If that is the case, you people will never even order a pizza in my behalf. No matter how hungry I am.

How in the hell do people like this even get credible consideratation on these issues to be put on these shows and given the public domain for his ideology as he sees it. As if he speaks for most Americans?

Perhaps America needs to change its outlook on MONEY being recognized as free speech. Because few have more free speech than others. And the few seem to be making the rules for the majority.

I remember a secular Iraq.

I remember a U.N. weapons inspection team failing to find WMDs.

I remember a huge amount of skepticism about nuclear weapons (what?? how??).

I remember a Bush administration rushing to throw out the U.N. weapons inspectors.

rogers Says:

***shoeless says***

So your saying you had resentment, and so even before he was in office you didn’t trust him to begin with, and even if he had every evidence in the world of wmds, you would think he was lying…

So what would you say if he turned out to be right?.

We’d say “SORRY” and then STFU.

rogers Says:

Ok, let me get this straight…your mother gives you an apple, and it turns out to be poisonous…should you have never trusted your mother?.

But, if it wasn’t poisonous, but you choose not to trust your mother, does that make you any better?.

metaphor is accurate seeing as bush had plenty of credibility and no reason to doubt him back then

Sure Dodgeballs, because lying, cheating and stealing your way into the White House gave him all kinds of credibility.

rogers Says:

So your saying you had resentment, and so even before he was in office you didn’t trust him to begin with, and even if he had every evidence in the world of wmds, you would think he was lying…

So what would you say if he turned out to be right?.

Umm… he didn’t.

Do try to keep up.

metaphor is accurate seeing as bush had plenty of credibility and no reason to doubt him back then

Uh, what about that election he stole?

mary Says:
rogers – equating our government to our mothers is silly.

Not really, mary. It’s how right-wingers look at government — although they generally prefer a “Daddy” figure to be in charge.

However, the rest of rogers’ argument is, as you pointed out, quite silly indeed. At least, the parts of it that make sense.

We’re not necessarily saying that we’re “better” people to have not trusted the party line on Iraq/Saddam but we definitely saw through the bullcrap – so perhaps we have a better bullcrap filter.

We here had no reason to view Bush as credible and plenty of reasons to doubt him. When we doubted him publicly in 2002 we were viewed by most people as conspiracy theorists at best and delusional traitors at worst. I had people at work tell me that they were SURE that WMDs would eventually be found. They really, really wanted to believe that their government wouldn’t lie to them.

I wonder if those people believe the party line on attacking Iran! Unfortunately, thanks to the current lot of crooks, there are a lot more people out there with little faith in their government.

If Friedman believed half of what he wrote, he wouldn’t be trading in a perfectly good car for anther new car. No, he would hang onto that car and let another consumer (hopefully a former SUV driver) buy that new Prius. Guess the righteous regarding landfills, waste, etc., don’t apply to you, right Friedman?