Forums Index >> General >> Thanks Democrats
Page : 1 . . . . . 6 : 7 : <8> : 9 : 10 . . . . . 23
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/olbermann_8_leaked_memos_from_downing_street_050620-01.wmv
http://homepage.mac.com/justinhallman/Criminals.pict
Embarrassing and illegal. It's time for heads to roll, n'est ce pas?
Last edited: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 at 4:27:42 PM
Damn dial up. Ever since I traveled back to your time zone, I am dependent on a friend's damn dial up. No cool movies for me.
Anyway, looks like you republicans just lost another "values" voter: Klansman Guilty
of Manslaughter
Oh well, you can always count on diebold to make up for it...still, that's three democrats he capped (I mean, they were civil rights activists, so it would be absurd to think they'd vote republican), so either way, chalk up yet another victory for the GOP.
Last edited: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 at 4:36:20 PM
When you get back I'm going to buy you a shirt that says "I went to Assumption and all I got was this lousy t-shirt."
Nice label attempt. Almost "Hillary-like." You're getting the hang of this liberal political machine biz.........
Say hello to everybody in Assumption for me, Chief. I like that part of the world. Too hot, though.
Assumption Parish (at bottom of page)
Nicer place than some other kinds of assumptions around here.
...see if I can get a contribution commitment from the bean-counter, Rogue. Or at least get him to go to Abku Shouk and press the crosswalk buttons.
Last edited: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 at 12:46:01 PM
Somepin like tag team non-sequitors I think. But what else can they do? Not a lot to work with on their side.
And as for ass umptions, you think for a second that old toothless a hole didn't vote for bush? You figure he's a kerry man? Not likely. Republicans rule the south...the dems lost it over civil rights...too many dirt bag rascists among you, I assume.
Can we talk about Clinton now?
I concur with flea. It's a cat herding session in here, but without the reward of the cats.
I've never been reluctant to admit when I am wrong. I will go on record as having said "MB" more times than anyone else in the history of think tanks. Combined. I stay stupid shit sometimes, and I've learned the art of apology, regret, remorse, all those things.
The right doesn't have this skill. The right swings hammers and doesn't think twice. If they miss their target, they'll tell you they were swinging at something else.
Pick a topic people. Your Commander in Chief acts like he picks his foreign "policy" justifications from the wheel of fortune. When picking topics, you could all do better. At least pick something to which you think you can respond, try and defend something, explain why. We honestly don't know what you're talking about more than half the time. I say dude should be impeached at the very least, and the next post is about Hillary.
We're all talking to ourselves.
Good point. I completely agree....Stinky needs to start making more sense.
J/k
Serioulsy, I agree...and I think it's more then just us. I think what Tally is referring to above has taken over the national political discussion scene. I am basically a news / events junkie...I think having access to all of it wirelessly and at will excacerbates it. The result is posts similar to what I wrote yesterday...if you haven't read today's paper and had access to a Reuters feed, you may get lost by some of the references I make. I would normally hot link them, but it's impossible to do when I am posting when I am traveling as I use a Palm Treo.
For what it's worth, I think we can probably all agree that gov't spending is out of control. More on this when I can find it.
Ps - this damn thing doesn't have spellcheck so pardon the typos.
Hear-hear with a touch of mea culpa. I'm still staggered by the haste by which JJ cleared off the topic of darfur once I interjected a touch of reality-based reality. Turns out the US has slowed down the process. Big surprise, but its just like Bolton said (is perhaps Bolton the only neocon who doesn't lie? Calling it like he sees it -- I'm sure he's been spoken to about his semantic indelicacies, and by now understands the utility of the "noble lie"), the UN wouldn't piss with its pants on fire without US permission.
Anywho, it doesn't really matter if these guys stick to topic or not ho. You might admit when you are wrong and actually even consider the merits of someone else's argument...but don't expect reciprocity from this duo (although higher marks to chieftain who occasionally admits when he misses his mark at least). JJ is only a figment of karl rove's imagination; a physical embodiment of pure ideology which has gained enough autonomy to sit at a computer and hack away, but is otherwise in slavish lock-step with his ideological masters. The best you can hope for, as I have said, is to land verbal kicks up their asses. Perhaps that's not a sport you go in for. Unfortunately, its the only game they know...i guess that's all they were taught at private school? I mean it appears that these guys lettered in straw-man wrasslin'.
These guys are a microcosmic example of the bull-minded strategy of the right as a whole: use reason when it suits your purpose, abandon it when you are out-gunned. That they have been out-gunned in virtually every exchange is obvious. Like the zealots they are, they would never admit it. Ergo...their utilization of plan b: classic hate radio/faux news obfuscation.
Well shit, it works for rush and o'reilly. So, I've taken a page or two from their scrawny book (well, most of the other pages were stuck together).
Last edited: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 at 10:08:24 AM
So, I've taken a page or two from their scrawny book (well, most of the other pages were stuck together).
Hey dude, what you do with your copy is your business. :)
What I was referring to above is below. Thought it was an interesting read....
"With $843 billion burning a hole in their pockets, House and Senate appropriators continue to move as swiftly as possible to pass the 11 annual spending bills by their Oct. 1 statutory deadline,' according to Roll Call. In 'A Little Less Is Still a Lot,' Chris Edwards, director of Cato's tax policy studies, and Alan Reynolds, a senior fellow in tax policy studies, argue that under the Bush administration, 'overall spending is projected to rise 3.6% in 2006, but that follows an enormous 33% increase over the past four years. And tens of billions more will be needed for Iraq.'"
- Cato Daily Dispatch, 6/21/05
Also just saw this:
"Most Democrats today are increasingly skeptical of using military force - even against terrorists. No wonder the public thinks the party is weak on national security. Exactly 50 percent of Democrats do NOT believe dismantling al Qaeda should be a top foreign-policy goal. In fact, when recently asked to name the two 'most important foreign-policy goals,' more Democrats worried about out-sourcing than about al Qaeda."
- Ari Melber, a former John Kerry adviser and MoveOn.org activist, in the New York Post
And I don't care what party idealogy you subscribe to....trivializing two of the top masskillings in world historyis bullshit. This guy owes everyone an apology for making the below bullshit remarks:
"Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) is outraged by the treatment of terrorists held at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba (Gitmo). According to Senator Durbin, terrorists at Gitmo who may have critical information are aggressively questioned about future al Qaeda attacks. He says they are forced to listen to loud music, wear handcuffs and leg irons, and sit in rooms where the air conditioning is turned up and down. Durbin labels this torture and compares American soldiers to Nazis who murdered 12 million. He compares Gitmo to communist Gulags where more than 20 million were killed. When given the chance to apologize for his outrageous and dishonest comparisons, Durbin stubbornly defends his slander. Is Durbin utterly stupid or does he simply hate America?"
- George Landrith, president of Frontiers for Freedom
(@ Tally - This is what I was thinking about when I posted my response to yours.)
Is this guy on crack? They didn't pick up the current occupants of Gitmo at Wal Mart. They were taken off the battlefield.
And Stinky don't cloud this issue by saying the war(s) was/were bullshit....this issue has it's own legs.
"Exactly 50 percent of Democrats do NOT believe dismantling al Qaeda should be a top foreign-policy goal. " right? Doesn't mean they don't think that it is important, or even urgent...just not the top priority. In any event, where the hell did he get his numbers?
For me, dismantling al quaeda is a top foreign policy goal...addressing outsourcing is a top domestic policy goal. One can do two things at once...can't one? One needn't pick a pet goal and focus on it to the exclusion of all else...need one?
Durbin: in that context, durbin's apparent overstatement do make him seem like a bufoon. Are you sure about that context...i mean who is this guy: - George Landrith, president of Frontiers for Freedom?
I'll have to do some checking up. But let me say, if durbin was saying something other than this guy is paraphrazing -- if he was saying that torture and sadism is something that the nazis engaged in...well, he's right. And if he is saying that the US ought to be above that...well, perhaps there he is right too. (for me, its not so much the torture, as it is the sadism, and the beating to deaths, and the dehumanization of detainees as a whole -- some detainees, actually many, have been released uncharged. But not unmolested...). But as for torture...on this subject...i'm gray. But let me say, I only quietly support the torture of the guilty. Torturing the innocent, or the barely guilty...well, I just can't get behind that. The story circulating about the taxi driver, detained because he happened to be driving by when a IED went off is disgusting and a class one nazi move. US guards chained him to a wall and kneed him to death. His guilt or innocence was never even an after thought in their minds...um, "we can do better" as john kerry would say.
And just for future reference...anytime someone says
Is Durbin utterly stupid or does he simply hate America?"
Something as cliche, thread baren, and brazenly absurd as that...i have serious GD missgivings about his motivations. That kind of mc carthy bullshit has no goddam place in a democracy.
Spending: yep. Disconcerting. This crew has given tax cuts, 53% of which went to the upper 10% of americans, yet spends more than any administration in history. Perhaps the most glaring result of this will be a collosal national debt that douchebags will use to rationalize the deliberate gutting of social programs. Ooops, that's already happening. End result: most money going to the military...less money going back into the American community.
How long do you think this little experiment into focussed discussion ( I won't say debate, because that isn't really what we do here) will last...two more entrees?
And for clarification: when the media report on the incident I mentioned about the guards who beat that man to death...it doesn't make them liberal. When they report on the abuse of the koran...it doesn't make them liberal or the enemy of america. It is their job to provide us with the information. If their reportage of an incident causes a negative reaction...perhaps your ire could/should focus on the incident itself as the outrage, and not on the reportage.
(and yes, I know...newsweek retracted their story...but others have also reported similar abuses of the koran, as I'm sure you are aware...if, as you say, fox news isn't your only source of news).
Last edited: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 at 11:13:39 AM
I will do some more in-depth checking once I get back to a landline machine. Also want to expound more on your thoughts above than I can with this damn 2 inch keyboard.
Honestly chief, I spent about 15 minutes trying to find the original speech and can't come up with it. Google news is chock full of right leaning blogs and such absolutely crapping themselves over this.
I did find this article and read it: http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/columns/kadner/x17-pkd1.htm
It seemed to have a good deal of the original content, but I don't know how much was omitted.
It seemed like he was comparing the tactics employed be guards at gitmo to tactics employed by soviets and nazis. I did not get any sense that he was comparing the military to the nazi's in general. Did you?
Why do I get the feeling that this is just another "with us or against us" ploy by the right?
No place for dissent or "pessimism". No place for holding america to a higher standard...even with respect to our enemies.
^^^^^^ LOL Chief!
And...
"I been to ASSUMPTION and all I got was this lousy t-shirt."
^ %) all day.
Last edited: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 at 1:20:45 PM
BTW, Mr. Durbin did come out this morning and apologize for his remarks.
It made the back pages.
He said: "Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line."
A bold admission of guilt, that.
Later, he said how sorry he was and that he would never do it again or, at least, not ever in the same way...
Last edited: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 at 1:41:30 PM
How does a debate on Durbin's comments get traction in the shadow of Alberto Gonzalez memos and Lyndie England photos? Come on.
You want to worry about stupid comments? Go listen to a Bush press conference...or watch this video
http://indianz.com/News/2004/003755.asp
Last edited: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 at 2:02:24 PM
LOL - good point. GW's oratory skills really suck. I laugh at it in the same manner I would laugh at someone stumbling over their wedding vows. Just because they stumbled doesn't affect the sincerity.
I do agree with what I perceive to be an underlying point - the man's the leader of the free world and he has the public speaking ability of Otis in Mayberry.
I think in the same way anytime someone who influences policy purportedly (nod to stink) makes the comments Durbin made, it's something that ought to get serious traction. Not the debate itself mind you - the mindset behind them. WEhat will these guys (politicians from both sides of the aisle) NOT do or say as a result of political acrimony?
And has anyone see the pork orgy also known as the Highway Infrastructure Bill (name might not be acurate)?? Geez....when I pay my taxes, I *want* it to go to where it needs to go...domestic programs that work, foreign policy that's not a bribe, and national defense. It really pisses me off to see $250M go to Idaho for a GD potato museum. The same party that supposedly espouses states rights too.
Well, thank you, Chief. I commented on the highway bill several pages back.
But to back up...
Chief, this from the left:
Pick a topic people. Your Commander in Chief acts like he picks his foreign "policy" justifications from the wheel of fortune. When picking topics, you could all do better. At least pick something to which you think you can respond, try and defend something, explain why. We honestly don't know what you're talking about more than half the time. I say dude should be impeached at the very least...
Chief responds:
I think what Tally is referring to above has taken over the national political discussion scene. I am basically a news / events junkie...I think having access to all of it wirelessly and at will excacerbates it.
Hmmmm
What exactly has he referred to, Chief? Non sequiturs?
"I can apologize but the Right can't?" I'd have to see examples of that...
But conceding the point, there are hotheads in all political and religious discussions.
So I discount that ^ minority and try some regular debating? Is that the general idea? Hey, did the debate leave town about a year ago on the afternoon bus and political hyperbole replace it? Maybe.
If your argument has weak support, then it's just weak. If you take the whole point as a non sequitur to your belief system without considering the support, then you're just wrong. If I point out to you that your points have little validity and you start slobbering at the mouth, then you got anger management problems. If you respond that your points are "good enough" in your opinion, then it's just your opinion and it stops at that. So then stop slinging the slop you call reason around. (And this also from a portion of the respectable media today who should know better...and know how.)
For example: 44's post above implying an equivalent between Lyndie England and WW2 liquidation camps? If so, you're wrong.
Last edited: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 at 3:06:43 PM
Thanks dude - I do try.
Chief: haven't read much about it, but have heard what you are talking about...i'll do some reading. Sounds like you describe it aptly though.
Regarding durbin, I'd say read what he said, not what the spinners make of what he said. From what I've managed to find, he was talking about tactics specifically, not america generally. Much of the din generated on this is partisan horseshit. I mean, read what he said and see if you agree.
JJ: as news events, 44's comments have merit. However, those england photos certainly generated major buzz from both sides. The gonzales memo on torture and the geneva convention as a "quaint" notion didn't generate much of a howl from anyone, but us loonies on the left.
Perhaps there is a pattern of general media malaise settling into this country. Perhaps people are just generally disenchanted with just about everything. The media is just about unpredicatable with regard to what they'll hype or ignore...the GW bushco has rendered itself essentially irrelevant due to its mass-production of overly optimistic assessments of iraq. I don't recall this level of partisanship with regard to politics, or even with regard to political discourse from cats like us ever. You will disagree, but I put it down to the divisiveness of bushco. The a hole won't even through any of us on the left a bone. Not one goddam bone has been tossed at us. In his black and white world of with or against, we aint with...so he's against.
I mean, at least clinton made you buttholes rich. What the hell did bush ever do for me, except give me a check for 300 clams?
Jesus, 3.5 more years.
Opting Out in the Debate on Evolution
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/21/science/21evo.html?ei=5090&en=1de04c490e65a40f&ex=1277006400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
"We on the science side of things strong-armed the Kansas hearings because we realized this was not a scientific exchange, it was a political show trial," said Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, which promotes the teaching of evolution. "We are never going to solve it by throwing science at it."
^ when you highlight "detainees" you could not be more correct. They aren't prisoner's of war so they don't fall under the geneva convention and therefore don't have those privledges.
These are people that were committing or planning to commit act's against american soldiers and civilians... Personally, I don't feel that a terrorist deserves any rights at all, so in the immortal words of draco in rocky 4, "if he dies, he dies".
War dubya! (for those jim rome listener's out there)
Sil
^ when you highlight "detainees" you could not be more correct. They aren't prisoner's of war so they don't fall under the geneva convention and therefore don't have those privledges.
If that's true, then what "battlefield" did we grab them off of, Chief? Also, when posting, try not to sound like you are quoting party-lines and press-releases.
Also, your ideological leader Bill O'Reilly wants dissenting voices to get throw in jail.
http://mediamatters.org/static/audio/oreilly-200506220006.mp3
Nazi what? Nazi who? George Orwell already wrote this book.
No War Dubya. I don't like stupid.
Iraq is now a terrorist training ground, CIA says
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050622/pl_nm/security_iraq_cia_dc_1
Q_A_MI_E
Spin.
The prisoner's official status is "unlawful enemy combatants".
If that's true, then what "battlefield" did we grab them off of, Chief? Also, when posting, try not to sound like you are quoting party-lines and press-releases.
First off, chief is chief and I'm sil :)
Second, we didn't grab them off of any battlefield because they're TERRORISTS, not SOLDIERS. That's why they're not prisoner's of war. If they would actually fight like soldiers then they would be pow's, instead they're flying planes into buildings...
I'm not right or left, but in the middle so you can stop attempting to stereotype...
Sil
[EDIT] I can't believe what people are writing... You can talk about nazi's all you want, but the facts are this - a terrorist sector took control of four planes and drove three of them into buildings. If you want to just say "well, that's our fault because we're acting like nazi's", then that's up to you. Personally, I say we hunt them down. If it cost some liberties in the short term then so be it, but I want my kids to live in a country that is safe instead of having to endure what kids in england or ireland have to endure.
@ fleabiscuit and mr. Ho
Did you read what you wrote? Osama is from saudi araba... Is it our fault afganistan harboured him? Country of origin is meaningless in this arguement.
Who's
Quoting party-lines and press-releases
Now?
Last edited: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 at 7:40:58 PM
Durbin is the minority whip, which makes him important. @ Flea, the old "if-they-are-allowed-to do-it-why-shouldn't-we-be-allowed"?
I certainly believe that Chief is making some sharp assessments. One of which:
What will these guys (politicians from both sides of the aisle) NOT do or say as a result of political acrimony?
If you watch the John Bolton debate, you may notice some holdouts in the votes...and no doubt some bargaining is going on behind the scenes...bargaining votes for influence of some sort.
Everyone tries for a little clout so nothing runs in a straight line. No SSA reform is going to happen in this country without it being revisited for more work a dozen times.
Therefore, acrimony is usually well-timed.
A budget doesn't pass without pork. A law doesn't pass without exceptions and provisos tacked to it. A vote to end debate happens when deals are made. The present hyperbole is just part of the show.
I object when the media gets involved in hyperbole -- there are sunshine laws and open meetings laws that politicians have to abide by. The media is passing by open doors. Except in some special cases, closed door deal-making is no longer legal.
Additionally, for those who think the media should just accept and present both sides and spins on issues, that's not right. The media is here to inquire and present all sides of issues, come what may.
What Sil mentions is the priority of the moment...
What Chief mentions about the highway spending bill is the problem of the moment...
Last edited: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 at 10:41:34 PM
"Additionally, for those who think the media should just accept and present both sides and spins on issues, that's not right. The media is here to inquire and present all sides of issues, come what may."
Quoi?
Additionally, an intellectual exercise. Should the current president be impeached? If not, why not? Show your work.
Last edited: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 at 11:37:39 PM
For example: 44's post above implying an equivalent between Lyndie England and WW2 liquidation camps? If so, you're wrong.
No implication of equivalency was made by me OR Durbin.
Durbin said, "anyone who heard of these activitives I am going to read to you, information included in publicly available FBI emails, would think that a nasty society like the Nazi regime or the Soviets during the Gulag times was responsible. Not the USA." Did Durbin say there was equivalency in treatment? Nope. Durbin said that anyone reading about some of the more horrific misdeeds that our soldiers and interrogators have done to the detainees, without knowing the origin of those stories, would not associate the USA with those kinds of behaviors. Those kinds of behaviors would be associated with the bad guys, with Nazi's, with those that ran Gulags. He also said, "this was shameful behavior on the part of a limited few people at Gitmo and other places".
Honesty about what did happen and condemnation of bad behavior is good. Condoning it, like some of your compatriots do, is bad for America, both today and in the future.
Which is worse? A senator speaking honestly about very real mistreatment in effort to create improvement....
Or the following...
"I think the level of activity that we see today, from a military standpoint, I think will clearly decline. I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." (Dick Cheney, May 30)
"We went to war because we were attacked." (George Bush, last Saturday's radio address)
"The administration, I think, has said to the American people that it is a generational commitment to Iraq." (Condoleeza Rice, last Sunday)
And you guys want to debate whether Durbin was out of line in making an analogy...
That's the kind of debate that has us shaking our heads and taking to personal attacks. It's Ditto-Head bullshit. Rush, Fox News and the rest of the Karl Rove bullhorns are struggling mightily to redirect our attention from the elephant-in-the-room outrages. Go somehwere else and complain about Durbin, who is just the latest target for the apologists who attack the messenger and ignore the message. It's disinformation tool #18 ("mock outrage").
Are they selling anything you ain't buying?
Last edited: Thursday, June 23, 2005 at 5:30:00 AM
And to tag on, Bush wants to "inventory" the oil that may be in the coastal waters off the US. That means drilling "exploratory" wells? And, if they find more of the precious black sludge, never mind that it may be in areas that are designated off limits?
Of course, they just want to know how much is there, right? Nothing wrong with some information like that? No one would possibly suggest that this is a ploy to open drilling in areas that are off limits. 'Course not.
Dammit, wake up. I've got a term for G-dub. Oil whore. 
"Are they selling anything you ain't buying?"
That is a good question, and one I've been pondering for a while. Perhaps the true distinction here isn't left vs right...but status quo vs skepticism.
That is a good question, stink. I have to say that I have arrived at the point of "NO SALE"
An administration that deceives the public into war loses the trust of the people. When more and more data comes to light that supports the facts of that deception, I reach the point of total skepticism.
Now they have me acting like I'm from Missouri. Before I believe them, they have to show me. I need more information before I'll trust them. I was once willing to give them some leeway. No more. I want to have the full unvarnished story. Then I might start to believe some of what they say, but I do not expect I'll ever get the information I would need to start to trust.
I have gone from 70's era skepticism to 90's era hope back to full on skeptic. Tough for the republicans. I used to be willing to give them more credibility than I do now.
Hear ye? Hear ye?
This Kangaroo Court is now in session.
His Honor, the Kangaroo : "George W. 'Otis of Mayberry' Bush has already been found guilty of impeachable offenses. Can you clear him of all charges?
JJ.1 : "Your Honor, why is that? By the way, who are you?"
His Honor, the Kangaroo : "This is the court of WMC, Weapons of Mass Cheerleading, and don't address the court thusly or we'll have you thrown into solitary Anger Management!"
JJ.1 : "I assumed that it was innocence first? Why don't you roll out your evidence against him instead. Sarcasm isn't proof, btw.
"But I would like to point out though that a certain Fleabiscuit has maintained that 25 are dead at Gitmo at the hands of interrogators. Documented evidence may be questionable, your Worship. I charge him with use of WMH, Weapons of Mass Hysteria, and would like him sentenced to one month on the back of a smelly armadillo."
Last edited: Thursday, June 23, 2005 at 1:16:08 PM
Did someone forget to introduce the DSMs as evidence, or can we overlook them for now?
From the Sigma Delta Chi Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists.
Journalist's should:
Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
Link here: SPJ
My words:
That politicians spin is a given.
That professional journalists should not mimic politicians is a given.
Your "Quoi": Nor should professional journalists just mimic the spin of both sides in a news offering and imply that you choose.
The real goal, quoting from the preamble : Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy.
Ergo -------> News stories should be an independent, fair, and balanced picture and should:
Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.
Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.
Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.
Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; avoid bidding for news.
Last edited: Friday, June 24, 2005 at 6:26:34 AM
I suppose that you refer to this:
Club DSM ?????
"We never met a tranny we couldn't break..."?
Last edited: Friday, June 24, 2005 at 6:30:35 AM
I give you Abu Shouk. Please notice the legend in the bottom right hand corner. Many organizations represented. You can donate to the Red Crescent, if you wish. I got Rogue signed up, on a tentative basis anyway, to push crosswalk buttons near the schools. Only about 40,000 in this camp. Footnote to moderators: I will delete this images in several days so as not to consume too much space.
[image gone]
Last edited: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 at 8:16:01 PM
A lot to catch up on......
Horsey fun for the whole family: http://democracyforamerica.com/memo_movie.php
Horsey fun not for the whole family: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/06/23.html#a3607
Dawg, Karl Rove called the Democrats "those who indict" and "schedulers of counseling for hijackers" and not once did he say the words Nazi or gulag .
Not sure whether to say:
1.) "Shame on you for causing tension."
2.) "Fie, shame on you for not causing more tension, like the other side."
3.) "Gee, wasn't Hillary fired up!"
Last edited: Friday, June 24, 2005 at 6:46:17 AM
As long as you amuse yourself, that's all that really matters.
{ Also, forget to clink on that DSM link again? I understand—it's hard work. }
For more, better written (and read) responses on why this is something of a deal, check these links:
http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/061905.htm#062405
http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/101004.htm#101104
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/printer_061005L.shtml
http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/6/24/9118/22996
Democratic Leader Harry Reid released the following statement:
"I am deeply disturbed and disappointed that the Bush White House would continue to use the national tragedy of September 11th to try and divide the country. The lesson our country learned on that terrible morning is that we are strongest when we unite together, that America's power is in its common spirit of democracy and freedom.
"Karl Rove should immediately and fully apologize for his remarks or he should resign. The lesson of September 11th is not different for conservatives, liberals or moderates. It is equally shared and was repeatedly demonstrated in the weeks and months following this tragedy as Americans of all backgrounds and their elected representatives rallied behind the victims and their families, united in our common determination to bring to justice those responsible for these terrible attacks.
"It is time to stop using September 11th as a political wedge issue. Dividing our country for political gain is an insult to all Americans and to the common memory we all carry with us from that day. When it comes to standing up to terrorists, there are no Republicans or Democrats, only Americans. The Administration should be focused on uniting Americans behind our troops and providing them a strategy for success in the war on terror and the conflict in Iraq. I hope the president will join me in repudiating these remarks and urge Mr. Rove to take appropriate action to right this terrible wrong."
Nicely done, squeezing in a Hillary reference,.1.
http://www.themoderatevoice.com/posts/1119549666.shtml
"Has there ever been a more revealing moment this year?" Mr. Rove asked. "Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."
"I'm a uniter, not a divider."
Best. Lie. Ever.
OK OK, the DSM link.
I 'umbly bow in apologies.
However, I previously noted doubts about DSM.
1.) Contingency planning for the war that was PRE-WAR -- and the leaking of that contingency planning -- is old news. We heard of it in 2002. Contingency is not lock and load stuff.
2.) The memo was written, in fact, by a Brit attendee at a meeting where he drew conclusions. Reporting conclusions and impressions from what was spoken at that meeting. There are two problems with this that all good newsies are aware of: First, what did this Brit hear that other person say? And, second, what did that person/persons actually mean? This has not been confirmed.
3.) Even more specifically, what do the words "fixed up" and their connection to known spying/intelligence and the run up to the war actually mean???? These are the words around which most of the brouhaha centers.
So it's pretty simple. Contingency planning was no new thing. The memo was not a transcript and even if it was, what exactly did the person ALLEGEDLY quoted actually intend with his words.
Is anyone who makes these reflections just splitting "linguistic hairs"? Nope, these objections point out a lack of more and better particulars about the memos...
So, I, like every other person who is so far removed from the event -- both physically and informationally -- rely on news sources or official sources to disclose these more and better particulars. And this is all there is so far.
On top of all this, you have the Brit media involved.
There aren't enough of particulars. Period. It deserves pursuit, but jumping like a roo to a conclusion...??? As others have mentioned, I think the enthusiasm is ahead of the reality.
Last edited: Friday, June 24, 2005 at 12:46:15 PM
I think the enthusiasm is ahead of the reality.
OK, so you're skeptical of the DSM. Fair enough.
This administration says that all diplomatic options leading up to war were thoroughly examined and exhausted. This administration says a decision to go to war was based on their belief, at the time, that Iraq posed a grave and immediate threat based on it's ties to al Qaeda and WMD capabilities.
Any skepticism there?...or just blind enthusiasm?
Last edited: Friday, June 24, 2005 at 2:24:37 PM
I think both of you make great points. I would only like to mention that the conservative critical mass of skepticism is a little higher due to the obvious...as well as both sides partisan bickering. That's kind of what I was referring to earlier...with so much smoke flying around...from both sides...it's hard as hell to tell where the fire is.
Maybe that's a non-partisan decision made in DC. If we fight enough maybe they'll ignore us not doing our jobs.
Like that image, Chef: it's hard to tell where the fire is with so much smoke.
Karl Rove thing brought a mass of looking back at the "run up" to the war:
"I couldn’t feel stronger, David, that this is a time for us, and I’m not preaching about it, George Bush is the President. He makes the decisions, and, you know, it’s just one American, wherever he wants me to line up, just tell me where. And he’ll make the call."
-- Rather on CBS’s Late Show, September 17.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
-- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
Last edited: Friday, June 24, 2005 at 3:48:00 PM
Such pointless quotations. What is the argumentative function? Look at the memos.
Do the results of deception justify the deception?
Your horse and your cart are stumbling into one another.
The "information"? The "common belief" ?
Look at the memos. I suppose the next republican trick is blaming the victims. Maybe we can censure democratic senators and congressman for going along with the president.
Welcome to the world of zero accountability.
The return of '1984'
By H.D.S. Greenway | June 24, 2005
IF YOU TAKE something to read at the beach this summer make sure it is not one of George Orwell's books. The comparison with current events will ruin your day.
In what was then the futuristic, nightmare world of ''1984," written in 1949, Orwell introduced the concepts of ''newspeak," ''doublethink," and ''the mutability of the past," all concepts that seem to be alive and well in 2005, half a century after Orwell's death. In the ever-changing rationale of why we went to war in Iraq, we can imagine ourselves working in Orwell's ''Ministry of Truth," in which ''reality control" is used to ensure that ''the lie passed into history and became the truth."
And what about the Bush administration's insistence that all is going well in Iraq? In the Ministry of Truth, statistics are adjustable to suit politics -- ''merely the substitution of one piece of nonsense for another," Orwell wrote. ''Most of the material that you were dealing with had no connection to anything in the real world, not even the kind of connection that is contained in a direct lie. Statistics were just as much a fantasy in their original version as in the rectified version." Welcome to the Iraq war, Mr. Orwell.
What of Donald Rumsfeld's newspeak, or was it doublethink, saying that ''no detention facility in the history of warfare has been more transparent" than Guantanamo? We have the FBI's word for it that prisoners were chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, left for 18 to 24 hours with no food and no water, left to defecate and urinate on themselves.
The deaths by torture in Abu Ghraib and Afghanistan sound very much like what happens in Orwell's fictional torture chamber: Room 101.
He might as well have been writing about the Bush administration's redefinition of torture when he wrote about using ''logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it."
In Orwell's profoundly pessimistic view: ''Political language... Is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
There is something profoundly Orwellian, too, about the administration's attempts to impose thought control on public broadcasting. The sometimes secret machinations to place impositions on editorial freedom, the efforts to see which people interviewed by Bill Moyers might be considered anti-Bush or anti-Defense Department or insufficiently conservative, were just the kind of efforts to squash intellectual opposition to state power that Orwell wrote about.
I was amused to see even a conservative Republican senator, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, was branded as a ''liberal" because he dared criticize the Pentagon -- a ''thought criminal" in Orwell's parlance.
The drum beat by some conservatives to bring down an independent judiciary is another case in point. We learned from the case of unfortunate, blind, and brain-dead Terri Schiavo that it isn't activist judges who are the enemy. It is judges who are not active in the correct causes.
It is the intended persecution of Michael Schiavo, who defended his wife's right to die, however, that has for me the most sinister echoes of Orwell. Florida Governor Jeb Bush, according to news reports, will have the case reopened after 15 years to investigate how long it took Schiavo to dial 911. Thus will Michael Schiavo feel the displeasure of the state for challenging the conservative orthodoxy.
In the effort to squash dissent, as evidenced by moves to change the Sentate's filibuster rules, there seems to be the belief among the majority that they will always stay in the majority, that they will never lose the Senate, and, therefore, never themselves need to filibuster.
Orwell had something to say about this too. ''Power worship blurs political judgment," he wrote in an essay, ''because it leads, almost unavoidably, to the belief that present trends will continue. Whoever is winning at the moment will always seem to be invincible."
There are any number of Guantanamo defenders who could fit neatly into George Orwell's essay when he wrote: ''In our time, political speech and writing is largely the defense of the indefensible."
H.D.S. Greenway's column appears regularly in the Globe
http://www.gophypocrites.com/2005/06/hyp05026.html
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Advance_Kerry_blasts_Rove_for_outrageous_line_on__0623.html
Unnecessary rhetorical barb forthcoming:
1728 and counting. When he hits 2,000, word on the street is daddy will let him sit at the big table.
Last edited: Friday, June 24, 2005 at 5:35:44 PM
One more tart, a lovely. Wonkette is pretty funny.
http://www.wonkette.com/politics/patriotism/index.php#capitalism-is-the-new-communism-109976
Last edited: Friday, June 24, 2005 at 5:43:13 PM
Ladies and gentlemen Liberty
has left the arena, by eminent domain. :)
What's with up America?
JJ, NP & gg's
Stinky thanks for the fan mail.
My this thread his hard to jump into heh heh.
WHO SHALL DEFEND US FROM INVADING WAL*MARTIANS?
Flea lets get our heavies and show'em!
Tal, good question.
The FBI ?
Where's my Magna Carta :)
Question of the day. How many prescriptions for the elderly does a manned flight to Mars buy?
Eh, would that be US or Canadian? :)
Page : 1 . . . . . 6 : 7 : <8> : 9 : 10 . . . . . 23
: :
Yeeeeeeeep, that's right. It ain't over 'til the fat lady has sung...and waffles are served for all.
First up - Social Security.
I bring you the following from an email I rec'd earlier today. Slightly partisan, but I though "What the hey...what's not lately?"
SO:
Subject: Social Security
We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like
a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the
handle.--Winston Churchill
SOCIAL SECURITY:
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the
Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be
completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into
the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to
put into the Program would be deductible from their
income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the
independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the
General operating fund, and therefore, would only be
used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program,
and no other Government program, and,
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees
would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and
are now receiving a Social Security check every
month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed
on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal
government to "put away," you may be interested in
the following:
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from
the independent "Trust" fund and put it into the
General fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the
Democratically-controlled House and Senate.
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
"tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving
annuity payments to immigrants?
MY FAVORITE :
A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic
Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at
age 65, began to receive SSI Social Security
payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments
to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and
violation of the original contract (FICA), the
Democrats turn around and tell you that the
Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens
believe it!
I haven't had a chance to fact check yet - I'm sure someone will. I deleted the "pass this on" part of the email.
Well? Agree? Disagree?