Anger is a gift (Happy 3rd Anniversary!) [Archive]

Gemini Cricket

03-21-2006, 10:06 AM

MARCH 30, 2003: Donald Rumsfeld: We know where the WMD are

We know where [the weapons of mass destruction] are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. [ABC This Week, 3/30/03]

MAY 1, 2003: Mission Accomplished

[M]y fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.

[B]MAY 29, 2003: Bush: We found the WMD

We found the weapons of mass destruction.

[B]JULY 2, 2003: Bring ‘Em On

There are some who feel like — that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring them on.

[B]OCTOBER 5, 2004: Paul Bremer: Never had enough troops

We never had enough troops on the ground. [CNN, 10/5/04]

OCTOBER 25, 2004: The New York Times reports that about 380 tons of powerful explosives disappeared from military installation called Al Qaqaa sometime after the U.S.-led war began in March 2003 [NYT, 10/25/04]

DECEMBER 8, 2004: Donald Rumsfeld: You go to war with the Army you have

As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They’re not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time. [Rumsfeld, 12/8/04]

JANUARY 12, 2005: WMD search in Iraq is declared over - nothing found

U.S. inspectors have ended their search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in recent weeks, a U.S. intelligence official told CNN. [CNN, 1/12/05]

MAY 30, 2005: Dick Cheney: Insurgency in its “last throes”

I think they’re in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency. [CNN Larry King Live, 5/30/05]

FEBRUARY 2, 2006: Rumsfeld doubts “long war” in Iraq

“Is Iraq going to be a long war?” Mr. Rumsfeld answered, “No, I don’t believe it is.” [Washington Times, 2/2/06]

MARCH 19, 2006: “Complete victory”

On the eve of the third anniversary of the Iraq invasion, President Bush yesterday promised to “finish the mission” with “complete victory,” urging the American public to remain steadfast but offering no indication when victory may be achieved. [Washington Post, 3/19/06]

-----------------------

Also, don't forget about our war crimes...
According to eyewitnesses and local officials interviewed over the past 10 weeks, the civilians who died in Haditha on Nov. 19 were killed not by a roadside bomb but by the Marines themselves, who went on a rampage in the village after the attack, killing 15 unarmed Iraqis in their homes, including seven women and three children. Human-rights activists say that if the accusations are true, the incident ranks as the worst case of deliberate killing of Iraqi civilians by U.S. service members since the war began.
Source (http://www.time.com/time/world/printout/0,8816,1174649,00.html)

Motorboat Cruiser

03-21-2006, 12:51 PM

And yet, Cheney still insists that the statement you quoted from him above is accurate.

History will not look kindly on these men.

Scrooge McSam

03-21-2006, 01:33 PM

Did you catch Bush's Cleveland speech, where he had this to say...

First-just if I might correct a misperception, I don't think we ever said, at least I know I didn't say that there was a direct connection between September 11th and Saddam Hussein.

Call me treasonous for disputing God's own annointed, but that's a lie.

Doesn't Dear Leader realize all his speeches are recorded and transcribed?

In the words of Keith Olbermann...

Who does the President think he's F'n kidding?

innerSpaceman

03-21-2006, 01:41 PM

And here I was growing up in the 60's fearing I'd have no Vietnam to warm the cockles of my adult soul.

Whew.

wendybeth

03-21-2006, 02:36 PM

Mousey Girl

03-21-2006, 03:55 PM

We just had the 3rd Kern County soldier killed in 3 weeks. That is what is sad, seeing these families mourning their sons. Their loss really gets to me.

Gemini Cricket

03-21-2006, 04:27 PM

You're all a bunch of non-patriotic, kool-aid swilling, pinko-commy red-diaper doper-baby elitist liberals who's heads are gonna explode one of these days.
Did Leo accidentally log in as wendybeth?
:D

SacTown Chronic

03-21-2006, 04:51 PM

First-just if I might correct a misperception, I don't think we ever said, at least I know I didn't say that there was a direct connection between September 11th and Saddam Hussein.

Oh no he didn't!

Good Lord, have I actually misunderestimated this man's stupidity?

innerSpaceman

03-21-2006, 05:04 PM

Yes, that was how Georgie celebrated the third anniversary of quagmire ... by telling a blatent lie that - with the shrub's every word having been recorded for the past 5 years - is among the world's simplest lies to uncover.

Nothing worse than a liar but a stupid liar.

Scrooge McSam

03-21-2006, 05:28 PM

Oh no he didn't!

Good Lord, have I actually misunderestimated this man's stupidity?

But the best part is it's allowed to just hang there in the media... unchallenged. It's read by thousands and it becomes fact.

I need a drink.

Not Afraid

03-21-2006, 05:29 PM

Hearint the Q&A today literally made me sick to my stomach.

Scrooge McSam

03-21-2006, 05:31 PM

You're all a bunch of non-patriotic, kool-aid swilling, pinko-commy red-diaper doper-baby elitist liberals who's heads are gonna explode one of these days.

(I couldn't figure out how to work in 'ditto').

Oh please... if you can't work "terrorist loving" and "moonbat" into the rancid stream, you ain't tryin', girl!

Not Afraid

03-21-2006, 05:38 PM

Moonbat?

wendybeth

03-21-2006, 05:40 PM

Oh please... if you can't work "terrorist loving" and "moonbat" into the rancid stream, you ain't tryin', girl!

Oooh, who says that? Can it be I'm missing someone during my hate-radio roundups?

Scrooge McSam

03-21-2006, 06:15 PM

I don't listen to any talk radio. I've seen it mostly in print, blogs and such, referring to conspiracy theorists.

wendybeth

03-21-2006, 06:30 PM

I don't listen to them, but I do scan them when news comes out critical of Bush and his merry band of men. It's always fun to hear them foaming at the mouth and acting so appalled that anyone dare to question the morality of these fine, sanctified men. Except Ingraham- can't listen to her, ever. Like nails on a chalkboard, that woman's voice.

Hannity is the funnest. He's gone from small time radio guy to the annointed one. What a frikken dweeb.

SacTown Chronic

03-21-2006, 06:41 PM

I need a drink.
:cheers:

Ghoulish Delight

03-21-2006, 06:51 PM

Hearint the Q&A today literally made me sick to my stomach.What I hate the most is the he always sounds like he's indignant that people are asking him questions. I mean, c'mon folks, don't you know that in America you're supposed to shut up and believe your leaders without question? That's called patriotism.

scaeagles

03-21-2006, 07:01 PM

Did Leo accidentally log in as wendybeth?
:D

Hmph! While I'm certainly not going to insert myself in this thread, I will say that I've not said such things about anyone on this board. Quite the contrary, I might add. (yes, I did see the smiley guy, but felt the need to react indignantly anyway.) :p

Not Afraid

03-21-2006, 07:05 PM

Yes, there seems to be something he missed about the concept of being an elected official and the fact that he above questioning. It's as if he took lessons from the wrong world leaders or something.

A reported was reminscing today about how forthcoming both Johnson and Kennedy were during difficult times and how she missed the fronk, honest repore they had with the press. How sad that this just isn't the case today.

scaeagles

03-21-2006, 07:07 PM

A reported was reminscing today about how forthcoming both Johnson and Kennedy were during difficult times and how she missed the fronk, honest repore they had with the press. How sad that this just isn't the case today.

I'll disagree with that wholeheartedly. Johnson was frank and honest about Vietnam? Kennedy was frank and honest about the Bay of Pigs?

Not Afraid

03-21-2006, 07:08 PM

Hey, I was like 6 so I wasnt really there. I'm just realying observations from someone who was there.

Prudence

03-21-2006, 07:09 PM

And here I was growing up in the 60's fearing I'd have no Vietnam to warm the cockles of my adult soul.

Will Oliver Stone live long enough to make a movie capturing the essence of the era and all the conspiracy theories one film can hold?

Me, I'm bitter that this decade's "free love" is primarily virtual. Not the same at all.

(I can't get started on the actual analysis or I'll never get the rest of my work done.)

wendybeth

03-21-2006, 07:41 PM

Honestly, I wasn't making fun of his Sphincterness.;)

Leo may be conservative, but he's far more fair and balanced than any other that I know. He also has a sense of humor, and a sense of generosity.*

*(I could really use a new expresso maker- hint hint)

scaeagles

03-21-2006, 07:54 PM

*(I could really use a new expresso maker- hint hint)

Hey - at least I put out for my small appliances. :)

BUt I do like the title "His Sphincterness". Changing my title.

SacTown Chronic

03-21-2006, 09:12 PM

"Listen, every war plan looks good on paper until you meet the enemy," Bush said,
Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060321/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush;_ylt=AhWTABW.5D59rQn5kKeYmSes0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMT A2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--)

BarTopDancer

03-21-2006, 09:28 PM

Nothing worse than a liar but a stupid liar.

A stupid liar who said this

WASHINGTON -
President Bush said Tuesday that American forces will remain in
Iraq for years and it will be up to a future president to decide when to bring them all home. But defying critics and plunging polls, he declared, "I'm optimistic we'll succeed. If not, I'd pull our troops out."

That's it Georgie, leave this mess for the next guy. We won't forget that you started it.

source (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060322/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush)

Gn2Dlnd

03-22-2006, 03:58 AM

It's as if he took lessons from the wrong world leaders or something.

He and his cronies are the wrong world leaders.

Gemini Cricket

03-22-2006, 06:57 AM

Hmph! ... :p
I apologize to His Sphincterness.
:p

Nephythys

03-22-2006, 08:24 AM

Gemini Cricket

03-22-2006, 08:35 AM

Here's a Bush quote from yesterday:
"I understand people being disheartened when they turn on their TV screen," Bush said. "Nobody likes beheadings. ..."
Source (http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BUSH_POLITICAL_CAPITAL?SITE=JRC&SECTION=POLITICS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-03-21-17-04-24)
:eek:

This guy's a genius!

Motorboat Cruiser

03-22-2006, 09:15 AM

No one else here is going to see the irony in people in this thread calling conservatives (radio etc) "hateful" when the thread starts and continues in nothing but a hate fest itself?

Hate fest? No.

Utter contempt and disgust for an administration that has lied their way into a trillion dollar, unwinnable war that has cost the lives of 2300 of our servicemen, and countless innocent people? Absolutely.

Scrooge McSam

03-22-2006, 09:27 AM

No one else here is going to see the irony in people in this thread calling conservatives (radio etc) "hateful" when the thread starts and continues in nothing but a hate fest itself?

Naw- did not think so.

After reviewing this entire thread, I can find no reference to anyone hating conservatives. Hate for what now passes for conservative policy? You betcha! Wendybeth did refer to "hate radio" in one post. If anybody would pick up that bait, you'd think it would be me, but I didn't.

Now, you are picking up on a good deal of anger, that's for sure. I get angry when thousands of people die for no good reason. I get angry when politicians hold themselves above the law. I get angry when people, any people, elected or not, lie to my face. Don't piss on my boot and tell me it's raining.

I'm sitting with Leo on this one. :)

Understandable. It's hard to defend the indefensible. I'm seeing this a lot in my formerly gung-ho Bush supporters here at work. It's much easier to lash out at Mr. Bush's critics, even as it's proven they've been right all along.

Motorboat Cruiser

03-22-2006, 09:42 AM

If anyone needs a good laugh, go here (http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/videos/headlines/index.jhtml) and click on the video entitled "Rambling Man".

scaeagles

03-22-2006, 09:42 AM

Understandable. It's hard to defend the indefensible.

I have vastly differing opinions to what is being posted in this thread. I am no Bush apologist, because I have been and am quite vocal about things that disturb me (spending, border policy, etc).

I'm just sitting it out because it has been discussed ad infinitum. There's no point, really. Just suffice it to say that I feel no differently about it than I ever have. That I am not inserting myself does not mean that I have changed my opinion or viewpoint on it or that I have any less fervor about it than I ever did.

Now, I'm not trying to bait anyone, and I really don't want to rain on the anger parade.

Just want to let everyone know that my silence does not equate to acquiescence.

SacTown Chronic

03-22-2006, 09:43 AM

when the thread starts and continues in nothing but a hate fest itself?
Yeah, I hate war and the warmongers who start them.

What of it?

Not Afraid

03-22-2006, 09:54 AM

Hate? I would describe it more as disgust. Complete and total disgust.

SacTown Chronic

03-22-2006, 10:00 AM

You reap what you sow. Or something. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060321/ap_on_re_as/nkorea_us_7)

"As we declared, our strong revolutionary might put in place all measures to counter possible U.S. pre-emptive strike," the spokesman said, according to the Korean Central News Agency. "Pre-emptive strike is not the monopoly of the United States."

Nephythys

03-22-2006, 10:02 AM

I have vastly differing opinions to what is being posted in this thread. I am no Bush apologist, because I have been and am quite vocal about things that disturb me (spending, border policy, etc).

I'm just sitting it out because it has been discussed ad infinitum. There's no point, really. Just suffice it to say that I feel no differently about it than I ever have. That I am not inserting myself does not mean that I have changed my opinion or viewpoint on it or that I have any less fervor about it than I ever did.

Now, I'm not trying to bait anyone, and I really don't want to rain on the anger parade.

Just want to let everyone know that my silence does not equate to acquiescence.

Ditto- please do not assume I agree with you. I don't.

Aside from political differences- I have to say I like people here quite well- but I guess just as Wendy sees "hate" in certain conservative radio shows, I see hate in the words here.

Same world- different lense. You say it's not hate- I see it as exactly that- hate. You see hate in things I do not as well-

But hugs for you anyway Scrooge- I don't get to talk to you often enough.;)

(yeah- quoted Leo and Hugged Scrooge- how about a hug Leo? LOL)

Ahem- sorry, stepping back to the bench now.

Scrooge McSam

03-22-2006, 10:11 AM

*Scrooge hugs Nephythys and passes Leo an expresso machine under the table*

Psst... Give this to Wendybeth but don't tell her it's from me.

scaeagles

03-22-2006, 10:35 AM

(yeah- quoted Leo and Hugged Scrooge- how about a hug Leo? LOL)

Coming at you, babe. {{{{{nephy}}}}}

scaeagles

03-22-2006, 10:35 AM

*Scrooge hugs Nephythys and passes Leo an expresso machine under the table*

Psst... Give this to Wendybeth but don't tell her it's from me.

She'll never know.

wendybeth

03-22-2006, 10:44 AM

The words I used in my hate-radio post were all words that have been frequently aimed at libs and other dissenters by conservative talk show hosts. These same catchy phrases have been tossed around by their listeners, and show up in the oddest places- such as internet message boards and sig lines. They are mean, hateful and people who parrot them are perceived as such. I've looked over this thread and while I've seen a lot of anger directed at the 'leadership' of this country, I haven't seen anything that approaches the vicious (and childish) verbiage of some of our radio pundits. I can handle a reasoned conversation or monologue defending the actions of the current admin, but when they start foaming at the mouth and namecalling I lose any interest in listening. It's lazy, harmful and immature.

(Psst! Scrooge- thanks- now how do I work the damn thing?:D )

innerSpaceman

03-22-2006, 10:47 AM

Ok, put me down for hate.

scaeagles

03-22-2006, 10:51 AM

(Psst! Scrooge- thanks- now how do I work the damn thing?:D )

IT'S FROM ME!!!!!!

(OK - who told?)

wendybeth

03-22-2006, 10:52 AM

Lol!

Everyone knows conservatives don't give things away, silly!;)

scaeagles

03-22-2006, 11:12 AM

Well, earlier in the thread when you asked for it I did suggest you work for it, Wendy, by mentioning how I put out for my small appliances.

BarTopDancer

03-22-2006, 11:21 AM

Coming at you, babe. {{{{{nephy}}}}}

Sca and Nephy sittin in a tree...

Gemini Cricket

03-22-2006, 11:23 AM

Sca and Nephy sittin in a tree...
Hmm, I don't know how Mrs. scaeagles would feel about that.
:D

Nephythys

03-22-2006, 11:24 AM

And I have access to libs who spew hate and nasty terms at conservatives. It cuts both ways and to pretend that one kind of "hate" is more righteous than another is dishonest. (on edit to say I am not calling anyone out for this)

I guarantee you that should I bring over some of those "hate" comments- most of you would agree with them-and some of the things you call "hate" from the conservatives would be nothing of the sort for me or Leo. It's a matter of perception, and frankly, I don't think your perception is more valid than mine.

ISM however just cuts right to it doesn't he.

(I want a small appliance- maybe a waffle maker?) ;)

Nephythys

03-22-2006, 11:25 AM

Coming at you, babe. {{{{{nephy}}}}}

ooooh, makes me all squishy :p

Gemini Cricket

03-22-2006, 11:53 AM

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b268/braddoc310/Picture1.png
No exit strategy

€uroMeinke

03-22-2006, 09:04 PM

It's a matter of perception, and frankly, I don't think your perception is more valid than mine

Heh - In fact we all believe our own percption is the most valid (I think to think otherwise might border on insanity) - thus we go round and round - all of us righteous in our own valid way. I hate you all.

wendybeth

03-22-2006, 09:35 PM

€uro is right- we all think our own perception is the valid one. While I am glad one has to go off-site to locate vicious liberal statements, I will say I am not comfortable with any hate-speak, no matter what the source. It's one thing to say the Prez is an idiot, quite another to wish him or his cohorts bodily harm or to start making up silly little derogatory catch-phrases, although I understand the temptation, especially when one has so very much to work with.:D

SacTown Chronic

03-22-2006, 10:07 PM

This thread wasn't intended to be about hate; it's about anger. I understand that they sometimes seem interchangeable, but they're not. At least not for me. Anger can be a wonderful motivator. Without anger people would never quit sh*tty jobs or divorce worthless assholes.

I read the body count out of the paper
and now it's written all over my face

I've recently started noticing that reports of the atrocities in Iraq weren't always pissing me off as per usual. Weary resignation is more often the order of the day now. And that bothers me. I have basically two speeds when it comes to political issues: Anger or apathy. And the thought of being apathetic about war causes me to worry for my soul.

And that's what this thread is about. I'm angry at this adminstration for slowly stealing my anger and replacing it with a nasty apathy/despair virus. Of course that's what they want - always, since the dawn of time - leaders thrive on apathy. Apathy feeds the beast.

I don't want to be beast food. I want my precious anger back.

wendybeth

03-22-2006, 10:27 PM

It's hatred and fear that have brought things to their present state. Truth be told, it's probably more the manipulation of hate and fear that enables the current status quo. I agree with you wholeheartedly, Sac, and apathy frightens me as well. That means acceptance, and......well, history is full of examples of what that means.

€uroMeinke

03-22-2006, 10:34 PM

Now that I've been watching Arrested Development - all I can think about is White Power Bill...

Not Afraid

03-22-2006, 10:36 PM

A good bout of anger is a good thing once in a while, I just don't want to live that way all of the time. Unfortunately, we have potentially another 3 years of anger-inducing material to draw on....if not more.

BarTopDancer

03-22-2006, 11:12 PM

I hate you all.

You made the baby Jesus cry!

scaeagles

03-23-2006, 05:56 AM

This thread wasn't intended to be about hate; it's about anger.

Interesting. I think that often times when the supposed purveyors of "hate radio" are supposedly spewing their "hate", it's anger. There's a fine and difficult to determine line drawn somewhere, and I suppose it has more to do with the ideology of the person speaking and where it falls in relation to the listener.

Gemini Cricket

03-23-2006, 06:41 AM

Hmph! While I'm certainly not going to insert myself in this thread...
:p

:D

scaeagles

03-23-2006, 06:54 AM

Well how am I supposed to respond to that?:p :)

Gemini Cricket

03-23-2006, 07:06 AM

Well how am I supposed to respond to that?:p :)
Ha ha. I'm just messing with you, Leo. I respect your opinions very much.
:)

Nephythys

03-23-2006, 08:30 AM

Interesting. I think that often times when the supposed purveyors of "hate radio" are supposedly spewing their "hate", it's anger. There's a fine and difficult to determine line drawn somewhere, and I suppose it has more to do with the ideology of the person speaking and where it falls in relation to the listener.

:snap: :snap: :snap:

Scrooge McSam

03-23-2006, 09:01 AM

:snap: :snap: :snap:

So this means you're withdrawing your original criticism of this thread?

Motorboat Cruiser

03-23-2006, 09:20 AM

No one else here is going to see the irony in people in this thread calling conservatives (radio etc) "hateful" when the thread starts and continues in nothing but a hate fest itself?

There was no hate expressed in this thread (well, other than iSm, of course), only anger. As far as hatred expressed by right-wing radio, it is easy to find examples, not from hateful people that call the shows, but from the hosts themselves. Here are a few examples:

"You should only get AIDS and die, you pig. How's that? Why don't you see if you can sue me, you pig." - Michael Savage to a gay caller.

"We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee" - Ann Coulter

"I wanted to bludgeon her with a tire iron. That's what I wanted to do." Michael Graham on Hillary Clinton.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong but I've never heard Al Frankin or Randy Rhodes or any other liberal host EVER call for the death of anyone. Find me an example of a liberal talk show host that has stooped to these levels and I'll reconsider my position.

Therefore, I don't see the irony here.

scaeagles

03-23-2006, 09:34 AM

Not a talk radio personality....but I can give you a quote from Julianne Malveaux on a PBS show, speaking of Clarence Thomas -

"You know, I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease. Well, that's how I fell. He is an absolutely reprehensible person."

And another -

PBS's Nina Totenberg: "If there is retributive justice Sen. Jesse Helms will get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it."

scaeagles

03-23-2006, 09:35 AM

As a follow up, I suppose we can come to an agreement that wishing harm or death upon someone is hate speech.

Not Afraid

03-23-2006, 09:38 AM

As a follow up, I suppose we can come to an agreement that wishing harm or death upon someone is hate speech.

I'd pretty much agree that that is a good definition.

I don't think hate speech is owned solely by the right wing factions. I'm sure the left does it too, they ust don't seem to get as much press for it ....ie: it isn't as effective. ;)

mousepod

03-23-2006, 09:51 AM

Just for fun, let's put Nina Totenberg's quote in context, shall we?

Jesse Helms shot first:
Sen. Jesse Helms says the government should spend less money on people with AIDS because they got sick as a result of "deliberate, disgusting, revolting conduct," The New York Times reported Wednesday.

Helms, who has often spoken of his disgust for homosexuals, spoke to the Times as the Senate considers whether to renew a federal program for the care and treatment of AIDS patients.

"We've got to have some common sense about a disease transmitted by people deliberately engaging in unnatural acts," Helms told the Times.

Then Nina Totenberg commented:
"I think he ought to be worried about what's going on in the Good Lord's mind, because if there is retributive justice, he'll get AIDS from a transfusion or one of his grandchildren will get it." (Inside Washington, ABC-TV, 7/8/95)

Anger? Sure. Hate? Well... certainly from Helms...

Gemini Cricket

03-23-2006, 10:41 AM

I don't agree with hate speech coming from anyone. However, there does seem to be a double standard when it comes to the right wing. Bill Maher loses his 'Politically Incorrect' job because of his comments and Ann Coulter is still making thousands of dollars for her speeches despite saying that a Supreme Court Justice should be poisoned. That makes no sense. Michael Moore is booed for his comments and slammed by the right, but Michael Savage can say whatever he likes and the right is pretty quiet about his comments.

I mean, how does O'Reilly keep his job after saying the Coit Tower in San Francisco should be attacked?

Double standard.

innerSpaceman

03-23-2006, 11:22 AM

I see where Sac Town is coming from about anger morphing into apathy, and the soul rot that attends.

But anger is too destructive to ourselves. I just can't keep it up. (anger, that is). Was George Bush ever affected one iota by my anger? Or was it only me?

I'm pretty apathetic about things now. This administration may take the cake in many regards, but power has been a corrupt force always and everywhere. I still feel the way I feel about things. I still know evil when I see it and smell it. It's not required that I get riled up, it's not required that I go and "do something" about it. There's nothing I have to prove or demonstrate or accomplish in order for my soul to be pure and good. It just is.

Relax, SacTown, my brother - - you're a good soul. Nothing's gonna stop that. No warrantless NSA search can penetrate. Your soul is safe, and anger will only give you ulcers.

scaeagles

03-23-2006, 11:24 AM

Double standard on both sides. It goes back to what I said earlier, that "hate speech" is defined by the listener depending on the ideological agreement with the speaker of said "hate speech".

The things I posted are no different than what MBC posted. They are about wishing harm or death upon someone. Not a good thing. O'Reilly is a full of himself, self rghteous, and oft inconsistent moron. I have never heard Savage.

Nephythys

03-23-2006, 12:41 PM

So this means you're withdrawing your original criticism of this thread?

I was not being critical- just commenting.

But no- my opinion still stands.

Nephythys

03-23-2006, 12:45 PM

I'm sure the left does it too, they ust don't seem to get as much press for it ....ie: it isn't as effective. ;)

I would disagree (big surprise) because I think that is one of the reasons that the left keeps losing elections.

Not Afraid

03-23-2006, 02:41 PM

Don't worry. The right is catching up pretty quickly. ;)

Gemini Cricket

03-23-2006, 04:48 PM

What I'm trying to do with my anger with this administration is not let it get to me. And I also think it's important to direct my anger to this administration by writing as many letters as I can and calling as many politicians as I can. I can't tell you how many calls I made to Feinstein and Boxer before I left (now Kerry and Kennedy). Not to mention my local reps etc. It's important that they know my disgust. They are working for us after all...

Nephythys

03-23-2006, 05:33 PM

They are working for us after all...

I don't think they know it.

Motorboat Cruiser

03-23-2006, 05:35 PM

I would disagree (big surprise) because I think that is one of the reasons that the left keeps losing elections.

I think that the main reason that the Democrats have been losing is because they are spineless. Not "spineless" in the weak on terror, national security, sort of way but rather, they don't seem to be willing to stand up to the Republicans and call them on their BS. I mean, really. The Pubs ran on a platform of "keeping America safe", and yet have done absolutely zilch to protect our borders or prepare for any sort of catastrophe. So, have the democrats called them on this? Nope, not really.

Quite honestly, I think the only Democrat there is that I have any respect for right now is (and I'm sure scaeagles will get a laugh out of this) Russ Feingold. Not just because of the censure thing either, although I agree with it wholeheartedly, but because I think he has integrity. I don't agree with everything he says but that is not as important to me as someone who actually stands for something.

Basically, I'd like to see roughly 99% of them voted out.

SacTown Chronic

03-23-2006, 05:38 PM

I'd like to see roughly 99% of them indicted and thrown in prison for some Brokeback Lockdown.

Ghoulish Delight

03-23-2006, 05:47 PM

I will say this...I happen to agree with Pelosi that it's time to forget about the "impeachemnt" angle, and not just because of the uncontrollable shakes I get every time I think of the phrase "President Cheney".

When the spying program first leaked, I was all for an impeachment vote, or at the very least a serious investigation. If anything could have motivated the Republicans to wake up and start questioning their leadership like they should, that was it.

But the moment's passed. It's clear that it ain't gonna happen. So let it go and move on. Now, I'm not saying completely drop the issue. It's important to remind the voters that the Republicans in congress made the decission to not hold their leaders accountable for their actions. But the absolute WORST thing that could happen to the Democratic party is to regain control of Congress and make their first action impeachment of the President. Because then it's just petty vengefullness and questionable priorities.

Unless the anger comes from both sides of the aisle, no matter how justified the anger is, it's going to be looked at as "partisan politics" and dismissed. I hope that the Democrats would just get in there, and start making correct decissions going forward, rather than focusing their energy on this red herring.

Speaking of red herrings, my more cynical side thinks that Bush's declining popularity is all part of a devious plan by the Republican party. Having realized that they were far too late for any ammount of backtracking to win enough people back over, instead the goal is to now move Bush and crew as far to the extreme right as possible, so that come election time, the miffed centrists of the party won't say, "Damn, I've woken up and seen what's really going on. Screw the Republicans I'm jumpin' ship", they can say, "Damn, I've woken up and seen that Bush really is off the deep end. But hey, my Republican representative is saying the same thing, so I'll just vote him back in and he can stear things back on course."

The Shadoe

03-23-2006, 10:04 PM

I hope that no one here honestly thinks that Iraqis are better off under a dictator? I hear a lot of that. Take a glance at history. You can find newspaper articles criticizing the United States for getting involved in Germany and Japan, that nation-building in those areas would never work, that those people couldn't function under anything but a dictatorship. If you blanked out the names of the countries, you'd think the articles were about Iraq.

And take a look at Germany and Japan now... among the world's strongest economies.

People complain about freedom not coming to the Iraqis without taking a look at the United States history. It took 14 YEARS after we gained independance from the British to get things going. It wasn't just like "The British are gone, now everything is hunky-dory." To boot, we had a civil war as well! It took a Civil War to even attempt to correct the problems in society. President Lincoln SUSPENDED civil liberties during that period of time!! There wasn't a Patriot Act which pretty much only detains people, liberties were outright SUSPENDED during those times! Lincoln had people who acted like Cindy Sheehan hauled off. Why? He felt that there was too much at stake.

I'm not going to get into a debate about whether we should've gone to war in Iraq or not, but we are there now, and it would be disastrous if we pulled out of Iraq now. Nation building is a long process. Iraq is into it 3 years. The United States took 14.

Nation building isn't like constructing a shed, which is a day's work. It's more like building a skyscraper. And it doesn't go perfectly all of the time. We simply can't pull out of Iraq now. It would be a disaster. This is a long process, and for our sake, the citizens of Iraq's sake, and the Middle East's sake, it is vitally important that this works.

Imagine if the people who talk about all the negativity in Iraq were alive when the United States was in the process of building itself up. Using their logic, they'd have thrown in the towel and surrendered to the British.

wendybeth

03-23-2006, 10:16 PM

We did not go into Iraq to nation build. It is not our business to nation build unless asked- we certainly do not invade other countries with the express intent of doing so. We did not invade Japan pre-emptively, we were attacked. Same with Germany. What you describe is called imperialism, and God help us if that is what we are up to over there. It has never worked in the past, and it won't work now.

The Shadoe

03-23-2006, 11:10 PM

Saddam wouldn't ask us, would he? Yet when you hear actual Iraqi citizens in the villages, it would appear that they do want us there helping them. Laura Ingraham recently went all out on the Today show (http://newsbusters.org/node/4583), criticizing them for not telling the whole story, not talking to the soldiers, and not talking to the citizens. It looks like there has now been an Ingraham effect... what's that? More positive news from Iraq? Seems like MSM is trying to paint LI as being wrong. Too late.

As far as imperialism goes, I urge everyone to read a political science textbook. The United States isn't practicing imperialism. A requirement to be imperial is to actually have an empire. We don't have one. Another requirement of imperialism is that one nation is trying to extend it's rule over another nation. Again, we aren't making American laws. The Iraqi's now have an elected government who are drafting a constitution and are making up the law of the land for the Iraqis. By the Iraqis and for the Iraqis. That's not imperialistic.

What I described really isn't at all fundamentally different from our own situation when we were founded, Japan, or Germany.

The Shadoe

03-23-2006, 11:24 PM

Find me an example of a liberal talk show host that has stooped to these levels and I'll reconsider my position.

Well there must be lots, because Michelle Malkin wrote a whole book about it. I recommend you at least take a look at Unhinged. Unfortunately, I don't have it handy to quote from at the moment, but if you check it out, various Air America hosts are in there acting like gooks, especially Al Franken. Laura Ingraham once mentioned about how at the RNC04 he went and stuck his finger into her producer's face. I also remember Malkin talking about him wrestling a Dean supporter to the ground at a Kerry rally, and getting into a hissy fit with someone at Fox for "not being liberal enough."

I just saw a book at Barnes & Noble that exposes the many, many lies of Franken, which is ironic because he claims to be the purveyor of all truth.

Anyhow, if people like Coulter, Limbaugh, Ingraham, Medved, etc. were to disappear, Franken would have nothing to talk about. He talks about them on an almost daily basis, whereas they rarely talk about him at all. Laura Ingraham, as I already mentioned, brought up his wacky behavior; Ann Coulter reportedly once tried to say "Hi" to him and he accused her of name-dropping when she told someone of how he snubbed her. Ann Coulter dropping Al Franken's name? That's laughable. Ann Coulter doesn't need Franken, but Franken certainly needs Coulter.

wendybeth

03-23-2006, 11:24 PM

Prudence

03-23-2006, 11:32 PM

It's probably best not to imply that those who disagree are unfamiliar with the topic, although it's a tempting trap into which I fall all too often.

Personally, I think there are limits to what the current administration would "permit" the Iraqis to decide. And I'm not automatically disagreeing with that philosophy. Absolutely there are laws they could propose that would merit, at the very least, strong influence. However, that means the benevolent servant ideal where the US merely provides the heavy lifting isn't an accurate description.

mousepod

03-23-2006, 11:34 PM

Shadoe - I'm sorry... were you saying something? I read Laura Ingraham's name and sort of tuned out.

You were saying something about all of us reading some kind of poli sci book? How do you know we haven't?

[Somalia] (s)tarted off as a humanitarian mission and it changed into a nation-building mission, and that's where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price. And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow the dictator when it's in our best interests. But in this case it was a nation-building exercise, and same with Haiti. I wouldn't have supported either.

wendybeth

03-23-2006, 11:40 PM

Right now, a Christian convert is facing death in Afghanistan. This has created an interesting conundrum for the Bush administration. Do they intervene, and maybe cause the Karzai government incredible difficulties? Do we do what we would normally do, which would realistically be to try and ignore the situation, or in the face of mounting international criticism lodge a complaint with a world body such as the UN? Right now, the rumor is they are going with an insanity move, as no true muslim in their right mind would ever turn christian, but what if that doesn't satisfy the imams? The christian right. left and in-between will go after this admin like nobody's business. We'll see just how non-imperialistic we are with this little drama.

(For the record, I hope they go in with Blackhawks and rescue the poor guy).

The Shadoe

03-23-2006, 11:46 PM

"Read a political science textbook"?

Only one?

Uhm, okay. Circa 1977 was the first. Since then, I've lost track how many. And that's just textbooks. I've also read a plethora of political and historical biographies, which imho are far more valuable than any dry textook. I've lived a fair amount of time, and seen a lot- a lot that you've maybe only read about. Don't believe the rhetoric, Shadoe- that's ignorance. Investigate and look at all possible sides before you form such strong opinions. Don't let other people make them for you, just because they use big words and know important people. No one is infallible, and everyone has an agenda. Find out what it is, and if you can live with it and all it's ramifications, then go for it. But you had better be able to back it up, and not with anything by Ms. Ingraham. She's just too much like that snotty co-ed from Animal House. (shudder).

Oh, and from Mirriam-Webster Online:
imperialism

One entry found for imperialism.
Main Entry: im·pe·ri·al·ism http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:popWin%28%27/cgi-bin/audio.pl?imperi03.wav=imperialism%27%29)
Pronunciation: im-'pir-E-&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : imperial (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/imperial) government, authority, or system
2 : the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence <union imperialism>
- im·pe·ri·al·ist http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:popWin%28%27/cgi-bin/audio.pl?imperi04.wav=imperialist%27%29) /-list/ noun or adjective
- im·pe·ri·al·is·tic http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:popWin%28%27/cgi-bin/audio.pl?imperi05.wav=imperialistic%27%29) /-"pir-E-&-'lis-tik/ adjective
- im·pe·ri·al·is·ti·cal·ly http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:popWin%28%27/cgi-bin/audio.pl?imperi06.wav=imperialistically%27%29) /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb http://www.m-w.com/images/pixt.gif

I read many newspapers, blogs, talk shows, etc. I like to sample a wide variety of opinions and viewpoints. I do not form my viewpoints just because Laura Ingraham happens to say it. She has been the person who I gravitate towards because my beliefs are generally in line with hers.

I have a great political science professor who has taught me more than any other professor I have had. He's absolutely brilliant.

And in general, I end up leaning towards the conservatives on most issues? Why? Because in general they offer up substance. Not just rhetoric, but actual substance. I find it difficult to back many of the liberal positions on issues where in the end they had egg smeared in their face because of all the foul-drawl that is put forward. It seems like their bigger agenda is to attack Republicans. They have no plan, no strategy. Chuck Schumer and "San Fran Nan" have even admitted this. Articles have been written about it. I certainly can't back people with no plan (or if a plan is offered, it's pie-in-the-sky, like Murtha's).

And the dictionary definition you posted proves that America is not imperialistic.

1. We are not an empire. I beg of you to find any trace of colonies.
2. We haven't taken over Iraq to make "territorial acquisitions". And we aren't imposing our power in the sense that we don't have control over the politics. To the economy, some extent. But by and large, the Iraqis are voting on their own and establishing the economy on their own. We are nudging them in the right direction. We're not looking to dominate Iraq.

By the very definition of imperialism which you have provided, we are not imperialistic. My prof went into great detail one lecture about how the United States doesn't fit the requirements of being imperialistic when I took his International Relations course last year. This year he went on a tirade about how simple minded the people who say that Bush is like Hitler after a student went and said that to him. That incident occured over three weeks ago, and he still gets riled up about it.

mousepod

03-23-2006, 11:56 PM

The Shadoe

03-24-2006, 12:03 AM

It's probably best not to imply that those who disagree are unfamiliar with the topic, although it's a tempting trap into which I fall all too often.

That's an example of elitism. In my humble opinion, the "we know better" ideology does not belong in a rational debate.

Unfamiliar? I suppose my professor with a PhD is unfamiliar as well? The United States isn't imperialistic. It's not imperialistic by the dumbed-down dictionary definition. And it's certainly not imperialistic by the textbook definition. If you have already read the textbooks, crack 'em open again; it's time to review the tome.

I absolutely don't mean to come across as being offensive, but I hold a very strong viewpoint on most matters, and I research them both out of personal interest, and because I get extra credit presenting speeches to my classes (This week I gave a speech about the positive and negative effects of Reagonomics in my Macroeconomics and Poli Sci classes).

wendybeth

03-24-2006, 12:14 AM

The Shadoe

03-24-2006, 12:19 AM

Imperialism aside, what say you to the true small-government conservatives who feel that President Bush has betrayed the cause?

Watch as the Republican party continues to magically distance itself from the Bush team as the elections approach.

By the way, if you gravitate toward Laura Ingraham, does that also include using snide nicknames like "San Fran Nan" instead of Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (whom I happily voted for, btw)?

Personally? I'd rather that we weren't in Iraq. On most aspects I consider myself a conservative first, Libertarian second. When talking about Iraq, I have kept clear my own personal judgements about our purpose there, and have been making an honest effort to bring to light the aspects of nation-building, which is what we are doing there, and how they compare to other places.

I don't have a problem with LI's snide names. For all I care, you can make snide names about anyone. In fact, I'm sure that most people have snide names for others they aren't fond of. It's better than the libelous "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them". Calling someone a liar is a serious accusation, and it's even worse if you are going around claiming that you never lie, and then are caught lying in the very book about the lying liars. Or Michelle "****" Malkin. No one deserves that.

wendybeth

03-24-2006, 12:21 AM

Believe me, Shadoe- if the Lying liars could sue for slander or libel, they would have. Good thing the book was backed up with facts, eh?

innerSpaceman

03-24-2006, 12:22 AM

We are not an empire. I beg of you to find any trace of colonies.
Um, Puerto Rico. Since the Supreme Court just denied Puerto Ricans the right to vote in U.S. presidential elections, what are they - other than a colony? How is a "territory" with no citizenship rights for its denizens anything other than a colony?

Get out of the books for a moment. Empires of the 21st century are not the Empires of antiquity. The United States is an imperial power by every measure of modern sense.

The Shadoe

03-24-2006, 12:35 AM

While I am most impressed with your class roster, I must yield to the doers of society- I learned long ago that professors, while largely admirable, were teachers of what other people do. Not meaning to denegrate them whatsover, but they too have an agenda, and I would make it my business to find out what that was. It's easy to admire and follow people who spout off about the same things one already believes- they are geniuses!! It's much more difficult to read or listen to someone give an entirely differing viewpoint, and actually give that viewpoint a chance. Run it through your brain, look at all the shadings of grey, think that perhaps they may have something to offer. Life is not black and white, and if they are not teaching you that in college, than you are getting screwed. Or, you're in a junior college.

Well, I have another professor in African-American Literature. I listen to him everyday as well. He has started passing me up when I raise my hand because I confront what he has to say ona regular basis. This one makes fun of passwords being set on the computers, making fun of needed security measures. He constantly makes remarks about how botched up he thinks Iraq is, about how incompetent he thinks President Bush is, etc. The difference between him and my political science professor? My poli sci prof backs everything he says up with clearly outlined logic. My poli sci prof presents various points of view and where their strengths and flaws lie. My Afr-Amr Lit teacher doesn't do any of that. He's stopped calling on me because I confront him on what he says and ask him to back it up. The last time he called on me, it was when he said that "Bill Cosby is out of touch". I asked him to back that up and instead of answering me, he went on to the next person.

I don't see things in black and white, or in absolutes. There are no absolutes, except as the famous quote goes "death and taxes". It seems like a common viewpoint that Conservatives see things as black and white -- not so. What you are seeing is a group of people who have come together because they agree on a certain set of issues. My VERY-liberal and VERY-feminist European History professor wore black in class after Bush's election, and said that conservatives are very good and picking issues and agreeing on them. She told our class that Democrats are going to have to work on that in order to win elections in the future.

I find the Junior College remark to be out-of-line. At least in Minnesota. I attend the University of Minnesota, but I know plenty of people who attended community college here first because the class sizes are smaller and it's cheaper (in Minnesota we have what's called the Minnesota Transfer Curriculm which allows you to easily transfer your credits to other schools in the state). I don't know about Community Colleges where you live, but here they are held up to the same standards as the other public schools. One of them in particular which is only a few miles from my house, Century College, is constantly winning awards with their debate team, math team, etc.

wendybeth

03-24-2006, 12:43 AM

The Shadoe

03-24-2006, 12:51 AM

Um, Puerto Rico. Since the Supreme Court just denied Puerto Ricans the right to vote in U.S. presidential elections, what are they - other than a colony? How is a "territory" with no citizenship rights for its denizens anything other than a colony?

Puerto Rico is a commonwealth.

1. nation or its people: a nation or its people considered as a political entity

2. republic: a nation or state in which the people govern

3. association of states: a group of states that have formed an association for the political and economic benefit of all members

4. people with common interest: a group of people linked by something that they all have in common

Technically, it's not a colony since we pretty much let them do their own thing. We're not trying to impose control over them. Anyhow, they seem to be content with the way things are. In 1998 the House passed a bill calling for elections to decide the island's permanent status. They chose to keep it the way it is.

Puerto Rico is the largest commonwealth of the United States. The rest are small islands, which again, are pretty much left to their own devices. That doesn't qualify as an empire, and certainly doesn't prove that the United States is imperialistic.

Get out of the books for a moment. Empires of the 21st century are not the Empires of antiquity. The United States is an imperial power by every measure of modern sense.

What is the "modern sense"? Please pin down a definition, and how the United States fits into it. If there is a "Modern sense" then maybe we should be looking at a new term instead of trying to apply a term that doesn't fit...

mousepod

03-24-2006, 12:52 AM

The Shadoe

03-24-2006, 12:58 AM

The junior college comment was a joke- kind of. A sort of 'you get what you pay for 'joke, which here in my neck of America means the Wal-Mart version of academics. Can't speak for your state, Shadoe.

We could argue political science and Lying Liars all night, but I have to go to bed- got to work tomorrow. Someone has to pay for this ****ing war.

Believe me, I'm working as well. I'm in class full-time on Tuesdays and Thursdays and working full-time as the Director of I/T at DiscBurn (http://www.discburn.com) MWF and sometimes Saturday if we get a rush job. Not to puff up my chest about what I do, but I really enjoy my job and my co-workers, so I usually am pretty excited to go there. I do miss when we were located downtown St Paul though. Something about people-watching and fancy high-rises with skyways is so much fun.

Anyhow, it has been a good debate, and certainly great for doing "mental pushups!" I do like debating people, perhaps too much so sometimes. :blush:

Motorboat Cruiser

03-24-2006, 02:06 AM

Anyhow, if people like Coulter, Limbaugh, Ingraham, Medved, etc. were to disappear, Franken would have nothing to talk about. He talks about them on an almost daily basis, whereas they rarely talk about him at all.

Perhaps he talks about them every day because they have a tendency to lie every day. I suspect that if there were no lies to catch them in, he would probably have to find something else to do. As it stands, they give him plenty of material. And as someone else said, if he is libelous, where are the lawsuits? The one from O'Reilly and Fox was laughed out of the courtroom.

MickeyLumbo

03-24-2006, 07:08 AM

Fvckers.

i get goosebumps when you talk dirty

Gemini Cricket

03-24-2006, 07:09 AM

The best part about Bush's mess ups is that I get to sit back and say 'Well, I didn't vote for him.'
:)

I've totally wasted my breath talking about Ann Coulter in the past. I think there's a lot of self-hate there.

MickeyLumbo

03-24-2006, 07:19 AM

The best part about Bush's mess ups is that I get to sit back and say 'Well, I didn't vote for him.'
:)

.

well i did, after careful thought and sorting out my priorities and realizing that the nation's security was a top priority for me... everything else that was (and still is) important to me seemed moot if terrorist attacks 9or potential of) continued to bring the country to it's knees.

but, giving the job of security to company's with strong ties to foreign governments, who in turn have ties to terrorism, makes no sense to me.

SacTown Chronic

03-24-2006, 07:26 AM

Laura Ingraham recently went all out on the Today show (http://newsbusters.org/node/4583), criticizing them for not telling the whole story, not talking to the soldiers, and not talking to the citizens. It looks like there has now been an Ingraham effect... what's that? More positive news from Iraq? Seems like MSM is trying to paint LI as being wrong. Too late.
An Ingraham effect? Urm, no. (http://mediamatters.org/items/200603240001)

The following are examples from recent days of Bush and administration officials directing blame at the media's coverage of Iraq:

On March 19, Vice President Dick Cheney appeared on CBS' Face the Nation and answered a question about the sagging support for the Iraq war by noting that "there's a constant sort of perception, if you will, that's created because what's newsworthy is the car bomb in Baghdad."

During a March 20 press gaggle, White House press secretary Scott McClellan discussed the speech Bush would give later that day in Cleveland. McClellan said that the "dramatic images that people see on the TV screens ... are much easier to put into a news clip" and told reporters that the president would address the "real progress being made toward a democratic future."
In his speech to the City Club of Cleveland, Bush said he understood "how some Americans have had their confidence shaken." He continued: "Others look at the violence they see each night on their television screens, and they wonder how I can remain so optimistic about the prospects of success in Iraq." Bush then talked about the town of Tal Afar, which he described as a "concrete example of progress in Iraq that most Americans do not see every day in their newspapers and on their television screens."
Later in the speech, Bush said: "The kind of progress that we and the Iraqi people are making in places like Tal Afar is not easy to capture in a short clip on the evening news. Footage of children playing, or shops opening, and people resuming their normal lives will never be as dramatic as the footage of an IED explosion, or the destruction of a mosque, or soldiers and civilians being killed or injured."

During a March 21 press conference, Bush said that "for every act of violence, there is encouraging progress in Iraq that's hard to capture on the evening news."

Later in the press conference, Bush claimed that he had presented "a realistic assessment of the enemy's capability to affect the debate. ... They're capable of blowing up innocent life so it ends up on your TV show. And, therefore, it affects the woman in Cleveland you were talking to. And I can understand how Americans are worried about whether or not we can win. "

As the White House mounted its offensive in recent days, the Bush administration's argument that news outlets have consistently ignored the good news in Iraq in favor of reports on bombings, kidnappings, and other atrocities has echoed throughout the media. For instance, as MSNBC host Keith Olbermann noted on the March 22 edition of Countdown, radio talk show host Laura Ingraham appeared on NBC's Today on March 21 and complained that the network's Iraq correspondents only "report[] from hotel balconies about the latest IEDs [improvised explosive devices] going off." Later that day, in an appearance on Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Ingraham claimed that there are many in the media "who are invested in America's defeat." O'Reilly, in turn, expressed his belief that "there is a segment of the media trying to undermine the policy in Iraq for their own ideological purposes," as Media Matters for America noted.

Actually what you have here is the latest administration excuses for failure talking points being distributed to, and parroted by, all the usual suspects. Blaming the media seems like the last, and most desperate, act of a nothing's-our-fault administration.

But hey, far be it for me to come between you and Laura I. Carry on with the hero worship.

SacTown Chronic

03-24-2006, 08:06 AM

well i did, after careful thought and sorting out my priorities and realizing that the nation's security was a top priority for me...

"You know, we used to think we were secure because of oceans and previous diplomacy. But we realized on September the 11th, 2001, that killers could destroy innocent life."

A man who thought oceans protected us, a man who apparently never heard of Pearl fvcking Harbor, a man who allowed the executions of numerous people when he was governor of Texas despite being unaware that killers can destroy innocent life, a man who was asleep at the switch on 9/11/01, would not be my first, second, or ten billionth choice to protect our country.

Gemini Cricket

03-24-2006, 08:09 AM

Here's my "a ha!" moment for the day:

Being angry helps you vent, but it's no fun dwelling in the Madlands.

The Shadoe

03-24-2006, 08:34 AM

Sorry to drag up a topic from a couple of pages ago, Shadoe, but I can't let you get away with your ridiculous Ann Coulter/Al Franken comment.

Each of Ann Coulter's four books has been a slam at the Left. Liberal-bashing is her bread and butter.

Al Franken was a professional comedian and writer for over 20 years before he published 'Rush Limbaugh is A Big Fat Idiot'.

Just thought a little truth might be in order here.

That's not news to me. The difference is that Ann Coulter is successful at what she does. She doesn't NEED to sit there talking about Al Franken the way he talks about her. And in general she doesn't. He, on the other hand, talks about her all the time. It's almost creepy, like he has a crush on her or something.

An Ingraham effect? Urm, no. (http://mediamatters.org/items/200603240001)

How about a positive YES! (http://newsbusters.org/node/4583)

A man who thought oceans protected us, a man who apparently never heard of Pearl fvcking Harbor, a man who allowed the executions of numerous people when he was governor of Texas despite being unaware that killers can destroy innocent life, a man who was asleep at the switch on 9/11/01, would not be my first, second, or ten billionth choice to protect our country.
That's not what Bush thought. That's what the country thought. The 'we' refers to the United States of America. The concept he is talking about is called isolationism, something the nation was steeped in until we were forced out of it in World War II.

The best part about Bush's mess ups is that I get to sit back and say 'Well, I didn't vote for him.'
WWKD? (What Would Kerry Do?) Think about the screw-ups he would've caused, and had he been in the presidency, I could kick back too and say "Well, I didn't vote for him." I could do that, but I wouldn't. Sitting back and watching a person make mistakes isn't my bag. No matter who is in office, I'd rather that they succeed and do some good. I might not be fond of them or voted for them, but they deserve some dignity. I think most of us learnedabout helping others in kindergarten... sitting back and being carefree is rather cruel. So much for the "compassionate, caring, accepting liberals"...

Actually what you have here is the latest administration excuses for failure talking points being distributed to, and parroted by, all the usual suspects. Blaming the media seems like the last, and most desperate, act of a nothing's-our-fault administration.
Do you honestly think that the media is unbiased? And that they are reporting the whole story? What do you think people's views of the war are going to be when all you hear about are IEDs exploding. And little to no news coverage of anything positive happening, even though it is happening. And now the MSM is caught in a sticky spot. They DON'T talk with the troops. They DON'T talk to the Iraqis. They are completely removed and even feel that they are above talking to the "uneducated" men and women in uniform. Chris Matthews said as much recently. The MSM haven't been able to sucessfully go after Laura Ingraham's accusations. Why? Because as usual, she has a strong point, and just like most of the lefties on her show, they end up sputtering because she, as usual, outwitted them with her superior intellect and biting remarks.

But hey, far be it for me to come between you and Laura I. Carry on with the hero worship.

I don't "hero worship" Laura Ingraham. She happens to be my favorite pundit, and with good reason.

http://images.lauraingraham.com/images/photos/020706_kids.jpg

Scrooge McSam

03-24-2006, 08:48 AM

I hope that no one here honestly thinks that Iraqis are better off under a dictator? I hear a lot of that.

You do, huh? From where, pray tell? From your right wing sources who continually spout what liberals are supposedly all about?

If you blanked out the names of the countries, you'd think the articles were about Iraq.

Only if you do no more research that what you've shown.

It took 14 YEARS after we gained independance from the British to get things going.

Sure did... and we didn't even have 3 major tribes trying to kill each other over religious fantasies.

Also, if I recall, our founding fathers were careful to provide us some limits on government as it applies to religion.

See? Our situations are exactly alike, aren't they?

I'm not going to get into a debate about whether we should've gone to war in Iraq or not, but we are there now, and it would be disastrous if we pulled out of Iraq now.

Why not have the debate? We certainly didn't have it when all this began, did we? No, all debate was shut down be calling people treasonous and Saddam lovers for daring to disagree with the President. And notice, I'm not giving the democrats a pass here for letting it happen.

This is a long process, and for our sake, the citizens of Iraq's sake, and the Middle East's sake, it is vitally important that this works.

Yes, it's a long process no matter how you go about it. We had begun the process by advocating regime change through education, sanctions and diplomacy. And guess what? It was working. Where are Saddam's weapons, Shadoe? Where is Saddam's connection to Al Queda, Shadoe?

Laura Ingraham recently went all out on the Today show, criticizing them for not telling the whole story, not talking to the soldiers, and not talking to the citizens.
Yeah, I saw her performance and it was disgusting. Perhaps Ms. Ingraham is unaware (geez what an understatement) that 80 journalists have been killed while working on the story that is Iraq. Perhaps they were all shot on their hotel balconies which Ms Ingraham claims they work from.
I urge everyone to read a political science textbook.
Did everyone enjoy this comment as much as I did??
What I described really isn't at all fundamentally different from our own situation when we were founded, Japan, or Germany
... and that one??

Well there must be lots, because Michelle Malkin wrote a whole book about it. I recommend you at least take a look at Unhinged.
I love love LOVE it when people pull out Malkin and the rest of the bomb throwers and start parading them around as some standard of honesty, because usually you'll get some thin shred of information maquerading as the truth, i.e. Shadoe's next comment.

I also remember Malkin talking about him wrestling a Dean supporter to the ground at a Kerry rally
Did Malkin also tell you the rest of the story? Did Malkin tell you the manager of the facility approached the heckler and asked him several times to tone it down, and that it was only after the heckler started throwing punches at the people around him that Franken took him down? No? I wonder why not.
And just in case you're tempted to comment on the heckler's speech rights being trampled, please remember that citizens who disagree with President Bush are generally not even allowed in the same hall Dear Leader lies from.

And in general, I end up leaning towards the conservatives on most issues?
I used to, as well, before conservative thought went to hell in a handbasket.

Why? Because in general they offer up substance. Not just rhetoric, but actual substance.
Malkin and Coulter? (And yes, I realize Malkin and Coulter are NOT republican leaders. I continue to harp on them because YOU brought them into the conversation as examples of conservative truth)

I find it difficult to back many of the liberal positions on issues where in the end they had egg smeared in their face because of all the foul-drawl that is put forward. It seems like their bigger agenda is to attack Republicans.
Did you just wake up? Have you completely missed the concerted effort in recent decades to stamp out liberalism completely? Sorry, my bad... you probably did.
And what of this so-called conservative substance?
Fiscal responsibility? I usually try not to laugh directly in someone's face, but that may be unavoidable in this case.
Government out of people lives? Ditto
Giving 8 cell blastocysts the same rights as a functioning human being?
I absolutely don't mean to come across as being offensive
I see. We'll just call that an unfortunate side effect and move on
Calling someone a liar is a serious accusation
More serious than accusing someone of treason? One loses you respect; the other can get you killed.

Gemini Cricket

03-24-2006, 09:02 AM

WWKD? (What Would Kerry Do?) Think about the screw-ups he would've caused, and had he been in the presidency, I could kick back too and say "Well, I didn't vote for him." I could do that, but I wouldn't. Sitting back and watching a person make mistakes isn't my bag. No matter who is in office, I'd rather that they succeed and do some good. I might not be fond of them or voted for them, but they deserve some dignity. I think most of us learnedabout helping others in kindergarten... sitting back and being carefree is rather cruel. So much for the "compassionate, caring, accepting liberals"...

Supposing what Kerry would have screwed up is vastly different than seeing what Bush actually screwed up. The man lost a city on his watch. Am I supposed to sit here and say, 'Well, good thing Kerry's not in. He would have lost more than just one.' Huh?

I sit back and watch because that's all anyone can do. The soldiers who died in this war for no reason deserve my respect, Bush does not. The memories of innocent Iraqi citizens bombed in the middle of the night by us deserve to be thought on with dignity, not Bush.

Shooting an unarmed Iraqi family (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1174682,00.html) (including 3 children) is cruel. Watching an out of touch leader implode because of his own stupidity is not.

I can show you tons of pictures of smiling people, it doesn't mean a damn thing.

SacTown Chronic

03-24-2006, 09:17 AM

That's not what Bush thought. That's what the country thought. The 'we' refers to the United States of America.
No, we didn't think that. Every person I've ever talked to about terrorism was well aware that America was an attractive target prior to 9/11 (*cough*WTC attack circa 1993*cough*).

Ghoulish Delight

03-24-2006, 09:18 AM

Shadoe, if you want to talk about picking up poli-sci books and looking at history, how about looking at the fact that in the last century not one instance where the United States went into a country and initiated regime change was the end result successful.

Was it good that Iraq was ruled by a dangerous dictator? Clearly not. But unless the people themselves are strong and cohesive enough to initiated change on their own, history has shown that outside help does nothing but replace one bad situation with another, and cost lives of the liberators.

scaeagles

03-24-2006, 09:41 AM

I agree with that to a point, GD, but not wholely.

I think a group of oppressed people is not nearly as able to overthrow an oppressive government as they once were. Methods and technology have changed drastically.

The US revolution was a success with only about 20% of the populace wanting to fight for independence. The British did not have huge technological (in terms of military hardware) advantages, and the colonists were well fed and armed with basically the same weapons as the Biritish.

When you look at somewhere like a Somalia, where hundreds of thousands of people are starving under oppressive warlords, why are they starving? It isn't because there is no food available. It is because the warlords who control the trucks and roads will not allow food to get to the starving people. If you are malnourished, how can you fight?

I could say the same for Rwanda or any other number of African nations.

It is possible, if military leaders under a dictator go against him, for a revolution to take hold. However, in such an example, the military leader overthrowing one dictator typical just wants all the power for himself and becomes a dictator himself.

With what would Iraqis have risen up? The fear and intimidation was clear. I know if I were an Iraqi man, knowing that even speaking ill about my government would result not in my torture, but in the torture and imprisonment of my family, my little girls, I'm keeping my mouth shut. (By the way - props to some of the founding fathers, many of whom faced just that for their families who were in England. The general populace who were fighting, though, did not face that in mass.)

SacTown Chronic

03-24-2006, 09:43 AM

Do you honestly think that the media is unbiased?
No. Actually I think the MSM has rolled over and shown the Bush administration their belly like a frightened animal.

SacTown Chronic

03-24-2006, 09:55 AM

We didn't invade Iraq in order to bend them over and force democracy on them. We went because WMD. We went because they were an "imminent threat". We went because Condi put images of mushroom clouds in our heads.

Drives me nuts when people confuse pre-invasion justifications with post-invasion spin.

The Shadoe

03-24-2006, 10:01 AM

You do, huh? From where, pray tell? From your right wing sources who continually spout what liberals are supposedly all about?

General liberal opinion. I continually read it on blogs.

Only if you do no more research that what you've shown.

Please elaborate. I didn't hear anyone else providing historical context in this thread with similar situations that we've faced in the past.

Sure did... and we didn't even have 3 major tribes trying to kill each other over religious fantasies.
Again, the terrorists WANT Civil War to break out, and they are going to egg it on as much as possible. It needn't happen.

Also, if I recall, our founding fathers were careful to provide us some limits on government as it applies to religion.
If Iraqis want more religion in their government, then so be it. That's part of democracy.

See? Our situations are exactly alike, aren't they?
I beg you to find one place where I said that the situations are exactly alike. Of course they aren't exactly alike. But they share fundamental similarities.

Why not have the debate? We certainly didn't have it when all this began, did we? No, all debate was shut down be calling people treasonous and Saddam lovers for daring to disagree with the President. And notice, I'm not giving the democrats a pass here for letting it happen.
I didn't want to get into a debate IN THAT POST about why we were there. By all means there should be a debate, but we need to be focused forwards now that we are there, NOT BACKWARDS. What's done is done. Time to make lemonade out of lemons. Oh, and what debate was shut down? Are you referring to the Chill Wind or whatever nonsense it was that Sean Penn was talking about? I don't believe that for a moment. I haven't heard anyone being shut up when speaking about the war, unless they were breaking laws in the process, like Cindy Sheehan has repeatedly done.

Yes, it's a long process no matter how you go about it. We had begun the process by advocating regime change through education, sanctions and diplomacy. And guess what? It was working. Where are Saddam's weapons, Shadoe? Where is Saddam's connection to Al Queda, Shadoe?
Apparently you don't know about Saddam's secret tapes (http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=1616996)... and thousands of documents that haven't yet been declassified. Saddam's connection to Al Qaeda? Take a look (http://www.nysun.com/article/29746). Going into war and even now, liberals have screamed "no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda" and the more that turns up, the more we know this isn't true. Saddam allowed Al Qaeda operatives in his country. He knew they were there. He didn't do anything about it. And now these new letters show there was collaboration between Saddam and bin Ladin. Don't be so quick to write things off. Especially as new evidence comes to light.

Yeah, I saw her performance and it was disgusting. Perhaps Ms. Ingraham is unaware (geez what an understatement) that 80 journalists have been killed while working on the story that is Iraq. Perhaps they were all shot on their hotel balconies which Ms Ingraham claims they work from.

Did everyone enjoy this comment as much as I did??

Well, why not pick one up? Enjoy the comment. Do you think that you are above a refresher course? Picking up my poli sci book here, there are a few phrases about colonialism and imperialism that jump out at me.

"For centuries, the great powers of Europe had competed for colonial hodlings, ruling, and administering over weaker and less-advanced peoples and territories located in faraway places around the world." (We aren't doing this!)
"The Eurocentric system [...] became synonymous with foreign subjugation and exploitation." (Where's the exploitation and subjugation?)If you were to read the book that I have in front of me, it looks more like the US is trying to fix the effects of colonialism in Iraq that were brought on by the European Empires.

... and that one??
So the comment is enjoyable, eh? No one has tried to counter that point with any evidence stating the contrary. So laugh and point all you want, but no one has provided anything that proves otherwise.

I love love LOVE it when people pull out Malkin and the rest of the bomb throwers and start parading them around as some standard of honesty, because usually you'll get some thin shred of information maquerading as the truth, i.e. Shadoe's next comment.
Bomb-throwers like Franken and Randi Rhodes? Puh-lease.

Did Malkin also tell you the rest of the story? Did Malkin tell you the manager of the facility approached the heckler and asked him several times to tone it down, and that it was only after the heckler started throwing punches at the people around him that Franken took him down? No? I wonder why not.
And just in case you're tempted to comment on the heckler's speech rights being trampled, please remember that citizens who disagree with President Bush are generally not even allowed in the same hall Dear Leader lies from.
Interesting that Franken finds himself in these situations all the time. Do you have an explanation as to why Franken went and stuck his finger in Laura Ingraham's producer's face? Or was her producer out of line? Because the picture I saw showed her producer sitting in a chair while Franken had his finger in the face with a threatening stance. It's suspicious when Franken finds himself in these situations all the time. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the pro-Dean supporter was being heckled by Franken. Granted, I think that it was stupid for the the Deankey to be at a Kerry Rally, but Franken's behavior is not justifiable.

I used to, as well, before conservative thought went to hell in a handbasket.
It really depends on who you listen to? Liberal thought as of late has been about nothing other than attacking republicans, unrealistic pie-in-the-sky idealism, etc.

Malkin and Coulter? (And yes, I realize Malkin and Coulter are NOT republican leaders. I continue to harp on them because YOU brought them into the conversation as examples of conservative truth)
I brought up Malkin. I didn't bring up Coulter. If you look back, soemone mentioned Coulter earlier and I responded to that post.

Did you just wake up? Have you completely missed the concerted effort in recent decades to stamp out liberalism completely? Sorry, my bad... you probably did.
Provide some evidence of this please. That's a ludicrious accusation, one that can't be baked up. Did Randi Rhodes tell you this? Or Sean Penn?

And what of this so-called conservative substance?
When Bush was running, I heard plans about what should be done with Iraq, domestic and foreign policies. What did I hear from Kerry? He talked about how the Democrats have better plans, but mysteriously he didn't let people in as to what those plans were. Just that they were different from the Republicans. Oh, and that they have better hair. So if you're Vidal Sassoon, the Kerry ticket is for you.

Fiscal responsibility? I usually try not to laugh directly in someone's face, but that may be unavoidable in this case.
Government out of people lives? Ditto
I can't debate you there. I think that Republicans and Democrats alike can guarantee what Ingraham had to say about this in her E-Blast this week:

Get serious about spending cuts. The complete and utter inability of the GOP to control spending is having a devastating impact on the credibility of all Republicans. After spending decades calling for smaller government, the GOP is now presiding over one of the largest explosions of government spending the country has ever seen. How can Republicans criticize Democratic plans for new government programs when they have to raise the government's debt ceiling every other week? Furthermore, how can the voters trust Republicans to keep taxes low when it is obvious that the U.S. government will have to raise taxes in order to pay for all the new spending that is taking place? Bush needs to pick a high-profile fight on spending to show that he is serious about this issue.

Giving 8 cell blastocysts the same rights as a functioning human being?
That viewpoint absolutely disgusts me. The same arguments were made to keep slavery in place! It makes me sick... the platonic chain of great being, the so-called "proof" in the Bible that blacks were inferior to whites, etc. It's sickening and disgusting. And then to hear "think about the life that child would've gone through. It's better this way." Again, what perverted thinking! Do we point out people in the street and say, "oh what a terrible life, let's kill them"? NO! So why is it ok to do it for a BABY in the womb?

I see. We'll just call that an unfortunate side effect and move on
I've been trying to be very careful what I say because politics are such a personal thing and it's hard to be tactful about it. It is my sincere attempt to not attack any person, but rather what is being said. I don't hold grudges or anything of that sort.

More serious than accusing someone of treason? One loses you respect; the other can get you killed.
Treason is worse, yes.

Ghoulish Delight

03-24-2006, 10:04 AM

General liberal opinion. I continually read it on blogs.OMG, it's in blogs?! It MUST be true.

scaeagles

03-24-2006, 10:04 AM

I figured it would get to this eventually, and that's why I was planning on staying out. While I understand the sentiment of what you've said Sac, and it is indeed true to a point, there is more to it than that. There is Saddam not giving fully unfettered access as required by the cease fire agreement. There are multiple foreign intelligence sources who also said they had WMD. There were violated UN resolutions and.....

GAH! I wasn't going to get into this. I'll stop.

The Shadoe

03-24-2006, 10:10 AM

OMG, it's in blogs?! It MUST be true.
I should clarify. I see that attitude on blogs. Not blogs of the right describing the left, but blogs of the left. It's not a sentiment that's shared by all, but it does seem to have quite a following behind it.

Ghoulish Delight

03-24-2006, 10:11 AM

I should clarify. I see that attitude on blogs. Not blogs of the right describing the left, but blogs of the left. It's not a sentiment that's shared by all, but it does seem to have quite a following behind it.I repeat...OMG it's in a blog, it must be true!!

Not Afraid

03-24-2006, 10:11 AM

Liberals do this blah blah blah blah. Conservatives do this blah blah blah blah. How pointless is it to spend our time blaming the "other" belief system. What have we become, the Hutus and Tutsis? What's next?

Isn't there some leader out there who would like to attempt to bridge the gap and move things forward in a POSITIVE direction for once? Not just a leader who is adept at lipservice, but someone with real effectiveness.

I have too much disgust with the blame game to muddle through and look for someone.

Ghoulish Delight

03-24-2006, 10:23 AM

I agree with that to a point, GD, but not wholely.
Leo, none of what you point out (which I don't necessarily disagree with) changes the fact that in that climate, history has shown a 0% chance of success. Every attempt has resulted in a paralell move (either to a new dicatator or to open civil war). So what good has been done by attempting? Especially making an attempt like this one in Iraq where more and more of the those that were part of the planning of the initial invasion are revealing that no one had done their research and they had absolutely no clue what kind of enemy they were facing. Doomed from the start.

here is Saddam not giving fully unfettered access as required by the cease fire agreement. There are multiple foreign intelligence sources who also said they had WMD. There were violated UN resolutions and.....And none of THAT changes the fact that, whether you want to believe there was some sort of WMD/UN resolution-based justification for going in or not, the "liberating Iraq" angle is nothing but pure spin from the administration. It was never part of their pre-war thought process, it was a total after thought, at best a "I guess that'll be a nice side effect," as evidenced by their complete failure to consider what it would mean to actually try to build a viable nation. They weren't unprepaired because they didn't understand what they needed to do...the were unprepaired because they didn't give a rat's ass what they needed to do.

scaeagles

03-24-2006, 10:36 AM

Would you make the same unsuccessful claims in Afghanistan? While I'm not particularly proud of the likely execution of a man for converting to Christianity, there is a functioning and democratic government in place. We went in and took out the ruling Taliban and have established something that's going pretty well and is certainly not a failure.

I guess I have never understood the spin accusation of the "liberating Iraq" angle. In all of the discussions of getting rid of Saddam due to WMD, doesn't that in and of itself imply a new government? And presumably one that would not be oppressive? Granted, the administration was not saying "liberate Iraq". They were saying "get rid of Saddam". I guess I see that as equivalent, unless the presumption is that an equally evil leader is put in place.

I do not think the Iraqi situation can be described as a failure. Three years is not a long time when you think of all that has to be and has been done. I would point out, and again not to equate WWII with Iraq, but the establishment of functioning governments free from insurgents took much longer than three years in Germany and Japan. However, it was well worth it.

SacTown Chronic

03-24-2006, 10:48 AM

GAH! I wasn't going to get into this. I'll stop.
It's what we do, Leo. Give us a muddy pen and some slop and we'll happily frolic for hours.

Ghoulish Delight

03-24-2006, 10:51 AM

Would you make the same unsuccessful claims in Afghanistan? I seem to recall the US having quite a bit of help from the outset in defeating the Taliban from armed, organized Afghanis who opposed the Taliban. It's true without our help they were not likely to be successful in that goal, but they were there, motivated. Whereas in Iraq, even now, AFTER Sadaams gone, with us providing the weapons and the training, we can't pull together an organized military or police force. Big difference.

innerSpaceman

03-24-2006, 11:25 AM

And what is with this constantly repeated crap about how long it took for Germany and Japan to rebound after WWII. Did we occupy either of those countries for 3 years?

How about we all refrain from using analogies for 4 pages or so, and just talk about what we are talking about?

By the way, Kabul has a democratic government. The rest of Afghanistan is drug warload feudalism, as it's always been.

scaeagles

03-24-2006, 11:36 AM

And what is with this constantly repeated crap about how long it took for Germany and Japan to rebound after WWII. Did we occupy either of those countries for 3 years?

Ummm...yeah. We actually still have troops in each of those countries.

Edited to add: Sarcasm aside, we had an active occupation in Japan until at least 1951, when it was scaled back. I do not recall the length of the active occupation of Germany, but we had an active military presence there that was never scaled back due to the rise of the USSR. How much of that was due to the needs of Germany and how much was due to the USSR I cannot say.

Prudence

03-24-2006, 12:41 PM

I've been trying to be very careful what I say because politics are such a personal thing and it's hard to be tactful about it. It is my sincere attempt to not attack any person, but rather what is being said. I don't hold grudges or anything of that sort.

(sigh)
At the risk of repeating myself, if you truly desire not to attack people, stop instructing those who disagree with you to "crack open a textbook."

innerSpaceman

03-24-2006, 12:47 PM

I'm well aware of our strong military presence in Germany and Japan (and throughout the world, which is among my reasons for alleging the U.S. is an imperial power).

But a military presence is not a military occupation. Admittedly, I'm not the biggest student of WWII history: Did we really occupy Japan for a significant length of time? (Of course, saying we occupy Iraq is a bit of a misnomer, because I believe we only really occupy Baghdad.)

scaeagles

03-24-2006, 12:58 PM

Regarding Japan, yes, MacArthur basically ran the place under military rule until 1951.

Ghoulish Delight

03-24-2006, 02:13 PM

Regarding Japan, yes, MacArthur basically ran the place under military rule until 1951.Were they fighting daily battles and having to restrict all non-military foreigners to a single area, smaller than the airport, within the capital city?

Scrooge McSam

03-24-2006, 02:14 PM

Again, the terrorists WANT Civil War to break out, and they are going to egg it on as much as possible. It needn't happen.

You're right there. It needn't. That's why I was opposed to breaking the power structure before we could combat that sort of thing.
I beg you to find one place where I said that the situations are exactly alike. Of course they aren't exactly alike. But they share fundamental similarities.

You didn't. It's called "overstatement" and it was used for effect. You were the one making the argument that there are fundamental similarities. I don't see them. But I am willing to let you and your poli sci professor try to convince me otherwise. Have at it!
What's done is done. Time to make lemonade out of lemons.
Well, we are in total agreement there too. We just disagree on the lemonade recipe. The lemonade I'm sipping calls for the removal of the men and women that lied us into this war, NOT letting them continue along in the same fashion.
I haven't heard anyone being shut up when speaking about the war, unless they were breaking laws in the process, like Cindy Sheehan has repeatedly done.
Ever heard of Valerie Plame and Joseph Wilson. How about General Shinsecki, ever heard of him? We could go on all day, but I'm beginning to smell a lost cause.
Apparently you don't know about Saddam's secret tapes... and thousands of documents that haven't yet been declassified. Saddam's connection to Al Qaeda? Take a look.
What makes you think I haven't seen that? We already knew that officials from each organization had met to discuss collaboration, but that no collaborative relationship resulted from those meetings. This is old news.

Saddam allowed Al Qaeda operatives in his country.
Al Queda was in America too.
He knew they were there.
We knew they were here, too.
He didn't do anything about it.
Neither did we... well, nothing substantive.
Does that mean we're going to attack America now? ;)
Do you think that you are above a refresher course?
Hardly. I just laugh at the hubris of a college student offering me a refresher course on ideas I covered YEARS ago and continue to discuss on a daily basis. How about you finish going through it the FIRST time, and then get back to me. Chances are I'll still be here.
Bomb-throwers like Franken and Randi Rhodes? Puh-lease.
What's your point? I don't need to pull up some bomb thrower to solidify my argument. We can't say the same thing for you though, can we? Remember, YOU brought Ingraham and Malkin into your argument. I mentioned Malkin's lies about Franken because you brought them up.
Interesting that Franken finds himself in these situations all the time.
Uh... is that overstatement or do you mean literally "all the time"?
Do you have an explanation as to why Franken went and stuck his finger in Laura Ingraham's producer's face?
Nope! Don't need one as I'm not using Franken to back up my arguments.
It's suspicious when Franken finds himself in these situations all the time.
Again... overstatement or "all the time"?
Granted, I think that it was stupid for the the Deankey to be at a Kerry Rally, but Franken's behavior is not justifiable.
Franken helps diffuse a volatile situation and he's out of line. Malkin lies about Franken's actions and she's justified?
Riiiiiiiiiiiight!
I brought up Malkin. I didn't bring up Coulter. If you look back, soemone mentioned Coulter earlier and I responded to that post.
You're right. You did not bring up Coulter. She's Leo's babe.
Provide some evidence of this please. That's a ludicrious accusation, one that can't be baked up.
You'll be covering the "Fairness Doctrine" soon if you haven't already. There's also plenty of info on the K Street Project in the news right now
Did Randi Rhodes tell you this? Or Sean Penn?
No. Did Michelle Malkin or Laura Ingraham tell you to ask me that? ( ;) See how ridiculous that sounds?)

He talked about how the Democrats have better plans, but mysteriously he didn't let people in as to what those plans were. Just that they were different from the Republicans.
Hmmm Interesting. You listened to the speeches, or did you confine yourself to the talking heads impressions of those speeches?
Oh, and that they have better hair. So if you're Vidal Sassoon, the Kerry ticket is for you.
Funny! Who says conservatives are humorless?
That viewpoint absolutely disgusts me. The same arguments were made to keep slavery in place!
Excuse me, but I'm gonna need a little more from you here. How did we get from "A woman has the right to control what goes on in her own body" to "Scrooge argues by extension that blacks are inferior to whites"?
I've been trying to be very careful what I say because politics are such a personal thing and it's hard to be tactful about it. It is my sincere attempt to not attack any person, but rather what is being said. I don't hold grudges or anything of that sort.
Rest easy. Neither do I

Nephythys

03-24-2006, 02:21 PM

We'll never see eye to eye.

We choose who and want we want to believe- and nothing can sway it. Then you tell me I beleive lies, and I tell you that you believe lies, and round and round we go.....

POP goes the weasel!

scaeagles

03-24-2006, 02:22 PM

I don't know all of the details. Only that there was a definite military occupation under complete US authority for a period of around six years.

I would guess there were curfews, military checkpoints, numerous restricted locations, blah, blah, blah.

I have no doubt that there were many, many insurgents. The Japanese were not living in a culture built around the concept of surrender, which is why so many battles in WWII in the Pacific cost so many allied lives. The Japanese fought to the death, as surrender was not an option.

I would guess that it was far worse for the first three years in Japan than it has been in Iraq, but I have no way to prove that. The destruction imposed on Japan is so much larger in scope than what was done in Iraq that there is no way to draw a comparison.

scaeagles

03-24-2006, 02:29 PM

You're right. You did not bring up Coulter. She's Leo's babe.

Rest easy. Neither do I

Ahh....Ann....but I didn't bring her up. I think MBC quoted from her first.

And Shadoe, if Scrooge held grudges, he would still be mad at me for comparing him to Matt Drudge.:)

Ghoulish Delight

03-24-2006, 02:29 PM

Apparently you don't know about Saddam's secret tapes... and thousands of documents that haven't yet been declassified. Saddam's connection to Al Qaeda? Take a look.Would those be the tapes that you talked about in an earlier thread? The ones where every expert who talks about them, including ones within Bush's adminstration, say that they contain nothing that's news and prove nothing? The ones where you freely admit that you don't believe any of the facts that the copious experts have given about it, but rather chosoe to believe assumptions that support the conclusions you've already come to? Yeah, I saw those.

Scrooge McSam

03-24-2006, 04:06 PM

And Shadoe, if Scrooge held grudges, he would still be mad at me for comparing him to Matt Drudge.:)

Actually, I kinda liked that one ;) Drudge being such a conservative icon and all.

Motorboat Cruiser

03-24-2006, 07:37 PM

Ahh....Ann....but I didn't bring her up. I think MBC quoted from her first.

I did, and was thinking of you when I did so. :)

scaeagles

03-24-2006, 07:59 PM

I did, and was thinking of you when I did so. :)

I'm touched, MBC. :blush:

sleepyjeff

03-24-2006, 09:00 PM

Can't believe I read the whole thing:eek:

wendybeth

03-24-2006, 09:07 PM

Can't believe I read the whole thing:eek:

Yeah, but have you read any Poli-Sci textbooks, hmm?;)

€uroMeinke

03-24-2006, 09:11 PM

I proudly state, I have scrolled though most of this and read little if anything

Prudence

03-24-2006, 09:53 PM

wendybeth, m'dear, I'd mojo you if I could.

Motorboat Cruiser

03-24-2006, 10:03 PM

I proudly state, I have scrolled though most of this and read little if anything

Not even the two pages debating the merits of nihilism?

(Hmm, what else could I type that might get him to read through this whole mess? :evil: )

wendybeth

03-24-2006, 10:09 PM

Not even the two pages debating the merits of nihilism?

(Hmm, what else could I type that might get him to read through this whole mess? :evil: )

Throw in a small appliance?

Motorboat Cruiser

03-24-2006, 10:26 PM

Throw in a small appliance?

Not everyone can be bought so easily (hi scaeagles). I would have to come up with a damn swanky appliance to pull that off.

Ghoulish Delight

03-24-2006, 10:34 PM

Will this (http://www.beveragefactory.com/refrigerators/wine/dwc283bls.shtml) suffice?

Prudence

03-24-2006, 10:35 PM

lava lamp?

Motorboat Cruiser

03-24-2006, 10:38 PM

Will this (http://www.beveragefactory.com/refrigerators/wine/dwc283bls.shtml) suffice?

Yeah, that should about do it. Unfortunately, my budget in more in line with Prudence's idea.

What say you, €?

I'll even throw in a poly-sci textbook to help you get over the humps.

:)

Not Afraid

03-24-2006, 11:10 PM

Fridge is too dangerous and he just bought a lava lamp.

sleepyjeff

03-25-2006, 12:17 AM

You guys....:)

Gemini Cricket

03-27-2006, 07:46 PM

US President George W. Bush made clear to British Prime Minister Tony Blair in January 2003 that he was determined to invade Iraq without a UN resolution and even if UN arms inspectors failed to find weapons of mass destruction in the country, The New York Times reported.
Source (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060327/wl_afp/usbritainbushiraqdiplomacy)

wendybeth

03-27-2006, 07:51 PM

Well, you know- war was "inevitable". This just made it more so.

I read stuff like this, and the second thing I think of is what sort of spin revisionists and apologists will put on it. Three guesses as to what the first thing is.

Gemini Cricket

03-28-2006, 06:49 AM

Scalia flips people off seconds after attending church and we're fine with that. If that person was someone on the left, he/she would be crucified. Double standard.

scaeagles

03-28-2006, 07:07 AM

Really? I seem to recall a rather famous video of Bush flipping off a camera. I think that was blown up pretty big. Not a double standard in the least.

Of course, I fail to see the relevance of that comment to the thread in question, but that's OK.

Gemini Cricket

03-28-2006, 07:16 AM

Really? I seem to recall a rather famous video of Bush flipping off a camera. I think that was blown up pretty big. Not a double standard in the least.
Total double standard. Anything happen to Bush because of it? Nope. Not a dang thing.
Of course, I fail to see the relevance of that comment to the thread in question, but that's OK.
Of course it's okay, because it's totally relevant. It's yet another example of the moral double standard that occurs when someone on the right does something compared to someone on the left. The media gives a free ride to the right. And just to reiterate that, here's an example:
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia used an Italian hand gesture when questioned by a reporter after attending church this past weekend.

The Boston Herald reported Monday that the justice made "an obscene gesture under his chin" -- which prompted some online reports that Scalia had used his middle finger.

Untrue.
Source (http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/27/scalia.gesture.ap/index.html)

The bold is my emphasis. Is this a news story or a commentary about the news story? This AP reporter has agreed with Scalia's spokeperson. Case closed... according to the spokeperson. Yeah, if we took the word of every spokesperson for the person in question no one would do any wrong...
:rolleyes:

scaeagles

03-28-2006, 07:21 AM

What should have happened to Bush? Was it publicized and somewhat embarrassing? Yeah.

What should happen to Scalia?

Is this any more important than, say, Ginsberg falling alseep during arguments before her court the other day? Did you hear about that? I would guess not, but as I do not watch any evening news programs perhaps it was on. Hell, I'd probably fall asleep during some of that stuff too.

But, to follow your logic, I could crow from the mountain tops that should it have been Justice Thomas who fell asleep, he would have been crucified.

The thing is....it's not a big deal. Honestly, GC, I think you dislike Scalia so much that you want it to be a big deal.

Gemini Cricket

03-28-2006, 07:31 AM

Honestly, GC, I think you dislike Scalia so much that you want it to be a big deal.
I find Scalia to be a hypocritical jerk. The man comes from church and flips people off seconds later. But, hey, he's a good guy. He's just Sicilian that's all...

Hey, this atmosphere was not laid out by me. It's the whole moral era that Bush and friends were supposed to be presenting to the country. Yeah, right. They are no more moral than the Democrats when they ran the White House.

This thread's about anger. And, you know what, people that can't see a dang thing wrong with anyone in this Administration make me mad. There you have it.

And speaking about Supreme Court Justices, Ginsberg shouldn't fall asleep on the job she should be criticized for that. But here's a tidbit from Sandra Day O'Connor, you know, Reagan's nominee:
Newly retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor took on conservative Republican critics of the courts in a speech Thursday. She told an audience at Georgetown University that Republican proposals, and their sometimes uncivil tone, pose a danger to the independence of the judiciary, and the freedoms of all Americans.
Source (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5255712)
O'Connor said on NPR that the US is showing signs of the beginnings of a dictatorship under Bush. But, hey, we didn't hear that in the news either.
:rolleyes:

scaeagles

03-28-2006, 07:54 AM

O'Connor said on NPR that the US is showing signs of the beginnings of a dictatorship under Bush. But, hey, we didn't hear that in the news either.
:rolleyes:

Well, saying that O'Connor was Reagan's nominee is like saying Souter was Bush Sr's nominee. Yes, but that does not mean that the justices are bound to any sort of philosophy or view of the constitution.

We can each complain all day about what we think should make the big story that doesn't.

Gemini Cricket

03-28-2006, 08:35 AM

I'm not the only person on the planet who thinks Scalia is crooked:
On the eve of oral argument in a key Supreme Court case on the rights of alleged terrorists, a group of retired U.S. generals and admirals has asked Justice Antonin Scalia to recuse himself, arguing that his recent public comments on the subject make it impossible for him to appear impartial.

In a letter delivered to the court late yesterday, a lawyer for the retired officers cited news reports of Scalia's March 8 remarks to an audience at the University of Freiburg in Switzerland. Scalia reportedly said it was "crazy" to suggest that combatants captured fighting the United States should receive a "full jury trial," and dismissed suggestions that the Geneva Conventions might apply to detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/27/AR2006032701913.html)

Now this is a judge saying casually at a meeting that someone doesn't deserve a full jury trial.

scaeagles

03-28-2006, 08:43 AM

Now this is a judge saying casually at a meeting that someone doesn't deserve a full jury trial.

No. He is saying that a captured military combatant is not deserving of a jury trial.

I personally think Breyer should recuse himself of all cases, because he advocates citing foreign law, but that's beside the point.

Gemini Cricket

03-28-2006, 08:50 AM

No. He is saying that a captured military combatant is not deserving of a jury trial.
And for how long is this person supposed to sit in prison without representation at all? And what if after all those years we find out we had the wrong person?
I personally think Breyer should recuse himself of all cases, because he advocates citing foreign law, but that's beside the point.

Well, we can't all get what we want.

sleepyjeff

03-28-2006, 10:21 AM

Well, saying that O'Connor was Reagan's nominee is like saying Souter was Bush Sr's nominee. Yes, but that does not mean that the justices are bound to any sort of philosophy or view of the constitution.

We can each complain all day about what we think should make the big story that doesn't.

Ever notice that its Republican nominees who seem to be the most independent thinkers on the Highest Court?

Alex

03-28-2006, 10:32 AM

O'Connor said on NPR that the US is showing signs of the beginnings of a dictatorship under Bush. But, hey, we didn't hear that in the news either.

I did, and it was on Fox News even. Maybe you just don't watch enough news.

Motorboat Cruiser

03-28-2006, 10:35 AM

Is this any more important than, say, Ginsberg falling alseep during arguments before her court the other day? Did you hear about that? I would guess not, but as I do not watch any evening news programs perhaps it was on. Hell, I'd probably fall asleep during some of that stuff too.

Actually, I did hear this story. What they failed to report however is that Ginsberg is currently under treatment for colon cancer. Those undergoing treatment tend to tire easily. This sort of ties into the double standard argument. When Renhquest had his problems with illness, people were understanding. Ginsberg, not so much.

scaeagles

03-28-2006, 10:41 AM

I didn't know that. However, I pointed out that I would most likely fall asleep during some of those arguments being presented as well.

What I find to be interesting is that Ginsberg and Scalia are practically best buddies. I guess their families spend lots of time together.

Gemini Cricket

03-28-2006, 12:56 PM

I did, and it was on Fox News even. Maybe you just don't watch enough news.
No, I think I watch too much news. And I don't consider Fox 'News' a credible news source.

Alex

03-28-2006, 01:43 PM

Apparently not because you keep saying "such and such a story is being ignored by the news" and they are almost all stories that I have seen covered on the news.

I saw the Sandra Day O'Connor quotes on Fox News, CNN, The News Hour and in both the San Francisco Chronicle and San Jose Mercury News. So I don't know what you require that this have been covered in the news. I only mentioned Fox News because if there was any media outlet that would have most stereotypically ignored the story about Sandra Day O'Connor's comments it would have been that.

The very reasons for why you don't consider Fox News to be credible is the reason that even them talking about it shows that this story was covered.

Now, whether it was covered to the detail or hysteria you think it warranted is a completely different issue.

Gemini Cricket

03-28-2006, 01:54 PM

Now, whether it was covered to the detail or hysteria you think it warranted is a completely different issue.
Calling Bush's Administration the beginnings of a dictatorship warrants the level of 'Cheney shooting someone in the face' coverage.

Alex

03-28-2006, 02:19 PM

Well, there you have it. "The press hasn't covered this the way I think it ought to be covered" is certainly different from "the press hasn't covered this."

You find people who think the Bush administration can do no wrong make you angry. I almost find people who think the Bush administration is actively seeking to do evil make me angry. Instead they just make me giggle a little bit.

wendybeth

03-28-2006, 02:46 PM

I think they are ignorantly doing evil and that makes me angry. Actively pursuing evil implies at least some sort of intelligent thought application, whereas ignorance is indefensible.

I often search out Faux News just to see if and how they treat a story. Sometimes, they surprise me with a relatively balanced item. It annoys the hell out of me when CNN and MSNBC put obvious spins on a story. I think to get the best picture you have to seek out all possible news sources (within reason- I won't go near Al Jazeera or any extreme right outlets) and sort out the chafe as best you can.

Alex

03-28-2006, 02:53 PM

Al Jazeera isn't actually all that bad and it will certainly give you important information, even if from a cultural point of view I disagree with.

Scott Adams (yes the Dilbert guy; he has an interesting blog) said recently that he thinks President Bush is probably smarter than 90% of the population but that most politicians are smarter than 99% and so the difference is striking.

I don't buy the idea that Bush is stupid. I do buy into the idea that he isn't as smart as we should expect.

wendybeth

03-28-2006, 03:05 PM

Al Jazeera is perceived as a mouthpiece for the Islamic extremists and as such everything they put out is tainted by that perception. It's an accurate perception, imho.

Gemini Cricket

03-28-2006, 03:12 PM

Well, there you have it. "The press hasn't covered this the way I think it ought to be covered" is certainly different from "the press hasn't covered this."
Oh, so I didn't make myself crystal clear so therefore what I'm actually trying to say can be tossed out the window. I'm talking about the press giving Bush and friends a free ride and you want to discuss what kind of car they rode in.

I'm thinking one can giggle if they don't understand how angry someone else feels. I say if you're giggling then you're not paying attention.

Gemini Cricket

03-28-2006, 03:16 PM

Al Jazeera isn't actually all that bad and it will certainly give you important information, even if from a cultural point of view I disagree with.
In the documentary 'The Control Room' Al Jazeera said the pulling down of the Saddam statue was staged and the participants weren't even from the area. They were shipped in. The press did not cover that aspect of the whole incident enough for me when you compare it to the repeated footage of the statue coming down on CNN, MSNBC, Fox...

Alex

03-28-2006, 03:17 PM

If not being clear means saying something that was not true, then yes, you were unclear.

Personally, I don't find O'Cononr's statements all that interesting. You can find dozens of complaints every day that if X continues to it logical conclusion than totalitarianism is the result. I agree that politicalization of judicial opinion is wrong but I also don't think the gestapo is in our future.

I agree that Bush has made poor policy decisions. But I also think he has made some good ones. I don't think he is seeking to turn our government into a religious dictatorship.

If you want to see evil in everything he does, then fine. We can disagree. But if I giggle it is not because I am not paying attention as I find the histrionics silly.

Alex

03-28-2006, 03:19 PM

Yes, Al Jazeera is not objective. I just don't think that is reason to discount it entirely.

As opposed to the idea that non-objective sources should only be discarded when you disagree with them.

Gemini Cricket

03-28-2006, 03:30 PM

I find O'Connors statements completely interesting. Here's someone who was appointed by Reagan saying that Bush is leading our country into a dictatorship. That's important to me. I think she's right.

Histrionics may be silly, but contrarians are just as comical.

When a news source is non-objective and is a mouthpiece for one way of thinking it should be discarded. I don't listen to Air America either.

Alex

03-28-2006, 03:43 PM

Out of curiosity, which news sources do you find to be sufficiently objective for your consumption? I personally don't think any of them are so I just take in as much as I can, try to be aware of the biases and conflicts and sort it out from there. The only two "sources" I exclude out of hand are Al Franken (because his voice grates on me like almost no other) and Michael Savage (because I don't think he even believes what he is saying).

I'm not trying to be contrarian for the sake of contrariness. I just disagree with you on these two particular issues. A) I'm fine with the level of coverage O'Connor's comments received and B) I don't think that everything the Bush administration has done has been bad, though some of it has been. I find the latter to be true of pretty much every presidency I've experienced directly, except maybe Carter who didn't really get a chance to do much of anything, unfortunately.

I wouldn't have even become involved in this thread except you said something that wasn't true. I'm not trying to throw out the baby (your concerns about the validity of O'Connor's comments) with the bathwater (your inaccuracy in saying tha the story wasn't covered). You are free to continue discussing the first point; I'm just not so interested in it since it is purely subjective opinion.

wendybeth

03-28-2006, 04:02 PM

Obviously, the story wasn't well covered- I scour the news daily, and I missed it. GC's comment that it wasn't covered wasn't exactly worthy of being such a hardass- he meant in that he could tell, and arguing the point is just sort of dumb.

I am amazed that you have more of a problem with a relatively innocuous mistatement than with the story he was commenting on. I am also surprised that you consider Justice O'Connor's statement to be so easily dismissed due to the subjective nature of it. (I'm assuming that's what you meant- forgive me if I am wrong). A cop is kicking the crap outta me; I believe he should probably stop, but of course that's merely a subjective viewpoint, tainted by the pain and damage being inflicted on my person. Perhaps I need to wait for people to wander by who have no sort of experience or knowledge with regards to this situation before someone who has a truly objective point of view steps up and stops the beating.

Might be a long wait.

Alex

03-28-2006, 04:32 PM

I made no particular scouring of the news and saw it in five relatively mainstream sources. So, perhaps my experience was misleading.

No, I don't find her comments all that shocking for several reasons, none of which have to do with subjectiveness (and I never said subjectiveness was an issue). One, it wasn't the first time she had said it (she had made similar comments before she even left the bench). Second, she couched her comments saying we were a long way from what she feared could be the ultimate response. Third, she is an interested party; no judge likes legislatures having opinions on what they do, from either side of the political spectrum. Fourth, as I said "the sky is falling" predictions for every government action are a dime a dozen and O'Connor's wasnt even a "sky is falling" statement just a "the sky might potentially fall at some point in the future."

Finally, my hardassedness (though really I think GC is at lesat equally hardassed in a hysterical position, but we can disagree on that) wasn't just because of this one but my perception that he has frequently labelled stories as uncovered (when they're not, they're just not covered in the way he wants) and this is a sign of some participation by the media in helping the administration keep us complacent.

I find Scalia's statements on the Guantanomo case (though couched to avoid direct reference) inexcusable. I find the semi-flip off (he didn't flip off the reporter but rather made a different rude gesture) by Scalia to be a non-issue (and would also find it a non-issue if Ginsburg did it). But overall I find GC's desire to find outrage in anything done by conservatives just as giggle inducing as scaeagles controtions to resist finding issue in anything done by conservatives (though both will find minor exceptions to show how that isn't what they're doing).

That is what triggered the hard-assedness. I certainly made no claim as to which is more important: O'Connor's statement or GC's. The fact that O'Connor wakes up in the morning is probably more important than anything any of us will say in a given week. But I'm not talking to O'Connor, I'm talking to all y'all and I found GC's statemnt, independent of the importance of SDO's, to be silly.

Per his comments he finds mind similarly silly. I can live with that detante.

Prudence

03-28-2006, 05:09 PM

I find Fox News is generally way more entertaining than CNN or MSNBC. I generally only watch any of them when it's the weekend and I'm on the treadmill and can't find anything else to watch, but the Fox News people seem so lively - as if they're going to leap across the desk at any moment, the news is that exciting.

Of course, I generally have my headphones on so I can't actually hear any news, but the Fox News people are much more fun to watch.

Unleess, of course, CNN is doing one of their umpteen "life behind bars" stories. Then they win.

innerSpaceman

03-28-2006, 05:25 PM

overall I find GC's desire to find outrage in anything done by conservatives just as giggle inducing as scaeagles controtions to resist finding issue in anything done by conservatives (though both will find minor exceptions to show how that isn't what they're doing).

:) :) :)

scaeagles

03-28-2006, 06:04 PM

But overall I find GC's desire to find outrage in anything done by conservatives just as giggle inducing as scaeagles controtions to resist finding issue in anything done by conservatives (though both will find minor exceptions to show how that isn't what they're doing).

Interesting. Of course I can only only go into anecdotal evidence to the contrary, but in doing so I would most likely give you cause to say that, in fact, I am finding minor exceptions to show how that isn't what I'm doing.

I would argue that, in fact, immigration and border control is no minor issue, and in the growing protest thread I have been critical of the President - as I have in the past - regarding his inane border policies.

I could go into republican politicians - such as John McCain - that I have nothing kind to say about.

I would go on, but the perception of me is understandable. However, it largely does not come down to the individuals that are conservative or not so. It comes down to what I believe in, and I will fully admit that I am more supportive of those in office that come closer to sharing my political philosophy.

Alex

03-28-2006, 06:22 PM

Yes, but your point of complaint there is that they are being sufficiently conservative.

scaeagles

03-28-2006, 06:26 PM

Exactly. It is because of my political philosophy, not because I think those who call themselves conservative are infallible. It is not blind loyalty to a Republican President, it is belief in a set of ideals.

I take your point with pride. I will always defend those conservative ideals. I do have a few issues that go outside the realm of so-called conservative thought that have been discussed here.

Alex

03-28-2006, 06:39 PM

That's fine. I'm certainly not expecting anybody to change just because I find something silly. I'm not that important.

I, personally, don't think anybody has yet issued a Grand Unified Theory of Society that I could support completely and to the exclusion of everything else.

€uroMeinke

03-28-2006, 06:58 PM

I, personally, don't think anybody has yet issued a Grand Unified Theory of Society that I could support completely and to the exclusion of everything else.

Well, that awaits its collective development in threads like these ;)

Gemini Cricket

03-30-2006, 09:55 AM

Scalia flips people off seconds after attending church and we're fine with that. If that person was someone on the left, he/she would be crucified. Double standard.
In today's Herald:
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b268/braddoc310/scaliagesture033020061.jpg
Amid a growing national controversy about the gesture U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made Sunday at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross, the freelance photographer who captured the moment has come forward with the picture.

“It’s inaccurate and deceptive of him to say there was no vulgarity in the moment,” said Peter Smith, the Boston University assistant photojournalism professor who made the shot.

Despite Scalia’s insistence that the Sicilian gesture was not offensive and had been incorrectly characterized by the Herald as obscene, the photographer said the newspaper “got the story right.”

Source (http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=132848)

scaeagles

03-30-2006, 10:07 AM

I am not familiar with that gesture at all. I don't see it as "flipping off" - the middle finger is not extended.

What is the history of the gesture?

Not Afraid

03-30-2006, 10:09 AM

I've seen this gesture in mafia-style movies. I don't think it's nice, whatever it means.

Gemini Cricket

03-30-2006, 10:15 AM

As a recent Sicilian, I know the gesture is an insult. You do it to someone you don't like. If he said that word with, it's really bad.

I'm going with what the photographer said. He knew it was in poor taste.

SacTown Chronic

03-30-2006, 10:22 AM

I believe that gesture is considered a non-verbal "fvck you".

Scrooge McSam

03-30-2006, 10:23 AM

The gesture is intended as an insult and is generally not considered obscene.

The word he used with the gesture, however, most definitely is.

Think Cheney in the Senate and you've got it ;)

Gemini Cricket

03-30-2006, 10:40 AM

Vaffanculo means "go get fu cked up your as s." I thought he didn't condone such behavior. :D

wendybeth

03-30-2006, 10:40 AM

GC, would you please stop being so darned hysterical.;)

Yeah, it's an insult. Very mature, Scalia. Good to know you're on the Supreme Court.

innerSpaceman

03-30-2006, 10:43 AM

Not obscene? Um, SacTown got the meaning exactly right.

While I personally don't agree that 'fvck you' is obscene, I think it is commonly considered as such.

I don't consider too much to be obscene. One thing I do, though, is Scalia hearing argument on the Enemy Combatant Detention case this week just after he has publicly stated his decision on the case in advance of it being heard. As a jurist on the land's highest court, that's true obscenity.

Gemini Cricket

03-30-2006, 10:47 AM

GC, would you please stop being so darned hysterical.;)

You're right, wb. And to not be accused of further histrionics, I'll remove my 'Mission Accomplished' flight suit now.
:D

Alex

03-30-2006, 11:08 AM

One thing I do, though, is Scalia hearing argument on the Enemy Combatant Detention case this week just after he has publicly stated his decision on the case in advance of it being heard. As a jurist on the land's highest court, that's true obscenity.

With this I agree. It is important that we can all pretend that each of the justices hasn't already decided 99% of the cases before they actually reach the court.

I actually have no problem with the idea that the people at Guantanamo have no right to jury trials or whatever. They are essentially POWs and such a right has never attached.

However, as near as I can tell, we are no longer engaged in a war with Afghanistan which means it is time for all of those people to be returned home and let the government of Afghanistan decide what to do with people who fought on that side of the war.

Since we are no longer at war, they are no longer the equivalent of POWs, which means we now need a good reason for imprisonment and need to prove it.

And GC, of course he doesn't approve of it. If he did it wouldn't be an insult.

SacTown Chronic

03-30-2006, 11:12 AM

Yeah, GC, to the rest of the country it's an insult. On the LoT it's just bragging about your Friday night.

innerSpaceman

03-30-2006, 11:14 AM

Yes, they are in a legal limbo, at the whim of - - - are we still insisting that we are a democratic republic? Or is a nation which imprisons POWs after a war is over, detaining them indefinitely while specifically denying they have any rights under federal law, international law or the Geneva Conventions .... tell me again what form of government that is?

SacTown Chronic

03-30-2006, 11:16 AM

It's a CHRISTIAN government, baby!

Ghoulish Delight

03-30-2006, 11:17 AM

I actually have no problem with the idea that the people at Guantanamo have no right to jury trials or whatever. They are essentially POWs and such a right has never attached.Sort of. The problem as I see it is that the government's trying to play it both ways. "These are POWs, so we have a right to try them in tribunals." Okay fine, but at the same time they're saying, "These are ununiformed 'enemy combatants' and therefore we are under no obligation to grant them even the most basic rights afforded POWs."

Either they're POWs or they aren't.

Gemini Cricket

03-30-2006, 11:18 AM

Yeah, GC, to the rest of the country it's an insult. On the LoT it's just bragging about your Friday night.
Or last night.

I've said too much.
:D

Alex

03-30-2006, 11:28 AM

Yes, they are in a legal limbo, at the whim of - - - are we still insisting that we are a democratic republic?

The doing of bad things is in no way contradictory with being a democratic republic so I have no problem keeping the label.

GD, I don't disagree that the government is trying have its cake and eat it to. I was only sharing how I view the people at Guantanamo. And by that perspective they should either have all been released a couple years ago regardless of how complicit they were with al Qaeda and the Taliban. Or, when the war was essentially over, they should have been converted from combatants to criminals and given due process. And since most of their criminal acts would have been in Afghanistan, they should be returned to Afghanistan for that due process.

innerSpaceman

03-30-2006, 11:30 AM

It's a CHRISTIAN government, baby!

Heheh, that reminds me of something I just heard (hmmm, maybe another tangent coming on?)

On Wednesday, March 1st, 2006, in Annapolis at a hearing on the proposed Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marriage, Jamie Raskin, professor of law at American University, was requested to testify.

At the end of his testimony, Republican Senator Nancy Jacobs said: "Mr. Raskin, my Bible says marriage is only between a man and a woman. What do you have to say about that?"

Raskin replied: "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."

Hey, if I'm angry about it, it fits in this thread. Right?

Gemini Cricket

03-30-2006, 11:33 AM

"Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
I think that's a great quote.

JWBear

03-30-2006, 11:36 AM

On Wednesday, March 1st, 2006, in Annapolis at a hearing on the proposed Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marriage, Jamie Raskin, professor of law at American University, was requested to testify.

At the end of his testimony, Republican Senator Nancy Jacobs said: "Mr. Raskin, my Bible says marriage is only between a man and a woman. What do you have to say about that?"

Raskin replied: "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
That is perfect! I love it!

SacTown Chronic

03-30-2006, 11:37 AM

Great quote.

Alex

03-30-2006, 11:37 AM

Here's the Snopes page (http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/raskin.asp) (your quote is essentially correct) which gives some more detail. It is a wonderful response and I'd really love to have audio of it (as well as a recent speech I heard from Fran Lebowitz that perfectly captures the nature of my atheism).

Even if this guy didn't originate the retort, it really does some up the issue perfectly.

Gemini Cricket

03-30-2006, 11:50 AM

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b268/braddoc310/churchsign4.jpg

SacTown Chronic

03-30-2006, 12:07 PM

Here's the Snopes page (http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/raskin.asp)

"As I read Biblical principles, marriage was intended, ordained and started by God — that is my belief," [Jacobs] said. "For me, this is an issue solely based on religious principals [sic]."
Wow, an open and honest admission by this Senator that she desires to make biblical law the rule of law in her state. Where's the outrage? Where's the religious persecution of Christian Americans that Tom DeLay so laughably alleged?

Alex

03-30-2006, 06:30 PM

Not that it matters much since minds are made up, but here is Scalia's account of the incident:

http://news.bostonherald.com/galleries/images/506707_scalialetter03292006.jpg

According to other news stories, Scalia actually saying "va' fa' un culo" (which he does not admit to doing) was not part of the original account from the photographer and while others in the area confirm the hand gesture, nobody else heard him say it.

Personally, I still don't care either way. Any more than I did when Bush called a reporter and asshole, Cheney told someone to **** himself, or Clinton got a blowjob.

innerSpaceman

03-30-2006, 06:37 PM

I'm glad to learn that the gesture has a less drastic meaning.

I'm dismayed that he saw fit to contravene the record on that, but - unless I've missed something - hasn't commented on why he has the gaul to sit in judgment on a case he has publicly pre-judged.

Gemini Cricket

03-31-2006, 10:37 AM

"Yes, I know we have made tactical errors, thousands of them," she said in answer to a question over whether lessons had been learned since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

"I believe strongly that it was the right strategic decision, that Saddam had been a threat to the international community long enough," she added.

Source (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060331/pl_nm/britain_usa_rice_dc_8)
:(

Gemini Cricket

03-31-2006, 11:12 AM

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b268/braddoc310/georgesays3.jpg

SacTown Chronic

03-31-2006, 11:28 AM

Birds hate our freedoms.

scaeagles

03-31-2006, 11:35 AM

I hate birds. Scummy neighborhood pigeons poop all over my house and car. So, yes, I think brids do hate us and our freedom.

wendybeth

03-31-2006, 11:37 AM

I hate birds. Scummy neighborhood pigeons poop all over my house and car. So, yes, I think brids do hate us and our freedom.

And yet, you hate cats- which eat the birds that poop on your stuff. Granted, the cats poop on your stuff too, but at least it's not an arial attack.

scaeagles

03-31-2006, 11:42 AM

And yet, you hate cats- which eat the birds that poop on your stuff. Granted, the cats poop on your stuff too, but at least it's not an arial attack.

Ah, but the cats who kill the pigeons leave their dead, decaying bodies in my back yard. I like the hawks who sometimes hang out in the neighborhood. Instant pigeon repellent.

Gemini Cricket

03-31-2006, 11:43 AM

I hate birds.
Leo hates birds and Chicken Little. So here goes:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b268/braddoc310/cl.gif

I can't help it. I'm cleaning out my photobucket account.
:D

scaeagles

03-31-2006, 11:49 AM

If anger is a gift (referring to the title of the thread), then US Rep Cynthia McKinney is very gifted.

http://www.11alive.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=77991

She punched a security guard who tried to stop her because she didn't go through metal detectors (members of congress are not required to), and he did not recognize her.

If she hadn't played the race card, I wouldn't think it's a big deal.

"Do I have to contact the police every time I change my hairstyle? How do we account for the fact that when I wore my braids every day for 11 years, I still faced this problem, primarily from certain white police officers,"

The guard is going to press charges. I think that's going a bit far.

Gemini Cricket

03-31-2006, 11:50 AM

I would totally love to see the tape. :D

SacTown Chronic

03-31-2006, 11:56 AM

Angry black women are such a turn on. I'd play black lady/white cop with her any day.

SacTown Chronic

03-31-2006, 11:58 AM

Wait, I just saw her picture. Ignore my previous post.

scaeagles

03-31-2006, 12:11 PM

Wait, I just saw her picture. Ignore my previous post.

Good....I was thinking I might have to dish out some negative mojo on you for putting that image in my head!

Ghoulish Delight

03-31-2006, 12:47 PM

(members of congress are not required to)Say what?! I find something very un-democratic about those making law being exempt from them.

scaeagles

03-31-2006, 12:51 PM

Say what?! I find something very un-democratic about those making law being exempt from them.

Yep. I think it has something to do with them being far too important to wait in a line with everyone else. They are busy, you know!:rolleyes:

Alex

03-31-2006, 01:05 PM

I reallly don't have a problem with them being exempt. By their election we are putting our full faith and support behind them in running the country. If we can't we trust that they won't blow up the Capitol Building then we're screwed.

And while I find Cynthia McKinney to be an embarrassment (not for her politics but for her or personality) it does raise an interesting question if she indeed does have more problems than other Congress(white)men in using her privilege.

That said, I'm surprised there isn't some form of gate for people exempted through the metal detector that requires swiping an ID. We had a swipe key gate to go through at work and while our CEO could go anywhere he wanted to without question he still had to swipe his badge to get in.

scaeagles

03-31-2006, 03:33 PM

OK....she just keeps upping the racial component of this.....

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/31/D8GMPKR81.html

"Ms. McKinney is just a victim of being in Congress while black," Myart (her lawyer) said.

"Members of Congress wear identifying lapel pins and routinely are waved into buildings without undergoing security checks. McKinney was not wearing her pin at the time "

Alex

03-31-2006, 05:26 PM

I watched her portion of that press conference. You have to love the kids dragged in to stand behind her with hand-written signs (most likely by some unpaid congressional intern, not the kids themselves) saying "Is Cynthia Being Targetted?"

Again, her basic claim may be correct but it would have her cause if she weren't a kook and didn't walk around looking like she was recently surprised to discover the extent of her own craziness.

innerSpaceman

03-31-2006, 05:55 PM

Heheh, this has turned into the 'Random Political Thoughts' thread that I tried to prevent once before.

Oh well, there's no stoping a juggernaut.

scaeagles

03-31-2006, 06:02 PM

Heheh, this has turned into the 'Random Political Thoughts' thread that I tried to prevent once before.

Oh well, there's no stoping a juggernaut.

Oh sure.....close the one I started, but let this one continue. :p

Motorboat Cruiser

03-31-2006, 06:49 PM

Oh sure.....close the one I started, but let this one continue. :p

Precisely! You catch on quick. :)

Gemini Cricket

04-03-2006, 06:27 AM

I wasn't sure where to post this. It's more of a tongue in cheek thang than a serious thang.

Do you ever think that the Republicans and the Democrats just take turns? I mean, once the GOP sees that their debt is so huge and that there's not much they can do about it that they just hand things over to the Dems? Then the Dems tax the crud out of everyone until there's enough money for the Repubs to spend?

If anything, that would make a funny film.

:D

Alex

04-03-2006, 04:41 PM

Except it hasn't worked that way. You had one Republican president who spent a whole lot of money and cut taxes, then the next spent not so much money (and in one famous instance slightly raised taxes when submitted to abominable legislative blackmail). Then a Democrat who did pretty well with spending (and submitted to the most successful and only significant alteration of a major entitlement program in 40 years) and left taxes mostly flat, and then another big spending Republican who apparently never saw another person's dollar he didn't want to spend.

innerSpaceman

04-03-2006, 05:11 PM

Well, if we only count two-termers ... then G.C.'s pattern works just fine.

Let's do that, then.

(It also works if we delete the redundancy of presidents with the same last name, and make the disqualification apply to the one who seved less time. I wonder if that would make the pattern work if we go way way back and eliminate one Roosevelt and one Adams?)

Gemini Cricket

04-05-2006, 06:30 AM

President Bush's tax cuts for investment income have significantly lowered the tax burden on the richest Americans, reducing taxes on incomes of more than $10 million by an average of about $500,000, according to a report Wednesday.

An analysis of Internal Revenue Service data by The New York Times found that the benefit of the lower taxes on investments was more concentrated on the very wealthiest Americans than the benefits of President Bush's two previous tax cuts.

Source (http://money.cnn.com/2006/04/05/news/tax_cuts/index.htm?cnn=yes)
Bleh.
:(

Gemini Cricket

04-05-2006, 06:35 AM

Except it hasn't worked that way...
I see what you're saying.

For the benefit of this country, it being run like a business and all, the Republicans should give up their control to get money back into the government by having the Democrats tax us for it. Sometimes I wonder if that's how it works. I mean, the moment a party gets too popular and too smug and spend-y or tax-y they tank and the other side comes in to 'save the day' so to speak.

I don't know. I'm not an expert on politics. I'm just thinking 'out loud'.
:)

scaeagles

04-05-2006, 07:38 AM

Source (http://money.cnn.com/2006/04/05/news/tax_cuts/index.htm?cnn=yes)
Bleh.
:(

This doesn't bother me at all. Based on 2000 data (in terms of income, not all wealth), the wealthiest 5 percent pay 38.4 percent of federal taxes and the wealthiest 1 percent pay 24.8 percent of federal taxes.

If one is going to cut taxes, one must cut the taxes of those that actually pay those taxes.

We can get into a debate on the increase of federal funds that goes along with tax cuts because of increased economic activity. We can get into the amount of wealth controlled by percentage. We can get into the amount of federal services received based on income levels. There are lots of things we can get into on both sides, and they are worthy of debate. I think it is clear where I stand (and no, I am not in the wealthiest 5% of tax payers).

The truly wealthy in this country pay very little in taxes because they do have have taxable income. Taxes, as currently structured, and are penalty on the creation of personal wealth, not a tax on true wealth. That is why I think the entire income tax structure should be scrapped for either a flat tax based on something like Steve Forbes proposals discussed during the 2000 campaign (he got my primary vote in AZ), or a consumption tax which excludes food and services.

This will never happen. True political power is the power to tax, give tax breaks, and control the tax code. And ALL politicians are guilty of wanting that kind of power.

Gemini Cricket

04-05-2006, 08:38 AM

Dept. of Homeland Security's Brian J. Doyle is a pedophile.

Ay carumba!
:(

Alex

04-05-2006, 10:02 AM

I wonder if that would make the pattern work if we go way way back and eliminate one Roosevelt and one Adams?
You'd also need to eliminate a Harrison and a Johnson. And it probably wouldn't work since prior to 1913 (when the income tax was made legal) the tax structure used to fund the federal government was very different. In the last half of the 19th century a president's policy on inflation was probably just as important as their tax policies (industrialists tend to be anti-inflation while agrarians tend to be pro-inflation). Also over the course of the last century the Democrats and Republicans have essentially swapped sides in the political spectrum (Republicans used to be the "reformers" and "progressives" while Democrats were conservatives).

If you only count two term presidents and throw out matched names then the only presidents to be elected twice and serve two full terms are Eisenhower, Reagan, and Clinton. If you go all the way back to the beginning of the century then you can add Woodrow Wilson and FDR to the list.

As for the tax cut GC posted to I can't really roll my eyes harder as it is an exercise in stupidity. Why not just headline it "Analysis shows that cut in investment taxes benefits primarily those with lots of investments." Tomorrow they can run an article that covers the controversial topic of how "Increase in candy bar prices disproportionately impacts those who eat candy bars." There are, of course, very important issues* raised by this particular tax cut that are worthy of discussion but the article doesn't mention them.

* Such as "Has this cut created a real increase in tax burden for others" or "Should taxes be cut in a time of increasing governmental spending obligations" or "Even if actually beneficial to the overall economy does it make political sense to pass a tax cut that is so likely to be used as a political tool against you and then reversed."

Gemini Cricket

04-05-2006, 10:16 AM

Rangel is right about this issue. Tax cuts for all of Capitol Hill's friends, special interest groups and campaign contributors. Whoo hoo! And yet Social Security is messed up and Medicare is messed up... Not to mention the huge deficit. But let's allow the rich to get richer.

wendybeth

04-05-2006, 10:30 AM

I think most people get the ramifications of such a cut- it's not necessary to headline it in any other manner. Obviously the people that have money to invest are going to be the winners in this game- that was the point that the opposition made way back, and they were right. I'm still waiting to see a return on all those freed up dollars that are gonna be reinvested in our economy. It's hard to see over that pile o'deficit, though.

Alex

04-05-2006, 10:39 AM

But is it easier to see over the pile of a country approaching (statistically) full employment, good growth in investment markets, and good economic growth in general (particularly compared to most other industrialized nations).

If the last 50 years have shown anything it is that large deficit spending does not seem to correlate to any particular hampering of the economy. I'm still not in favor of massive deficit spending but the fact that a tax cut doesn't reduce a deficit doesn't really bother me.

If we want to get rid of the deficit then the answer that has worked historically (much better than trying to raise taxes) has been to spend less money and get lucky with the economic cycles.

wendybeth

04-05-2006, 11:41 AM

Full employment? My, the good folks in the Gulf region and Appalachia will appreciate that. Hell, the people in my town will. Theywill never get an accurate count regarding unemployment simply by counting the people recieving bennies- many people either don't qualify or have had their benefits run out. I wish I could buy into this rosy picture, Alex, but I don't see it from my vantage point. This neo-trickle down economics only works for some, and they aren't letting the money go downhill.

Oh, and don't even get me started on pension plans.:rolleyes:

Alex

04-05-2006, 12:34 PM

I'm not an advocate of trickle down economics.

However, at the national level (which is the level the President should be primarily concerned with) things are going very well economically.

In the most depressed economies there will be segments that are doing very well and in the most robust economies there will be segments that are doing very poorly. But nationally, unemployment is very low. It is at levels that only 20 years ago were considered below the theoretical minimum threshhold. Yes, there are areas where it is worse, such is the nature of an average. There are also places where it is much better.

There are currently only five states where unemployment is as high as 5.5% (and one of them is Alaska where unemployment is always high due to the seasonal nature of most their industries) which is a number that not so far in the past would have been a miracle economy. Even in the Gulf Coast states unemployment is low for the most part.

Yes there are flaws in the system of calculating unemployment but they tend to cause both under- and over- counting (it doesn't count people who have given up on finding work, but it tends to undercount the self-employed and has a mixed bag when deciding how to count people who were not interested in being in the job market but have been drawn in by an improving economy). While there are certainly pockets of bad, overall the picture is pretty damn good (especially compared to other countries where unemployment figures in Europe are generally two or three times as high; and all members of the EU use essentially the same method of counting as the U.S.)

I think it is easy to make a case that Bush hasn't done much to help the economy but it is hard to make one that he has hurt it, particularly at the local level. Considering that Bush has spent the money regardless of whether he has had the money coming in it is hard to see how another couple billion in investment taxes would have changed much.