Say Anything Blog

I wouldn’t expect Giuliani to endorse anybody else. Him and McCain are natural allies.

I have to agree, Romney IS the best pretend conservative of all the pretend conservatives who are running.

Maybe its time for you guys to realize that the far right wing of your party doesnt hold as much power as you believe or hope.

Hannitized, you wouldn’t know a real conservative if he fell out of the sky and cracked your head open.

Inshallah.

Yeeck..So..now we are down to six…sort of.

Rumor has it that Mike Huckabee just requested one hundred kilos of mighty putty to try and keep his campaign from falling apart.

Edwards, on the other hand, will soon announce that he is giving a rebate to the indigent which have supported his bid for presidency. Bad news though, in keeping with his previous profession, he plans on retaining ninety percent. Scratch John.

It seems we are eliminating the cancer, only to be left with the exanthem.

Yikes! At this point shouldn’t we have the cream of the crop? Is this the best we can ante up?

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another…it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
                                  Saint-Exupéry

From the looks of things neither side holds any edge.

Let’s be honest, neither Hillary nor Obama are qualified. Albeit Romney and McCain may not be “true” conservatives, at least they have far more leadership experience than all the Dems’ combined.

Any vote for a Democrat at this point is purely partisan and illogical from a field tested point of view.

… Romney and McCain may not be “true” conservatives…

So a vote for either of them at this point is purely partisan and illogical from a field tested point of view?

Telling one lie or even consistently lying about one subject…doesn’t make you a liar…

robert108 on May 18, 2009 at 03:23 pm

“You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point.”

Titular gop Head Mr. Steele

So a vote for either of them at this point is purely partisan and illogical from a field tested point of view?

Sure, it would be partisan, but are you telling me you wouldn’t vote democrat just to keep a republican out. That’s not illogical, just pragmatic. For conservatives it may really just come down to being a Hobson’s choice.

“Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.”

A vote for either of them is plainly a vote against whichever deceitful, leftwing, tax and spend surrender monkey the Democrats choose to nominate.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

No.

This new brand of gop must be stopped.
I’m hoping it will happen this November.

I will be taking the horse next to the door.

Telling one lie or even consistently lying about one subject…doesn’t make you a liar…

robert108 on May 18, 2009 at 03:23 pm

“You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point.”

Titular gop Head Mr. Steele

I will be taking the horse next to the door.

A step up from last year’s prom date!

Shrugging off the mindless, baseless attacks of Liberal hyenas and jackals since 2007

”(Proof) You’re, as we say in Hawaii, No Ka Oi!”

-unsolicited testimonial

Why does McCain remind me of Doctor EVIL? He kind of sounds like him. A little man, demagogue type, a lot of plattitudes and when you examine the substance, it is all slimey and old. A great american does not equal a great president.  McCain will screw us all over…I predict. Romney, an intelligent, well spoken overachiever may still have a chance I hope.

Hannitized, you wouldn’t know a real conservative if he fell out of the sky and cracked your head open.

Looks like I hit a nerve.

Oh well, the good news is that at the very least, you still have a party.  It’s divided and quite schizophrenic, but at least you have a team to root for.  Gooooo fake conservatives, Reagan posers!!

A vote for either of them is plainly a vote against whichever deceitful, leftwing, tax and spend surrender monkey the Democrats choose to nominate.

Wow, what an insightful and intelligent argument BAT.  It’s almost as if you were name calling?  Imagine that!  Bat, reducing his remarks to tedious and bitter name-calling, reminiscent of grammar school chatter.

Keep it up the good work BAT.

Reagan wasn’t a true Conservative either.

The way things look, it’s only really one party, the Middle Party with candidates who sway this way or that way on certain issues. It is one hell of a stupid game, go team go.

Each candidate should have to swear an oath, that they will run on their parties principles, regardless of their own personal feelings.

The Republican party can run a Republican and a Conservative, The Democratic Party can run a Democrat and a Liberal. This will open the gates for a third party, that can play the middle sway game.

As voters we do not loose anything, rather this will give us a better option on who best resembles our own personal interests.

But this nonsense of swaying this way or that way to gain support of someone on the other side has got to stop. Let a third party play the middle grounds.

H,

”...tedious and bitter name-calling”?  Hardly.  I have no reason whatsoever to be bitter, even if one of these two Democrats were to win the White House in November, ruining America’s defense posture as liberals are wont to do, and doing likewise to the economy by raising taxes, as both have promised.  I am in any case immune, having planned thoughtfully for the contingency.

You mistake an accurate and honest appraisal for “grammar school chatter” because the reality of your side’s primary candidates escapes your wishful, partisan myopia.  However, in the spirit of both Christian charity and Democrat party re-distributionist dogma let me share with you the wealth of candid insight.

In the order given:  Deceitful?  Hillary’s lies are so numerous and so well-documented as to be beyond argument.  Going back on her pledge to voters and the DNC regarding Florida and Michigan delegates is only today’s example.  But Mr. Obama is no less deceitful…hell, he’s a politician, if only a rookie.  So of course he’s deceitful.  For that matter so are both the Republicans, Romney and McCain.  Not much to argue there.

Leftwing?  Only a functionally illiterate fool would argue that both Democrats aren’t leftwing liberals.  That is, after all, the very identity of the Democrat party.

Tax and Spend?  Again, this description fits both Obama and Clinton, each of whom has announced grandiose spending plans along with commitments to not only allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, stupidly, but to raise taxes even further.

Surrender monkeys?  Okay, I got a bit carried away with this one, perhaps.  But again, both Democrats have stated their intention to withdraw from Iraq almost immediately upon taking office, with no apparent regard for the situation on the ground, either within Iraq or in the surrounding area.  Sure sounds like a Jack Murtha-inspired bit of mindless surrender to me.  As I’m sure it will to the American public come November.

You see, if I was unable to rationally explain my description of your side’s candidates as I have, then your argument about name-calling and insults might have some validity.  But describing something, or someone, as it, or he, or she actually is doesn’t constitute an insult, but a realistic description instead.  Just as if I am aware that you have no idea who your father was, then calling you a bastard might be considered impolitic, but it would hardly qualify as an insult… would it?

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

Thank you Bat,

I’ve been sitting here motionless for nearly an hour waiting for what I knew would be a delicious response.

Now please, some dessert.

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another…it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
                                  Saint-Exupéry

H,

Of course, in all fairness there is another way of looking at it.

Namely that like so many other emotionally charged, mentally challenged leftwingers, you’re simply not as good at taking it as you are at dishing it out.

Either explanation works for me.  Take your pick!

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

Bat,

Your response really does nothing more, aside from being tediously long and dry, than to offer an overly simplified justification for your behavior.

Essentially, you imply that you can act childish by name-calling, because believe the claims are accurate.  This is the same response I would expect from any bigoted racist or child on the playground.  Excusing the use of the expression “Blacks are lazy”, and the damage expressions like this cause because you can find a person with dark skin who is being lazy, doesn’t excuse the use of the phrase.

You term Hillary and Obama “surrender monkeys” because you disagree with their aggressive ideas of going after the terrorists who were actually responsible for 9/11.  Because they outline a better/different tactic to attack the true threat to America and believe in the importance to not to waste any more precious resources in the mass distraction and sideshow Iraq, does not make them a “surrender monkey”.  It is nothing more than a fools mischaracterization of a different tactic to win the war.  Period.

You shyly back away from your use of the word deceitful by being coy and cute.  To diffuse your use of the word by attributing the characterization to the current conservative candidates reveals more about your deceptive tactics than it does Hillaries.  Your feeble attempt to attribute this label to Obama, was laughable.

I didn’t highlight the word left-wing because I really didnt take issue with its use, other than for it being used in the fashion of an insult.  And I imagine that was your childish goal. 

Your explanation of the use of the phrase Tax and Spend shows your naive and narrowed view of the world.  For it was Bush who has indeed spent so much of our nations treasure.  Yet you fling about your childish insults by pretending the responsibility does not apply to your party.  Another childish explanation of the use of the word could easily be applied to Romney.  For if I am going to be taxed, and then if any of that money is to be spent, then surely Romney is also a Tax and Spend conservative.  What you are doing is attributing a label to the dems that is in fact a reality for all politicians.  Again, its childish and worse, stupid.

There is no rational excuse for your childish choice of words.  Only a childs justification.  Pathetic.

Namely that like so many other emotionally charged, mentally challenged leftwingers, you’re simply not as good at taking it as you are at dishing it out.

And this, of course, is nothing more than another childish remark that serves no purpose other than to be childish.

You like to pretend that you are superior than those you ridicule.  You are not.  You are good at picking on peoples spelling and grammar.  That is your biggest strength and only talent.

Your response… aside from being tediously long

Followed by a response approximately the same length from you.
Pot?  Kettle!

Shrugging off the mindless, baseless attacks of Liberal hyenas and jackals since 2007

”(Proof) You’re, as we say in Hawaii, No Ka Oi!”

-unsolicited testimonial

You term Hillary and Obama “surrender monkeys” because you disagree with their aggressive ideas of going after the terrorists who were actually responsible for 9/11.

You’re kidding, right?

Proof, Ken, Bat One - Why do you guys spend so much of your blogging time refuting the lies of the hypocritically childish “Hannitized”? I notice that much of the conversation is spent refuting his twisted version of what we as conservatives believe in. His comments serves no purpose other than to be childish and then he has the nerve to berate others for behavior that he himself engages in.

What’s the point? You guys spend too much of your time talking to the biggest idiot at this site. It’s time wasted IMO.

For what it’s worth…

Lik,

You always get to the heart of the matter, but…I have to say, what Bat, Ken and proof do is really entertaining.

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another…it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
                                  Saint-Exupéry

I should also add that you yourself just made one great comment to arguably the 2nd biggest idiot on this site, Hannitizeds’ little sister Jeugenen.

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another…it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
                                  Saint-Exupéry

H,

First, let’s deal with the ephemera, since it is clearly more important to you than the substance of what I’ve written here.

You like to pretend that you are superior than (sic)those you ridicule.

It is no pretense if what I say and the manner in which I say are, in fact, superior.  Language used with precision, verve, and imagination is a worthy endeavor, and a skill available to anyone willing to invest the time and the effort.  If such time and effort are not a worthwhile investment to you, or to other liberals who are more inclined to feel than to think, that’s hardly something for which I am likely to apologize.  Your inadequacies are not my concern.

And this, of course, is nothing more than another childish remark that serves no purpose other than to be childish.

Your double use of the word “childish” is redundant.  “Puerile” or “adolescent” would be a suitable, though equally mistaken substitute.

There is one more area of linguistic precision which we ought not to overlook, namely grammar.  And I mention it both in the context of your remark about my superiority (however backhanded it may have been, Thank You for the compliment!), and because I am NOT going to begin correcting the many grammatical and punctuation mistakes in your comment above… despite the fact that you brought the whole subject up in the first place with your puerile, adolescent jibe about spelling and grammar.  Suffice it to say they are numerous, if not nearly so glaring as those of most liberals.

So much for the ephemera.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

Now then,

This is the same response I would expect from any bigoted racist or child on the playground.  Excusing the use of the expression “Blacks are lazy”, and the damage expressions like this cause because you can find a person with dark skin who is being lazy, doesn’t excuse the use of the phrase.

It should not surprise me that a caterwauling liberal would bring race into the discussion… any discussion.  Dem Bill Clinton injected, maliciously and deceitfully, the question of race into the campaign, so what the hell, right?  Beats having to acknowledge that there is a difference… a distinct difference… between disparagement and description.  Right?

You term Hillary and Obama “surrender monkeys” because you disagree with their aggressive ideas of going after the terrorists…

Certainly I disagree with their respective approaches to the War on Terrorism, though to call Hillary’s approach “aggressive” is ludicrous since her thoughts vacillate, depending on her audience, more than those of John Kerry.  Obama, on the other hand, has advocated an invasion of Pakistan, which is not only mind-boggling in its naivete, but actually disqualifies his companion criticism of Bush’s decision to invade Iraq and remove Saddam.  Bush, and to a lesser extent his predecessor, have gone to considerable lengths to foster a working partnership with the government and the people of Pakistan. 

Those efforts have been fruitful.  Yet Obama in his own geo-political adolescence would squander them.  For what?  That’s not being aggressive, at least not prudently so.  That is, to use your phrase, a waste of a precious resource.

Your explanation of the use of the phrase Tax and Spend shows your naive and narrowed view of the world.  For it was Bush who has indeed spent so much of our nations treasure.  Yet you fling about your childish insults by pretending the responsibility does not apply to your party.

So, how does the use of the phrase “tax and spend” (forgive me… please note the quotation marks!) demonstrate that I have “a naïve and narrowed view of the world”?  It’s certainly a nice phrase.  But you’ve drawn no connection.  Which makes your use of it “childish(,) and worse, stupid.”  Had you done a bit of research, you’d know that I’ve been a frequent and voluble critic of many of Mr. Bush’s policies, dating back to the steel import quotas actually, and in particular his early unwillingness to veto all manner of silly, wasteful spending.  Likewise the Republicans when they held control of Congress, since contrary to your assertion, it is Congress, not the President that sets federal spending.  I also criticized the Democrats for their patently silly “Pay-Go” nonsense, since it was perfectly clearly a charade and a soundbite with little more intent than an excuse to raise taxes.

…if I am going to be taxed, and then if any of that money is to be spent, then surely Romney is also a Tax and Spend conservative.

Silly!  In the first place, both McCain and Romney have pledge not to raise taxes, and to make the Bush tax cuts permanent and institute further business tax cuts… unlike the two Democrat candidates who have both pledged to raise taxes.  Second, Romney is hardly a conservative.  Have you not been paying attention?  Pity, for there’s no telling what else you might have learned.

Saving the best for last,

You shyly back away from your use of the word deceitful by being coy and cute.  To diffuse your use of the word by attributing the characterization to the current conservative candidates reveals more about your deceptive tactics than it does Hillaries.  Your feeble attempt to attribute this label to Obama, was laughable.

Okay, spelling, punctuation, and redundant attributing aside, the fact is Hillary’s deceit needs no more revelation.  As the Manchester (NH) Union-Leader pointed out editorially,

Hillary Clinton is a liar…

Clinton coldly and knowingly lied to New Hampshire and Iowa. Her promise was not a vague statement. It was a signed pledge with a clear and unequivocal meaning…

New Hampshire voters, you were played for suckers.

As for Obama, he’s waffled, changed his positions, and his story and explanations about past positions.  And though he is a rookie to all this, he is a politician and as such is expected to lie.  That is the correct definition of “deceit”, is it not?

That said, there is a more important point here. I am under no obligation to be in any way even-handed across the partisan aisle with my criticisms.  Certainly no one on the left, you distinctly included, has burdened me with such an obligation by casting the first bipartisan stone.  The last national Democrat worthy of my support was the recently retired Zell Miller.

Feel free to disagree.  But clearly my position is, to use your word, superior.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

Lik,

Your point is well taken.  My only defense is, in a word, practice.

Admittedly, its kinda like sparring with a brown-belt wannabe.  But the competition is what it is.

Curious that all the intellectual firepower seems to congregate on the Right side of the aisle.  Come to think of it, wasn’t that pretty much the same point Barack Obama was making last week?

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

It is no pretense if what I say and the manner in which I say are, in fact, superior.  Language used with precision, verve, and imagination is a worthy endeavor, and a skill available to anyone willing to invest the time and the effort.

The problem with this argument is it does not address the fact that you accused me and others of being childish and only offering uninteresting insults.  But you did the same when you thought nobody would notice.  But when I show up to show the hypocrisy in your actions, you come up with some lame justifications and then pontificate on the issue to make up for it.  Pathetic.

And Likwid shoe is too stupid to understand that my complaint about your childishness isnt to say that I dont attack and throw names, its to say that so do you, bat.  But the lame brain is too slow to catch on to this very obvious conclusion.

There is one more area of linguistic precision which we ought not to overlook, namely grammar.  And I mention it both in the context of your remark about my superiority

The problem with your argument here is that your behavior does not match your claims of superiority and self importance.  Try again….B A T.

It should not surprise me that a caterwauling liberal would bring race into the discussion… any discussion.

It does not surprise me that you are to ignorant to understand that racism is probably the only agreed upon characteristic that is deplored by both parties. 

The purpose for using this example is to make an indisputable argument (because a lot of useless minds love to argue every point).  Unless of course you think it’s ok to make racist generalizations.

Certainly I disagree with their respective approaches to the War on Terrorism, though to call Hillary’s approach “aggressive” is ludicrous since her thoughts vacillate, depending on her audience, more than those of John Kerry.

OK, well at least that is a fair criticism that might offer an opportunity for a rational debate.  Using the term surrender monkey does not.  It was childish and you even admitted it.

Obama, on the other hand, has advocated an invasion of Pakistan, which is not only mind-boggling in its naivete, but actually disqualifies his companion criticism of Bush’s decision to invade Iraq and remove Saddam.

Again, hardly the policy of someone who qualifies as a surrender monkey.  Make a rational criticism instead of childish remarks.  Or, if you are going to offer childish remarks, do not criticize others for doing the same.

Those efforts have been fruitful.  Yet Obama in his own geo-political adolescence would squander them.  For what?

To suppress the Talibans growth and prevent the spread of Al Qaeda’s influence, catch Bin Laden, ect,. ect..  What other reasons do you think?  Or do you like the idea that we sacrifice so much of our blood and treasure to remove a dictator that had nothing to do with 9/11 and no influence on how Al Qaeda spread its ambitions?  Do you think we are that much farther with the GWOT by removing Saddam?  Please tell me you do.

I’ve been a frequent and voluble critic of many of Mr. Bush’s policies, dating back to the steel import quotas actually, and in particular his early unwillingness to veto all manner of silly, wasteful spending.  Likewise the Republicans when they held control of Congress, since contrary to your assertion, it is Congress, not the President that sets federal spending.

Fantastic.  Thank you for proving that the term is meaningless since it applies to both parties.  The use of the expression is childish because it does not accurately describe a distinction between the two parties.  Instead, what you offer by its use is your interpretation of a varying degree.  To say one person is a greater lier than the other gives me no comfort if they are both liars.

In the first place, both McCain and Romney have pledge not to raise taxes, and to make the Bush tax cuts permanent and institute further business tax cuts… unlike the two Democrat candidates who have both pledged to raise taxes.

For the rich.  And yes, its a varying degree of tax and spend.  The point is, they both advocate taxing and spending our money….its merely a matter of “how much”.  It’s a pointless title.  It’s merely designed to attribute negativity to the actions of one party while excusing the other and it makes no sense.

the fact is Hillary’s deceit needs no more revelation.  As the Manchester (NH) Union-Leader pointed out editorially,

Swell, but you still havent refuted the fact that you also believe your side lies.  Therefore, your labeling offers nothing to contrast to your opponent.  Therefore, it was meaningless banter.  Oh, and it was also childish.

H,

As I stated above, feel free to disagree.

Your logic, or lack thereof, is far too convoluted for this late hour, and your cognitive resources are clearly no match for your vocabulary.  I’ve had all the exercise I need for today, thanks.  Besides, you’ve managed to prove my points quite convincingly, from punctuation to pertinence.

Go ahead and have the last word.  I’m sure my self-esteem can handle it!

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”