lollitas hardcore sex…

You’ll all be shocked to learn, I’m sure, that the Mark Foley scandal was timed to coincide with the upcoming elections and was bumped up two weeks due to favorable poll numbers for Republicans. One Republican taking serious heat over……

A lot of the posts here very conveniently ignore the fact that this story was broken by TIME magazine. The military began investigations only after the report became public. It’s all well and good to harp on the press–not to mention comforting to always have a scapegoat. The real issue is not the alleged atrocities–this is a part of war, sadly, and was ever thus–but why the military needed the prodding of the press to do its job. As much as he is an old gasbag, it appears Murtha was out in front on this one.
honora on May 29, 2006 at 11:28 AM

My emphasis.

Now, do you still want to lecture us about smearing soldiers service records when you are defending a piece of shit like Murtha, who is guilty of doing just that?

Transparent … as in “we can see right through you”. I thought your superior liberal intellect would have figured that out.

Oh, and nice way to evade the subject yet again. In another life, may you come back as an NFL running back, for with your evasiveness the only thing

Nice try. Try a dictionary. (I realize not everyone is good with language, but doesn’t that just look ridiculous–exposing that we can see right thru you. Say what??)

And as to evasion–some clown has accused me of something and has refused to show any evidence to back up that accusation. When you have that dictionary out, look up evasive.

Since all politics is local, the party control of Congress will depend on the outcome of 435 separate local elections, and there are only a handful of races that are competitive or likely to change hands. RCP puts the figure at 40. That’s roughly 10%….

What the hell does that even mean? Your transparency is completely exposed? My clarity has been exposed? Never use vocabulary over your head, you just make yourself look ridiculous. Transparency, sweet Jesus.

honora on October 10, 2006 at 6:12 PM

Transparent … as in “we can see right through you”. I thought your superior liberal intellect would have figured that out.

Oh, and nice way to evade the subject yet again. In another life, may you come back as an NFL running back, for with your evasiveness the only thing that will stop you is the end zone.

You have nothing left to say because your transparency on the issue is completely exposed

What the hell does that even mean? Your transparency is completely exposed? My clarity has been exposed? Never use vocabulary over your head, you just make yourself look ridiculous. Transparency, sweet Jesus.

Then we have the polls of 2004 before the election….

Show me. “I’m quite sure..” doesn’t cut it. This sort of hemming and hahing is not at all what I expect in an military man. I have nothing left to say to you, “sailor”.

honora on October 10, 2006 at 4:49 PM

No, what you apparently expect in a military man is someone like Kerry who viciously smears other military vets and then cries like a little bitch when someone raises questions about his own military record … after he’s laid it on the table as a campaign issue and thereby invited such scrutiny.

You have nothing left to say because your transparency on the issue is completely exposed. To paraphrase Bob Dole, you know it, I know it, and the readers of HotAir know it.

Now, there are just three ways to “strength social security.”

1. Raise taxes.

2. Cut benefits.

3. Privatize.

2 is politically out of the question. Even you ‘Crats don’t have the balls for 1.

What’s left?

georgej on October 10, 2006 at 4:43 PM

georgej: sorry I didn’t copy all your response, it seems to get nuts when you cc a message within a message.

Your references are Republicans saying the Dems have no plan–which even you must admit is hardly an unbiased POV; or specific Dems saying they want the benefits to be untouched or Dems saying they reject privitization. (Think that’s everything?)

First, I am all for privitization. This however does not address the short term problem of the baby boom bubble coming. I support privitization of the system of people in their 30’s and younger. This will not solve the short term problem however.

Second, I support means testing. It’s not the best solution, but we are down to the least bad solution since Bush looted the SS fund.

Third, there may have to be tax increases at least to get us back where we were or til we get over the boomer hump; again, this might be a good place to divert those tax cuts for the top tier.

I have to run. Fun jousting with you. Who the hell is the Anchoress???

You certainly haven’t uttered one word of condemnation of Murtha’s or Kerry’s REAL smears of servicemen in this forum, and I’m quite sure you’ve engaged in debates involving those two and their various commentaries on more than one occasion (hence my original position).

Show me. “I’m quite sure..” doesn’t cut it. This sort of hemming and hahing is not at all what I expect in an military man. I have nothing left to say to you, “sailor”.

Our goal, as Democrats, is to keep Social Security the way it is with as few changes as possible…

“Social Security Faces a Challenge, Not a Crisis.”

Washington Post, 7/26/05

While Democrats have debated whether it is in their interest to propose an alternative to President Bush’s plan to add individual accounts to Social Security, Republicans have asserted that the Democrats have no plan. House Democrats say they will not issue a Social Security plan until Bush takes any form of privatization off the table.

Your party has their head up their ass about SS, not just in the sand.

And the tone is the same today as it was last year.

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=72831

Reid, Baucus Reject President’s Social Security Privatization Priorities

Democratic Leader, Finance’s Top Democrat Call on President to Focus on Serious Economic Problems after November Contests

9/20/2006 2:44:00 PM

To: National Desk

Contact: Jim Manley or Rebecca Kirszner, 202-224-2939 both of the Office of Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, or Carol Guthrie of the Office of Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Max Baucus, 202-224-4515

WASHINGTON, Sept. 20 /U.S. Newswire/ — Sens. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Max Baucus (D-Mont.) today called on President George W. Bush to eliminate Social Security privatization from the White House’s post-November agenda. In a letter, the Democratic leader and the Finance Committee’s ranking Democrat reminded the president that the American people have soundly rejected the administration’s efforts to privatize Social Security, which would result in deep benefit cuts and increased debt. Repeated statements from the administration and the congressional majority have indicated their intention to return to the rejected privatization efforts following the November elections. Today, Reid and Baucus reiterated Democrats’ commitment to fight any scheme that would privatize Social Security and jeopardize the benefits American workers have earned.

http://www.democrats.org/a/national/secure_retirement/

We will ensure that a retirement with dignity is the right and expectation of every single American, starting with pension reform, expanding saving incentives and preventing the privatization of social security.

Nancy Pelosi, at dccc.org:

Democrats are working to strengthen Social Security and address the real concerns of everyday Americans.

George Miller, at dccc.org:

Congress should look for ways to strengthen Social Security, not undermine it

Now, there are just three ways to “strength social security.”

1. Raise taxes.

2. Cut benefits.

3. Privatize.

2 is politically out of the question. Even you ‘Crats don’t have the balls for 1.

What’s left?

Just as I thought. Not man enough to admit your mistake. Shame on you. And I never condemned Murtha or Kerry’s actions as you reference above? How do you know that?

honora on October 10, 2006 at 4:20 PM

You certainly haven’t uttered one word of condemnation of Murtha’s or Kerry’s REAL smears of servicemen in this forum, and I’m quite sure you’ve engaged in debates involving those two and their various commentaries on more than one occasion (hence my original position).

Bottom line is this – you only profess to care about “smearing” servicemen when it is a democratic politician/candidate and will refer to any criticism of them that is even tangentially related to military matters as a smear. But when it’s real, live active duty soldiers that are being accused of war crimes and effectively pronounced guilty even though no charges have been filed, you defense of them is, to use a military term, AWOL.

The truth hurts.

I’m not going to search through every single post on here, but I distinctly remember you showing that predisposition on one of the threads pertaining to one of those incidents, even insomuch as another poster called you out on it by asking you if you believed that our troops were innocent until proven guilty. I’ll stand by my statement.

Furthermore, I’ve never seen even ONE word of condemnation of Jack Murtha’s disgusting smearing of servicemen on active duty, where he has for all intents and purposes proclaimed our servicement guilty of war crimes. No, when Murtha was smearing our servicemen on a daily basis, your reaction was one of stone cold silence.

Furthermore, you have never condmemned John Kerry’s smearing of servicemen, both active and former, during his senate hearings in 1971. But when it is him under attack (even after he invited scrutiny of his record), suddenly you pretend to be the last line of defense of a serviceman’s honor.

You’re delusional if you think anyone is buying it. Don’t hold your breath waiting for that apology.

thirteen28 on October 10, 2006 at 4:14 PM

Just as I thought. Not man enough to admit your mistake. Shame on you. And I never condemned Murtha or Kerry’s actions as you reference above? How do you know that?

I never, ever proclaimed our troops guilty on any of these incidents. Show me one example or apologize.

honora on October 10, 2006 at 4:03 PM

I’m not going to search through every single post on here, but I distinctly remember you showing that predisposition on one of the threads pertaining to one of those incidents, even insomuch as another poster called you out on it by asking you if you believed that our troops were innocent until proven guilty. I’ll stand by my statement.

Furthermore, I’ve never seen even ONE word of condemnation of Jack Murtha’s disgusting smearing of servicemen on active duty, where he has for all intents and purposes proclaimed our servicement guilty of war crimes. No, when Murtha was smearing our servicemen on a daily basis, your reaction was one of stone cold silence.

You’re delusional if you think anyone is buying it. Don’t hold your breath waiting for that apology.

“cunning use” — I’ll have to defer to the Anchoress on this one.

Fact is, the deficit is being reduced (cut nearly in half) because tax receipts are up as a result of the Bush tax cuts. Fact is the strength of the stock market and the economy is directly related to increased capital available for investiment because of the tax cuts.

Fact is, the same thing happend after Kennedy cut taxes and Reagan cut taxes. And when the Democrats RAISED taxses, tax receipts went DOWN while the Democrats increased spending at the same time. Why do you Democrats have so much trouble understanding the proper use of the CARROT?

And you are right, it is ridiculous for Democrats to pretend that there is no Social security or Medicare funding crisis. So why did your party do it?

georgej on October 10, 2006 at 3:45 PM

Read the CBO reports. Or don’t. There is a very interesting study on this from one of the think tanks. I will find it if I can.

I don’t get your reference to the SS or Medicare crisis and Democrats. Specifics?

Finally, I love the irony of you defending someone’s service to the country when you have shown a predisposition to proclaim our servicemen guilty for Haditha, etc., in other posts on those subjects.

Your piousness on that subject is as hollow and transparent democrats newfound morality in the Foley scandal. You’re not fooling anyone.

And isn’t it funny it always comes from people who didn’t serve?
Six years in the U.S. Navy, all active duty, thank you very much.

thirteen28 on October 10, 2006 at 3:58 PM

I never, ever proclaimed our troops guilty on any of these incidents. Show me one example or apologize.

Did you bother to read the blog entry for this thread by Allahpundit?

FOLEY. In fact the title is “AmSpec hearsay: Foley story was supposed to break later this month”

So. Since you didn’t address Mallard’s point about relying upon sex scandals to win in November, YOU CHANGED THE SUBJECT to an alleged smear of a war veteran.

And since GregH brought up the subject of “hypocrisy,” as it relates to sex scandals, I distinctly remember DEMOCRATS tsk-tsking the story about Clinton’s fellatio (did I spell that right, Anchoress?) and his subsequent PERJURY.

But as PERJURY is NOT the issue here, nor is refusing to resign for using the Oral Oval Office for sexual activities, the circumstances and specifics are clearly different.

Especially as the Republicans did use Clinton’s sexual predatations as their “October Surprise” in 1998.

I countered that the Republicans smear war veterans.

An allegation you (nor those to whom you linked) never substantiated.

You want to attack anything or everything a man does after his service, fine. It’s attacking his service that is smearing.

When he runs on his service as a rationale to vote for him, then he has effectively invited scrutiny thereof. You guys scrutinized the service of both father and son Bush even though they didn’t run on them, so it’s quite rich for you to whine about scrutiny of Kerry’s (or anyone’s) service when they make it a centerpiece of their campaign.

Nevertheless, whenever someone did question his voting record in the senate, there was always a chorus of whining from your side of the aisle about smearing vets, regardless of what was said about his servcie.

Finally, I love the irony of you defending someone’s service to the country when you have shown a predisposition to proclaim our servicemen guilty for Haditha, etc., in other posts on those subjects.

Your piousness on that subject is as hollow and transparent democrats newfound morality in the Foley scandal. You’re not fooling anyone.

And isn’t it funny it always comes from people who didn’t serve?

Six years in the U.S. Navy, all active duty, thank you very much.

If the GOP is too scared to run this ad, they don’t deserve to win! (Said in my best “We’re Doomed!” voice—I, unlike some others out there, don’t think we’re going to have ANY problems this election cycle!)

…

Fact is, the deficit is being reduced (cut nearly in half) because tax receipts are up as a result of the Bush tax cuts. Fact is the strength of the stock market and the economy is directly related to increased capital available for investiment because of the tax cuts.

Fact is, the same thing happend after Kennedy cut taxes and Reagan cut taxes. And when the Democrats RAISED taxses, tax receipts went DOWN while the Democrats increased spending at the same time. Why do you Democrats have so much trouble understanding the proper use of the CARROT?

And you are right, it is ridiculous for Democrats to pretend that there is no Social security or Medicare funding crisis. So why did your party do it?

Yes, but don’t point out that as a senator he has voted against just about every meaningful defense program that’s ever come to the floor for a vote during his tenure. To do so would be tantamount to “smearing a military veteran”.

thirteen28 on October 10, 2006 at 3:21 PM

Bullshit. Don’t try getting cute. You want to attack anything or everything a man does after his service, fine. It’s attacking his service that is smearing. And isn’t it funny it always comes from people who didn’t serve?