The US Senate is a total joke

[Lief 🗽]

If Petraeus is going to be shilling Bush's political talking points, then he's no longer out of bounds in the political arena.

[Eraserhead]

If Petraeus is going to be shilling Bush's political talking points, then he's no longer out of bounds in the political arena.

He was never off limits. The military is not off limits. People have to stand up to the people running this war. It is a disaster.

[Gabu]

Am I the only who sees a direct correlation between the use of puns on people's names (OMG SO KLEVER!!111) and the erosion of the standard of debate in any given thread?

Seriously if Betray-us=Petreaus is the best MoveOn can do given everything else that has happened in Iraq and America during the Bush Adminstration then it's leaders should resign from whatever the hell they actually do.

No, you aren't the only one.  I'm f**king sick and tired of that kindergarten playground sh*t.

[Frodo]

MoveOn.org helped undermine the entire antiwar movement through their specious (and bizarre) attack on the patriotism of a respected general.  For that, Republicans should be applauding and thanking these idiots, and encouraging them to do more of the same in the future -which I have no doubt they will.  They hurt no one but the Democratic Party with their insane zealotry.

MoveOn.org is the real joke here -not the U.S. Senate.   

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Who added that Senate amendment?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

MoveOn.org helped undermine the entire antiwar movement through their specious (and bizarre) attack on the patriotism of a respected general.  For that, Republicans should be applauding and thanking these idiots, and encouraging them to do more of the same in the future -which I have no doubt they will.  They hurt no one but the Democratic Party with their insane zealotry.

MoveOn.org is the real joke here -not the U.S. Senate.   

Thank you for your "concern", warmonger.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

MoveOn.org helped undermine the entire antiwar movement through their specious (and bizarre) attack on the patriotism of a respected general.  For that, Republicans should be applauding and thanking these idiots, and encouraging them to do more of the same in the future -which I have no doubt they will.  They hurt no one but the Democratic Party with their insane zealotry.

MoveOn.org is the real joke here -not the U.S. Senate.   

Thank you for your "concern", warmonger.

JFERN = MASSIVE MASSIVE ULGTRA-TFREDOM FIGHTER!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If Petraeus is going to be shilling Bush's political talking points, then he's no longer out of bounds in the political arena.

He was never off limits. The military is not off limits. People have to stand up to the people running this war. It is a disaster.

None of that (even were I to accept the above assertions; and I don't) justifies smearing him.

[Frodo]

MoveOn.org helped undermine the entire antiwar movement through their specious (and bizarre) attack on the patriotism of a respected general.  For that, Republicans should be applauding and thanking these idiots, and encouraging them to do more of the same in the future -which I have no doubt they will.  They hurt no one but the Democratic Party with their insane zealotry.

MoveOn.org is the real joke here -not the U.S. Senate.   

Thank you for your "concern", warmonger.

You are more than welcome, hack.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

This cartoon sums up my opinion on this controversy pretty well:

[SPC]

I'm with you on this, JFern. Rather than pass a bill that would end an unlawful violation of Article I, Section VIII of the Constitution by ending our occupation of Iraq, they chose to unlawfully violate Amendment I of the Constitution by condemning free speech. I'm realy concerned about the direction that this country is gong to go if Paul, Gravel, or the Libertarian candidate isn't elected.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm with you on this, JFern. Rather than pass a bill that would end an unlawful violation of Article I, Section VIII of the Constitution by ending our occupation of Iraq, they chose to unlawfully violate Amendment I of the Constitution by condemning free speech. I'm realy concerned about the direction that this country is gong to go if Paul, Gravel, or the Libertarian candidate isn't elected.

None of those, nor Kucinch have a chance. I think that the best candidate that has much of a chance at being elected President is Edwards. Richardson wouldn't be too bad either, but he is rather gaffe prone.

[Eraserhead]

If Petraeus is going to be shilling Bush's political talking points, then he's no longer out of bounds in the political arena.

He was never off limits. The military is not off limits. People have to stand up to the people running this war. It is a disaster.

None of that (even were I to accept the above assertions; and I don't) justifies smearing him.

Oh noes!!!11 They smeared him!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm waiting for the US Senate to condemn this ad that was run on many online news websites.



Oh, that's right, it's pro-Bush, those 72 Senators wouldn't ever condemn something pro-Bush. Only the left gets criticized for anything by those 72 out of touch Senators.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Oh noes!!!11 They smeared him!

I happen to think that smearing people is fundamentally wrong and should be off-limits in political campaigns. I had always assumed that this was a perfectly respectable position to take, but apparently not.

Btw, I'm glad to know that you have no problems with the adverts run against Max Cleland in 2002. Or the Swift Boat nonesense in 2004. I say "glad" because I would hate to have to call you a hypocrite.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Meanwhile those hypocritlcal US Senate stood idly by while liberals have been trashed for the last 6 years.  Here's a good rant about it.

Part 1:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Part 2

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/23/155136/591

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Oh noes!!!11 They smeared him!

I happen to think that smearing people is fundamentally wrong and should be off-limits in political campaigns. I had always assumed that this was a perfectly respectable position to take, but apparently not.

Btw, I'm glad to know that you have no problems with the adverts run against Max Cleland in 2002. Or the Swift Boat nonesense in 2004. I say "glad" because I would hate to have to call you a hypocrite.

Come on, you can come up with a better argument than that, warmonger.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I'm with you on this, JFern. Rather than pass a bill that would end an unlawful violation of Article I, Section VIII of the Constitution by ending our occupation of Iraq, they chose to unlawfully violate Amendment I of the Constitution by condemning free speech. I'm realy concerned about the direction that this country is gong to go if Paul, Gravel, or the Libertarian candidate isn't elected.

Pretty loose grip on the constitution if you think "condemning" a moveon ad "unlawfully violates" the Constitution.

[Reluctant Republican]

I tend to agree that if the senate was going to condemm anything, they should have condemmed all the mudslinging against the Democrats as well. Why is it okay to attack John Kerry but not General Petraeus? I get that Kerry's an elected official, but still, I think it's distasteful in all circumstances, though I certainly don't support a ban on doing it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I demand that the House, some state legislatures, and a bunch of courts all get involved with the fact that some organization criticized Bush's spokesman on the Iraq war. After all, it's been 2 and a half years since Schiavo. The federal government needs to make it more clear how extremely out of touch they are, Schiavo style.

[Gabu]

I tend to agree that if the senate was going to condemm anything, they should have condemmed all the mudslinging against the Democrats as well. Why is it okay to attack John Kerry but not General Petraeus? I get that Kerry's an elected official, but still, I think it's distasteful in all circumstances, though I certainly don't support a ban on doing it.

[Nym90]

Oh noes!!!11 They smeared him!

I happen to think that smearing people is fundamentally wrong and should be off-limits in political campaigns. I had always assumed that this was a perfectly respectable position to take, but apparently not.

Btw, I'm glad to know that you have no problems with the adverts run against Max Cleland in 2002. Or the Swift Boat nonesense in 2004. I say "glad" because I would hate to have to call you a hypocrite.

Come on, you can come up with a better argument than that, warmonger.

People who are against the war are warmongers now?

I agree with Al that the politics of personal destruction is despicable and that both sides should cease and desist from it. Liberals have an obligation to prove why we are better and more fit to lead than conservatives by taking the lead in this area.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Oh noes!!!11 They smeared him!

I happen to think that smearing people is fundamentally wrong and should be off-limits in political campaigns. I had always assumed that this was a perfectly respectable position to take, but apparently not.

Btw, I'm glad to know that you have no problems with the adverts run against Max Cleland in 2002. Or the Swift Boat nonesense in 2004. I say "glad" because I would hate to have to call you a hypocrite.

Come on, you can come up with a better argument than that, warmonger.

People who are against the war are warmongers now?

I agree with Al that the politics of personal destruction is despicable and that both sides should cease and desist from it. Liberals have an obligation to prove why we are better and more fit to lead than conservatives by taking the lead in this area.

Al has been pro-war in the past, so I was assuming that he still is.

Taking the high road worked so wonderfully for President Al Gore in 2000 and President John Kerry in 2004.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I happen to think that smearing people is fundamentally wrong and should be off-limits in political campaigns. I had always assumed that this was a perfectly respectable position to take, but apparently not.

Btw, I'm glad to know that you have no problems with the adverts run against Max Cleland in 2002. Or the Swift Boat nonesense in 2004. I say "glad" because I would hate to have to call you a hypocrite.

Come on, you can come up with a better argument than that,[/quote]

Sorry, but I don't understand. What is wrong with have a problem with smear campaigns? Or with pointing out possible hypocrisy?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Don't call me that again.

Al has been pro-war in the past, so I was assuming that he still is.

I have explained to you in detail my position on the war in Iraq several times. And you still keep up these bizarre and false attacks... why?

That was two years ago. And you still do it.

I've explained my position on Iraq to you more times than I can be bothered to remember, but I'll do it again anyway:

At the time I didn't support it (was nearly swung by the human rights arguments, but worried about the fact that Rumsfeld etc. were planning the whole thing), but didn't oppose it either (taking a fairly fatalistic approach to the war. I think I've been comparing Iraq to a train crash here for years). After the invasion, my opinion swung around in all directions for a while, before returning (more or less) to the original position.
Things were further complicated at the time by strong painkillers, though I'd rather not go into that.

Please stop sticking everyone into restrictive boxes that you made up to fit your own, rather bitter and very twisted, view of reality.

Thank you.