Thursday Open Thread
Iranian president denied access to WTC site - I thought that was a good story.
Giuliani: Israel and others should join NATO. Says would use military force to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. - A man after my own heart :)
This is an Open Thread.
Submitted by Ender on Thu, 2007-09-20 09:02
Tags:

Comments :
Shameless diary plug ...
A Retrospective on Skymutt's diary.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4another interesting story
U.S. forces seize Iranian officer in Iraq
:
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I'm gonna use this one when I write up the Iran bit tonight (nt)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Just one more indication of who the real culprit is in Iraq.
Perhaps the time to expand the military so that we can erase the border between Iraq and Iran is coming faster than we thought?
I hear that the Democrats are in favor of expanding the military so that we can station more troops outside of Iraq. Perhaps Iran would be a good next choice?
What do you think, Ender?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4when they speak of redeployment
I thought that's what they meant. It's a logical choice and Hillabamawards say that all options are on the table.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
OMG, I think you're right!
And all this time I thought they meant Okinawa like Murtha was taling about. And here I thought that they were borderline traitors. Go figure.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You guys crack me up
Cranky old white men indeed.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
heyyyy
I am not old!
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
:) Check the timestamps!
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I think we need seconds
on the timestamps :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I object!
Ender is not old ...
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4well now
When push comes to shove, I think all the Dem candidates will do the right thing. Including of course defending our country. So I am not all that worried. Well I am slightly worried about Edwards but I think he has no chance in the Dem primaries.
If a Dem has to win, Hillary is the best of them as she'll be proving her toughness all the way.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Bite your tongue, young one.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4she can't be the worst of the Dems
1. She does not have a very clear ideological bent.
2. She is motivated by power and thus will do everything possible to keep herself popular (no drastic changes).
3. Obama has no experience.
4. Edwards is a panderer to the Far Left.
Who is better than Hillary on the Left?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
well...
Bill Richardson is better than Hillary.
Joe Biden is better than Hillary.
To name two.
I submit that Obama is better than Hillary as well, though you obviously disagree.
Obama's "experience" is not really much less than Hillary's. 8 years in the senate for her vs. 4 for him. But he has a longer history in politics in general, and a pretty impressive educational pedigree.
"First Lady" doesn't count as experience to me... sorry.
I survived the Bush Administration
I respectfully disagree
1. Bill Richardson is a doddering fool... I've heard him in the debates and he is just not that good at thinking on his feet.
2. I like Joe Biden (to some degree) probably best of all Dem candidates but he has no chance and I only listed those who have a chance.
Hillary is intelligent, pragmatic, and realistic. Obama sounds like a high minded idealist without a real clue about what running a country might involve (a lot more than speechifying).
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Hillary is just a front group for Bill.
She is Bill's end run around the 2 term limit.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4but even if that is the case
(which I doubt because I think she is plenty capable and ambitious enough to do her own thing) Bill Clinton is a 100 times better than any other current Dem candidate :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Anyone but Hillary.
Ender, you better have your water checked.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Well...
....maybe me and Ender should have the same color bar after all.
;-)
Bill Clinton is/was 100 times better than the current idiot in chief.... and yes... better than any other current candidate in either party.
What people dont understand is:
Bill != Hillary
and
Hillary != Bill
Hillary is a drier, less persuasive, less effective campaigner. Her philosophies are NOT the same as Bill's and she wouldn't govern as well.
Just my opinion...
I survived the Bush Administration
No, what people don't understand is ...
Hillary = Bill's Puppet
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Obama is the best
of the lot.
He is transformational.
I'm only half stupid
I can't wait until President Hillary takes office
Republicans across the country will have strokes and heart attacks and drop dead. It'll mean less traffic on the roads and more stuff for the rest of us.
And Fox and Rush will go out of business.
qui tacet consentire
Opposite is true...
The Republican party is currently de-energized and listless.
The only thing that changes that is a Hillary nomination.
You want to energize the GOP and drive 50% more listeners to Rush and Fox?
Elect Hillary.
A Hillary presidency would be the best thing that ever happened to Rush's career and to Fox's ratings. Just as Bill's presidency catapulted Rush into the mega-ratings territory 15 years ago.
No matter what you think of a Hillary presidency (I think it would be a net negative thing for the country), it will make the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Rupert Murdoch much much much richer.
I survived the Bush Administration
Why is my bar red now?
Did the definitions of the bars change?
I survived the Bush Administration
yeah
check the Comment Colors option at the top. It's now based purely on Ideology.
I'll probably change it to take Party into account again but not yet.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I object...
I object to "Objectivist" being lumped in with "Conservative" and "Right-Wing".
I'm an Objectivist... but I'm as far from Right-Wing as they come.
Right-Wing implies a certain solidarity with the Christian Right... and Objectivism, at its core, is basically agnostic and/or atheistic.
I will admit that Objectivism and the classical definition of Conservative are not far off... but the bastardization of the term "Conservative" over the past several decades has made that not such a clear distinction anymore.
If anything, Objectivism should be the same color as Libertarianism.... even though Ayn Rand did not want her movement lumped in with the Libertarians, they have far more in common than Objectists and Conservatives do.
Rand would not consider herself a red bar in the least.
I survived the Bush Administration
I disagree :)
Most objectivists I've met (probably more than you, considering I've actually been to lectures and club meetings of College Objectivists) were Right Wing despite being completely secular/atheist. They supported the War in Iraq and the War on Terror (though preferring much tougher measures against the whole Radical Islamic ideology) which differed radically from Libertarians, and despised Liberals (though no love lost for religious conservatives).
The Objectivist College Newsletter had an article about Bush fighting a war like a Liberal. I would prefer to keep Objectivist as a flavor of the Right Wing :)
If you really want me to though, I'll change your bar to orange like that of Libertarians.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
No need to change...
I'll just pick something else...
...if for no other reason that I dont want to be the same color bar as GoRight. ;-)
I still say that Ayn Rand would not consider herself Right Wing in any way shape or form.
The war on terror is the only major area where Objectivists differ from Libertarians. Philosophically, Objectivist/Libertarian is a much better fit than Objectivist/Conservative.
But it's your site. I just roam around here. ;-)
I survived the Bush Administration
Funny, I feel the same.
I tried switching to green but Specter, knowing full well my intentions to do so, decided to be a squatter there. Besides, there was a popular demand that I switch back to red so I did.
But I find the color being polluted by the likes of CLC, lately, a scurge that I simply can't seem to shake loose. Whenever skymutt needs a credibility boost so he uses it too. Now you.
I guess that red must be the "in color" nowadays. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I've gone purple
Two reasons:
1. it is the color of "Other". And since Ender has kicked me out of the Objectivist movement, I need a new color.
2. it is the color of purpleface. My SwordsCrossed BFF. ;-)
Somewhere, in Kenisco Cemetery in Valhalla New York... the corpse of Ayn Rand is spinning and turning itself "purple".
I survived the Bush Administration
My father's buried there.
God, if I had known Ayn Rand was there I would have made sure to pounded a 6 pack and pay a "respectful" visit to her grave.
Look for this when you're there...
Tombstones
I survived the Bush Administration
Purple
is the new black ;}
Glad to see you back BTW. We missed you.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Purple....
... is where it's at. Or maybe where it is. It's good.
Actually, I wouldn't mind being sort of mauve.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
Welcome back puppethead
good to see you back too!
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Also...
....any coloring system that has myself the same color as GoRight and you is inherently flawed... wouldn't you think?
;-)
I survived the Bush Administration
Anarchist, communist?
By what stretch of the imagination am I an anarchist/communist?
qui tacet consentire
Actually....
...when you think about it...
Anarchy and communism are polar opposite philosophies.
No matter what you think about the Objectivism/Right-Wing linkage... there is absolutely nothing in common between Anarchy and Communism. One is the ultimate embodiment of authoritarianism, the other is the absolute lack of it.
If anarchists could organize (forget that by doing so, they would cease to be anarchists ;-) ), they'd constantly be at war with communists.
I survived the Bush Administration
And yet there is Tlolac.
Who professes to want get to Anarchism through State Enforced Policies. This is why I call him the Stalinist Anarchist.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Or Tlaloc....
....you could at least address him by his chosen handle, instead of spelling it wrong constantly.
I'm not sure what your reason is for doing so, but it smacks of a passive/aggressive tactic.
Kind of like all the wing-nuts referring to Bill Clinton as "Klinton" for 8 years.
I survived the Bush Administration
Sorry, didn't even realize I was doing it.
I stand corrected as this was not my intent.
But now that you raise the point ... maybe I should keep doing it. Hmmm.
Did you miss the toilet bowl and hit your corn flakes by mistake this morning?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Klinton
Unlike transposing the "a" and the "o" in Tlaloc which has not semantic implications, the replacement of the "C" with a "K" in Clinton is a short hand for reminding everyone about the communist tendencies of Bill. The K is a symbol of the harsh domination of the U.S.S.R. as well as a reference to the sharp pronunciations in their languages.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Damn it, PM!
You ruined it. You have no idea how I giggled when GR railed about how I was misreading things and then couldn't spell the name right.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
If it makes you all giddy inside ...
I can keep doing it.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Change your ideology then =)
I think it's just the default. Bars used to be based on party.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Done. Thanks.
qui tacet consentire
Because you want to be a True Patriot?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4So...let them get even more money.
Our nation was much more balanced and fair when President Clinton was in office. Compare any time of his 8 years with any time of bush43's. Clinton whips bush's ass. Hillary will still be a fine improvement over the current crop of meglomaniac wanna be dictators.
And I thought you guys were upset ...
about that whole impeachment thing back then. Now it was fair and balanced? Hey, that sounds familiar, fair and balanced ...
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4True...
Hillary would be better than any Republican candidate....
..... but she still would not anywhere near the best we can do.
This nation is already extremely polarized. A Hillary presidency pours gasoline on that fire.
Hillary is not much different than Bush in her approach to governing. The left is delusional if they think they will make any headway under a Hillary presidency.
The last thing this nation needs is to portray the image of an oligarchy to the world.... Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton, Bush (Jeb?), Clinton (Chelsea), etc.....
New blood. Fresh ideas. innovative approaches.
That's what is needed.. and we won't get that from Hillary.
I survived the Bush Administration
Yep, she will galvanize folks
Fox and Rush will have a field day every day of a Hillary! presidency. If you thought the Bill and Monica show was fun, wait until they get a hold of her.
And the core base will be baying along with them.
That might impede progress. It will certainly be a distraction to whatever goals she wishes to accomplish.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Yep, Hillary might upset the Republicans
We can't elect Hillary because the Republicans might get mean.
So what?
Screw em.
qui tacet consentire
That's not what I'm saying
I'm just suggesting we have no illusions about what kind of media circus will ensue and what affect that might have on her agenda.
Of course it won't matter a bit if the Dems intend to be every bit as partisan and divisive as the Reps have been. Turn about is fair play I suppose, but you cannot honestly expect me to like it [continued rancorous division and obstructionism] or to think it is a wise move for this country.
EDIT (before I get misinterpreted): The "it" I am referring to is not a Hillary presidency. Hillary might make a decent president, or at least no worse than the other Dem choices.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
You misunderstand
Republicans will be mean no matter who runs. That's besides the point.
Only a Hillary nomination can get them to open their checkbooks.
A Hillary nomination would be a gift to the Republican party.
2008 is lining up to be a landslide Democratic year... the only thing that changes that is a Hillary nomination.
Do the GOP a favor... nominate Hillary.
I survived the Bush Administration
I agree with you PM, on this point ...
the Democrats may be setting themselves up to snatch Defeat from the Jaws of Victory.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You know, maybe I am being hasty here.
You have an excellent point. Perhaps a Hillary Presidency is exactly what we need to shock the Republicans out of their malaise. I guess a one term Hillary Presidency could help make that happen!
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Great! GR endorses Hillary!
Fantastic news, Larry's brother!
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
No problem, CheneysLoveSlave
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Hmmmm
The never ending fight over the government pie cutter will endure forever.
I've got my eyes on a few Hummers
qui tacet consentire
I'm sure
Maybe we can make them 100% tax deductible so everyone can buy one! I'm sure the makers of Hummers would love it.
Bush pushed for them to be 100% deductible in the first year
... for business purposes.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Of course,
I totally disagree with that law. The premise behind the law may have made some sense but it was poorly applied with respect to Hummers.
There are currently 5 users and 40 guests online
That seems like too many guests to be regular lurkers... wonder what's going on.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
might just be
search engine's spiders... Wonder if those are counted. They don't raise the hit count - I checked. Must just be bots, nothing major. Saw almost 200 late last night.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
What the heck is that?
Search engine spiders?
Do we need to call Terminex?
qui tacet consentire
hehehe
they crawl through the site, mapping all the pages for stuff like google search, etc. Automated programs. :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
It's Big Brother.
They heard this is a site that draws "loyal patriots" as well as "enemy sympathisers".
Which one are you? Which one will you be when President Hillary controls the levers of power?
I am going to
be goosestepping along doing my Heil Hillary salutes :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
She'll see right through you.
But she might keep a light on for you at Guantanamo.
I think Hillary will ditch the far left
and try to gain support of the Independent Conservatives like myself :) So I am not all that worried.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Except
you'll be doing it in one of the many new re-education camps that will be set up for Republicans -- built by Halliburton in peaceful Anbar province.
I've seen the list. You've been assigned to the camp where Al Sharpton is the commandant.
qui tacet consentire
The re-education camps already exist.
They are called public schools and they have been liberal indoctrination centers for decades.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4We're having fun and you're spouting lunacy....
What gives with you some times?
It's not lunacy, it's the truth.
Public schools are indoctrination centers for the left. The NEA is hardly a right wing or even a neutral entity, nor are the bulk of the teachers and administrators in these schools. School policies are consistently aligned with a left-wing agenda.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4There's a reason for that...
say it with me: reality has a well known liberal bias.
Notice how pretty much any group that is highly educated or cosmopolitan is skewed to the left. Notice how small town idiots are skewed right? Not a coincidence.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Actually, the reverse is true.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Examples?
The right constantly harps on academia being lefty, so there's the highly eductaed. Hollywood and big cities, both of which tend to be cosmopolitan (i.e. exposed to a wide variety of views) are lefty.
Meanwhile small towns and the south (both of which do poorly in measures of education) lean right.
Now what are your counter examples?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
And you people complain about my over generalizing?
No, you can't find any educated conservatives in big cities, why whatever was I thinking? This is so self-evident...
And small town and the south? Why there's not a liberal to be seen in those places, nor any educated folk. Stupid blacks, stupid latinos, and stupid poor white trash, that's all you find in the South, right? Why its amazing that they have cities at all.
Bigotry, look it up!
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You fail to get it, naturally.
This is about general trends not iron clad laws that apply to every individual.
I'll take that to mean you concede the point.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
If the point is that you are a narrow minded bigot ...
then yes, I agree.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You're always so petulant
when you lose an argument. Cheer up, sunshine!
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Meh. I just don't agree with your reasoning.
The cheap shots are just icing on the cake that is your embarrassment! :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Re-education with Comrade Michael Moore
to assist in your "re-integration" back as a productive member of the fatherland.
Camp sessions are slated for just 12 months
But there is a possibility that we might have to extend those tours three or four times.
qui tacet consentire
hahaha
Al and I go way back.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Fred Thompson can kiss the fundies goodby.
Apparently Dobson of the group Focus on Family has e-mailed out supporters saying Fred can not be trusted with their support
and he want's no part of him.
Let's see....it was the conservative "base" that got Fred to run, now significant members of the braying base say he's toast.
Why do you think we progressives have such a hard time trying to understand the positions and reasoning of "the base"?
Weird....
Fred Thompson just went up in my book.
;-)
Anybody that pisses off Dobson and the misnamed "Focus on Family" must be doing something right.
I might have to take another look at "swamp thing".
I survived the Bush Administration
I don't like several of Fred's positions.
But he doesn't scare me like Rudy does. No, not in a Republicans will win the election with Rudy way. In a US becoming a Gestapo enclave Rudy kind of way.
On the other hand, why is it that all the unretouched photo's of Fred out now make him appear like he's a cadaver? It's kind of gruesome.
Hence.. "Swamp Thing"...
If you painted his skin green, he would look like Swamp Thing.
If you painted his skin yellow, he would look like Homer Simpson.
How he landed such a hot young woman as a wife is a matter of consternation with me.
I know that power is the ultimate aphrodisiac... but damn... lots of powerful people she could've landed with... why someone so fugly?
I survived the Bush Administration
Viagra the favorite
prescription of the moral values crowd, and she likes his money and access.
Or maybe he is just a big teddy bear at heart, that wants to be the Commander in Cheif of WWlV.
He looks good in a uniform and the hat hides his bald spot.
I'm only half stupid
Geeze, making fun of cancer victims?
Low even for the left...
Ever heard of chemo?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4How long ago was that?
Is he still on chemo?
Do you think he's healthy enough to run for president?
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Smart move by Fred
The religious right needs to be jettisoned by the Republican party, or at least relegated to a much less prominent place when deciding policy.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
"Needs to" and "will"
are entirely different things. The only thing bouying Fred up right now is his rorschach candidacy. There's no way the GOP will realign to exclude the religious right by next year. It may not happen for decades but there's no chance it happens in 12 months.
Fred's toast.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Sure, but so much for success in the primaries.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Dobson, egomaniac that he is, tries to flex his muscles.
Kind of makes me want Thompson to win the nomination, just so Dobson has to eat it.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
The death of irony, latest edition
Over at Redstate, Erick is upset because "the left" is calling into question General Petraeus's bronze star and whether he really has earned all the medals he wears.
...
I got nothin.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
LOL
haven't stopped by there yet today. That's hilarious.
You know Erick seems fairly smart which makes me assume his schtick is just that- an act. I don't think he's dumb enough to believe half the things he says (his audience is a diffeent matter).
Maybe he can replace Limbaugh when he leaves his job.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Who has seen this one?
Here's a clip put together showing how Fox TV censored Sally Fields Emmy speech
because she said "god damned". The the clip goes on to show multiple times when Fox broadcast their people saying "god damned".
Rupert Murdoch.....you have no soul to sell the devil. What's he gonna do when St. Peter says he isn't welcome and Lucifer says he has nothing to offer him. Guess he'll be condemned to walk the earth for eternity...
the comments are currently indenting indefinitely
I'd have to make a small change to stop it. Should I just leave it so it will indent forever and if you need to see it go that far, you can just scroll horizontally? It doesn't actually look that horrible.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I vote leave it
Before they wouldn't indent enough and it was hard to follow stuff.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I'm with Brendan, leave it.
It's not so bad at work because I have a wide screen monitor. At home I just have to use the right/left scroll bar (or my mouse).
It does make it easier to figure out who said what to whom on the long exchanges.
yeah
I just wanted to keep it tidier but it's not a big deal. Making it easier to follow is good.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
So Ender, What do you think about having the Iranian
President there in NYC? Are you going to be protesting his presence? Do you wish that Giuliani was still mayor so that he could have him thrown out of whatever Pizza joint he stops to eat at (or Lincoln Center, which ever comes first)?
I hate the guy
but I don't really do protests. The only protests I ever participated in were during 2000 election in Florida - against the Democratic attempts to steal it. [it was convenient because I just took a nice vacation in Miami Beach]
I do hope he is embarrassed if possible. The city already rejected his request to go to Ground Zero.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
protests
Yeah, can't say as I blame you... if my only protests in life helped put the worst president ever in office, I wouldn't do protests anymore either...
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Heh, I'm just glad Ender hasn't staked out
his spot on a grassy knoll or book repository overlooking his route the UN or Columbia. Then again, I guess that would be more GR's territory.
Nonsense.
Only if it is in sight from his keyboard in his cubicle.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
And just where are you typing from?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I have a big desk in a big office. I'm the boss.
And I never claimed, as you have, to be doing my part as a "true patriot" to keep America safe and free.
See, you're a self-proclaimed keyboard commando. Typing from your cube. Except when the boss walks by.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
IACP to Country: Screw the Constitution!
One of the greatest threats to our Constitution is the International Association of Chiefs of Police who have for decades been anti-gun and actively pursuing policies which would leave innocent victims helpless in the face of the criminal attacks, while at the same time acknowledging that they are helpless to protect them.
Despite the rise on concealed carry laws across the nation and the resulting plummet in the violent crime rates, these officials continue to do everything that they can to make victims helpless.
The reality is that what they are calling assault weapons (as opposed to what the military actually calls assault weapons), account for a miniscule percentage of gun deaths in this country and yet they portray them as the weapons of choice among criminals.
We must stand up against these blatant attacks on our personal freedoms, and not just any personal freedoms the one that guarantees all of the others!
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Those Commies. (n/t)
added- Oh I see it, it's the INTERNATIONAL Police Chiefs. That explains it.....So, I'll say it again. Those Commies!
Balderdash
The real declines in violent crime occurred under Clinton. The Clinton economy, which allowed a net 6 million people to rise out of poverty, created 23 million new jobs, and saw the revitalization of our urban centers from coast to coast, had many times the effect on the violent crime rate as any gun law changes one way or another.
But if you insist on suggesting that gun laws are the primary drivers of crime rates, I would point out to you that a historic and stark reduction in violent crime rates occurred between 1994 and 2004-- the period of time when the assault weapons ban was in place.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Are you saying that as Concealed Carry Laws
increased that violent crime didn't decrease? And let's not forgot the push to actually prosecute and incarcerate criminals during this same period?
Given that the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with handguns (both before and after the Assault Weapons Ban) are you trying to argue that banning assault weapons had an effect on the rate of crimes committed with handguns?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4My opinion is that gun laws, either way...
...are a secondary or tertiary factor in crime rates. Economic factors such as wages and employment have a far far greater effect on crime rates.
Here's a link to an old diary of mine
where you can see a graph that I made that clearly shows how homicides fell as unemployment fell in the 1990's. And I'm a firm believer that there is actual causation there. Just as I don't attribute the decline in homicides to the assault weapons ban, I don't attribute it to an increase in people packing concealed weapons either.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
How about criminals being locked up?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Economy is still way more important
Could have had small effect but you'd have to show me evidence.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
:) -nt
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Hmm, why are you happy here?
I assume because the IACP sort of agrees with your gun grabbing views and that makes you feel all warm and fuzzy? How close am I?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Mostly because
watching you tweak out over the gun grabbers is amusing. If you guys want to pretend to be all macho you might want to not be quite so shrill-ly terrified when ever anyone suggests taking away your chosen implement of overcompensation.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Why do Conservatives hate the police? n/t
I survived the Bush Administration
Weird. Rudy LOVES the police!
Ender loves Rudy.
Therefore, Ender loves the police.
Now, GoRight hates the police, clearly. Must have had some bad experiences with them.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
I don't hate the police.
I hate the gun grabbers. Geeze, try to keep up with the story line here.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4But the police want to "grab guns."
You hate the gun grabbers.
Ergo, you hate the police.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
I know logic is challenging for you ...
but this does not a logical conclusion make:
Not all Police want to "grab guuns". Ergo I don't hate all police.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I see. So you admit that you hate some police.
Do you hate some troops, too?
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Yes, I hate gun grabbers.
If a police officer is also a gun grabber, I hate them, not because they are a police officer but rather because they are a gun grabber.
You seem to have a hard time with rather simple concepts.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Why do you hate America?
These people are God-fearing professionals who put their lives on the line everyday. They want to ban the sale of automatic weapons because their officers are killed by automatic weapons every day. And you hate them.
You are an "America hater."
That is sad.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Of course you are lying.
This is not what they are saying nor is it what they want to ban.
It always comes back to a lie with you.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Oh, goodness. Assualt weapons. Not automatic weapons.
Not a lie. Simply a misapplication.
Here is the link you provided, just to be clear:
Police chiefs call for ban on assault weapons
My mistake and apologies. Unintentional.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Oh, well, I assume you can understand my mistake.
Given that this is a common tactic of the gun grabbers, to assert Assault Weapons (media definition) = Automatic Weapons, which is of course a lie.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4No, I do not hate anyone because they are in the military.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Here are some of the police you hate.
A real cross-section of police veterans from all parts of the country:
IACP
Board of Officers
You are a classic "America hater."
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Any of these people who supported the official position
of the IACP described above, I hate, not because they are police officers but rather because they are gun grabbers.
I thought you liberals didn't like all this conflating stuff. I guess I was wrong.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4That is the board of the organization.
They are the ones requesting the assault weapons ban.
You hate them. Those people I just linked.
There is no conflation. You said you hate them. All those people who put their lives on the line everyday to protect people like you... even though you hate them.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
You have proof that all of these people supported
the call for the ban? If so then your statement would be correct that I hate all of them, but only because they ar gun grabbers not because they are police officers.
Even so you are conflating my hate for gun grabbers with a fictitious hate of police. I believe that the official liberal position on this site is that conflating = lying *, ergo you are lying.
-------------------------------------------------------------
* See any number of threads on Bush said Iraq attacked us on 9/11.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4No, you are the one who said you hate the IACP.
I posted a link to the board of the IACP, dedicated officers. You said you hate them. I am not making this up. Anyone who read this thread can see quite clearly that you have said, in no uncertain terms, that you "hate" these people.
You hate these people who put their lives on the line FOR YOU every day.
Your words, not mine.
Please, quit trying to backpedal away from what you wrote.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
I did? Where? Show me.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Let's see, shall we, GoRight?
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Neither of these statements seems to say that I hate the
IACP. My position has been that I hate gun grabbers, nothing more.
You continually try to conflate my hate of gun grabbers with hate for police officers which it is not. These are not mutually exclusive groups, so any area of intersection will, of course, represent people that I hate. The point, however, is that I hate them because they are members of the group known as gun grabbers, not because they are members of ther group police officers.
As long as we are clear on that point, then fine.
Either way, conflating = lying on this site and that is what you are clearly doing.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Always with the lies.
Where did I ever say MANY of its board members? I said some (or the linguistic equivalent thereof). Why do you feel the need to lie about what people say when the proof that you are lying is in the very same thread? Are you that desparate?
Two of your greatest weaknesses are your gullability and your predictability. These two traits are the primary reason I was able to lead you around by the nose in this thread and having you thinking that I said something when, in fact, I didn't.
I just hand you the rope, and you make a noose for yourself with it every time.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Oh, I see. You hate the organization, not the people
... who make up the organization. As if "the organization" made up a policy and not the people who make up the organization.
Is that it?
You look like a pretzel!
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
No, not at all. But I suspect you know that.
I hate gun grabbers, including any that might be part of that organization or the list you provided earlier.
This is a clear indication that you have either been drinking to much or need to have your eyes checked. Just sayin'.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I am not backpedaling at all.
I stand by every word I wrote in this little thread 100%. I don't, however, stand by your intentional mischaracterizations of my statements because, well, that would be rather silly and wrong (a common theme with things that you write).
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4The truth is self-evident in the thread, GoRight.
You "hate" the IACP because they have promoted a policy to ban assault weapons that you believe to be a "gun grab." And you "hate" gun grabbers, as you have stated.
There is nothing tricky about it. You hate these people.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Unless you can establish that all of these people
supported the ban, your claim that "I hate these people" is false. I only hate the subset of them that supported the ban.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Actually, I think that those were YOUR words, not mine.
Unless, of course, you can actually point to where I used THOSE words. Again, another lie. They're piling up.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Oh, and just to be even more clear ...
I doubt if any of these people put their lives on the line for me ever. I doubt that I have ever lived in any of their jurisdictions, but if I did then your statement would only be true for that subset.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Oh, I see.
You can hate police from other jurisdictions. But what if one or more of them has been or is on the force in an area where you have lived or you live now?
As police officers, they ARE putting their lives on the line everyday. Even for people like you who hate them. They don't discriminate the same way you do.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Continuing to take the bait.
I don't believe I ever said that. Can you show me where I did?
The people I hate deserve that hate, regardless of their occupations. If I thought otherwise then I WOULD be discriminating, but in this case I am not.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Hillary Fund Raising Foibles Continue to Grow.
Michelle Malkin has a nice summary of the latest:
The Democrats’ bundles of straw; Update: Hsu facing charges in NY:
The Wall Street Journal
continues to dig into Democrat funny money. They identify a Clinton
donor who says her political contribution was reimbursed by her
husband’s boss, a fund-raising bundler for the candidate:
Geeze, what's with these Democrats and fund raising? Why aren't these people being investigated for fund raising violations? I mean giving money to other people to donate to a candidate that YOU choose is just another way of circumventing the donation limitations. Can't the Democrats operate successfully within the constraints of the law?
And what types of favors are all these bundled donations buying? You know that they aren't doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, right?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Well, lets get rid of all of this
This "bundling" practice is a farce. Big money still buys candidates and elections. And when stuff like this comes up, candidates can just claim that they didn't know about it, but they have an inherent conflict of interest in regards to actually actively trying to discover these abuses themselves-- it's a case of "don't ask, don't tell." I've been arguing for public financing of campaigns for years. If I ran things, Hillary and all the rest will have to kiss their funny money goodbye.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
You have to know that Diane Feinstein
has to have something to do with it as well....
Just like Obama said,
Hillary is GOP lite. She seems to be using 'W' style campaign tactics
ON the bundling it is hard to have someone hand you a check from an organization, and know the personal history of every contributer.
Obama called on folks to stop bundling money
in May.
I'm only half stupid
I wonder if any of these folks were also "Bush Rangers?"
Seems like the same crowd. Nasty, filthy "bundlers."
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
And for those who think Hillary is more than a front for Bill...
Let's follow the money.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Tryphorgetin — The DNC's Latest Drug
H/T to Erick @ RS
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Uh huh
The candidate Republicans love to hate. Just like Prime Mover said, the Republicans best bet in 08 is Hillary nomination.
on that sig line....
What have you done to support freedom and freedom's best friend, free speech lately, besides attack MoveON's right to it.
General Odum a true patriot.
I'm only half stupid
Often said but never proven
I frankly doubt that Hillary has the "energize republican" power that everyone seems eager to ascribe to her.
Does anyone have data to back this up?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
We're scheduled to collect some at the end of 2008!
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Do you think that guy dyes his hair?
He looks like a Grecian Formula kind of guy. Not in a good way.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
No
But I think I saw his foot getting close to mine in an airport bathroom stall.
qui tacet consentire
libs on dkos are pissed and furious over
Senate condemns 'General Betray Us' ad
:
Reaction:
Cold water. 72-25
:
No, what it shows is how mainstream you are to the Dem establishment. Which is to say they view you as radicals they can throw bones to.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Good (the vote that is). It was a bad ad.
Petraeus is a soldier and was gung-ho about the war. No surprise, perfectly understandable. That he sees more the gains rather than the setbacks is also understandable-- he wants to believe that he's making a positive difference.
I think the ad has backfired greatly. It's a sign to me that moveon.org is, or has become, tone-deaf to the silent majority of Democrats like me, who don't approve of such character assassination tactics and third-grade schoolyard insults based on how someone's name sounds. This ad in no way helped bring an end to the Iraq War. It seems like moveon.org wanted to bring attention to itself, quite frankly.
The focus of honest Democrats who are against the Iraq War should be on the Republicans who are hiding behind Petraeus.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
What the HELL is wrong with you SkyMutt
You say good on a vote that stifles free speech.
It was an ad in a newspaper by Americans. As in free speech.
Give me a fricking break dude. You have lost your marbles.
What happened to your libertarian streak?
It is a sign that MoveON has hit a nerve. As in they are using Republican tactics for a change. Not like the R's have ever slandered a military man that disagreed with em. Like em Shinseki, or General Batiste.
Slap...... wake up and think about what you are saying here.
Free speech. We like it here in America.
I'm only half stupid
Free speech doesn't require approval, ML
There is a difference between censoring MoveOn and censuring MoveOn. This is the latter.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Political theater at it's worst.
Mickey Mouse Games.
It shocks me that you go along with this frankly.
I'm only half stupid
It is political theater
you're right there. Anything that expresses a "sense of the senate" is essentially BS meant to CYA.
Do I wish that in general congress didn't bother? Sure.
But am I really upset about this one instance? No. It is surely political and so it gives me that slightly queasy feeling that I get whenever shamelessly political actions are contemplated. But like it or not the current system works based on politics. Sham votes like this are hardly the worst example of our system.
Short answer- I wish this kind of thing wasn't called for, but under the system we have now it is.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
How disappointing
that is to hear.
Why does Congress have to go to 'war' against a frickin' ad. It is stupidity squared.
The good news, is that it hit a nerve and enough of one, that the VP, the Prez, and the Congress all orcestrated a move to smear MoveON for excercising their right to free speech. Gen. Patreaus fudged the facts, nothing new, really, but he is just another Bush apologist.
The Bush administration has slandered many Generals on their path to the forever war.
Why did they fire Abizaid? Cause he wasn't for the surge. Now you make excsues for a man who is making excuses for the 'crusade' in Iraq.
So I guess what I am saying is I disagree. I defend MoveOn's right to put an ad in a newspaper without the gimmicky political gesture of censure by the Congress.
I'm only half stupid
I wouldn't call a single motion to condemn the ad...
"going to war."
It seems like you are blowing this up into a much bigger issue than it needs to be. Who was personally hurt by this? Did anyone suffer loss of life, limb, liberty? Even loss of property?
I don't think so, which makes this a pretty benign (if useless) action by congress compared to many.
*shrug*
It's not the first thing we've disagreed on and I'm sure it won't be the last.
If I can ask, why did you change to a black bar from the blue?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Really I feel
this Slander of MoveOn is a favorable sign, that they hit a nerve.
I feel strongly about it because I think it is a dangerous and slippery slope to start condemning ads in newspapers. It is a pathetic assault on free speech. Pathetic and sickening.
I changed my bar so I could be an anarchist dem, and because I felt like it.
I'm only half stupid
Umm, why?
MoveOn got to run their ad, did they not? They are not barred from running it again, correct?
Does Congress not have the right to exercise THEIR freedom of speech from time to time? Because that is all that they did.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I think the motion was a waste of time
it's worthless. Furthermore, I couldn't give a damn how 97 self-important senators "feel" about the ad. If they had nothing better or constructive (oxymoron) to do today, they should have done us a favor and shut down for the day and gone home.
I'm not impressed with their politicking.
Geeze, people running AWAY from the blue bars ...
People running TO the red bars.
And you people are optimistic about 2008?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Yes-- Democrats will get votes from the whole spectrum of bars
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
But they just don't want to be associated with them?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Bars based on ideology, not party identification
I'm have my account set to Democrat/Theocrat. Proud Democrat here, pal!
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Nice try. Blue is the libs. Red is the conservatives.
Everyone knows it. You're ashamed to be blue. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Just curious
You have a kid and a pregnant wife, yes?
Do you ever spend time with them, or are you training them night and day to be the keyboard warriors of the future. ;)
I'm only half stupid
If red signifies conservative, why are you red?
Didn't you cheerlead the rate cut on Monday?
A federal bail-out of those who took high risks and lost?
How is that "conservative?"
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
I prefer bars on party affiliation
What if you are a conservative Democrat--then you get red.
You better reassess your position, Tlaloc ...
because I agree with you here.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Look, I agree that it is a waste of the Senate's time
Strictly speaking, the resolution against the ad was silly, but the outrage over the ad, fake or not, was inevitable, given its content. So I have a hard time getting angry over predictable political reactions, and instead wonder why the idiots over at moveon.org are giving Republicans such golden opportunities?
That ad gave the Republicans a door miles wide to walk thru. The ad had no appeal to anyybody but the Democratic "base", which is about 20% of the people at most. These people are already in the fold and no ad is needed to get them to hate anyone or anything with even the hint of being pro-war. You can't throw a scrap of raw meat like that to partisan Republicans-- they will snap it up every time.
If you want to see good anti-war ads, look at the VoteVets ads. I've liked nearly all of their ads.
So when I say that I approve of the outcome of the vote, what I am really saying is that moveon.org deserved the slapdown for being so stupid. Maybe they will learn the lesson that a lot of Democrats don't want the party to be taken over by left wing Swift Boaters, but I doubt it.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
I strongly disagree
on the free speech grounds that these Americans have everyright to ask questions about General P.
The Swift Boating was the long slow build up, putting General P and his report on some kind of high godly pedastal then coaching him on what to say. Not one General has kept his job that has crossed the Bush Doctrine. Yet he claims the generals are in charge. Bogus.
A General should not serve as an arm of the political operation of the Republican party, but that is what Bush dubbed him. Who is GP serving?
I'm only half stupid
no objections to asking questions-- object to the name-calling
Sure they do. But what goods do they really have on Petraeus that makes him a villain, other than the fact that he sees the war thru rose-colored glasses?
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Meh... they used good Democratic money for that ad--
....and it ended up hijacking the war debate for the whole month of September (highly predictable, given the content of the ad and the Republicans' desire to avoid the real issues of the day, such as the war, where they have no leg to stand on).
I don't want the Democrats to become a left wing party of personal destruction. That's not the kind of use of free speech of which I approve. Let the swift-boaters live on the other side of the aisle.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Well, it's just like the resolution
the Senate passed condemning the hateful Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth.
Oh, wait ...
qui tacet consentire
Well, to be fair ...
The Swift Boaters at least had some legitimate points.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4And those valid points were...?
Because from this perspective, it looked like they were out to smear a guy who had done his time in uniform honorably.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Maybe 90% of what they had to say...
No need to look up the details as I know what I will find. If you want more specifics look up the details and get back to me.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Two tours of Vietnam you ingrate.
How many tours of ANY war have you done? Oh that's right, you've NEVER been in uniform.....
ST*U and stop slandering a guy who served with distinction. Until you can show us you're HALF the man Kerry is and was, you have NO place to acting like the lies of the Swift boaters have any credibility.
You're a complete tool sometimes. And this coming from a guy who says no one has the right to say Patreaus was whoring for dubya.
Kerry is a lying SOAB who had his lies exposed.
Get over it.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4What did he lie about?
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Go review the swift boat ads.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Oh, I see. You simply get to call someone a liar, but you can't
... offer proof.
And elsewhere here you just wrote about slander.
Funny stuff.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
I did offer proof.
Go review the swift boat ads.
EDIT:
Besides you didn't ask for proof. You asked what he lied about.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Two tours buddy.
The Silver Star, Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts.
How many did dubya get when he was drinking and snorting himself stupid while going AWOL from his Texas Air National Guard gig?
GR, we tolerate each other here. If you keep acting like the slanderous lies that are spoken by misfits about significant national politicians about your opponents are fair game to bring up and act like they have any standing.....well, this place will break down into nothing but one of those horrible sites that are either high school food fights & worse, or so heavily moderated & straightjacketed that there will be no conversation happening at all.
Be careful what you say, repeatedly.
Hey, the people there with him disagree with you.
Just review the swift boat ads if you don't believe me.
P.S.
It's nothing personal with you, kindness. Feel free to believe Kerry if you want.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4No actually the people there *with* him
supported his take on events. The SBVT guys were people who were not actually present at the times.
Wiki
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I never claimed they were on his boat, only that they were
*with* him in Vietnam at the time. This is all old news and their relationships are well understood. Just review the ads and subsequent discussions if you want to know the details.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +40f 250 SBVT only 1 actually was
with him in vietnam (not even in the boat but actually present for any of the events they contest) and that guy doesn;t contest the event he actually witnessed!
Quite the credible witness list, that.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Of course you know that you don't have to be physically
on his boat to know him, to observe him, to treat him, or to know the details of what actually happened.
Interestingly enough, you are accusing me of smearing 1 Vietnam veteran by calling him a liar. You just did the same thing to 250 of them.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Actually
it's the evidence that calls them liars. I am merely pointing out that fact.
As usual you try to move the goal posts. If they wanted to say "JK is a bad guy" then this argument might hold water. But that's not what they did. They leveled specific accusations at him about event which they were not in a position to observe. And the record based on testimony of those who were there to observe them uniformly dismisses their accusations.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
The men that *were* with him on the boat in Vietnam...
...you know-- the ones who saw Kerry in action firsthand and know what happened-- stood with him on stage and defended his honor during the campaign. How do you explain this?
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Mass delusions? Mass hypnosis? The truth being
somewhere in between? Some under the table payola? Some promises of high ranking appointments? Blackmail? Who knows.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Wild speculation? Baseless slander?
Evidence-free hypothesizing? Tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorizing? Who knows...
So you've now moved on to slandering Kerry's boat mates, i.e. Veterans who served their country when asked. Shame, shame, shame.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
I never accused them of anything.
So I counldn't have slandered them. I only hypothesized some possible explanations for your query. Stop misrepresenting the facts.
But if you want to play that card, remember, you are slandering 250 veterans by calling them liars.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Can't have it both ways
By giving SBVT th GoRight seal of approval, you are implicity calling the vets who served on Kerry's boat liars, because they have called the SBVT liars.
So Kerry's boatmates, the ones who were in the best position to know the truth, have called the SBVT liars. How can you claim that the SBVT is telling the truth without impugning the character of Kerry's boatmates?
Don't hide your baseless allegations behind question marks. State you reasoning behind believing the SBVT over Kerry's boatmates, or admit you got nothin.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
We *did* review the Swift Boat ads when they came out
...and concluded that they were full of sh*t.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
So say you, others disagree.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Partisan hackery.
So....
1) It's OK to suggest that Senator Kerry was a liar and treasonous (as the SBVT said and you use as proof of your argument) even though not one person who accuses him was present at any of the times in question. You have said he was treasonous because of statements he has made against the Vietnam war as well as against the bush43 administration & current Iraq invasion & occupation.
2) You have suggested it's OK to accuse Congressman Murtha of treason (even though he served as a Marine in 2 wars) because of statements he has made against the bush43 administration & current Iraq invasion & occupation.
3) You have said that no one should be able to call into question what General Patraeus has said (particularly in light of the MoveOn ad). You have called his Central Command commanding officer Adm. William J. Fallon awful things because he came out and said that General Patraeus was a bootlick who couldn't be trusted.
GR.....You say one thing and then go out and do the exact opposite when it suites your need to smear and slander your political opponents. Honestly, you are right up there with Rush, Phaux News, Drudge and the rest in that you are so openly a total partisan hack that it's ridiculous to even try to get you to agree with your own principles as guidelines. You have no guidelines. You say whatever you can, regardless of it's proven veracity to try to advance what you see as your cause of the moment.
Having said that, I can only observe that you have no real principles other than being a tool and a total partisan hack. Why would anybody give such a person any standing when trying to discuss current events and politics. When someone frequently contradicts their own stated principles, as you here have done...well, when ones word is their bond, you show your word is worthless and you therefore have no guiding principles of integrity and character.
And you wonder why so many here slam you all the time. Gee...go figure.
Yeah, about that... (-nt)
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
As does MoveON
Generals should not be thrown into the political arena. Another thing on the long list of Bush boo boos.
This was political theater at it's worst. Thanks to whiney hypocritical Republicans who don't mind slandering, but if the tables are turned whine and cry about it.
I'm only half stupid
I can't fault cong. Dems for that vote
Maybe that's because I don't care for the ad, but mostly it's because theses kind of votes are entirely about giving yourself political cover. They carry no force of law.
So if some dems want to be able to appeal to the middle by faux condemning the ad that's fine with me. MoveON set them up to do just that. Actually I wouldn't personally be surprised if the MoveON ad were intentionally over the top for two reasons-
1) to shift the overton window during the testimony, and
2) to give moderate dems especially in red districts and easy terget to make themselves appear more centrist than they probably are.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Actually, your comment could have stopped right here.
Actually I wouldn't personally be surprised if the MoveON ad were intentionally over the top.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Now you too......
Free speech. One of the foundations of our country. It seems to irratate the President.
The ad holds D's and R's to the task.
Don't betray the principles of democracy by supporting that ridiculous stupid idiotic vote that was a complete waste of time in the Congress.
And you wonder why Congressional approval is at 11%.
It worries me, this propaganda from the right is seeping into your skull.
We support free speech in this country. And that goes for Swiftboaters too. Move on hit a nerve. You should give em a donation.
I'm only half stupid
jeez calm down
no one banned free speech. Condemning slander is not "banning" free speech. Why don't you point out what exactly was banned and then maybe you'll have a point.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Do you really think it is 'cool' to stifle free speech
with a Congression condemnation and the weight of the power of the office of the President.
The answer to this kind of issue is more free speech. Trust me, all this did was throw more fuel on the fire. The President's attention to the ad, is like a cash cow to MoveOn. The ad hit a nerve.
Keep your eyes peeled for more free speech, coming soon.
I'm only half stupid
You know, you DO have a right to free speech ...
but not a right to express it wherever you want. Some of us don't want to listen to the left wing nut cases spouting their crap and disrupting governmental functions. They can say whatever they want but let them do it where they are NOT disrupting the legitimate functions of others.
Free Speech Zones. Learn to live with 'em.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Newspaper Ads Learn to Live With Them n/t
I'm only half stupid
Slander, learn to avoid it.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Really. How many people did Clinton murder?
Speaking of slander......
I'm only half stupid
I don't know the exact count.
And where did I ever claim that he killed anyone?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Slandering Clinton is your favorite hobby
I am not going to play your phony claims game.
And where did MoveON slander Patraeus, specifically.
When the statement was posed in the form of a question, just as yours is.
Has Clinton Murdered Hundreds of People? Let's look.
Did the General Betray Us? Let's look.
Claims and Claims
I'm only half stupid
Apparantly Congress doesn't buy your account.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Congress and it's 11% approval rating
thanks to obstructionist Republican cowards.
I'm only half stupid
I guess that they weren't obstructing this vote, eh?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4It's the Gen. Patraeus sideshow ala Terri Shavio
It's a shame that the Bush Republican built him up to be the front for months and months to be Bush's apologist in chief.
No this vote was done for pure political theater. Censuring a newspaper ad.
Weak.
Don't worry MoveON has one planned for McConnel too.
I'm only half stupid
What a waste of time
what a dumb vote. They voted to "condemn" the ad...ooohh! Is that supposed to have any teeth?? Just sounds like a statement to me. How petty.
Well, at least they're wasting time with innocuous bills instead of stupid REAL ones that can actually do real damage to anyone.
I share Skymutt's disgust with MoveOn on this issue. They can say whatever they want but I think they're embarrassing themselves for attention.
They are trying to expose
in the face of rank opposition, apparently from all sides that this war is immoral, and illegal, and at a huge cost to tax payers. It is a war in which private contracters can steal tax payer dollars, with layered contracts and without any oversight, outside the normal due process of law. And the General and George are both complicit with that agenda.
I'm only half stupid
In a 1986 vote when he was a member of Congress,
Congressman Dick Cheney voted against a resolution calling for a release of Nelson Mandella from prison in South Africa
.(via Atrios)
"Yet Republican vice presidential candidate Cheney still defends his vote, saying on ABC's ``This Week'' that ``the ANC was then viewed as a terrorist organization. . . . I don't have any problems at all with the vote I cast 20 years ago.'' What, then, does this tell us about what information Cheney considers before he takes a decision? And what the long-term consequences are likely to be, and on whom? By no means were Mandela or the ANC universally viewed as ``terrorists,'' evidenced by the fact that the vote on the resolution was 245-177 in favor, but still shy of the two-thirds needed to override President Ronald Reagan's veto."
Hey notice that....back in the 80's it took 2/3 Congress to over ride. Now you just need 41 Senators to shoot down a good bill supported by the majority.
Crusade watch
Things not to say:
politico
Conflating all muslims with terrorists? Check.
Openly calling for an adversarial position between USG and the church of Islam? Check.
Thak you very much, Representative A$$hat.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
But of course his words don't mean what you claim.
I recognize that you wouldn't let something like that get in your way of a smear.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +414 steps to fascism
(ht to Crooks and Liars)
Let's say you sat down and analyzed many fascist regimes. Let's further say that you found a series of, oh say, 14 commonalities between them. Those things would then be warning signals of a slip towards fascism in a normally free society. Any one or two by themselves may or may not be indicative of a real problem. But when you hit more than you miss, it's time for some soul searching.
Kind of sobering, isn't it? By my count at least 12 of those are accurate descriptions of the US for during at least the last 7 years (in some cases far longer).
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Tinfoil signs.
Pick any two countries you want and the citizens thereof will be able to point out examples of all of these and call them "signs". Ergo, you must believe that all countries are facist. Yea, right.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Sweden and France.
Wow your test failed. Wait let me try again:
Spain and Norway.
Nope still failed.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
You, of course, are not from any of those places ...
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Uh oh! Looks like the Saudi's are gonna be dumping
their BFF. Looks like they are about to unhitch the price of oil from the Dollar if this UK Telegraph article is the case.
Hello inflation.....
But we needed the rate cuts!
Inflation be damned!
At least that's what one conservative wrote here.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
I don't know. It's kind of hard to tell who the conservatives
around here ARE at the moment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Trouble in Cowboy Oil Land
Everything loses value under Bush.
Including the face value of the dollar.
Betcha he is much more worried about this than what anyone says about Patraeus.
I'm only half stupid
Whoo Hoo -- We're Back Up!
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Unfortunately, the site still seems very slow
Pages are very slow to load for me. I was hoping that the web host would put us on some speedy new hardware, but that doesn't seem to be the case :-(
Two days to get SC back up and running, and still as slow as ever when they get us back up. Site5 = worst web host ever!
EDIT: After loading a few pages, I will amend my remarks. Performance does seem better now. I can load the "GoRight Flypaper diary" with comments expanded, and it only takes a few seconds.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
I am open for suggestions
to go to a different provider if it is guaranteed to be faster and more stable.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
It seems fine now
I spoke too soon I guess. I don't really have a solid suggestion for a good low-cost host anyway. We host our own sites, so I haven't dealt with 3rd-party hosts for years...
skymutt: accept no substitutes!