Cody O'Connor

I'm betting Mr. Il is an angry drunk, what do you think?
 

I think there is no way you'll ever be proved right or wrong. BTW Cody, Mel Gibson is a right-winger. Why do you want to get rid of someone from your team?

Aren't you upset that bush's failed policies have brought us to this point?

...the 1993 agreement was largely a success in that it deterred North Korea from reprocessing plutonium. Through the end of the Clinton administration, North Korea refrained from plutonium enrichment. In this account, it was only when Pres. Bush rejected the framework agreement that North Korea secretly began to reprocess plutonium, which eventually culminated in this weekend's test. (10/10/2006. McCain Challenges Clinton On North Korea, The Hotline)
 

"I'm betting Mr. Il is an angry drunk, what do you think?"

Or maybe we'll find out that when he's sober he's not even a Communist. Who knows?

W-Dervish
"Mel Gibson is a right-winger. Why do you want to get rid of someone from your team?"

How about because he's a drunken anti-semitic degenerate?

How come with Liberals it's never the terrorists fault, but Bush's? Kim Jong-Il tests nukes and you find a way to make it Bush's fault. For political reasons no doubt. Forget the fact that the only person you can really blame is nutjobs like Kim. Think of the last time someone was mad at you and stopped talking to you. Did you start to stockpile nuclear weapons? I highly doubt it. It's not Bush's fault Kim is crazy.
 

The fact remains that under the Clinton administration North Korea wasn't processing plutonium. That started because of actions taken by the bush administration. You accusing the Democrats of doing anything for "political reasons" is ridiculous! That's the sole motivating factor behind every single decision the bush administration makes!

BTW I'm all for the Democrats using this incident for "political reasons". It's high time the Democrats make it clear to the American people that they would do an infinitely more competent job in protecting them from terrorism.

Robert M. Said... How come with Liberals it's never the terrorists fault, but Bush's?

How come Conservatives never take responsibility for their own policy failures? Why is it always Clinton's fault?

Koreans Stopped Nuclear Moves Under Clinton, So Bush And McCain Blame Clinton? (excerpt) Democrats should push back against every dishonest excuse and every evasion of responsibility by the partisan President and his acolytes who have done enough damage to our security for a lifetime.

...the truth is, the policies of President Clinton kept Korea's nuclear tests from happening while the policies of President Bush opened the door, invited them in, and and the tests occurred and the dangers rose because of the multiple failures of the Bush policies. (10/10/2006. Brent Budowsky, Buzzflash)
 

Why do you keep insisting that I'm a Conservative Republican? I am not going to have a conversation with you if you don't address me. If you want to debate a Conservative, go on Robby's blog.
 

I guessed that you agree with the Republican position and instead of explaining what your position actually is you're upset... because I didn't research the "neolibertarian" position??

From what I've read it appears as though a "neolibertarian" would be in agreement with the bush administration when it comes to foreign policy. If that isn't the case why don't you explain where you differ instead of getting upset that I guessed wrong?

Your last post argued that Trickle down economics actually works. I thought this was a classic Conservative Republican position. Frankly I don't see how this blog is any different than your old one.
 

It means I'm Conservative on everything but Social issues (eg abortion, gay marraige, death penalty)

I realize I don't talk about this issues much, and that's pretty much because I don't think they're that important compared to the things I do talk about.

But back to the Kim Jong-Il thing. Yes, he did slow down, but he didn't stop. But I just found out that right now he's got the same nuclear technology we did in the 40's, maybe even worse. So I've become less worried about what he's doing over there. Now, if he plans to sell those nukes to somewhere closer to us; say Venezuela or Cuba, (sound familiar?) than I think it will be time for us to do something.
 

Geez dervish, can you maybe get a sense of humor? You've turned this into a debate. Is it that you don't like making fun of dictators?
 

Cody O. Said... Now, if he plans to sell those nukes to somewhere closer to us; say Venezuela or Cuba, (sound familiar?) than I think it will be time for us to do something.

Venezuela is not our enemy. Hugo Chavez may not like George bush, but he did sell low priced heating oil to poor Americans. Why would Venezuela want nukes? I know you hate Hugo Chavez (which, again, would be the Republican position) but from everything I've read he sounds like a pretty good guy. He CARES about the poor in his country (and in the US). He also has bush pegged correctly. There are the allegations of human rights abuses, but thus far I've been unable to find any actual proof of anything he may have done. That would change my opinion of him completely, of course. Right now I'm inclined to believe that these charges are nothing more than smears from right-wing socialism haters.
 

so who's to say Chavez wouldn't drop a nuke on the white house trying to "liberate" the people you claim he cares about?
 

Yeah dervish, actually you're right about one thing. Hating a communist dictator IS a Republican position.
 

Cody O'Connor said... so who's to say Chavez wouldn't drop a nuke on the white house trying to "liberate" the people you claim he cares about?

Anyone who doesn't believe in crazy conspiracy theories from the Right. Actually it's our government who is trying to get rid of Chavez, not the other way around.

The CIA Was Involved In the Coup Against Venezuela's Chavez.

Chavez says he has White House informant. Bush administration plotting to kill him, Venezuela president claims. Venezuela President Hugo Chavez said Sunday he has received warnings from within the White House that the Bush administration is plotting to assassinate him or topple his left-leaning government. (10/1/2006. MSNBC)

Robert M. said... Yeah dervish, actually you're right about one thing. Hating a communist dictator IS a Republican position.

No, I'm not "right" about that. Because I never said that. Chavez isn't Communist or a dictator.
 

From the CIA factbook: Hugo CHAVEZ, president since 1998, has promoted a controversial policy of "democratic socialism," which purports to alleviate social ills while at the same time attacking globalization and undermining regional stability.

Oh that's right he's a "socialist." I can see how you liberals would like him then. Especcially since you buy into the opinion that Bush is really Satan too.

Keep making your party look crazy. We need that in November.
 

Also from the CIA factbook:Current concerns include: a weakening of democratic institutions, political polarization, a politicized military, drug-related violence along the Colombian border, increasing internal drug consumption, overdependence on the petroleum industry with its price fluctuations, and irresponsible mining operations that are endangering the rain forest and indigenous peoples.

I think it's safe to say that if your party supports guy like this, we don't really want them in office.
 

"controversial" according to the wealthy ruling class here in the US (and probably Venezuela as well). "My party" believes the United States has no say in who other countries elect to lead them. I'm not inclined to believe anything from the CIA "fact" book. Bush is not Satan. He is an evil man who might be the Antichrist.

BTW that is something I personally believe, NOT something believed by all Democrats in general. You should continue making yourself look crazy by insisting that ONE person posting on a blog represents all Democrats everywhere. Anyone who happens to run accross your blog will quickly deduce just how ridiculous you are and disregard everything you say.
 

Oh gee sorry. I apologize. Not all Democrats are insane, just you. Does that make you feel better? And do you really think after you say something that nuts people will think I'M crazy? Besides, you don't really believe that anyway, you just want the attention. Sad really.
 

How, exactly, is what I said nuts? Millions of Christians believe that events foretold in Revelation will one day occur. Undeniably there have been many people throughout history who were just as -- or even more -- evil than GWB, but not many. I'm only saying that IF there is an AntiChrist, and IF he reveals himself in our lifetime, that GWB is a good canidate.

Unlike some, I'm not claiming that God spoke to me and gave me any special knowledge. If anyone's crazy it's GWB. You're either crazy or deluded if you believe that his actions have made us any safer. They haven't.

Anyway, screw you, you have no idea what I believe.
 

How, exactly, is what I said nuts? Millions of Christians believe that events foretold in Revelation will one day occur.

Not many think it's Bush. I'm sorry but that's crazy. I think many would agree with me. But you can think it if you want. I'm not stopping you.

Anyway, screw you, you have no idea what I believe.

I care even less, at least what you believe relegiously. That's your problem not mine.
 

Dervish said...
"I'm not inclined to believe anything from the CIA "fact" book."

"Bush is not Satan. He is an evil man who might be the Antichrist."

The CIA's website is right wing? Bush isn't satan, just the Antichrist? Haha, you're too funny, Dervish. I'm holding on to these. They'll give me a good chuckle if I'm in a bad mood.
 

Cody O. Said... The CIA's website is right wing? Bush isn't satan, just the Antichrist? Haha, you're too funny, Dervish. I'm holding on to these. They'll give me a good chuckle if I'm in a bad mood.

You QUOTED me. Where in that quote do I say the CIA "factbook" is rightwing?

Then you QUOTED me again, but failed to see the word "might".

You can laugh all you want, but you'll only be laughing at what you IMAGINED I said, not what I actually said.

Robert O. Said... I care even less, at least what you believe relegiously. That's your problem not mine.

What in the world are you talking about? I never implied that you should care. I have never said anything to "get attention" as you claimed. Also, how is what I believe my "problem"? What's "crazy" are these weird comments you make.

Robert M. Said... Not many think it's Bush. I'm sorry but that's crazy. I think many would agree with me. But you can think it if you want. I'm not stopping you.

I didn't say that. My statement included the word "might", which makes a HUGE difference. First you tell me you won't stop me from believing what I want to (as if you could), then you tell me that you don't care (if you don't care then why would I think you might want to stop me??). Strange.

You know what is really nuts? Your theory that our being in Iraq is of strategic importance. That's way more nuts than anything I've ever said.
 

Hahaha, and to you of course the word "might" is a get out of the crazy home free card right? If that theory made a sliver of sense you wouldn't need the word "might."
 

You know what? I don't give a damn what you think. Personally I think you're crazy for standing by bush when most of the country now realizes what a disaster Iraq is. I'd rather be "crazy" than as delusional as someone who thinks we already "won" in Iraq.
 

That's nice.
 

I couldn't think of a more childish response than "that's nice". That isn't how grown-ups debate.
 

Sure. Whatever.
 

If you agree then why don't you stop doing it?
 

I think it's because it annoys you...

My my, we are regressing aren't we my friend? One would think we were both in kindergarten. Snack time for me I'm afraid. See you.