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.

339 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. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. Anonymous3:20 PM

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

    ReplyDelete
  31. Anonymous3:26 PM

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

    Matthew 5-22

    ReplyDelete
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. Our trolls are aweful silent after Rumsfeld's little memo came out.

    ReplyDelete
  35. 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
  36. Anonymous3:47 PM

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

    ReplyDelete
  37. 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
  38. must suck to be a mindless repug troll.

    ReplyDelete
  39. 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
  40. Anonymous3:53 PM

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


    Lol. What happened to a kinder and gentler blog?

    ReplyDelete
  41. 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
  42. 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
  43. Anonymous3:58 PM

    Permanently.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Anonymous3:58 PM

    Proudly even.

    ReplyDelete
  45. 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
  46. Anonymous4:03 PM

    Why thank you FF.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Anonymous4:05 PM

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

    :D

    ReplyDelete
  48. 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
  49. Anonymous4:10 PM

    Its cool. Don't try and speak.


    I know...

    ReplyDelete
  50. 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
  51. Worf, I'm at work so just lurking; I'll skewer you later. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  52. Anonymous4:13 PM

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

    ReplyDelete
  53. 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
  54. 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
  55. 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
  56. 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
  57. 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
  58. 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
  59. 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
  60. 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
  61. 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
  62. 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
  63. 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
  64. 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
  65. 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
  66. 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
  67. 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
  68. Anonymous5:16 PM

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

    :D

    ReplyDelete
  69. 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
  70. 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
  71. 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
  72. 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
  73. Anonymous5:31 PM

    Please provide examples too.

    ReplyDelete
  74. 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
  75. 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
  76. 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
  77. 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
  78. 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
  79. 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
  80. 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
  81. 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
  82. Anonymous5:47 PM

    And YES, that last one was a JOKE!

    ReplyDelete
  83. 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
  84. 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
  85. 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
  86. 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
  87. 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
  88. Sheesh libs are boring.

    ReplyDelete
  89. 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
  90. Anonymous6:33 PM

    By the way, what the hell is a fallacious?

    Is that some sort of sexual position or somethin?

    ReplyDelete
  91. 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
  92. 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
  93. 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
  94. 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
  95. 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
  96. Anonymous6:44 PM

    Now see what you started Gary?

    ReplyDelete
  97. 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
  98. Gee gary, don't leave. Can't you just scroll by my oh so unsophisticated comments?

    ReplyDelete
  99. 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
  100. 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
  101. 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
  102. Anonymous7:47 PM

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

    ReplyDelete
  103. 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
  104. 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
  105. 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
  106. 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
  107. Here mikey, try this breath mint. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  108. 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
  109. 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
  110. We may only have a "few" American prisoners in it RIGHT NOW, but the American Gulag has begun.

    ReplyDelete
  111. 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
  112. 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
  113. 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
  114. 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
  115. Anonymous10:59 PM

    Want to see some “real” flower power?

    ReplyDelete
  116. 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
  117. 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
  118. 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
  119. 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
  120. 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
  121. 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
  122. Freedom Fan said...
    Sheesh libs are boring.


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

    It doesn't.

    ReplyDelete
  123. 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
  124. British Gary said...
    Who on earth is General Cornwallace?


    I think he has a cousin, Cornholio...

    ReplyDelete
  125. 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
  126. 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
  127. 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
  128. Anonymous8:32 AM

    Ahh, Cornholio, my old friend.

    ReplyDelete
  129. 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
  130. 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
  131. 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
  132. 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
  133. 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
  134. 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
  135. 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
  136. 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
  137. 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
  138. 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
  139. Clif,

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

    ReplyDelete
  140. 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
  141. 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
  142. 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
  143. 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
  144. 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
  145. 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
  146. 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
  147. Clif,

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

    ReplyDelete
  148. 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
  149. 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
  150. 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
  151. 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
  152. I wonder if this friggin geek speaks Klingon at the conventions?

    ReplyDelete
  153. 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
  154. 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
  155. 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
  156. 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
  157. Anonymous9:21 AM

    Does he sit in a cubicle near yours?

    ReplyDelete
  158. 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
  159. 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
  160. 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
  161. 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
  162. I personally never cared for Larry Flint much, but agreed with the ACLU when they helped him go to the Supreme Court and defend the First amendment for ALL of us.

    He won for every one not just him, and that victory is very important for even YOU.

    ReplyDelete
  163. Anonymous9:27 AM

    A pathetic low life peice of scum said;

    Yea real heros like Max Cleeland,the dumb shit who blew his own legs off


    Here that soldiers? Here that? That is what the right wing thinks of you and your sacrifices.

    Just remember that. Those of you missing arms and legs, know that back here at home, the "true patriots", who sit behind keyboards too afraid to fight in the war they are supporting, will accept you as long as you think like they say.

    Divert from their course, and you're just another traitor to them.

    Is that what you're fighting for?

    ReplyDelete
  164. Anonymous9:28 AM

    Carl said;

    he doesn't REALLY need a sockpuppet, do he? :-)

    He apparently thinks he does.

    ReplyDelete
  165. But BG, do you see my point about obfuscation and distraction? Who would bring up Max Cleland, decorated Vietnam war hero who lost three limbs diving on a handgrenade and was beaten by Saxby Chambliss, who had to morph Cleland into Osama bin Laden in a TV ad in order to win, and smear Cleland's service to his nation (while ducking the draft for Nam), in a debate over the Second Amendment???

    ReplyDelete
  166. The funniest part, is Larry Flint's victory even defended fooles like you trolls favorite sock puppets right to be so offensive to the very troops who defended them even when they lack the testicular fortitude to defend themselves.

    That is what defending the constitution is all about, I might be repulsed by the drivel he posts, but I would never call for anybody to take his right to be a complete ass away from him.

    ReplyDelete
  167. Anonymous9:32 AM

    Carl. Why are you talking to BG? Is he here?

    I don't see any posts from him.

    But I see your point about Max Clelland. Hell I feel your point.

    There is no creature lower than a coward who runs from combat, who insults so immorally a brave man who runs towards it.

    The thing calling itself Wuffus Daddy, is the lowest most pathetic peice of cowardly shit that anyones ever seen.

    ReplyDelete
  168. Worf,

    Scroll back up and read that very long post I wrote to BG, in which I pointed out that the trolls are here not to debate but to divert. 8:39 AM

    ReplyDelete
  169. Anonymous9:35 AM

    And another thing I don't see, is FF, who projects himself as a "good man", condemning such pathetic and tasteless speech.

    If FF really did respect those who put their lives on the line for their country, he'd condemn wufuss dufuss as the peice of dogshit that he is.

    ReplyDelete
  170. Anonymous9:36 AM

    Carl said...
    Worf,

    Scroll back up and read that very long post I wrote to BG, in which I pointed out that the trolls are here not to debate but to divert.


    So you were just posting that for him to read later? Ok, just curious. I thought maybe he was posting and I just couldn't see it or something.

    ReplyDelete
  171. Anonymous9:38 AM

    Well, the Iraq report is out.

    And heres my summary.

    It said the following.

    EVERYTHING we've been saying about the war is right.

    EVERYTHING the right wing has been saying about the war is WRONG.

    ReplyDelete
  172. The Fan Man is NEVER gonna really condemn those he secretly, or NOT so secretly agree with.

    Hell he can't even condemn the outright destruction of the US Constitution, especially in the Padilla case, even after he took an OATH to defend it.

    ReplyDelete
  173. Anonymous9:40 AM

    Hows that for a summary?

    ReplyDelete
  174. Worf,

    But you see, it's easy to let WD's comments go for Fawnbot. I mean, *clearly* Cleland dove on a hand grenade that was destined to blow up the cooler with beer in it, and Kerry, well he's such a self-serving coward, he shot himself in the ass to get his medals...

    Needless to say, the officers who awarded those medals for each have very different stories to tell, but that don't matter to Fawnbot...his civilian friends know best!

    ReplyDelete
  175. Anonymous9:43 AM

    Literally this morning, live on world television, older and wiser men, and women, told George W. Bush, and the neocons who have been in here promoting this illegal war in Iraq, that they got it all WRONG!!!

    WRONG!!!

    They pointed out how bad this was handled, and what a freaking mess we are in.

    Well now its PUBLIC. Thank God the Baker commission felt compelled to say it all publically.

    They slapped the President across the teeth, and they basically condemned everything he has been saying all along.

    ReplyDelete
  176. Carl every military combat award goes through a recommending officer, reviewing officer and the officer who awards the medal, in other words fooles like the sock puppets here know more than three ranking officers who were there, and who reviewed the actual citation and checked it out.

    In Both Kerry and Cleland's cases it would have been their commanders, and the next two levels of command, both field level and a general officer who was the awarding officer in both cases.

    ReplyDelete
  177. Thew gutless chicken hawk trolls KNOW more than these Officers who were there at the time.

    ReplyDelete
  178. Worfeus, the commission itself says that Bush was wrong and a failure, because they did not need a Baker commission to find a way out of Desert Storm or WW2.

    Just Fiasco's which were ill advised, but even worse, incompetently commanded at the White House and Pentagon level.

    ReplyDelete
  179. The Baker Commission is just another group of people telling the failed wanna be King he is wrong, a very respectable group of people who studied the situation in depth, but to Bush just another group of people saying he is an incompetent foole.

    ReplyDelete
  180. No wonder Poppy was crying the other day, his old friend Jim, is telling his son, he is a failed foole, but diplomatically of course.

    ReplyDelete
  181. Personally, I want to see if Dumbya publicly apologizes to the country regarding the terrible errors in judgement he's made.
    .
    .
    .
    .
    ..
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!

    Who am *I* kidding???? He wouldn't apologize if he ran over Jenna's dog with his tractor...BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

    ReplyDelete
  182. Anonymous9:58 AM

    The thing about the Baker commission though is that Bush convened it, and did it publically.

    Also it is a Bi-Partisan group, who has just said Iraq is a DISASTER! It was ill prepared, ill advised and poorly executed.

    This was the last straw for poor George. The whole country is going to turn against him now. Fence sitters are going to come off the fence. Supporters are going to turn into antagonists. Those who defended the President, will now condemn him.

    Watch. This one is big.

    ReplyDelete
  183. The right wing nut is gonna have a cow,..Mary Cheney and Partner Are About to Be Moms



    Mary Cheney, the vice president's openly gay daughter, is pregnant. She and her partner of 15 years, Heather Poe, are "ecstatic" about the baby, due in late spring, said a source close to the couple.

    Bet that is gonna have the old Dead Eye and screech owl wife of his going into politically intellectual flip flops for a while.

    ReplyDelete
  184. Anonymous10:03 AM

    clif said...
    No wonder Poppy was crying the other day, his old friend Jim, is telling his son, he is a failed foole, but diplomatically of course.


    You know it. Poppy was crying because he KNOWS dubya is a failure. He is ASHAMED of Dubya, and he is crying because he wishes Georgy was more like Jebby.

    Oh well. We tried to tell him.

    ReplyDelete
  185. George the Old was crying because George the Dumb has screwed Jeb's chances for the White House.

    ReplyDelete
  186. Worf said "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."

    I couldnt have said it better, me thinks FF doth not protest enough. he's providing lip service he's saying I support freedom BUT........thats not really happening THAT MUCH so who cares.

    ReplyDelete
  187. Guys I have a caption contest at Kay's Blog.

    ReplyDelete
  188. BTW FF, there you go with your strawmen again for the record I strongly support ALL of the BILL of Rights and our Constitution including the second, any responsible citizen should have the right to have a gun.

    But like Worf said I feel the second Amendment was designed to protect, support and enforce the other's and you show no moral outrage that those other Rights are being violated by a power mad governmemnt run amuk.

    ReplyDelete
  189. FF gets caught basically saying I support the Constitution but the other Amendments arent really that important the second is all I really care about.

    ReplyDelete
  190. From TPM

    So many instances where it's hard to distinguish the real news from the stuff that shows up in The Onion. From the Post, new Congress to shelve old two day work week for a five day work week. No, not makin' this up.

    Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) -- one of the worst from the old GOP Congress -- on why working for a living is against family values: "Keeping us up here eats away at families. Marriages suffer. The Democrats could care less about families -- that's what this says."

    Late Update: An anonymous TPM Reader responds to Rep. Kingston: "As an active duty military member I’m pretty offended by members of congress crying about working a 5 day work week. And for Rep Kingston’s comments about families, give me a break! How about the thousands of military marriages that have ended because of husbands and wives being deployed for a year multiple times?"
    -- Josh Marshall>


    Think they see the hubris yet?

    ReplyDelete
  191. FF tried to paint ALL liberals as against the right to have a gun but so far only Carl has said he is against it.

    Clif, Worf, and I have said we support the second amendment, so what I want to know is how FF can state what my thoughts and views are without ever asking me, does he deem himself a clairavoyant or something because if he does he is wrong as usual just as his Neo Con masters ALWAYS are.

    Like Donny Deutche said the mythical animal you attempt to portray as a liberal simply does not exist.

    But FF clings to his lies and dishonest strawmen thats all he has.

    ReplyDelete
  192. At Least 5 Marines Are Expected to Be Charged in Haditha Deaths

    "At least five marines are expected to be charged, possibly as early as Wednesday, with the killing of 24 Iraqis, many of them unarmed women and children, in the village of Haditha in November 2005, according to a Marine official and a lawyer involved in the case.

    "The charges are expected to range from negligent homicide to murder, said a senior Pentagon official familiar with the military’s nearly nine-month investigation into the episode. Several marines from the Third Platoon of Company K, Third Battalion, First Marine Regiment, are accused of killing the villagers after a roadside explosion killed one of their comrades."


    What I said was gonna happen when I read about what happened, but some "FOOLE" screeched I was being unpatriotic and was against the troops, and wanted to destroy the military, NOT the case, Just i realize that actions like this undermine the security of all the troops there, and enrage the civilian population which might lead some of them to attack the military.

    ReplyDelete
  193. Anonymous10:58 AM

    Mike said...
    FF tried to paint ALL liberals as against the right to have a gun but so far only Carl has said he is against it.


    Mike. Even Carl admitted he has a shotgun. So so far NO ONE has said they were against it.

    ReplyDelete
  194. Anonymous10:59 AM

    Well, he did say he didn't think we needed it, but he didn't say we shouldn't have the right to own guns.

    ReplyDelete
  195. Anonymous10:59 AM

    Clif. I left my entry on your blog.

    ReplyDelete
  196. Worf said "Mike. Even Carl admitted he has a shotgun. So so far NO ONE has said they were against it."

    And THATS probably why WD had to show up to defect the heat from FF's ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
  197. BTW Worf that was a nice blog!

    ReplyDelete
  198. Mike,

    I said the Amendment was unnecessary, not that guns were necessarily wrong.

    I don't have a gun in the city, never would, and would happily vote for a ban on guns in the city.

    My gun is at my country home, where the occasional bear and/or mountain lion wanders around.

    ReplyDelete
  199. Thanks, and it was NICE to see Dolty Boy was lurking here, might HE be the sock puppet that "tried" to divert this thread earlier?

    He can't help himself from Being so stupid that way can he.

    ReplyDelete