I like how Eaton Bush is trying to tell the dude who actually served in the military that he doesn't know shit about military hardware.

9/6/2012 11:24:32 PM

Wow, Diva, after all we have been through.


Like he is the only one that ever served

[Edited on September 6, 2012 at 11:25 PM. Reason : ]

9/6/2012 11:24:41 PM

Quote :

"^^ you obviously don't know shit about military hardware."

lulz

9/6/2012 11:25:27 PM

Quote :

" Is it just the rhetorical device, "war on women," that you object to?"

Yes, more or less...

well, not specifically just the usage of that phrase, but the idea that there is an "assault on reproductive rights or women's health"--there is no such thing. There is a legitimate objection to abortion (I'm not saying that I agree with all of the GOP proposals on that issue; I'm saying that it's totally legitimate to not just view abortion as a "woman's reproductive right"). There is flat-out no assault that I'm aware of on women's health--are the Republicans wrong for not believing that women rate free birth control as a federal mandate?

In any case, their platform is not derived from any sort of anti-woman sentiment. That's absurd.

Quote :

"didn't Clinton get calls that snipers had Usama in their sights and tell them not to go through with it? Clinton could've stopped 9/11!"

Clinton had a Navy cruiser parked in the area specifically to shoot TLAMs at OBL. The CIA determined with pretty good (maybe it was even 100%?) confidence that they had his location pinpointed at his compound outside of Kandahar. However, he had all of his wives/children/etc there, and if they'd destroyed the compound, they would have killed something like 50 (? -ish) civilians (largely women and children). Clinton made the judgment that he couldn't authorize that, either in good conscience, or politically, or both. I'm sure it would be different post 9/11, but the late 90s were a different situation.

There was a concerted effort to kill OBL for probably 5-7 years or so before 9/11; he had his own dedicated task force at the CIA. All this entire department did was try to track and kill OBL!

I think there were also some potentially missed opportunities regarding OBL because President Clinton was tied up with some Ken Starr/Lewinsky crap at a couple of times they really needed his approval to pull some shit off.

9/6/2012 11:26:06 PM

Quote :

"In any case, their platform is not derived from any sort of anti-woman sentiment. That's absurd."

Bullshit. If you don't agree with the Democrats on an issue, it clearly means you hate the group the issue affects

9/6/2012 11:28:17 PM

Nicely put Duke.

9/6/2012 11:31:53 PM

Quote :

"And given your description of yourself as a swing voter, you really think candidates should duke it out trying to earn the swing vote? Even though you're admitting it's very unlikely you're going to swing Democrat and you've otherwise been voting third party/no confidence except for Bush one time?"

I didn't say I was the monolithic prototype of a swing voter.

Regardless, it still makes sense to woo the center. For every person like me, there's someone else on the left who swings between (D) and (Fuck it); maybe with some (L) or (G) thrown in. Furthermore, there are plenty of true centrists who largely swing between (D) and (R)...and some also settle on "fuck it".

Also, just to point this out, I did enthusiastically vote McCain in the '08 primary, and would have enthusiastically voted for him in the general election if he'd stayed true to his form, say, circa 2000...but no, he went full retard GOP to get the nom, and when he picked Palin, that was the final straw.

9/6/2012 11:34:42 PM

Duke, would you vote for me?

9/6/2012 11:37:27 PM

something something vajayjay
something something collision insurance
something something wreck it



he might vote for you, but only if you visit his polling place

9/6/2012 11:38:20 PM

^^ I would need to know what positions you take.

9/6/2012 11:39:45 PM

sure there was evidence and clues about OBL prior to 9/11 that Bush and Clinton didnt act on.

After 9/11, Bush couldn't take out OBL in his 8 years and 2 wars. Obama authorized the mission and the Seals got it done.

9/6/2012 11:43:59 PM

I take quite a few positions, but keep a solid stance in them all. No wavering what-so-ever

9/6/2012 11:44:48 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X_Ot0k4XJc

9/6/2012 11:45:08 PM

^^ Now that is specific.

9/6/2012 11:46:38 PM

Quote :

"Bush couldn't take out OBL in his 8 years and 2 wars. Obama authorized the mission and the Seals got it done. "

I mean, it's not quite that simple.

That was really probably more of a hard-won CIA victory than anything else. Sure, Presidents share some blame and some credit, and President Obama certainly deserves credit for authorizing that mission--if it had been a bust, it could have carried significant costs for him. Good on him for being ballsy and taking that calculated risk.

...and not to take anything from the SEALs, but I don't even buy that it was just SEAL Team 6. I'll bet that was a joint operation, to likely include Delta and CIA paramilitary (SAD).

9/6/2012 11:57:14 PM

^ it IS that simple to fools like him. Obama could devour a baby on prime-time television, and people like him would immediately have 15 reasons why that baby needed to be eaten

9/6/2012 11:58:19 PM

military talk makes me moist

9/7/2012 12:09:36 AM

it's obvious, for some ignorant people in this country it's all Obama's fault because he aint angry enough, doesnt look like them, wants to bring our troops back home, and doesn't want to cut all the taxes for the ultra rich (which most ignorant haters are not).

i know he hasnt made everything better, but i dont think a republican could've done better. so for all i care, he could devour all the Obummer moaners and i dont think anyone would care...

9/7/2012 12:19:19 AM

WAT?

9/7/2012 12:45:08 AM

I was responding to Burro's comment

9/7/2012 12:51:07 AM

The blonde next to chelsea clinton was steve jobs' wife



[Edited on September 7, 2012 at 1:01 AM. Reason : .]

9/7/2012 1:00:31 AM

9/7/2012 1:08:18 AM

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=160709091

Quote :

"Democratic Convention Beats Football In Ratings by THE ASSOCIATED PRESS text size A A A NEW YORK September 6, 2012, 07:57 pm ET NEW YORK (AP) — The second night of the Democratic National Convention beat the Republicans in television ratings and, perhaps more impressively, beat pro football. An estimated 25.1 million people watched the convention between 10 p.m. and 11 p.m. on Wednesday, when former President Bill Clinton delivered an impassioned nomination speech for President Barack Obama, the Nielsen ratings company said."

9/7/2012 2:19:52 AM

Quote :

"theDuke866: I didn't say I was the monolithic prototype of a swing voter."

Yes, and I’m saying that, as you’ve described yourself, you are the typical swing voter. You voted for GWB in 2000; he sucked so you “swung” to no confidence. McCain didn’t appeal to you after the primary so you swung to third party. At no time were you ever going to swing to Kerry in 2004 or Obama in 2008. Similarly, a whole bunch of people came out to vote for Obama in 2008; but in 2010, the Republicans won big, and it’s obviously not because people swung over to the Republican side. It’s just different sets of people voting or not voting or voting third party. This dynamic is not what we think of when we imagine swing voters; these are not people who can be wooed to the "other side"—they are just people who can be wooed to vote for the same side over and over but will otherwise not vote or vote third party.

I mean, I think I was hesitant about it in my original post, but I’m very sure now: centrist swing voters don’t exist/swing in numbers significant enough to justify wooing them with “centrist/moderate” positions—but boy, the liberals have tried! (Seriously, liberal politicians are way too moderate for actual liberals. We've wanted gay marriage, legalized marijuana/drugs, universal healthcare, subsidized daycare, comprehensive sex education, etc...since forever).

More on how independents are not moderates/centrists—they’ve even covered people like you:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/the-misunderstood-independent/2011/05/04/AFlexuwF_blog.html


I’ll respond about the lady business tomorrow so you can look forward to that.

[Edited on September 7, 2012 at 3:33 AM. Reason : Too liberal.]

9/7/2012 3:07:24 AM

Yay

9/7/2012 6:58:29 AM

don't forget... legalization of prostitution! err right?

9/7/2012 7:04:19 AM

Yes, if it improves working conditions and gets our young boys and girls off the street.

9/7/2012 7:23:55 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKux363Dg64

lol.

9/7/2012 7:59:24 AM

Is she drunk?

9/7/2012 8:10:03 AM

theDuke866, the "war on women" rhetoric isn’t just about free birth control or abortion.

Republicans have ended federal funding for needle exchange programs, which help prevent the spread of HIV, a disease which women are biologically twice as likely to contract during heterosexual sex compared to men. They have tried to pass legislation that would force young girls to carry their rapists' children. They have passed bills mandating abstinence-only education in public schools, directly harming our girls who are the ones who get pregnant, the ones who suffer the most consequences from STIs, and the ones who receive the most mixed messages about sex. They have passed laws empowering pharmacists to deny women their prescribed medication if they believe it could be used for birth control or an abortion.

Republicans have blocked federal funding for all reproductive health contractors, including Planned Parenthood, even though they don’t use public dollars to perform abortions. The money would typically go towards the millions of women who use Planned Parenthood for pap smears, HPV treatment to prevent cancer, STI tests, birth control prescriptions, etc… States who have blocked the funding or are attempting to block it include so far: Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona, North Carolina, Indiana, Tennessee, Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska, Kansas, and New Hampshire.

Obviously, the two previous paragraphs do not constitute an exhaustive accounting of recent policy that affects women, and I’ve purposefully left off stuff that’s gonna get all debatey or too radical. Also, I’ve totally left out the interrelated topics of race, class, and sexual orientation. Finally, none of the stuff I mentioned above has been undertaken by Republicans in the name of fiscal responsibility--it’s all about morality.

Now, where it gets openly/obviously mean to women is here: Planned Parenthood doesn’t use state dollars to provide abortions. But Republican legislators and governors have defunded Planned Parenthood. And since they aren’t allowed to single out one organization, they have additionally defunded all family planning/reproductive health contractors. They are also trying to prevent women from being able to use Medicaid coverage at Planned Parenthood for services that are not related to abortion. And, again, Planned Parenthood doesn’t use state dollars for abortion. So the message to women is clear (and clearly mean):

The mere appearance of being tough on abortion is more important to us than a woman’s access to reproductive health services.



If you would like me to talk about the dangerous/deceptive garbage that gets taught in abstinence-only education, I am happy to do that. I can also go into detail about the devastating effects that STIs have on women’s health when they are not identified and treated.

[Edited on September 7, 2012 at 8:53 AM. Reason : ]

9/7/2012 8:48:19 AM

Jobs report = steaming pile of feces.

Any "bump" team Obama was hoping for has to have vanished with that.

9/7/2012 8:59:31 AM

[Edited on September 7, 2012 at 9:13 AM. Reason : shit]

9/7/2012 9:12:39 AM

This country is so fucked

Quote :

"Honey Boo Boo' Ratings Match Bill Clinton DNC Speech "

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/07/honey-boo-boo-ratings-bill-clinton-dnc-speech_n_1864145.html

9/7/2012 9:59:15 AM

Quote :

"If you don't agree with the Democrats on an issue, it clearly means you hate the group the issue affects"

QFT

9/7/2012 10:07:09 AM

I'm in favor of doing one complete world wide generation of just clones to stop all STD's. Actually, that sounds like an awesome sci-fi show.

9/7/2012 10:14:11 AM

Quote :

"Honey Boo Boo' Ratings Match Bill Clinton DNC Speech"

Watching either is a waste of time.

9/7/2012 10:22:20 AM

pretty much both conventions have been a complete waste of time and none have done anything really.

9/7/2012 10:25:20 AM

abortion should be encouraged. the root of pretty much all of our problems today is there's just too damn many of us.

9/7/2012 10:27:37 AM

You could lead the way and self abort.

9/7/2012 10:32:06 AM

bridget proves women are far too emotional to be involved in important decisions that Men discuss.

They thing everything is a personal attack and they react viscerally

This is why we keep them under the boardroom table, not sitting next to us at the boardroom table.

Incidentally, it seems liberals as a whole react this way, but this is consistent throughout women on either side of the aisle

[Edited on September 7, 2012 at 10:40 AM. Reason : x]

9/7/2012 10:35:56 AM

@TKE-Teg

That was only for CNN's coverage, the DNC was broadcast on a bunch of networks.

9/7/2012 10:46:12 AM

ahh, thanks man.

9/7/2012 10:47:34 AM

^^^?

I don't think I'm being emotional at all, and there's plenty for me to get worked up about.

Anyway, I'll reiterate that I'm still thoroughly enjoying the fact that "war on women" is divisive rhetoric designed to distract the peasants...but dismissing women's issues as "made up" and calling me emotional is just solid political insight.

[Edited on September 7, 2012 at 10:52 AM. Reason : I know we disagree a lot, but I've always appreciated your point of view.]

9/7/2012 10:50:24 AM

did i say it was a made up issue?

did i say "women are fuckin lying whores"?

when people make decisions that do not favor me i dont consider it a personal attack or an attack on my demographic...thats my problem with how the issues are addressed by women, and it doesnt make me sympathetic.

Its the same thing as the gays that think youre a bigot and a homophobe if you dont want it around your kids.

[Edited on September 7, 2012 at 10:56 AM. Reason : e]

9/7/2012 10:51:05 AM

^^^yea 20 million people watched Bill, only 2.5 million watched Honey Boo Boo.

[Edited on September 7, 2012 at 10:52 AM. Reason : $]

9/7/2012 10:52:08 AM

^^Sorry. I really wanted to repeat the point below so I squeezed your comment about me being emotional in there and doubled down.

Quote :

"While I think the "war on women" is rhetorically over-the-top (and I suspect it's supposed to be), I also think this business about women's issues being "a made up issue," "shit for the simpletons to eat up," is an even more extreme kind of rhetoric. And at least "war on women" points to real issues of the day. The "shit for simpletons" points to what? Don't be worried about Republicans. Secretly, they aren't going to pursue the platform that openly affects women. And please ignore the fact that they already have pursued it in the United States and all over the world for at least a decade. ?"

And I hear you that people who always interpret less-than-friendly policy as an attack on them are being foolish, but I think I was pretty methodical in demonstrating that conservatives are actually hurting women.

9/7/2012 11:06:31 AM

youre points are well met, i cant dispute themn the sense that Repubs are primarily responsible for the decisions

but its the assumption of evil that bothers me is all. Your points are consistently well thought-out whether i agree or not

9/7/2012 11:09:53 AM

Quote :

"Melon rinds and bits of hotdogs Cookie crumbs and rotton cotton candy Melted ice cream, mustard dripplings Moldy goodies everywhere Lots of popcorn, apple cores Bananna peels and soggy sadwiches And gobs of gorgeous gook to gobble at the fair"

9/7/2012 3:15:22 PM

9/7/2012 3:15:25 PM

9/8/2012 4:22:51 PM