I have a making free money online site/blog. It successfully covers making free money online related stuff.

Come and check it out if you get time, Scott.

I live on the east coast, in a very, Very, VERY liberal city. I am also of Hispanic heritage. As such, ever since I was about 12 years old, I referred to myself as a Democrat — not because I knew very much about what the Democratic party stood for, but simply because my teachers as well as my favorite channel in the world at the time, MTV, portrayed Republicans pejoratively, as evil, dispassionate, heartless, racist people. I knew I simply could not belong to “such” a group, and with much conviction, I concluded I was a Democrat. Even through my senior year of college, in 2000 (yes, I am still quite young) I rooted for Gore to win, in hopes that the “dumb white people” in the middle of the country would be unable to determine the rest of the nation’s fate.

I don’t recall when my transformation began to occur. It was actually a very slow process. Ever so slowly, I began adopting conservative ideas, mainly on social issues such as abortion, euthanasia, and homosexual marriage. After 9/11, although I didn’t identify myself as a Republican, I could certainly say I sympathized with many of Bush’s ideas. Later on, in grad school, my lovely, very conservative best friend (who is an African-American Evangelical) enlightened me more about conservatism. It was then that I completely made the switch, joined the “dark side,” and voted for Bush in 2004.

Recently, upon starting a new job, I, being naturally shy and reserved, kept my political views all to myself, for fear of the backlash. Eventually, as I warmed up to more people, I decided to share my views with two Midwesterners, who happened to be white liberals. I was barraged by their rebuffs — however, they could not call me a racist bigot, as I am a minority. Needless to say, these two very rarely speak to me anymore, and I have a feeling they look upon me as a sort of anomaly.

I thought I had really made a mistake in “coming out” and decided, for the future, to keep my political views to myself. More recently, however, I have started to share my views with other minorities, who happen to be uber-liberal, and although they, I must admit, find me quite strange, are much more respectful of my right-wing opinions.

I must admit, I thoroughly agree with neo-neocon’s assessment. It is important to “come out,” not simply for the sake of feeling brave but because it is important to shatter the left’s myths regarding what conservatives look like. I am a
young, twenty-something, Latin, conservative Republican woman, and I feel that it is important for the left to realize that there are people like me out there, even in the Northeast.

“Those who believe America is using too much of her power. And those who believe America is not using enough of her power.”

Spoken like a true neo-con.
Have the neo-cons ever considered how much “enough” power is? Clearly not!

“You might see that constant expansion comes to an eventual homeostasis state.”

Bravo! If you have acknowledged the ultimate demise then why add fuel to the fire. Its astonishing how commonsense seems never to reach to the intellect of a neo-con.

“Yet if isolationists had been given full reign, America would not be a world power, America would be fighting a Nazi Empire in Europe or a Stalin Empire in Europe.”

Two things genius;

First, traditionalists never intended to become world power. The forefathers fled from an empire no to build an empire but a Democracy. They believed in the co-existence with fellow countries. Call it a since of equilibrium, and it seems to exists in every other mammal except a neo-con.

Secondly, I don’t even know what school a neo-cons goes to, but what traditionalists learned in history class was that we did indeed fight the Nazi empire in Europe from 42 till 45 and the Stalin’s empire from 1945 till the fall of the Berlin wall.

“People who hoard power and resources, until a point where it benefits nobody.”

Oh really? I guess as a country representing 5% world’s populations and consuming over worlds 50% resources must be the fault of isolationists. Hoarding power? What power? Power can be defined as weapons, money or just a piece of mind. You must be more specific.

With the sell-outs in Washington outsourcing yet another American job, increasing the countries trade deficit to 66.8 Billion dollars. You can thank your neo-con masters.

“There is a reason why Democrats decry Imperialism and so do traditional people like you.”

Correction, neo, Democrats have never decried Imperialism. The first idea of “we are the leader of the world” was spud by FDR.
The crap that’s being talked about is yet another strategy to reposition their ideas for petty votes. The only difference between a neo-con and a Democrat is that a neo-con moves for the kill by himself and a Democrat moves multilaterally.

“They died to give us the power to do things in our present They died to give us And you dare to accuse neocons of wasting that treasure on the only real allies America will ever acquire

Wrong again Junior. First of all America’s true allies are the people of the United States and no one else. Secondly, people of this country in the past didn’t die to “give you power.” They sacrifice to protect this country from invaders and give you an opportunity of life and family not empire building.

“Those who live by the sword die by the sword, so that others can hide behind the shields of the town militia, never to be tested against better warriors and fighters.”

Yes, and at the end the people who were hiding behind the shields came out without a scratch and dug a grave for the fool without a shield to become worm food. in the end the people of the shield went home and lived to become old men.

“You don’t have any belief in the power and justice of America. You will never sacrifice an iota of your hoarded strength and treasure, on the behalf of anyone else.”

Once again ignorance speaks the loudest in a neo-con. If anyone believes in the power and justice of America is a traditionalist. You see one thing a neo-con never has is a sense of modesty unlike a traditionalist. We don’t talk about it we just do it. Since the word conservative has been redefined by a neo-con I guess sacrificing our national treasure for overseas empire is just dandy.

At the end Isolationists will have enough national coffers to build their homes after the Katrina. We will have enough money to build better highways without more loans, and even money left over to help build a taller and stronger boarder without taping into barrowing more money because most of tax payers money was over in Middle East.

Isolationists always belong to the former.

You should go and study the history of why Empires fall. You might see that constant expansion comes to an eventual homeostasis state.

It comes from using too much of their power. Yet if isolationists had been given full reign, America would not be a world power, America would be fighting a Nazi Empire in Europe or a Stalin Empire in Europe. The principle of isolationism is that of a miser’s. People who hoard power and resources, until a point where it benefits nobody.

Wealth and power is meant to be used. There is no point to hoarding it, in the hope that in the future it may somehow gain compound interest.

Americans are a compassionate people, willing to do what is right, unlike you who want to do what is expedient.

There is a limit to expediency.

There is a reason why Democrats decry Imperialism and so do traditional people like you.

Because it is all of a piece, a fear of using power. I and the world has no use for a pompous nation that thinks itself a leader while never exercising their power for the weak and the downtrodden.

Real people owe real fealty to real sacrifices, committed by Americans in the past. They died to give us the power to do things in our present. And you dare to accuse neocons of wasting that treasure on the only real allies America will ever acquire.

Far better for a Mozart to rise and fall, having used and lived his talents, than to have a miser hoard his life and his treasures until his ancient body crumples through decay.

Those who live by the sword die by the sword, so that others can hide behind the shields of the town militia, never to be tested against better warriors and fighters.

You don’t have any belief in the power and justice of America. You will never sacrifice an iota of your hoarded strength and treasure, on the behalf of anyone else.

Those like you, will never have the strength to triumph.

Because you will never put it to the touch.

“‘He either fears his fate too much,
Or his desert is small,
Who fears to put it to the touch,
And win or lose it all.’

I don’t want to build an Empire, I just want us to recognize that we already are an Empire. Of 50 states, under a common banner, culture, and language. And that we need not be afraid of our power and our ability to right injustice in this world.

But isolatinists were never concerned about justice or liberty or strength of will. And they never will be.

I’m so glad that you expressed you opinion. Because you just answered what I’ve been thinking about all this time.

The man with the sword made a war cry and charged down the battlefield swinging it proudly to cut down his opponents and when the dust settled he was dead.
You see the imbecile wasn’t carrying a shield to protect him.

Those who follow the philosophy of the sword unfortunately also die by the sword. I Follow the philosophy of the shield which guarantees me one thing; the preservation of life.

Traditional Conservatives are too gutless? Traditional Conservatives are limited?
For over 100 years traditional conservatism has protected this country from outsider and preserved the many traditions you are enjoying today. I would look in the history books if I were you before making an ignorant Statement.

“They won’t reach for something greater and vaster and more stupendous than what they can grab on the run. Such limited horizon for glory and liberty is stagnation supreme to me.”

This sounds like empire building to me. Be brave and be proud and say what you really mean. There is a one major problem with empire building. All empires have fallen and will fall, no exceptions. And the bigger they are the harder they fall. And once the dust settles the only question you should ask a Neo-liberal is was it worth dragging the American people to the pits? Was it worth attempting to build a new Rome?

I say attempt because there are others as ambitions as you who follows the sword who also wants to build an empire. Don’t forget you are not the only one with a big sword. It is safe to say once you start to compete a lot of people will pay. I suppose in the eyes of a Neo-Liberal having a thousand year old empire can be an eternity. Unfortunately it is an unrealistic ideology which has no base or sense to last long. Which is why people like yourself don’t understnad the meaning of Tradition.

You seem to be interested in the greater and vaster and stupendous goals. I hope to see you cry out the battle charge at the front line. Empire building is hard work and we need few proud people such as your self.

This purging you speak of was also conducted by Joseph Stalin. He also felt that he needed to purify the people’s party. I truly pity what this country has become.

As far as you labeling traditional conservatives as racist and David Duke supporters; this isn’t a new idea. Traditionalists since 1994 have been named many things. Unlike your conventional liberal counterparts who get all mad, we simply shrug it off like a bad case of dandruffs.

I always wonder if you, Philosopher, is doing a philosophical devil’s advocate with your words or if you are serious.

If I adopted any philosophy personally, it is definitely not a neo-con one. Those tend to be liberals and revert to a more human basic format because of a need for the government to do its job and protect against outside threats. Coupled with a new vision of their environment. I can sympathize with those elements, but the path I chose was far different than most people prefer.

I follow the philosophy of the Sword, which can be encapsulated in the words “Peace through superior firepower”.

Historically, this goes back to Leonidas, King of Sparta, and Athens.

Traditional conservatives are isolationists, of course. Which is why I don’t like them. Too gutless, too concerned with their limited selves. They won’t reach for something greater and vaster and more stupendous than what they can grab on the run. Such limited horizons for glory and liberty is stagnation supreme to me.

As such, that kind of political philosophy won’t last very long. Republicans are already purging the isolationists, and soon they will all be gone, to form their own party with the White Supremacists as allies. Eventually the Supremacists, like David Duke, along with isolationists, and fake liberals will all have one big tent party. Then everyone will be happy.

There is potent clear evidence that Hussein was a truly evil man who indiscrimately had thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians — many women and children — killed in the most abominable fashion.

I truly think they don’t care at all. And why should they? Does the death of a million equal to them a jet liner, a million dollar movie deal, or star studded treatment? A million deaths to them is nothing but a statistic, they know nothing of depravity and soul crushing despair, other than drug withdrawals and the personal fear that they will become poor. A million deaths of strangers is nothing but a statistic to them. How do they handle this guilt you might wonder? Easily, by donating money to Democrats. That is how they handle the guilt.

The human mind and the human standard of morality is very flexible.

I am curious if any of the liberal commenters who castigate President Bush for his “lies” acually read or listened to his speeches before the Iraqi invasion. I did. I clearly recollect numerous instances where he, and others in the administration also cited to Hussein’s violation of numerous UN resolutions as a basis for the invasion.

I also recently read in a number of blogs that many Iraqi documents discovered after the invasion, that have recently been made available, disclose Hussein’s active support and training of terrorists in Iraq — approximately 2,000 per year for 4 years. Accordingly, the connection between Hussein and the terrorist threat to the US is now becoming more clear. While this may not have been evident 2-3 years ago to the general public, it is now based upon clear admissions in official Iraqi documents. As time progresses, other purported “lies” by the President and his administration may also find clear support in irrefutable evidence and documents. Time has a tendency to clarify matters that have been conveniently fudged by those who live to find evil motive behind every act by the President.

One thing that is absolutely clear to me, and I do not understand why those who are against the war in Iraq completely disregard this. There is potent clear evidence that Hussein was a truly evil man who indiscrimately had thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians — many women and children — killed in the most abominable fashion. He was a tyrant in every sense of the word, and publicly threatened neighboring countries with annihilation (besides the invasion of Kuwait). He committed atrocities against his own people that had not been seen since Hitler. If there ever was a tyrant who deserved to be removed, it was Hussein. How can this be an evil war, when 25 million people have been freed and his reign of terror has ended? That question simply has never been answered to my satisfaction by anyone (liberal or Pat Buchanan conservative). These factors, and the belief by both this administration and the Clinton administration — as evidenced by the numerous public comments of many high level members of the Clinton administraion regarding the almost universal belief in the threat posed by Hussein, lead me to conclude that this war was unquestionably justified.

As for the Matrix, there was nothing wrong with the Architect. An old man who wants stability and keep the balance of power as equilibrium. If you did pay attentions to the movies you may have noticed that humans did scorch the skies and destroyed the planet to cut off life support for the machines. Thus the Architect had to place man in bondage for sake of survival of machine and ultimately saved humanity in the process.

Ever Wonder what would happen if Neo did awaken every man on earth. It would be a chaos. Imagine to be awakening to world were the skies are black as the darkest abyss, and every other life has been wiped out other then man. And the only means of survival is liquidating the dead for consumptions. Yes and all this time so many want to find out what the “Matrix” is.

Liberals couldn’t stab anyone in the back if they wanted to.

Don’t they get it that the Jacksonians hold like 95% of the firepower, in steel and in bullets?

If liberals are going to be stabbing whomever in the back for revenge or whatever, they’ll have to do it with a pen.

My sword beats the pen any day of the quantum year in a stabbing contest.

It is just real funny how people posture about how words protect and create freedoms. Jefferson’s words didn’t create freedom for blacks. Guns, blood, and smoke did that. And it ain’t the liberals that have the guns or the bullets or the swords. They’re too busy outlawing them and selling them on ebay after they move to the big city.

One of the things liberals don’t get is that people who favor the sword, like me, may use the pen just as well if not better than naked force. But it isn’t our primary weapon at all. Not the weapon we rely upon when the going gets tough. The liberals are at a disadvantage precisely because they stick to one weapon only, the pen. THey ain’t got any proficiency with anything else, so the only thing that they can do is cry Havoc and Envy at others.

What they don’t know is that people use force the way liberals use words. Pragmatically, dishonestly, and unfairly. Just because they live in the good old US of A doesn’t mean that their methods and weapons will always be supreme. In cases of war time and national patriotism, the sword holds greater sway. As it should, and as it does.

Nobody with a sword is going into a fair fight with a gun. And no one with a gun is going into a fair fight with a guy wielding a pen.

That’s just how it plays out, rock, paper, scissors. And sometimes it just seems so unfair that liberals speak all the evil but can never shoot any to back it up. While Republicans and intellectually honest folk can shoot but can never speak any evil.

It’s a real con job to expect those with no bullets to protect people like Neo’s existence ANd like all cons, turn on the light and the roaches scurry for their hides.

People like Neo actually believes in the power of the Pen. And that’s fine with me. But I cannot help but contrast the different methods of dealing with insurgents. One uses reason and diplomacy, the other just uses a bigger hammer.

God, it is convenient not to place the foundation of liberty upon the First Ammendment. Because I see how it so constrains the actions of others that do. No guilt, no regret.

If the Architect really represented traditional conservatives, then I really do feel sorry, if not guilt, for the traditional conservatives. Boy, are they messed up.

To Anonymous 2 Stealthy Republicians are Democrats with
amnesia.

Bravo, your posts are just not convincing. You make assertions without explanation. I said terrorists breed in democracies as well as in repressive regimes, giving examples, and my point is ignored. You talk about my glossing over the terrorist-Iraq connections yet provide no documentation. What connections and what is the evidence? Aren’t you glossing over? And 8 second sound bites! Bush is nothing if not a collection of 8 second sound bites: Fight ‘em there so we don’t have to fight ‘em here, Stay the course, It’s hard work, When they stand up, we’ll stand down…The country has been aching for some better explanation for why our soldiers are dying in Iraq and instead we get slogans. Of course, this is the great Post Hoc War, with any number of post hoc rationalizations given for why we are there, so your explanation is as good as another, I suppose. But remind me again. We left Bin Laden in Tora Bora and redeployed to Iraq before catching him for exactly what purpose?

Try to sleep it off, or at least take a few deep breaths and repeat after me: THE MATRIX IS ONLY A MOVIE.

In the end you are a liberal in a conservative disguise. You have stabbed the conventional liberals in the back, got a hair cut and wore a suit. You made the loudest noise in preaching conservative ideology with books and radio. You even got recognition by “traditional conservatives” paving the way for a
conservative America.

There is only one problem. Liberals who turned there backs on other liberals will pay the price. A dog can moo like a cow for so long until the ugly truth is revealed.

Traditional conservatives are now getting a bad rep by neo-liberals and their future is at stake. You neo-con are not in a good position. Let’s face it; your philosophy is an abomination.

You decided to pick the better of the two political spectrums and I guess something’s are never meant to be. Like you, I know many who have switched sides politically to this new abomination.

For a better analogy think of the movie the “Matrix.” Where Neo and his gang of hippies represent the liberal movement, and the Architect represent the traditional conservatives, you neo-con represent the corrupted copy of the Agent Smith.

In the end, liberals are responsible for your existence and it’s a liberal responsibility to clean up this mess. Traditional conservatives are no way of form should get involved. After all we are considered not to be “mainstream” we have been labeled racist and outcast and even “old school.” But remember all good things must come to an end, even for a Neo-Con.

The rationale was given, repeatedly, but often lost in the screams of those who were decrying the president for not having an 8-second sound bite answer. For being too nuanced one might say. But for something clear in black and white, go take a look at the authorizing resolutions. They lay out all of the dots, and you can connect them to your heart’s content.

And no, you haven’t done much, one way or the other as to the “draining the swamp” thesis. You also seem to be quite content with glossing over the terrorist-Iraq connections (and no, not all terrorists have to attack the US to be terrorists), as well as the center of gravity for a number of proliferation networks.

As far as the screedy bit at the bottom, I’m going to assume that you’re being sarcastic, rather than just petty and small. One might recall that Hussein, while in a war with the world’s sole superpower and a massive UN-backed coalition, chose to - in the midst of conflict - start lobbing missiles at civilian targets belonging to a country heretofore not involved in the conflict. That speaks to me as being somebody with an unacceptable strategic risk tolerance profile.

Aqualung, I guess you were asleep for that earlier post, but any one poster always has trashcans next to their post. I see trashcans next to my posts, but not yours. Bookworm sees them next to her posts, but not mine or yours.

The trashcans are a way to let a poster delete a post if they choose to do so later on.

So, yeah, you can stop with the crushing of noble dissent angle and just get with the program.

Here’s how Iraq relates to 9/11:

9/11 served as a palpable demonstration that what the west thought were the rules governing terrorism weren’t, in fact, true. Previously, it terrorism was viewed, most often, as a form of aggressive bargaining chip. Post-9/11 this was not felt to be the case.

Furthermore, the relative affluence of the hijackers also undermined the notion that terrorism was simply something that could ameliorated by anti-poverty programs.

We came to realize that terrorists were created by repressive regimes, and employed as proxy guerilla fighters by unliberalized, axiomatically hostile regimes. Morevoer, the regimes that were backing terrorists tended towards fundamental instability as well as the procurement of WMD.

Hence, the nightmare scenario is that one of these well-educated, relatively comfortable terrorists would be kitted out by some bad guy with some nuke.

Now of all the whackjob candidates who might do such a thing, one guy in particular had showing the most frightening callousness and virtually genetic inability to make sound strategic judgements. Moreover, there were 16-some UN resolutions to this effect, as well as a cease-fire agreement which he had repeatedly violated. So being in a de facto shooting war at the outset, it was determined that this country was at a center of gravity in re the war on islamicsm, and there you go.

We fought a battle in Iraq.

See ya! I’m off to perfect my Five Deferment Cheney!

In passing, no I don’t agree with much of what you’re saying, but I am certainly most heartened to hear you make an honest effort to try to maintain a sufficient air of civility to allow the possibility of discussion.

Aqualung, however, I believe has most effectively underlined the sentiment driving many of the comments here.

MA & Constantine, both sides of the aisle do have their shrill harpies who are a discredit to one’s won side. Although I would be dishonest (and probably not altogether human) if I didn’t admit that the slightest glimmer of schadenfreude crossed my mind when your particular cross to bear plopped down so heavily on the this thread.

But more seriously, I don’t argue that aqualung is representative of the left, but that he is representative of the largest portion of the volume of the left. And if you don’t believe me, count the number of comments he’s made versus you two, and forgive us for leaping to all-too-human conclusions.

Try your schtick on somebody who’s dumb enough to believe it. Like a bunch of unfortunates who got loose from a group home.
Adios My Friend

I guess that makes going to war based on lies OK, then? Whew, I feel much better! Thanks!

“I guess you otherwise feel nothing but derision for the underclass who are figting [sic] this war in your stead.” (Jan. 3, 2006 at 8:08 a.m.)

In fact, this canard is put to rest by the most recent numbers on the subject. These numbers show that the largest chunk of enlistees in the Army comes from the middle class, not some unspecified underclass.

It’s always useful to get your facts correct when you structure your argument. Bad facts or bad argument usually leave you with no option but to pound the table.

The trash can is a feature of these comments that allow people to withdraw their sillier comments once they’ve sobered up.
In your case, the sobering up will probably never happen, but everyone wishes you well nonetheless.

The trash cans are not present after the other bloggers’ posts, since it would not be wise to give you the ability to erase the thoughts of more intelligent, or more mindful people.
Just kidding, old chap. Lighten up mate.

Welcome to the forum, aqualung. If you’re going to troll, it helps to be a little less predictable.

Well, that’s because “BUSH LIED.” Though he actually didn’t, he just trusted the UN inspectors when he should have known their goal was to actually keep the sanctions program in place forever. But we can’t say the UN lied, because they are going to someday form the United Federation of Planets, and they will train famous starship captains like James T. Kirk and Jean-Luc Picard.

You have no respect for the sacrifices the left makes to secure that glorious future. Careers, lives, the truth in general… if it leads to dilithium crystals, teleporters, and especially my own personal holodeck filled with clones of Pamela Anderson, it will all be worthwhile.

“So a bunch of religious SAUDIS fly planes into the WTC on 9/11 and in retaliation we invade a secular IRAQ…God, neo-con logic has a beauty all its own!”

We “cons” were’nt completly alone:

“In the interests of regional peace and for the sake of human decency, (Saddam) must be removed from power. That is the policy of this administration. It is the policy I support. It is the policy I am personally committed to.”

Al Gore made this statement in 2000, during his campaign for the presidency.

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

List of Democrat Law-makers who voted for the authorization to use force to remove Saddam Hussein from power:

Baucus (D-MT)Bayh (D-IN) Biden (D-DE)Breaux (D-LA)Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)Dodd (D-CT)Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)

Do you think it’s possible for a good and intelligent person to support Bush’s general policies on Iraq and the war on Islamist terror for valid and considered reasons, even if you happen to disagree with them yourself?

Another previous poster had it right as well. Put a “(D)” after Bush’s name, and suddenly his motives become un-assailable.

Why would I think this?

Libs dont provide alternates to how we’re fighting this war beyond having us pack up and move out now, or whining about time lines for withdrawal. Everything else is anti-policy at best. Downright treasonous at worst.

If Clinton/Gore/Kerry had or would have conducted the same electronic eaves dropping activities Bush had, there would be little opposition from the majority of people, including myself.

This may sound like an “M” argument. That Im merely questioning the motives of liberals and Democrat law-makers. But if you have seriously thought out better ways of handling this war, (If you agree that a threat exsists), Id love to hear that instead of the Bush=Hitler argument.

To question the competence is one thing; to question morals and motives is something completely different. People on the left routinely seem to fall back on the tactic of questioning “morals and motives” because they tend to believe they are morally superior to everyone else.

Because they can’t imagine how reasonable people could disagree, they label their opponents immoral and corrupt, and then they wonder why public discourse has become so acrimonious. Oh, that’s right, it’s got to be because of that other fellow’s bad motives.

You don’t come right out and scream “Bush lied!” but that’s certainly what you want us to infer by questioning motives and “honesty.” Competence is thrown in almost as a side-thought, since the thrust of your statement isn’t about competence at all, but about corruption, or else why throw in the names of Delay and Abramoff (who, by the way, reportedly paid off politicians on both sides of the aisle)? But of course, you don’t produce any evidence, it’s just a matter of casting aspersions through innuendo.

Unfortunately, that seems to be what many left-leaning thinkers specialize in these days. Arnold Kling said as much back in October, 2003 in an article he wrote about the problem with Paul Krugman’s column. You can find the Kling column here.

And, yes, dipwad, most of the lefties who keep calling Bush a liar et al, if Bush had a D next to his name instead of an R, he’d be glorified as a hero.

Don’t be so naive and don’t expect that others are as naive as you.

Please point out specific examples of incompetence and how things should have been done. Or did it ever occur to you that sometimes people’s intentions are good, but the result is failure.

That’s the entire problem with the left. They look at any non-Lefty through a prism of “well, they must have bad intentions, results be damned.”

I think it is important for ot