A great choice!

I don't think he'll reach the legendary status of propoganda mouthpiece that McClellan achieved, but maybe with time he will come close.

I think Snow will be great. But who wrote the cited article? I am so tired of these casual assertions that are just stated as fact.
"...troubled White House..."

Every president has changes in his staff. "Troubled" reflects wishful thinking.

Maf

As opposed to say George Stephanopulos?

Hammer Time!!!! Have fun Tony while we all watch you grow old.

Good luck,Tony!

Don't let Helen Thomas goose you when your back is turned!

The good thing for Tony, however, is that no matter what, it will be a short stint as Press Secretary. I'm sure the press corp will do its best to grind him down, but he's a big boy and I believe he will give as good as he gets!

Snow is just what is needed to cool the hotheads in the WH press room.

Staff changes in the White House mean absolutely nothing anyway. It's not the people, but the policies that make the president unpopular. The only things that will bring his approval rating back up are capturing bin Laden or another terrorist attack.

Captain Ron stated:
"...The only things that will bring his approval rating back up are capturing bin Laden or another terrorist attack."

I agree!

And I wish to add to this concept that the only thing that will shake the liberals among us to awaken as to the true enemy will be another terrorist attack. I don't wish it upon this country. I loathe the possibility. However, it seems that nothing short of another horrific attack upon this nation will rouse the "patriotic dissenters" among us to the realization that George W. Bush is not the enemy. We have greater enemies who wish us ill. Why the leftists among us continue to bark and wail about this country's policies even as they are protected in their dissent is beyond me...

I pray that this country will be spared another hard lesson in realpolitik. But it seems that this is the only scenario that might shake up the leftists enough to join the mass of right-thinking people in defending our borders, our culture, and our way of life... Until then, I guess we'll have to bear the burden of the slings and arrows of discontent...

Good luck Tony! Until then, make sure you keep Helen Thomas on a very short leash!!

Good luck, Tony, dealing with the DBM wing of the DNC. Mark Levin did a parody yesterday, where Levin was the WH press secretary. It was great. Too bad they have to treat the Gregory's, Thomas', and Moran's with respect,all the while getting none in return. Of course, this is what endears them to mf and morongeo...

Tony Snow on President Bush.......apparently Bush has hired one of us Moonbats as his Press Secretary....should be fun!!!

– Bush has “lost control of the federal budget and cannot resist the temptation to stop raiding the public fisc.” [3/17/06]

– “George W. Bush and his colleagues have become not merely the custodians of the largest government in the history of humankind, but also exponents of its vigorous expansion.” [3/17/06]

– “President Bush distilled the essence of his presidency in this year’s State of the Union Address: brilliant foreign policy and listless domestic policy.” [2/3/06]

– “George Bush has become something of an embarrassment.” [11/11/05]

– Bush “has a habit of singing from the Political Correctness hymnal.” [10/7/05]

– “No president has looked this impotent this long when it comes to defending presidential powers and prerogatives.” [9/30/05]

– Bush “has given the impression that [he] is more eager to please than lead, and that political opponents can get their way if they simply dig in their heels and behave like petulant trust-fund brats, demanding money and favor — now!” [9/30/05]

– “When it comes to federal spending, George W. Bush is the boy who can’t say no. In each of his three years at the helm, the president has warned Congress to restrain its spending appetites, but so far nobody has pushed away from the table mainly because the president doesn’t seem to mean what he says.” [The Detroit News, 12/28/03]

– “The president doesn’t seem to give a rip about spending restraint.” [The Detroit News, 12/28/03]

– “Bush, for all his personal appeal, ultimately bolstered his detractors’ claims that he didn’t have the drive and work ethic to succeed.” [11/16/00]

– “Little in the character of demeanor of Al Gore or George Bush makes us say to ourselves: Now, this man is truly special! Little in our present peace and prosperity impels us to say: Give us a great man!” [8/25/00]

– “George W. Bush, meanwhile, talks of a pillowy America, full of niceness and goodwill. Bush has inherited his mother’s attractive feistiness, but he also got his father’s syntax. At one point last week, he stunned a friendly audience by barking out absurd and inappropriate words, like a soul tortured with Tourette’s.” [8/25/00]

– “He recently tried to dazzle reporters by discussing the vagaries of Congressional Budget Office economic forecasts, but his recitation of numbers proved so bewildering that not even his aides could produce a comprehensible translation. The English Language has become a minefield for the man, whose malaprops make him the political heir not of Ronald Reagan, but Norm Crosby.” [8/25/00]

– “On the policy side, he has become a classical dime-store Democrat. He gladly will shovel money into programs that enjoy undeserved prestige, such as Head Start. He seems to consider it mean-spirited to shut down programs that rip-off taxpayers and mislead supposed beneficiaries.” [8/25/00]

Tony Snow on President Bush. Looks like Bush has hired one of us Moonbats to be his Press Secretary......should be fun!

– Bush has “lost control of the federal budget and cannot resist the temptation to stop raiding the public fisc.” [3/17/06]

– “George W. Bush and his colleagues have become not merely the custodians of the largest government in the history of humankind, but also exponents of its vigorous expansion.” [3/17/06]

– “President Bush distilled the essence of his presidency in this year’s State of the Union Address: brilliant foreign policy and listless domestic policy.” [2/3/06]

– “George Bush has become something of an embarrassment.” [11/11/05]

– Bush “has a habit of singing from the Political Correctness hymnal.” [10/7/05]

– “No president has looked this impotent this long when it comes to defending presidential powers and prerogatives.” [9/30/05]

– Bush “has given the impression that [he] is more eager to please than lead, and that political opponents can get their way if they simply dig in their heels and behave like petulant trust-fund brats, demanding money and favor — now!” [9/30/05]

– “When it comes to federal spending, George W. Bush is the boy who can’t say no. In each of his three years at the helm, the president has warned Congress to restrain its spending appetites, but so far nobody has pushed away from the table mainly because the president doesn’t seem to mean what he says.” [The Detroit News, 12/28/03]

– “The president doesn’t seem to give a rip about spending restraint.” [The Detroit News, 12/28/03]

– “Bush, for all his personal appeal, ultimately bolstered his detractors’ claims that he didn’t have the drive and work ethic to succeed.” [11/16/00]

– “Little in the character of demeanor of Al Gore or George Bush makes us say to ourselves: Now, this man is truly special! Little in our present peace and prosperity impels us to say: Give us a great man!” [8/25/00]

– “George W. Bush, meanwhile, talks of a pillowy America, full of niceness and goodwill. Bush has inherited his mother’s attractive feistiness, but he also got his father’s syntax. At one point last week, he stunned a friendly audience by barking out absurd and inappropriate words, like a soul tortured with Tourette’s.” [8/25/00]

– “He recently tried to dazzle reporters by discussing the vagaries of Congressional Budget Office economic forecasts, but his recitation of numbers proved so bewildering that not even his aides could produce a comprehensible translation. The English Language has become a minefield for the man, whose malaprops make him the political heir not of Ronald Reagan, but Norm Crosby.” [8/25/00]

– “On the policy side, he has become a classical dime-store Democrat. He gladly will shovel money into programs that enjoy undeserved prestige, such as Head Start. He seems to consider it mean-spirited to shut down programs that rip-off taxpayers and mislead supposed beneficiaries.” [8/25/00]

dbogdan: "it seems that nothing short of another horrific attack upon this nation will rouse the "patriotic dissenters" among us to the realization that George W. Bush is not the enemy"

The great boast of Bush supporters is that there have been no further attacks since 9/11. Another terrorist attack would only give credence to those who claim that the "war on terror" is failing.

Parker points out better than I could that the Left feels they have Bush in a corner---no new attacks = no terrorist threat, while a new attack = Bush incompetence. In their teeny tiny little minds, creating a vast maze of negatives with no way out is actually an accomplishment.

Remember the old definition of 'chutzpah'? It was killing your mother and father, then throwing yourself on the mercy of the court because you were an orphan.

The Left has refined it. Now it is blocking every single effort to increase safety and security in our country, feeding sensitive information to the enemy, interfering with intelligence gathering, trying to keep the President distracted with their ankle-biting antics, assuring our enemies that they will provide aid and comfort to them as long as Bush is in office, and then crowing in delight when an attack finally comes.

murky makes another vital conservative point---two, actually.

One is that conservatives think for themselves. We think, analyze, discuss, dissent, and criticize. This is all based on understanding the basis of our philosophy, and having a philosophy based on reason instead of emotion.

The other is that Bush is not just interested in synchophants. He welcomes input, he doesn't need to surround himself with yes men.

Note that Snow, being a conservative, offered timely and relevant critiques of actual events. He did not invent things to bitch about, nor did he resort to name-calling. Take note, guys---THIS is how you offer opposing points of view if you want to be considered anything but a yipper. Oh, and it would be interesting to read the whole content of Snow's comments, not just eye-catching headlines.

One is that conservatives think for themselves. We think, analyze, discuss, dissent, and criticize. This is all based on understanding the basis of our philosophy, and having a philosophy based on reason instead of emotion.

Yes, intelligent design really involves a lot of reason. Believing a man rose from the dead doesn't involve any emotion, just reason. This really is hilarious.

He welcomes input, he doesn't need to surround himself with yes men.

People don't really believe this crap do they?

Blatent political partisanship never involves reason, only emotion.

Almiranta,
"Isn't it funny how when you give these guys the equvalent of a factual kneeing to the groin (actually here you've given multiple repeated knees to the groin like in the movie Dumb and Dumber I believe it was) then you don't here back from them.
I guess its hard to get up when you're in the fetal position barfing and in pain all at once. Yeah maybe that's what happened to" muirgeo.
April 22, 2006 05:53 PM

"no new attacks = no terrorist threat, while a new attack = Bush incompetence."

So true! I actually read in the comments on an old post here at B4B someone seriously stating that because the USSR crumbled, they were never a threat in the first place (obviously not the actual words, but definitely the point they were making). Of all the poorly reasoned comments I've seen on here, that one is certainly one of the most moronic of them all.

It's frightening to see such an attitude repeating itself.

"no new attacks = no terrorist threat, while a new attack = Bush incompetence."

So true! I actually read in the comments on an old post here at B4B someone seriously stating that because the USSR crumbled, they were never a threat in the first place (obviously not the actual words, but definitely the point they were making). Of all the poorly reasoned comments I've seen on here, that one is certainly one of the most moronic of them all.

It's frightening to see such an attitude repeating itself.

To be fair, LNC, the right has their own version of the same circular argument:

no new attacks = effective anti-terror strategy, while a new attack = terrorists are still exceedingly dangerous

Both arguments are poorly reasoned because they allow no way to prove the opposite. The technical term for it is "tautology".

It's another Brokeback Moment!

Is it possible that your disdain for conservatives is based on what you think of what you assume to be our relgious beliefs? Is it possible that you make your political decisions based on what you decide are the personal philosophies of those who have opposing political beliefs? I'd try harder to understand this, but it would mean going to a dark and ugly place.

I was speaking from a political perspective. Obviously. I was speaking of the conservative (political) pragmatism, which understands that no person or system is perfect, which chooses the systems and people most likely to accomplish what we hope will be accomplished but which does not mean giving up our right to be critical of those systems or those people.

You chose to completely overlook the fact that this was a comment on different political perspectives, and instead indulge in an ad hominem attack on Christianity.

What I find so interesting is that, while so scornful of what you call 'religion' you have in fact committed yourself to what is in fact a religion. You have made a commitment to a faith-based belief system, which demands of you unquestioning adherence to a rigid dogma.

When I was a smart-mouted teenager I wrote a school paper I called "And Man Created God---And He Created Him In His Own Image". My thesis was that man needs something to believe in, and so he creates, or discovers, a superior being to meet that need. But my real point was that man tends to imagine his Supreme Being as an entity which reflects his, the man's, true nature. So a kind man chooses to believe in a loving God, a harsh man in a vengeful God, and so on.

To some extent, I still believe that, because my life experience has shown me that you can tell what is in a man's heart by his choice of religion. A man who believes in a harsh and vengeful God, who punishes severely for any infraction, is usually like that himself.

So most Christians, who for the most part choose to believe in a God of love, understanding, patience, kindness, generosity, and forgiveness, are the kinds of people I like to be around. Especially those who feel a religious duty to try to emulate that kind of God.

And that is a long way of getting around to my perception of people like Brokeback, here. Because he has chosen a god of intolerance, hatred, spite, derision, and self-indulgence. He chooses not to call his belief system a religion, but he submits to its dogma with a fevered intensity, and he follows it blindly, in the face of reason or logic or simple fact. His sacraments are the Daily Kos and Air America. It may be a secular form of religion, if that is not too much of a contradiction in terms, but if you define religion as a belief system, Brokeback's form of radical liberalism certainly would qualify. Mean and scornful people don't have many places to go where those traits are tolerated, much less valued, and Ranty and Al and Jay and so on give them a place where they can feel at home. How nice that Brokeback has found a lair in which he can be with his own.

And this would explain why he could not tell the difference between a political comment and a religious one---to people like him, dogma IS politics. He simply cannot understand that to most of us, politics is a matter of reason, while religion is a matter of belief. He doesn't get it, that there is a difference. Or there should be.

"He welcomes input, he doesn't need to surround himself with yes men.

People don't really believe this crap do they?"

Yeah, they do---because it is true. You need to go back to Fellow Traveler "Doctor" muirgeo to see his lengthy cut and paste essay on how Tony Snow so often disagreed with the President, PRIOR to being named Press Secretary.

Just a bummer when facts clash with dogma, ain't it?

Wow, Almiranta took the bait on that one.

First, you seem to think you know a lot about me even though I have made just a handful of posts on this site. You are quite wrong in many places.

I was simply pointing out a lie of yours. Obviously it rang true or you would not post with such conviction afterwards. You really expect people to believe that your political beliefs are all based on reason and logic when you ignore reason and logic when it comes to your religion. If a person believes the illogical in one place, why should I assume that this is the only place they will do it?

Anyway, your initial statement was made to act like Democrats do not use reason ever and Republicans always use reason. Obviously an ignorant, partisan viewpoint of no substance. A statement not based on reason, but only on emotion. Funny how with the very same statement you are trying to say all republican thought is based on reason, you are actually not basing it on reason.

Your statement of Bush not surrounding himself with yes men is another statement based on emotion and not reason. It sounds good for you to say that, you would like to think your president is open minded and wants to hear dissenting views, but that really has not been the case. For the most part this president has surrounded himself with the closest of friends and had refused until very recently to take unscripted questions at his closed "town hall" meetings. So Tony Snow doesn't fit this mold you say, but he is only one person many years into Bush's service. Hardly the reason that would prove Bush does not surround himself with yes men. And anyway, Tony Snow agrees and supports the president on 99% of the issues out there. If you want to act like you use reason, then start using it.

I do have intolerance for liars, and you Almiranta are one. You have picked your side and will say anything to support your side. If you honestly believe that democrats are always wrong and republians are always right, then you will be caught lying trying to support that viewpoint many times in your life. The opposite holds true as well. There are many Democrats that have done the same thing and are liars just like you. While people like this are capable of using reason, a lot of their political viewpoints are emotionally based. A lot of your viewpoints are emotionally based, and that makes you a liar.

Logic and reason are not mutually exclusive from a leap of faith.

Broke, you claim to be a person of logic, and claim that that is the reason you don’t buy into the intelligent design argument, instead putting your faith in the theory of evolution. The evolution theory is based on the idea that similarities between species can be explained by common ancestry; the idea that all life sprang from a single cell being that grew more complex as the demands of nature and specialization altered the common line and thus new species with differing characteristics sprang.

You know that birds of the modern age share commonality with dinosaurs which is explained by a common ancestor in the Paleozoic era; one group moving off to extinction, the other flying in our skies today; neat, and orderly, nice for you.

However, if you learned anything in your 7th grade biology class you would know that there has never, (I’ll repeat myself NEVER) been one species that has given birth to another. In order for your theory to be fact, a house cat would have to give birth to a furry fish. At the same time, in another part of the house, another house cat would have to give birth to another furry fish and the two furry fishes would then have to reproduce to create this new species. And how does the house cat get pregnant with a furry fish? Well, since only cats can breed with cats it must have been divine intervention, twice. (There is, after all only one species of housecat.)

In biology, species cannot magically spawn new species. Almiranta knows horses, what happens when you breed your mare with a jack? You get a mule. A mule (new species) is sterile. At the DNA level, this is what always happens.

Therefore, Broke, you have emotionally attached yourself to a theory because you don’t have faith in another belief. You, sir are a liar.

In order for your theory to be fact

It appears that you do not even understand the meaning of a theory within the scientific world. If you truly want to try and make fun of evolution, you would call it a hypothesis. Please learn the basics of the scientific method before you try to lecture me on science.

There we go again, thinking (?) that name-calling is the same as political debate.

Of course, you need a Liberal Dictionary to engage in LibSpeak---a dictionary in which "lie" means "anything a lib does not want to hear".

I made a point, which is well illustrated right here on this blog, that conservatives, as I put it,
"......think for themselves. We think, analyze, discuss, dissent, and criticize. This is all based on understanding the basis of our philosophy, and having a philosophy based on reason instead of emotion."

Your response was to ridicule the religious beliefs of millions, ascribing these beliefs to all conservatives and then using that as "proof" that conservatives are not objective about politics.

I pointed out that politics and religion are two different critters, that one is a belief system and one is a philosophy. I also pointed out that the liberal fanaticism regarding Bush is much more like a belief system than a philosophy, as it clearly is not based on objective evaluation of fact but more on simple faith.

And for this I am called, repeatedly, a "liar". Good one. Boy, that Brokeback can sure debate.

But---to interject some of those pesky facts---

I usually use the term "liberal" to avoid insulting true Democrats. But I admit, this shows a bias on my part. I tend to think of Democrats as sincere, honest, well-meaning people who simply have a slightly different political philosophy than Republicans---more inclined to use taxes for social programs, for instance. So I usually use the more perjorative term "liberal" to describe the wild-eyed, emotion-based, virlulent hate-dominated subgroup of the party that tends to post on this blog.

As I have never said Democrats are always wrong
OR that Republicans are always right, does your claim that I said that make you a liar? Could be. As I said "... no person or system is perfect,.." it was clear that I never even implied that one party was always right and the other was always wrong. Liar?

You say "Anyway, your initial statement was made to act like Democrats do not use reason ever and Republicans always use reason." Can you understand how much easier this would be if you could just bring yourself to respond to what I ACTUALLY SAY instead of to what you project into what I say? I said CONSERVATIVES tend to think in certain ways---never mentioned Democrats. And I refuse to take responsibility for your paranoia.

Actually, that whole paragraph of yours is pretty convoluted and murky, but it clearly contains no actual reference to anything I actually said, so it doesn't matter. I'll just use it as an example of your inability to put together a coherent thought.

You ASSUME that to be a friend of Bush's, one has to be a yes man (or woman) so then you build on that assumption to conclude that if he is appointing friends he is appointing syncophants. But if the original assumption is false, then everything built on it is false. However, he has a history of respecting those who disagree with him, who can and do present opposing points of view. You may not agree with that take on him, but that is merely your opinion---it does not make me a liar. Even if I am wrong, I am only wrong.

Actually, BB, I think that what happened is that the comment about mean-spirited people choosing mean-spirited belief systems hit a nerve.

And, in typical lib fashion, your discomfort entitles you to attack, on a personal basis, anyone you can blame for the fact that you FEEL bad.

If you remember the story of the boy who cried wolf, words misused lose their meaning. The knee-jerk emotional reaction of libs to call every opinion they don't like a "LIE!!!!!!" is a perfect example of that.

Theory ~ hypothesis,

Is that your answer, diversion? Pathetic.

Btw, I'm a biologist.

One is that conservatives think for themselves. We think, analyze, discuss, dissent, and criticize. This is all based on understanding the basis of our philosophy, and having a philosophy based on reason instead of emotion.

I said CONSERVATIVES tend to think in certain ways---never mentioned Democrats.

Actually, you did not say "tend" to think and you were directly implicating Democrats with your "instead of emotion" comment. You are trying to make conservatives out to be the logical, rational people of the political spectrum while liberals are bleeding hearts. You have spoken nothing new here, conservatives have been repeating this for decades. But, it is still a lie. Almost every post of yours on this site is an attack on democrats (as is almost every post from Matt and Mark). You clearly believe that democrats and liberals can do no good. This is not a position based on reason, but rather on emotion. Do some liberals do the exact same thing? They sure do.

I believe that your posts on this site are entirely to prop up the party you have picked. They do contain reason and logic most of the time, but sometimes you spout something which is not true but makes your party look good (or not look bad in some cases). Mark does the same thing. He continues to tell everyone that the US has never tortured anyone, that Bush and company never promised a quick or cheap war in Iraq, etc. These statements, like yours about Bush and the yes men, have no basis in reality but to say the opposite would show a lack of loyalty to your party. But, instead of not saying anything, you say the opposite of reality to try and prop up your team even more. If I see it, I will call it out.

Rathaven - in scientific terms a theory and hypothesis are no where near the same thing. You are using the laymans usage of the word theory, not the scientific. Many opponents of evolution try to use this word theory as if it is a bad thing, but if someone understands the scientific method they know that it is not. For a hypothesis to become a theory it must have repeatable, demonstratable evidence of being true.

Broke, that’s crap; theory is scientific principle to explain phenomena. Hypothesis is theory that merits investigation. Did I mention I do this for a living?

You’re parsing words as you always do to avoid admitting you’re wrong; that is when you’re not outright lying. "Mark does the same thing. He continues to tell everyone that the US has never tortured anyone, that Bush and company never promised a quick or cheap war in Iraq, etc. These statements, like yours about Bush and the yes men, have no basis in reality "

You’re worse than a fraud, you’re a liberal.

Broke-with-truth,
I find it amusing that you throw around the “lie” accusation then support your contention with “I believe” and “you are trying,” as if your objective opinion is somehow more reliable than Almiranta’s.
The fact that Bush selected someone for Press Secretary who has had major disagreements with him in a most public forum speaks to the truth of Almiranta’s statements. While in support of your contention you cite some nebulous “Mark does the same thing …” while simultaneously arguing with Rathaven that hypothesis and theory are somehow different enough to disprove the point about evolution.
Your’s is nothing more than gut-level reactionary contrarianism; presenting unsubstantiated peripheral arguments of semantics rather than addressing the meat of the issue (either one.)
I don’t know if all liberals react from emotion rather than logic, but it is clear you do. And if I had to make a choice based of credibility, Almiranta gets the nod on logic and reason, and Rathaven has proven that you’re a word parsing hypocrite.

The fact that Bush selected someone for Press Secretary who has had major disagreements with him in a most public forum speaks to the truth of Almiranta’s statements.

One person in 6 six years who agrees with 99% of Bush's policies is proof? Pretty weak. Tony Snow does not like his level of spending and that is about it. This proves Almiranta point? One person who disagrees with one aspect of the president.

Almiranta uses some reason, but Almiranta also tried to side step the original issue by claiming religion and politics are separate issues. This is simply not the case with conservatives and even some liberals. A lot of conservatives proudly tell you (including Mark on this site) that some of their policy opinions stem from their religious beliefs. Do you deny the impact one's religion has on their political opinions especially when those individuals tell you their religion is the most important aspect of their life?

I pointed out some religious beliefs that are not grounded in facts and Almiranta responded with the claim that religion and politics are separate. Almiranta did not argue that those items were grounded in fact. But, Almiranta's argument that religion and politics are completely separate is not the case and therefore shows that conservative thought does not always involve reason.

Rathaven has proven that you’re a word parsing hypocrite.

I am not posting here to prove evolution as if that could be done in a blog post. I made a simple statement poking fun at intelligent design and someone responded with a couple of paragraphs which they believe completely dismisses evolutionary science. However, that individual believes a theory and hypothesis are basically the same thing which is completely wrong in scientific terms. Rathaven has proven he/she does not understand the basic principles of science.

Funny how it takes three of you to get nowhere.

Rathaven, here is a basic explanation of the scientific method:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Scientific_method

Take note of the first sentence of the second paragraph. Exactly what I said. Sorry.

Let's see. you go to Wikpedia for an explaination of science, and according to his profile, Rathaven is a Marine Biologist. Not much choice there.

You still didn't address the issue of why your belief in an provable theory is more viable than Almiranta's faith.

Oh, wait, now your going to argue there is a difference in faith and belief.

You're a fool. No sense in me arguing with a liberal fencepost.

Bane, are you saying my explanation of the scientific method is wrong? I did not go to Wikipedia for an explanation of science but instead to back up a point I was making. I believe actually providing sources to back up my point is more impressive than claiming I am something which no one on here could verify. Wikipedia is one of many sources I can find that say the same thing I stated originally. Rathaven is wrong, there is no way around it.

I don't really remember my belief vs Almiranta's faith as being the issue here. My point is that someone who does not need or use reason for religious beliefs in their life, and holds religion above all else, cannot claim that their political beliefs are always determined by reason.

As always, when you’re caught making a fool of yourself, you change the subject, and argue ancillary peripheral semantics. You are not worth one more minute of my time.

Kerry received deferments, that fact cannot be changed. He also joined the Navel Reserve to avoid Viet Nam, sucks to be him.

Mr. Bush, on the other hand volunteered to serve in Viet Nam. The military respect Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, they have no respect for liberal surrender monkeys like you.

Posted by: Bane of Liberals' Existence at April 20, 2006 06:17 PM

Of course Bane has the facts wrong, he is learning from the best liar of them all, Mr. Noonan. Bush wanted to be in Vietnam, no one promised a quick and cheap Iraq war, no one connected Saddam to 9/11, the US NEVER tortured anyone, etc

Looks like Noonan has a competitor for Iraqi Information Minister. .

Posted by: Brokeback at April 20, 2006 08:24 PM

Facts by their nature are facts. You insist on arguing facts, here they are;
Kerry petitioned for deferments while at Yale, that’s a fact. When his number came up he tried to get the draft board to give him a one-year extension to study in France, that’s a fact. When they refused he decided to enlist in the Navy Reserves. In 1966, according to his service record he was enlisted in the US Naval reserves, status “inactive.” Sucks to be him, after the reservists were called up he went to officer candidate school in Newport, Rhode Island seeking an officer’s commission in the Reserves.
He next found himself aboard the USS Gridley in 1967-68. Being at the bottom of the officer’s totem pole as a lt. JG, he discovered he could have a “command” if he were on a Swift boat, which at the time patrolled the Vietnam coast. Because North Vietnam didn’t have a Navy this was a cushy job with no danger involved. According to the Boston Globe, “Kerry also believed a swift boat assignment would keep him away from the frontlines of combat.”
After he was transferred to the swifts was when they were reassigned into the Mekong Rivers, suck to be him.

George Bush received high marks on his flight assessment in April 1971, “Lt. Bush is an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot,” wrote his commanding officer in the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron in Houston, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian. Bush “performed in an outstanding manner … a natural leader.” but he had been trained and was fully capable in an F-102, which was no longer being used in Vietnam. From 1968 through 1970 the F-102 that Lt. Bush flew was used in “Palace Alert”. Lt. Bush and another pilot named Fred Bradley inquired about being transferred into this unit asked for reassignment to Palace alert but were told by “MAJ Maurice Udell, that they were not yet qualified since they were still in training and did not have the 500 hours of flight experience required. Furthermore, ANG veteran COL William Campenni, who was a fellow pilot in the 111th FIS at the time, told the Washington Times that Palace Alert was winding down and not accepting new applicants.”

Bush was honorably discharged from the Air National Guard in October 1973 at the rank of first lieutenant. An ANG physical dated 15 May 1971 indicates that he had logged 625 flight hours by that time, and he ultimately completed 326 hours as pilot and 10 as co-pilot while serving with the 111th FIS in Texas. In the fall of 1973, Bush began coursework at the Harvard Business School where he received an MBA in 1975.

Posted by: Bane of Liberals' Existence at April 20, 2006 11:40 PM

Do you really think the president is so stupid that he didn't realize he was training on out dated equipment and would never have to go to Vietnam?
Posted by: Brokeback at April 21, 2006 08:51 AM

From an article by Col. John H Waumaugh Jr., SUSAF, (ret):
"During the Vietnam conflict, military pilot training was greatly expanded to accommodate the increased need for pilots. Thousands of pilots were trained during this conflict, primarily to support mission and pilot rotation requirements. F-105, F 4 fighter pilots, and the pilots of other combat aircraft were routinely rotated out of the combat theatre after completing their 100 combat missions. That meant that other pilots needed to be trained to take their place. As the Vietnam conflict began to phase down around 1971, there was a surplus of hundreds of pilots in the U.S. Military, for which there were relatively few flying jobs. Thus, the active duty force as well as ANG and Reserve forces could be very accommodating to those who wanted to pursue alternative career paths (such as Lt. Bush going to Harvard Business School). In fact, these sorts of administrative actions (early releases) helped alleviate the challenges facing the services of a pilot surplus. Also, commanders were lenient in allowing individuals to fulfill their service obligations in ways not involving flying duty. Such arrangements were coordinated at the unit level.
Just as Lt. Bush's supervisor released him from the ANG to go to Harvard, I released a pilot from the Air Force months early (when I was Commander of the 4442nd Tactical Control Group) so he could participate in the pilot hiring cycle of Delta Airlines. I could have held this pilot to the end of his service commitment but chose not to -- since letting him go early created no hardship to our unit. Rather, it gave a pilot (who had served his country well) an immediate opportunity for a future career. I point this fact out so that the public knows that Commanders have the prerogative to make decisions that take into consideration the needs of the Unit and the needs of an individual ready to make a career transition out of the service. Having been a Squadron Commander, I can tell you this -- we know the status of our assigned personnel all the time -- everyone is accounted for. We reported the status of all our squadron personnel daily to a higher level in our organization. Likewise, Lt. Bush's Squadron Commander of 30 plus years ago (Lt. Col. Killian, now deceased), would have known where Lt. Bush was or, at the very least, how to contact him should that have been necessary. The bottom line: Lt. Bush's documented Air National Guard service exceeded the requirements set forth in his Guard contract and Lt. Bush received an Honorable Discharge."
Posted by: Almiranta at April 21, 2006 01:31 PM

Wrong about what? You have proven nothing. You claim he volunteered for a program he was ineligible for and that was no longer even in existence. Do you honestly think the president was that stupid that he didn't understand any of these things? Do you think that little of the president's intelligence?
Does it count as "volunteering" if the program is being shut down and you don't qualify for it in the first place?
Posted by: Brokeback at April 21, 2006 01:19 PM

Not one fact wrong, still waiting for an apology.
Posted by: Bane of Liberals' Existence at April 21, 2006 02:16 PM

Well, I’ll take another minute. Brokeback you lying sack of sh*t! My post was an answer to your absurd premise that conservatives cannot base their ideals on logic and reason because they have faith as in a religion.
You wrote, “You really expect people to believe that your political beliefs are all based on reason and logic when you ignore reason and logic when it comes to your religion.”

I proved that you have faith in something that cannot be proven. After that you start arguing about the difference between hypothesis and theory, you f**ked up, moron!

Call me a liar? I don't think so, you infantile jerk.

I proved that you have faith in something that cannot be proven.

You honestly believe that two paragraphs proves evolution is wrong. You think quite highly of yourself.

My post was an answer to your absurd premise that conservatives cannot base their ideals on logic and reason because they have faith as in a religion.

Almiranta made the claim that conservatives always use reason and not emotion. I did not make that claim about liberals. I never said that conservatives cannot use any reason, but just showing that they do not always as Almiranta made it out to be. You quoted me but if you read the quote I said "are all based". I am saying not all are based on reason and not emotion. Some conservative principles are based on reason, some on emotion; that was my point from the beginning and it is correct. Are you saying this is not true?

The scientific method argument is completely separate from Almiranta's initial arguments. It is just funny how so many people who claim evolution is bogus never even understand how the scientific method works. Rathaven has proven this point beautifully. Thank you.

If someone wants to disprove evolution; they would have to use the scientific method and show why the demonstratable, repeatable evidence showing evolution to be true is wrong. If someone cannot understand how the scientific method works, then they cannot disprove evolution. We are dealing with science here and there are certain rules that must be followed before anyone can take you seriously.

Cannot be proven, not disproven, ignoramous.