« Supporting Barack Hussein Obama | Main | WEBB HITS A LEADOFF HOME RUN »


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Debate Over Hussein:


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Andrew Nelson

Thats an interesting view..... Also so eloquently presented. I'm looking forward to reading more of your posts.

Ummm...hey, Ben? Can you find a GOP contributor who can demonstrate a bit more depth and a bit less hystrionics? This one sounds like the second coming of Ann Coulter.

Not NEVER Ever Hussein


I sure *hopey* I never get on YOUR bad side.

This is the new E.D. of R.P.V., isn't it?

I knew it.


Some people still find the hyper-rabid fundamentalist Republican mockup funny? I would have figured that after the millionth or so blog poster that has used the same vernacular as above, the progressive internet would have moved on.

This is nothing more than a poor man's Stephen Colbert.

Doug in Mount Vernon



how do repugs keep getting high foreign /military poll ratings? I mean come on, if they are afraid of a name they can't be that tough.

Wait a minute -- we are in a war without end costing billions of dollars a month; the stock market is tanking; gas is $4.00 a gallon; the economy is in recession; people are losing their homes to forclosure and droping value. And you're worried someone's fucking middle name. What the hell has that got to do with my life or that of my kids. This is exactly why republicans haven't got a clue what is important in this country. Shameful, just shameful!


to anon 6:25pm...
But the Dems started it....
Don't look at me. :-)

I agree with you. Obama should be focusing on his plan to turn the economy around rather than getting folks to adopt his middle name. But sadly, that's what his campaign is working on doing, to soften the blow that automatically comes with his middle name.

I was pointing out the silly-ness of it as well. I want to hear how Obama is going to turn the economy around too and get us out of this war ... he needs to accept a debate with McCain.

And does anyone know when the Gilmore/Warner debates going to start?!

Dems started it?

Oh please.


Isn't there a more intelligent case to be made for McCain? This guest column is soooo stupid!

speaking of dems, does anyone remember what things were like before they took over control of house and senate? correct me if i am wrong but didn't pelosi say to put her in charge and she would fix the gas price problem.....

I suppose we see her "fix", can't wait to hear obama's "fix"

Ummm.. maybe i can't afford to hear it.

Argumentum Ad Absurdum

A name defines a person and their character and someone who shares an evil name could not possibly serve honorably as president. It would be like having a president named lynch immediately after the civil rights movement... or worse a president with the god given name Lynch King! OMG OMG OMG wait we did! Gerald Rudolph Ford was originally named Leslie Lynch King. http://www.ford.utexas.edu/avproj/hseries/1915.htm

What a scary place this country has become because we had a president with the middle name Lynch.


"But the Dems started it." Your problem, is I'm a republican. I don't care who started it, I only care who is going to fix it. If you, with all your silliness, can't keep rock rib repubs like me on board, who the hell is going to ride on your train?

Anon 6:25pm

Argumentum Ad Absurdum,

re: your post:

Argumentum Ad Absurdum

enough said

I noticed you used the word "served" instead of "elect", I suppose even you realize that he was not "elected" to "serve" as president. Not even with the name Ford and not "lynch" or "King"


Good point in bringing up the Warner/Gilmore debates. Maybe after this debate, Gilmore will realize that he is running for an office that is beyond his abilities (again). He really should run for something more in his league, like "student council secretary" or something.

Argumentum Ad Absurdum

I and the majority of Americans agree that Leslie Lynch King Jr. aka Gerald Ford served honorably as president of the United States. Despite his controversial name President Ford served with distinction.

That being then and this being now and this election being about the future, it is most unfortunate that some would rather play absurd name games than discuss ways we can make our country better this election cycle.

If this poster can't offer at least a semblance of a solid argument or contribute some juicy gossip I'd hope NotLarrySabato cuts him lose. At least juicy gossip is entertaining.


Numbnuts Not Numbnuts, you said this:

"This country is not ready for a President who shares a name with terrorists."

Like McVey? The name sharing really works.. let me take you back to Oklahoma City, el numbonutso. Good God, you people can say stupid shit.

The basis of your post is rather obtuse.
First; Ford was not elected. Second; I would imagine that most of the lib’s here would find fault in his “service” and decisions during his tenure. Third; I rather doubt the name “Lynch” had any meaning to the two or three people who were aware of it. The name is not known for any “culture” or “religious” meaning.

On the other hand; hussein, is in fact arabic in origin and based on the lineage of muhammad. In short it IS a muslim name. Any judgment on obama’s abilities and his “service” must be left until he actually DOES SOMETHING other than run for offices to which he doesn’t actually serve. Maybe if he would stay in an office long enough to “serve” and also not run away from important votes, the people could form an opinion. Or, if he could even just stay consistent in his “beliefs”, “friends”, “family”.. etc… for sometime longer than a polling cycle we would have some idea of who he really is.

Do these facts have any meaning? Every individual must make his own judgment on that, however, to make any comparison to Ford is an utterly ridiculous and naïve argument.

Surely you can do better.


oh, that was McVeigh.. but obviously McSame named himself after him 600 years ago.


hmm. 10:10- here is the list of 37 bills Obama wrote or sponsored in two years in the US Senate. At least he didn't skip out on the recent Webb GI bill, like McSame did:


I'm not saying McSame hasn't done lots and lots of work in the Senate too, but bullshit on your Obama's done nothing. No, double bullshit on it.

190 no votes for your idol obama.. yep he has done something.. it's just not been the work of those who sent him to represent them in the senate.

Argumentum Ad Absurdum

I see the argument is shifting now that it is clear that your first contention is proven absurd. Your post states Obama's middle name is Hussein and by that sole virtue he is unequal to the office of president of the united states. That ground collapsed from under you so now its connecting his middle name to the vivid images of radical islam.

It is certainly unfortunate that some would prefer to make an easy straw man out of a middle name rather than discuss the legitimate political choices we will make in November.

isn't Barrack Hussein Obama one of the "political choices" we must face this November?
How is stating the name anything except a fact?
If the name is connected to "radical islam" it is not this writer who has done so.

that honor should be given to those who have earned the distinction.

this writer did not name him. he only gave the basis and origin of the name. like the facts or not, they are what they are. It IS a muslim name.

37 bills in two years that the man signed his name to? This is something that impresses you? 18 per year? barely one per month? and he gets kudos from you?

I certainly hope you are not a supervisor of people..and if you are I hope you expect better work product than this.

I would venture to guess, should you take the time, that you will find many of these bills presented by others in the senate registrar and obama will not even have spoken on them. The records are kept, do a bit of searching on your idol, unless you are afraid of what you will find.


Hilarious posting, I look forward to reading more introspective postings.

Speaking of names...did you know that Sam Rasoul has a brother named "Jihad?"

I wonder what Jeff Hussein Frederick and Jim Hussein Gilmore think about all of this.


Ah, my bad. I meant 37 interesting/important bills in his two years in the Senate. His total over 8 years in public office, just shy of 900, if you want numbers.

But, the correct counter to my post was what McCain has done- both the type and amount of work in the Senate. And supervise people? I have people who supervise people- having owned 4 successful businesses over 15 years in software development and design - aren't I the demographic that is the backbone of America? Yes, I'm the type who can smell bad management and bullshit a mile away and it ain't Obama I'm smelling, it's McSame continuing the last disasterous 8 years. I'm just a wee bit tired of the $8 trillion debt managed by these idiots that have directly caused $4+ a gallon gas and the current inflation we are just starting to experience. Reduce my taxes by 4%, but double the cost of my consumer goods.


Since you can “smell” BS, I suppose your olfactories perked up when obama reconsidered his position on campaign funding. Or maybe when his attack dogs were out demeaning McCain’s service in the military, after having said he would run an honest campaign. Or maybe when he said he supported the second amendment after the ruling last week which is completely opposite of his stance taken earlier. Need one say more or are you BS sniffers overwhelmed .

Fyi obama has only “sponsored” 132 bills since Jan, 2005. and has missed 22% of votes. I am sure you would promote an employee who missed 22% of their job responsibilities.

Of his bills he has passed such cutting edge legislation as: “S. Res. 133: celebrating the life of Bishop Gilbert E. Patterson. S.Res. 268 designating July 12, 2007 as “national Summer Learning Day”, S.RES.600 : A resolution commemorating the 44th anniversary of the deaths of civil rights workers..” Doug, you might check the library of congress instead of those pro obama websites for your information, if you want it to be correct. Exactly what “interesting/important” legislation has obama passed? Or does success not count in your businesses.

So in your vast business experience these “accomplishments” merit a promotion? I know it takes very little to start a business but much to be successful. Granting promotions for persons who miss ¼ of their work time, lie to their boss, and make minimal contributions is NOT conducive to a long term successful business. Ooops.. you said 4 in 15 years… sorry, better luck with the next one.

Lastly, I don’t want to be the one to break the news to you but your issue with “gas” and “debt” might be taken up with the democrat majority in the house and senate since they are running the show now and promised three years ago to “fix” all of these issues if "they were in charge" of the legislative branch.

Ted Nugent

is NJHDDB Pastor John come back to us?

Pastor John, Pastor John!

Ironically, not the most far-fetched, intellectually challenged and emotionally dishonest post on Not Larry Sabato in the past two weeks.

Rick Smith

This whole Hussein thing has become laughable. The idea that because the man has a middle name with muslim origins will somehow forsake America and use the office of the President to further radical islamic causes is just another example of uneducated fearmongering.

Hell, my middle name is Hewlett, but I have a Gateway PC, an IBM laptop and a lexmark printer. By this logic, you'd think I'd be an HP bigot. Sound irrelevent? No more so than Obama's middle name.

Obamarama now says he wants to expand the faith-based initiatives program; anyone see a disaster-president in the making?


Pete in Williamsburg

Not Jean Dev Bloom,

Please post often and on as many blogs as possible. It will be a big help.


Well the Hussein draws a connection to Saddam Hussein not necessarily radical Islamic terrorists. Saddam’s militant Islamic credentials are questionable. At best Islam was as a propaganda tool used by his secular dictatorship to control the people of Iraq. Republicans conveniently forget that Hussein’s dictatorship was secular. It was Bush and McSame’s war for Oil that allowed Iraq to become an Islamic State.
Making the Barack Hussein Obama=Saddam Hussein= Radical Islamic Terrorists argument is equivalent to saying Osama bin Laden is Muslim and Saddam Hussein is Muslim. Osama bin Laden is responsible for 9-11, therefore Saddam Hussein is responsible for 9-11. The implied deduction is absurd.

this "war for oil" definition should be debunked for any intelligent person, even the most rabid liberal. The only people who are crying for "oil money" from Iraq are Bob Bekel and his "ultra conservative" friends.

Find a new issue.


Speaking of missed votes. Can you guess the last time McSame voted in the senate? If you said April 8th you are correct

How many votes has McSame missed in the 110th? 367 or 53%

Who has missed the most votes of any senator even more than Tim Johnson who was out a year from a brain hemorrhage? That’s right the winner is McSame.


If we were fighting for freedom and democracy we would have been in Dar Fur along time ago. I guess I should have said 'War for Oil Companies.'


or KBR, or Blackwater, or Northrop Grumman, or any number of defense contractors.... how about 'war for the defense industry and interests'.

Freedom, democracy and protection from the scary terrorists is secondary.

James Young

It's certainly ironic that blogs and bloggers who thought it was/is funny to use the full names of George Felix Allen and John Sidney McCain are making such a big deal out of noting Barack Hussein Obama's full name.

I thought/think the former was/is rather silly.

But your defensiveness reveals your hypocrisy which is, of course, the tribute that vice pays to virtue.


implying name=silly

and implying name=secret Muslim terrorist bent on destroying America

Are not the same

By all means change the debate when you are proved wrong. typical lieberal response.
It is amazing, the lack of appreciation you guys have for the fact that we have not been attacked since 911.
I suppose you believe it is luck as opposed to policy and hard work.
You should go to work for doug (above) he seems to believe that hard work is not necessary for success either.

interesting post, how long have we been hearing "dubbah"? The hypocrisy of liberals know no ends. The other shoe pinches a bit and they squeal like a pig. Although that is a bit fitting for a group who now expect their ex-liberal leader (Bill) should now prostrate himself to obama and pass along the “education” he received from monica.

Wow...what a list of endorsements for Creigh Deeds:
- Sen. Chap Petersen
- Fairfax County Police Association
- PWC Commonwealth's Attorney Paul Ebert
- Fairfax County Commonwealth's Attorney Ray Morrogh
- former Fairfax County Commonwealth's Attorney Bob Horan


10:48 - Planning attacks takes a long time, so unfortunately, we're hardly in the clear. But if you're going to thank President Bush for the fact that no foreign terrorist has hit the U.S. since Bush's first year in office, perhaps you should thank President Clinton who could say the same thing (1993 WTC bombing... no other foreign terrorist attacks).

If you Conservatives are going to say that Clinton accomplished nothing against terrorism and Bush has accomplished a LOT, you have to wait at LEAST as long after 9/11 as there was between the WTC attacks and 9/11 before you can also claim that the lack of foreign terror attacks on US soil is some great victory by Bush.


And of course the fact that terrorist attacks around the world are way up from when Bush took office has nothing to do with Bush's failed policies, and IS just bad luck, right?

“1993 WTC bombing... no other foreign terrorist attacks”

Not you usual well thought out argument.

Do you forget the following?
Oct. 12, 2000 - USS Cole Aug. 7, 1998 - U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. June 21, 1998 - U.S. embassy in Beirut. June 25, 1996 - U.S. air force installation in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. Khubar Towers Nov. 13, 1995 - Riyadh, Saudi The "Tigers of the Gulf," "Islamist Movement for Change," and "Fighting Advocates of God" claim responsibility. February

Further, is not really what our military has been doing is keeping these “bees” in the “hive” and without time to plan or execute? Many are quick to say our strategy is not working, but the facts speak differently.


I didn't change the argument. Lining the pockets of oil companies and the defense industry is within the realm of 'war for oil.' I was simply spelling it out for you. they don't talk about it because they can't justify war to us by saying 'corporations need money.' If Bush and his ilk really had the Iraqi people at heart most of the contracts would go to Iraqis. That would build the economy, create jobs, be cheaper, and give Iraqis a since of ownership over the direction of their country while affording to feed their families without joining a militia.

Hard work like "shopping?" Using your own "we have not been attacked since 9-11" argument we were attacked in 1993. and were not attacked again until 2001. Does that imply that Clinton’s policies were right and it was a catastrophic failure on Bushes part that resulted in 9-11? We haven’t been attacked on U.S. territory since 9-11 because they don’t see the need to try when we are destroying ourselves economically, financially, and militarily. They are also to busy growing their ranks to numbers larger than ever before.


anon 10:48

I didn't change the argument. Lining the pockets of oil companies and the defense industry is within the realm of 'war for oil.' I was simply spelling it out for you. they don't talk about it because they can't justify war to us by saying 'corporations need money.' If Bush and his ilk really had the Iraqi people at heart most of the contracts would go to Iraqis. That would build the economy, create jobs, be cheaper, and give Iraqis a since of ownership over the direction of their country while affording to feed their families without joining a militia.

Hard work like "shopping?" Using your own "we have not been attacked since 9-11" argument we were attacked in 1993. and were not attacked again until 2001. Does that imply that Clinton’s policies were right and it was a catastrophic failure on Bushes part that resulted in 9-11? We haven’t been attacked on U.S. territory since 9-11 because they don’t see the need to try when we are destroying ourselves economically, financially, and militarily. They are also to busy growing their ranks to numbers larger than ever before.

From your writing I am guessing that you are young. With time you will learn the challenges of life and experience will teach you to investigate matters on your own and not take "sound bites" or other easy to regurgitate facts, as "gospel".
Actually you sound quite naive, and that is ok, however your arguments do not hold up under the least scrutiny.

see post@ 11:28 as you first lesson in factual history.


"Further, is not really what our military has been doing is keeping these “bees” in the “hive” and without time to plan or execute? Many are quick to say our strategy is not working, but the facts speak differently."

If by "hive" you mean Pakistan, and by "without time to plan or execute" you mean plenty of time to train and plan for executions forthcoming, you would be absolutely correct. US Intelligence estimates put the number of AQ terrorists training in camps in Pakistan at somewhere around 2,000, up from a few hundred a couple years back.

Keeping bees in the hive isn't productive if all they're doing in there is breeding more bees.

These people HATE the west and our way of life. They were chopping heads off of “unbelievers” before we ever thought of getting involved with them. We left them alone and they still attacked us. The fact that there are more now than a few years ago can not be directly attributed to the “war” on terror. There is no way of knowing that this would not have occurred no matter what.
However, it is unarguable that all the AQ members who have been killed in this “war on terror” are not going to be around to think about another attack on the USA.

I suppose we could spend time talking about someone's name - or perhaps about the hash the Republican Party has made of America the last eight years. Oh, I know which one I'm gonna choose.

Why let the Republicans define the debate? They're the ones who should be defending their record, not picking on someone's name.

also sam,
your last was more in line with the quality and well thoughtout posts Ihave come to expect and enjoy from you. :)

what was the gas price when the dems took over the house/senate?
what was the price of food products? transportation?

I'll take what we had before the liberals took over. Is this the "fix" that pelosi promised?

take it back....


Anon 12:09

Fact: AQ is resurgent in Afghanistan
Fact: bin Laden continues to spread his hate with impunity
Fact: Bushes BS push for democracy lead to Hamas being legitimized by the electoral process.
Fact: the newly formed U.S. backed Iraqi government is based on Islamic law
Fact: Iran is now the mid-east super power as a direct result of the removal of their enemy Saddam.
Fact: Hezbollah has near free reign and is growing in Lebanon because of Iran’s emboldened position
Fact: We just had the worst month for deaths in Afghanistan since the war began
Fact: Our troops are spread so thin because of Iraq that we can’t kill off the real hive in Afghanistan/Pakistan

How many of those Facts do you want? This doesn’t even go into the Fact that we were conned into the Iraq war under false pretence. Our presence in Iraq isn’t controlling the problem, it is the problem. Why would they come here? They have 140,000 high value targets in their backyard.
The fact is the argument that we have been protected is baseless. All Bush did was give them an easier target. Next Lesson

Anon 12:36

what was the gas/food/transportation price before Bush/repug house/senate? Or the avg family income? housing market? consumer safety? how about the budget?


t WHOLEHEARTEDLY APPROVES of the new columnist.

This type of crisp conservative thinking has been missing from this site for TOO LONG.


anon 12:36,

I'm sure you are right. Everything that is wrong with the country is the result of the Democrats controlling Congress for the last 18 months. None of the current mess could possibly be the result of the policies of President Slick and the Republican Congress.

Let's see. The total national debt was 5.7 trillion dollars when the idiot from Texas took office in 2001. It stands at just about 9.4 trillion dollars today.

But the borrow and spend and borrow and spend some more Republican policy has nothing to do with the pitifully weak dollar or the astronomical price of a barrell of oil. No. That is all magically free money. Don't worry. Be happy! That bill will be paid by our grandchildren long after that dimwit Bush is back mending fences and clearing brush in Crawford. Then the adults will have to deal with it.

And Bush's radical foreign policy couldn't possibly be having an impact on these things. Destabilizing the Middle East by chasing Neo-Con fantasies couldn't increase the price of a barrel of oil. Surely it must be the fault of those evil Democrats!

Profligate spending. Borrowing like the bill never has to be paid. Conducting a radical and reckless foreign policy. Treating geopolitics like it's a parlor game for neo-con pinheads with Imperial dreams. And these a-holes have the gall to call themselves conservatives???

Someone might want to start a conservative political party in this country. We certainly don't have one today.


11:28 - any idiot who spent two seconds reading my post would have noticed that when I said "no other foreign terrorist attacks" I meant on U.S. soil. The Bush administration has also seen foreign terrorist attacks on foreign soil under their regime, so your counterargument still fails.

Sam but not Sam

I feel like I should clarify that I share a name with another forum poster, I've noticed. The Sam that posted at 12:09 was a different person than previous comments from another Sam. I may have also been responding to a post that was itself a response to the other Sam, which may have perpetuated some confusion. Sorry about that.


And there appear to be two mes.... I don't know who the 12:06 Sam is (I'm the Sam who normally posts here, and did so earlier in this thread), but you do raise some valuable points, so I'll let it be.... :-)


Wow... and now we're posting simultaneously... awesome.

Not Sam

I assume you're also devilishly handsome, to boot.

Not Sam Rasoul

Did you know that Sam Rasoul has a brother named Jihad?


Just as much so as you are, I'm sure.

man, we're so cool. :-)

is being racist your best line of attack?


Hahahahahaaa, we changed ours, too. Plus, Thadd is REALLY ACTUALLY OMGZ Lebanese, so clearly, we should be arrested tonight for terrorism.



The two nice young ladies who live next door to me are Lebanese. I don't think the Lebanese should be arrested for terrorism. What they do in their own bedroom is nobody else's business.

adam and dan making up “facts” out of whole cloth.
Contrary to the liberal thinking, just making a statement does not make it a “fact”. Because you “say” these things or regurgitate them from some liberal website does not validate them. the only possible “fact” in your statements is the death toll in afgnistan, which might be argued because the military will not let out the actual numbers.
Therefore my young friend there is no lesson.

I do agree that many republicans continued the long standing tradition of spending started by the democrats. However it is not “conservatives” that have done this, and they have had plenty of democrat help. Also, they are now paying the price.

To make any comparison to when Bush took office and today is really an exercise in ignorance, given the need to fight the “war on terror” that was inevitable.

I wait with anticipation, the day when your beloved obama makes the unavoidable statement that he “will not” or “can not” (or something along those lines) bring home the troops as he has “promised. Of course he will blame the republicans as any good liberal would, but in actuality, it will only be a reasoned acceptance of the need to insure our safety by defeat of those who (have and continue to) hate us. Youthful ignorance, and the ability to close one’s eyes to that which they do not like. Or plugging your ears and humming a tune so as not to hear the truth, is an option only open to those who do not have this responsibility.
It is unfortunate that so many wish to “play politics” rather than fix the problem. Are energy prices higher than they were when the dems took over YES.. are they higher than when bush took office YES.. However bush never promised that if you put him in charge he would make them lower (pelosi did). One thing is guaranteed, if we do not begin to find our own resources others will and our problem will continue.

I can not “make” you open your eyes or unplug your ears. Time and truth will.

Not Huey Long

What a scary place it will be with a president, i.e. McBush, who does not even understand basic economic policy.

These type of tactics are soooo old...and frankly, Obama transcends them. I look forward to country that believes in hope---and not fear.

the really "scary" thing is people who have come to worship obama as you seem to.

the good thing about a blank page is that one can, on it, read whatever he wishes.

the bad thing is that it really says nothing.


Who is this anonymous dittohead that keeps spewing these ridiculous platitudes? Hey dittohead: if you doubt Adam's and Dan's facts, tell us what you dispute and cite an authority. For example, how much do you think is our national debt? Saying someone is stupid over and over only makes the speaker appear stupid.

You're also obsessed with declaring everyone who sets you straight to be a misguided youth. How do you know this (not that there's anything wrong with being young). I did my best political work as a student and, without young people, political campaigns would lack energy and excitement. What's your obsession with this anyway?

If you would take a moment you might find that adam is the one who posted his statements as “facts”.
I recognize them to be gratuitous assertions. Which therefore may be as gratuitously denied.

It is typical for liberals to spout undocumented “facts” and then place someone in a position of refuting them with “real” facts. I made no such demands, I stated my opinions.

If you find a sentence in my post that calls someone “stupid” please point it out.

Maybe, you confused me with dan and his penchant for calling someone an “idiot”. To whom, btw, I gave credence to his argument that R’s have increased spending (albeit not conservatives).

I have no problem with “youth”, I was one. I also have children of my own, who share the belief that they know all the “answers” (however they, like many here have yet to even realize the question). I agree their energy is much needed and they often see things others, by dullness of age, may overlook. I do, however, believe they should base their argument on a serious study of issues, not simple regurgitation of talking points from liberal liturgy.

Finally, in the future, before you castigate someone for their writing, I suggest you be sure you have your “facts” correct lest you appear rabid and careless.

No need to apologize


Dittohead - Thank you, I won't. Are you cutting and pasting from your prior posts? Do your posts also show up on other blogs? You are very repetitious.

For the record, you said they make up facts out of whole cloth and I challenged you to refute their fact on the size of the Bush deficit.

Now dems4,
I asked you to be sure of your “facts” before you criticize. But I’ll give you this one time.

You actually asked me:
“how much do you think is our national debt?”
You do realize the debt and the deficit are different things. (don’t you?)

My comments on the budget (including debt) were as follows;
“To make any comparison to when Bush took office and today is really an exercise in ignorance, given the need to fight the “war on terror” that was inevitable.”

However, the debt as a percentage of the GDP is 8% lower now than it was in 1940. Still way to high in my opinion.

Those addressed the national debt issue.
I have no idea how Bush’s personal deficit stands.

so dems, it grows late and I grow weary of this circular debate. therefore I will leave it rest until tomorrow.


Kos is angry with Obama -- and with good reason



Why is i.pubes going on and on and on in this thread and not putting his name? It's so freaking boring.

More talk about Dan's Libyan neighbors! Or were they Lebanese? Does that mean the shorter one is on top? And hey Phriendly. Please help this blog stop sucking so much!

And here's the anonymous response so pubes doesn't have to write it:

1) You are too young and you will learn to be bitter and assume all other people are bad!
2) If something has happened, a Democrat did it
3) All people over there hate us for our freedoms
4) Once we get rid of the gays, gas will be 50 cents a gallon
5) Everyone who is not a lawyer is an idiot
6) God bless this mess

Hussein Tatum

Looks like somebody at Kos is on to Obama.

Other politicians are always "for this" and "against that".
Obama's a new kind of politician. He's for everything and against everything.

Finally, we have someone who has the courage to stand up and vote "present".

Pete in Williamsburg

Doug, Dems4Dems, Adam,

I believe Anon is killing time while waiting on-hold to tell Sean he's a great American. Meanwhile, he has a distinctive debate style: He likes to declare himself the winner about one or two posts into an exchange and then insist you haven't responded. Hard to argue with someone who's main contention is "I won and you can't convince me I haven't."

I found Not Jen Dev Bloom's initial topic so banal it was hard for me to really engage in this thread. Decent discussion from others, though.

Not Brad Hussein Davis

You Sir are a racist. Warm Mud???? ANYWAYS - I think you miss the point.

I will however, be voting with you for John McCain. We need experience over the next four years.


OK DH/Anon. - You nailed me on the debt/deficit slipup. On everything else, no. Besides, it was so cute of you to choose 1940 as a baseline year for our national debt. Golly gee, wonder what was going on then?

"I found Not Jen Dev Bloom's initial topic so banal it was hard for me to really engage in this thread"

Although I am sure we missed a treasure-trove of wisdom. It does not seem that you actually read the thread.
There was not much in the way of "debate". It reads more like an attempted gang rape where the intended victim has slipped away and the perp’s end up screwing themselves. They walk away smiling and holding their rears. (or in some cases ears).
Better luck next time, maybe you can get in on the action early.


Like Bush? You'll love McSame!

Pete in Williamsburg

True, I'm sure my contributions to the thread would have been brilliant and insightful. It's funny, sometimes the lamest topics end up home to segue topics that generate a lot of action.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment


NLS Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    Facebook Fan Page


    Blog powered by Typepad