Comments Posted By Beth
Displaying 11 To 20 Of 26 Comments
I still don't trust President Jellyfish. I suspected him last year and was accused on this site of 'jumping the shark'!!! I'll expect an apology later this season, haha. I think his total incompetence is just an act.
Comment Posted By Beth On 16.01.2006 @ 13:44
THE WILD, WILD, WILD, WILD, AND WACKY WORLD OF CINDY SHEEHAN
Does she realize what her benefactors have done to her?
I submit they've done nothing she hasn't asked for explicitly. She was a barking moonbat to begin with; they just gave her a microphone with which to shout her idiotarian leftard slogans. I don't think they've hijacked her message AT ALL. They're ALL sick, twisted, anti-American lunatics.
Comment Posted By Beth On 19.09.2005 @ 18:52
I never feel outraged by their silliness. In fact, I encourage it, because it exposes them for the idiotarians they are.
I actually have a new resident in my comments who moved in yesterday with some nonsense about "u sound like bin Laden" or some shit, and then actually said I should read ROBERT FISK! hahahahahahahahhaaaaaaaaaa
Priceless!
Sometimes, if I spend too much time over at the moonbat sites without wearing a tinfoil hat, I start to wonder if the whole schtick isn't some sooper-seekrit Rove conspeeeeeeeeeeracy designed to make the left look like drooling retards with spoofers (like Steve). It's a good idea, y'know. ;-)
Hey Steve, thanks for the entertainment! Pass on my thanks to your friends, too!
Comment Posted By Beth On 14.09.2005 @ 19:35
::waving::
BAINBRIDGE: A THOUGHTFUL BUT FLAWED CRITIQUE OF THE WAR
Another thought: perhaps it's only those who have served in the military who understand that war planners actually do have reasons for why certain strategies are pursued?
Far from being "chickenhawks," the doubters are more armchair strategists.It's also becoming apparent that the ones who have a realistic view of "timetables" (a stupid concept) are the ones who understand warfare (as in, the troops and veterans, AND yes, the civilian leadership that determines strategy).
You're right, Rick, that the President should communicate the stakes better, because all the talk about timelines and exit strategies are pointless and basically stupid.
Comment Posted By Beth On 22.08.2005 @ 10:51
This wishy-washy bullshit with "oh no, troops are dying" (in a WAR, no less!) is patently ridiculous.
I'm "anti-war," because I don't want a single American to have to die due to war...BUT! I'm not against war when it's 1) a reality, and 2) a necessity. There ARE things worth defending, you know. (Cindy Sheehan's protests to the contrary aside.)
I'm tired of the war, too, but it seems to me that too many people have too short an attention span and very limited strength of their convictions. I recognize real people die and shit gets broken in war; what the hell did Bainbridge and others going soft expect would happen? That's all it is; impatience leading to doubt. NOBODY said it would be easy.
Could there be changes in how the war is conducted? Of course. But the truth is, the war will be lost or won at HOME, not on the battlefield. The antiwar left knows that; pity Bainbridge and others don't.
Comment Posted By Beth On 22.08.2005 @ 10:43
I'll second that, Pablo.
Not to mention "Grandpapete" couldn't be more wrong about military members' freedom of "speach" (sic). Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. Not to mention there are a million other military "bolgs" (sic) that have freedom of "speach" (sic) and don't get their hard drives cleaned--the difference being they don't play fast and loose with the OPSEC rules (which is probably what happened with this Pvt. Clark--not to mention due to the LONG-standing Hatch Act, he's strictly forbidden from running for office while in uniform).
I seriously doubt "GRANDPAPETE" is even an American, based on 1) his utter ignorance of the laws that everyone else knows about and 2) his pathetic grasp of the English language. Which is fine, being non-American, but might I suggest you mind your own crappy country's military enlistment issues?
Whadda maroon.
Comment Posted By Beth On 21.08.2005 @ 19:15
it does bother me that none of the present leadership has children in the military.
Nor did Chelsea Clinton serve. So what?
If the Bush twins suddenly enlisted, would that change your mind about the war, anyway?
Face it, military service has nothing to do with "privilege" or "only the disadvantaged" serving. I enlisted in 1985, and by no stretch of the imagination can you call my background "disadvantaged" or make any accusations that I was escaping anything. My parents could afford to send me anywhere to college, and I went for one year before I joined the Air Force. I was also a National Merit Scholar, so even if they couldn't afford it, I could have gone to school on academic scholarships (I got very little scholarship money because my parents have too much money AND because my father is self-employed). And trust me, I was HARDLY an anomaly. I knew a LOT of people in the military who came from privileged families.
It's a volunteer force, people, and NOBODY can force their kids into service. Not even the President, short of a draft. Is that what you want?
If you don't have any better arguments against the war besides demanding everyone sign up, then you really don't have anything to say. It's a stupid argument.
If that IS all you want, then might I suggest you enlist yourselves and work in a recruiting office? Or at LEAST volunteer in one? (After all, the military might not accept you--they DO have standards, y'know.)
Chickenrecruiters.
Comment Posted By Beth On 21.08.2005 @ 14:05
That Rosa Parks comparison really disgusts me in particular. Funny (not really) how they appropriate black history for their causes every time they have something to say.
They really have no idea what they're talking about, and it's a complete slap in the face--no, a spit in the face--to the long history of the black civil rights struggle in America. And I say this as a white woman in Alabama, no less.
I wonder if those who coined that phrase even KNOW anyone who CARES about that history, much less had any stake in it. Meanwhile, they freely toss out racial slurs against great black Americans with whom they don't share political ideology, i.e. Condoleezza Rice. Hell, they'd probably be shrieking "theocrat!!!" at Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. if he were around today because he had the NERVE to invoke the name of God.
Cynical bastards.
Comment Posted By Beth On 21.08.2005 @ 13:55
President Jellyfish is the mole and works with the Chinese. Behruz will kill Marwan and save the day (maybe with help from his 'not dead' mom). I'd like to see the missile headed to Hollywood - maybe that would shut 'em up!
Comment Posted By Beth On 22.05.2005 @ 15:24
BLOOD IS THICKER THAN POLITICS
Just letting you know I'm here...good for you for not taking any crap from anyone (jealous beeyotches) about having a brother in the WHPC.
Y'all are good people--I know that since he's YOUR brother, his head's on straight and his heart is in the right place. I missed the whole McClelland exchange (silly me) but you know, we wingnuts are a hypervigilant bunch.This is probably an EXCELLENT opportunity to build dialogue between warring factions, now that this is all out in the open. I just hope there aren't too many who have embarrassed our side with unnecessary nastiness to you and your brother (like the uncouth idiot "Richard Riley," who thinks it's OK to trash your brother on your own property). It goes without saying that he probably wouldn't dare say it to your face.
Enjoy your mega-lanches! :wink:
Comment Posted By Beth On 20.05.2005 @ 08:37
