Tuesday, December 05, 2006

Bye Bye Bolton

There's nothing like starting your work week off on the right foot. And theres nothing more right than seeing the proud, arrogant, hand-picked policy drones of the Bush administration being forced to accept reality as they are being handed their walking papers and shown to the door. And John Bolton's reality this week? His 15 minutes are up. He has burned all the bridges he can burn for now, and since no one at the UN likes him. well, maybe the Chinese ambassador likes him, just a little, he has pretty much worn out his welcome. And for a diplomat, thats as real as it gets.

Back in March of 2005 when John Bolton was nominated to the stately position of U.S Ambassador to the United Nations by President Bush, he was already the subject of extensive criticism. Complaints from coworkers and subordinates dotted his resume, and he seemed perhaps the most unlikely candidate to serve in any position requiring diplomacy or statemenship. But President Bush knew better.

Now, after just over a year of service at the United Nations, Bolton is disliked and even despised by representatives from many other countries, and is described as being rude, arrogant and undiplomatic. In fact, the North Korean ambassador referred to him as "such human scum and bloodsucker", after Bolton openly insulted the North Korean President, Kim Jong Il during the 2003 6 party nuclear proliferation talks. Not exactly what one would normally call "diplomatic" but that didn't stop Bolton. Many republicans admire him for his frankness in speaking his mind. But those who do are missing the point.

He wasn't there to insult our neighbors and their leaders. He wasn't there to tell people "what he thought". He was there to work with representatives from other nantions in open and genuine dialogue that is designed to strengthen international relationships and ease tensions. He was there to "avoid" wars and make friends, and calling the leader of another country a "tyrannical dictator" is probably not the best way to accomplish that. I bet you knew that, didn't you?

Well try and tell him that. Like most Bush appointees, and indeed like Bush himself, Bolton seemed to feel he"knew it all", and no one was going to tell him otherwise. Not while still expecting to keep their jobs anyway. Bolton had mastered that amazing "my way or the highway" smuggery that is signature within the Bush regime. And Bolton also shares his leaders affinity for supporting wars in which one has no intention of fighting in. During the Viet Nam era, John Bolton was a strong supporter of the war. At least vocally. But instead of taking that support for the war and turning it into real action, like Bush, Bolton chose to instead enlist in the National Guard, and opted to avoid the actual combat of the war he so strongly tauted his support for. In fact, Bolton wrote in his Yale 25th reunion book "I confess I had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy. I considered the war in Vietnam already lost".

And this is the man Bush thought should represent us in a position of diplomat to the world. This is what passes for "character" with George W. Bush, and his administration. After all, it mirrors his own. But fortunately for the rest of the planet, Boltons time is up. His lame duck President can't hold back the tides any longer, and smug, arrogant "chickenhawks" are having their wings clipped on an almost weekly basis now. Rumsfelds out, and now the bully Bolton is following him out the door. Who's next? Rice? Rove? We'll see.

But in the meantime, lets all open a cold beer, light up a good cigar, and wave old Johnny B, bye bye. In fact, lets throw a party. A celebration to acknowledge the leaving of a diplomat who had not one diplomatic bone in his body. We might as well. After all, we know they're rippin it up in the UN building this morning.

Mr Bolton. Your "shoot first and ask questions later" approach was just not welcome in an organization designed to facilitate discourse and comprimise between nations. So Bye Bye Mr Bolton. You were fun to watch, kind of like Yosemite Sam with a necktie, only not as funny. But now, thankfully, your 15 minutes are up and its time for you to go. So go.

Oh and in parting, I'd like to remind you sir, to not let the door hit you on your backside as you exit the building.

406 comments:

  1. Hey Foole just curious is Rumsfeld a flip flopper and a traitor now

    Hey Rusty since Rumsfeld got fired and he is speaking out saying he was wrong and basically agreeing with what we've been saying all along does that mean he was an incompetent fool that is only speaking out because he's a disgruntled employee angry because he got fired...............................OH WAIT, WE"VE BEEN SAYING THAT ALL ALONG AND "YOU"VE" BEEN THE ONE DEFENDING HIM.............CARE TO EXPLAIN THAT ONE?????????

    ReplyDelete
  2. Fibbing Fascist said "Cool. Mad TV just had a perfect parody of the Dixie Chicks. It was a skit of them singing a song in which the two sisters tried to muzzle natalie maines who sang such thangs as "we support islamic jihad". What a hoot."

    Dishonest and hippocritical as usdual old man, The Dixie Chicks NEVER supported terrorists or jihadists that is a blatent dishonest lie you ate ATTEMPTING to pass off as truth via a parody YOU endorse they criticized the President they never supported terrorist and since critizing the president or ANYONE else is allowed by the Constitution and apparently you oppose this right It would appear YOU are against freedom of speech more specificaly you are against ANY free speech that doesnt agree with you and your twisted authoritarian political views.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Here Fibbing Fascist here is another example of your hippocrissy and hatred of freedom of speech.

    FF said""I support the U.S. military. I don't support former military types or anyone else who rips the military or tries to weaken it by calling for the draft."

    Your next statement "CLEARLY" illustrates your hippocrissy for all:

    FF said "Trying to claim that your opponent is anti-military, because he criticized a specific person who served in the military, is laughably absurd."

    So let me see O king of hippocrissy you say that trying to claim your oppenent is anti-military, because he criticized a specific person who served in the military, is laughably absurd........yet a mere 2 paragraphs earlier you critize Clif for doing the same thing......oops sorry the people Clif criticized were pretty much too gutless to serve during a war.

    So I take it YOU are against freedom of speech UNLESS it is what YOU want to hear and agrees with your political views by your standards only "YOU" get to criticize people aye foole you support double standards and hippocrissy and despise personal freedom you are a fool with no honor or integrity FF!

    You are a dishonest liar and a troll, Clif has NEVER criticized, smeared or slimed the military yet you keep lying and dishonestly trying to portray him as doing that, provide some evidence or retract your lie.

    The truth is Clif has criticized Bush and Rummy's policies and strategies not the military, which according to you "Trying to claim that your opponent is anti-military, because he criticized a specific person who served in the military, is laughably absurd."

    so unless you are a hippocrit who openly opposes freedom of speech you have no right to attack someone for doing that which you claim the right to do.

    Further, I would love for you to explain how a draft weakens the military because most people with the exceptions of repugs that live in bizzaro land would expect a draft to STRENGTHEN the military not weaken it genius.

    ReplyDelete
  4. A true man of character...take your pick: Moe, Larry or Curly.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Worf said "Rummy leaked that letter to try and salvage his own legacy,"

    My thoughts exactly!

    as for a reverse of policy and a pullout in several months, i'd love for that to happen, but I honestly cant see that happening for at least 6 months to a year and one big offensive where we try to wipeout one or several sides, Bush is too arrogant to change his mind or concede his legacy even though it is inevitable his legacvy will be the worst most corrupt, ignorant and arrogant president EVER as well as a total failure.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ff said ""Seems the private sector who built the levees were no better than Enron, or halliburton..." The private sector DID the work UNDER a contract, as a private contractor to the federal government by a contract outsourced by the US army corps of engineers...JUST like I said. the corps are responsible, but a private contractor did NOT do the work well enough.
    -cliffy

    So in the lib mind an honest mistake is the same as intentional malfeasance.

    Similarly, a mistake shared between the federal government and a private contractor becomes the sole responsibility of the private contractor, because big government is always the solution for a lib.

    Just ask yourself: Didn't the Corps approve and monitor the terms of each contract? Didn't the Corps themselves build some of the failed levees? Didn't the Corps admit ultimate culpability?

    This charge was a pure fantasy created out of his manic, blind loathing for anything created by the private sector. "


    First of all Foole, I would hardly call BOTH parties deliberately leaving off 7 feet or almost half of the recommended height of the Levvee an "honest mistake".......maybe thats what a dishonest repug would call it but people that believe in accountability would call it crimminal negligence, and or incompetence.

    and Clif DID say the corps are and were responsible so once again you are being dishonest just as you are by creating your strawmen and trying to say that Clif said the sole responsibility lies with the private contractor or that he HATES and loaths anything created by the private sector.

    But what I find interesting is how hippocrites like you claim to loathe big government yet you never stop your cheerleading for the Bush admin who are clearly for big obtrusive government, against constitutional and personal freedoms and against fiscal responsibility..........yet you never tire of playing cheerleader for that which you claim to abhor my hippocritical friend.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Fascist Fan what I find amazing is how after the last 6 years of iron fisted repug misrule via the Bush administration and the rubber stamping repug congress you have the audacity to claim that libs favor big government and say its ALWAYS the solution, here is another of your dishonest quotes

    FF said "Similarly, a mistake shared between the federal government and a private contractor becomes the sole responsibility of the private contractor, because big government is always the solution for a lib."

    you are a model of hippocrissy always erecting straw men because thats all you and your dishonest talking points are able to attack with your lies and false generalizations you cling to the old sterotypes of what the repug party ONCE was, when they had a semblance of integrity, fools like you still believe the repug party is the party of small government and fiscal responsibility and if you are gullible to still believe in that fairy tale after the last 6 years then you probably believe in the Easter Bunny as well.

    ANY honorable repug that truly believed in small government, fiscal responsibility, constitutional and personal freedoms, would be appalled at what has transpired the last 6 years and want to take the repug party BACK from the radical erxtremists and restore its core principles and integrity but YOU instead defend the Bush Administration like a good little goosestepping cheerleader regardless of the fact they stand for and support the very things you claim to abhor.

    You rationalize all your hippocrissy away like a good little mindless authoritarian idealogue who craves protection and safety over freedom

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yosemite Sam, thats awesome that fool does look like Yosemite Sam.

    ReplyDelete
  9. BTW Lydia, you were excellent on the radio yesterday, it was cool to hear BG, Clif and Larry as well.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Worfeus I have to give you credit, what you said about the Pope possibly being assassinated really got me thinking, that was something that I had NEVER considered but is certainly plausible.

    BTW, i bought the Pelican Brief and watched it Sunday, its amazing how movies parallel what could be happening right now, I found it extremly questionable how one Supreme court justice died and another resigned amid death threats and controversy all while a power mad megalo maniac President and executive branch was running Amuk seizing power and dismantling the Constitution.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thank you Mike. I haven't heard it yet, but I'll post the podcast link.

    Keep up the good work!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous1:56 PM

    Yea Mike, the Pelican Brief is eerily similar to our current situation, huh? Made you think I bet.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mike, Carl, Worf,

    Carl:
    I'm your friend, not your enemy. Real friends sometimes have to tell one another the painful truth rather than what they want to hear. It's the mark of a real friend. Please don't take issue with what I suggest (personally).

    Mike, Worf, (Clif), Carl,

    I understand your reasons for continuing the approach you have. I would like to ask you some questions...

    Has your approach been effective? I.e. Have more lurkers participated?
    Does this blog enjoy sustained, detailed, insightful, political debate?
    Or are excellent points diluted to extinction?

    Please remember not to attack the messenger....I WANT AMERICA TO HEAL!

    I suggest one way this is possible is to enable lurkers to feel more comfortable which may lead them to comment (and then tell their friends etc. about this site) to spread insightful truths.

    Rather than vile antagonism....

    ReplyDelete
  14. Mike,

    thanks for your supportive comments.....however I'd had a few pints before joining in the debate because I didn't know Lydia was going on the radio.

    In case you're interested, I like to finish my week off with a bit of fun with my wife followed with a few beers!
    I was pretty tired during the phone-in, plus it was nearly midnight here! I was NOT at my best.

    I don't know about you, but I'm good for about 5 minutes then I need 8 hours sleep and a bowl of Cornflakes.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The Prof only has two questions for you today;

    Did anyone see the former campaign manager for the greek midget, Susan Estrich take off on Nancy Pelosi thiss weekend?

    Did anyone see Neil Cavuto bitch slap and ro-sham-bo that flaming lefty Krugman today? Cavuto called him a liar to his face and the great NYT writer was speechless.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous2:19 PM

    Gary, I guess thats up to the reader, isn't it?

    Not sure why you'd ask such a question.

    Anyway yes, I thimk it has made a difference. Lurkers are many,and many will never comment. Sure the discussion gets out of hand sometimes, but most blogs do. Look at ThinkProgress. You've been there. They edit a lot of the fouler stuff but I've seen TONS of insults, quips, etc over there. But they keep on going.

    Anyway you're free to say what you want here, for the most part. Lydia edits some of the fouler stuff, like most blogs, but for the most part she lets peoples posts stand as they are. Free speech means free speach, for you, the trolls, AND the guys who argue.

    Trying to control the discourse is censorship, pure and simple, and while censorship and controlling what people say may pass among the British commonwealth, you're not going to gain much traction with it over here.

    Freedom of speach means having to see others peoples speech that you not only don't agree with, but don't like as well.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous2:21 PM

    And while Thinkprogress has a broader readership than our little hole in the wall blog, if you look, I think you'll see that about 85 percent of the comments are being made by 15 percent of the people.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous2:25 PM

    But I agree with you in principle, that is, we should make a concerted effort to stop using foul language (except in emergencies:D) and there is a tendency to call people fools and such a lot when simply responding to the question will do.

    I know I have been working on being generally kinder in my responses.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Gary you make an excellent point, I would welcome intelligent lurkers to participate, and I agree antagonism doesnt solve anything, however as I said earlier like Worfeus I am not trying to convince the unconvincable, i am merely trying to show anyone watching what foul and hippocritical liars they are by illustrating their hippocrissy and poking holes in their dishonest talking points.

    there may be lurkers or moderates who could be influenced by their dishonesty if left unchecked and like worfeus i dont want their lies and rhetoric to go unchallenged like it has in the MSM for so long.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Worf,

    I'm not saying they should be banned.
    I'm suggesting they are not encouraged/enabled as a way to heal. Big difference.

    Of course you and anyone else are free to do this if you wish, by all means do, but I ask why? What purpose does it serve in REALITY? What are the real effects of diluting this blog?

    Maybe you enjoy getting 'stuck in' too much to realise the effect of getting 'stuck in'...?

    ReplyDelete
  21. And this also;

    What side do you fall on in the Keith Olbermann/Lou Dobbs dust up?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Worf "I know I have been working on being generally kinder in my responses."

    That takes humility, vision and compassion.

    THAT is what is NEEDED!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Mike "I would welcome intelligent lurkers to participate, and I agree antagonism doesnt solve anything, however as I said earlier like Worfeus I am not trying to convince the unconvincable, i am merely trying to show anyone watching what foul and hippocritical liars they are..."

    Mike, I think I have a greater respect for the intelligence of Americans in general.

    I think most Americans know and understand the lies from extremists by now.

    But like my wife, they won't participate for fear of being personally attacked....?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Anonymous2:37 PM

    BG said;

    but I ask why?

    And once again, I am left to ponder just why you'd ask such a question.

    Why debate the debater? Public debate is and has been a long standing tradition in America, and has its roots in the very foundations of our democracy.

    Public debate is what America is about.

    Now I realize that free and public debate were NOT part of the foundations of your democracy, although once you guys saw how well it worked over here you laxed your grip on the commonwealth, but in truth I just can't imagine what prompted you to ask such a question. Particularly to an American.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anonymous2:42 PM

    BG;

    But like my wife, they won't participate for fear of being personally attacked....?

    Tell your wife I called her a chicken. :D

    Seriously though, while someone may "write something harsh" no one can "personally attack her" in here. Its a blog. We don't even know who she is.

    There is no reason to be sheepish. Tell her to get her dander up.

    But like I said, I agree with you that we should work on being nicer in our responses, and if it makes her feel any better, I am focusing on that very goal each and every day.

    ReplyDelete
  26. BG while I agree that we should not contribute to the foul language or childish vicious personal attacks that unfortunately isnt going to stop the repug trolls from doing it, I came to this blog a year ago and was immediately viciously attacked personally in an attempt by the repugs to drive me off the blog.

    And I have watched Moo Moo, Rusty and to a lessor extent the other trolls immediately pounce on new comers with vicious personal attacks SPECIFICALLY to drive them off the blog before they become too committed or entrenched, that isnt going to stop regardless of wether i challenge their rhetoric and lies, there is a difference between being reasonable and civil and being weak and i'm tired of their talking point that liberals are weak and afraid of conflict there is a huge difference between attacking someone personally like a reatarded 3rd grader or forcefully calling them on lies and dishonesty and challenging their dishonest rhetoric.

    I for one believe we need more strong liberals that arent imtimated by personal attacks or boxed into a submissive corner by their phony sterotypes that liberals are nice and avoid conflict at all costs.

    because if we make their talking points true and avoid conflict at all costs, then it encourages and reinforces their agressive slimy behavior because it achieves the outcome they desire.

    ReplyDelete
  27. On topic;

    From the Guardian;

    "John Bolton The outspoken unilateralist - who once said that if the 38-storey UN building "lost 10 storeys today, it wouldn't make a bit of difference" - was sent to the UN to shake it up but could not get enough support even before the elections because Republican moderates were uneasy about his brusque style. He was given a temporary appointment by the president in the hope that he would win admirers. He did not."

    "Mr Bolton, a brusque unilateralist, embodied a foreign policy that was dismissive of international treaties and organisations."


    And this damaged American/foreign relations almost as much as the Iraq war itself.

    Good riddance to another extremist who mires an otherwise wonderful America in the sewer!

    ReplyDelete
  28. Worf "Public debate is what America is about."

    Agreed! So let's define DEBATE..

    From the dictionary I have, it states "discuss or dispute about esp. formally in a legislative assembly, public meeting etc."

    With words like 'formally' I think we have a cultural difference. As a point of interest, how does an American Dictionary define debate?


    I ask because what I read tends NOT to be debate.
    A lot of it tends to be 'antagonism'. This is defined as "active opposition or hostility".

    And this is why America is in a 'cold' civil war. I want America to heal!

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anonymous2:55 PM

    British Gary said...

    "John Bolton The outspoken unilateralist - who once said that if the 38-storey UN building "lost 10 storeys today, it wouldn't make a bit of difference" -


    I can't believe I left that quote out. Can you believe Bush put this knucklehead in after making such a tasteless and controversial remark post 911?

    I couldn't believe it. It was all surreal. But now, thanks to millions of blogs and news sites, the people are coming out of their sleep. They are slowly waking up.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Anonymous2:57 PM

    British Gary said;

    A lot of it tends to be 'antagonism'. This is defined as "active opposition or hostility".

    You're kidding me right?

    You are aware we get the House of Commons on BBC World over here, right?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Mike "if we make their talking points true and avoid conflict at all costs, then it encourages and reinforces their agressive slimy behavior because it achieves the outcome they desire."

    Again, I think most Americans have had thier eyes opened by now. Why would the mid-terms have gone the way they did otherwise?

    Please don't think I'm suggesting an avoidance of conflict - I'm not. I'm really suggesting scroll past extremist/insulting comments and DEBATE when REASONED differing points are presented (rather than debunked far-right extremism).

    I'm suggesting this as a way forward, to encourage lurkers to participate and reduce the dilution/distraction effect.

    I don't understand why what I'm suggesting is 'offensive'...?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Anonymous3:05 PM

    BG said;

    Again, I think most Americans have had thier eyes opened by now. Why would the mid-terms have gone the way they did otherwise?


    Really? Did you look at the spread?

    We won, but not by much. We sure as hell didn't get a mandate. Most races were quite close, and many went into overtime because they were just too close to call. A large portion of this country still doesn't get it, something I clearly get.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Anonymous3:06 PM

    BG said;

    Please don't think I'm suggesting an avoidance of conflict - I'm not. I'm really suggesting scroll past extremist/insulting comments and DEBATE when REASONED differing points are presented (rather than debunked far-right extremism).

    If it was all debunked we would have won the midterms with a mandate.

    ReplyDelete
  34. what yoor suggesting is not offensive at all BG, i think you are absolutely right we should scroll past the childish trolls like moo moo and rusty where ALL they do is attack people personally..................but the trolls that try to pass lies and rhetoric off as fact like FF and Volt they NEED to be challenged.

    as for your comment that no one belives these liars as evidenced by the election, well people have been starting to wake up to their lies and dishonest rhetoric (better late than never) but the majority of our nation was deceived by these people and when they through lies or dishonest talking points out there they NEED to be challenged and exposed for what they are.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Anonymous3:11 PM

    BG said;


    I don't understand why what I'm suggesting is 'offensive'...?


    I didn't say it was offensive. But debate is what we're about here. And debate sometimes gets heated.

    It goes with the turf.

    We may not be as cosmopolitian as you royals, but we get our points across.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Worf "You are aware we get the House of Commons on BBC World over here, right?"

    As I said on Lydia's radio appearance....

    Prime Ministers 'Question Time' is NOT how our politics are conducted.

    Have you ever noticed how there is NEVER a lock of hair out of place? How their ties are NEVER askew? How they NEVER perspire?

    When people are GROOMED for the STAGE this is how they appear!

    Such a presentation is for the SHEEPLE we have here - the types who BELIEVE what they read in the papers, especially the TABLOIDS.
    Politicians go on stage to look sincere...gotta keep the punters convinced...Britain has NO moral high ground.

    If you want to understand a little more of the complexities of British politics, especially how we really work over here (and as I say, I'm NOT claiming any moral high ground - Britain has SHEDLOADS of problems) watch the PARLIAMENT CHANNEL. Then watch my politicians at a Union/NHS CONFERENCE.

    Then compare their coiffured images.


    Prime Ministers Question Time is OVERSIMPLIFIED and STEREOTYPED. Look a little beneath the surface.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Anonymous3:14 PM

    You had to know when you stumbled into an American blog that you weren't at Westminster Abbey any more, right?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Anonymous3:15 PM

    British Gary said...

    Have you ever noticed how there is NEVER a lock of hair out of place? How their ties are NEVER askew? How they NEVER perspire?

    When people are GROOMED for the STAGE this is how they appear!


    So you guys like to get dressed up to holler at each other?

    Whats your point?

    ReplyDelete
  39. They hijacked our country and destroyed our international reputation and we NEED to insure that NEVER happens again.

    if people like FF post lies and dishonest talking points they NEED to be called on it and challenged so extremists like that never hijack our country again.

    and if they think they can bully and intimidate us into silence by being arrogant and obnoxious so as to gain a bully pulpit unchallenged it will only serve to reinforce and encourage this behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Anonymous3:18 PM

    BG said;

    watch the PARLIAMENT CHANNEL.

    I have. Or at least I've watched Parliment in session, many times. I believe its on C-SPAN over here. I see it all the time.

    Still just a bunch of guys bickering from what I can tell.

    But I will yield that you do invent some extremely creative ways to tell someone else to go f#@@$k themself.

    You almost want to thank them afterwards.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Anonymous3:20 PM

    The House of Commons is much more fun to watch though.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Worf, Mike,

    this is why I really enjoy being here.

    You guys are great.

    I know you didn't win by much but people are waking up. What is needed now is Congressional oversight to increase awareness. Why? Because;

    When the PAIN of what IS becomes greater than the FEAR of what IF, America will heal.

    I'm not saying it's all debunked. But in reality, people will have read our comments and by now will have formed their opinions for themselves. They're not stupid. There's a great deal of history to our comments.


    Mike,

    Please challenge away to reasoned [formal] debate, I'm begging for a level of diplomacy and avoidance of the antagonistic trap. For all the right reasons. Who knows, unless it's implemented how will any of us know if this improves the blog?

    I want to help heal America, I think it begins in little ways like encouraging the spread of insightful thoughts from people like you.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Anonymous3:26 PM

    whosever shall say, ‘Thou fool,’ shall be in danger of hell fire.”

    Matthew 5-22

    ReplyDelete
  44. Worf "So you guys like to get dressed up to holler at each other?
    Whats your point?"

    Straightforward;

    A stage allows politicians to lie in the most sincerest fashion. Appear at odds (check out our early day motions [EDM's] and you'll see how politicians really vote/are at odds - NOT!) and pander to their respective bases.

    Appearing smart and speaking smart adds validity to a lie.

    If you couple this with a pretence of opposition, the stage allows all parties to APPEAR to be at conflict.

    Then if you dig a little deeper, you see just how NEGLIGIBLE the so-called 'opposition' really is. The EDM's reaveal this.

    Look at the opposition votes in the war on Iraq. Or the use of depleted Uranium in Iraq. Or the hatchet job to my Habeas corpus. Or the arrest of a single female protestor by 7 armed policemen etc. etc. There was practically none!

    ReplyDelete
  45. Gary said "I know you didn't win by much but people are waking up. What is needed now is Congressional oversight to increase awareness. Why? Because;

    When the PAIN of what IS becomes greater than the FEAR of what IF, America will heal."


    EXACTLY RIGHT!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  46. Worf,
    "But I will yield that you do invent some extremely creative ways to tell someone else to go f#@@$k themself."

    "The House of Commons is much more fun to watch though."


    This is diplomacy and entertainment.

    The two are not equivalent.

    Diplomacy influences. Entertainment for sheeple deceives.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Anonymous3:42 PM

    Just remember Gary, sheeple are people too. The ability to entertain and exhibit can change minds that might otherwise not be changed. And while one might dismiss such a person who would be convinced of a given position only if they are properly entertained first, there are lots of them.

    Thats why Jesus was such a great teacher. Because not only did he speak plain and simple truths, he found entertaining ways to articulate them.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Our trolls are aweful silent after Rumsfeld's little memo came out.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Anonymous3:46 PM

    And I might also point out that Jesus did not seem to shy away from sometimes using derogatory and even relative explitives in his discourses to the masses, and particularly to the members of the Sanhedrin, and those in who he felt personal offense.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Anonymous3:47 PM

    Mike, I fear our trolls may have done injury to themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  51. how many times and for how long did the little trolls defend Rumsfeld and call us traitors now Rumsfeld does the king of all flip flops and says what we have said all along................what are the little trolls to do, defend Rumsfeld like they have done all along and admit the war is unwinnable or admit we were right all along and that Rumsfeld was an incompetent idealogue.

    ReplyDelete
  52. must suck to be a mindless repug troll.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Anonymous3:50 PM

    And in truth, having found you on ThinkProgress, which is easily one of the most successful blogs on the Internet today, I find it odd that you should think heated discourse would "hurt" this blog.

    It doesn't seem to have done TP any harm.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Anonymous3:53 PM

    Mike said...
    must suck to be a mindless repug troll.


    Lol. What happened to a kinder and gentler blog?

    ReplyDelete
  55. Worf "Just remember Gary, sheeple are people too."

    I humbly bow to your correction, thank you.

    I am trying to dehumanise LESS and understand more in order to build bridges. That's why I'm no longer using the word 'troll'. It's a difficult thing to achieve but it's difficulty is irrelevant to it's necessity. Thank you.


    As for Jesus. I read a book by Lord Raglan concerning Saviours/Heroes of Pagan rites. There was a time in our factual history when people really died, worshipped, killed and married in their belief of Zeus, Isis, Apollo, Venus, Mithras etc. etc. etc. That you happen to be born in America, in a time when Judeo-Christian beliefs dominate is a complete accident and explains why you happen to believe in your particular god. Had you been born in Afghanistan you would worship Allah, China: Budda, Israel: Jehovah.

    I am an atheist because of a distinct lack of evidence [proof of claims] to the contrary.

    If you wish to believe that Jesus really did walk the Earth, even if you wish to go so far as to believe that he was a god, I have no problem with this unless you think that his philosophy should be incorporated into law i.e. theocracy, e.g. South Dakota.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Worf "It doesn't seem to have done TP any harm."

    Really? I don't blog there anymore. Many others don't either.

    I believe you're one of the MANY.


    I think it's their loss, not ours.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Anonymous3:57 PM

    BG said;

    That's why I'm no longer using the word 'troll'.

    I likewise have stopped using the word "repug".

    I have considered ceasing using the T word, but upon brief investigation I discovered it refers to pretty much anyone who hangs out in a blog.

    Which means we're trolls too.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Anonymous3:58 PM

    British Gary said...
    I don't blog there anymore. Many others don't either.

    I believe you're one of the MANY.


    Thats because I was banned.

    :D

    ReplyDelete
  59. Anonymous3:58 PM

    Permanently.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Anonymous3:58 PM

    Proudly even.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Mike,

    regarding Rumsfeld - he was covering his ass.

    His memo will be used in his (inevitable) books to deceive people that he was suggesting alternatives.

    In fact, he suggested just about every possible alternative. It really was the motherlode ass-cover.

    Anyone who suggests "you were for stay-the-course" will be shot down and whatever happens in the future he'll be able to say "I recommended that course of action in my departing memo".

    Rumsfeld is no idiot - but neither are the people!

    ReplyDelete
  62. Anyway you're free to say what you want here, for the most part. Lydia edits some of the fouler stuff, like most blogs, but for the most part she lets peoples posts stand as they are. Free speech means free speach, for you, the trolls, AND the guys who argue.

    Trying to control the discourse is censorship, pure and simple, and while censorship and controlling what people say may pass among the British commonwealth, you're not going to gain much traction with it over here.

    Freedom of speach means having to see others peoples speech that you not only don't agree with, but don't like as well.

    -Worfeus

    Bravo Worf.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Anonymous4:03 PM

    Why thank you FF.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Anonymous4:05 PM

    I always said you're not as big of a knucklehead as everybody keeps saying you are.

    :D

    ReplyDelete
  65. Anonymous4:07 PM

    So tell me oh Gandalf the White, how did you take news that ole Rummy knew we screwed the pooch in Iraq?

    Are you currently logging in from an Internet equipped Hotel bar, typing in between boilermakers?

    ReplyDelete
  66. Anonymous4:10 PM

    Its cool. Don't try and speak.


    I know...

    ReplyDelete
  67. Anonymous4:12 PM

    I hope you're not poking holes in your Donald Rumsfeld Action Figure though.

    That things gonna be worth money soon.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Worf, I'm at work so just lurking; I'll skewer you later. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  69. Anonymous4:13 PM

    Especially if you still have the little pedometer that came in the box.

    ReplyDelete
  70. BG,

    No offense taken, and from the tone of your response, I fear you might think I took umbrage.

    No, and there's plenty left for everyone.

    My point was, if Lydia's blog becomes inundated with right wing postings of nonsense from Newsmax and so on, people, particularly lurkers, will believe that this is the tone of the blog.

    Free speech is free speech of course, and I have no problem with any random idiot posting what he likes, so long as he does it respectfully.

    That's a trait this current crop of trolls has not exhibited, and they have gotten responded to in kind. "You libs" is code, and they know that we know this. And that's one of the more mild insults I've seen thrown about.

    You can say that there's a hostile atmosphere on a liberal blog for a conservative, and yes, there is.

    BUT...

    When one is visiting London, one drives on the left-hand side of the road, even if as a New Yorker, one has learned a different way.

    Likewise, when one is visiting a house of an acquaintance, one does not put one's feet up on the dinner table, even if at home, one might feel perfectly comforable doing so.

    Even if one sees all the kids of your host putting THEIR feet up on the table, one simply doesn't do that unbidden.

    I speak, of course, about custom. More important, politeness. Etiquette.

    Something sorely lacking from this crop of trolls. They blew in, blew up, and blew out, as Churchill said of Disraeli (I think...my asthma has me at a loss of memory right now)

    I don't disagree with your sentiments at all. It would be nice to have discussions, and in fact, oftentimes I've seen Fawn actually *contribute* (Voltron, too, has occasionally had a word), and yet, their very next post is filled with invective and contumely.

    So I believe the welcome is worn out. The point of etiquette is to be even MORE tolerant when you are out in public than "in your houze" That crap may fly at FReeperville, I wouldn't know, liberals aren't allowed to post there (something the trolls never seem to thank us for, allowing free speech), but it's incumbent upon guests to behave like guests.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Worf,

    you argue for freedom of speech as a reason for not complying with my request.

    In doing so you create a strawman for my request for moderation - I request we engage only in genuine debate. The strawman you build is one of "Trying to control the discourse is censorship, pure and simple".

    This is your strawman: equating diplomacy [formal debate] with censorship.

    I knew it would only be a matter of time before extremists would rally around your strawman to add validity to your arguement....

    *yawn*

    ReplyDelete
  72. BG,

    Re: The Rumsfeld memo.

    I'd lay better than even money that Rummy wasn't involved in the leak, and that Bush was.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Oh...BG...I posted this to you on the last thread...

    BG,

    I take some small amount of issue with your suggestion: trolls are like kudzu (don't know if you have that over there...I doubt it...Google it)

    Anyway, trolls are like kudzu...once they sense a place to put down suckers, they try to dominate that ecosystem. Therefore, in the interests of clarity, it's important to snip it back as often as possible, with scissors or clippers, but if you have to, burning the whole lot out works fine, as well :-)

    ReplyDelete
  74. Carl "It would be nice to have discussions, and in fact, oftentimes I've seen Fawn actually *contribute* (Voltron, too, has occasionally had a word), and yet, their very next post is filled with invective and contumely."

    Agreed. This is when I would really enjoy debating with them. I know Volt and FF have the capacity to debate respectfully - they often choose NOT to.

    I'm merely suggesting we ignore them when they behave immaturely and enjoy prioductive debate when they (and others) respect the owner of this blog and it's participants.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Anonymous4:31 PM

    General Cornwallace said...
    Worf,

    you argue for freedom of speech as a reason for not complying with my request.

    In doing so you create a strawman for my request for moderation - I request we engage only in genuine debate.


    No I didn't and no I don't.

    I didn't argue to not comply with your request. I even conceded I have been activley focused on curtailing my own responses and I said I agreed with trying to be kinder in our general responses.

    What I did was point out that your definition of what constitutes "debate" is certainly not everyone elses. It may be someone elses, but it is not everyone elses. And therefore stating that only genuine debate should be permitted, you open the door for censorship and the stifling of free speech.

    See? What would you guys do without us to explain this stuff to you?

    ReplyDelete
  76. Anonymous4:34 PM

    BG said;
    I'm merely suggesting we ignore them when they behave immaturely and enjoy prioductive debate when they (and others) respect the owner of this blog and it's participants.


    This is starting to feel like Romper Room.

    :P

    ReplyDelete
  77. Carl;

    I googled it. I'm glad to say we don't have Kudzu but we do have grey squirrels and fern.

    I know what you mean but just because you can doesn't mean you should.

    Given the time I've been blogging here I've seen very, very little increase in the number of bloggers. Why....I ask myself?

    I have 85 hits on my (outdated) blog piccie.

    Where are these people? Why are they not participating? Is anything putting them off? If, so, what is it?

    A modicum of common sense soons answers that.

    The temptation of antagonistic debate aside, what does it achieve?

    I reiterate, I want America to heal. To do that, as I've already posted, WE need to REDUCE the level of FEAR.

    I'm suggesting a way of doing that. As a solution. Rather than finger-pointing and devolving political debate.

    I am NOT attacking your freedom of speech.

    I AM endorsing a modicum of self-control to encourage the involvement of others to spread peace and truth.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Anonymous4:41 PM

    BG said;

    I know Volt and FF have the capacity to debate respectfully - they often choose NOT to.


    Same came be said about most of us on the left too. We all get worked up sometimes. Debates get heated.

    But its a blog, not a steel cage. People aren't getting hurt here. Feelings maybe, but thats their problem. Words are not arrows and sentences are not slings.

    Here. A little wisdom I like to quote from almost 2000 years ago.

    it is better to employ words, than blows

    Lucius Lactantius
    Divine Institutes

    ReplyDelete
  79. Who on earth is General Cornwallace?

    LOL


    Worf "stating that only genuine debate should be permitted, you open the door for censorship and the stifling of free speech."

    If you want to bias it that way. It also opens the door for reasoned, detailed, genuine, insightful political debate.

    It's what we participants want to make it Worf.

    Realistically, do you think my suggestion is going to stifle free-speech on this blog? Honestly?

    I think NOT!

    ReplyDelete
  80. Anonymous4:49 PM

    BG said;

    It also opens the door for reasoned, detailed, genuine, insightful political debate.


    Sure. And what you are describing is a personal choice. Each person has to make that for himself.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Worf "Debates get heated."


    Don't I just know it.

    But does a heated [personally vindictive/insulting/provocative/lying] debate make for a better debate?

    Or does a mature, detailed, calm, reasoned debate make for a better debate?

    I've yet to read a blog where *heated* (defined above) debates are mature, detailed or reasoned.....

    ReplyDelete
  82. Worf "Each person has to make that for himself."

    YES!!! Worf, if you were within arms reach I'd pour you a pint and toast the blue mountains of Virginia!

    I'm not ORDERING you to do anything.

    I'm REASONING with you to make that choice.

    I'm just not convinced by your refusal yet....

    ReplyDelete
  83. Anonymous5:02 PM

    BG said;

    But does a heated [personally vindictive/insulting/provocative/lying] debate make for a better debate?

    That I would imagine, depends on who you're asking.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Anonymous5:04 PM

    BG said;


    I'm REASONING with you to make that choice.

    I'm just not convinced by your refusal yet....


    As I have said about 79 times now, I have already made that choice, and have been actively working to curtail my responses.

    Which part of that constitutes my "refusal"?

    ReplyDelete
  85. Worf "That I would imagine, depends on who you're asking."

    Easy: people on a PROGRESSIVE blog.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Anonymous5:06 PM

    British Gary said...

    YES!!! Worf, if you were within arms reach I'd pour you a pint and toast the blue mountains of Virginia!


    And I'd gladly drink it, although thats Blue Ridge Mountains, not Blue Mountains.

    The Blue Mountains must be in Smurfville or something.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Anonymous5:07 PM

    British Gary said...


    Easy: people on a PROGRESSIVE blog.


    You mean like ThinkProgress?

    Cause I would venture to say theres more than one regular on their that would disagree with that assessment.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Gary as I said before I completely agree with you regarding trolls like Johnny moo moo and Rusty, they should be ignored if all they do is insult people.

    However I think we do have some good debates at times, Volt is usually always fairly respectful, and he usually answers questions asked of him, now I may strongly disagree with his views and not like, believe or agree with much of what he posts but i think he is here for more than attacking people personally.

    FF is capable of debate as well and is usually respectful to Lydia, however when he resorts to dishonest talking points, false generalizations and hippocrissy i'm going to call him on it...........as far as i;m concerned that is debate even when FF uses one of his semi witty/corny retorts or I label him a repug or a troll it is merely heated banter, unlike what moo moo or Rusty do we are not JUST attacking each other personally we usually have a point even if the point may be deflecting the issues as FF loves to do when caught in a lie or hippocrissy.

    ReplyDelete
  89. and worf I dont think WE are trolls, trolls are people that come into an opposition blog and call names and use personal attacks to derail the debate.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Anonymous5:11 PM

    Look, I agree with you that there is some juvinile stuff on this blog sometimes, but come on. You're definately selling us short.

    Go out and look at some of the blogs out there. Some of them you can't even read, nor understand. Random garbled babblings from barely literate people saying nothing about nothing.

    There is some great content on this blog. We have had some great discussions on many things. Can we do better? Sure. But lets not ignore the good here, just because of a little inside bickering.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Anonymous5:14 PM

    I mean, what kept you here? Surely you found something stimulating enough to hang in here for half a year or so.

    I think there is some juvinile stuff in here but I also think we often overreact to that stuff.

    Lets not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Worf "Which part of that constitutes my "refusal"?"

    Your biased choice to perceive my pleas as "censorship and the stifling of free speech."


    I know you're trying. I understand that. I'm just not convinced your efforts will go far enough to attract lurkers to participate to spread peace and truth while you conflate my request with an attack on free speech.

    I'm sure we can learn a lot from lurkers if only they would let us know their thoughts. It's our/America's loss.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Anonymous5:16 PM

    Sorry. I've always wanted to use that metaphor in discussion.

    :D

    ReplyDelete
  94. Anonymous5:17 PM

    British Gary said...

    I know you're trying. I understand that. I'm just not convinced your efforts will go far enough to attract lurkers to participate to spread peace and truth while you conflate my request with an attack on free speech.


    Well than maybe I should just shut the hell up and go away, huh?

    ReplyDelete
  95. Worf "You mean like ThinkProgress?
    Cause I would venture to say theres more than one regular on their that would disagree with that assessment."

    And we both know who they are and your comment serves only to conflate the issue.

    Sorry about the loss of 'Ridge'.

    ReplyDelete
  96. And Gary you are right I would like to see more people join the blog and here more perspectives and points of view, however like Worf and FF I think there is nothing wrong with a few witty jibes or a little snappy retorts, banter or pet names thrown in with legimate points and respectful debate.

    I perfer a respectful but rowdy uncensored blog as does FF and Worf, but yet I agree that disresprctful personal attacks, name calling and baby talk like johnny and rusty engage in is destructive, counter productive and has no place here and should be ignored and deleted.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Worf "There is some great content on this blog. We have had some great discussions on many things. Can we do better? Sure. But lets not ignore the good here, just because of a little inside bickering."

    Worf et. al.

    I am NOT selling you short.

    I AM trying to improve the quality of debate on this blog to serve greater purposes for the health of America.

    I argue if we can do better, then let's do better!

    ReplyDelete
  98. Worf "Well than maybe I should just shut the hell up and go away, huh?"

    No!

    Just debate calmly, reasonably, logically and truthfully without the use of strawmen or other fallacious argumentative techniques.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Anonymous5:24 PM

    Look, I'm not conflating anything in your argument. You're overreacting to a little quipping here, and I'm just responding. Playfully.

    Making a mountain out of a molehill is not going to help matters. If you honestly think there are dozens of people out there saying to themselves, "I'd sure like to type a little message to Lydia but I'm afraid of the meanies", then perhaps we should start a support group.

    This ain't kindergarten Gary, and it sure as hell ain't Sunday School. People are dying out there, and its only natural for men and women of good conscience to become stirred up by it, and vocalize that. Its a political blog at a time of war, and the Queensbury rules are not always going to be the norm.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Mike "however like Worf and FF I think there is nothing wrong with a few witty jibes or a little snappy retorts, banter or pet names thrown in with legimate points and respectful debate."


    I've nothing against THAT!

    My concern is when the blog goes awry and it devolves into name-calling, schoolyard mentality.

    The problem is recognising when you are leaving what you detail and enter what I outline.

    I argue, perhaps this is what puts people off?

    ReplyDelete
  101. Anonymous5:29 PM

    British Gary said...

    Just debate calmly, reasonably, logically and truthfully without the use of strawmen or other fallacious argumentative techniques.


    So let me get this clear. You're saying now that I debate "unreasonably, illogically and untruthfully", and that I use "strawmen and fallacious argumentative techniques"?

    Because help me out here, but why on earth would you admonish me to do these things if you think I don't do them?

    Help me out with that one please.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Anonymous5:31 PM

    Please provide examples too.

    ReplyDelete
  103. good point and like Worf I will make an effort not to respond to Rusty or johnny's bile and let things devolve to what THEY want it to be.

    but I have to say as much as we have gone after each other I dont think FF or Volt or TT or most of us have ever gotten to that point occasionally in a heated moment maybe but in general no.

    There are only 2 people who behave that way regularly and they SHOULD be ignored and I will make a greater effort to do just that.

    ReplyDelete
  104. I dont know Worf just a guess here, but i think he is refering to one of your rants when they pressed your buttons and you went off on Rusty of Moo Moo or Volt.

    I think when he said strawmen and dishonesty he was refering more to FF and Volt.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Anonymous5:36 PM

    Type correction.

    Because help me out here, but why on earth would you admonish me to do these things if you think I don't do them?


    should read

    Because help me out here, but why on earth would you admonish me to NOT do these things if you think I already don't do them?

    ReplyDelete
  106. Worf "Making a mountain out of a molehill is not going to help matters."

    I'm highlighting a problem with this blog that if corrected may well improve this blog, that's constructive, not making a mountain out of a molehill.


    "If you honestly think there are dozens of people out there saying to themselves, "I'd sure like to type a little message to Lydia but I'm afraid of the meanies", then perhaps we should start a support group.

    In my experience women are put off by 'the meanies' in a bigger way than perhaps you understand.
    It's easier for a man to take personal insults because we are more prone to fight back. Women are generally more gentle with people they don't know.

    Women also prefer a quiet life.

    PLEASE NOTE THESE ARE GENERALISATIONS!!

    But with 85 people checking out my piccie, there's a good chance some of them are quiet women. There really should be more contributors here.


    As for the Iraq war, I know. Don't you think we need all the help we can get?

    ReplyDelete
  107. Anonymous5:39 PM

    I gathered that Mike, but nowhere did I EVER use dishonesty as a tactic and even implying that I did is unnacceptable to me.

    Also I was clear that I admitted that "in the past" I have let myself get caught up.

    But that was a long time back. I told BG I have been actively working to curtail my responses and therefore admonishing someone to do something they have already done is redundant and condescending, not to mention irrelavent.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Anonymous5:41 PM

    British Gary said...


    But with 85 people checking out my piccie, there's a good chance some of them are quiet women.


    Then you should show more skin.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Anonymous5:42 PM

    BG said...
    Don't you think we need all the help we can get?


    Sure. But in truth we have enough sheep. We could use a few more lions though.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Worf "So let me get this clear. You're saying now that I debate "unreasonably, illogically and untruthfully", and that I use "strawmen and fallacious argumentative techniques"?"

    I repeat;
    This is your strawman: equating diplomacy [formal debate] with censorship.


    "Because help me out here, but why on earth would you admonish me to do these things if you think I don't do them?"

    You just did with myself. Example given.

    I AM NOT proposing that you do this as routine. Anything but Worf.

    I AM proposing that extremists who choose to derail and lie and provoke use Strawmen as a Standard Operating Procedure.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Anonymous5:45 PM

    But I do wish your wife would post.

    I am curious as to what type of woman could put up with you.


    :P

    ReplyDelete
  112. I've noticed the increased restraint, in fact you've been making me look more agressive in comparison.

    i'm sorry if i've gotten a little agressive lately but i'm not going to let FF lie or slander Clif unchecked then pretend to be a patriot and an honorable person while doing exactly what he decries clif for. i'm sick and tired of that i'm not going to slime him like an idiot like rusty does but if he throws something out their its fair game to be disected, and if he's being a hippocrit or dishonest he's gonna get called on it.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Anonymous5:47 PM

    And YES, that last one was a JOKE!

    ReplyDelete
  114. Worf "Then you should show more skin."

    ?????what does that mean?????


    "We could use a few more lions though."

    All this does is scare away the valuable opinions of timid people. Opinions that could be furthered in debate by fighters!

    In my experience, it's the quiet ones who OFTEN have the MOST to contribute.
    Don't Americans have a saying for this...'bringing them in'?

    ReplyDelete
  115. Look what FF posted about the Dixie chicks he's still trying to slime them and imply they support the terrorists when in truth all they did is criticize the president.

    he claims to support free speech but if the person doesnt agree with his twisted authoritarian political views, then he doesnt support their free speech.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Anonymous5:52 PM

    So now you're saying I am loud and have nothing to say?

    Geesh Gary.

    And I didn't get you anything.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Anonymous5:55 PM

    British Gary said...
    Worf "Then you should show more skin."

    ?????what does that mean?????


    Dude. You've got to quit mixing blogs and booze.

    It was a joke speedy.

    You said But with 85 people checking out my piccie, there's a good chance some of them are quiet women.

    So I said you should so some more skin. In your photo you're in a full body scuba suit.

    Do the math.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Anonymous6:08 PM

    Gary, buddy. Lighten up. I'm just clowning around with you.

    I will tell you one thing I admire about the trolls, is their ability to mix it up, get heated, and still be cordial an hour later.

    Thats kind of an American male thingy that might not be prevelant in England.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Anonymous6:11 PM

    Ok, tell your wife to post and tell her I'll protect her. If anybody bashes her I'll cut them down so low they'll have to take off their shoes to eat.

    Tell her Flavius Worfeus is at her service.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Worf, I'm not mixing booze with blogging tonight. Read my post to Mike earlier. Plus it's too damn late. I'll be going to bed VERY soon.

    I doubt my skin would attract anyone. I was younger when I 'bagged' my wife.

    BTW, I know you were joking re: who'd put up with me. So FYI;

    My wife flatly refuses to join in. She was really insulted - this is what put her off which is why I write the things I do. Not all women are like Lydia!

    My wife and I lead independent lives as well as a life together. This is one of the things that strengthens our marraige. It provides us with plenty to talk about aside from work which makes life interesting.

    This is why I have time to blog/go diving/go glider flying. My wife spends her time in horticulture, her parents developed a HUGE garden nursery and they recently built a massive house on their land. I'm being put under a bit of pressure to join in the business i.e. take over from my mother/father-in-law but I want to continue my life in science.

    I recently completed a validation protocol that was a world's first. It gained British Government approval.

    I'm highly respected in my field and (reluctantly) travel around Europe giving presentations to Managers. I'd rather be performing experiments than managing loads of people. Also, the novelty of jet-setting soons wears off.

    Happiness is in a test-tube.


    "I will tell you one thing I admire about the trolls, is their ability to mix it up, get heated, and still be cordial an hour later."

    Not from what I've seen on this blog and MANY others!! Nor is the response from progressives to such people!! Now you're kidding right??

    Otherwise that will go down as a second example of your fallacious arguementative technique.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Worf,

    would you like to see a picture of my parents-in-laws garden nursery?

    ReplyDelete
  122. Sheesh libs are boring.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Anonymous6:32 PM

    Brutish Gary said;

    Otherwise that will go down as a second example of your fallacious arguementative technique.


    Thar ya go, insulting me agyin in that high falootin tone, englishman.

    Keep it up, and its Yorktown all over agyin.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Anonymous6:33 PM

    By the way, what the hell is a fallacious?

    Is that some sort of sexual position or somethin?

    ReplyDelete
  125. Anonymous6:34 PM

    British Gary said...
    Worf,

    would you like to see a picture of my parents-in-laws garden nursery?


    Why?

    Are they naked?

    ReplyDelete
  126. LOL

    This time YOU have King George.
    No contest, the French would back Britain up, it's got THAT bad!

    And what tone? Just because I'm whoppin' yer ass don't mean am a lookin' down on ya.

    Boy.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Worf "Is that some sort of sexual position or somethin?"

    No, that's called frottering.

    ReplyDelete
  128. Worf "Are they naked?"

    No, proof adds validity to my claims - it's what stops them being mere 'opinions'.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Anonymous6:39 PM

    Brutish Gary said;

    Now you're kidding right??

    Absolutely not. We're all basically cordial most of the time. Names like Clif calling them "foole" is more of a pet name, than it is an insult.

    I think some of us may get a little too upset at times, but as trolls go they're a decent sort. Lydia likes them. Of course, Lydia could like a caterpillar, so thats not saying much, but still...

    ReplyDelete
  130. Anonymous6:40 PM

    British Gary said...


    No, that's called frottering.


    Well I don't know about that but you'd better clean it up when you're done...

    ReplyDelete
  131. Anonymous6:41 PM

    British Gary said...


    No, proof adds validity to my claims - it's what stops them being mere 'opinions'.


    It was a JOKE! geesh.

    This from a guy whose country gave us Benny Hill.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Given the time I've been blogging here I've seen very, very little increase in the number of bloggers. Why....I ask myself?

    I have 85 hits on my (outdated) blog piccie.

    Where are these people? Why are they not participating? Is anything putting them off? If, so, what is it?

    A modicum of common sense soons answers that.

    The temptation of antagonistic debate aside, what does it achieve?

    I reiterate, I want America to heal. To do that, as I've already posted, WE need to REDUCE the level of FEAR.

    I'm suggesting a way of doing that. As a solution. Rather than finger-pointing and devolving political debate.

    I am NOT attacking your freedom of speech.

    I AM endorsing a modicum of self-control to encourage the involvement of others to spread peace and truth.

    -british gary

    ***Warning*** this post may be offensive to british gary please scroll by so that your feelings are not hurt!

    The lurkers proly choose not to comment because british gary has bored them to tears so they left to watch TV.

    british gary has chewed up a lot of bandwidth trying to get his fellow libs to ignore folks who disagree with him. He insists that he is not calling for censorship although previously he has specifically called for the government to set up agencies to regulate speech.

    Meanwhile he brands his opponents as "cowards" although he lacks the balls to have ever directly countered his opponents ideas in a blog.

    He pretends to scroll by opponents posts, but if he can really do that he is proly some kinda extraterrestrial life form. More likely he is a wussy liar.

    ReplyDelete
  133. Anonymous6:44 PM

    Now see what you started Gary?

    ReplyDelete
  134. frottage doesn't leave a mess. Look it up (if it's on google, I don't know).

    goodnight Worf

    ReplyDelete
  135. Anonymous6:47 PM

    uhhh Gary? I know what fallacious means. I was joking.

    Or did you think I normally speak in a hillbilly drawl?

    Good night buddy. I know its late in England.

    chow for now

    ReplyDelete
  136. Gee gary, don't leave. Can't you just scroll by my oh so unsophisticated comments?

    ReplyDelete
  137. Most Americans don't hate each other with the possible exception of dbk. We are certainly not in a "cold" civil war, although we are in a cultural conflict as always.

    I submit that Gary still believes in censorship of opposing ideas. The only reason no longer pretends to believe this is because he has been roundly criticized by both left and right wingers -- red-blooded Americans all.

    In Europe you can be imprisoned for what you believe. Witness the plight of Oriana Fallaci who was charged with "insulting a religion" by the Spanish government, or anyone in Germany who is a holocaust denier (as disgusting as that is).

    ReplyDelete
  138. Anonymous7:19 PM

    Gary's a cool guy, its just the British I don't think ever had the stomach for the constant strife that will always exist in a society that is founded on free and open debate.

    ReplyDelete
  139. In real life, folks have to be civil to each other or there are consequences. Say exactly what you are thinking, and you could be fired from work or subject your employer to a lawsuit for "permitting a hostile work environment". I am saddened that our freedoms have become as restricted as they already have in the U.S. but we are still far more free than the serfs in Europe.

    On an open-minded blog such as Ms. Cornell has established, anyone may say exactly what is on his mind.

    I have honed the insult to a highly refined art form. My vocabulary has probably doubled in the last two years, and my knowledge of world affairs has dramatically increased from reading a wide variety of opinions like wikipedia to support my positions and challenge my opponents'.

    Blogs are a hoot. Any lurker who does not want to comment because he is afraid his feelings will be hurt is a grrrly boy or possibly a transvestite like british gary who insists upon dressing up in a powdered wig before debating.

    How do we know the truth? We each have world views which filter all information. Is there a chance that the information is false? Perhaps even your premise is flawed.

    Free speech provides a marketplace of competing ideas in which the superior ideas are accepted by the majority of folks. In order to establish truth, one must be able to clearly articulate an idea. Further, he must have the courage to allow the idea to be dissected by others, and be capable of defending the idea, and possibly selling the idea in an entertaining or appealing way.

    This is why the shackles of political correctness which bg promotes, are so dangerous. A pc environment shuts down the marketplace of ideas in favor of never hurting anyone's feelings. In such a mawkish cesspool of security, truth is stifled and freedom itself languishes. Dealing with incorrect information can be fatal, especially in the information age.

    I am always gladdened by seeing someone express a disgusting opinion or watching two people have an open debate because it is my assurance that I'm still free to express my own opinion, however warped.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Anonymous7:47 PM

    I agree with most of that, except for the girly man stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  141. Anonymous7:50 PM

    I am having some difficulty however with how you correlate all that you just said against your support of a President and a Congress that has practically dismantled our constitution, and secretly and illegally spied on us all.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Worf said "I am having some difficulty however with how you correlate all that you just said against your support of a President and a Congress that has practically dismantled our constitution, and secretly and illegally spied on us all."

    Ditto!!

    ReplyDelete
  143. FF said "Free speech provides a marketplace of competing ideas in which the superior ideas are accepted by the majority of folks. In order to establish truth, one must be able to clearly articulate an idea. Further, he must have the courage to allow the idea to be dissected by others, and be capable of defending the idea, and possibly selling the idea in an entertaining or appealing way."

    well FF, I disected your ideas at the top of the blog.....................I await your defense with baited breath.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Jose Padilla, 21st century America's version of Josef K.


    Not too long ago I read something about Jose Padilla having been held for three years--it's been three years already--in solitary confinement and thought, fuck. I wonder if he's still sane.

    Apparently not.

    Warning: reading this literally made me feel queasy, which doesn't happen very often.

    According to prosecutors,

    His basic needs were met in a conscientious manner, including Halal (Muslim acceptable) food, clothing, sleep and daily medical assessment and treatment when necessary.

    Not even for animals are "food, clothing, sleep and medical treatment" sufficient treatment. Fish, maybe. Bugs. But most mammals require more than that. Even PK's mice require companions. Social isolation in mice has been shown to cause aggression, despair-like immobility, and immune system and heart damage, among other things.

    Now, imagine the effect of doing this to a man. For over three years.

    Mr. Padilla was held alone in a 10-cell wing of the brig; that he had little human contact other than with his interrogators; that his cell was electronically monitored and his meals were passed to him through a slot in the door; that windows were blackened, and there was no clock or calendar; and that he slept on a steel platform after a foam mattress was taken from him, along with his copy of the Koran. . . .

    Don't skim over his deprivation of the Koran too quickly. It's surely the only thing he had to read or look at, his only contact with human language other than orders or hostile questions.

    When he leaves his cell (for a root canal), he has

    noise-blocking headphones over his ears and blacked-out goggles over his eyes.

    Apparently one of his lawyers

    "was told by members of the brig staff that Mr. Padilla’s temperament was so docile and inactive that his behavior was like that of ‘a piece of furniture.’ ”

    He also

    "remains unsure if I and the other attorneys working on his case are actually his attorneys or another component of the government’s interrogation scheme.”



    Bluntly, at this point, Padilla has been destroyed. His case will be written into textbooks in a decade's time, and hopefully students will learn from it. Practically speaking, any hope Jose Padilla had for due process (Fifth Amendment), a fair and speedy trial or adequate legal representation (Sixth Amendment), or freedom from cruel or unusual punishment (Eighth Amendment) disappeared a long time ago. Whatever the outcome of his situation is--and I do hope that ultimately the man regains his freedom, given that the government has not charged him with anything they supposedly retained him for--effectively the only hope left is that we'll learn something from having literally used all the power of the government to ruin a man without so much as charging him with a crime.

    Padilla, if anyone needs reminding, is an American citizen. He has not been convicted of anything.

    I truly wouldn't do that to a dog.

    *********************************************

    This is JUST plain wrong, we as Americans used to be better than this.

    He IS still an American citizen, and deserves to be treated like one.

    Charles Manson receives much better treatment, John Gotti did also.

    John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, Henry Louis Wallace, Jerry Brudos, Henry Lee Lucas, Robert Spangler, David Berkowitz, Jeffrey Dahmer, John Muhammad, John Lee Malvo, Richard Angelo, Dennis Rader, Gary Ridgway, Albert Fish, Eddie Gein, Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, all recieve better treatment both BEFORE they were convicted, and after.... even ON death row.

    America USED to be better than this.

    And Remember he has never been convicted of anything connected with any charges based on What he was arrested for.

    What happened to innocent until proven guilty, and the US Constitution?

    ReplyDelete
  145. Here mikey, try this breath mint. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  146. Ff said "Free speech provides a marketplace of competing ideas in which the superior ideas are accepted by the majority of folks. In order to establish truth, one must be able to clearly articulate an idea. Further, he must have the courage to allow the idea to be dissected by others, and be capable of defending the idea, and possibly selling the idea in an entertaining or appealing way.

    This is why the shackles of political correctness which bg promotes, are so dangerous. A pc environment shuts down the marketplace of ideas in favor of never hurting anyone's feelings. In such a mawkish cesspool of security, truth is stifled and freedom itself languishes. Dealing with incorrect information can be fatal, especially in the information age.

    I am always gladdened by seeing someone express a disgusting opinion or watching two people have an open debate because it is my assurance that I'm still free to express my own opinion, however warped."


    Well FF at least we can find something to agree on as Americans, I support free speech and the exchange of ideas, that is far different from JUST deragotory personal insults as Moo Moo and Rusty engage in.

    If you truly support free speech then we agree on something but from where I sit it appears you ONLY support free speech that agrees with you and your views and you also appear to support the assaults on our freedoms and privacy.

    someone who truly values freedom could NEVER support warrantless spying on all Americans, the death of Habeous Corpus, due process and rules of evidence and the condoning of torture.

    ReplyDelete
  147. Ahh I see FF when you cant address, respond or refute to another bloggers response you run away or refuse to answer and instead change the subject with childish banter.

    So much for your claim to defend your ideas and position...........your here a mere few minutes and youir allready talking out of the side of your mouth.

    if your not smart enough to respond and got caught in a hippocritical lie just say so and i'll allow you to move on..................eventually!

    ReplyDelete
  148. We may only have a "few" American prisoners in it RIGHT NOW, but the American Gulag has begun.

    ReplyDelete
  149. A good thought about what is happening in "our" name;

    I hear a call to action here... If this upsets you so, that an unconvicted American can be treated thusly, please let your elected representatives know.

    You are probably familiar with Pastor Martin Niemöller's poem (1892–1984). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Fir...rst_they_came...

    When the Nazis came for the communists,
    I remained silent;
    I was not a communist.

    When they locked up the social democrats,
    I remained silent;
    I was not a social democrat.

    When they came for the trade unionists,
    I did not speak out;
    I was not a trade unionist.

    When they came for me,
    there was no one left to speak out.

    ++++++++++++++

    Are we adding a stanza by failing to act?
    TinaH | 12.04.06 - 1:43 pm |

    From the comments on
    Jose Padilla, 21st century America's version of Josef K.

    Monday, December 04, 2006

    ReplyDelete
  150. Anonymous9:08 PM

    What is so appalling about the Padilla case Clif is how he was treated. Tortured, denied council, visitors, humantarian aid. In any REAL court of law his charges would be thrown out, even if he confessed, simply because of how it was obtained.

    Kangaroo courts, secret tribunals, torture, isolation, denial of humanitarian oversight....these are all signs and tokens of the Nazi's. These are evil methods being used by men who are supposed to be good. No American would ever be on board with these tactics.

    Particularly to keep himself safe.

    ReplyDelete
  151. Worfeus, I for ONE, am ashamed to say that they are doing this...in MY name..supposedly to keep ME safe.

    If this is what they think is necessary to keep Padilla from harming the US, they have already LOST, because he is NOT the real danger, the guy they let GO is.

    And with the Illegal war, and the insane way they acted in Afghanistan after the initial invasion, allowing so many Al quaeda and Taliban to escape allowed them to regroup, and return with a vengeance there, at the same time they have all BUT lost in Iraq.

    They do NOT have enough personnel or resources to treat every dangerous person this way, especially if they are at the level Padilla NOW appears to have been.

    No real evidence of any dirty bomb, and NOT a strawman illusionary prosecution to save face for the Justice Department which they are having problems with.

    ReplyDelete
  152. Anonymous9:36 PM

    clif said...
    Worfeus, I for ONE, am ashamed to say that they are doing this...in MY name..supposedly to keep ME safe.

    If this is what they think is necessary to keep Padilla from harming the US, they have already LOST, because he is NOT the real danger, the guy they let GO is.

    Here here.

    I feel the exact same way.

    I would be interested in hearing how FF feels about this. He claims to be a lover of freedom and democracy. How does he really feel about this stuff?

    ReplyDelete
  153. Anonymous10:59 PM

    Want to see some “real” flower power?

    ReplyDelete
  154. Worf, maybe Padilla is a terrorist who attempted to kill and sicken millions with a dirty bomb. Or perhaps Padilla is an innocent American citizen mistakenly arrested without charge for years in order to cover up a government error committed in the over-exuberant environment after 9/11. I don't know.

    What I do know is that this is a highly unusual case. It is also a high profile case. Padilla has his own page in Wikipedia and his case has been reviewed before the highest courts in the country. It hardly represents a bunch of political prisoners secretly imprisoned in a gulag somewhere in the boonies.

    But you are correct not to trust the government. I don't trust any government to keep me free. I don't trust Republicans...I certainly don't trust Democrats... I don't trust politicians. I don't trust the military. I don't trust the police. I don't trust the courts. I don't trust college professors. I don't trust lawyers and I certainly don't trust the ACLU.

    I trust the wisdom of our founding fathers and their precious legacy: the U.S. Constitution. I trust the fundamental decency, common sense, and courage of average folks in America.

    But without the second amendment the U.S. Constitution is merely a piece of paper doomed to be misinterpreted at the whim of arrogant judicial activists as a "living document" until it is no longer recognizable and we are no longer free. It has nothing to do with going duck hunting like michael moore thinks.

    The second amendment of the U.S. Constitution is the reason why the U.S. remains a nation of free citizens while Europe slides further towards serfdom and dhimmitude each day.

    I trust millions of fellow citizens armed with semi-automatic weapons and our willingness to use them to protect sacred liberty. I trust the healthy fear that government leaders have for those they govern.

    That is the reason that we will never need to use our firearms to overthrow the government. It is also the reason that a foreign power will never dare to attempt conquering us unless they have the power and willingness to turn virtually the entire continent into an ash heap.

    ReplyDelete
  155. Anonymous8:07 AM

    FF said;

    I trust the wisdom of our founding fathers and their precious legacy: the U.S. Constitution.

    The Constitution? Oh you mean the document that the President who you have been in here supporting for the last year calls an "interesting peice of paper"?

    You mean that one?

    ReplyDelete
  156. Anonymous8:09 AM

    FF said;

    Padilla has his own page in Wikipedia and his case has been reviewed before the highest courts in the country. It hardly represents a bunch of political prisoners secretly imprisoned in a gulag somewhere in the boonies.


    You mean AFTER he was held without warrant or writ, and denied basic human rights? You mean after they tortured him, right?

    ReplyDelete
  157. Anonymous8:15 AM

    FF saidBut without the second amendment the U.S. Constitution is merely a piece of paper doomed to be misinterpreted at the whim of arrogant judicial activists as a "living document" until it is no longer recognizable and we are no longer free

    Sure. The second ammendment was designed to curtail the rise of tryants. Knowing the people are armed, and can form an army if need be is a deterrent, but not as big a one as you think. The second ammendment does not have the power it used to have, and rounding up the guns "for our safety" is close to coming to fruition, at least here in the Metro region.

    We need to honor all of the Bill of Rights, not just the second, and protect them all from the hands of tryants.

    ReplyDelete
  158. Freedom Fan said...

    But without the second amendment the U.S. Constitution is merely a piece of paper doomed to be misinterpreted at the whim of arrogant judicial activists as a "living document" until it is no longer recognizable and we are no longer free. It has nothing to do with going duck hunting like michael moore thinks.


    Nonsense. There are societies that have existed far longer than ours without an official endorsement of guns and violence. Take France, England, Spain, Italy, Greece, Japan, China...the Second Amendment is for cowards like you who think they can only be safe if they have a bullet pointing at the other guy, conveniently forgetting the fact that it's 47 times more likely you'll point that gun, even accidentally, at someone you love.

    So you endorse the idea of killing your children, Fawn? Doesn't surprise me. THey were probably big disappointments to you.

    But the simple fact is, society does not and never has needed the Second Amendment.

    ReplyDelete
  159. Freedom Fan said...
    I have honed the insult to a highly refined art form.


    That's the first time I've ever heard raw sewage referred to as "refined"

    Fawn, you haven't the wits to engage me in an insult contest. I've already skewered you and I'm barely using my C list material.

    I'd say I need a bigger challenge, but you'd need Enzyte...

    ReplyDelete
  160. Freedom Fan said...
    Sheesh libs are boring.


    I think you think "refined" stands for "bland," FawnBoy.

    It doesn't.

    ReplyDelete
  161. Anonymous8:24 AM

    For instance, protecting the right of Habeus Corpus and defending against unlawful searchs.

    The republicans you have been in here supporting for the last year have all but dissolved these protections. Today, thanks to George Bush and those, like you who voted for him, and support him, we are no longer protected from ANY unlawful searches. As a homeowner I know my home can be searched at ANY TIME, for ANY REASON, as long as they say it is for NATIONAL SECURITY (a broad umbrella to be sure). In fact, they can search my home without even notifying me. I don't even have to be HOME! They can essentially BREAK AND ENTER, search the place..bug the place.. and spy on me from an home or apartment across the street, for any reason they want.

    There is no oversight and no accountability. Just bust in, plant bugs, search the place, and spy on you.

    Talk all you want about lofty ideals. I agree with you on many. But while you're busy tauting lofty ideals, the men whom you helped into power are busy wiping their ass with the document you call sacred.

    ReplyDelete
  162. British Gary said...
    Who on earth is General Cornwallace?


    I think he has a cousin, Cornholio...

    ReplyDelete
  163. Anonymous8:29 AM

    I am watching the Iraq Study Group Report now.

    Little Georgy messed up, and now the grown ups had to all get together to figure out how to clean up his mess.

    ReplyDelete
  164. Anonymous8:30 AM

    It reminds me of the Star Trek episode where Liberace played a young omnipotent being, kinda like Q, and in the end his parents had to come and take over to clean up his mess, and save the humans from him and his tyranical designs.

    ReplyDelete
  165. Thanks carl, for demonstrating just how very dangerous liberals are.

    They have no respect for our Constitution. Their agenda is to consolidate all power in the hands of the government. Libs dismiss the value of freedom, as if it were some sort of Conservative talking point.

    "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it."
    -Diane Feinstein

    Arrogant people who believe such dangerous things have no place in government leadership positions.

    When liberals talk, I check to see if my wallet is still in place and plan a trip to the gun range. So good luck with that, pugnacious pussy.

    ReplyDelete
  166. Anonymous8:32 AM

    Ahh, Cornholio, my old friend.

    ReplyDelete
  167. Anonymous8:38 AM

    Not all liberals are against gun ownership FF. I am all for "responsible citizens" owning guns.

    I also disagree with Carl that the right to bear arms was "never needed" as he put it. It was not only needed, it was essential to keep King George from taking back the colonies from those who settled them.

    But I'll take it even further. The Constitution did not "give" us the right to bear arms. That right was already a given to the colonists. The Constitution said that the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed", indicating the right was a pre-existing condition that should not be removed by any court, magistrate or ruler.

    I believe the Bill Of Rights. All of them. And I'm a liberal.

    ReplyDelete
  168. BG,

    As a blog owner myself, and one who posts opinion pieces regularly (the kind that are best designed to get a response), I can say this: it's impossible to tell what will get people out of the woodwork to respond and what won't.

    My most popular posts, in terms of readers and links, rarely have comments. My off-hand snark pieces, however, do, and sometimes pretty extensively.

    I don't know what Lydia's readership numbers look like, but I'm sure they are higher than mine, but not exponentially. I've never had a thread with more than fifty comments. She regularly clock half a thousand or more.

    It's not that there are that many fewer people reading my blog as it is there is a more devoted crowd here. And that's not likely to change, and it's VERY unlikely you'll see fresh voices in this blog or any other of this magnitude.

    Now, take a blog like Crooks and Liars or TP or Kos or Atrios: they get many more hits than Lydia or I, so many more that for all intents and purposes, Lydia and I have the same relative number of hits in comparison to those.

    THOSE guys get a lot more comments and more fresh commenters, from sheer notoriety. If someone can make a name there (and I have, so I know what I'm talking about), it carries weight all around Blogtopia (©Skippy, The Bush Kangaroo), so more people come out of the woodwork because your comments can actually be seen by people who make a difference.

    That's a hard row for Lydia to hoe, because in point of fact, her background leads people to discount her right off the bat, no matter the quality of her thoughts (no knock, Lyd...it's the whole "Hollywood" thing...).

    I was attracted to Lydia's blog, because I kept seeing her name tossed around blogs I was reading. I didn't know who she was until I spent a few days reading here, and put the clues together. But I was far more attracted to her ideas and her thoughts than I was to some "celebrity" blog.

    The other part of the equation here, in my opinion, is the same stupid cold topics get rehashed over and over again in comments: the same tired boring crap is spewed by the trolls that was debunked everywhere else three or five years ago.

    And that's how they like it. THey can't answer to the current situation, hell, they're pissing their pants, so anytime someone makes a cogent point about today's world, they counter with some Newsmaxian diatribe of opinion and rumour masquerading as fact, and calling it "rebuttal"

    Pardon my French, but who the fuck wants to deal with someone who is deliberately trying to stir up the shit??? Why have to scroll past endless pages of dross to get to any legitimate conversation about the nation or the world? And in the interim, lose the thread of conversation?

    So the trolls are here for one reason and one reason only: to stifle legitimate debate and discussion of the problems, because it wouldl mean (horrors!) they would have to defend the indefensible!

    Instead, they obfuscate and confuse, and force energy to be wasted rebutting topics that were put to bed in any objective person's mind years ago.

    And that lack of respect, I find noxious.

    ReplyDelete
  169. Anonymous8:41 AM

    Guns are a problem in this country though, and gun laws need to work to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals.

    ReplyDelete
  170. Freedom Fan said...
    Thanks carl, for demonstrating just how very dangerous liberals are.

    They have no respect for our Constitution. Their agenda is to consolidate all power in the hands of the government. Libs dismiss the value of freedom, as if it were some sort of Conservative talking point.


    Not at all, Fawnboy. I am front and center a libertarian. But I also recognize the tyranny of the majority, something you don't seem to want to comprehend in your little lah-de-dah, people are marvelous, rainbows and daisies world, dipstick.

    YOU made the comment that this society would not exist but for the Second Amendment.

    That's a plainly ludicrous claim, as I showed.

    But do you defend the claim? No. Do you rebut my argument? No.

    You call names, Dickless.

    ReplyDelete
  171. Anonymous8:43 AM

    Carl said;

    I was attracted to Lydia's blog, because I kept seeing her name tossed around blogs I was reading.

    I came here because I was banned everywhere else.

    :|

    ReplyDelete
  172. FLAVIUS WORFEUS said...
    It reminds me of the Star Trek episode where Liberace played a young omnipotent being, kinda like Q, and in the end his parents had to come and take over to clean up his mess, and save the humans from him and his tyranical designs.


    I made that same observation on my blog last year, Worf. The episode was The Squire of Gothos.

    ReplyDelete
  173. FLAVIUS WORFEUS said...
    I also disagree with Carl that the right to bear arms was "never needed" as he put it. It was not only needed, it was essential to keep King George from taking back the colonies from those who settled them.


    Errrrr, we were subject to the Magna Carta at that point, Worf.

    And oh, by the way, I own a shotgun...

    ReplyDelete
  174. Anonymous8:49 AM

    The Squire of Gothos? What was his name, Liberaces I mean? I seem to remember it beginning with a T?

    I just remember him sitting there crying, no, I'm not ready to go home....nooooo....lol, and I think of Bush, and I see George senior and Barbara saying, come on George, time to go home...you've been bad..

    Cracks me up...if it wasn't so close to the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  175. Trelayne

    And I picture the Democrats as the Mommy and Daddy beings...after all, it's always the Dems who have to clean up after the Republicans finish raping our country and the Constitution...

    ReplyDelete
  176. Worfeus, DID YOU NOTICE that Freedom Fan totally ignored the transgressions of Jose Padilla's rights as an American Citizen, and went on a right wing rant about something which is NOT connected with the denial of constitutional rights in the Padilla case.

    He states a lot but NEVER addresses the point, this is where the US Government treats on of it's citizens almost exactly like the old soviet Union did in the time of Alexander Solzhenitsyn, when he wrote the Gulag Archipelago.

    That book describes the system of prisons which that state tried to use to coerce their citizens to bow to the demands of their totalitarianism of the mind. and demand for complete obedience. It mirrored the Nazi system but with out the death camps. The soviets worked their prisoners to death, not just gassed them. Padilla is a prisoner in the vein of denying the rights upon which the soviets and Nazi's built their immoral systems.

    Neither system started out in the beginning to be what it ended up being. Both systems wanted to coerce their citizens to follow and obey, but as each system became MORE oppressive they had to adjust to more and more prisoners. and in the end, both became killing machines of those who disagreed.


    Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote, "Wouldn't it be wonderful, to take all the evil people and put them over there, then we wouldn't have to deal with them. And all of us good people would stay right here." One of the most sinister temptations is to personify evil in someone else. Capturing Saddam Hussein did not put an end to evil. Finding Osama bin Laden and eliminating him will not put an end to evil; it won't even put an end to terrorism! Evil is much more complicated than that, and so is terrorism, for that matter. The problem, Solzhenitsyn said, is that the line separating good and evil cuts right through the human heart.

    Freedom Fan's rant proves Solzhenitsyn's point much better than my words would.

    ReplyDelete
  177. Clif,

    Fanwboy never argues the point. Hadn't you noticed?

    ReplyDelete
  178. Anonymous9:00 AM

    Carl said;

    Errrrr, we were subject to the Magna Carta at that point, Worf.


    Yea? So was half the planet. Whats your point? The papers that made up the Magna Carta were written prior to the usage of firearms.

    It was not the only law of the new world, and the right to bear arms was a given, as the colonists needed to put food on the table and defend against animals and hostiles.

    The right to bear arms was a given, and the 2nd Ammendment reaffirmed that right. It did not provide it.

    ReplyDelete
  179. Yes Carl, and I have pointed this OUT to him on numerous occasions especially when he wants to declare"victory" sort of the same way his HERO declared mission accomplished

    ReplyDelete
  180. However with the "Fawns" rant maybe he is trying to subtly say the second amendment is the way to give Padilla the rest of his rights back, do you think he is trying to say that?

    ReplyDelete
  181. Anonymous9:04 AM

    Clif said;
    Worfeus, DID YOU NOTICE that Freedom Fan totally ignored the transgressions of Jose Padilla's rights as an American Citizen,

    Yes. He does that a lot. When you get him on a point he either dismisses it or ignores it.

    Kind of like Bush.

    ReplyDelete
  182. Worf,

    I suspect we're talking past each other, but agreeing. :-)

    When I said "The Second Amendment was never needed," I meant, as you point out, people already had guns, and the right to ownership, like so many other rights like privacy, was implied, particularly when, correctly, reading the Constitution in the context of the Declaration (which is the way it should always be construed, as an extension of the Declaration, but that's a different argument).

    The codification of that right, in other words, was unnecessary.

    ReplyDelete
  183. Not all liberals are against gun ownership FF. I am all for "responsible citizens" owning guns.

    I also disagree with Carl that the right to bear arms was "never needed" as he put it. It was not only needed, it was essential to keep King George from taking back the colonies from those who settled them.

    But I'll take it even further. The Constitution did not "give" us the right to bear arms. That right was already a given to the colonists. The Constitution said that the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed", indicating the right was a pre-existing condition that should not be removed by any court, magistrate or ruler.

    I believe the Bill Of Rights. All of them. And I'm a liberal.

    -Worf

    Bravo Worf. But I don't consider you to be a typical liberal (a compliment). Folks like PP would quickly take the country into slavery (it's for the good of the children you see).

    Libs are correctly outraged at isolated instances of government abuse like the Padilla case. Yet most likely they are not really concerned about protecting freedom, and would do even worse if in power; they want to use these events to beat up their political opponents.

    Otherwise the majority of libs like PP would not be so enthusiastic about undermining the very foundation of freedom: The U.S. Constitution and the second amendment in particular.

    ReplyDelete
  184. Anonymous9:09 AM

    He talks about being a good Libertarian and a valiant defender of liberty, but he signs on with torture, warrantless search and seizure, government sanctioned kidnapping, forced confessions, scripted confessions, secret courts not subject to oversight, spying on Americans, and basically a removal of all rights for anyone the President deems a threat.

    These things would make a TRUE Libertarian cringe.No true defender of liberty would ignore or support such actions.

    Particularly with the object of staying safe.

    ReplyDelete
  185. Clif,

    I think Fawn is a "Cafeteria Libertarian"...

    ReplyDelete
  186. The Fawn doesn't KNOW if Padilla is being treated inhumanely, and illegally against the US Constitution, BUT neither does HE seem to care about it.

    As a former officer who TOOK AN OATH to defend the US Constitution against .."all enemies both foreign and domestic" ... I find it striking he can ignore the BASIS of that oath a,d not decry the attacks on the US Constitution, that is being done in Padilla's case.

    I know that is part of what forms my OUTRAGE at this blatant attack on the constitution. I respect the rule of LAW and will use legal means LIKE this blog and other legal avenues to express my outrage, BUT I WILL EXPRESS IT, not just poo poo the attack, as HE does, because it does NOT concern what I personally want to advance as a political object.

    Any attack on the constitution is an attack on the soul of this country, and MUST be repudiated.

    ReplyDelete
  187. Freedom Fan said...
    Libs are correctly outraged at isolated instances of government abuse like the Padilla case. Yet most likely they are not really concerned about protecting freedom, and would do even worse if in power; they want to use these events to beat up their political opponents.


    Oh bullshit!

    It wasn't "libs" who created the "K Street Project". It wasn't "libs" who froze the Dems out of any conference on any bill in the past twelve years. It wasn't "libs" who wrote the Patriot Act. It wasn't "libs" who wanted to shrink government by overspending on a war that has no meaning and no end, to cut off food for a family in Applachia that can't make ends meet.

    Who the fuck you think you dealing with here, Fawnbot?

    Unlike you, for us, history didn't begin ten minutes ago....

    ReplyDelete
  188. Carl said,Scotty I need more power,Spock where the hell are we and set phasers on stun.....look up geek in the dictionary you will find his picture and that stupid cat.Carl...a geek to the 3rd power and he does'nt even realize it...sad,sad,sad.

    ReplyDelete
  189. The FOOLE said;

    Libs are correctly outraged at isolated instances of government abuse like the Padilla case.

    All americans SHOULD be outrage son, ALL AMERICANS.



    Yet most likely they are not really concerned about protecting freedom,


    Really son, why is it ...your hated libs like James Webb, John Kerry, Max Cleland, Charles Rangle, actually suit up and defend this country, repug chicken hawks...NOT SO MUCH.


    and would do even worse if in power;

    No son that was Bush, the repug congress and chicken hawk repugs who actually DID THIS.


    they want to use these events to beat up their political opponents.

    Gutless people like Anny Tranny who Micheal Malkin who PUBLISH names addresses and phone numbers so some of their gutless minions cal harass then or worse, like the freeper who was mailing the letters.

    ReplyDelete
  190. I wonder if this friggin geek speaks Klingon at the conventions?

    ReplyDelete
  191. Anonymous9:18 AM

    FF said;

    Libs are correctly outraged at isolated instances of government abuse like the Padilla case

    As well you should be. If you call yourself a libertarian, and want freedom from large and oppressive government, then why wouldn't you be shouting your opposition to this mans basic human rights being trampled by our government?

    Why wouldn't this make your blood boil with anger? If they can do it to one person, they can do it to all. Indeed it STARTS with one person. Its called precedent.

    And how about what the government did to Dr Stephen Hatfield? They labled him a "person of interest". They searched his home without due cause, destroyed property, ransacking his possessions, threatened his loved ones, cost him his job and then they destroyed his career, and his life. This one American, lost EVERYTHING, thanks to the Patriot Act you so strongly have defended in here.

    And its not like this was an isolated incident. Thousands of Americans have had their rights trampled by the Patriot Act. NONE of us are free now from illegal search and seizure. You understand that right is GONE now, right?

    Being a Libertarian means more than upholding the 2nd Ammendment. A true Libertarian understands that the 2nd Ammendment is designed to protect the OTHER Ammendments. You know the other Ammendments. They're the ones you seem to ignore.

    ReplyDelete
  192. Poor little fawnbot...it must be tough living in fear of a liberal around every corner...

    We're in your house, Fawnbot...we're taking your seats....we're in your house....eatin' your food....we're in your house...drinkin' your beer....AWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

    We're coming for you, Fawnbot!

    Meanwhile, Fawnbot has probably benefitted from eveery liberal program from the past century...hey, Fawnbot? Take a vacation this year?

    Thank a liberal. We got you those.

    Hey Fawnbot! Take a sick day this year?

    Thank a liberal. We got those for you.

    Hey, Fawnbot! Visited a park this year?

    Thank a liberal. We got those for you.

    Hey, Fawnbot! Can your mom work?

    Thank a liberal. We got jobs and the vote for her.

    Hey, Fawnbot! Does Gramma like her social security check?

    Thank a liberal. We got those for her.

    Hey, Fawnbot? Can you breathe your air?

    Thank a liberal. We got that for you, too...

    ReplyDelete
  193. wufuss's daddy said...
    Carl...a geek to the 3rd power and he does'nt even realize it...


    Au contraire! I am proudly a geek.

    ReplyDelete
  194. Anonymous9:21 AM

    Now why is it, every time a real debate is going on, in crawls wuffus daddy, or one of his alter egos?

    He (or should I say "it") has nothing to say, and absolutely nothing to add.

    Why is that FF?

    ReplyDelete
  195. Anonymous9:21 AM

    Does he sit in a cubicle near yours?

    ReplyDelete
  196. I find it ironic, that the FOOLE thinks an OATH to defend the US Constitution is not a life long oath, I do not need to be in uniform to defend it, all TEN Amendments, Not just the ones he likes.

    I may NOT agree with the ACLU on all they do, but I understand why they defend people LIKE Rush Limbaugh, LIKE THEY DID.

    Defending the first amendment is not something you pick and choose, BUT you defend it for everyone, just like soldiers in combat defend us all, not just the ones the politically agree with.

    ReplyDelete
  197. Yea real heros like Max Cleeland,the dumb shit who blew his own legs off and tried to make a political career out of it until the Georgia voters discovered that Max was as dumb as a box of rocks and voted his stupid ass out of office after one term.

    And Herman Munster who got a Purple Heart for a splinter in his ass and three other medals in a 90 day tour.Hell, hes a bigger hero then Sgt.York or Audie Murphy.

    ReplyDelete
  198. Worf,

    Now, you don't really think Fawnbot would stoop to setting up a sock puppet, do you? ;-)

    I mean, the force majeur of his arguments...the logical progression of his case, made point by point until you can't help but come to the inescapable conclusion that he has...he doesn't REALLY need a sockpuppet, do he? :-)

    ReplyDelete
  199. See Fan Man, it is not something you get to decide, what or when you defend the constitution, YOU ALWAYS defend the United States Constitution, other wise your just another sunshine patriot.

    ReplyDelete