Sunday, August 7

What the Clintons have been up to lately.

You might think that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been much too busy assembling the Clintonian People's Revolutionary Army that will soon mount a bloody coup d'etat to overturn our nation's very system of democracy and install Madame Hitlery in the White House where she and her left-wing commie pinko regime can rule the nation with a ruthless iron Feminazi fist . . . but it turns out they've found time to ruin the country in other ways.

So sayeth the indefatigable steel-trap-like minds of the right wing, who have, as usual, been keeping tabs on the Clintons and reporting tirelessly on their nefarious schemes. Bill, it turns out, has been busy convincing Rafael Palmeiro to take steroids -- I'll just bet it was horndog Bill who told Raffy to do those Viagra commercials, the knave -- while Hillary was the one who leaked Valerie Plame's name to the media. Karl Rove didn't do it, see, it was Hillary, who framed poor Unka Karl! Diabolical!

Still no word yet on how Bill and Hillary are actually responsible for the roadside bombing that killed 14 U.S. soldiers in Iraq last week, the Air France plane crash in Toronto, or the fact that the Nationals are 6-16 since the All-Star break, but rest assured that as soon as they figure out how to make these connections, we'll bring the news to you.

All this is just more reason why I just laugh when I read nonsense like this (don't even ask me what Google search led me to this particular circle of conservative hell):

Last week I mentioned how (in general) liberals hate George W. Bush although conservatives never hated Bill Clinton, according to what both sides admit about themselves.


Right. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to get on my unicorn and ride off in search of the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, which I will then use to purchase the Brooklyn Bridge. Updates as events warrant.

69 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wow, Dougie, looks like you're finally starting to wise up to what a nazi Hitlery is. Just think, if only she'd been able to admit she was a lezz 30 years ago, she might never have married Bill, and then she could've avoided the whole Monica thing completly. Only then she and Janet Reno would be a couple, and then you liberal pukes would be fighting for the two of them to have the right to get married. Ugh. The only thing that disgusts me more is the thought of Billshit being a couple with....prety much anybody.

Still haven't seen any quarters from you liberal pukes yet. Buncha pansys.

April said...

Doug, (not anonymous)why is Hillary Clinton a Hitlery?

Josh said...

Are you still maintaining, by the way, that "Hillary in '08" is nothing but a fantasy cooked up by right wingers?

Anonymous said...

Holy censorship, liberal bloggerman! Had to happen sooner or later.

So, why don't you call this site, liberal blog rehash central?

And while you're on your unicorn, see if you can find the 350,000 jobs for upstate New York that hillary seems to have misplaced...we're already found the 150,000 she's lost so far.

Doug said...

Josh, I still don't think Hillary's going to run in '08. I think she's gonna want to be one of the power players who has a major say in who the nominee ends up being, but I don't think she's going to run herself.

Anonymous, can you enlighten us with some evidence of Hillary having lost 350,000 jobs or censored anybody? Don't you think that maybe just once you should have to back up some of your blather with an actual fact of some sort?

Doug said...

April, "Hitlery" is a nickname for Hillary commonly used by Rush Limbaugh, Neal Boortz, and all those other gasbags who somehow manage to get Scarlett O'Hara fainting spells anytime some overzealous liberal compares a Republican to the Nazis.

Bill from jc said...

Pansys? At least we don't send our Grannies to fight our wars you yellow coward! How is Granny Anonypuss? Has she gotten over the wall yet?

I also don't think you will see Sen. Clinton run in 08, but I suspect you might see Gen Wes Clark, he would get my vote anyway.

April said...

Ok so you were only calling her Hitlery because they call her that not because you actually think of her as that?

That's what I figured but I was making sure.

Anonymous said...

OK, douglas, I'll play along.

No Shrillary in '08? Damn, there goes another slam dunk. So, who's Loserville gonna run?

Kevin said...

I agree, we won't see Hilary run in '08.

Anonymous, what difference does it make who we have run in '08. You're going to call them a "puke" anyway. Bill O'Reilly could run for the Democrats in '08 and you'd still call him a liberal puke pantywaste, etc, blah, blah.

Anonymous said...

So you admit you have no one to run other than Hillary the lez. Hey, if the liberal hatchet job artists at the New York Slimes can look into John Roberts adoption records, does that mean that when Hillary runs, FOX News can look into Chelsea's DNA records and find out if Vince Foster is really her father? (Or maybe Janet Reno?) In case you're curious, Billshit, DNA is what you have in common with the last three guys you've slept with.

Can't wait for '08!

Anonymous the censored I said...

Really cool feature, you got there dougie. You intercept my comments and rewrite them. They never see the light of day. Cool. Pussy.

Doug said...

Wait, so now it's not Hillary who's censoring people, it's little ol' me. Maybe tomorrow it'll be Howard Dean. Or Arianna Huffington. Or Peter Jennings, from beyond the grave!

You're some piece of work, Anonymous I the Imbalanced. Try coming up with a better booga-booga conspiracy theory when you get back on your meds.

Kevin said...

It's so funny how the conservative "religious" right are so angry and so apt to use profanity in their blithering factless arguments (with exceptions to Josh and Steve...thank you for your civility). I giggle with glee every time I see the hypocrisy.

Oh, it's faggy homo puke pantywaste glee of course...non-the-less, it's glee.

By the way...what is a pantywaste? Also, I may be a "liberal puke", but if you take the adjective "liberal" out of the sentence, I am a "puke". I believe puking is a verb. I mean, I could be a "puker" or a "puke stain"...or perhaps even a "puke puddle". However, I don't think there is such thing as a "puke". Comments? Suggestions? Otherwise, please modify all future childish insults to read "liberal pukee".

Thank you in advance...

anonymous the censored said...

Gotta hand it to you, dougie. If you can't take the heat, then censor it. What a liberal pusswah.

You guys can't stand it when you don't control the message. Just like the big boys in the "mainstream" media. I can just hear it now...

I've got this blogger, see, and he keeps posting these embarrassing facts that are very embarrassing to my liberal buds. And you know us liberals, we never like to hear anything negative about us or our friends. It might hurt someone's feelings. Do you know how I can control him? Sure, since you're the blog's admin, you can just delete his/her comment. It's that easy.

It's all in the FAQ for Blogger, dipshit.

kevin, please, go back to the sand box.

Anonymous said...

Kevin, it doesn't matter who you run for prez in '08. It really doesn't, does it? You're gonna get your ass kicked, again.

Did you really say "glee?"

Kevin said...

Wow. "Go back to your sandbox"...a crushing blow by the right winger.

April said...

I personally enjoy your "sand box" Kevin.

Kevin said...

Thanks April. You are welcome in it any time. = )

April said...

Thank you. I will try to come there more often. :)

Anonymous said...

I think I'll go shit in your sandbox. :)

Anonymous said...

Ahhhhhh, that felt great! I am full of glee. Liberal turds. Losers from Loserville, one and all.

Steve said...

Thanks Kevin. However, while I endorse very little that anon says, I do have to support his use of "puke" as a pejorative. According to http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=puke (the authority of which has to be suspected) a definition of puke can be "a person who is deemed to be despicable or contemptible".

Other than that, I pretty much ignore everything he and Bill have to say.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, steve. Accuracy is very important - but not to these liberal assholes. I don't seek your endorsement. You do your thing and I'll do mine.

I find it strange that kev is a 29 year-old working in marketing. What are you selling there, kev? Gleeful gay sex toys?

Anonymous said...

As I have explained before, I just you descriptive terms that capture the essence of the referenced liberal subject. Hence, when I say "liberal puke," I am describing a liberal as "a person who is deemed to be despicable or contemptible".

Tu comprende?

Anonymous said...

Errrr.

As I have explained before, I just USE descriptive terms that capture the essence of the referenced liberal subject. Hence, when I say "liberal puke," I am describing a liberal as "a person who is deemed to be despicable or contemptible".

Tu comprende?

Doug said...

Anonymous reminds me of the roving band of fundie street preachers who paid regular visits to UGA while I was there and try to harass everybody. They would whip out their Bibles and call all the students drunks and whores in the hopes that one of them would get angry enough to take a swing at 'em, and then they could file a fat lawsuit against the University.

What Anonymous is hoping for is that he'll say something so outrageous and beyond the pale that he'll get banned, and then he can whine until the cows come home about how liberals are impugning his free speech. Only I suspect that even he's starting to tire of his little game, as he's elected to whip out false accusations of "censorship" before I've even done anything.

At any rate, I'd be perfectly happy if everyone decided to follow Steve's lead and ignore him. He's on a lonely little island, doing all that bitching and moaning, so let him occupy it by himself.

King Anoymous the IV said...

"shit in a sandbox"??? Well that is exactly what a pussy does!

King Anoymous the IV said...

"shit in a sandbox"??? Well that is exactly what a pussy does!

King Anoymous the IV said...

"shit in a sandbox"??? Well that is exactly what a pussy does!

Steve said...

On the subject of Hilary running in 08, I think she will. Whether you like the Clintons or not, you can't deny their unwavering ambition (not making a value judgement). What does she have to lose? She was drug through the wringer for 8 years and if nothing else proved that she can take a punch. What else can the right hit her with to pale with all that? So if she loses she still has her Senate seat. If she wins, all the better for her. Can't see a down side for her. If she waits, she risks another Democrat winning and having to wait 8 years and running out of time.

I think right now she is probably the Democrat's best hope. While some find Wes Clark attractive, I think ultimately he'd lose. Just doesn't have the right temperment to survive this type of battle.

As a Republican, my hope is we field someone who can win and face similar issues as to viable candidates. It's early though.

Steve said...

Having nothing else to do this evening, I went in search of the meaning of "pantywaste". I found the below, which doesn't actually define the term, but this guy is a hoot. Can't figure out what his leanings are. I haven't been able to determine if pantywaste is a mis-spelling of pantywaist

Re: Re: Fuck Pantywaste Liberals
by Jesus_H_Christ at 10:46PM (PST) on Feb 8, 2005 | Permanent Link
Carlos, this isn't what I meant - mainstream "liberals" direct their contempt rather softly at superficial targets - as the ruthless review article points out, there is more chatter directed at political correctness than the criminalization of black youth. The undermining of affirmative action at elite universities is given more attention than the pathetic failure to educate urban kids. Liberals choose lame things to worry about, then they whine.

Schwarzenegger is a good example - his lame "girlie men" comments generate more backlash (liberal whining) than his proposal to eliminate lunch breaks, his theft (this year) of 2$ billion from state primary and high schools, and his undermining of the (formerly great) state university system.

"Liberal" leaders play into the hands of Limbaugh and Hannity when they waive their limp wrist in anger at the Governator's "girly men" comments, but stand by like hurt little sheep while the Gov. takes away the right to a lunch break or a spot in the state university system.


http://simonandthelefties.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2005/2/7/307239.html

Kevin said...

Thank you Steve. I stand corrected. Anonymous, feel free to keep referring to me a liberal puke. My apologies.

"I find it strange that kev is a 29 year-old working in marketing. What are you selling there, kev? Gleeful gay sex toys?"

Yes Anon, that's what I do. I sell gleeful gay sex toys. I thought I recognized you from somewhere.

Steve, I spoke hastily earlier. I could easily see Hilary running in '08, but I doubt that the Democrats would choose her as their candidate. As much as I like her, I'm not sure if I would want her to be our candidate. Although, it would make everything pretty interesting.

Steve said...

As I said it's early. As far as I can see, Hilary is the only one on the current short list who could win imo unless the the Republicans nominate a real knucklehead (which sadly for me, I see as a real possibility). We'll see. Plenty of time. Personally, I like Mark Racicot.

Doug said...

My fondest dream is that we'll get a matchup like Clark/Warner vs. McCain/Giuliani, where at least we don't have to pick between the lesser of two evils.

On the other hand, if we ended up with Biden/Tauscher vs. Bush/Frist, I'd probably start looking into graduate schools. In England.

Lone Ranger said...

As a conservative, I never hated Bill Clinton. I merely held him in contempt -- so much so that the day after he was elected, I went to the retirement office and put in my papers after 24 years in the Air Force. That ended an unbroken chain of military service in my family that went back to World War I. I wasn't about to serve a president who wasn't morally fit to shine my shoes. No hate. Just a sense of honor.

Anonymous said...

Ahhhhhhh, I feel the love!

Clark/Warner in '08? Yes, perfectly good fodder for the capitalist ass kicking machine.

Thanks for the island, dougie. I needed a little R and R from your censorship. About the censorship...you doth protest too much.

"Pantywaste" is kevin's misspelling of "pantywaist." He's in marketing and can't spell. A valued employee, no doubt. Another product of our failed liberal public school system. However, I may start using pantywaste as it captures obvious liberal quirks.

And, dougie, check out "king anonymous the iv's" website. You liberals really go over the top when challenged. But "Dead Man?" I assume you approve?

Can't wait 'til '08!

Bill from jc said...

I thought we had been over this some time ago, it is "panty waste" as in the waste one finds in panties, not "panty waist", which really makes no sense as an insult at all. As to 08, I don't think it matters who the Dems run, folks will be so tired of Bush and his neocon men running the economy into the ground (have you checked gas prices lately anonypuss?) they will vote Hillary, Clark, or anyone else that can take us back to the prosperity of the Clinton era.

Anonymous said...

THE LIBERAL HIGH ROAD IS CRUMBLING

Continuing reports on the demise of liberalism in America.

Since you libshits are so concerned with "civility" on this blog, check this out:

NY TIMES QUESTIONED LEGALITY OF JUDGE ROBERTS ADOPTIONS; SUPREME COURT NOMINEE 'DISAPPOINTED'

**Exclusive**

Supreme Court Nominee John Roberts expressed great disappointment after learning the NEW YORK TIMES was poking around for details on his adopted children, sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

The DRUDGE REPORT first revealed how TIMES investigative reporter Glen Justice questioned if the adoption records for the Roberts children, Josephine and Jack, ages 5 and 4, would be made available for examination.

TIMES editors were determined to find any possible legal irregularities in the adoptions, insiders claim.

FOXNEWS's Brit Hume reported late last week how the TIMES has been asking lawyers that specialize in adoption cases for advice on how to get into the sealed court records:

"Sources familiar with the matter tell FOXNEWS that at least one lawyer turned the TIMES down flat, saying that any effort to pry into adoption case records, which are always sealed, would be reprehensible.

A senior editor at the TIMES lashed out at this space over the revealtion:

"The DRUDGE REPORT is wrong, overwrought and a gross misrepresentation of what has happened," blasted the paper's senior editor in a press release.

But the editor did confess: "Our reporters made initial inquiries about the adoptions... They did so with great care, understanding the sensitivity of the issue."

Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison called the newspaper's actions "reprehensible," saying the inquiry crossed the "fine line between legitimate background inquiries and invasion of privacy."

The National Council For Adoption issued the following statement:

?NCFA denounces, in the strongest possible terms, the shocking decision of the New York Times to investigate the adoption records of Justice John Roberts? two young children. The adoption community is outraged that, for obviously political reasons, the Times has targeted the very private circumstances, motivations, and processes by which the Roberts became parents.

"The adoption histories of four- and five-year old children have no bearing whatsoever on the suitability of Justice Roberts to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court ? or in any other position, for that matter."

What was that? "For obviously political reasons?" The NY Times? "For obviously political reasons?" Everything you libs do turns to shit. Let the Borking begin. Keep it up!

Can't wait 'til '08!

chandler said...

according to the Webster's II New College Dictionary:

pant ? y ? waist: n. 1. A child's undergarment having a shirt and pants buttoned together at the waist. 2. slang. A weak or effeminate boy or man.

no "pantywaste" to be found.

which is not to say there's no such thing as "panty waste," but wouldn't it just be easier to call someone a turd?

Anonymous said...

Yes, turd does fit the bill. A bloody tampon might also qualify as panty waste. I'll give you the freedom of choice (no pun intended) since either is an appropriate descriptor of a liberal numbnut like Billshit.

Kevin said...

Do you guys have anything of any relevance to discuss? Juuuust wondering.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm sure the issue of pantywaste vs. pantywaist will be a major issue in the various elections in '06 and '08...but still.

And anonymous, we've had the discussion about my education already. I don't have a second rate public education...I have an elitist private school education. Please make correct revisions in all future posts. Thanks buddy!

April said...

Although the debate of panty waste vs. panty waist is very interesting can we get back to something worthwhile?

Anonymous, you should REALLY read what you write before you hit publish.

For instance do you REALLY think that COMPLETELY CONSERVATIVE newspapers and news channels are going to do anything but try to make liberals look bad? All they do is what you're doing. They call liberals names. They obviously don't have anything to say about how liberals are doing anything to deserve these names-they just call names.

As we have all said its completely immature. I can only speak for myself but I find it very irritating to have a debate with a person who has the maturity level of a 5 year old. If you decide to start acting like an adult come talk to me.

steve said...

Ok, April. You want to debate. Let's ask a few questions. Give us an example where a liberal is simply called a name by the COMPLETELY CONSERVATIVE newspapers and news channels without any backup reasoning?

Bill from jc said...

Steve. listen to Limbaugh, G. Gordon etc and ask that question with a straight face.

By the way, I don't hate the Bush's. I hold them in contempt too! See? We don't hate, we just change the words!

Steve said...

No thank you.

Anonymous said...

april, I'm just back from a little jaunt to Venezuela. On August 9 at 10:25 AM I was fueling my bird. Some anonymous wannabe's trying to give me a bad name. You liberals are a pathetic bunch.

It was a great trip. So we take the boss and our corporate mouthpiece to Caracas to shut down operations. They clean out the local bank account, pay off the local employees in cash and leave. The boss explains to the surprised managers that he doesn't want to do business where he or any other American is not welcome. I love this guy. This Chavez guy hates America almost as much as you libshits do.

Bill from jc said...

Sure Anon, sure. We all beleive that.

Hey here is a notion, if you guys love america so much more that us liberals, why not sign up to serve in it's armed forces? That's right! That would really show us liberal pukes a thing or two about loveing our country!

But you won't. Because you are chickenshit.

Anonymous said...

Then don't believe it, billshit. Just add it to your long list of facts that you don't believe because of your twisted liberal mind.

The vast majority of the military are indeed capitalist conservatives. I've got my hands full fighting you libshits.

Anonymous said...

NEWS ON THE DEMISE OF LIBERALISM IN AMERICA

This just in....

NARAL Roberts ad spreads the big lie

By Boston Herald editorial staff
Friday, August 12, 2005

Even the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee is calling the increasingly vicious ad war being waged over Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts ``basically irrelevant.''

Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont told the Associated Press that whether on the left or the right, he wishes they'd all just quiet down.

Leahy didn't single out any one group, but we will. The 30-second spot, which NARAL Pro-Choice America is paying $500,000 to run on CNN and Fox cable and broadcast stations in Maine and Rhode Island, is so reprehensible it has even been disavowed by other pro-choice advocates. And it was panned by Factcheck.org, a nonpartisan project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.

The ad says flat out, ``Roberts filed court briefs supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted [abortion] clinic bomber,'' adding later, ``America can't afford a justice whose ideology leads him to excuse violence against other Americans.''

Factcheck.org was equally clear in its analysis, ``The ad is false'' and its imagery is ``especially misleading.''

The ad uses the story of clinic employee and bombing victim Emily Lyons, injured in the 1998 bombing of a clinic in Birmingham, Ala. That Roberts, deputy solicitor general in the first Bush administration, filed his brief before the Supreme Court in 1991 seems not to bother NARAL at all.

In that case Roberts argued the somewhat arcane point that a Reconstruction era civil rights law could not be used to justify the issuing of injunctions against clinic demonstrators by federal judges. In his oral argument he made a point of saying that he was not defending the conduct of the demonstrators, but rather the ``proper interpretation'' of the law. By a 6-3 decision the high court agreed with Roberts' argument.

That wasn't, of course, the end of it. Congress then did what Congress should have done ? passed a new law specifically intended to protect the clinics. None of that is mentioned in the NARAL ad, which does its best to smear and to obscure.

It is a virtual certainty that John Roberts will sit on the Supreme Court of the United States. Having sacrificed what remains of its credibility, NARAL's future is much less certain.

More failures from the liberal enemy within.

Where the hell is Dean? We need a real good yuck to end the week.

Kevin said...

Anonymous, I was against that ad the second I heard about it. I don't believe in "swiftboating" anyone for any reason.

You see, not all liberals agree with everything all other liberals do. We don't follow blindly like you.

Thanks for stopping by though...

April said...

"This Chavez guy hates America almost as much as you libshits do."

I'm not Anti-American, I'm Anti-War and Anti-Bush.

I don't hate America. Far from it in fact. I like America so much that I hate the people ruining our country.

Anonymous said...

april, you must be speaking of Michael Moore, Teddy K, J Conyers,
Barack Obama, FDR, Jimmy Carter, moveon.org, John edwards, G Soros, Wes Clark, Cindy Shehan, Paul Hackett, people for the "American" way, Schumer and code pink to name just a few of the liberalistas, comsymps and race whores that have ruined and continue to ruin this country? Yes?

Anonymous said...

Doug/Sis, I just love it when you rewrite my comments. Who the heck is Cindy Shehan? What's a race whore? If you're gonna put words in my mouth, please explain, I am not familiar with their failures.

Anonymous said...

The original comment:

"april, you must be speaking of Michael Moore, Teddy K, J Conyers,
Jimmy Carter, moveon.org, G Soros, Schumer and code pink to name just a few of the liberalistas that have ruined and continue to ruin this country? Yes?"

The censor's rewrite:

"april, you must be speaking of Michael Moore, Teddy K, J Conyers,
Barack Obama, FDR, Jimmy Carter, moveon.org, John edwards, G Soros, Wes Clark, Cindy Shehan, Paul Hackett, people for the "American" way, Schumer and code pink to name just a few of the liberalistas, comsymps and race whores that have ruined and continue to ruin this country? Yes?"

Subtle but material to the integrity of our freedom of speech rights. Sorry, I forgot, you liberal assholes have no integrity.

Now comes doug to deny, deny, deny this censorship. Like Lenin said, douglas, say a lie enough and it becomes the truth, eh?

Anonymous said...

Googlin on Cindy Shehan, I found this:

FAMILY OF FALLEN SOLDIER PLEADS: PLEASE STOP, CINDY!
Thu Aug 11 2005 12:56:21 ET

The family of American soldier Casey Sheehan, who was killed in Iraq on April 4, 2004, has broken its silence and spoken out against his mother Cindy Sheehan's anti-war vigil against George Bush held outside the president's Crawford, Texas ranch.

The following email was received by the DRUDGE REPORT from Casey's aunt and godmother:

Our family has been so distressed by the recent activities of Cindy we are breaking our silence and we have collectively written a statement for release. Feel free to distribute it as you wish.

Thanks, Cherie

In response to questions regarding the Cindy Sheehan/Crawford Texas issue: Sheehan Family Statement:

The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.

Sincerely,

Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins.


So this Cindy Sheehan is a tragic figure being exploited by your fellow libshits? You pubes know no shame.

(Standby for the rewrite.)

bill from jc said...

Wow anon,,, people that are not in the immediate family and don't sign thier names send a letter and that is enough to override the love of a mother in your book.

Your mom must not have been very nice to you for you to feel that way about motherhood.... Are you closer to your cousins that you are your mother????

bill from jc said...

And what is with all the paranoia about Doug and Ann rewriting your posts? They never have made any sense, and still don't. Wouldn't an editor clean things up a bit? Maybe they are not rewriting your posts,,,, maybe you just need to get your sodium level checked to see if your lithium needs a boost....

bill from jc said...

So now that one of thier own is being swift boated the neocon's discover ethics? A bit late for your whores to be virgins again isn't Anonypuss??

Or maybe you are all just pussies that can dish it out but can't take it... kinda like sending kids to war when you are too cowardly to go yourself...

How is grannie doing at bootcamp Anonypuss? Do you miss her tollhouse cookies yet?

Anonymous said...

Cindy Sheehan has morphed from a sympathetic, grieving mother into a political hack. If she is the liberals' current Bush "victim," she is a bigger problem for the left than the right. Your "Bush lied" tactic has been yet another leftist failure. You need to get off that horse. We all know he didn't lie and the war is not about oil. She reminds all those red staters why they don't vote for liberalistas. Personally, keep it up!
Can't wait for '08!

(God, you're illiterate!)

bill from jc said...

Why are you calling God illiterate?

If Cindy Sheehan is such a bother she is easy to get rid of, just go out in front of the ranch and meet with her. Tell her why her son died. Why has Bush let this become a story? Is he scared of a middle aged american woman?

Why is it easier for a male prostitute to get into the White House than the greiving mother of an American soldier???

One thing we know, Cindy Sheehan has been to more of our dead soldiers funerals that George Bush has.

Are male prostitutes more useful to the White House than greiving mothers?

We all know the war was about oil, why not just tell the truth for once?

How is Grannie doing at boot camp Anon?

bill from jc said...

Why are you calling God illiterate?

If Cindy Sheehan is such a bother she is easy to get rid of, just go out in front of the ranch and meet with her. Tell her why her son died. Why has Bush let this become a story? Is he scared of a middle aged american woman?

Why is it easier for a male prostitute to get into the White House than the greiving mother of an American soldier???

One thing we know, Cindy Sheehan has been to more of our dead soldiers funerals that George Bush has.

Are male prostitutes more useful to the White House than greiving mothers?

We all know the war was about oil, why not just tell the truth for once?

How is Grannie doing at boot camp Anon?

Anonymous said...

I believe Bush has already met with Cindy Sheehan. It was well documented by the press.

THE REPORTER of Vacaville, CA published an account of Cindy Sheehan's visit with the president at Fort Lewis near Seattle on June 24, 2004:

"'I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis,' Cindy said after their meeting. 'I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith.'

"The meeting didn't last long, but in their time with Bush, Cindy spoke about Casey and asked the president to make her son's sacrifice count for something. They also spoke of their faith.

"The trip had one benefit that none of the Sheehans expected.

"For a moment, life returned to the way it was before Casey died. They laughed, joked and bickered playfully as they briefly toured Seattle.

For the first time in 11 weeks, they felt whole again.

"'That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together,' Cindy said."

Bush has made it very clear that she has every right to protest. He has every right not to meet with her.

Grandma just finshed Phase II at PI. She can't wait to kick al qaida ass in Iraq. She wishes me well and good hunting in our fight against the liberal enemy within.

Bill from jc said...

Good to know someone in your family has courage.

Yes President Photo Op did meet with Sheehan, so why is he scared to again? Is it because of all the lies that have been exposed since his first meeting???

Anonymous said...

Don't see any photos of her anywhere with Bush. Why should he meet with her now that she's a libshit shill? What do you think Soros is paying her? Maybe a book deal?

Anonymous said...

he should meet with her because she is the greiving mother of a dead american soldier.

bill from jc said...

That couldn't be the same Anon. That made sense... of course he may have just fucked up and typed the truth. Even a blind hog finds a turnip every now and then.

Anonymous said...

Take it from someone who knows Cindy real well:

"Husband of 'Peace Mom' Files for Divorce

FAIRFIELD, Calif. ? The husband of Cindy Sheehan, the mother camped outside President Bush's Texas ranch to protest the death of a son in the Iraq war, has filed for divorce, according to court documents.

Patrick Sheehan filed the divorce petition Friday in Solano County court, northeast of San Francisco. His lawyer did not immediately return a call seeking comment Monday."

She traded her family in for Michael Moore. Bad trade.

bill from jc said...

Yes Anon, they have been separated for some time. Although her husband supports her protests, the marriage has been driftin apart, apparently since the death of Casey. Is this another marriage destroyed by you family values republicans?