CNN's Holmes on Alabama state Senate altercation: "I mean, they say that Democrats are weak on defense, but that's ridiculous."

I totally agree... If some 80 yo geezer threw a sucker punch at me... I would have done the same thing... That is, nothing. Beating on a frothing 80 yo geezer - even in self-defense - would've been worse. 

Now that I've seen the vid... I do think the characterization of this thing by these idiot news folks is typical...and somewhat absurd.  

Nice work. One long stream of dishonest radical conservative consciousness.

Basically, I reject every word you wrote. It's just partisan crap and I refuse to accept your false premises. I can listen that smack from Limbaugh if I want a good laugh.

Honestly, listen to yourself. Duhh, libs love communism, love taxes, want to kill babies, are sissies, think Bush caused 9/11. Oh, yeah it's all Clinton's fault.

Get over it. Joe Democrat loves this country as much as Joe Republican, we just differ on what is best for the most(people).

I believe taxes are an investment in our country, that they are the fee we pay to enjoy that which enables, protects and empowers our way of life.

Abortion is horrible but late term abortions are exceedingly rare and are not performed as a matter of convenience for women. Ultimately, it is not for me to decide what a woman ought to do with her own body, nor is it any of my business.

Social security has done more good for this country than harm. It has kept our treasure of elderly citizens from eating out of garbage cans and dying in the streets. It needs help to survive but handing it to the profit over people market is not in the best interest of Americans.

Education? Run by the left? What is that? Where were all of those good conservative parents when their kids were being indoctrinated in the open and free PUBLIC education system? Where's the personal responsibility there? Keep your liberal education tripe to yourself. Education of the child is a family affair and is as much, if not more, the responsibility of the parent to participate with their child's teacher as it is the teacher. The desparate lack of quality education is on every last one of us.

Teachers are among the most valuable members of our society, yet they earn little more than unskilled laborers. That's wrong. We need to put the teaching profession on par with the medical profession in terms of respect and compensation. With that should come greater performance expectations and that can be done by learning the ways of proven, effective teachers. Public education, like SS, has much to be repaired but with responsible leadership and earnest citzen participation it can be done. It must be done.

As for Clinton, pishaw. The guy is the most popular man on the planet and still, he ain't my hero. He also ain't the sole reason our country was terrorized. That was a result of decades of irresponsible foreign policy.

I am so sick and tired of the inane rhetoric.  In the hopes of putting an end to this stream of garbage (yet without the realistic hope of it), please allow me to answer only your last question:

I'll add one more. Clinton wrote in his last policy paper from December 2000 that America had "no overriding external threats abroad"

I agree.  There are no global threats which should change our normal lifestyles, nor require that our constitutional rights are suspended.  Soft on terrorism?  Who got soft first?  Funny that conservatives call liberals the surrender monkeys, yet it was the conservatives who surrendered their constitutional rights, first.  I call that pretty soft.  Seems that the "terrorists" are getting their way from people like you.  You're willing to let the gov't listen to your phone calls, you're willing to submit to "rendition" to other countries, you've been frightened into giving up your right of habeus corpus, you're so scared of arabs blowing up your airport that you'll partially undress and submit to a full-body search by some security-guard school dropout.  You're so scared that you'll gladly send the sons, daughters, wives, husbands, fathers and mothers of other people into another country to be killed in the name of preserving your rights, so that you may surrender them to your employees - the government - in the hopes that you will stop wetting the bed at night every time you hear a crack of thunder.

I guess the upside to that is that now you have more time to worry about defending the "war on a tactic".  Who are the pansies here?  Who's soft?  Who's pathetic when it comes to living up to the purpose of the millions who have died historically while defending this country, and with it the rights you used to enjoy?

Just look in a mirror.

Do you deny that liberals/Democrats generally prefer raising taxes to lowering them?

YES I deny it. Liberals generally want a FAIRER tax system. A more progressive tax system. JFK lowered taxes. Liberals often say the rich don’t pay their fair share. The top rate has been lowered over and over. Explain why money rich people make on money. CAPITAL GAINS should be taxed at a lower rate then the money I make on my labor? The ONLY reason is that rich people who have political clout make the lions share of capital gains.

Do you deny that liberals would prefer that partial birth abortion be forever legal?

Absolutly deny it. Most states have a 14 to 28 week cutoff date for abortions. What liberals I know want is for a mother to not be forced to put the life insider her abover her OWN life. I know of no liberals, though perhaps some exist, that oppose a late term abortion law if it makes an exception for the health of a mother.

Do you deny that Democrats and a few liberal Republicans opposed fixing SocSec

Of course I deny it. it’s a false dichotomy. Its saying that either we PRIVATIZE SS like Bush wanted or do nothing. That is not the choice. We have time but we want EVERYONE to have a minimum level of SS not to risk it on RED in the Enron Casino.

Do you deny that the left has run our education system for 40 years and that almost NOTHING has improved,

This was almost a point but YES I deny it most control of schools are local and State. Which is why liberal states like Massachusets education is so much better than in Conservative states like Mississippi. Also CONSERVATIVE Presidents since Raygun have been cutting education. Bush SAID he would fully fund No Child Left behind then showed that was a lie as he flat out didn’t. A whole lot more money had to be spent by the states for the Federal Mandate which he broke his promise and didn’t fund.

Do you deny that during the Cold War many liberals thought that AMERICA was the problem and that many on the left still defend communism, especially their hero Fidel Castro?

Yes, I deny it. Again with the false dichotomy. The left just doesn’t think you fight a war with a country because of the way THEY want to run THEIR country. Or create and use a proxy terrorist group like the Contras when another county makes their own decision about being communist. It isn’t defending communism to say a country has a right to make its own decisions about THEIR economy. If freedom means anything it is the right to make their own decisions even if they are mistakes. Do YOU deny that to conservatives freedom for people in other countries means the right to do what WE tell them to do? If not how do you defend our attacks on countries for their own economic decisions like the attack on Nicaragua? The overthrow of democratically elected governments in Guatemala, Brazil, and Chile for electing leaders WE deemed leftist and installing military dictatorships or even INVADING the Dominican Republic to STOP them from reinstalling DEMOCRATICALLY Elected Juan Bosch, thereby PROTECTING a military dictatorship?

You won't deny that many liberals think Bush knew about/was responsible for 9/11 since we need look no further than the posts on this site or Democratic Underground or AmericaBlog (or Howard Dean's vulgar remarks) for all the evidence we'll ever need.

Bush brought on such suspicion and fanned the flames of it by doing things like OPPOSING the 9/11 commission.

Kerry said we need to fight a "more sensitive war on terror"; Edwards says the war on terror is just a bumper sticker slogan; Clinton said a few months before 9/11 that we had "no overriding external threats abroad". So, do you deny that the left is soft on terrorism?

Kerry is right. We need to fight this war on many fronts, If you think we will bomb and shoot our way out of this problem you are deluding yourself. WE need to do some bombing and shooting but also we need to win some hearts and minds or we just make more terrorists than we kill. Anyone but those enmeshed in a Manichean simplistic black/white worldview can see this. Edwards was right Bush is using this as a bumper sticker knee-jerk one size fits all excuse to do whatever he wants to do, that was his point and he is correct. Clinton was talking about a threat in the way the USSR was, he WAS obsessed with getting Ben Laden. According to Joe Conason, in Big Lies, Robert Oakley Reagans former ambassador for counterterrorism said THIS “Overall I give him (Clinton) high marks (on counterterrorism) The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama…” (p 207)AND last but not least of COURSE I deny liberals are soft on terrorism. Conservatives are STUPID on terrorism. Us liberals understand that a complex problem virtually never has a simple answer and is looking at fighting it on many fronts EXCLUDING using it as an EXCUSE to invade random Middle Eastern countries. Like most liberals I was all for fighting in Afghanistan. Iraq was stupidity and had NOTHING to do with fighting terrorism. The CIA said directly that Iraq wasn’t a threat to use terrorism against us. Al QUEDA attacked us the NIE listed the countries where al Queda was active in the 2002 threat assessment and Iraq was NOT on that list.

This what Lott said:

"I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."

For you to assume that he meant "If we'd had a segregationist, racist douche in the Oval Office at that point we'd all be better off" is simply pathetic. Even the journalists who were there admitted he was just being nice to an old man at a birthday party. Race had nothing to do with his comments.

Keep in mind as you furiously type your reply, there is nothing you can type that will prove that Lott was talking about Strom's segregationist past. You have absolutely nothing but your assumptions. But you'll try anyway, and I will laugh.