Rachel Marsden, is she from Mars, then?
We first noticed Rachel Marsden, the hot-looking, sharp-tongued, honey-toed, glossy-lipped conserva-babe on the O'Reilly Factor.
Couldn't help it. Captioned, "Canadian correspondent," she was first remarkable because she was not a blonde as are most of the clucking Fox right-wing harpies; but her cleavage and clingy little dresses suggested an emphasis on the social part of "social conservative."
After several years of checking occasionally in with Billo, she's now a principle on the Fox's late night, ( 2a on the East coast; 11p-12a PDST) TV talk show Red Eye; the faintly produced, not-so-funny hour is a cheap buffet of fart jokes, broad sexual intenuendoes, and shock-valuable ad hominems aimed at the 20/30-something male, a sought-after demo whose members are a rara avis in Fox's heavily-over-50 audiences.
Our lizard brain grokked it when we read that she has said, “Fifty percent of people want to sleep with me, and the other 50 percent want to kill me.” (while we're probably incapable of murder, we found ourselves indeed wrestling with that ambivalence).
She's unabashedly exploited her sexual charms at her pathetic Web site which she's toned down (now that she works for our Moral Standard Bearer) by deleting some of the racier photos.
(We've always been attracted to these Morticia types with the elbows, the blood purple eye shadow and the lurkiness that just makes you want to sneak up and stab her with a piece of sharp wood. And watching O'Reilly leering at her snazzy faloofahs when she was his "correspondent," it was plain to see- he, too was clearly coming in on the "sleep with me" side).
Marsden, 31, is reportedly being groomed by Fox News to be their in-house Ann Coulter. Already she's earned the show some much-needed notoriety/publicity by making snarky politically incorrect remarks in hopes of setting off the media brushfires that have proven so helpful for Coulter, Ingraham, Malkin to stir up that demographic (and lending credence to the theory that women too, can be a "series of tubes."
"Maybe [Pakistani cricket fans] should focus less on cricket," she said last month, "and a little more on hygiene."
In a recent column in the Toronto Sun, she described how Vice President Cheney survived a bombing during a trip to Afghanistan, "For Dick Cheney, it must have felt just like any other day at the office: Folks who don't shave, don't bathe, and want him dead. Wow, feels just like back home!"
She looks and sounds like she's got it all to be a Fox News star, the carnivore's teeth, the shiny lips, the sharpened tongue- and the wing-nut politics.
But she's got one more thing: a past.
In a lengthy and delicious Salon investigative piece, by Rebecca Traister, Fox's Ann Coulter 2.0, chronicles Marsden's controversial and sociopathic personal life; much of which is played out in our own back yard- in courtrooms and bedrooms in Vancouver and around Simon Fraser University in Surrey, BC.
Recently, just before the Duke University vindications, host Greg Gutfield pondered what should happen to the accuser if the charges were to be dropped. Marsden snidely pooh-poohed the chances of prosecuting the woman who'd claimed she was raped by the Duke lacrosse team members.
"Charges are laid, charges are dropped," said Marsden. "It happens all the time. Unless she can get charged with mischief and they can prove she lied, then no, [she shouldn't be punished]. That's the process and the process works."
"Don't you think that being accused of rape is as bad as being raped?" Gutfeld argued, "Those guys' lives were ruined!" Marsden: "Let's give it 10 years and see if their lives were ruined."
This wouldn't raise many eyebrows on this late night porqueria that nobody watches, but it turns out that a quick perusal of Marsden's past reveals a motive for her flippancy.
Turns out the newspaper columnist/TV talking head is well known in Canada after she made dubious rape charges in 1997 against Liam Donnelly, a Simon Fraser swim coach in a case that effected harassment cases all over Canada. He was eventually exonerated, but Marsden's elongated and bitter case stretched out over several years; tore up a campus community and caused the university president who defended her to eventually lose his job over the matter.
University feminists went to bat for her, too and were kicked in the teeth for their trouble. She was a professed conservative, but worked both sides of the street like a four-legged crack whore. Trasister writes:
Oh god, she is feminism's worst nightmare," said Neil Boyd, an SFU criminology professor who claimed that Marsden harassed him too. Boyd was a vocal critic of SFU's handling of the Donnelly case; ... "She used these people, who were only too willing to jump on her bandwagon," said Boyd. "I'm not sure that she ever really presented herself as a feminist as much as she took advantage of an openness to victimization that existed on the university campus at that time."
In 1999, Boyd went to the police with charges Marsden was stalking him.
Marsden was arrested in 2002, and charged with criminal harassing a former lover, Michael Morgan, a 52-year-old Vancouver radio personality. After searching her apartment, Vancouver prosecutors alleged that Marsden threatened to publicly humiliate Morgan with nude photos she'd taken of him and documents she'd stolen from his office. She had also harassed his former girlfriend and her daughter.
In 2004, she pleaded guilty to criminal harassment, and a judge placed her on a year's probation. Here's the courts judgment.
Marsden is notorious in Canada, as you can imagine, Later, trying to build a career in politics as a conservative, she was was forced to resign as a staffer to an MP after it was revealed she was using a false identity.
Traister writes, " The press, which had been feasting on Marsden for seven years, also tore her apart for fudging her online résumé, on which she claimed to have assisted Connie Chung at ABC (ABC denied at the time that anyone by her name had ever been employed at the network) and that her writing had appeared in the National Post and MacLean's magazine (at the time, she had only had letters to the editor printed in either publication)."
There's much more embarrassing stuff in Traister's piece, yet Marsden writes a column for the Toronto Sun, who says they're delighted at the readers her naughty notoriety brings.
Before they hired her, Peter Worthington, founder of the Sun chain and senior columnist said, “She’s good-looking, she’s articulate, but she’s nine miles of bad road.”
It's even more stunning that despite all this, she's scored a steady
gig on TV, even if it is in the middle of the night, and for Fox News.
We don't buy the "Evil" designation right-wingers like Billo Reilly love to hang on unredeemable sinners (Isn't that oxymoronic to Christians?) Evil is a theological word- not a psychological one.
Maybe sociopathic might be a better word than evil for this she-devil but hell- all this has worked for us- we'll be Tivo-ing her cute ass, just to see what she'll say next.
"Marsden, 31, is reportedly being groomed by Fox News to be their in-house Ann Coulter. "
Now THERE is something to aspire to....
Sounds like another reason not to turn on the TV...
Posted by: sparky | April 23, 2007 at 10:18 AM
Why spend so much ink on a Phox lackey?
Posted by: Duffman | April 23, 2007 at 10:24 AM
UNBELIEVABLE how much time you idiots must have to waste, why don't you get a life and TRY to do something for society instead of wasting your fuckin time on this idiotic banter!
Posted by: Grace | April 23, 2007 at 10:27 AM
You are to be ignored young lady/fellow (what EVER you are). You're rude, crude and vulgar. Why do YOU waste YOUR time here.
Posted by: Duffman | April 23, 2007 at 10:30 AM
Don't care how sexy she was; wouldn't be enough to make me want to watch Phox at any time. I used to watch it and got so sick of the in-your-face attitudes that I swore off. Bill O'Reilly is a farce and an apparent 'dirty old man'.
Posted by: Duffman | April 23, 2007 at 10:48 AM
Consider your bluff called graceful. What have you actually done to make society better other than whining on a progressive blog? If you don't like it either argue and issue or don't let the door hit you in your John Brown hindparts on the way out.
On topic, this is just another wonderful example of how the conservative movement has gone awry. They preach endlessly about law and order about morality and yet they seem have have none. I've heard time and again how liberalism is supposedly a mental disorder, then we see countless real examples of this from the right.
Posted by: cowpotpi3 | April 23, 2007 at 11:00 AM
Oh you'd love that wouldn't you, it would give you someone else to throw your bull shit at. Do your little research and come back to throw that bullshit in chucks and others faces to try and show your intelligence. You are a rank amateur and I wouldn't waste my time even carrying on a discussion with you. You are pathetic, get to work and DO something constructive for Christ's sake.
Posted by: Grace | April 23, 2007 at 11:50 AM
Is Grace the hall monitor?
Posted by: sparky | April 23, 2007 at 12:47 PM
She should fit right in with Ollie North, Geraldo Rivera, and Mark Furhman. All documented liars.
Posted by: drool | April 23, 2007 at 12:50 PM
No Sparky just an obvious hit-and-run coward with no backbone for dialog. She/he must be totally discounted as a non-entity.
Posted by: Duffman | April 23, 2007 at 12:52 PM
this might be a good time to post my recipe for
Troll-house cookies...
Posted by: sparky | April 23, 2007 at 01:58 PM
I hear a lot of waaah and not a lot of substance. You were the one who brought up that "everyone" should get off their bums and do something. Logic would dictate that you ought to practice what you're in here preaching my little mental pygmy.
As to my bullshit, do you care to refute it? Odd that you would come to a place of discussion and run like the French army when a discussion breaks out, indeed on the ground of your own choosing. So again, since you are on the moral high-horse dictating that we all do something constructive, pray tell what have you done for society lately? Then again we all know the answer to that: 0.0
Posted by: cowpotpi3 | April 23, 2007 at 02:23 PM
"You are pathetic, get to work and DO something constructive for Christ's sake"
MOM??
Posted by: ExRat | April 23, 2007 at 02:29 PM
Just another Blatherwatch troll, by yet another name.
Posted by: sparky | April 23, 2007 at 05:17 PM
Good one, ExRat! I'm laughing!
Grace, your vocabulary runs the gamut from t to a . . . I"m sorry dear, you don't have the gray matter to undertand our intellectual banter so I excuse you from trying.
Now, go find another good cretin to play with.
Posted by: joanie | April 23, 2007 at 06:36 PM
Regarding this Rachel Marsden, doesn't anyone else think it peculiar that even Faux News would reach so low for a host? I don't care who they think she will attract . . .
Posted by: joanie | April 23, 2007 at 06:39 PM
Joanie, you forget, everything about Faux is lowest common denominator.
Robin
Posted by: robinz | April 23, 2007 at 08:18 PM
Can you specifically cite references for the history of Rachel Marsden ? The caption below sounds like a he said/she said characterization.
"Oh god, she is feminism's worst nightmare," said Neil Boyd, an SFU criminology professor who claimed that Marsden harassed him too. Boyd was a vocal critic of SFU's handling of the Donnelly case; ... "She used these people, who were only too willing to jump on her bandwagon," said Boyd"
That can't be all bad. Feminists are notorious for causing problems themselves and trashing conservatives (mostly male ones). Turnabout could be fair play here. And feminists haven't used people ?
With that said, I don't have cable and don't watch Fox news much (sometimes called the Al-Jazerra network by the left, while CNN is Al-Jazzera network by many independents and the right). Too much dichotomy in the media - I am losing interest in news coverage...
Posted by: KS | April 23, 2007 at 09:33 PM
KS: check the link to the salon.com piece as directed. you can google her sweet ass and find canadian newspaper accounts. you can defend this viper if you so choose... but those who have have been bitten.
Posted by: blathering michael | April 23, 2007 at 11:08 PM
Why is it that we always hear right wing folks state they don't watch Fox? This is usually followed up by a strong defense of the network they don't watch.
Posted by: cowpotpi3 | April 24, 2007 at 08:27 AM
Salon.com is nice and objective - NOT ! It needs a truth detector as most left-wing publications do. I am not condoning her, since I don't know her - but I'll give it the benefit of a doubt and go with there being a kernel of truth and acknowledge her character flaws. Whether you deny it or not though, Women's libbers (i.e. NOW) are often vipers and are hyperpartisans - so if that happens to be true that she used them, good for her...
The complaint about Fox News is that they dare give an alternative view - but they also allow exchange of ideas between liberals and conservatives, certainly more than other networks - when they do this, it gives the viewer the opportunity to decide for themselves instead of being spoon-feed news laced with liberal bias by the mainstream media.
Posted by: KS | April 24, 2007 at 01:07 PM
The complaint about Fox News is that they dare give an alternative view
Like an alternative to Celeb scandals/Wacko Jacko/Janet Jackson titty TV 24/7/365? Yeah right
Posted by: mercifurious | April 24, 2007 at 01:15 PM
Saying Fox News gives an alternative point of view is dilluded. Everything is an alternative to something. They present conservative viewpoints in greater volume than liberal views and they portray conservative views as being superior or as coming from superior people. For example they put the persuasive self confident Hannity up against jelly fish Colmes. Bill O'Reilly is by far the most self righteous of all the talking heads on any network. Their pannels are mostly conservative. "The Beltway Boys", O'Reilly, Heartland, or Geraldo are all conservative.
Posted by: Andrew | April 24, 2007 at 01:52 PM
KS you really got an itch about Feminists don't ya? sigh....poor baby. Hope your a man. Hate to think your a woman. Although I have met a few of them with that perspective.
Oh! I know how it goes. Woman are vipers and bitches, but men are just manly and aggressive. Isn't that the way that plays out?
Robinz
Posted by: robinz | April 24, 2007 at 04:30 PM
In the 04 election, there was a guy who was running for office ( I forget what) in Florida..his platform was that Lesbians and Feminists ( intergchangeable in his mind) had "faggotized" his community, especially his favorite bar. He said if he was elected he would remove all of those kind of women from town.
Then, the owner of the bar was interviewed, and it seems that one of those ladies beat this gentleman quite badly in a game of pool and his buddies laughed about it.
ouch!
Posted by: sparky | April 24, 2007 at 05:28 PM
Or Juan "Sometimes I could just scream" Williams vs. Brit Hume, William Krystol, Chris Wallace . . . Fox News Sunday. I've never watched it but have seen a few clips on YouTube . . . that the kind of balance you're talking about Klueless?
Posted by: joanie | April 24, 2007 at 05:51 PM
BTW, Randi's got a repeat of the "Imus" topic show. It occurred to me that while Imus is getting fired for trash talk, Faux News is hiring justs such talk. Maybe he should send them his resume . . .
Nah, I'm sure he's too tame for their taste.
Posted by: joanie | April 24, 2007 at 05:54 PM
joanie
I am impressed that you of all people can criticize Fox News Sunday but in the same post admit that you have never seen it. You and I get a little animated at times, but I respected your making your opinions known bast on your personal experience. Still not ready to give up on you or quit trying to learn from you, but maybe you ought to tune in Sunday AM and form your own opinion based on actually watching it. I've read a couple of things you've suggested. ( in all honesty though, I gave up on that last book early)
Regards
The Republican heathen.
Posted by: chucks | April 24, 2007 at 06:59 PM
What last book are you talking about?
Also, why should I tune in to a show that features so many people I not only detest but do not trust?
chucks, by now you should know that I tend to watch CSpan the most - you know, get it from the horse's mouth rather than second hand - and I watch documentaries like America at the Crossroads. I don't really rely on any one source. Esp. Faux News.
BTW, if you want to see an interesting documentary, Richard Perl's is being rerun right now. Watch it. I think you might find it interesting. . . I would very much like to know your reaction to it.
Posted by: joanie | April 24, 2007 at 09:01 PM
Gee, chucks, are you listening to CSpan right now and watching Jessica Lynch talk about how the media let her story get out of hand and get it wrong?
Talk about getting a story from the horse's mouth . . . she oughta know just how honest her story was. Doncha think?
Posted by: joanie | April 24, 2007 at 09:43 PM
"Oh! I know how it goes. Woman are vipers and bitches, but men are just manly and aggressive. Isn't that the way that plays out?"
Most women are not vipers and bitches, like those who don't belong to N.O.W. or are not on "The View" and many normal independent, conservative and liberal women. Us guys have our shortcomings as we are all human - as you well let us know.
Joanie opines;" Or Juan "Sometimes I could just scream" Williams vs. Brit Hume, William Krystol, Chris Wallace . . . Fox News Sunday. I've never watched it but have seen a few clips on YouTube . . . that the kind of balance you're talking about ?"
I side with Juan Williams on a number of things that Kristol and Hume get wrong - like Iraq. There is also Mara (from NPR) and Wallace is a conservative Democrat - his dad is more liberal, but well-respected. There are opposing views & balance in that both sides are represented (not the leftwingnuts though). YouTube presents a skewed view and not the whole context. I suggest that you watch the show for the entire context instead of cherry picking your views from YouTube.
Posted by: KS | April 24, 2007 at 10:27 PM
KS the real issue with making the statement that Fox somehow offers an alternative view is just off base in and of itself. Fox doesn't bill itself that way, they bill themselves as being the only 'fair and balanced' network. We all KNOW that isn't true via the massive evidence to the contrary...you know stuff like their news VP telling his people to 'find examples of insurgents cheering the Dem victory in the elections.' Or how about the fake Obama smears? And literally hundreds of other examples.
You also omit the fact that shows where Fox has liberal panelists are framed and run by an arch conservative talking point host. Framing of a discussion and all the questions forwarded to those on the show has a massive influence on what they can say. Just think about it without your republican hat on for a second.
Posted by: cowpotpi3 | April 25, 2007 at 07:40 AM
"Framing of a discussion and all the questions forwarded to those on the show has a massive influence on what they can say. Just think about it without your republican hat on for a second."
Cowpot -Face it, noone is really fair and balanced, least of all CNN and the alphabet channels. Fox does tilt to the right, unlike anyone else does because they all tilt to the left. Watching Fox then other network news can give you both sides of an issue - which I try to do. I doubt if you can give one example of a network being centrist. Just think about that without your Democrat hat on for a second.
Posted by: KS | April 25, 2007 at 04:22 PM
You're being inconsistent, KS. You originally stated Fox is chastised because they "dare give an alternative view - but they also allow exchange of ideas between liberals and conservatives, certainly more than other networks - when they do this, it gives the viewer the opportunity to decide for themselves instead of being
spoon-feed news laced with liberal bias by the mainstream media."
Sounds like you were telling us they provide a more even debate to me. This is just incorrect. I've seen numerous shows on all of the 24 hour news networks that offer this kind of counterpoint. However with a big difference: They don't have a Fox talking head framing all of the issues in a consistent manner to specifically forward an agenda like Fox's.
Think about the news portions and ignore the "talking head" shows for a minute. Notice how there seems to be little or no mention of the AG scandal on Fox...notice how many million times we hear about Anna's Baby Daddy when the news from Iraq and the various scandals are bad for the WH? What about the flat out made-up stuff they went on and on with about Obama and the so called Madrassa?
If the MSM reports something that is factually incorrect I would be the first person to disagree with them. I just wonder if your claims of 'centerism' are a smokescreen to afford you some facade of credibility.
Posted by: cowpotpi3 | April 25, 2007 at 05:36 PM
cowpotpi3- I somehow doubt that you watch Fox news much just by the assertion that they didn't mention the AG scandal much - that is just wrong - I was able to watch it last week and even in the midst of the Va. Tech slayings it was brought up a number of times. The business with Obama and the Madrasses was initially brought up by the Clinton machine, you know ? and Fox did not editorialize it, they merely reported it, then eventually made the correction when the report was found to be a lie/smear, like all of the other networks who covered it should have done.
So, are you saying that the talking heads like Stephanopolis provide a more even debate because they frame it differently than Fox ? I prefer to check out both, then draw my conclusions. FYI - I do not side with the Bush-bots on a number of issues.
"If the MSM reports something that is factually incorrect I would be the first person to disagree with them."
You have had ample opportunity over the last 6 months - seems like your critical thinking hat is missing or lost, unless you can state some examples. If you don't or won't, then you have shown your liberal bias to be transparent.
Posted by: KS | April 25, 2007 at 06:20 PM
So now you're and expert on all of the cable news networks? How much TV do you indeed watch, that I should trust your judgment as to liberal/conservative bias?
You are bringing up a liberal talking head I just don't watch (Stephanopolopolodius) so I'm afraid I'm not privy to this GOTCHA point you're trying to make.
In your viewing of the AG scandal on Fox, perhaps you can illuminate how their handling was of the issue? Was it sanitized and brief? Were issues really discussed? (this is kind of a trick question because I did indeed see a few segments on Fox about it and I would like to get your view on the coverage).
As to your assertion that you somehow know my politics or mind, feel free to spout all day on that line of argumentation. Sadly for those who share your political orientation, the last 6+ years are the reason I feel this way. Sorry to say this but the outright injustice and lies that we've had to live with over this timeframe have driven many folks like myself to the left because there is no other legitimate opposition available in our system. The truth hurts I know, but just imagine for a second in your mind's eye that I'm not a long haired hippie 22 year old who "just hates Bush." Is it liberal to be extremely angry that we were led into a war in this manner? Is it liberal to oppose an executive who has prostituted the halls of government for ideological reasons and filled them with incompetent cronies? Is it liberal to oppose the massive debt that our children will have to pay off due to the policies of an out of touch group of ideologues? The list goes on.
If you really think that people like me are blinded liberal automatons, you're in for a really rude surprise in future elections and the like.
Posted by: cowpotpi3 | April 25, 2007 at 06:40 PM
Did you read this ?
"FYI - I do not side with the Bush-bots on a number of issues."
I too am angry about the way we went into Iraq, which is also your main source of anger with the White House. This has destabilized the middle East, but hate to say if we withdrew and redeployed now, it would be destabilized even more. So if Harry Reid said that the US troops have already lost the war in Iraq - so, then who would win ? Al-Qaeda would win, Cowpotpie3 and Joanie. Unfortunately Bush screwed up and took off the lid by taking Sadaam out and noone can put it back on, but consider the consequences if the troops leave.
I see that you trot out the typical Democrat talking points, some of which are partly valid. If Democrats would provide more constructive solutions instead of playing the role of victim-crats, I would respect them more. I am still waiting for it to occur now that they are in control of Congress.
With that said, the opposition to massive debt goes across party lines, but the Repubs, who were in control have not walked their talk and have failed there - point taken. The Republicans deserved to lose control in the last election. I see this country at a tipping point and governing from the center rather than the left or the right is more likely to involve common sense, which neither the left or right use. I hear you say that the "rude awakening" that Democrats should prevail in future elections. This will open the door for more socialism, entitlements and higher taxes, which is fine with you ?
We are fighting this war on terror, which is in its infancy and will likely go on for the next 50 years, unless we surrender and become like Europe. They are poor negotiators. I expect you will believe this to be fearmongering and Repub. talking points. If so, I'd say that it is more of you hiding your head in the sand. If we give the Islamofascists the upper hand, that would be a worse situation to bring our kids and grandkids into that what you described.
Posted by: KS | April 26, 2007 at 07:13 PM
excuse me but France alone lost a million people during WW1 Who are you to lecture about europe being weak. Europe could always pull out of NATO and where would that leave the cowboy nation? Terrorism is a tactic, how you gonna fight a tactic? By reading Clancy novels?
Posted by: coi | April 26, 2007 at 09:38 PM
KS you're sitting there accusing me of spouting talking points but all I hear in response are right wing ones.
Are you suggesting that Democrats = socialists? Give me a break...if you actually were being as objective as you would lead me to believe you could in no way make that statement. They are far from leftists and you know it, that is exactly the kind of scare tactic that is not based in fact that I'm talking about. To prove it, just look at the massive growth in ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS under the Republican congress. By your own statements they are socialists! Just listen to yourself.
Next, Iraq withdrawal = surrender and al-Queda wins. This is a nice bumper sticker but it totally ignores the facts on the ground. There is way more than al-Queda going on here...you know the Shia Militias, Sunni groups (no they are not all al-queda) and the Kurd problem. You seem to be really willing to give a backhanded pass to Bush and his architects on the whole issue of legitimacy for the war and its handling. The people you defend to this day still do not admit any real failures.
You also fail to admit that we have basically withdrawn from Afghanistan, fundamentally. Even GOP congressmen who have been there have admitted this and openly talked about negotiating with the TALIBAN. What would you be saying about Dems doing this?
Lastly, those like myself do not believe that we should still be in Iraq in no way invalidates our recognition of a fight against global extremism. The fact that you have painted us in this way shows that you're neck deep in talking point that you so vociferously accuse us of. If you would like to debate me on the topic of how to combat said extremism, I would he happy to oblige. However, claiming that I am hiding my head in the sand due to my position on Iraq is simply rhetoric and indeed another talking point.
Posted by: cowpotpi3 | April 27, 2007 at 09:48 AM
You are assuming way to much with your emotional rant, cowpot.. You are picking at semantics; substitute Islamofascists for Al-Qaeda. If you don't think the immediate withdrawl would send a victory message to them, you are in la-la land. One caveat - If the Iraq Government continues to show a lack of support by the end of the summer, then we are indeed wasting our time and should move some of the troops to Afghanistan and bring most of the rest home. The Pentagon has already made plans to establish some air bases there, I have read. Bush's invasion of Iraq has lead this region to become more connected to the Islamofascist terror network - they were hardly connected before we went in. We do need to focus more on Afghanistan. That is a long way from over as is the war with the Islamofascists. Negotiating with the Taliban would be frustrating and ultimately futile for Democrats, because they would not honor any agreement by us - end of story/that is part of their friggin' culture.
Mainstream Democrats = Socialists. Yes, I am saying that. However, I am not saying that Republicans are not socialists, with their new entitlement programs. It used to be that Republicans were for anti-big government, that is until Bush 43. They have "risen" to the occassion to where the two parties are hardly distinguishable. Does that sound like a Republican talking point ?
Posted by: KS | April 27, 2007 at 12:44 PM
KS says,
You are picking at semantics; substitute Islamofascists for Al-Qaeda.
Well, yes. But so is SCIRI (say it with me:"The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq"), and the Islamic Dawa Party...
Unfortunately, they're in charge of Iraq (ie, who we're defending).
In other words, those who believe we should stay in there & fight (supporting Iraq's government) are the REAL Islamofascist apologists.
Count us out. Our troops deserve better
Posted by: mercifurious | April 27, 2007 at 01:14 PM
First off it is curious that you would portray a reasoned exposition of my position as emotionalism. That in and of itself shows your talking point nature...how many times to we hear that liberals are fanatical and emotional? That is simply an attempt to divert discussion and avoid the issues.
Secondly, you simply substitute one code word in the lexicon of boogyman tactics, al queda, for another, islamofacism. You clearly avoided any nuanced discussion of the fact there is a civil war there and there is far more going on that can be chalked up to 'islamofasicsts.'
Third, you are flat out incorrect in your response to my statements on Afghanistan. The congressman of whom I speak were Republicans, specifically Bill Frist and Mel Martinez who suggested the war there is lost and we negotiate with the Taliban. Look it up. A quick Google search supplies countless quotes. Get your facts correct before you pontificate about Democrats on this issue. You clearly ignored this and went on an anti-Democrat rant.
Lastly, indeed it does sound like a talking point from one who thinks even the current Republican party is not far right enough. A scary statement in and of itself.
Of course you can continue to state that you're an outspoken Bush critic, even though all you do along those lines is provide lip service and will likely vote party line on everything and adhere strongly to their core "values." I look forward for your calls for impeachment provided we can get GW under oath. (right)
Posted by: cowpotpi3 | April 27, 2007 at 01:42 PM
Cowpotpi3 rants;
"Third, you are flat out incorrect in your response to my statements on Afghanistan. The congressman of whom I speak were Republicans, specifically Bill Frist and Mel Martinez who suggested the war there is lost and we negotiate with the Taliban. Look it up. A quick Google search supplies countless quotes. Get your facts correct before you pontificate about Democrats on this issue. You clearly ignored this and went on an anti-Democrat rant.
I was merely responding to your question(below), which I did. You read anti-Democrat rant into it and to that I say; Learn to comprehend what you read better instead of jumping to unfounded conclusions ;
"What would you be saying about Dems doing this?"
"indeed it does sound like a talking point from one who thinks even the current Republican party is not far right enough. A scary statement in and of itself."
Why, just because I don't like big government, high taxes and entitlements ?
Spoken like a true European. The current Republican Party is too far to the right theologically, but too liberal in spending and the tax and borrow is their own thing. I refer you to Kevin Phillips, who I concur with on his take on the Republican Party.
"I look forward for your calls for impeachment provided we can get GW under oath."
He has not defended the southern border and is supporting illegal alien amnesty and letting them use taxpayer money for services they are entitled thanks to no enforcement. That is why I would call for his impeachment, but sadly it probably would not stick. So you go ahead and keep calling for his an Cheney's impeachment (you'll have to go after them both) as a war criminal, etc. I'll be the first to congratulate you if it happens.
Posted by: KS | April 27, 2007 at 02:07 PM
"In other words, those who believe we should stay in there & fight (supporting Iraq's government) are the REAL Islamofascist apologists."
Unbelievable - That twisted logic
is beyond belief - based on false premises. Yea, right, keep watching CNN and MSNBC.
To you Democrat apologists - I call the Republicans the Stupid Party and the Democrats are the Sneaky Party. A third party followed by a Parliamentary system is sorely needed to keep this country afloat, IMHO.
Posted by: KS | April 27, 2007 at 02:17 PM
You're right KS, I'm sure you've probably heard the following Oscar Levant quote: "The only difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that the Democrats allow the poor to be corrupt, too."
Posted by: fuzznuts | April 27, 2007 at 02:39 PM
Obviously KS has a selective reading disability - or possibly just a general reading disability?
I base this on your complete disregard for the following key information:
(re: Islamofascism)
Well, yes. But so is SCIRI (say it with me:"The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq"), and the Islamic Dawa Party...
Unfortunately, they're in charge of Iraq (ie, who we're defending).
Okay, thinking cap on now, KS?
Good, then respond to SCIRI & Islamic Dawa - both Islamic fundamentalists - in charge of the Iraqi reigns.
Posted by: mercifurious | April 27, 2007 at 03:16 PM
Deafening Silence...
I love how "SCIRI & Islamic Dawa in charge of Iraq" always causes wingnut cricket noises.
Talking point?
Posted by: mercifurious | April 27, 2007 at 05:19 PM
Man you sound like a really unhappy person. Could you pin up any more strawmen to flog when you flail away creating arguments that don't exist in the points I make? Merci is pretty much right on: You take half of what is said and respond to it then totally ignore the rest in order to play some "gotcha" game. Then all you do is call somebody a "European" or similar idiocy because you don't want to argue the points in the vain hope that tossing a label on them somehow invalidates the arguement. Priceless.
A perfect example is how you chose to respond to my assertions on Afghanistan. Rather than do the right thing according to your stated positions on Iraq, you ignore the fact that Republicans are calling for negotiations with terrorists and have pulled out from that country in a "cut and run" manner. You pretend you didn't read that and then go into a "what if" mode about the Democrats being suckers IF they negotiate with the Taliban. Try and get this through that wood you have upstairs: My rhetorical question was not asking to be answered (obviously) in that obtuse way. It was clearly me telling you that you are full of it for having a double standard where Republicans are the ones advocating for negotiating with terrorists and cutting and running. Get it? Apparently this kind of vitriol is OK by you only if Republicans are the ones dishing it. You've just proven what I've been saying about you all along.
Posted by: cowpotpi3 | April 27, 2007 at 05:25 PM
You are a waste of time. I try to carry on an intelligent dialogue with you and you can't handle someone with a different view than yours. I can be judgmental also - you are spoiled and .
So what is your point about Islamofascism Mercifurious besides the fact that there are other groups besides Al-Qaeda ? What the hell difference does it make ? it doesn't change the fact that your statement about US troops being Islamofascist sympathizers is nonsense. Even unintended consequences don't get us there.
"Then all you do is call somebody a "European" or similar idiocy because you don't want to argue the points in the vain hope that tossing a label on them somehow invalidates the argument"
OK - I am still waiting for a cogent argument or rebuttal on that topic - Cowpot. I was too nice,
I should have just called you a pinko - and you would have appreciated it more.
Look, noone likes our military being there and would like to see them out soon. With that said,
I have nothing more to say to you all - I have more fun stuff to do, besides its pointless.
Posted by: KS | April 27, 2007 at 06:30 PM
My unfinished sentence should read;
"I can be judgmental also - you are spoiled and love to play the gotcha game."
Posted by: KS | April 27, 2007 at 06:33 PM