Fire Dog Lake : A Cold Fart on a Hot Griddle
March 13th, 2006 | 
Author: 
Today, I posted a few mild comments over at “Fire Dog Lake“, a lefty blog that’s on a rant at the moment about the impending introduction of Russ Feingold’s censure resolution.
Thinking that liberals like a diversity of opinion, I provided a few. Little things, like the suggestion that rather than spending great wads of time bloviating about censure motions, impeachment proceeds against the President, and the like, they’d be better off coming up with a few novel items: realistic and common sense policies they could sell to the “people” at the next election.
I think the straw that broke the camel’s back and got me listed as a “GOP defeatist troll” was my prediction that the censure resolution would turn out to be just like a “cold fart on a hot griddle.” I guess that didn’t go over too well; when you’re all fired up because the Revolutions gonna be starting any minute (again), the last thing you want to hear is that you’re chasing your tail.
Linked to RUA
Sphere: Related Content
Posted in Piracy. Aaaar
15 Responses to “Fire Dog Lake : A Cold Fart on a Hot Griddle”
Leave a Reply
![[Valid RSS]](http://www.tinyminds.net/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
I was too nice when I visited the pondscum at “Fire Dog Lake“,
I suggested that the censure motion include the entire ‘gang of 8′ and the FISA Court.
Good work DOTW.
But it with the temperature differential there’s gonna be some real nasty popping and splattering…
Don’t get any on ya.
Way to go! I’m heading there now.
That felt good. I’m going in again.
I got told “go back to your rock.” And my mild comment that the libdems might do better if they quit calling everyone who disagrees with them an idiot, and ugly to boot, got me labelled a “concern troll:”
“‘Concern trolls’ are those that are soooo very, very worried and concerned about our behavior either as bloggers or commenters; they’ll lecture us, giving us the benefit of their vastly superior insights as to why we lose elections based on our behavior here in this blog.
They take different forms; some will go after the posts by the blogger(s), some after the commenters, others after any progressive who parts company with the right.
The problem, of course, is that the “correct” behavior they would have us adopt will surely see us fail. (Like the latest example, that WE are supposed to be more respectful of people who disagree with us…yah, I can see how that’s really helped us in the past, and how effective that is for the ‘wingers. As if Rove EVER gave respecting us a thought for a millisecond…)”
Aaaaaar. Well done, matey.
I wonder how long it will take before they realize that an IP ban didn’t work on me, for long.
Way to stand up for the Cheney-Bush Oil Junta. You’re a tool.
Oh, you cut me to the quick. It’s a Junta now, eh?
A junta is defined as “A group of military officers [i.e., Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Powell] holding state power in a country after a coup d’etat [i.e., Bush v. Gore].” Historian Gore Vidal called it a junta from the get-go and predicted we’d see, “one, maybe two wars.” Damn if he wasn’t right!
Since when are Cheney or Rumsfeld, or Powell, for that matter, “military officers”? Just because someone is in the chain of civilian command doesn’t make them an “officer”. And calling Bush v. Gore, a prime example of the rule of law OVER mob violence or disorderly succession further proves that you, sir, are a loon. Especially considering Bush v. Kerry, by all accounts (except the moonbats, of course) a well-run and legitimate election in all respects.
Seek professional help. Please.
Gore Vidal? Historian? Exsqueeze me?
Well, he’s a writer of very loosely historical fiction. I very much enjoyed his book on the Eastern Roman empire; the name of it escapes me, and it’s around a zillion years old.
But his writing certainly doesn’t qualify him for “historian” status, unless you would also lump in such luminaries as Alec Baldwin as a “foreign policy expert” or Jeanine Garofalo as a “political consultant”.
Vidal is just another rapidly aging blowhard lefty moonbat; at least he’s not coughing up a lung all the time like Norman Mailer.
Powell was a life-long military officer, working his way up from second lieutenant to general over a period of 32 years. Your unwillingness to readily concede that he was a military officer demonstrates a flaw in your ability to deal with reality.
While technically Rumsfeld and Cheney were not military officers, they were both former secretaries of defenses under Ford and Bush-the-less-stupid respectively.
I will admit that putting one of these guys into the secretary of defense position seemed reasonable, but you must admit filling the roles of vice president and secretary of state with the other two was excessive.
When your only tool is a hammer everything begins to look like a nail. That is why war is all these guys know. And why it was predictable to historians who thought about it that we would definitely have a war with this bunch. Vidal’s guess of two seemed high, but he nailed it. Unless, of course, the Cheney Bush Oil Junta goes for a third.
Bush v. Gore is just bad law. It was all the things conservatives claim to hate when it suits them: a plaintiff litigating his way to gain, an abrogation of states’ rights, and judicial activism. Indeed it was so bad that the opinion said it should not be used as a precedent.
I mustn’t admit anything. Either you think Bush is an evil conspirator genius, or he’s an idiot. Which is it? You guys have never quite gotten that dichotomy cleared up.
Bush v Gore is bad law? You’re a Constitutional lawyer? Not that this is the place to debate such things, but I thought there was a coup d’etat, and now it was just a case of bad law? And I’m a tool? LOL
Sorry to hear you were treated the way you were. I sense a double standard. Is a shame what is happening. I’ve done alot of thinking about the issues — blogging, other views — and thought you might enjoy knowing your frustration is well placed and well known. [ Click for other informatoin about the adventures on FDL; and the upcoming "community discussions" Click ] Americans may be shut out, but they do not have to be silent. Let others know: Leaders have to lead all people, not simply assert their agenda.
Thanks for your blog. We may disaagree, but we can still learn and listen from those who have other views. Best wishes.
Very respectfully,
- Constant -