KaskadskyjKozak

Haircut? What about those GLASSES.

but fuel costs are only part of the cost of driving...

S. Everett to Downtown Seattle. It really sucks.

Bush is a mediocre president. His policies and decisions are mixed bag. He's not the worst president in history and not the best. He is neither a "miserable failure" nor the most capable leader. And only time will tell the effect of his most major decisions - the war on terror and his foreign policy in Iraq. It's funny that I get accused of seeing things in black and white, when it's all YOU folks who clearly do. According to YOU all the Bush presidency is absolutely BLACK, a zero. I don't see it that way, and don't see it in any kind of absolute terms. Now put that in your pipe and smoke it.

I think we can safely say that this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Yeah, right. Black is white. You Bush-haters have a one-track mind. You can't stop thinking of him and are obsessed with your hatred of him. You post continuously on this board criticisizing everything he says and does. Ya naoborot dumayu a raznykh veshchakh, ne otdaya vsyo vnimaniye na odnu taku dumku. Vy op'yat pokazyvayete sebya durakom. Vot is vsyo.

Are you referring to Bush's obvious attempt to divert attention from his being caught lying to us? He's obviously lied again when he says that a senator from New Jersey or a governor from Vermont had access to the same intelligence he did. you are a monomaniac

When it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

This scale of operation really should require a formal declaration of war by the congress. Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf War were bad precedents in this regard.

so how did you like War and Peace? did you finish it yet?

The Dems who voted for the war did so because they were afraid if they did not then they would not get reelected. CYA trumps all. Period.

do you ever think of anything other than politics?

yeah, so impoverished... as compared to how they would be living in their respective ancestral homelands.

"America sucks"? - gee, reading this thread, I wonder why conservatives get the idea that liberals hate America, root for us to "lose", and are unpatriotic. Oh, yeah, I forgot, it's "patriotic" to attack your president, country, and foreign policy ad nauseam with a monomaniacal obsession.

Gotta be decisive and make the kill. Oh yeah, liberals don't hunt.

his side is losing. badly. all over the country. and there's some worrisome initiatives in WA that are likely to pass soon too.

Maybe you could find a classic Rumsfeld quote for me? Remember, I admitted that all politicians engage in this, but maintained that NON politicians on the left are much more prone to it than conservatives. Listen to the liberal spinmeisters on television, liberal lawyers, und so weiter. Catbird's response was a closer characterization of the conservative approach to debate: "I'm right because it just is, it's obvious, a tautology, end of argument".

There you go again. "wasn't" "no WMDs" "not a part of any" blah blah Saddam was a threat - perhaps not threat enough, there were WMDs at one point - not when we occupied the country (and Saddam sure acted like he had them), and there are links to terrorism in Iraq. You liberals do no favor to your argument with this overwrought hyperbole. Try using qualifiers like "not enough", "insufficient", "less than" rather than "not", "none", and someone might listen to you other than those that have already partaken of your kool-aid.

Yeah, they're often revolting to many. What did Zappa say about hell and France? :-))

There was a thread on this b-board not too long ago, asking "how long can we stand it in the US, with all this injustice, before we must revolt". How ironic that the liberal-utopian-socialist posterchild France is the one where the people are revolting. :-))

"unsupported" is just another word used by the left in their semantic games (along with "no proof", "no evidence", etc). There is plenty of support for these "conservative assertions", but you refuse to acknowledge them. The game gets old quickly, and the discussion deteriorates into the expedient and more efficient "this is how it is, now f*** off".

None of those top these two: "I voted for the 87 billion... before I voted against it" "It depends what the meaning of the word 'is' is..."

Yes, yes, and the right never would stoop to such tricks. Been out of your cave much lately? *politicians* of both parties engage in obfuscation and misdirection, but liberal politicians favor semantic pedantry. but liberals, who are NOT politicians, choose these tactics far more often than their opponents, because it is the liberal who sees himself as a nuanced, sophisticated intellectual, and it is the liberal who concocts complicated rationalizations for flimsy ethical positions, engages in semantic games to obfuscate and change the subject, proposes endless false analogies, and cites theoretical hypotheticals and utopian platitudes ad nauseum.

That's the biggest joke we've seen on this site in a LONG time. And liberal lawyers are the most adept at using these tools.

Especially since her replacement was postponed due to Rehnquist's death. She announced her retirement quite a while ago. Semantic pedanty, obfuscation, and misdirection are all tools of the left. I look forward to their rising hysteria and hyperbole during the forthcoming hearings. Choke on it, lefties.

Scalito!