I think that history will record that Reagan first began showing signs of Alzheimer's during his second term, at the latest. Forgetting cabinet members' names, scripted every moment on cue cards, scheduled by an astrologer...and who can forget "I don't recall" over and over to Congress?
True, though I still don't believe his not recalling. He was incapable of talking for fifteen minutes without mentioning Nicaragua and he yet couldn't remember his grand covert mission? I doubt it.
"A few months ago, I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not."
Apos, I really don't think that's Clintonesque. Clinton dodged by being very specific with his language, which is nothing like the reagan quote. Rumsfeld is clintonesque. Or vice versa, Clinton was rumsfeldesque.
I have a number of negative opinions about Ronald Reagan, none of which I feel this is a week I am compelled to speak of.
He was, however, as anyone who has looked at the book of radio scripts he wrote in his own handwriting would know, clearly not a "moron." Not interested in many things, yes; not the same thing.
The radical left (including Kerry and Dean as the conservative fringe of the radical left) and GOP outcasts like Duke-Buchanan define 90 percent of the W haters.
Both groups are angry zealots. Too PO'd to think straight.
I'm not sure I understand your argument aaabc. I wasn't being sarcastic; I think W is stupid (which, in this case, is about policy and management, rather than IQ, which is politically irrelevant and unknowable). Far far more stupid than any president in my lifetime, and at least as stupid as any I've read about. There are many things I could point to as evidence for this view (his inability to coordinate the departments of the executive branch, the horrible planning for the invasion of Iraq, the belief that torture is a good policy, his tendency to personalize international relations, etc. and etc.). Not sarcastic at all, but pissed off, yes.
Also, it's very clever to define "moderates" as the "conservative fringe of the radical left." Must get "fringe" and "radical" in there somehow. Nice.
To make an argument that Bush is a moron because one disagrees with policy is no argument at all. It is, rather, a disagreement with policy decisions.
"I disagree, therefore you are a moron, and because you are a moron I disagree." Would that hold up in any classroom? Even in kindergarten?
Not likely. Nor does it make for persuasive arguments to garner support for a position.
One might decide that Bush's policies are moronic and from that derive that he is a moron but even that is specious.
Moronic is a strong word. I would posit that anyone who becomes president is not moronic - not even Grover Cleveland. Though I could indeed be incorrect and will not deny that it is a possibility. But as there is no truly objective manner of measuring such (with regards political policy), I would never make such a claim.
For example, Winston Churchill botched the Dardenelles campaign and cost the United Kingdom dearly. He lost his admiralty position. In retrospect it was a moronic decision to launch that campaign or, an even more apt description would be that it was poorly orchestrated and lead to a British militarty defeat of great significance. Churchill had his detractors throughout the 20's and 30's who described the 'butcher of Gallipolli' as a warmonger, addled, stupid and even moronic.
Yet, one could hardly argue he was a moron. This only became clear in retrospect. Though several, I am sure, still argue that Churchill was an addle brained numbskull.
Much is the same with the current president. He may indee be a moron. But we can not know that he is. His policies may be moronic, yet we can not know that they are - not yet. He has many supporters. Many well educated, well meaning, lucid thinkers who support his policies.
With regards to Bush's meager collegiate performance, lack of eloquence, simple speech, apparent fumbling and dogged adherence to a few principles as evidence for being a moron and hence a poor leader of this country, I think further objective reflection might reveal this to be a rather narrow and unjustified stance.
Eucation does not make one a great thinker nor great leader nor does it even make one correct in their beliefs.
Eloquence is a gift which manifests in varying manners and patterns. It is not just the blending together of words in a manner that pleases the ear and mind (though often it is assocaited with just that and is the reason I so enjoy listening to debates in the House of Common) but rather the conveyance of an idea, an emotion through persuasive discourse. For some, Bush manages this very well, for others not. (Though in all honesty, I think most could agree he lacks an eloquence we would prefer to have in a president.) In any respect, eloquence is not a sign of a powerful intellect,a superb manger or great leader. Patton was not eloquent.
And on. I think you get my point.
So, I must make my objection to your description of Bush as a moron be known. I have my own opinions about Bush's policies but have never gone so far as to descibe him as a moron nor will I ever.
I enjoy reading this blog and often find the commentary engaging, thought provoking, pursuasive, always interesting and in general a cut above most bolgs. I was disturbed enough by this to comment. Regardless, I shall continue to read and absorb.
You make some good points, but I still have to go with Ogged on this one. I was having more or less this same argument with my boss the other day, my position being that Bush is not just ignorant but actually stupid in the I.Q. sense, and his position being, of course, that my view was "elitist".
Elitism notwithstanding, I argued that the key pointer to Bush's idiocy is not, as you say, his lack of eloquence (an understatement if I ever heard one) nor his mispronunciations (though "nucular" really drives me up the wall), nor even his apparent simple-mindedness with regard to strategery. What I think really demonstrates that Bush is, in fact, a moron is the fact that he has had every opportunity, given his station in life, to become educated and somewhat aware of the world outside of Texas and Washington. He has most decidedly not done so. You might say that this is by definition ignorance and not stupidity, and you would be right.
However, my argument is that Bush has managed to maintain his ignorance through many years in politics, which implies to me a near-total lack of intellectual curiousity. I believe this then spills over into his speeches, which are generally little more than sermons for the converted. Even if the real policymakers arrived at their recommendations through a more thorough process, it seems apparent that Bush is only able to credibly present his case in the most dogmatic, rhetorical manner imaginable.
To make an argument that Bush is a moron because one disagrees with policy is no argument at all.
This is manifestly false. It is easy to imagine Bush proposing a policy to which everyone would respond by labeling him a moron.
"I disagree, therefore you are a moron, and because you are a moron I disagree." Would that hold up in any classroom? Even in kindergarten?
Not likely. Nor does it make for persuasive arguments to garner support for a position.
huh. that's probably why no one said it. who are you arguing against?
One might decide that Bush's policies are moronic and from that derive that he is a moron but even that is specious.
doesn't that contradict your first statement?
But as there is no truly objective manner of measuring such (with regards political policy), I would never make such a claim.
the problem with this is that no one is making a technical argument here. Bush is assuradly not technicaly a moron - an adult with a mental age of between 8 and 12.
He may indee be a moron. But we can not know that he is. His policies may be moronic, yet we can not know that they are - not yet.
gee, what can we know?
With regards to Bush's meager collegiate performance...
i really don't think anyone on this blog has upheld this list which you provide as proofs positive of bush's mental deficiency.
Eucation does not make one a great thinker nor great leader nor does it even make one correct in their beliefs.
this seems obvious. but what's your point? no one has said otherwise. further, Bush has had loads of formal education. so there's no place to even ponder over the implication of your statement.
I think you get my point.
yes, the silent straw people who have made the silly arguments which you have repudiated are wrong, and very silly, too.
Its back! Though beaten by Mike and Michael, I somehow feel redeemed and that is why I keep coming back to this blog and will continue to do so. Call me a mental masochist. I really need a life.
I can't believe I'm bothering to respond to this, but before you make any bigger a spectacle of how poorly informed you are, you may want to do a little reading on Israel and Egypt before ridiculing Carter's Nobel Peace Prize.
you conjoin reagan's name to a couple of things, trying to imply that he's responsible for them. Ok, well I say he's not. That was easy.
"WW3." so dramatic. but completely vacuous.
carter did nothing in iran? That is on its face absurd. Why bother to falsify this with evidence? It's simply impossibly for an American President to IGNORE a crisis like the Iran-Contra crisis, as you say he did.
Korea says 'fooled you, we are still trying to build nukes'.
Read the news lately? What's N Korea up to now that Bush and his stick are in charge?
W acts like Reagan and uses his stick.
And it's rather evident that neither of them should have ever been given a stick to begin with, because neither know how to use it responsibly.
W can kick butt and chew gum at the same time.
Oh yeah. You don't read the news do you? We're pulling heavily out of S Korea. And our military is not combat ready, nor will it be again for years. If a major crisis were to pop up, we couldn't handle it without abandoning Iraq. But even with just Iraq, our forces have been stretched thin around the world. Troops deployments are being lengthened, currently they're at 15mo for many troops. Hopefully they won't be extended again. But since we're so overcomitted, who knows? And in case you have forgotten, we don't have control over Afghanistan, and we have no way to put pressure on Pakistan, where the real danger most likely lurks.
It seems to me you find erotic pleasure in thinking of W as some kung fu action hero. He's so strong!! *weak knees*
This 'discussion' came about because the moron who owns this site believes that W is a moron.
That is stupid 'group think' by the lefties holding holding puds here.
1. Carter was a failure. He was given a 'peace prize' by those who like looking up the skirt of EUnichstania.
2. Islamists understood Reagan. Leftists here don't understand Islamists, Reagan or history.
3. Clinton. You like or hate him. I'm not interested, too easy.
4. W a moron? Especially with his fantastic success since 911.
5. Hatred of W is not rational.
I suggest that those who hate W should read the book and pay less attention to the cover. It's the same reason why watermelons (green outside-red to the core) hate the minorities W has put in positions of real power.
Hatred of W, America is not-sane especially if you like Dean, Nader, Buchanan or Duke.
Groupthink? Who would have though it would bring together the above. What a funny world.
....There was John Kerry, the absolute antithesis of Ronald Reagan, making the pilgrimage to Simi Valley and monitoring his remarks to make sure not a jot of criticism of Reagan escaped his lips. The mainstream media, which once enjoyed telling us what an amiable dunce Reagan was, are now in full beatification mode, with wall-to-wall sound-bite sentimentalism redolent of Princess Di's mourn-fest.....
Everything seems easy until they get the meds right. Then you realize it was all gibberish. Hang in there. But for now, you should go ahead and capitalize the odd word here and there, just to get the full effect.
It is the world, not just America, that is junked up on oil -- a supply now possibly a long-term target of the Al Qaeda. Yet most of this vital product passes through choke points whose security is ultimately guaranteed primarily by the American taxpayer........
I think that history will record that Reagan first began showing signs of Alzheimer's during his second term, at the latest. Forgetting cabinet members' names, scripted every moment on cue cards, scheduled by an astrologer...and who can forget "I don't recall" over and over to Congress?
Posted by Shamhat | Link to this comment | 06- 9-04 10:31 AM
True, though I still don't believe his not recalling. He was incapable of talking for fifteen minutes without mentioning Nicaragua and he yet couldn't remember his grand covert mission? I doubt it.
"A few months ago, I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not."
How . . . Clintonesque.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06- 9-04 12:30 PM
Apos, I really don't think that's Clintonesque. Clinton dodged by being very specific with his language, which is nothing like the reagan quote. Rumsfeld is clintonesque. Or vice versa, Clinton was rumsfeldesque.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 06- 9-04 7:42 PM
I have a number of negative opinions about Ronald Reagan, none of which I feel this is a week I am compelled to speak of.
He was, however, as anyone who has looked at the book of radio scripts he wrote in his own handwriting would know, clearly not a "moron." Not interested in many things, yes; not the same thing.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 06- 9-04 10:54 PM
Ugh. Let's try again: none of which I feel compelled to speak of this week.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 06- 9-04 11:00 PM
Ugh. Let's try again: none of which I feel compelled to speak of this week.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 06- 9-04 11:00 PM
Article said, referring to W:
it obscures the fact that the current president is unique in his stupidity.
--------
That's just STUPID.
It's no different from those who derided Reagan because they wanted him to be to the USSR the way Carter was to N Korea.
No different than the morans (typo intentional) who thought Reagan was going to cause nukes to fly.
I'm here from a good link, I hope I'm just misunderstanding some hidden sarcasm.....
Posted by aaabc | Link to this comment | 06-10-04 4:39 PM
The radical left (including Kerry and Dean as the conservative fringe of the radical left) and GOP outcasts like Duke-Buchanan define 90 percent of the W haters.
Both groups are angry zealots. Too PO'd to think straight.
Posted by aaabc | Link to this comment | 06-10-04 4:45 PM
I'm not sure I understand your argument aaabc. I wasn't being sarcastic; I think W is stupid (which, in this case, is about policy and management, rather than IQ, which is politically irrelevant and unknowable). Far far more stupid than any president in my lifetime, and at least as stupid as any I've read about. There are many things I could point to as evidence for this view (his inability to coordinate the departments of the executive branch, the horrible planning for the invasion of Iraq, the belief that torture is a good policy, his tendency to personalize international relations, etc. and etc.). Not sarcastic at all, but pissed off, yes.
Also, it's very clever to define "moderates" as the "conservative fringe of the radical left." Must get "fringe" and "radical" in there somehow. Nice.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-10-04 5:03 PM
you said
Also, it's very clever to define "moderates" as the "conservative fringe of the radical left." Must get "fringe" and "radical" in there somehow. Nice.
---
Blogs are great. As I thought I stumbled into the wrong one. The left one. The left out.
Those who hate R hate W. Those who hate W but like R are working out their confusion.
The radical right was wrong to demonize Billary. The 'conservative fringe' of the democratic party, read Dean and JFK2, are so much more off track.
I got here from WindsofChange.
Oops?
Good day.
Posted by abc123 | Link to this comment | 06-10-04 5:48 PM
You said:
it's very clever to define "moderates" as the "conservative fringe of the radical left.
---
Funny.
W is the best democrat. I assume you did not understand my sarcasm when I described both Dean and Kerry as the 'conservative fringe'.
I would add that Dean and Kerry supporters make Neville seem like a loose 'neocon' cannon.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 06-10-04 5:52 PM
To make an argument that Bush is a moron because one disagrees with policy is no argument at all. It is, rather, a disagreement with policy decisions.
"I disagree, therefore you are a moron, and because you are a moron I disagree." Would that hold up in any classroom? Even in kindergarten?
Not likely. Nor does it make for persuasive arguments to garner support for a position.
One might decide that Bush's policies are moronic and from that derive that he is a moron but even that is specious.
Moronic is a strong word. I would posit that anyone who becomes president is not moronic - not even Grover Cleveland. Though I could indeed be incorrect and will not deny that it is a possibility. But as there is no truly objective manner of measuring such (with regards political policy), I would never make such a claim.
For example, Winston Churchill botched the Dardenelles campaign and cost the United Kingdom dearly. He lost his admiralty position. In retrospect it was a moronic decision to launch that campaign or, an even more apt description would be that it was poorly orchestrated and lead to a British militarty defeat of great significance. Churchill had his detractors throughout the 20's and 30's who described the 'butcher of Gallipolli' as a warmonger, addled, stupid and even moronic.
Yet, one could hardly argue he was a moron. This only became clear in retrospect. Though several, I am sure, still argue that Churchill was an addle brained numbskull.
Much is the same with the current president. He may indee be a moron. But we can not know that he is. His policies may be moronic, yet we can not know that they are - not yet. He has many supporters. Many well educated, well meaning, lucid thinkers who support his policies.
With regards to Bush's meager collegiate performance, lack of eloquence, simple speech, apparent fumbling and dogged adherence to a few principles as evidence for being a moron and hence a poor leader of this country, I think further objective reflection might reveal this to be a rather narrow and unjustified stance.
Eucation does not make one a great thinker nor great leader nor does it even make one correct in their beliefs.
Eloquence is a gift which manifests in varying manners and patterns. It is not just the blending together of words in a manner that pleases the ear and mind (though often it is assocaited with just that and is the reason I so enjoy listening to debates in the House of Common) but rather the conveyance of an idea, an emotion through persuasive discourse. For some, Bush manages this very well, for others not. (Though in all honesty, I think most could agree he lacks an eloquence we would prefer to have in a president.) In any respect, eloquence is not a sign of a powerful intellect,a superb manger or great leader. Patton was not eloquent.
And on. I think you get my point.
So, I must make my objection to your description of Bush as a moron be known. I have my own opinions about Bush's policies but have never gone so far as to descibe him as a moron nor will I ever.
I enjoy reading this blog and often find the commentary engaging, thought provoking, pursuasive, always interesting and in general a cut above most bolgs. I was disturbed enough by this to comment. Regardless, I shall continue to read and absorb.
Thanks and have a nice evening
Punk Boy
Posted by punk boy | Link to this comment | 06-10-04 7:49 PM
Punk Boy:
You make some good points, but I still have to go with Ogged on this one. I was having more or less this same argument with my boss the other day, my position being that Bush is not just ignorant but actually stupid in the I.Q. sense, and his position being, of course, that my view was "elitist".
Elitism notwithstanding, I argued that the key pointer to Bush's idiocy is not, as you say, his lack of eloquence (an understatement if I ever heard one) nor his mispronunciations (though "nucular" really drives me up the wall), nor even his apparent simple-mindedness with regard to strategery. What I think really demonstrates that Bush is, in fact, a moron is the fact that he has had every opportunity, given his station in life, to become educated and somewhat aware of the world outside of Texas and Washington. He has most decidedly not done so. You might say that this is by definition ignorance and not stupidity, and you would be right.
However, my argument is that Bush has managed to maintain his ignorance through many years in politics, which implies to me a near-total lack of intellectual curiousity. I believe this then spills over into his speeches, which are generally little more than sermons for the converted. Even if the real policymakers arrived at their recommendations through a more thorough process, it seems apparent that Bush is only able to credibly present his case in the most dogmatic, rhetorical manner imaginable.
Posted by Mike | Link to this comment | 06-10-04 9:14 PM
To make an argument that Bush is a moron because one disagrees with policy is no argument at all.
This is manifestly false. It is easy to imagine Bush proposing a policy to which everyone would respond by labeling him a moron.
"I disagree, therefore you are a moron, and because you are a moron I disagree." Would that hold up in any classroom? Even in kindergarten?
Not likely. Nor does it make for persuasive arguments to garner support for a position.
huh. that's probably why no one said it. who are you arguing against?
One might decide that Bush's policies are moronic and from that derive that he is a moron but even that is specious.
doesn't that contradict your first statement?
But as there is no truly objective manner of measuring such (with regards political policy), I would never make such a claim.
the problem with this is that no one is making a technical argument here. Bush is assuradly not technicaly a moron - an adult with a mental age of between 8 and 12.
He may indee be a moron. But we can not know that he is. His policies may be moronic, yet we can not know that they are - not yet.
gee, what can we know?
With regards to Bush's meager collegiate performance...
i really don't think anyone on this blog has upheld this list which you provide as proofs positive of bush's mental deficiency.
Eucation does not make one a great thinker nor great leader nor does it even make one correct in their beliefs.
this seems obvious. but what's your point? no one has said otherwise. further, Bush has had loads of formal education. so there's no place to even ponder over the implication of your statement.
I think you get my point.
yes, the silent straw people who have made the silly arguments which you have repudiated are wrong, and very silly, too.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 06-11-04 1:05 AM
ahhh
Its back! Though beaten by Mike and Michael, I somehow feel redeemed and that is why I keep coming back to this blog and will continue to do so. Call me a mental masochist. I really need a life.
Punk Boy
Posted by punk boy | Link to this comment | 06-11-04 5:55 AM
1979 Jimmy Carter
1980 Reagan
1979 WW3 begins with the annexation of American soil (read the US Embassy in Teheran).
Carter did then what he repeated later. Nothing in Iran, payments, belive it or not later, to N Korea.
Reagan: POW's released, Berlin wall comes down, blah, blah...
N Korea says 'fooled you, we are still trying to build nukes'.
Carter gets the 'peace' prize.
W acts like Reagan and uses his stick.
Back then only anti-Americans and the radical left hated Reagan.
Those who piss on W now should check to see if they have a brain disease.
http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg.asp
W can kick butt and chew gum at the same time.
At this point I put CounterPunch and Rense to the right of this fogged up room.
:-(
Posted by abc123 | Link to this comment | 06-11-04 5:09 PM
Back then only anti-Americans and the radical left hated Reagan.
Let me guess: you're too young to actually remember much of Reagan's presidency.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-11-04 6:28 PM
I can't believe I'm bothering to respond to this, but before you make any bigger a spectacle of how poorly informed you are, you may want to do a little reading on Israel and Egypt before ridiculing Carter's Nobel Peace Prize.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-11-04 6:33 PM
jesus, abc, what the hell are you arguing?
you conjoin reagan's name to a couple of things, trying to imply that he's responsible for them. Ok, well I say he's not. That was easy.
"WW3." so dramatic. but completely vacuous.
carter did nothing in iran? That is on its face absurd. Why bother to falsify this with evidence? It's simply impossibly for an American President to IGNORE a crisis like the Iran-Contra crisis, as you say he did.
Korea says 'fooled you, we are still trying to build nukes'.
Read the news lately? What's N Korea up to now that Bush and his stick are in charge?
W acts like Reagan and uses his stick.
And it's rather evident that neither of them should have ever been given a stick to begin with, because neither know how to use it responsibly.
W can kick butt and chew gum at the same time.
Oh yeah. You don't read the news do you? We're pulling heavily out of S Korea. And our military is not combat ready, nor will it be again for years. If a major crisis were to pop up, we couldn't handle it without abandoning Iraq. But even with just Iraq, our forces have been stretched thin around the world. Troops deployments are being lengthened, currently they're at 15mo for many troops. Hopefully they won't be extended again. But since we're so overcomitted, who knows? And in case you have forgotten, we don't have control over Afghanistan, and we have no way to put pressure on Pakistan, where the real danger most likely lurks.
It seems to me you find erotic pleasure in thinking of W as some kung fu action hero. He's so strong!! *weak knees*
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 06-11-04 7:51 PM
to michael-san
This 'discussion' came about because the moron who owns this site believes that W is a moron.
That is stupid 'group think' by the lefties holding holding puds here.
1. Carter was a failure. He was given a 'peace prize' by those who like looking up the skirt of EUnichstania.
2. Islamists understood Reagan. Leftists here don't understand Islamists, Reagan or history.
3. Clinton. You like or hate him. I'm not interested, too easy.
4. W a moron? Especially with his fantastic success since 911.
5. Hatred of W is not rational.
I suggest that those who hate W should read the book and pay less attention to the cover. It's the same reason why watermelons (green outside-red to the core) hate the minorities W has put in positions of real power.
Hatred of W, America is not-sane especially if you like Dean, Nader, Buchanan or Duke.
Groupthink? Who would have though it would bring together the above. What a funny world.
Posted by abc123 | Link to this comment | 06-13-04 5:06 PM
To apostrapher #18 above:
you said
you may want to do a little reading on Israel and Egypt before ridiculing Carter's Nobel Peace Prize.
-----
You are kidding right? Talk a bit about Arafats 'peace prize' I'd love to here it.
Don't forget, this thread was about how W is a moron.
I. Carter 'bribes and covers eyes'=peace prize?
II. W wins two wars with concrete blocks attached to legs but he's a moron?
The left is a 'groupthink' cult. If that is not bad enough, they are allied with the radical American right (read Duke, McVeigh and Buchanan).
Again W is a moron? I only hope one out of a hundred of you cult members will stand up and be different.
Posted by abc123 | Link to this comment | 06-13-04 5:17 PM
Let's clear out some smog:
http://victorhanson.com/Articles/Private%20Papers/Reagan's_Greatness.html
....There was John Kerry, the absolute antithesis of Ronald Reagan, making the pilgrimage to Simi Valley and monitoring his remarks to make sure not a jot of criticism of Reagan escaped his lips. The mainstream media, which once enjoyed telling us what an amiable dunce Reagan was, are now in full beatification mode, with wall-to-wall sound-bite sentimentalism redolent of Princess Di's mourn-fest.....
(read the rest.....)
Posted by abc123 | Link to this comment | 06-13-04 5:52 PM
Think of neo-conservatives as JFK type democrats who liked Reagan?
Kerry-Dean Democrats are watermelons (green on the outside red to the core).
'Normal' Democrats today make Carter seem conservative.
There is not pragmatic difference between Kerry, Carter, Dean, Duke, McVeigh and Buchanan. All are on the same side. Ironic and sad, in many ways.
W is not too far from JFK. Some would argue JFK was more conservative.
That is exactly the point here. Communists hated JFK....he was too confrontational.
This is too easy.....
Posted by abc123 | Link to this comment | 06-13-04 6:55 PM
abc, are you on drugs?
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 06-13-04 7:55 PM
Not the right ones.
This is too easy.....
Everything seems easy until they get the meds right. Then you realize it was all gibberish. Hang in there. But for now, you should go ahead and capitalize the odd word here and there, just to get the full effect.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-13-04 9:42 PM
http://victorhanson.com/Articles/Private%20Papers/Normandy.html
Posted by abc123 | Link to this comment | 06-14-04 4:16 PM
How Reagan beat the neo-cons
http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2004/06/Reaganthemultilateralpeac.shtml
(actually the article is more about leftists, liars and the leftist-liar enablers).
GO FIGURE.
Posted by abc123 | Link to this comment | 06-14-04 5:39 PM
GO FIGURE.
There ya go. That's more like it.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-14-04 6:23 PM
GO FIGURE.
There ya go. That's more like it.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-14-04 6:25 PM
:-(
Blood, oil?
http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004_06_01_belmontclub_archive.html#108721924564569760
It is the world, not just America, that is junked up on oil -- a supply now possibly a long-term target of the Al Qaeda. Yet most of this vital product passes through choke points whose security is ultimately guaranteed primarily by the American taxpayer........
Posted by abc123 | Link to this comment | 06-14-04 7:53 PM
DEAN-GORE supporters and anti W's are morans (typo intentional).
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 06-14-04 7:54 PM
abc123, in spite of myself, I'm really starting to enjoy having you around.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-14-04 8:50 PM
How would 'watermelons' (green on the outside red to the core) have treated JFK JR, if he were alive?
Jr. failed his bar exam. But...
W, under fire, has been very wise.
C. Rice is brilliant, on the money and in agreement with W.
W is the best democrat running. Yes he is a centrist conservative, he should move to the right a bit....
W is the only democrat running. This fact is beyond debate. JFK, the Dad, is closer to W than any other.
Would Carter have blockaded Cuba? Would Carter approve of the Berlin airlift? What would Carter have done on D-Day?
What would Carter have done as a guard in Aushwich?
Carter is to the right of Kerry and Dean.
If that is not clear enough, they are to the far left of Dhimmy.....pathetic.
:-(
Posted by abc123 | Link to this comment | 06-15-04 7:25 PM
That might be the comment of the year.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-15-04 7:29 PM
ah, an attack of the self-satirizing trolls.
no-one is immune, it seems.
Posted by paperwight | Link to this comment | 06-15-04 11:44 PM