• SeanRenaud said on Sep 04, 2008....

  You're new, you're kinda dumb.  You can go join the rest of the Republican blowhards. go find ALIENated postes, you'll like them.

• anonymous said on Sep 04, 2008....

  Well thought out reply, Sean. Good job. Did you spend an hour on that?
  

• Scaramouche said on Sep 04, 2008....

  Let's see - she allowed her 17 year old daughter to become pregnant outside the sacred bond of holy matrimony.  Who's the whore here, exactly?  Pity you weren't aborted you filthy republicunt.

• sheltercrow said on Sep 05, 2008....

  "where's the draft and martial law were promised?"
  
  Stop-loss, in the United States military, is the involuntary extension of a service member's active duty service under the enlistment contract in order to retain them beyond their initial end of term of service (ETS) date.
  
  YouTube can provide many examples of illegal martial law incidents. The most recent being the political conventions.
  
  The rest of your piece is plain rubbish. I have misgiving about all the candidates but the real problem is the political system and what a candidate has too do to pass muster in a corporate state.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 05, 2008....

  Stop-loss isn't something that Bush invented SC.  And it doesn't happen THAT often, unfortunately the people it happens to have really shitty jobs but that's still a far cry from a draft.
   
  Still you aren't wrong.

• sheltercrow said on Sep 05, 2008....

  

  
  DOD data: More forced to stay in Army
  
  By Tom Vanden Brook, USA TODAY | Updated 4/23/2008
  
  WASHINGTON — The Army has accelerated its policy of involuntary extensions of duty to bolster its troop levels, despite Defense Secretary Robert Gates' order last year to limit it, Pentagon records show.
  
  Gates directed the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the service secretaries to minimize mandatory tour extensions, known as "stop loss," in January 2007. By May, the number of soldiers affected by the policy had dropped to a three-year low of 8,540.
  
  Since then, the number of soldiers forced to remain in the Army rose 43% to 12,235 in March. The reliance on stop loss has increased as the military has sent more troops to Iraq and extended tours to 15 months to support an escalation in U.S. forces ordered by President Bush. The increase last month was driven by the need to send more National Guard soldiers to Iraq.
  
  Soldiers affected by stop loss now serve, on average, an extra 6.6 months, Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said. Key leaders at the small-unit level — sergeants through sergeants first class — make up 45% of those soldiers. Soldiers typically enlist for four-year stints.
  
  "Secretary Gates understands the hardship stop loss poses to our troops and their families, but he also understands the need to maintain cohesive units on the battlefield throughout deployment," Morrell said. "Troops who have trained together and fought together should remain together."
  
  [...]
  
  Stop loss can keep a soldier in the service if his or her unit deploys within 90 days of the end of the soldier's commitment. It is necessary, the Army says, to maintain the integrity of units headed to war. In all, 58,300 soldiers have been affected by stop loss since 2002, according to the Army. That's about 1% of active duty, Reserve and National Guard troops. For the 3rd Infantry Division, which is responsible for a portion of Iraq south of Baghdad, about 1,500 of its 22,500 soldiers is serving under stop loss, according to Maj. Alayne Conway.
  
  

• sheltercrow said on Sep 05, 2008....

  

  
  Its use is founded on Title 10, United States Code, Section 12305(a) which states in part: "... the President may suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States" and Paragraph 9(c) of DD Form 4/1 (The Armed Forces Enlistment Contract) which states: "In the event of war, my enlistment in the Armed Forces continues until six (6) months after the war ends, unless the enlistment is ended sooner by the President of the United States."
  
  TITLE 10 > Subtitle E > PART II > CHAPTER 1209 > § 12305
  
  NOTES:
  
  Source (Added Pub. L. 98–94, title X, § 1021(a), Sept. 24, 1983, 97 Stat. 670, § 673c; amended Pub. L. 98–525, title XIV, § 1405(16), Oct. 19, 1984, 98 Stat. 2622; renumbered § 12305 and amended Pub. L. 103–337, div. A, title XVI, §§ 1662(e)(2), 1675 (c)(3), Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 2992, 3017; Pub. L. 107–107, div. A, title V, § 508(a), Dec. 28, 2001, 115 Stat. 1090.)
  
  Amendments
  
  2001—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 107–107 added subsec. (c). 1994—Pub. L. 103–337, § 1662(e)(2), renumbered section 673c of this title as this section. Subsecs. (a), (b). Pub. L. 103–337, § 1675(c)(3), substituted “12301, 12302, or 12304” for “672, 673, or 673b”. 1984—Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 98–525 inserted “of this title” after “673b”.
  
  Effective Date of 1994 Amendment
  
  Amendment by Pub. L. 103–337 effective Dec. 1, 1994, except as otherwise provided, see section 1691 of Pub. L. 103–337, set out as an Effective Date note under section 10001 of this title.
  
  Ex. Ord. No. 12728. Delegating President’s Authority To Suspend any Provision of Law Relating to Promotion, Retirement, or Separation of Members of Armed Forces
  
  Ex. Ord. No. 12728, Aug. 22, 1990, 55 F.R. 35029, as amended by Ex. Ord. No. 13286, § 38, Feb. 28, 2003, 68 F.R. 10626, provided:
  
  By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 673c [now 12305] of title 10 of the United States Code and section 301 of title 3 of the United States Code, I hereby order:
  
  Section 1. The Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Department of the Navy, are hereby designated and empowered to exercise, without the approval, ratification, or other action of the President, the authority vested in the President by section 673c [now 12305] of title 10 of the United States Code (1) to suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces determined to be essential to the national security of the United States, and (2) to determine, for the purposes of said section, that members of the armed forces are essential to the national security of the United States.
  
  Sec. 2. The authority delegated to the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security by this order may be redelegated and further subdelegated to subordinates who are appointed to their offices by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
  
  Sec. 3. This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the executive branch and is not intended to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any person.
  
  

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 05, 2008....

  Uh SC I was basically agreeing with you.  The Army has what, one million soldiers give or take? 12k stop lossed is a rather low number and it certainly isn't a draft they knew the risks.  I'm not saying it's right I'm just saying you're exagerating.  Calm down.

• sheltercrow said on Sep 05, 2008....

  SR: I do not get excited. I like to work with facts not opinion.
  
  The stop loss soldiers are, in most instances, sent back to Iraq/Afghanistan postings from an Iraq/Afghanistan posting.
  
  Projected for Iraq July 2008: 135,000
  
  Projected for Afghanistan March-April 2008: 31,200
  
  Total: 166,200
  
  12,000/166,000=.072 0r 7.2%
  
  

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 05, 2008....

  Without a doubt stop lossed guys are going over.  The fact is that stop loss (primarily) happens to people with jobs that have a low rate of retention (people either change MOS or they simply EAS) in popular jobs it's less common.
   
  7.2% is a relatively low number, and even if the number was 50 or 100 it wouldn't actually be a draft.
   
  It's not a draft until and unless they start forcing people to join.  Which is still highly unlikely and alway was.

• Scaramouche said on Sep 05, 2008....

  Well - it's a 'back-door draft.'  Kind of like a fart.

• sheltercrow said on Sep 05, 2008....

  "to suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces determined to be essential to the national security of the United States"
  
  Suspend: To bar for a period from a privilege...
  
  Taken together: To bar for a period from a privilege of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation.
  
  Is not "forcing people to join" the equivalent of "to bar for a period from a privilege of law relating to ...retirement, or separation?"
  
  Your hiding behind semantics.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 05, 2008....

  No I'm not.  One is forcing someone to join.  By your logic the fact that they sign contract of four to eight years they are being drafted.  They aren't even really similar you're just trying to paint devils where there are none and you ALWAYS do that.
   
  Stop-Loss sucks, it does.  But when they signed the dotted line they knew there was a chance this would happen to them.  Just like they knew there was a chance they'd be used as a meat sheild for someone "more important" than themselves.  It's part of the contract. 
   
  One a side note Stop-Lossed guys are great to be around cus they don't give a fuck.

• sheltercrow said on Sep 05, 2008....

  Mass Illegal Arrest at Republican National Convention Part 1 of 2
  
  LINK TO PART 2:
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T3XBW...
  
  
  
  

• stopmediabias said on Sep 07, 2008....

  This post identifies a very clear weakness among Democrats, they think whoever owns abortion somehow own woman.  Most woman who claim to be pro-choice would never in a million years get an abortion or ok their daughter for such a thing. 

  Sean-I (as far as Shelter is concerned) think you'd have better luck trying to convince the wind not to blow. 

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 07, 2008....

  I am pro-choice but I almost have to agree with the lack of logic here SMB.  But lets be honest here abortion is one of those issues that really seems to be that both parties are on the wrong side.  I mean if we get down to the most basic level Republicans are supposedly for smaller government and less laws and less government in our lives (though to be fair historically this has not applied to "sins" drugs, alcohol, sex,) and shouldn't be pro-choice, but rather should be anti-government intervention.  *They should also really be pushing for better BC education instead of being against it *

   

  By the same token is it traditionally the left that is strongly for taking care of people who cannot care for themselves.  Welfair, medicare, various lawsuits.  Larger government, nanny state.  These are the people who ban smoking and are trying to block transfats.  These are people who are so "concerned" with the welfare of others that not only are they willing (indirectly via taxes) to pay for you're life they are also willing to tell you what you can and can't put into your body because well since they own it they get the right to tell you how to upkeep it right?

   

  You are right that most women (and men as well) who are pro-choice would hope to never have one, or a family or friend.  They would hope that that wouldn't be the best option.  I think that is one thing that the right (not you, you seem to be sane on this issue but ALIEN comes dangerously close to deranged on this subject) get the impression that there is this legion of women who wake up roll over to their husbands and say.  "Honey I want an abortion, I know it's our fifth but I really want this."  Nobody does that.  Nobody wants an abortion but keeping that right available to them is important.  Just like nobody (ok very few sane people) want to kill anybody but we know that the right to bear arms is important for self defense and more specifically against tyranny.
   
  SMB-  That's not fair to the wind to compare it to shelter.  The wind can at least be manipulated into something constructive like wind energy for a sailboat.  The closest thing to worth that Shelter comes is as a poster child for what not to do.  Ever.

• sheltercrow said on Sep 07, 2008....

  StopMyBrain: "a very clear weakness among Democrats," Hum. Since you are a rabid red-meat right-winger, how on earth have you come to any conclusion concerning "Democrats," or women in general, I might add. I would think it would be hard to see anything other than "red elephants" through those blood colored glasses.

• SARAH_PALIN said on Sep 08, 2008....

  VOTE FOR WHITE PEOPLE ONLY! Obama really prefers it this way!

• stopmediabias said on Sep 08, 2008....

  Sean-I would honestly like to see an honest poll on abortion.  None of the pro-choice crap, a simple honest question to all woman 1-Would you get an abortion? and 2-If you've had an abortion would you get another one?  I think it would be interesting.

  Shelter-I have had conversations with numerous woman both Democrats and Conservative and I am yet to have one say they themselves would get and abortion.  Many say pro-choice, but not one agree they would fall right in line and get an abortion if the need arose.

   

• HoleInTheCosmos said on Sep 08, 2008....

  As an emergency medical procedure, abortion has to remain an option. Since this kind of decision must, by nature, be subjective and made quickly sometimes, only a return to the thinking of the dark ages would remove that option from the table.

• Scaramouche said on Sep 08, 2008....

  ...and a return to the dark ages is precisely what the xtian repugs are after.

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 08, 2008....

  I think that such a poll with the questions that you are putting out there is kinda dishonest. They don't know until they are in that situation what they will or won't do.  The fact is that roughly one third of all women who get pregnant each year abort so either you don't talk to a wide enough group of people or some of them are lying to you or some of them just don't know what they would do.  I think it's kinda like the could you kill somebody question.  A lot of people say sure if it was him or me, and a lot of other people say they'd freeze up but nobody knows.
   
  The question is about choice.  It's about if you should take that choice away from a woman.  So asking if they personally would have it done is pointless (particularly depending on their position in life.)

• sheltercrow said on Sep 08, 2008....

  StopMyBrain:Since I have yet to find a single instance where you have stated the truth, I am placing your comment in the circular file again with the rest of your disingenuous remarks.
  
  SR seems to have a more honest take on the abortion issue.
  
  "The question is about choice. It's about if you should take that choice away from a woman.  So asking if they personally would have it done is pointless."
  
  StopMyBrain: Your tortured and foolish logic is quite amazing.
  
  Till you are confronted with the extreme circumstances where the question is relevant it is pointless to write "but not one agree[d] they would fall ...in line and get an abortion if the need arose" because the "extreme circumstances" did not exist for the "question" to be asked for these supposed examples of yours, which makes all the difference.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 08, 2008....

  Sheltercrow sadly is making sense here.  It was a more elegant way of phrasing could you kill, or would you take a bullet for a loved one.  Until it happens you can say whatever. 

• Scaramouche said on Sep 08, 2008....

  Not only that - but isn't there a religious argument here?  I mean, if it's such a hideous sin before god, how is a sinner to be judged by god if the very ability to commit the sin is taken away by men?  Isn't removing that choice interfering with god himself?

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 08, 2008....

  That's a huge stretch Scaramouche.  I mean for starters would you want to see murder, rape and theft laws repealed because it's interfering with God?
   
  I mean we want to just stretch into the absurd all children are born innocent (uness their Catholic) so an aborted baby would go straight to heaven without suffering on earth.  Maybe the hordes of Armageddon are getting close and God needs to speed up recruiting!  We work with the facts available to us.

• Scaramouche said on Sep 08, 2008....

  Well, last I knew the bible condones rape, so let's take that law off the table as it's clearly the work of touchy-feely, liberal, god-hating, secular humanists.
  
  
  But honestly, I don't think it's a stretch.  It's just a logical extension of that whole "why does god allow evil" bullshit.  Who knows?  Maybe satan is quietly torturing Moses even now for the crime of duping humanity into preventing murder and theft, and thereby defying god.  Burning bush, my ass...

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 08, 2008....

  It's a huge stretch.  It's pretty much "what if everything you know is wrong accept this one line here"

• sheltercrow said on Sep 08, 2008....

  The absurd would be placing a ban on nocturnal emissions because you are killing the carrier.
  
  Rationally, both the egg and the sperm would be 'human beings' in the absurd world of a bible cultist. But since most women are brainwashed by their husbands political choices, both person and public, women are set up to be victimized yet again.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 08, 2008....

  They aren't brainwashed.  They are owned.  Tis the natural order of the universe and only an overwhelming amount of science and politics has allowed it to be otherwise

• Scaramouche said on Sep 08, 2008....

  ...which is kinda like "what if everything you directly observe is wrong accept this one book here" - the xtian position.  Which was what I was ripping on by turning it on its head.  Quite being logical, dammit.

• stopmediabias said on Sep 09, 2008....

  In this country we do not need abortion, as I've said before it is bad for woman on a number of different levels, it kills a human being, and it is bad for society in the sense of suicide, cancer (abc link), 50 million tiny little corpses.

  I also find it funny how we must keep serial killers alive until they get fat and drop dead of a heart attack but we can't afford to solve the problem abortion is suppose to solve.

  I'm not a radical on this subject, I just think our woman deserve better.

  Sean there most of the time is something rational in your thinking while I disagree.  These other two just seem to be a couple of atheist cocksuckers.

• Scaramouche said on Sep 09, 2008....

  "bad for woman" , "our woman" - so either you're only concerned about one woman, and are a proper biblical polygamist, or else you're (more likely) some species of caveman.  "Foetus good!  Gorgo LIKE!"  Is that it?  I thought so, you jesus-fellating christfuck.  Maybe you'd think a little differently if you pulled that bible out of your ass and actually read it for a change.

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 09, 2008....

  I just don't see how our women deserve better than freedom. 
   
  You are right, this country doesn't need abortion.  It also doesn't need cigarettes, alcohol, transfatty foods, strip clubs or the NFL. 
   
  Really if you would never get an abortion, that's fine and dandy.  But where exactly do you get the right to tell me how to live my life?  If I'm not doing something that effects you (and in a more direct way than well that's one less tax payer supporting medicare) I don't understand where you get the right to tell me how to live my life.  I hate it just as bad when democrats want to get uppity about smoking, we're trying to pass a law that will outlaw smoking in apartment buildings because smoke can travel via the ventilation. 
   
  I haven't quite felt out Scaramouche yet but Shelter is a douche btw.

• Scaramouche said on Sep 09, 2008....

  Well, personally I'm actively working at being banned from comment on all the right blogs.  Whereas you, Sean, have yet to throw up your hands in disgust and stop beating your head against the wall of right-wing ignorance, I have, and really seek only to offend.  The time for well-reasoned debate is long over.  To quote Thomas Paine; "To argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving medicine to the dead."  I'm just siding with the founders here.  In the brave new NeoCon America, that makes me a douche, I'm sure.
  

• sheltercrow said on Sep 09, 2008....

  SR: Considering I disagree with all your scatological philosophy, outside abortion, (your considerations concerning anal cavities and stories of cannibals not withstanding) I suppose I can file these ranting in the StopMyBrain folder along with the 'atheist cocksuckers' material? I have always found it a wonder how SMB, in a subconsciously rude olfactory way, throws her darts at the wrong target. 

• sheltercrow said on Sep 09, 2008....

  SR: Since I know you can read (even dull-witted, wet brain, jarheads like yourself have to have some kind of formal education)...
  
  
  
  Republican Politics from a Progressive voice.
  
  More than half of Americans currently hold an unfavorable opinion of the Republican Party. [Polling Report] They are angry about Republican politicians’ abuse of power, their mismanagement of the economy, and the impact Republican failures have had on their everyday lives. Progressives can’t allow Republican to continue downplaying their mistakes and attempting to cover them up with promises of reform. Making Sense has assembled a top ten list of the worst Republican failures of the Bush years; now it’s time to hold them accountable for each and every one.
  
  The Facts
  
  1. The Iraq War Money Pit
  
  Before it even began, nearly half of all Americans opposed the war in Iraq. [Gallup] Now, after five years of casualties and billions of dollars spent, nearly two-thirds of Americans oppose it. [CNN] So far, the federal government has authorized $656 billion for the Iraq war. Of that total, $152 billion was appropriated to fund the Iraq war during the current fiscal year. [Congressional Research Service] That amounts to more than $12 billion per month and $416 million per day. The Iraq War has drained America’s resources, contributed to the increased oil costs that are destabilizing the nation’s economy, and added volatility to an already unsettled region—but Republicans continue to throw good money after bad. [Washington Post]
  
  For More Information: Making Sense on The Unaffordable Economic Costs of Iraq
  
  2. Hurricane Katrina Blows Away FEMA...
  
  3. Housing Market Crashes...
  
  4. Bush Administration Tortures Human Rights...
  
  5. Trade Deficit Devastates American Jobs...
  
  6. Big Oil Empties Consumers’ Pockets...
  
  7. Health Care Costs and Uninsurance Rates Skyrocket...
  
  8. The Middle Class Falls Further Behind...
  
  9. Republicans Embrace Scandal...
  
  10. Bush-Appointed Labor Board Attacks Labor...
  
  

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 09, 2008....

  Wow.  SC thinks we should be impressed because douches can use multisylabic words.  Bravo and the post information that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.  It must be great to be so oblivious.

• Scaramouche said on Sep 09, 2008....

  Well, he does seem to suffer from TL;DR syndrome.  Small, guerilla-style, ADD-friendly comments are much more effective.

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 09, 2008....

  It's a classic debate tactic.  Pretty much if you want to be right about gun control start at the begining.  Write three pages about how the Revolutionary War this, then talk about the Jews in Germany and if they'd had guns, then talk about Malcolm X and the Wild West.  Keep on subject but just put so much bullshit out that nobody is goign to bother to read through it all, much less refute it. 
   
  I see your point about Republicunts but the problem is that the Dumocrats are just as twisted just on different subjects so I have to spend equal time slapping them down.

• Scaramouche said on Sep 09, 2008....

  Well, in essence I agree completely.  The Dems have indeed lost their way.  However, I don't seem to get the same stench of steaming, writhing evil from the left side of the aisle.  The Repugs are sort of like a cross between Superman and Hitler, whereas the Dums are more like his pot-smoking, amotivational kid brother.  He sort of wants to vaguely help people, and maybe stop his brother from pulling the wings off puppies, but he can't quite seem to get up off the sofa.

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 09, 2008....

  See for me it's more like the Dems are just as evil they just go through the effort of hiding it and stabbing you in the back where as the Reps are more of a shoot you between the eyes sort.

• sheltercrow said on Sep 09, 2008....

  I cannot see that anything has to be said about the loony 'Obama's anti-christ-ic crusade' and 'he's for dead babies.' To respond to it other than in the negative is sheer brain-dead polemics. It's obvious that Obama is not an 'atheist cocksucker' or murderer. It is obvious that the positive comments are from mentally unstable personalities.
  
  That said, 'blue state' is a reference to states with democratic majorities. And 'suck' can be used to describe both parties (their 'different sides of the same coin'). What is the point? To say just the democrats 'suck?' Hardly. The only difference is that the republicans have had most of the political power in the last 8 years and have fucked the American public with the help of the democrats.
  

• Scaramouche said on Sep 09, 2008....

  Help - I disagree.  Indifference, perhaps.

• sheltercrow said on Sep 09, 2008....

  Let me clear up something a bit. When I refer to republicans and democrats I mean the people in the political class. Not the poor fools that voted for their obviously flawed platforms.

• Scaramouche said on Sep 09, 2008....

  Oh - well yeah.  It's tough to pigeonhole a real, human voter that way.  I mean, some of them are just little talking-point vomiting robots, but most people are a mix of opinions.  I, for example, describe myself as a libertarian liberal progressive - a description which can cause ice-cream headaches in some, unprepared listeners.

• stopmediabias said on Sep 09, 2008....

  Sean-

  "But where exactly do you get the right to tell me how to live my life?" 

  We do have freedom but it is regulated to protect us.  Woman are emotional rollercoasters when they go and get an abortion.  In a compromised state of mind decisions regarding life and death can harm them for the rest of their lives and in 200 or so cases kill them.  Why can't I start a suicide ward, a place where people pay me to put them to death?  Even though we are free to do with our bodies what we want the government protects us when we are in a compromised state of mind, like considering suicide, drunk or drugged in public, etc. 

  Right now we have Planned Parenthood telling teenage girls an abortion is no more dangerous than getting your tonsils out. 

  When I say "our woman" I mean woman in general.  Woman are amazing in virtually every facet of their being and even though they piss us off a lot imagine a world without them.  I am also referring to our mothers and sisters and daughters (like my daughter) and aunts and others.

  Obviously I would be all for a total zero on all abortions but I also know it is here and probably will always be here.  At minimum it should be regulated far more than it is now. 

  Now shall we open the brain of a complete moron and take a look inside:

   ""bad for woman" , "our woman" - so either you're only concerned about one woman, and are a proper biblical polygamist, or else you're (more likely) some species of caveman.  "Foetus good!  Gorgo LIKE!"  Is that it?  I thought so, you jesus-fellating christfuck.  Maybe you'd think a little differently if you pulled that bible out of your ass and actually read it for a change."

  Need I say more?  This idiot is probably another one of Shelters doubles.

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 09, 2008....

  Some women are emotional rollercoasters, some aren't.  It's different for all of them.  That said you should be able to set up a suicide ward.  If I want to end my life who are you to tell me no?  By what authority?

  Freedom should only be regulated to protect you from others, not from yourself.

   

• Scaramouche said on Sep 10, 2008....

  "Need I say more?  This idiot is probably another one of Shelters doubles."
  
  
  Wow.  Not only are you a misogynistic, fascist, weeping vagina from hell, you're paranoid to boot.  And I'm sorry, "woman are" is grammatically incorrect no matter what color the sky is in your little world.  Perhaps you should slink back to the comfort of your faile education, you utter turd.

• stopmediabias said on Sep 10, 2008....

  Shelter it is so blatantly obvious.  Why don't you go back, create another name, then come back out and join the debate, only be nice, you'll get a lot farther.  All you are accomplishing now is people don't take you seriously and eventually block you, that won't get any of your points across.

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 10, 2008....

  You were still reading his posts?

• Scaramouche said on Sep 10, 2008....

  I strongly suspect that if you could manage for *one moment* to stop being such a complete and total clunge, and perhaps go have a brief look at my blog (you know - actually seek evidence rather than trust some 2000-year old scroll of toilet-paper) you might just find that my posts are several orders of magnitude more vile, disgusting, perverse, vulgar, and coherent than any of sheltercrow's ever were.  I am not him.  He is not me.  You are a fleck of semen on jesus' lower lip.

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 10, 2008....

  Oh I know this wasn't directed at me but of course your not Shelter.  Shelter is nearly incapable of independent thought.  He's a machine of cut, paste and youtube.  He could be a Bot for all the originality he shows.

• Scaramouche said on Sep 10, 2008....

  No - not you at all.  I mean the theist cocksucker above.  It's truly startling the degree of paranoia that a little anonymity (meaning in this case, freedom) can breed in the weak-minded.

• sheltercrow said on Sep 11, 2008....

  StopMyBrain: 'don't take me seriously and eventually block me.' Hum. You mean you? Because I find your reference sources to be your personal opinion. Supplemented, without attribution, by Matt Drudge, Ann Cutlet and Rush Limbag? Hum.
  
  SR aka the cannibal: "He's a machine of cut, paste and youtube.  He could be a Bot for all the originality he shows."
  
  References son are indispensable. It's something you and StopMyBrain are sorely lacking when you post. My personal opinion is not posted because I am suspect of my own biases. I generally like to refer to a more informed opinion. It's called research.
  
  StopMyBrain: As I have explained any number of times I use sheltercrow, kickingcrow, kickingbird and gnawingdog depending on what mood I am in. brotherclaude was a joke and I inherited jackflash. Six so far.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 11, 2008....

  No it's called copy and past.  To call it research demeans people who do actual research.  Oh teh noes!  SR aka The Cannibal.  I kinda like that name actually.

• Scaramouche said on Sep 11, 2008....

  OK - so it hadn't occurred to me to have a zillion names here.  I was kind of trying to rack up as many bans as I could from republicunt asswipes as a sort of badge of pride.  So far I have plenty, and predictably, they're usually the result of having made a valid point, or turned their own words back upon them, even when I'm not using profanity.  Typical repugs - if they can't shout you down they try to shut you up.  Just proves my point about the futility of trying to debate them. As soon as you expose their assholery to the light of day, they stick their fingers in their ears and shout "la la la la la la..."
  
  
  Anyway, I would never want to short circuit this amusing process with multiple aliases.  Who knows? Eventually, I may become a one-man encyclopedia of repug pussyfarts who refuse reasonable discourse, saving the few humans among us a lot of time.
  
  
  Still, if everyone has all these aliases, I can sort of see a basis for SMB's paranoia, however pathetic and sad I think it is.

• D6fer said on Sep 13, 2008....

  shit!.....I totally forgot what this post was about......thanks all of you for the hour of entertainment......I loved the smack talk....you guys are funny....a few of you may smoke a turd in hell for some of the comments you made, but who am I to judge?
  
  I suspected Scaramouche as being another alt of sheltercrow.....I am not sure if he really knows how many he actually does have......with multiple personality disorder, it would be hard to tell....just one question though.....how come all of those personalities are assholes?
  
  I am intrigued by the whole "I hate Christians" sentiment that seems to ooze from every corner of Shelters and Scars comments......did you guys get beat up by a band of holy rollers or something?
  
  Scaramouche......you are somewhat of a hypocrite in that you are trying to get blocked by the type that you say wont have an honest debate with you....when all you throw out from the get go is insults........my guess is, that you are a tiny little whimp that has been put in his place his whole life, and the only place you can get away with talking to someone like that is behind the protective shield of your computer........I happen to know quite a few Christians that would forget about the "turn the other cheek" for a minute and stomp a mud hole in your sorry ass and walk it dry.....and be perfectly happy with you calling them a hypocrit through your 2 missing front teeth.....Cristians don't claim to be perfect....to the contrary, they know it is impossible.....something that liberals just cant seem to grasp.
  

• D6fer said on Sep 13, 2008....

  damn......missed the cut off time for edit.......Cristians = Christians

• Scaramouche said on Sep 14, 2008....

  Anyone who can survive a bout of invective clearly has balls enough to engage in fruitful debate. Anyone who hangs up the phone at the first hint of a fuckbomb needs an enema.  Didn't jesus hang with lepers and whores? What do you do, shit roses?
  
  
  And there we come to the basic reason why Xtians should be fed to lions.  If they really don't believe in their own philosophy, then what the hell good is it?  Sitting on the toilet as I currently am, I'd be doing the teachings of jesus more honor by wiping my ass with them than you do by threatening to lay them aside for a moment in order to indulge your own perverse lust for violence.
  
  
  You are definitely right about one thing.  Xtians don't claim to be perfect.  They just want everyone else to be perfect, and are prepared to go to any lengths to enforce their sick definition of perfection on people who don't give a crap and just want to be left alone to live their lives.  From the crusades to the devout catholic Hitler's final solution, to the KKK to bans on gay marriage to the demented jehova's cocksuckers who occasionally darken my doorstep.
  
  
  It's like smoking.  Do whatever the hell you want in the privacy of your own home - that is your right and privilege.  Just don't subject me to your second-hand "savior."
  
  
  There.  Was that a sufficiently explanatory rant?

Comment on "My Blue State Sucks"

Currently tagged	options McCain blue state politics red state Obama LOL republicunt stop-loss abortion woman Me (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment
	Comment Anonymously