Conservative Group Airs Pro-Bush(War) Ad

[Nickdfresh]

Conservative Group Airs Pro-Bush Ad
Thursday, September 7, 2006 7:19 PM EDT
The Associated Press (http://www.adelphia.net/news/read.php?id=13072780&ps=whiteHouse%2Ccongress%2Celections%2Cgovernment&cat=&cps=0&lang=en)
By JIM KUHNHENN

WASHINGTON (AP) — Dovetailing with President Bush's war-on-terror message, a conservative advocacy group released a television ad Thursday warning that many critics of the war in Iraq "would cut and run in the Middle East, leaving al-Qaida to attack us again."

The ad by Progress for America, a conservative group that gained prominence in the 2004 presidential election, displays images of past terrorist acts against the U.S. by Islamic terrorists and links the war in Iraq to the broader campaign against terrorism.

Its release comes as President Bush is executing an aggressive political strategy nine weeks before midterm elections to draw attention to the continuing fight abroad and at home to thwart terrorists.

"Many times before 9-11, al-Qaida attacked America, and we took little action," the ad's narrator says. "But after 9-11, we struck back, destroying al-Qaida terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq."

The ad is one of a growing number of independent advertising campaigns by advocacy groups that are weighing in with political messages that could influence the vote in November, and thus determine control of Congress.

The Progress for America ad does not mention any candidates, but its first statewide run Thursday was in Missouri, where Republican Sen. Jim Talent is facing a tough re-election challenge from Democrat Claire McCaskill. It doesn't even mention political parties, alluding only to "many (who) seem to have forgotten the evil that happened only five years ago."

The ad is scheduled to air for a week on broadcast television in the major markets of Kansas City, Mo., and St. Louis before moving on to other states, Progress for America spokesman Stuart Roy said. The ad is also running nationally on cable television.

In launching the ad, Progress for America enlisted the help of David Beamer, the father of Todd Beamer, one of the passengers on Flight 93 who tried to wrest the doomed Sept. 11 plane back from hijackers before it crashed in Pennsylvania.

"This enemy is not going to surrender," Beamer said. "The sacrifices that have been made and continue to be made are absolutely necessary."

Progress for America made its mark two years ago when it aired an ad, "Ashley's story," that depicted Bush hugging the daughter of Sept. 11 victim Wendy Faulkner. The group was the best financed Republican-oriented group in the 2004 campaign. Between January 2005 and July of this year, the group has raised nearly $4.7 million according to Internal Revenue Service records.

Meanwhile, a group aligned with former top Democratic officials aired an ad Thursday against Republican Rep. James Walsh of New York, who is in a close contest. Majority Action executive director Mark Longabaugh would not describe the cost of the ad, but Republicans estimated it at $80,000. The group also made a significantly smaller ad purchase against Rep. Deborah Pryce, R-Ohio, also in a tight race.

"Tell Congressman Walsh to stand up to Bush," a narrator says. "We need a smarter plan for national security that keeps us safe here at home."

Majority Action is an independent nonprofit organization whose leaders include former Democratic National Committee chairmen Joe Andrew and Don Fowler. The group has stepped up its fundraising this summer. It had raised $210,000 as of June 30, according to IRS records.

Longabaugh said the group was raising money from labor unions and trial lawyers. He said the group planned to run ads against other Republican incumbents in days to come, but would not say where.

Among other independent ads:

—The political action committee for the American Medical Association is spending more than $100,000 in television ads in Maryland to support Democratic Rep. Ben Cardin in his primary contest for U.S. Senate.

—The Democratic-leaning Public Campaign Action Fund is spending $20,000 to run 331 radio ads in rural southeast Ohio attacking scandal-scarred Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, for a 2002 golfing trip he took to Scotland with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Ney has dropped out of the race. A special election is Sept. 14 to replace him on the ballot.

[Nickdfresh]

LMFAO!!

[Warham]

"would cut and run in the Middle East, leaving al-Qaida to attack us again."

Some would, like that idiot out in Ohio.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Warham
Some would, like that idiot out in Ohio.

This false statement is also a personal attack.

[Warham]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
This false statement is also a personal attack.

Not if I'm referring to Dennis Kucinich. :)

[DEMON CUNT]

Welcome to the neoccon double standard forum.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Welcome to the neoccon double standard forum.



Learning To Lie should be under their avatars

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Warham(R -Butthole)
Not if I'm referring to Dennis Kucinich. :)

The "cut and run" fable, perpetuated my neocons like you, is way to discredit the efforts of some Dems to minimize the damage in Iraq.

You display your limitations when you use this flawed rhetoric. This also shows your disregard for our troops.

You choose to politicize the issue in order to attack a democrat.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
The "cut and run" fable, perpetuated my neocons like you, is way to discredit the efforts of some Dems to minimize the damage in Iraq.

You display your limitations when you use this flawed rhetoric. This also shows your disregard for our troops.

You choose to politicize the issue in order to attack a democrat.


Both brilliant, and articulate......

and not a spot of feces or man ass to make WarPIG uncomfortable.

Well done.


:cool:


Why DO you hate our troops so much, WarPIG?

[Nickdfresh]

Some chickenhawk orgs. would prefer us to spend and bleed in Iraq. Even though the "liberal media" at none other than the Pentagon is telling us things are getting worse, and Bush has no plan for victory.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Some chickenhawk orgs. would prefer us to spend and bleed in Iraq. Even though the "liberal media" at none other than the Pentagon is telling us things are getting worse, and Bush has no plan for victory.


The Pentagon is a bunch of troop hating Liberal PUSSIES

They WANT the terrorists to win.

They EMBOLDEN the terorists with their assessments.

The should be tried for treason, they give comfort and aid to the enemy by saying such things

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Both brilliant, and articulate......

and not a spot of feces or man ass to make WarPIG uncomfortable.

Well done.


Gosh, I'm blushing. Thank you.

This is usually where a red-assed Warhead falls out of the conversation. Maybe he'll suprise us with more silly comments.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Gosh, I'm blushing. Thank you.

This is usually where a red-assed Warhead falls out of the conversation. Maybe he'll suprise us with more silly comments.

No, he'll bolt to one of his many other mesaage boards where he posts as Learning To Fly

LMMFAO


Know this of Warpig, when he's beat, he immediately Cuts-N-Runs.....:cool:

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
No, he'll bolt to one of his many other mesaage boards where he posts as Learning To Fly

LMMFAO


Know this of Warpig, when he's beat, he immediately Cuts-N-Runs...

Ha!

Learning to blow more like it!

Check your PM you neolib!

[Warham]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
The "cut and run" fable, perpetuated my neocons like you, is way to discredit the efforts of some Dems to minimize the damage in Iraq.

You display your limitations when you use this flawed rhetoric. This also shows your disregard for our troops.

You choose to politicize the issue in order to attack a democrat.

No, he really wants to cut and run. Haven't you heard his nonsense?

[LoungeMachine]

You mean, like Ronnie did in '83?

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Both brilliant, and articulate......

and not a spot of feces or man ass to make WarPIG uncomfortable.

Well done.


:cool:


Why DO you hate our troops so much, WarPIG?

He's only brilliant to you, nobody else here.

I don't hate our troops, Lounge, and there's nothing to prove that I've ever uttered a word in that manner.

I torched you a long time ago about US servicemen.

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
You mean, like Ronnie did in '83?

Or Clinton did too many times to count?

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
No, he'll bolt to one of his many other mesaage boards where he posts as Learning To Fly

LMMFAO


Know this of Warpig, when he's beat, he immediately Cuts-N-Runs.....:cool:

No, that's not my handle, but it was an 'educated guess'.

I've never cut and run from your weak arguments.

[Warham]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Gosh, I'm blushing. Thank you.

This is usually where a red-assed Warhead falls out of the conversation. Maybe he'll suprise us with more silly comments.

You were saying, Feces Boy? :)

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
He's only brilliant to you, nobody else here.




You speak for the entire board now, WarBOT?

Get over yourself.

dumbass:rolleyes:

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham


I've never cut and run from your weak arguments.


Liar:rolleyes:

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
Or Clinton did too many times to count?

Way to answer the question, WarBOT

Fucking brilliant.

You sure owned me with that clever diversion.

fucking moron:rolleyes:

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
You speak for the entire board now, WarBOT?

Get over yourself.

dumbass:rolleyes:

No, I only point out your ridiculous comments.

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine

You sure owned me with that clever diversion.


It doesn't take much. Even when I'm medicated and half-asleep...

[LoungeMachine]

I'll leave you with the question you'll never be able to answer honestly....

Did Ronnie "cut-n-rum" in '83?


See ya, WarBOT

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
I'll leave you with the question you'll never be able to answer honestly....

Did Ronnie "cut-n-rum" in '83?


See ya, WarBOT

Ronnie made a few mistakes, but was that really a 'cut and run', or a 'just didn't follow through'?

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
See ya, WarBOT

Take care, pal. :)

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Ronnie made a few mistakes, but was that really a 'cut and run', or a 'just didn't follow through'?

No, it was "cut&run," it inspired the Iranians for years to come.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Warham
You were saying, Feces Boy?

More than you, neocon dummy.

I did notice that you are unable to address my more meaningful comments in this thread.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Warham
He's only brilliant to you, nobody else here.


And yet you lack the ability to engage in the meaningful discussion that you were pretending to crave during your recent cries to the webmasters.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
You speak for the entire board now, WarBOT?



I elect Warham to speak for the entire board.

It is settled then.

:cool:

[Warham]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
And yet you lack the ability to engage in the meaningful discussion that you were pretending to crave during your recent cries to the webmasters.

I think you're getting confused, Demon.

When have I 'cried' to webmasters lately? I haven't been around for three months.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
No, it was "cut&run," it inspired the Iranians for years to come.

Let's not forget Jimmy Carter's part regarding Iran, shall we? :)

[Warham]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
More than you, neocon dummy.

I did notice that you are unable to address my more meaningful comments in this thread.

Like I said before, I don't google shit pics as well as you do, so it'll be hard to retort your more 'meaningful' replies.

[Ellyllions]

What would really be funny is if the Dems win majority, end up having to follow the same route as the one being followed now, and still fail at this "war" on terrorism. Despite all the bullshit debates.

Where will you all be then?

Lounge had it partly right. The people at the Pentagon are the ones making the judgements on all the fronts were facing. It's not the Senators or President's job to investigate what's going on. They rely solely on the reports given to them by the Generals who are controlling the troops. Who are the Generals? They're highly competitve people who want to be spoken of in history books and documentaries as "greats".

But the politics have us EXACTLY where they want us, taking the blame all the way to the top leaving the real fuck-ups alone. What does the top do? Goes to the Generals asking why/what/how and the Generals are saying, "Malarky, we've got them on the run."

The reason I put the word "war" in quotes is because I'm beginning to equate this terrorism war to the "war" on drugs. That's still going on ya know? That "war"...and this one is looking more and more like it. If we were to catch Bin Laden would terrorism stop? No. Would we just drop our weapons and stop? No. Because it's not one man, one entitiy running the show. The people who are committing terrorism in the name of whatever "cause" are multiplying just as they always have. Reasons change, tactics change, people merge from one group to another...just like in the war on drugs. Drugs change, shipping routes change, more people get involved for whatever reason. It's not going to stop and no one can stop it. Terrorists don't wear uniforms just like drug czars don't have "Drug dealer" stamped across their foreheads.

You can't predict human behavior to the point of completely controlling it because you can't control someone's thoughts. So in essence, it doesn't matter what political affiliation the Administration, Senate, Congress, Judicial system happens to be. This is an ongoing battle with people who may or may not be terrorists today but change their minds tomorrow. People who believe a fundamental premise that they're fulfilling an idea or prophecy. It's a lost cause on both sides. They'll continue to push their agenda, and we'll continue to try to stop them. It's going to end up with nothing but a series of battles throughout our history that cannot be defined.

The "war" is on and it will be on for a very long time.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Let's not forget Jimmy Carter's part regarding Iran, shall we? :)

Can you be more specific?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
I elect Warham to speak for the entire board.

It is settled then.

:cool:

Sorry, you're mentality has to be at least at the level of an 18-year-old to get a vote. You don't qualify.

[Ellyllions]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Sorry, you're mentality has to be at least at the level of an 18-year-old to get a vote. You don't qualify.

Does it count if you just want to be 18 forever?
:D

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Warham
I think you're getting confused, Demon.

When have I 'cried' to webmasters lately? I haven't been around for three months.

Again, you participated in the feedback to webmaster thread about this forum turning to shit.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Ellyllions
What would really be funny is if the Dems win majority, end up having to follow the same route as the one being followed now, and still fail at this "war" on terrorism. Despite all the bullshit debates.

Where will you all be then?

...

This is just speculation. In fact, I'd like to know what the definition of "losing the War on Terror" is, since there seems to be no adequate definition of "victory" either.

Is it that an "Islamofascist Caliphate" will take over the Middle East? LMFAO!

The Dems may also have increased flexibility of dealing with Iraq, since they don't have to "save face" like the Repub. Admin. bent on not taking the blame for their policy-abortions.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Warham
Like I said before, I don't google shit pics as well as you do, so it'll be hard to retort your more 'meaningful' replies.

Said thre giant gaping neocon pussy.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Again, you participated in the feedback to webmaster thread about this forum turning to shit.

There's no harm in participating in such a thread.

This forum has turned to crap...since a few certain people joined and no noting of engaging in meaningful debate.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Sorry, you're mentality has to be at least at the level of an 18-year-old to get a vote. You don't qualify.

Good response.

I will pray for the pitiful existence you must endure.

:cool:

[Ellyllions]

Isn't supposing that the Dems "may also have increased flexibility of dealing with Iraq" speculation as well? I mean do the terrorists divide their decisions based on American Party lines? "American" has a definition in the Middle East which could very well mean that anyone "American" might have to "save face".....(?)

In my mind "losing the war on terror" and "victory" are both perception based. Kind of like the Israel/Hezbollah battle. When each side has their own perception of win/lose then it depends on what each individual chooses to perceive as the answer.

Lots of grey area....no black and white conclusion.

Does thousands dead signify victory or loss? Depends on who's side your on doesn't it....

I don't see victory on either side in this battle. Just like the war on drugs. Terrorists keep coming and we keep coming. Back and forth like a tennis match that won't end.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
There's no harm in participating in such a thread.

This forum has turned to crap...since a few certain people joined and no noting of engaging in meaningful debate.

My God Brain, can you be much more of a self-nullifying hypocrite pussy? You must be talking about yourself then, since your comments indicated you were little more than a troll here to "piss people off" in that thread. Try not talking out of two-sides of your ass next time.

There's no "meaningful debate" because no one can debate Republican partisan talking-points anymore, with a straight face and without being own3d severally.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Good response.

I will pray for the pitiful existence you must endure.

:cool:

LOL Brian is praying that I lead a "pitiful existence." He must be experiencing karma then.:)

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Ellyllions
Isn't supposing that the Dems "may also have increased flexibility of dealing with Iraq" speculation as well? I mean do the terrorists divide their decisions based on American Party lines? "American" has a definition in the Middle East which could very well mean that anyone "American" might have to "save face".....(?)

In my mind "losing the war on terror" and "victory" are both perception based. Kind of like the Israel/Hezbollah battle. When each side has their own perception of win/lose then it depends on what each individual chooses to perceive as the answer.

Lots of grey area....no black and white conclusion.

Does thousands dead signify victory or loss? Depends on who's side your on doesn't it....

I don't see victory on either side in this battle. Just like the war on drugs. Terrorists keep coming and we keep coming. Back and forth like a tennis match that won't end.

Perhaps it is "speculation."

But what is not is that the Democrats are at least offering different solutions. As are many of the Congressional Republicans jumping ship from the Bush policy of "spending and bleeding" under the guise of not "cutting and running" (or taking the blame for a failed erroneous invasion).

And as for "perceptions of victory," one has no need to look further than the recent Pentagon Report which paints a bleak picture of an insurgency which is not going away despite going on four years of occupation.

Not to mention the renewed Taliban that has popped back up in Afghanistan.

[Ellyllions]

I don't think it was a mistake to go into Iraq. I just honestly believe that it didn't turn out the way it was supposed to. And I also believe the the Generals who are running this war are the ones who won't admit that there have been problems as well as not willing to change tactics even if it means withdrawing. Those 5 stars feel nice and useful on those shoulders when they're engaged in battle as opposed to sitting behind a desk pushing paperwork around... They're the ones who refer to the troops living and dying on the ground as "collateral" or "assets"

Pride is a horrible thing sometimes, especially when placed in the hands of people who are power-hungry.

I just believe that because of that, the Dems won't be any more successful in the majority than the Reps have. And it's all because of the type of battle this is mixed with the military General's desire to be "great".

[Ellyllions]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh


And as for "perceptions of victory," one has no need to look further than the recent Pentagon Report which paints a bleak picture of an insurgency which is not going away despite going on four years of occupation.

Not to mention the renewed Taliban that has popped back up in Afghanistan.

Again, if the tactics don't change after that report....the General's are the one's to blame.

Me and hubby own a little company...if an artist turns in a piece of shit work, we go to that artist's superviser. Not to the artist. Same thing with the Administration and the Generals. The report comes out, they turn in an "action" report to the Administration.

Don't be shoved around by the politicians. They can promise and blame until they're blue in the face but in the end they won't micro-manage any of the battles. They'll trust the same people that have been trusted thus far, to keep them informed.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Ellyllions
Again, if the tactics don't change after that report....the General's are the one's to blame.

How are they supposed to "change tactics" when they're given no more resources?

Second of all, some have pointed to the fact that the "Generals" get a free pass by the Rummys of the world, since NOT ONE general officer has been relieved from this shit-fest since Gen. Shinseki was pushed aside for disagreeing with Rummy's little Kool-Aide assessment of needing only a few troops to invade Iraq. That was a myth perpetuated by a former Army LTC. turned Neo Con idiot. Actually, Don was right about that, we didn't need many troops to invade Iraq, but we did to occupy and secure it!


Me and hubby own a little company...if an artist turns in a piece of shit work, we go to that artist's superviser. Not to the artist. Same thing with the Administration and the Generals. The report comes out, they turn in an "action" report to the Administration.

Don't be shoved around by the politicians. They can promise and blame until they're blue in the face but in the end they won't micro-manage any of the battles. They'll trust the same people that have been trusted thus far, to keep them informed.

Well, the book is that they trusted the wrongs ones. Gen Tommy Franks has been panned now as a fool that wanted to drive to Baghdad, then leave and write a book. Guess who hired him, along with his arch-nemesis, and equally incompetent Paul "let's disband the Iraqi-Army" Bremer.

The one that needs to be fired is Ronald Dumsfeld, and the Admin that hired him.

[Ellyllions]

Both good points.

But I'm afraid that if the Dems win the majority, no matter what they say now...you'll see them fall into the same decisions....into the same mistakes....because while we're actually worried about our world, they're having drinks together tonight or playing golf together right now....

[FORD]

There is no "war on terrorism" It's just another useless slogan from the same people who brought you the "war on drugs".

Funny how both came from the biggest drug dealers and terrorists on the planet, the Bush Criminal Empire.

Though last month's events in London turned out to be highly exaggerated in terms of an actual "terrorist" threat, they DID prove one thing once and for all. Troops on the ground in foreign countries do NOT stop terrorists, good old fashioned police work does.

Just as it captured and convicted the guys who hit the WTC the first time.

Just as it captured and convicted that asshole who crossed over the border on the Port Angeles ferry, with plans to light up the entire West Coast for New Years 1990.

Just as it captured, tried, and executed Tim McVeigh. Using Chimpy's logic, we would have invaded Michigan, because McVeigh had militia training there, and then bombed the fucking shit out of Wisconsin, just because they were next door.

It's time to end this fucking lie, and let the police and intelligence agencies do their jobs. And that does NOT mean tapping the phone lines of American citizens.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Ellyllions
Both good points.

But I'm afraid that if the Dems win the majority, no matter what they say now...you'll see them fall into the same decisions....into the same mistakes....because while we're actually worried about our world, they're having drinks together tonight or playing golf together right now....

Well, unfortunately there are already Washington lobbyists and PACs hiring ex-Democratic insiders in anticipation. But hopefully the corruption scandals will force most to keep their pocketbooks in good order.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
There's no harm in participating in such a thread.

This forum has turned to crap...since a few certain people joined and no noting of engaging in meaningful debate.

No "harm" was implied. Baby Warharm complained in your thread which is in the feedback to the webmaster forum.

You bring no "meaningful debate" to this forum, Cap'n Spam-a-lot. Your goal is to antagonize. If I am mistaken please provide a link to some of your "meaningful debate."

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by FORD
There is no "war on terrorism" It's just another useless slogan from the same people who brought you the "war on drugs".

Funny how both came from the biggest drug dealers and terrorists on the planet, the Bush Criminal Empire.

Though last month's events in London turned out to be highly exaggerated in terms of an actual "terrorist" threat, they DID prove one thing once and for all. Troops on the ground in foreign countries do NOT stop terrorists, good old fashioned police work does.

Just as it captured and convicted the guys who hit the WTC the first time.

Just as it captured and convicted that asshole who crossed over the border on the Port Angeles ferry, with plans to light up the entire West Coast for New Years 1990.

Just as it captured, tried, and executed Tim McVeigh. Using Chimpy's logic, we would have invaded Michigan, because McVeigh had militia training there, and then bombed the fucking shit out of Wisconsin, just because they were next door.

It's time to end this fucking lie, and let the police and intelligence agencies do their jobs. And that does NOT mean tapping the phone lines of American citizens.

Excellent post.

I'm trying to find some hard documentation on this, but I heard a counter-terrorist analyst on the radio a few months back. He said he had heard that Rummy has sent his little groups of special operations ninjas out hunting for "Islamofascists" all over the world, essentially giving them free reign. He was thinking they would uncover huge organizations. For the most part, they found actual Islamic Jihadists that want to attack America to be very few and far between, and that most had been wiped out shortly after 9/11 in Afghanistan.

[Warham]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Again, you participated in the feedback to webmaster thread about this forum turning to shit.

Yes, I thought my feedback was conductive to getting this forum back on the right track.

There was no 'whining' on my part in that thread.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Ellyllions
Both good points.

But I'm afraid that if the Dems win the majority, no matter what they say now...you'll see them fall into the same decisions....into the same mistakes....because while we're actually worried about our world, they're having drinks together tonight or playing golf together right now....

If the Dems win back the majority, be afraid...be very afraid.

[Warham]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
No "harm" was implied. Baby Warharm complained in your thread which is in the feedback to the webmaster forum.

You bring no "meaningful debate" to this forum, Cap'n Spam-a-lot. Your goal is to antagonize. If I am mistaken please provide a link to some of your "meaningful debate."

Your goal apparently is to be antagonized.

If Brian bothers you so much, ignore him.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
If the Dems win back the majority, be afraid...be very afraid.

Yeah, be afraid that maybe, after a few years (when we get the White House back as well) we could restore this country to where it was before Bush & PNAC shit all over it.

Be very afraid. If NOT living under fascism scares you.

[Warham]

Nobody's invaded my house in the middle of the night or gone through my trash out on the curb.

I'm not worried.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Warham
Your goal apparently is to be antagonized.

If Brian bothers you so much, ignore him.

Not really.

I am here for the fucking fun of it. Poop gets poop in return. The politically retarded, such as BigBland, are part of the political landscape. I don't need to ignore him.

I hold BigBland accountable for his shit right here. I don't have to seek some policy change by going over the mods heads.

I can handle myself here.