GOP Video Compares Nancy Pelosi To Pussy Galore
This is how the Republicans hope to re-brand the party? By a sexist video comparing Nancy Peloso to the villainess in the 1964 James Bond film, “Goldfinger,” with a first name that many of their members would find vulgar? The RNC refused repeated requests by Politico to explain the video.
It’s quite clear that Republicans think it can expand it’s white, male-based party by using sexism to sell whatever product it thinks it has. So far, rather than solutions to today’s problems, all it has is attacks on Nancy Pelosi.
Earlier this week, Pittsburgh radio host Jim Quinn referred to the speaker on his program as “this bitch”; last week, syndicated radio host Neal Boortz opined “how fun it is to watch that hag out there twisting in the wind.”
There has also been a steady stream of taunts about the speaker’s appearance, and whether it’s been surgically enhanced. On CNN’s “State of the Union,” Republican strategist Alex Castellanos said, “I think if Speaker Pelosi were still capable of human facial expression, we’d see she’d be embarrassed.”
Even erstwhile presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee took the time to pen a poem that begins:
“Here’s a story about a lady named Nancy / A ruthless politician, but dressed very fancy.”
The Republicans are intentionally ignoring their own accusations of the CIA lying. And they are conveniently forgetting the CIA’s own admission that it had dates on congressional breifings wrong. But instead of taking personal responsibility for their own actions and statements, that rather attack the first woman Speaker of the House using language and imagery they’d never use for the white males who form the base of their shrinking constituency.
Alan, you and your fellow liberals are some of the biggest hypocrits out there. “But instead of taking personal responsibility for their own actions and statements,…”–Alan.
You have the gall to make a statement like that and thourghly fail to hold the Democrats to the same standards. Where is Pelosi “taking personal responsibility for her actions and statements”?
And all your talk about partisanship!!! You are one of the most partisan people in the public eye Alan. Where is your fairness? Where is your professional analytical views put up in a fair manner?
OldLefty Reply:
May 24th, 2009 at 11:54 am
Daddio,
Do you SERIOUSLY think liberals have NOT been saying the same thing about YOUR side for years??
That there is an equivalency to Pelosi who may or may not have known that crimes were committed, and the one who committed the crime?
It is like the driver of the get away car, who may or may not have been told it was a robbery, and the guy who shot the clerk…..they are not equal.
At least Alan doesn’t charge to insult him, and lets a lot of different callers on.
How many guests from the left do your right wingers have on?
Kregg Reply:
May 24th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Lefty said: It is like the driver of the get away car, who may or may not have been told it was a robbery, and the guy who shot the clerk…..they are not equal.
K: Yes, they are. If I recall correctly everyone who participates in a crime is chargeable as if they actually pulled the trigger.
OldLefty Reply:
May 24th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
You are going to charge the driver with murder…especially if you can not prove he knew it was a robbery?
I don’t think so.
Kregg Reply:
May 24th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Lefty said: You are going to charge the driver with murder…especially if you can not prove he knew it was a robbery? I don’t think so.
K: I do. At least in CA.
Daddio Reply:
May 24th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Kregg is right Lefty. All involved in the crime are equally guilty. Assessories to the crime. Even if the driver was not exactly aware of his buddies intentions.
Pelosi can scream she didn’t know till she is blue in the face. If the facts show otherwise it won’t matter.
Daddio Reply:
May 24th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Assessory to murder Lefty. A lighter sentence but still guilty as sin.
Kregg Reply:
May 24th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
From WIKI:
An accessory is a person who assists in the commission of a crime, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal. The distinction between an accessory and a principal is a question of fact and degree:
The principal is the one whose acts or omissions, accompanied by the relevant mens rea, are the most immediate cause of the actus reus (Latin for “guilty act”).
If two or more people are directly responsible for the actus reus, they can be charged as joint principals (see common purpose). The test to distinguish a joint principal from an accessory is whether the defendant independently contributed to causing the actus reus rather than merely giving generalised and/or limited help and encouragement.
Daddio Reply:
May 24th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
According to your argument Lefty all your hype of Cheney being guilty of torture ring untrue. He did not torture anyone so he should never be charged with torture. He is innocent.
Kregg Reply:
May 24th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
From Wiki:
Relative severity of penalties
The punishment tariff for accessories varies in different jurisdictions, and has varied at different periods of history. In some times and places accessories have been subject to lesser penalties than principals (the persons who actually commit the crime). In others accessories are considered the same as principals in theory, although in a particular case an accessory may be treated less severely than a principal. In some times and places accessories before the fact have been treated differently from accessories after the fact. Common law traditionally considers an accessory just as guilty as the principal(s) in a crime, and subject to the same penalties. Separate and lesser punishments exist by statute in many jurisdictions.
Daddio Reply:
May 24th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Boy do I feel silly. I spelled accessory wrong.:(
Thanks Kregg. I know you didn’t correct me but thanks anyway.
And your post is exactly correct.
OldLefty Reply:
May 24th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Daddio and Kregg,
As for a crime: All that matters here is can you
prove it beyond reasonable doubt?
If there is doubt, and you can not prove the driver knew, the jury will acquit .
If the prosecuter is asking for the death penality, they are not going to try the driver for the same offence.
As for Cheney, most evidence points to him being the order giver.
More reason to have investigations.
Daddio Reply:
May 24th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
The jury is wrong if they acquit. Accessory to a crime either before or after the fact is a crime. Therefore the driver will get a prison sentence. Probably a lighter sentence though.
OldLefty Reply:
May 24th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
I said the jury will acquit if you can not prove that the driver knew he was involved in a robbery.
The burden of proof is on the state.
Kregg Reply:
May 24th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Lefty said: I said the jury will acquit if you can not prove that the driver knew he was involved in a robbery. The burden of proof is on the state.
Bad guy: “Hey, Billy Bob, drive us to the bank – we need to make a withdrawal!”‘ Hey, uh, if you hear any alarms or shootin’ goin’ on while we’re in there its NOT a bank robbery, its uh, oh yeah, its us winnin’ the ATM lotto! Yeah! That oughta’ work…
Kregg Reply:
May 24th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Lefty said: I said the jury will acquit if you can not prove that the driver knew he was involved in a robbery.
K: Lefty, of all the bank robberies that take place, how many get-away drivers do you think do NOT know they are involved in a bank robbery?
OldLefty Reply:
May 24th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Could also be “let me run in and get a six pack, wait here.”
Burden of proof is on the state…or you wouldn’t need a trial..
VegasLib Reply:
May 24th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Daddio,
Apparently you have the incapability of paying attention here. I don’t care if it’s a democrat or a republican torturing or being an ‘accessory’ to torture. They should ALL be investigated. We need to know what the hell happened that led our country to represent all this crap.
pierre Reply:
May 24th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
And all should be prosecuted and put in jail.
Then, we have Cheney/Bush VS Pelosi Legacy.
Which one will be important for the GOP?
EricG Reply:
May 25th, 2009 at 12:49 am
“You are one of the most partisan people in the public eye Alan.”
Whoa, whoa, whoa. I have to take you to task right here.
No way in hell. That is proof that you (1) don’t listen to the show or (2) cannot define partisanship beyond a third-grade reading level.
Alan denounces his own partisanship. He is a real American unlike Sean Hannity who only loves his precious ratings.
One cannot be truly ‘bipartisan’ anymore than one can be God. There is nothing behind my words right now beyond the simple (screw you, you bastard!) frustrations we must all feel when encountering opposing point of view.
Thing is …
People like Alan stand up and try to hear you out, even if he disagrees. Then you spit in his face by calling him a partisan.
Alan is right to blow up on callers. He helps teh conservative voices be heard more than the Hate Radio Boys ever did and all you guys do is bash him and slander him and mock his talent.
If I were Alan. I’d RAGE ON YOU GUYS!
You have no idea.
EricG Reply:
May 25th, 2009 at 12:54 am
Boehner, McConnell they give the CIA the middle finger. Should they go to jail with Pelosi?
You guys are nuts!
This doesn’t make sense!
This is what happens when you let Rush Limbaugh run your party.
You all get stuck behind weird arguments that don’t follow through when you think about it logically.
Giving you guys the whole boat … she lied & everything else … it was still a Bush policy to break the law and defy the Constitution.
Guess who gets to take the blame on that? It’s not the minority leader of the time … I can tell you that much right now.
May 24th, 2009 at 11:42 am
Do you SERIOUSLY think liberals have NOT been saying the same thing about YOUR side for years??
Lefty, I TOTALLY agree. Both sides have been shoveling chit on each other for a long time. In fact, it began the day we ratified the nation.
However, what I try to point out all the time is that this is a reason to RESTRICT the power of all of these turkeys. We need LESS of them, not more. The fewer decisions that these guys make, the better off we ALL are.
RDM Reply:
May 24th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Pino,
I agee less is more. I also think we need term limits. Sen. Byrd of West Virginia is 91yrs old. Congressmen should serve their term and then go back to work. No more “free ride until I die” terms.
Daddio Reply:
May 24th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Term limits is the only answer right now.
Before George Washington left office he was pleaded with to run again but he resisted those pleas because he believed that would be bad for the country. After all we just kicked out a king.
Career politicians become addicted to the power they obtain. That is why we have the Pelosi’s, Rangels, Hatches, and McConnells. Just to name four. Two are Republicans by the way.
Get rid of the career politicians and we could go a long way to cleaning up all the corruption in Washington.
VegasLib Reply:
May 24th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
I agree here.
Sarah Reply:
May 26th, 2009 at 11:41 am
Term limits. I USED to agree with them, but my state has them in place, and they SUCK, big time.
“New blood” is just as corruptible, there’s a marked lack of accountability (since they’re all short-timers), and the playing-politics gets a helluva lot worse, since the politicians have nothing to lose– they’re there for a short period of time, and then they’re gone, so they have to make the most of it.
Not to mention the learning curve. By the time they’ve figured out how the system works so they can get anything accomplished long-term, it’s time for them to go.
It’s also exhausting for those who represent constituents TO these politicians who represent constituents. For instance, the education department has to constantly educate, re-educate, and re-re-educate freshmen lawmakers– again, because you get a new batch every few years. No stability, no continuity.
Comfortingly, though, we already do HAVE term limits in place. It’s called the Vote.
Daddio Reply:
May 26th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Sure Sarah, but we have to many voters in America who say my representatives aren’t the corrupt ones, yours are. I call them ignorant voters. Corruption is all up and down the halls of congress and the White House.
If you don’t know how government works you shouldn’t be running for office. You’re telling me that we put totally ignorant people in Congress.
Those who have had power for years and years are corrupt and they teach all the new one how to become corrupt by power. You argument is totally bogus. Makes no sense.
Why then do we term limit the President Sarah? Most states have term limits ant they work out pretty well.
May 24th, 2009 at 11:59 am
Hilarious, Alan! I don’t remember you and the rest of the Left throwing the same hissy fits about the way Sarah Palin and Carrie Prejean were treated. Oh, that’s right, it was you folks being nasty and disgusting.
But, it just highlights the old saying, if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Y’all love to dish the mud out, but can’t take it.
Grow up.
And, as far as radio hosts go, did you take Randi Rhodes to task for her, count ‘em, two skits that had Bush getting shot? Or how about the other nasty stuff that appeared on Air Deadbeat?
Of course, since you probably didn’t listen to Air America, avoiding it like the plague, as most on the Left did, perhaps that is not fair.
May 24th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Nancy Pelosi is the RICHEST elected [person] in the USA.VOTE THE BYTCH OUT !!!!!!
The other national disgrace is Hilary as Sec of State.
On the other hand guns and gitmo prevail PRICELESS !!!!!
Stalin, Lennon,Marx, Castro, Chavz, love the long gun, [and so do I ] !!!!!!!! Throw in Jesus and WE got a TEAM !!!!!!!!
EricG Reply:
May 25th, 2009 at 12:44 am
You keep Jesus’ name off your hateful and plain unintelligent posting.
Your the national disgrace. Go read the Constitution again and show me the part where you get to torture people and spit on this country’s pride with your lies and slander.
Bigot.
May 24th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Nancy Pussy Pelosi-O… Government of, by and for the politicians.
EricG Reply:
May 25th, 2009 at 12:42 am
The Iraq War
A war of, and by, the Republicans.
OldLefty Reply:
May 25th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Stop copying us!
This is what we said for six years, especially with the K street project.
You can claim a legitimate argument about whether it is no better under the Democratic party, but don’t act like you never heard of such a thing before.
Read former Republican, John Dean’s book, Broken Government.
May 24th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Congressmen should serve their term and then go back to work.
That would be a problem for most Dems; they never worked to begin with! This, by the way, includes our current Blessed Leader.
Kregg Reply:
May 24th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Pino said: That would be a problem for most Dems; they never worked to begin with! This, by the way, includes our current Blessed Leader.
K: Hey, Pino, lay off the chairman – neighborhood agitator is a job. ;-)
Epiphany Reply:
May 24th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Democrats never work? Yes of course, they, we… we’re all on welfare. More sterotypical conservative trash as usual. Obama never worked? Oh yes again. Being a community organizer, a college professor, a senator etc. … that’s not work at all, right? That simply adds up to no accomplishments whatsoever. Uh huh.
The “Blessed Leader”. LOL! Sure. And that’s coming from the same people who practically get a HARD ON everytime they talk about “their” blessed leader, GOD himself… RONALD REAGAN.
Give me a break.
Kregg Reply:
May 24th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Epiphany said in regards to BO: That simply adds up to no accomplishments whatsoever. Uh huh.
I fully agree. Good call, Epiphany…
TDro319 Reply:
May 26th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
“I fully agree. Good call, Epiphany…”
I’m not surprised at your response (since you took Epiphany’s statement out of context). But I wonder – is there anybody you DO like (except the Dick)?
May 24th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
“Congressmen should serve their term and then go back to work.”
………………………
While I think there certainly a lot of merit to that, my fear is that the only ones with an institutional memory of how things move through the system, would be lobbyists…..unless you ban them.
Daddio Reply:
May 24th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
It would work in the Senate immediately since only a third are up for re-election.
In the House we could start the same way with one third of the longest serving members being unable to run in the next election. Then another third two years later then the final third in the next cycle.
Work for you? By the time the final third is out the new ones elected in the first third would have four years experience.
Two terms in the Senate. Four terms in the house.
RDM Reply:
May 24th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
You are a lobbyist if you advocate an behalf of evil special interest like an oil company. You are an advocate if you lobby for environmental organizations, gobal warming, what a charade.
Let’a start using the appropiate word; SALESMAN.
Kregg Reply:
May 24th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Well said, RDM.
May 24th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Agreed, Lefty …. ban the lobbyists like yesterday and bring on term limits.
I have for years proposed a 6 yr one time term for POTUS
representatives I would limit to 3, three year terms. And Senators 3, four year terms.
But, term limits are simply a pipe dream that many of us wish for. I’m afraid they will never come about. While in theory it sounds simple it would be a very complex to put into actual practice. BUT it would be nice.
May 24th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Alan attempts to make the issue about sexism……..
and his attempt fell totally flat, but I guess someone will jump on the expression “totally flat”, and accuse me of practicing sexism also…..
Nancy Pelosi unashamedly sought to play a dangerous game of chicken with this issue….she actually thought she was going to lead a lynch mob against the remaining Republican’s,…. and she actually thought that she could lie her way through it….
All of the politician’s in DC were aware of the issue of waterboarding, they all knew of, and gave approval to this practice.
It’s why Nancy has received zero support from her own party in her quest to “hang the guilty”…..
If she is going to hang the guilty she needs to be the first one to slip the noose around her own neck and kick the chair out from underneath herself…..
EricG Reply:
May 25th, 2009 at 12:40 am
I disagree. This is all about sexist and ignorant attitudes towards Pelosi.
Don’t forget the Repubicans all lied, once again, about this issue with the CIA.
They all spit on the CIA and recently the HSD as soon as the depts do anything they don’t like even in the slighest.
I commend Nancy for standing up to this BS thrown her way.
She handled it poorly but you would too if suddently a bunch of flaming wackos starting lying and making claims about you.
My guess is that the only reason she gave all these lengthy explanations to tie around her neck is just because the whole thing happened so fast.
May 24th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
VOTE THE BAST@*&$ OUT !!!!! ALL OF THEM !
RDM Reply:
May 24th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
In just a few months, Obama the Great, has tripled the deficit, with not a discouraging word, at least that I have heard, from a single liberal. In my opinion massive inflation is on the horizon, but the Democrats just keep smiling and giving each other high fives.
Are we in a Recession or OBSESSION ?
OldLefty Reply:
May 24th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
RDM said,
“In just a few months, Obama the Great, has tripled the deficit”
…………………………..
I think the correct analogy, (my apologies to those who heard this and think it’s old), is:
You let Bush the Great and his ne’er-do-well friends stay in your house for awhile, and they totaled it…they put holes in the walls and the roof, allowed the pipes to freeze and burst, rotted the floorboards caused water damage, and mold.
Not you have to pay for it.
The smiling and giving each other high fives are because at least we got the gangsters out.
RDM Reply:
May 24th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Lefty,
And you put an egomaniac in.
Bernie-in-Michigan Reply:
May 24th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Lefty, it is easy to blame Bush but the truth is Ross Perot brought deficit spending and the national debt into the national debate back in 1992 with his info commercials and pie charts. He foresaw the current even back then. No one wished to pay attention.
Clinton’s surplus were are best “operating” surpluses. Actually they were basically a smoke and mirrors accounting trick. I would humbly suggest that Clinton did not repay a dime to the Social Security Trust Fund to which the government owes billions upon billions. Same with the Medicare Trust.
The simple answer is blame Bush but it took the government much longer than 8 years to get to where its at today. It has been building since at least the Nixon years.
I also remember a time when libs bashed Reagan because his deficit were running at 2% of GDP. If you take an in depth look at Bush’s deficits you will find they ran less than 5% GDP. Now done the math … figure how Obama’s FY2010 budget (which he is the sole owner of) rates in terms of a percentage od GDP.
EricG Reply:
May 25th, 2009 at 12:34 am
Of course, Bernie. Because if a Democrat balanced the nation’s books or did right by the people it must be a total fluke. Right?
If any liberal were to make a sound budget plan or run this nation well you can always trust that some conservative will step up and try to claim it a ‘fluke’ or ’sham’ or ‘myth.’
This is why I get PO’ed about all this stuff sometimes, right here.
I like a good debate. I don’t even care if I lose.
But changing around the facts because they don’t look right in your mind … that’s partisanship.
Fact is Clinton presented a balanced budget to Bush and then it was squandered by the Republicans.
“I also remember a time when libs bashed Reagan because his deficit were running at 2% of GDP. If you take an in depth look at Bush’s deficits you will find they ran less than 5% GDP. Now done the math … figure how Obama’s FY2010 budget (which he is the sole owner of) rates in terms of a percentage od GDP.”
Okay, I would give you the whole enchilada of the GDP.
But every economist worth his salt will tell you that the jobs created and the jobs lost in any one presidency is the true marker for success or failure, not the GDP.
So Bush II was the worst president in all of history … or so it seems to me.
EricG Reply:
May 25th, 2009 at 12:36 am
“VOTE THE BAST@*&$ OUT !!!!! ALL OF THEM !”
Vote Jerry’s braincells out of his head!
All two of them!
libpatriot Reply:
May 25th, 2009 at 12:59 am
Eric, do you suppose Jerry EVER allows himself to get a good night’s sleep once in a while?
On the bright side, at least we know it’s possible to catch him in a nonpartisan mood!
To catch him in a non-shrill mood…oh, now, THAT’S impossible. (:D
May 24th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
The United States has become a democracy in name only. Privacy is gone, and as for freedom, that privilege is only reserved for the rich or powerful – the rest of us are forced to do as we are told. How about a nation under the rule of law? Well, that’s pretty much gone as well, given the selective way that the law is applied, and that loopholes are written into every piece of lousy legislation our “Congress” produces to protect the powerful. Fighting the Cold war was a waste of time and money (except for the military- industrial complex) when we have an intrusive and manipulative government and media that is more reminiscent of the old Soviet Union. Both only serve only their own interests, not the peoples. The people are no more than pawns to insure the survival of the entrenched oligarchies. The only hope for any real change is a third party, otherwise you are merely voting for the “shirts” or the “skins” who are both members of “Team Corrupt”. As witnessed by Mr. Obama’s nearly identical stances with George Bush on the war on terror proves the point that we really are a country with one party – the Demopublicans.
We have only ourselves to blame by not demanding accountability, and not learning to critically think for ourselves. As for the irrelevant “he said, she said” dramas being played out in the media, I never have nor will, waste my time with contrived soap operas.
VegasLib Reply:
May 24th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
I couldn’t have said it better myself. Great post PhillipD. I’m in total agreement on this. Obama is starting to disappoint by sticking with it on Bush’s idiocies.
EricG Reply:
May 25th, 2009 at 12:28 am
“The people are no more than pawns to insure the survival of the entrenched oligarchies”
Been reading up on Marxist theory?
Those are a little outdated these days.
We write our own American History.
Third Party … good idea. How about we acctually make the two parties we have do what they are supposed to first? Then we can do that.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
May 27th, 2009 at 5:01 am
FYI…the United States was never a democracy.
May 24th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Face the facts: the republican party only appeals to everything selfish, greedy and evil in people. And the radical rightwing extremists prove it every time they open their mouths.
pierre Reply:
May 24th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Yes, specially Rush and Hannity.
Bernie-in-Michigan Reply:
May 24th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
This republican held up his hand and serviced 18 months with the 2nd/502nd Battalion 101st Airborne in Vietnam class of 69-70. Selfish huh?
RDM Reply:
May 24th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Bernie,
On this memorial day I would like to say THANK YOU soldier.
RDM
EricG Reply:
May 25th, 2009 at 12:25 am
Here’s a liberal jumping in to thank Bernie and all those who served the nation in times of peace and war for all you have given.
However we all might disagree politically … I think as Americans we can find common ground on this much. Surely so.
Rocky the Liberal Rottweiler Reply:
May 25th, 2009 at 3:14 am
“Selfish huh?”
If you were airborne, you volunteered. Why volunteer? You wanted to serve with the best. What made that important? Let’s say you wanted to uphold the finest traditions and serve your country in the best way imaginable. Is that selfish? Hell yeah it is. If you wanted any part of it then it was serving you in equal parts.
And it’s serving you right now, because you get to puff up your chest with pride and tell us what a great American you are.
RDM Reply:
May 25th, 2009 at 9:57 am
Rocky…what’s sad is Bernie has to read comments from a left winged loon like you.
What are you doing this Memorial Day, puffing up your chest and humming tunes from the latest Woodstock Tribute Album?
Daddio Reply:
May 25th, 2009 at 10:06 am
Rocky, you ever serve your country in the military?
Daddio Reply:
May 25th, 2009 at 11:06 am
Those who serve in the military do not do so out of selfishness. They enlist and serve out of duty and country. Another words Rocky, for you and me and every other American citizen.
They serve to maintain our freedom and way of life out of love for country.
TDro319 Reply:
May 25th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
I agree with Rocky on this. What about all the soldiers who were ordered by Uncle Sam to “put down their books and pick up a gun”? They unwillingly gave up their lives so cowards (now warmongers who have no qualms about sending your children to die) like the Dick Cheney, and John Bolton didn’t need to.
Talk about the ultimate sacrifice.
RDM Reply:
May 25th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
T…In the 60’s you either signed with the branch of service you chose, or waited until you were drafted. Some left the USA to avoid serving at all. They were know as draft dodgers.
Just because you were drafted, by no means meant you were unwilling to serve. Democratic Presidents that have never been in the Military, have sent many a soldier into harms way.
TDro319 Reply:
May 26th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
” by no means meant you were unwilling to serve.”
Let me rephrase that. People who were drafted were unwilling to fight (since they didn’t enlist), but felt it was their patriotic duty to defend the U.S.
Now Dick (the coward) was more than happy to send children to die in an unnecessary war (and the Iraq war was a war for his profit – see Halliburton). No soldier should be sent off to die without good reason. And don’t give me the 9/11 crap. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
May 27th, 2009 at 5:00 am
I agree with Rocky on this. What about all the soldiers who were ordered by Uncle Sam to “put down their books and pick up a gun”?
—
I’m a bit young to have first hand knowledge of this, but wasn’t school a 2S deferment? In effect no one was told to put down the books.
Kregg Reply:
May 25th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Thanks, Bernie…
libpatriot Reply:
May 25th, 2009 at 3:56 am
“Face the facts…”
Posted by Rocky the Liberal Rottweiler
May 24th, 2009 @ 4:52 PM
Rock, I gotta tell you, I admire your ability to really tear into any subject you’ve chosen to sink your teeth into!
May 24th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Obama will send the dupe Sargent Powell back to the U.N. and puke all over himself. [he's keeping Bushes war stratigies in place]. So get ready Sarg. back to the U.N. for your new presinent.[you ole boot licker you].
pierre Reply:
May 24th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
say it : Sarg Black
Speak up your subconscious
May 24th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
It seems the right views Nancy as big as or bigger a threat than the President the way they behave.
May 25th, 2009 at 12:22 am
““Selfish huh?”
If you were airborne, you volunteered. Why volunteer? “….
Hmm,while I have no comment on the motivations of Bernie, why is selfishness getting pilloried? To the best of my knowledge, selfishness is a civilized human instinct. And according to a few theories, which havent been disputed to date, selfishness is what built America’s success story as a nation.
May 25th, 2009 at 7:07 am
Now, in defense of the GOP, they have nothing else to work with. Why not go after Nancy Pelosi? After all, they can’t go after the person/people who actually authorized torture. The Dickster is the GOP’s “blessed leader” and must not be held accountable for his despicable actions. Better to blame it on a dem.
May 25th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
“Now, in defense of the GOP, ..dem.”
You’re giving the GOP way too much credit there.
1.There’s an assumption in your argument that they (the GOP) resent the torture tactics used, and join us in our desire to hold accountable whoeever authorized or condoned the practices. I dont see any evidence to support that assumption. Have seen far more evidence on GOP providing defense of the practices (”It wasnt torture, it was enhanced interrogation” etc).
2.They arent remotely trying to blame a dem for the torture tactics, because they dont disapprove of it(read item 1). Call it what it is: blaming Pelosi is to distract attention from the question of whether BushCo were (in THEIR belief) accountable for their actions.
TDro319 Reply:
May 26th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
I was being sarcastic, Karthik.
May 25th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
My only point on this issue…comparing Nancy Pelosi to Pussy Galore is a travesty….for Pussy Galore, she should never have to in the company or comparison of a nasty person such as Nancy P.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:50 am