Three easy pieces...

[BBond]

Here are three editorial pieces from yesterday?s NY Times for those who care to read them. They give three egregious examples of what George W. Bush and his cabal have brought to America.

Just as with Bush?s fantasy WMD in Iraq in which, by his own investigator's conclusion America was almost all wrong, this once great nation has followed George W. Bush down a hole and into a Rovian world where up is down, peace is war, good is evil -- but back here in the real world America is once again almost all wrong.

How can you Bushies defend this?

Bush's Veil Over History

By KITTY KELLEY

Washington - SECRECY has been perhaps the most consistent trait of the George W. Bush presidency. Whether it involves refusing to provide the names of oil executives who advised Vice President Dick Cheney on energy policy, prohibiting photographs of flag-draped coffins returning from Iraq, or forbidding the release of files pertaining to Chief Justice John Roberts's tenure in the Justice Department, President Bush seems determined to control what the public is permitted to know. And he has been spectacularly effective, making Richard Nixon look almost transparent.

But perhaps the most egregious example occurred on Nov. 1, 2001, when President Bush signed Executive Order 13233, under which a former president's private papers can be released only with the approval of both that former president (or his heirs) and the current one.

Before that executive order, the National Archives had controlled the release of documents under the Presidential Records Act of 1978, which stipulated that all papers, except those pertaining to national security, had to be made available 12 years after a president left office.

Now, however, Mr. Bush can prevent the public from knowing not only what he did in office, but what Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan did in the name of democracy. (Although Mr. Reagan's term ended more than 12 years before the executive order, the Bush administration had filed paperwork in early 2001 to stop the clock, and thus his papers fall under it.)

Bill Clinton publicly objected to the executive order, saying he wanted all his papers open. Yet the Bush administration has nonetheless denied access to documents surrounding the 177 pardons President Clinton granted in the last days of his presidency. Coming without explanation, this action raised questions and fueled conspiracy theories: Is there something to hide? Is there more to know about the controversial pardon of the fugitive financier Marc Rich? Is there a quid pro quo between Bill Clinton and the Bushes? Is the current president laying a secrecy precedent for pardons he intends to grant?

The administration's effort to grandfather the Reagan papers under the act also raised a red flag. President Bush's signature stopped the National Archives from a planned release of documents from the Reagan era, some of which might have shed light on the Iran-contra scandal and illuminated the role played by the vice president at the time, George H. W. Bush.

What can be done to bring this information to light? Because executive orders are not acts of Congress, they can be overturned by future commanders in chief. But this is a lot to ask of presidents given the free pass handed them by Mr. Bush. (And it could put a President Hillary Clinton in a bind when it came to her own husband's papers.)

Other efforts to rectify the situation are equally problematic. Representative Henry Waxman, Democrat of California, has repeatedly introduced legislation to overturn Mr. Bush's executive order, but the chances of a Republican Congress defying a Republican president are slim.

There is also a lawsuit by the American Historical Association and other academic and archival groups before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. A successful verdict could force the National Archives to ignore the executive order and begin making public records from the Reagan and elder Bush administrations.

Unless one of these efforts succeeds, George W. Bush and his father can see to it that their administrations pass into history without examination. Their rationales for waging wars in the Middle East will go unchallenged. There will be no chance to weigh the arguments that led the administration to condone torture by our armed forces. The problems of federal agencies entrusted with public welfare during times of national disaster - 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina - will be unaddressed. Details on no-bid contracts awarded to politically connected corporations like Halliburton will escape scrutiny, as will the president's role in Environmental Protection Agency's policies on water and air polluters.

This is about much more than the desires of historians and biographers - the best interests of the nation are at stake. As the American Political Science Association, one plaintiff in the federal lawsuit, put it: "The only way we can improve the operation of government, enhance the accountability of decision-makers and ultimately help maintain public trust in government is for people to understand how it worked in the past."

Kitty Kelley is the author of "The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty."

Or this?

Will Bush Deliver?

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Ever since President Bush promised to rebuild the Gulf Coast in "one of the largest reconstruction efforts the world has ever seen," many people have asked how he plans to pay for that effort. But looking at what has (and hasn't) happened since he gave that speech, I'm starting to wonder whether they're asking the right question. How sure are we that large-scale federal aid for post-Katrina reconstruction will really materialize?

Bear with me while I make the case for doubting whether Mr. Bush will make good on his promise.

First, Mr. Bush already has a record of trying to renege on pledges to a stricken city. After 9/11 he made big promises to New York. But as soon as his bullhorn moment was past, officials began trying to wriggle out of his pledge. By early 2002 his budget director was accusing New York's elected representatives, who wanted to know what had happened to the promised aid, of engaging in a "money-grubbing game." It's not clear how much federal help the city has actually received.

With that precedent in mind, consider this: Congress has just gone on recess. By the time it returns, seven weeks will have passed since the levees broke. And the administration has spent much of that time blocking efforts to aid Katrina's victims.

I'm not sure why the news media haven't made more of the White House role in stalling a bipartisan bill that would have extended Medicaid coverage to all low-income hurricane victims - some of whom, according to surveys, can't afford needed medicine. The White House has also insisted that disaster loans to local governments, many of which no longer have a tax base, be made with the cruel and unusual provision that these loans cannot be forgiven.

Since the administration is already nickel-and-diming Katrina's victims, it's a good bet that it will do the same with reconstruction - that is, if reconstruction ever gets started.

Nobody thinks that reconstruction should already be under way. But what's striking to me is that there are no visible signs that the administration has even begun developing a plan. No reconstruction czar has been appointed; no commission has been named. There have been no public hearings. And as far as we can tell, nobody is in charge.

Last month The New York Times reported that Karl Rove had been placed in charge of post-Katrina reconstruction. But last week Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, denied that Mr. Rove - who has become a lot less visible lately, as speculation swirls about possible indictments in the Plame case - was ever running reconstruction. So who is in charge? "The president," said Mr. McClellan.

Finally, if we assume that Mr. Bush remains hostile to domestic spending that might threaten his tax cuts - and there's no reason to assume otherwise - foot-dragging on post-Katrina reconstruction is a natural political strategy.

I've been reading "Off Center," an important new book by Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson, political scientists at Yale and Berkeley respectively. Their goal is to explain how Republicans, who face a generally moderate electorate and have won recent national elections by "the slimmest of margins," have nonetheless been able to advance a radical rightist agenda.

One of their "new rules for radicals" is "Don't just do something, stand there." Frontal assaults on popular government programs tend to fail, as Mr. Bush learned in his hapless attempt to sell Social Security privatization. But as Mr. Hacker and Mr. Pierson point out, "sometimes decisions not to act can be a powerful means of reshaping the role of government." For example, the public strongly supports a higher minimum wage, but conservatives have nonetheless managed to cut that wage in real terms by not raising it in the face of inflation.

Right now, the public strongly supports a major reconstruction effort, so that's what Mr. Bush had to promise. But as the TV cameras focus on other places and other issues, will the administration pay a heavy political price for a reconstruction that starts slowly and gradually peters out? The New York experience suggests that it won't.

Of course, I may be overanalyzing. Maybe the administration isn't deliberately dragging its feet on reconstruction. Maybe its lack of movement, like its immobility in the days after Katrina struck, reflects nothing more than out-of-touch leadership and a lack of competent people.

And for the sake of all that is right how can you possibly defend this?

Who Isn't Against Torture?

BOB HERBERT

Some people get it. Some don't.

Senator John McCain, one of the strongest supporters of the war in Iraq, has sponsored a legislative amendment that would prohibit the "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" of prisoners in the custody of the U.S. military. Last week the Senate approved the amendment by the overwhelming vote of 90 to 9.

This was not a matter of Democrats vs. Republicans, or left against right. Joining Senator McCain in his push for clear and unequivocal language banning the abusive treatment of prisoners were Senator John Warner of Virginia, the Republican chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a former military lawyer who is also a Republican and an influential member of the committee. Both are hawks on the war.

Also lining up in support were more than two dozen retired senior military officers, including two former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell and John Shalikashvili.

So who would you expect to remain out of step with this important march toward sanity, the rule of law and the continuation of a longstanding American commitment to humane values?

Did you say President Bush? Well, that would be correct.

The president, who has trouble getting anything right, is trying to block this effort to outlaw the abusive treatment of prisoners.

Senator McCain's proposal is an amendment to the huge defense authorization bill. The White House has sent out signals that Mr. Bush might veto the entire bill if that's what it takes to defeat the amendment.

The Washington Post summed the matter up in an editorial that said:

"Let's be clear: Mr. Bush is proposing to use the first veto of his presidency on a defense bill needed to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan so that he can preserve the prerogative to subject detainees to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. In effect, he threatens to declare to the world his administration's moral bankruptcy."

Last Wednesday, Senator McCain rose on the Senate floor and said:

"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, states simply that 'No one shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.' The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the U.S. is a signatory, states the same. The binding Convention Against Torture, negotiated by the Reagan administration and ratified by the Senate, prohibits cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.

"On last year's [Department of Defense] authorization bill, the Senate passed a bipartisan amendment reaffirming that no detainee in U.S. custody can be subject to torture or cruel treatment, as the U.S. has long defined those terms. All of this seems to be common sense, in accordance with longstanding American values.

"But since last year's [defense] bill, a strange legal determination was made that the prohibition in the Convention Against Torture against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment does not legally apply to foreigners held outside the U.S. They can, apparently, be treated inhumanely. This is the [Bush] administration's position, even though Judge Abe Sofaer, who negotiated the Convention Against Torture for President Reagan, said in a recent letter that the Reagan administration never intended the prohibition against cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment to apply only on U.S. soil."

The McCain amendment would end the confusion and the perverse hunt for loopholes in the laws that could somehow be interpreted as allowing the sadistic treatment of human beings in U.S. custody.

Senator McCain met last week with Capt. Ian Fishback, a West Point graduate who was one of three former members of the 82nd Airborne Division to come forward with allegations, first publicly disclosed in a report by Human Rights Watch, that members of their battalion had routinely beaten and otherwise abused prisoners in Iraq. In a letter that he sent to the senator before the meeting, Captain Fishback wrote:

"Some argue that since our actions are not as horrifying as Al Qaeda's, we should not be concerned. When did Al Qaeda become any type of standard by which we measure the morality of the United States? We are America, and our actions should be held to a higher standard, the ideals expressed in documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution."

Senator McCain and Captain Fishback get it. Some people still don't.

Locking up freedom and democracy behind a veil of secrecy while purporting to export it as an excuse for naked aggression while we don't even have it here. Incompetence economically that has brought America to her knees in time of a national emergency. Vetoing a defense bill, which during last November's election would have been decried by Bush himself as the sign of a traitor who refuses to support our troops, so that they can continue to use torture.

Our nation has been taken over by a band of criminals from Texas. Yet sadly several of our fellow Americans refuse to recognize this fact because they seem to be under the spell of a cynical sycophant and his puppet whose callous, selfish vision has made them and their "haves and have mores" billions of dollars while burying America in debt to nations that seek to defeat us economically if not militarily and miring her as they profiteer in an intractable and ultimately ruinous invasion while making her a laughingstock of lies and hypocricy.

Time to WTFU, America. You've been had and it's time to demand justice for those who are responsible.

People, Karl Rove is a nasty back stabbing sissy, the kind of kid who most of us would have beat up after school if he tried to pull his BS on us. George W. Bush is a smarmy preppie who never had to even consider accountability throughout his entire life.

They are destroying our nation.

PLEASE, WTFU.

 

[Pabster]

...And one big tool named BBond...

 

[Corn]

If it makes you angry BOBDN, it makes me happy. I need to defend nothing, I simply delight in your agony.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Pabster
...And one big tool named BBond...

:roll: Thanks for your invaluable contribution.

Pabster, where do you stand on McCain's proposed declaration against the use of torture?

I think the first piece, in particular, points to one of the most troubling aspects of the Bush administration: its unprecedented focus on secrecy. Even discussions and activities that are traditionally public have been conducted in secret settings, and the Bush administration has fought harder to keep more information classified than any presidency in history. I don't see how one can defend it.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: BBond
Here are three editorial pieces from yesterday?s NY Times for those who care to read them. They give three egregious examples of what George W. Bush and his cabal have brought to America.

Just as with Bush?s fantasy WMD in Iraq in which, by his own investigator's conclusion America was almost all wrong, this once great nation has followed George W. Bush down a hole and into a Rovian world where up is down, peace is war, good is evil -- but back here in the real world America is once again almost all wrong.

How can you Bushies defend this?

Our nation has been taken over by a band of criminals from Texas. Yet sadly several of our fellow Americans refuse to recognize this fact because they seem to be under the spell of a cynical sycophant and his puppet whose callous, selfish vision has made them and their "haves and have mores" billions of dollars while burying America in debt to nations that seek to defeat us economically if not militarily and miring her as they profiteer in an intractable and ultimately ruinous invasion while making her a laughingstock of lies and hypocricy.

Time to WTFU, America. You've been had and it's time to demand justice for those who are responsible.

People, Karl Rove is a nasty back stabbing sissy, the kind of kid who most of us would have beat up after school if he tried to pull his BS on us. George W. Bush is a smarmy preppie who never had to even consider accountability throughout his entire life.

They are destroying our nation.

PLEASE, WTFU.

Awwwwwww, don't like our version of the Kremlin???

Why not? 😕

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Corn
If it makes you angry BOBDN, it makes me happy. I need to defend nothing, I simply delight in your agony.

for an absurdly, comprehensively vapid troll post. I thought you prided yourself on being a Christian, yet here you are reveling in the "agony" of another person. How do you reconcile that?

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Corn
If it makes you angry BOBDN, it makes me happy. I need to defend nothing, I simply delight in your agony.

for an absurdly, comprehensively vapid troll post. I thought you prided yourself on being a Christian, yet here you are reveling in the "agony" of another person. How do you reconcile that?

Quite easily actually:

If it is one thing I am most definitely not, it is a christian. I have no clue about whatever gave you that idea about me, but I can assure you that I don't have a religious bone in my body.

Reconcile that.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Corn

Quite easily actually:

If it is one thing I am most definitely not, it is a christian. I have no clue about whatever gave you that idea about me, but I can assure you that I don't have a religious bone in my body.

Reconcile that.

Ah, I guess I was thinking of a different right-wing troll.

So, with that in mind, I have a couple of follow-up questions:

Do you think posts like yours are good for this forum? Do you think they help make it a worthwhile place for discussion? I've been here for a long time, as you know, and seen you post things of substance. You know your post in this thread is worthless flamebait, right?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I find it funny, and not a little ironic, that the latest right-wing gambit is to accuse liberals of "hatred." You hear it all the time. Here, though, we have a conservative poster, adding NOTHING to the discussion, saying "If it makes you angry BOBDN, it makes me happy. I need to defend nothing, I simply delight in your agony."

What a world!

 

[Moonbeam]

Corn has gone over to the Dark Side. All that mental power and nothing to use against finally got to him.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Corn

Quite easily actually:

If it is one thing I am most definitely not, it is a christian. I have no clue about whatever gave you that idea about me, but I can assure you that I don't have a religious bone in my body.

Reconcile that.

Ah, I guess I was thinking of a different right-wing troll.

So, with that in mind, I have a couple of follow-up questions:

Do you think posts like yours are good for this forum? Do you think they help make it a worthwhile place for discussion? I've been here for a long time, as you know, and seen you post things of substance. You know your post in this thread is worthless flamebait, right?

Give me a break. I could give a rip about this forum today. The OP is a banned troll, yet he is allowed to post at will.

....this once great nation has followed George W. Bush down a hole and into a Rovian world where up is down, peace is war, good is evil....

...Our nation has been taken over by a band of criminals from Texas.

People, Karl Rove is a nasty back stabbing sissy, the kind of kid who most of us would have beat up after school if he tried to pull his BS on us. George W. Bush is a smarmy preppie who never had to even consider accountability throughout his entire life.

Yeah, civil discourse at its best. Pardon me while I puke.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Corn

Give me a break. I could give a rip about this forum today. The OP is a banned troll, yet he is allowed to post at will.

What was he banned for? How do you know he's the same person?

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: Corn
If it makes you angry BOBDN, it makes me happy. I need to defend nothing, I simply delight in your agony.

2 trolls emerge almost immediately, providing ZERO relevant commentary.

The Bush administration is running the country into the ground and all you guys can do is troll.
Props to DonVito for trying to clean the cesspool up with no support whatsoever. :thumbsup:

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Corn

Give me a break. I could give a rip about this forum today. The OP is a banned troll, yet he is allowed to post at will.

What was he banned for? How do you know he's the same person?

The last time you asked me this question and I replied, the mods deleted that entire discussion thread to protect him. I'm sure you remember that, you were complaining about Zenardi being a banned troll.....but I will post my reply again:

As far as bbond/BOBDN is concerned, what difference does it make why he was banned? He's a lefty, he must have done something pretty nasty to get the boot from this place. I have no IP logs at my disposal to establish a link to their identity, only the fact they both used the same letters to make up their name. Oh, and there also is a familiar ring to each one's, ahem, "style":

bbond: "as long as this "we" = George W. Bush and his neocon maniac choir." http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...hreadid=1494072&enterthread=y&arctab=y

BOBDN: "Before you and the maniacs you support in the Bush administration....." http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...&STARTPAGE=2&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

bbond: ".....ditch this maniac in a full up and down vote." http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...&STARTPAGE=2&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

BOBDN: "....CHENEY AS VP LED THE NEO-CON MANIAC'S CHARGE INTO IRAQ...." http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...&STARTPAGE=3&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

bbond: "I'm not the maniac who sent the world's most powerful military to war based on fabricated evidence." http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...hreadid=1494040&enterthread=y&arctab=y

bbond: ".....the neocon world domination set that has taken over the U.S. government." http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...hreadid=1515794&enterthread=y&arctab=y

BOBDN: "The Bush administration neo-con world domination agenda...." http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...hreadid=1132390&enterthread=y&arctab=y

bbond: "..an illegal, unnecessary, unprovoked attack against Iraq." http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1620871&enterthread=y

BOBDN: "....the Bush administration's unnecessary illegal invasion of Iraq!" http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...&STARTPAGE=2&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

bbond: "...Bush's unnecessary, illegal, unprovoked invasion..." http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1616856&enterthread=y

BOBDN: "...Bush's illegal, unnecessary invasion of Iraq?" http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...hreadid=1163999&enterthread=y&arctab=y

BOBDN: "Wake up people" http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...&STARTPAGE=2&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

bbond: "Wake up people" http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...hreadid=1460895&enterthread=y&arctab=y

BOBDN: "...wake up people." http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...hreadid=1094346&enterthread=y&arctab=y

bbond: "Wake up people." http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...hreadid=1440404&enterthread=y&arctab=y

BOBDN: "Wake up people." http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...hreadid=1063859&enterthread=y&arctab=y

bbond: "Wake up people" http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...hreadid=1534519&enterthread=y&arctab=y

Need I continue? Well, maybe one more thing:

BOBDN implies he's from New Jersey here: "This piece by a noted theologian was on our statewide New Jersey newspaper's editorial page today" Check bbond's profile, it also says he's from New Jersey. http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...&STARTPAGE=2&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
The Bush administration is running the country into the ground and all you guys can do is troll.

Are you referring to the OP and yourself? I'd agree wholeheartedly.

 

[arsbanned]

Come on Mods. How egregious does it have to be?

 

[Train]

Calling replies to this thread trolling is like the pot calling the kettle black.

how can you expect "worthwhile" replies when the OP itself contains drivel like this:

Karl Rove is a nasty back stabbing sissy, the kind of kid who most of us would have beat up after school if he tried to pull his BS on us. George W. Bush is a smarmy preppie who never had to even consider accountability throughout his entire life.

umm k, and next you'll call me a poo poo head?

This thread *could* be worth debating if it wasnt loaded from the start. What do the three topics have to do with eachother? Why couldnt they be in three seperate threads? It seems the OP had no intention of debating these topics. Its like trolls using troll bait to fish for other trolls to fight.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Come on Mods. How egregious does it have to be?

I agree. It all started with:

....this once great nation has followed George W. Bush down a hole and into a Rovian world where up is down, peace is war, good is evil....

...Our nation has been taken over by a band of criminals from Texas.

People, Karl Rove is a nasty back stabbing sissy, the kind of kid who most of us would have beat up after school if he tried to pull his BS on us. George W. Bush is a smarmy preppie who never had to even consider accountability throughout his entire life.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Corn

As far as bbond/BOBDN is concerned, what difference does it make why he was banned? He's a lefty, he must have done something pretty nasty to get the boot from this place.

That is what we lawyers call a nonresponsive answer. To me it matters a great deal why he was banned, if he was. The fact that you don't know the reason suggests to me that your anger is feigned and/or you are just a generally angry person for reasons known only to you.

 

[CaptnKirk]

. . . and from the title - I was expecting to read about Pamela Anderson and her girlfriends . . .

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Corn

As far as bbond/BOBDN is concerned, what difference does it make why he was banned? He's a lefty, he must have done something pretty nasty to get the boot from this place.

That is what we lawyers call a nonresponsive answer. To me it matters a great deal why he was banned, if he was. The fact that you don't know the reason suggests to me that your anger is feigned and/or you are just a generally angry person for reasons known only to you.

Because I did not tell you why he was banned does not mean I don't know why. You make all the assumptions you wish, the fact is that he is a banned troll who is allowed back on this forum.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: Corn

Because I did not tell you why he was banned does not mean I don't know why. You make all the assumptions you wish, the fact is that he is a banned troll who is allowed back on this forum.

I'll have to side with the Don on this.
Could you prove it conclusively in a Court of Law, or is it merely speculation on your part and circumstantial evidence ?

 

[Corn]

YGPM Kirk.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Corn

Quite easily actually:

If it is one thing I am most definitely not, it is a christian. I have no clue about whatever gave you that idea about me, but I can assure you that I don't have a religious bone in my body.

Reconcile that.

Ah, I guess I was thinking of a different right-wing troll.

So, with that in mind, I have a couple of follow-up questions:

Do you think posts like yours are good for this forum? Do you think they help make it a worthwhile place for discussion? I've been here for a long time, as you know, and seen you post things of substance. You know your post in this thread is worthless flamebait, right?

Y'know... If a conservative had come in here and posted an op ed from Ann Coulter you would have immediately responded with a "Pffft... Ann Coulter. Great. :disgust: " But then the OP has the nerve to cite Kitty freekin' Kelly and Paul Krugman of all people and try to pass them off as though their opinions are legitimate discussion topics.

Pot meet Kettle. Kettle, Pot.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Y'know... If a conservative had come in here and posted an op ed from Ann Coulter you would have immediately responded with a "Pffft... Ann Coulter. Great. :disgust: " But then you have the nerve to cite Kitty freekin' Kelly and Paul Krugman of all people and try to pass them off as though their opinions are legitimate discussion topics.

Pot meet Kettle. Kettle, Pot.

Where have I cited Kitty Kelley or Paul Krugman? What the hell are you talking about?