Town Square

Post a New Topic

Cheney on Colin Powell: "I didn't know he was still a Republican"

Original post made by Sharon, Midtown, on May 10, 2009



Former Vice President Dick Cheney took an extraordinary public swipe at Colin Powell Sunday, questioning in a TV interview whether the former Bush administration secretary of state was even a Republican anymore......
A somewhat taken-aback Schieffer asked: "You think he's not a Republican?"

Cheney responded by pointing out that Powell had endorsed President Barack Obama last fall.

"I assume that that's some indication of his loyalty and his interest," Cheney said.Web Link


Fortunately General David Petraeus, is the new face and voice of the Republican Party.

Petraeus has consistently condemned the wimpy Powell doctrine since his days at West Point and Princeton and he has been proved correct.

David Petraeus in 2012 and onward.

Comments (94)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on May 10, 2009 at 11:46 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

The Republican Guard's survival after Powell stopped the killing on the Highway of Death provided the cadre that opposed Storm II.
After 8 years of Bush bashing, "extraordinary public swipe" is gratuitous.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by The Real Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 10, 2009 at 12:56 pm

I am sure Powell is not losing sleep over what Cheney had to say. Let us not forget that Powell served his country honorably in the military for many years, while Cheney could not be bothered to serve in the military. I find it disgraceful that a chicken hawk like Cheney is attacking Powell, but it is not surprising considering Cheney's arrogance and lack of accountability.
I am also surprised that a so-called veteran like Walter Wallis is siding with a draft dodger like Cheney. Wasn't it Bush senior, in his capacity as Commander-in_chief, who ordered a halt to the ground offensive in the Gulf War?
Sharon has anointed Petraeus as the "new face" of the Republican party--the question is will he follow the marching orders given to him by Limbaugh and his ilk.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anonymous
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 10, 2009 at 3:40 pm

I didn''t know Cheney and Limbaugh were still Americans.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on May 10, 2009 at 4:24 pm

Apparently the Republican Party wants to follow in the Communist Party's dust - color itself red, purge itself to an ideologically correct core, and slide into earned oblivion. That's fine with me. I'm enjoying the show.

But a functioning democracy needs a broadly based, coherent, principled opposition. Let's hope one comes along.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 10, 2009 at 4:51 pm



Cheney is not the future of the republican party, General David Petraeus, Mitt Romney, Condi Rice and Arnold S are.

Limbaugh is just an entertainer, all be it not as grossly obese and obnoxious as michael moore.

I do not understand why Obama feels so intimidated and frightened by Limbaugh.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Call a Spade a Spade
a resident of Fairmeadow
on May 10, 2009 at 6:43 pm

Of coure Powell is not a Republican!

Just because he calls himself one, as does David Brooks, the Maine Senators ( their names escape me) and until recently Specter, does not make them so!

Geez. Unless you want to start defining a Republican as someone who is actually against a REPUBLIC and for a CENTRAL GOVT, these people are RINOS ( Republican in Name only)

What is the big deal?

I believe in calling a spade a spade, or in this case, a Republican a Democrat ( and some Democrats, Socialist)..

Why is everyone afraid of simply stating what is true?

You all act as if Cheney had insulted Powell or something..what is up with that?

Have to say, I disagree with the underlying premise of Cheney's statement, assuming what he said has been accurately portrayed here. I don't define a Reublican by who she or he supports, but by what he or she believes is the best way for Government to function to make the best America possible.

You could put a name in front of me with an R behind it, like McCain, and if I voted against him, and for someone else, it wouldn't mean I wasn't a Republican. Frankly, McCain was NOT a Republican in virtually any sense of the word, and thus it is no great shock he lost. YOu can't run a Democrat-lite against a full Democrat and expect to win..there is nothing to compare the two in, so the pretty one will win.

If he had been a real Republican, he would have won. I am glad he lost, since he would have also destroyed the country, just a little slower, and yet further destroyed the Republican brand.

I am happy to wait for a real Republican to show up, and then vote for her ( or him)



 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on May 10, 2009 at 6:46 pm

"I do not understand why Obama feels so intimidated and frightened by Limbaugh."

Sharon,

Yes, I have wondered about this myself...until I realize that empty personalities strike out at their own deomons. His Emptiness is boxing at shadows.

I don't remember GWB being paranoid about Michael Moore or Oliver Stone or Al Franken...or most of Hollywood. Perhaps a mention here or there, but nothing like BHO's obsession with Limbaugh. Does Limbaugh have his number?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 10, 2009 at 7:00 pm

General David Petraeus knows how to win at home and abroad

"In counterinsurgency, people are not part of terrain; they are the terrain.
The battle is over "human terrain."
Conventional warfare is about gaining ground, taking more territory, and destroying your opponent's military power.
Counterinsurgency is about gaining human terrain, winning popular support, and preventing your opponent from winning popular support.

Counterinsurgency is a shift from the physical to the human terrain."

ACORN is now under Federal prosecution and the tide is turning.

See this about Obamas fear of Limbaugh, why is he so afraid?Web Link
very strange, but then narcissism is a strange pathology


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Cheney, the Ultimate Blowhard
a resident of another community
on May 10, 2009 at 7:09 pm

Let me respond on behalf of General Powell to Lord Voldemort Cheney, borrowing the famous phrase he used following Hurricane Katrina:
"Go f-- yourself!"


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 10, 2009 at 7:17 pm



Cheney is retired.

The POTUS or The Narcissist in Chief is fearful of an entertainer, what is going on here? this Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by OhlonePar
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on May 10, 2009 at 8:24 pm

Actually, Bush, not Obama, showed signs of classic Narcissist Personality Disorder. It explained both the charisma and the kind of mistakes he made.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by The Real Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 11, 2009 at 6:45 am

Hard to believe that Sharon, who in other threads, says she supports Obama, relentlessly attacks him in other threads. Hypocrisy or is it just the pot stirring that Sharon is so famous for.
Does Sharon provide any proof that Obama is "intimidated and frightened by Limbaugh"? No. Just pot stirring.
She also dredges up the whole ACORN issue--more pot stirring by Sharon. Then she claims that Obama is a narcissist? Any proof? hardly, juts more pot stirring by Sharon.
She claims that "Petraeus knows how to win at home and abroad"--any proof for those claims? No, just more pot stirring. furthermore she has anointed Petraeus as the next great coming for the republicans, though he is still a soldier, has not stated any plans to retire from the military nor has he stated that he would run as a republican if he did retire.
I am not sure what Sharon stands for,since she seems to be speaking out of both sides of her mouth. Based on her penchant for trying to stir up controversy on many threads, I think she has no real set of beliefs, just a never ending desire to make outrageous comments


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 11, 2009 at 7:12 am



Many people in the Valley are experiencing " buyers remorse" now that Obamas has revealed himself as a radical left wing class warrior.


"....the business community is alarmed by plans confirmed last week to close down the tax loophole which allows American multinationals to park hundreds of billions of dollars beyond the US tax man's reach in their overseas subsidiaries.

Under one of his tax reforms, companies based in the US would be required to pay US taxes on all their overseas earnings.

Among those affected by such changes would be some of Mr Obama's most powerful supporters in the election, such as Eric Schmidt,
Google's CEO, and other "Silicon Valley" executives whose profits are mostly made abroad.
They were taken aback when the President blasting companies for "shirking" their responsibilities by avoiding tax." Web Link

Obama suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD)Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by The Real Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 11, 2009 at 8:12 am

Sharon states:
"Many people in the Valley are experiencing " buyers remorse" now that Obamas has revealed himself as a radical left wing class warrior."

How many is many, Sharon? Do you have any proof to back up your claims?

Sharon also states:
"Obama suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder ".

Any proof for this claim? She does post a web link,but the first paragraph of that web link contains the following:

"Granted, only a qualified mental health diagnostician can determine whether someone suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) and this, following lengthy tests and personal interviews."

So the writer is not qualified and admits that NPD can only be diagnosed following tests and interviews. But that does not stop Sharon from making this her latest outrageous comment. Interesting coming from someone whos ays she supports Obama.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by The Real Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 11, 2009 at 8:13 am

By the way, I forgot to mention that none of Sharon's attacks on Obama are relevant to this thread--the thread is about Cheney's comments on Colin Powell. But, I guess, some people never miss an opportunity to stir the pot


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Ed
a resident of another community
on May 11, 2009 at 10:07 am

Ed Rollins is telling Cheney to shut up before he tears apart the Republican Party. They Democrats are loving this Republican civil war.

Web Link



 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on May 11, 2009 at 10:50 am

"I do not understand why Obama feels so intimidated and frightened by Limbaugh."

I think you're confusing Obama with Michael Steele, who recently challenged Limbaugh for leadership of the GOP and got sent home with his tail between his legs. Ed Rollins hasn't fared very well either.

Obama's been playing a cleverly subtle game with Limbaugh, setting him up as the voice of Republicanism to wedge the moderates out of the formerly grand ol' party in disgust. It's working - Obama's netted a senator and at least 200,000 Pennsylvanians.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on May 11, 2009 at 11:51 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

...and I still see nothing wrong or inaccurate about Cheney's statements.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by The Real Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 11, 2009 at 12:01 pm

Walter, like Cheney, has no respect or tolerance for opposing views. We already saw Cheney in action with his response to Sen Leahy and now his attack on a decorated soldier like Colin Powell.
Does anyone really care what a Chicken Hawk, like Cheney, has to say anymore? Walter must think that Cheney is a kindred spirit


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 11, 2009 at 12:08 pm


Watch the clip of Sykes at the Press Dinner,linked in my prior post
,
Watch Obama laughing as Sykes called Rush Limbaugh a traitor, drug-addict, a terrorist, and wished for him to die by kidney failure. It is well over the top of anything in the past at those silly dinners.
It did the President of the United States no good to join in at that crassness before the world.

So much for the healing and unity.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by The Real Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 11, 2009 at 12:15 pm

Oh, Sharon, once again we have an example of the Limbaugh acolytes who can dish it out, but cannot take it. Poor Limbaugh, he was made fun of by wanda sykes and Obama was laughing at it--how horrible. I guess when Palin and guiliani made fun of Obama and his work as a community organizer, as one example, and the drones at the RNC laughed hysterically that was okay? I also assume it is okay for Limbaugh to attack Obama on a daily basis--as you say so much for healing and unity.
Hypocrisy? that is Sharon's calling card
And Sharon, let me remind you once again that this thread deals with Cheney and his comments regarding Powell. Are you that desperate for a forum for your pot stirring?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 11, 2009 at 12:27 pm



There is world of difference between a jibe about " community organizing" and calling someone a traitor, a drug-addict, a terrorist, and wishing for them to die by kidney failure.

Obama found this hilarious, how narcissistic of him, what is with his obsession with talk radio? all those bitter people who offend his gross narcissism i guess


 +   Like this comment
Posted by crazy
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on May 11, 2009 at 12:45 pm

The Real Sharon,
It seems by you trying to nitpick other peoples arguments and opinions you have no tolerance to other peoples views. Look at yourself before making ridiculous statements


 +   Like this comment
Posted by The Real Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 11, 2009 at 1:28 pm

Crazy--thanks for your input. What do you find ridiculous about my statements? I am expressing my opinion, Sharon is expressing hers. Sorry that you think I have "no tolerance" for other people's views. Is disagreeing with someone or pointing out the folly of thier postings or the fact that they like to make only outrageous comments mean that I am showing "no tolerance" for their view? If so, then too bad. Learn to live with my comments.

What I find interesting in Sharon's last post is her comment that "calling someone a traitor, a drug-addict, a terrorist" is bad. Where was she when these charges were being leveled against Obama during the campaign last year? I guess it is okay when it is coming from the right-wing republican side.

Sharon's latest "hangup" is the term narcissism. She will beat that term to death in coming posts I am sure.

As I have stated before, people like Sharon and Crazy can dish it out, but they cannot take it.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Midtown
on May 11, 2009 at 2:11 pm

Per Paul: "Walter, like Cheney, has no respect or tolerance for opposing views. We already saw Cheney in action with his response to Sen Leahy and now his attack on a decorated soldier like Colin Powell."

My comment: I am still trying to figure out how calling Powell a Democrat, in effect, is being perceived as an attack, slam, insult etc by DEMOCRATS..

Please explain why ANY Democrat would be outraged by this?

Or am I being duped into thinking this is a serious post???

Per Real Sharon ".. "calling someone a traitor, a drug-addict, a terrorist" is bad. Where was she when these charges were being leveled against Obama during the campaign last year? I guess it is okay when it is coming from the right-wing republican side."

Um, RS, could you please find me one single candidate, elected or formerly elected Republican who said any of these things about Obama? I would love to condemn him or her if you can find one. A hint: you won't find one single one, anywhere..go try.



 +   Like this comment
Posted by The Real Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 11, 2009 at 2:30 pm

Perspective:

1) Web Link

2) Palin's continuous claim that Obama was hobnobbing with terrorists (you can split hairs on this one if you want, but I think her meaning was clear)

"My comment: I am still trying to figure out how calling Powell a Democrat, in effect, is being perceived as an attack, slam, insult etc by DEMOCRATS..'

Cheney never called Powell a democrat. Looks like you were duped, perspective


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on May 11, 2009 at 2:38 pm

"Per Paul: "Walter, like Cheney, has no respect or tolerance for opposing views. We already saw Cheney in action with his response to Sen Leahy and now his attack on a decorated soldier like Colin Powell.""

This is not my post, Perspec. Please try to get something, anything, right.

"My comment: I am still trying to figure out how calling Powell a Democrat, in effect, is being perceived as an attack, slam, insult etc by DEMOCRATS.. [sic] Please explain why ANY Democrat would be outraged by this?"

You really don't get it, do you? Look, if Dick Cheney, the #2 Republican behind Rush Limbaugh, calls another registered Republican a Democrat, it ain't meant as a compliment. Even the Republican Base can understand that.

Democrats are NOT outraged by this. They are delighted at the prospect of welcoming Colin Powell to the Democratic Party, the true Big Tent.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 11, 2009 at 2:43 pm



"The lawmaker, Representative Michele Bachmann of suburban Minneapolis-St. Paul, made the remarks to Chris Matthews on MSNBC's "Hardball," and cited Mr. Obama's ties to Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. and William Ayers, a founder of the radical group Weather Underground in the 1960s, whom she called "over-the-top anti-America.".

Wright is a racist anti American and Obamas pastor for 20+ years.

Ayers was a founder of a terrorist anti American cult and board member with Obama, associate of Obamas and benefactor of Obamas fund raising efforts.

In light of this reality Bachmanns comments and questions about where Obama stood made perfect sense.

If you want to know a ciphers character the first thing is find out who his friends are like Resko

"For years after Rezko befriended Obama in the early 1990s, he helped bankroll the politician's campaigns. Then, after Obama's election to the U.S. Senate, Rezko engaged him in private financial deals to improve their adjoining South Side properties.
Those arrangements became a source of lingering controversy after the Tribune first reported them in November 2006."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Danny
a resident of Crescent Park
on May 11, 2009 at 2:44 pm

Someone needs to put Cheney behind bars. The Republican Party just sickens me now. Nazi Germany anyone...? Why can't this greedy, trigger-happy group re-invent itself for a world that is more than just rich, white people? I have numerous Republican friends who are downright embarrassed these days.

Threads like this only serve to undermine a party that once included Abraham Lincoln, but now seems to spit in the face of everything Lincoln stood for.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Danny
a resident of Crescent Park
on May 11, 2009 at 2:48 pm

From Sharon: "Cheney is not the future of the republican party, General David Petraeus, Mitt Romney, Condi Rice and Arnold S are."

I'm surprised you have Arnold on this list "Sharon." If Republicans continue to support someone who believes marijuana should be legalized and gays should be treated equally, maybe we can all get along after all.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by The Real Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 11, 2009 at 2:52 pm

"Wright is a racist anti American and Obamas pastor for 20+ years."

Care to provide actual proof that he is anti-Ameerican?? Or does it just fit your scenario

"Ayers was a founder of a terrorist anti American cult and board member with Obama, associate of Obamas and benefactor of Obamas fund raising efforts."

This factoid has been bouncing around for more than a year or two. Palin tried using it at every opportunity and it did her no good. Most americans saw through it as a cynical smear tactic. Sharon still believes it obviously.

"In light of this reality Bachmanns comments and questions about where Obama stood made perfect sense."

Which reality? The Wright/Ayers/rezko fairy tale spun by the Sharons of the world?

"If you want to know a ciphers character the first thing is find out who his friends are like Resko"

Yawn.

I find interesting that Sharon claims to support Obama on some threads and attacks him on others? Does Sharon actually have any real set of beliefs or is she just having fun making outrageous statements?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 11, 2009 at 4:20 pm



At least the event is being reported accurately in the UK press

"What was Wanda Sykes thinking? Perhaps more to the point, what was President Barack Obama thinking when he laughed and smiled as the comedienne wished Rush Limbaugh dead?

Although the Left is reporting her White House Correspondents' Dinner speech as "taking shots" at Limbaugh and mocking everyone, that's a gross misrepresentation of what turned into a hateful and disgusting diatribe.
I was at the dinner...."Web Link


"Obama laughing when someone wishes Limbaugh dead? Hard to take from the man who promised a new era of civility and elevated debate in Washington.

Watch the video. What do you think?Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on May 11, 2009 at 6:28 pm

Awww can the faux PC, Sharon. The last thing Obama wants is Limbaugh dead. Who else could Obama point to as the head of the Republican Party that would drive so many people to the Democrats? Cheney wouldn't even come close.

Obama's probably even assigned a secret Secret Service detail to protect Limbaugh.

Learn to take a joke already.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 11, 2009 at 6:49 pm


Recall how McCain handled a member of his audience who claimed that Obama was, in fact, a Muslim.

McCain did not tolerate this for one minute, he stood up and clearly confronted the issue.

Contrast McCains honorable response with Obamas approval and laughter of what was hate speech and the trashing the memory of those slaughtered on 911 in NY, DC and Penn.

Wanda Sykes made "jokes" implicating Limbaugh in the 911 mass murder.
911 was not a joke, I was there and survived, many of my friends and coworkers did not, we still talk with their families, is that what you mean by PC?
Wishing someone dead of kidney disease is not a joke.

Obama laughed at all this garbage when he could have stopped it or at least showed a poker face, he did neither.

Buyers regret is rampant regarding the narcissist in chief, believe me or talk to some SV executives yourself.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by OhlonePar
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on May 11, 2009 at 6:51 pm

Paul,

Doesn't being able to take a joke require a sense of humor?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on May 11, 2009 at 7:35 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

I respect Powell for his combat service but retain the right to be critical, even of that. MacArthur, under whom I served, is a member of my p*** club, being one whose grave I will decorate should the occasion present. Powell admitted he was an affirmative action beneficiary, even though the equality of black soldiers was decided back in my service days, by Truman. Cheney remained in school because the Army wanted him to, and had the war continued would have been drafted and commissioned, unless his heart condition kept him out.
I show my respect for opposing views by debating them, not by trying to get them outlawed. As for my sense of humor, I never saw anything funny about the three stooges or Ralph Kramer's threat of spousal violence.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on May 11, 2009 at 8:06 pm

I suspect that Limbaugh is glowing in the spotlights. It could hardly be better for him. He already appears to be playing it perfectly, by saying very little. He will bide his time, probably, then let loose. Obamites are his best promoters.

Obama just doesn't get it. An empty personality cannot lead, because there is no there, there. He just smiles. Without a teleprompter, what can he say? He sat in a pew with a racist minister spewing forth, for twenty years and said nothing. Nothing is as nothing does.

Bottom line: Limbaugh gets it, but could care less. BHO just doesn't get it.

How about a nationwide TV special for charity with Obama and Limbaugh, face up, with no teleprompter? Just the two of them on stage, with two microphones, and no MC, for one hour?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 11, 2009 at 8:09 pm


General David Petraeus demolished colin powells views in his Princeton PhD dissertation,basically called him a girly man.

Meanwhile powell was busy outing Valerie Plame and trying to sabotage during his bosses administration.

Nobody trusts a traitor and powell is now a legacy in his own mind.
Good luck with that.

Obama can laugh at the slaughter of 911, what a sense of humor, Petraeus knows what he is doing and Obama will be a legend in his own mirrored mind after the the next popular vote.
The reason Obama won is because so many people passed on the election, the tape of his laughter at Wanda Sykes jokes about 911 will keep on, we gave him chances after Wright, but nothing has changed.
Hope has degraded into hype, the bloom is off the rose.
That the Europeans are the first to see this is interesting, they adored him, but they have been fooled before.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Observer
a resident of Midtown
on May 11, 2009 at 9:31 pm

Walter:
"As for my sense of humor, I never saw anything funny about the three stooges or Ralph Kramer's threat of spousal violence."

Now THAT explains a lot!

Here's my advice, Walt my man: Once the Governator makes pot legal, try some! It just might change you whole outlook on life. Next thing you know, you'll be watching Cheech and Chong movies, laughing your a$$ off!
Web Link



 +   Like this comment
Posted by The Real Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 12, 2009 at 6:43 am

Sharon/Gary et al--the Wanda Sykes?Limbaugh thing is a non-issue. It is not in the news. The only people keeping it alive are you guys.
Sharon's faux outrage is especially amusing, since in other threads she has said that she supports Obama. I think that she has no views whatsoever--she just makes outrageous statements in order to stir the pot.
I also really doubt Sharon's statement regarding Petraeus and Powell. Petraeus is a career soldier and I seriously doubt that he would call Powell a "girly man". But it seems like it is open season on a decorated military man like Powell, by the Sharons of the world, since he dared to support Obama.
What is despicable is that they are labeling Powell a traitor now!!!
I would like to see Sharon's military record and see how it stacks up with Powells. Shameful behavior by Sharon.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Shame on Walter
a resident of Stanford
on May 12, 2009 at 8:03 am

Walter Wallis is engaging in some interesting contortions in order to denigrate Colin Powell and support Dick Cheney. He intoduces the "affirmative action" issue--always a good talking point for right-wing reactionaries (BTW, where were these people with their "everyone should be treated equally" back in the 50's and 60's?).
Affirmative action is not an issue here. Powell rose to become the head of the Joint chiefs of Staff. Cheney could have joined the military at any time--he did not. instead he got 5 deferments and spent 6 years in college. he is a classic chicken hawk-- a man who avoided serving his country and now disparages those that have (Kerry, Powell etc).



 +   Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Midtown
on May 12, 2009 at 8:18 am

BTW, every time it comes up, I will respond.

Gays ARE treated equally already in marriage and every other regard. A man and a woman over the age of 18 who are not already married to others and not too close in the bloodlines can marry.

Gay relationships do not fit one of the criteria.

However, gay relationships have the protection of domestic partnerships, which straight relationships do not have access to. And, if gay advocates really wanted to help out gay relationships, they would concentrate on plugging the 2 gaps remaining that can not be currently plugged by domestic partner laws and/or by a good attorney...immigration status and social security benefits.

But, that is not the point of the whole thing, in reality.

Which is why we have this same silly argument repeatedly.

As for "where were these be people whither their "everyone should be treated equally" back in the 50's and 60's?" by SOW..

We were the Republicans who pushed through the equal voting rights and civil rights legislation as the Dems fought it..try reading a little history for WHO has been for equal rights. Don't buy into the current myth of who is on the correct side for individual liberty regardless of color. It is the same side that is STILL for equal opportunity for each and every citizen. We don't let our heads get confused between our belief in equal opportunity..and equal outcomes.

Now, back to the regularly scheduled programming.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by The Real Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 12, 2009 at 9:18 am

Since Sharon seems to be fixated on Wanda Sykes monologue. It is clear that Sharon is cherry picking comments and not presenting them in their proper context.

"Sykes called Rush Limbaugh a traitor:"
Yes, in response to Limbaugh hoping that Obama and the country fail.

"drug-addict":
Well, are you really going to argue that?


"a terrorist"
Yes, she said he could have been the 21st hijacker. So what.


, "and wished for him to die by kidney failure."
No, she did not. She stated in response to Limbaugh hoping that Obama fails, that Limbaugh's kidneys fail.

Sharon goes on to hysterically write:
"Although the Left is reporting her White House Correspondents' Dinner speech as "taking shots" at Limbaugh and mocking everyone, that's a gross misrepresentation of what turned into a hateful and disgusting diatribe."

Of course Sharon will find people who disliked Syke's performance. Sharon, of course, loves to throw around the terms "hateful", "disgusting" and "vile" in an attempt to stir up passion.


Sharon goes on to further hysterically write:
"Contrast McCains honorable response with Obamas approval and laughter of what was hate speech and the trashing the memory of those slaughtered on 911 in NY, DC and Penn.
Wanda Sykes made "jokes" implicating Limbaugh in the 911 mass murder.
911 was not a joke, I was there and survived, many of my friends and coworkers did not, we still talk with their families, is that what you mean by PC?
Wishing someone dead of kidney disease is not a joke.
Obama laughed at all this garbage when he could have stopped it or at least showed a poker face, he did neither. "

So now Sharon was at the Twin Towers on 9/11? really? Isn't that claim a little over the top even for you? Your faux outrage is just par for the course with you, Sharon.
I think you need to go back and watch the video again of Syke's presentation. It is clear that Sharon, Limbaugh and their acolytes can dish it out,but cannot take it. Too bad.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on May 12, 2009 at 9:55 am

"Meanwhile powell was busy outing Valerie Plame and trying to sabotage during his bosses administration."

Plame's outing had Cheney's fingerprints all over it, not Powell's. And didn't Bush pull Scooter Libby out of jail after he was convicted of purjury in the case? Apparently Bush didn't mind being sabotaged by his handlers.

"Doesn't being able to take a joke require a sense of humor?"

Yes, and a sense of humor requires an agile intelligence.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 12, 2009 at 10:12 am


The motivation for the special prosecutor was to find out who leaked that Plame was a CIA operative.
Richard Armitrage has admitted that he did it with the approval of his boss, Colin Powell.

General Petraeus pointed out how pathetic the Powell Doctrine was in his Princeton PhD dissertation and has demolished it since then.

The Wanda Sykes video and story has not gone away.
The issue is not the clown Limbaugh, the issue is Obamas incredible reaction to the vile diatribe.
Obama could have stopped it, ignored it or rejected it.
Instead he giggled and smirked, reminding everyone of his 20 yrs at the feet of Rev Wright
Traditionally at the press diner the POTUS make self effacing jokes.
Not the Narcissist in Chief


 +   Like this comment
Posted by The Real Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 12, 2009 at 10:28 am

Sharon is engaging once more in hysterical postings:

"Richard Armitrage has admitted that he did it with the approval of his boss, Colin Powell."

Really???
Web Link
" * 1 October 2003. As would be revealed in September 7, 2006,

He [Armitage] says he was reading Novak's newspaper column again, on Oct. 1, 2003, and "he [Novak] said he was told by a non-partisan gun slinger."
"I almost immediately called Secretary Powell and said, 'I'm sure that was me,'" Armitage says. Armitage immediately met with FBI agents investigating the leak."
"I told them that I was the inadvertent leak", Armitage says. He didn't get a lawyer, however....Armitage says he didn't come forward because "the special counsel, once he was appointed, asked me not to discuss this and I honored his request.""

Sharon is trying to besmirch the reputation of a dedictaed soldier because he dared to support Obama. She has even called him a traitor!!!


"General Petraeus pointed out how pathetic the Powell Doctrine was in his Princeton PhD dissertation and has demolished it since then."

I doubt that is what Petraeus did, considering that he is an honorable military man. Sharon fails to provide any proof for this continued assertion

"The Wanda Sykes video and story has not gone away.
The issue is not the clown Limbaugh, the issue is Obamas incredible reaction to the vile diatribe."

It never was a story to begin with, Sharon. Only for you and your kind. Notice the use of the word "vile" again--this term comes up anytime Sharon wants to, in a hysterical manner, express faux outrage.

"Obama could have stopped it, ignored it or rejected it.
Instead he giggled and smirked, reminding everyone of his 20 yrs at the feet of Rev Wright"

Yes, the Rev wright non-issue. Didn't make a dent during the election campaign. Completely non-relevant now.

Sharon also claims to be a 9/11 survivor. Has she no shame??


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Good Grief, Charlie Brown!
a resident of Midtown
on May 12, 2009 at 10:33 am

Sharon:

Still on Reverend Wright, I see.
And I guess that Chicago Professor (can't even remember his name) is still in play as well?

You (& your fellow die-hard [pun-intended] conservatives) remind me of those old Japanese soldiers found years later on a deserted Pacific Island, still thinking they were fighting WWII. At least they had an excuse (lack of contact with the real world). What's yours?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 12, 2009 at 10:45 am


I was in NYC on 911 ,as where millions of others, I was close to the WTC and we lost friends in Cantor Fitzgerald's New York City office at One WTC.

In Senator Obama's statement explaining his decision to vote against John Roberts's nomination to be Chief Justice he says
"While adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction will dispose of 95 percent of the cases that come before a court, so that both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95 percent of the cases — what matters on the Supreme Court is those 5 percent of cases that are truly difficult. In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon.
That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy......
in those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart."

Empathy? Heart?--- oh yea I see it now


 +   Like this comment
Posted by The Real Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 12, 2009 at 10:55 am

Now Sharon is changing her story--she is not really a survivor of 9/11 or is anyone who was not killed in 9/11 a survivor? She happened, according to her, be in NYC. She had, according to her, friends at Cantor Fitzgerald. She has been exposed as trying to utilize one of the greatest tragedies of our time to further her hysterical postings. Shame on Sharon.
Now she is ranting about Obama and his vote against Roberts for the Supreme Court. Have you no shame, Sharon???
Thisis not the first time that Sharon has invented things to try to justify her shameless attacks and pot stirring.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on May 12, 2009 at 12:35 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

"Posted by Shame on Walter, a resident of Stanford, 4 hours ago

Walter Wallis is engaging in some interesting contortions in order to denigrate Colin Powell and support Dick Cheney. He intoduces the "affirmative action" issue--always a good talking point for right-wing reactionaries (BTW, where were these people with their "everyone should be treated equally" back in the 50's and 60's?).
ONE OF THEM WAS IN THE WHITE HOUSE, WHERE HARRY ORDERED THE END OF RACIAL SEPARATION IN THE MILITARY. 3RD BATTALION OF OUR 9TH INFANTRY REGIMENT AND THE 503RD FA BN [CHARLIE RANGEL'S OUTFIT] WERE INTEGRATED ON THE BOAT GOING TO WAR. I WAS IN THE NAACP UNTIL AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WAS PROPOSED.
Affirmative action is not an issue here. Powell rose to become the head of the Joint chiefs of Staff. Cheney could have joined the military at any time--he did not. instead he got 5 deferments and spent 6 years in college. he is a classic chicken hawk-- a man who avoided serving his country and now disparages those that have (Kerry, Powell etc). CHENEY ARGUABLY DID SERVE HIS COUNTRY. MANY PATRIOTIC FOLK ENLISTED, ONLY TO BE ASSIGNED TO GO BACK TO COLLEGE AND GRADUATE. I HAVE ALREADY DENIGRATED POWELL, I GUESS I SWIFTBOATED KERRY. AT ANY RATE I FIND AMUSEMENT IN DEMOCRATS ATTACKING DRAFT DODGERS. AGAIN, ONLY REPUBLICANS ARE REQUIRED TO BE PATRIOTIC, JUST AS ONLY REPUBLICANS ARE OBLIGED TO BE MORAL.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Shame on Walter
a resident of Stanford
on May 12, 2009 at 12:52 pm

My, my, Walter, no need to shout

"CHENEY ARGUABLY DID SERVE HIS COUNTRY. MANY PATRIOTIC FOLK ENLISTED, ONLY TO BE ASSIGNED TO GO BACK TO COLLEGE AND GRADUATE."
As I said Walter is spinning and contorting to defend Cheney. Cheney could have deferred college and served in the military if he was so eager to serve his country. instaed he became a chicken hawk. haven't democrats been bashed for not serving in the army in past campaigns. I guess only republicans are allowed deferments, then they are still said tro be serving their country.

Web Link

Web Link
From the above link:
Recipients of draft deferments during the Vietnam War era. Note that some of these men enlisted in the armed forces despite a deferment.

" AT ANY RATE I FIND AMUSEMENT IN DEMOCRATS ATTACKING DRAFT DODGERS"
At least you admit that Cheney was a draft dodger, that is a good start. I guess you are also saying that no republicnas have ever dodged the draft either.

", ONLY REPUBLICANS ARE REQUIRED TO BE PATRIOTIC"
Only republicnas have chosen to define patriotism, in their own narrow terms, and then denigrate those that do not toe their line as being unpatriotic.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by OhlonePar
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on May 12, 2009 at 1:01 pm

So this is what's become of the right-wing--reduced to defending Rush Limbaugh from another entertainer 'cuz poor widdle Rush isn't tough enough to take it.

Man, Limbaugh's all you poor guys have got isn't it?

Loved Obama's Cheney joke, by the way.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on May 12, 2009 at 2:22 pm

"Sharon is trying to besmirch the reputation of a dedictaed soldier because he dared to support Obama. She has even called him a traitor!!!"

Indeed. The Repubs tolerated Powell while he was a good soldier, did what he was told, and kept quiet. Now he's realized who he was working for and what he was part of. He's asserting his principles. Repubs reflexively turn on and trash any of their own who do that, regardless how much a hero that person was the day before. Condi faces the same fate if she turns from the dark side.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on May 12, 2009 at 2:25 pm

"REPUBLICANS ARE OBLIGED TO BE MORAL"

ROTF


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 12, 2009 at 2:53 pm



Why is it that someone like Sykes can spew the most hateful garbage and be praised by the president yet Miss California nearly loses her crown by respectfully stating her opinion?


Powell was a traitor to his party, nobody trusts a traitor, look what happened to Specter-- lost his seniority despite the promises before his switch, he is lucky to have more than a tiny closet for an office.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Midtown
on May 12, 2009 at 2:59 pm

RS, no Rush did not hope that Obama and the country would fail, he hoped that Obama would fail so that the country could succeed. Sort of like the left hoping Bush would fail so that the country could succeed ( by their thinking). Big dif.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by The Real Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 12, 2009 at 3:03 pm

Once again, Sharon hysterically attacks Powell and labels him a traitor.
Why is Powell a traitor to his party? Is a republican forbidden from ever supporting a democrat? And if he does, is he labeled a traitor?
Is the so-called "big tent" so small that only one ideology or set of beliefs to be followed by all for fear of being labelled a traitor.
What does she mean by "someone like Sykes"? what is wrong with wanda sykes? What is Sharon implying about Ms Sykes? Ms Sykes said nothing different from the "garbage" that Limbaugh and others spew on a daily basis. as I have stated you can dish it out, but you cannot take it.
As for Ms California, are you sure you want to go there? And why are you once again twisting the truth? She almost lost her crown for lying to officials about pictures she had taken--she did not almost lose her crown for stating her opinion.
Clearly, Sharon has problems with the truth--not surprising that she previously claimed to be a 9/11 survivor.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Midtown
on May 12, 2009 at 3:06 pm

OP

This is not a defense of Rush, it is a condemnation of a POTUS with insufficient class to know when it is appropriate to laugh, and when it isn't.

As with what happened with Bill Clinton's effect on an entire generation of teens and sex( what is "is"?, "no, I did NOT have sex with that woman" "define sex") and their thinking concerning sex, fidelity, and truth telling...here we have another prime example of of POTUS leading by example as we are trying to teach our teens what is appropriate public humor and what is not.

Way to go Obama! Another fine, upstanding example for teens to emulate!! Another shining example of bipartisan respect for all Americans!

Gosh, can't wait for the next Republican POTUS to laugh at a joke about a left winger..gosh, how about Soros?.. being called a terrorist and being wished a horrible medical condition! I am sure that the press and liberals will defend that one, also.

How low will you defend before you stand up for decency? Or at least stand up for an end to hypocrisy!





 +   Like this comment
Posted by The Real Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 12, 2009 at 3:07 pm

Perspective:

Web Link
"At his closing speech at the CPAC conference, conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh doubled down on his widely-controversial claim that he wanted President Barack Obama to fail, insisting that he meant what he said, and chastising those who were critical of him."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by The Real Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 12, 2009 at 3:11 pm

"Way to go Obama! Another fine, upstanding example for teens to emulate!! Another shining example of bipartisan respect for all Americans!"

Talk about hypocrisy on Perspective's part. Have the people who have been attacking Obama since day one shown any "bipartisan respcet for all americans"?

"Gosh, can't wait for the next Republican POTUS to laugh at a joke about a left winger..gosh, how about Soros?.. being called a terrorist and being wished a horrible medical condition! I am sure that the press and liberals will defend that one, also."

This is another fantasy non-existent event. Perspective posted a thread with something similar earlier that was taken down.
So it would be alright for Soros to be called a terrorist and being wished a horrible medical condition?
You also need to go watch the Sykes talk and look at the context of her comments. I did not think you would engage in the same hysterical rhetoric that Sharon is famous for.

"How low will you defend before you stand up for decency? Or at least stand up for an end to hypocrisy!"

Thanks for a good laugh, Perspective. those comments coming from you are truly hysterical.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on May 12, 2009 at 3:17 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

My Fisking was caps because this site does not have alternate fonts for the purpose. I did not call Cheney a draft dodger, my reference was to Clinton, who claimed to be joining the ROTC but didn't. All my service was volunteer [RA All the Way!] and I want us never to resort to a draft again. The military is not the only avenue of service, and Cheney has definitely served this country both in office and in private life. My comment ONLY REPUBLICANS ARE OBLIGED TO BE MORAL was evident from the eagerness with which the kept press trumpets republican slips far more than equivalent democrat transgressions.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 12, 2009 at 3:24 pm


During the Bush presidency Gore charged that Bush had brought
"deep dishonor to our country"
and had built a
"durable reputation as the most dishonest President since Richard Nixon."
Gore said George W. Bush had
"betrayed this country"
and he called the president a
"moral coward"
and said that his Administration was allied with
"digital brownshirts." ( as opposed to analog brownshirts? )

Cheneys comments about the Narcissist in Chief aka Obama are quite charitable in comparison to Bores attack on Bush POTUS dont you think?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by The Real Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 12, 2009 at 3:35 pm

Sharon, in another hysterical posting, does not provide any links for her "quotations" nor does she provide any context for the quote.
But, what is her point? Is it "okay" for Limbaugh, Cheney et al to attack the president, but wrong for a democrat to engage in similar behavior?
And what is this latest hangup of Sharon's with term "narcissist"? Does she like the way the word sounds or does she actually believe that Obama is a narcissist. We already had a link posted by her from an "expert" (who admitted that he was no expert)>
Of course, anything that someone who claims to be a 9/11 survivor but is not has to be taken with a grain of salt


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 12, 2009 at 3:46 pm

WSJ

"By our count, Sykes runs afoul of five taboos in her Limbaugh joke: 1/She equates dissent with treason.
2/She likens a domestic political opponent to a foreign enemy.
3/She makes fun of the disabled (Limbaugh's past addiction to painkillers would entitle him to protection under the Americans With Disabilities Act).
4/She makes light of a form of interrogation that some people consider torture.
5/And she wishes somebody dead.

Except for the last one, these are all taboos that liberals promote and enforce with especial vigor.
If a conservative violated any one of them, he would be on the inside track to be named "Worst Person in the World" by that NBC blowhardWeb Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 12, 2009 at 3:57 pm

Foot note

"..someone who claims to be a 9/11 survivor but is not has to be taken with a grain of salt.."

I am not posting from heaven or the other side, I did not believe that was possible.

Some people are very naive and gullible believing that sort of stuff they may Psychic or Psychotic--- your guess.

I guess that if you are unclear if you are Real or not that gives a clue


 +   Like this comment
Posted by The Real Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 12, 2009 at 4:59 pm

Sharon, not sure what you are talking about now--but it is clear that you must be one of the few people who actually care what Wanda Sykes said--of course all of the points you make can also be made about comments by right wingers about democrats/obama.

And of course you totally ignore the context of her comments and just cherry-pick what suits your needs at the moment (in this case hysterical diatribes against Obama and his presence at the dinner)

Really, Sharon, I am surprised you are so thin skinned--you and your buddies can sure dish it out but you really cannot take it. I am surprised that the WSJ writer is such a whiner also.
But, at least, we know what to expect from someone who claims to be a 9/11 survivor in order to try to further her bogus arguments/faux outrage.
The Sykes monologue is a non-news item--get over it.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by OhlonePar
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on May 12, 2009 at 7:49 pm

Perspective,

Man, Obama's high approval ratings really stick in your craw don't they?

As others have pointed out, Shrub pretended to look for WMD at one of these dinners--now that was in truly bad taste--goes with Bush's sociopathic lack of empathy.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on May 12, 2009 at 8:47 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Bush was chasing a moving definition. What did the Queen of Hearts say about words? Or Orwell?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 12, 2009 at 8:59 pm



So the "Sykes monologue is a non-news item"

OK, so you are saying the WSJ, which features it prominently, is just another tiny circulation rag like the Nation?

The people who run the economy all read the WSJ.

As I am not a ghost and was within 3 blocks of One WTC on 911 on my way to an interview and saw live people jumping out of windows from WTC as I tried to survive. I did , none of them did, you think thats funny?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on May 12, 2009 at 9:04 pm

"Bush was chasing a moving definition."

Yeah, he was looking for CYA everywhere. But you can bet he'd have happily kept the original definition if any WMDs ever got found, which they weren't, and couldn't, because it was all a lie from the start. I wonder if Cheney ever clued him in.

Can't blame Bush too much for being fooled,though. Even a smart character like Colin Powell got taken in. But Powell admitted his error. Bush never could because the clueless dupe never figured it out.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on May 12, 2009 at 9:34 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Just before the invasion, worldwide TV showed some WMDs being cut up. After a few more finds of which the media said yeah but, Bush gave up trying. Pity.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on May 12, 2009 at 10:12 pm

"Just before the invasion, worldwide TV showed some WMDs being cut up."

Sure, Walter. As I said on another post, CYA mythology gets more and more desperate. And, I might add, ever more inventive.

So where are the pieces? It ain't easy to hide WMD residues, like uranium/plutonium or incriminating chemicals. Where are the factories? These things don't grow on trees, you know.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by OhlonePar
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on May 13, 2009 at 1:46 am

Sharon,

No one takes WSJ editorials seriously. They've been a right-wing joke for years. I mean, it's kind of funny to read the editorials just to watch the writer twist himself up in knots, but that's about it.

Awaiting your next fake credential.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by The Real Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 13, 2009 at 6:50 am

Sharon--OP summed it up quite nicely regarding the WSJ. Limbaugh because he is a former drug addict is now eligible for ADA protection???
And, yes, the Sykes monologue is a non-news item. You and your ilk need to learn how to take it--you have no problem when Cheney utters foul language directed at a US senator, you have no problem with the daily pronouncements of Limbaugh, hannity, O'reilly etc. But someone dares to make fun of poor little rush and you get apoplectic.
Sharon, I have read your postings on many different threads--you always have some kind of phony story ready to justify your hysterical postings. But this one,where you claim to be a 9/11 survivor really takes the cake. You should be ashamed of yourself, trying to justify your vile postings by claiming to be a 9/11 survivor.



 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on May 13, 2009 at 8:06 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

If directing foul language at US Senators is bad, I stand condemned.
Paul, are you denying that enhanced SCUDs were being cut up on TV? Do you deny that binary chemical rounds were found? The argument was over deployment time, not existence. The biggest yuck for anyone with chemical processing experience was the "balloon gas" generator. Since WMD was never the primary reason for the invasion, Bush foolishly stopped trying to convince anyone.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 13, 2009 at 9:32 am


"Powell's antipathy to the GOP's Reaganite roots has gone beyond the point of reason and reflection.
What kind of Republican, after all, preaches that Americans "do want to pay taxes for services" and "are looking for more government in their life, not less"?
(The opposite is true: In a nationwide poll last month, 62 percent of respondents said they prefer a government that offers fewer services and lower taxes; only 28 percent preferred more services and higher taxes.)
What kind of Republican calls John McCain "my beloved friend" and acknowledges that he "would be a good president" -- then turns around and endorses the most liberal Democrat ever nominated for president?"Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by The Real Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 13, 2009 at 9:38 am

Sharon--So what is the point of the above post?


FYI

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Midtown
on May 13, 2009 at 9:44 am

Walter, people have an extremely short memory and an ability to deny the dots exist that can be connected.

So, there will always be people who will deny that videos of dead Iraqis from chemical weapons, the videos of SCUDs, the videos of the Bioweapons chief Dr. Germ ( Taha) bragging about her program on US TV to Barbara Walters in the late 90s, the scrubbed clean mobile bio labs, the ricin found in the water just after we toppled Saddam, the 500 tons of enriched uranium which has but one purpose, in a country with "no nuclear capability"..The predictions, ironically, by the very people who were denying that Iraq had them that Saddam would use WMD on our soldiers and their people and have hundreds of thousands of deaths that would be "our fault" because we invaded.

Why did we invade? Complete refusal by Saddam to comply with 17 UN Resolutions. Why did he refuse to show what happened to his WMD?

It was well known through defectors that he planned to build up his WMD to hold Israel hostage to his demand that he take over the people and the oil Kuwait and surrounding countries. What do we care? Why should anyone care?

3 Reasons:

We can not allow the genocide of the Jews again, so we would comply.

The result would be a world-wide depression that would kill millions in starvation and disease, worse than the Great Depression of the 30s. Look up the effect on the world of having even 15% of the world's oil held hostage.

I suspect it would have resulted in a worldwide war exceeding the slaughter of the first 2 world wars.

But hey, a lot better to scream and yell about how horrible those big bad Republicans, and the military and all the bad and evil people were who liberated all Iraqis, including women, and stopped the massacre of an average of 70,000 Muslims per year for the last 20 years. You must be proud of yourselves for being on the right side of the argument, preferring to leave those people trapped by a brutal dicatator and leave a very high risk despot in place!

But, hey, who cares about all that? We have President Obama who is clearly doing a much better job of managing our risk and the world risk from terrorists.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on May 13, 2009 at 10:39 am

"Paul, are you denying that enhanced SCUDs were being cut up on TV?"

I'm denying your claim that WMDs were being cut up. Go read what you wrote. SCUDs are WWII technology with nuisance potential, but are hardly WMDs. Nor would I call weather balloons WMDs. I recommend you look beyond the Cheney/Bush propaganda and learn something real about military weapons systems.

"WMD was never the primary reason for the invasion"

Really, now. Read Powell's 2003 UN speech. Go next door and ask Condi about smoking guns morphing into mushroom clouds.

Or are you saying WMDs were an excuse rather than a reason? Many liberals say oil was the primary reason for the invasion, so you may be right about that.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by The Real Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 13, 2009 at 12:03 pm

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 13, 2009 at 12:12 pm

Christopher Hitchens on Wanda SykesWeb Link


"By the end of the night, Christopher Hitchens was of course the last man (barely) standing, and he had some choice words for the evening's headlining comedian, Wanda Sykes.
"The president should be squirming in his seat. Not smiling," he said. "The black dyke got it wrong. No one told her the rules."

Didnt Hitchens used to wright for the Nation?

Times change I guess


 +   Like this comment
Posted by The Real Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 13, 2009 at 12:26 pm

Now Sharon is referencing gossip columns for items to post!!!
How come you are not apoplectic over Hitchens using the vile term dyke to describe Sykes--or do you only get upset when people critcize Limbaugh?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 13, 2009 at 12:37 pm



Wanda Sykes responds to Hitchens critical analysis of her performance before POTUS at the press dinner Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Midtown
on May 13, 2009 at 12:46 pm

ummm...if someone is black..and calls herself a dyke..and then someone else uses the same term..is that comparable to claiming a US citizen is a 20th terrorist and wishing him a long painful loss of a kidney?

Your relativism is bit intense doncha think, Sharon?

BTW, I am bummed to find out Wanda is a dyke. Yet another one to disassociate myself from..BTW, feel free to call me a dyke..cuz I am..not black though.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by The Real Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 13, 2009 at 12:53 pm

Ask Liz Cheney
Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 13, 2009 at 12:59 pm



Is "dyke" pejorative?
Wiki says it was "reappropriated as a positive term implying assertiveness and toughness, or simply as a neutral synonym for
lesbian."

I thought Wandas response to Hitchens was very dignified, under the circumstances.

"I once asked a lesbian if she'd like to call me her little Dutch boy and she became apoplectic"

Hitchens was correct in his comment, if not his method of doing it.

The humor at those dinners should be aimed at the President, either self depricating by himself or from the Emcee.
Look at the comparable Bush dinners.

Using the podium to attack the President's enemies isn't amusing.

Hitchen's main point, that the President should be squirming, not laughing at others is exactly correct.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by The Real Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 13, 2009 at 1:12 pm

"Using the podium to attack the President's enemies isn't amusing."

Maybe not to you, Sharon. But at least you admit that Cheney, Limbaugh et al are enemies of the president--that is a good start.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on May 13, 2009 at 6:12 pm

Seriously gang, I think Cheney's got a point.

Look at the facts: You can be intelligent, you can be honest, you can be a Republican, but you can't be all three at the same time. Powell is clearly intelligent and honest. Cheney, who is universally considered Republican and smart, drew the obvious conclusion.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 13, 2009 at 6:26 pm


Obama seems to have taken Cheneys advice on the photo issue, why do think Cheney and his daughter gave this thing a full court press over the last two weeks?

Cheney came out of the dark to win this issue, he had not done this in years.
This was a big deal for him and he won.

In return Cheney supported, today, Obamas new appointment to head the Afghan war.

Obama may have realized that he is the Commander in Chief or Chaney told him that he can not behave like a front for the Chicago mob when he is POTUS.
Did Obama have a conversion experience, or was he just compliant? Time will tell.
At least he no longer has the ACLU stuck to the bottom of his shoe, yuck!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by The Real Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 14, 2009 at 6:53 am

Of course, what you fail to realize, Sharon is that the courts will have the last word on the photo issue.
And naturally Cheney has to support the interrogation techniques used during his tenure--his claims of saving many lives cannot be proven to be true or not. And of course his family will jump to his defense as well.
As for Cheney supporting Obama's choice for the Afghan war, I am sure that was not an issue for Obama. So if Obama had not changed his mind about the photos, then Cheney would not have supported Obama's choice for the Afghan war? I thought Cheney had the best interests of the country at heart? According to you he is playing politics as usual.
Your vile comments the ACLU do not shed a good light on your character either.
You also need to let go with your fantasies about Obama and the Chicago mob, but that may be difficult since you fantasize that you are a 9/11 survivor.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Midtown
on May 14, 2009 at 7:05 am

RS, you really believe the COURTS have the final word on the photos?

If that is the country you want, 9 unelected lifers in robes deciding what POLICIES are good for America, have fun with that!

Sorry to keep beating a really dead horse, RS, on the "Hope Obama fails" comment by Rush. You posted a link proving Rush said that..nobody is denying he said it. We are trying to help you connect the dots..a prayer for Obama's failure is a prayer for the success of this country.

So, it holds true that if you pray for Obama to succeed in his policy goals, socializing everything and destroying our military, that means you are praying for the further destruction of our military and economy, and therefore the failure of America.

A great and timely example of govt run ANYTYHING is making itself abundandantly clear right now in GM: GM took tax money, is run by the govt now, has laid off workers, and is now going to import motors made by Chinese communists to put in GM cars while we pay tax dollars to unemployed Americans to sit home and watch TV.

Isn't it great having govt in charge of stuff they KNOW NNOTHING about using OUR money?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by The Real Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 14, 2009 at 7:36 am

"If that is the country you want, 9 unelected lifers in robes deciding what POLICIES are good for America, have fun with that! "

Isn't that part of the "checks and balances" nature of our democracy.
I am sure if the Supreme Court banned abortion and gay marriage, many would be thrilled that they are deciding policies.
Seems like you have problems with our democracy.

"So, it holds true that if you pray for Obama to succeed in his policy goals, socializing everything and destroying our military, that means you are praying for the further destruction of our military and economy, and therefore the failure of America."

I assume that is your opinion and not really a fact that you believe in. But just for the record, how is Obama "destroying our military"?
And of course, Obama is not really advocating socialism, but it is a nice term the party of "no" picked up on to label anything and everything he does. Why bother coming up with ideas when you can just throw the word "socialism" around.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on May 14, 2009 at 10:54 am

I understand your pain, Perspec. You were looking toward some real fun times viewing all those new torture pictures, and then that mean Obama rains on your party. Well, get over it and try to get a life.

You may despise the U.S. Constitution if you want, but those "9 unelected lifers in robes" are probably your best hope for achieving your coveted visual delectation.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by fireman
a resident of another community
on May 14, 2009 at 5:11 pm

Is Cheney still alive? I thought he died of a heart attack. And the (R)'s stuffed him?
Or was that his friend shoot him hunting? or was that He died in a WATER BOARDING accident while on vacation in Iraq?


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Politics: Empty appeals to "innovation"
By Douglas Moran | 13 comments | 1,581 views

Marriage Underachievers
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,571 views

A Surprise!
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 1,499 views

Best High Dives to Watch the Game
By Laura Stec | 4 comments | 990 views

It's Dog-O-Ween this Saturday!
By Cathy Kirkman | 2 comments | 782 views