Great. When Hillary wins, we will have had nearly a quarter century of just two families controlling the White House. That’s not democracy, that’s an aristocracy.
I’ve said this along, Senator Clinton is a Washington insider, and WAY too conservative for me. It looks like the Reich Wing is starting to figure that out.
Hey Fred, I thought a nice header like that might keep my comment from being deleted.
Just wondering, if you believe me yet about the U.S. never leaving Iraq because we’re there to build PERMANENT BASES and maintain a presence there. What do you think? I remember I told you that a long time ago. Here is the part I’m not sure about. I can’t decide if the Democrats are “in” on this plan, or not. You and the other liberals here seem to think the Dems can pull us out of Iraq if they REALLY wanted to. Isn’t that right? You’ve been betting all along that when the dems were handed control, that they would surely have the POWER and the WILL to pull the troops out, and that would be the end of it. But no! They do NOT do this! Are they “in” on the plan?
ps. sorry about “off topic”…., so,…
Gee, that is a VERY NICE picture of your senator from New York! I didn’t realize that she was capable of looking so,..uh,.. un-haggish?
Actually, Megabrad, I’d say that is rather on topic. Kinda reminds me of the Right’s play on the Conservative Christian crowd being taken to the cleaners on abortion. Believe me it’ll require a long hard look before I vote another Democrat into office. I’ve been leaning towards Ron Paul/Mike Gravel lately anyways.
…and everything is perdy and roses when viewed through the lense of the hive mind…
Yeah, I think I understand what you mean by the “Right’s play on the Conservative Christian crowd..”. Maybe it’s kinda like that. I still wonder if you believe me though, that the underlying plan has been to establish permanent bases in Iraq. This is something I figured on my own months (maybe a year)ago, and not something I read or heard. I don’t think the few people I have told this to believe I’m right. I think there are alot of reasons to support the theory. I bet you could think of 10 reasons right now off the top of your head.
ps. You should vote for those guys then. You, me, and everyone else should vote what they think is right. I realise that is unconventional these days, as the norm is to vote the “lesser of two evils”. I notice in your comments sections, that there is more discussion regarding third (or more) party candidates. This discussion is GOOD! In my opinion, Republicans are not a very good example of “conservative”. Maybe for you, Democrats are not a very good example of “_______liberal?”. The ’straight down the middle’ division of our country isn’t right, and isn’t good, and really isn’t accurate as to how we all feel about all the issues.
Good God, why in the holy Fkn hell would ANY liberal or Democrat throw money or support behind Hillary Clinton?
She’ll say anything. She’s a consummate politician with no agenda towards America except to get her hands on some power.
Fuck me running… When these otherwise hardcore lib bloggers look at Clinton are they using the same glasses that the Bushbots do?
Clinton = Dubya, without the neocon base.
Obama is good, but I don’t think he’s got what it takes. Kucinich is Damn good, but if he doesn’t get some grassroots efforts going, he’s done.
Edwards IS THE BEST CANDIDATE. IF THE Liberals and Progressives can work together. Hillary being elected means you can expect more status quo crap and letting these bastards get off scot free.
Someone put out the Progressive Bat-Symbol and get Gore on Edwards ticket as VP. PLEASE!
MEGABRAD is unfortunately correct: We aren’t leaving Iraq. Not within the next five to ten years. Too much money has been spent “securing” (and I use that term very loosely) a base of operations there. The corporate powers have decided in the long term that it is much easier in the long run just to seize other nation’s resources, the most important being oil. There is not enough money in renewable energy sources for the corporations, particularly if the ability to produce one’s own energy was made available at the individual/local level. I imagine that unless these bastards are stopped, we’ll go after Iran under the pretext of their nuclear ambitions.
Culture Ghost, You may be a liberal, but I appreciate your civil attitude. I think the Iraq ‘decision’ is/was based on national security and strategy towards energy and Middle East security. And yes, Iran may be next. And wouldn’t it be a surprise if that took place under a DEMOCRAT president? Or maybe not too surprising for you. You seem to be able to think
“Based on National Security!” and (whisper “energy”) cough cough “Middle East Security!”
Iran will ONLY be next if we dont get the REAL RETARDS out of the whitehouse. And Under Hillary, it will be the same bullshit in the M-E, Policy framed with a BIG AIPAC slant. And under Edwards, I don’t believe we will continue to tread water with our foreign policy.
It is sort of Heartening to see Megabrad finally admitting it was about the Oil. It only took him oh- about five years to figure it out.
MEGABRAD…gee, we just met and already you’re using the “L” word on me…what did I do?
I think the Iran option may happen sooner than later. Would not surprise me if the current administration were to fabricate an “incident” (a la Gulf of Tonkin) to get us involved over there and leave it for the next administration. The next president, Republican or Democrat, will have a mess to deal with. I have illusions about our foreign policy when it comes to the Middle East: it’s all about the oil. The only security the real powers care about is the security of the oil fields and the transit stations for said oil.
Fade, on your page you guaranteed “Bush” was going to hit Iran on or before a set date, it was in March I recall, because of “blah blah blah”. You were wrong again. The day you guaranteed has come and gone and no invasion or ‘hit’. Guess what? I don’t want to hear your long winded explanation of why you were wrong. You will probably say it was Bush’s fault that you were wrong anyway.
Culture Ghost, the “L” word? Heh heh,…uh, feel free of course to correct me if I’m wrong.
“The next president, Republican or Democrat, will have a mess to deal with.” Yeah, the world is a mess, and it seems everyone wants our help (money) and wants us to go away at the same time. Also, having a strong ‘presence’ in Iraq is a great way for staging an invasion of Iran. Oil is important whether you do or do not believe in the words of the Bible. If you do believe, then there are other factors involved though. The survival of Israel is one of them.
…the underlying plan has been to establish permanent bases in Iraq. This is something I figured on my own months (maybe a year)ago
What the hekk took You so long, Megabrad?
That’s not a snarky question, either. Everyone who’s been paying attention has at least thought that it may be so ever since the Dems voted en masse for A) the Pat Act and B) to invade Iraq, despite No Evidence for Saddam’s involvement w/ al Qaeda. Oh, ’scuse me. DESPITE the obvious fact that there was never any connection between the two.
I may end up voting for Paul. Seriously though, (well, almost) How do we go about Drafting Bill Moyer’s into the Presidency until we’ve resolved this Constitutional Crisis???
MegaBrad- WE STOPPED HIM. The Blogosphere, and the People of America- Stopped that DICK dead in his tracks on Iran.
As much bullshit as he keeps trying to feed you, and Americans like you, that buy the ridiculous idea that Iran is a threat to America, WE Stopped him from attacking Iran.
July 25th, 2007 at
Outstanding image with a superb caption. Well done.
July 26th, 2007 at
Great. When Hillary wins, we will have had nearly a quarter century of just two families controlling the White House. That’s not democracy, that’s an aristocracy.
July 26th, 2007 at
I’ve said this along, Senator Clinton is a Washington insider, and WAY too conservative for me. It looks like the Reich Wing is starting to figure that out.
July 26th, 2007 at
WARNING…OFF TOPIC….WARNING….OFF TOPIC…..
Hey Fred, I thought a nice header like that might keep my comment from being deleted.
Just wondering, if you believe me yet about the U.S. never leaving Iraq because we’re there to build PERMANENT BASES and maintain a presence there. What do you think? I remember I told you that a long time ago. Here is the part I’m not sure about. I can’t decide if the Democrats are “in” on this plan, or not. You and the other liberals here seem to think the Dems can pull us out of Iraq if they REALLY wanted to. Isn’t that right? You’ve been betting all along that when the dems were handed control, that they would surely have the POWER and the WILL to pull the troops out, and that would be the end of it. But no! They do NOT do this! Are they “in” on the plan?
July 26th, 2007 at
ps. sorry about “off topic”…., so,…
Gee, that is a VERY NICE picture of your senator from New York! I didn’t realize that she was capable of looking so,..uh,.. un-haggish?
July 26th, 2007 at
Actually, Megabrad, I’d say that is rather on topic. Kinda reminds me of the Right’s play on the Conservative Christian crowd being taken to the cleaners on abortion. Believe me it’ll require a long hard look before I vote another Democrat into office. I’ve been leaning towards Ron Paul/Mike Gravel lately anyways.
…and everything is perdy and roses when viewed through the lense of the hive mind…
July 26th, 2007 at
Yeah, I think I understand what you mean by the “Right’s play on the Conservative Christian crowd..”. Maybe it’s kinda like that. I still wonder if you believe me though, that the underlying plan has been to establish permanent bases in Iraq. This is something I figured on my own months (maybe a year)ago, and not something I read or heard. I don’t think the few people I have told this to believe I’m right. I think there are alot of reasons to support the theory. I bet you could think of 10 reasons right now off the top of your head.
July 26th, 2007 at
ps. You should vote for those guys then. You, me, and everyone else should vote what they think is right. I realise that is unconventional these days, as the norm is to vote the “lesser of two evils”. I notice in your comments sections, that there is more discussion regarding third (or more) party candidates. This discussion is GOOD! In my opinion, Republicans are not a very good example of “conservative”. Maybe for you, Democrats are not a very good example of “_______liberal?”. The ’straight down the middle’ division of our country isn’t right, and isn’t good, and really isn’t accurate as to how we all feel about all the issues.
July 26th, 2007 at
Good God, why in the holy Fkn hell would ANY liberal or Democrat throw money or support behind Hillary Clinton?
She’ll say anything. She’s a consummate politician with no agenda towards America except to get her hands on some power.
Fuck me running… When these otherwise hardcore lib bloggers look at Clinton are they using the same glasses that the Bushbots do?
Clinton = Dubya, without the neocon base.
Obama is good, but I don’t think he’s got what it takes. Kucinich is Damn good, but if he doesn’t get some grassroots efforts going, he’s done.
Edwards IS THE BEST CANDIDATE. IF THE Liberals and Progressives can work together. Hillary being elected means you can expect more status quo crap and letting these bastards get off scot free.
Someone put out the Progressive Bat-Symbol and get Gore on Edwards ticket as VP. PLEASE!
July 26th, 2007 at
By the way, WTF is going on with Megabrad? Is he talking sense or Have I lost my mind completely?
Are you high on drugs, MB?
July 26th, 2007 at
What next? Caveman showing up on my site to tell me that Bush should be impeached?
July 26th, 2007 at
MEGABRAD is unfortunately correct: We aren’t leaving Iraq. Not within the next five to ten years. Too much money has been spent “securing” (and I use that term very loosely) a base of operations there. The corporate powers have decided in the long term that it is much easier in the long run just to seize other nation’s resources, the most important being oil. There is not enough money in renewable energy sources for the corporations, particularly if the ability to produce one’s own energy was made available at the individual/local level. I imagine that unless these bastards are stopped, we’ll go after Iran under the pretext of their nuclear ambitions.
July 27th, 2007 at
Fade, you are STILL a retard.
Culture Ghost, You may be a liberal, but I appreciate your civil attitude. I think the Iraq ‘decision’ is/was based on national security and strategy towards energy and Middle East security. And yes, Iran may be next. And wouldn’t it be a surprise if that took place under a DEMOCRAT president? Or maybe not too surprising for you. You seem to be able to think
July 27th, 2007 at
ah, there’s the megamunch i know and loathe…
“Based on National Security!” and (whisper “energy”) cough cough “Middle East Security!”
Iran will ONLY be next if we dont get the REAL RETARDS out of the whitehouse. And Under Hillary, it will be the same bullshit in the M-E, Policy framed with a BIG AIPAC slant. And under Edwards, I don’t believe we will continue to tread water with our foreign policy.
It is sort of Heartening to see Megabrad finally admitting it was about the Oil. It only took him oh- about five years to figure it out.
July 27th, 2007 at
MEGABRAD…gee, we just met and already you’re using the “L” word on me…what did I do?
I think the Iran option may happen sooner than later. Would not surprise me if the current administration were to fabricate an “incident” (a la Gulf of Tonkin) to get us involved over there and leave it for the next administration. The next president, Republican or Democrat, will have a mess to deal with. I have illusions about our foreign policy when it comes to the Middle East: it’s all about the oil. The only security the real powers care about is the security of the oil fields and the transit stations for said oil.
July 28th, 2007 at
Fade, on your page you guaranteed “Bush” was going to hit Iran on or before a set date, it was in March I recall, because of “blah blah blah”. You were wrong again. The day you guaranteed has come and gone and no invasion or ‘hit’. Guess what? I don’t want to hear your long winded explanation of why you were wrong. You will probably say it was Bush’s fault that you were wrong anyway.
Culture Ghost, the “L” word? Heh heh,…uh, feel free of course to correct me if I’m wrong.
“The next president, Republican or Democrat, will have a mess to deal with.” Yeah, the world is a mess, and it seems everyone wants our help (money) and wants us to go away at the same time. Also, having a strong ‘presence’ in Iraq is a great way for staging an invasion of Iran. Oil is important whether you do or do not believe in the words of the Bible. If you do believe, then there are other factors involved though. The survival of Israel is one of them.
July 31st, 2007 at
What the hekk took You so long, Megabrad?
That’s not a snarky question, either. Everyone who’s been paying attention has at least thought that it may be so ever since the Dems voted en masse for A) the Pat Act and B) to invade Iraq, despite No Evidence for Saddam’s involvement w/ al Qaeda. Oh, ’scuse me. DESPITE the obvious fact that there was never any connection between the two.
I may end up voting for Paul. Seriously though, (well, almost) How do we go about Drafting Bill Moyer’s into the Presidency until we’ve resolved this Constitutional Crisis???
{sighhh}
July 31st, 2007 at
MegaBrad- WE STOPPED HIM. The Blogosphere, and the People of America- Stopped that DICK dead in his tracks on Iran.
As much bullshit as he keeps trying to feed you, and Americans like you, that buy the ridiculous idea that Iran is a threat to America, WE Stopped him from attacking Iran.
You’re Welcome.
July 31st, 2007 at
“Oil is important whether you do or do not believe in the words of the Bible”
That ^ brainiac statement says it all.
March 12th, 2008 at
[...] Mary Jane, ah…I mean, Mary Anne. As sour conflation for the hive mind to [...]