Dumbest Wingnut Comment of the Month
I feel confident that Crazy Pammy has already made the dumbest wingnut comment you’re going to hear all month:
Remember Black hawk down? This ain’t Bill Clinton they’re up against. A U.S. gunship has conducted a strike against two suspected al Qaeda operatives in southern Somalia.
Because, as we all know, President Clinton personally planned every aspect of that ill-fated mission. Task Force Ranger had to report directly to the President that day, and it cost them dearly… Thanks to President Clinton’s cowardice and ineptitude, those helicopters were shot down, and fierce combat ensued in the streets of Mogadishu. The Somali militiamen knew just who they were up against: Bill Clinton. But today, rest assured, “this ain’t Bill Clinton they’re up against.” The Battle of Mogadishu would never have happened had President Bush been at the helm. No, every bad guy in Somalia would be dead.
In Wingnut World, is there anything bad that has ever happened anywhere for which Bill and/or Hillary Clinton are not responsible?
UPDATE 2007/01/09 21:53
There’s still not a whole lot of news about the airstrikes. It’s quite possible that some seriously bad guys got killed, and that would be good news indeed.
Imagine, though, if somebody you cared about had gotten killed or wounded in the Battle of Mogadishu back in October 1993, and now you were reading Crazy Pammy laughing about it and dismissing the whole affair as nothing but some Bill Clinton fuck-up. Way to “support the troops,” huh?
Save this to del.icio.us
13 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks are automatic. Your email address is never displayed.
Do not paste an entire article or blog post into here: create a link to it (or at least create a tinyurl) instead.
The following HTML tags are allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
January 9th, 2007 @ 22:28
No, if Bush would have been president during Mogadishu he would have attacked Kenya.
January 10th, 2007 @ 22:40
“is there anything bad that has ever happened anywhere for which Bill and/or Hillary Clinton are not responsible?”
To answer your question, yes.
Stalin, FDR and the FDR cabinet members who loved Stalin.
Communism, The New Deal, The Great Society - different names, same disease and freedom killing left wing failures.
Clinton, Kennedy, Pelosi, et al, are just the latest would be dictators spreading the poison and corrupting our nation.
Bill Clinton was too lazy and horny to become dictator. Hillary is neither.
January 11th, 2007 @ 11:16
You know Mr. Dagny, in taking a quick look at your blog it’s fairly obvious you need to buy yourself a clue.
Nancy Pelosi’s ‘farm’ is actually a vineyard and when you wingnuts thought you had something on her about her non-union workers you had to immediately back off when you found out her workers not only made a $1.25 a hour MORE than the union workers but had better benefits as well.
Another one of your ignorant comments is the one about ‘unemployment being 1.5% higher’ under Clinton than it is now. The unemployment rate was 4% when Bill Clinton left office and anyone who really knows what they’re talking about would know that. Clinton began is first term in office by inheriting an unemployment rate of 7.5% and as I said, left Bush Jr. with a 4% unemployment rate. Do you do any fact checking or do you just make up bullshit as you go along?
And lastly, are you really dumb enough to think that “50,000 troops” could invade Syria and Iran?
“The Pelosis pay more than union workers are paid in the same valley — that from the pastor at St. Helena’s Catholic Church, a well known advocate for farm workers who’s involved in labor negotiations with the same labor manager the Pelosis use. … Monsignor Brenkle says the Pelosis pay a $1.25 an hour more than workers at Napa’s biggest union winery. … Of the more than 300 vineyards, fewer than four are union, and most of the farm workers in the Napa Valley get paid better.”
If Pelosi wanted to have union workers, “she could not ask the union for a contract. It’s illegal and has been since 1975.” Marc Grossman of the United Farm Workers Union explains: “It is patently illegal for any grower to even discuss a union contract, which is the only way you can supply union workers, without the workers first having voted in a state conducted secret ballot election.”
“Unemployment is down from 7.5% in 1992 to 4.0% in June 2000, and in April 2000 the unemployment rate was the lowest in thirty years. The unemployment rate has fallen for seven years in a row, and has remained below 5% for 34 months in a row. African-American unemployment has fallen from 14.2% in 1992 to an average of 7.7% in the first half of 2000 — the lowest rate on record. The unemployment rate for Hispanics has fallen from 11.6% in 1992 to an average of 5.7% in the first half of 2000 — the lowest rate on record. For women the unemployment rate was 4.1% in June — nearly the lowest since 1953″.
January 12th, 2007 @ 06:08
Stram, your unemployment facts are wrong you Clinton butt sucker. The economy has been better due to the tax cuts, not because of who is in office.
I don’t give credit to the politician. I give credit to American capitalism.
You left wing Clinton prostitutes keep saying it waw Clinton when he did nothing for eight years.
Give Americans back their money and we will all prosper.
Pelosi is some champion of the poor all right. Let this stupid arrogant bitch speak and the American public will see the Democratic Party for what it is.
As for my war plan, some of the 50,000 would invade AFTER the air strikes you moron. They would be walking thru rubble.
What is your policy for fighting the War on Terror? My guess is holding a Koran while mutilating your own vagina (which fits for you no matter which sex you are pretending to be).
As usual, I see left wing criticism and surrender, I don’t see solutions.
January 12th, 2007 @ 08:51
Those are not ‘my’ unemployment
facts Dagny, they’re from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and I will share them with you since you are obviously way too stupid to find them on your own.
Now go get someone to help explain them to you.
1992-12-01 7.4
1993-01-01 7.3
1993-02-01 7.1
1993-03-01 7.0
1993-04-01 7.1
1993-05-01 7.1
1993-06-01 7.0
1993-07-01 6.9
1993-08-01 6.8
1993-09-01 6.7
1993-10-01 6.8
1993-11-01 6.6
1993-12-01 6.5
1994-01-01 6.6
1994-02-01 6.6
1994-03-01 6.5
1994-04-01 6.4
1994-05-01 6.1
1994-06-01 6.1
1994-07-01 6.1
1994-08-01 6.0
1994-09-01 5.9
1994-10-01 5.8
1994-11-01 5.6
1994-12-01 5.5
1995-01-01 5.6
1995-02-01 5.4
1995-03-01 5.4
1995-04-01 5.8
1995-05-01 5.6
1995-06-01 5.6
1995-07-01 5.7
1995-08-01 5.7
1995-09-01 5.6
1995-10-01 5.5
1995-11-01 5.6
1995-12-01 5.6
1996-01-01 5.6
1996-02-01 5.5
1996-03-01 5.5
1996-04-01 5.6
1996-05-01 5.6
1996-06-01 5.3
1996-07-01 5.5
1996-08-01 5.1
1996-09-01 5.2
1996-10-01 5.2
1996-11-01 5.4
1996-12-01 5.4
1997-01-01 5.3
1997-02-01 5.2
1997-03-01 5.2
1997-04-01 5.1
1997-05-01 4.9
1997-06-01 5.0
1997-07-01 4.9
1997-08-01 4.8
1997-09-01 4.9
1997-10-01 4.7
1997-11-01 4.6
1997-12-01 4.7
1998-01-01 4.6
1998-02-01 4.6
1998-03-01 4.7
1998-04-01 4.3
1998-05-01 4.4
1998-06-01 4.5
1998-07-01 4.5
1998-08-01 4.5
1998-09-01 4.6
1998-10-01 4.5
1998-11-01 4.4
1998-12-01 4.4
1999-01-01 4.3
1999-02-01 4.4
1999-03-01 4.2
1999-04-01 4.3
1999-05-01 4.2
1999-06-01 4.3
1999-07-01 4.3
1999-08-01 4.2
1999-09-01 4.2
1999-10-01 4.1
1999-11-01 4.1
1999-12-01 4.0
2000-01-01 4.0
2000-02-01 4.1
2000-03-01 4.0
2000-04-01 3.8
2000-05-01 4.0
2000-06-01 4.0
2000-07-01 4.0
2000-08-01 4.1
2000-09-01 3.9
2000-10-01 3.9
2000-11-01 3.9
2000-12-01 3.9
2001-01-01 4.2
2001-02-01 4.2
2001-03-01 4.3
2001-04-01 4.4
2001-05-01 4.3
2001-06-01 4.5
2001-07-01 4.6
2001-08-01 4.9
2001-09-01 5.0
2001-10-01 5.3
2001-11-01 5.5
2001-12-01 5.7
2002-01-01 5.7
2002-02-01 5.7
2002-03-01 5.7
2002-04-01 5.9
2002-05-01 5.8
2002-06-01 5.8
2002-07-01 5.8
2002-08-01 5.7
2002-09-01 5.7
2002-10-01 5.7
2002-11-01 5.9
2002-12-01 6.0
2003-01-01 5.8
2003-02-01 5.9
2003-03-01 5.9
2003-04-01 6.0
2003-05-01 6.1
2003-06-01 6.3
2003-07-01 6.2
2003-08-01 6.1
2003-09-01 6.1
2003-10-01 6.0
2003-11-01 5.8
2003-12-01 5.7
2004-01-01 5.7
2004-02-01 5.6
2004-03-01 5.8
2004-04-01 5.6
2004-05-01 5.6
2004-06-01 5.6
2004-07-01 5.5
2004-08-01 5.4
2004-09-01 5.4
2004-10-01 5.4
2004-11-01 5.4
2004-12-01 5.4
2005-01-01 5.2
2005-02-01 5.4
2005-03-01 5.2
2005-04-01 5.1
2005-05-01 5.1
2005-06-01 5.0
2005-07-01 5.0
2005-08-01 4.9
2005-09-01 5.1
2005-10-01 5.0
2005-11-01 5.0
2005-12-01 4.9
2006-01-01 4.7
2006-02-01 4.8
2006-03-01 4.7
2006-04-01 4.7
2006-05-01 4.6
2006-06-01 4.6
2006-07-01 4.8
2006-08-01 4.7
2006-09-01 4.6
2006-10-01 4.4
2006-11-01 4.5
2006-12-01 4.5
And, so you would invade both Iran and Syria with a mere 50,000 troops only after ‘air strikes’? Sort of like the 3 week ‘Shock and Awe’ campaign in Iraq where we have now had 130,000 troops involved for 4 years in a country only half the size of Iran?
Face it Dagny, you’re just plain and simply ignorant and don’t know what you’re talking about. I provided you the facts on unemployment which proves that. If you have facts from Fox News or something that dispute them, than let’s see them or shut-up and face the fact that you’ve been made a fool of. Which was a very easy task, I must say.
January 13th, 2007 @ 01:22
On unemployment figures: Are these figures from the BOL or somewhere else?
Also, what impact does the Congress have on unemployment? I believe that the legislative branch has considerably more power to effect economic change than the executive. Their authority to regulate commerce has considerably more impact that the President’s.
Second, could it be argued that when the executive and legislative branches (majority controlled) share the same political party unemployment figures suffer? The Republicans controlled Congress during the Clinton administration and the performance figures look OK. But during a Republican presidency and controlled Congress, the numbers went down. The same was true under the Carter administration except both powers were controlled by democrats. Reagan had a democratic Congress and the unemployment numbers were pretty good. Comments?
January 13th, 2007 @ 10:07
“Reagan had a democratic Congress and the unemployment numbers were pretty good”
Unemployment reached double-digits for quite a few months under Ronald Reagan who also presided over two major recessions. Notice what effect his policies had on 1982 and 1983 until the Democrats in Congress reigned his ass in? Reagan is the most over-rated president in the history of this country. But, he and his old lady were very good a tarot card reading.
1981 7.6
1982 9.7
1983 9.6
1984 7.5
1985 7.2
1986 7.0
1987 6.2
1988 5.5
1989 5.3
http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm
January 14th, 2007 @ 10:07
Mr Filius,
I apologize for humiliating MR. Dagny and chasing him away from your blog, but useless idiotic Republicans who think they can make up their own statistics and pass them on as if they’re ‘facts’, need to be exposed for the pathetic little ‘morons’ they truly are. Thanks for the opportunity to bitch slap another Bush asskisser.
Stram
January 14th, 2007 @ 18:19
I don’t think you’ve chased Hank Dagny away. I’ve been sparring with him for a couple of years now, and I know he never gives up.
You are welcome to comment here any time, though, and I hope you’ll be back.
January 14th, 2007 @ 18:54
‘Sparring’? That should be an awfully easy knockout with that ‘moron’.
Hank Dagny has to be the dumbest person in the blogosphere. Today he wrote about Nancy Pelosi’s alleged exemption for Starkist Tuna with the new minimum wage legislation. Here’s a direct quote from him;
“But Queen Nancy excused a large employer of below minimum wage earners right in her own district”.
Now, Dagny is either a liar, an idiot or just sadly misinformed. “Wage earners right in her own district”? Someone needs to tell idiot boy that the island of American Somoa is not in California since the exemption pertains to Starkist workers in American Somoa only.
In ‘Nancy Pelosi’s district’, the minimum wage is $7.50 per hour, 25 cents more than what she and Democrats have now passed for the nation. And, American Somoa is “the only U.S. territory not covered by basic federal minimum-wage laws”.
‘Sparring’ with people like Dagny is easy. He’s obviously a fucking clueless George W. Bush asskissing wimp that doesn’t ’spar’ with facts, but with a bunch of name calling (communist/socialist) when faced with those facts.
I’ll be back Mr Filius. But, I’m not sure Hank will.
January 17th, 2007 @ 11:00
I told you Hank Dagny wouldn’t be back, Mr. Filius. He’s a spineless blowhard who when faced with the facts and exposed for being nothing but a lying Bush ‘butt licker’ and a ‘moron’, runs and hides.
Some things never change.
January 17th, 2007 @ 15:23
Stram, you never ponied up a response re: whether or not the executive and legislative branches work more effectively when they are controlled by different political parties. I guess you got a little blowhardy and spineless yourself when you started your little rant on tarot cards. Luckily, you kindly noted that a democratic Congress reigned Reagan’s “ass in”, so I’m assuming that the republican Congress in the 90’s reigned in Clinton (not sure if that included his ass though) and that may explain a lot about the decent unemployment figures seen in that timeframe.
On your topic of recessions, we were in a recession at the end of the Clinton administration, and you note two recessions in the Reagan administration. Who’s at fault for those? Congress? The President? Whoever you don’t fancy? Please tell us all, oh oracle of political wisdom and name calling.
Lastly, did you and Dagny study the insulting arts at the same institute?
January 17th, 2007 @ 15:51
To answer your question Hanque, yes, I do think there is something good that generally comes from a divided government. I think history show that.
As far as the insults, you can easily check to see who began the ‘butt licker’ and ‘moron’ insults and since that time I have used them in quotations.