George W. Bush truly is a jackass

[Goober McTuber]

Well, I was feelin' sad and feelin' blue,
I didn't know what in the world I was gonna do,
Them Communists they wus comin' around,
They wus in the air,
They wus on the ground.
They wouldn't gimme no peace. . .

So I run down most hurriedly
And joined up with the John Birch Society,
I got me a secret membership card
And started off a-walkin' down the road.
Yee-hoo, I'm a real John Bircher now!
Look out you Commies!

Now we all agree with Hitlers' views,
Although he killed six million Jews.
It don't matter too much that he was a Fascist,
At least you can't say he was a Communist!
That's to say like if you got a cold you take a shot of malaria.

Well, I wus lookin' everywhere for them gol-darned Reds.
I got up in the mornin' 'n' looked under my bed,
Looked in the sink, behind the door,
Looked in the glove compartment of my car.
Couldn't find 'em . . .

I wus lookin' high an' low for them Reds everywhere,
I wus lookin' in the sink an' underneath the chair.
I looked way up my chimney hole,
I even looked deep inside my toilet bowl.
They got away . . .

Well, I wus sittin' home alone an' started to sweat,
Figured they wus in my T.V. set.
Peeked behind the picture frame,
Got a shock from my feet, hittin' right up in the brain.
Them Reds caused it!
I know they did . . . them hard-core ones.

Well, I quit my job so I could work alone,
Then I changed my name to Sherlock Holmes.
Followed some clues from my detective bag
And discovered they wus red stripes on the American flag!
That ol' Betty Ross . . .

Well, I investigated all the books in the library,
Ninety percent of 'em gotta be burned away.
I investigated all the people that I knowed,
Ninety-eight percent of them gotta go.
The other two percent are fellow Birchers . . . just like me.

Now Eisenhower, he's a Russian spy,
Lincoln, Jefferson and that Roosevelt guy.
To my knowledge there's just one man
That's really a true American: George Lincoln Rockwell.
I know for a fact he hates Commies cus he picketed the movie Exodus.

Well, I fin'ly started thinkin' straight
When I run outa things to investigate.
Couldn't imagine doin' anything else,
So now I'm sittin' home investigatin' myself!
Hope I don't find out anything . . . hmm, great God!

[BSmack]

Rack Mr. Zimmerman's "Talkin' John Birch Paranoid Blues".

[Kierland]

FEDERAL

Two things:
Why all the venom for something that has not happened and none (till I teased it out of you) for something that is harming us and our children TODAY?
And... Are you for or against Governmental health care from the some level of Government that you support controlling education?

mvscal,
I have thank you.

[BSmack]

Meanwhile, in our "market driven" system it is easier to get an appointment for Botox injections than it is to get a potentially cancerous mole removed.

Patients who want a Botox treatment for wrinkles get appointments with US dermatologists much faster than those with potentially cancerous moles, according to a new study.

For a Botox injection, patients waited typically for eight days, while those asking doctors to look at worrisome moles that might indicate skin cancer waited 26 days, said the study in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

The study was conducted last year by telephone with researchers posing as patients, contacting 898 dermatologists in 12 US cities.

In Boston, for example, the median wait for a Botox session was 13 days while it was nine weeks for an examination of a changing mole.

In Seattle, an injection of botulinum toxin can be arranged in less than eight days but patients had a median wait of 35 days to secure an exam for a mole.

The lead author of the study, Jack Resneck, assistant professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, wrote that it was unclear why the wait times varied so dramatically.

It was possible doctors wanted to offer faster access for Botox treatments "because of higher relative payments for cosmetic services," the study said.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

Nope, no problems here.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Big deal. Specialists, as highly trained practitioners, have the right to pick and choose who they treat, what they treat and when to treat it. Boo frigging hoo.

Having to wait an average of two-and-a-half weeks longer to get an appointment doesn't justify the federal government meddling in healthcare. Only a credulous boob would honestly believe that "oversight" in Washington D.C. would have made the dermatologist speed up seeing those mole patients.

It astounds me that people can see the glaring failure of federal efforts to oversee areas like education and the "War on Poverty" (and let's toss in disaster response, passports, immigration,...) and yet still be stupid enough to trust the same bureaucratic boobs to oversee healthcare. As if somehow, the incompetence will go away just this one time...

[BSmack]

Big deal. Specialists, as highly trained practitioners, have the right to pick and choose who they treat, what they treat and when to treat it. Boo frigging hoo.

Having to wait an average of two-and-a-half weeks longer to get an appointment doesn't justify the federal government meddling in healthcare. Only a credulous boob would honestly believe that "oversight" in Washington D.C. would have made the dermatologist speed up seeing those mole patients.

It astounds me that people can see the glaring failure of federal efforts to oversee areas like education and the "War on Poverty" (and let's toss in disaster response, passports, immigration,...) and yet still be stupid enough to trust the same bureaucratic boobs to oversee healthcare. As if somehow, the incompetence will go away just this one time...

You think business is any more efficient? Hailing from the land of Kodak and Xerox should have long ago disabused you of that notion. At least the government reduced poverty by 50% when it declared a "war" on poverty. Not bad when you consider that almost every administration since the Johnson Administration (the exception being Jimmy Carter's) has virtually ignored poverty as an issue.

Oh, and citing the failures of the worst Presidential Administration in the history of the Republic is just not playing fair. It would be like me citing the record of Richard Thoman in defense of nationalizing all businesses.

[BSmack]

You think business is any more efficient?

Yes, I do. And if they aren't, there are always competitive alternatives.

Where are you going to go when it's the government telling you to go fuck yourself?

No sane person is proposing that government funded health care be the ONLY option available. If the market is there for those procedures not adequately covered by a national health care system, then private care can step in. Just because we have public schools doesn't mean we have banned private schools.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

You think business is any more efficient? Hailing from the land of Kodak and Xerox should have long ago disabused you of that notion.

Actually, I believe that business in general (free markets) is more efficient. In the case of Xerox and Kodak, bloated, poorly-managed businesses were getting their asses rightfully handed to them by competitors who did it better, faster, for less cost to the consumer, and who ultimately served their clients better. Kodak and Xerox were forced -by competition - to change their way of doing things and come up with competitive innovations in technology or face extinction. That's a damned GOOD thing.

The same would hold in healthcare - the bloated companies that fail to serve their clients in a cost effective way should lose business until they either adapt to become more competitive (provide better services at lower cost, offer more innovation) or go extinct.

Federal meddling, as they have done in education (go ahead, try to tell me that freaking decades of federal oversight has helped THAT area even a little...) will not give any incentives for improving services, streamlining bureacracy, or providing innovation. The federal "war on poverty" has resulted in generational dependence on welfare and other government handouts.

And before the idiots come out of the woodwork to accuse me of being some gun-toting-antigovernment nut who thinks of the feds as "jack-booted thugs"...I just don't think that it is the rightful place for the feds (or even the states, since they're a big part of the current mess with helathcare regs) to dabble in healthcare. It is outside their rightful (i.e., Constitutional) purview. Then again, the cryptosocialists have been having a field day interpreting "public welfare" to include any damned thing they feel like having the feds run (including education), so I'm probably going to read a pile of steaming crap justifying "single payer"/socialized medicine under THAT "logic" soon...

[LTS TRN 2]

It astounds me that people can see the glaring failure of federal efforts to oversee areas like education and the "War on Poverty" (and let's toss in disaster response, passports, immigration,...) and yet still be stupid enough to trust the same bureaucratic boobs to oversee healthcare. As if somehow, the incompetence will go away just this one time...

L-Rat, consider that rightwing fuckstains as represented by the current (unelected) cabal have made a concerted effort to undermine the efficiency of federal programs. Especially in the case of Katrina.

In fact the federal government has tremendous advantages in providing services to the public. The notion that privatized is simply better is complete Rusp Limpdikian bullshit.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

rightwing fuckstains as represented by the current (unelected) cabal

Oh yeah...phrases like that are always indicative that a balanced mind is about to give a meaningful response.

In fact the federal government has tremendous advantages in providing services to the public.

"In fact?"

Horseshit. It is not a "fact" just because you decide to preface your unfounded, unproven assertion with the claim that it IS a fact.

Prove it.

I, OTOH, would argue that decades of inefficiency and outright incompetence in welfare, education, disaster relief, cronyism and pork in federal programs (especially in agriculture), and their cultural distance from the common citizen place the bureacrats in Washington D.C. at a distinct DISadvantage in providing services to the public.

The notion that privatized is simply better is complete Rusp Limpdikian bullshit.

Nicely phrased, well-thought-out rebuttal. Feel free to stick to simplistic, broad-brush ad hominem dismissals of opposing views. They definitely help your credibility. Seriously. They do.

[LTS TRN 2]

Really, L-Rat? Do you deny that the current (unelected--what, you dispute this?) cabal has shown an unrelenting disdain for all things federal? Or that the relief effort to New Orleans wasn't effectively fucked up from stem to stern by these same folk?

As for the obvious advantages of a federal system--what, are you kidding? The federal system for starters has virtually unlimited capital. Do you suppose some private construction firm could build a national highway system? The Hoover Dam?

Whether you realize it or not, you are a caricature of Ayn Randian ranting. And yes, this same simplistic drivel that you yell with triple bold face type is really just like Rusp Limpdick. So what?

Anyone can point to a failure or shortcoming of a large program such managed by the federal government. So what? It doesn't in any way undermine the basic credibility of the system.

Look at your arguments. Nothing but utterly selfish championing of profit-mongering. Period.

What the fuck kind of head space is that?

You have no real take, in other words. No real connection with society as a single entity. And this is typical nervous "I got mine" tunnel-vision.

Wake Up! Grow up.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Really, L-Rat? Do you deny that the current (unelected--what, you dispute this?) cabal has shown an unrelenting disdain for all things federal?

I didn't vote for Dumbya, but he was legally elected by the system we have. To claim otherwise is frigging paranoia and sour grapes.

Or that the relief effort to New Orleans wasn't effectively fucked up from stem to stern by these same folk?

The fuckup was systemic, not personal. Prove to me that a Kerry presidency would have responded with exemplary efficiency. Go ahead.

As for the obvious advantages of a federal system--what, are you kidding? The federal system for starters has virtually unlimited capital. Do you suppose some private construction firm could build a national highway system? The Hoover Dam?

Yeah, these are on the same level as healthcare decisions for individual citizens.

My God, but you are a nitwit.

Whether you realize it or not, you are a caricature of Ayn Randian ranting.

Sorry, Sparky, but you're the one who has used up the board's allotment of Reynolds Wrap with the crazy-ass paranoid crap you spout. Every time you hit "submit," you undermine every argument you try to make. Hell, I'll bet that there are folks who pray to God that you don't take their side in an argument just because of the nutty baggage you bring with you.

Anyone can point to a failure or shortcoming of a large program such managed by the federal government. So what? It doesn't in any way undermine the basic credibility of the system.

Actually, numbnut, it does. You're advocating that the feds do some unConstitutional meddling in individual citizens' lives, and I've given specific examples where they've done just that and failed abysmally. Showing that they HAVE failed in previous similar ventures DOES undermine their credibility with regard to future similar ventures. Your unproven assertion that "gosh, golly, THIS time will be DIFFERENT" is the one that lacks credibility.

Look at your arguments. Nothing but utterly selfish championing of profit-mongering. Period.

Look at YOUR arguments - unproven, unsubstantiated trust that that federal government will somehow take over the healthcare sector and make it MORE efficient, MORE responsive, and MORE "fair."

You have no real take, in other words. No real connection with society as a single entity. And this is typical nervous "I got mine" tunnel-vision.

The fact that you describe society as a "single entity" show what a nutjob you are. I am an individual, as are the people I know. Keep in mind that I worked at a medical center for 11 freaking years, along doctors, nurses, social workers, etc., so I don't take any of your clueless, coffeehouse, political-tract theories seriously.

[LTS TRN 2]

L-Rat, I'm glad you're keeping the medical facility clean, we all like those shiny floors. But I'm really not even arguing the nuts and bolts of a national health care plan. Rather, my basic point here is that the government should be allowed to negotiate drug prices for its programs.

Yours is a wholesale argument of pure Individualism (very Randian, don't be ashamed of it, it's a phase) is applied apparently to every sector of the economy, as though the "market" is some great entity in and of itself.

Your acceptance of the legitimacy of both the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections is ludicrous. Have you really examined this? The Supreme Court preventing a recount in Florida? The bald disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of voters, etc. And the abuse in Ohio in '04 was actually worse. What, you just let it slide? Buff the floor, have a snack?

As for MY positions, go ahead, pick any one and try to actually refute it. Some of these include:

--Illegitimacy of the current administration, etc.

--Illegitimacy of Israeli influence on U.S. policy, etc.

--Corruption of Christian Right

--Disaster of Iraq invasion

--Sheer stupidity of Global Warming deniers

--Danger of media conglomeration

And these are subjects worthy of debate and education.

WW

[Mike the Lab Rat]

L-Rat, I'm glad you're keeping the medical facility clean, we all like those shiny floors. But I'm really not even arguing the nuts and bolts of a national health care plan. Rather, my basic point here is that the government should be allowed to negotiate drug prices for its programs.

Horseshit.

The intellectual property theft that results from compulsory licensing and government "negotiating" lower prices (it's not much of a negotiation when a government can threaten to just steal the patent and let one of its own companies illegally make the drug...) results in Americans subsidizing the other nations' drugs and/or the decision for drug companies to no longer research/develop new drugs or treatments (like has been done with vaccines and some AIDS drugs).

Pharmaceutical companies are under no legal or moral obligation to provide cheap cures for the world, you frigging dolt. If simpleminded kindergarten views of "fair" are forced upon drug companies, you will wind up removing any incentive for them to invest a years of research and hundreds of millions of dollars in developing new drugs.

The PhD's, MD's, chemists, molecular biologists, computer modeling folks, technicians/technologists, etc. who work for the companies understandably expect to get compensated for their years of work (and the time and money they invested in their own educations and training). The majority of drugs don't make it to market because of problems along the way: too hard to synthesize or keep stable, failure to work as expected in in vitro, animal, or human models, safety issues (including side effects not predicted originally), etc. The drugs that DO make it through all the phases of human trials and receive approval need to be priced in a way that not only reflects the manufacturing cost of the drug itself, but also all the work leading up to that point (including the failed spots along the way, since failures build upon the knowledge base that helped to develop the successful product). Whenever some dimwit tries to argue that it costs "X" for a factory to churn out a pill, so citizens should only have to pay "X + 10%," they completely ignore the TRUE costs of drug development.

Go ahead - let every nation grab "Big Pharma" by the balls and force price controls across the board, threatening to steal patents under "compulsory licensing." Yeah, THAT'LL encourage more research, more drugs and vaccines...

Idiot.

BTW, HIV genotyping for research and diagnostic purposes (e.g., determining mutations conferring drug resistance and then studying how those resistance mutations impact replication efficiency) is a bit more than "cleaning floors" in a medical facility. Then again, accuracy hasn't really ever been your strong suit.

Yours is a wholesale argument of pure Individualism (very Randian, don't be ashamed of it, it's a phase) is applied apparently to every sector of the economy, as though the "market" is some great entity in and of itself.

Individualism is good. Collectivism is bad. The free market is a good thing. Deal with it.

As for MY positions, go ahead, pick any one and try to actually refute it.

I did. The rest of your laundry list of paranoid rants merely demonstrates a serious need for medical intervention, both for schizophrenia and attention issues.

You do realize that NO ONE takes you seriously, right?

You do realize that you're considered a conspiracy nut with little or no grounding in reality, right?

[Goober McTuber]

You do realize that NO ONE takes you seriously, right?

You do realize that you're considered a conspiracy nut with little or no grounding in reality, right?

The answers are “no” and “no”. Nicky FOO believes he is fighting the good fight, and has no idea that everyone else sees him as an incoherent gibbering fucktard.

[Kierland]

Pharmaceutical companies are under no ... moral obligation to provide cheap cures for the world, you frigging dolt.

Wow!

The answers are “no” and “no”.

He does seem a bit loopy.

[Dinsdale]

Pharmaceutical companies are under no ... moral obligation to provide cheap cures for the world, you frigging dolt.

And if the US government would have kept their dirty, corrupt paws out of it, that's exactly what the pharmy companies would be doing.

Abolish the FDA(better wayyyyy late than never), and it would be a good start.

[BSmack]

You think business is any more efficient? Hailing from the land of Kodak and Xerox should have long ago disabused you of that notion.

Actually, I believe that business in general (free markets) is more efficient.

And therein lies the rub. Were we ever to have truly free markets, I would buy into your logic. However, the sad reality is that truly free markets are about as attainable as a utopian socialist state.

[Dinsdale]

Free markets dictate all. They ALWAYS prevail in the end.

All government regulation beyond the very basics has ever done is create a clusterfuck while postponing the inevitable, but are quite effective at lining some corrupt politicians' and businessmen's pockets along the way.


The pharmecutical industry would be an excellent example.

[BSmack]

Hmm. So government regulation makes free markets inefficient so the answer to improving efficiency is more government regulation?!?

Are you insane?

No. But you're a fucking retard if you think that governmental regulation is the only obstacle to free markets. Jay Gould and John D. Rockefeller out front should have told you that.

[Cuda]

Back to the subject at hand: Bush is not only a jackass, apparently he's a fucking pussy as well

http://www.charlotte.com/nation/story/263361.html

..."I fully understand that the enemy watches me, the Iraqis are watching me, the troops watch me, and the people watch me," he said. Yet, he said, "I do tears."

"I've got God's shoulder to cry on. And I cry a lot. I do a lot of crying in this job. I'll bet I've shed more tears than you can count, as president. I'll shed some tomorrow."...

So... you know the enemy is watching you, and you know the troops who look to you for leadership are looking, and so you ... cry like Guy_Fawkes the night the Glory Hole Bar burned down. Nice job, fuckbag

Impeach.

Chimpy.

NOW!

[LTS TRN 2]

Hmm. So government regulation makes free markets inefficient so the answer to improving efficiency is more government regulation?!?

Are you insane?

Wake the fuck up, clown. CRIMINALS like Cheney, Lay, Cunningham, Abramhoff, Pearle, Wolfowitz, Libby, Ney, Bush...

THESE make free markets inefficient. And they make America hated, and insolvent, and broke!!

Who are you defending...and why?

[Dinsdale]

Wake the fuck up, clown. CRIMINALS like Cheney, Lay, Cunningham, Abramhoff, Pearle, Wolfowitz, Libby, Ney, Bush...

THESE make free markets inefficient.

Moronic line of the day (and what a :SHOCKER: the source is).

The industries those criminals have made hey in are heavily regulated by the government, and may possibly be the worst examples of a "free market" you could have possibly come up with.


Are you really this fucking stupid (rhetorical question)? Oil, defense contracts, etc. ... THIS is what you think of as a "free market"?

I see your stupidity on the subject, this time, doesn't even stem from your lack of intelligence -- this time around, it's strictly a function of ignorance.


Tell you what -- start a company that specializes in building oil pipelines in the Middle East, and offer to do it for half of what everyone else(Halliburton) does... see how many government contracts you get.

[LTS TRN 2]

Dins, you're spinning in your own juice.

Look, a simple example of what I mean is seen in Cheney's blatant reluctance to impose federal regulations on the energy companies during the Rape of California in 2001. Using the standard mantra of "Free Market" ad naseum, he and Lay committed tremendous crimes. Got it?

[Dinsdale]

Didn't realize Cheney was resonsible for "imposing regulations."

And you're a fucking moron. The "rape of california" was BECAUSE of heavy government regulation. Once again, we have the umpteenth example of corruption removing competition, and the consumer getting screwed because of it, while the fatcats line their pockets.

If EVERYONE was free to A) generate electricity, and B) purchase electricity from whoever they pleased, the market would be balanced. If price gouging occurred, then it would force the consumer to REDUCE DEMAND.

Reducing demand would be beneficial to the consumer, to the environment, and in a lot of aspects of life. But with the government's dirty paws on it, the laws of supply and demand become skewed, and a free market and competition can never exist.



Fucking tard.

[LTS TRN 2]

Where do you come up with this crap? Are you a gold-member Dittohead?

Look, the simple fact is that in 1996 California, acting under the demented and astonishingly naive principles you are currently mouthing, DEREGULATED its energy markets. Okay? Any dispute?

In 2000 and 2001, Enron and its cohorts (Duke, etc) took advantage of this with blatant schemes which in their snickering taped phone conversations were given charming names like "Dark Star" and so forth.

When (presidential hopeful and frontrunner for '04) Gray Davis appealed to the federal governemnt for some necessary and totally appropriate regulations, Dick Cheney, acting with his shadow Minister of Energy, Ken Lay, basically said "fuck you!"

The Cheney cabal has gone on to much deeper and horrific international crimes, of course, and Ken Lay is dead, a disgraced criminal.

What the fuck is YOUR problem? I mean in accepting reality.

[LTS TRN 2]

Exactly. Deregulated enough to allow the FREE MARKET looters to rape the state of many billions of dollars. Thanks for stating the obvious.

[LTS TRN 2]

When you have Dick Cheney and Ken Lay staffing FERC with toadies, and then preaching a non-stop credo of unregulated "Free Markets," what you get is rolling blackouts, gross criminality, Ken Lay committing suicide in disgrace, and Cheney loosed upon the land, the most vile and dangerous criminal in this nation's history.

Who are you defending...and Why?

[LTS TRN 2]

So who are you defending..and why?

[Kierland]

Are you attempting to dispute his point or are you just intent on leaving snail trails about his ankles?

There is nothing to dispute. It is his moral compass. Unless he is a 4 year old kid I doubt it is changing anytime soon.

[Dr_Phibes]

There is nothing to dispute. It is his moral compass. Unless he is a 4 year old kid I doubt it is changing anytime soon.

Zing!

You're in for it now, he's got this great little tear-jerker about him helping kids with HIV.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

There is nothing to dispute. It is his moral compass.

My "moral compass"?!?!?

You have GOT to be frigging kidding me...

The individuals who have invested years of money, time, and effort to get their degrees (especially those with postgraduate degrees) rightfully expect to be paid -and paid WELL- for the YEARS they spend in developing new drugs. These folks have the rare combination of intelligence, training/education, and drive to work the long hours in research - and they know they are a hot commodity and deserve to be well-paid. The companies for whom they work not only have to pay the salaries of those people, but also have to pay for the reagents consumed and the machines purchased (or sometimes even developed) to research synthesize the drugs. The companies expect a good return on their investment, as do do the folks who own stock in those companies.

The folks who do biomedical research aren't frigging monks, you whiney little shithead. They are highly-educated people who rightfully demand and get good money to pay their bills (including student loans) and take care of their families. They don't do the work out of any overwhelming sense of bettering mankind, although helping fight diseases gives them a "warm fuzzy feeling" in addition to their nice paycheck. That doesn't make them selfish - it makes them normal human beings.

The whole notion that doctors or pharmaceutical companies "owe" you cheap, ready access to their services because YOU deem them a "right" ('cuz you waaaaaaant them...) is dimwitted kindergarten selfishness. One could just as easily argue that a car and internet service are also necessities in our modern world, so therefore you have a "right" to have them cheaply (or free, via government management) also.

No, the folks who need to have their "moral compasses" checked and a serious dose of reality are the sobbing, whiney little fucks like yourself that try to justify the theft of patents or immoral extortion of companies by governments in the name of "what's right" (a.k.a....I waaaaant them). Go ahead, force companies to lower their profits...which will then result in cutting salaries...which will then result in very educated, talented folks leaving the field for more lucrative endeavors and fewer pharmaceutical companies to make the drugs you want or need.

And it's a real frigging surprise that you have support from one of our resident nutjob socialists. Keep in mind that Phibes has a hard time claiming the high moral ground in anything, considering that he's a big booster of that delightful little hellhole called North Korea. Oh, and he's also on record as pooh-poohing the claims that Stalin was such a bad guy. Just the guy you want in your corner in a debate on morality....

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

The individuals who have invested years of money, time, and effort to get their degrees...

Hierarchical structures of rotten capitalism.

...for the YEARS they spend in developing new drugs.

How about when a university's research is sold to private corporations?
Where's the dividend?

These folks have the rare combination of intelligence, training/education, and drive to work the long hours in research...

Get a room already.

And it's a real frigging surprise that you have support from one of our resident nutjob socialists. Keep in mind that Phibes has a hard time claiming the high moral ground in anything, considering that he's a big booster of that delightful little hellhole called North Korea. Oh, and he's also on record as pooh-poohing the claims that Stalin was such a bad guy. Just the guy you want in your corner in a debate on morality....

Phibes is in your dome. Deeply so.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Phibes is in your dome. Deeply so.

What?

I tack a brief mention of him -responding to something he had said two days earlier about stuff I discussed in another post- on the end of a reply, and that constitutes him being "in my dome?"

Your bizarre man-crush for Phibes is damned creepy. I haven't seen one poster so shamelessly jock another since....well...ever. You remind me of that yippy little puppy in the old Looney Tunes/Warner Bros. cartoon who keeps bouncing around the bulldog gang leader, saying "You and me, we're pals, ain't we Spike...." in a high-pitched voice.

Phibes in not only in your dome, he's a photo hanging in your locker and probably on your nightstand.

[LTS TRN 2]

M-lab-bitch-rat, get the fuck on the train. Your played out rants are done.

Have you any idea as to the entirety of the Bush clan malignancy...the crimes--wake up!

REALLY

[LTS TRN 2]

Besides effectively shredding the constitution--wiretapping, suspending habeus corpus, and torturing kidnapped "suspects" in foreign countries (to avoid the obvious criminality)--there's the matter of starting a war of aggression on lies, smears, and intentional manipulation of (fake) intelligence.

And that's only in the past few years. Daddy Bush was up to his eyeballs in the Iran-Contra scandal--which, make no mistake, was a brazen crime against the American republic. Just because pardons were doled out to MANY of the convicted felons involved in no way alleviates GH Bush's direct role.

Going back further, Prescott Bush was a stone Nazi, working hand in glove with the Third Reich until he was forced to stop--so he could become a senator and groom Nixon, Ford, and thus the basic cabal still on the loose (Cheney, Rummy, et al)

The Bush clan is surely the most malignant political entity in this nation's history.

[Cuda]

Besides effectively shredding the constitution--wiretapping, suspending habeus corpus, and torturing kidnapped "suspects" in foreign countries (to avoid the obvious criminality)--there's the matter of starting a war of aggression on lies, smears, and intentional manipulation of (fake) intelligence.

So, according to you, he's done nothing Abraham Lincoln didn't do.

[LTS TRN 2]

So, according to you, he's done nothing Abraham Lincoln didn't do.

I've often pointed out Lincoln's ghastly actions and legacy. Especially the vicious assault upon the seceding South as mirrored by Saddam's gassing of the Kurds (who were also gassed by the British in 1925 during a similar demand for secession).

[Cuda]

I've often pointed out Lincoln's ghastly actions and legacy.

Link?

Especially the vicious assault upon the seceding South as mirrored by Saddam's gassing of the Kurds (who were also gassed by the British in 1925 during a similar demand for secession).

So... Lincoln was as bad as Saddam, although Saddam wasn't as bad as the Brits?

[LTS TRN 2]

Well, the North (Lincoln) attacked the South. Pretty simple.

As for Prescott Bush and his malignant clan, we notice you don't actually refute anything. Just the usual playground taunts, etc.