Isn't this just a bunch of smoke?

Steve Ellis, vice president of the Washington-based Taxpayers for Common Sense, called the administration's decision a ``classic Washington dodge'' that pushes ``the heavy lifting off to your successor
 

Perhaps the Vermont delegation could help by refusing to push for earmarks, like special taxpayer dollars to give to $25/pound elitist cheese-makers?

When pigs fly!
 

Why did bush wait 7 years to put this in place ??????
 

Because Republican pork is OK, but when the opposition begins to reap more, the rules must change! (Not that I support pork.)
 

Such is the madness of king george
 

What was Guilliani thinking? what a dope
 

Clearly, Rudy doesn't always think with the same head.
 

George Bush ulitmately will be viewed as one of the great presidents in American History. As much as Nixon was dispised when he left office we now acknowledge his contributions. Our view of GW will change favorably over time.

(1) Like it or not he has done what no other country in the world had the spine to do..to stand up to a bunch of Islamic thugs who have reduced any place they live to a war zone. If you don't get it, their goal is to control Europe and North America if left unchecked.

(2) Our presence in Iraq is intended to be long term (by both the Reps and the Dems...although they won't admit it publicly). With our presence, we will ensure a smooth flow of oil to here and our allies.
 

JW said: "As more and more evidence surfaces, my opinion of Nixon has only decreased with time. The same goes for Reagan."

Nixon and Reagan both rest comfortably knowing you are not in their camp.

As for facts, I could offer them but certainly not to a goon like you.

Prove to me my points 1 and 2 are false. You can't.
 

And look how many times Obama and Clinton have favorably referenced Reagan and the creativity of the Republican party over the last 30 years.

Pay attention to fair and balanced news sources and you may learn something.
 

Anonymous said...

"And look how many times Obama and Clinton have favorably referenced Reagan and the creativity of the Republican party over the last 30 years."

They did, eh?

Nice try, nitwit.

Feel free to produce the quotes in their entirety and make your case.

That's what I thought.

"Pay attention to fair and balanced news sources and you may learn something."

Yeah, fox ain't and you've got no case.

Way ahead of ya, little fella.

Always a pleasure.
 

"Feel free to produce the quotes in their entirety and make your case."

Nice try cretin. They did. Prove they haven't and that it wasn't reported by the news agencies

"Yeah, fox ain't and you've got no case."

Prove your statement. Recent media studies showed them to be most middle of the road.

And in case you don't get it. I don;t need to prove anything to a sub-human goon as you have shown yourself to be.
 

Once again, alot of words and no facts...oh yeah it must be a JW posting.

I said it so it is true. Prove it wrong little man. You have all the facts. It should be easy even for someone with your limited abilities.

Empty suit
 

The difference between GW and the Dems is demonstrated below. When it comes to health care, the Repubs believe in the free market and the people's innate ability to do the right thing. The Dems, on the other hand, will tell you what's best for you, what to do and how to spend your money.

Think about what you are asking for with your vote. You may not get what you think you have asked for. Classic socialism.

---------------------------

By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer
Sun Feb 3, 11:40 AM ET


WASHINGTON - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to garnish the wages of workers who refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans.
 

The earth is round.

"Oh yeah? Prove it, little fella."
 

"Once again, alot of words and no facts...oh yeah it must be a JW posting.

I said it so it is true. Prove it wrong little man. You have all the facts. It should be easy even for someone with your limited abilities."

JW it's been awhile. Having a little trouble disproving it or should I assume by your silence, that you actually are a closet Bush loyalist? It's okay to say it. I like Bush. I like Bush.

I should have figured it out earlier. JW is a political acronym for ...Just "W".
 

"Once again, alot of words and no facts...oh yeah it must be a JW posting.

"I said it so it is true."

No, it's merely your ignorant, ill-informed, factually-challenged opinion, little fella.

"Prove it wrong little man. You have all the facts. It should be easy even for someone with your limited abilities."

Nice try, little fella. It's not my job to make your lunatic-fringe case for ya.

Clearly, you can't. That's a fact.

"JW it's been awhile. Having a little trouble disproving it or should I assume by your silence, that you actually are a closet Bush loyalist? It's okay to say it. I like Bush. I like Bush."

You can assume anything you like, little fella. Your ignorant, ill-informed, factually-challenged assumptions are not evidence, they're merely your ignorant, ill-informed, factually-challenged assumptions.

"I should have figured it out earlier. JW is a political acronym for ...Just "W"."

Well, you haven't been able to prove anything else, little fella. Why quit when you're losin'.

Always a pleasure.
 

Anonymous said...

"The earth is round."

"Oh yeah? Prove it, little fella."

Now you're losin' arguments with your self, little fella. This just ain't your day.

Always a pleasure.
 

JWCoop10 said...


...actually, who cares....Yawn!
 

Anonymous said...

JWCoop10 said...

"...actually, who cares....Yawn!"

That's as solid as any of your arguments, little factually-challenged fella.

Always a pleasure.
 

"The difference between GW and the Dems is demonstrated below. When it comes to health care, the Repubs believe in the free market and the people's innate ability to do the right thing."

In other words, you and your boy believe in fairy tales and you've got bupkis.

Thanks for clearing that up, little fella.

"The Dems, on the other hand, will tell you what's best for you, what to do and how to spend your money."

How so? That's what I thought.

"Think about what you are asking for with your vote. You may not get what you think you have asked for. Classic socialism."

So, little factually-challenged fella, an AP writer claims "Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to garnish the wages of workers who refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans."

That's your case? That's you evidence? One paragraph claiming she said "she might be willing" to do something?

Nice try. Clearly, I've been too easy on you clowns.
 

"Once again, alot of words and no facts...oh yeah it must be a JW posting."

Nah, it's one of yours, little nameless factually-challenged fraudulent fella.

"I said it so it is true."

Once again, little fella, that's not evidence. That's merely your ignorant, ill-informed, unsubstantiated opinion.

Big Difference.

"Prove it wrong little man. You have all the facts. It should be easy even for someone with your limited abilities."

Once again, little fella, I don't have to disprove something you've failed to prove. It's not my job to make your case for ya little fella. You're gonna have to get somebody else to do it for ya.

"JW it's been awhile. Having a little trouble disproving it or should I assume by your silence, that you actually are a closet Bush loyalist? It's okay to say it. I like Bush. I like Bush."

Not as much trouble as you are makin' it, little fella.

You can assume anything you like, little factually-challenged fella.

Clearly, you're gonna have to.

You've made it abundantly clear you can't make a case and prove anything.

Always a pleasure.
 

JW said....."So, little factually-challenged fella, an AP writer claims "Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to garnish the wages of workers who refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans."


More than claimed idiot. Did you even bother to look or is your head still squarely where the sun don't shine? It was also reported today by the left leaning NY Times and from the ABC News talk show yesterday.


Yeah I know, no credibililty... it's not several years olk from a CNN story archive...your authoritative source.

------------------------------

From today's New York Times....
February 4, 2008
Check Point
In Health Debate, Clinton Remains Vague on Penalties
By KEVIN SACK
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton inched closer Sunday to explaining how she would enforce her proposal that everyone have health insurance, but declined to specify — as she has throughout the campaign — how she would penalize those who refuse.

Mrs. Clinton, who did not answer Senator Barack Obama’s question on the topic in a debate last Thursday, was pressed repeatedly to do so Sunday by George Stephanopoulos on the ABC program “This Week.” When Mr. Stephanopoulos asked a third time whether she would garnish people’s wages, Mrs. Clinton responded, “George, we will have an enforcement mechanism, whether it’s that or it’s some other mechanism through the tax system or automatic enrollments.”


Idiot.
 

Here's today's summary of jw's charm, logic, reason, and persuasive power. This is 10 postings since yesterday (2/3) at 4:30:

little nameless-nitwit, factually-challenged, fraudulent-fella
schmuck
Nice try, nitwit
little fella
your ignorant, ill-informed opinion
little factually-challenged fella
ya got bupkis
little fella
your ignorant, ill-informed, factually-challenged, fraudulent ass
little fella
little fella
your own ignorant, ill-informed opinion
your ignorant ill-informed opinion
ya got bupkis
Nice try, little nameless-nitwit, factually-challenged, fraudulent fella
your own, ignorant, ill-informed opinions
your own ignorant, ill-informed opinion
your ignorant, ill-informed opinions, ya got bupkis
your ignorant, ill-informed, unsubstantiated opinion
your ignorant, ill-informed, factually-challenged, fundamentally-dishonest, unsubstantiated opinion, little fraudulent fella
little fraudulent fella
Ya got bupkis
little factually-challenged fella
you've got bupkis
little fella
little factually-challenged fella
you clowns
little nameless factually-challenged fraudulent fella
merely your ignorant, ill-informed, unsubstantiated opinion
little fella
little fella
little fella
little factually-challenged fella
 

Blah, blah, blah, I don't need to prove anything, blah, blah, blah.
 

By the way, jw, it's "fact-challenged," not "factually-challenged."

The use of the adverbial form of "fact" is incorrect in your usage.

Look it up.

Loser.
 

Anonymous has left a new comment on the post "Message from George Bush":

JW said....."So, little factually-challenged fella, an AP writer claims "Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to garnish the wages of workers who refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans."

"More than claimed idiot. Did you even bother to look or is your head still squarely where the sun don't shine?"

No, that would be you, little nameless factually-challenged fraudulent-idiot fella.

Precisely, where did I alter the Clinton quote in question, little fella?

That's what I thought. Ya got bupkis, punk. Go cheney yourself.

"It was also reported today by the left leaning NY Times and from the ABC News talk show yesterday."

First of all, little factually-challenged fella, where is the evidence to substantiate your claim that the NYT is "left-leaning"?

That's what I thought.

I'll remind you that Cheney was singing the praises of the NYT on MTP and other Sunday Shows when the were running Judy Miller's stenography of the bogus wmd slop Scooter was feeding her on the front page.

Just how is that evidence that the NYT is "left-leaning", little fella?

"Yeah I know, no credibililty..."

You said it, little idiot fella, not me.

Then again, your inability to spell credibility ain't helpin' yours, either, little idiot fella.

"...it's not several years olk from a CNN story archive...your authoritative source."

What's "olk", little fella, is your inability to grasp the relevant facts or substantiate your slop.

As I've told you previously, little fraudulent fella, the relevant facts in the Strom story are that the Thurmond Family was not challenging a 78 year-old retired teacher's claim that Strom was her "daddy" and that she didn't go public and identify Strom as her "daddy" until after his death.

As for the date of the 12/16/03 CNN report cited below, you'll see that it it specifically references a recent statement by an Attorney retained by an attorney retained by Strom's family.

That's why they call it news, little idiot fella.

Seein' how Strom died that previous June, he hasn't been making much news lately. If you have evidence to the contrary, feel free to cough it up.

-----------------------------------


From David Mattingly
CNN Washington Bureau
Tuesday, December 16, 2003 Posted: 10:06 PM EST (0306 GMT)

(CNN) -- An attorney for the family of former U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina confirmed Monday that in 1925, when he was 22, Thurmond fathered a child with a black teenage housekeeper.

Thurmond, the longest-serving senator in U.S. history, died in June at age 100. His daughter's story was published Sunday by The Washington Post.

Essie Mae Washington-Williams, a 78-year-old retired school teacher in Los Angeles, California, revealed her relationship to the former segregationist after decades of silence.

Thurmond ran for president in 1948 on the ticket of the States Rights Party, the "Dixiecrats," a breakaway faction of Southern Democrats who believed strongly in racial segregation and were opposed to the Democratic Party's civil rights program.

He received 1 million votes and carried four Deep South states; Democrat Harry Truman won the election.

Thurmond joined the Republican Party in the 1960s and ultimately turned away from his segregationist past. (Thurmond's life and times)

Frank Wheaton, Washington-Williams' attorney, said she came forward at the urging of her children and had no plans to ask the Thurmond estate for any money, according to the Post.

Monday's statement from the Thurmond family reads: "As J. Strom Thurmond has passed away and cannot speak for himself, the Thurmond family acknowledges Ms. Essie Mae Washington-Williams' claim to her heritage. We hope this acknowledgment will bring closure for Ms. Williams."

The Thurmond family attorney, J. Mark Taylor, declined further comment.

Glenn Walters, a South Carolina attorney also representing Williams, told CNN he was happy that the matter had been resolved in this manner.

Walters was reportedly prepared to provide documentation and undergo a DNA test to prove her claim. Her attorney told CNN no DNA test was done.

According to the Post report, Washington-Williams' mother, Carrie Butler, worked as a maid at the Thurmond family home in Edgefield, South Carolina.

At the time the girl was born in 1925, Butler was 16 and Thurmond was 22, unmarried and living in his parents' home.

Butler's sister took the girl to live in Pennsylvania when she was 6 months old. She did not meet Thurmond until returning to South Carolina in 1941, when she was 16, the Post reported.

Her mother, who was ill and died a short time later, had insisted on introducing her to Thurmond, who acknowledged her as his daughter, the newspaper reported.
------------------------------

Just which part of that are you taking exception with, little idiot fella?


------------------------------------------

From today's New York Times....
February 4, 2008
Check Point
In Health Debate, Clinton Remains Vague on Penalties
By KEVIN SACK
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton inched closer Sunday to explaining how she would enforce her proposal that everyone have health insurance, but declined to specify — as she has throughout the campaign — how she would penalize those who refuse.

Mrs. Clinton, who did not answer Senator Barack Obama’s question on the topic in a debate last Thursday, was pressed repeatedly to do so Sunday by George Stephanopoulos on the ABC program “This Week.” When Mr. Stephanopoulos asked a third time whether she would garnish people’s wages, Mrs. Clinton responded, “George, we will have an enforcement mechanism, whether it’s that or it’s some other mechanism through the tax system or automatic enrollments.”

---------------------------------------

Yeah? And? Once again, little fella, just where in the article I previously responded to and the articles you've cited here does she specifically say anything constituting evidence proving that She and/or the Dems are moving this country towards "Classical Socialism"?

That's what I thought. Ya got bupkis, little idiot fella.

Always a pleasure.
 

Anonymous said...

"Blah, blah, blah, I don't need to prove anything, blah, blah, blah."

Clearly, you can't.

No, I don't have to disprove what you've failed to prove. You, on the other hand, can't.

Always a pleasure.
 

bubba said...

"Once again the resident woodschmuck has to wipe the egg off of his furry little face. If you can't defend Hillary with facts, just crawl away into your hole until you get to see your shadow on Woodschmuck Day. Rodent."

Defend her from what, bubble boy, what she didn't say?

Just what fact in the articles cited does she need to be defended from, little fella?

That's what I thought.

Ya got bupkis, bubble boy.

So, which red state cesspool is responsible for your ignorant ass again, little fella?

No "real" Vermonter is as thick as you, little fraudulent fella.

Always a pleasure.

1:19 PM, February 04, 2008
 

JW moronically said:
"where is the evidence to substantiate your claim that the NYT is "left-leaning"?


You are right "W" (I like that... W like in George W Bush). The NY Times is not a left leaning....in your warped little world.

Idiot
 

Even in liberal Vermont I don't think ANYONE would dispute that the NYT is left-leaning. Sort of like saying the world is round, the sun rises in the east, etc. Oh yes, I almost forgot.........the Woodschmuck.
 

Anonymous said...

"JW moronically said:
"where is the evidence to substantiate your claim that the NYT is "left-leaning"?"

Yeah, I did. Evidently, ya can't make that case, either, little idiot fella, cause all I see is your usual allotment of bupkis.
I'm shocked.

Moreover, little idiot fella, you predictably have no evidence to support your ridiculous contention that Hillary not saying something is proof she and/or the Dems will lead this Country towards "Classical Socialism."

Then there's the matter of your ludicrous support for strom and all ya can do is whine about the age of a 12/16/03 CNN report stating a spokesman for the Thurmond Family had issued a statement that the Family wouldn't contest a 78 year-old, Black, retired teacher in Los Angeles that he was her "daddy."

And the already-extensive list of bogus assertions you can't substantiate and cases you can't make just grows and grows.

"You are right "W" (I like that... W like in George W Bush). The NY Times is not a left leaning....in your warped little world."

"Idiot"

In other words, Idiot, ya got bupkis. I never doubted ya for a second. My faith in your inability to make a case or substantiate your idiotic assertions is unshakable, little idiot fella.

Dismissed.
 

bubba said...

"Even in liberal Vermont I don't think ANYONE would dispute that the NYT is left-leaning. Sort of like saying the world is round, the sun rises in the east, etc. Oh yes, I almost forgot.........the Woodschmuck."

In other words, bubbles got bupkis, too.

I'm shocked.

Dismissed.
 

JW you seem particularly vile and hateful today....Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed?
 

"As for the date of the 12/16/03 CNN report cited below, you'll see that it it specifically references a recent statement by an Attorney retained by an attorney retained by Strom's family."

So now triple hearsay is evidence to you, little fella?
 

As for the date of the 12/16/03 CNN report cited below, you'll see that it it specifically references a recent statement by an Attorney retained by an attorney retained by Strom's family.

"So now triple hearsay is evidence to you, little fella?"

"Triple hearsay", eh, little fella?

Look, little idiot fella. I get that you're dumb. I get that you're scum. I get that you and your boy bubbles got bupkis and that you've got as much chance of makin' a point or a compelling argument as you do turning out 5000 ignorant, ill-informed, take back Vermont trash nitwits for a "reverend" fred phelps rally on the State House Lawn, but now you're makin' even less sense than Oxy-moron Flush Limbo's marching orders to his audience of idiots not to vote for John McCain today or they risk "anal poisoning".

I also get that you think a 12/16/03 CNN account reporting that a spokesman for the late, unlamented, strom Thurmond family had just issued a statement that the family would not contest the recent claim of a 78 year-old retired teacher from LA that she was the illegitimate daughter of the infamous South Carolina segregationist slimeball, strom Thurmond and a 16 year-old, Black Domestic in his employ, but that's just too damned bad, little idiot fella. That's when the Thurmond Family Spokesman made the statement and 2003 was the year Thurmond died. Deal with it.

So, aside from the what-should-be obvious fact that we're not in a Court of Law and, to the best of my knowledge, none of the facts reported in the story are in dispute, I'll ask you once again, little idiot fella, just how does the article I've cited constitute triple hearsay?

Is it your contention that the Thurmond Family Spokesman cited in the story misspoke or was not retained and authorized by them to speak on their behalf?

Again, are you in possession of some relevant knowledge pertaining to the case that the Thurmond Family is unaware of?

Do you dispute the fact that Strom is the father of the woman?

Do you dispute the fact that at the time of Mrs Essie Mae Washington-Williams 1925 birth, Strom was 22 and the mother was 16 and may well have been 15 at the moment of conception?

So, little idiot fella, apart from the fact that you don't like the facts of the story, CNN and think but can't prove that the NYT is "left-leaning", just what factually-relevant complaint do you have and what is your offer of proof?

That's what I thought.

Ya got bupkis, punk. Duncan Hunter's got a better shot at winning the VT Republican Primary Nomination for President than you do of makin' a legitimate argument, schmuck.

Dismissed.
 

You dispute what an AP reporter wrote about what Hillary Clinton said, but you rely on a CNN report that "references a recent statement by an Attorney retained by an attorney retained by Strom's family."

What a maroon.
 

"I also get that you think a 12/16/03 CNN account reporting that a spokesman for the late, unlamented, strom Thurmond family had just issued a statement that the family would not contest the recent claim of a 78 year-old retired teacher from LA that she was the illegitimate daughter of the infamous South Carolina segregationist slimeball, strom Thurmond and a 16 year-old, Black Domestic in his employ, but that's just too damned bad, little idiot fella."

This isn't even a sentence, moron.

Deal with it.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

"I also get that you think a 12/16/03 CNN account reporting that a spokesman for the late, unlamented, strom Thurmond family had just issued a statement that the family would not contest the recent claim of a 78 year-old retired teacher from LA that she was the illegitimate daughter of the infamous South Carolina segregationist slimeball, strom Thurmond and a 16 year-old, Black Domestic in his employ, but that's just too damned bad, little idiot fella."

Really? What's the subject, what's the verb, and what's the object of that mess, little fella?
 

Anonymous said...

"I also get that you think a 12/16/03 CNN account reporting that a spokesman for the late, unlamented, strom Thurmond family had just issued a statement that the family would not contest the recent claim of a 78 year-old retired teacher from LA that she was the illegitimate daughter of the infamous South Carolina segregationist slimeball, strom Thurmond and a 16 year-old, Black Domestic in his employ, but that's just too damned bad, little idiot fella.

"Really? What's the subject, what's the verb, and what's the object of that mess, little fella?"

In other words, ya got bupkis, little nameless-nitwit fella.

Let's see, ya still got no evidence, ya struck out on your triple hearsay slop and now ya wanna go down on grammar.

Fine, flail away, little fella.

Spokesman.

Issued.

Statement.

Ya got any facts now or are ya gonna stick with the side issue strategy. Either way, you're toast.

Always a pleasure.
 

""I also get that you think a 12/16/03 CNN account reporting that a spokesman for the late, unlamented, strom Thurmond family had just issued a statement that the family would not contest the recent claim of a 78 year-old retired teacher from LA that she was the illegitimate daughter of the infamous South Carolina segregationist slimeball, strom Thurmond and a 16 year-old, Black Domestic in his employ, but that's just too damned bad, little idiot fella.

"Really? What's the subject, what's the verb, and what's the object of that mess, little fella?"

In other words, ya got bupkis, little nameless-nitwit fella."

Nice avoidance, little fella. That mess is not a sentence and you couldn't show that it was, so you resort to your familiar, meaningless "ya got bupkis."

It's laughable.
 

"Let's see, ya still got no evidence, ya struck out on your triple hearsay slop and now ya wanna go down on grammar.

Fine, flail away, little fella."

Aren't you the one who's criticized people on this blog for their spelling mistakes, little fella?
 

"Let's see, ya still got no evidence, ya struck out on your triple hearsay slop and now ya wanna go down on grammar.

Fine, flail away, little fella."

"Aren't you the one who's criticized people on this blog for their spelling mistakes, little fella?"

You've got more than grammar problems, putz.

You've got bupkis and ya can't spell or punctuate.

Always a pleasure.
 

"Fine, flail away, little fella."

Spokesman.

Issued.

Statement.

Asked and answered, little nameless-nitwit fella.

Ya got bupkis.

Dismissed.
 

Spokesman, issued, and statement are not the subject, verb, and object of that mess, little fella. Not even a nice try.
 

"ya can't spell or punctuate"

Nice attempt at deflection. Point it out.
 

"Fine, flail away, little fella."

In the above usage, "Fine" is an exclamation or interjection and there would be a period after it, not a comma. "Flail" would begin a new sentence and would be capitalized.

How's that medicine, little fella?
 

"Fine, flail away, little fella."

In the above usage, "Fine" is an exclamation or interjection and there would be a period after it, not a comma. "Flail" would begin a new sentence and would be capitalized.

That's one way of doing it, little fella. Mine is another way.

"How's that medicine, little fella?"

Like your evidence, little fella, it's nonexistent.

Dismissed.
 

JW said... "That's one way of doing it, little fella. Mine is another way."

They teach English a little different at the Jethro Bodine Academy of Higher Learn'.
 

JW said... "That's one way of doing it, little fella. Mine is another way."

"They teach English a little different at the Jethro Bodine Academy of Higher Learn'."

I'll take your word for it, little fella.

That still leaves ya with no case and no evidence to back it up.

Maybe Ellie Mae and the critters can help ya with your studies after vittles, little fella.
 

"Spokesman, issued, and statement are not the subject, verb, and object of that mess, little fella. Not even a nice try."

Your grammar tips are as useless as your evidence, little fella.

Always a pleasure.
 

"Your grammar tips are as useless as your evidence, little fella."

Translation: jw is wrong, but chooses to deflect and change the subject instead of admitting his incorrect grammar.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.