ThinkFast AM: July 10, 2006
ThinkFast AM: July 10, 2006
Karl Rove was asked about the outing of Valerie Plame last week. He reportedly said that after a “careful, thoughtful, aggressive investigation,” the person responsible for leaking should be fired.
Do-nothing Congress. Lawmakers return today “from a weeklong break [and] will resume work on a long list of unfinished — and possibly insurmountable – tasks.†Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX), said: “I’m not sure what this Congress has accomplished.â€
Insiders tell U.S. News that President Bush has been working on a memoirs project for a year. “‘He’s doing a memoir,’ one insider says. ‘He’s keenly interested in it.’ But here’s the odd part: Bush hasn’t actually written a word yet.”
In Jan. 2002, State Department lawyers warned the White House against creating a “lawless” universe where detainees had no rights: “Even those terrorists captured in Afghanistan…are entitled to the fundamental humane treatment standards of…the Geneva Conventions.”
“Brutality and corruption are rampant in Iraq’s police force,” according to confidential Iraqi government documents. Abuses include the rape of female prisoners, the release of terrorism suspects in exchange for bribes, and participation in insurgent bombings.
“A sharp rise in bloodletting between Shiites and minority Sunni Arabs has raised new fears of a slide to all-out civil war.” A day after more than 60 Iraqis were killed “in a dramatic escalation of sectarian violence” in Baghdad, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki pleaded for Iraqis to “unite as brothers.”
Tom DeLay “is planning an aggressive campaign to retake the House seat he quit in June if an appeals court lets stand a ruling by a federal judge last week that his name must stay on November’s ballot–even though he has moved to Virginia.”
Lobbying reform legislation remains stalled in Congress, and public interest groups think that’s a good thing. “I’d much rather see Congress fall on its face and not pass anything this year,†said Public Citizen’s Craig Holman. “What they’re considering is really nothing but a PR gimmick to placate the American voters.â€
Post-election turmoil continues in Mexico. Yesterday, lawyers for Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador “turned in documented allegations of irregularities that they said cost him the July 2 presidential election, and a senior aide warned that Mexico faces an ‘insurrection’ unless all 41 million ballots are recounted.â€
And finally: Happy 1st Birthday to the National Zoo’s panda cub, Tai Shan. “For his birthday, staffers prepared a giant fruitsicle for the cub, a frozen melange of apples, yams, carrots and fruit juices.â€
What did we miss? Let us know in the comments section.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Bush hasn't written anything yet because he can't remember anything.
July 10th, 2006 at 9:11 amBush writing a memoir, eh? Is it a coloring book?
July 10th, 2006 at 9:21 amBush writes??? hahahahaha
July 10th, 2006 at 9:22 amTom Delay is delusional. Like John Ashcroft who lost his election to a dead man, DelAy doesn't stand a ghost of a chance of serving anywhere but at Leavenworth.
July 10th, 2006 at 9:23 amBush writes??? hahahahaha
Comment by freebird — July 10, 2006 @ 9:22 am
More like 'colors'...
July 10th, 2006 at 9:25 amBush hasn’t written anything yet because he can’t remember anything.
Comment by yankeluh
Yeah, all those years spent of as the town drunk and being a cocaine cowboy has a way of fuzzing up your mind.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I bet those two subjects will get a short shrift.
July 10th, 2006 at 9:26 amBush's memoir: I 'member one day, a day, I can't remember which day--it coulda been a Thursday...I put on my flight suit...my, my (snortle) codpiece--some people call 'em a codpiece--Pickles says it's an ole work sock with sawdust in it...an', an' just declared victory. "Merika wun!" Heh, heh.
I 'member another day! Maw ole buddy, an' vise prezdent Dick Cheney hada...hada, well he had a little accident. I think most of the Merikan people felt sorry for him. I mean, I mean just think of how bad he must have felt! Most folks don't realize, 'memberin's hard werk!
July 10th, 2006 at 9:26 amNice to see Bush is preoccupied with writing a memoir while he is still in office for a couple more years. Guess he knows he is a lame duck and needs to get his version of his history down. I wonder how many pages will be dedicated to the "Accomplishments" chapter.
July 10th, 2006 at 9:26 amThis memoir thing reminds me of the book,
'Memoirs of an Amnesiac'. The first page is
signed by the author; all the rest are blank.
Kind of like Bush's policies, signed off by the
'author', but nothing within them of substance.
I'm guessing the author of 'My Pet Goat' should
July 10th, 2006 at 9:27 ambe looking out for some Ann Coulter type plagarism.
Writing a book.? More like plagerism by bull shit bush. Book title, My pet goat's in the house and senate.........Blessings all, we need them.
July 10th, 2006 at 9:28 amThis is what kind of a read his 'book' would be:
"I think — tide turning — see, as I remember — I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of — it's easy to see a tide turn — did I say those words?"
—George W. Bush, asked if the tide was turning in Iraq, Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006
July 10th, 2006 at 9:30 am#4 - Don't be so sure.
Remember, the district he would be on the ballot in is heavily heavily Republican. All he has to do is go on TV a couple times and say something along the lines of "You don't want that guy and that party representing you, do you?" and he will walk away with a victory.
July 10th, 2006 at 9:30 amSorry Bush's Brain, not plagerism on my part, just slow dial up response and great minds working together......Blessings
July 10th, 2006 at 9:34 amI wonder how many pages will be dedicated to the “Accomplishments†chapter.
Comment by dlet — July 10, 2006 @ 9:26 am
One. It will contain the words "big fish".
July 10th, 2006 at 9:35 amThe 21st Century was to be an era of Peace and Prosperity. It was to be the age that saw the end of global poverty.
And then there was Bush. Damn.
50 Ways to Dump the Dubya
July 10th, 2006 at 9:37 am“You don’t want that guy and that party representing you, do you?†and he will walk away with a victory.
Comment by Chase — July 10, 2006 @ 9:30 am
Chase is a constant reminder that you can fool some of the people all of the time...
July 10th, 2006 at 9:37 amAbout Bush's Memories:
"Chapter One" and "End" would be written by a ghost writer...
July 10th, 2006 at 9:41 am#16 - Snarky.
Remember, we are talking about Sugarland, TX - not San Francisco, not Seattle, not even Austin.
The likelihood of a Democrat winning that district is about a slim as you can get.
July 10th, 2006 at 9:42 amOh I get it. 41 million people voted in Mexico and they only counted 39 million. I really wish Democrats had mounted such a challenge in '00
Goper's Lament (Hard To Be A Republican)
July 10th, 2006 at 9:42 amFrom the Rove article:
We need to understand the workings of a Machiavellian mind. For example, even if the people in Guantanamo are from countries that haven't signed the Geneva Convention, the U.S. has. As such, the U.S. is bound to apply the Convention to all prisoners. But Rove makes it sound ok if we don't apply it at Guantanamo.
The Machiavellian mind puts forth a half-truth and allows the audience to fill in the desired inference. Later, if called on the question, the speaker can truthfully assert he never claimed the inference.
"We've been respectful of the courts..." is another example of a half-truth. While courtroom decorum may have been respectful, the backlash against the Supreme Court's decision on Guantanamo was anything but. And they may have been respectful, even while taking jurisdiction away from the courts.
To counter such rhetoric, you must see the half-truth, recognize the speaker's desired inference, then put forth the balance of the truth and a counter inference.
For example:
Although the people at Guantanamo are from countries that haven't signed the Geneva Convention, we have signed the Geneva Convention and therefore we are morally and legally bound to apply it, even to our enemies. (countering the half truth)
What we have done at Guantanamo has been morally and legally wrong and we need to make it right. (presenting the desired inference)
July 10th, 2006 at 9:42 am#12 - Chase has a point. Only in Texas do you find lemming Republicans that would vote for a turd if they put it on the ballot.
Oh wait. They've already got Tom DeLay. So, I guess they will vote for a turd. ;-)
July 10th, 2006 at 9:43 aminteresting story about rove at the aspen ideas fest... lots of hissing and laughing... i thought these people were all rightwing cheerleaders...
and yes, the person responsible for leaking should be fired...
July 10th, 2006 at 9:44 amwe agree, karl...
Still little or no coverage of the white house fast in the press.. Why is that.?.......Blessings
July 10th, 2006 at 9:44 amWell Rove feels he's in the clear, so yes IHHO the leaker should be fired, i.e. Libby. So it's a statement that means nothing.
July 10th, 2006 at 9:46 amThe likelihood of a Democrat winning that district is about a slim as you can get.
Comment by Chase — July 10, 2006 @ 9:42 am
A deadman beat John Ashcroft. Not as shocking for a conservative Democrat to take Tom Delay.
July 10th, 2006 at 9:47 amWhat did you miss:?
Bradblog is reporting (July 7) that there will be a hand recount of Busby/Bilbray in CA 50. Interesting stuff regarding people taking voting machines home a week before the election, breaking the secure chain of custody. This will be the first real audit of a black box vote.
http://www.bradblog.com
50 Ways to Dump the Dubya
July 10th, 2006 at 9:47 am#21 - Oh trust me, you can find "lemming" Republicans all across the South and Midwest. Then again, you can find Yellow Dog Democrats along the West Coast and in New England.
Blind partisanship is not a uniquely Republican trait - it just so happens that in Sugarland, TX, as leery as voters are of DeLay, they are more leery of a Democrat.
Hell, Sabato had the GOP candidate winning when it looked like whoever's name it was would be left off the ballot. What does that tell you about Lampson's chances?
July 10th, 2006 at 9:50 amBush is reportedly writing a memoir?
July 10th, 2006 at 9:51 amAre there pre-written sentences with blanks to be filled from a selected fourth grade vocabulary?
Any published memoir written by the moron in chief would have to be filed in the children's section under "humor" or "fiction."
This is what Ive been saying for a long time
America: Government of Cowards
Look, for example, at the contrast between George Bush's rhetoric directed at North Korea and his rhetoric directed at Saddam Hussein. Saddam, he said, had been given enough chances. He had run out of time. There was no point in any more talk. Blah, blah, etc. Saddam, of course, didn't have nuclear weapons, or even chemical or biological weapons.
With North Korea, the president says we must seek a diplomatic solution, and diplomacy, of course, takes a lot of time, etc. and so forth. Gosh, we hate to see North Korea so isolated.
What's the difference? Saddam was weak, his regime was a toothless old hag, and Bush and his war hawks knew it. We could bully and invade him without fear. North Korea, however, is a regime with very sharp teeth. It has a fully equipped standing army of more than 1 million men. It has artillery wheel to wheel along the demilitarized zone. Even without its missiles, nuclear or conventional, war with North Korea would produce casualties in the tens of thousands, and would do it in a matter of days.
July 10th, 2006 at 9:52 amBush's 'memoirs' are a book of 'Mad Libs' Rove gave him to keep him busy.
The reason he reportedly 'hasn't written a word' is because he's confused as to what an 'adjective' is.
July 10th, 2006 at 9:53 am#29 -
Check that again. As in here.
July 10th, 2006 at 9:55 am#29 -
Check that again. As in here.
July 10th, 2006 at 9:55 amAmerica:Cowards and Bullies
At any rate, our government and our Establishment remain as cowardly as they were in the 1970s. Look at the great military "triumphs" in recent years – invading Panama and Grenada, bombing Libya and Serbia, fighting two wars with Iraq. Any general who wanted a triumphal procession in Rome after victories that petty would have been limited to a single cart pulled by a donkey.
Probably, we don't have a real peace movement in this country because one isn't needed. We're not going to fight anybody who has half a chance of drawing real blood. We are never going to launch a preventative war against North Korea or Iran, and God knows not against China or Russia. Perhaps, if Bush ever extricates himself from Iraq and Afghanistan, we might have another go at Somalia.
We are, just as Solzhenitsyn said, the bully of weak countries and an appeaser of strong ones.
July 10th, 2006 at 9:57 amChase, did you bother to fact check this article? Look at the date.
"Boylan said the suspected lab was new, dating from some time after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. The Bush administration cited evidence that Saddam Hussein's government was manufacturing weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for the invasion. No such weapons or factories were found."
If I had the nerve you neoconjobs have of distorting facts, I believe I'd just hang-out at Freeperville, where facts don't matter.
July 10th, 2006 at 10:00 amHow magnanimous of the craven Rove to declare that the person who exposed a CIA agent should be summarily fired!
July 10th, 2006 at 10:00 amNow that Rove is off the hook, and his cronies are working to get Libby off the hook as well, he is free to tell us how justice must be served.
Comment by Doodle Bug — July 10, 2006 @ 9:52 am
More like hundreds of thousands, if not millions, and it would be a regional conflict. Japan, of all places, is looking into whether or not it can launch a pre-emptive strike.
July 10th, 2006 at 10:01 am32# Chase read this Still makes america Cowards and Bullies
UN releases report on Iraq’s chemical weapons programme 1 june 2006
1 June 2006 – Responding to a request from Iraq, the United Nations commission monitoring weapons of mass destruction in the country today released a detailed account on chemical arms there.
“On 7 April, the Permanent Representative of Iraq wrote to the Acting Executive Chairman (of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC)) stating that the Government of Iraq intended to accede to the Chemical Weapons Convention,†the report, transmitted by Secretary-General Kofi Annan to the Security Council, notes.
It describes how Iraq first started exploring chemical weapons in 1971, and reviews developments through the establishment of a “large-scale chemical weapons programme†in 1981. The capacity expanded from there to the point that “according to Iraq, the use of chemical weapons achieved its major purpose and made a significant impact on the outcome of the Iran-Iraq war.â€
According to declarations made by Iraq, in the period from 1981 to 1991 the chemical weapon programme produced approximately 3,850 tons of the chemical warfare agents mustard, tabun, sarin and VX, the report states.
Of the total of some 3,850 tons of chemical warfare agents produced, approximately 3,300 tons of agents were weaponized in different types of aerial bombs, artillery munitions and missile warheads.
In the period from 1981 to 1991, Iraq weaponized some 130,000 chemical munitions in total. Of these, over 101,000 munitions were used in combat, according to Iraq, in the period from 1981 to 1988.
Iraq declared that some 28,500 chemical munitions remained unused as of January 1991; about 5,500 filled munitions were destroyed by coalition forces during the war in 1991, while another 500 filled munitions were declared destroyed unilaterally by Iraq. “These last two figures were partially verified by United Nations inspectors,†the report states.
The bulk of the destruction of some 22,000 filled munitions occurred under the supervision of the UN inspectors in accordance with Security Council resolution 687 (1991) – the “ceasefire resolution†which ended the war – in the period from 1991 to 1994. During the collection of chemical weapons for destruction after the 1991 war, Iraq stated that it was not able to locate some 500 chemical munitions.
“Although a number of issues relating to the Iraqi chemical weapon programme remain unresolved, the United Nations inspectors were able to identify the major parameters of the programme, its scope and the results achieved,†the report states.
July 10th, 2006 at 10:01 amHey I have a lawless zone in my basement man! The War on Drugs just cant touch it ... not even the Imperial Supremes!
July 10th, 2006 at 10:02 am#27 - I agree. There are those who blindly vote their party no matter whose name in the box on both sides of the aisle. Personally, I think there are more "lemming" Republicans than there are Democrats. (Perosnal opinion, no data to back up either side on this argument.)
"What does that tell you about Lampson’s chances?"
I guess it depends on the voters: vote for a corrupt conservative Republican name you know (DeLay) or a conservative Democrat name you don't know (Lampson). If the voters are reminded of the corruption surrounding DeLay, then Lampson has a good chance. I just wish they'd remove the ability of the majority party to gerrymander the districts and made it based on voter turnout. If the voters can decide who they want in office, why can't they vote on where to draw district lines? Or does that give the voter too much to think about? Hmmm. . . . .
July 10th, 2006 at 10:03 amYa your basement is so cool man... and I dont like the Supremes either.. their music is drag man.
July 10th, 2006 at 10:03 am#11 unbelievable
July 10th, 2006 at 10:06 amI thought your quote was a joke! Then I checked the transcript of the news conference and saw that you quoted him exactly.
His stupidity is an endless source of amazement.
#31 - I did check your link:
"Boylan said the suspected lab was new, dating from some time after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003."
Your own link refutes your statement.
July 10th, 2006 at 10:06 am32# Chase read this Still makes america Cowards and Bullies
UN releases report on Iraq’s chemical weapons programme 1 june 2006
AMERICA KNEW THIS BEFORE ATTACKING IRAQ >>>>THEREFORE COWARDS, BULLIES AND MASS MURDERERS,DESTROYERS OF PROPERTY, LIARS AND OIL THIEFS ,,, at last america can be proud
No-one can now doubt the word of America --HA HA HA HA
July 10th, 2006 at 10:06 amLeave it to Beaver (#34) to post first!
:-)
July 10th, 2006 at 10:08 am#31 - From the article you reference:
"Boylan said the suspected lab was new, dating from some time after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. The Bush administration cited evidence that Saddam Hussein's government was manufacturing weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for the invasion. No such weapons or factories were found."
So, despite your assertions, there still have been no WMD's found that the war was based upon.
July 10th, 2006 at 10:12 amPaul Krugman writes this morning about the NYC paradox: How Manhattan continues to be a thriving hub of HQ in a digital age in which geography is supposedly made irrelevant.
July 10th, 2006 at 10:13 amThinkin up a title to a memoir is hard work. Then there's the spellin to do.
July 10th, 2006 at 10:14 amBeautiful morning, all ya'll!
A building caught fire, exploded and collapsed in NYC, but the White House says it's not terra-related.
Anything else going on....?
July 10th, 2006 at 10:16 amRegarding Rove and the Plame leak:
From what we know from media accounts, it appears as thought the outing of Plame was authorized by Vice President Cheney; that Cheney "declassified" the information, hence the information was not "leaked" per se, by either Rove or Libby.
Now, while the Vice President apparently did not have authority to declassify the information, he cannot be fired for leaking. The only way to remove a Vice President is to impeach him.
Hence Rove's comment deflects the investigation from the most likely culprit: the Vice President - a person who cannot be fired.
July 10th, 2006 at 10:16 amRe the not terra-related building collapse.
Wow, they should breathe the smoke, and the smoke goes up real high. A dude was hurt, and they wrapped him up in a blue blanket...I wonder why a blue blanket...?
July 10th, 2006 at 10:23 amWow, a woman wlaked out of the subway station, and heard the explosion...imagine that. Oh, and they're still fighting the fire...
July 10th, 2006 at 10:26 amThere are probably more reporters on the scene than firefighters.
The talking bimbo heads keep interrupting each other...
July 10th, 2006 at 10:28 amHis stupidity is an endless source of amazement.
Comment by Marie — July 10, 2006 @ 10:06 am
If you have the stomach for it - there are webpages of Bush's 'wisdom':
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm
July 10th, 2006 at 10:28 amOh, ouch, the reporter said that because people were late, and patients haven't yet arrived there were less people injured than oculd have been. Shouldn't that be "fewer people?"
I have my sarcastic hat on this morning, can ya'll tell? It looks terrible on me, so it makes me cranky... ;)
July 10th, 2006 at 10:30 amThe reporter asked a dude to describe the sound of the explosion --
July 10th, 2006 at 10:32 amDamn, he didn't say BOOM!
"Border relations between Canada and Mexico have never been better."
—George W. Bush, in a press conference with Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien. Sept. 24, 2001
July 10th, 2006 at 10:32 amWow, it's as if I'm there...
Mmmm, cereal & orange juice are good...
July 10th, 2006 at 10:33 am"Brie and cheese."
—George W. Bush, to reporters, on what he imagines reporters eat, Crawford, Texas, Aug. 23, 2001
July 10th, 2006 at 10:34 amunbelievable!
I'm reporting here....!
July 10th, 2006 at 10:34 am“Brie and cheese.â€
What? Reporters eat that? I want to be a real reporter...
July 10th, 2006 at 10:35 amArbolist … Look up the word. I don't know, maybe I made it up. Anyway, it's an arbo-tree-ist, somebody who knows about trees."
—George W. Bush, as quoted in USA Today, Aug. 21, 2001
(Sounds like Seixon referencing Astrologists on the matter of Global Warming. He really did. I swear, I'm not that funny :)
July 10th, 2006 at 10:36 am"It is white."
—George W. Bush, asked by a child in Britain what the White House was like, July 19, 2001
July 10th, 2006 at 10:36 amOooo, the building collapse is very serious...
July 10th, 2006 at 10:38 amHow can anyone still support this idiot?
"Neither in French nor in English nor in Mexican."
—George W. Bush, declining to take reporters' questions during a photo op with Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien, April 21, 2001
July 10th, 2006 at 10:40 amarbo-tree-ist
Seriously? I'm going to dry my hair...
July 10th, 2006 at 10:40 amall:
Whoops, I just realized I linked to the wrong article, from the wrong browser window. My apologies for the confusion. I'll try again: here.
#39 - I too wouldn't mind the districts being drawn in more "sensible" shapes that reflect existing geographic and political boundaries (like counties, major roads, etc). I would like to see the consideration of demographics removed from the process. I sorta doubt this is a political possibility, considering the likely opposition from both sides.
As far as comparative partisanship, I don't know which side is more "blind". I think I know where to look for more info, but it'll take some time so I'll get back to you on that.
July 10th, 2006 at 10:41 amfrom the memoirs link:
Wal-Mart shoppers matter, he [zogby] says, because they represent small-town America. And right now they don't like President Bush, giving him a low 35 percent approval rating.
huh... somehow i thought it would be the opposite...
July 10th, 2006 at 10:42 am#66
July 10th, 2006 at 10:47 amChase,
How many "mays", "coulds", "reportedlys" are in the "article" that you referenced? That sure doesn't look like an air tight argument to invade another country to me, but maybe I am just being cynical.
#14; His accomplishments page is blank or nonexistant.
July 10th, 2006 at 10:47 am#66 - You're corrected article doesn't prove any WMD's in Iraq, it only has a bunch of "May posses. . . ", "May retain. . . ", "Believed to possess . . ." references. Nothing current. Last updated on October 28, 2003.
There is a reference that has been proven false: "Retains sufficient technical expertise to revive CW programs within months." Iraq would not be able to "revive CW programs within months" without the materials they still have not found in Iraq. The only way to remove the "expertise" would be to kill or deport all the scientists that are in Iraq.
It seems to me as if you're beating a horse that expired many years ago.
July 10th, 2006 at 10:49 amHow does the WH know this quickly that the explosion in NY is not terror related? I am not saying it is, just wondering how they would know this quickly.
July 10th, 2006 at 10:50 amOh, the neighbors to the collapsed building have been rudely awakened this morning... Oh, it might have been a suicide? Hmmmm...
Geez...I'm going to work.
July 10th, 2006 at 10:51 amPrezdant, Me
by: Dubya
The most memrible moment of my prezdancy was the day I caught me a real big fish in my pond.......
It goes downwhill from there.
July 10th, 2006 at 10:52 amBob Herbert came up with another parallel between Iraq and Vietnam: How our military's been falling into disrepair since it's been mismanaged by "amateurs."
At least Reagan strengthened our military and kept it that way (even if they were occasionally misused). Bush has been spending more on defense than Reagan ever did and what are we getting for our money?
July 10th, 2006 at 10:53 amMEXICAN ELECTION
Obrador filed in a high court on Sunday to overturn the election. Along with the filing he provided tons of information about the corruption of Calderon and his party.
Not rumors, not speculation, but cold hard facts and statistics. He cited the thousands of votes that were found in dumps in Mexico City and Xalapa. He cited the discrepancy between the number of votes cast and the number tallied, some two million short. He cited the names of the IFE officials on the PAN payroll and on and on.
I am going to Mexico City this afternoon to see if I can dig up more. I will not be allowed to look at the court filing but might be able to talk with some people who have direct knowledge of it, who have seen it.
The consensus among political pundits down here is that Calderon forces, with the aid of Bushites, stole the election, and that Obrador has the material to prove it.
This may take several days, but hang on folks because from me, you will get the truth.
July 10th, 2006 at 10:58 amwhat are we getting for our money?
Comment by jurassicpork — July 10, 2006 @ 10:53 am
According to our WMD expert Chase, stability in the Middle East (I'm sure he could find some really obscure source who would define civil war as 'stable')
July 10th, 2006 at 10:58 amThis may take several days, but hang on folks because from me, you will get the truth.
Comment by Rebel With A Cause — July 10, 2006 @ 10:58 am
Brie and cheese for you!
Seriously, look forward to your update. I have little doubt after reading the evidence that Bush stole two elections and simply passed that knowledge to Calderon. This probably means that there are ballots in Ohio that went to the landfills in 2004 that no one ever discovered...
July 10th, 2006 at 11:01 amLook at what we've set a precedent for... How appalling.
Japan debates strikes on N. Korea
Discussions signal harder stance ahead of U.N. vote
Monday, July 10, 2006; Posted: 7:09 a.m. EDT (11:09 GMT)
TOKYO, Japan (AP) -- Japan said Monday it was considering whether a pre-emptive strike on the North's missile bases would violate its constitution, signaling a hardening stance ahead of a possible U.N. Security Council vote on Tokyo's proposal for sanctions against the regime.
While Japan talked of sanctions, China -- North Korea's top ally and benefactor -- pressed ahead with its diplomatic efforts to draw North Korea back to stalled six-nation talks on its nuclear weapons program, dispatching a high-profile delegation to Pyongyang on Monday.
U.S. nuclear envoy Christopher Hill huddled with Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso and other officials in Tokyo on a tour of the region to coordinate a common strategy on the North's missile tests last week and urge Pyongyang to drop its months-long boycott of the nuclear talks
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/07/10/us.nkorea.ap/index.html
July 10th, 2006 at 11:08 am#76 - At the very least the Iraqis have been able vote in democratic elections in more than 50 years.
Is their sectarian violence? Yes. One might reasonabily expect that when a condition of minority-rule (or at least influence) is upset nearly overnight. Sunnis are accustomed to being in control, despite they fact their are a minority and they are unwilling to accept the democratic choices the Iraqis have made.
July 10th, 2006 at 11:08 amDemocratic? Saddam held elections too... You're nuts if you think the Iraq is truly holding Democratic elections.
Besides, why is that point so much more valuable than the death count? I'd rather live in a benevolent dictatorship than vote in a make-believe election surrounded by civil war and endless violence. And apparently, so would you since you continuously support Bush's tyrannical behavior.
As far as I am concerned, religion = violence. You don't see people going around declaring wars in teh name of atheism.
July 10th, 2006 at 11:12 amDont the Japanese think they owe an appology to the mainland raping and murdering they did instead of threats? Korea and China seem to think Japan has not accepted responsibility for their aggression during 1920s-1945 ... maybe they are correct. Maybe Japan should redouble their reconciliation efforts and let other people take care of the threats.
July 10th, 2006 at 11:13 amyesterday's State of Belief on AirAmericaRadio was enlightening as usual...
July 10th, 2006 at 11:14 amrev.gaddy talked about the speech OBAMA gave recently, about democrats and faith - there is a link to read or listen to it, also links to other's opinions about it...
i read it - he makes a lot of sense and offers good thoughts on the subject...
go to link above, scroll down a bit below the 2nd picture to "in the news" for those links...
EVERYONE should think seriously about this subject...
it has everything to do with democratic philosophy and ideals...
As far as I am concerned, religion = violence. You don’t see people going around declaring wars in teh name of atheism.
Comment by unbelievable
Here comes the Communists red herring ... even though the communists do not attack religion because they are atheists ... it is because they want absolute power for their ganster party... but that doesnt stop the religious nuts from claiming otherwise...
July 10th, 2006 at 11:16 am"Memoirs of a Dysfunctional Sociopath" by George W Bush
July 10th, 2006 at 11:16 amIn my opinion Iraq won't be stable for a very long time. There will be a grab by Iran which will go unchallenged due to our military not being ina condition to handle it and no other countries willing to follow the good ole USA into military adventures anymore. When that happens the Kurds will try to declare independance and there will be an upheaval in Turkey and Iran which will promote more religious fervor and militantism. But on the other hand Bush's ego has been appeased by getting the guy who tried to kill hi daddy.
July 10th, 2006 at 11:16 amGerald - its certainly refreshing to know that there are still people that have a sense of history. The only way to get to the ROOT of everything.
July 10th, 2006 at 11:19 am#80 -
That's one of the more saddeningly and short-sighted things I've read in a while.
To pretend that Saddam's reign was "benevolent" ignores volumes of evidence to the contrary. Ask the residents of Dujail or Halabja about Saddam's benelovence.
From the BBC:
July 10th, 2006 at 11:19 am
EVERYONE should think seriously about this subject…
it has everything to do with democratic philosophy and ideals…
Comment by katy
The ones that need to do the thinking are the religious right... 2000 years of murdering for their flavor of religion needs to be recognized and rejected. The democrats have never called for the destruction of christianity ... however the religious right HAS called for the destruction of democratic rule. The left does NOT want dominion over peoples religious beliefs... they just want it kept where it belongs .. in private. The religious right wants DOMINION over us all and to force their private matters onto OUR private matters... that is UNAMERICAN.... yet they call it being under attack... so standing up for the rights of Americans is attacking christianity? Then doesnt that mean that their brand of christianity is anti-American?
July 10th, 2006 at 11:20 amComment by Chase
Whats more important to you? Saddam or responding to 911? They are not the same thing... and I have been waiting for years for the republicans to do something about 911 and they are too chicken shit to go after Saudi Arabia and Pakistan ... but taking down a low hanging fruit like Saddam ... well they are tough enough for that though ...
July 10th, 2006 at 11:23 am...so standing up for the rights of Americans is attacking christianity?
no
Then doesnt that mean that their brand of christianity is anti-American?
yep
Comment by Gerald Gibson — July 10, 2006 @ 11:20 am
i said "EVERYONE"... i hope you checked oot those links...
July 10th, 2006 at 11:27 amyou know what is really maddening, is how the christian right twist Thomas Jefferson's words, and his character. They misquote him constantly. In fact, the man was a deist. We just can't let them get away with it!
I just found I had a copy of the Declaration of Independence. I urge all of you to really READ it. I tell you, its like deja vu.
July 10th, 2006 at 11:28 am#89 - "Whats more important to you? Saddam or responding to 911?"
9-11, obviously.
I would agree we have not taken the correct steps in handling the weak government in Pakistan or the conditions in Saudi Arabia that contribute to Wahhabist-influenced terrorism. Then again, I seriously doubt this is a Republican-only problem.
What will the Democrats do in 2008 if they win the WH to "do something about 911"?
July 10th, 2006 at 11:30 amits like deja vu.
Comment by madashell — July 10, 2006 @ 11:28 am
huh? how so?
July 10th, 2006 at 11:32 amComment by katy
That statue needs to be brought down just like Saddams in Baghdad ... infact the more I think about it the more it is pissing me off... They have just desecrated the Statue of Liberty ... These people HATE America and its values...
Well so that I dont end up making myself a hypocrite here ... I guess I have demanded that the religious right has to accept people doing weird things with the image of Jesus and I fully support the printing of those Muslim cartoons ... so I guess they can do what they want with the image of the Statue of Liberty ....
But it still pisses me off ... how would they like Saudi Arabia to put up a statue of liberty wearing a burka...
July 10th, 2006 at 11:36 amBE PROUD LIBERALS!
Our -isms or Theirs?
by Gregory D. Foster
There’s a war going on this country—and it isn’t the so-called global war on terrorism. It’s an Incivil War of cultural fratricide. If you’re in denial on this count, ask yourself how many times a day you hear the sanctimonious mudslingers who dominate the airwaves accusing others of liberalism. Or secularism. Or humanism (as in secular humanism). Or relativism (as in moral relativism). Or revisionism (as in historical revisionism).
In some cosmic objective sense, these terms are nothing more than harmless rhetorical gnats: innocuous labels that may—but all too often don't—accurately reflect what their alleged practitioners or adherents actually believe.
These labels lose their harmlessness, though, when they are used—as they so often are—as terms of disparagement similar in their rancorous intent to racial or sexual slurs. Those who shamelessly sling such epithets consider themselves, of course, to occupy some superior intellectual and spiritual terrain to the targets of their derogation.
Ironically, revealingly, these sanctimonious accusers are themselves captive of a constellation of -isms that betrays their hypocrisy and reveals them for what they truly are.
They are unthinking practitioners of an inbred parochialism hiding behind a mask of responsible conservatism.
They are programmed devotees of religious and ideological dogmatism that regularly mutates even farther into extremism and fanaticism.
They are prideful adherents of a suffocating moral absolutism that rejects tolerant universalism in favor of anti-intellectual totalitarianism.
They subscribe to an oppressive theism that they seek to impose, lymphoma-like, on all walks of life.
They conflate the hypocritical moralism they practice with the true morality they incessantly preach to the rest of us.
And they espouse an unhealthy patriotism that is nothing but crudely disguised chauvinism and jingoism.
Anyone who stands in opposition to such antagonists and their -isms should feel a sense of pride and exaltation. Why for a moment, for example, would anyone in her right mind be the least bit uncomfortable or ashamed about being accused of liberalism? Think about it.
Consider the roots of the word: liberal, liberty, liberate; library even. Why do we call repositories of information that can be converted into knowledge libraries rather than conservatories? Because we're not just talking about preserving stuff. We're talking about freeing our minds, our souls, our very selves, from the bondage of ignorance and socialization and oppression and blind obedience to impersonal authority.
Liberalism is about being open to, even enthusiastic about, change rather than being unalterably wedded to the status quo. It is often about idealism—searching and striving for what could or should be rather than uncreatively perpetuating what is or has always been. It is no less about altruism—concern for The Other as much as, if not more than, The Self.
What's wrong with being accused of secularism? Secularism isn't atheism, notwithstanding the incessant rhetorical drumbeat of the theocrats in our midst, who maliciously equate the two. It isn't a rejection of an almighty—or even The Almighty. It's a rejection of the fusion of what's properly private and what's properly public. It's about maintaining that wall of separation between religion and politics, religion and economics, religion and education. It's about that liberal notion: freedom of, and from, religion.
What's wrong with being accused of humanism? Humane, humanity, humanitarian, humanize. You're human, I'm human, all of us distinguishable from other species by our purportedly unique capability to reason, to make moral judgments, to exercise free will. Why wouldn't we want to place human well-being at the center of our concerns? Why wouldn't we want to expect more of humans than we do of other species? Why wouldn't we want to treat human beings as ends in themselves rather than as mere means? Why wouldn't we want to accept the self-evident truth that all human beings are created equal in deserving to enjoy their inalienable natural rights?
What's wrong with being accused of relativism? If we humans in fact have the capacity to think for ourselves, to reason, to make choices (admittedly dubious propositions where some of us are concerned), then it would seem appropriate, even necessary, to take the inevitable and highly variable differences of circumstance, time, and culture into account in making the decisions that confront us in life. The alternative, absolutism, assumes away such differences as irrelevant and instead calls for imposing one particular “truthâ€â€”mine, not yours—on reality. Is that what you want?
And what's wrong with being accused of revisionism? That suggests to me a willingness to recognize that the truth of the past is no less tenuous and subject to error, distortion, and manipulation than the truth of the present or future. Those who accuse others of revisionism do so only when their reality is brought into question. They don't hesitate to endorse revisionism that supports their preconceptions. Nor do they decline to engage in revisionism themselves when it suits their purpose.
We are surrounded on all sides by our enemies: ourselves. Intolerance to our front. Ignorance to our rear. Irresolution to our Left. Ill-temper to our Right. We attack at dawn.
Gregory D. Foster is a professor at the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, National Defense University, Washington, D.C., where he previously has served as George C. Marshall Professor and J. Carlton Ward Distinguished Professor and Director of Research. The views expressed here are his own. He can be reached at fosterg@ndu.edu.
July 10th, 2006 at 11:38 am#93 - katy, here's a link
http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm
Scroll down a little, and start with the list of offenses by the King, "He has refused his Assent to Laws..." It's uncanny.
July 10th, 2006 at 11:41 am#92 - "What will the Democrats do in 2008 if they win the WH to “do something about 911″?"
You make a very good point. What COULD they do about global terrorism?
It's not something we can do all by our one-sies. (Sorry, got my Cpt. Sparrow voice going) It's something that will require broad international committment. And I'm not just talking "coalition of the billing", it's got to include more than 10-20 countries.
A good rebuttal point would be "So, what have the Republicans done to affect global terrorism? (Other than provide training grounds for their troops in Iraq?)"
Ideally, we should have a true multi-national force available to close the borders in Iraq and get the violence tuned down. With hundreds of thousands of Americans, a few thousand UK troops, and a smattering of troops from other countires (between 200 and 50), we are so NOT an international force.
Do you have a real solution other than "keep doing what we've been doing that doesn't quite seem to be working"?
July 10th, 2006 at 11:41 amIt’s not something we can do all by our one-sies. (Sorry, got my Cpt. Sparrow voice going)
Comment by Democrat Soldier
You should always post the voice of Capt Sparrow. :)
July 10th, 2006 at 11:45 ambut that doesnt stop the religious nuts from claiming otherwise…
Comment by Gerald Gibson — July 10, 2006 @ 11:16 am
I read somewhere that Stalin took away religioun from the Russians simply to weaken them - not because he valued Atheism. Makes sense. A lot of it. Yet, Atheism and Communism (which The Soviet Union was not) get the stigma of being violent.
Buddhism is the only religion (not actually religion but a philosophy really) that has never claimed war in its name. Hardly makes organized religions 'moral'.
July 10th, 2006 at 11:46 amgerald - you would have liked gaddy's interview with Michelle Goldberg discussing her new book, Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism.
a real eye opener!
and yes, i agree, that version of "lady liberty" is a REAL abomination...
the antithesis of the original conception...
don't forget to check out OBAMA's speech...
July 10th, 2006 at 11:47 amSTRAWMAN ALERT!
To pretend that Saddam’s reign was “benevolent†ignores volumes of evidence to the contrary
Comment by Chase — July 10, 2006 @ 11:19 am
I did not say Saddam. I don't think he was benevolent. I think few dictators in history have been. It was a hypothetical dictator to make a point that voting is not democratic if the candidates and the results are not honest representation.
July 10th, 2006 at 11:50 am#97 -
I completely agree. However, do you think bringing together such a force is a real possibility? I do not.
July 10th, 2006 at 11:52 amthe list of offenses by the King, “He has refused his Assent to Laws…†It’s uncanny.
Comment by Zooey — July 10, 2006 @ 11:41 am
oh, that ...duh... sorry... yes, i've read that... yes "uncanny"...
July 10th, 2006 at 11:57 ambut not having been there then, i didn't get "deja vu"... :-)
#101 - Come now: the implication was that Saddam was benevolent. If that was not your intention, it wasn't clear when you originally posted.
Of the few, can you name one? Or two? And these need to be "real" dictatorships, fully representing the characteristics dictators.
Expand on this, please. Who is to judge whether or not the "candidate or results" are "honest representation[s]" of those that voted. I tend to accept a turnout of 58% of registered voters as representative.
Maybe (probably) you disagree. Please elaborate.
July 10th, 2006 at 11:59 amLenin advocated the removing of religion under communism. He felt that the russian orthodox church was a tool of the czarist regime, to keep the serfs in line. He was correct in that regard, however removing religion in my opinion was one of the biggest mistakes of the communist party.
July 10th, 2006 at 12:00 pmbut not having been there then, i didn’t get “deja vuâ€â€¦ :-)
Comment by katy
Is that an age slam!? ;)
July 10th, 2006 at 12:06 pm#102 - I thought we could never get a workable multi-national force together in the first place, and Gulf War One proved me wrong.
Maybe the problem isn't with America and multi-national forces. Maybe it's Pres. Bush and multi-national forces. My personal opinion, mind you. ;-)
July 10th, 2006 at 12:09 pmIs that an age slam!? ;)
Comment by Zooey — July 10, 2006 @ 12:06 pm
uh... well... neither of us is over 200 years old!
and i know i'm older that you! so, no, of course not...
hey, how was the pirate movie?
July 10th, 2006 at 12:10 pmCome now: the implication was that Saddam was benevolent. If that was not your intention, it wasn’t clear when you originally posted.
No it wasn't. You misread my post. It's why we put periods between sentances - to show you where one thought stops and another starts.
I've repeatedly said that I thought Saddam was a tyrant. He therefore would not be applicable for use as an exmaple of 'benevolent'.
Of the few, can you name one? Or two? And these need to be “real†dictatorships, fully representing the characteristics dictators.
What? You like to distract from the real issues, don't you?
There is nothing here but opinion. One man's trash is another man's treasure. I cannot give you a list of poeple who you would agree were benevolent considering we value different things. My point WAS that you obviously consider Bush's tyranny acceptable.
I tend to accept a turnout of 58% of registered voters as representative.
Maybe (probably) you disagree. Please elaborate.
Comment by Chase — July 10, 2006 @ 11:59 am
When corporate money sponsors the candidates who are available to be selected from, you aren't getting the people you choose - but a choice between the people corporate money has chosen for you to choose from.
If you think Iraqi voted for people freely, and not from a pre-selected list of people, as I said before, you are fooling yourself.
I recommend books to you... many, many books.
July 10th, 2006 at 12:10 pm#107 - I highly doubt we could get nations to send troops to Iraq at this point, particuarly after seeing the political price those who have participated in Iraq liberation have faced back home.
It's just a plain impossibility.
July 10th, 2006 at 12:12 pmunbelievable liar,
(Sounds like Seixon referencing Astrologists on the matter of Global Warming. He really did. I swear, I’m not that funny :)
Yes, and you claimed that the Sun was getting smaller. Do you really want to go there? I wrote the wrong title. Big deal. You, a science teacher, didn't even know about the Sun. lol.
July 10th, 2006 at 12:18 pmyay! i'm excited about this... have been waiting for it to get posted on the site...
July 10th, 2006 at 12:18 pmlistening to Ring of Fire on AirAmericaRadio sat. and sun. - mike papantonio has a short segment, "The Pap Attack", and this week's was good...well, they are ALL good...
anyway, check it out - Dumbing Down Dixie, at the link above... all you southerners will identify...
It’s just a plain impossibility.
Comment by Chase — July 10, 2006 @ 12:12 pm
You mean 'improbability'. Impossibility is, well, impossible. Divide 1. Then divide it again, and again, and again, etc. You'll never reach zero. Therefore, the liklihood is improbable and not impossible.
Add dictionary to your list of books...
July 10th, 2006 at 12:18 pm#109 - I ask you to produce a list of benevolent tyrrants because, alas, such an exercise is impossible. There is no such thing.
On the other hand, I do not see President Bush as a tyrrant. The most immediate example as to why he is not a tyrrant is that we are permitted to criticize the government with real threat of reprisal. For instance, I can walk up and down the street his afternoon with a sandwich board accusing President Bush of war crimes and I won't end up in a gulag or secret prison in Romania (despite the hyperbolic fears of some nutcases around here). Jump in your time machine and try the same thing in Baghdad circa 1994, Moscow in 1954, in Tehran today.
President Bush may be a weak leader and a less than commendable communicator but he is no tyrrant.
July 10th, 2006 at 12:18 pm#113 -
And you can add a grammar guide to your required reading. Like this one.
Let's not be a dick over minutia.
July 10th, 2006 at 12:22 pmDamn Seixon, I wasn't expecting you and read your childish post. Yuck! Thanks a lot for that mouth full of crap.. Gross...
In terms of mass, the sun IS shrinking. I didn't say it was getting smaller phyisically (as you can still arrange a few quadrillion atoms in the same foot print as a few octillion atoms). I said that when 4 hydrogen atoms are fused into 1 helium atom, that the sun loses mass. This is a correct and factual statement, and I stand by it.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun
The fact that you insist on using a 5th grade Science fact to try to ridicule me actually makes you look like an even bigger ass than someone who could possibly confuse an Astrologer with an Atronomer...
I taught Science. In a couple weeks, I'll be teaching Architecture - which has a scientific component called Physicas. Perhaps you've heard of it?
I did a little parody of you on the global warming thread from yesterday. Seriously - don't actually go read the Flat Earth stuff. It's obscure and ridiculous enough for you to fall for it.
July 10th, 2006 at 12:26 pmWhat will the Democrats do in 2008 if they win the WH to “do something about 911″?
Comment by Chase
I have no clue... Either they have no clue either or they cannot say because doing so would show their hand before the game begins ... I wish I knew someone on the inside of the democrats so I could know if they have a plan or not...
July 10th, 2006 at 12:26 pmunbelievable liar,
Democratic? Saddam held elections too…
Yes, rigged ones. What's your point? None as usual?
You’re nuts if you think the Iraq is truly holding Democratic elections.
Because?
I have little doubt after reading the evidence that Bush stole two elections and simply passed that knowledge to Calderon.
Such as?
Look at what we’ve set a precedent for… How appalling.
You think it's appalling for Japan to defend itself from an imminent threat to their country? Ehmm... OK?
If you think Iraqi voted for people freely, and not from a pre-selected list of people, as I said before, you are fooling yourself.
Because? Who pre-selected the list of people?
July 10th, 2006 at 12:26 pmI can walk up and down the street his afternoon with a sandwich board accusing President Bush of war crimes and I won’t end up in a gulag or secret prison in Romania
-Chase
The same thing was true in Germany in the 1920s/30s ... at first you would only lose your job ...which is possible in America today .... next comes harsher treatment ... and then harsher ... this is how a witch hunting frenzy builds up ... Hitler didnt make Germany go 180 over night ...
July 10th, 2006 at 12:33 pmLet’s not be a dick over minutia.
Comment by Chase — July 10, 2006 @ 12:22 pm
But that is EXACTLY what you do. And was my point in that post. Getting you te see why your side frustrates us in this regard. Glad to see it worked.
July 10th, 2006 at 12:36 pmunbelievable liar,
In terms of mass, the sun IS shrinking. I didn’t say it was getting smaller phyisically (as you can still arrange a few quadrillion atoms in the same foot print as a few octillion atoms). I said that when 4 hydrogen atoms are fused into 1 helium atom, that the sun loses mass. This is a correct and factual statement, and I stand by it.
You said it was getting smaller and that it was getting colder, both of which are not exactly true. The Sun will get a lot hotter in about 4.5 billion years and is not getting colder or smaller due to hydrostatic balance, as I showed with Wikipedia. Oh well.
July 10th, 2006 at 12:37 pmYou think it’s appalling for Japan to defend itself from an imminent threat to their country? Ehmm… OK?
Comment by Seixon
Imminent? Like NeoCon Imminent? Or the dictionary version of Imminent? Have any proof of the dictionary version of Imminent? Or is it you are using the NeoCon version of Imminent so you can make up proof?
July 10th, 2006 at 12:37 pmMaybe, but not because the government tells your boss "fire this dissident". If you were fired, you would have action under the First Amendment available to you.
Either way, I was talking about the punishment the government would have dished out and the point was dissent in the United States is accepted and, to some degree, encouraged. In real tyrranies, you can be sure the government would be as accepting.
July 10th, 2006 at 12:39 pmhey, how was the pirate movie?
Comment by katy
It was good, I enjoyed it. I think they put every single pirate gag they could think of in the movie. Obviously there will be a third movie, you'll see why if you go. The effects were fantastic. trueblue gave a hint about "toes," ICK!! The theater was PACKED. There were a lot of little kids there, which I wouldn't have done. It's long, so take your seat cushion and settle in with provisions (sneak them in, of course). ;)
July 10th, 2006 at 12:39 pmGerald,
NoKo has nuclear weapons. NoKo has an assortment of long-range missiles. NoKo fired a Taepodong-1 missile over Japan in 1998. The Taepodong-1 missile can carry a nuclear warhead.
Do the math.
July 10th, 2006 at 12:42 pmComment by Chase
Chase. ... you dont want to fight Tyrrany AFTER it has already taken over the government ... by then it is too late... and considering the good republicans will not speak out against the bad ones that means we are very close to that now. At first they let the businesses get away with firing people ... then banks wont work with you ... then signs are put on the front of your business or home ... then "thug gangs" torch your car but are never caught (because the police are not looking for them) ... THEN the government makes it all official.... then you are screwed.
July 10th, 2006 at 12:45 pmNoKo has nuclear weapons. NoKo has an assortment of long-range missiles. NoKo fired a Taepodong-1 missile over Japan in 1998. The Taepodong-1 missile can carry a nuclear warhead.
Do the math.
Comment by Seixon
USSR can kill all life on earth with Nukes and Biologic weapons .. and this has been "imminent" for 60 years ... you do the math...
July 10th, 2006 at 12:46 pmSeixon - If I were Japan, I would be concerned. But I would probably tone down the rhetoric, considering the Kim's goals are not an actual war but food, fuel and fertilzer.
One of the better ideas I've read thus far: here.
July 10th, 2006 at 12:46 pmask you to produce a list of benevolent tyrrants because, alas, such an exercise is impossible. There is no such thing.
Sure it IS possible. Just like you can produce a list of foods you find tasy. Or a list of cars you find appealing. Or a list of other things you personally find 'good'. We just won't agree. And therefore, while possible, it is subjective.
King Wenceslas... Ever heard of him? We could start there.
On the other hand, I do not see President Bush as a tyrrant.
This shocks me. The man has bropken over 750 laws and wiped his feet on the Constitution and yet you think he is law abiding (the opposite of tyrannical)?
The most immediate example as to why he is not a tyrrant is that we are permitted to criticize the government with real threat of reprisal.
This week. When that changes, will you change your mind?
There's much more to it than simply teh freedom of speech, which I'm not so sure we have. Look what happens to those who public criticize this regime? Their wives get outted in covert jobs and they get arrested for protesting at the White House.
I'd say we're getting closer to Bloody Sunday Part 2 than you realize.
For instance, I can walk up and down the street his afternoon with a sandwich board accusing President Bush of war crimes and I won’t end up in a gulag or secret prison in Romania (despite the hyperbolic fears of some nutcases around here).
Then doit. But don't just do it for an audience of those who don't matter. Put it in writing and mail it to Bush. Let's see how long it takes for you to get a tax audit.
Jump in your time machine and try the same thing in Baghdad circa 1994, Moscow in 1954, in Tehran today.
Or jump in yours and go to United States circa 2010...
President Bush may be a weak leader and a less than commendable communicator but he is no tyrrant.
Comment by Chase — July 10, 2006 @ 12:18 pm
I'll help you out with that (courtesy http://www.dictionary.com):
ty-rant
An absolute ruler who governs without restrictions. (Bush? Yes. He's broken over 750 laws.)
A ruler who exercises power in a harsh, cruel manner. (Bush? Yes. he's caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people so far in Iraq)
An oppressive, harsh, arbitrary person. (Bush? Yes. Do you really need an explanation?)
July 10th, 2006 at 12:46 pm#125 NoKo has nuclear weapons. NoKo has an assortment of long-range missiles. NoKo fired a Taepodong-1 missile over Japan in 1998. The Taepodong-1 missile can carry a nuclear warhead. - Saucisson
USA has nuclear weapons. USA has the more long-range missiles in the world. USA bombed TWICE a country with nuclear bombs. The thousands of missiles of can carry a nuclear warhead.
Do your math. Bush is worse than Kim Jong Il
July 10th, 2006 at 12:48 pm#126 - That's the slipperiest slope I've ever seen.
July 10th, 2006 at 12:49 pm#88; You told it like it is man, f*cking-A straight.
July 10th, 2006 at 12:49 pmand, to some degree, encouraged.
Comment by Chase — July 10, 2006 @ 12:39 pm
Prove that. Because reality shows that Bush does not read or listen to the news (watching the news is no longer possible since entertainment took it over - except on Comedy Central), or care about what people think by ignoring opinion polls.
They've repeatedly said that that are going to do what they are going to do because THEY think it's right no matter what anyone else thinks. Not sure how that is encouraging dissent... Unless today is opposite day or something neoconnish like that.
July 10th, 2006 at 12:52 pm#126 - That’s the slipperiest slope I’ve ever seen.
Comment by Chase
Read "mein kampf" ... read about how the german people responded to it... read about all the day in day out details of how germany got sucked into Nazism ... slippery? You bet ... it MUST be or else normally good people will not let it go on...
July 10th, 2006 at 12:53 pmthat's rich"
"Let Beijing resolve the North Korean crisis."
such a neocon attitude to have... reminds me of al franken's take on what they think of iraq - (to paraphrase) "hey, we got you into this mess, now it's up to someone else to figure it out"
and, no, i didn't read the article, chase... the title said enough for me...
July 10th, 2006 at 12:54 pmHitlers ... "mein kampf" praised the USA for how it delt with certain issues ... all those same issues are the ones trumpted by Americas right wing factions... ignorance is NO excuse .... if the spirit of America is to be maintained people MUST understand the warning signs.
July 10th, 2006 at 12:56 pmSeixon,
I see you've written back, but this time, I just scrolled on past...
July 10th, 2006 at 12:56 pmHow twisted is this: Dow is PROUD of this fact...
Did you know...
July 10th, 2006 at 12:57 pmDow is responsible for the birth of the modern environmental movement. The 1962 book Silent Spring, about the side-effects of DDT, a Dow product, led to the birth of many of today's environmental action groups.
and then there's this (from their website) - SIMPLY HEARTLESS
As a publicly owned corporation, Dow is unable, due to share-price concerns, to accept any responsibility for the Bhopal catastrophe caused by our fully owned subsidiary, Union Carbide. As an individual, however, you can help as your conscience dictates: visit Bhopal.net or Bhopal.org.
July 10th, 2006 at 12:58 pm#129 - By "King Wenceslas", you mean Duke Wenceslas of Bohemia, right? The Christian Saint? I'm shocked, shocked to see you cite a Christian martyr. However, I just don't think Duke Wenceslas qualifies as a tyrrant.
Absolutely. Without hesitation.
July 10th, 2006 at 12:59 pmGerald - excellent posts, as usual! The neocons forget that Nazi Germany, like the Roman Empire, was not built overnight - just because they can read a paragraph about it in 15 minutes. Well, they also seem to fail to understand that neither will the American Empire be built in a day.
Better to fight it now with ballots than to have to fight with bullets like our forefathers did...
July 10th, 2006 at 1:00 pmThis week. When that changes, will you change your mind?
Absolutely. Without hesitation.
Comment by Chase
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/03/09/news/sandiego/20_24_273_8_06.txt
July 10th, 2006 at 1:03 pm#133 - or care about what people think by ignoring opinion polls.
I actually appreciate this quality. I would explain, but you wouldn't understand. And what's more, encouraging dissent doesn't mean that every last proposal will be followed and executed.
#135 - and, no, i didn’t read the article
I can implore you to read it. It's not very "neoconnish" - in fact it supportive of multinationalism. Don't be so close minded.
July 10th, 2006 at 1:05 pmGerald,
Has the USSR/Russia expressed a desire to use their nuclear weapons lately? Have they threatened to use them? No. You're basically trying to equate a madman with an assault rifle and a crooked police officer.
unbelievable liar,
The man has bropken over 750 laws and wiped his feet on the Constitution and yet you think he is law abiding (the opposite of tyrannical)?
100% BS. You're a propaganda dupe, as usual.
This week. When that changes, will you change your mind?
LOL. Weren't you the one claiming "we" based everything on fear? Here you are pretending that Bush is going to revoke your right to dissent next week. He hasn't done so for almost 6 years, but he'll probably do it next week! Yup! Man you people are one crazy lot.
There’s much more to it than simply teh freedom of speech, which I’m not so sure we have. Look what happens to those who public criticize this regime? Their wives get outted in covert jobs and they get arrested for protesting at the White House.
You're not sure you have freedom of speech? LOL. Wilson's wife did not get outed. Every single reporter involved in the deal says there was no crime committed. You ignore this at your own peril. Protesting at the White House? Please, I've seen tons of pictures of people doing that without anything happening. There are people protesting in front of the White House every single day. People have been arrested but you are leaving out the details disingenuously.
I’d say we’re getting closer to Bloody Sunday Part 2 than you realize.
Sure we are, sure we are. How long have you been saying this? 3-4 years? You're going to keep saying it until 2009 without it ever happening because you are fixed on scaring yourself into hating Bush.
Let’s see how long it takes for you to get a tax audit.
LOL. Watch out, what's that behind you? It's Bush! AAAAH!
Or jump in yours and go to United States circa 2010…
Yea, let's. I'm pretty confident that you are 100% wrong because you are infested with irrational partisan hate-mongering fear.
(Bush? Yes. He’s broken over 750 laws.)
No, he hasn't, you complete idiot. Bush couldn't even get Harriet Miers on the bench. Some power he has. lol
(Bush? Yes. he’s caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people so far in Iraq)
So did JFK, but I'm guessing you won't call him a tyrant because you're a partisan hackjob.
I'm still waiting for you to prove a single thing you have said about... well, anything. Iraq's democracy. Bush breaking 750 laws. Anything. You can't back up any of it because you are a pathological liar hooked on an irrational fear of Bush like a drugee on crack.
July 10th, 2006 at 1:05 pmsomebody please tell unbelievable to listen to the Pap Attack that i posted in #112 - i was hoping to get her reaction especially, as a southerner... but she "ignores" my posts... thanks!
July 10th, 2006 at 1:08 pmi will understand that she was just not interested if i don't read an opinion about it... good enough...
any other southerners around?
unbelievable,
I see you’ve written back, but this time, I just scrolled on past…
That's because you're a chickenshit pathological liar.
July 10th, 2006 at 1:09 pm#142 - Wanna bet on the outcome of the suit? She will either be reinstated or she will win a huge settlement.
In any event, this wasn't my original point (but I don't expect you to appreciate nuance). I meant, and still mean, we can criticize the government without the government imprisioning us. Of course, if you make threats and whatnot, well that's a different ballgame.
I just cannot buy the USA 2006 is equal to Germany 1933. It just does not make sense.
July 10th, 2006 at 1:10 pmBy “King Wenceslasâ€, you mean Duke Wenceslas of Bohemia, right?
Most know him by that title "Good King Wencelas". Hence the song...
The Christian Saint? I’m shocked, shocked to see you cite a Christian martyr.
Why? There is no war on Christianity. We just want you all to keep your religion out of our lives.
However, I just don’t think Duke Wenceslas qualifies as a tyrrant.
We didn't say tyrant. But benevolent Dictator. I'm getting tired of debating semantics here. A benevolent dictator would be a ruler who is the ultimate authority, has the power and authority to crush you (a mere citizen) but does not.
I'm sure there were people under his rule who considered him a benevolent leader, since he was sainted. Even you?
This week. When that changes, will you change your mind?
Absolutely. Without hesitation.
Comment by Chase — July 10, 2006 @ 12:59 pm
You just are waiting for it to get that bad first?
July 10th, 2006 at 1:13 pm#146 That’s because you’re a chickenshit pathological liar.
Comment by Seixon — July 10, 2006 @ 1:09 pm
Again, who is demonizing you?
July 10th, 2006 at 1:13 pmNot exactly. I'm just not afraid they will get that bad at all.
Why? Because so many of your posts have been hostile to religion of all kinds. Surprising you would cite a saint, that's all.
July 10th, 2006 at 1:16 pmI actually appreciate this quality. I would explain, but you wouldn’t understand. And what’s more, encouraging dissent doesn’t mean that every last proposal will be followed and executed.
Comment by Chase — July 10, 2006 @ 1:05 pm
That's rather arrogant of you. And you can spare me. I've heard the argument. I just don't agree with it.
I wasn't saying they should have knee-jerk reactions to every poll, but they certainly should care that 68% of the country has, for quite sometime not approved of the job they are doing.
July 10th, 2006 at 1:16 pmHas the USSR/Russia expressed a desire to use their nuclear weapons lately? Have they threatened to use them? No. You’re basically trying to equate a madman with an assault rifle and a crooked police officer.
Comment by Seixon
1) He is NOT a madman. Your comic book outlook on life is what makes your kind incompetent.
2) Russia made LOTS of threats and at that time America did not go crazy over it. If we did that would make US the madman.
3) North Korea MAY have nukes ... but even if they do they cannot fit them on a missle to shoot at anyone. Getting your panties in a bunch over something that isnt even possible is embarrassing ... if it wasnt for the fact that acting that way can cause wars ... See WWI...
4) Does North Korea have an army massed on its shores preparing to board landing craft capable of crossing over to Japan? Had a single missle or anything else for that matter landed anywhere near Japanese land? Nope. He is a showboat looking for attention ... and every time he does it you scream bloody murder then look like an idiot because 10 years go by and still nothing has happened... because North Korea is NOT looking to take over the world ... they just dont want America forcing them to join with South Korea...
5) Let the KOREANS work it out unless a REAL threat is imminent.... anything else is risking forcing North Koreas hand. You REALLY afraid of North Korea destroying Seoul? Then dont let Japan make threats about PREEMPTIVE STRIKES! What kind of signal does that send a country? They are going to attack us first so .....
July 10th, 2006 at 1:18 pmReply to #149:
Thank you...I just spilled coffee on my desk from laughing so hard.
Fortunately, I'm in the server room this time, so don't have to explain again. :P
July 10th, 2006 at 1:18 pmEvil Spaniard,
Again, who is demonizing you?
Nobody so far in this thread. unbelievable is a chickenshit pathological liar. She won't respond to my challenges to her "facts", nor will she confess to having lied multiple times about me, and in fact, continues to lie about lies she told about me. Can you deal?
Chase,
I just cannot buy the USA 2006 is equal to Germany 1933. It just does not make sense.
That's because you can't see into the future like unbelievable and Alex Jones. The "police state" is coming. Seriously. Any moment. Even next week. It's time to prevent it from happening now! Kind of like Minority Report, only with a partisan whackjob twist.
July 10th, 2006 at 1:19 pmI just cannot buy the USA 2006 is equal to Germany 1933. It just does not make sense.
Comment by Chase
I agree .. go back to 1920s ... where the nationalism began growing before the arrival of Hitler ... hitler did not start the game ... he took advantage of it...
July 10th, 2006 at 1:20 pmWhy? Because so many of your posts have been hostile to religion of all kinds. Surprising you would cite a saint, that’s all.
Comment by Chase
So 2000 years of murder in the name of a religion with devices like the Iron Maiden and being burnt at the stake is not enough to be hostile towards that same system of power? People can sit in their homes and do nothing but pray for 2000 years and be good examples of followers of Jesus ... OR they can go out into the world .. take over governments and murder murder murder ...start wars ... and murder some more ... which Christianity do you prefer?
July 10th, 2006 at 1:23 pm#154 [About unbelievable] She won’t respond to my challenges to her “factsâ€, nor will she confess to having lied multiple times about me, and in fact, continues to lie about lies she told about me. Can you deal? - Seixon
No deal. I've read more lies and willful mistakes in one of your leeeeenghty posts than in some months of unbelievable's posts... And, please, don't make me point to every one of yours, too many and too tiring...
July 10th, 2006 at 1:26 pmI just cannot buy the USA 2006 is equal to Germany 1933. It just does not make sense.
Comment by Chase — July 10, 2006 @ 1:10 pm
Okay, let's play "who said this quote"
When an opponent declares, "I will not come over to your side," I calmly say, "Your child belongs to us already... What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community."
Strength lies not in defence but in attack.
My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter
What we have to fight for...is the freedom and independence, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned by the Creator.
Any violence which does not spring from a spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain. It lacks the stability which can only rest in a fanatical outlook.
Do I think faith will be an important part of being a good president? Yes, I do.
Faith crosses every border and touches every heart in every nation.
I think you can judge from somebody's actions a kind of a stability and sense of purpose perhaps created by strong religious roots. I mean, there's a certain patience, a certain discipline, I think, that religion helps you achieve.
Who says I am not under the special protection of God?
Leadership to me means duty, honor, country
Words build bridges into unexplored regions.
July 10th, 2006 at 1:26 pmGerald,
1. No, clearly a man who starves his people to death, forces them to create shows showing how magnificent he is, while making nuclear weapons and threatening the world's superpowers with them is anything other than a madman. You got it dude.
2. Is the US going crazy over NoKo now? No. We knew that USSR would not launch nukes against us because it was mutually assured destruction. With Japan and South Korea, they have no defense against a nuclear weapon.
3. Apparently military experts disagree with you, and you seem to think you know better than them. As usual.
4. NoKo didn't have nuclear weapons 10 years ago, so what is your point? You end with two strawman arguments: that someone is claiming that NoKo wants to take over the world, and that the US is forcing NoKo to join with SoKo. Both are ridiculous and false.
5. When Japan goes to the step of talking about pre-emptive strikes, that tells me that they are very scared of what NoKo might do to them. If you're so damn sure that NoKo is just a show boat, then why don't you go to Japan and live there? It's astounding that you will tell a people under a real threat that they have no right to be concerned and that they don't know what they're talking about.
July 10th, 2006 at 1:27 pmNot exactly. I’m just not afraid they will get that bad at all.
So you are paralyzed by your fear? What if teh Founding Fathers had waited for things to get worse?
Why? Because so many of your posts have been hostile to religion of all kinds. Surprising you would cite a saint, that’s all.
Comment by Chase — July 10, 2006 @ 1:16 pm
I detest organize religion. It is not only the opiate of the masses, but the platform of tyrants. Doesn't mean all people who follow religion are as corrupt as teh system. From time to time there are those who are in the minority and actually practice what they preach. Very, very few, however.
My point with Wencelas was that he was probably someone who most would consider a benevolent dictator. And given the choice between living under him or in modern day Iraq, I think few would choose the mess in Iraq.
July 10th, 2006 at 1:30 pmEvil Spaniard,
No deal. I’ve read more lies and willful mistakes in one of your leeeeenghty posts than in some months of unbelievable’s posts… And, please, don’t make me point to every one of yours, too many and too tiring…
OK. How about one? We both know I've asked you before, and you didn't do it then. Neither does anyone else when asked. Funny how that works, isn't it? You call me a liar, I ask you to show the lie, and then you never do it. Prove me wrong if you will, but I have a feeling you will make yet another excuse instead of actually showing a single lie I have told.
July 10th, 2006 at 1:34 pmComment by Seixon
1) Your sarcasm proved nothing.
2) You are kidding right? North Korea nukes Japan ... and it is all over for North Korea .. and EVERYONE ... including YOU knows that
3) I got my information FROM the experts. They said to scale a nuke down to fit on a ICBM will take NK many years.... NK cant even shoot a ICBM with NO nuclear war head without it falling into the sea as we saw lately... think before you post ... this one was really bad.
4) YOU said imminent... I gave example of what I would consider imminent... straw man? Nope. Also North Korea DOES think the USA wants to force it to join with South Korea... that is what their whole deal is....
5) Those same people RAPED and MURDERED the Koreans for decades.... they SHOULD be ashamed and embarressed and asking for forgiveness NOT making threats. In addition Japan knows the same info that everyone in the world does about NKs military abilities ... they cannot do much of anything to Japan ... and what little they can do would be met with all out destruction from Japans #1 ally.
July 10th, 2006 at 1:35 pmunbelievable,
So you are paralyzed by your fear? What if teh Founding Fathers had waited for things to get worse?
LOL. Chase is paralyzed by fear of something that isn't happening and isn't going to happen? You are one crazy gal, that's for sure.
I detest organize religion. It is not only the opiate of the masses, but the platform of tyrants.
Wow look at that, I agree with you on something again. Makes me feel all icky.
July 10th, 2006 at 1:36 pmA Republic or an Empire?
By Paul Craig Roberts
07/09/06 "Information Clearing House" -- -- Gentle reader, did you know that in April President Bush went to Stanford University to speak to the Hoover Institution fellows at the invitation of former Secretary of State George Shultz but was not allowed on campus? The Stanford students got wind of it and blocked Bush's access to the campus. The Hoover fellows had to go to Shultz's home to hear Bush's pitch for war and more war.
A person might think that it would be national news that Stanford University students would not allow the President of the US on campus. It happened to be a day that hundreds of prospective freshmen were on campus with their parents, many of whom joined the demonstration against Bush. I did not hear or read a word about it.
Did you? I learned of it from faculty friends in June when I attended Stanford's graduation to witness a relative receive her degree. The June 16 edition of The Stanford Daily reprints its April 24 report of the episode.
At the graduation, I was struck by the preponderance of Asians, Africans, and Hispanics in the the student body. Stanford is truly an international university, a noted difference from the days when I was a member of the university. Looking at the list of graduates in human biology, which I understand to be a pre-med degree, I count 24 white and Jewish males out of a graduation class of 206. That means 88.35 percent of the graduating class in human biology was Asian, African, Hispanic, and female. If white males were a "preferred minority" protected by quotas, they could certainly bring a discrimination suit against Stanford.
My count could be off a bit as a result of the modern practice of giving girls boys' names and giving boys girls' names, but on the whole I was able to resolve the gender issue by consulting middle names. One thing is clear. At Stanford the days of white male hegemony are over.
To my readers I want to thank you for your emails and occasional old fashioned letters delivered by US mail. I have learned that I am loved by some and hated by others. I continually hear interesting things from readers. Recently I heard from a Russian that Bush's slogan, "you are with us or against us" comes from a communist song dating from 1950, "The one who is not with us is against us." The slogan was part of the propaganda used to suppress dissent.
Now for the main subject of the column. Martin Sieff is one of the few remaining American reporters who actually report facts instead of covering up for Bush. Sieff is elated at the US Supreme Court ruling blocking the use of military tribunals to punish alleged "terrorists." Sieff says the ruling means that "the United States is still a republic, not an empire."
I hope Martin Sieff is right. But why will Bush pay any more attention to a Supreme Court ruling than he does to the US Constitution, US law, Congress, and public opinion? Bush and his criminal government have decided that they can use 9/11 and the fear and mindlessness it has brought to the American people to elevate the executive branch into its own world of unaccountable power. As Congress, the Democratic Party, and the media have all collapsed in the face of Bush's power grab, why will Bush pay any attention to a court ruling?
The Supreme Court, like the Pope, hasn't any divisions or a police force with which to arrest Bush. Moreover, as one reader pointed out, the majority decision against Bush was written by an 86-year old man. His decision shredded the incompetent and utterly ignorant ruling of the lower court written by John Roberts, the new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
An 86-year old man hasn't a lot of time left to protect our rights from executive power grabs. All Bush has to do is to appoint one more Federalist Society tyrant to the Court, and he will have a second rubber stamp of his dictatorial ways. He already has Congress which has made it clear that it is perfectly comfortable with Bush's high-handed behavior. Democrats are too intimidated by 9/11 and the phony "war on terror" to offer any opposition.
With the electronic voting machines supplied by Republican firms and programmed by Republican operatives, Bush can control election results. Don't bet very heavily that Americans will regain the constitutional protections and democratic accountability that they enjoyed in the 20th century.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com
July 10th, 2006 at 1:38 pmEvil Spainard,
From your post, I'm guessing Seixon is calling me a liar for some inane reasons again?
Seixon, prove I purposely lied. (He can't, or he would have instead of repeating his nonsensical propaganda).
Get your new boyfriend Denny-Sybil to help you out... That one can't prove anything it spews either. Just yells louder to make it seem like it's MORE truthful...
Their false accusations make them the real liars...
July 10th, 2006 at 1:40 pmRecently I heard from a Russian that Bush’s slogan, “you are with us or against us†comes from a communist song dating from 1950, “The one who is not with us is against us.†The slogan was part of the propaganda used to suppress dissent.
Comment by madashell — July 10, 2006 @ 1:38 pm
Excellent article!
July 10th, 2006 at 1:44 pmComment by unbelievable
Sexion is just saying you lied by saying Bush broke the law... which of coarse is exactly what he does with every signing statement he makes that says he will not uphold the law if he doesnt want to.... which is breaking the law in the U.S. Constitution that says the executive MUST uphold the laws and no exceptions are given.
July 10th, 2006 at 1:44 pmNo, clearly a man who starves his people to death,
Clicky.
forces them to create shows showing how magnificent he is,
Clicky Clicky.
while making nuclear weapons and threatening the world’s superpowers with them
Clicky Clicky Clicky.
is anything other than a madman. You got it dude.
I trust now that you can see the depths of your hypocrisy (or if not, at least other readers can).
July 10th, 2006 at 1:45 pmunbelievable,
Seixon, prove I purposely lied. (He can’t, or he would have instead of repeating his nonsensical propaganda).
I have many times and then you ignore it citing your excuse of "well, I don't look at your posts, I just scroll past them".
For your pleasure, I will do it again, although I think it's obvious you will just ignore it again like all the other times.
On the Brit Hume thread, I said:
How did we ever get to this point….
The link, as anyone can see by using their mouse, is to a picture at Wikipedia. This caused unbelievable to say:
Don’t click on Seixon’s link. He’s only here to get people to go to his website so Google will support him filling our blogs with his irrational blather while he hides innorway from Osama bin Laden, and the possibility of a draft.
Now in addition to lying about the link in my comment, claiming I was trying to get people to go to my blog with a Wikipedia link (lol), then you repeated your lies that I am in Norway to hide from Osama bin Laden or a draft. You know perfectly well why I'm in Norway as you and your goons dug up information on me, and you know perfectly well, as I have proven before, that I am every bit as eligible for the draft as anyone else.
Only a pathological liar would lie about something so trivial as a hyperlink, and then throw in two additional lies as if that wasn't lame enough.
July 10th, 2006 at 1:47 pmComment by Gerald Gibson
Usual Seixon bullshit... Figures. Thanks.
July 10th, 2006 at 1:48 pmGerald,
My contention is that Bush has not violated 750 laws, which unbelievable cannot prove to be the case because it's simply not true. Bush, using signing statements, has reserved his right to interpret a number of laws in a certain way that could be construed as violations of those laws. All presidents have done this sort of thing, with Clinton reserving his right to interpret around 150 laws in a manner that may have been against those laws. This doesn't mean that they actually violated those laws, but that they wrote down how the Executive Branch interprets those laws. To prove a violation of the law, you have to have a court rule that the law was violated by the president's interpretation and utilization of that interpretation.
July 10th, 2006 at 1:52 pmThe Rendition of Christ:
Winning the Battle for their Souls
By Jason Miller
Imagine this scenario:
Jesus Christ returns to Earth as he was portrayed in the Gospels at the height of his ministry. Geographically, his manifestation occurs in a blighted urban core in a large American city. Despite his humanity, he is endowed with omniscience and omnipotence. But he will not use them to change the course of humankind. He is here to act as a mortal agent of change.
Jesus’ initial reaction to the knowledge flooding his mind and the assault to his senses is a catatonic state. Horror at the rapacious and avaricious nature of the United States’ social order overwhelms his consciousness.
Shaking off the initial shock, he succumbs to a wave of uncontrollable nausea. Thoughts of institutionalized racism, the wealth chasm, and the military industrial complex evoke a burst of primal and toxic hatred. He retches violently.
Having purged his loathing, Jesus sits back and rests quietly on a soiled mattress someone had dragged into the garbage strewn alley where he finds himself.
Surrounded by broken bottles, hypodermic needles, and used prophylactics containing their repulsive spent payloads, Christ falls into a deep state of reflection which is unhindered by the scurrying sounds of rats and roaches. As he contemplates the many horrific atrocities committed in his name, a resident of the alley brushes past him in a drunken stupor, urinates in his pants and promptly passes out.
A country claiming to practice his spirituality spends $600 billion a year on its behemoth murder machine while over two million of its own people live on the street and eat from dumpsters. Rage surges through Jesus’ being. He grabs a chunk of broken brick, hurls it with abandon, and shatters what is left of a broken window. The thought that his ministry and martyrdom had spawned such inhumanity infuriated him.
Regaining his calm and composure, Jesus resumes his contemplation.
What is this abomination called Capitalism? Permeating nearly every facet of the United States (including his churches), exploiting human beings and the Earth, demanding perpetual war, and ensuring the comfort of a few through the suffering of the many, Capitalism is a cancer that reduces its blind adherents to empty, soulless shells.
Greed is good? Had his flock truly strayed so far that they enshrined selfishness, mean-spiritedness, ruthless competitive instincts, and avarice as virtues? What chance would his message of compassion and peace have competing with the clever propaganda and allure of immediate gratification purveyed by the likes of Fox, McDonald’s, Wal-Mart, and Rush Limbaugh?
Grief-stricken, he cries in despair for the Native Americans, Black Americans, and the tens of millions of victims of the imperialist United States foreign policy in Latin America, Africa, the Philippines, Vietnam, Iraq, and Palestine. He smiles briefly at the thought of Judea and Galilee and feels a twinge of home-sickness. Joy and nostalgia are short-lived as thoughts of Palestinian suffering at the hands of the merciless Israeli government quickly intrude on his nostalgic reminiscence.
It perplexes him that the United States has not lived up to the rich promise spawned by the American Revolution that broke the shackles of tyranny against tremendous odds. Early Americans had created a phenomenal instrument with which to govern a nation when they wrote the Constitution. They even included a mechanism to amend its inherent flaws (i.e. the legalization of slavery). But despite the valiant struggle of many poor, working class, and minority Americans, the de facto tyranny of wealthy elitists has endured.
Jesus concludes that many Americans were amongst the blessed he had enumerated in the Sermon on the Mount and that many Americans would enter his Kingdom. Yet he agonizes over those millions who had succumbed to the propaganda and sold their souls for the hollow rewards offered by the “American Wayâ€. Torment consumes him as he realizes that conspicuous consumption, aggressive militarism, overt and covert racism, abject inhumanity, torture, theft of land and resources, corruption, “win at all costâ€, survival of the fittest, and pathological self-absorption are the hallmarks of the social and political systems of the United States. Jesus marvels that so many people would fall prey to such obvious spiritual cancers.
Limping severely, a one-armed man with a very bad prosthesis, matted gray hair, and a badly tattered Army jacket flops himself onto the mattress next to Jesus. He smells of alcohol and stale urine. Vacant eyes transfixed on the alley wall before him, he mutters unintelligibly as he pulls a rancid-smelling piece of meat from his pocket and begins gingerly munching with the remaining stumps of his severely decayed teeth.
Christ feels overwhelmed with compassion and embraces the man. There is little response, but he does feel a slight shudder. This coupled with the fact that the man does not reject the embrace satisfies Jesus that at some level of his being, the hapless itinerant welcomes human contact and kindness. Jesus realizes that this man had answered America’s call to “fight for his country†in Vietnam. Abandoned by the government he had served, this lost soul had been condemned to suffer a living hell of homelessness, untreated PTSD, and substance abuse.
Suddenly Jesus had an epiphany. Despite being one of the wealthiest societies in human history, the United States has a homeless population of about two million. As a fisher of men, he would troll America’s cities, reaping a bountiful harvest of loyal followers from amongst the homeless and other disenfranchised groups. And he would start with the human derelict he had just embraced.
Jesus begins laying out his strategy to his first disciple. As Christ talks, the despondent man’s vacant expression is replaced by a crooked smile and a look of enthusiasm. He feasts upon a small loaf of fresh bread from Christ’s goatskin bag and listens to Jesus’ message of hope and redemption. Jesus talks for several hours. His willing adherent absorbs his words like a desiccated sponge.
Jesus speaks of his vision to cast out his net, gathering millions of loyal followers from amongst the homeless, poor, gays, minorities, the working class, and other people who felt powerless to stop the momentum of the corporatocracy in Washington. Reminding his disciple that the strength of his moral revolution will lie in the sheer number of participants, Jesus predicts that tens of millions will abandon working and shopping to join him in a triumphant non-violent march on Washington. Crippled by the loss of its cogs, the profit and war machine would finally grind to a halt.
Feeling mildly annoyed, Jesus pauses briefly to brush away a fly that had been persistently buzzing about his face.
Continuing his monologue, Jesus reveals that he plans to expose the true weakness of the iniquitous corporate militarists ruling the United States by awakening the millions of Americans it had psychologically enslaved. He would free those who had been deluded into giving their blood, sweat, tears, and children to expand a malevolent economic empire. He would lay the nightmare to rest and awaken the dream.
A sharp screech of tires gives Jesus and his newly anointed apostle a jolt. Two powerfully built men with close-cropped hair and serious expressions emerge from an ominous-looking black SUV with heavily tinted windows. With the quick precision of a trained assassin, one of the “men in black†snaps the disciple’s neck. The other snatches Jesus by his hair and hurls him into the back of the Escalade…
Awakening in a mental fog induced by heavy sedation, Jesus struggles to remember what had happened. Barely lucid, he slowly takes in his surroundings. He is in a small cell dimly illuminated by a lone flickering candle. It is chilly and the air is dank. Seated at a small table in front of him, a simple-looking man is glaring at him with deep contempt. Jesus notes a rotund male figure wearing a permanent snarl and a cruel looking woman with dark skin hovering nearby. He senses that wickedness and deceit are habitual with this trio.
Despite his significantly inferior intellect, it is obvious to Jesus that the two others maintain the pretense that the man at the table is their leader.
“I am George W. Bush. I am President of the United States and the leader of the free world. Our spies at the NSA were monitoring your conversation in the alley. We know of your terrorist plot to destroy freedom and democracy in America. I am declaring you an enemy combatant.â€
Brimming with smug arrogance, Bush leans back in his chair and locks his fingers behind his head. He trains his gaze on Jesus with the air of one studying an insect and contemplating whether or not to squash such an inferior being.
Finally he returns his attention to the script laid before him. After several minutes of careful study, he gives Jesus, Cheney and Condoleezza a start by forcefully slamming his fist onto the rickety wooden table. Feeling triumphant because he is about to vanquish a tremendous threat to the established power structure, he begins speaking again,
“You are a threat to national security. Like that MLK bastard, your goal is to empower the poor, minorities, and the other groups we keep oppressed to protect our selfish interests. You would awaken the masses to our moral bankruptcy and to the foolish self-destructiveness of supporting us.
I cannot let that happen. My wealthy base has spent years selling Americans on the virtues of war, greed, free trade, free markets, tax cuts for the rich, cutting social programs, surrendering their rights for security, and mixing religion and government.
Millions of Americans need to remain indifferent to our wealth obtained by exploiting billions of people, the prison system we have used to replace slavery and Jim Crow, the millions we slaughter to feed the military industrial complex, and the torture of enemy combatants like you.
Many of my people believe that I have a personal relationship with you and that your Father guides me on a divine mission. They must continue believing these atrocious lies.
We learned from the mistake of the Roman and the Jewish leaders. You will not get a second chance at martyrdom. I have decided to rendition you. You will simply disappear and die anonymously in a torture dungeon in Syria.â€
Wearing a confident smirk, the self-satisfied little man fires a question at Jesus,
“Well, Jesus? What do you have to say?â€
Shedding tears born of profound melancholy, Jesus responds,
“In the words of the inimitable Russian novelist, if God does not exist, then everything is permitted.â€
Jesus then sighs heavily, looks heavenward, and makes a quiet appeal,
“Father, forgive them. Despite the fact that they know what they do. And Father. I beg you to have mercy on the souls of their many wretched victims.â€
Jason Miller is a 39 year old sociopolitical essayist with a degree in liberal arts and an extensive self-education (derived from an insatiable appetite for reading). He is a member of Amnesty International and an avid supporter of Oxfam International and Human Rights Watch. He welcomes responses at willpowerful@hotmail.com or comments on his blog, Thomas Paine's Corner, at http://civillibertarian.blogspot.com/.
July 10th, 2006 at 1:56 pmIn any one year:
27,000 Americans commit suicide.
5,000 attempt suicide; some estimates are higher.
26,000 die from fatal accidents in the home.
23,000 are murdered.
85,000 are wounded by firearms.
38,000 of these die, including 2,600 children.
13,000,000 are victims of crimes including assault, rape, armed robbery, burglary, larceny, and arson.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — July 10, 2006 @ 1:45 pm
Solid evidence that hypocrisy alright. How utterly appalling. Thanks for posting that. Every neocon should read that and try to think about what it REALLY means.
July 10th, 2006 at 1:58 pmTripMaster,
So you fault Bush for Americans committing suicide, having fatal accidents, murdering people, committing crimes, drug deaths, auto accidents, etc? Wow. So you will blame Bush for virtually anything. I didn't think you could go that low, but I see that blaming Bush for the tsunami wasn't all that far-fetched with this crowd of people.
You're comparing a Mission Accomplished banner and a presidential speech to shows in NoKo where thousands upon thousands of people are forced to learn and perform routines for the sole purpose of entertaining Kim Jong Il and showing the world how much control he has over the entire population of the country? Appleseeds and watermelons are not the same size guy, take some medication.
The US has only stated that the nuclear option is on the table, not that they will actually use it, nor have they threatened anyone by specifically stating that they will be nuked.
See, this is why no one takes you lefties seriously. You compare Bush to Kim Jong Il and Hitler. You're all a bunch of crazy people who can't see the difference between a daisy and a venus fly trap.
July 10th, 2006 at 1:58 pmread you WSJ article, chase... does sound like a reasonalbe plan... exactly why it won't even be implimented...
U.S. policy makers may cringe at this plan, seeing it as handing de facto supremacy in northeast Asia to the Chinese. But a successful maneuvering of China into the central role in this crisis would be the truest test of Washington's leadership. Whether one views it as realpolitik, a new multilateralism or innovative thinking, nothing counts in the end except achieving a critical goal.
that test has already been proven a FAILURE...
July 10th, 2006 at 1:58 pmsorry...
unbelievable,
Solid evidence that hypocrisy alright. How utterly appalling. Thanks for posting that. Every neocon should read that and try to think about what it REALLY means.
So murder, suicide, and fatal accidents only started occurring in 2001?
Oh, and you asked me to show your lies. I did in comment #169. Will you address it, or once again ignore it like the pathological liar you are?
July 10th, 2006 at 2:00 pmI'm not a neocon, but to me it means that the arms industry is facilitating a war on the American people.
July 10th, 2006 at 2:02 pmlie
A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
Anything uttered by Seixon
July 10th, 2006 at 2:10 pmunbelievable,
Thanks for proving me right once again. I showed that you clearly lied without a shadow of a doubt, in fact three lies in the same comment, and what do you do? Project, smear, and evade responsibility. You're a pathological liar.
On the Brit Hume thread, I said:
How did we ever get to this point….
The link, as anyone can see by using their mouse, is to a picture at Wikipedia. This caused unbelievable to say:
Don’t click on Seixon’s link. He’s only here to get people to go to his website so Google will support him filling our blogs with his irrational blather while he hides innorway from Osama bin Laden, and the possibility of a draft.
Now in addition to lying about the link in my comment, claiming I was trying to get people to go to my blog with a Wikipedia link (lol), then you repeated your lies that I am in Norway to hide from Osama bin Laden or a draft. You know perfectly well why I’m in Norway as you and your goons dug up information on me, and you know perfectly well, as I have proven before, that I am every bit as eligible for the draft as anyone else.
Only a pathological liar would lie about something so trivial as a hyperlink, and then throw in two additional lies as if that wasn’t lame enough.
July 10th, 2006 at 2:13 pm#175- I'm under no illusion that it will be followed, I just think it's a good idea.
And thanks for reading it! You're willingness to at least placate me really elevates your credibility in my eyes.
TripMaster: Maybe I missed something (actually I probably did) but what the heck does all that have to do with President Bush?
July 10th, 2006 at 2:17 pmReply to #174:
So you fault Bush for Americans committing suicide, having fatal accidents, murdering people, committing crimes, drug deaths, auto accidents, etc?
Didn't actually read the linked article, huh? Can't say I'm surprised. No matter...others well read, even if you won't.
You’re comparing a Mission Accomplished banner and a presidential speech to shows in NoKo where thousands upon thousands of people are forced to learn and perform routines for the sole purpose of entertaining Kim Jong Il and showing the world how much control he has over the entire population of the country?
No...you are. What I was doing was providing an example a ruler forcing his subjects to 'create a show showing how magnificent he is', as you stated earlier. You are the one who then changed the debate to one of degree, which is beside the point anyway. If I punch a man in the face, I'm obviously much better than a man who shoots a man in the face, but this doesn't make me blameless, your argument notwithstanding.
The US has only stated that the nuclear option is on the table, not that they will actually use it, nor have they threatened anyone by specifically stating that they will be nuked.
Seixon sophistry and obtuseness at its very best, folks. If someone starts loading a gun and pointing it at me, while telling others around him that if I don't toe the line, I'm going to get shot, I believe I would be within the bounds of reason to feel threatened, even if the person with the gun did not 'specificlly state' that they were going to shoot me.
See, this is why no one takes you fascists seriously. You will brook absolutely no criticism of Der Führer^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HThe President, no matter what the facts are. You're all a bunch of deluded idiots that can't see tell the diference between democracy and totalitarianism.
July 10th, 2006 at 2:17 pmThousands of people are forced to watch Fox News perform routines for the sole purpose of entertaining King Bush and showing the world how much control, [Bring it On!!], he has over the entire population, [I am the decider! and also the dictator]
July 10th, 2006 at 2:18 pmPS. You kids gotta stop fighting. This is getting half-retarded.
July 10th, 2006 at 2:18 pmTripMaster,
Didn’t actually read the linked article, huh? Can’t say I’m surprised. No matter…others well read, even if you won’t.
From reading the beginning of it, it's clear what the author set out to claim. You can summarize it for me but we both know that you're just trying a disingenous comparison between Bush and NoKo.
No…you are. What I was doing was providing an example a ruler forcing his subjects to ‘create a show showing how magnificent he is’, as you stated earlier. You are the one who then changed the debate to one of degree, which is beside the point anyway. If I punch a man in the face, I’m obviously much better than a man who shoots a man in the face, but this doesn’t make me blameless, your argument notwithstanding.
Hmm. I seem to recall the Mission Accomplished thing being about how great the troops were and how good a job they had done. Maybe you listened to the speech in French or something.
Seixon sophistry and obtuseness at its very best, folks. If someone starts loading a gun and pointing it at me, while telling others around him that if I don’t toe the line, I’m going to get shot, I believe I would be within the bounds of reason to feel threatened, even if the person with the gun did not ’specificlly state’ that they were going to shoot me.
So the USA has nukes pointed at Iran and NoKo now? Has the USA ever said "if you don't toe the line, you're going to get shot" in any way? No. The USA has not threatened use of force against either NoKo or Iran.
You’re all a bunch of deluded idiots that can’t see tell the diference between democracy and totalitarianism.
Ehhh. Yeah... Says the person who compares Kim Jong Il to George Bush. Who's the delusional one?
July 10th, 2006 at 2:23 pmIf I punch a man in the face, I’m obviously much better than a man who shoots a man in the face, but this doesn’t make me blameless..
I guess to Seixon this is logical.
SO if you hit them in the face and caused them to go into a coma and then die, that makes you a better man because you didn't shoot them in the face...wtf?
I would have to say that either way, gun or no gun, face or no face, if you have to resort to shooting or punching someone in the face, because they don't agree with your opinion, then you are not a man.
July 10th, 2006 at 2:29 pmNOBODY listened to the PAP ATTACK???
ANY of them?
way too bad... you're really missing some good rants!
July 10th, 2006 at 2:31 pmThe USA has not threatened use of force against either NoKo or Iran.
Comment by Seixon
1) Axis of EVIL
July 10th, 2006 at 2:33 pm2) With us or AGAINST us
3) Nukes are NOT off the table ...
Gerald,
1) Axis of EVIL
Yes, starving your population while making nuclear weapons is evil. You have another word for it?
2) With us or AGAINST us
In the fight against terrorism, yes. And? Does that constitute a threat?
3) Nukes are NOT off the table …
Does that constitute a threat? Let's say I have a gun and you are threatening me or my friend and I tell you that I do have a gun and that I will not rule out using it. Does that constitute a threat? No. I'm simply telling you that, yes, I do have a gun and, yes, there is no reason why I wouldn't use it if I saw it necessary to do so. That's not a threat, that's a warning.
July 10th, 2006 at 2:38 pmWe should all chip in and send Seixon a blow-up doll for companionship. It would be more intellectually appropriate for his nonsense...
July 10th, 2006 at 2:39 pmUnbelievable - you are so right!! When I start reading a post and it starts out with ranting I have been skipping down to see who the poster is and guess what.....correct, it is our own personal troll rom Norway!! So, I just skip it. Makes life so much better. At least Chase will debate without whining.
July 10th, 2006 at 2:39 pmPS. You kids gotta stop fighting. This is getting half-retarded.
Comment by Chase — July 10, 2006 @ 2:18 pm
Won't happen.
You didn't answer my quiz Chase... Can't tell the difference between Hitler's quotes and King George's?
July 10th, 2006 at 2:41 pmSexion you would have to be an idiot to believe the obtuse crap you just said ... and sense you dont talk in all caps like SOME people on here I assume you are not really that obtuse...
Any country that says things like that and then starts a policy of preemptive war is threating everyone that has OTHER reasons besides terrorism to disagree... which both NK and Iran do. NK because they did not want to go along with the dictator America installed in the south right after WWII and Iran because we violated their soverienty by placing a dictator puppet as their leader. Now they may ALSO have terrorism issues ... but since this is not black and white and the current Bush regime is trying to make it look like one ... coupled with preemptive war well ....
In addition it is NOT Ameircas business to go around the world hunting monsters.... that type of thing oftern turns into a witch hunt. America was quite evil with slavery right? But I dont think ANY of us agree that England and France should have made a coalition of the bribed and attacked America.... we had to work out our own problems...
July 10th, 2006 at 2:45 pm#191 - No, I can't. They must be the same guy! Holy crap, you're right!
Conflation never fails to satisfy!
July 10th, 2006 at 2:45 pmReply to Seixon:
From reading the beginning of it, it’s clear what the author set out to claim.
At least you're honest enough to admit you don't read the articles I link to to support my position. Now if you were only honest enough to read the articles I link to to support my position...
Hmm. I seem to recall the Mission Accomplished thing being about how great the troops were and how good a job they had done.
Yes, of course....that's why he landed on the aircraft carrier in a Lockheed S3 Viking (even though the carrier was within helicopter range), made a big show of strolling across the deck in a flight suit, and made his speech with a giant 'MISSION ACCOMPLISHED' banner hanging conspicously in the background (which the White House first denied, and later admitted to, hanging). Yes, of course it was 'about the troops'.
Maybe you listened to the speech in French or something.
Careful, Norway boy. Glass houses and all that jazz.
So the USA has nukes pointed at Iran and NoKo now? Has the USA ever said “if you don’t toe the line, you’re going to get shot†in any way? No. The USA has not threatened use of force against either NoKo or Iran.
See Gerald Gibson's post on this subject, as he sums it up most elequoently.
Who’s the delusional one?
Consensus is it's you, but since you're delusional, you probably won't accept that, either.
July 10th, 2006 at 2:47 pmSo, I just skip it. Makes life so much better. At least Chase will debate without whining.
Comment by jules — July 10, 2006 @ 2:39 pm
Funny how Seixon's posts all start out so defenisvely that you automatically know it's him... No point in reading anything new he writes, once you've read a few of his posts, you can predict what he's going to say (nothing intelligent).
Yeah, I'll give Chase that. He's not a 'girly man'. I think I have agreed with him once or perhaps twice. I never agree with Seixon.
Reminds me what one of my brothers said to me about his mother-in-law, who has predicted that he and her daughter will get divorced, "Even if we ever did get divorced, it wouldn't happen until after that woman is dead becasue I won't give her the satisfaction of being right." No way they'll get divorced though. They are nice and well-intended people, but seriously, no one else could put up with either one of them. :)
July 10th, 2006 at 2:50 pmunbelievable,
We should all chip in and send Seixon a blow-up doll for companionship. It would be more intellectually appropriate for his nonsense…
Look, unbelievable is running away like a chickenshit when faced with her lies! Wow! Here the lies are again!
On the Brit Hume thread, I said:
How did we ever get to this point….
The link, as anyone can see by using their mouse, is to a picture at Wikipedia. This caused unbelievable to say:
Don’t click on Seixon’s link. He’s only here to get people to go to his website so Google will support him filling our blogs with his irrational blather while he hides innorway from Osama bin Laden, and the possibility of a draft.
Now in addition to lying about the link in my comment, claiming I was trying to get people to go to my blog with a Wikipedia link (lol), then you repeated your lies that I am in Norway to hide from Osama bin Laden or a draft. You know perfectly well why I’m in Norway as you and your goons dug up information on me, and you know perfectly well, as I have proven before, that I am every bit as eligible for the draft as anyone else.
Only a pathological liar would lie about something so trivial as a hyperlink, and then throw in two additional lies as if that wasn’t lame enough.
Poor unbelievable, a sociopath and a pathological liar. Can't take responsibility for lying profusely so she has to keep attacking and evading. You're a pitiful human being. I can't even get my mind to grasp the sheer level of psychopathic behavior you demonstrate.
July 10th, 2006 at 2:52 pmConsensus is it’s you, but since you’re delusional, you probably won’t accept that, either.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — July 10, 2006 @ 2:47 pm
Too funny!!! Didn't you write something once about a person admitting to being a pathalogical liar - how do you know if he is telling the truth?
July 10th, 2006 at 2:55 pmSexion ... isnt it possible that unbelievable saw a different link of yours and thought it was the same one? And if that is the case unbelievable shouldnt you just say OOPS so that Sexion will get off his egoism defensive trip...just saying ...
July 10th, 2006 at 2:55 pm#196 Poor unbelievable, a sociopath and a pathological liar. Can’t take responsibility for lying profusely so she has to keep attacking and evading. You’re a pitiful human being. I can’t even get my mind to grasp the sheer level of psychopathic behavior you demonstrate.
Comment by Seixon — July 10, 2006 @ 2:52 pm
More insight & projection? I've noted that is one of your usual tactics, to use the same things you've deserved being called unto other people who don't...
July 10th, 2006 at 2:55 pmConflation never fails to satisfy!
Comment by Chase — July 10, 2006 @ 2:45 pm
I didn't say they were the same person. I don't believe Elvis is alive any more than I believe in reincarnation... Can you refrain from building a strawman?
If you don't see the similarities between Fascism in Nazi Germany in it's early years versus what is currently happening in the United States, you're gonna be shocked one day when you realize what has happened.
July 10th, 2006 at 2:57 pmConsensus is it’s you, but since you’re delusional, you probably won’t accept that, either.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — July 10, 2006 @ 2:47 pm
How true!
July 10th, 2006 at 3:00 pmGerald,
Sexion … isnt it possible that unbelievable saw a different link of yours and thought it was the same one? And if that is the case unbelievable shouldnt you just say OOPS so that Sexion will get off his egoism defensive trip…just saying …
No, it's not possible, because I had only provided that link before she commented. The reason why unbelievable keeps evading even addressing this is because she lied. If it was just a mistake, she would have already tried to plead her case.
unbelievable lies about me without remorse and I am having an egoism defensive trip?? She told me to show her how she lied, and I did. Now she's evading it like the pathological liar like she is.
July 10th, 2006 at 3:04 pmisnt it possible that unbelievable saw a different link of yours and thought it was the same one?
That would be giving someone the benefot of the doubt. All libruls are liars, so it must be a pure and intentional lie.
And if that is the case unbelievable shouldnt you just say OOPS so that Sexion will get off his egoism defensive trip…just saying …
Comment by Gerald Gibson — July 10, 2006 @ 2:55 pm
What and ruin all this fun? Seriously, nothing I could do will ever change the fact that he's a contentious brat hiding in Norway who gets off on insulting people without a shred of evidence. And if by chance, he ever happened to ever make a factual statement and anyone told him so, we'd never hear the end of that. Just saying.. :)
July 10th, 2006 at 3:05 pmIs it possible I just got nailed from the left and right? Is that good or bad?
July 10th, 2006 at 3:08 pmReply to unbelieveable:
Yup...the wheels have officially come off the Seixon disinformation train yet again, and he's once again sunken to insulting other posters without even bothering to engage in rational (or in his case, pseudo-rational) argument.
I propose that all threads that have been rendered useless in this way should be said to have been 'Seixoned', much like threads are 'Godwined'. As with Godwin's law, once a thread has been 'Seixoned', it is over, and the rational majority of the posters should refrain from giving the troll any more sustenance, moving instead to other, less polluted threads.
July 10th, 2006 at 3:08 pmJust for the Record I have never compared bush to kim jong II, kim jong is less crazy than bush so there can be no comparison forthcoming from that analogy.
The Dictator that I compared Bush to is that what he said himself
"Things would be alot easier if I were dictator"
and
"There should be limits to freedom"
Bush has made the dictator comparison on himself, not me =)
July 10th, 2006 at 3:09 pmunbelievable,
That would be giving someone the benefot of the doubt. All libruls are liars, so it must be a pure and intentional lie.
A lie is, by definition, intentional. Read a dictionary. Then start fessing up to lying. You knew that the link went to Wikipedia because, well, that is obvious to anyone. Not moved by that, you claimed it was to my blog, then repeated lies about my reasons for being in Norway, and lied about my possibility of evading a draft.
You're a pathological liar unbelievable. Time to fess up before everyone wakes up and realizes it.
July 10th, 2006 at 3:12 pmTripMaster,
Let's try the same thing with you: what disinformation am I coming with?
Can either you or unbelievable or the other liars here answer that simple question?
July 10th, 2006 at 3:16 pmIs it possible I just got nailed from the left and right? Is that good or bad?
Comment by Gerald Gibson — July 10, 2006 @ 3:08 pm
Mine was not nailing you - just Seixon's immature behavior.
I've never lied about him. I thought his link was a trick to his website. That wasn't a lie. Just a reaction to someone who is a deceptive conman who frequently posts his website to get people to go there so he can make money. Not honestly, but by coersion. He's a charletant. I figured I was saving people from being tricked into going to his blog.
He calls people a liar because apparently, it struck a nerve with him when he was first called one. The thing he doesn't get is he doesn't hurt me by calling me something I am not, and something he cannot prove I am.
July 10th, 2006 at 3:17 pmAs with Godwin’s law, once a thread has been ‘Seixoned’, it is over, and the rational majority of the posters should refrain from giving the troll any more sustenance, moving instead to other, less polluted threads.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — July 10, 2006 @ 3:08 pm
You're funny. I'm sure Seixon will be honored to become a verb, like google just has. Even if it means something negative. He's an attention whore, after all.
I actually don't read his posts and you see how he rambles on and on and on and on anyway.
Maybe we should also have certain days where he is deemed invisible? And no one reads or responds to him except with something like "Seixon, you're so silly. No one believes that nonsense." (so we've also covered the bases of needing to call out the deception of the right)?
By the way, he used to be here a lot less before he got kicked off Daily KOS and another liberal blog. And now, he spends that time here... Lucky us...
July 10th, 2006 at 3:25 pmComment by unbelievable — July 10, 2006 @ 3:25 pm
Now why would anyone give Norway the boot? He is so reasonable, logical and level headded *gag* wow it is really possible to make yourself ill while spewing untruths!!!
July 10th, 2006 at 3:29 pmunbelievable,
I’ve never lied about him. I thought his link was a trick to his website.
Yet you didn't even bother checking the link before making allegations? Wow. You have just admitted that you have no ethics. Good job.
That wasn’t a lie. Just a reaction to someone who is a deceptive conman who frequently posts his website to get people to go there so he can make money.
Name the last time I linked to my blog. A deceptive conman? Once again, elaborate. How am I a deceptive conman? The only way I make money is if you click on the ads. You know this, but keep pretending that I am some greedy individual. Sorry, I don't have George Soros to bankroll my blog. It doesn't pay for itself, you know.
Not honestly, but by coersion.
LOL. How can I coerce anyone to go to my blog? You are such a pathological liar.
I figured I was saving people from being tricked into going to his blog.
Ah, so you were attempting to coerce people into not using their free will to visit my blog? Oh wait, the link was a picture at Wikipedia of Albright toasting with Kim Jong Il.
Please, your excuses are ridiculous. You didn't want anyone to click on the link because the picture was just too damning for you to deal with. An honest person would have at least checked the link to see in the status bar where it went, but you just assumed (allegedly) and made up lies.
That still doesn't excuse your lies about why I'm in Norway and about evading the draft.
He calls people a liar because apparently, it struck a nerve with him when he was first called one.
Yes, especially since you haven't, still to this day, shown a single lie I have told.
The thing he doesn’t get is he doesn’t hurt me by calling me something I am not, and something he cannot prove I am.
Don’t click on Seixon’s link. He’s only here to get people to go to his website so Google will support him filling our blogs with his irrational blather while he hides innorway from Osama bin Laden, and the possibility of a draft.
Three lies right there. Of course a pathological liar will never admit to lying.
July 10th, 2006 at 3:31 pmwhat disinformation am I coming with?
If you honestly wanted an answer to that question, all you would need do is scroll back through all the posts you've made, and my replies pointing out your distortions, evasions, and outright lies. But of course, you're not actually looking for an answer, are you? You're looking to send me off on another endless fact-gathering fool's errand, after which you'll look at all my ammased evidence and say, "nope...you're reading it wrong" or "I don't accept your proof of (whatever)...go ang get more and more proof until I (who have somehow made myself arbiter of what proof is 'acceptable') deem it worthy of consideration".
There's no point in reposting what I've already pointed out since a) you didn't 'accept' it the first time, and b) the other people who peruse this site have also already seen them, and have already seen the truth about you.
So, in short, I won't do your homework for you. Try actually arguing your point, rather than falling back on your usual nonsense. You can start here, seeing as you failed to address a single point I raised.
July 10th, 2006 at 3:34 pmTripMaster,
I've asked you time and time again to point out one single lie, distortion, anything.
You never do it.
July 10th, 2006 at 3:39 pm#214 I’ve asked you time and time again to point out one single lie, distortion, anything.
You never do it.
Comment by Seixon — July 10, 2006 @ 3:39 pm
Another trick of Seixon to extend post-dead threads.
July 10th, 2006 at 3:42 pmwow it is really possible to make yourself ill while spewing untruths!!!
Comment by jules — July 10, 2006 @ 3:29 pm
Careful Jules... Would hate to see you ill on your first day back in the classroom :)
July 10th, 2006 at 3:44 pmTripMaster,
At least you’re honest enough to admit you don’t read the articles I link to to support my position. Now if you were only honest enough to read the articles I link to to support my position…
Yes, I am honest. I asked you to summarize what the point of the article is, as I do not believe it supports your comparison of the Bush administration and North Korea. Here, I will just quote from your source:
Shucks, foiled again, by your own source. Unless you think Clinton was as bad as NoKo. Gasp!
Yes, of course….that’s why he landed on the aircraft carrier in a Lockheed S3 Viking (even though the carrier was within helicopter range), made a big show of strolling across the deck in a flight suit, and made his speech with a giant ‘MISSION ACCOMPLISHED’ banner hanging conspicously in the background (which the White House first denied, and later admitted to, hanging). Yes, of course it was ‘about the troops’.
The speech, and the event, was about honoring the troops, yes. You can be angry as hell about Bush's PR stunt, but in doing so you defeat your own argument. I was talking about thousands upon thousands of North Koreans being coerced into performing. You're talking about Bush putting on a performance himself. Now is that really what you sought out to compare? Looks pretty foolish to me.
Careful, Norway boy. Glass houses and all that jazz.
I'm an American citizen born in the United States. What's with this obsession about me being in Norway? Does that have any relevance? No, it doesn't. Ad hominem is what it is.
See Gerald Gibson’s post on this subject, as he sums it up most elequoently.
Already dealt with that nonsense.
Consensus is it’s you, but since you’re delusional, you probably won’t accept that, either.
Ah yes, the "consensus" consisting of the liars and goons at Think Progress. Good one.
Now get around to showing a single lie I have told. Go on.
July 10th, 2006 at 3:50 pmEvil Spaniard,
Another trick of Seixon to extend post-dead threads.
As opposed to the trick of calling someone a liar and then never substantiating the allegation when asked to do so, only to repeat the accusation at a later time? Yeah, shut up hypocrite.
July 10th, 2006 at 3:52 pmI sit and watch you all going back and forth about "no i'm not you are" quit getting pseronal or taking things personal and stick with the issue... it just waters down everything to the point of who cares about even joining in on this blog? You all act like your honor is being question when you have no intention of ever meeting... hell... exchange IMs or something and quit wasting bandwidth on this crap. I don't care what side of the spectrum you are on. It's tacky.
July 10th, 2006 at 4:04 pmjoneser,
Then I would ask you to tell your fellow liberal commenters to refrain from making me the issue. Just let them know every time they go after me, slander me, lie about me, etc, etc. Just tell them to stop and they probably will. I'm not interested in talking about me, I'm interested in debating these issues on here.
July 10th, 2006 at 4:38 pm[...] Think Progress [...]
July 10th, 2006 at 4:56 pmseixon... LOL beleieve me they aren't fellow liberals LOL... if you have seen me blog you know i am a conservative.... and i just don't think you should engage... but then again so much for the warm fuzzy feelings of utopianism liberals are supposed to give off, especially here at "Think Progressive" debate the issue is the way to go as always... if you can get between the bush lied people died, nazi, fascist, where's bin ladin mantra out there. But there are quite a few constrcutive libs on here if given the chance... Democrat Soldier is pretty decent. at least in my encounters with him.
July 10th, 2006 at 4:59 pmDrSinker seems to be the only person on here that I'm able to have anywhere near a rational debate with. Everyone else is obsessed with my persona and attacking me. I think I need to just start posting under a different name just to remove the impetus it causes in people around here.
July 10th, 2006 at 5:03 pmit's a thought... and then they would clown you or think you are a wuss for changing it... you couldn't win for losing
July 10th, 2006 at 5:09 pmPS. You kids gotta stop fighting. This is getting half-retarded.
Comment by Chase
It's in vegetative state territory by now, Chase.
July 10th, 2006 at 5:09 pmThis is one of the few things we will agree on, my dear, so CHEERS!
you couldn’t win for losing
Comment by joneser — July 10, 2006 @ 5:09 pm
I guess you gotta make us the bad guys if you need to be the good guys. So much for you condoning a President that is the antithesis to your Christian morals?
I've never seen you debate on issues for more than one or two posts before you resort to patronization and holier-than-thou mantras. So, you're hardly one to criticize. Always like the pot to fail to notice he is black..
July 10th, 2006 at 5:28 pmAnd Seixon, don't you dare try to claim the high road here. You never debate on facts. I've seen people attempt to discuss the issues with you on numerous occasions, including myself, but when cornered, you always turn nasty and hurl attacks against the other person.
You have gotten to the point that people know you are a nasty little brat that they don't bother in rational dialog with you. It's impossible. So, until you grow up, don't you dare act all innocent and victim-like. You're the biggest part of the problem.
And I only know what you said from what was in jonser's post. I'm sure that was just the tip of the iceberg of your hypocrisy.
July 10th, 2006 at 5:36 pmSeixon:
Speaking of your blog; I think I'll go right over there,get me some learnin',and then click on a advert or three.
$$$$ CaChing.
July 10th, 2006 at 7:54 pm#228 - Seixon - hate to break it to you old bean but you told a whopper today over on the Limbaugh-Global Warming thread. Shouts to Jealous of Jeff who spotted it:
Yes, that there is no proof the Downing Street Memo exists. There isn’t. You can scream as loud as you want, but there still is no proof that the document actually exists in the form presented by the journalist Michael Smith.
Comment by Seixon — July 10, 2006 @ 12:02 pm
Well let's see: in a White House press conference on 7th June 2005, Tony Blair conceded the existence of the DSM.
Oh, but that does not confirm the content of the memo and the Michael Smith translation, says you. Au contraire, mon capitan. On June 29th, Paid Cymru MP Adam Price questioned Tony Blair about the authenticity of the DSM in the House Of Parliament, Prime Minister's questions. Here's the 'money shot' quote from Price:
So Seixon, shall you call the fire brigade or shall I - I think your pants are at least giving us a two-alarmer right now. Thanks for playing 'spot the whopper'.
TerrytheCensoredbyThinkProgressTurtle
July 10th, 2006 at 10:22 pmAttn: Seixon;
# 231. T.t.C.b.T.P.T. aka. T.t.T.; has a point here.
What say you ?
July 11th, 2006 at 2:10 am#232 Attn: Seixon;
# 231. T.t.C.b.T.P.T. aka. T.t.T.; has a point here.
What say you ?
Comment by Si Byl — July 11, 2006 @ 2:10 am
Yeah, let's see if S__x_n has anything to say. And let's see if it's something with a substance or simply spin.
July 11th, 2006 at 7:02 amES - check out post #173 over here - Seixon tried to excuse Cheney's 'reconstituted nuclear weapons' lie to Meet the Press:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/11/where-theres-a-will/
He then indicated that I was the dishonest one for stating other admin obfuscations and distortions prior to the invasion...
July 11th, 2006 at 10:25 amWow TerryTheTurtle ... I think you just left Seixon standing there with his mouth hanging open and jibber jab muttering out....
But he will be back! With conviction! As if he has never been proven an out right imbecile ...
July 11th, 2006 at 10:50 amTerryTheTurtle,
As I said, there is still no proof that the memo exists in the form presented by Michael Smith. Blair's non-denials don't really help that at all. Remember, the Bush administration never denied the contents or the authenticity of the CBS memos either, and those were forged as hell.
It's obvious that a memo of some sort must have been made for that meeting, but there's still no proof that the memo as described by Michael Smith is actually the one in existence. I'm not saying that to avoid the contents of it, I'm just saying it as a matter of fact.
#235,
Cheney didn't lie, he misspoke. He corrected himself. I love how everyone pretends that no one ever says stuff wrong. Bush is supposed to be dumb as a donkey but at the same time he is supposed to say everything correctly. It's the schizophrenic mind of the Left in action.
Good job turtle. You just took non-denials and refusals to address something as proof that something exists. Ask Dan Rather how that sort of logic works out.
July 11th, 2006 at 11:28 amSo which is it now?
'there is no proof the downing street memo exists'
'its obvious that a memo of some sort must have been...'
Did you 'misspeak'? Cheney's 'misspeak' took him 8 months to correct - after the midterms after the scaremongering had got public opinion where he needed it. I don't hold with the 'dumb as a donkey' theory - I know many liars who are very clever with the careful parsing of their lies. Dick Cheney and George Bush are two of them - you sir are a third. Pity you got nailed here and on the deficit thread eh?
July 11th, 2006 at 12:05 pm- Seixon:
As I said, there is still no proof that the memo exists
Direct quote from Blair:
Sounds to me like that was a tacit acknowledgement of the memo's existence.
Oh, but wait! There's more to what you said!
As I said, there is still no proof that the memo exists in the form presented by Michael Smith.
Yes, of course...just keep scootching those goalposts further and further back, all the time crowing about how you've been correct all along.
By the way, please don't embarass yourself further by pretending that your qualifier 'in the form presented by Michael Smith' was present in your arguments all along, because it wasn't until almost 200 posts into the original thread. (Sorry.)
there’s still no proof that the memo as described by Michael Smith is actually the one in existence. I’m not saying that to avoid the contents of it....
From where I (and everyone else) stands, that's sure what it looks like....otherwise, why bring it up at all?
Cheney didn’t lie, he misspoke. He corrected himself.
Your defense of Cheney:
So Cheney substituted one lie with another, and this is a defense?
Keep up the bad work, Seixon.
July 11th, 2006 at 12:22 pmTerry has flat out proven that Seixon lied. Good job Terry! Not that Seixon'll ever admit it, because he's a typical know-it-all who actually knows nothing because he's too lazy to learn anything.
July 11th, 2006 at 2:00 pm- unbelieveable:
[Seixon]'s a typical know-it-all who actually knows nothing because he’s too lazy to learn anything.
You're being far too charitable. Seixon is about as 'lazy' as our administration is 'incompetent'.
Actually, Seixon and our administration have quite a few things in common:
- they are competent at wht they do (which is completely different from what they say they do).
- they work tirelessly to distort the facts.
- they personally attack anyone who opposes them.
- they repeat lies endlessly until they are perceived as truth.
- (etc. etc. etc.. You get the point.)
There’s an old adage: never ascribe to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence. But in the case of this administration and its shills, the opposite is unfortunately true.
July 11th, 2006 at 2:15 pm