Four and a half weeks and countingFollow

par·a·noi·a (pr-noi)
n.
1. A psychotic disorder characterized by delusions of persecution with or without grandeur, often strenuously defended with apparent logic and reason.
2. Extreme, irrational distrust of others.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
yup. your paranoid.

And to prove it....

In a few months or so, the USA will be forced out of Iraq, due to mounting military casualties, and a further waning of public support.

The rest of the world will breath a huge sigh of relief that the american public has finally woken up to the tragedy that has occured. The American people (not the paranoid ones) will finally come to realise that the war was based on blatant barefaced lies. The lies about WMD's, bringing democracy, **** and all the rest were nothing more than utter bull ****.

They will demand that the soldiers be bought home. (We can only hope that those who did the lying will be bought to some sort of justice, thereby allaying at least some of the anger felt around the (moderate)muslim world. Too late for the extremists i'm afraid)

Meanwhile paranoid tossers such as youself will be whining and whinging that 'we lost the war 'cos of the liberal press', and 'we lost the war 'cos of the hippy liberals'.

It wont even cross your mind for a moment that the war was lost the moment the US entered Iraq. The only question was, how big a price America would pay, both in terms of battlefield casualties and political hatred swelling around the world, not to mention hard cash. Im an ordinary bloke with a internet connection living in the middle of the Pacific ocean. And I knew that it was all gonna go tits up. 100% certain in fact.

Yet with all the advisors and experts availiable to them, Bush and co, still thought they could pull it off. 'A cakewalk' they said.

So. Whaddya reckon? Bush and Co were stupid? Or Out and out Evil MOFOS?
I go with (b) myself.

But you seem to think that they did it for the good of mankind as a whole!!

So that when even El Presidente has to admit that it ain't working and has to pull out, covering his *** with all sorts o' finger pointing, and 'he said' 'she said', you will be right there with them pouting, and accusing the liberals or the lefties or whoever. Anyone but yourself and your blinkered self and your paranoid delusional sorry ***** view of the world.

You heard it here first.

Hehe. And you find that surprising? Come on...

It's not exactly their job to come out and defend Republicans. That's how political parties have always worked.

You're not that naive.

I asked


gbaji said



So you reckon (a) then?

Glad we got that cleared up.

Umm... no.

The first place I (and I assume most people) heard a call for Hastert to resign was in the (conservative) Washington Times editorial column. I even went back and looked at older articles to see if there was mention of a demand for Hastert to resign before that.

I guess Moveon.org owns the Washington Times editorial board now, huh.Ah, yes the "liberal conspiracy" angle again. Mind you, no one has had evidence of this beyond the inconvenient timing but, hey, when demanding to wait for the "facts to be in" on Foley why not spend some time spreading mud on the Democrats based on conjecture and wishful thinking?

It's a good thing you weren't railing against Democratic hypocrisy or else you'd look really stupid right now.

I need to recant a statement made at the beginning of this thread and note that Dennis Hastert is up for re-election this year. The reason I didn't know was because it's been a non-story. Hastert's opponent, John Laesch, wasn't even registering on the polls (I think it was around 80/20 before) and was being given no financial support by the DNC because his was a lost cause.

Currently though, still running s shoestring campaign, John Laesch is polling at 42% now vs Hastert's 52%. Now I don't believe that there's a chance in hell of Laesch winning unless Hastert turns out to have been molesting babies while eating kittens but that's quite the erosion of support.

Hastert will win, I guarantee it. His district is Republican and there's too obvious a benefit to having your district represented by the Speaker of the House no matter what your party affiliation. But I was suprised to see Laesch polling that well.

Anyway, the reason Bush was in town was to try to drum up cash and support for Peter Roskam. He's still polling either even with or behind Iraqi War vet Tammy Duckworth which is an embarassment given his district's strong Republican leanings and his war chest. Lord willing and the creek don't rise, Duckworth will pull this one out.

Speaker of the House only counts if you are representing the majority, we will see how many seats the GOP looses.

I loved Soap Let me guess, Gbaji is Richard Mulligan right?

Sure. But now you're just going with a "he said, she said" type of argument. You can speculate about what sort of "evil" motives where behind it all day long. At the end of the day, you have to repudiate the stated motives if you want to get anywhere. The US has very little interest in Iraqi oil one way or the other. If anything, you can use the oil argument far more effectively as an "evil" reason for most of the UN nations not wanting to do anything about Iraq.




Yeah. But there's a *huge* difference between a group of people coming out, saying who they are, and stating their version of an event, and groups of people who stay in the shadows, never revealing who they are or what their agenda is, getting their "message" out by leaking information to the press.

Can you see how one is open and honest while the other is secretive and dishonest? We know who the swift boat veterans are. We know exactly what they're saying. They aren't hiding behind anything. On the other hand, we have no idea who gathered up the emails and IM's about Foley. We have no idea who put them into the hands of ABC (and a couple other media sources, ABC just happened to be the first to run with the information). What we have is a political attack, with no "face" to respond to.

And that's been a common tactic used by the Left for quite some time now. And it's also very effective. How many times on this forum have I been blasted because I have to frame my arguments with regards to these sorts of issues against "Liberals" as a broad group? You know why I have to do that? Because in an alarmingly high number of cases, there is no single known organization or political group that's behind them. They're just "stories" that appear magically in the news and no one seems to know where the information came from.

The Foley IM's is just one in a long list of similarly performed attacks. Heck. How many of the things you assume to be true derived from just such methods? Where did you learn about the SWIFT banking tracking program? Where did you learn about the NSA wiretapping? Heck! Where did you get the idea that we invaded Iraq for the oil? All of those are arguments that you hold and that you (and many others) take to heart, assume are true, and base your arguments off of. But I'm betting that you can't actually tell me who articulated the arguement in the first place.

Isn't that just a bit suspicious? Doesn't it concern you even a little bit that so much of what you believe is passed on to you by unknown sources that seem unwilling to actually stand up and openly state who they are and why they believe what they're saying? Instead, we get second hand information, passed on through media leaks and op-ed pieces, that get read by people like you and given great weight purely because they support what you want to believe, regardless of any factual value behind them.




No. It doesn't make any sense. If the assumption that Republicans "hate gays", and overreact to anything that might make them look like they aren't moral and virtuous folks was true, wouldn't Hastert have immediately reacted to Foley if he'd actually thought he was doing something horribly wrong?

There's no percentage in covering that up. If Hastert actually knew about the IM's or communication's similar to those, he'd have to know that other people knew about them as well. You can't cover up something that everyone knows. Thus, it makes no sense to assume that everyone (apparently only among the Republican leadership) knew about this, but magically assumed that no one else did, and chose to cover it up.

That really makes no sense. None at all. The only thing they knew was that Foley was gay, and that he flirted with a 16 year old male page. Period. That's not enough to make a big deal out of, and Hastert would have appeared as anti-gay if he had made a big deal out of it then. And that's not even considering that he was specifically asked by the 16 year old's family not to make a big deal out of it.

My issue isn't that there couldn't have been a cover up. My issue is over the way a cover up seems to be being assumed despite a marked lack of evidence for one. It's clear election year politics. Nothing more.



Except that it seems as though all of the most underhanded political nastiness is coming from the Left these days. I'm not "outraged" by this at all. More pointing out that the voting public at some point is going to realize just how underhanded the Left is being, and the more they keep using these kinds of tactics, the more likely they'll kill themselves this November.

They're trying too hard, and it's becoming really obvious that their agenda isn't about protecting people's freedoms, or protecting teens from predators, but is just about pushing any story that can be made to seem "bad" in front of the people to try to get them to *not* vote Republican. The kind of tactic they're using works only so long as the people actually believe your reasons for using them are "honest". They have to actually believe you're outraged about a Congressman taking advantage of the page program. They have to believe you're actually concerned about the privacy rights of the people. If you go to far with that sort of attack, people realize that it's not about those things, but just about making the attack. And at that point, you start losing support instead of gaining it. Oh. You'll look good in the polls, because those always show the knee-jerk reaction at work. But you lose at the actual election.

I'm just pointing out that this is something that has been obvious to me for quite some time. What's interesting is that many on the left seem to be oblivious to just how obvious it's becoming to more and more voters...