"I'm melting, melting, melting..........."









Riffy

fuman wrote on Aug 13^th, 2009 at 12:37pm:




You are unbelievable! Here's a hint. When you are going to speak, and more importantly listen, to the very people that you supposedly represent then have the common decency to turn off your damned phone! I don't know about you funman, but when I go to the movies I have the common sense to turn off my phone! I'd say that going and speaking and listening to the tax paying constituents that elected you into office is a damned sight more important than a movie! Yet this contemptuous bitch couldn't be bothered to off her phone. Why? Because she's an elitist bitch who can't handle the fact that this woman would be giving her a hard time. It's called respect funman, and Jackson Lee showed none of it for her own constituents. Pathetic, and even more pathetic that you would even attempt to defend her.



Riffy

Riffhard wrote on Aug 13^th, 2009 at 12:46pm:



I guess you are able to read more into it than I am.

Congrats on your common sense!!

maybe we'll luck out next time and get another dude who's daddy bought him a baseball team

The old adage in politics is that when your opponent is beating themselves up it's best to just get out of their way. These idiotic Democrats today are making that a very easy thing to do.

Here's the latest moronic thing to pass through the smug lips of yet another Democrat leader. This time it's Harry Reid's turn to shit all over the American people.


Check this--->Town hall protesters are "evil-mongers," says Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)

Reid coined the term in a speech to an energy conference in Las Vegas this week and repeated it in an interview with Politics Daily.

Such "evil-mongers" are using "lies, innuendo and rumor," to drown out rational debate, Reid said.

"It was an original with me," Reid said of the term. "I maybe could have been less descriptive," he said, adding that "I doubt you'll hear it from me again."

Nevertheless, Reid worked in the word one more time during the interview.

"I feel I haven't done anything to embarrass [my children]," Reid joked. "Except maybe call somebody an evil-monger."



Damn these Democrats are idiots! It's just getting all too laughable.



Riffy

nankerphelge wrote on Aug 13^th, 2009 at 5:37pm:



I saw it and yes, she looked bad. Very defensive.

Riffhard wrote on Aug 13^th, 2009 at 7:16pm:


Well we already know that you believe in miracles, so it probably won't surprise you when it happens.
Don't forget, we are now in charge of the legal wiretapping.


I don't agree 52% of voters were fooled, but the "death panel" hype certainly is fooling people.
Too bad we couldn't debate on the real issues of health care reform. Had to scare the frail amongst us.

Your Jesus would approve, I'm sure . . .

Riffhard wrote on Aug 13^th, 2009 at 2:05pm:



you have been saying alot of thing recntly that would lead one to beleive Bush wasn't very good... you only elude to it.. .but it's there... it's just odd, since you supported the man so intensely, and had some bad names for those who thought he sucked eggs...

Pdog wrote on Aug 13^th, 2009 at 8:34pm:



Actually it's not "there" at all Pdog. I was merely pointing out that as opposed to Obama I would take Bush in a second. I never defended Bush when he spent like a drunken sailor. I slammed him for it many times. The war in Iraq can be debated. I'll grant you that. I still supported it, and it's mission and the mission's goal. However, two people can debate that. I never defended Bush's spending though.

See the difference here, as I see it, is that some Obama supporters would never dare admit to the sheer incompetentcy that has emminated from the White House since January 20th 2009. From the Stimulus Bill, to the Omnibus Bill, from Gitmo, to health care it's all been an unmitigated disaster. The deficit has been quadrupled in only seven months!!! Now the White House is refusing to release the breakdown numbers for the Cash For Clunkers program! That too is turning to shit. Just wait until that story breaks. Not that the DLM would dare report it, but they may not have a choice soon.

His numbers are sinking like a stone, and now we're seeing American citizens refered to as nazis, angry mobs, and astroturf by Democrat members of congress. Americans have now been told to report their neighbors should they recieve e-mails that may look "fishy". Are you kidding me?!?! Imagine if a Republican president asked you to forward your friends and neighbors e-mails that might be "fishy". How well do you think that would go over? I mean is it any wonder why people are starting to get very pissed at Obama, and the entire left wing cabal inside DC?!?! The country elected a very hard left ideologue to office, and he is acting exactly like a hard left ideologue would, and he's surrounded by hard left ideologues inside his own cabinet, and the House and Senate.


There is an awful lot of "buyer's remorse" out there, and it's only too bad that some here seem to deflect that fact, or not even bother to acknowledge it.


So, let me clear (<----Obama speak), I would take George W. Bush in a second over this socialist/Marxist ideologue.


Riffy

Of course I realize that Nancy Pelosi is not part of the Obama Administration.

But this woman is just plain full of shit:

http://www.breitbart.tv/06-flashback-pelosi-tells-anti-war-protesters-im-a-fan-o...

Afghan Election 2009: Freedom, Fraud, and Fornication
Remember 'Democracy, whiskey, sexy!'? Stay tuned for Part II

by Justin Raimondo, August 17, 2009
Antiwar.com

In those heady days of 2003, when the War Party was really feeling its oats and the neocons, the "warbloggers," and the television talking heads were triumphantly hailing the invasion of Iraq as an unqualified success, one Iraqi pretty much summed up the Arab response to the "liberation," as reported by the New York Times:

"In the giddy spirit of the day, nothing could quite top the wish list bellowed out by one man in the throng of people greeting American troops from the 101st Airborne Division who marched into town today.


"What, the man was asked, did he hope to see now that the Ba’ath Party had been driven from power in his town? What would the Americans bring?

“‘Democracy,’ the man said, his voice rising to lift each word to greater prominence. ‘Whiskey. And sexy!’"

According to this reporter, the crowd shouted its approval, and, here at home, the warbloggers took up this cry as their signature slogan, celebrating this anonymous Iraqis’ apparent joy at the imposition of modernity on Iraq at gunpoint as decisive proof that the policies of the Bush administration were right and the "transformation" of the entire region was on the agenda.

It didn’t quite turn out that way, however: far from "democracy, whiskey, sexy," the Iraqis got an Islamic "republic" where shops that sell alcohol are frequently bombed, if not outright banned,"sexy" is highly problematic, and democracy such as we conceive of it in the West is still a will-o’-the-wisp.

Now that we are entering phase two of the Western crusade to make the Middle East more like Kansas and it’s Barack Obama’s turn at the plate, Afghans are reacting to the imposition of "democracy, whiskey, sexy" with rather less enthusiasm than their Iraqi brothers. A recent news report on the Afghan election averred:

"Fornication, bare flesh, and a descent into Western decadence – these are Afghan definitions of democracy that expose how little the foreign concept has permeated the national psyche as elections near."

Actually, it seems to me as if the "foreign concept" has penetrated quite well, if one "Wasim," described in the report as a 28-year-old waiter in a Kabul kebab restaurant, is being quoted correctly here:

"Western democracy is freedom and fornication. This is democracy for Western, American, and European people, and it is developing the same way here."

"Freedom and fornication" – a more accurate description would drop the former and focus exclusively on the latter. As long as they’re allowed to fornicate freely, Westerners will believe they’re free and won’t so much mind being slaves.

Mansoor Aslami, a 21-year-old cosmetics shop owner cited in the same news report, also seems to have a pretty good handle on the sort of system we’re trying to export to his country. He "is less than keen on some of the trends he sees among his patrons. ‘I see signs of democracy among customers with bare arms and necks,’ considered shocking immodesty in Afghan culture. ‘But so long as democracy is according to Islam,’ he adds, ‘it is good.’"

I cite these remarks because they illustrate how naïve we were in seeking a "transformation" of the Middle East by force of arms – or by any other means. In the context of Afghan society – where clan, tribe, hierarchy, and tradition trump all – the equation of democratic values with those of an irresponsible hedonism and even nihilism is perfectly understandable. Aslami, who sees "signs of democracy among customers with bare arms and necks," understands the issue quite well – far better than our own blinkered grand strategists and counterinsurgency specialists.

The latter seek to "clear, hold, and build" a functioning Afghan state patterned on the Western model, in which citizens assent to a social contract that imposes social and political discipline in exchange for allowing a relatively wide berth in the personal realm. This places the Americans, right from the start, in total opposition to the last thousand or so years of Afghan history, just as it did the Soviets.

In Afghan society, the realm of the personal is ruled by Islam, and people take their pleasures when and where they can. There is no central state and no social contract: Allah and the weight of history give order and shape to people’s lives. To take one particularly dramatic aspect of the vast gulf that separates the Afghan mind from the American: the role of women in the social and political order is not something that meets the approval of Western feminists – not that this has stopped Western-backed President Hamid Karzai from going along with the notorious "food for sex" law, which allows Afghan husbands to withhold all sustenance from wives who refuse to perform their wifely duties in the boudoir. It’s election time in Afghanistan, and Karzai is making a populist appeal by wooing tradition-bound voters and criticizing the Americans for what he regards as their lack of concern over civilian casualties in the fight against the Taliban.

This and his reputation for corruption is no doubt failing to win him many kudos from Hillary Clinton’s State Department, and Washington generally, which is why the Obama administration has been nervously edging away from Karzai of late. They would much rather have somebody in there like Ashraf Ghani, a former finance minister and academic who lived abroad for 30 years and was an official at the World Bank. Ghani has taken on James Carville as his campaign adviser-manager, a move likely to garner more votes in Washington than on the ground in Afghanistan. In Ghani – registering at 4 percent in the polls – a less likely populist insurgent can hardly be imagined.

The Americans will probably have to settle for Abdullah Abdullah, scion of a family that served the old Afghan monarchy. Abdullah’s chief claim to fame is his association with the legendary Ahmad Shah Massoud, known as the “Lion of Panjshir," the charismatic anti-Soviet jihadist and chief figure in the Northern Alliance. Massoud was assassinated on Sept. 9, 2001, after he had warned U.S. intelligence agents of an impending attack by al-Qaeda.

No one knows, of course, how much the favored candidate of the Americans – whomever that might be – is being subsidized and otherwise assisted, but the outcome depends more on what happens in Washington than on the streets of Kabul. The proliferation of ballots for sale and the almost entirely ersatz voter rolls are bound to make the Iranian election seem relatively credible in comparison. While we breathlessly await the election "results," let’s understand that the winner will be determined by who is buying up all those phony ballots and how big their budget is.

In any case, the imposition of "democracy" on the face of Afghan society is already liquidating the glue that holds their culture together, destroying the social fabric and replacing it with – what?

Remember the mantra repeated by the high priests of our new counterinsurgency doctrine: clear, hold, and build. After they’ve cleared away the "primitive" tribal structures and religious strictures that give life meaning to Afghans and held it against the onslaught of natural resentment and hatred unleashed against this alien intrusion, what do they intend to replace it with? What, exactly, are they building? In all likelihood a grotesque mutant hybrid of Western mass-democracy and Islamo-feudalism, one that will prove just as incapable of surviving the rough Afghan terrain as the Soviet hybrid did.

The "clear, hold, and build" scenario painted by the Obama administration’s military theoreticians doesn’t tell us the whole story. They’re leaving out an important step. A more accurate way to describe our task in Afghanistan is "clear, hold, build – and keep holding." The Soviet-backed leftist government never got off life support, and the need to pour resources into the war was an important factor leading to the dissolution of the Soviet empire.

That we will allow ourselves to be similarly drained, and with a similar result, seems almost unbelievably stupid – but, then again, we never learn from history, do we? After all, our officials believe they stand above history – that they are making history, and not the reverse.