Mark,

You hit the nail directly on the head. The source of the left's hatred of the president is rooted in the 2000 defeat of their "chosen one", Al "I invented the Internet" Gore, then reinforced by the 2004 defeat of John "Three Purple Hearts, but never missed a day of duty" Kerry.

Although they posture about censure or impeachment, I do not think that removal from office is their goal. For that would make Vice-President Cheney the President and would cause a total Democrat meltdown. I think they are attempting to damage the GOP as much as they can so they can retake one or both Houses of Congress in 2006, then recapture the White House in 2008.

As their dis-loyalty to the nation becomes more and more evident, we must double our efforts to expose their true motivations and prevent them from ever regaining power. Or at least until rational liberals, who think of the nation first, retake the Democrat Party.

This has got to me the most ironic piece of a projection by an unabashed Bush apologist that I've ever seen.

Mark,

Seriously...in a year you'll need to change the name of your blog anyway since the pres will be gone (either impeachment or suicide I'm guessing. Possibly both) . Let's start thinking of some alternate names.

How about something simple?
Conservative Apologist...that name will be useful for decades to come.

Or something a little longer but more explanatory?

Angry older white guys with funny convoluted explanations for conservative ineptitude. or AOWGFCECI

Conservatives Helping Inept Cronyism Kapitlist Enduring Non-ending Humiliation As White Guy Kooks (Chickenhawk)

A-10,

I think Cheney, Hastert, Stevens, Rice, Snow, Rumsfeld and Gonzoles all have impeachment offenses hanging over them next fall.....so that means the Secretary of Agriculture will be president. That spot is vacant......

All of this is about Bill and Hillary Clinton!

Let’s start with Bill, he was impeached and he was a scandalous President and he did a miserable job on national security.

He wants Bush to utterly fail because then everyone will go back to Bill and say, “Boy, Clinton wasn’t as bad as Bush”.

Then Hillary, if the American people get wind of the fact that Bill was so bad on national defense; they will have an enormous doubt in electing her as President.

Everyone who is a past Clintonite, has incredible loyalty to Bill and Hillary. They will do anything to bring down Bush.

What is now the time to do is – President Bush must thoroughly and completely distance himself from the Clintons, bring to justice those who are committing crimes, and loudly proclaim the truth about the Clinton’s period.

muirgeo: Did you ever step back and take a good, hard look in the mirror just to see the sheer hatred you convey in your posts? Is it any wonder why there has been no Democratic candidate for President who hasn't received a majority of votes in 30 years? Yes, the last guy was Jimmy Carter.
It's because you HATE. It's because you want everything to tie in to the pullout YOUR PARTY engineered in Vietnam.
Everything you say is geared toward impeachment of everyone in the Bush Administration. Your playbook of withdraw, tax and tax more is 40 years old and is DEAD.
You have two choices: you can continue to stick your head in the sand and your a** in the air, and don't forget the Vaseline 'cause the Islamofascists will be lining up for you all!
Or you can grow up and think of your country again.
Your choice.

"It's because you HATE."

Macker: it sure is ironic that you use this explanaton. If you take a second to read some of the posts on this blog, I think you will find plenty of hate on both sides. Hate is just constructive criticism depending on which side of the argument you are on.

And what binds the Republican Party together? Why hate of course! In particular, hate of the terrorist, aka Islamofascists.

I think we all need to step back and rethink our positions on the issues and decide what is based on hate and what is based on sound reason.

The one thing that stands out as a real failure of this administration is the extreme devisiveness that has been created in this country. And one of Bush's campaign slogans involved his ability to bring people together.

And that is just constructive criticism folks.

Deleted - Off Topic

Mark, this is nothing new. Its always been party before country with the Democrats. Since FDR's RAW DEAL, the Democrat Party has always been about moving this country towards socialism, and manipulating what our founding father's had in mind for this great nation.

As Mark so clearly pointed out, it's people like muirgeo, Barneyg2000, SickOfLies, etc. who are absolutely refusing to grow up. They'd rather stand on the sidelines - because that's clearly where they are - and throw rocks at the people like our President who are trying to move this nation forward, than swallow their pride from 2000 and 2004 and come together in common purpose for our common future.

Their only purpose is to obstruct. When one of their operatives - like Mary McCarthy - does damage to our national interest, you can count on them to cheer them on and jeer at all things Republicrat. Each poll showing lower approval number for the President or the GOP is like manna from heaven to them. They revel in every setback or defeat for the President, becoming wildly agitated and energized.

When things are accomplished, you can count on them to be there, whining and wailing about how they are "patriotically dissenting." All the while, they taunt his supporters here and everywhere else they are able. They are shameful, offering nothing of substance except withering, misplaced, hostile criticism. They criticize because they can, not because they feel that the need to. Yet, it is apparent to me that they don't feel as if they need to offer any alternatives to the American public. They are content to just sit back and tell everyone how everything is going wrong, this country (and Conservative GOPs in particular) sucks, and how Bush is Hitler, etc., etc., etc.

This nation is heading in a direction where the polarization may not be able to be reversed. Their rage, their hatred, their animus to the rest of the country is driving them further and further from the base of common good that has until recently in our history, been the starting point for American politics.

They actively cheer disloyal and disingenuous speech from their so-called leaders, men and women whose bankrupt policies offer a gloomy future for this nation. Again, they and their "leaders" offer nothing of substance as an alternative.

Although I am loathe to distill my impression of the Dems down to a single, snappy motto, I feel compelled to at this point. I know that there are rational Dems out there. But why they won't speak up is beyond me. I don't want to paint the entire Demublican party with one broad brush, but given the culture and strategy so evident in the "leadership" of their party, I think that the following sums it up nicely:

"Democrats: The culture of subversion."

And our President and Commander-In-Chief and the GOP controlled Congress are doing the best they can - DESPITE the rock-throwing imbeciles. I just listened to the President's speech to the Foundation for Renewable Energy (Renewable Fuel?) this morning and found much of what he proposes to be in our country's long-term interest. He is clearly embarking upon a path toward energy-independence, away from the fossil fuels upon which we have depended for too long. So much for the "tied at the hip to the oil industry" President that we've all heard so much about from the opposition...

Although it is still too early to tell, I'm willing to bet that the drive-by media and the doomsday Dems will be coming out to whine about how it's not enough, it's the wrong approach, he's beholden to some corporate lobby, etc., etc., etc.

The record on this country's energy policy is clear. Almost all of the Dems refused to support the energy bill just recently passed. They will fight tooth and nail to make sure that we're stuck in this quagmire of high fuel costs at least up to the election this coming November. They think that is their ticket back to power.

They are shameful. And anyone who supports their cynical policy of sideline second-guessing is only helping to drive a wider wedge between the citizens of this country. Theirs is a failed and hollow path. They will wake up one day to see the errors of their ways. But will that day come to pass too late to make a difference and turn back to civil, honest, and meaningful discourse?

muirgeo,

I have to agree with others on this thread - you really are entirely hate filled. For the love of God, please let go of your hatred...

Ash,

Well, its a nice dodge - but it doesn't even begin to answer why all these Clintonites have been found undermining tbe Bush Administration from the inside...I suspect you on the left haven't received your talking points on this subject, yet.

This latest deal about the MOLE from the CIA shows the true colors of the liberl Democrats and thir goal of getting back into power at any cost.As a young man growing up I or no one else would of thought our country would sink to this level the only thing left would be to turn on the news and hear that a lib nut straped on a bomb and blew a national tresure.

For the love of God, please let go of your hatred...

Take your own advice, Mark, then maybe you'd gain a shred of credibility. Just a shred, though--you'd still have to work on separating belief from fact, among other things, but at least it'd be a start.

Mark

If, what you say about Clintonites undermining the Bush Administration from the inside, is true; could it be that when they see the country being flushed down the toilet, they might be compelled to do something about it?

I fear that the policy of the democrats putting thir country way down on thir list has already hurt us to the point that we are the last country you would want to trust to keep your national security and who would want to put thir blood on the line either for or with a country that does not have winning as the first choice. I truely belive that democrat leaders will stop at nonthing to regain power as you see each day makeing points on our young dead is a acepted practise whats next bringing in human bombers.

Mark you are right on target. CIA is skilled in how to topple governments. Bad apples, giving faulty intelligence while at the same time topple the US government.

When can treason against the US become a crime? If you try to topple our government, and the press wins prizes for the stories, does that negate the treasonous acts?

During a time of war, these acts are more than despicable and damaging to the US and our troops. Shall treason be tolerated because the party out of power sees them as a political advantage and just ignores the damage done to the US and our troops?

One option is to have a total flush in the CIA of everyone who worked in prior administrations. Like you said Bush tried to work with them, but the results are clearly not what he thought he should get. Once an entire agency as powerful as the CIA is infested with so many ‘undesirables’ maybe it’s time to treat it as a political agency, and clean house with every change in leadership. Just like changing the oil in your car is the only way to get rid of some engine damaging crud.

The cast of characters that seem to rise up, and appear to be in cahoots with each other is just amazing. The missing pieces of the puzzle will be revealed soon, and the answers to a lot of old questions. Reality TV should learn from these shenanigans that political events are the dirtiest of all and also the deadliest of all.

I vote for wartime traitors to be shot after receiving a fair trial.

Can politics be treason?

"you on the left haven't received your talking points on this subject, yet.

Ironically enough, judging on the number of times this phrase (talking points) has been used on your blog by your supporters and yourself---THIS MUST BE A RIGHT TALKING POINT!!!!!

See the humor?

Actually Mark, Mary McCarthy was somewhat notorious for the personal letter she sent President Bill Clinton. The letter criticize how weak the intelligence was that led to the cruise missle strike on Sudan's pharmaceutical plant that was suspected of producing chemical warfare agents.

So her recent action (if true, although that is still in doubt) seems less partisan than altruistic. She just may be that rarity in todays polarized country (thanks Mr. Bush)-- honestly concerned about the right thing.

It seems to me that you are the one doing the dodging-- what about the issue of illegal prisons in Eastern Europe? These are illegal and a violation of the treaty we signed.

Can politics be treason?

You tell me, dl. Just remember it is beyond a doubt that W. leaked information for political purposes. Do you really want to execute a President?

I absolutely agree that I hate the people who I see as selling out my country to the highest bidder, getting our soldiers killed in an unnecessary war that only benefits the lowly war profiteering scum and I hate those who would destroy the beauty of this country for personal profit, I hate those who abuse their power and the trust of the American people to enrich themselves and their donors.....I hate because I LOVE MY COUNTRY and can't stand to see it so abused by those in power who simply want more power and deceive people as being Christian and Patriotic when indeed they are nothing but cowards, whores and chicken hawks.

PS;

Mark I think you stole my line, "Party befor country". I bet I coined that on your blog before you.

The CIA screwed this one up. They shoulda' sent her on a "secret mission" to one of those prisons. America would be better off if her face shows up on a milk carton.

She's just another treasonous whore left over from the Clinton administration.

Ash...how can Bush bring us together when there is a wild-eyed contingent comparing him to Hitler, calling him names, making up lies about every aspect of his administration, and generally sneering at everything he says and does and tries to do?

He can't do it alone. And if you are honest, you will admit that there is absolutely nothing he could ever do to overcome this blind and irrational loathing.

Do you think that Air America is conducive to mending the divisiveness in this country?

This country is facing such immense problems in the next few years, we need nothing more than a citizenship willing and able to set aside personal politics so we can have rational discussions on the real issues and search for rational solutions to real problems.

Conservatives are trying. We are calling the President on things we think he is doing wrong. We are having conversations about how to approach important issues.

Tell me---and this is a genuine question, a genuine request for information--what do you think the Left is doing along these lines? What are YOU doing? I mean actually DOING, along the lines of developing plans to deal with problems. Because, quite honestly, all I see is people sitting by the side of the road with buckets of rocks to throw at those who are actually trying to work on solutions. If I am wrong, please correct me.

Because, quite simply, all we see is attacks and negativism. WE see knee-jerk rejection of any plan or idea that comes from the right. We see muirgeo going on about unnamed "impeachment ofenses"---like what? We see a slavish addiction to the Politics of Hate. We see wild accusations of "crimes"---but nothing to back them up.

We see strange things we can't understand. On one hand, we see accusations of the President "lying" to Congress, though we all know he said what was accepted to be true. But at the same time we see your party thinking of nominating, for the office of President, a man who has admitted to lying, under oath, to Congress---and not about things he really thought to be true, but about things he knew were not true.

And so on.

I think it false, as well as unfair, to blame the deviseness of the country on this administration. This President has tried to mend fences. He has reached across the aisle to many others would consider political enemies, in the most strident sense of the word. And he has been met with the most vicious back-stabbing, the most hateful attacks, imaginable.

When one party spends five years working on turning the country against the other party, it is dishonest to blame divisiveness on the second party.

If you are saying, Ash, that you are willing to set aside old prejudices and engage in honest and respectful dialogue about the problems we need to address, as a country, then welcome to the fold.

Believe it or not, I used the "bucket of rocks" example before dbogdan's post came up on my computer.

Conspiracy? Mind-meld? TALKING POINT???

Do you think that Air America is conducive to mending the divisiveness in this country?

One word: Rush. Hannity. O'Reilly.

We are calling the President on things we think he is doing wrong.

That's all I'm doing.

What are YOU doing? I mean actually DOING, along the lines of developing plans to deal with problems.

I bought a hybrid car that is getting 46 miles per gallon. I urge everyone to do this. I urge auto makers to give us more of these. I write automakers with this demand. I walk when I can. I ride my bicycle when I can.

I urge my community to expand public transportation.

I have reduced my consumption to a bare minimum. When I must buy something I purchase a quality product that lasts. Not some of the planned obsolescent junk you routinely find at say Walmart.

I argue for tolerance. I have read the Koran. It is used a lot like the Christian Bible.You can find rational for peace or aggression, love or intolerance in both. I don't blame Muslims or the Koran for our current situation. I blame the people on both sides that use their religion for personal motives.

I try to stay informed on the issues and vote accordingly.

Listen, I'm not perfect. I'm just like everyone else doing the best they can.

"She's just another treasonous whore left over from the Clinton administration."

Nice, Nebraska. With patriots like you I think most of us would take our chances with whores.

Ash

All of the things you are doing to help your country are commendable. Very sensible solutions and not one mention of an armed response or a nuculear missle attack. I only Wish more of your countrymen would follow your example. Your reputation in the World arena certainly would improve.

You tell me, dl. Just remember it is beyond a doubt that W. leaked information for political purposes. Do you really want to execute a President?

Posted by: Ash at April 25, 2006 01:08 PM

Nice try Ash. We've been through all this before, but you still don't understand. The President has the ultimate authority to classify and declassify information. That authority is not vested in Congress or the Judiciary Branch, but in the Executive Branch. If the President wants some information declassified and released to the press, he has that authority.

The authorized release of declassified information to the press is not a "leak", no matter how much you and your moonbat friends in the Democrat Party and the MSM want it to be. A "leak" is an unauthorized release of information. Thus, the President cannot be prosecuted for "leaking" declassified information from the NIE, since he had the ultimate authority in the declassification and release of the information.

Further. the release of the infomation was done to correct the dis-information and lies being told by Joe Wilson. Just about everything Wilson has said about his "mission" to Niger was a lie, except his recounting how he spent most of the time lounging around a pool, drinking.

He lied when he said his wife had nothing to do with him getting the assignment - he later admitted that she had had mention his African connections to her superiors. He lied when he said that the Iraqi's never inquired about obtaining yellowcake from Niger. He lied about his un-written report to the CIA. He lied about the forged documents.

President Bush authorized the release of information contained in the NIE to counter these lies. On one hand you accuse the administration of being too secretive, then you turn around and condemn the administration for releasing information. Which is it? Too secretive, or too forthcoming with information?

Now about the "issue of illegal prisons in Eastern Europe". The ones that the European Union Counter-terrorism Chief Gijs de Vries says there is no evidence of any illegal CIA activity? You speak so authoritatively on these illegal prisons that violated a treaty. Can you provide me with a link to the treaty that the are violating? Or a link that establishes them as being illegal? You see, just because you think they are illegal (if they in fact exist), does not make them illegal.

I do understand. Let me rephrase it. Releasing information for political gains.

U.S. law, 18 U.S. Code 2441, the War Crimes Act,

Google it yourself A-10, anyone who writes the lengthy posts you do has the time.

Bush's ultimate legacy will the that he could not catch the individual responsible for the September 11th tragedy.

And by the way, "He lied when he said his wife. I don't think you really want to go there as a Bush backer.

Hey everybody!

Ash can say whatever he wants to, now that he has shown us his ultimate moral superiority. Just like with Cindy Sheehan, no one can question him. After all, he drives A HYBRID!!

He argues for tolerance. He has read the Koran.

Now everybody just SHUT UP and worship what he says without any question just because he said it!!!

Ash,

I'm looking to buy a Hybrid. I applaud you for that. I applaud you for your alleged arguments for tolerance. So where is this tolerance that you allege to stand for? It certainly isn't with our Commander-In-Chief, any Republicrat that I can see, or anything that this nation is trying to do. Your posts are quite often hateful, intolerant, judgmental, and based on hearsay and speculation.

So you read the Koran. Big whoop! I guess it will come in handy when dhimmitude comes to the US of A. Just make sure you managed to convince the head-choppers that you're their friend before they come after you!

Oh - I forget! You can direct them to your posts here on BlogsForBush and they can see for themselves that you're in their corner....

Ash,

It is strange that you accept at face value the accusation that America has secret torture prisons, but can't accept at face value the accusation that a former Clinton staffer might have been leaking Bush Administration secrets to the Washington Post...I doubt your honesty here: you can't be that obtuse.

Ash,

You say it was the "release of information for political gain". I say it was the release of the information the administration was using to make its decision to enforce the UN Resolutions, as the Authorization of the Use of Military Force proscribed, to counter the lies being spread by Joe Wilson.

Sorry, Ash, I don't see anywhere in U.S. law, 18 U.S. Code 2441, the War Crimes Act, where it is illegal to detain and interrogate terrorists. I'm assuming your sending me on a wild goose chase was to imply that the Geneva Conventions have been violated by us capturing, detaining, and interrogating illegal combatants, who are not considered prisoners of war in that they do not meet the standards as set out in Article 4 of the Conventions. They do not comply with the following conditions:

(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Sorry to disappoint you, but you still haven't proven that if the prisons existed, they are illegal.

And what is "And by the way, 'He lied when he said his wife.' I don't think you really want to go there as a Bush backer" supposed to imply?

Muirgeo,

You hate because you love? Well, that would be a typical leftwing formulation.

I, on the other hand, don't hate anyone...

Since my comments are being censured here, I am removing my link tot he site and will not visit here again.

I am a loyal conservative that is troubled witht he direction our President has taken.

When you do not allow unfettered debate, you turn yourself into another version of the MSM.

Goodbye.

Mark, Matt!

jaybo sez his comments were "censured," and that he won't be coming back again. I do see where an earlier post was deleted due to being "off topic," but that's not "censuring," is it?

My experience here is that only rarely does anyone's comments get deleted or censored. Even in those instances, you notify the readers as to the reason you took the action that you did.

But now, my curiousity has been piqued. What was so "off-topic" that you deleted the post in question? I can't imagine how offensive or off-topic it could be to make you take this extraordinary action. Surely, given the tone and temper of many of the posts here, you give a wide leeway to the participants to say their piece as they see fit.

My curiousity would be satiated if you "released" the "censured" post in question. That way, we could all decide if it's "off topic" or not. I respect your ultimate responsibility and authority in this matter.

Thanks in advance!

dbogdan, I can't tell you what the comment in question said, as I personally did not remove it, and no evidence has been left to indicate what was written. However, I can tell you that after cross referencing both jaybo's username and IP address that only one comment, the aforementioned one, since 2004 was ever removed for being off topic. No other comments were denied publication or otherwise deleted.

Is that censorship? Of course not. We reserve the right to establish a comment policy and enforce it. Most blogs do such, and quite honestly, I think B4B does a much better job of allowing different points of view than any liberal blog I've ever been on.

I, on the other hand, don't hate anyone...

Let's see, claiming "the left" has been wrong since the 18th century, claiming people who speak against the war in Iraq are treasonous, claiming anybody who opposes Bush is "deranged" and/or "hateful," claiming people who oppose the war hate America, and generally projecting anything and everything you dislike onto half the population for the purpose of demonizing them is not hate.

Opposing Bush, however, is hate. Anybody who stands in vocal opposition to Bush is "overcome with hate," hates America, wants our military to be destroyed, etc.

Seriously, Noonan, do you not see the disconnect there? Do you not see how this leaves your credibility at nil? The simple fact is that you can't have it both ways. If what you say isn't hate, then neither is opposition to Bush's policies and/or pointing out where Bush's policies have failed.

Thanks, CO. It's nice to hear kind words occasionally. As you might notice I get reamed a lot here.

I don't bomb people as a first response!

Rush Limabaugh is the only one of the three conservatives who would even remotely qualify as a demogogue. But at least the information Rush gives is accurate. He does tend to go over it again and again, and try to stir up an emotional response to what he says, rather than an intellectual one. But he does not lie.

Hannity and O'Reilly may upset you because you do not like what they have to say, but they could not be less like Air America.

When Sean or Bill tells you something, the facts are there. Yes, they tell you how they feel about those facts. But they do not invent things.

Air America, on the other hand, is just one blatant lie after another. They are shameless. And the lies they tell are clearly designed only to instill a combination of fear and hatred into the hearts and minds of those foolish enough to listen.

It us Air America who has invented, and promoted, the "Bush-is-Hitler" theme. It is Air America who has come up with objective political discourse such as "blow-monkey-psuedo-Christian-chicken-hawk puppet". Nice. And I assume she eats out of that mouth.

A couple of weeks ago I caught Ranty in the middle of a rant that lasted at least as long as the five minutes or so I was willing to waste on her. Her education of the American public? That Bush is "trying" to and only "wants" to start World War Three, and she---Ranty, with sorrowful voice---only hopes there is someone left alive when it is over.

Rush and Bill and Sean are opinionated, but openly so. They present facts, and then tell you what they think of them Air America is the most vicious and manipulative form of media I have ever heard, the crudest demogoguery imaginable. They invent and twist and distort, and they tell you they are giving you the unvarnished truth.

Al Franken repeatedly quotes the Duelfer Report. Except he MISquotes the Duelfer Report. To back up any lie he feels like telling that particular moment, he just intones "It's in the Duelfer Report". Except no, it ISN'T in the Duelfer Report. On Joe Scarborough one night he calmly explained that there HAD, in fact, been WMD in Iraq---But Clinton bombed them into oblivion in his air raid of 1998. Scarborough was stunned. He kept saying "You can't really be saying that..." and ol' Al just sat there like sh** on a log and said yep, Bill took 'em all out---"it's in the Duelfer Report" When he had a kid on his show one day who had studied the Duelfer Report, he tried that crap with him, and the kid, obviouslsy a fan, had to keep saying "Well, SIR, I hate to keep contradicting you, but the Deulfer Report REALLY says..." At one point the kid said something about how, if Al had really READ the Deulfer Report, and Al blew up and said he HAD read it. And the kid, young but bold, said maybe Al had just read the selected parts the media had put out to support their own agendas. Al had a heart attack, and the hook came out. It was "Well, you're a fine young man, and I'm sure your parents are very proud of you..." and the kid was history.

While you are listening to them, try being a little more objective. When they tell you Bush is a criminal, wonder what laws he has broken. If they say he broke a certain law, check it out--to see if it happened at all, and to see if the law really was broken. Because they break the biggest law of journalism---they present their opinions as fact. And they lie.

A demagogue is not just someone who says things you don't want to hear. A demagogue is someone who tells you things that are not true, and tries to get you to suspend reason in favor of the emotional high you get when you get carried away by the rhetoric. And it is a high. It is a rush, to be an emotional part of an emotional moment with someone you have an emotional connection with.

"I doubt your honesty here: you can't be that obtuse."

Well Mark I am going to join Jaybo and leave this post. This is not the first time you have called me names. I expect it from keefer and dbog and the rest. But as moderator here I hold you to higher standards.

Especially since you just said "I, on the other hand, don't hate anyone...

Well words speak loudly and your statement was hate filled. So carry on with your echo chamber.

Goodbye

"While you are listening to them, try being a little more objective."

I could say the same thing to you about Hannity and O'Reilly.

Read my response to your "lecture" on economics.

I am not saying there is no room for hybrids. But I think some of the facts are being overlooked in the rush to declare hybrids the answer to the energy problem.

Did you do the math, and figure out how much the car costs now, how old it will be when it needs new batteries, how much those replacement batteries will cost, what the car will be worth at that time with/without the new batteries, and the cost to the environment of disposing of them? Will it be worth it to replace them, or will it make more economic sense to just scap the car and buy a new one?

On the other hand, my brother has a diesel-powered Jetta he drives on B-20---that is to say, diesel that is 20% biodeiesl---and he gets mileage in the 40-plus MPG range, better on the open road. He can run on B-100 when it becomes available, and has an engine that should get a lot of miles on it, not needing expensive new batteries to keep it going. And he has plenty of power.
.............

If Bush's "ultimate legacy will the that he could not catch the individual responsible for the September 11th tragedy" then Clinton's "ultimate legacy" will be that he had him and let him go?
....................

I gave you a chance. I took you at your word, that you were really interested in nonpartixan dialogue. But you are just interested in gotchas and regurgitating the AA pap that just makes you FEEL so good.

Feelers vs thinkers
Doers vx sneerers

Ding dong, ash is gone
Silly ash, prissy ash
Ding dong, the faker ash is gone!

Heigh ho the derry oh!
Sing it high, sing it low...
Ding dong, the silly ass is gone!

Rush and Bill and Sean are opinionated, but openly so. They present facts, and then tell you what they think of them Air America is the most vicious and manipulative form of media I have ever heard, the crudest demogoguery imaginable. They invent and twist and distort, and they tell you they are giving you the unvarnished truth.

The original point was your claim that Air America only contributes to division in this country, not unity, by attacking those with whom they disagree politically, and in response, you were presented with Rush, Bill, and Sean--all of whom contribute to division, not unity, in this country by attacking those with whom they disagree politically. I didn't see you address this point anywhere, which I assume means you conceded it. I hope you did--it would be a good step toward the honest discussion you say you want to have.

Also, Rush, Sean, and Bill lie, twist, distort, invent--all the stuff you claim Air America does (and note that I'm not claiming Air America doesn't do those things--of course they do those things) those guys do. It happens on both sides of the spectrum, you see, and again, if you would admit that, it would go a long way toward having an honest discussion. Honesty would demand that if you don't like dishonesty coming from the other side, you shouldn't like it from your side either, right?

Matt,

Thanks for following up on my query. I concur with your assertion, "...I think B4B does a much better job of allowing different points of view than any liberal blog I've ever been on." I would go one step further and take out the term "liberal" entirely, as I have been on other blogsites that are really authoritarian when it comes to dissent and disagreement - from both ends of the political spectrum.

And what about Ash? You stated that you doubted his honesty, and called him "obtuse." So, he got his panties in a wad and left the blogsite (for good?)?

Surely, I was under the impression that he could take it as well as dish it out. But my experience with liberals have been the opposite. I suspect that he felt overwhelmed by the number of coherent rebuttals to his various viewpoints, and threw in the towel. Too bad we couldn't have the same effect upon Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, Chuckie Schumer, etc. LOL!!!

I hope he gets over his temper tantrum and comes back sometime. It was informative and revealing to hear his point of view...

dbogdan

Perhaps you are not completely lost. If you can be informed and listen to another point of view, maybe there is still hope for you. Ash presented many intelligent posts and I hope he will return.

Thank you for letting me know that I'm "not completely lost." What would I have done without that endorsement?

I have consistently and deliberately listened to many opposing points of view - even when they sometimes make me grit my teeth. It doesn't mean that I necessarily agree with them. And when I disagree, I let that individual know. I may have been harsh at times. I admit to that. But that's the this - and other - blogsite is all about.

Ash presented many posts. I, too, hope he will return.

Well, Jaybo wanted to talk about immigration - which is fine and dandy and is a subject we bring up, oh, every other day or so...but this isn't an immigration thread...if he wants to be that sensitive because other people don't want to pay for him to spout off on whatever comes to mind, then that is his problem.

Ash,

I don't hate - I am commanded by God not to; and while I am a horribly imperfect human being, I do believe I've got the hate thing under firm control (or, more accurately, God has it under firm control through me)...but this does not mean I can't be blunt when it is required...and for you to take secret torture prisons at face value while disparaging the concept that a former Clintonite is a leaker...well, that is obtuse, and as you have shown yourself to be an intelligent commentor, I must therefore doubt your honesty in this instance...I think your over-arching desire to be anti-Bush in all things has clouded your judgement and led you in to dishonesty.

Mark

One question. If it was a Democrat in the White House, doing everything Bush has done, would you give him your full support?

Don't hold your breath...Ash et.al., will be back, they can't stay away..these debates are their life's blood!!!
If they spouted this crap out in the workplace..that is, if they work, at some point someone is going to smack them upside the head. this, after all, is safe.........and they get a lot of attention!

sees, etc...I DID address the claim that Rush, Bill, and Sean are in the same category as AA. I addressed it at length. I debunked the assertion.
Have you noticed how much time all three of them spend not in attacking Democrats but in going through the misstatements of the mainstream media and pointing out their biases and downright errors?

I gave several examples of Air America lies and incitements to hatred. Give me some from these guys. Because saying what you don't like to hear is a far cry from mounting a personal attack.

I have never heard anything as vile directed toward any Democrat as what routinely comes out of Air America---Bush tried to kill black people because he doesn't like them, Bush is trying to start World War Three, Bush is worse than Hitler, Bush is a criminal. Tell me what Bill or Rush or Sean have said that even comes close to that.

Those three men try to present the truth as an antidote to the poison spread by Air America. And if you don't see that Air America is an insidious toxic destructive force, then you probably believe Michael Moore makes documentaries. Or in "fake but accurate".

10,950+ days since the last Democrat got 50% + 1 votes for President.

Is it any wonder why

I, too, from time to time, force myself to listen to my local affiliate of Air America. The station broadcasts in such low power (must be about 50Watts), that I can only get it within a few miles of the station itself. That is, on a good night!

But I wouldn't worry too much about how much poison Air America spews. According to all the audience ratings I've seen, they've got all of a dozen listeners at any given time. That probably includes the friends and family of the show's host and staff and management to boot! The thing I like the most about listening, though is what happens between segments. Usually, with Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, or any of the other talk shows, when the segment ends, the commercials begin. They sure do fill the air time with commercials!

However... in between segments on Err America, there is usually either dead silence or some music of different varieties played. "Why is that?" I wondered to myself. Then I heard from either Rush or Sean Hannity that Err America actually PAYS ITS AFFILIATE STATIONS to run their programming. With Rush, Sean, and all other "reality-based" programming, the AFFILIATES PAY a fee to the syndicator either directly or through advertising revenue... Now what does that say about Err America, huh?

Either they are swimming in so much money that they feel compelled to spread it around (not likely), or they are so desperate for listeners that they actually pay the radio stations to run their programming, because no one wants to carry their programming otherwise. Of course, I suppose one could conceive that since they are so much more enlightened than the rest of society, they are willing to spread their word (and money) to the uninformed masses as a matter of noblesse oblige...

But one could also put lipstick on a pig and call it a cow. In the final analysis, it's still just a pig with lipstick!!!

But I don't spend too much time listening to the poison that they broadcast, since once I'm a few miles away, it fades out of range. What little I have heard was shocking and makes me wonder why the FCC doesn't fine the originators of the programming. In one segment lasting less than 10 minutes, I lost count of how many swear words were uttered by Mike McConnell. It was abysmal, but not unexpected. I've been spared the Ranty Rhodes experience...

They are full of anger, rage, and hatred. It's sad, but it's part of our political landscape. I grant you, there are plenty of things to feel angry and full of rage about, but the hatred thing is so in-your-face that it's frightening...

Canadian,

I do have the absolute fact that after I listened to President Clinton give his absurd speech justifying our intervention in Kosovo, I then went over to the old CNN Community boards and stoutly defended him against all comers. Patriotism required it - our men and women were going into harms way at the direction of the properly constituted authority of the United States, and they had a right to expect - and I had a duty to provide - 100% support for them to total victory as defined by that constituted authority. As I've said before, you don't get to pick and choose - if you live in a democratically governed society, then you are 100% responsible for every constitutionally directed action of that society. You don't get to say, "I don't like this President, so I will withold support from my country duirng this or that event". No; he's your President until such time as he is replaced by constitutional means.

This does not mean you slavishly follow whatever the goverment directs - but it does mean that you choose your opposition with care, and only direct it in such a manner as is likely to accrue to the overall benefit of the nation. It is at election time that we shall have at each other with gusto - between elections, we abide by the decision of the election.

I gave several examples of Air America lies and incitements to hatred. Give me some from these guys. Because saying what you don't like to hear is a far cry from mounting a personal attack.

Actually, you took the equivalence of Sean, Rush, and Bill to Air America into some diatribe about demagoguery without addressing the main point: All the parties named contribute to division rather than unity. Do you disagree with that point?

If you actually listen to your preferred pontificators and selectively filter out the hatred of people and ideas to the left of them, then there's really nothing I can do to help you. It happens every show without fail, and that was the point: You claim Air America is nothing but divisive drivel, but so are the guys you listen to. It's just that, well, they're your guys, so you'd prefer not to think of them in such terms.

I have never heard anything as vile directed toward any Democrat as what routinely comes out of Air America---Bush tried to kill black people because he doesn't like them, Bush is trying to start World War Three, Bush is worse than Hitler, Bush is a criminal. Tell me what Bill or Rush or Sean have said that even comes close to that.

Let's see, the left hates America, the left wants the terrorists to win, liberals are "sick," etc. (those things are said pretty much on a daily basis). Is Rush calling Hillary Clinton "Hitlery" and anybody who supports equality for women "femi-Nazis" somehow different from BusHitler? Is Sean referring to a peace protest as a "hate America march" somehow different from "Bush wants to start WWIII?" An objective person would say there's no difference--it's all just rabid partisan hackery that shouldn't be taken seriously.

Now here's your moment of truth, Almiranta, because I'd like to think that you're sincere in your desire for open, noncorrosive dialogue: Do you honestly believe that these things are indicative of truth, that saying these things doesn't contribute to partisan rancor, and that they are not the equivalent of the things said on Air America?

Be consistent now. If you simply want to dismiss them as "saying things you don't want to hear" without any further thought or substantiation, then what Air America does is no different--it's just saying things you don't want to hear. In for a penny, in for a pound, right?

“If, what you say about Clintonites undermining the Bush Administration from the inside, is true; could it be that when they see the country being flushed down the toilet, they might be compelled to do something about it? “
Posted by: Canadian Observer at April 25, 2006 12:21 PM

The problem CO with “do something about it” is whether you do that something legally or illegally. By using illegal means you then become an even worse problem than what you were trying to “fix”. Do you see the paradox that creates?

“Bush is wrong” so we’re going to use every means possible to bring him down. Who’s REALLY wrong here? For one, we can say those using illegal means to forward their agenda are absolutely wrong. If however the person claiming “Bush is wrong” used legal means to state this opinion / fact, EVERYONE could then see;
a) Why or how he’s wrong,
b) What problems arise from this wrong issue,
c) Whether or not the “wrong” deed has legal ramifications,
d) What should be done to correct the situation,
e) Etc, etc, etc…
Then we could have open debate, clarification and punishment if warranted as justified by law. By using illegal means to make your point not only do you jeopardize yourself you also jeopardize your agenda, all those associated with it and indirectly the credibility of the entire country.

If on the other hand your agenda is “personal”, then being “above board” would sure make it hard to hide that aspect and get “the people” behind you. That’s what seems to be the biggest problem with these attacks on the President. It has become vividly clear that those who oppose him will use ANY means to bring him down. No option is too low, too vile, too dishonest, too disgusting to try. All of this for their OWN benefit.

When these attempts are brought in the open (and eventually they will be) how do you think Middle America will take it? I think the average American is not so close minded to realize politics have a shady side to it. When that gray area is moved to the extreme as we’re seeing now, it will affect all of us in a severe and detrimental way.