Top
Comments
257 Responses to “Weekend Open Comments”
  1. Dov on July 7th, 2007 at 1:18 am

    Eeeeyew

    What in the He!! is that ?

  2. T-Hawkk on July 7th, 2007 at 1:54 am

    GLOBAL WARMING IS THE FRAUD OF THE CENTURY!

    al-gore should be in prison for fraud!

    What could be more preposterous than GLOBAL WARMING??? The Earth is HEATING up because of humans??? WHAT???

  3. golfer1 on July 7th, 2007 at 4:34 am

    I get up this morning and see this YIKES! moment…I’m not sure what the rest of the day will bring…I’m afraid I’ll have this weird image in my mind while I’m playing golf this morning. Looks like a demented Scottish caddie…

  4. american woman on July 7th, 2007 at 6:33 am

    Oh dear what a way to start a weekend. This isn’t a self portrait of anyone we know is it? Maybe someone whose name starts with an s and ends with an x? Runssssssssssssssssssssssss

  5. dowjones25k on July 7th, 2007 at 7:40 am
  6. Elizabeth on July 7th, 2007 at 7:41 am

    Um…err…uh….
    Staying after class and writing 500 x’s on the chalkboard,
    “I will never again complain about an O.C. pic…”

  7. Katfish on July 7th, 2007 at 7:49 am

    Short Notice Escort Home LCpl. Matthew Gonzales Saturday 07 July 07 14:15
    July 7th, 2007

    Short Notice Escort Home LCpl. Matthew Gonzales 07 July 07 14:10

    LCpl. Matthew Gonzales, active duty, was killed stateside

    and will be coming home TODAY at Bush IAH.

    We have been asked to escort LCpl Gonzales home.

    He will be coming in at around 15:00.

    We will meet the family and Marines at the Cell Phone Lot at 14:15.

    all details at:

    http://www.fauxnews.org/blog/

  8. sunny on July 7th, 2007 at 7:57 am

    Now you know why I live alone and don’t go out trolling bars! Yuck!

  9. Elizabeth on July 7th, 2007 at 7:57 am

    God bless this heavenly warrior and his family.

  10. luv2hammer on July 7th, 2007 at 8:12 am

    Caption for the picture

    News Alert

    Today another Democratic Presidential hopeful has thrown his hat in the ring.

  11. american woman on July 7th, 2007 at 8:25 am

    OH my goodness, is this the breck girl ( John Edwards ) before the facial, hair cut, professional wardrobeist ( is that a word?)?

  12. squawkbox on July 7th, 2007 at 8:33 am

    Nope that ain’t me. It is my reincarnated evil twin DJ Disco Tex.

    Some of you might remember DJ Disco from a year ago. He would sneak in here and reek havoc and destruction in the open comments thread when I was not around. I finally had to ban him completely and hired HAL to keep him out.

    By the way I am on a Jihad to reclaim my title from BigJolly.

  13. bigjolly on July 7th, 2007 at 8:44 am

    This is atrocious and disgusting. There is nothing in this picture that is lovely and of good report.

    It’s not my blog and nomb but why must the O.C. pics often be shocking and repulsive? Isn’t life disgusting enough? I know… there’s no one forcing us to look…It just pops up whenever we want to see what anyone has to say…

  14. Elizabeth on July 7th, 2007 at 8:45 am

    #12 A pic smackdown between The Squawkster and BigJolly? This will NOT be for the faint of heart. Stock up on the Pepto now folks…

  15. The Dude on July 7th, 2007 at 8:56 am

    Is that guy Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum? I can never keep those two straight.

  16. Elizabeth on July 7th, 2007 at 9:06 am

    #15 Just keep his TWEEDLE away from me!

  17. squawkbox on July 7th, 2007 at 9:10 am

    To whom this applies

    A bear rolling on the ground is shocking and repulsive?

    Red Skelton is shocking and repulsive?

    John Denver and the Muppets is shocking and repulsive?

    A bird is shocking and repulsive?

    A cursory peek has revealed that in the past month or so, most of the pictures that have made it to the open comments have been quite tame.

    Wanna see something really inappropriate and gross. Well here ya go. Check this out.

  18. Hamous on July 7th, 2007 at 9:11 am

    I think the Child narcissism / Mr. Rogers correlation is begging for a cause and effect graph ;-)

  19. squawkbox on July 7th, 2007 at 9:13 am

    The Dude

    byGosh your linking don’t worky.

  20. Hamous on July 7th, 2007 at 9:13 am

    Uh oh. Sean T’s Hip Hop abs is on again. Gotta go work out.

  21. squawkbox on July 7th, 2007 at 9:18 am

    This is atrocious and disgusting. There is nothing in this picture that is lovely and of good report.

    I beg to differ!!. It is a poignant reminder that by the grace of God there go I.

  22. Atlas *shrugged* on July 7th, 2007 at 9:21 am

    I bet that guy was all pissed off about any hint of immigration reform!

  23. The Dude on July 7th, 2007 at 9:29 am

    Squawk,

    You must have forgotten to insert the quarter in your computer’s slot. Linky worky for me.

  24. squawkbox on July 7th, 2007 at 9:34 am

    The Dude

    Clear your INTERNET cache and try again

  25. Jaime on July 7th, 2007 at 9:35 am

    Not only did Fred Thompson tell the Nixon administration that the Watergate Committee was aware of the existence of the recording system, now it is being reported that Fred Thompson lobbied on behalf of a pro-abort organization.

    =============================

    http://rawstory.com/news/2007/ExWatergate_prober_Thompson_was_mole_for_0705.html

    In his Watergate memoir, “At That Point in Time,” Thompson recalls that he acted with “no authority” in disclosing this information to Nixon. Former investigator for the Democratic majority on the Watergate committee, Scott Armstrong, claims this was just one of many leaks Thompson provided to the Nixon administration.

    =============================

    http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-thompson7jul07%2C0%2C54260.story?track=mostviewed-storylevel

    Fred D. Thompson, who is campaigning for president as an antiabortion Republican, accepted an assignment from a family-planning group to lobby the first Bush White House to ease a controversial abortion restriction, according to a 1991 document and several people familiar with the matter.

    A spokesman for the former Tennessee senator denied that Thompson did the lobbying work. But the minutes of a 1991 board meeting of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Assn. say that the group hired Thompson that year.

    His task was to urge the administration of President George H. W. Bush to withdraw or relax a rule that barred abortion counseling at clinics that received federal money, according to the records and to people who worked on the matter.

    (snip)

    Thompson spokesman Mark Corallo adamantly denied that Thompson worked for the family planning group. “Fred Thompson did not lobby for this group, period,” he said in an e-mail.

    In a telephone interview, he added: “There’s no documents to prove it, there’s no billing records, and Thompson says he has no recollection of it, says it didn’t happen.” In a separate interview, John H. Sununu, the White House official whom the family planning group wanted to contact, said he had no memory of the lobbying and doubted it took place.

  26. The Dude on July 7th, 2007 at 9:41 am

    Squawk,

    I did that, and it still links for me. No big deal anyway. Twas just a picture of the roly-poly little buggers as encountered by Alice. Curiouser and curiouser.

  27. bigjolly on July 7th, 2007 at 9:41 am

    Link works if you copy and paste it. The site doesn’t like direct links and brings up a copyright notice.

  28. squawkbox on July 7th, 2007 at 9:42 am

    Jaime

    And Ron Paul is a nut, a goofball, a whackjob, a fruitcake etc. He thinks that 911 was an insiide job. Not to mention that he subscribes to the “terrorist” are mere criminals and should only be investigated via the “Cut-N-Shoot, TX” police department for instance. This nutroll thinks that we should not defend ourselves unless the “enemy” is on our shores.

    You sir have got to be kidding me.

  29. bigjolly on July 7th, 2007 at 9:42 am

    Jaime, I’ve read about 5 articles on that (abortion lobbying) and come to this conclusion - it’s a horsesh*t hit piece. And I’m not a Thompson supporter. In the primary.

  30. Elizabeth on July 7th, 2007 at 9:47 am

    Sheesh Squawk, cut us some slack please. OK.OK. I was in a pissy mood yesterday, and I paid for it in spades. You STAY grumpy and we still lubs YOU.

  31. Elizabeth on July 7th, 2007 at 9:55 am

    eek. don’t hurt me please…

  32. squawkbox on July 7th, 2007 at 9:57 am

    Elizabeth

    One thing about staying grumpy I never regret a good mood later.

  33. gregg on July 7th, 2007 at 9:59 am

    What does that info on Fred Thompson have to do with anything in 2008? Wonder if he was mean to anybody in grade school?

  34. squawkbox on July 7th, 2007 at 10:14 am

    And Jaime

    I find it interesting that a person that supports a candidate that supports unfettered aboritons posts a hit piece about a candidate that may (or may not) have lobbyed to have the aborion laws relaxed.

    What’s that all about huh?

  35. american woman on July 7th, 2007 at 10:21 am

    I agree with most of you. It’s clear Fred has a huge body of support. I believe he can give the dems a great run for their money. So do they, because the hit pieces will start flying. After the debackle with the memo Dan Rather blabbed all over TV, give me one good reason I should believe anything anybody can copy, paste and print to make it real. Sorry, this doesn’t fly with me.

  36. gregg on July 7th, 2007 at 10:30 am

    No one has more negative baggage than Hillary. She is the darling of the left and MSM.

    I am still LMFAO about her slamming GWB for his pardon of Libby. She does have some large stones.
    And Bill saying the White House needs to be cleaned up.Yeh, they had to steam clean the carpets when he left.

  37. american woman on July 7th, 2007 at 10:44 am

    Gregg even some of teh MSM had to remind the Clintonistas of Bill’s pardon spree. The intersting thing now is, Hillary Clinton’s aide is indicted and she has no memory of anything he did with Bill.

  38. Elizabeth on July 7th, 2007 at 10:45 am

    #36 Hillary is not the “darling” of any party as far as I can see. True, she’s got the money and one minority in particular likes Bill, but she’s a political robot machine and not authentic in how she represents herself. Most folks with any intuitive insight can see that. She scares people.

    I still like Huckabee, but want to see him get good and MAD. We need STRONG, authentically powerful leaders in 2008.

  39. vlou on July 7th, 2007 at 11:01 am

    #13

    Using my post from yesterday?

  40. Jaime on July 7th, 2007 at 11:02 am

    #28 Find me where Dr.Paul has stated that he believes in an inside job. At any rate, I do believe that, at least,Building 7 was an inside job. But I am not Dr. Paul. While we are in the topic, can you explain the pools of molten steel? Molten steel and not molten aluminum. I guess that I am also a “nut, a goofball, a whackjob, a fruitcake etc.” bu you already knew that.

    #29 I hope that is not true and that Thompson did not lobby for the pro-abort industry. But, if true? For how many years did Thompson work as a Lobbyist? More will come out, no doubt.

    #34 Factually you are wrong. Abortions, as all other crimes, with the exception of piracy and counter-feiting, are State issues. That is Dr. Paul’s position per Federal jurisdiction. The legislation below will remove Federal Judicial interference in States’ criminalization of abortions.

    (I am not a fan of freerepublic but they are usefull in this case)
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1860939/posts

    Here is what a pro-abort thinks:
    http://media.www.usforacle.com/media/storage/paper880/news/2007/07/02/Opinion/Ron-Pauls.Abortion.Views.Jeopardize.Womens.Rights-2920225.shtml?xmlsyn=1

  41. american woman on July 7th, 2007 at 11:13 am

    These planes exploding with this type of fuel and fire ball, plus the fire feeding itself resulted in extreme temperatures. Remember the tanker truck that melted a bridge?
    http://digg.com/offbeat_news/Tanker_Fire_Literally_Melts_Freeway_Pics

  42. sargevining on July 7th, 2007 at 11:23 am

    squawkbox Says:
    July 7th, 2007 at 10:14 am
    And Jaime

    I find it interesting that a person that supports a candidate that supports unfettered aboritons posts a hit piece about a candidate that may (or may not) have lobbyed to have the aborion laws relaxed.

    What’s that all about huh?

    It’s about people who know that they can’t get people to vote for thier candidates based on the values, principles, practices, track record, and programs they espouse so they endeavor to fracture the opposition to dilute the vote.

    Just another one of the ways we end up with crappy candidates getting elected.

    The Left did an excellent job last time around using that very tactic.

    It’s why I base my vote on what people say about themselves, what they’ve done in the past, and not the crap that their opposition digs up then spins and mischaracterizes in order to split the vote—rather than be honest with me about what they believe and why I should vote for them because they beleive that way.

    If you have to resort to a “split thier vote” tactic, it means your philosphy is not popular enough with the people to get elected and therefore you have no real right to occupy the positions of power you seek.

  43. sargevining on July 7th, 2007 at 11:28 am

    Elizabeth Says:
    July 7th, 2007 at 10:45 am
    #36 Hillary is not the “darling” of any party as far as I can see. True, she’s got the money and one minority in particular likes Bill, but she’s a political robot machine and not authentic in how she represents herself. Most folks with any intuitive insight can see that. She scares people.

    I still like Huckabee, but want to see him get good and MAD. We need STRONG, authentically powerful leaders in 2008.

    You’re going to have to explain all that money that’s being given to her, along with those high poll numbers, then.

  44. Hamous on July 7th, 2007 at 11:28 am

    #40

    Abortions, as all other crimes, with the exception of piracy and counter-feiting, are State issues.

    Only if you don’t define an unborn child as a person. If the baby is a person then the due process clause of the 14th amendment kicks in.

  45. american woman on July 7th, 2007 at 11:43 am

    Mr. Rogers was so soft spoken and wimpy….I guess I was a little too old for him to hold my attention. I agree to some degree with this article. Mr Rogers didn’t show any balance…….only peace, love and my aren’t you terrific. Kids need to have praise……… but they also need to know what’s expected of them and they have abilities and innate intelligence they do not use. A C is ok, but most kids can do better if they apply themselves. We have forgotten the ” you need to apply yourself” part.

  46. Elizabeth on July 7th, 2007 at 11:46 am

    #43 Simple. People are gullible and stupid. Clear enough?

  47. Hamous on July 7th, 2007 at 11:47 am

    I don’t think Ron Paul said 9/11 was an inside job. He takes, in my opinion, a more nefarious position that we are to blame for 9/11 because we had been enforcing the no-fly zone in Iraq for 10 years. He does, however, say 9/11 was “covered up” which only fuels the nutjobs:

    http://infowars.net/articles/june2007/210607Ron.htm

  48. squawkbox on July 7th, 2007 at 11:54 am

    RE: Ron Paul and 911

    Oh excuse me, he did not say it was an inside job.

    Paul, a Texas congressman, asserted that terrorists attacked the US “because we’ve been over there”

    I should have said he is part of the blame America first crowd. In fact the more I read his statements/missives and opinions, listen to his interviews that are available on youtube unedited I am convinced that be believes that any retaliation such that Reagan took in Libya should never have happened.

    Furthermore: Here listen to Ron Pauls own words in the video found here. He says:

    “…the investigation was an investigation in which there were government cover-ups”

    BTW Ron Paul has a history of pandering to Alex Jones of prison planet fame and the truthers. So as they say…..

    You connect the dots.

  49. Hamous on July 7th, 2007 at 11:55 am

    #46 - Every single poll has Clinton ahead by at least 10 points. I think that probably makes her the current darling of her party.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national-primary.html

  50. american woman on July 7th, 2007 at 11:55 am

    He says there is a lot of guilt over 9/11 because the information about these characters was in the logs, just inept people did not connect the dots. Does he mean the coverup is to protect the inept people from being ostracized by America?

  51. american woman on July 7th, 2007 at 11:56 am

    I have listened to Ron Paul and am now confused :)

  52. squawkbox on July 7th, 2007 at 11:57 am

    Serge’
    #42
    With all do respect I am well aware of the tactics “the other side deploys”. Oh and you do it too.

  53. vlou on July 7th, 2007 at 11:57 am

    …this is from a story which appeared on the ABC News website re Organic foods…

    “Organic tomatoes were found to have nearly twice the level of two compounds, quercetin and kaempferol, as traditionally grown tomatoes. These compounds, part of a group called flavonoids, which are just a subclass of antioxidants, have been linked to a reduction in heart disease risk, so higher levels in food would seem to be a good thing.”

    I can now understand why we are all so confused. Why don’t they just give all these compounds which are part of a group (musst be many groups) one name instead of giving it a subclass, etc. Call it what it is and leave it alone already!

  54. Hamous on July 7th, 2007 at 11:59 am

    re: 47 & 48

    Ok Squawkie. Let’s turn off our Brain Synchronizing Units for a while ;-)

  55. Elizabeth on July 7th, 2007 at 12:00 pm

    #49 If she is indeed the “darling” of her party, than I am once again reminded of the absolute ignorance of the masses. (Now stop it, I wasn’t going to get pissy today…)

  56. sargevining on July 7th, 2007 at 12:03 pm

    Elizabeth Says:
    July 7th, 2007 at 11:46 am
    #43 Simple. People are gullible and stupid. Clear enough?

    If Hillary is “nobody’s darling” you’re going to thave to explain why and how SO MANY people are gullible and stupid.

    I’d say that if she’s gotten tens of milliosn of doallars, and leads the pacvk in polling among Democrats, she has to be somebody’s darling—
    and to have that much money and that much support—there has to be a LOT of somebody’s.

    Might could be that she represents the philosophy, values, and practices of a LOT of people in the Democrat Party—and from the looks of it, she represents a MAJORITY of them.

  57. squawkbox on July 7th, 2007 at 12:06 pm

    Hamous
    #54

    Have you been in my Kool-Aid?

  58. sargevining on July 7th, 2007 at 12:07 pm

    squawkbox Says:
    July 7th, 2007 at 11:57 am
    Serge’
    #42
    With all do respect I am well aware of the tactics “the other side deploys”. Oh and you do it too.

  59. squawkbox on July 7th, 2007 at 12:09 pm

    #58
    Muhwahahahaha I got Serge’ to bite.

  60. Elizabeth on July 7th, 2007 at 12:09 pm

    And who that is actually officially running on the Republican platform now represents conservatives 100%?

  61. sargevining on July 7th, 2007 at 12:10 pm

    squawkbox Says:
    July 7th, 2007 at 11:57 am
    Serge’
    #42
    With all do respect I am well aware of the tactics “the other side deploys”. Oh and you do it too.

    You’re ging to have to prove that accusation, Squawk, before anybody is going to beleive it.

    Just show me where in the past I have used any statement of my own to “divide Liberals” or point it out next time I do.

    I’ve always defended my own beleifs, and used fact and logic to point out the weaknesses of other with whom I disagree.

    But again, you need toprove that I;ve ever used the “divide Liberals” tactic.

  62. squawkbox on July 7th, 2007 at 12:11 pm

    Elizabeth

    I liken staying grumpy to staying drunk to avoid hangovers.

  63. sargevining on July 7th, 2007 at 12:12 pm

    Elizabeth Says:
    July 7th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
    And who that is actually officially running on the Republican platform now represents conservatives 100%?

    Nobody. Not one. never has been the case, never will be.

    To expect 100% agreement is illogical, unfair, and completely unsupported by history.

  64. Elizabeth on July 7th, 2007 at 12:15 pm

    #62 Understand too well.

  65. squawkbox on July 7th, 2007 at 12:17 pm

    You’re ging to have to prove that accusation, Squawk, before anybody is going to beleive it.

    Hmmmm let me see here. Serge’ has been posting on LST for (REDACTED) years and (REDACTED) months. That should not be too hard to prove.

    Why let’s just find a weekend open comments where we cleared house and look how much you mischaracterized my point of view.

    Love to joust with you Serge’ but I have some fine Cuban Cigars to procure so as “they’ say:

    Hasta la vista corcodile

  66. sargevining on July 7th, 2007 at 12:21 pm

    Why let’s just find a weekend open comments where we cleared house and look how much you mischaracterized my point of view.

    That’s not what we’re looking for Squawk:

    we’re looking for where I have tried to “divide Liberals” as a substitute for expressing my own beleifs or calling out the weaknesses of thiers.

    My statment was that Liberals—and apparently the Ron Paul supporters, use the tactic of dividing conservatives because they can win elections no other way.

    Unfortunately, there is a significant number of conservatives willing to help them in that pursuit.

  67. Elizabeth on July 7th, 2007 at 12:25 pm

    God made chocolate and cartoons for days like today. Thank you God. :)

  68. squawkbox on July 7th, 2007 at 12:27 pm

    Serge’

    U-gotta-b-kiddin-me!!!

    How may times have I seen you post your “Looky what this democrat or that democrat is doing”.

    It is no different than a democrat or “libertarian” supporter posting about Fred Thompson.

    Once again you project your very actions on to another and ascribe a completely different motive.

    Oh I see.

    You are informing
    and
    they are dividing.

  69. american woman on July 7th, 2007 at 12:28 pm

    We concentrate on voting for the man or woman who closely fits what we think a president should be. Politics, however, is like a chess game. Nothing is black and white. Each side plots and plans to unseat the other side. It’s a game. Unfortunately the stakes have become so high for the winner, and the game so defiled that we may loose no matter who wins.

  70. squawkbox on July 7th, 2007 at 12:30 pm

    Unfortunately, there is a significant number of conservatives willing to help them in that pursuit.

    And I am not going to put lipstick and a tutu on a pig either.

    You keep marchin’ right along with the pubbys serge’ as they and the democrats give this country away, steal more of my money and leave this country unprotected.

  71. squawkbox on July 7th, 2007 at 12:31 pm

    I’m late, I’m late.
    I’m late for a very important date.

  72. Maltboy! on July 7th, 2007 at 12:33 pm

    Does anyone remember an old National Lampoon LP called “That’s Not Funny That’s Sick!”? It had a couple of tracks of Bill Murray and His brother doing a Mr. Rogers parody. One was him interviewing a rock band bass player.

    Mr. Rogers: We’re going to go to the Magic Kingdom.
    Bass Player: It’s too early. I gotta drive.

    Classic stuff.

  73. Maltboy! on July 7th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
  74. BSue on July 7th, 2007 at 12:37 pm

    #67 Elizabeth
    Thankfully, He also made quilt shop sales for days like this, too!

  75. Hamous on July 7th, 2007 at 12:41 pm

    maltboy, I remember that LP. “Can you say ‘Egg McMuffin’?”

  76. american woman on July 7th, 2007 at 12:47 pm

    #73 He’s not even holding a bass. He’s holding an electric guitar lol. #74 BSue do you quilt? My sister back home quilts in the winter.

  77. BSue on July 7th, 2007 at 12:50 pm

    #76 AW
    Nah, I just collect fabric - just ask Squawk. Actually (not pimping my blog) but if you click on my name you can see some of that quilty stuff.

  78. american woman on July 7th, 2007 at 12:59 pm

    OH BSue I went to your site and wonderful work. I am so new I have to be hit on the head and reminded if name is in blue, I can click on the site lol. It’s a great site and the dog is so cute.

  79. headshaker on July 7th, 2007 at 1:08 pm

    For all you materialists and socialists out there, an interesting article:

    http://www.uruknet.de/?p=m34270&hd=&size=1&l=e

  80. Elizabeth on July 7th, 2007 at 1:27 pm

    BSue, Caught up on your blog too. Thanks for the huge smile and reminder of what is important. I sometimes forget to be grateful for the little things, which in reality are the most important things of all.
    Wish I had a hobby like quilting. Did crocheting for a while but was so compulsive about it made a 300 lb afghan. (Learned how to crochet but not how to stop).
    I love to bake homemade bread - every thing about it - the working of the dough, the smell of yeast, the way it makes the house smell when it’s baking. (Think it’s an inherited gene thing…) But I still wish I was crafty and could make things like quilts, paintings, something permanent…

  81. sargevining on July 7th, 2007 at 1:28 pm

    How, in the corn bread hell you can say that stetements like the examples you provide here:

    squawkbox Says:
    July 7th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
    Serge’

    U-gotta-b-kiddin-me!!!

    How may times have I seen you post your “Looky what theis democrat or that democrat is doing”.

    It is no different than a democrat or “libertarian” supporter posting about Fred Thompson.

    Once again you project your very actions on to another and ascribe a completely different motive.

    Oh I see.

    You are informing
    and
    they are dividing.

    can be descrobed as me trying to dovode Democtats and Liberals is beyond me.

    maybe that’s why you can’t see it when guy’s like gadboy and Jaime come in here and post crap like
    “Fred Thompson is pro-life” are opponents of conservatism endeavoring to divide conservatives and are more than happy to help them.

    Me?

    I see Victory for Conservatism as being the Defeat of Liberalism.

    And anything that helps Liberals wins elections is counterproductive to that goal.

  82. sargevining on July 7th, 2007 at 1:30 pm

    Just explain this:

    How does me coming into a group of Conservatives saying ““Looky what theis democrat or that democrat is doing” is dividing Democrats in the same way that somebody coming into a group of conservatives—who obviously does not want Conservative candidates to win—and saying that a favorite Conservative candidate is not do?

  83. headshaker on July 7th, 2007 at 1:36 pm

    #82 Sarge

    One could make a case that it’s more like Conservatives losing elections than Liberals winning them.

  84. sargevining on July 7th, 2007 at 1:47 pm

    Explain #83—makes no sense to me at all.

  85. malcolm on July 7th, 2007 at 1:50 pm

    tedtam: Where are you? Do you need a trainee?

    You can kiss your honey
    when your nose is runny
    you might think it’s funny
    but it’s snot!

    Whatchathink?

  86. sargevining on July 7th, 2007 at 1:53 pm

    If you think it’s butter
    but it’s snot
    It’s Chiffon

  87. headshaker on July 7th, 2007 at 1:54 pm

    Conservatives not acting like Conservatives = losing elections to Liberals.

    What part of that don’t you get?

  88. sargevining on July 7th, 2007 at 2:00 pm

    headshaker Says:
    July 7th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
    Conservatives not acting like Conservatives = losing elections to Liberals.

    What part of that don’t you get?

    telling me I need to let Liberals win because my canddiates are not “conservative enough” is idiocy, pure andf simple.

    I still LOSE.

    what part of that is hard to understand?

    As long as conservatives remain split—and they let Liberals exploit that split—then Liberals will win and Conservatives will lose.

    Want to guarantee the most conservative candidate possible gets elected?

    Convince the Democrat Party that running Liberals will never again result in an electoral victory. I guarantee they will fall all over themselves trying to find somebody more Conservative than the Republican Candidate.

    You don’t do that by letting Liberals win.

  89. BSue on July 7th, 2007 at 2:05 pm

    #88 Sarge,
    I hate to say I disagree with you but I don’t think that you can convince Democrats that running Liberals will not result in an electoral victory for the same reason that you cannot convince me to support someone with whom I disagree, simply because they have “R” after their name. We both are positive that WE are right! Excuse me - we both think that we are CORRECT.

  90. sargevining on July 7th, 2007 at 2:09 pm

    BSue Says:
    July 7th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
    #88 Sarge,
    I hate to say I disagree with you but I don’t think that you can convince Democrats that running Liberals will not result in an electoral victory for the same reason that you cannot convince me to support someone with whom I disagree, simply because they have “R” after their name. We both are positive that WE are right! Excuse me - we both think that we are CORRECT.

    name one candidate that you’ve ever voted for with whom you agreed on everything.

    if you can’t, then you’ll know what I’m talking about.

    “Intellectual purity” is just about the absolute dumbest frikkin thing anyone could use to base thier vote on.

    anmd if Democrats win electtions with Liberals, they will keep running Liberals.

    If they keep losing elections by running Liberals, they will no longer run them.

    Thas not too hard to understand.

    thefact that they no longer even TRY to convince people that thier approach and philosphy is right for us is proof that they know this. They are relying on mischaacterization and splitting Conservatives uin order to win.

    I don’t see much more that they are offering.

    It means that if we are focused on defeat of Liberaqlism, it won’ttake too much longer as long as we defeat liberals at the ballot box.

  91. squawkbox on July 7th, 2007 at 2:17 pm

    Serge’

    Muwahahahaha

    My argument with you TODAY is very simple. You do the same thing in another blog that you accuse gadboy, Jaime and others of doing.

    AND THEN you have the intestinal bile to tell me what others are doing. Sorta hypocritical ain’t it?

    I see Victory for Conservatism as being the Defeat of Liberalism.

    Yeah that would be all nice and great but ummm there is not one “CONERVATIVE” in the traditional sense of the word running for prez and +- 90% of the rest of the Republicans are not conservative. So what you are arguing for is a hollow victory at best.

    Oh I forgot you would rather have a Republican that says he is conservative (but really is not wink wink) win to keep a democrat out of any office. Some victory for conservatism that is.

    Read my lips Serge’

    I DEMAND BETTER

    The only way conservatism wins is to have candidates who teach and practice conservative values in occupying the office, not some half arsed pretender to the throne.

  92. BSue on July 7th, 2007 at 2:28 pm

    #90 Sarge
    I don’t think you understand. I don’t want to support a candidate who SAYS he will give me lower taxes, I want an elected official who will actually DO it. I don’t want a candidate who says they are for strong border enforcement - I want an elected official who will do everything, to and including being ridiculed in the media (as Dan Patrick was) by forcing their fellow congressmen to put up or shut up. As far as I am concerned, if they haven’t done everything they possibly could to get the agenda that the electorate chose them for, they do not deserve to stay.

  93. squawkbox on July 7th, 2007 at 2:29 pm

    #90
    That has to be the most convoluted bunch of fluid bovine processed hay I have read in a long time.

  94. BSue on July 7th, 2007 at 2:34 pm

    #90 Sarge

    If they keep losing elections by running Liberals, they will no longer run them.

    Yep - they lost by running AlGore, so they followed that by running Ketchup Boy. I suppose that someone might consider ObamaHillary less liberal than either of them; but I just don’t see it!

  95. squawkbox on July 7th, 2007 at 2:39 pm

    Hey Serge’

    If it was a matter of, oh I don’t know,
    Chris Bell running against Fred Hill and there were no other candidates who would you vote for?

    I’d skip the box.

  96. sargevining on July 7th, 2007 at 3:18 pm

    squawkbox Says:
    July 7th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
    Serge’

    Muwahahahaha

    My argument with you TODAY is very simple. You do the same thing in another blog that you accuse gadboy, Jaime and others of doing.

    ———–

    #90 Sarge
    I don’t think you understand. I don’t want to support a candidate who SAYS he will give me lower taxes, I want an elected official who will actually DO it. I don’t want a candidate who says they are for strong border enforcement - I want an elected official who will do everything, to and including being ridiculed in the media (as Dan Patrick was) by forcing their fellow congressmen to put up or shut up. As far as I am concerned, if they haven’t done everything they possibly could to get the agenda that the electorate chose them for, they do not deserve to stay

    I post on two blogs.

    I divide Democrats on exactly zero. Proof—we wanmt proof—otherwise it’s just as unproven an accusation as what others are making.

    Another poster was complaining about just the same kind of thing a week or so ago.

    Sue;

    If you want that, tell me how letting Liberals win gets it for you.

    I’ll vote against anyone who runs as a Conservative and does not give me what I want in every primary that i can.

    but when it comes to the General election, I will vote against the one who willtake away from me more than what the other might give.

    It’s a math equation, pure and simple.

    A “less than Conservative’ Republican will give me something—but a Liberal will take things away.

    I’m still ahead with one, and getting further behind with the other.

    Only one course, therefore, makes any kind of sense to me.

    The “fake conservative” Republican will lose my vote in the general election as soon as, but not until, the Democrats run a real Conservative instead of Liberals.

    When that starts happening, I can guarantee that we will see the Conservative Candidates we want–from both parties.

    But not until.

  97. Hamous on July 7th, 2007 at 3:19 pm

    So if it the ballot was Jimmy Dick, Bell, Kinky or KeatonmcClellandrylanderstrayhorn would it be reasonable to skip the box?

  98. sargevining on July 7th, 2007 at 3:21 pm

    squawkbox Says:
    July 7th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
    Hey Serge’

    If it was a matter of, oh I don’t know,
    Chris Bell running against Fred Hill and there were no other candidates who would you vote for?

    I’d skip the box.

    You can give me all the theorhetical–and unlikley to happen—scenarios you want Squawk,

    Until I see the actual candidates, I won;t make a choice.

    Between Perry and Bell—I know that Pwerry has done some of the things I want—and more of them than I could have hoped for from Bell.

    Complain bout the choices all you want–BOTH parties are responsible for the choices you are given, not just one.

    When both parties provide us with Conservagive candidates, then we will get what we want.

    But not until.

  99. sargevining on July 7th, 2007 at 3:38 pm

    Here’s thje logic that completely escapes me:

    I’m not supposed to accept “less than 100% Conservatives” in one party, so I’m supposed to either ’sjip the box” or vote for an opponent.

    BUT

    If doing that results in a Liberal winning, it’s OK.

    Makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.

  100. american woman on July 7th, 2007 at 3:48 pm

    The problem is, NOT GETTING CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATES. You and I have no say in that. It’s the republican party of Texas or USA. We only get to vote in a primary for whom the party encourages or to whom gives some support. The problem is both parties are too much alike. Both want to win. Ours doesnt give a damn about its platform. The candidate who can win the power is the candidate who gets supported. The contestants pat us on the head and say, oh sure, no more taxes, border closed of course, fix social security, of course I will. After they are elected, they are bought by interests. They pay off campaign bribery with bills and votes. The empty promises are forgotten. They esteem each other and compromise with each other until what was said to be a conservative republican is in fact…….. just a politician.

  101. american woman on July 7th, 2007 at 3:48 pm

    wheeeeeeeeeeee I was 100 ……. email me where I can pick up my check! :)

  102. american woman on July 7th, 2007 at 3:58 pm

    ok ok I was just kidding about the check. Did everyone run away?

  103. NAT PIERCE on July 7th, 2007 at 4:07 pm

    Anyone can run in the primary if he has the money to register and meet basic civil qualifications.

    The biggest hurdle to the wild card candidate is accumulating enough money to be competitive. It would be necessary to have the backing of a big outfit like LST to be viable.

    If the wild card candidate wins the primary, he or she will be the Republican nominee.

  104. american woman on July 7th, 2007 at 4:10 pm

    Or a big outfit like the RNC? We have Mel Martinez as our leader………..:( Tell me how much chance a very good conservative nobody has?

  105. Elizabeth on July 7th, 2007 at 4:24 pm

    This exchange reminds me of “Who would you do? Betty or Wilma? Ginger or Mary Ann?”

    (I’d do Fred and The Professor…)

  106. american woman on July 7th, 2007 at 4:26 pm

    Umm being female I would pass on any of those ladies… but that sexy fred……. aba daba dooooooooo :)

  107. jimb on July 7th, 2007 at 4:27 pm

    Sarge/Squawk - Honestly, lime many things, the answer probably lies somewhere between your positions. Not middle-of-the-roading here, but there are times when you gotta keep the liberals out even if it means that you get a bad “concervative: in, and there are times when you gotta take the medicine and skip the box.

  108. jimb on July 7th, 2007 at 4:28 pm

    “Who would you do? Betty or Wilma? Ginger or Mary Ann?”

    Betty and Mary Ann, of course.

    /In a strange world where cartoons are ‘doable’ of course…

  109. Smacktle on July 7th, 2007 at 4:29 pm

    Sarge and Squawk arguing… yawn… Time to go watch some grass grow.

  110. sargevining on July 7th, 2007 at 4:30 pm

    american woman Says:
    July 7th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
    Or a big outfit like the RNC? We have Mel Martinez as our leader………..:( Tell me how much chance a very good conservative nobody has?

    The good news is that this will be changingin very soon.

  111. NAT PIERCE on July 7th, 2007 at 4:31 pm

    MY OFFICIAL PARTY STATEMENT:

    The Party cannot go forward with leadership guiding it to cultural reconstruction. It is time for a new Senate leadership; present leadership is active AMNESTY PROMOTERS.

    It is time to request of the good men and women we recently thanked for their hard work saving the Party and us, to select new leadership that embody and reflect true Republican qualities as demonstrated by Jeff Sessions, Jim DeMint, Tom Coburn, David Vitter, John Cornyn, Kay Hutchison, Jim Inhofe and others.

    A message of support to them acknowledging their aggressive efforts denying the AMNESTY BILL, and a statement that existing leadership is counter to Republicanism and replacement is in order.

    All members of the Republican Senate need to know and understand strong conservative Republican leadership is rewarded, leadership failures are terminated, and these Senators are failures to the Party and their constituents.

    Shouting them, down on the AMNESTY BILL did not really make them understand, they think what is necessary is a better level of slickness, that we are totally fed up. A serious unified effort running wildcard candidates in the primaries could be a win win and it would give the poutys an opportunity to vote instead of staying home.

  112. jimb on July 7th, 2007 at 4:33 pm

    Let me qualify #108 by saying not the “Betty Rubble” in the live-action Flinstones, but The REAL Betty Rubble

    /OK, slinking off in shame now…

  113. Smacktle on July 7th, 2007 at 4:36 pm

    If I were gonna do some cartoons, I would hook up with these two:

    http://www.toon-naughty.co.uk/gallery/pinups.php?file=bad-fairies01.jpg&name=Bad%20Fairies

  114. american woman on July 7th, 2007 at 4:38 pm

    Sarge when do we get rid of Mel? Nat I agree with everything except thanking them for killing the amnesty bill. We had to pound the floor, scream, beg, plead to get that accomplished by those who serve only themselves. Kay Bailey……. oh please……… The day these politicians start building the fence, is the day I will thank them. In my opinion they were just doing their jobs, dragged kicking and screaming to do it. I am not proud of them, nor do I trust any of them. They are self-serving politicians. A few bad apples spoil a barrel.

  115. sargevining on July 7th, 2007 at 4:51 pm

    Sarge when do we get rid of Mel?

    Next year.

    Based on the Anesty vote reaction, and the fact that just about every Republican who supported it is going to pay in some way, I’m optomistic.

    People will look at John McCain ans say to themselves:

    “There, but for the grace of Conservative voters, goI.”

  116. Elizabeth on July 7th, 2007 at 4:53 pm

    #106 AW, Aint it a shame that the really macho, sexy ones are most often dumber than dirt? (Present company excluded of course…)

  117. american woman on July 7th, 2007 at 4:55 pm

    So Sarge you think because of the reaction to amnesty, republicans will have to understand they must listen to us, and be more conservative to survive?

  118. american woman on July 7th, 2007 at 4:57 pm

    Elizabeth want to hear my theory on that? It’s the ” I never have to develope a good personality ” theory. They are so good looking, that women flock to them. They never have to learn how to woo a woman, or make her laugh. They just stand around and are good eye candy. Usually the ” I never have to develope a personality ” female ends up being with this kind of guy. They are happiers when seen out in public. HEHE

  119. sargevining on July 7th, 2007 at 4:58 pm

    Yah;

    I actually think that the amnestyu fight united the Republican Party and gave them the smack upside the head they need.

    It also handed them an excellent campaign issue:

    there isn;t one single, solitary Deomcrat running that can defend his party’s actions or reaction to voter discontentn over the issue.

    Republicans did, Democrats did not.

    That’s a very real political fact.

  120. american woman on July 7th, 2007 at 5:00 pm

    Sarge this can be a good campaign issue if they build the fence. Close the borders was the common outcry. No amnesty and close the borders. I wrote Chernoff a couple days ago saying I expected work on the fence to have begun last Monday. They better get busy.