ThinkFast: October 25, 2006
ThinkFast: October 25, 2006
War on West shifts back to Afghanistan: Counterterrorism officials say Iraq is “drawing fewer foreign fighters as Muslim extremists aspiring to battle the West turn their attention back to the symbolically important and increasingly violent turf of Afghanistan.”
Meanwhile, the “British military wants to withdraw troops from Iraq within a year, and London wants to focus on the war in Afghanistan,” a Pentagon official told the New York Times.
The College Board reports that the cost of obtaining a four-year university degree continues to outpace inflation. Tuition and fees at four-year public universities rose 6.3 percent from 2005 to 2006. At the same time, the amount of federal financial aid available through Pell Grants declined to a new low.
Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said yesterday that he “might need to call for an increase in American troop levels in Baghdad” to stem the violence there, and that Iraqi troops would not be able to take over combat operations for 12-18 months.
36: The percentage of Americans who have reduced the amount they save for retirement due to the burden of rising healthcare costs, up from 25 percent in 2004. In 2006, healthcare premiums for employers and their workers climbed two times faster than both wages and inflation.
The Bush administration “is seeking to sharply restrict communication between defense lawyers and inmates at Guantanamo Bay prison.” The administration is seeking approval to control the numbers of lawyer visits, the topics that can be discussed, and the types of information that can be exchanged through the mail.
The last throes of “last throes.” When asked about his infamous quote about the Iraq insurgency, Vice President Cheney told NPR, “I would have expected that the political process we set in motion…would have resulted in a lower level of violence than we’re seeing today. It hasn’t happened yet. I can’t say that we’re over the hump in terms of violence, no.”
Federal authorities are investigating whether Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ) “introduced legislation that benefited a military contractor that employs his father.” In a separate probe, U.S. attorney is determining whether “Renzi helped promote the sale of land that netted a former business partner $4.5 million.”
The inspector general for Iraq reconstruction found “overhead costs have consumed more than half the budget of some reconstruction projects in Iraq,” leaving “far less money than expected to provide the oil, water and electricity needed to improve the lives of Iraqis.” A Halliburton subsidiary spent 55 percent of its budget on overhead on a critical oil project.
And finally: The President will have a grilled-cheese with your finest Kraft singles. Walter Scheib III, the former White House executive chef, has written a book about his time cooking for the first families. Scheib “confesses that the job had become boring to him because President and Mrs. Bush weren’t particularly adventurous eaters.” During his time with Bush, Scheib “made many an enchilada and grilled-cheese sandwich on white bread with Kraft singles for President Bush.”
What did we miss? Let us know in the comments section.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Just read on dailyKos what Dems would do on first day of Democratically controlled congress – break link between lobbyists and legislators. One of the most fundamental rights of a citizen is to be able to address grievances with their governments – that is what lobbyists do, whether the interest is economic, security, health, environment – whatever.
Are you saying that you don’t want environmental lobbyists to speak before congress?
October 25th, 2006 at 9:12 amThe Bush administration “is seeking to sharply restrict communication between defense lawyers and inmates at Guantanamo Bay prison.†The administration is seeking approval to control the numbers of lawyer visits, the topics that can be discussed, and the types of information that can be exchanged through the mail.
Since the Bush Administration has absolutely NO intent to give these prisoners anything resembling a fair trial, why not just save the taxpayers a bunch of money, open the gates, watch them walk out and then shoot them for “trying to escape.” It’s better than making a mockery of the entire judicial process, and the result would be the same. I know that sounds harsh, but I am sick and tired of this administration’s complete disdain for truth or justice. They are all about power, and the consolidation of more power. They are despicable.
October 25th, 2006 at 9:14 am“A Halliburton subsidiary spent 55 percent of its budget on overhead on a critical oil project. “ Where are all the conservatives who constantly spout the claim that private enterprise is always more efficient than the government? Nice to see Dick Cheney is directly profiting from this war, let alone countless Bush loyalists.
October 25th, 2006 at 9:16 amJust saw LA Times poll on mydd.com ….
As they read it, only one Senatorial candidate has a clear lead for an upset, while all the rest of the Dems will either all win or lose together. Knowing the LA Times polls as I do, none of those other Dems have the margins in polls that would indicate that they would win – whether this was an on or off year for a presidential election.
Again, I will help you:
1) Agree on a core set of consistent values, meaning that one value does mutually exclude another value
2) Translate those values into platforms / policies
3) Identify candidates who espouse / embody those values and policies
4) Develop campaigns to advance candidates, platforms, policies and values
Good luck, the mainstream media is already crowning Hill’reh as the shoe-in Dem nominee for President, now that Lamont and Webb are being crushed in their respective races.
Progs showed their cards too soon by “crashing the gate”, and now you are just crashing.
October 25th, 2006 at 9:18 amThe Prez likes Kraft singles, it figures, tastes like soap.
Can you hurt yourself on a grilled cheese sandwich?
October 25th, 2006 at 9:18 amHendler: Lobbyists have far more power in the government than do citizens. The government is a representative democracy and should represent the interests of citizens over those of corporations. Lobbyists represent the views of the minority of richest Americans who control the wealth and the corporations and do not represent those of individuals. To say differently is to show ignorance.
October 25th, 2006 at 9:18 amThe last throes of “last throes.†When asked about his infamous quote about the Iraq insurgency, Vice President Cheney told NPR, “I would have expected that the political process we set in motion…would have resulted in a lower level of violence than we’re seeing today. It hasn’t happened yet. I can’t say that we’re over the hump in terms of violence, no.â€
If we’re not “over the hump”, that means it’s going to get worse, right?
And Mr. Hendler, your comment in the first post was a real test our belief in the right of free speech. You have demonstrated that we have to protect the right of everyone to speak his mind, no matter how inane, naive, ignorant or just plain stupid those remarks are. Because I believe in your right to voice your idiotic comments, I just won’t bother responding to them.
October 25th, 2006 at 9:20 am#6, Reagan was King,
Lobbyists do represent people. Moreover, it is the wealthy Hollywood types that fund environmental groups to pay lobbyists to push their agenda, so all causes get represent – BUT, Americans vote for the type of legislators that meet with the lobbyists, so power is still in the hands of the American citizen.
October 25th, 2006 at 9:24 amany chance for a “Think Slow”post by TP for the rightards like
October 25th, 2006 at 9:24 amJayzon Handleher?
Good Morning, Wayne…..Love you’re post’s…….Blessings
October 25th, 2006 at 9:27 amAre you saying that you don’t want environmental lobbyists to speak before congress?
Comment by Jason+M.+Hendler
Are you saying we should continue the “pay to play”, the buying of access, and the buying of legislation?
October 25th, 2006 at 9:28 amReagan was a moron. I thought you guys didn’t like Hollywood-types getting involved in politics anyway? Oh right, you’re hypocrites.
October 25th, 2006 at 9:31 am#11, PLC,
As I told you, wealthy libs on the west and east coasts dump money on lobbyists for their causes, but those causes wither, not because of lack of money, but because Americans elect legislators that have a viewpoint different from libs. Lobbying reform won’t change anything – moreover, like campaign reform, it will only hurt Dems, not help them.
I wrote out the solution to the Dem’s problem in post #4 – why don’t you simply follow that?
October 25th, 2006 at 9:31 amDuring his time with Bush, Scheib “made many an enchilada and grilled-cheese sandwich on white bread with Kraft singles for President Bush.â€
Sceib added, “He always wanted me to cut them into little bombs with a smiley face on it. He said it made them taste better.”
October 25th, 2006 at 9:32 amany chance for a “Think Slowâ€post by TP for the rightards like
Jayzon Handleher?
Comment by Kelly
Ouch {falling on floor} …I…LOL…congratulate…ROFL…you…MAO…on…one…of…LOLLOL…the funniest…LOL…posts…ever!!
October 25th, 2006 at 9:32 amHendler:
Since you like to read so much, here’s the rest of the story that the one liner on KOS doesn’t cover:
http://www.housedemocrats.gov/issues/issue.cfm?level2id=93
So where exactly does it say that lobbyists won’t be able to speak before Congress?
Hint:
Its about the corruption.
Oh, and Reagan was another tool of extremists and corporate special interests, just like GWB. Were you even alive when he was President?
Hint, mythology does not equal reality.
October 25th, 2006 at 9:33 am13 JMH
Oh, that’s right! And the secret energy meetings Cheney held with the oil companies and the oil backgrounds of Bush and Cheney and the oil companies’ lobbying money had nothing to do with environment policies. And Bush only said “stay the course” eight times. I stand correct, Ed.
October 25th, 2006 at 9:36 am#16, monger,
Just trying to save you from yourself – campaign finance reform hurt Dems, now lobbying reform will hurt Dems – suit yourself. Environmentalists will have a hard time convincing legislators of issues, if they can’t fly them to natural sites that are in danger, but I am sure a couple polaroids will have the same affect – good luck with that.
October 25th, 2006 at 9:38 amWere you even alive when he was President?
Comment by monger
He was probably about 10 years old which is cognitively, socially, and emotionally only about two years younger than he is now.
October 25th, 2006 at 9:38 amCompare Bush on the Military Commissions Act of 2006:
with today’s news:
The quote is from the link. I suggest you read the link. The restrictions are…well, here’s one more example:
I wonder, how would we feel if our daughter, or our son, were held in, say, Iran and determined to be an alien unlawful enemy combatant under these same rules, and tried before a Military Commission and sentenced to death? Would we feel our daughter, or our son, received, in Bush’s words, ” a fair trial, in which the accused are presumed innocent, have access to an attorney, and can hear all the evidence against them.” ?
October 25th, 2006 at 9:39 am#17, PLC,
You need to take a break every now and again from the prog echo chamber, because stringing together those empty slogans just make you seem kooky. Read #18 for my response.
October 25th, 2006 at 9:39 am#13 “I wrote out the solution to the Dem’s problem’s in post #4- why don’t you simply follow that.?…..LOL…..LOL…..Did some one die and make you god or dictator.?…..We are suposto follow a fool that want’s to “distroy” all democrat’s….What a dumbass you are, just go away…..Win or loose we will never follow the like’s of you…
October 25th, 2006 at 9:40 amJason once again you’re so full of sh1t am sure most of the environmental groups are non profit. One of the biggest lobby groups is Walmart, how do they represent the American, oh ya lower wages, poor health care, moving jobs over seas. Gothca Jason.. you’re nothing but a GOP whore.
As for campaign reform, I think tyou’re wrong again. When corporations are no longer able to donate millions to candidates, it does bring the power back to the people.
And once congressional oversight is brought back, well the rest of the crooks both GOP and Dem will be flushed down the toilet.
October 25th, 2006 at 9:41 amReagan was King
And here I thought we lived in a democratic republic.
because stringing together those empty slogans just make you seem kooky. Comment by Jason+M.+Hendler
Thank you for the compliment.
October 25th, 2006 at 9:44 am#23, MakesYaThink,
Wow – lemme speak slowly just for you ….
Non-profit does not mean there is no budget towards lobbying. It just means that ALL the money taken in will be spent on budget items – salaries, campaign contributions, lobbyists, marketing, etc. – and NONE of the money will be dispensed in the form of dividends, etc.
October 25th, 2006 at 9:45 amAlso Jason as for putting “core” values, see that’s what makes Dem’s better, we don’t believe ANYONE should be stuck with a black and white core set of values. America is a metling pot, remember? So yes we do try to hold a better more open value set. We don’t go around pushing our family values on people, or this SO LAUGHABLE bringing “integrity back to washington” HAHA.. You’re nothing but a hypocrite..
See but you on the “right” believe your way is the only way. Black and White (mostly white, GOP, pedophile, crooks).
Go suck a nut.
October 25th, 2006 at 9:46 am#22, Sharon,
That is the joy for me of showing the way out of your predicament – since it is my idea, you will do the opposite. When you finally follow it, you will resent it, as a child who resents their parents admonitions to do their homework ….
October 25th, 2006 at 9:47 amPLC,
Herr Hendler purports to be a Christian, who prays to Reagan, and who suspends his Christianity as needed.
He has also issued many prophecies about the results of the upcoming election.
I propose, that should his prophecies prove false, that he be treated according to the Biblical mandates of how to treat false prophets (Old Testament, preferably). What do you think?
October 25th, 2006 at 9:49 am#26, MakeAStink,
Did I make you angry – wasn’t trying to ….
You mutually defeating goals – such as support for gay marriage, which is unpopular in the black community, and support for welfare queens in black communities, which is unpopular in wealthy gay communities – causes you to lose elections. I am telling you to try to be FOR a consistent set of values / goals, and not just AGAINST everything Republicans support.
October 25th, 2006 at 9:51 amYes the Hollywood elite. Love that. Let’s see Reagan – republican, Schwarzenager – republican, Clint Eastwood – Republican, Sonny Bono – Republican…..
I can’t think of any high profile hollywood elites in office can you Jason?
October 25th, 2006 at 9:52 amLets see, so what the Democrats are talking about in that link is basically cuts what bribes can be given to congressmen, and makes the downright extortion tactics of K-Street illegal. I call this common sense.
Jason calls this infringing on the basic rights of Americans. You know, because you all have private jets you can lend to your senator or congressman.
October 25th, 2006 at 9:52 am#28, Bris,
We already know the election outcome – prog candidates Lamont and Webb are crushed, and prog pariahs Hill’reh and Lieberman are winning handily, and being named frontrunners for 2008 Dem Presidential primaries …
October 25th, 2006 at 9:53 amAnother representative in a sticky land deal. Should these guys be taking real estate licensing exams? They just can’t keep themselves out of trouble, can they?
October 25th, 2006 at 9:54 amGo suck a nut. Comment by MakesYaThink
Come on, don’t encourage JMH to engage in more of his “ego fellatio”!
October 25th, 2006 at 9:55 amOh, and read #29
To Jason, it doesn’t matter if you believe something to be the right thing to do, only that you win elections.
October 25th, 2006 at 9:55 amNo jason, you are no more than a paid whore for the reich…..
October 25th, 2006 at 9:55 am#30, dlet,
Hollywood conservatives are rare, but well received by voters – what does that tell you?
#31, Bruce,
Again, don’t let me stop you changing the lobbying rules. I just don’t see congressmen spending their own money to view some endangered field mouse in Nevada, that’s all.
October 25th, 2006 at 9:56 am#35, Bruce,
All of your “right” things widdle the supporting electorate down below 50%, and you lose elections. Don’t let me stop you – you are sooooooo correct.
October 25th, 2006 at 9:58 amSharon,
Herr Hendler is guilty of groupthink. It is that process by which the 30% can follow a dictatorial leader even to their own destruction, because they blindly suspend their right to independent thought.
And because he commits group think, and his world appears to him to be better for it, he assumes it is the only way for the rest of the world to think.
I don’t believe Hendler capable of independent thought and accepting that people can have differences of opinion and still work together for the common good. That level of intellectual maturity seems to be beyond his grasp.
October 25th, 2006 at 9:58 amJason,
That’s because in America for years we’ve taught hatred, and non acceptance of others. Reminding blacks that once they were the outcasts of society, and a majority of them will vote for what’s right.
What causes us to lose elections is lying, fear, and election fraud..
So go suck another nut will ya?
October 25th, 2006 at 9:58 ampropose, that should his prophecies prove false, that he be treated according to the Biblical mandates of how to treat false prophets (Old Testament, preferably). What do you think? Comment by Briseadh na Faire
Nah, I’m a “New Testament Christian”. I think we should just have fun challenging his attempts to make himself sound superior – and we don’t have to wait until after the elections for that!
October 25th, 2006 at 9:58 amJason, I also don’t see congressmen paying for their own charter jet to go on some Exxon or General Dynamics sponsored hunting boondoggle, either.
October 25th, 2006 at 9:59 am#36, Sharon,
In your case, I suspect you are projecting …
October 25th, 2006 at 9:59 amHollywood conservatives are rare, but well received by voters – what does that tell you?
They live in rich areas and the voters want to keep their elite status.
October 25th, 2006 at 10:01 amPLC – true to your values again. I tip my hat to you.
Have you read the 105 Universal Laws? I think you’d appreciate them.
October 25th, 2006 at 10:03 am#39, Bris,
Hmmmm, my position is centrist libertarian, which is far from 30% of the population, so I don’t think that I qualify for “group think” status.
The concept that Germans were somehow duped or mesmerized by Hitler by way of group think is erroneous. Darwinism led to eugenics and eugenics led to genocide – it is that simple.
October 25th, 2006 at 10:04 amKraft Singles? the savage!
October 25th, 2006 at 10:06 amjust don’t see congressmen spending their own money to view some endangered field mouse in Nevada, that’s all. Comment by Jason+M.+Hendler
Perhaps your neocon idols need to “see it to believe it”, keep their eyes closed so they can’t see, and aren’t concerned enough about real issues to read about them from experts. And perhaps you are an endangered lemming, following the neocon agenda.
October 25th, 2006 at 10:06 amBriseadh+na+Faire
While normally I would agree with your “Group Think” statement, my belief is far more straightforward where Jason is concerned.
The guy is just stupid.
October 25th, 2006 at 10:06 amWhen did this become the JMH thread?
All we’re doing is argueing with him, when really he’s only worthy of being ignored.
We now return to our regularly scheduled program…
:)
October 25th, 2006 at 10:06 am#50, true,
You have missed me – I can tell.
October 25th, 2006 at 10:08 amPLC – true to your values again. I tip my hat to you.
Have you read the 105 Universal Laws? I think you’d appreciate them.
Comment by Briseadh+na+Faire
Thanks, all though I do have a nasty streak in me also! Do you have a link for the 105 Universal Laws?
October 25th, 2006 at 10:09 amJason,
Darwinism led to genocide..LOL No a sick bastard named Hitler who’s philosophy much like yours, led to genocide.. For someone who at least writes intelligently, you sure are an idiot.
October 25th, 2006 at 10:11 amtrueblue
While I would tend to agree that JMH is worthy of being ignored, notice that he’s the only troll here and just posting to the choir would be boring. I think our regularly scheduled program can be a comedy show occasionally.
October 25th, 2006 at 10:11 amI wonder, how would we feel if our daughter, or our son, were held in, say, Iran and determined to be an alien unlawful enemy combatant under these same rules, and tried before a Military Commission and sentenced to death? Would we feel our daughter, or our son, received, in Bush’s words, †a fair trial, in which the accused are presumed innocent, have access to an attorney, and can hear all the evidence against them.†?
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — October 25, 2006 @ 9:39 am
Well, Bush thinks it would be fine and dandy. Several weeks ago David Gregory asked Bush about the very thing you posted. Bush said the world would be a better place if other countries adopted the policies of the MCA.
I tried asking the same thing to Exley, who several days ago was once again just drooling over the MCA, and he too said he would be pleased if other countries followed our lead. Yet like his hero Bush, he also refused to directly address the specific situation you propose.
October 25th, 2006 at 10:13 am……………………………
sorry. just had to projectile vomit…………………..
Yeah, Briseadh na Faire, I’d be interested in that link as well.
October 25th, 2006 at 10:14 amJason, eugenics, while it tries to tie itself to evolution is NOT Darwin’s theory of evolution. In fact it goes against evolution because it suggests that certain traits be favored not by nature but by those with the ability to further those traits.
October 25th, 2006 at 10:14 am[...] ThinkFast: October 25, 2006 Think Progress, DC – 59 minutes ago The last throes of last throes. When asked about his infamous quote about the Iraq insurgency, Vice President Cheney told NPR, I would have expected [...]
October 25th, 2006 at 10:15 am36: The percentage of Americans who have reduced the amount they save for retirement due to the burden of rising healthcare costs, up from 25 percent in 2004. In 2006, healthcare premiums for employers and their workers climbed two times faster than both wages and inflation.
Although I have been able to continue to save (not as much at ten years ago %age wise) I could not believe the increase in the healtcare premiums this year. The coverage I had to drop increased from 2004 to 2006 by 65%. My wife and I had to change doctors but thank the stars we were able to keep the pediatrician we liked.
October 25th, 2006 at 10:15 amBnF, as alway’s you are correct…..
Head’s up all, jasons dictator in charge, bull shit bush is going to give more speaking tip’s for his followers at 10:30 on CNN…..They sure are running scared, repeat of 2004 with more intensety…I don’t know if we will win or loose in 13 day’s but for the sake of our country and the world I do hope there are good shift’s away from all this evil bunch and their follower’s….Out of here….Blessings and Peace…
October 25th, 2006 at 10:16 amHmmmm, my position is centrist libertarian, which is far from 30% of the population, so I don’t think that I qualify for “group think†status.
The concept that Germans were somehow duped or mesmerized by Hitler by way of group think is erroneous. Darwinism led to eugenics and eugenics led to genocide – it is that simple.
Comment by Jason+M.+Hendler — October 25, 2006 @ 10:04 am
It is said that Hitler’s men also took pregnant women and tied their legs together when they went into labor. Can we blame that on Darwin too?
October 25th, 2006 at 10:16 am#53, MakeaStink,
History is their for the viewing, if you only open your eyes. Once people accepted Darwinism over creationism, they began to view people in the same terms as animals, instead of recognizing the spark of divinity within all mankind. Eugenics, which means, good birth, was used to control birthrates among and of less desireable types, and increase or protect birthrates among the diserables. From there, it was a short step towards forced sterilazation, abortion, and then, finally, genocide.
October 25th, 2006 at 10:16 amPLC,
He’s simply not on par with the rest of us.
(Plus I can’t stand him!)
I don’t want to ruin your fun.
October 25th, 2006 at 10:16 amFire away!
;)
Darwinism led to eugenics and eugenics led to genocide – it is that simple.
Comment by Jason+M.+Hendler
Darwinism was a concept hijacked and distorted by those who promoted eugenics and eugenics was accepted by those who engaged in genocide – it is that simple and so are you.
October 25th, 2006 at 10:18 amJason M. Hendler, since you seem to be today’s guest conservative blogger I’ll ask you.
Are we to believe VP Cheney now when he says we aren’t over the hump yet in violence related to the insurgents? Or do we still hold him accountable for the “last throes” statement.
And a related question, Is there some sort of bulletin release from neocons that tell them to stop pushing one set of convient slogans and start pushing another when those pesky facts and truths come out that directly refute the earlier “truthiness” statements?
October 25th, 2006 at 10:19 amox and wc,
You are correct that Darwin never pushed “unnatural selection”. Those who espoused eugenics, and later genocide, misused and abused Darwin’s theories to justify their policies – no argument from me.
October 25th, 2006 at 10:19 am#63, true,
You can fight it if you want to, but I know you can’t resist a strong man like myself.
October 25th, 2006 at 10:20 am#65, hellinabucket,
As I stated here a few days back, I was never more disheartened about Iraq, then when prime minister Maliki released one of al sadar’s henchmen, instead of holding him for trial. That to me, was an indication that Maliki was ceding the power that 12 million Iraqi citizens had given to him through a free and fair election, over to a mere warlord. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.
October 25th, 2006 at 10:23 aminstead of recognizing the spark of divinity within all mankind
In what part of the body is this spark located? The god gland? Is that the gland that secretes hormones that makes us want to kill eachother in the name of the creator?
October 25th, 2006 at 10:23 amJason, who is WC?
October 25th, 2006 at 10:23 am“Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said yesterday that he “might need to call for an increase in American troop levels in Baghdad†to stem the violence there,”
And Gen. Casey’s going to find these mythical troops. . . where?
“and that Iraqi troops would not be able to take over combat operations for 12-18 months.”
This is not breaking news, this is the same prediction the military commanders have made since we went over there. It’s always “12-18 months before the Iraqi’s can take over”. I’m sure that in 2010, they’ll say the same thing.
By the way, Mr. Hendler, will you require a “mental health day” off work come November 8th when the Republicans lose majority in the House?
Speaker Pelosi, to the rescue!
October 25th, 2006 at 10:24 amHendler:
You response # 18
1) Did not answer my question about your false assertion (i.e. lobbyists would not be able to speak to Congress).
2) Made a general assumption that I am a Democrat (I am not).
3) Demonstrated that you are only interested in partisanship and not ethical government regardless of who is in power.
Hint: Dems and others can be corrupt too particular when there are no rules applied .
Perhaps this is your centrist libertarian bent (what the heck does that mean??) that those who govern should not be held to any standard of conduct.
I am willing to take the chance on your environmenal lobby scenario.
Do you think the decendants of your “king” relish the changes proposed by the Dems?
Now tell me the truth, you’re not here to save me or anyone else from themselves. You are here because you get attention.
October 25th, 2006 at 10:25 amI’m outta here………………………..
I just can’t handle another post……………
If you need me I’ll be disinfecting my screen and keyboard.
October 25th, 2006 at 10:26 amFunny thing that, how often most religious people out, all seem to be the ones who went around doing the worst things possible to their fellow human beings. Be it burning women at the stake for being too pretty, too intellegent or too ugly and stupid, or thanking God for Polio wiping out the Native American population, it always seems to have been the religious ones.
Genocide was not invented after Darwin, read your Bible sometime and tell me about the Amelkites, Saul killed all of them for a mild comment made by their then king’s grandfather. Darwin didn’t bring about Hitler, Hitler brought about Hitler. Besides, Hitler was a Christian.
October 25th, 2006 at 10:27 am#69, dlet,
“Recognizing the spark of divinity in all mankind” is a metaphor for us to value all human life, and not just those we prefer. There is no God gland, just a philosophy / religious belief. Unfortunately, Darwinism gave people a “rational” justification for eugenics and genocide, which is hard to debate using philosophical / religious arguments.
#70, ox,
WC is poster in #61 that also concurred with your statement about Darwin and Eugenics.
October 25th, 2006 at 10:29 amGeneral Casey calls for “an increase in American troop levels in Baghdad” while warning that “Iraqi troops will not be able to take over combat operations for 12 to 18 months.” The response from Ike Skelton [D-Mo.] is that this timeline is not unacceptable. Most Americans are against the war, most Iraqis want the U.S. to leave their country quickly and even American enlisted personnel in Iraq are calling for a timetable to leave Iraq and the best that this Democrat can do is to mildly criticize Casey’s proposal. If the United States military remains in Iraq for another 18 months, most likely another 1000 Americans will end up very dead in Iraq and thousands more grievously wounded and maimed and crippled, with many receiving traumatic brain injuries and receiving third degree burns over their bodies. Iraq is Vietnam on steroids with both Iraqis and Americans being slaughtered for no legitimate reason and yet the Democrats, the alleged opposition party, still refuse to demand that the U.S. withdraw those troops as quickly as possible. One wonders how many more Americans and Iraqis have to have their lives snuffed out before the Democrats find the courage and good sense to demand that those troops be returned to this country in one piece post haste.
October 25th, 2006 at 10:29 amYou can lead a neocon to facts, but you can’t make him think.
October 25th, 2006 at 10:30 amIn your case, I suspect you are projecting …
Comment by Jason+M.+Hendler
Oh look, Jason learned a new word on TP — since it’s been used in reference to him so many times…
October 25th, 2006 at 10:30 amToday’s LA Times/Bloomberg polling figures show Webb behind Allen by 3%, well below the margin of error. Crushed? More like gaining ground.
All kinds of efforts are underway to depress Democratic turnout. The reality is that it will be much harder slogging to get Republican voters to the polls this year. Not because of Democratic strategy but because of the unbridled hubris and corruption of so many Republican congress critters. That said, the GOP has a formidable knack wrt GOTV ops. But there are lots of us on the left who are pissed beyond imagining and I think the momentum of the election will give control back to Democrats.
October 25th, 2006 at 10:31 amI propose, that should his prophecies prove false, that he be treated according to the Biblical mandates of how to treat false prophets (Old Testament, preferably). What do you think?
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — October 25, 2006 @ 9:49 am
I think that’s a great proposal BnF. Since I’m a Pastafarian, could we incorporate tossing him in a light vinaigrette?
October 25th, 2006 at 10:32 am30
Yes the Hollywood elite. Love that. Let’s see Reagan – republican, Schwarzenager – republican, Clint Eastwood – Republican, Sonny Bono – Republican…..
I can’t think of any high profile hollywood elites in office can you Jason?
Comment by dlet — October 25, 2006 @ 9:52 am
Clint Eastwood is a Libertarian not a Republican.
October 25th, 2006 at 10:32 amJason and Exley need to be taught how to treat women.
October 25th, 2006 at 10:32 am“Recognizing the spark of divinity in all mankind†is a metaphor for us to value all human life, and not just those we prefer.
You mean human life like detainees in military facilities, innocent Iraqis, gays who want to commit themselves to each other in marriage, people of different faiths, and anyone else that the politicians you support have NOT preferred?
October 25th, 2006 at 10:34 am68. Mr. Hendler, so you believe that to be the pvital point and up until then VP Cheney was dead on with the “Last throes” even though that was an entire year earlier? And what was that free and fair election on? The Iraqi Constitution hasn’t been completely agreed upon yet.
So what I’m sensing here is that we are to believe this administration up to the point that they are proven false and then meekly follow their “New and Improved” version while ignoring past mistakes. Past mistakes are only to push into Democrats faces, not Republicans.
Is that what it is?
October 25th, 2006 at 10:35 am“and that Iraqi troops would not be able to take over combat operations for 12-18 months.â€
This is not breaking news, this is the same prediction the military commanders have made since we went over there. It’s always “12-18 months before the Iraqi’s can take overâ€. I’m sure that in 2010, they’ll say the same thing.
Comment by Democrat Soldier — October 25, 2006 @ 10:24 am
Considering that we have now asked the Iraqis for a timetable, yet no repurcussions if they don’t meet it, I’d say you are right on the money.
As for where Casey will find the troops, is there a limit on how many times they can use the stop-loss directive?
October 25th, 2006 at 10:36 amJason and Exley need to be taught how to treat women.
Comment by Zooey
Jason and Exley need to be taught how to treat PEOPLE. But, I would agree that their comments to and about women are often highly disgusting and demeaning.
October 25th, 2006 at 10:37 amTundra
He started out as a Republican but broke away from them in 1992 to become a Libertarian. dlet’s point still stands though – Eastwood’s political career as a Republican hardly suffered because of his ties to Hollywood.
October 25th, 2006 at 10:44 amJason,
There is no God gland, just a philosophy / religious belief. Unfortunately, Darwinism gave people a “rational†justification for eugenics and genocide, which is hard to debate using philosophical / religious arguments.
Same thing could be said about religion, capitalism, communism, etc. creating a rational justification for genocide, war, death, etc. Linking Darwin to the direct action of genocide is as weak as linking the rest.
Clint Eastwood is a Libertarian not a Republican.
Comment by Tundra
Clint Eastwood was the Republican Mayor of Carmel. He says he has libertarian beliefs.
October 25th, 2006 at 10:44 amOK. Sorry, didn’t see post 61. Thought maybe you were making a potty joke on PLC’s handle.
October 25th, 2006 at 10:44 am#83, PLC,
I do believe that individuals forfeit their civil rights through bad behaviour – like shooting at US troops. In war, combatants are not entitled to the same rights as in peace, which the congress just addressed.
October 25th, 2006 at 10:45 amGo back to the so-called ranch and eat your grilled cheese. Please.
October 25th, 2006 at 10:46 amtheir comments to and about women are often highly disgusting and demeaning.
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC)
Usually the ones making highly disgusting and demeaning comments are the ones at home, alone, every night
October 25th, 2006 at 10:48 amTHE FAKE BLOGS AND FORUM PHENOMENA
The rise of the cyber-gangbangers
There is a new phenomena taking shape within the internet blogging community: fake blogs, fake chat rooms and, worse, fake bloggers. Like with all technological innovations, the birth of blogs was followed by experiments on ways to exploit the new technology and bend it in a manner that favors the personal interests of lobbies, politicans, companies or multinational corporations. Blogs were sure to be a victim considering the huge success they have had in recent years. They are not only becoming a vehicle for those who wish to state their opinion on any number of issues, or a way to openly debate issues with others, but also an effective resource for individuals or groups who now have a new playground in which to push their interests on the general public.
Over the last couple of years, blogs have been used as a marketing tool for video games, as publicity stunts to launch new products, as a means of spreading fake news in order to favor a political agenda or an electoral race or, more simply, for lying about ones sex in order to attract more attention to an otherwise ignored weblog. There are also more sophisticated methods of using fake bloggers to post political threads in forums or chat rooms, in gang-countergang fashion.
In some cases, it is the website itself that is created to pose as liberal or progressive, but its true scope is actually to create a fake opposition in order to soften or control the revelations of the real opposition. An example of this was seen recently as so-called liberal media sources such as the New York Times and the Salon.com online magazine launched a discrediting campaign to cover-up the truth behind the Abu Ghraib torture scandal. Here’s how it works: The New York Times runs an interview with “tortured†prisoner, Ali Shalal Qaissi, leader of an association representing tortured prisoners in Abu Ghraib, but puts in the caption the photo of another inmate (nicknamed “Gilligan†by the officers) being tortured in the same manner as Qaissi (hooded, standing on a box with electrodes attached to his fingers). Salon.com immediately intervenes denouncing the New York Times: “The New York Times tried to tell the story of the man behind the infamous Abu Ghraib photo. But the paper may have had the wrong prisonerâ€. Incredibly, despite the existence of photos of Qaissi standing on the same box and recognizable thanks to his deformed hand, the New York Times ended up apologizing for its mistake, without mentioning that Qaissi was, in any case, tortured in Abu Ghraib. Result? The NYT error soons replaces the torture scandal in the headlines. Qaissi is discredited, torture is forgotten. Game over (1).
Could these “gang-countergang†tactics be part of a series of new psychological military operations, known as “psyopsâ€? In a recent report called the Information Operations Roadmap, commissioned and approved by the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, “psyops†are mentioned as being aimed at any type of media – from newspapers, to books, posters, internet, music, Blackberry’s and PDA’s (personal digital assistants). “Psyops†will involve lies, false stories and the spreading of “information†to deceive the enemy. The Pentagon has already spent USD 383 million in order to implement the recommendations of the “Roadmapâ€. The Pentagon claims it will declare war on the internet in order to dominate the realm of communication. (2)
Some smaller scale operations have already been implemented. Last month, a GOP House aid to Republican candidate Charles Bass (R-NH) was forced to resign after he posed as a supporter of the Democratic Party opponent, Paul Hodes while posting messages on a political blog. The Aid, Tad Furtado, was interacting with bloggers pretending to be an opponent of Rep. Bass while claiming that the race was actually not at all competitive since Bass had such a wide lead. Furtado tried to convince liberal bloggers to give up on the race in New Hampshire and dedicate their efforts to other races in nearby areas that were close enough to be influenced. Once discovered, Furtado was unmasked by the people running the blogs in question. Another Republican candidate, Tom Kean Jr was accused of the same offense in New Jersey earlier this month.
There have also been episodes in which entire blog threads (or large portions thereof) with violently opposing views, were written and controlled by one single person or small groups, waiting for “real†liberals to enter the discussion. They will begin by posting a political position on a certain issue, then respond under a different name, contesting the first posters’ views, then respond again to the responder, hoping to lure in people with views opposite theirs. They often line their posts with insults and personal attacks to throw off any suspicious participants. Once they have lured the unaware blogger into their lair, the other names begin to gang up on the victim, depicting his views as extremist. Theywill not hesitate to use intimidation to take apart the “extremist†views of the unfortunate navigator. Little does the victim know that he may be under attack from a single person, or group, using different names, often with only one IP address. It’s cyber-bullying, if not downright gangbanging.
The goal of these fake bloggers’ activities is not necessarily to change the opinions of their opponents, rather, it allows them to catalogue the blogger as someone from the opposite camp. From that moment onward, the blogger is branded, and through the tracing of their IP address, can be stalked and followed.
Even the U.S. Government has used blogs to promote its policies and interests. On 19th February, the New York Times reported that the public relations giant, Ketchum, “has received $97 million in government public relations contracts since 2001†(3). As stated on Ketchum’s owns weblog, blogs are definitely included in PR strategic planning for Ketchum clients (4). Then there are those who bypass the PR firms and do it themselves, such as the case of Tad Furtado. Of course no one can know for certain whether such tactics are actually planned professionally or whether they are just the work of isolated pundits. In any case, it would be naïve to think that individuals and marketing companies have discovered something that Government officials are not yet aware of.
The internet is also being abused for commercial and publicity-related hoaxes. Blogs are being used by companies as marketing tools: some blogs will use extremely sophisticated publicity stunts to promote a new product. One example comes from Bungie Studios, which, just before releasing its Halo2 game, used the premise of an old lady, who had her website hijacked by malicious hackers. The lady’s supposed neice, Dana, travels to China to try and solve the case of her grandmothers mysterious cyber-attack. Dana starts a blog (Dana’s Blog) and a website (“I Love Beesâ€) to get others to help her figure out the mystery. Both the blog and website are riddled with clues and names that can be traced back to the original Halo game. Meanwhile, the same legend is also being spread in IRC (Internet Relay Chat) and on other blogs run by gamers. All of this activity increases the search engine ranks of the original blog (Dana’s Blog) and website which, in turn, increases traffic to those sites (5). This, of course, is expected to increase sales of the Halo2 game. One of the first exmaples of the use of fake blogs was Dr. Pepper’s “Raging Cow†campaign back in 2003 which proved successful since, despite pissing off a lot of people, it apparently did not effect sales. These methods are proving to be frighteningly effective as pre-sell marketing tactics.
The Cool Ringtones blog is another example of a marketing hoax, although less serious. The people behind Cool Ringtones created a fictional 15-year old girl who supposedly writes the articles regarding ringtones posted on the blog. The age of the writer is supposed to make the visitors of the blog feel more at ease, since, due to the young age of the average visitor of such sites, they can be easily tricked into thinking they are exchanging views with a person of their same age group.
Other scams have used the “Viral Instigator†program, which creates automatically generated blogs that borrow content from forums and discussions to add legitimacy to sites that limit themselves to collecting referral revenue for recommending products, such as anti-spyware tools (6). Most of the links on their pages will take you to a labyrinth of other pages on the same site. The few times in which one is re-directed to another site, it will almost certainly be a site belonging to one the other products it is pushing. Once again, this is done to increase the fake blogs’ google search page rank (7). Furthermore, software such as Viral Instigator allows blogs to seem like they are being updated regularly even though the creator may not have visited the site in weeks.
In conclusion, I wish to clarify that this is not an initiative against blogs or forums or the internet. On the contrary, I feel that they are an crucially important novelty in communication. Yet, with roughly 75,000 new blogs created each day (8), I wonder about the growth of such automated services that allow the net to appear alive and active, while, in reality, it is much more conformist and controlled than anyone thought. I am also worried about the use of blogs by people that are actually trying to discredit the usefulness of this resource. Events like the ones described above are undermining the credibility of blogs and bloggers. Pretty soon, people will not trust these sites anymore, wondering who is behind them and what interests are being pursued. To a certain extent, this is already taking place, as demonstrated above. It is the responsibility of truthful bloggers to unmask these cyber-hoodlums and keep high the name of alternative media sources, especially when considering the quality of today’s trashy and intimidated mainstream media. Those threatened by blogs and the truth that they often uncover dream of eliminating weblogs and forums, but not completely. They would just like to control them and their contents. The future of the web, however, risks looking like a spoof of the movie “Home Aloneâ€, where, from the streets, the crooks saw a party inside the house, lights on, music pumping and shadows of people dancing in front of the windows. Basically, a plethora of activity. But inside, there was only one very little man pulling a bunch of strings.
Notes
October 25th, 2006 at 10:49 am1. http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/diplomatic/foreign.htm
2. http://www.sundayherald.com/54975.
3. http://contentious.com/archives/2005/03/15/fake-news-courtesy-of-the-us-government-again
4. http://contentious.com/archives/2005/03/15/fake-news-courtesy-of-the-us-government-again
5. http://tsmi.blogs.com/tsmiblog/2004/07/fake_blogs_as_a.html
6. http://domainsmagazine.com/Domains_20/Domains_3413.sthml
7. http://domainsmagazine.com/Domains_20/Domains_3413.sthml
8. http://domainsmagazine.com/Domains_20/Domains_3413.sthml
do believe that individuals forfeit their civil rights through bad behaviour – like shooting at US troops. In war, combatants are not entitled to the same rights as in peace, which the congress just addressed.
Comment by Jason+M.+Hendler
If in war, combantants forfeit their rights then US troops have forfeited their rights by occupying a foreign country as combantants. So Jason is not in favor of our troops having civil rights. Why do you hate our troops Jason?
October 25th, 2006 at 10:50 amI do believe that individuals forfeit their civil rights through bad behaviour – Comment by Jason+M.+Hendler
If you believe that, then you should surrender your right to free speech on this site, because you sexually harassed trueblue on this thread (which you have done before and been confronted about). This is both “bad” and illegal behavior. So, let me be the first to say: Goodbye.
October 25th, 2006 at 10:51 amJason:
In the United States, at least, most people do not believe evolution. If social ills follow from belief about origins, creationists deserve more of the responsibility.
Now Jason are you accepting your responsibility for the crime?
October 25th, 2006 at 10:52 amheard on sam:
Campaign to Get Condi to Come Clean
Four Questions Secretary of State Rice must answer about the July 10th Meeting
Over the last two weeks conclusive evidence has emerged that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice received warnings about imminent Al Qaeda attacks well before September 11th 2001.
October 25th, 2006 at 10:54 am…
http://ndn.org/advocacy/condicampaign.html
#94, dlet,
The rights of soldiers under the Geneva convention are far worse than the rights of US citizens who commit a felony – that’s just a fact.
#95, PLC,
I haven’t sexually harassed anyone on this site or anywhere. True, Zoo and others make sexists remarks towards me, and I respond in kind. Are you calling True, Zoo and others sexual predators?
October 25th, 2006 at 10:55 amDid you just say you advocate destroying people for their beliefs?
October 25th, 2006 at 10:59 amThe rights of soldiers under the Geneva convention are far worse than the rights of US citizens who commit a felony – that’s just a fact.
Comment by Jason+M.+Hendler
Spouting facts out of your opinion hole again? Please explain how it is worse. The Geneva Convention is pretty narrow in scope and focuses on specific issues. The rights of a US citizen are vastly more broad. But you know this I’m sure. As do most teenagers….I hope.
October 25th, 2006 at 11:00 amJMH
trueblue made NO comment to you on this thread, in fact encouraging the rest of us to ignore you completely. Then, you made the comment to trueblue in 67 You can fight it if you want to, but I know you can’t resist a strong man like myself. That, in my view is indeed sexual harassment. “Sexist” and “sexual harassment” are NOT the same, either. Come back when you learn the difference.
October 25th, 2006 at 11:01 amWhat the… it was there just a moment ago… did you think better of it?
October 25th, 2006 at 11:01 amI saw it too Tritone! I was working on a repsonse when it disappeared! What the deuce?
October 25th, 2006 at 11:04 amMr. Hendler, sorry to point this out to you but there is no offical war right now. None, no declaration of war whatsoever. It is one of the loop holes that “enemy combatants” have fallen.
I’m still waiting for you to answer earlier questions. Also, just drop all the sexual predator crap. It serves no real purpose on this thread.
October 25th, 2006 at 11:05 amSeriously, did anyone else see the comment by JHM talking about communism, socalism and unionism and how dangerous it was and how he was doing his part to destroy people who believe in them?
October 25th, 2006 at 11:05 am#101, PLC,
Women who make sexist remarks towards men cannot complain when they receive the same in kind. True may not have made such a statement today, but she, Zoo, Sharon and other women have made such statements before, and I will reply in kind.
I will ask you again, will you label Trueblue, Zooey, Sharon Cox and other women on this site who have made sexist remarks towards me as sexual harassers / predators?
October 25th, 2006 at 11:05 amYet those rights still exist, and you advocate taking them away from American Soldiers (After all, they are shooting at the native army in a war are they not?)
So tell us Jason, why do you hate America’s soldiers?
October 25th, 2006 at 11:07 amJason, you have surrendered any claim of moral ground or intelligent debate in my esteem. Not that it matters to you. I don’t agree with many of the posters who come on this site with views to the right of center, be they Libertarian or Republican; but if they are willing to engage in an intelligent debate without resorting too childish name-calling (including responding in kind) then I’m all for it. It seems the list of those who do that is getting shorter.
October 25th, 2006 at 11:08 amTo all,
Yes, all my posts on those topics are deleted. TP mods used to delete my comments on eugenics also, but have let them through ….
October 25th, 2006 at 11:08 amTritone, you are not crazy. I saw that comment! It’s gone now!
October 25th, 2006 at 11:10 amThey did you a favor. You really showed your ass on that one.
October 25th, 2006 at 11:11 am#108, Bruce,
Congress has address the Gitmo detainees, both in interrogation, and in trials, so go gripe to Congress. I am not advocating anything.
#109, ox,
I won’t back down to women who use sexist remarks towards men.
October 25th, 2006 at 11:11 amTritone,
October 25th, 2006 at 11:12 amI had a great rebuttal to Jason’s destruction of people, comparing pseudo Christians to him.
But alas, it disappeared
WTF is going on here TP
I propose a moratorium on all discussion and interaction with the odious poster with the handle Jason M. Hendler.
October 25th, 2006 at 11:13 amTo all,
By all means, make your case, but when communist regimes have killed nearly 100,000,000 in USSR, China, Cambodia and elsewhere, I am right to fight them with every fiber.
October 25th, 2006 at 11:15 amI won’t back down to women who use sexist remarks towards men.
Comment by Jason+M.+Hendler
Funny, in real life, I’ve never been called a sexist by a woman.
October 25th, 2006 at 11:16 amOf course, in real life, I’ve had actual relationships with women, and am now married to an absolutely wonderful woman! (Liberal AND Christian, is she)
But then again, I am talking about “real life”
Yes, Jason, you are advocating that Soldiers in a war lose all of their rights. Go read up on the Geneva convention some time, see what it really gives soldiers.
Oh yeah, and isn’t it funny how one second you are blaming Darwin for genocide, and then advocating the systematic destruction of everyone who holds different beliefs to you the next?
October 25th, 2006 at 11:16 amI’m trying not to get too emotionally invested in the outcome of the midterm election this year. Everybody vote!
October 25th, 2006 at 11:19 amTritone, I second the motion. Any discussion on the motion on the floor?
October 25th, 2006 at 11:19 amThe TP post nazi’s are at it again..
I may not like Jason, or his stupid views, but IMHO he should be allowed to post them here.
Either we have free speech or we have speech zones just like Dubya..
Aren’t we better than that?
Is it time to find a new blog?
October 25th, 2006 at 11:20 amNo need for a moratorium, I am off to lunch. Once again, I have tried to open your eyes – it is now on you to see.
Peace and love.
October 25th, 2006 at 11:21 amI’m with you on that one as well. Hope for the best and expect the worst. As a Cubs fan, it has become second nature.
October 25th, 2006 at 11:21 am“sexual harassment still with this old lame line,that’s so 90’s! BTW Mark the american thanks for opening my eyes.
October 25th, 2006 at 11:22 amAre any of you performing any GOTV activities on Nov 7th? I’m taking the day of to see if I can provide rides to the polls. I need to contact the Dem. party here…
October 25th, 2006 at 11:23 amJMH
You are, typically, trying to divert attention from YOUR behavior. I’m calling your comment to trueblue “sexual harassment” and you keep wanting to refer to someone’s supposed “sexist” comment to you. You targeted trueblue because she was ignoring you. You did so with a sexually charged comment. I believe she was offended and left. I was offended and called you out. I’m not going to back down from you until you tell me the difference between “sexist comment” and “sexual harassment”, then apologize to trueblue.
October 25th, 2006 at 11:25 am#125, PLC,
Butt out of the conflict between True and me. She feels free to insult me, but I can’t say anything back? Is that because she is a lady? a woman? a girl? If she can’t take it, she shouldn’t give it.
October 25th, 2006 at 11:29 amI agree that people should be able to say whatever is on their (often addled) minds. I don’t want them muttering and plotting in the shadows. We should encourage them to step into the sunlight and then we can all slowly back away. Like that old Irish toast “May those that love us, love us. And those that don’t may God turn their hearts. If not then may He turn their ankles so we may know them by their limping.”
Not that I believe in God. You may now pray for my soul, to the extent I have one.
October 25th, 2006 at 11:31 amBruce I beleive the words were ‘distroy all democrats’….. sounds like a bit of eugenics to me. Check out that ‘Ivy League’ spelling.
October 25th, 2006 at 11:31 am‘Believe’ – well I can’t boast of an Ivy League education….hahahaha
October 25th, 2006 at 11:32 amtell me the difference between “sexist comment†and “sexual harassmentâ€
and your answer to this, JMH, is……….
October 25th, 2006 at 11:33 am126 JMH
No.
October 25th, 2006 at 11:34 amJason is getting a little hot and testy. He must be in an urban heat footprint.
October 25th, 2006 at 11:37 amJason is getting a little hot and testy. He must be in an urban heat footprint.
Comment by dlet
October 25th, 2006 at 11:40 amcaused by vulcanization due to the conspiracy theory of a democratic set up to allow then Vice-President Quayle to misspell potato.
ahhhhh, the benefits of an Ivy-league education from Stanford
Jeez, Hendler, I just get my lyingbastardometer recalibrated, and you go and peg the needle all the way to the max position again with your lame dissembling BS.
October 25th, 2006 at 11:46 amYes, you have every right to post here, but could you make some effort to be just a little rational, instead of spouting moronic crap?
…There have also been episodes in which entire blog threads (or large portions thereof) with violently opposing views, were written and controlled by one single person or small groups, waiting for “real†liberals to enter the discussion….comment by Mark the american
Do you mean like now?
October 25th, 2006 at 11:53 amDRxJ
Yeah and only the science fiction authors know the truth about what is going on. Blast those evil Thetan devils!
October 25th, 2006 at 12:00 pm#133 DRxJ…Tough loss last night.
October 25th, 2006 at 12:10 pmDRxJ and Bruce Gorton
Shouldn’t our little friend be quoting Gene Roddenberry about global warming instead of Michael Crighton? You know, the author of vulcanization.
October 25th, 2006 at 12:10 pmYes, exley, it’s not easy in the DRxJ household when the wife has a 2 games to 1 advantage. I’m proud of my Tigers, but man, last night certainly left major doubts about a world championship in the motor city.
October 25th, 2006 at 12:14 pmAh well, the elections are soon, no?
#2, Did you read the article? The administration is asking the court for approval of these proposed rules. They are not imposing them. Asking the court to approve limitations on contact between defendants and attorneys is not unknown in the criminal court system, particularly in major drug and organized crime cases. This is nothing new.
October 25th, 2006 at 12:24 pmMeanwhile, the “British military wants to withdraw troops from Iraq within a year, and London wants to focus on the war in Afghanistan,†a Pentagon official told the New York Times.
Incredibly, Britan has a losing record in Afghanistan having been soundly beaten by the indiginious population not once but TWICE at the height of the empire in the 19th century.
Afghanistan is a hostile, dangerous country incapable of being occupied successfully for any length of time by an outside power. Just ask the Russians.
The Briitish are set-up once again for defeat.
October 25th, 2006 at 12:24 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC)
What gets me is, the guy just point blank ignores one of the most central figures in sci-fi. Isaac “Violence is the last resort of the incompetent” Asimov.
October 25th, 2006 at 12:25 pm#139, Nah, DRxJ, you and the Tigers have plenty of time. A win tonight is crucial….But hey, DRxJ, what is all this talk I see about me making “highly disgusting and demeaning” sexist remarks????? When the heck have I done anything like that? Unless someone has hijacked my name again (which has happened before) I have done no such thing…Disagree with my politics all ya want, folks. But don’t falsely accuse me of things/
October 25th, 2006 at 12:28 pmBruce Gorton
IMO, the guy just point blank is point blank.
I really waver about how to respond to these guys. Sometimes I think ignoring, as trueblue suggested, is best. Then, they make some really offensive or false statement that, if left to stand paints progressives/liberals/Democrats in a highly unfavorable light, and then I feel compelled to respond. Since all progressives probably have their own triggering issues, maybe we should vow to tell each other to back off when it seems prudent. I know I would appreciate it – might help keep me from posting something I would regret later.
October 25th, 2006 at 12:34 pmexley, I prematurely cut and pasted “their…” in response to JMH. I, personally, have never witnessed you using a sexist remark, and thus apologize (see, Liberals can say sorry). For the record, JMH does not get such apology
October 25th, 2006 at 12:45 pm#145, No problem, DRxJ…You weren’t the first one to say it. I am just curious where it comes from…I can be opinionated, sarcastic, and yes, even arrogant! But sexist? Never! (Unless my statements last night that I though Katherine Harris and Mary Matalin were attractive were construed as sexist???)
October 25th, 2006 at 12:49 pmWar on West shifts back to Afghanistan
Militants are being drawn away from Iraq, experts say.
The conflict in Iraq is drawing fewer foreign fighters as Muslim extremists aspiring to battle the West turn their attention back to the symbolically important and increasingly violent turf of Afghanistan, European and U.S. anti-terrorism officials say.
Seems to me this can be construed as a U.S. victory in Iraq. The foreign fighters tried to beat us there, found out they couldn’t (In fact, even Al Qaeda acknowledges they have been pummeled by the U.S. in Iraq) and that is why they are shifting back to Afghanistan…Time to bring more troops and the fight back to Afghanistan.
October 25th, 2006 at 12:54 pmExley
I am sorry as well. I was so focused on JMH’s nonsense that your name didn’t even register when I copied the post. If I EVER do something like this, feel free to challenge me. I try not to, but “stupid happens”.
Unless my statements last night that I though Katherine Harris and Mary Matalin were attractive were construed as sexist???)
Sexist, no. Poor taste, probably!
October 25th, 2006 at 12:57 pm147. How can you say this is a victory in Iraq? The violence is escalating. Just because foreign fighters aren’t streaming in doesn’t mean we won anything. It shows that the Iraqis have enough hatred pent up that they can move the conflict which ever way they choose. The original “Plan” for Iraq was flawed and poorly executed. Since then there has been shifting ideas on what would be a “success” in Iraq. None of which has been followed thru.
Afghanistan should have always been our focus. The mission was never completed there and the Taliban have come back strong. More opium production than ever.
We are not going to get new directions and clearer objectives until this administration is out. More troops alone won’t solve anything.
October 25th, 2006 at 1:00 pmWhat gets me is, the guy just point blank ignores one of the most central figures in sci-fi. Isaac “Violence is the last resort of the incompetent†Asimov.
I have a silly question about that statement, Isn’t violence the last resort of anybody? So intelligent people resort to violence before it’s a last resort? Perhaps smart people have a whole lot more options before the “last resort” is reached.
October 25th, 2006 at 1:03 pm#149, Hey, PLC,
As with DRxJ, no problem…I was just taken aback when I read that. I had no idea what I could have ever written that would make people think that. But I got ya…I appreciate your posting. As for my taste in political women…Well, I can be bipartisan, as well. I think Hillary, Mary Landrieu, and Maria Cantwell are quite attractive too!
October 25th, 2006 at 1:04 pm#149 Hellinbucket: “Afghanistan should have always been our focus. The mission was never completed there and the Taliban have come back strong. More opium production than ever.” 100% agreed!
Butdo you really think more troops in Afganistan wouldn’t be helpful?
October 25th, 2006 at 1:06 pm#149, HellinaBucket, Here’s what I meant when I asked if this movement of foreign fighters (Al Qaeda) from Iraq back to Afghanistan could not be construed as a (not “the”) victory in Iraq: One the reasons I was reluctant to say that U.S. troops should be withdrawn from Iraq is because I (along with many others) that Iraq could become the new Afghanistan and HQ for Al Qaeda and radial Islamic terrorists. If Al Qaeda is in fact retreating from Iraq and going back to Afghanistan than the concern about Iraq as a Al Qaeda haven is diminished and we can withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq and continue our pursuit of Al Qaeda back to Afghanistan.
October 25th, 2006 at 1:12 pmTundra
Nah, if you read the Foundation trilogy you will note that generally the violent solution generally ends badly. It is what people do because they aren’t bright enough to think of anything else.
Exley
Actually it isn’t that good a sign. It could mean they smell victory in Afghanistan, want to capitalise on that, and that they are going to be back stronger then ever. Right now the thing to consider is that Osama and his guys are true believers, they want that last desperate Alamo moment, if they are withdrawing it is possibly not a sign of victory, it could be a sign that they are going to do something big elsewhere.
October 25th, 2006 at 1:24 pmIt was kind of you to give huge tax cuts to the rich. Where do you think the money for health care is going to come from now?
You need to go back and reverse Bush’s tax cuts!
October 25th, 2006 at 1:26 pm#156, It could mean they smell victory in Afghanistan, want to capitalise on that, and that they are going to be back stronger then ever.
I don’t disagree with that, Bruce. It is a bad sign in Afghanistan, but I think it could be seen as good news on the Iraqi front of the War on Terror. That is why it appears it is time to move troops out of Iraq (Our military should not be in the middle of a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites–That was not the mission) and re-deploy them to Afghanistan to address the Taliban-Al Qaeda threat, which always should have been the focus.
October 25th, 2006 at 1:32 pm“War on West shifts back to Afghanistan.” It is logically impossible for a war on the “West” take place in Afghanistan. If the “West” leaves Afghanistan there can be no war on the “West” in Afghanistan. So it is the “West” that is warring against people in Afghanistan not the other way around.
October 25th, 2006 at 1:34 pmre-deploy them to Afghanistan to address the Taliban-Al Qaeda threat, which always should have been the focus.
Comment by Exley — October 25, 2006 @ 1:32 pm
hear hear…a total agreement.
October 25th, 2006 at 1:36 pm156 Exley
I might be able to agree to such a change of course/transfer of military focus if 1) the Administration allows the military leaders to determine the military strategy, 2) specific measurable and attainable goals are set, and 3) somebody besides Rumsfeld is Secretary of Defense.
October 25th, 2006 at 1:39 pmExley
The trouble is I get this faint vibe that Al-Qaeda is plotting something. Honestly, I would withdraw from Iraq and focus on Afghanistan, it is the just war and it needs finishing, but I get the feeling that there is something going on here which we are not seeing. It seems like a trap somehow.
October 25th, 2006 at 1:41 pmsomebody besides Rumsfeld is Secretary of Defense.
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC)
October 25th, 2006 at 1:41 pmBuya!
Maybe someone that has actually fought in wars. Maybe someone like, General Wesley Clark?
#160 So, we have the Tigers and Afghanistan in common, DRxJ.
In the interests of disclosure (I think you already know this, but I will repeat it, just in case)…I was a strong supporter of the invasion of Iraq back in 2003. I incorrectly thought the job was done in Afghanistan. I accepted the statements of the Clinton and Bush administrations that Iraq maintained fully-constituted WMDs. That turned out to be largely incorrect. I believed Iraq could be transformed into a democratic, secular, tolerant society that could serve as an example to other Arab Islamic nations to reform and thus removing some of the political and social conditions that can give rise to radical Islamic terrorism. That clearly has not worked out.
So, essentially, if I knew then what I know today about Iraq, I doubt I would have supported the invasion of Iraq at that time. So, now we need to fix the mistake and go back and finish the job in Afghanistan.
October 25th, 2006 at 1:43 pm#160 Bruce….I hadn’t thought of that…Scary thought. But then again, as we know, Al Qaeda is a pretty scary group.
October 25th, 2006 at 1:45 pmSo, essentially, if I knew then what I know today about Iraq, I doubt I would have supported the invasion of Iraq at that time
October 25th, 2006 at 1:54 pmComment by Exley — October 25, 2006 @ 1:43 pm
But there were factions out there who were telling us of no WMD’s. (the UN comes to mind) There were opponents of this war telling us that we would not be “treated as liberators and handed flowers” There were many who accurately predicted a civil war in Iraq. The critics were out there ,exley, and I for one, listened, and thus opposed the Iraqi war before it even started. I firmly believed, and still do, that our troops are meant to be on the borders of Afghanistan and Pakistan, pursuing OBL and his minions. But hey, when you’ve got control of all 3 branches of government, why listen? Just make $hit up!
I accepted the statements of the Clinton and Bush administrations
Nice strawman, but Clinton did not lead us into this war. The blame Clinton card is overused, and old. Seriously, I was waiting for the right to blame Bill for not strengthening the levees during Katrina
I supported the first Gulf War with its limited goal of pushing Hussein’s army out of Kuwait and the use of overwhelming force to do so. I supported a strong response in Afghanistan, if the goal was to bring justice to those who were behind 9-11 but had concerns about a general military targeting of the country of Afghanistan. I never believed that Iraq had the capacity to be an iminent threat to the U.S. or that Hussein had, anymore, the ability to be a real threat to anyone in his own country as long as the U.S. and the U.N. were so intimately watching him. I did not, and do not, believe that “nation building” or “bringing democracy” are achievable goals. Therefore, I saw and see no justification for a U.S. military intervention in Iraq. Anything the U.S. does now in Iraq or Afghanistan is suspect to me because of the poor handling of intelligence and the intervention “planning” by the Bush Administration.
October 25th, 2006 at 1:57 pmExley
Out in South Africa we got ahold of the debunks to the war long before you Americans did. It was generally mystifying to us as to just why America went ahead and did it: Everybody already knew that Saddam didn’t have links to Al Qaeda, and the WMD charges were shaky to say the least.
The best anyone could come up with really to defend America’s decision was there might have been classified information nobody else was privy to, but in the end I guess not.
In a way Iraq was a bit like with the Soccer World Cup in South Africa, any idiot can see that in real terms it is going to be a stuff-up, but read up on it and you will see stories that almost glow with optimism, so nobody really worries about it. You were decieved, the countries which said “Nah, crap boet” were right, and now it is time to see what can be done about it.
I think part of that is a changing of the guard, a re-introduction of multiple party politics (Where the two Houses are no longer in the same hands that landed America in this mess) and a strong policy of hiring people based on their competence rather then their affiliation into all cabinet and government positions. Lackey appointments needs to be an ongoing election issue. America is in dire straits, but it is salvageable if America’s parties and voters, can put aside their loyalties, and honestly look at the problems involved.
October 25th, 2006 at 2:26 pmExley,
The War on Terror has as much meaning as the War on Drugs. Slogans and nothing more. Terror is a tatic used by desperate groups. More soldiers on the ground would just mean more targets for the terrorists. The original goal after the fall of Saddam was never thought through and that is why we have the situation we have. The PNAC playbook didn’t go into detail on what needed to be done and Phase IV planning was piss poor and implemented half assed.
There are no easy answers but I firmly believe that I don’t want to give this current administration another shot at trying to get this right.
October 25th, 2006 at 2:28 pm#164…A few thing, DRxJ,
1) The UN did not say that Iraq had no WMDs. Quite the opposite, in fact. Recall that Resolution 1441 was passed unanimously by the Security Council. And that followed a decade of UNSC resolutions and UN economic sanctions based on the premise that Iraq had not disarmed as it was required to. So, you are incorrect there.
2) We were indeed initially greeted as liberators. In April . May 2003, Iraqis cheered American troops, waved America flags, and chanted George W. Bush’s name and “U.S.A.” The Sunni-Baathist-Al Qaeda insurgency that developed in the months afterward do not take away from the fact that we were indeed greeted as liberators.
3) So, what are you saying, DRxJ? That the Clinton administration did not claim that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs? I hope not, because I have a whooooooole slew of quotes and news clips from the 1990s that show they did. Indeed, they even launched military strikes against suspected Iraqi in 1998 (Operation: Desert Fox). Please, do not try to re-write history, my good Doctor, and try to argue that the believe tha Iraq had WMDs was a belief restricted solely to the Bush administration. Such a claim is patently false. Thus, with two successive presidential administrations of two different political parties both saying (along with a decade of UN resolutions) that Iraq had WMDs, the American people were more than justified in believing that was indeed the case.
October 25th, 2006 at 2:32 pm#169, So, Hellinabucket, did you oppose the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in October, 2001 following the 9/11 attacks?
October 25th, 2006 at 2:40 pmExley,
I was in full support of a military operation in Afghanistan. I wanted to see 400,000 US troops and any other Allies that cared to join. I wanted to crush the Taliban and Al Qiada. We were violently attacked by terrorists and I wanted to see all unholy hell unleashed upon all who were involved.
We didn’t do what I wanted but we still made our selves known and the world stood beside us. When the focus became Iraq, I hoped this administration was right because sending troops to fight and die is as big a responsibility any President has. That’s where this administration has failed. They failed the soldiers sent, they failed the citizens they are elected by, they destroyed all the good will and support that was behind us after 9/11.
This administration has failed us.
October 25th, 2006 at 2:47 pm#170…..OKay, HellinaBucket. I just asked because when you said “The War on Terror has as much meaning as the War on Drugs” I was wondering whether you meant that there should not be a military component when fighting terrorists. Given what you wrote in the first paragraph of Posting (And with which I could not agree more) I see that is not the case. We’re on the same page there.
October 25th, 2006 at 2:53 pm171. What is “The War on Terror”?
Webster’s defines Terror as: violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands.
If this what this administration defines as Terror then we shouldn’t be letting up, we should be calling for a draft to counter the Masadras in Pakistan and the Whabists (? on spelling) of Saudi Arabia. Why not? Because it’s just a fear toting slogan by this administration. They have no real understanding on what it would take to truly have a “War on Terror”.
October 25th, 2006 at 3:04 pm#172, HellinaBucket,
I agree to the extent that I have always disliked the title “War on Terror.”
October 25th, 2006 at 3:19 pmTrue, Zoo and others make sexists remarks towards me, and I respond in kind. Are you calling True, Zoo and others sexual predators?
Comment by Jason+M.+Hendler
Jason, you are not only a liar, you are a damned liar.
October 25th, 2006 at 3:23 pmHi, Zooey
Jason has my feminist hackles up. I’m going to dog the dog.
October 25th, 2006 at 3:26 pm173. Exley,
This administration has been the ones pushing it and all of the fear associated with it. One could make an argument that by their constant push of fear they themselves are guilty of a terrorist act.
Look, I have nothing against the core values of republicans or conservatives. I believe many of the ideals would be helpful. I also believe that the republican party has been hijacked by ideologs that have caused deep divisions in this country and aren’t pushing the core values of republicans or conservatives. More debt than I ever remember, more gov’t intrusion and less responsibility is what I’ve seen from this group. Two weeks before the last Presidential election Cheney was saying you vote for Kerry and we will have a Terrorist attack. That’s just instilling fear with no proof. They are doing the same thing now.
The American people will hopefully wake up. When / if they do the republican party will be hurt for many years to come. As it stands now, it will take decades to correct the injustices produced by this group.
October 25th, 2006 at 3:34 pmJason has my feminist hackles up. I’m going to dog the dog.
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC)
I always knew you were a fine man. Thank you.
October 25th, 2006 at 3:45 pmWith all our talk of Afghanistan today, here is some good news from over there:
38 militants said killed in Afghanistan
October 25th, 2006 at 4:04 pmAP – KABUL, Afghanistan – NATO-led troops killed 38 suspected insurgents in two separate confrontations in southern Afghanistan
In a few short years Bush will no longer be President. He and the members of the PNAC just might be seen by some countries as a Terrorist Organization responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent children, women and men in Afghanistan and Iraq (and any other country he chooses to attack before the end of his reign).
Now, suppose the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan demand that the United States Government turn over Bush and the PNAC. Would the U.S. agree? Not likely. Would Iraq and Afghanistan then be justified in assembling a coalition of the willing and invade the United States, replacing its government, and killing or capturing as many members of the PNAC as possible?
If not, then the invasion of Afghanistan was also not justified.
October 25th, 2006 at 4:18 pm179. I thought body counts weren’t something to be done. Don’t get me wrong but if it’s just bodies then it means squat. If it’s part of a larger operation and is shown to be getting the upper hand against the insurgents then great.
October 25th, 2006 at 4:29 pm#181, HiB: If it’s part of a larger operation and is shown to be getting the upper hand against the insurgents then great. Agreed.
October 25th, 2006 at 4:31 pmVery interesting piece Mark the american! It gets even better by the fact nobody is talking about it, keep up the good job Mark.
October 25th, 2006 at 4:49 pm[...] Think Progress [...]
October 25th, 2006 at 5:37 pm[...] The legal fees paid this year by Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ), who is wresting with separate investigations probing whether Renzi “introduced legislation that benefited a military contractor that [...]
April 13th, 2007 at 8:57 am