worf your posts are laughable. You insult, insult, and insult and want to jump on Lydia's "Coulter-bashing brigade" in an act of preserving "love" and stopping "hate"....then you divert by throwing out random scriptures from the Bible.

    Think for yourself and quit convoluting the Bible (as your peeps do with the Constitution to create rights that never existed in the first place...[and you talk about Republicans twisting the Constitution]...LOL) to substantiate an argument.

    By the way, in an earlier blog, you suggested that Coulter got her clock cleaned in terms of fact with Katie Couric. Are you insane? Did you watch the same interview? Couric moved back and forth in her chair, as Coulter shot everything down she had to say. Everytime Ann said something, Couric rudely interuppted because in her words "actually, since I'm conducting this interview"....

    Couric (more than just one day...Ann was right) and Lauer both opened the shows' segments on each of the days with "Ronald Reagan was an airhead, that's the conclusion of this new book by Edmund Morris" purposely taking out the word "apparent" and furthering that lie by asserting that it was the "conclusion" of the book when it was written in the first paragraph and how the entire course of the rest of the book contradicted that statement.

    If you're too simple minded to understand that, but at the same time can play copy and paste with the Bible, the truth is, you aren't worth debating and are indeed running from the facts.

    You lie! It's in the Commandments, you falsify the book's teachings to support your nonsense and to glorify Lydia's obvious interest in her only apologist on here...(sort of like teacher's pet). So before you LIE and misinterpret God and the Bible by twisting meanings of scriptures to serve your wacky agenda, why don't you try at least memorizing the Ten Commandements my friend.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Brilliant post steve, brilliant.

    Too bad you didn't have one intelligent thing to say to counter any of my points.

    Not that your post merits even the most vague of responses, but I will say that yes, I think Ann got her clock cleaned by little Katie "Navy Seals are cool" Couric.

    Go back and look at the video Einstien, Katie had the facts at her disposal,and the quotes to back them up.

    As for my quoting the bible? Go back and read my posts, I have already addressed that one.

    As long as you and your goosestepping riechstag gang want to wage your knightly crusade using the bible as your declaration of war, I will be happy to counter.

    I twist nothing, the teachings of Christ in NO way endorse your holy war. And the war is all I'm about in here.

    I just happen to know more about the bible on my worst day, than you do on your best, and what I post, I back up, unlike you and your pathetic peabrain rant.

    So if you think me a Christian, or a religous person with an "axe" to grind, you proceed from a false assumption there slappy.

    I could care less if you and your lousy little soul rots in hell.

    Schmuck

    ReplyDelete
  14. Prophet1:18 PM

    Uh oh....Worfeus called Steve a "dick"....Bad Worfeus, bad!

    ReplyDelete
  15. ok, I'm sorree :(

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous2:04 PM

    Lydia -- I have never heard anyone speak the truth so clearly and so eloquently. PLEASE keep writing and speaking -- please don't let the haters intimidate you. never give up!! The world needs your light.

    Clarissa

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous2:47 PM

    Steve Flesher and Ken, seek some professional help. ASAP.

    Lydia, you nailed everything about these rightwing fascists. Fear was Hitler's powerful weapon. Conservatives & Bush Admin used it against anyone who has enough courage to speak out about their fascism activites & behaviors.

    Don't let these fill-with-hatred conservatives stop you, Lydia. There are many people who are on your side. Never forget that one.

    Steve Flesher and Ken, I repeat: seek some professional help.

    ReplyDelete
  18. BTW Lydia;

    I would not make too much of the comment someone made about the porno add on Bradblog.com. I would not let it keep you from posting there. Don't let anyone turn you into the "church lady". Post where you want.

    As I have previously pointed out, Jesus' disdain for the religious leaders and pious laypersons of his day, included a particular dislike for the pharisaical obsession over the sexual transgressions of others as opposed to what Jesus called the “weightier matters of the law”, such as compassion, mercy, etc.

    In fact, one of the most famous encounters of Christ and the religious hierarchy of the day was when the women, caught in the act of adultery , was presented before him for judgment under the Law of Moses. The idea was if Jesus did not condemn her, then he would be seen as “weak” on the Law of Moses and denounced as a heretic. But if Jesus condemned her, then his “good news” gospel of forgiveness and mercy would be seen as a sham, and easily dismissed.

    And since he wasn't a religous lunatic, Jesus was not going to sit by and let them give this poor lady a limestone shower.

    John tells the story vividly, as they bring the women before Christ for his judgment, he is crouching outside of the temple, and casually drawing a finger in the sand as he seemingly ignores their demands for his pronouncement.

    Then suddenly, he stands and faces the crowd and says those famous words, “he who is without sin, let him cast the first stone”, then immediately returns to his crouched position and continues to write something into the sand.

    What was he writing?

    Who knows, “get a life” maybe?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous4:19 PM

    Keep it up, Lydia. The tenor and the content of the criticism posted here (hmmm, sounds a lot like Coulter) convinces me that the country needs even more voices like yours.
    To conservatives who resort to name-calling and ridicule, who demonize liberals beyond recognition, I wish some respected public figure would shake his finger and declare, "At long last, have you no decency?"

    ReplyDelete
  20. Lord Worf, You are incredible. Of course you don't "twist" copy and pastes. But you DO twist their meanings. The Bible contains MANY passages that counter anybody's arguments. Your lies about the "holy war" are shameful. In a recent post, I believe it was you that said that it wasn't even a "war" to begin with.

    Katie Couric had NO EVIDENCE. She was holding notes and a QUOTE THAT ANN HAS IN HER BOOK.

    You are the pea-brain if you don't understand the argument. YES Edmund Morris described Ronald Reagan as an "apparent airhead" on a very first meeting. He states this in the BEGINNING of his book. Katie Couric opened the show with "The Gipper was an Airhead - that's the CONCLUSION of this new book by Edmund Morris" when Edmund Morris went on there, he told her that Ronald Reagan WAS NOT an airhead and that was his observation on a VERY FIRST MEETING. The point of the book was to show how intelligent he was, after Morris provided his opinion on the first meeting with him.

    Ann ducked away from nothing in that debate....and when she wanted to conclude the point, a terrified and embarrassed Couric rudely shut her up.

    Also, let me remind you Worf. This IS NOT Heaven. In Heaven there are no wars, On Earth they aren't nescessary if EVERYONE agrees. Unfortunately, we cannot "turn the other cheek" when 3,000 of our people are slaughtered on our own soil. This was a result of religion, and a result of decades of rubbing noses with middle eastern leaders after France tried to bring government to the mid east in the early part of the century, then left the mess for Britain and the United States to deal with. You are obviously unable to step outside of the box in your thought processes.

    If this were Heaven, half of your Bible convolutions would hold water (and that's only half of them) but since it's not Heaven, they do not!

    God's not in control here on Earth, HERE he gave us all free will to do the best we could. I'm interested to see what your thoughts are....in a world with Barbra Streisands and Cindy Sheehans, I can see why you cannot allow yourself an independent thought of your own.

    Things are going my way, so go to your closet as Sissy Spacek had to do in "Carrie", light your candle and chant to your heart's content. When the Republican party continues to stand up to these lunatics that are threatening our safety (including yours) you can come out and join reality.

    :-)

    And "anonymous" it's telling when one's argumentative formulation consists of "seek professional help"...on the basis of what the rest of your blather covered, I'll accept a pre-victory ;-).

    When people resort to comments like that, you know you've already won.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "As long as you and your goosestepping riechstag gang want to wage your knightly crusade using the bible as your declaration of war, I will be happy to counter."

    As a general matter, I have not used the Bible as a justification for war. As a general matter, Coulter has not used the Bible as a justification of war. The Earth is not God-like. Faith is one thing. This is reality, right here as we know it.

    You, on the other hand are using it as your justification to dissent.

    Do whatever you want. But now you are putting words into the mouths of the majority of the people who support President Bush and our troops.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Steve Said

    Also, let me remind you Worf. This IS NOT Heaven. In Heaven there are no wars,

    Actually there was a war in heaven, Stevo,

    “ And there was war in Heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the Dragon; and the Dragon fought and his angels”
    Revelations 12:7

    Like I said, on my worst day…..

    On Earth they aren't nescessary if EVERYONE agrees

    You misspelled necessary, don’t worry, I do it all the time, but your logic, or lack thereof, is not so easily corrected.

    I don’t know about you, but I don’t go to war with people because I disagree with them. Then again, this sentence was barely coherent, and questionable grammatically speaking, so perhaps there is a meaning to it I have missed?

    Steve said;
    “Unfortunately, we cannot "turn the other cheek" when 3,000 of our people are slaughtered on our own soil.”

    I see you are a puppet of the propaganda, or a purveyor of it, as you so easily reiterate the dirty little lie that the right winged war machine has used to justify this illegal incursion into Iraq.

    Funny thing is, when called to task, you always deny you ever do it. Go figure.

    Here, now read my lips

    IRAQ DID NOT CAUSE 911

    Get that did ya? Here, let me say it again,

    IRAQ DID NOT CAUSE 911

    Your bearing false witness as it were, of the Iraqi people to justify killing them without accountability, may help you sleep at night, but you won’t escape the accountability.

    That lie, that smear has been put to rest by all but the right wing fringe who still think Saddams gonna come eat their children. Once a schmuck, always a schmuck.

    Stevo said;

    "But now you are putting words into the mouths of the majority of the people who support President Bush and our troops"

    Actually, it is President Bush who is putting words into peoples mouths, by spreading propaganda in Iraqi newspapers. Yea, we came to bring them a free press.Free to print what we put in there.

    And as for the majority of the people here in the US? You mistakenly do like most good little radical right wingers do, you include support of the president, with support of the troops. Its a lie, and a dirty one. We all support the troop’s jackass.

    But as for the president? You need to look at a Zogby poll. Or ANY other poll for that matter. 36 percent is not a majority Einstein. You’re in the minority, thank God.

    You know, it seems as if your only apparent way to “honor the sacrifice of the troops” is to sacrifice more troops.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anonymous5:57 PM

    Hello - can someone please tell me where I can read the article? I haven't been able to get to BradBlog for several months, all I get is a screen full of green marble; I tried the "search" feature at editorandpublisher, that failed. Any help? Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Sounds like your monitor or video car is having issues displaying his site. It is green, with green text, which can be a bad, web design wise.

    Of course it may also be something as simple as your Color Scheme or Desktop selection in your display properties.

    Go into control panel and choose display, or right click anywhere on the desktop and choose properties. Change your "Appearance" and "Themes" settings back to Windows defaults and see if that helps.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anonymous7:26 PM

    Thanks, I'll try that.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Dear, sweet Lydia! Thank you so much for your words of concern, compassion and truth.

    I would like to write more but I'm pressed for time and can't do justice to what I'd like to say in just these few minutes.

    I keep you in my prayers and know that your faith will keep you safe. Be wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove. (I think you already are!)

    God Bless you, Lydia!

    Kira

    ReplyDelete
  27. Okay Worf, you want to open a can of grammatical checking? Here goes:

    A. You misspelled “mediocre” in a previous post.

    B. “Steam rolled” is not one word all together.

    C. You misspelled “get” (what’s “git” mean?)

    D. You said: “Your bearing false witness”

    Replace “Your” with “You’re” to make it grammatically correct.

    Replace “bearing false witness” with “bearing a false witness” OR “bearing false witnesses” to make it grammatically correct.

    E. You said: “Trust me, Frau Coulter knew what she was doing.”

    Here, you have two independent clauses incorrectly joined. Next time, try dividing them into separate sentences, adding a conjunction, or changing the punctuation.

    F. You said: “If you doubt that, then I suggest you are not a insightful as you assert. “

    Rather than “a insightful”, you might want to try “as insightful.”

    G. You said: “ordered that their be NO paper trail. “

    Replace “their” with “there” to make it grammatically correct.

    H. You said: “Something your little mediocre Lt. Busch, could not even fathom.”

    Come on Worfeus, you know as well as I do, this is NOT a complete sentence!

    I. You said: “I would take Howard Dean over a billion of your little Busch's.”

    While there is nothing wrong with this sentence grammatically, it certainly questions your certifiable status. Now I know why you have all of this time to answer all of these posts all day long. Get out of the house Worf!

    Of course, this is all done in good fun, but mind you, this is just one of your posts for the most part. You have typed a lot and don’t make me analyze all of them, please! Simply reading them to find your point (which is still nonexistent) requires a lifetime shipment of "No Doz" to get through in and of itself!

    When I write in defense of Republicans, I write comfortably. I understand what is and what is not grammatically correct. I just didn’t realize this was a graded assignment.

    Okay, now to answer the argument at the risk of receiving a C- on this post, I would like to acknowledge your good liberal rant of “Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11". It should go without saying that anyone who defends Howard Dean (even a Democrat) is either Howard Dean himself, or, must be on some tripped up meds that he accidentally prescribed. In any case, he’s taught you well. Months after 9/11 when Saddam Hussein made a purposed bluff to the United Nations about WMD’s, it was apparent - by the lessons learned from 9/11 - that we could not take threats from middle eastern leaders lightly anymore. The idea of terrorism and defeating it as a whole and establishing a true democracy in Iraq was and is a terrific place to start. The Iraqi people continue to turn out in record numbers every time a new act of democracy is held. They are proud and have hope. While Osama Bin Laden and Saddam had no immediate ties (even GWB never insinuated such), they certainly had ties in the past. Saddam funded and harbored terrorists. Saddam corrupted the United Nations with his “Oil for Food” scandal and as a result gassed hundreds of thousands of his own people. At this point, based on these facts Worf, I’d like to give you a stress test. Hold up a picture of Saddam Hussein, and then hold up a picture of George W. Bush and see which one really gets your goat! The idea that implies strictly going after Osama without formulating a true plan to clean up the entire part of this sick area of the world would have been hideous.

    But of course, I know you still would have been a good liberal and cowardly blew off Saddam’s bluff and relied on the corrupt Hanz Blix and the rest of the U.N. weapons' inspectors. Or wait, you are probably still relying on Joe Wilson’s “official” report.

    Next you decide to bring up the successful approval ratings. You call them bleak. I call them great. Clearly during the Reagan administration we learned that when the liberal media and these pollsters are churning out questions to get the responses they want - especially during a great Republican’s second term - it’s a good sign. When liberals are ranting pointlessly in masses and then John Murtha throws himself to the mercy of the House and then the House votes against Murtha and your overstated "majority” by a 403/3 vote, it shows one of two things. Either Democrats are spineless and have no backbone to truly support what the “majority” is saying because they are unsure themselves or they don’t really agree with what the “majority” is saying in the first place. Take your pick, I’m not really sure, and to tell you the truth, I don’t really care. I was happy with the results of the House vote last week - even by your trusted Democrats ;-).

    At this point, the only better thing that could happen, is that the approval ratings continue to fall (as they will, don't forget Alito's confirmation is coming up).

    Lastly, and certainly not least, you prattle on about how “we support the troops!” Obviously you don’t seem to understand that when people like yourself constantly denounce your President, you denounce the troops who are supporting him as well BY BEING THERE. None of them were drafted, were they? You write these very irresponsible things, and Murtha cries on national television, and Al Jazeera plays these things and publish these things daily to give support to the insurgents and take morale away from our troops, it makes you no better than the insurgents.

    Stop being a ninny and be a man! Your biblical arguments are elementary. As I said before, in Heaven, God is in control. Here, we have free will. You’re biblical justifications for war - as you put into the mouths of Republicans - are spineless. As I say, you use the Bible to justify your cause, and I haven’t seen one conservative who is pro-war use it to the degree that you have. So dry your eyes. You are the only one who is twisting the Holy word.

    See you in English class!

    ReplyDelete
  28. Lol

    That's pretty funny. If you could not see the obvious sarcasam in my spelling correction of you, then you deserve to be dumb enough to go check my spelling.

    Hell I make a thousand typo's, it's a blog, not the Times.

    As for your argument as to America being the police of the world? Were not.

    As for not supporting the president equals not supporting the troops. That the vile crap people like you spread about the patriotic act of holding ones government accountable for it's actions. Our founding fathers made this clear, but I am done doing homework for you. Go read a book.

    I answered most of what you are saying a dozen times over. If your too dense to git it, then that explains why you could not understand why I purposely spelled get, git.

    Have a nice crusade Charlemange...

    See you at Nuremburg 2

    ReplyDelete
  29. And BTW, the OTHER lie you told was on the Murtha vote.

    They did NOT vote on the Murtha redeployment.

    Your moronic lying repugs took the bill, took out ALL the safegaurds to the troops and the entire redeployment strategy, threw it out for a vote, so little PINHEADS like you could come into Blogs and say the Dems voted against pulling out.

    It was a lie, and your a liar for using it.

    Vote on the Murtha plan, if you guys have the gnads.

    schmuck

    ReplyDelete
  30. Steve Flesher3:21 AM

    LOL that was not a lie and you know it. THREE DEMOCRATS still voted for it.

    Dont forget that.

    Wow Im just heading to bed....I was out all night, came home, left and came back. Im amazed you got up to check this so late/early.

    You criticized my grammar, don't lie.

    You aren't the "give peace a chance" martyr you pass yourself off to be.

    Even Hillary, Biden, all of them are saying a PULL OUT like Murtha suggested would be a bad thing.

    You're a great liberal...good at denial.

    It's your party and you'll cry if you want to.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Like I said, if you’re too stupid to see the sarcastic nature in my correcting that silly typo you made, (read the very next line genius, are wee learning yet?) then that explains how you can be dumb enough to think I got up early to check your work, instead of considering I may have different hours than you. Oh yea I forgot, you’re a republican, you see everything in two dimensions only. (It’s that underdeveloped cranium, which explains that whole “low brow” appearance)

    Don’t worry, just because you don’t believe in it, evolution may make your descendents a wee bit smarter than you turned out, either that or weed your inferior strain out of existence.

    And as far as the 3 democrats that voted for the red herring thrown out on the floor for a vote to distract from the Murtha plan? So? What does that mean? 3 guys out of how many schmuck?

    And in case you forgot there Einstein, I ain’t no democrat.

    Fact is your buddies, like you, are too much of a coward to vote on the Murtha plan, which is why it NEVER went to the floor for a vote. Now you can babble your 3rd grade, “yes you are but what are we” babble in here if you want, but it’s a matter of public record schmuck, look it up. You’re a liar, and you know it.

    Your cowards in Congress who are too afraid to vote on the Murtha plan, that called for a 6 month reduction and a redeployment into "off the horizon" locations so as to still offer support to the Iraqi army, quick response strike teams, etc", those pieces of crap you call congressmen, took ALL that out of Jack Murtha’s plan, and then threw out their lie, onto the floor, for a vote, like I said, so PINHEAD republicans like you could come into Blogs and try to sound smart saying, “see, they voted against it”.

    Meanwhile, real men like Jack Murtha are putting out solid plans that can save the troops lives, while still supporting Iraq, and chicken hawk cowards like you can just argue, twist it, and lie, while the troops die. Yea you support the troops alright.

    Can I ask why the big boy Steve is not fighting the war he supports? Can I ask why your chickenhawk ass is sitting here arguing with me, instead of bravely supporting the troops in Iraq like you should be doing?

    Oh, yea, you’re a coward, who lets other people fight and die, while good little goosesteppers like you sit comfortably at home and wave your 60 cent Walmart flags from the comfort of your front porch and say, “we support the troops”.

    You’re a coward. Quit talking and go sign up if you believe in it.

    ReplyDelete
  32. And BTW, chump, I am not a pacifist.

    I believe in a strong defense. I just don't believe in killing when there is no need.

    And in Iraq, there was no need. All who support this war, other than the troops ordered to fight it, are guilty of murder. Your hands are drenched with the blood of thousands of innocents, just like Bin Ladens.

    If fact, you are NO different then Bin Laden. You both believe you are justified in attacking civilian targets, and supporting killing without just cause.

    You are both, cowards, criminals and the quicker you are either behind bars, or streching a rope with your neck, the better off the world will be.

    ReplyDelete
  33. There, now I sound more like Ann Coulter,

    Guess I'm learning.

    Thanks Ann!

    ReplyDelete
  34. And for those who are still with me, muse on this.

    The Chinese Army is quite large, and is in the middle of a massive “build up” (words you hear normally right before someone invades something).

    In fact, the CIA recently released a document dealing with the unprecedented build up of the PLA and the Chinese Navy.

    And of course there’s those pesky “first ever” joint training exercises that took place off of Russia’s Pacific coast near Vladivostok and moved to China’s Shandong peninsula.

    The exercises included live-fire drills a joint offshore blockade and amphibious landings.

    Now the interesting thing about these exercises, other than the fact they were the “first ever” of their kind, was what the Chinese and Russian officials said about the nature of the exercises.

    The Chinese Defense Ministry said they were based on a scenario of a joint mission to ’stabilize a fictional country’.

    Hmmm, now where is a country that currently needs stabilizing?

    Now I am no expert, and I am fully aware of the argument for the goal being dealing with the political turmoil in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan and keeping us in check in the region.

    But suppose if there is another place the amphibious landings are geared for. Someplace like the Persian Gulf for instance?

    Now before anyone goes off on a rant, think about it. With the difficulties facing the 150,000 US military personnel in Iraq just dealing with the Insurgency, not to mention peacekeeping and police efforts, training, engineering, etc, what do you think would happen if they had to deal with 500,000 crack troops with air and amour support all courtesy of the new China-Russo alliance?

    Think I am crazy? (Ok, I am but so what?)

    According to Chinese Defense Minister Cao Gangchuan the exercises were designed improve their capabilities to meet new challenges and threats and to fight international terrorism, extremism and separatism.

    Now it’s that last one that’s the “bitch of the bunch”.

    Separatism = Taiwan

    The Chinese government said in an annual defense policy report in December 2004 that relations with Taiwan were “grim” and vowed that it would accelerate military modernization to facilitate a new proposed law about reunification, which would include China’s demands that Taiwan accept itself as part of China.

    Meanwhile the Bush administration has been sending mixed signals, officially endorsing a One China policy, yet still selling missiles to Taiwan.

    Last year, prior to the planning of the Joint operations with Russia, the Chinese government in a strongly worded statement to the White House, called the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act infringement on its sovereignty, which sounds to me like fightin words.

    Suppose, just suppose, China has decided with Russia, that the US is a rogue nation, and unlawfully occupying a foreign nation, against the will of the UN?

    And suppose China is serious about its new One-China policy and re-unification with Taiwan? They KNOW the US will have to defend Taiwan, which brings war right to their own doorstep.

    Now if you were the Chinese Defense Minister, where would you rather fight the enemy?

    Right off your own shores in Taiwan? Or would you rather fight them on someone else’s soil. You know, like the repubs are always saying, “fight the enemy over there, so you don’t have to fight them over here”?

    With the bulk of the US military’s battle trained troops currently stationed in Iraq, what better time to take out their new Chinese-Russo super alliance for a test drive, than to launch an all out attack on Iraq, with the purpose of course to “repel the occupiers” and liberate Iraq from the invading army.

    We know that in the training exercises recently they dropped propaganda leaflets on the enemy.

    What did they say? “People of Iraq, join us in repelling the invaders”?

    Currently there are 215,000 trained and semi-trained (whatever that means) and equipped Iraqi army troops. What if they turned all that training, not to mention an unusually strategic starting position to the enemy, on our troops there, while they were being invaded from the sea and air by the Chinese-Russo Coalition?

    Perhaps like Desert Storm, their goal is only to drive us out of the country. Once we are gone, it’s over. But what would happen? Where would it all end up? Could it ever happen?

    I don’t know, but given the fact we have basically told the world to go f#*&k themselves if they don’t like our policies, and we are acting as a rogue nation as far as the UN is concerned, and we are as far as the UN and the International community is concerned, illegally occupying a foreign country.

    And besides, we already introduced the concept of launching preemptive war.

    We set the standard, actually, “lowered” it. Don’t think they can’t use that new lower standard against us.

    Can it happen?

    The prophet worfeus says maybe.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Steve Flesher12:59 PM

    Well I'm glad you mention that Worf (regarding sounding like Ann Coulter).

    It seems that liberals are allowed to use invective and call it "debate" when it serves their agenda. When Ann Coulter uses it, it's "hate-speak".

    Examine your writings Worf from the very first post you posted on this blog. They continue to get more mean-spirited and the name calling triples each time you write a reply to me. You darn liberals (oh excuse me..."independents") are so predictable! LOL.

    Regarding Murthas plan...every DEMOCRAT in the House and Senate reject his plan as well. Biden, Hillary, even Schumer are saying how dangerous that would be. You do not send a memo telling insurgents "just hold out a little longer guys, we're only going to be there another 5 months, 7 days, 3 hours, and 42 minutes!" LOL. I am glad though that there are 3 members of the house (all Democrats) who voted for the proposition...and that people like yourself continue to promote a "timeline". It's going to ensure that Democrats are going to stay out of office where they definitely do not belong. So Thank You!

    You set up your sarcastic factor as an extra insurance policy.

    You also said: "this sentence was barely coherent, and questionable grammatically speaking"

    You were just trying to insult. Which is fine, I've debated brighter and more coherent, and can get through it just fine..just always expect a reply :-).

    Regarding evolution, I'm glad your optomistic, but I think my friend, that so-called "evolution" has had a reverse effect on you. I'm sure whatever created you could have debated me with a little more zeal.
    As my descendants grow (your words) and your descendants continue to decline, can you imagine what a debate between your kids and mine would be like? LOL. Good point Worf, and I'm glad you keep bringing them up.

    Lastly (and believe it or not I was GOING to bring this up in a previous post because as liberals and "independents" start to tire and are scraping the bottom of the pudding cup for ideas to debate...they turn to this one) you have no idea of my military experience number one, and number two, let me turn this around on you.

    Let's assume that I've never been in the miliary and take the following points and answer them to the best of your ability.

    A. Worf, are you supportive of your local fire departments or police departments? If so, you must join them tomorrow in fighting fires and fighting crime (that local donation to the Fire Fighters Association and Fraternity Order of Police is much appreciated but isn't helping much). If you refuse to join them, does it change the IDEA of having them? Come on Worf you must have a little common sense. For you to use this bottom of the barrell argument and then lecture on the basis of "logic" after it's been proven repeatedly that all you seem to be good at in terms of formulating an argument, is copy and paste bible verses.

    B. If you feel our troops, who are supporting our President by being there, are serving as the world police, wouldn't that make them just as bad as he is? Why don't you cross political lines and fight them along with your fellow insurgents? Take a couple leaders of Al Quaida out to dinner and have a slumber party with Al Zarqawi to apologize on behalf of the American People. Though I guarantee you by morning you will have no hands to type with by the time he is done with you. (though that may be a good thing...UH OH is that "hate-speak"?)

    [By the way I'm sure you and Cindy Sheehan are in total mourning today after the death of yet another "freedom fighter". Top Al Quaida Commander, Hamza Rabia was killed! Are you okay Worf, need a hug? How about a nice verse of "give peace a chance".]

    How about starting your own liberal soap opera..."All My Islamic Children"...or even better "One Life to Slaughter" (which would be incredible if your fantasy came true and our boys wind up losing).

    And finally, I just love the newest canard: "I'm not a liberal, but I'm going to argue like one, rehash, redigest, and throw up all over again what the top Senate Democrats have been regurgitating for the last three years". Where's the Bush impeachment? How many people showed up for Cindy Sheehan's book signing last week? And by the way, what did happen to that compelling Downing Street Memo?

    In regard to your "I'm not a liberal" argument Worf, all I can I say is: "If it looks like a duck, and it squawks like a chicken, it's probably a liberal".

    Keep singing!

    ReplyDelete
  36. Steve Flesher1:07 PM

    "Murtha has proposed his own resolution that would force the president to withdraw the nearly 160,000 troops in Iraq "at the earliest practicable date.""

    Translation: "I'm unrealistic".

    Read it and weep Worf.
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051120/ap_on_go_co/congress_iraq

    ReplyDelete
  37. You know, you really are your own worst enemy genius.

    All of us don’t get our news from YAHOO, LoL.

    Thanks, but we don’t need your little non functional YAHOO link there slappy. (Next time try using Anchors)

    Here is the link to his plan, in his OWN words, on the OFFICIAL site of the US Congress. You know, that group of guys who sit in the big white building here in DC?

    As you said,” read it and weep”.

    Click Here Genius


    The Murtha plan, irregardless of the LIES you and your cohorts put out, calls for a REDEPLOYMENT, not a withdrawal.

    In fact, here are the 4 major bullet points, in Mr. Murtha’s own words, taken directly from the US Congressional Website.

    Start weepin;

    From Jack Murtha; www.house.gov

    ___________________________________

    My plan calls:

    1. To immediately ‘redeploy’ U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.

    2. To create a quick reaction force in the region.

    3. To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines.

    4. To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq
    ___________________________________

    That is his plan.

    So start weepin slappy.

    I am sorry if you can’t read, but the words have been there all along, and liars like you, have thrown out red herring after red herring trying to take the peoples eyes off the ball.

    See you can read, and you ought to know better. Boys are dying because of lies like yours.

    Your words deceive the masses, and lure people to sleep so your chieftains of power can wage their merciless unholy wars for money, while the real enemies of the US throw their opposition and threats in our faces.

    You are quibbling hacks, cackling hens, frightened little men, who “strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel”.

    You are not part of the solution, you are just part of the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  38. In fact, it's called the Murtha "Plan to Redeploy the Troops in Iraq".

    And just in case you aren't capable of finding your way around the site and reading the the actual plan, these 2 links will take you directly there.

    CLICK HERE FOR A FISTFULL-O-TRUTH

    And his offical release

    CLICK HERE FOR A TRUTH-O-CUTION

    ReplyDelete
  39. "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"

    --Voltaire

    ReplyDelete
  40. And BTW, I just could not let this one go.

    YOU SAID

    "(supposedly quoting me)I'm not a liberal, but I'm going to argue like one, rehash"

    and

    "In regard to your "I'm not a liberal" argument Worf"

    Thanks for proving my point. You guys always see what you "think" you are seeing, and read what you think you've read.

    I said just the opposite genuis, go back and read what I wrote. I said I "happily call myself a Liberal". I also said, Liberal is a derivitive of the word Liberty, and I went on to make some appropriate yuk yuks.

    It's right there in print.

    Now we know why Ann Coulter is too scared to have an "open" Blog like this, and instead ops for a "chat room"

    That whole "in print" thingy is a bitch, ain't it?

    You can't even quote ME right.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Hey Steve, don't take this the wrong way, it's not that I don't enjoy our little talks, but your clock is just about as clean as I can get it, don't ya think?

    As much as I would enjoy whoopin up on you some more, maybe you had better send over one of those people you debated before, who were sooo much smarter than me.

    the prohpet worfeus says, NEXT

    ReplyDelete
  42. errr...prophet, sorry teach:)

    ReplyDelete
  43. Anonymous5:02 PM

    hhh

    ReplyDelete
  44. Steve Flesher5:56 PM

    You said you weren't a democrat...alligning or non alligning yourself with the party.

    That was not YAHOO news. It was SPONSORED by YAHOO and pulled from the Associated Press which is indeed the major news outlet that NY Times, CBS, Fox News, Yahoo, MSNBC all use. See, reporters join the Associated Press. Then the top news outlets purchases these articles from them. They just reprinted what the biggest newsource in the world uses.

    Your long book report only says in a long way, what my small little FACTUAL quote said. Murtha wants to withdraw, WE CANNOT. I explained to you why, but I can see why you would want to divert away from common sense.

    He's clearly wrong Worf, and the top Senate Democrats are not even supporting it. It's not realistic. Stop portraying the Republicans here as they are forcing decisions on House Democrats. What are you saying? House Democrats have no REAL opinion and are just parrots for Republicans, now?

    (By the way, they accomplished this WITHOUT Tom DeLay, just imagine when he comes back)

    My clock being cleaned would mean that you proved something that I was saying was not true. I have known all along Murtha's insane proposal.

    My FACT of the quote only confirms what you pasted.

    It's the same idea, your post or mine, that is being rejected by Congress...even the Democratic members.

    There is my position that you need to "clean my clock on". That Democrats as a majority, ARE NOT supporting it.

    Many other issues too...Bush's impeachment, Cindy's lonely book signing, the faded Downing Street Memo.

    You fail to mention ANYTHING regarding any of that.

    REDEPLOYMENT: "to transfer from one area or activity to another"

    Again Senate Democrats disagree. I disagree. They are just fine where they are.

    You can call it what you want, but in the end we all know what it means.

    Nice try.

    You said: "so little PINHEADS like you could come into Blogs and say the Dems voted against pulling out."

    Your own phraseology was "pulling out".

    You also said: "And in case you forgot there Einstein, I ain’t no democrat:

    Most democrats I talk to say: "democrats are not liberals..liberals are bringing our party down". Are you saying the opposite by calling yourself a "liberal" and not a "democrat"? LOL.

    Don't confuse yourself Worf, you need all the help you can get.

    I also like how you avoided my anti-chicken hawk analogy as well.

    Can't you admit when you've been shot down?

    LOL.

    Probably not, "liberals" are still saying that they won the last election. LOL.

    Denial doesn't work. Ask Cindy Sheehan.

    :-) I enjoy this as well. I admire your endurance. I'll be back in 3 hours - as usual - to refute.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Anonymous7:19 PM

    Hi Lydia : How about coming over to my place for spaghetti and meatballs on toast? Anyways, I am completely freaked out that a nice girl such as yourself is interested in such a complex subject as Stalin; very impressive. Most girls worry about shampoo and nail polish!
    My clarity on God, life, war, is undeniable. There are no absolutes to any of lifes questions, problems, or concerns....it is virtually impossible for man to balance the scales and create absolutes. Very desperate people turn to God to manufacture a false hope......I consider these people "Lost Souls".
    Hitlers Germany was filled with lost souls -as he was their God.

    Truthfully,I think theres a little bit of Stalin in everyone!

    Johnny moo moo

    ReplyDelete
  46. Ok, this is the last time I deal with your same red herrings. Listen up, cause this is the last I respond to this level of crap. If you got nothing better n this, then don’t even bother.

    Oh and this will not be my usual jaunty banter, I reserve that for intelligent arguments, not your “I know you are but what am I?” crap or all these obvious to anyone but you, red herrings.

    Genius said

    ### You said you weren't a democrat...###

    Never argued that point genius. I

    I did say I wasn't a Dem, but thats NOT what you said is it.

    Here, let me "cut-n-paste" your what YOU said.

    STEVE SAID

    ### In regard to your "I'm not a liberal" argument Worf, all I can I say is: "If it looks like a duck, and it squawks like a chicken, it's probably a liberal".
    ###

    AND STEVE SAID

    ### And finally, I just love the newest canard: "I'm not a liberal, but I'm going to argue like one ###

    BUT AHH YOU ASK? WHAT DID WORFEUS REALLY SAY? HERE, LET ME SHOW YOU.


    WORFEUS SAID

    ### And in case you forgot there Einstein, I ain’t no democrat.###

    AND IN A PREVIOUS POST ON LYDIA's LAST ARTICLE WORFEUS SAID

    ### I for one am NOT a Democrat, and I don’t know if Lydia calls herself one or not, but I do not subscribe to party lines, and yet I happily consider myself a Liberal. Liberal, is a derivative of the word Liberty, so I don’t have a problem with that. Liberty works for me, you know,,,,Pat Henry and all that “give me Liberty stuff”? ###


    There it is in print.


    Either you can't read, or you just make this crap up as you go along, because what YOU QUOTED me as saying, I NEVER SAID.

    Like I said, you can't even quote ME right.

    Genius said

    ### That was not YAHOO news ###

    Who gives a crap???

    I gave you Mr Murtha's words, not someone’s STORY about his words.

    Another kiddytime red herring.

    And what really cracked me up was when you went on about how "reputable' your news source was.


    Like I said, who cares?? LOL.

    Go read the plan.

    In fact, EVERYONE go read the plan. It's right there. Then listen to what genius here is saying, and read what Murtha said.


    CLICK HERE TO WEEP


    And his offical release

    CLICK HERE TO WEEP AGAIN

    Genius said

    ### There is my position that you need to "clean my clock on". That Democrats as a majority, ARE NOT supporting it ###

    Lol, Consider your clock already cleaned on this one.

    I told you I ain't a Dem, and I don't care about what the party vote is.

    Your point is thus mooted.

    Worfeus say “cuckoo clock cleaned".

    Genius said

    ### Many other issues too...Bush's impeachment, Cindy's lonely book signing, the faded Downing Street Memo. You fail to mention ANYTHING regarding any of that ###

    That’s because we weren't talking about those things, were we?

    But thanks for so clearly demonstrating how you guys ALWAYS try to change the topic when your outgunned on the current one.

    Thanks buddy.

    This stuff just sells itself!

    Genius said

    ### I also like how you avoided my anti-chicken hawk analogy as well ###

    If you’re trying to tell us you’re a member of the US Military currently stationed in Iraq or have returned from service in Iraq, then say so. I will least admire your willingness to support what you preach.

    But if not, I would strongly suggest you not even go there.

    Other than that, nothing else you said even merits a response, not that any of this really did either.

    You never addressed your making up my words, your pathetic attempt to get us to read a story ABOUT Murtha's plan, instead of the ACTUAL PLAN and I won't even mention your inabilty to know when your whooped. Thats your own personal problem.

    You’re out of ammunition slugger, and you’re still pullin the trigger.

    Alas, but that was a wasted 30 minutes of my life I will never get back. What a waste.

    Worfeus grow bored with lowbrow republican lies.

    Don't bother worfeus anymore unless you have something smart to say.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Steve Flesher9:08 PM

    "Worfeus grow bored with lowbrow republican lies."

    You are amazing. You aren't interested in anything I have to say yet you always have something to say back.

    I made it clear that you said "democrat" and not "liberal". I'm telling you, these days there is no difference.

    Worf the way you talk represents the democrats. Dean, Pelosi, Boxer, Bidem, whatever.

    You want to twist it and say "I never said this, and I said this and you said that" but you are fighting the same pointless fights the democrats are.

    Regardless who you allign yourself with, your ideas are as insane as theirs were. Now that they have been slapped with reality, they are shying away...the only difference in you is that you are still ranting about what they are FINALLY giving up on.

    You tried to make a case (regarding your chickenhawk argument) that if you support something you must join something. I refuted it, and you mentioned nothing of it.

    Obviously you won't have much to say. Because you don't want to debate any of the issues or points..because you can't.

    The basic Murtha rant, is the same Sheehan rant, the Downing Street rant, and the Bush impreachment rant. I showed you how all of those are now faded away and mean nothing.

    I also drew a fair comparrison in your anti war speech to that of the Democrats in Congress.

    So now you say that just because Pelosi, Dean, Hillary's flip-flopping, Biden, Schumer, Feinstein, all Senate arguments on the left (that just happen to sound like yours even though you are not a Democrat) that have been shut down, that it means nothing.

    It must be "right" just because Worf says so. LOL. Again alligning with the typical liberal argument that "majority doesn't win" but "our side always wins".

    I show you how Democrats in the Senate and House have babbled on without having the guts to back up their assertions when it actually comes to voting on it, and your answer is: "I'm not a democrat".

    When your arguments to Bush bash, sound just like theirs, you lose when the Democrats lose. Unless you can formulate an argument that we have not already heard.

    Regarding the YAHOO thing, I just pointed out who the Associated Press was. It was you who said I should use an "Anchor"..though I'm sure you were talking about Dan Rather or Mary Mapes LOL.

    I suspect you're frustrated as you should be. You cannot refute anything specific, you just keep repeating yourself.

    It was fun, and I thank you for ensuring that liberals will not be winning any presidential elections anytime soon.

    Thanks Worf! We couldn't have done it without you :-).

    ReplyDelete
  48. I did not twist any of your words.

    I cut and pasted them. GO LOOK.

    AND WHAT YOU QUOTED ME AS SAYING YOU MADE UP!

    I NEVER SAID IT.

    YOU MADE IT UP. YOU INVENTED A QUOTE.

    GET IT???

    YOU LIED!

    AND YOU WERE CAUGHT.

    AND IT IS PRINTED RIGHT ABOVE THIS POST!!!

    Until you want to explain to everyone why you need to FABRICATE QUOTES, print them as the lies they are, and then deny it, then you can whine like the lil girl you are, but you ain't gonna git no more ebb and flow from me.

    Go suckle someone else liar.

    ReplyDelete
  49. For anyone in here confused by all this, please don't let this schmuck,,,,or Steve either, deter you from the facts of the Murtha plan.

    Don't let the republican war machine convince you of the lie they put out on the floor for a vote.

    The Murtha plan is smart, doable, and will likely result in a more stable Iraq, and with the LEAST loss of life on both sides.

    Read all about 37 Year USMC Marine Corp Veteran, Decorated Hero, Col. Jack Murtha's plan to REDEPLOY the troops, not "cut-n-run", on the OFFICIAL US Congressional Website:

    TRUTH SPEAKS LOUDER

    And his offical release

    THAN LIES

    Don't let the facts get lost in the lies.

    ReplyDelete
  50. BTW Steve,

    This has nothing to do with anything other than it was funny, but when you said

    ### Regarding the YAHOO thing, I just pointed out who the Associated Press was. It was you who said I should use an "Anchor"..though I'm sure you were talking about Dan Rather or Mary Mapes LOL. ###

    LOL

    I am not talking about ANCHORMEN Stevo, lol,

    I am speaking about Anchor TAGS, you know, HTML Anchors? LOL.

    That was a good one buddy...

    ReplyDelete
  51. Steve Flesher1:02 AM

    Worf Worf Worf.....

    Stop for a drink. LOL. You need a little air.

    In re-reading your "anchor" comment.....I am not sure anyone would have understood it unless they are incredibly computer minded. My webpage is run off of frontpage and a hosting company. Sorry for the mix-up but unless you're a computer geek - and the subject is "news sources", I think it's more than acceptable to make this mistake.

    Regarding my taking you out of context...I sdmit you said that you were a liberal! I admit you said you were not a democrat. I admit I read the Murtha proposal.

    No matter what you call yourself, your arguments are JUST LIKE the democrats' arguments. The only difference is that you keep holding on to them, after they finally are starting to let them go!

    You are taking yourself out of context, and frankly, I think you are starting to confuse yourself.

    You keep refuting points that I never made in the first place.

    Murtha saying "redeployment" doesn't change the argument. As I stated, we all know what it means. AND NOBODY is supporting it in Congress. Again a point that you should be refuting, but are not!

    The great thing about blogging is that it's always here, anyone can choose to re-read anything I have written. You keep rehashing and arguing points that I have never raised in the first place.

    You have resorted to namecalling (I counted 7 times in the last 3) and now your constant CAPS imply that you are screaming.

    LOL...none of this surprises me.

    Worf you can't win a debate unless you acknowledge the heart of what is being debated.

    You really DON'T want a liberal to have a shot in the White House, do you? LOL....at least that might be a point we can clink champagne glasses on together.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Steve, I don't know why you waste time with Worefeus. It's obvious he lives in his own little world.

    He insults and says and I quote "I could care less if you and your lousy little soul rots in hell."

    Nice Christian attitude from someone who claims to read and quote the Bible.

    It's fanatics like him that make me believe more in Austin 3:16 than anything he'll ever say.

    But I'd expect that from a religious zealot...and a liberal one at that.

    Regards,

    Ken
    Austin 3:16 which just means I whipped your ass.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Steve Flesher10:08 AM

    LOL good one Ken!

    ReplyDelete
  54. Yea good one Ken.

    Except if you read on you will see I don't consider myself a Christian, and I don't purport to be any more pious than you or your repub friends. In fact, you will find me somewhat of an asshole.

    See I don't like murderers, and I like even less little self righteous simps, who blindy support them, and then call me coward for not signing on their holy crusade to kill muslims.

    I am all for going after Bin Laden, and Alqeada, to wipe them and their evil, wicked selves off the face of the planet.

    Go get em tiger.

    But the cowards in the White House you so brazenly support, then condemn me for not supporting them, have little interest in protecting America or going after those responsible for 911.

    They were too afraid to go into Casmir, between India and Pakistan where Bin Laden has been since we announced 2 months prior to the invasion of Afghanistan that we were coming to get him.

    See India and Pakistan have real armies, and real nukes, so we wanted none of that.

    So your glorious leader in the White House decided to give the American people what they wanted. The blood of Arabs. A war against people who “looked” like the ones who flew the planes into the towers on 911. He even went out of his way to convince us these people who looked like the terrorists, were the terrorists.

    But they weren’t. It was a lie. And 100,000 people lie dead because of our actions.

    So not being a Christian, I will have no problem watching as all those who would conspire to commit genocide, dangling from a rope at Nuremburg 2, just like we did to the other Holy Christian leaders of the other Thousand Year Reign a brief half century ago.

    ReplyDelete
  55. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  56. My formatting got a little screwed up. Let me repost those quotes so they don't get lost in the shuffle.

    __________________________________

    Today we have just over 140,000 trained and equipped Iraqi security forces, about 80,000 in the Ministry of Interior and about 60,000 in the Ministry of Defense.

    And today Iraq has more than 90 operational combat battalions in both military and special police.

    And these battalions are engaged in combat across Iraq, both with coalition forces and even in some cases independently without our support. And they are performing generally very well.

    Gen. George Casey, Commander of U.S. Forces in Iraq
    Tuesday, March 8, 2005

    ___________________________________

    Obviously we are also interested in postwar security arrangements in that part of the world.

    The President has made it clear that we are not interested in a permanent or long-term U.S. ground presence, a garrison if you will, on the ground in the Gulf in the Saudi Arabian area. But we are interested in enhanced naval presence.

    We think we can do that safely.

    We’ve been operating out of Bahrain since 1949, and will continue to do so.

    Secretary of Defense
    Richard Cheney, April 29th, 1991

    ___________________________________

    ReplyDelete
  57. And here's an oldy, but a goody,

    __________________________________

    I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force.

    I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force.

    And it’s my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq.”

    Richard Cheney, April 29, 1991

    __________________________________

    Too bad you guys can't learn from your own wisdom.

    ReplyDelete
  58. lydia, oh lydia!

    just read the whole ordeal at the brad blog. well done, bub! you've proved what a class act you are. mann, once again, had to result to nasty tactics and ugly ad hominems. not that i object to the use of such, but hers was unwarranted, and uproariously ironic!

    heh! "....death is sexier than lydia cornell..."! oh, the ugly irony! should i contrast the charming and delightful ms. cornell with the knobbly mr. coulter? i might as well contrast the former with a burlap sack. a burlap sack with an adam's apple, no less!

    your ardent fan and supporter,
    KEvron

    ReplyDelete
  59. BobbyinNashville6:54 PM

    I think some of these people would defend Hitler if Ann Coulter told them to. Lydia, I can't say it enough, please don't let these hate mongers get to you. Ann is jealous because he'd like to be a real woman like you, and knows he never will be.

    The republicans are falling left and right or is that right and right and mAnn Coulter isn't far behind them. Already MSNBC named her the mose vile or the worst person or something like that.

    Lydia, you're awesome. Now, hire a lawyer and get that bee-awtch!

    ReplyDelete
  60. Anonymous6:57 PM

    Steve Flesher is a self hating homosexual who needs to be accepted by the rethugnicans and that's why he worships Ann Coulter.

    Hey Steve, shut up and go play with yourself. If you were a true republican, you'd be straight!

    ReplyDelete
  61. This post is "re-posted" due to formatting issues.

    Steve,

    The comment on your misuse of the word Anchor, you are right.

    I should not expect your breadth of knowledge to equal mine. :)

    No seriously, it was just a little joke, cause it was funny, that’s all. You are a reasonably gifted debater, if not at all an accurate one.

    See, like so many of your arguments, it was just another one based on something I never said, or never implied. Like your invention of a quote, that never came from my keyboard.

    But ok, seems like you have a handle on the fact that you fabricated a quote by me, and besides, anyone reading our previous posts can CLEARLY see that you did. So ok, I will give you a second chance since you are so persistent.

    You said

    ### Murtha saying "redeployment" doesn't change the argument. As I stated, we all know what it means. AND NOBODY is supporting it in Congress. Again a point that you should be refuting, but are not! ###

    See your attempts to dismiss the Murtha plan just does not cut it. Redeployment means redeployment. Not cut and run.

    You change the words, to change the meaning. In fact, you can’t even admit that your little repubs took the Murtha plan, took out ALL of the pertinent qualifiers, like REDEPLOY in the region, just outside of Iraq proper, and a Quick Response force to offer the Iraqi army support from Air and rapid response Ground troops and then just threw it out on the floor for a vote.

    You knew if the Democrats voted for it, you could say “see, they want to pull the troops out WITHOUT any safeguards”.

    And if the Democrats voted against it, which they had to, you could say, “see, you guys don’t support a leaving Iraq”.

    But this “dirty little lie” is obvious to anyone but a fool.

    In fact, it's ironically enough, the same kind of crap the Saducees and the Pharisees were always pulling on Jesus. Hmmm..

    If you were honest, which you are not, you would have put Jack Murtha’s plan on the floor, not your watered down version of it.

    Answer that one genius. Why are you afraid of voting on Jack Murtha’s ACTUAL plan???

    When you can answer that question, you will start to see how ugly the corruption is, that has so badly rusted your moral compass.

    Murtha’s plan, which you ran from would mean no more boots on the ground inside of Iraq, and therefore taking the fire out of the insurgency, and letting the Iraqi people have what we promised them when we went in, sovereignty. Something they do NOT have now.

    In fact, this idea was not at all foreign to your own Reichmarschall of war;
    _______________________________

    Obviously we are also interested in postwar security arrangements in that part of the world. The President has made it clear that we are not interested in a permanent or long-term U.S. ground presence, a garrison if you will, on the ground in the Gulf in the Saudi Arabian area.

    But we are interested in enhanced naval presence. We think we can do that safely.

    We’ve been operating out of Bahrain since 1949, and will continue to do so.

    Secretary of Defense
    Richard Cheney, April 29th, 1991
    _________________________________

    The Iraqi army is not standing up for one reason, cause they don’t have too. When I was a boy, my father threw me into the snappin turtle pond on our farm in upstate New York. Now I was only 3 ½ years old, and I had not yet learned to swim. But you can bet your arse on that day, I swam like Mark Spitz. And I have had no problem in the water since.

    Sometimes the best way to get your kids to become self sufficient, is to shut the door and lock it.

    We have been training the Iraqi army for over 2 years!

    And there are a LOT of them now. Just listen to the commanders on the ground.
    ________________________________

    Today we have just over 140,000 trained and equipped Iraqi security forces, about 80,000 in the Ministry of Interior and about 60,000 in the Ministry of
    Defense.

    And today Iraq has more than 90 operational combat battalions in both military and special police.

    And these battalions are engaged in combat across Iraq, both with coalition forces and even in some cases independently without our support.

    And they are performing generally very well.

    Gen. George Casey, Commander of U.S. Forces in Iraq Tuesday,
    March 8, 2005
    _________________________________

    Now that was back in March. According to a recent statement by the President, there are now, 215,000 trained, equipped troops!

    That’s more than we have over there! But your glorious leader, and those of you who push his propaganda, tell us that they still need “more” training!

    What are you guys training them to do?

    Become the Power Rangers?

    Hell by now these guys should be able to Fly F-22’s blindfolded while disassembling their AK 47’s!

    When my Uncle Bill went off to fight the Germans in Bastogne in WW2, he said that many of the troops were fresh, green recruits, who had little more than “basic” training. My Uncle Jacob, who fought in the Philippines in the same war, said similar things.

    We trained them in 8 weeks, and sent many off to save the world. But these Iraqi soldiers, who GREW UP with AK47’s under their pillows, these guys still aren’t trained after 2 years and 2 and half BILLION dollars?

    As you good-ole-boys are so fond of saying, “that dog won’t hunt”.

    See your arguments, as crafty as you try to make them, don’t hold water.

    Redeploying to the outskirts, putting the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the Iraqi people, well, as they say, “necessity is the mother of invention” , so too will the Iraqis take care of themselves.

    Trust me, after a century of war, they know what to do with the guns.

    Time will show that the Murtha plan is really the ONLY plan at this point, and we will end up doing it eventually.

    And when we do, we know that you will be right here, to tell us all how it was YOUR plan all along.

    You guys attacked Jack Murtha’s character, a disgusting display of people who never served in combat, calling a combat veteran who was bloodied thrice for his country, a coward.

    You could not attack the plan, so you attacked the man.

    But it’s not the MAN, it’s the PLAN.

    As for me and my personal politics?

    I would vote for a good republican man as quickly as I would vote for a good Democratic man, (or woman). In fact, if the Republicans put up McCain, next election, and the Dems put up Hillary, I will likely be in here arguing why people should vote republican in 2008.

    When it comes to electing a President, it's the Plan and the Man! (or Woman:)

    ReplyDelete
  62. Steve Flesher9:37 PM

    LOL...it's amazing I defend my President and our troops and I'm accused of being a "self-hating" gay man. That's a good sign, because George Bush has been considered a "self hating American", Ann Coulter has been referred to as a "Food restricting anorexic"...LOL. It's amazing the lengths liberals will go to namecall...makes me think of Ann's quote once again from the Couric interview:

    "When everyone of your arguments is characterized as an attempt to bring back slavery or resegregate lunch counters, it's a little hard to have any sort of productive debate".

    So called "progressives" continue to achieve nothing.

    Worf, you have ALOT of time on your hands. LOL.

    But quicky,

    What you keep shying away from, is that EVERYONE has read Murtha's plan...and EVERYONE thinks it's insane.

    Redeploying and telling the insurgents that we are throwing in the towel is preposterous.

    See, you talk about cooling the insurgency down. There IS NO cooling them down. They are always going to be nuts! They were taught to be nuts, and they will remain nuts.

    They will continue to attack even after we are gone. We are going into Iraq's 3rd act of democracy, we removed a brutal dictator who gassed his own people and corrupted the United Nations - and were exptected to trust that same corrupt organization when it came to Weapons inspecting. LOL. You've got to be kidding me!

    As Ann (the hater) has pointed out: and I quote:

    "Saddam is on trial. His psychopath sons are dead. We've captured or killed scores of foreign terrorists in Baghdad. Rape rooms and torture chambers are back in R. Kelly's Miami Beach mansion where they belong.

    The Iraqi people have voted in two free, democratic elections this year. In a rash and unconsidered move, they even gave women the right to vote.

    Iraqis have ratified a constitution and will vote for a National Assembly next month. The long-suffering Kurds are free and no longer require 24/7 protection by U.S. fighter jets.

    Libya's Moammar Gadhafi has voluntarily dismantled his weapons of mass destruction, Syria has withdrawn from Lebanon, and the Palestinians are holding elections.

    (Last but certainly not least, the Marsh Arabs' wetlands ecosystem in central Iraq that Saddam drained is being restored, so even the Democrats' war goals in Iraq are being met.)

    The American military has accomplished all this with just over 2,000 deaths. These deaths are especially painful because they fall on our greatest Americans. Still, look at what the military has done and compare the cost to 600,000 deaths in the Civil War, 400,000 deaths in World War II and 60,000 deaths in Vietnam (before Walter Cronkite finally threw in the towel and declared victory for North Vietnam)."

    ....and Worf and Murtha thinks that now is the time to "deploy".

    Worf, talk to me after this is complete. Tell me how a "timeline" would have sped up the process. In fact, you can argue the new points from the left declaring "we could have achieved this too, but would have done it sooner!" Trust me, it's coming.

    Yes the best man for President in 2008 will indeed be a woman...;-) Dr. Condoleezza Rice (www.americansforrice.com).

    ReplyDelete
  63. Steve Flesher9:44 PM

    By the way this "huge misquoting" factor of yours is a bit overstated. You keep harping on it - though you acknowledge that I acknowledged it.

    I don't change the jist though - let that be clear.

    Your arguments are nothing new to the political spectrum. We have heard now from Barbara Boxer (and Streisand) what you are presenting now as fresh.

    We need a counter argument that is new. Please come up with one. Liberals we are waiting for your ideas!

    Murtha's plan was a dramatized rehashment of Senators Biden, Kerry, Boxer, and Kennedy's endless blather. It wasn't new.

    It's apparent Worf, you cannot accept when an argument is shot down.

    Also, explain to me, since you imply that the Republicans forced the Democrats to vote in their favor, why you aren't rallying against the three that actually DID vote for it?

    ReplyDelete
  64. Steve Flesher9:57 PM

    Last point:

    I think your energy is amazing Worf.

    It's just a shame you aren't moving ahead with this country.

    I posted a reply tonight to a reader on my website. It's quite long, but if you read it, it might explain a perspective from a bleeding heart - self-hating gay man's perspective ;-).

    ReplyDelete
  65. Steve

    I will address a few of your points.

    Steve said ### Redeploying and telling the insurgents that we are throwing in the towel is preposterous ###

    You can dismiss the plan all along. Fact is you NEVER addressed the fact there are currently 215,000 armed, trained soldiers in the Iraq army now. There is absolutely NO reason that they can’t defend their own homeland, and you know it. The only reason we aren’t leaving, is because we know they will like revert to an older, Taliban like regime, which is apparently what they want.

    But hey, you know what’s best for them, right? Because “inside every Iraqi is an American, trying to get out”.

    You said

    ### By the way this "huge misquoting" factor of yours is a bit overstated. You keep harping on it - though you acknowledge that I acknowledged it. ###

    You guys really like to move on from the fabrications you put out, when someone calls you on it. Your group lied about why we went into Iraq, and when we called you to task on it, you said, “lets not worry about that, were there now, lets worry about making it work”.

    Problem with that logic, reasonable as it sounds, is that we NEVER learn that way. In order to correct a mistake, you must first, admit the mistake.

    Then learn from it. THEN you can move forward. You can’t just put out false data, get caught in it, and say “you’re making too much of it”.

    But thanks Steve, it was a prime example of the attempt to move on from all the other things, like “greet us with flowers” and “welcome us as liberators” that you guys are soooo ready to move on from.

    You said ### Your arguments are nothing new to the political spectrum ###

    So? Who said they were?

    You so deceitfully said ### Also, explain to me, since you imply that the Republicans forced the Democrats to vote in their favor, why you aren't rallying against the three that actually DID vote for it? ###

    This is another prime example of how you believe your own plate of horse crap. You really still think that the plan your repug schmucks threw out on the floor, was somehow anything more than a Red Herring.

    Here, let me give you an example, since you OBVIOUSLY didn’t read the one in the post you are supposed to be responding to.

    Lets say you are buying an car. You see the car, it is in good shape, new rubber, etc. You pay the guy the money, and go to pick up the car the next day.

    When you arrive, the car has had the tires removed, the windshield, the hood, the doors, the stereo, and the engine.

    Watcha gonna do?

    Come on, it’s the same car you saw yesterday right? Look at the VIN number, still the same license plates, so what’s the problem?

    You still want the car, right…..?


    Clear it up any?

    Fact is the Murtha plan, while you are sooo ready to dismiss it, (funny how it was dismissed the same day it came out), is the right plan.

    If the troops redeploy outside of Iraq proper, then the poor Iraqi’s will only have 215,000 trained, armed soldiers to defend them from their own people.

    They would also have our “rapid response” strike forces, ground troops, air support, etc. All this would be available on an “as need” basis.

    Also, they would have their sovereignty back, meaning the prime reason for their anger towards us, would be removed. It would then be up to them.

    You know the plan can work, but you dismiss it without so much as a vote, then you try to throw out your red herring to play politics. You won’t support the Murtha plan because he was a democrat. If it was the Delay plan, you would not be so quick to dismiss it. It’s a partisan matter for you, that much is clear.

    Oh and as for the free time?

    I’m on vacation. :|

    ReplyDelete
  66. But hey, whats your website?

    I'd be happy to visit it.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Steve Flesher11:27 PM

    Lord, well I'm glad you acknowledge that your arguments are no different from what we have been hearing.

    Worf, you imply that Iraq "apparently" want to revert to an older regime. Bush has been right all along with his strategies. The victories and successes have been documented and displayed and proven, but you still poster boy the left's assumption of what they want.

    Here are more facts Worf:

    On January 30, 2005 - 8,456,266 Iraqis courageously turned out - against the will of the cowards listed above in points 3 & 4 - and voted to begin steps to forming a Democratic government.

    On October 15, 2005 - 9,852,291 Iraqis turned out - in greater numbers - to vote in a referendum on whether or not to ratify the proposed Constitution, resulting in the Constitution being approved.

    There - TEN MILLION (rounding off) voices that prove my side of the debate.

    Now, I ask...copy and paste one Iraqi civilian backing up your assertion that they don't want us there.

    My numbers are not spin - they are fact.

    You don't seem to understand that Murtha's rant is an extension of what we've already been hearing.

    Also, my point was: that you are somewhat implying that the Republican's made it so frightening by removing and adding that it made it necessary to vote against the plan for Democrats. My question is: what do you think that says for the 3 Democrats that voted for it? Are they insane? Are they right?

    Your blathering about my "knowing what Iraqis want" is kind of contradictory because you use it too by implying what they "apparently" want and don't want.

    Lastly, the only thing there was to correct me on was saying you were a "democrat" and you are making a distinction to that of a liberal. Which is fine, and I'll call you a "liberal" from now on. (Which is fine....liberals in most minds are what make Democrats insane). But I still stand by the democrat association theory.

    The Democrats are obviously doing their thinking for you to rehash every one of their arguments that has been shut down.

    I'm not ducking away from anything Worf. It's not even a big "lie" to catch me in.

    The thought process of the argument remains the same. At this point, because your opinions are so close to the Democrats in the Senate - you will lose when they lose. You having a seperate pity party because you are only a "liberal" is not going to change the fact that your arguments were the same insane arguments they were making. ;-).

    By the way, I tried clicking on your name to get to your email.

    Do you have a blog?

    ReplyDelete
  68. Blog? I have no Blog. I am nobody. I am Joe Schmoe with a keyboard. I am John Q. Public.

    I don't provide my email address because I am not a public figure. And I intend on keeping it that way. Sorry.

    As for telling you what the Iraqis want? How the hell would I know what they want? But I know what they don't want. They don't want us there.

    Any idiot knows that.


    One more thing with regards to the Murtha plan.

    Have you guys, ever stopped to think about this?

    Once our troops are redeployed outside of the country, but still within strike distance, and the 215,000 Iraqi troops are left in control.

    Now, the insurgents, if they want to kill all these troops, will have to do more than just road side bombs and suicide attacks. They will have to launch larger operations in order to even dent the size of this military, assuming it’s loyal to our cause, a fact that I strongly doubt.

    Besides, with our army, the goal of IED’s and suicide attacks is to “drive out” our army. They KNOW the Iraqi army is not going anywhere, so such attacks would be pointless.

    The only thing left would be full scale operations if they wanted to overthrow 215,000 troops. (and don’t tell me their not trained yet. If after 2 years, and 200 BILLION dollars, if they aren’t trained enough to point their gun at the enemy and pull the trigger, then they should not be walking around in public).

    Well isn’t that exactly what we want? Right now we KNOW they won’t launch an all out assault on our military, it would be futile.

    But it seems REASONABLE to me to believe that they would believe that the Iraqi army may not be as formidable as ours, and they would likely be bolstered by the knowledge that SOME members of the Iraqi army may not want to kill their own countrymen.

    So now the insurgents decide to overthrow the Iraqi army and they launch all out assaults on Baghdad. Even if they did not call us, we would see the activity from our air and satellite coverage, so our troops move in, with the enemy, out of their hiding places and attempting an overthrow.

    I can’t think of a more perfect opportunity to “kill the enemy”, can you?

    Go ahead and shoot this down all you want, but the fact is, you, and your buddies DON’T KNOW what will happen anymore than anyone else. You proved that fact by all the mistakes you made going in. What mistakes? WMD, greet us with flowers, greet us as liberators, light resistance, how many troops we needed, etc.

    You could not have been more wrong.

    Oh and if you don’t like those, how about this one.

    “MAJOR COMBAT OPERATIONS HAVE ENDED” – George Bush, May 1st, 2003

    Yea, better move on from that one, right?

    Fact is you guys got EVERYTHING wrong about what would happen if we went in, and everything wrong about how to go about it, and then even called it over when it had not even begun!

    You could not have gotten it worse!

    Then you have the audacity to come in here and tell us what well happen if we pull out!

    Like we’d listen to you now? Better think again there slappy.

    (ok,,, Steve, sorry, it’s a habit:)

    No, you got it wrong then, don’t think were gonna listen to you now.

    Remember the saying of your glorious leader?

    “fool me once, ,,shame, ,,on ,,er,,,you,,,
    Fool me twice,,,,shame,,,,on,,,er,,,,,uhhhh…..
    Can’t git fooled agin”

    ReplyDelete
  69. Steve Flesher12:08 AM

    "Go ahead and shoot this down all you want, but the fact is, you, and your buddies DON’T KNOW what will happen anymore than anyone else."

    "As for telling you what the Iraqis want? How the hell would I know what they want? But I know what they don't want. They don't want us there."

    You really are not paying attention are you?

    Why did 10 million vote? Why did 10 million care?

    All the accomplishments I posted via Ann Coulter (the alleged queen of hate).

    You are so partisan...you don't even acknowledge the victories.

    You are chasing your tail here. For what Worf?

    Clearly you have more purpose to rant than I do. Congress shut down the Democrats' tired-three year old arguments. We are staying the course and are continuing to make tremendous progress.

    What you are doing Worf is not progressive for your side. It's bottom-feeding!

    Move on....you are a reason why liberals (and democrats) are being labeled the "rut" party.

    Tell me the progress and victories I outlined for you are not true, tell me they are overstated by the evil "conservative media" (LOL).

    Tell me something! But at least acknowledge them.

    It's a fact, Murtha has been rejected! We aren't interested.

    You want to keep drudging, go ahead. You aren't going to get far.

    I'm not trying to discourage you or make you feel bad - I really wish someone with your energy was fighting on our side of this.

    But if you aren't...as someone who cares for a fellow human being Worf...you're going to need to give us something new, man.

    That's it, nothing more....nothing less.

    ReplyDelete
  70. STEVE SAID

    ### Why did 10 million vote? Why did 10 million care? ###

    WORFEUS SAYS

    Because we are pointing GUNS at them genius.

    ReplyDelete
  71. BY the way...

    call me "Slappy", call me "Dopey", "Righty", whetever man.

    It doesn't affect me. I have a pretty thick skin, and have had worse said about me.

    Scroll up to the blogger who accused me of being self-hating because I happen to be "gay" and "conservative". LOL.

    I'm used to this...but I'm telling you...it's not helping your people out of their rut.

    Whether or not you accept "Democrat" status, this is precisely what liberals and democrats do all the time.

    Oh well...guess not much was accomplished and I have a hellish week ahead of me.

    Good luck Worf, seriously. I am sorry we disagree but I do enjoy the dialogue. I might not be on much this week, but will try to pop in every now and then.

    ReplyDelete
  72. But I am glad to see I am pushing some buttons.

    You did not bother to address one point on the Murtha plan I took the time to lay out for you.

    Just a bunch of tired old right wing catch phrases.

    I put plenty of solid facts that you can't address.

    See what no one wants to admit, is that we are using our troops, essentially as bait to lure out the insurgency. Don't like the sound of that? Neither do I. But it's a fact, like it or not.

    They are not in constant firefights, they are not attacking the enemy. They are walking around, on patrols, luring out the insurgents, just like we did in Viet Nam.

    It’s a fact, whether you admit it or not.

    When the insurgents do fire at our troops, it helps us track them. With Murtha's plan, all we are doing is taking away our troops as the bait, and replacing it with their own army.

    Then, if they are serious about democracy, they will work it out, and take out the "few" rebels Sunni’s who won’t commit to democracy.

    But if they are not serious, and I don’t believe they are, then they will draw out the insurgency in larger numbers, and they will be “more” effective at policing their own.

    And if civil war does erupt, it will be Sunni (insurgents) and Shiite, (good guys?), then we will at least have clearly drawn lines.

    Of course, has anyone stopped to consider why the insurgency is SO strong still, and why the Iraqi army is not ready to stand up after 2 years, and 200 BILLION dollars?

    Could it be that the Iraqi army IS the insurgency?

    Think about it, loyal to democracy soldier by day, roadside bomb planter by night.

    What could be better? They would definitely have more inside information as to troop movements and deployments than some “dug in” insurgent. And it certainly would explain the increasing accuracy of the attacks, even though the frequency has reduced.

    Oh well, why consider all that? You guys are sooo smart, and were just traitorous little liberals, right?

    By your earlier comparison of our losses in Iraq, it seems 2000 soldiers dead is not sufficient for you. You would apparently not want to withdraw until we reach what, 10,000, 50,000?

    When do guys like you learn, that your “cure” is WORSE than the disease?

    The Murtha plan takes our troops “out of harms way” and besides, your guy’s credibility is SHOT, zero, zippo. I wouldn’t take advice from the Bush admin on how to change my oil.

    Hey I got an idea, lets just listen to whatever you guys say to do, and do the exact opposite. Given your current track record, the opposite would have to be the right solution! See, I’m a genius!

    Oh yea, I hear you now. I hear your argument, “if we do this, we won’t be honoring the sacrifice of the troops”.

    It would seem your only way to honor the sacrifice of our troops, is to sacrifice more troops.

    ReplyDelete
  73. "### Why did 10 million vote? Why did 10 million care? ###

    WORFEUS SAYS

    Because we are pointing GUNS at them genius."

    Ah so now our troops are like Saddam's regime that FORCES.

    Nice work.

    Man, even Al Franken hasn't stooped so low.

    How depressing we have Americans who think this way...I mean that in all sadness.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Worf you aren't pushing any buttons.

    You are the one calling names and speaking in CAPS.

    I really am glad that liberals are speaking this way and encourage it strictly for party debate...it keeps getting my guys elected!

    But on an American level it disables progress. So yes, I think it's sad. Especially that you would describe our troops in the way that you just did.

    :-(.

    Goodnight Worf.

    ReplyDelete
  75. No whats sad is that YOU guys would USE our troops that way.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Goodnight Steve


    Oh hey you never did give me your website. Is it public?

    ReplyDelete
  77. Oh and the CAPS? I just do that to emphasize a point.

    My anger turned to determination a long time ago.

    ReplyDelete
  78. And by the way, those aren't candy canes our troops are pointing at them.

    The truth always evokes that ever present holier than thou patriotisim in you.

    You'll need to sell that elsewhere. I know it for what it is.

    Wanna support the troops? How about getting them out of the line of fire?

    Oh yea, that would make too much sense and you guys will have none of that, will you?

    ReplyDelete
  79. One final thought.

    Our troops have said in recorded interviews, that the only way to determine the insurgency, is to watch who's for them or not.

    Anyone not "with the program", anyone showing non conformity, or flipping off the troops, gets on the list.

    Their home gets raided, and the young men end up in Abu Grahb.

    Think I'm lying? Go rent Farenheit 911, yea yea, I know I know, leftist propaganda.

    Don't worry, you won't have to watch the movie. Just watch the 20 minutes of footage smuggled out of Iraq taken outside of Abu Grahb prison.

    Also watch the night raids, and pay particular attention to what the soldiers say about how they get one name for arrest, but then in their raid, they round up anyone who even SOUNDS like the name on the arrest warrant.

    They haul them all off for "questioning". Watch the trucks roll in with hundreds of men with plastic bags over their heads, rounded up from the previous nights raids, packed in like the Jews in the cattle cars.

    Thats what it reminded me of. Sorry you don't like that talk, but I don't like seeing us do it either.

    I don't say these things cause I hate America cheif, I say them because I love it.

    I know you will never understand that, but sometimes loving your country, means pointing out when it is off course.

    And I resent being accused of being a coward and traitor for it, so forgive me if I call you slappy there, slappy.

    But I do admire your skill and determination as well.

    ________________________________

    "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government"

    --Edward Abbey

    "many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do.

    --Bertrand Russell


    “and the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth?

    And the answer is not very damned many.”

    -Richard Cheney, August, 1992

    ReplyDelete
  80. The following is taken from the interview with Hermann Goering by Gustav Gilbert taken in Goerings jail cell at the Nazi War Crimes Trials at Nuremburg.

    Listen closely to Goerings reasoning.
    __________________________________


    Goering:

    "Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece?

    Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood.

    But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

    Gilbert:

    "There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

    Goering:

    "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.

    That is easy.

    All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotisim and exposing the country to danger.

    It works the same way in any country."

    Hermann Goering
    Nuremberg War Crimes Trials
    April 18th 1946

    ________________________________

    ReplyDelete
  81. Anonymous11:09 AM

    These exchanges are a vivid illustration of how Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and even Michael Moore have poisoned political discourse.
    Stereotyping, name-calling, labeling then ridiculing entire groups of people.
    It's all heat and no light. Makes me long for the days of responsible political debates. Whatever happened to William F. Buckley? Is there such thing as a conservative intellectual anymore?

    ReplyDelete
  82. William F. Buckley is not in here. This is a blog.

    And for a blog, I think there has been some pretty heady discourse.

    Funny, I don't see any amazing literary prose or earthshaking insightful arguments from you.

    Just a smug, haughty critique to try and dismiss volumes of data and facts and set yourself above the crowd.

    And BTW, likening people to Michael Moore, or Rush Limbaugh is name calling.

    People in glass houses, you know?

    Go back and muse on the words of Hermann Goering, just before his thick neck streched a rope to it's maximum capacity.

    Muse on how pertinent his comments, uttered more than half a century ago, are to our current call to arms.

    Muse on the words of Cheney, a mere decade ago in sharp contrast to his now thundering war cries.

    Listen to the debates of Steve, if you are a right winger. While his arguments did not hold water, at least he had some.

    But don't just drop in to tell us how much more enlightened you are then we.

    I respect Steve and Ken more than that type of hubris. At least they believe in something, and are willing to put their thoughts out there, in print, for all the world to see.

    If you have something intelligent to say, were all ears.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Anonymous12:35 PM

    Can Worf and Steve get a show together?
    Point/Coulterpoint.

    ReplyDelete
  84. I wanted to say you should be proud of your willingness to speak out as a Christian should. As long as the rest of us sit back and let these people, like this Ken fellow, continue to spread lies and claim it is Democrats who whine or are hatemongers, not to mention the James Dobsons, Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons of the world, Christianity will sink further into the cesspool they are creating.

    The Golden Rule applies to everyone, even those who think they can do no wrong. It is amazing how many people who claim to be Christian are willing to follow and worship other people's opinions, rather than to read and follow the teachings of Christ as they have been handed down to us.

    And, oh yeah, Curb Your Enthusiasm rocks. I hope you are on more often.

    Peace,

    Bentz

    ReplyDelete
  85. Anonymous3:02 PM

    Whoa, worfeus ... Stop circling the room with a broken bottle. My comments weren't a personal attack on you. I was trying to point out how people like Coulter and Limbaugh have debased political debate by reducing it to name-calling and, I might add, demonizing an entire political party.
    Moore does the same thing from the other end of the spectrum. I think that's a shame.
    By the way, I'm a liberal. A smug, haughty name-calling liberal, apparently. And here I thought we could be friends.

    ReplyDelete
  86. LoL,

    That's pretty good.

    As for my comment? I just think it does little to help the cause, the fight against an illegal war, to come in and just dismiss both sides of the debate.

    I think it was a pretty good debate for a blog. Just look at some of the other blogs.

    This stuff is rapid fire, and we don't spend hours writing answers. It comes out quick, a quick spell check, and maybe a sanity check, and off it goes.

    And criticizing one of the lefts strongest advocates does little to help the cause, unless your a republican of course.

    Michael Moore has done more to bring facts to the table regarding the Bush illegal war, than anyone I know.

    I support Michael Moores efforts to "pull back the curtain" and shed a little light on this administration, and the war that they are waging.

    Although the republicans threw out the lie that Farenheit 911 was inaccurate, the facts are all on his website. Fact for fact in the movie was correct, and only one or two small issues, like the number of congressmens son's serving in Iraq, was incorrect.

    It was a tiny numerical error, but they repubs used it to launch a rumor campaign to discredit the entire movie that succeeded quite well.

    Dismissing Michael Moore will only strenghten the other side.

    "The enemy of my enemy, is my friend"

    But LoL, that was a funny analogy of me circling the room with a broken bottle.

    You have a way with words. I like that.

    Glad were on the same side, sorta.

    Consider worfeus your friend.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Worfeus, you made a mistake with one of your statements: "Go back and muse on the words of Hermann Goering, just before his thick neck streched a rope to it's maximum capacity."

    Goering cheated the hangman. He swallowed a cyanide pill.

    Regards,

    Ken

    ReplyDelete
  88. Correct-a-mundo.

    On October 15, 1946, two hours before his scheduled execution, he committed suicide by swallowing a cyanide capsule he purportedly smuggled into prison, although there is debate as to whether he smuggled it in or it was passed to him by a one sympathetic to his plight.

    I actually knew that, but must have gotten caught up in the my zealous rapture :)

    Good catch

    Regards

    WORFEUS

    ReplyDelete
  89. Worfeus,

    No worries man. Honest mistake.

    Keep posting. While I always don't agree with a lot of things you say, I don't always disagree either.

    But keep posting. I for one would never want anyone in the U.S. have that right taken away.

    Regards,

    Ken

    ReplyDelete
  90. Amen brother, amen.

    ReplyDelete