Gotta give Bush credit: He made the exact right move at the exact right time. Ditching Rumsfeld, the single most visible symbol of the Iraq debacle short of Bush himself, was perfectly timed. Had he dumped Rummy shortly before the election, it would have been seen as a desperation move. I suppose there's a possibility that it might have changed the outcome, which has been seen as a voter repudiation of the war. But I don't think it's a sizable chance, and probably would have been seen as a case of "too little, too late." In this instance, though, it managed to grab headlines from the Democratic triumph back to the White House. Bush has snared the spin cycle before the election dust has settled. He did the right thing in getting rid of an advisor who has given him nothing but bad advice and been a PR catastrophe on more than one occasion, and he did it at a time when his support base is at an all-time moral low. He has sent a definite message: He's not going to be spending the next two years with more of the same and staying the course, steering the remainder of his presidency into irrelevancy.
With a smartening-up Bush and a newly energized Democratic majority, let's see if the government finally gets on the right track.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at November 9, 2006 07:50 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingI guess we'll know who we go to war with next based on who Gates has been photographed shaking hands with.
Given how razor thin the elction was in a few key states I think ditching Rummy a few months agao might have kept the Senate Republican. But I think you are correct that it was feared the move would smack of desperation and, potentially, embolden the bombers in Iraq, as well as damage Republican chances. In hindsight they should have pulled the trigger earlier but hindsight is always wise.
A big clue as to how serious Nancy Pelosi is will be when they start picking chairmen. Ther's talk of putting some joker who's an impeached judge in as head of some important committee--if, after seeing voters name corruption as a major factor in how they voted, she goes ahead and pulls a bone headed move like that we are in for a looooong 2 years. (I have questions about her abilities but I can't believe she'd squander the honeymoon THAT quickly.)
Given how razor thin the elction was in a few key states I think ditching Rummy a few months agao might have kept the Senate Republican.
I agree. This election was all about Bush, and if he'd shown even a week ago that he was intent on making changes to try and improve the situation in this country and Iraq, people might've voted differently; forcing Rumsfeld to resign was definately in the best interest of the world.
Ther's talk of putting some joker who's an impeached judge in as head of some important committee
Well, the first question would be: why was he impeached?
Peter, despite the reputation for being stubborn, the Bush administration had repeated been willing to change course. "Good job, Brownie" and an eyeblink he's gone. They often talked tough then changed course--often redefining said course as not a "change" or "always been an option" or "planned all along".
And that ruthless "brilliance" is likely how he's beat Ann Richard, Al Gore and John Kerry. For all his rep as being stupid because he often isn't articulate. Here in Chicago, Mayor Daley is known for his "Daleyisms" as much as the Bush is known for his "Bushisms"--only Daley has been know for them for the past 16 years elected Mayor.
Altho Daley comes across more knowing the subject he's talking about and grasps the ideas in his head tho stumbling over the words. Bush seems to have trouble on subjects he's not thought about and there's more scrutiny and pressure as POTUS than mayor, so Daley often riffs off the cuff about stuff he's not familiar with.
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. Not only did Bush dump Rumsfeld, reportedly he overruled Cheney in doing so as well as leaked the fact that he had overruled Cheney. More, he picked Robert Gates, part of 41's administration, formerly persona non grata in 43's administration and ... NON-neocon.
"For all his rep as being stupid because he often isn't articulate."
I agree with Jon Stewart's assessment. I don't think Bush is dumb; I think he talks to *us* like he thinks *we're* dumb.
PAD
Ther's talk of putting some joker who's an impeached judge in as head of some important committee...
Considering the popularity of a certain ex-president, an impeachment might make the top of a number of resumés.
I'm not sure it really did all that much in terms of grabbing the headlines. It certainly got everyone's attention, that's to be sure -- but people are looking at it in the context of a Democratic takeover, not as a separate item distracting from it.
It's certainly a smart move, no question about that -- but I don't know that it's going to distract all THAT much. And while Rumsfeld was widely viewed as "the arrogant SOB who's mismanaged Bush's war," Iraq is still being viewed as BUSH's war, not Rumsfeld's. Unless this personnel change is matched by actual policy changes, I don't know that the electorate is going to say "I guess he really does change things."
(And while I agree that ditching him a month or two back might have kept the Senate Republican, it's hard to tell. Kean Jr. was running a fairly serious anti-Rumsfeld campaign here in NJ and still lost big.)
TWL
Well, I have little faith this will help government run better. What, exactly, was the central position that the Democrats ran on? They didn't like Bush and his policies. I have trouble seeing how this is going to provide for anything other than more extreme partisan squabbling. They weren't for anything--just against someone and his ideas. They have no mandate to do anything but oppose whatever Bush is doing. How will that lead to progress?
As long as both parties continue to be dominated by and play toward their most extreme members, government will keep being dysfunctional. Both parties keep seeing any victories as proof they have support for their extremism, but I think their victories mainly come from moderates switching back and forth as they get sick of whoever is in power. When I vote, I try to vote for the lesser evil, but somehow politicians see my vote as part of a "mandate" supporting their most obnoxious positions.
Except... had Bush 86ed Rummy on Monday, the Republicans would have won on Tuesday.
Well, the first question would be: why was he impeached?
Considering the popularity of a certain ex-president, an impeachment might make the top of a number of resumés.
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=110906D
Barely two years into office, "Judge" Hastings accepted a $150,000 bribe in exchange for giving a lenient sentence to two swindlers, then lied in subsequent sworn testimony about the incident. The case involved two brothers, Frank and Thomas Romano, who had been convicted in 1980 on 21 counts of racketeering. Together with attorney William Borders Jr., Hastings, who presided over the Romanos' case, hatched a plot to solicit a bribe from the brothers. In exchange for a $150,000 cash payment to him, Hastings would return some $845,000 of their $1.2 million in seized assets after they served their three-year jail terms.
Taped conversations between Hastings and Borders confirmed that the judge was a party to the plot. Hastings was also criminally prosecuted for bribery, but his accomplice Borders went to prison rather than testify against him. Hastings was acquitted thanks to Borders' silence. [Borders was then pardoned by President Clinton, confirming the wisdom of his refusal to testify. In a remarkable display of chutzpah, Borders then applied for reinstatement to the District of Columbia Bar, claiming that Clinton's federal pardon eliminated his local disbarment. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit did not agree, and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear his appeal. To former D.C. delegate Walter Fauntroy, Borders' case had a spiritual quality to it. "Being pardoned by the president is like being pardoned by Jesus," Fauntroy sermonized. Thankfully, the Supremes evidently disagreed with this "theology."]
"Be assured that I'm going to be a judge for life," Mr. Hastings told reporters in 1983 after his acquittal. But the arguments that swayed a Miami jury did not sway the Congress. The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives impeached Hastings for bribery and perjury by a lopsided vote of 413 to 3. Then the Democrat-controlled Senate convicted him on eight articles of impeachment by well over the required two-thirds majority in 1989. Thus Mr. Hastings became only the sixth judge in the history of our Republic (and only the third in the 20th Century) to be removed by Congress. He was, and is, an utter disgrace to the nation and to the legal profession. Among those voting to impeach him were Ms. Pelosi herself, Maryland Rep. Steny Hoyer, the Democratic whip who is likely to become the new House majority leader, and Mr. Hastings' fellow African-American Congressman, Michigan's John Conyers, who took pains to deny that race had anything to do with the removal of the bribe-taking jurist.
Does this guy sound like he should head the intelligence committee?
Peter, despite the reputation for being stubborn, the Bush administration had repeated been willing to change course.
Well, apparently the rest of us have missed this, then.
"Good job, Brownie" and an eyeblink he's gone.
Yeah, because Brownie was really part of that inner circle like Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice.
And that ruthless "brilliance"
Brilliance? I'm sorry but that word should NEVER be used in the same sentence with Bush. Ever.
Bush wouldn't have gotten anywhere near the presidency without his handlers, particular Rove.
formerly persona non grata in 43's administration
And when we look back, we'll wonder why it took Bush 6 years before acknowledging that his father had a better administration than he does.
I think the election results are for the best. A clear message was sent to the GOP that no more Delay, Folley and Taft type behavior is acceptable. I hope this steers the GOP back on track, they have no one to balme but themselves and they seem to realize that.
PAD, have to ask in the spirit of "reaching across the aisle" and the election yesterday, can the "Freedom Clock" be removed?
Re: that Hastings guy...past regardless, he's been elected at least twice now to office, and is a high-ranking Dem. Not that voters are smart, and I'd personally not vote for him, but it's not like Pelosi or anyone other than the voters can get rid of him. If he's got the senoirity, or however ranking works, Pelosi pretty much has to abide by that.
I was listening to Bush's press conference yesterday. I've never really listened to a live boradcast before, and until yesterday, it never really struck me just how personable this guy is. If you take away his administration, he's probably a really decent guy, a good buddy, and someone that everyone likes. But since you can't take all that he's done away, I at least have a better understanding of why people are willing to make so many excuses for him.
I'm not sure about the timeline he presented for Rummy's firing...he was thinking about it two Sunday's ago, when asked if Rummy and Cheney would be around for the rest of his term (yes), but he met with Gates after giving that answer, and Rummy tendered his resignation on Sunday...seems a bit contrived (probably because it is). The thing that struck me the most was that Bush all but said he lies in his interviews with the press when it serves his purpose. He didn't want replacing Rummy to be an election issue, for whatever reason. So when asked, 10 days before the election, if Rummy was going to stay, his anwer was "yes." Because that was the only answer that fit his goal of not disrupting the election. Whether it was true or not was irrelevant. And he SAID that...not using all the words I did, but I got his meaning.
I'mnot surprised to learn that Bush (or any leader, for that matter) does this. What did suprise me is that he told people that's what he did. It may have been the first time in 6 years I thought he was being honest.
A lot of talking has gone on in the past 48 hours. I'm hopeful that it leads to more than just talk.
Well, the first question would be: why was he impeached?
Impeached by the House 413-3, convicted by the Senate, both controlled by the Democrats at the time. And Pelosi was one of those who voted for impeachment.
I'd have to agree that he may not be the best candidate for chairing the Intelligence committee. If only for appearances. There may even be a question as to why he is on the committee at all. It's his district in Florida's choice to reelect him every 2 years, but there are a lot of different committees he could be assigned to.
Hastings doesn't have the ranking. The ranking member of the Intelligence Committee is Jane Harmon. However, Pelosi has apparently pledged to force Harmon to step down. Which would make Hastings next in line.
I don't think that requires Hastings to move up. I believe Pelosi can move someone else into the position. It would be an obvious slight against Hastings, but it would probably be a good political move.
And yet more openess and honesty, courtesy of noted proctologist Rush Limbaugh:
"There have been a bunch of things going on in Congress, some of this legislation coming out of there that I have just cringed at, and it has been difficult coming in here, trying to make the case for it when the people who are supposedly in favor of it can't even make the case themselves - and to have to come in here and try to do their jobs."
Strangely, the tears do not flow for his plight.
Courtesy of RightwasRight.us:
Now that the election is behind us, and the Democrats control one or possibly both houses of Congress, there's no reason not to admit it: the Right was right about us all along. Here is our 25-point manifesto for the new Congress:
1. Mandatory homosexuality
2. Drug-filled condoms in schools
3. Introduce the new Destruction of Marriage Act
4. Border fence replaced with free shuttle buses
5. Osama Bin Laden to be Secretary of State
6. Withdraw from Iraq, apologize, reinstate Hussein
7. English language banned from all Federal buildings
8. Math classes replaced by encounter groups
9. All taxes to be tripled
10. All fortunes over $250,000 to be confiscated
11. On-demand welfare
12. Tofurkey to be named official Thanksgiving dish
13. Freeways to be removed, replaced with light rail systems
14. Pledge of Allegiance in schools replaced with morning flag-burning
15. Stem cells allowed to be harvested from any child under the age of 8
16. Comatose people to be ground up and fed to poor
17. Quarterly mandatory abortion lottery
18. God to be mocked roundly
19. Dissolve Executive Branch: reassign responsibilities to UN
20. Jane Fonda to be appointed Secretary of Appeasement
21. Outlaw all firearms: previous owners assigned to anger management therapy
22. Texas returned to Mexico
23. Ban Christmas: replace with Celebrate our Monkey Ancestors Day
24. Carter added to Mount Rushmore
25. Modify USA's motto to "Land of the French and the home of the brave"
Does this guy sound like he should head the intelligence committee?
Sheesh, hell no. I'm not even sure what he's doing in Congress to begin with.
Here is our 25-point manifesto for the new Congress:
You know, I could come up with a 25-point manifesto that would describe the last 12 years of Republican control of Congress and the 6 years of Bush's presidency.
But I won't, because I don't need to be depressed. :)
"Now that the election is behind us, and the Democrats control one or possibly both houses of Congress, there's no reason not to admit it: the Right was right about us all along. Here is our 25-point manifesto for the new Congress:"
and here is that world's official comic book:
Bobb, there's no question that Bush knows how to play a room. But there's more to being the President than having a good stand-up act. Whenever I've heard voters say, "He's the kind of guy I'd like to have a beer with," I'm always really tempted to them to look at the other people they drink with, and see if they want any of THEM running the country.
I think if the Republicans had won on Tuesday, Rumsfeld would still be there. I think he was sacrificed so that the heat would be taken off Bush.
"I agree with Jon Stewart's assessment. I don't think Bush is dumb; I think he talks to *us* like he thinks *we're* dumb.
PAD"
Well, i think there's stuff he believes, like Colbert, in his gut, but has trouble articulating a series of reasons for why he believes it. Like someone trying to explain what jazz or porn is. They "know" in their gut even if they have trouble spelling out a detailed list of reasons.
-- Ken from Chicago
"You know, I could come up with a 25-point manifesto that would describe the last 12 years of Republican control of Congress and the 6 years of Bush's presidency.
But I won't, because I don't need to be depressed. :)"
Wrong. You won't because you can't.
I am truly going to enjoy these next two years, seeing what you liberals are going to be like under the microscope.
My bet is that not a whole lot is going to change to any significant degree. As I recall in the debates, when pressed to discuss his goals, were he to become President, with the exception of Iraq, they weren't that different than what Bush was doing.
Good Luck---I think you're going to need it.
When I got up yesterday and saw that picture of Pelosi, smiling, her arms outstretched, my first thought was "My God, that look in her eyes..."
The same kind of look Banner gets just before he Hulks out.
Or when Manson gets an idea.
Good Luck---I think you're going to need it.
Thank you. It'll require a lot of work to repair the damage done in the past six years.
"Wrong. You won't because you can't.
I am truly going to enjoy these next two years, seeing what you liberals are going to be like under the microscope.
My bet is that not a whole lot is going to change to any significant degree. As I recall in the debates, when pressed to discuss his goals, were he to become President, with the exception of Iraq, they weren't that different than what Bush was doing."
I'll honestly never understand the conservative's ability to completely delude themselves. If Kerry's objectives were so similar, what prevented you from voting for him? Oh, wait, it's because his domestic and foreign policy objectives were COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
Wrong. You won't because you can't.
Aww, you're still here?
So, are you going to give us an apology, not only for your utter stupidity, but your insults and your natural lack of Dion Warwick-ness?
Y'know, I found Ben's little link to the Liberality comic amusing at first. Then I found it sad. Finally, I found it offensive. Because this isn't meant to be humorous...I think there are some conservatives that truly believe that any side but their own winning will result in the kind of world portrayed in the book.
It's offensive on two account: first, it represents the scare tactic of "vote for us or ELSE" that's been on display for the past 5 years. Second, if any party's been about making a more repressive state, it's the GOP.
Craig, Warwick-ness? Really? Wouldn't it be Warwickositude? Dionity?
Ken, a leader needs to be able to communicate. "Because I said so" doesn't even work with my five year old. And running a country isn't like defining jazz or porn. They're both ephemeral, whereas leading a country is very specific. "This is where we need to go, this is why we need to go there, and this is the list of souvenirs we're going to pick up on the way." You can't run a country with your gut.
Actually, I thought Rumsfeld's "resignation" was a transparently cynical move. The mere fact that Bush had Rumsfeld's replacement already lined up was a dead giveaway that this had been at least several days in the making.
The way this was handled is emblematic of one of Bush's most glaring flaws. He'll stubbornly stand behind one of his underlings, defending indefensible incompetence, until public pressure is so great that he is forced to cave in. By that time, however, the damage is done and is nigh irreparable, rendering the gesture worthless.
It's really no better than Clinton's spineless habit of letting nominees for cabinet posts and judgeships "twist in the wind" of public criticism before cutting them loose. You know, there's got to be some middle ground! Like, perish the thought, standing behind people who deserve it, and cutting loose those who prove they don't.
Bobb Alfred -
I think there are some conservatives that truly believe that any side but their own winning will result in the kind of world portrayed in the book.
Well, when Bush and other Republicans in office spend several weeks alluding to the idea that voting for a Democrats means supporting terorrism, then it's pretty evident that 'some' is a given.
And yes, the stuff in that 'comic' would be far more accurate if it was portraying the right-wing.
Sean Scullion -
Craig, Warwick-ness? Really? Wouldn't it be Warwickositude? Dionity?
I'm no wizard with the English language (although I consider myself a few steps above Bush), so I just went with the first thing that halfway sounded like it made sense. :)
I agree with Jon Stewart's assessment. I don't think Bush is dumb; I think he talks to *us* like he thinks *we're* dumb.
Oh, I think it's a step further, PAD - I think Bush talks to us like that out of a good, ol'fashioned sense of paternalism stemming from his religious convictions. It's not that he necessarily talks to us like he thinks we're dumb, but like we're sweet children who don't know what's best for ourselves, but DaddyBush does and he'll take care of it, we don't need to know the details.
More than once, he's reminded me of some very old, trained in the heyday of paternalism, doctors I know.
Wrong. You won't because you can't.
Aaw, a challenge! Anything to avoid Heidegger... shall we turn it into a fill-in-the-blank-fest, fellow PAD-readers? I'll start us out,...
A 25 Point Republican Manifesto for the Past 6/12 Painful Years:
1. Mandatory heterosexuality
2.
3. Introduce the Defense of Marriage Act [ed: sometimes reality is scary/sad enough]
4. Build a border fence along Mexico, but don't worry about the illegals coming in from Canada. It's just the brown ones we don't want. Consider moat with flame-proof crocodiles, too.
5.
6. Expand Axis of Evil to Parallelegram of Evil
7. English language enforced as national language
8. Ditch all arts classes, music, drama, or anything else that's creative and thus cannot be empirically tested.
9. All taxes to be tripled - if you make less than six figures.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15. Fight for the sanctity of all life! Except the lives in jail, everyone knows there's nothing sanctuous there.
16. Comatose people to receive more free medical care than the conscious poor - great publicity, and the comatose can't vote!
17. All women of child-bearing age must be medically treated like they're intending to/just become pregnant.
18. Make Christianity the national religion.
19. Dissolve judicial branch - our president knows the truthiness of the law.
20.
21.
22. If we can't block Mexico, maybe we can conquer it...
23. Ban non-Christian holidays
24. Reagan added to Mount Rushmore
25. Modify USA's motto to "Judgin' for God since 2000..."
Surely other people have suggestions. :)
8. Ditch all arts classes, music, drama, or anything else that's creative and thus cannot be empirically tested.
Or . . .
8. Ditch all science classes that are not approved by Creationist evangelicals and/or the oil industry.
A 25 Point Republican Manifesto for the Past 6/12 Painful Years:
11 - Corporate welfare only
13 - Highway funds to be replaced with vouchers for private jets
21 - Cop killer bullets & plastic handguns for everyone
Re: that Hastings guy...past regardless, he's been elected at least twice now to office, and is a high-ranking Dem. Not that voters are smart, and I'd personally not vote for him, but it's not like Pelosi or anyone other than the voters can get rid of him. If he's got the senoirity, or however ranking works, Pelosi pretty much has to abide by that.
And that's the attitude that keeps things from working as well as they should.
Regardless, he isn't next in line--someone Pelosi doesn't like is in line. So this will be a good indication of how she may lead.
I am truly going to enjoy these next two years, seeing what you liberals are going to be like under the microscope.
Good Luck---I think you're going to need it.
*******************************************
I can only hope that "us liberals" can un-do a lot of the damage that has been done. One good thing has come of it so far though: The world is no longer laughing at us. They're hopeful that America has finally woken up and that something can be done these next few years to right some wrongs.
No, the next 2 years won't be easy, but the focus will hopefully be to build relationships and not tear down. As Pelosi said, "Democrats are not about getting even. Democrats are about helping the American people to get ahead." And your comments, Ben Bradley, prove that you conservatives are the complete opposite.
2. Repeal all Congressional ethics rules and institute a pay-for-play policy.
5. Allow Congress to pass a law requiring the head of FEMA to have actual emergency planning experience - then issue a signing statement saying you're going to ignore it (Yes, reality is scarier).
10. Pass legislation to authorize construction of a border fence that covers less than half the length of the border, but don't allocate any funds to pay for it (Hey, I know where we can get some cheap labor!).
11. Spend money like there's no tomorrw, because the rapture is a-coming!
12. Remove all pretzels from the White House!
13. Pretend you know who Albert Camus was.
14. Jam the Democrats' phone bank, issue phony fliers in black neighborhoods telling them that the polling places have moved or the election was postponed, and institute robocalls.
20. Oppose the creation of a 9/11 Commission and the Department of Homeland Security, then change your mind.
21. Portray your opponent as a flipflopper.
The fact that Gates was nominated about 3 seconds after Rumsfeld's resignation was announced is proof that this was in the wings for weeks now as Bush was vetting possible successor. Which of course, means he was lying just last week when he said Rummy would stay to the end of his term.
I don't know if an earlier departure would have helped the GOP this week. Maybe in the Senate, but I think the House was already lost.
One more:
26. After finding no trace of WMDs in Iraq after over three years of looking, publish documents - in Arabic - of plans to build nuclear weapons on the web and claim that the documents themselves are proof that Saddam had WMDs in 2003.
Posted by: Kevin T. Brown at November 9, 2006 01:32 PM
And your comments, Ben Bradley, prove that you conservatives are the complete opposite.
The words and actions of one conservative prove nothing about conservatives as a whole. The majority of conservatives I know care just as much about this country as you do, Kevin, they just have different views about what's in our collective best interests. Moreover, most of the conservatives I know are as upset about the war in Iraq and George W. Bush's borrow-and-spend fiscal policy as any liberals I know.
The People Have Spoken... let's see if anybody's listening
And your comments, Ben Bradley, prove that you conservatives are the complete opposite.
If yu let ben goad you into making the same kind of generalizations as he is, you are just as bad as he is. Worse, maybe, because you seem to know better.
Posted by: Sean Scullion at November 9, 2006 12:42 PM
Ken, a leader needs to be able to communicate. "Because I said so" doesn't even work with my five year old. And running a country isn't like defining jazz or porn. They're both ephemeral, whereas leading a country is very specific. "This is where we need to go, this is why we need to go there, and this is the list of souvenirs we're going to pick up on the way." You can't run a country with your gut.
But -- can you run a country with porn?
I say we try it. Otherwise, we'll never know.
Bill: If we're going to try it, can we add beer as well? And maybe some snacks?
DAMN! YES! Porn, beer, and snacks! Plus football!
It's morning in America, Knuckles.
I for one am glad the democrats won the house and senate. It gives the people a chance to see what screw ups they are once they are in power, hence the Carter and Clinton years, and remind them in time for the Presidentital elections to vote republican.
Porn, beer, and football! Now that's a platform I can support!
Oh, and John Banks, after the last six years of seeing what screwups the republicans are at governing, it's going to take a bit more than two years for the public to buy into them again.
Remember the last time the GOP had total government control after two presidential elections? That was under Hoover and you know how the public reacted to that administration and the crash: The GOP was sent to the political woodshed for twenty years!
Don't hold your breath for a quick return to power for the GOP. After all the Dems were sure that they were going to retake both chambers in 1996.
I for one am glad the democrats won the house and senate. It gives the people a chance to see what screw ups they are once they are in power, hence the Carter and Clinton years,
Those were years where the budget was balanced, no?
And if those administrations were screwups, what do you call the efforts in New Orleans, NASA and Iraq?
Porn, beer, and football! Now that's a platform I can support!
Me, too!
I sense a political party about to be born...
Posted by: roger Tang at November 9, 2006 03:36 PM
And if those administrations were screwups, what do you call the efforts in New Orleans, NASA and Iraq?
Both parties have much to be ashamed of today.
The downfall of the G.O.P. was hubris, pure and simple. If Democrats fall victim to it as well, they will suffer the same fate.
Several posts back, there was a reference to Stephen Colbert's reaction to the outcome of the election. This isn't the first time I've seen someone on this blog refer to Colbert as if the opinions he expresses on "The Colbert Report" reflect his real beliefs.
You all **DO** realize "TCR" is a comedy show, and that Colbert is playing a character (a parody of Bill O'Reilly, I believe), right?
Just thought I'd mention it.
Bill Myers, your posts are usually thought-provoking, intelligent, and responsible. I've quite enjoyed the "relationship" we've developed arround here and on your personal site, but this last post has shown you to be just as thoughtless as someone better left unnamed. That last post just goes too far. Only a FOOL would want to run this country with porn.
I mean, have you SEEN most of the people in DC? Would you want to see ANY of them in porn? I mean, REALLY!
Snicker, snicker.
"I for one am glad the democrats won the house and senate. It gives the people a chance to see what screw ups they are once they are in power, hence the Carter and Clinton years, and remind them in time for the Presidentital elections to vote republican."
Suure, the Clinton years are a prime example of how Democratics can lead the country to ruin...I mean, they had total control of the White House and...no control in Congress for Clinton's last 6 years in office?
It wasn't Democrats that spent millions of taxpeyer dollars trying to impeach Clinton over something a good deal of Republicans do...have an consensual extramarital affair with another adult. But it's pretty clear that Republican leadership is more than willing to look the other way when those relationships occur within the GOP...and with teenagers, no less.
Yeah, the rallying cries of the conservative just aren't sending fear into me any more. At least for the next two years, I know that their efforts to reduce my rights and transfer my money to the already rich at least won't expand. I don't know if we'll accomplish a lot of damage control over the next two years, but I'm at least optimistic for the first time in a long while.
""Now that the election is behind us, and the Democrats control one or possibly both houses of Congress, there's no reason not to admit it: the Right was right about us all along. Here is our 25-point manifesto for the new Congress:""
Don't you have real problems to be worried about without scaring yourselves with completely imaginary (and quite silly) problems?
I for one am glad the democrats won the house and senate. It gives the people a chance to see what screw ups they are once they are in power, hence the Carter and Clinton years,
There are a lot of things I could call Clinton (and many I have) but his presidency was not a screw up. Clinton did some good things, some bad things, some dumb things, and some smart things. But to compare the Clinton years to the Carter years is like comparing the Beatles to New Kids on the Block.
No, the next 2 years won't be easy, but the focus will hopefully be to build relationships and not tear down. As Pelosi said, "Democrats are not about getting even. Democrats are about helping the American people to get ahead." And your comments, Ben Bradley, prove that you conservatives are the complete opposite.
I hope you are right Kevin, time will tell. Then again part of me thinks this country is at it's best when there is so much gridlock that the only things that get done are things that both side really want.
" transfer my money to the already rich "
That's the second time in this thread you made some comment about your taxes being raised, or your money taken. However, I'm gonna call you on this.
You see, no taxes were raised in the past 6 years. In fact, everyone (THAT'S EVERYONE!) had their taxes lowers. Period. End of story. They lowered all the tax brackets, and expanded the lowest tax bracket (the one where they don't pay taxes).
there are many, many, legitiment attacks you can make on the GOP and Bush, so why in the hell do you have to fall into the tired and untrue partisan lies? It's fun and easy to say "they gave the rich tax cuts and raised the tax on the poor" but that's a flat out untruth.
You can argue that they shouldn't have given across the board tax cuts, or that we couldn't afford the upper end tax cuts, but they did cut EVERYONE's taxes.
The closest you could come to your statement, is that they cut services to the poorest in the county, while lowering the taxes (not giving them your money, but letting them keep more of their own, btw).
Jerry, he didn't mention taxes, he said "transfer my money to the rich." That includes a lot more than just taxes. Did salaries for the rich increase more than salaries for the rest? How do wage increases compare to inflation? The employment rate is good, but have the types of jobs held by Americans shifted?
If you want to "call" him on this, then you should cover more than just taxes.
Posted by: Jerry Wall at November 9, 2006 04:26 PM
That's the second time in this thread you made some comment about your taxes being raised, or your money taken. However, I'm gonna call you on this.
True. Very true.
On the other hand, those tax cuts were funded by massive borrowing and deficit spending (which, contrary to popular belief, are not synonymous). The federal debt is a drain on the overall economy. It eats up productivity in two ways: it puts the federal government in the position of competing with the private sector for capital, thus raising the cost of raising capital; and the interest on the debt is an expense that must be paid for levying... taxes.
Deficit spending cannot go on indefinitely, because it is, by definition, spending more than one takes in. Paying off that debt will require raising taxes. Generally, when taxes are raised, the middle class bears the heaviest burden. The poor don't make enough money to tax, and the rich have great influence in Washington and also have at their disposal tax shelters that aren't available to the middle class.
The closest you could come to your statement, is that they cut services to the poorest in the county, while lowering the taxes (not giving them your money, but letting them keep more of their own, btw).
No, that's false. George W. Bush's 2001 tax reform package increased the Earned Income Tax Credit, which is a subsidy aimed at the working poor. It is a "refundable credit," which means you can receive a refund larger than your federal withholdings. Almost without exception, people receiving the EIC receive a refund that far exceeds what they actually paid for in taxes.
GAH! In my post above, I used deficit and debt as synonymous in a sentence after pointing out that they're not synonymous!
STOP ME BEFORE I MESS UP AGAIN!
"Jerry, he didn't mention taxes, he said "transfer my money to the rich." "
Gah, you're right. I miscredited another comment to him, that was actually one someone else made, that related to raising taxes on the poor. My bad.
"Did salaries for the rich increase more than salaries for the rest? How do wage increases compare to inflation? The employment rate is good, but have the types of jobs held by Americans shifted? "
I don't know how to answer this. I've heard it said by some that average incomes are higher now than six years ago, and by others that they are lower. I've also heard that the biggest gulf in income between the highest and the lowest was created in the late 90's. However, I can't find any information right now to back up any side.
Originally posted by Bill Mulligan: "And that's the attitude that keeps things from working as well as they should.
"Regardless, he isn't next in line--someone Pelosi doesn't like is in line. So this will be a good indication of how she may lead."
I agree.
As I recall, appointment as a committee head based on seniority is traditional but not mandatory. I have no problem with Pelosi choosing not to put Harmon in the seat if she feels Harmon is wrong for the job. But that should not automatically mean that she gives the job to Hastings, who sounds pretty clearly to be the wrong person for the job.
If Pelosi does give Hastings the job simply because he's in line for it, that sounds to me like poor leadership. I hope that, if Harmon is not going to fill the chair seat, Pelosi takes Hastings aside, tells him he's not qualified, and that she'd like him to voluntarily step aside to avoid a messy scene but that if he doesn't she will convene a vote among the Democratic leadership to choose who the chair will go to and she will strongly urge the others to vote for someone other than him.
(I'm assuming it's the Democratic leadership who vote on who get the committee chair positions now that democrats are the majority party. Hope I'm not displaying my ignorance too badly.)
It's fun and easy to say "they gave the rich tax cuts and raised the tax on the poor" but that's a flat out untruth.
What's true is that by cutting taxes disproportionately for the rich, the liability for Bush's record spended falls more and more on a shrinking middle class.
As for salaries, corporate CEOs are making 5 times the salaries they were making 25 years ago (adjusted). Corporations aren't making similar gains ove the same time period. These are the daunty wallflowers Bush's tax policies shelter the most.
Bill Myers, your posts are usually thought-provoking, intelligent, and responsible. I've quite enjoyed the "relationship" we've developed arround here and on your personal site, but this last post has shown you to be just as thoughtless as someone better left unnamed.
Sean Scullion, why don't you and Bill Myers just go ahead and rent the damn hotel room?
Sean -- keep your shrouds up, my friend. It is NOT worth responding to Mike. He's irrelevant.
Check out how these closeted Mormons hit on each other, talking about their shrouds and all manner of kinky fetishes that drive them.
Bill--Mike who?
Jerry Wall--look at it this way. Yes, average incomes ARE more than they were six years ago. Taken singly, this fact looks like it's good. Now, add in the fact that, on average, average expenditures are far more than they were six years ago, due to costs being far more. Instead of using the "income" in both situations, perhaps it would be more accurate to use the phrase "buying power." While I myself am making significantly LESS than I was six years ago, I am fortunately in the minority amongst people I know. Fortunately for THEM, that is. I'd love to be making what I was back then, personally. Anyway, most people I know are making more, but they have to pay out more in return. Now, I'm no econimist, never claimed to be, never even finished my economics class(I didn't drop it, car accident knocked me out for the duration) but it seems to me that making more only to have to pay out more isn't upwardly mobile. Hope that helps a little.
Man, I make a funny post and the only one to respond is our resident under-bridge resident. I'm gonna go bang my head against something.
"Several posts back, there was a reference to Stephen Colbert's reaction to the outcome of the election. This isn't the first time I've seen someone on this blog refer to Colbert as if the opinions he expresses on "The Colbert Report" reflect his real beliefs.
You all **DO** realize "TCR" is a comedy show, and that Colbert is playing a character (a parody of Bill O'Reilly, I believe), right?"
I can't speak for everyone, but yes, I do. I think one would have to be a total moron NOT to know that. There's just no other way to refer to him than by his given name, though. He's playing a character, but the character has his name. It's not like Sasha Baron Cohen and "Borat."
And considering yesterday's hilarious "The Word," in which Colbert was so completely overcome with grief that he literally couldn't say anything, I think my comment about being anxious to see how Colbert reacted was pretty valid.
PAD
I just realized, thanks to my lovely wife for reminding me, that if Bush and Cheney somehow meet their demise, Nancy Pelosi will become President.....
Kevin, -you and your wife aren't the only ones thinking that way. All day long I've been thinking if God forbid something happened to those two(hey, I don't like 'em, but I wouldn't want to see anything happen to 'em) would Pelosi turn to Geena Davis for advice?
Posted by: Sean Scullion at November 9, 2006 06:58 PM
Jerry Wall--look at it this way. Yes, average incomes ARE more than they were six years ago. Taken singly, this fact looks like it's good. Now, add in the fact that, on average, average expenditures are far more than they were six years ago, due to costs being far more. Instead of using the "income" in both situations, perhaps it would be more accurate to use the phrase "buying power." While I myself am making significantly LESS than I was six years ago, I am fortunately in the minority amongst people I know. Fortunately for THEM, that is. I'd love to be making what I was back then, personally. Anyway, most people I know are making more, but they have to pay out more in return. Now, I'm no econimist, never claimed to be, never even finished my economics class(I didn't drop it, car accident knocked me out for the duration) but it seems to me that making more only to have to pay out more isn't upwardly mobile. Hope that helps a little.
Sean, you are talking about "real income," which is based on the amount of goods and services that can be purchased with that income. When absolute income rises, but the costs of goods and services rise equally or higher, "real income" remains flat or decreases.
For someone who didn't finish economics class, you're quite astute about the basic concepts. And in this case bang-on correct.
Posted by: Sean Scullion at November 9, 2006 06:58 PM
Man, I make a funny post and the only one to respond is our resident under-bridge resident. I'm gonna go bang my head against something.
I couldn't think of anything funny to say in return was all. Trust me, I got a good laugh out of it.
As SOON as I saw your post, Bill, I recalled good old Mr. Miller, the ubiquitous ball of spit perched ever so precariously on his lower lip, using that exact phrase. Durn brain damage.
And considering yesterday's hilarious "The Word," in which Colbert was so completely overcome with grief that he literally couldn't say anything, I think my comment about being anxious to see how Colbert reacted was pretty valid.
Personally, I wasn't at all worried about his reaction.
;)
Some people give the impression that they think Nancy Pelosi will do a horrible job because she is a woman.
Well, so's the president.
The Democrats didn't have a platform to run on in this election because they didn't need one.
It was about the war.
As long as they let the focus stay on the war, they were in good shape.
Sean Scullion has a good point about the buying power of money.
Inflation is approximately 3% per year.
If you were making $6 an hour 10 years ago, you would have to be making $8 an hour today to keep up with the inflation over that time.
And the inflation numbers do NOT include some items that people need, like, say, um---GASOLINE!
Those people who are making that small amount per hour really didn't get much benefit from their $42 per year tax cut. (Compared to those that paid $35,000 less in taxes per year, those people being in the upper tax brackets.)
"And considering yesterday's hilarious "The Word," in which Colbert was so completely overcome with grief that he literally couldn't say anything..."
And the emergency donkey pinata. I loved the emergency donkey pinata!
What's great about Colbert is that he really sells it. He looked like he was really working himself up to unleash his hate on that pinata. He really looked like he was going to put the alcohol away for a moment before he yanked it back out and took a drink. There are moments when Colbert can be surprising even though he's doing something very obvious, just because he sells what he's doing so well.
Democrats are now in the spotlight and we are watching. On Wednesday, new House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi pointed to a painting behind her, hanging on the wall of the Library of Congress. She signaled a figure burning a scroll of learning and trampling on the Bible. The title of the painting was “Corrupt Government.” She explained:
“It is a harsh image to see a Bible underfoot, but it makes a powerful point: corrupt government undermines our values. We come here today to support those values, and to lay out an agenda for a new era of honest, open, and transparent government.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,2283...
*********
If I had said it, I would be "just another dilusional conservative." Truth is, even teh most liberal of DC politicians can see the real truth. We are a nation founded on religious ideals, period. At the time, these may have been Christian ideals but the country has taken it one step further to religion in general. This nation was founded on the belief that all religions are created equal and all citizens of this nation, indeed all humans, were born with the right to practice that religion freely within the confines of obvious moral standards (can't kill, steal, kidnap, etc...). This election was not about liberalism v. conservatism, Republicans v. Democrats, or even Iraq. This election boiled down to the fact that even the Democrats, seen as the leftist sect of the country, acknowledged that this country has a set of values greater than any petty disputes between the two parties. Americans decided that Republicans were no longer getting the job done in protecting the conservative values of this country...so they elected Democrats who made the same vows as the Republicans they beat out had made when they took office. The Democrats elected to replace these Republicans are just as conservative as the Republicans they replaced and have promised not to abandon the voters as the Republicans did. This election was hardly a referendum pushing for the liberal ideals previously backed by the Democrats.
Consider the facts, 9 states had ballot measures to ban gay marriage (a conservative talking point): it passed in 8, the only state to not pass the initiative was Arizona, the reason - it was also the only state that included a ban on all forms of domestic partnerships. I know of gay people who would also say that gay couples should not get married. But I also know of hardly anyone who would support banning any form of partnership at all (this is a position taken only by extreme radicals, not the mainstream conservative).
- Michigan, the face of affirmative action (University of Michigan), voters in that state put a ban on affirmative action in that state, in pretty convincing fashion.
- Many states had initiatives curtailing eminent domain (an extremely liberal issue), again conservatism and keeping government out of private affairs won and eminent domain has been derailed in most states.
People may point to stem cell research in Missouri as a victorious point in the elections for the left...consider the issue though. Prior to the elections the measure had a huge, almost 30 point, lead and pretty much guaranteed to pass. And why not, no one wants Michael J. Fox to die. Its a sympathetic issue. People hear that it can save lives and vote for it for that fact. People don't actually admit that these same cells can also come from discarded umbilical cords or similar cells from adults. No research has ever proven that embryonic stem cells have the potential to cure anything (at least anything specific), all they have proven is that they COULD cure certain things. Adult stem cells have been researched and in fact USED to aid in therapies or other treatments, not to mention, there is no moral downside to them. Ironic how that 30 point lead shrunk to 2 (51-49) on election night, after people started reading about the issue more, rather than voting on emotion alone.
Liberals will also champion South Dakota shooting down the anti-abortion measure on its ballot...this measure provided that the only time abortions would be allowed would be in the case of a mother's life being threatened by the carry of the baby to term. Not in cases of rape or incest. The extremity of the language is why the initiative was defeated, not the principle of it, same with the Arizona gay marriage amendment.
****
I'm not looking to convert anyone on any issues, I can't do that, nor would I try. My only point is that to consider it a liberal victory would be a gross misrepresentation of the elections. To the contrary, conservatives throughout the country should see this as a resounding victory. Where properly worded, conservative measures seem to carry weight with the American populace.
That is the truth.
If I had said it, I would be "just another dilusional conservative." Truth is, even teh most liberal of DC politicians can see the real truth. We are a nation founded on religious ideals, period. At the time, these may have been Christian ideals but the country has taken it one step further to religion in general. This nation was founded on the belief that all religions are created equal and all citizens of this nation, indeed all humans, were born with the right to practice that religion freely within the confines of obvious moral standards (can't kill, steal, kidnap, etc...).
And one of the options of religious practice is to practice no religion at all. Who has more faith than the person with no religion?
My only point is that to consider it a liberal victory would be a gross misrepresentation of the elections. To the contrary, conservatives throughout the country should see this as a resounding victory. Where properly worded, conservative measures seem to carry weight with the American populace.
That is the truth.
If you're suggesting most Americans want to privatize social security, wanted medicare retooled as a trillion dollar government giveaway to pharmaceutical companies, or consented to a billion-dollars-a-week war for reasons other than to curtail nuclear terrorism, uh, no.
Yeah, well, while we debate these piddly points I just want to point out two headlines up right now on the Drudge report:
Aliens could attack at any time' warns former British Ministry of Defence chief
and
NASA looks at a monster storm on Saturn
Coincidence? WAKE UP, PEOPLE!!! Jeeze, do you watch any monster movies?
Well I have a different take on the matter, besides what PAD said about why Bush did it. There is another reason, when the democrats start investigating iraq in 07, someone is going to have to be the fall guy for all the shit that happened. So now they can blame the guy that just left on everyhting the dems find. "he was just a bad apple, a loose cannonl, etc etc"
"The Democrats didn't have a platform to run on in this election because they didn't need one.
It was about the war.
As long as they let the focus stay on the war, they were in good shape."
Well, hopefully the Democrats won't be that stupidly short sighted or foolish. If they are, they can kiss their majority goodbye by the next major election. And maybe their possibilities of snagging the White House as well.
"Aliens could attack at any time' warns former British Ministry of Defense chief
and
NASA looks at a monster storm on Saturn
Coincidence? WAKE UP, PEOPLE!!! Jeeze, do you watch any monster movies?"
But, you missed the final piece of the puzzle, Bill.
"With a smartening-up Bush and a newly energized Democratic majority...."
They're already here!! The first wave has descended upon us!!!!
Maybe, and I stress MAYBE, the Democrats as a whole could become energized, lifelike and personable when in the same room as Bush. But a smartened up Bush??? Bush dumping Rumsfeld against the objections of Cheney??? No way in Hell. Not gonna happen.
Kotos and Kang have taken over!!! Kotos (or was that Kang) has taken Bush's form! Kang (or was that Kotos) has taken Pelosi's form. I'm sure I saw them holding hands at some time during that press conference. And did you see how many other "Democrats" were exchanging long chained proteins with Pelosi on election night? There's a small army here now!!!!!!!!!!
They can laugh at that poor Defense Chief, but that "storm" is just the dust clouds being kicked up by the launch of the super fleet. They're on their way and they have their probes ready.
Come Thanksgiving, lets all pray that it's ONLY the turkeys that will be stuffed.
Bill Myers, your posts are usually thought-provoking, intelligent, and responsible. I've quite enjoyed the "relationship" we've developed arround here and on your personal site, but this last post has shown you to be just as thoughtless as someone better left unnamed. That last post just goes too far. Only a FOOL would want to run this country with porn.
I mean, have you SEEN most of the people in DC? Would you want to see ANY of them in porn? I mean, REALLY!
You've got to turn your thinking around, friend! We don't want to get government into porn, but the other way around.
I just wonder if it's too early to start printing up "Jeremy/Jameson '08" bumper stickers...
-Rex Hondo-
And considering yesterday's hilarious "The Word," in which Colbert was so completely overcome with grief that he literally couldn't say anything, I think my comment about being anxious to see how Colbert reacted was pretty valid.
I thought the best bit happened on the night of the election right (The Midterm Midtacular) at the closer when Colbert realized that the Democracts were going to win, went on a pristine rant about the new Democratic America, tasted the terrorist cake ("MMMMMM, tastes like surrender!"), said "SCREW THIS!", stormed out, then recieved a motivational speech from Uncle Sam in his limo. He's probably gonna milk the crazy depressed Right Winger angle for a little while, so it should be fun to watch. Though, I have to say, that closing bit on the election night, so far, has been the highlight.
Ken, a leader needs to be able to communicate. "Because I said so" doesn't even work with my five year old. And running a country isn't like defining jazz or porn. They're both ephemeral, whereas leading a country is very specific. "This is where we need to go, this is why we need to go there, and this is the list of souvenirs we're going to pick up on the way." You can't run a country with your gut.
Sean, not necessarily. While part of leading can be using persuasion to get people to *want* to follow you. However you can go with the "Trust me" if people TRUST you, especially if you have a track record of success. A team of well-respected advisors doesn't hurt either. However once that trust is sorely tested to the breaking point, and beyond . . . .
You all **DO** realize "TCR" is a comedy show, and that Colbert is playing a character (a parody of Bill O'Reilly, I believe), right?"
Peter, Michael J. Fox was once popular with both liberals and conservatives back in the Dark Ages: the 1980s, as "Alex P. Keaton" on FAMILY TIES. Conservatives loved him for his hilarious spoof of conservatives while liberals thought he nailed it dead on.
Then again, mixing the actor for the character they play is nothing new. How often do you see movie ads or reviews that describe Tom Cruise IS a spy taking on impossible missions or George Clooney IS a CIA agent in the Middle East, Emma Thompson IS a writing dictating the life of a character, Will Ferrell?
versus "plays a character who . . ."?
-- Ken from Chicago
>No research has ever proven that embryonic stem cells have the potential to cure anything (at least anything specific)
Someone may not have been keeping up with the news.
Reports have been coming out of experiments which have restored sight to blind mice using stem cells. Not sure if it was the embryonic variety of cells, however.
What's great about Colbert is that he really sells it. He looked like he was really working himself up to unleash his hate on that pinata. He really looked like he was going to put the alcohol away for a moment before he yanked it back out and took a drink. There are moments when Colbert can be surprising even though he's doing something very obvious, just because he sells what he's doing so well.
I just wish he took the next obvious step and chugged directly from the bottle.
Maybe when Pelosi is installed as Speaker . . .
Reports have been coming out of experiments which have restored sight to blind mice using stem cells. Not sure if it was the embryonic variety of cells, however.
the story is a little complicated and was, typically, poorly written, so the confusion is understandable.
The cells used were no longer capable of becoming any kind of cells (so they were not true stem cells). They would be more accurately described as immature rod cells.
The only reason the story got mixed up in the stem cell debate was that a lot of the stories I read went out of their way to stick in something to the effect that scientists are also trying to grow human embryonic stem cells. True enough but not terribly pertinant to the story and it resulted in a more than a few people touting this as a victory for stem cell research.
Look, I'm in favor of stem cell research but I have to say, people are probably going to be very disappointed in the results. The expectations are way too high. And I further expect that it will be the adult stem cell lines that give the best results. Were I still in bio research that's where I'd be focussing and not just because of the politics involved.
"Though, I have to say, that closing bit on the election night, so far, has been the highlight."
I agree, but you left out my favorite part!
"The Democrats have only been in power for 2 minutes, and they've already gotten us mired in this unwinnable war."
Awesome.
Bush did not (or perhaps, could not) make the smart move here.
The smart move would have been to offer Joe Lieberman the job of Secretary of Defense. All in the spirit of bipartisanship.
If Lieberman accepted, his senate seat would be filled by the choice of a Republican governor. Bush would have a 50-50 Senate, with Cheney breaking ties.
Presto, Bush gets some control back of the Senate.
(I know, I know, me being diabolical again...)
The smart move would have been to offer Joe Lieberman the job of Secretary of Defense. All in the spirit of bipartisanship.
If Lieberman accepted, his senate seat would be filled by the choice of a Republican governor. Bush would have a 50-50 Senate, with Cheney breaking ties.
Presto, Bush gets some control back of the Senate.
True, but that would have such a obvious and blatant politcal move that it would hurt Bush even more.
"True, but that would have such a obvious and blatant politcal move that it would hurt Bush even more."
And Lieberman would have never accepted the position.
"We are a nation founded on religious ideals, period."
I'm not an American, so I may not be familiar with the nuances, but I think it would be equaly if not more accurate to say that the US was founded on liberal ideals.
"This nation was founded on the belief that all religions are created equal and all citizens of this nation, indeed all humans, were born with the right to practice that religion freely."
This was, and still is a liberal ideal.
It is true that liberalism in the US never had the anti-clericalism that characterized European liberalism. But this is partially because from the beginning the US did not have a clerical power like the one that existed in Europe, and also socialism, with its distinct anti-religious ideals, was not as successful as in the US.
Of course, the values of most cultures are based on religious ideals. You also have to remember that what was considered liberal and conservative in 1776 was different than now, and also, again, that the US did not develop the revolutionary aspirations to topple the old world that characterized socialism, and parts of the French revolution.
"the Democrats, seen as the leftist sect of the country"
Only in the way that the Republicans are seen as a right wing fundementalist sect. I suppose that the extremes are more sect-like, while the closer you get to the center the differences blur.
"acknowledged that this country has a set of values greater than any petty disputes between the two parties."
It is reasonable to assume that most Americans share some values. It is also likelt that each side believes they support greater values, they just don't always agree what they are.
Americans decided that Republicans were no longer getting the job done in protecting the conservative values of this country"
It is reasonable to assume that the neither last elections nor the presidential elections represented a major shift to extremely conservative or extremely liberal values. It may be possible even that there is a slight majority in the US for conservative values. Maybe in some issues people are more conservative, and with others more liberal. But it is more likey that moderate democrats were elected to follow moderate liberal ideals, which are not that far from moderate republican.
"This election was hardly a referendum pushing for the liberal ideals previously backed by the Democrats."
Is there any indication of democrats abandoning their values?
"9 states had ballot measures to ban gay marriage (a conservative talking point): it passed in 8, the only state to not pass the initiative was Arizona, the reason - it was also the only state that included a ban on all forms of domestic partnerships."
Weren't the 9 states already conservative? It is deceptive to determine the overal attitude in the US on liberal issues because you have geographical areas where the liberals are a majority and conservatives are less likely to be represented, and in other places the reverse is true.
"this is a position taken only by extreme radicals, not the mainstream conservative)."
Do mainstream liberals support gay marriage?
"Its a sympathetic issue. People hear that it can save lives and vote for it for that fact. People don't actually admit that these same cells can also come from discarded umbilical cords or similar cells from adults. No research has ever proven that embryonic stem cells have the potential to cure anything (at least anything specific), all they have proven is that they COULD cure certain things. Adult stem cells have been researched and in fact USED to aid in therapies or other treatments."
I am not a biologist. If you are not, it is rather pointless for us to parrot scientific opionions for or against the projected potential and advantages of stem cell research, which we are unable to assess. If there is somebody on this board who can, it would be helpful. If not, I suggest sticking to the ethical consideration, which we do understand.
Also, aren't there conservatives who support stem cell research?
"to consider it a liberal victory would be a gross misrepresentation of the elections."
It is a victory in the sense that liberals now have more power to influence things. Apparently, in the places where change occured the liberal candidates' messages had more support.
Where properly worded, conservative measures seem to carry weight with the American populace.
"I aven't looked at he map, but again, it seems that in moderate conservative states conservative measures wre passed if not too conservative, whereas in liberal states no proposal were presented.
"That is the truth."
The truth probably has less to do with the difference in values between democrats and republicans as much as lack of faith in the conduct of republicans in some areas.
---------------------
"Sean, not necessarily. While part of leading can be using persuasion to get people to *want* to follow you. However you can go with the "Trust me" if people TRUST you, especially if you have a track record of success. A team of well-respected advisors doesn't hurt either. However once that trust is sorely tested to the breaking point, and beyond . . . ."
Idealy, in a democracy, voters should be swayed by arguments, not by the charisma of a leader. But this is not always the case.
That idea is pretty diabolical, Glenn. However, it would never have happened. I think that Bush really believed that the elections were going to go much better, that the Republicans were going to retain at least the Senate and maybe the House as well. Therefore, he'd have no need for such a hat-trick. I know that you have to blatantly ignore a host of indicators to the contrary, but the war in Iraq is solid proof and the Administration's ability to do that.
Rumsfeld was on the way out at least a week before the election. The fact that Gates had already been selected and had accepted the job offer is solid evidence of that. Gates as Secretary of Defense was already a done deal.
A quick correction. Re-reading my previous post, I imply that it was wishful thinking to expect the Senate to remain in Republican hands. It really wasn't. A large number of close election all had to go the the Democrats with no diappointments and Lieberman has to stick with the Dems as well for the Republicans to lose control of the Senate. The odds of a Democratic controlled Senate were pretty low.
Thinking that Republicans were going to retaint the House on the other hand required Colbert-like self-delusion.
Thinking that Republicans were going to retaint the House on the other hand required Colbert-like self-delusion.
If that's a typo it's actually a pretty funny one.
Anyone who truly thinks we are a nation founded on religious ideals makes it clear they have no grasp whatsoever of the Revolutionary era. Some colonies were founded in order for the colonists to be free to practice their religion free from interference from the crown. Some, on the other hand, were not.
The Revolution occurred NOT due to some great religious upheaval, it occurred due to gross incompetence on the part of Parliament, and a fundamental misunderstanding of how the colonies viewed their role in the political and economic world of the Empire. PERIOD. Read Benjamin Franklin's autobiography. Read anything ever written by him, for that matter. And then go on to John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, etc. Jesus didn't have jack-all to do with the Revolution. On the other hand, Lord Grenville, Lord North and basically the entire British military establishment did.
Micha -
If not, I suggest sticking to the ethical consideration, which we do understand.
As I have mentioned already in other posts, even the ethical considerations by those against embryonic stem cell research seem to be twisted and, imo, often hypocritical.
So, to say we understand the ethical considerations? That is simplifying it far too much.
Craig, what I meant is that I do not have the scientific knowledge necessary to decide betwwen claims of scientists who support or object to stem cell research, but I do have, I hope, the intellectual capacity to make a decision in an ethical argument. So, so long as there is no scientific consensus, purely scientific arguments don't help me make a decision, since each side brings out the scientific studies that support their ethical point of view. Since I don't have a way to decide, you might as well go straight to the ethical and philosophical arguments.
Bill Mulligan - Oh, OK, thanks for the correction. Hopefully NEW SCIENTIST or some other reputable publication will have all the details soon and we'll find out what was really behind those mice getting their eyesight back.
"I further expect that it will be the adult stem cell lines that give the best results. Were I still in bio research that's where I'd be focussing"
Why?
1
On the other hand, those tax cuts were funded by massive borrowing and deficit spending (which, contrary to popular belief, are not synonymous). The federal debt is a drain on the overall economy. It eats up productivity in two ways: it puts the federal government in the position of competing with the private sector for capital, thus raising the cost of raising capital; and the interest on the debt is an expense that must be paid for levying... taxes.
Bill, I am going to have to disagree with you here on why we are running deficits. I know this is counter intuitive but in the long run tax cuts cause an increase in tax revenue. Our government's current fiscal trouble (both debt and deficit spending) are not a result of the tax cuts, but the result of a spend happy government(which is why I am pissed at republicans.) The Bush Tax cuts, which were phased in over three years, 2001-2003 have, as of the 2005 budget caused an increase in revenue. According to the CBO, total tax revenue for the year 2000 was $2,025.5 billion, while 2005 tax revenue was $2,153.9 billion. The problem is in the dramatic increase in spending, 2000 spending $1,789.2 billion, 2005 spending a whopping $2,472.2 billion. If we balance the budget the debt issue goes away. In fact as a percent of GDP our debt, while still the highest it has been since 2000, is lower then every year between 1985 and 2000. (also CBO figures) http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf
Deficit spending cannot go on indefinitely, because it is, by definition, spending more than one takes in. Paying off that debt will require raising taxes. Generally, when taxes are raised, the middle class bears the heaviest burden. The poor don't make enough money to tax, and the rich have great influence in Washington and also have at their disposal tax shelters that aren't available to the middle class.
As for tax burden, I would have to argue that the burden of taxes does not fall on the middle class. Although it feels like it does. The top 1% paid ~34% of the taxes in 2003 and the top 50% of wage earners paid ~96% of all income taxes in 2003 you can get the numbers to do the math at the us house of representatives http://www.house.gov/jec/publications/109/2003taxshares.pdf
John
Bill Mulligan,
It was indeed a typo. What I had meant to type "retain the House" but only did on-the-fly proofing.
[Boring Technical Explanation of Typo]Before correction I had written "retaint he House" and thought I had left the "t" off the word "the" instead of putting the space in the wrong place. So I simply added it in.[/BTEoT]
I didn't even realize how my typo could be interpreted until it was pointed out. I wish I was that funny when I was trying to be.
I just wanted to say that I didn't realize it was PAD himself who made the most recent remark about wanting to see Stephen Colbert's reaction to the outcome of the election. I know Peter realizes that Stephen Colbert the actor/comedian is playing the part of "Stephen Colbert," right-wing demagogue. I only brought it up because I've seen other posts here and elsewhere from people who didn't seem to get it.
That's what I get for not scrolling back to double-check the "Posted by" line. Sorry for the confusion.
Paul
Micha, the problem with embryonic stem cells is also what makes them so potentially powerful--they can literally become any possible type of cell.
Consider a fertilized egg thathas only a dozen cells- any of theose dozen cells may be the one that gives rise to any organ of the body. That potential is amazing.
But...it also means that simply dropping it on, say, someone's brain has the potential of the cell giving rise to something not at all brain-like. Doc Conner may want a new arm but not growing out of his head.
The hope is that the brain cells would somehow send signals to the implanted embryonic cells to force them into that direction. Good enough but keep in mind that this is NOT how they work--whatever it is taht causes stem cells to committ to theair eventual path, it doesn't come form adult cells but, rather, from signals that are within it's brother stem cells (or so it seems This is one of the big mysteries of science and a very exciting field.)
You might get good results dropping embryonic stem cells onto an embryo but an adult? I don't expect much. (Note--if we trick the cells into comitting before implantation, well, now we have something better. How we artificailly do something when we don't understnd how it's does naturally is a very tough question.)
Adult stem cells--and lots of people don't know that there even ARE adult stem cells--are used to working with the complex system of the adult body and therfore, to my thinking, have a far far greater potential for succcess.
Anyway, that's how I see it. Obviously a lot of scientists must see it differently given the desire to work with embryonic stem cells.
Paul,
I don't think anyone has ever failed to "get it" about Colbert. Every time I've seen someone say, "you know he's faking, right?" it's always been in response to someone who was just playing along with Colbert's joke. Don't worry about it, people get it.
Oh and on the upcoming rampaging monster front--new headline on Drudgereport: Smoggy skies 'created life on Earth
When Hedorah is smashing through downtown LA you'll all be screaming "Bill was right! We should have listened!" For all the good it'll do you then.
As exciting as this week was, the real story is coming up.
Nancy Pelosi has been demonized by many Republicans as being out of her league and a lightweight. She has the chance to both proven them wrong and, more importantly, do the right thing. Champion people for chairmanships that are the right people for the job, not doddering seniority cases or people whose constutuants have not allowed their manifest stupidity stop them from getting relected.
TPM Muckraker http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001981.php
Has a good article on its "favorite" Democrats. If any of these folks get in it's gonna be two years of "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" all over again.
Rep. Alan Mollohan--under FBI investigation. set to take the chair of the panel that got him in trouble.
Rep. John Murtha--been caught on tape by the FBI explaining how he works scams
Rep. Alcee Hastings-- Impeached by virtually the entire congress...including Pelosi.
Rep. Steny Hoyer-- Possible House Majority leader. Well known for courting special interests, he even voted in favor of the bankruptcy bill and got over $100,000 from lenders for his trouble.
Meanwhile, on the "Boy, how ugly would it have been if they'd LOST?" front, James "Serpentor" Carville wants to reward Howard Dean for his victory by kicking him out and replacing him with the one Democrat who LOST--Harold Ford. Whether this is to counter the Republicans looking to Michael Steele to replace Ken Mehelman or somthing else I don't know. Markos "Daily Kos", fresh from flexing his muscles in his takedown of Joe Lieberman...um, nevermind...responds thoughtfully " Carville needs to shut the f**k up. If he wants a war, we’ll give him one." Yikes...
This is the internet age, jackasses! If you want to waste the honeymoon forming a circular firing squad it won't go unnoticed.
And if the remaining Republicans are smart--big if--they will just stand by and watch.
Also, if it hasn't been mentioned already--Happy Veterens Day. And happy birthday to the Marines.
Bill Mulligan are you reading your nonsense before linking to them?
This leaves Hoyer, who voted for the bankruptcy retooling -- like the republican majority who sponsored the bill in the first place.
If it's bad and about a republican, they are innocent until proven guilty. If it's bad and about a democrat, it's gotta be true. Typical.
And Mary Matalin doesn't call her husband "Serpentor," she calls him "Serpent Head." Put down the GI Joe before you hurt yourself.
I just read almost every word in this thread and agreed with Mike almost every time. Since I know I am not irrelevant, how could he be?
Keep on popping the ballons of the high and mighty right wingers, Mike. I, for one, am thoroughly enjoying it.
And the person who wrote that the Bush administration has shown the ability to switch gears/paths (or whatever)... You're 100% correct.
I've watched Bush go from insufferable right wing suck-up, to half-assed cliche slinger, to idiotic war monger-- to just plain deadly.
As I told my conservative Mom this past Wednesday-- there's not a damned Democrat in the world who wants to see terrorists attack this country... Ever... And anybody who thinks that is a moron and a deluded asshole.
THERE'S your mantra for breakfast, lunch and dinner.
Now let's all sit back and watch the Republicans spit and sputter and attempt to figure out a way to make gay marriage seem deadlier than al-Qaeda... just in time for 2008.
And for those posters who question the abilities of Nancy Pelosi (HA! THAT's a real knee slapper! Have you bothered to question the abilities of your Commander in Chief lately?)-- you should be ashamed of yourselves. How could the FIRST FEMALE House Majority Leader be weak... or incompetent?!
We all know what you REALLY mean: That you question her abilities "...because she is a woman."
Just for that utterly unfounded, sexist attitude, I hope all your future hookers and/or girlfriends and/or wives refuse to cop your joints for the rest of your natural born lives-- no matter how much money you bribe them with.
I'll never forget being in San Diego one year and have a comely stripper tell me she couldn't wait for the Comic Con to be over because, "The Republicans are coming to town and they're going to FLOOD this joint... and they're great tippers too."
Awww, Mike, were you getting all upset that nobody was talking about you. It's ok, poppet, lemme give some of the attention momma didn't:
You basic argument seem to be that you don't care what any Democrats did as long as it can be claimed that a Republican did far worse. Wow, most of us stopped using that one when it stopped working, say, third grade. For your sake I hope you're a precocious 2nd grader.
Mollohan: The donors to his charities won $179 million in government contracts. Why don't we see 100 times the outrage from you over the tens of billions in no-bid contracts handed over to Hitlerburton?
Not much of a defense of Mollohan is it? And no wonder; what Mike fails to mention is:
1- National Legal and Policy Center filed a 500 page ethics complaint against Mollohan for misrepresenting his assets on financial disclosure forms. Mollohan's real estate holdings and other assets have jumped in value from $562,000 in 2000 to at least $6.3 million in 2004.
From the complaint:
For the period 1996 through 2004, NLPC found that the Financial Disclosure Reports:
* repeatedly failed to disclose real estate assets which public records showed were owned by Mollohan and his wife
* repeatedly failed to disclose financial assets which public records showed were owned by Mollohan and his wife
* repeatedly failed to disclose major loans which were used in the acquisition of financial assets which were not being disclosed
* failed to disclose interests in companies which owned major assets
* grossly undervalued assets, giving purported valuations which were a small fraction of the assets’ true value
"The bottom line is Mollohan got very wealthy in a four year period. His account of his finances during this period is demonstrably false. The fact that he earmarked well over $100 million in tax dollars to groups associated with his business partner is about as big a red flag as one can imagine."
2- On April 7, 2006, The New York Times reported that Mollohan "has fueled five non-profit groups in his West Virginia district with $250 million in earmark funding"
3- On April 21, 2006, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi announced that Mollohan would temporarily step down as the Ranking Democrat on the House Ethics Committee. Howard Berman of California took Mollohan's place.
4- On April 25, 2006, The Wall Street Journal reported that Mollohan cooperated with CEO Dale R. McBride of FMW Composite Systems Inc. of Bridgeport, West Virginia for the joint purchase of his 300 acre farm along West Virginia's Cheat River. Mollohan had directed a $2.1 million government contract earmarked to FWM composite systems to develop lightweight payload pallets for space-shuttle missions. Federal Bureau of Investigation agents have started asking questions in Washington and West Virginia about Mollohan’s investments and whether they were properly disclosed, according to the Journal. Mollohan had previously acknowledged he may have made inadvertent mistakes on financial disclosure forms.
(this is all cut and pasted from Wikipedia, which is all the effort Mike deserves.)
None of this means that Mollohan belongs in jail. I'm just saying that maybe a smart person would not want someone with an ethics cloud hanging over their heads assume a position of power right after an election decided in large part on corruption.
But there will always be people like Mike that will vote right down the line, Republican or Democrat, without thinking. Whether there's enough of them, who knows. There are plenty of perfectly good Democrats in congress, why use tainted ones?
Murtha: he knew he was offered a bribe -- and he didn't take it. This is just more republican hatred and disgust of patriots who actually served their country in Vietnam who have the nerve to try and serve the public interest.
One should not take my word for it and I'm sure we ALL know that Mike has so far not demonstrated the ability to find his ass with both hands and a flashlight. Go to http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10427 for a (admittedly biased but useful) look at the actual transcript of the ABSCAM sting. Then go to http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10426 for the transcript, if you want to see for yourself.
It raises an interesting question; after a clear attempt to be bribed did he report it to the FBI? Nope. The Ethics Committee, of which he was a member? Nope. By Murtha's own story, he knew that a member of congress, Frank Thompson (from New Jersey. Knock me over with a feather) was corrupt. And. He. Did. Nothing.
NOT the guy I'd want in charge.
Incidentally those right wing nuts at the left-leaning Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) listed Murtha under Honorable Mention in its 20 Most Corrupt Members of Congress (one of only four Democrats listed on the site). The report cited Murtha's steering of defense appropriations to KSA Consulting, which employed his brother Robert, and the PMA Group, founded by Paul Magliocchetti, a former Murtha senior aide.
But He IS a Democrat, and that's good enough for Mike.
Hastings: Arrested and acquitted in an FBI sting where he accepted no bribe and received no money. As for his removal from office: "Senators could choose whatever standard of proof -- beyond a reasonable doubt, clear and convincing, or another measure -- they deemed appropriate." It's just too bad for Hastings he didn't just sit 4 years on reports the chair of the Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus was sexually harrassing the under-age pages. It's just too bad for Hastings he didn't just get caught doing something wrong.
Another weak argument and you have to sympathize with Mike on this one. Alcee is so corrupt it's almost like he's a character from the Simpsons. Google around about the guy and be prepared to laugh until you cry. Even his personal life is a mess--he owed his lawyer about a half million dollars form her defense of him. Luckily for him he lives with her. Unluckily for her it seems like everything he touches goes to hell. She was disbarred for mishandling client funds. But all's well that ends well and she gets 71K a year for being his Scheduler (4 grand more than his chief of staff gets).
But all you need to know about the guy is that he was impeached by some of the very people now considering putting him on the House Intelligence Committee. The U.S. House Of Representatives Voted 413-3 to impeach him. Had Mike been a member it would have been 412 to 4, just barely not enough for Alcee to prevail. As USA today wrote in an editorial "They cannot be serious. In 1988, Nancy Pelosi, the Congresswoman likely to become speaker of the House if Democrats recapture the majority, voted to impeach a federal judge named Alcee Hastings. So did Steny Hoyer, the front-runner to become majority leader. Now, 18 years later, these and other Democrats are weighing whether to make Hastings chairman of the House Intelligence Committee if they win in November (or ranking member if the Democrats fall short of the majority)." (Editorial, "Matters Of Choice," USA Today, 8/30/06)
This leaves Hoyer, who voted for the bankruptcy retooling -- like the republican majority who sponsored the bill in the first place.
Uh huh. See, unlike you, Mike, I don't just automatically accept every little thing that either party does as automatically right. It's harder that way, because you have to, you know, think, but trust me, it's better. Or, to put it in words you may understand: Baaaa baaa baaaaa baa baa. Ok?
If it's bad and about a republican, they are innocent until proven guilty. If it's bad and about a democrat, it's gotta be true. Typical.
Mike, illustrating the concept of projection. Take a bow, Mike.
And Mary Matalin doesn't call her husband "Serpentor," she calls him "Serpent Head." Put down the GI Joe before you hurt yourself.
Yeaaaaaahhhhhh....um, I'm not Mary Matalin. Thanks for playing.
Ok, is that enough attention for one night, Mike? Let's just all hope to God that Pelosi and the others in power are smarter than you are. It's a low bar but one that must be jumped.
Posted by: insideman at November 10, 2006 10:34 PM
And for those posters who question the abilities of Nancy Pelosi (HA! THAT's a real knee slapper! Have you bothered to question the abilities of your Commander in Chief lately?)-- you should be ashamed of yourselves. How could the FIRST FEMALE House Majority Leader be weak... or incompetent?!
Uhm... is there, like, some magic scroll or something that decreed that the first woman speaker can be neither weak nor incompetent? No? Well, then, she can indeed be weak or incompetent... if she's weak... or incompetent. It depends not on her gender, but on her actions.
Posted by: insideman at November 10, 2006 10:34 PM
We all know what you REALLY mean: That you question her abilities "...because she is a woman."
So, if she's a woman, she is inherently above criticism?
Look, you can get off your high horse and stop presuming to protect women everywhere. They're not china dolls. They can take the heat.
Anyone who can't... male or female... doesn't belong in Congress.
Posted by: insideman at November 10, 2006 10:34 PM
Just for that utterly unfounded, sexist attitude, I hope all your future hookers and/or girlfriends and/or wives refuse to cop your joints for the rest of your natural born lives-- no matter how much money you bribe them with.
Sounds like a bit of bitterness on your part towards those of us who are getting something you're not.
Posted by: insideman at November 10, 2006 10:34 PM
I'll never forget being in San Diego one year and have a comely stripper tell me she couldn't wait for the Comic Con to be over because, "The Republicans are coming to town and they're going to FLOOD this joint... and they're great tippers too."
Oh, well, that's all I need to hear. All Republicans are corrupt and all Democrats are angels. All because of the word of one stripper. Hey, that's all I need to hear (he said, dripping with sarcasm).
Insideman, Mike is irrelevant because he's a troll. You say you know you're "not irrelevant," but frankly you're on the verge of being incorrect, what with your puerile taunts.
Bill Mulligan -- there is NO reason to waste your time on Mike. No one who matters is taking him seriously. I'd rather read more illuminating posts from you about things like stem cell research -- posts which teach me something -- than watch you waste your impressive intellect sparring with Mike. Yes, you can cut Mike to shreds but it's a bit like watching someone club a parapalegic baby seal.
I mean, I too had fun cutting Mickey to shreds with my Onion-esque mock articles about him. But after awhile one realizes that shooting fish in a barrel isn't worth it precisely because it's so easy.
Normally I ignore Mike but in this case it gave me the opportunity to expand on my earlier post, so he was a useful idiot.
My point--too subtle for Mike to spot--was that the Democrats have a golden opportunity here and taking it would be good for the country, good for the Democrats and, long term, good for the Republicans as well. Or they can continue the cycle of incompetence and be willing to have a few years in power, a few years lost in the wilderness, a few years in power...
It's a different world and politicians should wise up. The information is out there. they can't hide as easily as they once did. Getting chummy with reporters doesn't protect you when a kid with a modem can tell the world what a scumbag you are. The fact that some idiots manage to fool enough voters into getting them elected doesn't mean you should put them in positions where they can harm the institution.
I thought insideman was kidding. Isn't it supposed to be a joke if you say that Republicans like strippers and you got this info from a stripper?
Mollohan: The donors to his charities won $179 million in government contracts. Why don't we see 100 times the outrage from you over the tens of billions in no-bid contracts handed over to Hitlerburton?Not much of a defense of Mollohan is it? And no wonder; what Mike fails to mention is:
1- National Legal and Policy Center filed a 500 page ethics complaint against Mollohan for misrepresenting his assets on financial disclosure forms. Mollohan's real estate holdings and other assets have jumped in value from $562,000 in 2000 to at least $6.3 million in 2004.
You haven't addressed where your 100-times outrage over Hitlerburton no-bids is.
As reported by CBS News 19 Nov 2004:
House Probes U.N.-Saddam Scam
The humanitarian program, begun in 1996, allowed Iraq to trade oil for goods to help Iraqis get food, medicine and other necessities that became scarce under strict U.N. economic sanctions imposed after the Gulf War. It was credited with preventing widespread starvation....Investigators who have been following a money trail say the former Iraqi president tapped secret bank accounts in Jordan -- where he collected bribes from foreign companies and individuals doing illicit business under the humanitarian program -- to reward the families [of suicide bombers] up to $25,000 each.
Halliburton received $73M for increasing Iraq's oil exports from $4B in 1997 to $18B in 2000. Considering the same oil-for-food kickbacks Saddam Hussien paid Halliburton with were funding his public promise to hire suicide bombers, I wonder what kept Dick Cheney from telling Hussein to go f*ck himself.
It raises an interesting question; after a clear attempt to be bribed did he report it to the FBI? Nope. The Ethics Committee, of which he was a member? Nope. By Murtha's own story, he knew that a member of congress, Frank Thompson (from New Jersey. Knock me over with a feather) was corrupt. And. He. Did. Nothing.NOT the guy I'd want in charge.
From the wikipedia entry Bill Mulligan cites:
He remained in the [Marine] Reserves after his discharge from active duty until he volunteered for service in the Vietnam War, serving from 1966 to 1967, serving as a battalion staff officer (S-2 Intelligence Section), receiving the Bronze Star with Valor device, two Purple Hearts and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. He retired from the Reserves as a colonel in 1990, receiving the Navy Distinguished Service Medal.
That's one more bronze star, two more purple hearts, one more cross of gallantry, one more distinguished service medal, and one more Marine than George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul wolfowitz, and Karl Rove put together.
And the best you can come up with, Bill Mulligan, are casual penny-ante lapses he disclosed to the FBI when things got formal for him -- which was the right thing to do. This is how you wish happy birthday to the US Marines?
Alcee is so corrupt it's almost like he's a character from the Simpsons. Google around about the guy and be prepared to laugh until you cry. Even his personal life is a mess--he owed his lawyer about a half million dollars form her defense of him.
Bush still owes Barry Richards $1 million for squashing the 2000 recount, dumbass.
But there will always be people like Mike that will vote right down the line, Republican or Democrat, without thinking.
And it doesn't take much to demonstrate that the ones who vote Republican do the least thinking of all.
And Mary Matalin doesn't call her husband "Serpentor," she calls him "Serpent Head." Put down the GI Joe before you hurt yourself.Yeaaaaaahhhhhh....um, I'm not Mary Matalin. Thanks for playing.
Yeah, Mary Matalin worked for George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove. Your devotion to the republicans is more like a hooker's devotion to the pimp who beats her. Who the hell knows what keeps you hanging on?
Mollohan: The donors to his charities won $179 million in government contracts. Why don't we see 100 times the outrage from you over the tens of billions in no-bid contracts handed over to Hitlerburton?Not much of a defense of Mollohan is it? And no wonder; what Mike fails to mention is:
1- National Legal and Policy Center filed a 500 page ethics complaint against Mollohan for misrepresenting his assets on financial disclosure forms. Mollohan's real estate holdings and other assets have jumped in value from $562,000 in 2000 to at least $6.3 million in 2004.
You haven't addressed where your 100-times outrage over Hitlerburton no-bids is.
As reported by CBS News 19 Nov 2004:
House Probes U.N.-Saddam Scam
The humanitarian program, begun in 1996, allowed Iraq to trade oil for goods to help Iraqis get food, medicine and other necessities that became scarce under strict U.N. economic sanctions imposed after the Gulf War. It was credited with preventing widespread starvation....Investigators who have been following a money trail say the former Iraqi president tapped secret bank accounts in Jordan -- where he collected bribes from foreign companies and individuals doing illicit business under the humanitarian program -- to reward the families [of suicide bombers] up to $25,000 each.
Halliburton received $73M for increasing Iraq's oil exports from $4B in 1997 to $18B in 2000. Considering the same oil-for-food kickbacks Saddam Hussien paid Halliburton with were funding his public promise to hire suicide bombers, I wonder what kept Dick Cheney from telling Hussein to go f*ck himself.
It raises an interesting question; after a clear attempt to be bribed did he report it to the FBI? Nope. The Ethics Committee, of which he was a member? Nope. By Murtha's own story, he knew that a member of congress, Frank Thompson (from New Jersey. Knock me over with a feather) was corrupt. And. He. Did. Nothing.NOT the guy I'd want in charge.
From the wikipedia entry Bill Mulligan cites:
He remained in the [Marine] Reserves after his discharge from active duty until he volunteered for service in the Vietnam War, serving from 1966 to 1967, serving as a battalion staff officer (S-2 Intelligence Section), receiving the Bronze Star with Valor device, two Purple Hearts and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. He retired from the Reserves as a colonel in 1990, receiving the Navy Distinguished Service Medal.
That's one more bronze star, two more purple hearts, one more cross of gallantry, one more distinguished service medal, and one more Marine than George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul wolfowitz, and Karl Rove put together.
And the best you can come up with, Bill Mulligan, are casual penny-ante lapses he disclosed to the FBI when things got formal for him -- which was the right thing to do. This is how you wish happy birthday to the US Marines?
Alcee is so corrupt it's almost like he's a character from the Simpsons. Google around about the guy and be prepared to laugh until you cry. Even his personal life is a mess--he owed his lawyer about a half million dollars form her defense of him.
Bush still owes Barry Richards $1 million for squashing the 2000 recount, moron.
But there will always be people like Mike that will vote right down the line, Republican or Democrat, without thinking.
And it doesn't take much to demonstrate that the ones who vote Republican do the least thinking of all.
And Mary Matalin doesn't call her husband "Serpentor," she calls him "Serpent Head." Put down the GI Joe before you hurt yourself.Yeaaaaaahhhhhh....um, I'm not Mary Matalin. Thanks for playing.
Yeah, Mary Matalin worked for George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove. Your devotion to the republicans is more like a hooker's devotion to the pimp who beats her. Who the hell knows what keeps you hanging on?
Mollohan: The donors to his charities won $179 million in government contracts. Why don't we see 100 times the outrage from you over the tens of billions in no-bid contracts handed over to Hitlerburton?Not much of a defense of Mollohan is it? And no wonder; what Mike fails to mention is:
1- National Legal and Policy Center filed a 500 page ethics complaint against Mollohan for misrepresenting his assets on financial disclosure forms. Mollohan's real estate holdings and other assets have jumped in value from $562,000 in 2000 to at least $6.3 million in 2004.
You haven't addressed where your 100-times outrage over Hitlerburton no-bids is.
As reported by CBS News 19 Nov 2004:
House Probes U.N.-Saddam Scam
The humanitarian program, begun in 1996, allowed Iraq to trade oil for goods to help Iraqis get food, medicine and other necessities that became scarce under strict U.N. economic sanctions imposed after the Gulf War. It was credited with preventing widespread starvation....Investigators who have been following a money trail say the former Iraqi president tapped secret bank accounts in Jordan -- where he collected bribes from foreign companies and individuals doing illicit business under the humanitarian program -- to reward the families [of suicide bombers] up to $25,000 each.
Halliburton received $73M for increasing Iraq's oil exports from $4B in 1997 to $18B in 2000: "http://www.washingtonpost.com/ ac2/wp-dyn? pagename=article &node= &contentId= A35751-2001Jun22". Considering the same oil-for-food kickbacks Saddam Hussien paid Halliburton with were funding his public promise to hire suicide bombers, I wonder what kept Dick Cheney from telling Hussein to go f*ck himself (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/24/cheney.leahy).
It raises an interesting question; after a clear attempt to be bribed did he report it to the FBI? Nope. The Ethics Committee, of which he was a member? Nope. By Murtha's own story, he knew that a member of congress, Frank Thompson (from New Jersey. Knock me over with a feather) was corrupt. And. He. Did. Nothing.NOT the guy I'd want in charge.
From the wikipedia entry Bill Mulligan cites:
He remained in the [Marine] Reserves after his discharge from active duty until he volunteered for service in the Vietnam War, serving from 1966 to 1967, serving as a battalion staff officer (S-2 Intelligence Section), receiving the Bronze Star with Valor device, two Purple Hearts and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. He retired from the Reserves as a colonel in 1990, receiving the Navy Distinguished Service Medal.
That's one more bronze star, two more purple hearts, one more cross of gallantry, one more distinguished service medal, and one more Marine than George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul wolfowitz, and Karl Rove put together.
And the best you can come up with, Bill Mulligan, are casual penny-ante lapses he disclosed to the FBI when things got formal for him -- which was the right thing to do. This is how you wish happy birthday to the US Marines?
Alcee is so corrupt it's almost like he's a character from the Simpsons. Google around about the guy and be prepared to laugh until you cry. Even his personal life is a mess--he owed his lawyer about a half million dollars form her defense of him.
Bush still owes Barry Richards $1 million for squashing the 2000 recount, dumbass: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Greenberg_Traurig
But there will always be people like Mike that will vote right down the line, Republican or Democrat, without thinking.
And it doesn't take much to demonstrate that the ones who vote Republican do the least thinking of all.
And Mary Matalin doesn't call her husband "Serpentor," she calls him "Serpent Head." Put down the GI Joe before you hurt yourself.Yeaaaaaahhhhhh....um, I'm not Mary Matalin. Thanks for playing.
Yeah, Mary Matalin worked for George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove. Your devotion to the republicans is more like a hooker's devotion to the pimp who beats her. Who the hell knows what keeps you hanging on?
Mollohan: The donors to his charities won $179 million in government contracts. Why don't we see 100 times the outrage from you over the tens of billions in no-bid contracts handed over to Hitlerburton?Not much of a defense of Mollohan is it? And no wonder; what Mike fails to mention is:
1- National Legal and Policy Center filed a 500 page ethics complaint against Mollohan for misrepresenting his assets on financial disclosure forms. Mollohan's real estate holdings and other assets have jumped in value from $562,000 in 2000 to at least $6.3 million in 2004.
You haven't addressed where your 100-times outrage over Hitlerburton no-bids is.
As reported by CBS News 19 Nov 2004:
House Probes U.N.-Saddam Scam
The humanitarian program, begun in 1996, allowed Iraq to trade oil for goods to help Iraqis get food, medicine and other necessities that became scarce under strict U.N. economic sanctions imposed after the Gulf War. It was credited with preventing widespread starvation....Investigators who have been following a money trail say the former Iraqi president tapped secret bank accounts in Jordan -- where he collected bribes from foreign companies and individuals doing illicit business under the humanitarian program -- to reward the families [of suicide bombers] up to $25,000 each.
Halliburton received $73M for increasing Iraq's oil exports from $4B in 1997 to $18B in 2000: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId= A35751-2001Jun22
Considering the same oil-for-food kickbacks Saddam Hussien paid Halliburton with were funding his public promise to hire suicide bombers, I wonder what kept Dick Cheney from telling Hussein to go f*ck himself (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ ALLPOLITICS/06/24/cheney.leahy).
It raises an interesting question; after a clear attempt to be bribed did he report it to the FBI? Nope. The Ethics Committee, of which he was a member? Nope. By Murtha's own story, he knew that a member of congress, Frank Thompson (from New Jersey. Knock me over with a feather) was corrupt. And. He. Did. Nothing.NOT the guy I'd want in charge.
From the wikipedia entry Bill Mulligan cites:
He remained in the [Marine] Reserves after his discharge from active duty until he volunteered for service in the Vietnam War, serving from 1966 to 1967, serving as a battalion staff officer (S-2 Intelligence Section), receiving the Bronze Star with Valor device, two Purple Hearts and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. He retired from the Reserves as a colonel in 1990, receiving the Navy Distinguished Service Medal.
That's one more bronze star, two more purple hearts, one more cross of gallantry, one more distinguished service medal, and one more Marine than George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul wolfowitz, and Karl Rove put together.
And the best you can come up with, Bill Mulligan, are casual penny-ante lapses he disclosed to the FBI when things got formal for him -- which was the right thing to do. This is how you wish happy birthday to the US Marines?
Alcee is so corrupt it's almost like he's a character from the Simpsons. Google around about the guy and be prepared to laugh until you cry. Even his personal life is a mess--he owed his lawyer about a half million dollars form her defense of him.
Are you on crack? Bush still owes Barry Richards $1 million for squashing the 2000 recount: http://www.sourcewatch.org/?title=Greenberg_Traurig
But there will always be people like Mike that will vote right down the line, Republican or Democrat, without thinking.
And it doesn't take much to demonstrate that the ones who vote Republican do the least thinking of all.
And Mary Matalin doesn't call her husband "Serpentor," she calls him "Serpent Head." Put down the GI Joe before you hurt yourself.Yeaaaaaahhhhhh....um, I'm not Mary Matalin. Thanks for playing.
Yeah, Mary Matalin worked for George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove. Your devotion to the republicans is more like a hooker's devotion to the pimp who beats her. Who the hell knows what keeps you hanging on?
Mollohan: The donors to his charities won $179 million in government contracts. Why don't we see 100 times the outrage from you over the tens of billions in no-bid contracts handed over to Hitlerburton?Not much of a defense of Mollohan is it? And no wonder; what Mike fails to mention is:
1- National Legal and Policy Center filed a 500 page ethics complaint against Mollohan for misrepresenting his assets on financial disclosure forms. Mollohan's real estate holdings and other assets have jumped in value from $562,000 in 2000 to at least $6.3 million in 2004.
You haven't addressed where your 100-times outrage over Hitlerburton no-bids is.
As reported by CBS News 19 Nov 2004:
House Probes U.N.-Saddam Scam
The humanitarian program, begun in 1996, allowed Iraq to trade oil for goods to help Iraqis get food, medicine and other necessities that became scarce under strict U.N. economic sanctions imposed after the Gulf War. It was credited with preventing widespread starvation....Investigators who have been following a money trail say the former Iraqi president tapped secret bank accounts in Jordan -- where he collected bribes from foreign companies and individuals doing illicit business under the humanitarian program -- to reward the families [of suicide bombers] up to $25,000 each.
Halliburton received $73M for increasing Iraq's oil exports from $4B in 1997 to $18B in 2000: www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId= A35751-2001Jun22
Considering the same oil-for-food kickbacks Saddam Hussien paid Halliburton with were funding his public promise to hire suicide bombers, I wonder what kept Dick Cheney from telling Hussein to go fuck himself (www.cnn.com/2004/ ALLPOLITICS/06/24/cheney.leahy).
It raises an interesting question; after a clear attempt to be bribed did he report it to the FBI? Nope. The Ethics Committee, of which he was a member? Nope. By Murtha's own story, he knew that a member of congress, Frank Thompson (from New Jersey. Knock me over with a feather) was corrupt. And. He. Did. Nothing.NOT the guy I'd want in charge.
From the wikipedia entry Bill Mulligan cites:
He remained in the [Marine] Reserves after his discharge from active duty until he volunteered for service in the Vietnam War, serving from 1966 to 1967, serving as a battalion staff officer (S-2 Intelligence Section), receiving the Bronze Star with Valor device, two Purple Hearts and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. He retired from the Reserves as a colonel in 1990, receiving the Navy Distinguished Service Medal.
That's one more bronze star, two more purple hearts, one more cross of gallantry, one more distinguished service medal, and one more Marine than George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul wolfowitz, and Karl Rove put together.
And the best you can come up with, Bill Mulligan, are casual penny-ante lapses he disclosed to the FBI when things got formal for him -- which was the right thing to do. This is how you wish happy birthday to the US Marines?
Alcee is so corrupt it's almost like he's a character from the Simpsons. Google around about the guy and be prepared to laugh until you cry. Even his personal life is a mess--he owed his lawyer about a half million dollars form her defense of him.
Are you on crack? Bush still owes Barry Richards $1 million for squashing the 2000 recount: www.sourcewatch.org/?title=Greenberg_Traurig
But there will always be people like Mike that will vote right down the line, Republican or Democrat, without thinking.
And it doesn't take much to demonstrate that the ones who vote Republican do the least thinking of all.
And Mary Matalin doesn't call her husband "Serpentor," she calls him "Serpent Head." Put down the GI Joe before you hurt yourself.Yeaaaaaahhhhhh....um, I'm not Mary Matalin. Thanks for playing.
Yeah, Mary Matalin worked for George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove. Your devotion to the republicans is more like a hooker's devotion to the pimp who beats her. Who the hell knows what keeps you hanging on?
Posted by Bill Mulligan at November 10, 2006 08:30 PMAlso, if it hasn't been mentioned already--Happy Veterens Day....
The reason it wouldn't be mentioned is because Veterans Day is November 11. It's nice to see you upholding the republican tradition of not serving in the military.
Happy Veterans Day.
Mike, thank you for proving my point. Your only answer to the charges of corruption by some Democrats is to point out corruption by some Republicans. Lame, so so lame.
You haven't addressed where your 100-times outrage over Hitlerburton no-bids is.
Is there any chance Nancy Peolosi is about to elevate someone who is working for Halliburton? No? Oh. See, that was the point. You aren't very smart, are you?
He remained in the [Marine] Reserves after his discharge from active duty until he volunteered for service in the Vietnam War, serving from 1966 to 1967, serving as a battalion staff officer (S-2 Intelligence Section), receiving the Bronze Star with Valor device, two Purple Hearts and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. He retired from the Reserves as a colonel in 1990, receiving the Navy Distinguished Service Medal.
I applaud his service to his country. None of which qualifies him to be House Leader, especially given his track record as a politician. That was the point. You aren't very smart, are you?
That's one more bronze star, two more purple hearts, one more cross of gallantry, one more distinguished service medal, and one more Marine than George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul wolfowitz, and Karl Rove put together.
Are any of these gentlemen up for House leadership roles? No? But...that was the point, Mike. You aren't very smart, are you?
Are you on crack? Bush still owes Barry Richards $1 million for squashing the 2000 recount: www.sourcewatch.org/?title=Greenberg_Traurig
And...this excuses Hastings how? You really aren't very smart, are you?
Yeah, Mary Matalin worked for George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove. Your devotion to the republicans is more like a hooker's devotion to the pimp who beats her. Who the hell knows what keeps you hanging on?
Ewww, Mike goes all sexual weird on us. Again. Boy, mom takes off the parental controls on the internet and first thing you do is go to the gutter. Grow up, why don't you? (and haven't you used this hooker/pimp line before? What's the matter, couldn't work OF MICE AND MEN into it?)
Anyhoo, Mike, I have no problem pointing out when Republicans are scum. Hell, I've been saying for some time now that they deserved to lose this November. You can look it up (it's not like you have a life). You, on the other hand, jump like a little lemming whenever a Democrat is criticized. Sad. It's why people like Marion Barry can get re-elected, they just have to find enough people who are so beholden to one party that they will put up with anything. I think that people like you are becoming a smaller and smaller percentage of the voting public so hopefully this will become less of a problem.
(I know, Bill Myers, I know. Most of the time I'd rather ignore the sap. And I know I have, ahem, projects that I should be working on. And I know it's like shooting fish in a barrel. But inside all of us there is that mean little voice that really sort of enjoys a flame war and who better to do it with than Mike, being as he isn't, you know, very smart, is he?)
The reason it wouldn't be mentioned is because Veterans Day is November 11.
By gosh, you are correct! That makes you potentially half as valuable as a stopped clock! Way to go, Mike!
G'night now, cherub.
PAD,
First, I admit I didn't believe this would happen, at least not by this much of a margin.
Second, while I have different reasons, I tend to think waiting till after the election was a smart move as well. Clearly he was ready for it, having someone already waiting.
Third, and most important: So, are you keeping the Freedom Clock? With Dems having BOTH the House and Senate, things have changed. To be honest, the biggest reason I hope you get rid of it is I have dial up at home and it makes this page load rather slow. But I am curious if you still feel there is no freedom. Personally, I felt when the Republicans took both houses during the Clinton years that it was the better than the current alternative of the Dems having the houses and us the White House.
Not to start a theological debate, but the one thing that has helped me no matter who is in power is the confidence that God is ultimately in control. So while I am rather sorry the Republicans lost, I am not perhaps as fearful as some were when the Republicans were in power.
Hmm. I wonder if this will change the ending of Marvel's Civil War?
Iowa Jim
As I told my conservative Mom this past Wednesday-- there's not a damned Democrat in the world who wants to see terrorists attack this country... Ever... And anybody who thinks that is a moron and a deluded asshole.
Geez, that must have made for some interesting dinner conversation, eh?
"Sweetie, can you pass the salt, please?"
"Mom, ANYBODY who believes that a terrorist attack on the U.S. is what the Democrats want is a moron and a deluded asshole!!"
"...okay, fine. Keep the salt."
Posted by: TallestFanEver at November 11, 2006 03:09 AM
Geez, that must have made for some interesting dinner conversation, eh?
"Sweetie, can you pass the salt, please?"
"Mom, ANYBODY who believes that a terrorist attack on the U.S. is what the Democrats want is a moron and a deluded asshole!!"
"...okay, fine. Keep the salt."
Aaaannndddd... the award for "Funniest Post in This Thread" goes to TallestFanEver, who owes me a new computer monitor (I spit orange juice all over mine as the result of laughing at your joke, damn you).
:)
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 11, 2006 01:32 AM
(I know, Bill Myers, I know. Most of the time I'd rather ignore the sap. And I know I have, ahem, projects that I should be working on. And I know it's like shooting fish in a barrel. But inside all of us there is that mean little voice that really sort of enjoys a flame war and who better to do it with than Mike, being as he isn't, you know, very smart, is he?)
Hey, I live in a glass house in this respect, so I'm not going to throw rocks. It is indeed fun pounding on trolls like Mickey. I'm tempted to begin anew, myself. But lately I've discovered it is also fun to watch what happens when you deny them the attention they so desperately crave. ;)
And, no, Mickey isn't very smart. But then again, I'm not that smart either in comparison to you. So, you know, it really isn't a fair comparison.
And I must say, knowing that you have an affection for making zombie movies and a better-than-layperson's understanding of stem cell research is something I find a bit... chilling. Please don't go all "Brain" on us a la "Pinky and the Brain."
The Freedom Clock represents the amount of time until Bush is out of office. Last I looked, he's still there.
PAD
Posted by: Mike at November 11, 2006 12:58 AM
The reason it wouldn't be mentioned is because Veterans Day is November 11. It's nice to see you upholding the republican tradition of not serving in the military.
Happy Veterans Day.
Of course, schools were closed yesterday in observance of the holiday, but, hey, let's sweat the small stuff so we forget the big stuff.
I vowed not to respond to you again but you have insulted a friend of mine. You can rag on me all you want, Mickey, but when you start impugning the honor of one of my friends -- someone you DON'T EVEN KNOW -- I draw the line, you little snot.
I know how old Bill Mulligan is. And I can tell you that THERE WAS NO DRAFT ON when he was of draft age. Lots of people don't volunteer for the army but that doesn't mean they wouldn't serve if called. I can tell you with certainty that if his nation had needed him to serve he'd have done so with distinction and honor because that's the kind of guy he is.
The kind of guy you are is a friendless little twit who feels the need to turn every disagreement into something personal. I know this won't get through to you. I know you'll do nothing but respond with insults that are tantamount to, "La la la I can't hear you la de da."
But that's okay, because this isn't about you, Mickey. You are irrelevant because you are a spineless, rotten, mean-spirited little turd who's insulted at least a half-dozen people here without cause.
This is about Bill Mulligan. He's very, very relevant because he's a decent guy. I can say that with certainty because I KNOW him. You DON'T and therefore what you have to say amounts to nothing more the self-aggrandizing bull of a very, very, very small person.
I very much doubt anyone who truly KNOWS you would come to your defense in a similar fashion. And if I'm correct (as I believe I am) have you ever bothered to ask yourself why?
Posted by: Peter David at November 11, 2006 07:43 AM
The Freedom Clock represents the amount of time until Bush is out of office. Last I looked, he's still there.
PAD
I don't understand why people are so bothered by the freedom clock. Whoever created it was simply expressing an opinion, and by incorporating it into his blog Peter is simply expressing the same opinion. Those of you who don't share that opinion aren't being injured or denied anything as a result.
My opinion? Peter should keep the freedom clock on his page if he wants, or ditch it if he doesn't.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 10, 2006 11:39 PM
I thought insideman was kidding. Isn't it supposed to be a joke if you say that Republicans like strippers and you got this info from a stripper?
insideman, if you were joking and it went over my head, I apologize.
I can see it now. Mr. Mulligan's going to increase his megalomania by a factor of 10, while every post from Mr. Myers is going to end with either "Zort!" or "Narf!"
"And for those posters who question the abilities of Nancy Pelosi (HA! THAT's a real knee slapper! Have you bothered to question the abilities of your Commander in Chief lately?)-- you should be ashamed of yourselves. How could the FIRST FEMALE House Majority Leader be weak... or incompetent?!
We all know what you REALLY mean: That you question her abilities '...because she is a woman.'"
To anyone has jumped on the anti-Pelosi wagon, and anyone who's swearing the Democrats are the firstsign of the Apocalypse, they've only been in their new positions for say, THIRTY SECONDS! Change takes time, and seeing if someone's good at a job takes longer! GIVE THEM TIME!
Posted by: Sean Scullion at November 11, 2006 08:30 AM
I can see it now. Mr. Mulligan's going to increase his megalomania by a factor of 10, while every post from Mr. Myers is going to end with either "Zort!" or "Narf!"
Well, Sean "The Poster Formerly Known as 'Rat'" Scullion, if it makes you feel any better I consider you a friend and will go to bat for you as well.
Zort! Narf!
Posted by: Sean Scullion at November 11, 2006 08:30 AM
To anyone has jumped on the anti-Pelosi wagon, and anyone who's swearing the Democrats are the firstsign of the Apocalypse, they've only been in their new positions for say, THIRTY SECONDS! Change takes time, and seeing if someone's good at a job takes longer! GIVE THEM TIME!
To be fair, she's been in Congress for more than 30 seconds, and it's also fair to speculate about her abilities based on her past performance as a congresswoman. And not all of her critics in this thread have said she's pre-destined to be a total bust. Bill Mulligan in particular merely expressed the hope that she'll play her cards better than he fears she will.
...let's sweat the small stuff so we forget the big stuff.
In defending you, Bill Mulligan, Bill Myers makes my point for me. The two of you aren't very smart, are you?
I vowed not to respond to you again...
These so-called "vows not to respond" must heighten the excitement while you circle-jerk in your crotchless shrouds. Bill Mulligan's "Baaaa baaa baaaaa"s must be some kind of kinky-speak you, Bill Mulligan, and Sean Scullion use to time your climaxes with.
...but you have insulted a friend of mine. You can rag on me all you want, Mickey, but when you start impugning the honor of one of my friends -- someone you DON'T EVEN KNOW -- I draw the line, you little snot....
I know this won't get through to you. I know you'll do nothing but respond with insults that are tantamount to, "La la la I can't hear you la de da."
Like how a group of defensive white guys deny "ANY racially motivated murder" matches the plain wording of "Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]" in the defninition of genocide, you needy closet eichmann?
Yeah, Mary Matalin worked for George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove. Your devotion to the republicans is more like a hooker's devotion to the pimp who beats her. Who the hell knows what keeps you hanging on?Ewww, Mike goes all sexual weird on us.
You heard it here, folks: beatings are sexual. Still taking your sex education from Rush Limbaugh, Bill Mulligan?
To quote John Malkovich's Lennie Small: "Thtop thqueaming! I jutht wanna pet you! Thtop thqueaming!"
The only problem I have with the freedom clock is that on some computers I have to wait when I call up the page and click some box 3 times that tells me it can't load java. If I don't the Internet Explorer locks up. I'm sure I could fix this but it isn't my computer and I've learned it isn't nice to dick around with someone elses settings.
Other than that, hey, It's PAD's blog. He can pt a jpg of tubgirl up there for all I care. (No, that's a joke. And I don't even know what tubgirl is but my imagination has come up with some very disturbing scenarios. No, it's ok, don't tell me.)
Bill Myers, my friend, I thank you. It's good to have people who think well of you, even though it means one has to live up to it.
If drafted would I have gone. Yeah, but I can't work up much dislike for those who did not. Vietnam was a stupid war, stupidly fought by people who left our men out to dry. The soldiers did well--they won every major battle, they inflicted heavy casualties on an enemy that showed great courage and determination (and was fighting on their own turf). But given the political climate and the competence of the leadership it was a doomed cause.
So why go? Well, if you don't some other guy does, that's one. That's the big one. And I do have an old fashioned "your country calls, you gotta go" mentality, probably from watching too many viewing of SANDS OF IWO JIMA or something.
And now I'm too old to volunteer, even though they keep extending the age they never quite extend it enough. And I would consider it, though my wife tells me the Iraqis would not get the chance to kill me once she did it.
(And, in all seriousness, I think they should allow just about any able bodied person to join. Yes, boot camp would kill me (obviously the Iraqis will have to take a number and wait in line). There's no way I can do what some guy half my age can do. Even if I was in better shape I would never be mistaken for the few, the proud. But most of the army is not at the front line. There are a lot of jobs I'd be perfectly good at. Maybe even better at than some 20 year old. If the prison guards at Abu Ghraib had been in their 40s I'll bet there would have been a lot less stupidity going on. At the very least I can push a pencil and shuffle papers with the best of them or work as a combat photographer or in the bio weapons dept or in training or in any 1 of 100 things that most of us people of longevity have been exposed to in our various journeys to the tomb.)
And, no, Mickey isn't very smart. But then again, I'm not that smart either in comparison to you. So, you know, it really isn't a fair comparison.
Wellll....I'm intelligent. That can be measured. Smart? Eh, I can point out a few instances in my past that call that into question! Don't sell yourself short,
Even Mike displays a certain intelligence now and again. Smart? Not even close. But while you are born with the intelligence you're stuck with, using it wisely tends to come with age. Let's hope to God he's still in his teens.
Geez, that must have made for some interesting dinner conversation, eh?
Tallestfanever, damn funniest thing I've read in day. That's TWO keyboards you are responsible for.
In defending you, Bill Mulligan, Bill Myers makes my point for me. The two of you aren't very smart, are you?
Imitation being the sincerest form of flattery, I thank you, sir. Now get some personal hygene, a good job, some friends and extensive plastic surgury and you can actually be me!
These so-called "vows not to respond" must heighten the excitement while you circle-jerk in your crotchless shrouds. Bill Mulligan's "Baaaa baaa baaaaa"s must be some kind of kinky-speak you, Bill Mulligan, and Sean Scullion use to time your climaxes with.
Uh-oh, Mike been hanging around those websites again.
And Craig, apparently you scared him off pretty well, he neglects to include you in the axis of evil...though maybe you should feel bad about that...
Like how a group of defensive white guys deny "ANY racially motivated murder" matches the plain wording of "Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]" in the defninition of genocide, you needy closet eichmann?
Mike, still denying his basic nature. Let's see...weird sexual references? Check. Racism? Check. Desperate attempt to prove that he's read a big boy’s book like OF MICE AND MEN? Che...oh, wait. He hasn't done that...
To quote John Malkovich's Lennie Small: "Thtop thqueaming! I jutht wanna pet you! Thtop thqueaming!"
THERE we go! Check!
You have a very limited repertoire, Mike. You'd think you'd be better at it.
Now comes the time on Sprockets where we dan...I mean, now comes the time where I tell you, ahem, "It's been fun making you look stupid (And thanks for the help) but I fear we've hijacked another perfectly good thread so I will now ignore any further comments from you and allow you the oh so important last word without any acknowledgement of your existence. You will probably respond with ever more desperate attempts to make me break this statement by attacking my friends, children, wife, or any other type relationship that you can only read about in books. I will continue to ignore you until, at the very earliest, the next thread where you say something stupid (which is to say, the next thread). So long, sayonara, hors dourve."
The two of you aren't very smart, are you?Imitation being the sincerest form of flattery, I thank you, sir.
You heard it here, folks: Bill Mulligan invented the "you're stupid" come back. The invention of the wheel is pending.
These so-called "vows not to respond" must heighten the excitement while you circle-jerk in your crotchless shrouds. Bill Mulligan's "Baaaa baaa baaaaa"s must be some kind of kinky-speak you, Bill Mulligan, and Sean Scullion use to time your climaxes with.Uh-oh, Mike been hanging around those websites again.
Yeah, the website is PeterDavid.net held hostage by Bills' closeted perversions:
Dude, those were topics all introduced here by you and Bill Myers, with whom you have a sharing relationship. With your blaming me for all this, you are back-asswardly securing your sexual freedom with your own faux Saruman-like protestations.
...though my wife tells me the Iraqis would not get the chance to kill me once she did it.
Well, your wife killing you is what you get for marrying her in the style of Borat marrying Pamela Anderson.
To be honest, the biggest reason I hope you get rid of [the freedom clock] is I have dial up at home and it makes this page load rather slow.
I have dial-up, and the page loads fine for me in firefox and ie, on a 7-year-old computer. If you have anything more primitive, you should just surf pages with your images and scripting disabled. You don't have a problem with just Peter's pages, but with the whole internet.
Ahem. Steering back to sanity: I would have loved to have seen Colin Powell replace Rumsfeld. I know full well the probability of that happening was pretty close to nil, what with the shabby treatment Powell received from Bush, and the fact that getting Powell back probably would've required Bush to get down on his knees and beg. And for it to have been meaningful, Bush would have had to offer Powell the kind of authority and autonomy he gave to the undeserving Rumsfeld.
Call it the fantasy football of politics -- I just think Powell would've been a great choice, even though it could never happen.
I'm not sure that Powell would want the job regardless. It's not one that has a high liklihood of success.
At any rate Powell is very clearly a person who is willing to forego power and prestige. This is the guy who, quite possibly, could have been president. He quite undeniably could have taken the job of vice president from either party and been the factor that would have made a difference. Anyone not think a Kerry/Powell ticket would have won? Or a Bush/Powell ticket (by an even bigger margin)?
It's unusual to see someone willing to pass that up.
"Posted by: insideman at November 10, 2006 10:34 PM
We all know what you REALLY mean: That you question her abilities "...because she is a woman.""
Yeah, because we all know that we spent soooo much time on this site and elsewhere questioning the abilities of those in power JUST because they were women. Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Wolfie..... Oh, wait.. They're all men. What were we thinking when we were questioning them?
"Posted by: Mike at November 11, 2006 12:58 AM
The reason it wouldn't be mentioned is because Veterans Day is November 11. It's nice to see you upholding the republican tradition of not serving in the military."
Yeah, because nobody ever says Merry Christmas, Happy Thanksgiving, Happy Halloween, Happy Easter or Happy New Year a day or two before the actual event.
"If the prison guards at Abu Ghraib had been in their 40s I'll bet there would have been a lot less stupidity going on."
At a certain point a group of middle aged reserve soldiers in the Israeli army volunteered to serve at checkpoints in order to prevent some of the tentions and abuses going on in the roadblocks, because they felt they could handle the tension better than young soldiers. I don't know how well it turned out, and if it's stil going on. Some might say that it was a PR trick.
A left wing group of mostly middle aged women have been going to roadblocks to monitor and try to prevent abuses there. I know one of them, but ever since I walked away from such activities I don't know what's going on, and I don't feel much enthusiasm to go back. Although, my own pssivity, nor some criticism I have against them, shouldn't take away from their work.
"But most of the army is not at the front line. There are a lot of jobs I'd be perfectly good at. Maybe even better at than some 20 year old. At the very least I can push a pencil and shuffle papers with the best of them."
I've been feeling kind of bad recently that I didn't volunteer to the reserves after I got out of the army (as a volunteer, I was not physically fit to regular service). I never thought they'd have much use for me, but obviously Bill is right. Not one of my finest moments. I really should do something about it. Damn my passivity.
On a different note, it's a shame that the discussion here took a turn to the vicious. I realize that Mike's hot temper and aggressive attitude have something to do with this, but maybe we can do something to prevent further problems? Maybe not. I don't know.
Also, if it hasn't been mentioned already--Happy Veterens Day....The reason it wouldn't be mentioned is because Veterans Day is November 11. It's nice to see you upholding the republican tradition of not serving in the military.
Yeah, because nobody ever says Merry Christmas, Happy Thanksgiving, Happy Halloween, Happy Easter or Happy New Year a day or two before the actual event.
I was in the military and we didn't say "Happy Veterans Day" even on Veterans Day. What is your problem?
He remained in the [Marine] Reserves after his discharge from active duty until he volunteered for service in the Vietnam War, serving from 1966 to 1967, serving as a battalion staff officer (S-2 Intelligence Section), receiving the Bronze Star with Valor device, two Purple Hearts and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. He retired from the Reserves as a colonel in 1990, receiving the Navy Distinguished Service Medal.I applaud his service to his country. None of which qualifies him to be House Leader, especially given his track record as a politician.
Yeah, it's one thing to feign interest in a Vietnam vet's experience or wish the Marines a happy birthday, but when the country's at war, and the president is reluctant to take advice from anyone who actually served in uniform, you better know your place, which is to serve at the pleasure of the people who shook hands with Saddam Hussein and took $73 million from him when he publicly offered bounties to suicide bombers by quadrupling his oil revenues.
"I applaud his service to his country. None of which qualifies him to be House Leader..." how much more patently stupid do things get with you?
On a different note, it's a shame that the discussion here took a turn to the vicious. I realize that Mike's hot temper and aggressive attitude have something to do with this, but maybe we can do something to prevent further problems? Maybe not. I don't know.
Play with him and then ignore him. It works.
On a more constructive note, it's too bad that there aren't more opportunities for older people to serve. Of course, once you have a wife, kids, job, mortgage, it will be harder to do the sort of things that a younger person with fewer ties can accomplish.
Micha, what did you do in the army? I know every Israeli is expected to serve but what do they do with the average Joe who is just not combat material?
Also, what is the Israeli policy on gun ownership? Given the high likelihood of war is everyone expected to own a gun or are their provisions to arm civilians if things get very bad? People here talk about owning guns as if there is a snowballs chance in hell that there could ever be a RED DAWN situation where they have to fight a guerilla war against the armed might of, I don't know, Martians or something, but in Israel that is not exactly a crazy concept.
Posted by: Micha at November 11, 2006 01:08 PM
On a different note, it's a shame that the discussion here took a turn to the vicious. I realize that Mike's hot temper and aggressive attitude have something to do with this, but maybe we can do something to prevent further problems? Maybe not. I don't know.
I have to accept a degree of responsibility. I'm the one who set him off most recently. And I'm clearly one of his favorite targets.
Rather than making promises that I'm too easily tempted to break, I'll try instead to take a smaller step in the right direction. I've been allowing Mike to unduly influence my emotional state and the tenor and content of many of my recent posts. I will endeavor to remember that I don't have to let him have that kind of influence over me -- I can choose when, where, and how to respond.
"I was in the military...."
Yes, I know. And you had soooo much respect for the military that you have since stated things like you having felt that you were the only reliably sane person there.
Now, go slurp on some chicken soup and let the adults talk.
"The Freedom Clock represents the amount of time until Bush is out of office. Last I looked, he's still there."
True. However, removing would have been a nice symbol of graciousness and nonpartisanship. An acknowledgement that things are going to change since the Congress is going to switch hands in January. All about being "uniters," not "dividers." That sort of thing. After all, even the Democratic leadership is, at least for the time being, treating President Bush like the president and not some hated moronic villain.
I thought about asking you to remove the Freedom Clock as well. I thought it would be just a nice thing to do. I still think that way. But it has since occurred to me that the Freedom Clock now serves a new function for me when I visit your web site -It's now counting down the number of days until the Republicans take back the Congress.
So while I think it would be big of you to remove it, it really doesn't matter to me one way or the other anymore.
Bill (Myers), we can only try.
"Micha, what did you do in the army? I know every Israeli is expected to serve but what do they do with the average Joe who is just not combat material?"
Each soldier has a fitness profile. The highest is 97, I think, the lowest 21. Obviously most people are not 97, pilot or infantry material. But then you have tanks, artillery, intelligence, radar operators, and many other jobs, and much clerical work. So there are jobs for the less fit. I have diabetes, so my profile is 21. I was not required to serve, but I volunteered. However, I didn't go through even the lowest grade of basic training, and I didn't even have a gun. So basically what work in a job while wearing uniform. I worked in a printing press. Not very impressive. Most people in my base were not exactly combat: clerks, photographers, printers, map makers, secretaries, intelligence, communication and so forth. One of my sisters was a laison to the UN (because of the English), the other a programer. I also served only two years, instead of the three. For some reason, they only sign volunteers for two, and although I went to the army planning to add the extra year, by the time I came out the spirit of volunteerism was replaced with the typical attitude of soldier just doing his job and waiting for his service to end. When I came out I also did not volunteer for reserves (which is also required from most people). I rationalized it by saying that there was not much use for me. Most of the reservists in the printing press were professional s, and I wasn't planning to follow that career + the reservists were realy bored and underfoot + it wasn't exactly as if I was going to do something important + at the time we thought peace was near. Afterwards I was also active in Peace Now, which is not anti-army, but the atmosphere was not pro-army either at the time. But it always bothered me a bit.
"Also, what is the Israeli policy on gun ownership?"
I am not exactly sure what the policies are. People own and carry handguns. I suppose many people who work in private security companies do. But civilians don't keep weapons at home for the eventuality of a war, nor are all civilians trained, only the ones that were in the army, which is not everybody. I haven't heard talk about distributing guns to civilians either. If there is a war that requires massive manpower, reservists are called to their units. When I was a child they've had drills where units codes were called on TV, and people went to their units. But now I think they don't use the TV anymore. Small settlements have a civilan whose job is security. I'm not exactly sure what they do, as I live in a city. It is possible that such settlements have armories, maybe, I don't know. Maybe other Israelis, whose lives are less sheltered than mine do. People who live in settlements in the west bank are issued and carry assault rifles.
Considering the ownership of handguns. If you walk in the street you might see more than one person wearing a handgun. This became more commo
n in the early 90's when there were quite a few incidents of stabbing by Palestinians. But I can only recall one case when such a gun was used in such a situation, and I'm not sure why people get these guns, or if they do it because of the security situation. They don't do it because they expect to fight against an invasion. During the more recent problems with suicide bombers there was much demand for private security in buses, restaurants, movie theaters. Recently I was at a bus and I saw a young woman wearing a cute pink sweatshirt, jeans, and a white braided leather belt, and on the belt was a gun. She was probably working in a security company, maybe in the university. I thought it was a funny image. Hunting is not very common among Israelis, but it does exist. I don't know what the rules are about the rifles they use.
To sum up, Israelis don't have the cultural associations Americans have toward guns, but on the other hand, since armed soldiers walk the street, it is not strange for us to see people walking around with guns. Yet I've never heard anybody talk about fear of invasion or the need for guerrila warfare. Maybe because the mental distance between the army and civilian life is much smaller.
Anyway, short question, long answer.
Sean Scullion wrote: "To anyone has jumped on the anti-Pelosi wagon, and anyone who's swearing the Democrats are the firstsign of the Apocalypse,..."
It's funny a religious nutbar sadly told me right after Clinton got elected for his second term "whoas us, Clinton is the devil and will issue in Armageddon..."
Six years later this religious nutbar in a fit of what can only be called religious stupidity "George Bush will bring on the Second coming and I'll be going home..."
Well the last I looked Clinton did not bring on the apocalypse and Shrub is failing at his religiously appointed task of brining on the apocalypse to be followed by the second coming. Now my question is why was the apocalypse bad during Clinton's time, but desired during Shrubs tenure?
>True. However, removing would have been a nice symbol of graciousness and nonpartisanship.
Peter, my vote is keep it up, keep it counting. Graciousness and nonpartisanship? The day before the voting (and probably the day of the voting but I didn't listen to the news about shrub on Tuesday) Shrub was labeling democrats as "A vote for terrorists". I'd suggest if you want graciousness you get Shrub to apologize for labeling half the country as traitors for the last 5 years.
Otherwise freedom is when we get someone in the white house who realizes that people are not terrorists if they don't agree with your often wrong opinions and lies.
>An acknowledgement that things are going to change since the Congress is going to switch hands in January. All about being "uniters," not "dividers."
It's funny being dictated to, about "unity" by someone who supports the greatest divider in the modern history of this country.
>After all, even the Democratic leadership is, at least for the time being, treating President Bush like the president and not some hated moronic villain.
Hopefully that wont last long, I voted for candidates that said they would start impeachment hearings and hopefully we will see that sometime in January.
>I thought it would be just a nice thing to do.
yes like it was so nice for the last 5 years to be labeled as a liberal "terrorist lover", "freedom hater", a person who offers "support to terrorists" just by being a liberal and in opposition to Shrub's policies and "A vote for the democrats is a vote for the terrorists" and by his sicophants "traitor".
Where was you call for the last 5 years for your chosen president "to be nice"?
Nice would have been trying to open a dialog with those who opposed his methods and finding a mutual ground that both sides could agree on. Instead we get the great divider who labeled those and name called an intimidated those who did not agree with him. For that matter even though he is the president, he doesn't allow anyone but hand picked supporters to be allowed into his speeches anywhere and if you manage to get in you are arrested (just for having a differing opinion) as has happened ever time he appears in my town.
"Hopefully that wont last long, I voted for candidates that said they would start impeachment hearings and hopefully we will see that sometime in January."
No, hopefully we won't.
It is 24 months until we vote for a new President. I can live with him as a lame duck that long. Let him end up facing charges for the things he may have done after he leaves office.
Why? Well, look at what you're talking about here. The Democrats take over in late January. Lets say they start the push for impeachment hearings by Feb. 1. they could be fighting that fight for two to three months easy and not have enough votes to impeach Bush. They do, after all, have to get the moderates on their side.
And that could be a problem. Why? Because they'll be looking at the result of a Bush impeachment. We'll be left in the loving hands of President Cheney. That's the man who, if all reports are true, wanted to keep Rummy on and isn't as swift on the idea of playing nice-nice with the Dems.
What? Oh, you think we should just impeach him right after we're done with Bush? Sure, that's gonna fly. Lets impeach two Presidents within six to eight months of each other. You'll never get the moderates onboard for that little war and you'll have spent damned near the entire year fighting over that rather then doing anything for the troops abroad or the people at home.
Plus, hopefully, the Democrats are smarter then that. They know what the chances are of them getting swept back out of power the next go round if they make a power play like that. They know how long they may stay out of power if they put the country through something like that rather then putting their focus on Iraq, the troops, the War on Terror and homefront issues.
And, skip bringing up the Clinton impeachment to argue this. The world wasn't going through what it is now back then. People will react to it in a different manner.
Besides, as I said above, why throw away the time and the political capitol they have now? Bush was a bully when he held all the power. He doesn't have it all now.
He may well start playing better with others for his last two years in office. Lets wait and see. He's already done two things that everyone claimed he would never do by throwing Rummy on his sword and standing up to Uncle Dicky.
Jerry C--you're smart. That's exactly the right kind of thinking teh Democrats should be doing (and from everything I've seen, they are). Pelosi has said she doesn't want impeachment. Conyers, presumed to become chairman of the House Judiciary Committee said that impeachment "is off the table.", and Howard Dean told John Stewart "I know half the audience wants us to impeach the President and all that kind of stuff but we're not gonna do that - we're not gonna do that."
So it would apear that anyone who voted for that eventuality may be in for a letdown.
Hunting is not very common among Israelis, but it does exist. I don't know what the rules are about the rifles they use.
Thanks for your long answer Micha, that's why it's so great to have people from all over the world here. Now to reveal my ignorance once again--wht would one hunt in Israel if one were hunting?
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 11, 2006 06:52 PM
Now to reveal my ignorance once again--wht would one hunt in Israel if one were hunting?
Pssst... Micha... tell him you hunt "snipe," and then invite him to come hunting with you...
Pssst... Micha... tell him you hunt "snipe," and then invite him to come hunting with you...
Very funny. You can kiss goodbye that left-handed screwdriver I was going to buy for your birthday.
>Let him end up facing charges for the things he may have done after he leaves office.
Highly unlikely after he is gone, the time to get him or Cheney is now.
>We'll be left in the loving hands of President Cheney.
Actually he should be the first target, Shrub is the pupet Cheney the mastermind.
>They know what the chances are of them getting swept back out of power the next go round if they make a power play like that.
Highly unlikely. However it is more likely if they get nothing done which is exactly where we are headed. Have you not been listening to the conservative side, Peter's is not the only blog on the net? I have found very few, except when they show up posting comments in liberal blogs willing to "work" with anyone. Shrub's speech the next day gave lip service to cooperation, as in you work with my ideals, not finding middle ground.
The troups will not be coming home under Bush, he'd veto that bill and fight it tooth and nail. And really no democrat made that promise, when it comes right down to it.
The only way to bring this mess to the end is expose it for the world to see. The only way to do that is to start impeachment and get the subpoenas flying, otherwise Shrub keeps it hidden under executive privelage.
Finally there is no real political capitol they have to spend. Bush is a lame duck, he has nothing to loose. The democrats do not have enough of a majority for an overrule of a veto and they are still facing a sizable number of radical conservatives. Yes we got rid of several radicals, but we also got rid of several moderate republicans. Bush has never cared about his ratings or the public opinion. He has always done as he wished.
I don't agree with PAD, Bush didn't exit Rummy because it "was the right thing to do", he exited him for future political gain. I'd lay good money on if congress had remained Republican, Rummy would still have a job. Which would you want people to think, Rummy was on his way out but I lied because I hadn't met his replacement yet or Rummy is the sacraficial lamb we will be blaming everything on for the foreseeable future? I have no doubt that the decision to off Rummy was made at 12:01 AM Wednesday. Already the conservatives are blaming him for everything no matter how little involvement he had in it.
>He may well start playing better with others for his last two years in office.
Don't count on it. I know of very few bullys that changed their stripes because someone knocked them down. What we will see now is the return of the pre 9-11 White House when Shrub had no power then. What did he do? Whined about the evils of the democrats and how he couldn't accomplish anything because of them. Instead of blaming clinton he'll just blame Rummy.
"Hunting is not very common among Israelis, but it does exist. I don't know what the rules are about the rifles they use.
Thanks for your long answer Micha, that's why it's so great to have people from all over the world here. Now to reveal my ignorance once again--wht would one hunt in Israel if one were hunting?"
I'm happy to be helpful. It is not ignorance, we are after all a very small faraway country, even if a loud one at times.
I'm very ignorant of hunting myself. I don't really know what people hunt here. I actually don't know much about wildlife in general. All I can tell you is that Israel is a crossroad for birds going north and south. It is also an interesting place because you have different ecological environments next to each other. As I understand it, Israel reintrudecd some animals that got hunted out of the country over the centuries. We have a few very small wildlife preserves. But beyond that I'll have to ask somebody else.
Just to reveal my ignorance, I'm not exactly sure what a snipe is. I think it's a bird, but I couldn't recognize a snipe if I saw it. In any case, Israel is worth seeing for its wildlife among other things, but I don't know about the hunting. Maybe. Birdwatching yes.
Brian, even if you don't believe all those Democrats when they say that they have no desire to impeach Bush you have to see the reality taht it won't happen. The numbers aren't there. And if they did impeach him they have nowhere near the numbers to remove him. I doubtthey could even get most of the Democrat senators to go along. It's not worth wishing for.
Micha, a snipe is indeed a type of bird. It is extremely elusive and very hard for even the best of hunters to nail one.
A "snipe hunt," however, is a practical joke where an inexperienced hunter or camper is told by his more experienced buddies to catch a snipe using some ridiculously absurd method like carrying a bag or making idiotic noises.
And Bill Mulligan, I'm right-handed.
Just to reveal my ignorance, I'm not exactly sure what a snipe is. I think it's a bird, but I couldn't recognize a snipe if I saw it.
Part of me wants to keep you in the dark for future potential mischief but you're a nice guy so...
There actually IS a bird called a snipe but to most of us a snipe is a mythical bird that is used to make fun of city slickers, tenderfoots, and other reprobates. The basic gag is this: while camping out you announce that all will participate in a "Snipe Hunt". The snipe, it is said, is that most elusive of beasts but easily caught by those who know the tricks to catching them.
Now this is where one must accurately judge the gullibility of the target. The rules to catching snipes are usually both patently ridiculous and designed to get the target hopelessly lost in the woods. One varient is that snipes, which only come out at night, are amazingly sensitive to the whites of the eyes. Thus, one must hunt them blindfolded. Often pillowcases are used and the snipe will fly into the pillowcase if one uses the proper snipe call, which is usually "snipe".
So what you end up with is some poor kid from exotic places like India or Queens, stumbling around the woods blindfolded, smacking into trees and patches of poison ivy, all the while yelling out "Snipe! Snipe! Snipe!" while the rest of you wet your pants in helpless mirth.
Cruel, yes, but it is the Way of Guys. There is also the Frazier Varient where one pretends to be going along with the snipe hunt only to drive away after dumping the would be pranksters in the middle of nowhere. Extra points if they are not wearing pants when you do so.
If you're REALLY good we'll tell you about cow-tipping.
>And if they did impeach him they have nowhere near the numbers to remove him.
Did the republicans have the votes to impeach Clinton? No. Did they still do it? Yes? When the House impeached it was a forgone conclusion the Senate would not exit him from office. Yet the Republicans did exactly that.
As for wishing, two years ago the republicans were declaring the death of liberalism and their ascendancy of total control. I lost count of how many Republicans told me that wishing for control of either house was a joke last March. Two weeks ago, control of the Senate was "nearly impossible". The day of, even the Democrats weren't all that enthused about control of the Senate, ranking it a slim possiblity.
And now we have the possible flood gate opening on the most crooked, underhanded, corrupt administration since the early 1930's. Not worth wishing for? VERY WORTH DEMANDING that those we put into office, do their jobs. And if they fail, boot the bums out come their next election.
Yeah, because nobody ever says Merry Christmas, Happy Thanksgiving, Happy Halloween, Happy Easter or Happy New Year a day or two before the actual event.I was in the military and we didn't say "Happy Veterans Day" even on Veterans Day. What is your problem?
Yes, I know. And you had soooo much respect for the military that you have since stated things like you having felt that you were the only reliably sane person there.
What the fuck are you talking about?
So if I catch a group of defensive white guys who never served in uniform denying "ANY racially motivated murder" matches the plain wording of "Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]" in the defninition of genocide, I'm anti-military? What color is the sky in your world?
"Have you not been listening to the conservative side..."
Yes, I have. The hard right has said many things. That doesn't change the fact that Bush may see his options in a different way then he did one week ago. You no more know for sure that he does anymore then I know that he doesn't. Time will tell.
"The troups will not be coming home under Bush, he'd veto that bill and fight it tooth and nail. And really no democrat made that promise, when it comes right down to it."
No, they won't be coming home in the next two years. Nor should they. The false world Bush created three years ago has become the real world today. Bush claimed that Iraq was a threat when it was little more then a joke. Now, Iraq could very well be a threat to U.S. safety if we just drop everything and walk away so that others can fill the void we created in removing Saddam.
"The only way to bring this mess to the end is expose it for the world to see. The only way to do that is to start impeachment and get the subpoenas flying, otherwise Shrub keeps it hidden under executive privelage."
Ok, lets expose the mess for the world to see. Nothing changes. The world has seen this mess and Bush for what they are for far longer then most Americans. Impeachment will not make anyone see anything more clearly other then maybe the conservatives who see Democrats as people that they hate. It also does nothing to bring this mess to an end.
Lets remove Bush and Cheney and put Pelosi in the White House. We're still in Iraq and Afghanistan and we still face the problems that Bush created in Iraq in the first place. Nothing changes other then we flush time and effort that could be going to working on those issues down the crapper because some have a mad on for impeachment.
Speaking of which....
"The democrats do not have enough of a majority for an overrule of a veto and they are still facing a sizable number of radical conservatives. Yes we got rid of several radicals, but we also got rid of several moderate republicans."
Yes, we got rid of a number of moderate Republicans and kept a number of moderate Democrats (and two indies). What makes you think they can get enough support to impeach by next Spring? What makes you think they could do it twice in one year?
"Finally there is no real political capitol they have to spend. Bush is a lame duck, he has nothing to loose."
Screw Bush. The political capitol is with the people and some in the party out of power who will still be there when Bush leaves. They can work with some of the moderate Republicans on changing some things to correct what has gone wrong and to move Iraq in the right, if there is such a thing at this point, direction only if they don't overplay their cards.
Plus, the Dems still have to deal with the fact that they came into power because of votes against the Republicans rather then for the Dems. They can ride that right and turn it into support for themselves if they don't screw up too badly in the next two years or play to the idiots in the most extreme of the lib base. If they do that, well, then they can kiss votes from the moderates and the mad-at-Bush conservatives that put them in power last week goodbye.
"I know of very few bullys that changed their stripes because someone knocked them down."
I never said that he would fully change his stripes. But I have knocked more then one bully into the dirt and they rarely got up wanting to fight with me much more after that. Bush no longer has the power he had before. He's getting up off of the ground and seeing that he just got his nose broken. Oh, he'll puff up his chest and beat it a lot in the near futre. I have no doubt of that. I just don't think that his stands will be as firm or as extreme.
I point to this to back that up....
"I'd lay good money on if congress had remained Republican, Rummy would still have a job."
"I have no doubt that the decision to off Rummy was made at 12:01 AM Wednesday."
That kind of undercuts some of what you said. Even YOU think that Rummy would still have a job if the elections had gone the other way. That wouldn't be the case if Bush wasn't going to change at all.
Bush, as I said above, has already done things that everyone claimed he would never do by throwing Rummy on his sword, replacing Rummy with a guy that doesn't think like Rummy or his pals do and standing up to Uncle Dicky. Bush is looking at the landscape and seeing the need for change. How much or how long the change is waits to be seen.
Bush is looking at a new political world. Maybe he will work in it. Maybe he won't. You want to make it really easy for him stamp his feet and be a twit? Get the man support that he lost by getting the extreme left to fight for impeachment and getting us out of Iraq right now without so much as a second thought as to what that will do to us down the road. Then you can thank yourselves down the road when the Republicans once again own all three keys to power and the Dems are again the cranky minority that couldn'y get it right.
"What color is the sky in your world?"
Right now? Jet black with patches of dark deep blue. We're overcast.
Did the republicans have the votes to impeach Clinton? No. Did they still do it? Yes? When the House impeached it was a forgone conclusion the Senate would not exit him from office. Yet the Republicans did exactly that.
And clinton remained president. So...what exactly is it that makes you think that it will be different with Bush?
And it didn't really work out so great for the Republicans anyway so why would the Democrats want to repeat that mistake?
And if not impeaching Bush is all it takes for you to boot them out you'd best get them boots laced up because right now the Democratic leaders are falling all over themselves denying that they have any such plans. I'd be willing to make a wager that Bush is not impeached and I never bet unless I'm pretty sure I'm going to win. It would be a huge mistake and so far the Democrats have been playing it pretty smart (save for the puzzling petty sniping going on at some of the left blogs--they seem to be ready to string up James Carville for some reason).
"A "snipe hunt," however, is a practical joke where an inexperienced hunter or camper is told by his more experienced buddies to catch a snipe using some ridiculously absurd method like carrying a bag or making idiotic noises."
Yes, now that you mention it I think I've heard the term. I would also make an excellent target for this kind of prank. I come from a long line of city slickers on my mother's side. She's actually from Queens.
---------------
Is there actually any legal basis for impeachment against Bush? He's done a terrible job, but are you sure he's done anything impeachable?
----------------
Enough already with the genocide thing. The definition lists several ways of performing genocide, one of which is killing (a lot of) people belonging to a race. It does not mean that killing people belonging to a race is genocide. The term also includes giving babies of one ethnic group to be adopted by members of the other, but nobody is going to accuse Angelina Jolie or Madonna of genocide. At best Madonna is guilty of killing music, repeatedly.
So if I catch a group of defensive white guys who never served in uniform denying "ANY racially motivated murder" matches the plain wording of "Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]" in the defninition of genocide, I'm anti-military? What color is the sky in your world?Right now? Jet black with patches of dark deep blue. We're overcast.
You heard it here, folks: if you catch a group of defensive white guys who never served in uniform denying the plainly-worded definition of genocide, you are anti-military.
Enough already with the genocide thing. The definition lists several ways of performing genocide, one of which is killing (a lot of) people belonging to a race. It does not mean that killing people belonging to a race is genocide.
The definition didn't give a quantity, so yes it does mean "killing people belonging to a race is genocide." Your adding "a lot of" is arbitrary and self-serving, which is why you put it in parenthesis.
You are denying the plainly-worded definition, the only virtue of which is to shelter racism. You don't get to say "enough already." You are morally-challenged, and I can cite it as long you shelter your deficiency. And I will.
The definition didn't give a quantity, so yes it does mean "killing people belonging to a race is genocide."
Considering everyone belongs to a race, let be go back to "ANY racially motivated murder."
What was I thinking? I'm one of those people who can't leave an argument alone, even when it's obviously reached a dead end. Mike is beyond my help. I admit it. You can only go so far in trying to explain something. Sometimes you have to realize that an argument cannot be solved by reasonable discussion. You can't even agree to disagree, because the lines of logical communication have broken down completely.
If there is anybody here who agrees with Mike's hate crime = genocide argument, but can discuss it in rational way, anybody, I'll be happy to continue the debate, or related debates. I enjoy the challenge. But this discussion is over.
Micha, give up on reason with Mad Mikey. I know that you're hoping his idiotness is an act and that he may drop it if you talk nice to him. He won't because it's not an act.
He's thrown out enough certain phrases that I was pretty sure that I knew who the guy was severel weeks ago. A few things he's said in the last week made me even more sure of his I.D.
I could be wrong. He could be a dimbulb 11 year old who is using the first name of another net troll or he could be the Mike I think he is. But most 11 year olds are actually brighter then the guy I'm thinking of so I think he would come off better then the real deal.
If it's the Mike I think it is, then none of this is an act or an attempt to be troll-like. This guy really is this screwed in the head and has spent quite a few years crawling around the net showing proof of that. The 2 + 2 = 7 logic on display here is the norm for Mad Mikey and not merely something that he's been doing just for us.
Oh, you already did.
I take too long to type sometimes.
:)
He's thrown out enough certain phrases that I was pretty sure that I knew who the guy was severel weeks ago. A few things he's said in the last week made me even more sure of his I.D.
I'm not x-ray, dickhead. X-ray didn't cite of mice and men. I cited of mice and men last year referring to x-ray. The reason I've stopped using my last name here is because it's an ethnic last name, and you've demonstrated that you reserve the privilege of racism.
The only basis you have to call me screwed up is because I caught you sheltering racism. If you don't want to cop to what you were caught doing, why wouldn't you call me screwed up? If you want to try and out me, I'm ready to start a national debate on cnn if you are.
The Freedom Clock represents the amount of time until Bush is out of office. Last I looked, he's still there.
I see. Thanks for the answer.
Iowa Jim
Raphael Lemkin, the gentleman who coined the term "genocide," had this to say about its definition:
"Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups."
The explanation above makes it clear that genocide is a comprehensive effort to destroy a GROUP. Murdering a single person, even if the murder is racially motivated, does not constitute genocide UNLESS it is part of a COORDINATED ATTEMPT to destroy a GROUP.
According to the Microsoft Encarta dictionary, genocide is defined as: "the systematic killing of all the people from a national, ethnic, or religious group, or an attempt to do this."
Note the word SYSTEMATIC. The isolated killing of a single individual does not qualify as a systematic attempt to destroy a group.
The American Heritage dictionary defines genocide as: "The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group."
Again, note the word SYSTEMATIC.
I hope this puts the debate over the definition of the word "genocide" to rest. Peter has kindly given us a variety of other topics to discuss, and it would be nice, I think, to get back on track with those discussions.
Oh yeah, Bill, like logic will win him over. Make sure you pick out a nice tie for when you get dragged on CNN.
I don't understand why people are so bothered by the freedom clock.
Read my post. I could care less (other than that it slows down my loading the page) if PAD has it. I was just curious if it would stay with now that the Dems have control of the Legislative branch. PAD answered. End of story.
Iowa Jim
Bill Myers, Lemkin fleshing out the aims of genocide does not contradict his plainly-worded definition. Notice how the aims are implemented, in the text you cite as I highlight them:
Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.
The m-w definition also used the word systematic.
systematic: 2 : presented or formulated as a coherent body of ideas or principles
As I pointed out before, racism is presented or formulated as a coherent body of ideas or principles. Thanks for showing you're paying attention.
Oh yeah, Bill, like logic will win him over. Make sure you pick out a nice tie for when you get dragged on CNN.
I don't think cnn will turn down a story on an internet stalking threat. Take another look at Jerry's post:
He's thrown out enough certain phrases that I was pretty sure that I knew who the guy was severel weeks ago. A few things he's said in the last week made me even more sure of his I.D.
Intimidation and race privilege. You won't be answering for your inconsistencies to just me anymore.
Hell, Bill, you could even just note the word, "entire." That just about sums up the problems with dork boys version.
"I'm not x-ray, dickhead. X-ray didn't cite of mice and men. I cited of mice and men last year referring to x-ray."
I never said nor thought that you were X-Ray. X-Ray had, hard as it is to believe, even fewer brain cells then you. Never made any comment to lead anybody to that direction. I even said a week or so ago, when someone wondered if maybe you were him playing a new game, that I did not believe you to be X-Ray.
See, you just had to go and add 3 + 3 and get 21. That wonderful logic used on Planet M.
:)
"...it's an ethnic last name..."
Yes. I know. Worked that bit out. You would have picked up on that if you could actually understand what you're reading half the time. There was a pretty good hint in my post from 3:47 today. Much like logic, common sense and intelligent discourse, it went way over your head.
Posted by: Iowa Jim at November 11, 2006 10:38 PM
Read my post. I could care less (other than that it slows down my loading the page) if PAD has it.
I did read your post. You, however, are not the only person to have brought up the Freedom Clock. For example, Eric! wondered if the Freedom Clock shouldn't be removed in the spirit of bi-partisanship. This isn't the first time that someone has suggested that Peter should remove the clock (note that after I wrote my post, Tim Butler did just that).
This isn't solely about you, Iowa Jim. It's about an issue that you happened to weigh in on.
Posted by: Iowa Jim at November 11, 2006 10:38 PM
I was just curious if it would stay with now that the Dems have control of the Legislative branch. PAD answered. End of story.
For you, perhaps. Others seem more troubled by the clock. I'm sorry you seem to feel that I was "butting in," but, again, this is about more than just you.
Okay you want to talk about solving the problem that is Iraq. I'll give you the only two solutions that exist and they are the only two that have existed since the first tank went over the border.
1 Install another thug, who is partial to the US, arm him and let him subdue the people with violence and bribes. I.E. another Saddam. In fact he's the best candidate for the job. I'd seriously doubt he'd do anything to piss us off again after all of this.
2 Saigon all over again, declare victory and bug out. Perhaps in 30 years you may be able to open a dialog with whoever gains control.
Bleak outlooks? Yes. But that is where all this is headed no matter how many lives or money you throw at it. For that matter the same applies to Aftganistan, democracy can not be forced at the end of a gun barrel especially on a people who do not want it.
So the question is now how long it takes us to come to that realization.
Oh I'll even give you a third option, make the a protectorate, put half a million troops over there, declare martial law and force their children to take on western values. In 50 or 60 years they may even quit shoot our soldiers, but by then the region may have united and invaded, kicking us out.
There is no "working on a solution", the only solutions already exist. Britian learned it, Europe in the middle ages learned it, the Kahns learned it, the romans and the greeks. We will be no different.
> You no more know for sure that he does anymore then I know that he doesn't. Time will tell.
Time will tell, but I have no doubt I'll be proven right. Cooperation is not in the man's makeup or a middle ground.
>The world has seen this mess and Bush for what they are for far longer then most Americans.
I'm not talking Iraq, the world knows that one already. Bush has plenty of the skeletons in the closet, time for those to come out.
>It also does nothing to bring this mess to an end.
It saps what little strength he has left and may make him more flexible to do the right thing.
Speaking of which....
>What makes you think they can get enough support to impeach by next Spring? What makes you think they could do it twice in one year?
No better time to try and right now with the Republicans looking for a scapegoat to their losses, you don't know the moderates wouldn't fall in behind getting impeaching the ultimate symbol of their failing. After all the same exact thing happened with the Clinton impeachment and this time there is actual criminal activity vs lying about an extramarital affair.
> They can work with some of the moderate Republicans on changing some things to correct what has gone wrong and to move Iraq in the right, if there is such a thing at this point, direction only if they don't overplay their cards.
Overplay? Overplay comes into effect when you are so corrupt that that it is the pot calling the kettle black. And once again there is no direction for Iraq.
>Plus, the Dems still have to deal with the fact that they came into power because of votes against the Republicans rather then for the Dems.
What a feeble excuse to do nothing. I'm sorry but Hello! How did the Republicans come into power in 1994? The democrats were rife with corruption, several of them had gone down in disgrace and the Republicans made an appeal based on "we are not them" in the form of "contract with america". History just repeated itself to a large degree.
>If they do that, well, then they can kiss votes from the moderates and the mad-at-Bush conservatives that put them in power last week goodbye.
The moderates will not leave because of an impeachment, just like the moderates didn't leave in 2000 because of an impeachment. Gore lost because he ran one of the worst campaigns seen in modern history. Bush won in 2004 because 1 Kerry failed horribly in distinguishing himself from the competitor which lost him the Dems and the moderates he needed. 2 Bush terrorized the country with fear of terrorists.
> Bush no longer has the power he had before. He's getting up off of the ground and seeing that he just got his nose broken. Oh, he'll puff up his chest and beat it a lot in the near futre. I have no doubt of that. I just don't think that his stands will be as firm or as extreme.
I wouldn't bet on that one, if I was you.
>That kind of undercuts some of what you said. Even YOU think that Rummy would still have a job if the elections had gone the other way. That wouldn't be the case if Bush wasn't going to change at all.
Who said he changed? Rummy doesn't have a job because Bush stayed true to form and true to his typical tactics. He has any number of times jettisoned people, heaped the blame on them and left them for the wolves. The most noticeable was the old Fema head. Sorry but Rummy is not a good example especially since it's the same old, same old.
>Bush is looking at the landscape and seeing the need for change. How much or how long the change is waits to be seen.
I give him 30 seconds. And the new guy is no winner or do you forget he was one of the principals in Iran-Contra? Another perpetrator of the whole mess as it exists now.
>You want to make it really easy for him stamp his feet and be a twit? Get the man support that he lost by getting the extreme left to fight for impeachment and getting us out of Iraq right now without so much as a second thought as to what that will do to us down the road. Then you can thank yourselves down the road when the Republicans once again own all three keys to power and the Dems are again the cranky minority that couldn'y get it right.
Tectonic shifts as seen this week are never the result of one issue, it's a preponderance of many smaller issues. So really that's the least of my worries. Hopefully the majority of the Dems have learned their lesson. Well it appears all except Carvile that is. For 8 years now they have run one of the worst campaign machines that has existed. You don't play defense when you need an offense. You don't abandon the whole country to hold onto tiny slices. You don't let the other side set the dialog. Most of all you distinguish youself from the other side. In other words, playing it safe gets you no where, haven't you learned that from Rove yet?
"I don't think cnn will turn down a story on an internet stalking threat. Take another look at Jerry's post:
He's thrown out enough certain phrases that I was pretty sure that I knew who the guy was severel weeks ago. A few things he's said in the last week made me even more sure of his I.D.
Intimidation and race privilege. You won't be answering for your inconsistencies to just me anymore."
Wow. :)
I point out that I think I know who dork boy is because of the amount of trolling he has done and still does here and elsewhere.
I point out that it's not an act and that he really is just that clueless and idiot like.
I'll tell Micha, who already worked it out, that he'll never get anywhere in an argument with Mad Mickey and his Planet M logic.
And that means that I'm involved in intimidation and race privilege?
Mad Mikey, does your definition of "intimidation" mean telling others that you are a known screwball with brain damage and that they are better off trying to have an intelligent discourse with the wall that their computer stand rests against? Does yours exclude threats and other statements that those of us in the real world include in the definition of "intimidation"? It seems that the answer is yes.
Do you even know what the word really means? That would seem to be a no.
Yes. I know. Worked that bit out. You would have picked up on that if you could actually understand what you're reading half the time. There was a pretty good hint in my post from 3:47 today. Much like logic, common sense and intelligent discourse, it went way over your head.
I don't see how, but thanks for admitting you engage in the coded-speech that shelters racism, my little macaca.
As for what chicken soup or slurping has to do with race, you are, as I've already said, in a world all your own.
Here. This is from your fave book in the whole wide world.
Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: in·tim·i·date
Pronunciation: in-'ti-m&-"dAt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -dat·ed; -dat·ing
Etymology: Medieval Latin intimidatus, past participle of intimidare, from Latin in- + timidus timid
: to make timid or fearful : FRIGHTEN; especially : to compel or deter by or as if by threats
Somehow, I just don't see telling others that I think I know enough about who you are to say that you are in fact a complete nit-wit fits that. Thank you for playing. Come again.
I don't think cnn will turn down a story on an internet stalking threat. Take another look at Jerry's post:
He's thrown out enough certain phrases that I was pretty sure that I knew who the guy was severel weeks ago. A few things he's said in the last week made me even more sure of his I.D.Intimidation and race privilege. You won't be answering for your inconsistencies to just me anymore.
Mad Mikey, does your definition of "intimidation" mean telling others that you are a known screwball with brain damage...
When the basis of you calling me a screwball with brain damage is you getting caught denying "ANY racially motivated murder" matches the plain wording of "Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]" in the definition of genocide, it does.
After taking it upon yourself to diagnose me as brain damaged, maybe you will take it upon yourself to remove me from the gene pool. To do that you would of course need to, as you say, I.D. me.
Brian,
There is another option that I have gone over here in detail.
Rummy is not just the same old, same old. No one thrown out before has ever been that close to Bush or been someone he had to butt heads with Cheney over.
Did I forget that he was involved with the Iran-Contra mess? No. Did you ignore what I said and what the man himself has said for three plus years now about Iraq and how bad a job he felt Rummy did. Have you ever seen anything he has said about what he would have done differently then what was done up until now?
"Overplay? Overplay comes into effect when you are so corrupt that that it is the pot calling the kettle black."
Why, yes, many of the stone throwers in the Dems power structure are. What are you asking?
"Tectonic shifts as seen this week are never the result of one issue, it's a preponderance of many smaller issues."
Tell that to all the people who said otherwise just before they voted. The poor job being done in Iraq was a big issue. It was the only issue for many.
Thing is, many that voted on that issue know that just pulling out and letting everything fall apart will be the sure way to give us an evil thug or new Saddam. They also know that staying may not give us much better then that. Then again, we may get something worth the lives lost up to this point.
We also have a moral problem here. We invaded and broke a country. We opened its people to take over from outside powers. We did that. Us, the U.S. To say that we should just walk away and let those people go to hell for what wwas done by us is as bad as anything Bush has ever said or done.
"...maybe you will take it upon yourself to remove me from the gene pool."
And Mike makes yet another leap off the cliff of sanity and into the abyss of his own dementia. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
Bill... No, not you, Bill... I want Bill. Bill, can you hand me that thing? Yeah, that's it. Thanks.
Mike, I now shroud you on this thread. You have gone over a new edge of insanity that even I didn't think you could go over. Your dementia has reached new levels as yet unseen on this site. You may have the last word between us for this thread and then you may bug off for all I care.
You know, when he was just trolling over at Little Green Footballs and those types of sites he was trollish, but not entirely nuts. Even made the occasional good point now and again. Something's happened.
There comes a point where you have to sit back and wonder if what has been to you harmless provoking of a twit may actually be unnecesary taunting of someone who is not entirely capable of responding to the best of their abilities.
After taking it upon yourself to diagnose me as brain damaged, maybe you will take it upon yourself to remove me from the gene pool. To do that you would of course need to, as you say, I.D. me.And Mike makes yet another leap off the cliff of sanity and into the abyss of his own dementia.
What other virtue is there to flattening the distinction between genocide and homicide, than to mitigate murder for the sake of manipulating the gene-pool?
Mike, I now shroud you on this thread.
Well, it doesn't surprise me that someone with your appetite for intimidation would seek to "blot out the eyes" of someone he obsesses over. Someone who lives a closeted life is dealing with a lot of self-shame, and often can't stand to be observed.
Lennie Green Footballs? The site that, instead of naming Michael Moore their "Idiotarian of the Year," chose instead a dead 23-year-old who volunteered to teach pre-school to Palestinian children? You frequent those cowards? No wonder you are so fuuucked uuup, Bill Mulligan.
What happened, Bill Mulligan, is that I caught you denying "ANY racially motivated murder" matches the plain wording of "Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]" in the definition of genocide. That's what happened.
I say this unambiguously, but because you are sheltering a race-privilege, you have to paint it as something shadier.
"...harmless provoking of a twit may actually be unnecessary taunting of someone who is not entirely capable of responding to the best of their abilities."
Yeah, that's why I'm done with him on this thread and likely on any other as well. Most the times he's been on this site, he gets to a certain point and I just stop talking to him. That's how I've seen others in other places deal with him as well. He always comes back strange, but never to these frighteningly demented levels. This time I played whack-a-troll with him and it went into really dark and disturbed places.
Not gonna go there with him anymore. Intelligent discourse has failed, ignoring him has failed and poking him with a stick has failed. That leaves only one course of action open. In the wise words of the immortal Red Green, "Quando omni flunkus, mortati." (When all else fails, play dead.)
>There is another option that I have gone over here in detail
?? There are hundreds of options, I'm listing the 2 that will actually be reality.
>No one thrown out before has ever been that close to Bush or been someone he had to butt heads with Cheney over.
How soon we forget, Powell. Powell wasn't forced out in disgrace, but from the looks of it he was forced out and Bush butted heads with Cheney over him many times along with Rummy. Now if it was Rove and not Rummy on the chopping block I would actually agree with you that change may actually be happening. Let me know when the puppet master and the man behind the curtain go down and then I might agree with you.
>No. Did you ignore what I said and what the man himself has said for three plus years now about Iraq and how bad a job he felt Rummy did. Have you ever seen anything he has said about what he would have done differently then what was done up until now?
What are you talking about? He never said Rummy was doing a bad job for 3 years, in fact all he did for 3 years was praise him, then suddenly he's been horrible for 3 years? Blah! Don't take political, opportunistic mechinations for real change. It's like "stay the course" he never said that for these past 3 years according to Tony Snow even with the preponderance of video against that. In fact if you want another "close" sacrificial lamb, we can add Tony's predecessor.
The two safest people are the two left, Rove and Cheney. If Cheney goes then Bush has severed his corporate ties, which he could do since he no longer has to fund a political campaign. IF Rove goes, then Shrub has truly chosen to set a new course, but Rove has been a "sacrifice" once already and we know how far that actually went; He lost his front of the house office and got one in back.
>Tell that to all the people who said otherwise just before they voted. The poor job being done in Iraq was a big issue. It was the only issue for many.
I was quizzed by an exit poller. Don't believe everything you hear. The questions I was given did not give room for "multiple" reasons but searched for one overriding. I'll trust conversations with people I know which predominantly pointed to a confluence of factors. Iraq is the easy top of the head, quick answer.
>Why, yes, many of the stone throwers in the Dems power structure are. What are you asking?
I was making a statment. In a political sense the Dems slate is clean, let's see how many years it takes till the next self destruct.
> Then again, we may get something worth the lives lost up to this point.
And man may give up his addiction to fossil fuels... Not in my lifetime.
>We also have a moral problem here. We invaded and broke a country. We opened its people to take over from outside powers. We did that. Us, the U.S. To say that we should just walk away and let those people go to hell for what wwas done by us is as bad as anything Bush has ever said or done.
I see no moral problem here. We leave, either after spending ourselves into the poor house and needlessly killing more of our sons and daughters or now. If you want to talk about morals that was before we went in, now it isn't about morals it's about how many people we get killed and how much of the future we bankrupt for our children. We have given ourselves the moral black eye and it's time to live with it. It is neither the first time and probably won't be the last and we aren't the first nation in history to be a bunch of morally righteous idiots. It is just time to live with it and get out.
>We opened its people to take over from outside powers. We did that. Us, the U.S.
It was already headed that way, we just speeded things up. As with most despots it is unlikely Iraq would have remained stable long after his death. His sons may have ruled for a few years, one of them probably would have killed the other. They really weren't their father, their sense of entitlement if nothing else would have been their undoing and I doubt either one of them could have held the country together. Sooner or later someone in the military would have followed with an
overthrow.
That's the sad part, if we had allowed nature follow it's course the person who took over may have been more easily "controlled" since they would have risen more likely from the military and would have been more interested in money than religion. But we've destroyed the military and given the power back to the clerics, so now Iraq is headed to what we don't need and that is an oligarpy. Possibly even a recreation of Persia with a unification of Iran and Iraq.
>To say that we should just walk away and let those people go to hell for what was done by us is as bad as anything Bush has ever said or done.
Give me one good reason why this is any different than say Vietnam? Actually where was your indignanty when we were giving Saddam weapons? I was in high school listening to my government teacher say what a bad idea our policy in the middle east was. Little did I realize just how right he would be in 20+ years. Or supporting any number of petty despots that killed, tortured and starved their people? The truth is that sometimes there is no "favorable" solutions and you have to take the bloody nose because you were stupid enough to do the wrong thing in the first place.
Our government has done a lot of morally reprehensible things over the decade and will do them in the future. Iraq is lost, it was lost from day one, there will be no salving of the ego on this one as there was none with Vietnam.
Now on an unrelated positive note: Christine Aguliera just did a very nice duet on SNL with Tony Bennet. Christine cleaned up her act, wonder if Britney will ever get her act together.
"I'm listing the 2 that will actually be reality."
No, you are listing the two that you like and discounting any others. Not quite the same thing. Much like those who prophesied that thousands of body bags filled with U.S. soldiers' bodies would come flooding back home after the first few weeks of the attack, those who said that we would never find Saddam after he left Iraq with loads of $$$$ for safer environments and those who claimed that we would find the motherload of WMD's by week two, your crystal ball is on the blink. You do not know what WILL happen anymore then anybody else here. Myself included.
"How soon we forget, Powell. Powell wasn't forced out in disgrace, but from the looks of it he was forced out and Bush butted heads with Cheney over him many times along with Rummy."
Powell was never a true loyalist. Powell spoke his misgivings with this foolish venture on more then a few occasions and was one of the few to speak the truth on the WMD situation and the prewar Intel while still in the administration. He then played good soldier until was asked too much and parted company with the administration. He has since spoken his feelings on the situation and on the way it has been run.
Rummy was one of the guys running the show. He was not a soldier for Bush or a water carrier.
"I was quizzed by an exit poller. Don't believe everything you hear. The questions I was given did not give room for "multiple" reasons but searched for one overriding. I'll trust conversations with people I know which predominantly pointed to a confluence of factors. Iraq is the easy top of the head, quick answer."
I was quizzed by the local pollers as well and they did have better options then you describe. Others may have had better as well. But I wasn't looking at polls as much as I was what people were saying on the street, around work, in letters to the local, statewide and national papers, calls to local and national radio programs, blogs and so on. Iraq wasn't just the easy answer for many. It was THE answer for many. Maybe it was the answer for most.
"In a political sense the Dems slate is clean..."
Not on this planet.
"Give me one good reason why this is any different than say Vietnam?"
Maybe because brighter people could learn from the mistakes of Vietnam, like bailing too early or just letting things fall apart, and apply those lessons here.
"Actually where was your indignanty when we were giving Saddam weapons?"
I'm sorry, I can't show you any proof of that. Hop in a time machine, invent the internet decades ahead of time, archive my old local newspapers and remind me to save my writings from my Civics' classes so that I can show them to you now and we can discuss where my indignity was back then. That's a moronic question.
"Our government has done a lot of morally reprehensible things over the decade and will do them in the future."
There's sterling logic. We were an @$$ in the past and it's ok to be an @$$ when it works for me.
"Iraq is lost, it was lost from day one, there will be no salving of the ego on this one as there was none with Vietnam."
We're not talking about salving an ego. We're talking about what move will make things worse for us in the long run. I feel that your ideas on what needs to be done in Iraq will make things worse. You disagree.
Posted by: Mike at November 11, 2006 11:26 PM
After taking it upon yourself to diagnose me as brain damaged, maybe you will take it upon yourself to remove me from the gene pool. To do that you would of course need to, as you say, I.D. me.
Mike, if you are doing this merely for the fun of upsetting people, you've accomplished your goal. Please stop.
If, however, you truly believe what you are saying, then I fear you may be suffering from mental illness. Having suffered from mental illness myself -- clinical depression, to be exact -- I know what it can do to a person. If you too are suffering in this way I hope you will get help.
Bill Mulligan, I think you are correct that we are likely engaging in "unnecessary taunting of someone who is not entirely capable of responding to the best of their abilities."
Jerry C, you've said ignoring him does not work. Well, if we ignore Mike he may not go away or change his behavior, but at the very least we won't be provoking him and feeding into what may be a very real case of paranoia.
Posted by: Mike at November 11, 2006 11:26 PM
I don't think cnn will turn down a story on an internet stalking threat.
After taking it upon yourself to diagnose me as brain damaged, maybe you will take it upon yourself to remove me from the gene pool. To do that you would of course need to, as you say, I.D. me.
Mike, if you're doing this for the fun of upsetting people, you've succeeded. Please stop.
If on the other hand you truly believe what you're writing, then I fear you may be suffering from mental illness. As someone who has suffered from mental illness -- clinical depression to be exact -- I know how it can affect a person. That's why I sincerely hope you'll get help if you need it.
Bill Mulligan, I think you are correct that we may well have been engaging in "unnecesary taunting of someone who is not entirely capable of responding to the best of their abilities." I think ignoring Mike will be not only to our benefit, but possibly his as well.
Sorry for the double posts above. Both times I tried to submit, I got a "Page Cannot Be Displayed" error. Didn't realize they actually went through.
It seems to me that the best option for Iraq which has maybe some chance of success, is to try to get some of the suni groups into a power sharing deal together with the ones that are already on the American side. Al Quida obviously will not join, but the local groups are basically interested in insuring a share of the pie. Look at Lebanon. It is a fucked up country always on the verge of civil war, but the notables of the various sects do find ways of dividing the spoils between them and maintaining some form of stability.
One of the stupid things the US did in Iraq was disband the army and de-baathification. They didn't realize that in the middle east the army is an employment office. They also didn't realize that when in comes to guns the middle east makes Texas look like France.
Ultimattely it's a tribal thing. You have to buy off the different tribes and local groups of bandits by giving him a share of the pie. That's what the Othomans did.
-------------
There is a small difference between Christina and Britaney. For al her faults she is a musician. Britany Spears is a machine, a cynical sexual manipulation gone bad. If someone told me she was a CGI character, I wouldn't be surprised. Jar Jar had more depth and musical talent.
-------------
I'm happy to ay the Mike discussion was not a complete waste. It brings up some interesting ideas about artificial intelligence and linguistics. About how when we read a text (like in a dictionary), we read it in a certain context and not just one word at a time. If somebody (who shall remain nemeless) were to read a text without context, that could lead to some intersting things. It could make a good sci-fi short story maybe, or an aspect of a character in the next Star Trek installment.
Mike, if you're doing this for the fun of upsetting people, you've succeeded. Please stop.
If on the other hand you truly believe what you're writing, then I fear you may be suffering from mental illness.
So if I catch a group of defensive white guys (who frequent sites where the year's dead are subject to ridicule and humiliation) denying "ANY racially motivated murder" matches the plain wording of "Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]" in the definition of genocide, I'm mentally ill?
I'm not being ambiguous here. Your position is morally indefensible.
Why should I allow Bill Mulligan to hold democrats to penny-ante lapses when republicans are cashing in middle-class savings for pennies on the dollar, with record-breaking government spending, tax-cuts disproportionately favoring the rich, and entitlement retoolings that hand over tax-payer trillions to pharmaceutical companies? Why should I relent?
There have in fact been calls for building a fence along the US-Canada border, causing much amusement and bemusement up here. There's a little problem though. In a bunch of places no one is quite sure where the border is. Both governments were supposed to keep a strip cleared along the border, but no one got around to it. In any case the idea has been pretty much shot down.
> your crystal ball is on the blink. You do not know what WILL happen anymore then anybody else here. Myself included.
My crystal ball is far from on the blink, it tells a magnificent story dating back to the earliest civilization in Messopotamia, it's called history. Those who fail to learn from it are doomed to repeat it and that is exactly what we are doing. Read up on the history of Britian in Persia sometime, it's a fascinating little tale of western arrogance and middle eastern unwillingness to be dictated to.
> Iraq wasn't just the easy answer for many. It was THE answer for many. Maybe it was the answer for most.
Iraq is the easy soundbyte. A percentage are single issue voters, but many are not. And I'm a marketing person, our exit pollsters weren't conducting good marketing research. But really what does it matter.
>Not on this planet.
Yes at this point they will have one more election to screw up before it really impacts their control. That is assuming they run a good race and don't fumble that ball again.
>Maybe because brighter people could learn from the mistakes of Vietnam, like bailing too early or just letting things fall apart, and apply those lessons here.
LOL! Sorry but that is too funny. Once again return to the prizim of history and you will find the way to "win" this mess. Do you have the stomach to depopulate whole towns? Does the world have the stomach to let us do exactly that? NO! That is why wars like Vietnam and Iraq will never be won. We say oh what a horrible person Saddam was, but when it comes right down to it, he knew what it took to control his country. You can not apply western values to these people and expect them to respond in the same way as we would. Vietnam should have taught all of us that, yet 30 years after bugging out we are repeating the same damn mistakes. In fact Vietnam probably could have been a win if it had been fought right, Iraq due to it's religious dynamics could never be a win.
>That's a moronic question.
Actually it's not, moronic because there was once again many people pointing out where it would lead. You say the crystal ball doesn't work, but history does and we keep repeating the same mistakes again and again.
>There's sterling logic. We were an @$$ in the past and it's ok to be an @$$ when it works for me.
Perfectly sterling logic, because as long as we keep voting into office those that we do we will continue doing the exact same thing again and again. I have no illusions to that reality. You would think that 30 years after Vietnam we wouldn't find ourselves embroiled in another Vietnam like mess, yet her we are because we traded one lying, arrogant, sob for a different one as president. The cry then was fighting the communist scourage, today it's fighting the terrorist scourage. Same crap different day. New leaders, same attitudes, moral superiority.
>We're not talking about salving an ego.
Oh yes we are. We are at the point where neither Dem or Repb will admit they have thrown away 3000 lives for nothing. And when you mention terrorists everyone falls all over themselves in fear, unwilling to realize that there isn't much they can really do to us.
>We're talking about what move will make things worse for us in the long run. I feel that your ideas on what needs to be done in Iraq will make things worse. You disagree.
You got it because we have made it worse, by what we have done. Now we need to live with that mess. Here is something to think about: Israel has faced 40+ years of nearly the exact same problem and have yet to find a successful resolution. What makes you think we are going to be any different? We can't afford to be fighting this 40 years from now let alone 10. There is a solution for Israel and for us, but in the pervue of world politics, regional depopulation is not an option.
Brian,
I don't think that we will find a solution for the problems over there any more then I think that we can win in the manner that many who were/are pro-Bush claim that we will win. I just don't see utter and complete failure as an option either.
We do what you want and we make things worse for ourselves and others now and in the long run. If we stay, do what we should have done from the start troop numbers-wise and give the new Iraq Gov. a fighting chance, we give ourselves two slightly better options then your way gives us. We don't get a country that hates us and joins up with others that hate us for maybe a generation or so rather then by next year or, on the real longshot, we get a country that doesn't hate us that much, will deal with us and won't go out of its way to help people or countries in that area that want to hurt us.
You don't fix a dumb@$$ thing by doing an even BIGGER dumb@$$ thing. Letting the country fall apart and setting down the road you want to send it, when there is a chance to change that, is a dumb@$$ thing to do.
"Iraq due to it's religious dynamics could never be a win."
It depends on what you define as a win. I said much of what you are saying, including the problems with the areas religious wars, on this site a few years back. I said that we would never win in the way it was being sold. We will never see a Western style government in Iraq or any other part of the NeoCon pipe dream that they tried to sell the people before going in. I pointed all that out and said that we should never go in to Iraq.
But we have gone in and now we have to deal with it. Winning is now doing what is as close to right as we can and taking whatever steps we need to not create an even greater mess and danger for ourselves and others over there then we had before we went in. Do do anything else is foolish. So, yeah, I guess I want to "win" this.
"You can not apply western values to these people and expect them to respond in the same way as we would."
I've said as much as well. Not going to try and do that. Not going to say we should. Go argue that with the people making that argument.
"That is why wars like Vietnam and Iraq will never be won."
Do you know the only real difference between those two wars and all the others in our history (other then how poorly they were run)? We got to see them on TV.
The destruction to life, towns, cities, country sides and countries in general in WW1 and WW2 dwarf anything that came from Vietnam or Iraq. The carnage in those two wars was on a scale that we've not even begun to see in Iraq. We just didn't see it on TV every day. What we saw of it at the time was cleaned up versions of events made to make everybody feel good and John Wayne movies later. Just because we didn't SEE the carnage doesn't mean that it wasn't as bad.
Now we can see it and everybody freaks. Tough. We have to do some things that we don't like that much.
You say that we can't win wars like Vietnam and Iraq because people won't like what they see and won't let us win (however you define "win"). Well, if that is your yardstick for staying in the fight, you would have us lose every future war we got into. We will never again have a war that looks good in highlight clips after the Sat. movies or on the evening news. That doesn't mean the need for the fight or the value in the "win" isn't there or that we should up and quit because it's not as pretty and clean as all the John Wayne films you grew up watching.
TUBGIRL
If you really are curious about Tubgirl, surely the image could be found through Google.
A warning, however, it is disgusting and definitely NOT work safe.
---------
And speaking of work, too many of you guys are posting from work, where the idea is to, um, work for your employer, not waste time on your employer's equipment.
and here is that world's official comic book:
http://www.accstudios.com/
i love the heroes, two convicted felons and a halfwit.
this is sadly emblematic of a certain section of the right.
>Do you know the only real difference between those two wars and all the others in our history (other then how poorly they were run)? We got to see them on TV.
Okay you just hit a never with me. Oh there were many, many differences between Korea, Vietnam and all of the wars we fought especially WWI and II, the civil war etc. This is most noticeable in Vietnam. We weren't fighting a war, not even close. A war you hunt down and and obliterate the enemy. If you have to cross country lines you do. If you have to fly over a parallel, you fly over it. You do not leave military bases standing that are supplying and launching attacks from. Half a village is the enemy you burn the village to the ground. A war is won by demoralizing and killing the enemy to the point they don't want to fight anymore. There is no such thing as "surgical strikes" there is no such thing as colatterol damage, civilian, men, women and children are the enemy and if they get in the way so be it.
In vietnam we let the cong run into Cambodia and didn't follow them. In N Vietnam we didn't go after their military base, they were off the target lists. One of the Migs, if it got across the line in the sky was scott free, pursuit was over and they returned for another day to attack us.
We sold the world on Vietnam being a "police action" and put ourselves in restraints and lost the war. You know what Hitler did to villages harboring rebels? He depopulated them. You know what we did to villages controlled by Germans during WWII? We carpet bombed them into oblivion. You know what we did to soldiers who tried to win the war in Vietnam by killing villagers who harbored communists? Put them on trial for war crimes.
>The destruction to life, towns, cities, country sides and countries in general in WW1 and WW2 dwarf anything that came from Vietnam or Iraq.
Because we were actually out to win and not out to appease the world! Iraq is Vietnam all over again. We aren't fighting for our survival, we shot enfirst, we weren't attacked. And so that we don't pull the region into the conflict or pull other countries in that don't like our movements, we aren't fighting a war. We minimize collaterol damage, we let the enemy run away when he is hidden among the civilians. We treat the rebels not like an enemy state, but street gangs. When the Shiites took over that southern city, we should have sent some hummers with a few soldiers in them down there, we should have carpet bombed the place out of existence. Shown the populace that letting the enemy walk in and take over will also mean you die with them. But we can't do that because we are there to "free" the civilians.
>Tough. We have to do some things that we don't like that much.
Yet the politicians freak and know full well that they can't do what needs to be done. If they did we would most likely see Saudi Arabia, Iran, China and Russia enter the fray and then we'd have a real fight on our hands. It is also likely we would be fighting completely alone... So this is where we stand, unable to do what is needed and being there unable to bring about any chance of "victory".
Well, if that is your yardstick for staying in the fight, you would have us lose every future war we got into.
My yardstick is if we go to war, we go to war and that means all out bloody hell where collaterol damage is desired and we carpet bomb the crap out of everyone and force them into submission. That is how you win a war. And you can't do that if you are the agressor, not in our world of politics. Aftganistan could have been that, no one liked the Taliban but even there our administration was a pack of mamby pambys who let the Taliban run over the Pakastani border instead of carpet bombing their tribes into oblivion. Now the UN is paying for our shortsightedness. I give it another year before we have to commit a major force to that country again.
> We will never again have a war that looks good in highlight clips after the Sat. movies or on the evening news. That doesn't mean the need for the fight or the value in the "win" isn't there or that we should up and quit because it's not as pretty and clean as all the John Wayne films you grew up watching.
Never accuse me of not understanding what war is. I would say at this point I have a far better understanding than you do. Yes the propaganda of WWII was "clean" but the country knew what was required. The body bags came home stacked like cordwood, those lucky enough to come home for burial. Very few families did not have a loss due to the war. But we had a reason, a valid justification for that war. We lost 3000 soldiers at Pearl, our Pacific fleet was all but decimated. Our European allies were fighting for their existence and a few had been defeated. We had a righteous reason to go out and fight a war, to win at any cost and have no care about collaterol damage. Where ever the Germans or Japanese were we fought them, and if you were an occupied country, well sorry but run for cover because if the enemy was there we were going to bomb. You were a country that gave support to the enemy, kiss your butt goodbye.
That barely existed in Vietnam, the Gulf of Tonkin was half lie, half staged. Iraq is all lie, a hypothetical mushroom appearing over a city, created by a person who was looking for a reason to invade prior to even 9-11 to get personal revenge and fill his coffers.
To sum this long winded post up, we have no righteous justification to be at war in Iraq. We have a world that will move against us if we do not minimize collaterol damage and our hands are tied. Once again there can be no victory here, we are unwilling, unable to do what is needed. We are the good guys, we worry about our standing in the world, we do not want to bring other countries agressors. Like Vietnam we lost before the first shot was even fired.
As to where my ideals would leave us. Right where we were the day after 9-11. With people who hate us loose in the world and the potential that something may some day be done to us. Our gas prices may go up, which means more pressure for alternatives to be developed. Personally I say go the way of Brazil but I digress... But it won't be the end of the world, far from it. Bush has pounded fear into the majorities heads, but the reality is they are thousands of miles from us. They are just as happy killing each other over religious debates as they are killing us. THe longer you try to dictate what they are going to do, dictate who is going to lead them the more likely you will cause them to unite against us. Bailing and letting them shoot it out will keep them occupied for a few years and give us the manpower to go after the real problem, Bin Ladden.
"Never accuse me of not understanding what war is.'
And, I said that where?
"This is most noticeable in Vietnam. We weren't fighting a war, not even close. A war you hunt down and and obliterate the enemy."
Kind of. We fought a "war". We just used bad tactics. I wasn't talking about tactics or any of the other things that you are addressong here. I was talking about what you kept throwing around before.
"Do you have the stomach to depopulate whole towns? Does the world have the stomach to let us do exactly that? NO! That is why wars like Vietnam and Iraq will never be won."
To me, it doesn't matter what people or the world has the stomach for. War hasn't changed that much. It's just become more televised.
That's what I was addressing.
"I would say at this point I have a far better understanding than you do."
I doubt it. I would say we're about even.
"Yes the propaganda of WWII was "clean" but the country knew what was required. The body bags came home stacked like cordwood, those lucky enough to come home for burial."
And still very few people knew what happened in the war. My wife's grandfather flew bombing runs over Germany. One mission, he actually bombed the town that HIS grandfather and family were from. Not a lot of people thought about that kind of thing very often. Most people seemed to act as if they couldn't even imagine that kind of thing when he talked to people after he came back home.He saw other things as well. Still haunts him.
I pull extra duty working functions at The Virginia War Memorial. I talk to a lot of the older vets and watch them talk to others. One thing that almost every vet talks about is coming home and seeing how very little people knew about what actually happened over there. They saw carnage. Most people saw happy, feel good promo spots for the war. They would tell people, back then, what they saw and who ever they were talking to would turn white. They had no clue about even the more mild horror.
Even Korea saw very little real news coverage. Most of what you can find from the actual war years is little more then fluff. You can find some good coverage here and there, but much of it is about as "real" as what people were fed in WWII. Archived TV news from then is almost funny to look at when you see how that little bit carnage was covered.
Vietnam was different. We were there for questionable reasons. The press decided to point that out and show as much of the horror as they could. That was new for our press and for our people watching at home. The only Americans who got a better look at the carnage of war from their homes were the people alive at the time of the civil War.
Gulf 1 and Bosnia went to quick. Noy a lot to cover. We had happy little wars and it was all wonderful.
Now we have Iraq and the press gives us lots of ugly looks behind the curtain again. People are outraged. Fine, they should be. War is an outrage. Tough. Sometimes it's a needed outrage.
I think we need to take the chance we may have been given and try to fix at least a few of the things we broke before we just drop Iraq, its people and any hope of ours straight into Hell. You don't. Fine.
Bill Mulligan:"Uh-oh, Mike been hanging around those websites again."
Yeah, but the problem is I'm MUCH taller than the guy they had posing as me in the pictures. And the scars are much higher on my chest. Or have I said too much?
Bill Myers: Hmmm. Pinky, the Brain and a Rat? I smell a comeback!
From Micha:"...I was not physically fit to regular service)" There are reasons why they have those standards, Micha. Trust me, thanks to my history I'm not fit to serve either, which really cheesed me off because I wanted Air Force so bad. Anyway, to quote the brilliant phD, Dr. Peter Venkman, everything happens for a reason. There are other ways to serve your country. Ph, and according to a college friend of mine, Israel is great for hunting that elusive prey--Girls. And your deifiniton theory reminds me of the translation problems they ran into in AC Crispin's Starbridge, almost substituting "Pubic" for "Public."
"X-ray didn't cite of mice and men." Anybody else seeing the scene from "A Fish Called Wanda" where Wanda and Otto are talking about apes reading Plato?
"We weren't fighting a war, not even close."
Brian, do yourself a favor. Don't tell anybody that was over there it wasn't a war.
Trust me, thanks to my history I'm not fit to serve either, which really cheesed me off because I wanted Air Force so bad.
Like that portrait of Timothy McVie they found on your lower back during your physical, Sean Scullion?
I fear that Rush and Sean will be right about what is going to happen in the coming 2 years. I do not want to see Bush impeached for a few good reasons.
1. NeoCons will be proven right that liberals don't care about anything except destroying Bush.
2. This will backfire on those who support impeachment, just like what happened with Clinton.
3. An impeachment will not change a thing. We will still be in Iraq.
Donald Rumsfield was a long time coming for someone who never should have been Secretary of Defense again. I was still in the military at the time of his appointment. Most of the highers ups were beginning their careers during Rummy's first go around. They did not like him and did not want him in that position. Hopefully, Gates will listen to his generals.
What I do want to see from the new Congress is agreement. I do not want to see this become a stalemate between them and the White House. Kerry, Kennedy, Murtha and Dean need to keep their mouths shut. Their vendetta against the President is putting our troops in danger. There are some of you that don't believe this. Then you are ignorant of the big picture.
The terrorists that are in Iraq and the rest of the world believe they are always just one attack from causing the US to pull out of Iraq. We cannot leave Iraq in the shape it is in. It being "Bush's war" is not a good excuse to pull out. We need an exit strategy. One that involves the Iraqi people stepping up.
Also, I want to comment to those who believe Americans make more money. The average American actually has about $2000 less spending money than they did 6 years ago. The cost of living has grown faster than wages have.
I have found the best source of information you can get, except the host would disagree. On Saturdays from 8am to 1pm there is a show called Wheels with Ed Wallace on 570 KLIF out of Dallas. While it being a car show first, Ed always has news stories to begin each segment. His website is www.insideautomotive.com This site also has link to his columns in the Fort Worth Star Telegram. I recommend this show to Dems and Reps alike. If anything I hope some people will pay attention.
Kerry, Kennedy, Murtha and Dean need to keep their mouths shut.
I'm sorry, but why should anybody who disagrees with the president and his pathetic displays of leadership have to keep their mouth shut?
Their vendetta against the President is putting our troops in danger.
No, Bush's vendetta against Saddam put our troops in danger. It continues to put our troops in danger.
What some, on both sides of the political aisle, like Dean are doing is talking common sense. And that's something else this Administration has utterly lacked.
There are some of you that don't believe this. Then you are ignorant of the big picture.
Well, if you really want to talk about ignorance of the big picture, you have to look no further than Bush, who was the one who wanted us in Iraq at all costs to begin with, rather than actually fighting the real war on terror.
The big picture is that there are more terrorists now specificially because of Iraq, and Bush has approached his presidency as if he were a dictator hell-bent on total control.
Micha -- unfortunately, the architects of the U.S. invasion/occupation of Iraq didn't see the need to learn about the cultural and socio-political landscape of Iraq. That's why they made such boneheaded blunders like the attempted "de-Baathification" of Iraq.
Alan Coil -- my employer was astonishingly uninterested in your opinion of my job performance. As a matter of fact, despite your misgivings, they feel I have excelled in my role and are expanding my responsibilities. Trust me, I was as surprised as you are.
Jerry C -- you are correct that modern T.V. coverage makes it difficult to keep public opinion in favor of a war.
Brian Peter -- you are correct that historically, the most effective way to fight a war has been to use overwhelming force to pound your opponent into submission. When we defeated the Axis in WWII, however, they surrendered. We didn't end up with Nazi cells committing acts of terror within and outside of Europe. We do have Islamic terrorists doing just that today, though. If we simply mow down Iraq, we will inspire more terrorists. And as Sept. 11, 2001, has show -- they CAN hurt us. They already have.
Iraq in its current state is analogous to Vietnam, but there are also parallels with Europe after WWII. In Iraq, we toppled Saddam Hussein, disbanded his army, and installed a new government. The problem is that we did not provide for the aftermath. We needed -- and still need -- a Marshall Plan. It would have been far better to have put one in place BEFORE the invasion. It will be hellaciously difficult -- but not impossible -- to put one in place now. We have to try.
gene tullis -- I hate to sound cold, but people "mouthing off" is one of the prices you must be willing to pay if you want to live in a truly free society. Moreover, the sloppy planning by our current administration has done infinitely more to endanger the troops than anything said by dissenters. For example, if we had observed tried-and-true military doctrine and actually, heaven forbid, committed enough troops to be able to secure our rear flank as we advanced towards Bagdad during the initial invasion, we could have kept the arms depots secure and thus kept arms out of the insurgents' hands. If we had not disbanded the Iraqi army but put them to use (remember, most of them didn't put up much of a fight on Saddam's behalf) and kept some of them from joining the insurgency. None of those problems were the result of Democrats "mouthing off."
To paraphrase Ben Franklin -- anyone who trades freedom for security deserves neither.
Kerry, Kennedy, Murtha and Dean need to keep their mouths shut.
Ridiculous. Right or wrong they not only have the right to speak out they were specifically elected to do so.
Baghdad's morgues so full, bodies being turned away:
Abbas Beyat's joined the line outside Baghdad's central morgue after his brother Hussein disappeared a month ago while driving through the mainly Sunni town of Tarmiyah, 30 miles north of Baghdad.
The family had already paid a $60,000 ransom to an intermediary who then disappeared with the money.
"There were three piles, each with about 20 bodies," Beyat, 56, said, describing the scene inside the morgue.
"The clerk told me to dig through them until I found my brother. I had to lift them off until I found him," he said. Like many of those abducted, Hussein Beyet bore the marks of torture, with holes from an electrical drill visible in his skull, Beyat said.
Others never find their loved ones' bodies at all.
The fear of leaving the bereaved without a corpse to bury is so strong that some Iraqi men now tattoo their names, phone numbers and other identifying information on their upper thighs, despite Islam's strict disapproval against such practices.
...
With government unable to handle the load, the task of burial usually falls to Islamic charities and other social groups that rely on public donations.
One of the biggest, the organization of powerful Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, has buried more than 3,000 unidentified bodies outside the southern holy city of Karbala since September 1, according to an al-Sadr aide, Raad al-Karbalaie.
Trucks from the capital arrive several times a month carrying loads of 50 or more bodies each, each says.
"They've already been photographed and have numbers attached, so hopefully the families can identify them someday," al-Obaidi said. "Then they're free to exhume them for reburial."
...
One month after her brother Adnan Hussein disappeared while selling plastic sacks in western Baghdad's Bayaa neighborhood, the 56-year-old Sunni housewife identified him from a picture stored on the Baghdad morgue's computer.
"The clerk told me he had already been buried," Amir said. "They needed the space for new bodies."
Are our money, resources, and the lives of our soldiers going to save more lives by trying to put out the fire when it's climbing, or after the fire has peaked and starts to contract? Considering our presence has been demonstrated to feed the insurgency (by Jim Baker and the new Secretary of Defense Gates) the latter makes more sense.
The war in Iraq was coming for some time. The time between the first Gulf War and 2003 needs to looked at closely. Those who trained me when I joined felt betrayed because they did not finish the job the first time. Politicians are the reason Saddam was not dealt with sooner. Those in the UN should be the ones who face scrutiny. They sat on their hands as Saddam basically gave the rest of the world the finger. We were right in going in there. The wrong we comitted was how we did it. Our planners(Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Powell, etc...) were thinking we would be hailed as liberators. We became occupiers. What they failed to take in account was the fact these people were not stupid. They knew where the weapons Saddam used on them came from. Remember what I said about the bigger picture. This picture is not 3-years-old or even 20, Iraq has never known peace in at least 100 years. Our arrogance is the reason we are in this position. Do not forget our elected officials backed the war as did the majority of Americans. If you said they lied to get us there, that I cannot prove or disprove. I think they took what they considered best information for going to war while discounting anything that said not to go in. I believe Saddam had WMDs. No one clear thinking person could think differently. They are either in Syria or Iran. Our military planners should have waited for Turkey to give the go ahead to use Turkey as an invasion point, then maybe there would be evidence.
Now back to Kerry, Kennedy, Murtha and Dean and those folks. They are putting our troops in danger. No doubt about it. They do have free speech that is correct, but I ask that they think about what they say first. You cannot say you support the troops and then say what they are doing is wrong.(Unless you're John Kerry.) Kerry goes on national television and says our toops are terrorizing women and children, Murtha goes and calls fellow Marines killers before even one sees trial and you think Bush alone is the reason our troops are dying. When Iraqis that are on the fence hear this, what do you think they are thinking. It's not, 'I trust the Americans.'
Plain and simple, the mission in Iraq must be completed. I don't want to hear stay the course, cut and run, or deployment. I want a plan. I want there to be peace. Most of all, I want my brothers and sisters in arms to come home.
"Micha -- unfortunately, the architects of the U.S. invasion/occupation of Iraq didn't see the need to learn about the cultural and socio-political landscape of Iraq. That's why they made such boneheaded blunders like the attempted "de-Baathification" of Iraq."
We've had our share of blunders I'm afraid.
If the US simply leaves Iraq, the different groups will kill each other for a while, I don't know how long, and then they will probably cut a deal among themselves, and the Al-quida foreign guys (and some locals) wil move on to other areas in the region. Some may also move on to try to hit European and American targets, but I'm also worried about the middle eastyern targets.
It would be better if the US tried to get the ifferent Iraqi factions to cut a deal before you leave, isolate the more fanatic Al-Quida, and hopefully do them some major harm before you leave.
There is no way to win this war other than some kind of deal with at least some of the insurgents. The US cannot place a dictator that will do a better job then right now. You have a long bad history with American supported dictators.
"They knew where the weapons Saddam used on them came from." That's not the only or most important reason they hate you.
"They sat on their hands as Saddam basically gave the rest of the world the finger."
That finger was not a threat to the US, and not much of a threat to anybody else.
"Iraq has never known peace in at least 100 years."
There is a difference between living under a dictatorship or living in a state of total war.
"I think they took what they considered best information for going to war while discounting anything that said not to go in."
That's better than lying, but not by much.
"Now back to Kerry, Kennedy, Murtha and Dean and those folks. They are putting our troops in danger. No doubt about it. They do have free speech that is correct, but I ask that they think about what they say first. You cannot say you support the troops and then say what they are doing is wrong.(Unless you're John Kerry.) Kerry goes on national television and says our toops are terrorizing women and children, Murtha goes and calls fellow Marines killers before even one sees trial and you think Bush alone is the reason our troops are dying. When Iraqis that are on the fence hear this, what do you think they are thinking. It's not, 'I trust the Americans.'"
I doubt any Iraqi needs the statements of American politicians to notice that things are bad, and that America handled things badly. Statements like this would not be the cause for Iraqis to hate or attack Americans. Terrorists are encouraged by the internal debates in your country. But it is better that you have such debates than not.
Posted by: gene tullis at November 13, 2006 06:26 PM
The war in Iraq was coming for some time. The time between the first Gulf War and 2003 needs to looked at closely. Those who trained me when I joined felt betrayed because they did not finish the job the first time.
Those who trained you when you joined should count themselves lucky that George H.W. Bush was smart enough to realize that beating back Saddam's army would be fairly easy, but that toppling his regime and occupying the country would be very, very difficult.
Posted by: gene tullis at November 13, 2006 06:26 PM
Politicians are the reason Saddam was not dealt with sooner.
In this country, civilians run the government, not the military. That's how it SHOULD be.
Posted by: gene tullis at November 13, 2006 06:26 PM
I believe Saddam had WMDs. No one clear thinking person could think differently.
Nonsense. "Clear thinking" people can and do think differently.
Posted by: gene tullis at November 13, 2006 06:26 PM
They are either in Syria or Iran.
You're engaging "circular reasoning," a logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises. It's faulty reasoning because it relies on its own premise to prove its conclusion. In this case, you're relying on the assumption that Iraq must have had a significant stockpile of WMDs when we invaded, an assumption that you cannot prove.
The idea that the absence of WMDs suggests that Iraq must have had a significant stockpile of WMDs reminds me of this headline from The Onion: "Elvis Dies, Prompting Speculation That Elvis is Alive."
Posted by: gene tullis at November 13, 2006 06:26 PM
Our military planners should have waited for Turkey to give the go ahead to use Turkey as an invasion point, then maybe there would be evidence.
Or maybe we would've had an "Al Capone's Vault" moment.
Posted by: gene tullis at November 13, 2006 06:26 PM
Now back to Kerry, Kennedy, Murtha and Dean and those folks. They are putting our troops in danger. No doubt about it.
No, that's false. The people who sent the troops to Iraq put them in danger.
Posted by: gene tullis at November 13, 2006 06:26 PM
They do have free speech that is correct, but I ask that they think about what they say first.
In other words, they have free speech but they should not exercise it. You are paying lip service to the concept but it is clear that you really don't believe in freedom of speech.
Posted by: gene tullis at November 13, 2006 06:26 PM
You cannot say you support the troops and then say what they are doing is wrong.
With all due respect to your service to this country (and I do respect your service), that kind of thinking is un-American. It's the kind of thing that governments hide behind when they don't want their corruption and bad decisions exposed.
My uncle fought in Vietnam. The Vietnam war was wrong. My uncle was not. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive.
Posted by: gene tullis at November 13, 2006 06:26 PM
I don't want to hear stay the course, cut and run, or deployment.
I don't believe we can leave Iraq anytime soon. But if you "don't want to hear" contrary opinions, may I suggest you turn off your computer, your T.V., and your radio; and that you avoid going outside and interacting with other people? Because this is a free country and people can express opinions contrary to yours whether they like it or not.
Posted by: gene tullis at November 13, 2006 06:26 PM
Most of all, I want my brothers and sisters in arms to come home.
I will agree with you there. My uncle fought in Vietnam. I am grateful he came home alive. I know people who have been deployed in Iraq. I hope they too make it home alive.
But I also hope we can keep alive the freedoms for which they are supposedly fighting. Otherwise, the sacrifices we've made will have been in vain.
And now, the not so smart move...
Reports are that Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL) has accepted an offer to become chairman of the RNC. Maybe the GOP and the RNC are just trying to die.
Martinez is well known for several things of late. He was the one who wrote the talking points memo that said that the Terri Schiavo case was a great political issue to run with and that it would be the thing they really needed to get the pro-life base excited. Went over really well. Several members of the Senate had stated that Martinez himself handed them copies of the memo. Martinez first claimed that he never had any knowledge of the memo and later blamed its writing on one of his aids.
In the run up to the '04 Fla. senatorial race, Martinez's campaign sent voters a mailing that called his Republican opponent, Bill McCollum, "the new darling of the homosexual extremists." He said this because McCollum supports hate crime legislation. After Martinez won, he blamed the whole thing on his aids while claiming he had no knowledge of it prior to when it was done.
He went on to run against Betty Castor. One of his ads really backfired. Martinez aired an attack ad that went after Janet Reno, who supported Castor, saying that Reno had used armed thugs to seize Elián González and send him back to Cuba so that Fidel Castro could have his way.
Problem? Martinez had previously featured one of the federal agents, Bill West, involved in the Gonzalez raid in an attack ad claiming Castor was soft on terrorism and backing Martinez. Martinez said that he was sorry and that the "armed thugs" wording had been a mistake by a staffer. He, of cousre, had no knowledge of how it got in there.
To his credit, Bill West took it well and even joked about it a bit with the local press.
And this is the guy that the RNC sees as their go to guy? Which image are they going for here?
1) Our new head is a bastard who'll do and say anything, no matter how stupid, to win.
...or...
2) Our new head is so clueless as to what's going on around him that he can't even run a small home office without screwing up and letting the inmates run the place. That's our kind of guy.
The other side's team must be loving this. I bet they can't wait to start playing up his every mis-step with the press.
Jerry C wrote
>Kind of. We fought a "war". We just used bad tactics. I wasn't talking about tactics or any of the other things that you are addressong here. I was talking about what you kept throwing around before.
What I throwing around before included the tactics and everything else. Vietnam as considered by our government was not a war and it was not fought as a war. That includes all factors that relate to a war. Now unfortunately for our troops it was a war because no one informed the enemy
>To me, it doesn't matter what people or the world has the stomach for. War hasn't changed that much. It's just become more televised. That's what I was addressing.
What was the point of what was televised then? I'm arguing why we can not "win" this mess, not how it is televised. And if you want to accuse our government of sanitizing the message, they've done an excellent job of that this go round. Look at how they reacted when an internet video was broadcast by CNN showing the reality of war.
>And still very few people knew what happened in the war.
Yes it is unfortunate that so many choose to bury their heads in the sand and have no desire to know reality. But then our government this time around don't want us to know reality because "it supports the enemy"... Whatever!
>Gulf 1 and Bosnia went to quick. Noy a lot to cover. We had happy little wars and it was all wonderful.
Now Bosnia, that was a military police action. Bloody for the natives, but we came out the other side pretty much intact. Gulf 1, I don't buy your arguement, the largest engagement got plenty of news coverage when we destroyed their retreating forces. And no I was not one who said that was wrong, I agreed with it. Obliterate his remaining forces so he had nothing to rebuild with.
>Now we have Iraq and the press gives us lots of ugly looks behind the curtain again. People are outraged. Fine, they should be. War is an outrage. Tough. Sometimes it's a needed outrage.
However once again, it's not a needed outrage and our soldiers shouldn't be dying.
>I think we need to take the chance we may have been given and try to fix at least a few of the things we broke before we just drop Iraq, its people and any hope of ours straight into Hell.
No I'm saying you can't fix it so there is no need to take the chance. If you were dealing with a Religious, Social, Political region that was similar to ours, say like Bosnia then I'd give you, there are plenty of chances. However you are not.
-----------------------------------------------
Bill Myers wrote
> you are correct that historically, the most effective way to fight a war has been to use overwhelming force to pound your opponent into submission. When we defeated the Axis in WWII, however, they surrendered. We didn't end up with Nazi cells committing acts of terror within and outside of Europe.
You just proved my point, we pounded them into submission and they surrendered. We leveled their cities, Berlin was a burning husk, and we killed their army and their civilians. Nothing much as safe from us. Not in Iraq. We left arms, military personnel and enraged civilians running free.
> If we simply mow down Iraq, we will inspire more terrorists.
I'm lost since that is exactly what we are doing NOW! The thing is that presently most of the rebels are more interested in killing each other over their religious affiliations, the "terrorists" are still a small subsection of rebel numbers. Now the longer we are there interfering with their Hatfield and McCoy war we encourage them more and more to unite against a common enemy and invite even more people from other regional countries to join in.
> And as Sept. 11, 2001, has show -- they CAN hurt us. They already have.
Get over it, already. You are more likely to be run over by a car tomorrow and die than have a terrorist action take place. It's that simple. Yes they can hurt us, but the likelyhood of them being successful are slim. 9-11 will not happen like it did again.
The more likely is that our continued stupidity over there will increase the radicalization of Islamic youth in our own country and they will be the performers of the next terrorist actions. Not some foreigner but a citizen as has been the case now twice in Britian. One successful, one not, but all done by British citizens. Should invade Britian next so that we can continue our war on terror outside our borders?
>Iraq in its current state is analogous to Vietnam, but there are also parallels with Europe after WWII.
Europe and those would be what?
>The problem is that we did not provide for the aftermath. We needed -- and still need -- a Marshall Plan.
The Marshall Plan worked due to the fact that 16 countries, all located in the same region, shared a common interest in getting back on their feet after a devestating war.
In Iraq we have already spent billions to rebuild and they just blow it up again. The people want us out of there, they don't want our help and two of the three sides just want to kill each other. You aren't dealing with people who want to put 10 years behind them and get their lives back to normal.
> It would have been far better to have put one in place BEFORE the invasion. It will be hellaciously difficult -- but not impossible -- to put one in place now. We have to try.
So people can salve their egos with more dead soldiers until even they have had enough and say nothing can be done? No thanks, we tried already. We rebuild something, they blow it up. We train police officers, they either quit when they find out their postings, or they go shoot civilians that are not of their religious sect. A politician outside of Baghdad's walls has a half life of five minutes.
All we are doing the longer we star are radicalizing more and more people.
"Gulf 1, I don't buy your arguement..."
What, you're going to say that Gulf 1 was a long war with tons of up close carnage coverage?
"No I'm saying you can't fix it so there is no need to take the chance."
So thinks you. I think different. At this point, whatever.
no argument that teh Martinez pick was a bad one, and a strange one to boot. They could have had Michael Steele...baffling.
With Pelosi apparently willing to piss away a chance for real reform in favor of picking people who have little to reccomend them other than loyalty to Pelosi (even the Soros backed CREW is upset) the Republicans had a good chance to grab some badly needed good publicity. Crazy bad choice. And he's not even leaving the senate which would have allowed the republican governor of florida to appoint a better replacement.
can ANY of these guys play the game?
"can ANY of these guys play the game?"
It seems that the magic 8-ball is screaming, NO," at the top of its lungs.
Gonna be a fun few years ahead.
Posted by: Brian Peter at November 13, 2006 09:36 PM
You just proved my point, we pounded them into submission and they surrendered. We leveled their cities, Berlin was a burning husk, and we killed their army and their civilians. Nothing much as safe from us. Not in Iraq. We left arms, military personnel and enraged civilians running free.
No, I didn't prove your point. The Germans could easily have mounted an insurgency. It doesn't take much. Low-tech explosives, car bombs, kidnappings and beheadings... none of those are especially hard to pull off.
The fact is, the European mentality is different from that of Islamic fundamentalists. The Germans surrendered because they realized there was nothing left for which to fight. Islamic fundamentalists are not quite as practical. They believe there is glory for dying in the name of Allah. That makes all the difference in the world.
Posted by: Brian Peter at November 13, 2006 09:36 PM
I'm lost
Yes, indeed you are.
Posted by: Brian Peter at November 13, 2006 09:36 PM
since that is exactly what we are doing NOW! The thing is that presently most of the rebels are more interested in killing each other over their religious affiliations, the "terrorists" are still a small subsection of rebel numbers. Now the longer we are there interfering with their Hatfield and McCoy war we encourage them more and more to unite against a common enemy and invite even more people from other regional countries to join in.
Trust me, if we mow down Iraq in the way that you are suggesting, we will see terrorism on a level that makes anything we've seen before look tichy by comparison.
Posted by: Brian Peter at November 13, 2006 09:36 PM
Get over it, already.
No, because it's not about my emotions, but instead an observation: the fact that the terrorists have hurt us badly means it can happen again. That's logic, not emotion.
Posted by: Brian Peter at November 13, 2006 09:36 PM
You are more likely to be run over by a car tomorrow and die than have a terrorist action take place. It's that simple. Yes they can hurt us, but the likelyhood of them being successful are slim. 9-11 will not happen like it did again.
The first World Trade Center bombing and the suicide attacks that toppled the Center happened years apart. Al Qaeda is known for being patient, and has an appetite for the spectacular. Declaring that "9-11 will not happen like it did again" is, in addition to being tortured syntax, a sign of overconfidence on your part.
Posted by: Brian Peter at November 13, 2006 09:36 PM
The more likely is that our continued stupidity over there will increase the radicalization of Islamic youth in our own country and they will be the performers of the next terrorist actions.
You just said terrorism wasn't an issue. Now it is. Well, which is it, then?
Posted by: Brian Peter at November 13, 2006 09:36 PM
Not some foreigner but a citizen as has been the case now twice in Britian. One successful, one not, but all done by British citizens. Should invade Britian next so that we can continue our war on terror outside our borders?
The issue is not whether we should invade Iraq, since that's already happened. The issue is whether or not we should pull out of that nation.
Posted by: Brian Peter at November 13, 2006 09:36 PM
The Marshall Plan worked due to the fact that 16 countries, all located in the same region, shared a common interest in getting back on their feet after a devestating war.
And there are many countries that have a vested interest in seeing a stable Iraq.
Posted by: Brian Peter at November 13, 2006 09:36 PM
In Iraq we have already spent billions to rebuild and they just blow it up again.
That's because we've spent our money and deployed our troops unwisely. That doesn't prove that Iraq cannot be secured.
Posted by: Brian Peter at November 13, 2006 09:36 PM
So people can salve their egos with more dead soldiers until even they have had enough and say nothing can be done?
You're creating a straw man argument. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I want to salve my ego with dead soldiers. If you need to distort your opponents argument beyond recognition in order to win, you are as much as admitting that you have no argument.
Posted by: Brian Peter at November 13, 2006 09:36 PM
All we are doing the longer we star are radicalizing more and more people.
The only logical reason to worry about radicalizing the Iraqis is if you believe terrorism is a threat. But you've said terrorism is not a threat.
Well? Which is it, then?
>No, I didn't prove your point.
Yes you did and you are about to prove another one of my points!
>The Germans could easily have mounted an insurgency. It doesn't take much. Low-tech explosives, car bombs, kidnappings and beheadings... none of those are especially hard to pull off.
Yes they could have, but they didn’t, now did they.
>The fact is, the European mentality is different from that of Islamic fundamentalists.
Thank you for agreeing on another point! Their social/religious/political makeup is completely different than what we have normally dealt with!
>Yes, indeed you are.
No you lost. I’ve never supported this war except to get the hell out of there. It’s just a matter of time till I can say, na, na, nana, hey hey, goodbye, told you so.
>Trust me, if we mow down Iraq in the way that you are suggesting, we will see terrorism on a level that makes anything we've seen before look tichy by comparision.
You have to be alive to be a terrorist. But like I said, it will never happen because it is the politically incorrect thing to do, regionally and worldly. But you are wrong also, Saddam if nothing else proved that, these people will only rebel to a certain point before they accept forced peace. There is a reason Saddam killed so many of his own people, it maintained peace.
>No, because it's not about my emotions, but instead an observation: the fact that the terrorists have hurt us badly means it can happen again. That's logic, not emotion.
Yes, but you are the one who is so worried by it you are willing to continue sending lives and money down a black hole, that will have absolutely no effect on IF it happens again, to supposedly keep it from happening again. Our money is better spent protecting the borders and strengthening our intelligence services, than it is used creating more terrorists in a wrong headed war.
>The first World Trade Center bombing and the suicide attacks that toppled the Center happened years apart. Al Qaeda is known for being patient, and has an appetite for the spectacular. Declaring that "9-11 will not happen like it did again" is, in addition to being tortured syntax, a sign of overconfidence on your part.
Have you flown lately? Have you tried to break into the pilot’s deck? Have you seen the reaction of all the other passengers when you tried? Piloting 3 jumbo jets into major buildings was due to a convergence of pre-held beliefs that had been pounded into people for decades. 1 We had forgotten that people would willingly committee suicide for their cause and 2 that no one who ever high jacked a plane would use it to committee suicide… On top of that the high jackers were flagged by civilians prior to 9-11, but our intelligence service failed to take notice.
Now a bomb in a garage as was the first attack? Sure has happened, will happen and will more likely be the result of a citizen, than some terrorist. Remember Olympic bombing at the AT&T pavilion?
Oh yes Al Qaeda is very patient. Yawn! That has nothing to do with Iraq, except for the fact Al Qaeda operates in the middle east and Iraq is in the middle east. Might as well carpet bomb Saudi Arabia while we carpet bomb Iraq because the majority of 9-11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia… Oh I’d be willing to bet the next group of terrorist will be from Iraq, they are the children/brothers/fathers/cousins/whatever of those we have killed who probably could have cared less about Al Qaeda before we invaded.
>You just said terrorism wasn't an issue. Now it is. Well, which is it, then?
I don’t know what do you think? You’re the one who seems to be lost, lets see if you can follow this line of thought, published by those appointed by Shrub: America’s involvement in Iraq has resulted in Iraqis joining Al Qaeda and created more terrorists in the world… Now since our activities, are resulting in radicalizing Iraqis who weren’t radicalized before, wouldn’t withdrawal bring that to an end or at least slow it down? And for me terrorism in Iraq isn’t an issue, but I will respond to those who use it in their arguments as justification.
>The issue is not whether we should invade Iraq, since that's already happened.
The issue is whether or not we should pull out of that nation.
Yes, let’s stay in Iraq, thus radicalizing more of their populace into radical islam due to their hatred of us and maybe you’ll get your fear realize and they’ll hi-jack 3 more planes and run them into some more buildings.
>And there are many countries that have a vested interest in seeing a stable Iraq.
Ya so we can run off with their oil. Go back and reread what I said and that was a whole region made up of 16 countries wanted to get their lives back. On one side, Iran wants it’s land back. On the other, Saudi Arabia wants their oil. In the north the Kurds want to take over Turkey and make their part of Iran a part of Turkey. The Sunnis just want to kill everyone who don’t worship their way and the Shites want to do the same to the Sunnis… Yes everyone in the region has a vested interest in seeing a stable Iran. NO, not really!
>That's because we've spent our money and deployed our troops unwisely. That doesn't prove that Iraq cannot be secured.
How much more money do you want to spend? How many more dead troops do you want? How many more troops do you want to ship over there?
>You're creating a straw man argument. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I want to salve my ego with dead soldiers.
You’re the one arguing with me about not withdrawing the troops, so exactly what are you trying to do? Win? You can’t win? And at this point even if you can win how many more lives is it worth? How much more money? Are you willing to pay my share of those taxes?
>If you need to distort your opponents argument beyond recognition in order to win, you are as much as admitting that you have no argument.
Look the argument was not based on you, it’s based on the argument a lot of people have used for keeping our troops over there: As our soon to be former House member Chris Chocola said in one of his ads: “I’m all for bringing our troops home, but it MUST be in victory.” Or as a parent of a dead soldier told me recently: “They must win or my son died for nothing…” At this point the argument is about salving egos, a parent who will be tortured if the likely hood occurs and their child died in vain. (I’m sorry their child died, he shouldn’t have, but how many more people must die before enough is enough?) A politician who failed in every way possible, looking for an excuse to keep our soldiers over there, “because they must win”. If you want to defend this type of attitude then I’ll lump you in with them.
>The only logical reason to worry about radicalizing the Iraqis is if you believe terrorism is a threat. But you've said terrorism is not a threat.
And I supposedly twist arguments. Sorry, but you are wrong. I have no fear of radicalized Iraqis. The chances they are going to get in the country and do any damage is nearly nil. Al Qaeda claims to have what 20,000 troops? And they only managed to get 20 in for 9-11 out of 20,000? I’m so not worried. However I don’t like seeing our troops come home in coffins, I don’t like getting calls to go document their funerals, and I don’t like the fact that we are getting them killed because our actions have radicalized a large portion of the population that we supposedly were going to shove “democracy” down the throats of.
>Well? Which is it, then?
Watching you twist in the wind.
What I'm worried about is the national deficite which is pushing 9 trillion under Shrub, largely because of this war and in 10 years because of his out of control spending the majority of us will be standing in soup lines because our economy finally collapsed and sent to the world into another Great Depression. Terrorists aren't even a worry in my life, they are just the latest boogie men in a long line of boogie men used to scare people and justify the stupidity of the government.
The only logical reason to worry about radicalizing the Iraqis is if you believe terrorism is a threat. But you've said terrorism is not a threat.
Well? Which is it, then?
i somehow missed the part where Brian said terrorism was not a threat.
i also think that if you read his posts you'll find that he really doesn't think mowing down Iraq is a good idea.
ok, i can see the terrorism not a threat thing in Brian's latest post.
and, frankly, he has a point. this stuff grabs headlines but it's not really one of the more substantive concerns facing American citizens.
i don't think anyone's suggesting that we don't take steps to stop terrorism in our country, however.
Brian Peter, having searched your last post for anything resembling a coherent point and finding instead nothing of the sort, I find I have nothing else to say to you.
and, frankly, he has a point. this stuff grabs headlines but it's not really one of the more substantive concerns facing American citizens.
But all it will take would be a few with some nuclear, chemical or biological material to change all that. Considering what was accomplished with box cutters and what could still be done with material easily purchased at any Home Depot store I'm not resting as easily as Brian is.
i don't think anyone's suggesting that we don't take steps to stop terrorism in our country, however.
If they are as much of a non-threat as Brian thinks, why not?
Hey, I hope he's right, though I can't say his arguments are easy to follow. There's no denying that I was very wrong to expect that the last 5 years would have many attacks within the country. But I would rate the liklihood of a major catastrophic attack in the next 10 years as much more likely than all of us standing in soup lines. We'll see who's right. Hopefully, neither of us.
No, I didn't prove your point. The Germans could easily have mounted an insurgency. It doesn't take much. Low-tech explosives, car bombs, kidnappings and beheadings... none of those are especially hard to pull off.
With what soldiers? Kurt Vonnegut was told his generation of German's in Germany were wiped out. Complaints that the French offered no resistence in WWII? It's because their WWI generation was wiped out in the same way.
Review your Art of War: in the first chapter, your first consideration in deciding to go to war is moral law. In effect, the first rule of the Art of War is to secure your resolve to wage war in the first place.
Well, we've handed the Iraq insurgency their resolve to fight us: We've invaded an oil-rich Muslin territory that was no threat to us. The only evidence Iraq had WMD came from Ahmad Chalabi, who we paid $300,000 a month, and was later revealed to be a spy for the Iranian. All other evidence was speculation.
The first thing to attack in war is the resolve to fight you, or it will never end. We can't do that while we continue to occupy them after an invasion, and we also don't have the resolve to nuke them. What then is the point of staying there?
Yes, in all their chicken-hawkishness, the republicans have persistently demonstrated a pathological ignorance of the underlying principles of war that as cost us $½ trillion -- just so we can lose a war we started. Dumb-ass fuckers (can't be emphasised enough). And Bill Mulligan doesn't think turning out some of these chickenhawk assholes won't change congress for the better. Sweet Baby Jesus.
"I don't agree with PAD, Bush didn't exit Rummy because it "was the right thing to do", he exited him for future political gain."
Whoa, back up. You're saying the same thing that I did. I said it was "the right move at the right time." Believe it or not, there's a subtle difference between that and "the right thing to do." The latter phrase implies there's some sort of moral foundation involved. I never said there was. I said it was "the right move at the right time" because I was casting it *entirely* in the light of political gamesmanship. Bush made the move, not because Rumsfeld was incompetent or got people killed, but because it was politically expedient.
"True. However, removing would have been a nice symbol of graciousness and nonpartisanship. An acknowledgement that things are going to change since the Congress is going to switch hands in January. All about being "uniters," not "dividers.""
I'm sorry, Tim, but what a steaming pile of crap that is. When the GOP took control of every branch of the government, they had no interest in graciousness, in nonpartisanship. Nor did their leader, who came into office through a partisan Supreme Court and a false claim of uniting rather than dividing have any interest in those points of view (did you know that when he gave his acceptance speech from the floor of the Texas Senate, it was filled entirely with Republicans? Any Democrats who had been in opposition to him were kept out of the proceedings.) Republicans in the government have done everything they could to marginalize Democrats and reduce the effectiveness of the previous Democratic president while he was in office.
But now that they're no longer in power--now that their divisiveness, belligerence and arrogance finally caught up with them--NOW there's a call for bipartisanship? Of establishing "a new spirit?" My God, how can any conservative even type that with a straight face, much less believe that? Think of the message that's being sent: "Hi. We've spent years being divisive. But now we expect you to be better than we are and work with us in a spirit of bipartisanship that we ourselves never exhibited." It's an inherent admission that Democrats are more moral, more interestedin the common good, and quite simply better people than the Republicans. To quote Timon: "And we're OKAY with this?"
PAD
Think of the message that's being sent: "Hi. We've spent years being divisive. But now we expect you to be better than we are and work with us in a spirit of bipartisanship that we ourselves never exhibited." It's an inherent admission that Democrats are more moral, more interested in the common good, and quite simply better people than the Republicans.
But doesn't that imply that he was right--that taking it down would mean you really ARE better? And if that's the case isn't that an argument for doing it? By not doing it aren't you admitting that no, Democrats really AREN'T any better?
Me, I don't think that keeping it up or taking it down makes one iota difference about much anything. Certainly the actions of one person can't be extrapolated to Democrats or even the Jeopardy category "Famous Comic Book Writers Named Peter" as a whole. Especially when the action is so meaningless. Now if you were to cure cancer, broker peace between the Palestinians and Israelis or see to it that Mike gets the Lithium he needs, those would indeed be noble efforts worthy of praise.
"But doesn't that imply that he was right--that taking it down would mean you really ARE better?"
I'd rather simply know I'm better without flaunting it. Why be showy?
PAD
I'd rather simply know I'm better without flaunting it. Why be showy?
Good point. :)
"But doesn't that imply that he was right--that taking it down would mean you really ARE better? And if that's the case isn't that an argument for doing it? By not doing it aren't you admitting that no, Democrats really AREN'T any better?"
Thanks, Bill, for putting it so well. That's exactly what it means, in my opinion. Now, I don't really care about the Freedom Clock. As I said, it has a new meaning for me now. In fact, I may be coming back to this site more often to check on it.
In all honesty, the tone of unity and bipartisanship from the Democrats in Washington probably won't even last as long as it did when President Bush took charge. The only thing on this subject that will be truly difficult to swallow will be continuing to hear from some about how Bush isn't a uniter while excusing the rank partisanship of the Democrats by saying, "Well, the Republicans started it!!!" Good Lord, if you're going to complain about something for 6 years at least try to show a better way when you have the opportunity to do so.
"I'm sorry, Tim, but what a steaming pile of crap that is."
That's all right. I forgive you.
Bill Myers hacked:
>Brian Peter, having searched your last post for anything resembling a coherent point and finding instead nothing of the sort, I find I have nothing else to say to you.
Back to the insults. It's nice to know that the intelligence level of the conservative side hasn't increased on iota since last Tuesday.
----------------------------
>i somehow missed the part where Brian said terrorism was not a threat.
I didn't but Bill prefers using the Bill O'Riley play book, fabricate your facts, don't argue the reality.
Terrorism is a threat we need to be aware of, but it can take many forms and is more likely to be perpetrated by your citizens than a barely educated fanatic sqautting in a cave 7000 miles away.
>i don't think anyone's suggesting that we don't take steps to stop terrorism in our country, however.
Precisely a strong intelligence agency that is allowed to do their job, not prove one person's wrong headed ideals will go farther in protecting our borders than irradiating sand with spent uranium.
---------------------------------------------
>But all it will take would be a few with some nuclear, chemical or biological material to change all that. Considering what was accomplished with box cutters and what could still be done with material easily purchased at any Home Depot store I'm not resting as easily as Brian is.
And why was a box of razor blades in the hands of 5 idiots successful? 5 guys box cutters vs, I believe the smallest passenger list was 68 people, isn't much of a fight. If you can't figure out that one then I suggest running out to Menards and purchasing plastic wrap and duct tape and then gift wrap your house in it.
>There's no denying that I was very wrong to expect that the last 5 years would have many attacks within the country.
Most recently a small community of Amish were terrorized by a milk man who killed several school children before turning the gun on himself. 4 years ago I believe two 14 year olds decided to take their daddy's hunting rifels and play snipper on a hill overlooking their school, killing at least 1 adult if I remember right. The DC area saw a string of drive by shootings by unseen snippers, people were killed mowing, pumping gas, leaving a store, besides other scenarios. Massive manhunt, international news, assumed the latest international terrorist action after 9-11 and was uncovered to be a teenager and an adult from Washington State who were both off their rockers.
You can count any number of happenings terrorist actions. Yes in 10 years another attack by Al Queda rises in probability but even then the chances of success is highly unlikely if we maintain our awareness. The first bombing of the twin towers while sponsored by Al Queda was done by the followers of a Muslim Cleric living in this country who was already on a watch list. The ring leaders of 9-11 were turned into the FBI by their flight instructor and supposedly a hollywood actor. Both occasions human error failed to stop the terrorists. And human error will fail to stop them again, but a war that radicalizes individuals into becoming terrorists, is more likely to help their plans foil them.
--------------------
PAD wrote
>Whoa, back up. You're saying the same thing that I did. I said it was "the right move at the right time." Believe it or not, there's a subtle difference between that and "the right thing to do." The latter phrase implies there's some sort of moral foundation involved. I never said there was. I said it was "the right move at the right time" because I was casting it *entirely* in the light of political gamesmanship. Bush made the move, not because Rumsfeld was incompetent or got people killed, but because it was politically expedient.
Sorry about that. You are of course right, I miss read it.
>In all honesty, the tone of unity and bipartisanship from the Democrats in Washington probably won't even last as long as it did when President Bush took charge.
Oh yah, those damn Dems and their failure to be bipartisan... Considering Bush decided to give up on bipartisanship about 15 minutes after Pelosi left the White House, by trying to force Bolton down everyones throat again, the Republicans have absolutely nothing to complain about; the president already killed it off with actions.
Posted by: Peter David at November 14, 2006 09:24 AM
I'm sorry, Tim, but what a steaming pile of crap that is.
Actually, I'd say calls for bi-partisanship coming from the Republicans amount to them saying the right things for the wrong reasons, rather than being nothing but a "steaming pile of crap."
As you so aptly put it, the Republicans are out of power because "their divisiveness, belligerence and arrogance finally caught up with them." But the Democrats have demonstrated no shortage of those traits -- it's just been harder to see because the Dems haven't been the dominant party in quite some time.
Regardless of whether or not a GOP call for bi-partisanship is insincere (and I believe that it is insincere), the Democrats would do well to make a good-faith attempt to heed this call and do it ostentatiously. The Dems weren't swept into power because people believe they're made of angel-stuff and the GOP is made of hellfire and brimstone. They were swept into power because people were sick and tired of Republicans' actions. If Democrats repeat the mistakes of the Republicans, they'll be out on their ass again in short order.
For the record, I am a Democrat and I voted mainly Democratic in the most recent election. But I don't believe the Democrats are inherently better people than the Republicans. I'll judge the Dems the way I did the GOP -- by their actions, not their party affiliation.
By the way -- one of the few times Bill Clinton took a stand on pure principle was when he refused to sign the Republicans' budget proposal into law. People closest to him said he truly didn't care if it cost him the 1996 election. The resulting stand-off shut down the government. Clinton came out smelling like a rose, and with good reason.
The Dems need to do something similar. Take a stand for bi-partisanship. If the GOP responds by going on the attack, the Dems should not respond in kind. Instead, they should make it loud and clear that they will continue to stand for bi-partisanship. The GOP would look terrible by comparison and the Dems would make further gains in upcoming elections.
Do I think the Dems are smart enough to do this? I really don't know. I hope so.
"it’s based on the argument a lot of people have used for keeping our troops over there..."
Yes, Brian, and you are missing key points in the argument being made here by arguing things said by others elsewhere. Rather then further confusing you and the issue by responding to the straw dogs you are throwing up based on "the argument a lot of people have used" rather then the main points being made here, I will give you, again, the reasons why would should stay.
1) Long term security
If we pull out now, Iraq goes to hell. That's both stupid and in the best interests of no one. It also adds a bit of fuel to the fire. Many people in Iraq did not trust us after Gulf 1. due to Bush the Elder making promises of support if they stood up against Saddam and then abandoning to torture and death after they did so. You would have us, after bleating on about learning from history, repeat that with a similar mistake. Good move. Lets just go ahead and make another country that hates our guts. That way, they can either survive to be their U.S.A. haters in the future or they can hook up with/be taken over by another country in the region that also hates us.
By increasing the number of troops over there, we can stabilize things enough to actually start doing some of the stuff right that we've been unable to do. We may be able to give the new government of Iraq enough breathing room to start to better set itself up. We'll also be able to deal with some security issues in a way that being too short in numbers and playing whack-a-mole has never let us do.
Now, will this allow us to "win"? Depends on what you want to call a win. I think the best win we will get is by not creating a country that hates us and actively tries to hurt us.
2) We have a moral obligation to do what we can.
Iraq did nothing to us and was no threat to us in the least. Then we invaded the country. We removed its government. We disbanded its army. We disbanded its civilian authority. We destroyed many of its emergency responders. We destroyed much of its infrastructure. We destroyed its public works facilities. We weakened its stand alone economy. We removed its ability to standup to outside threats. We have yet to bring any of those things back up to pre-war levels.
I'm sorry, but we broke it and now we are obligated to buy it. Plus, while I my in fact be an @$$hole, I'm not a big enough of an @$$hole to think that leaving Iraq in that state is all fine and dandy. You want to bleat on about what the world will stomach? How exactly happy do you think the world will be with us if we leave a country that, while limping badly, was running before we decided to waltz in and destroy it and not do something to fix that before waltzing back out and into the sunset? How much of an immoral, irresponsible and uncaring jackass do you have to be to think that doing that is all fine and dandy? Wait, don't answer that, I already have my answer.
3) You keep saying that we're trying to salve our egos. I'm sorry, but you're full of s**t. I have friends who are over there. I would rather not see them get killed just so my ego can feel good about itself. So glad that you feel you know enough about me to keep implying that I'm that much of a monster.
I've argued for years, here and elsewhere, that Iraq was a mistake. I said that before we even went in. Hell, I said that back in the 90's when people were griping about the fact that we didn't "finish the job" in Gulf 1. I've pointed out just how many ways I thought that this foolish venture was pointless. But most of that was based on the fact that the Neo-Cons were in complete power and control, Rummy was running things and Bush saw his path in Iraq as the right one no matter how clear it was that it was going off of a cliff.
Things have changed. We may be seeing a change in the running of this war that puts us in a position to at least correct some of what we've been doing wrong. It's an option that should not just be dismissed out of hand because things have been run poorly up until now.
I also happen to agree, even if it is somewhat grudgingly and after many arguments, with some of the people who are questioning whether or not just pulling out means that we're saying that the soldiers who have died for this sacrificed for nothing. That's because I've been told this by my friends who are over there or have been over there.
They've been on the ground. They've stated that a new boss running the show could make a world of difference. They (most of them) want to stay and try to do something to make having been there worth it. They feel that they can. The only guys I know who don't share that belief are the guys who never wanted to be there at all. Personally, I'll give my friends' opinions on what they want more respect then yours.
"Back to the insults. It's nice to know that the intelligence level of the conservative side hasn't increased on iota since last Tuesday."
Bill Myers.... A Conservative???? Wow. The things you learn on this site.
Posted by: Brian Peter at November 14, 2006 12:21 PM
Back to the insults. It's nice to know that the intelligence level of the conservative side hasn't increased on iota since last Tuesday.
I am a registered Democrat and voted nearly straight Democrat in the last election. I opposed the invasion of Iraq on the grounds that it was a dangerous and unnecessary thing to do. The main difference of opinion between you and I is whether or not we can leave now that we've blundered in. Just because I don't think a swift withdrawal is wise doesn't mean I'm a conservative (in fact, I can best be described as left-leaning but able to see the value in certain aspects of conservatism).
Given the abrasive and dismissive tone of your responses to Jerry C and I, you are in no position to complain about insults. I am sorry that you feel compelled to interpret disagreement as a personal attack. I'd've enjoyed continuing to debate with you as I have enjoyed debating with others here.
In fact, there are times when I have changed my mind on the basis of a superior argument. I am far more open-minded than you want to believe; there is ample evidence for that in these threads. But when you resort to insults (like "watching you twist in the wind") and take the argument to a personal level, I lose interest. Sorry.
Posted by: Jerry C at November 14, 2006 12:45 PM
Bill Myers.... A Conservative???? Wow. The things you learn on this site.
Yeah, I know, that's pretty staggering. And what a piss-poor conservative I've been -- I voted for Hillary Clinton for Chrissakes!
">i somehow missed the part where Brian said terrorism was not a threat.
I didn't but Bill prefers using the Bill O'Riley play book, fabricate your facts, don't argue the reality."
Well.....
"Right where we were the day after 9-11. With people who hate us loose in the world and the potential that something may some day be done to us. Our gas prices..."
"... But it won't be the end of the world, far from it. Bush has pounded fear into the majorities heads, but the reality is they are thousands of miles from us. They are just as happy killing each other over religious debates as they are killing us."
"Bailing and letting them shoot it out will keep them occupied for a few years and give us the manpower to go after the real problem, Bin Ladden."
"Get over it, already. You are more likely to be run over by a car tomorrow and die than have a terrorist action take place. It's that simple. Yes they can hurt us, but the likelyhood of them being successful are slim. 9-11 will not happen like it did again."
"Have you flown lately? Have you tried to break into the pilot’s deck? Have you seen the reaction of all the other passengers when you tried? Piloting 3 jumbo jets into major buildings was due to a convergence of pre-held beliefs that had been pounded into people for decades."
"Oh yes Al Qaeda is very patient. Yawn!"
You did come off as blowing off the threat quite a bit in how you worded your arguments. You come off as saying that it once happened but is never really gonna be a big deal again. You kind of did come off as saying that you saw terrorism as no real or big future threat.
"Precisely a strong intelligence agency that is allowed to do their job, not prove one person's wrong headed ideals will go farther in protecting our borders than irradiating sand with spent uranium.'
And working on our intelligence and working to fix what we've done wrong over there will work better then doing either by itself.
"5 guys box cutters vs, I believe the smallest passenger list was 68 people, isn't much of a fight. If you can't figure out that one then I suggest running out to Menards and purchasing plastic wrap and duct tape and then gift wrap your house in it."
Really? Ok. Go get yourself 4 more people and some box cutters. I'll go get 67 of my friends. Wanna test your theory?
"5 guys box cutters vs, I believe the smallest passenger list was 68 people, isn't much of a fight."
You also seem to forget that one flight DID fight back when they found out what was going on. The others didn't fight back because they likely didn't know what the terrorists were up to.
Sorry to trip you up with the facts and all.
And why was a box of razor blades in the hands of 5 idiots successful? 5 guys box cutters vs, I believe the smallest passenger list was 68 people, isn't much of a fight. If you can't figure out that one then I suggest running out to Menards and purchasing plastic wrap and duct tape and then gift wrap your house in it.
I am totally missing your point here.
My point was that, far from being a minor threat, terrorism is a real problem. The bit about the boxcutters was just to show how much can be done with very little. With some of the plutonium that iran has now been proven to be producing...well.
Bill Myers.... A Conservative???? Wow. The things you learn on this site.
That's how it usually happens...you hang out long enough with liberals and one day...
1) Long term security
If we pull out now, Iraq goes to hell. That's both stupid and in the best interests of no one. It also adds a bit of fuel to the fire.
That's plainly wrong. The Iraq Study Group, staffed by the president's father's people, have concluded that it's our occupation that's adding fuel to the fire. To say otherwise is fabrication and denial. Sorry to trip you up with the facts and all.
We aren't going to stop an insurgency we are feeding, and we aren't going to stop all the kidnapping, ransoming, and torture that's going on. All that's keeps us there pushing is vanity.
I'm sorry, but we broke it and now we are obligated to buy it. Plus, while I my in fact be an @$$hole, I'm not a big enough of an @$$hole to think that leaving Iraq in that state is all fine and dandy. You want to bleat on about what the world will stomach? How exactly happy do you think the world will be with us if we leave a country that, while limping badly, was running before we decided to waltz in and destroy it and not do something to fix that before waltzing back out and into the sunset? How much of an immoral, irresponsible and uncaring jackass do you have to be to think that doing that is all fine and dandy? Wait, don't answer that, I already have my answer.
ideally, our moral obligation is to fix it. however, if it's beyond our power to fix, then we should leave before more damage is done.
i haven't seen much of a credible plan for actually fixing Iraq. the best plans i've seen are for cutting our losses (ie., cutting and running). in an unwinnable situation, strategic withdrawal is the only reasonable solution.
i'd love to see us fix Iraq, but nothing i've seen gives me any faith that we can do so.
i think Brian has overstated many things. i also think there's a lot of truth in the arguments he's been making.
That's plainly wrong. The Iraq Study Group, staffed by the president's father's people, have concluded that it's our occupation that's adding fuel to the fire. To say otherwise is fabrication and denial. Sorry to trip you up with the facts and all.
The Iraq Study Group? when our best hope for sanity comes from James Baker III, you know we're in deep doo-doo.
that said, i've seen little credible doubt cast on their conclusions.
Posted by: indestructibleman at November 14, 2006 02:58 PM
The Iraq Study Group? when our best hope for sanity comes from James Baker III, you know we're in deep doo-doo.
James Baker III was the incredibly skillful diplomat responsible for putting together international support for the first Gulf War. I happen to believe that the first Gulf War was morally dubious at best, but there is no denying Baker's gift for diplomacy.
One of our biggest problems dealing with the sequel -- Iraq II: The Bungling -- has been a lack of international support. Baker has the skill and the international stature that would allow him to help change that.
Baker has the skill and the international stature that would allow him to help change that.
Except, why would the rest of the world want to get anywhere near the mess that we almost single-handedly created?
Why would they want to put their soldiers at risk in a situation that we can't control?
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at November 14, 2006 03:30 PM
Except, why would the rest of the world want to get anywhere near the mess that we almost single-handedly created?
Why would they want to put their soldiers at risk in a situation that we can't control?
The fact that the U.S. created the mess doesn't mean that other nations don't have a practical interest in helping to solve it. It has an impact on the national security of the international community.
But you're right -- convincing other nations of that will be a bitch. It may not be possible. My point, however, is this: if it can be done, Baker is one of the few who is capable of doing it.
Sigh... when I said the "national security of the international community," I meant the security of the international community. Because national and international are kind of opposites.
Sigh... forgive me, it's been a rough day at the office.
It brings up an interesting point though--as some commentators have mentioned, the United States and the Coalition have an obligation under UN Security Council resolutions to maintain security in Iraq until the Iraqis can take over.
One of the common complaints about Bush was that he ignored UN resolutions. Will it suddenly be ok if he ignores that one?
Jerry wrote:
>You also seem to forget that one flight DID fight back when they found out what was going on. The others didn't fight back because they likely didn't know what the terrorists were up to.
>Sorry to trip you up with the facts and all.
I didn't know I left any facts out. You are now reaching for an argument to try and prove me wrong. Go back through the posts and you will find that I have made numerous statements that 9-11 was a disaster that took place because in our arrogance and belief system no one ever thought someone would hi-jack a plane and suicide themselves with it!
In training up until 9-11 pilots and staff had it pounded into their heads that when hi-jacked you take no steps to stop the hi-jackers but obey their orders and get the plane on the ground as soon as possible.
In today's world, is that going to happen. Are 4 to 6 people with box cutters going to be able to barge into the flight deck, kill the pilots and fly the plane into a building? Highly unlikely. The flight deck is protected with reinforced doors today and passengers at this point will probably grab the closest thing to them and ram it into the hi-jackers.
Yes one flight did fight back but for them it was too late since the terrorists controlled the flight deck. Now if we had not had 30 years of it pounded into us to not move against a hi-jacker when they try and take a plane, 9-11 would have been a totally different story.
So Jerry please re-read my posts and get your facts straight about what I have said. Hi-jackers may blow a plane up in mid air. Thay may shoot all the passengers, if they have guns. But taking over the flight deck and piloting a passenger jet into a building is today highly unlikely to happen.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 14, 2006 03:51 PM
One of the common complaints about Bush was that he ignored UN resolutions. Will it suddenly be ok if he ignores that one?
You know, I hate it when U.N. Resolutions are trotted out as a justification for anything. Nations flout them all the time, including the U.S. The only time anyone thinks they mean a damn thing is when it's convenient.
"My point, however, is this: if it can be done, Baker is one of the few who is capable of doing it."
And it would be foolish to not even let him try.
"I didn't know I left any facts out. You are now reaching for an argument to try and prove me wrong."
Really?
"And why was a box of razor blades in the hands of 5 idiots successful? 5 guys box cutters vs, I believe the smallest passenger list was 68 people, isn't much of a fight. If you can't figure out that one then I suggest running out to Menards and purchasing plastic wrap and duct tape and then gift wrap your house in it."
I didn't read you wrong at all. If you meant something else, you did a poor job of getting it across. Not my fault there.
Now, if you're trying to change what you said to make it say that five guys should not have been able to overpower sixty-eight people or that sixty-eight people should have been able to make short work of five thugs with box cutters... Well, then we can agree. That's just not what you wrote or how it came across. Again, not my fault that you didn't make a clear point.
"Nations flout them all the time, including the U.S. The only time anyone thinks they mean a damn thing is when it's convenient."
Yeah, I found it funny as hell to watch Rush, Hannity, Beck, Fox News and other cling to 1441 as if it were God's own word after years of screaming about how we should get out of the U.N. and how those evil U.N. Resolutions were just designed to destroy America. It was an even bigger belly laugh to see members of The Grand Old Party out there worshipping 1441 on the chat shows when they had been even more nasty in their comments about the U.N. and our membership in it.
And, of course, the next U.N. Resolutions that came out that they didn't like? Worthless bathroom tissue from the house of the Devil.
Gotta love it.
;p
"i'd love to see us fix Iraq, but nothing i've seen gives me any faith that we can do so."
I have a theory. I may be wrong, God KNOWS, I may be wrong, but I think a large part of the problem the planners of this little war of theirs had is they didn't understand the people they'd run into. I mean, was there an "Understanding Islamic Minds" part of the process? Not being sarcastic, here, (well, not TOTALLY sarcastic) but was there any account taken of the culture we'd be up against trying to make into our new bestest friends? I sure as hell know I BARELY begin to scratch the surface of the plastic wrap around the brown paper wrapper on the hermetically sealed box that says "I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT ISLAM." But then, I don't really run into too many in my line of work. You'd think people who are changing lives of people who follow Islam might be a little more informed, but I haven't seen it.
"I mean, was there an "Understanding Islamic Minds" part of the process?"
No, there wasn't. It almost seemed as if they were doing whatever they could to not understand it. It's why I thought so little of the planners and people running this mess. It's one of the things I hope gets addressed now (better late then never).
Back to the arguement from Jerry:
>1) Long term security
If we pull out now, Iraq goes to hell. That's both stupid and in the best interests of no one.
Africa has gone to hell in a very similar way as Iraq would, I see very few people advocating invasion on either side or stay the course. And who says it would be any worse than what is happening today? Headline on Netscape right now: BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Gunmen dressed as police commandos kidnapped scores of staff and visitors in a lightning raid on a Baghdad higher education office Tuesday, while least 82 people were killed or found dead in murders, bombings and clashes nationwide. That looks like hell today, let alone tomorrow.
>Many people in Iraq did not trust us after Gulf 1. due to Bush the Elder making promises of support if they stood up against Saddam and then abandoning to torture and death after they did so.
Newflash, no one over there trusts us all that much anyways. We are the supporters of Israel and that has made us the hated in a lot of the Muslim world for far longer than 1990!
Also remember a large part of those rebels were Kurds, not sunni or shiite. The Kurds are Christian by heritage and don't really get along with anyone in the area. If they aren't causing Iraq problems they are in Turkey causing problems. And they still like us.
>You would have us, after bleating on about learning from history, repeat that with a similar mistake.
Yes bleating is a good word, because if we had learned or I should say, if Bush had learned from history and the rest of the population hadn't been terrorized by his rhetoric we wouldn't have invaded in the first place. Remember a large part of my argument is based on the past history of these people and how they have reacted to occupiers for the past several thousand years. The British in modern history tried twice and have now tried 3 times to subdue the region. Their last attempt culminated with splitting Persia into Iran and Iraq and in Iran we (the US) stuck a puppet on a throne known as the Shaw. Do you remember the fate of the Shaw of Iran? Yes the SHaw ruled for about 35 years I believe but that just meant a future generation of americans had to deal with the stupidity of their fathers and we're still dealing with what we caused in that country.
>Lets just go ahead and make another country that hates our guts. That way, they can either survive to be their U.S.A. haters in the future or they can hook up with/be taken over by another country in the region that also hates us.
Please give me a plan of how we eliminate racial and religious hatred among such a diverse region? Do you really think installing another puppet government in the country is going to make them like us any better? We installed the Shaw in Iran and where did that get us? We installed Saddam into power in Iraq and where did that get us? How many times do you keep repeating the same fraking mistake before you wake up and go: Ah, that don't work!
The only reason the power brokers in the region even tolerate us is because they want our money for their oil.
> We may be able to give the new government of Iraq enough breathing room to start to better set itself up.
The police we trained are shooting each other, if they even show up to work. Half of the trainees want only the money and disappear after graduation. Such things inspire so much faith, not.
>We'll also be able to deal with some security issues in a way that being too short in numbers and playing whack-a-mole has never let us do.
Bin Ladden, where are you? Security starts at home, not 7000 miles away.
>I think the best win we will get is by not creating a country that hates us and actively tries to hurt us.
This is your win and it's the only win you can possibly get: A petty dictator that puts his people down at gunpoint. Who may 40 years later turn on you and bite you in the ass. Or will be overthrown and one step ahead of the headsman axe.
Bleak, yes but realistic.
> We have a moral obligation to do what we can.
I wonder how we would have felt if Britan had decided at the outset of our civil war that since they were the worlds power they were morally obligated to dictate the results and fix our problems.
We tried to rebuild their industrial base, they blew it up. We tried to give them education, they beheaded the teachers. We try to restore power, they shoot the workers. We try to give them food, they blow up the trucks.
How about this, our moral obligation ended when they elected their government last winter. The people chose their leaders, it is now time for those leaders to either live or die by their elected authority. And if the people are unwilling to recognize the authority of those they elected, and obviously they are not then quite frankly that is the problem for those they elected, not us.
If they are as we say a duly elected government then it is time for that government to solve it's own problems. We didn't ask the British to be our police officers after the revolutionary war. We didn't ask them to protect our politicians either with their military. We kicked them out and quickly built our own civil authority.
The Iraqis however are acting like children. One moment their duly elected government is saying that we can't maintain out check points which are trying to find our missing soldier because we don't have the authority and in the next breath screaming we can't leave because they aren't "ready" yet...
> We have yet to bring any of those things back up to pre-war levels.
Not from the standpoint of trying.
>How exactly happy do you think the world will be with us if we leave a country that, while limping badly, was running before we decided to waltz in and destroy it and not do something to fix that before waltzing back out and into the sunset?
Have you not been listening to the news? Russia doesn't want us there, China neither. Half of Europe calls us idiots and wants us out of there. Really when you are at the bottom of the pit how much father can you fall? The UN already thinks we are a pack of imperialist dogs. So we get a second black eye in the world's opinion, zippy doo da. Those who hate us will have another excuse to do so as if they needed one. Those who want our money will continue filling container ships with their wares and shipping them to us. The world will not come to an end.
>How much of an immoral, irresponsible and uncaring jackass do you have to be to think that doing that is all fine and dandy? Wait, don't answer that, I already have my answer.
Ah taking a page from Bill's book with the name calling. As uncaring and unfeeling as the rest of the world is as they allow unfettered violence to continue claiming millions of lives in Africa. Or how about China which has one of the worst human rights record of any industrialized nation. Hey their our "allies" just ignore the total lack of morals with their own people as you buy the dirt cheap DVD player from WallMart. How about this: as much as people care about the fact Iran is about to torture a woman who is a soap star on their tv for having sex outside of wedlock. Or how about the detainees we have from the region of Iraq who have not had the very civil rights we demand for our citizens and most of which continue to be tortured even though by now any information they may have had is so long out of date it's worthless.
Scream all the immoral indignity all you want, it's a joke, morality has nothing to do with it. You daily go out and support countries with your money who's moral track records are far worse than ours, who torture their people, lock them up for having an original idea, kill their daughters over an archaic sense of "honor", enslave people, allow the drug runners to run free and have no right to lecture us over moral standings one bit. But you keep sending them your money so you can enjoy your cheap creature comforts. A few of those countries would be China, Saudi Arabia, Venuzeala, Mexico, India, South Africa... Don't lecture me on morals, your moral compass seems to be busted!
>You keep saying that we're trying to salve our egos. I'm sorry, but you're full of s**t.
Hit a nerve have I? :-)
> I have friends who are over there. I would rather not see them get killed just so my ego can feel good about itself.
Yet your moral compass says get them killed so that you feel your country has met it's moral obligations. I call throwing away lives on a useless enterprise so you can feel moral is salving your ego.
>It's an option that should not just be dismissed out of hand because things have been run poorly up until now.
I'll remember that at the next soldier's funeral I get a call to document.
>They (most of them) want to stay and try to do something to make having been there worth it. They feel that they can. The only guys I know who don't share that belief are the guys who never wanted to be there at all. Personally, I'll give my friends' opinions on what they want more respect then yours.
John Wayne syndrome. A country tends to get the type of ruler that the people want. Every ruler, even dictatorships rule at the will of the people, loose the will of the people and the ruler is going down. Iraq could easily have chosen someone else than Saddam, china, Iran, Russia. Even the mightiest army can't stand up to the majority of the populace.
"This is your win and it's the only win you can possibly get:...."
Hey, call me when you have the numbers for the nest six mega millions lotto drawings. Then and only then can you tell me that you and you alone know the ONLY outcome the any future holds.
I'll address everything else later. Off to work. Don't wait up.
Jerry C, Brian Peter has crossed the line into troll territory. I'd suggest you refrain from providing him with any further satisfaction.
>I didn't read you wrong at all. If you meant something else, you did a poor job of getting it across. Not my fault there.
Well it looks like my failing is in assuming that the change to the "rules" of dealing with mental cases or hi-jackers on planes is universal common knowledge. After all the shoe bomber was beat up and then tied up shortly after 9-11. One guy who charged the flight deck was beat to death. Two more mental cases who tried to charge the pilots or just acted all around weird have either been beat up and restrained or just restrained. I figured you could fill in the blanks.
Well here is the original header and the lines in question:
Posted by: Brian Peter at November 13, 2006 09:36 PM
"Piloting 3 jumbo jets into major buildings was due to a convergence of pre-held beliefs that had been pounded into people for decades. 1 We had forgotten that people would willingly committee suicide for their cause and 2 that no one who ever high jacked a plane would use it to committee suicide… "
Leading to passengers and flight crew will no longer willingly allow a plane to be hi-jacked.
>Now, if you're trying to change what you said to make it say that five guys should not have been able to overpower sixty-eight people or that sixty-eight people should have been able to make short work of five thugs with box cutters... Well, then we can agree. That's just not what you wrote or how it came across. Again, not my fault that you didn't make a clear point.
Yes, my fault to assume you think logically.
You know, I hate it when U.N. Resolutions are trotted out as a justification for anything. Nations flout them all the time, including the U.S. The only time anyone thinks they mean a damn thing is when it's convenient.
Well, yeah, I know. It's a bit worse though when it's a UN resolution that you supported. I mean, the UN can pass every anti-Israel resolution they want from here to armegeddon (i.e., Thursday) and it's no big deal to yawn and look the other way but when you just trash a resolution that you yourself was pushing...
I'm not saying that our hands are bound by it though.
Africa has gone to hell in a very similar way as Iraq would, I see very few people advocating invasion on either side or stay the course.
I think allowing the current genocide in Africa to happen will be one of the great blots on the memory of our time.
Iraq could easily have chosen someone else than Saddam, china, Iran, Russia. Even the mightiest army can't stand up to the majority of the populace.
I seriously doubt the truth of that statement. Were there a free election I doubt that the North Koreans would want Kim. And Iraq did not "choose" Saddma--he chose to take over the party and killed anyone who was in his way. It's not like the average Iraqi could do anything about it. A dictator that has the support of 20% of the public and 80% of the army is waaaaaay better off than one who has the support of 80% of the public and only 20% of the military. When that idiot in Romania got lined up against the wall and shot it was because the army was no longer willing to shoot the public, not because one day a majority of the public decided they didn't like him.
>Posted by: Bill Myers vomited:
>Jerry C, Brian Peter has crossed the line into troll territory. I'd suggest you refrain from providing him with any further satisfaction.
You are the troll Myers. You are the one who stepped into a decent debate between two people and started with the snide remarks and name calling.
I wrote: I'm lost. (in other words your point wasn't well explained and I was looking for you to fill in the hole. Instead I get)
Bill Myers wrote: Yes, indeed you are.
And followed that up with:
Posted by: Bill Myers at November 14, 2006 05:11 AM
...having searched your last post for anything resembling a coherent point and finding instead nothing of the sort, I find I have nothing else to say to you.
The feelings mutual Bill. You're the troll and I have nothing more to say to you.
>I seriously doubt the truth of that statement. Were there a free election I doubt that the North Koreans would want Kim. And Iraq did not "choose" Saddma--he chose to take over the party and killed anyone who was in his way. It's not like the average Iraqi could do anything about it. A dictator that has the support of 20% of the public and 80% of the army is waaaaaay better off than one who has the support of 80% of the public and only 20% of the military. When that idiot in Romania got lined up against the wall and shot it was because the army was no longer willing to shoot the public, not because one day a majority of the public decided they didn't like him.
Please read the rest of what I said in that paragraph. I said no army can stand up to the majority of the country's populace. This has been proven again and again in history. The problem is though unless the situation is soooooo bad the general populace won't do much to overthrow their own government because they don't want to put their heads on the line or just don't care because for the most part they are living their lives just fine. Push the populace too far and you are Marie Antoinette.
"Also remember a large part of those rebels were Kurds, not sunni or shiite. The Kurds are Christian by heritage and don't really get along with anyone in the area. If they aren't causing Iraq problems they are in Turkey causing problems. And they still like us."
Wrong. The Kurds have been Muslim longer than the Shia in Iran or Iraq have been Shia. There problem is that they are not Arabs or Turks. But they're defenitly Muslim. They are not moving between Iraq and Turkey, there are Kurds in Turkey and Kurds in Iraq.
"Yes bleating is a good word, because if we had learned or I should say, if Bush had learned from history and the rest of the population hadn't been terrorized by his rhetoric we wouldn't have invaded in the first place. Remember a large part of my argument is based on the past history of these people and how they have reacted to occupiers for the past several thousand years. The British in modern history tried twice and have now tried 3 times to subdue the region. Their last attempt culminated with splitting Persia into Iran and Iraq and in Iran we (the US) stuck a puppet on a throne known as the Shaw. Do you remember the fate of the Shaw of Iran? Yes the SHaw ruled for about 35 years"
Wrong. The west muddled things in Iran, but not the way Brian says.
Persia's first encompassing Shi'a Islamic state was established under the Safavid dynasty in 1501. The Safavid dynasty soon became a major power in the world and started the promotion of tourism in Iran. Under their rule the Persian Architecture flowered again and saw many new monuments. The decline of the Safavid state in the 17th century increasingly turned Persia into an arena for rising rival colonial powers such as Imperial Russia and the British Empire that wielded great political influence in Tehran under the Qajarid dynasty. Iran however, managed to maintain its sovereignty and was never colonized, making it unique in the region. With the rise of modernization in the late 19th century, desire for change led to the Persian Constitutional Revolution of 1905–1911. In 1921, Reza Shah Pahlavi staged a coup against the weakened Qajar dynasty. A supporter of modernization, Reza Shah initiated the development of modern industry, railroads, and establishment of a national education system, but his autocratic rule and unbalanced social reforms created discontent among many Iranians.
During World War II, Britain and the USSR invaded Iran from August 25 to September 17, 1941, to stop an Axis-supported coup and secure Iran's petroleum infrastructure. The Allies of World War II forced the shah to abdicate in favor of his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, whom they hoped would be more supportive. In 1951, an eccentric pro-democratic nationalist, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh rose to prominence in Iran and was elected its first Prime Minister. As Prime Minister, Mossadegh alarmed the West by his nationalization of Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (later renamed BP), which controlled all of the country's oil reserves. Britain immediately put an embargo on Iran. Members of the British Intelligence Service approached the United States under President Eisenhower in 1953 to join them in Operation Ajax, a military Junta to overthrow Iran’s democracy. President Eisenhower agreed, and authorized the CIA to take the lead in the operation of overthrowing Mossadegh and reinstalling a US friendly monarch. The CIA faced many setbacks, but eventually succeeded and the end of Iranian democracy became an early notch in the young organization’s belt.
Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh founder of Iran's first democratic government, overthrown in a CIA-backed coup in 1953
Regardless of this setback, the covert operation soon went into full swing, conducted from US Embassy in Tehran under the leadership of Kermit Roosevelt, Jr.. Agents were hired to facilitate violence; and, as a result, protests broke out across the nation. Anti- and pro-monarchy protestors violently clashed in the streets, leaving almost 300 dead. The operation was successful in triggering a coup, and within days, pro-Shah tanks stormed the capital and bombarded the Prime Minister's residence. Mossadegh surrendered, and was arrested on 19 August 1953. He was tried for treason, and sentenced to three years in prison.
Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was then reinstated as Shah. His rule became increasingly autocratic in the following years. With strong support from the US and UK, the Shah further modernized Iranian industry, but simultaneously crushed all forms of political opposition with his intelligence agency, SAVAK. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini became an active critic of the Shah's modernization efforts and publicly denounced the government. Khomeini, who was popular in religious circles, was arrested and imprisoned for 18 months. After his release in 1964, Khomeini publicly criticized the United States government. The Shah was persuaded to send him into exile by General Hassan Pakravan. Khomeini was sent first to Turkey and then to Iraq. While in exile, he continued to denounce the Shah.
------------------
You should learn from history but not fight the previous war. The next terrorist attack will not be an exact repeat of 9/11.
--------------------
The US could leave Iraq with relatively little harm to itself. But it wil be bad for the other countries in the region, as well as for the Iraqis whi did put faith in the US.
The US presence is not so much fueling the violence as giving some legitimacy to some of the groups. If the US leaves, the loss of this legitimacy might help some of the factions cut a deal among themselves, or they might continue fighting for power. Some of the fighters, especially foreign, might continue fighting to establish a Sunni Islamic government in Iraq, or they may move to other countries where they can fight the Jihad.
---------------------
It is hard to believe anything can be done in Iraq. But then, this war has been run by idiots so far. Maybe smarter people can come up with some good ideas. It would be better to give them the chance to do so, or at least try to minimize the damage caused by the US leaving.
Posted by: Brian Peter at November 14, 2006 06:30 PM
You are the troll Myers. You are the one who stepped into a decent debate between two people and started with the snide remarks and name calling.
Nope. Wrong. My first response to you:
"Brian Peter -- you are correct that historically, the most effective way to fight a war has been to use overwhelming force to pound your opponent into submission. When we defeated the Axis in WWII, however, they surrendered. We didn't end up with Nazi cells committing acts of terror within and outside of Europe. We do have Islamic terrorists doing just that today, though. If we simply mow down Iraq, we will inspire more terrorists. And as Sept. 11, 2001, has show -- they CAN hurt us. They already have."
Please note that I started by acknowledging an area where I felt you were correct. That should have clued you in right then and there that I wasn't out to get you. Yet how did you respond? With phrases like:
"Get over it, already."
"So people can salve their egos with more dead soldiers until even they have had enough and say nothing can be done?"
Those remarks were belittling and insulting. So, let's see... I start out by telling you "you are correct" and only then proceed to civil disagreement. You respond with an abrasive tone and insults, and then get angry because you've been called on it.
Game set and match to me.
You are crying because you picked a fight you were too weak to handle. Too bad.
Posted by: Brian Peter at November 14, 2006 06:30 PM
The feelings mutual Bill. You're the troll and I have nothing more to say to you.
Nope. The feeling's not mutual. You hate me. I don't hate you. That makes all the difference in the world. If at any point you'd like to calm down and try debating without making it personal, I'm still game. Who knows? You might surprise yourself by finding out how open-minded people can be when you don't make everything personal.
Or you can keep trolling. It's your choice. But just don't whine about the consequences, okay? It's unseemly.
Brian Peter, I'm sorry. It's been a rough day at work, and that can color one's perceptions and responses. Not long after I hit the "Post" button I realized I was letting my temper get the best of me.
We're both passionate about our respective points of view and I think we got off on the wrong foot. I'd be willing to wipe the slate clean and give it another shot if you would. What say you?
The fact that the U.S. created the mess doesn't mean that other nations don't have a practical interest in helping to solve it. It has an impact on the... security of the international community.
But you're right -- convincing other nations of that will be a bitch. It may not be possible. My point, however, is this: if it can be done, Baker is one of the few who is capable of doing it.
So what nation is going watch the US fuck up Iraq -- and then turn around and follow our lead to fix it? Believing such a group of fools will solve anything in Iraq is magical thinking.
It brings up an interesting point though--as some commentators have mentioned, the United States and the Coalition have an obligation under UN Security Council resolutions to maintain security in Iraq until the Iraqis can take over.
One of the common complaints about Bush was that he ignored UN resolutions. Will it suddenly be ok if he ignores that one?
The UN told the US and coalition not to go into Iraq. Considering the US will be disobeying someone either by staying or going, the best course is to cut the resolve of the insurgents by leaving.
Jerry C, Brian Peter has crossed the line into troll territory. I'd suggest you refrain from providing him with any further satisfaction.You are the troll Myers. You are the one who stepped into a decent debate between two people and started with the snide remarks and name calling.
I wrote: I'm lost. (in other words your point wasn't well explained and I was looking for you to fill in the hole. Instead I get)
Bill Myers wrote: Yes, indeed you are.
...having searched your last post for anything resembling a coherent point and finding instead nothing of the sort, I find I have nothing else to say to you.
"Get over it, already. You are more likely to be run over by a car tomorrow and die than have a terrorist action take place. It's that simple."
"So people can salve their egos with more dead soldiers until even they have had enough and say nothing can be done? No thanks, we tried already. We rebuild something, they blow it up. We train police officers, they either quit when they find out their postings, or they go shoot civilians that are not of their religious sect."
Those remarks were belittling and insulting. So, let's see... I start out by telling you "you are correct" and only then proceed to civil disagreement. You respond with an abrasive tone and insults, and then get angry because you've been called on it.
Note that the remarks by Brian Peter Bill Myers cited were part of a point. The only virtue of the "logical" remarks by Bill Myers Brian Peter cited were to antagonize.
Ask Bill Myers what his problem is, and he'll accuse you of trying to hijack Peter's authority. He has a taste for dominance. He also apparently feels threatened by observation, finding comfort in blotting out things looking at him with shrouds.
Mike, I've already acknowledged that I let my temper get the best of me and extended a gesture of goodwill toward Brian Peter. What more would you have me do?
Mike, I will extend to you the same gesture. I'm sorry that we got off on the wrong foot. It takes two to tango, after all. I'm willing to set aside the past and try to coexist amicably if you are. What say you?
Ok, Bill Myers, reaching out for peace after my last post is smooth.
The thing is, I'm not sorry for hammering the point that the only virtue of denying "ANY racially motivated murder" matches the plain wording of "Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]" in the definition of genocide is sheltering racism. For the ridicule I've taken on this point, I'm looking for something to close the issue.
As it stands, you get some credit for your gesture to end things, but that's all.
Well Bill, you tried.
For Mike, the fact that he has earned justifiable "ridicule" is far far more important than anything else.
Mike, I stand by my assertion that you are wrong about the definition of "genocide." I cannot, and will not, betray my beliefs merely to smooth things over. It wouldn't be honest. If you are inclined to hold a grudge against me for that, so be it.
It's not like I'm suggesting that we become best friends -- merely that we disagree civilly and agree to coexist amicably. That's all. You seem to be unwilling to bury the hatchet. So be it. If you ever change your mind, however, you will find me ready to bury said hatchet as well.
As for the ridicule you have taken, it's no more than you've dished out. You can continue to nurse a grudge about it, or try to move forward. That's entirely up to you.
As for the ridicule you have taken, it's no more than you've dished out. You can continue to nurse a grudge about it, or try to move forward. That's entirely up to you.
If the ridicule and grudge aren't affecting you -- what the hell did you apologize for?
I haven't made a single post that hasn't carried a point. You're in the habit of making posts for the sole purpose of ridicule. You have a taste for blood.
And by denying "ANY racially motivated murder" matches the plain wording of "Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]" in the definition of genocide, you are sheltering your taste for blood as a virtue. What a sorry thing to fight for.
Mike, I can only reiterate: if at any time you choose to bury the hatchet, I will join you.
Otherwise, I don't think there's anything left for me to say.
Bill Mulligan: Yeah, I tried. I didn't think there would be a high probability of success but nevertheless it was worth making a good-faith attempt. If nothing else, I hope this will allow me to get back to what it is that made this blog so enjoyable for me when I first started posting here months ago: the exchange of ideas rather than the clash of personalities.
The thing is, I'm not sorry for hammering the point that the only virtue of denying "ANY racially motivated murder" matches the plain wording of "Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]" in the definition of genocide is sheltering racism. For the ridicule I've taken on this point, I'm looking for something to close the issue.Well Bill, you tried.
For Mike, the fact that he has earned justifiable "ridicule" is far far more important than anything else.
Listen to you. You are so anxious for Bill Myers to refuse to apologize for something specific, you answer for him 10 minutes after my post. Bill Mulligan, you are so fucked up.
If nothing else, I hope this will allow me to get back to what it is that made this blog so enjoyable for me when I first started posting here months ago: the exchange of ideas rather than the clash of personalities.
It's hard to call it a clash of personalities when your opponent doesn't have one. Or at least, one worth having.
But he does have time on his hands. I--alas!--must hurry off to bed.
"Africa has gone to hell in a very similar way as Iraq would, I see very few people advocating invasion on either side or stay the course."
And you said I was reaching. Brian, and I'll try and make this really simple, we're not in any wars in Africa that we created by invading an African country. We're discussing Iraq because, laughably insane idea that it was, WE INVADED IRAQ AND ARE THERE NOW. There is a tiny difference there, but I think you can work that out. Beyond that, there is no area in Africa that has the equivalent security, military, financial or strategic standing that Iraq has.
"Also remember a large part of those rebels were Kurds, not sunni or shiite. The Kurds are Christian by heritage and don't really get along with anyone in the area."
Are you really sure you want to post about how much more you know about that area then us and then turn around and say things like that?
"Newflash, no one over there trusts us all that much anyways."
Yeah, that's a great reason to add even more people to the list and a really great reason to not do the right thing.
"...if Bush had learned from history and the rest of the population hadn't been terrorized by his rhetoric we wouldn't have invaded in the first place."
Yeah, and if Gore won the election in 2000, we wouldn't be talking about Bush. You want to throw around some more useless what ifs? Reality Check: We did invade Iraq, we are in Iraq and that's not going to change by pointing out what could have happened, "if". We deal with what we have to deal with here and now because, unlike the past, we can can exert some control over what is happening and will happen.
"Remember a large part of my argument is based on the past history..."
"The British in modern history tried twice and have now tried 3 times..."
"...splitting Persia into Iran and Iraq..."
"Do you remember the fate of the Shaw of Iran?"
Ok, you're not impressing anybody here. You keep referencing how much you know and acting as if we know nothing. You're late to the party and you missed quite a few of the discussions. We've covered all this and more. I'll save you some future typing. When I was arguing against going in, when Bush was talking about making a Western style democracy and when Bush was proclaiming the Iraq Constitution to be the best thing since New Coke, I mentioned the whole British thing, talked about how the land was split and "kings" were made out of thin air and even went into the failure of making a Western style democracy in Lebanon. Others brought those up and added even more. These led to other discussions on the history of the region, the culture, the religious differences and problems, how most Westerners keep making the mistake of thinking that they think like us, arguing on whether or not freedom had the same meaning to them that it has to us, whether or not we should go into Africa and dethrone a few genocidal tyrants there as well, etc. You also tend to say things that would indicate that you know a great deal less about the area, its cultures and its history then you claim you do.
Short version: We all know quite a bit about the region and the history. Maybe even more then you.
"How many times do you keep repeating the same fraking mistake before you wake up and go: Ah, that don't work!"
See, this is where I find your argument to be at its weakest. Your point here seems to be that we messed it up in the past and all we will ever be able to do is mess it up. With Bush and crew fully in charge, we WERE messing it up. We now have a chance to undo some of that and maybe do a few things right as we get out of there.
"Bin Ladden, where are you? Security starts at home, not 7000 miles away."
Not always. Going after Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan did a lot for our security. We shouldn't have pulled our forces off of that to go into Iraq. Besides, we can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. There is no reason that we can't address security here while fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.
"I wonder how we would have felt if Britan had decided at the outset of our civil war that since they were the worlds power they were morally obligated to dictate the results and fix our problems."
Much like your Africa analogy, your Great Brittan analogy is silly and full of holes. The biggest being the circumstances involved in how, why and when we went into Iraq. When I have the time to type up twelve or so pages, I'll get back to you on the details.
"How about this, our moral obligation ended when they elected their government last winter. The people chose their leaders, it is now time for those leaders to either live or die by their elected authority."
I'm sorry, no. We did a whole lot of stuff that makes their job harder then hell and their stability laughable.
"If they are as we say a duly elected government then it is time for that government to solve it's own problems."
They will in time. But right now they are dealing with an infrastructure that we bombed to all time lows for this generation. We crippled their country. We share in the responsibility.
"> We have yet to bring any of those things back up to pre-war levels.
Not from the standpoint of trying."
Yeah, we tried. But the big problem we had was Bush, Rummy and crew made no after plan and would not give us the numbers to get the job done right. Had we had the higher number of troops, we may have been able to secure areas better. We may have to commit to a plan that would put higher troop levels into Iraq for a year or so and then slowly scaling that back over the next two to three years as Iraq is rebuilt. What we have been doing is the equivalent of a child trying to make a sand castle at the low tide mark while high tide was coming in. Now that child (Bush) may have some adults coming in to yank his butt up the beach a bit and show him how to make a better castle as well.
"Russia doesn't want us there, China neither. Half of Europe calls us idiots and wants us out of there. Really when you are at the bottom of the pit how much father can you fall? The UN already thinks we are a pack of imperialist dogs. So we get a second black eye in the world's opinion, zippy doo da. Those who hate us will have another excuse to do so as if they needed one. Those who want our money will continue filling container ships with their wares and shipping them to us. The world will not come to an end."
Hey, YOU'RE the one who brought up what the world will stomach, think and let us do to back your argument. Now, to counter one of my points, you don't care what they think because it doesn't matter one way or another and they'll criticize us no matter what we do. Fine, if the rest of the world doesn't matter because they'll criticize us no matter what, lets get criticized for doing the right thing.
"Hit a nerve have I? :-)"
No, you're just getting asinine with that point and coming off as a twit.
"I'll remember that at the next soldier's funeral I get a call to document. "
Clue for the clueless: You'll be called to document funerals for soldiers even in wars that DO carry your personal stamp of approval. That was another asinine comment on your part.
"John Wayne syndrome."
Nice way to blow off and insult the troops you claim to support and care for. Just because they disagree with you doesn't have to mean that they have John Wayne syndrome or some other hero complex that you can think of. Maybe, just maybe, they just have integrity.
"Iraq could easily have chosen someone else than Saddam, china, Iran, Russia."
We could have easily chosen someone other then Bush. Didn't happen. Can't change that or the facts that sprang from that reality. Plus, Iraq didn't exactly choose Saddam. If you knew half of what you claim to know about that region, you would never have said that.
"Well it looks like my failing is in assuming that the change to the "rules" of dealing with mental cases or hi-jackers on planes is universal common knowledge."
"I figured you could fill in the blanks."
Well, it has been widely discussed and many know of it. You just didn't make a clear point. You talked about the "rules" and about airline staff. Then, at a later point, you posted a disjointed paragraph about PASSENGERS and terrorists. See, passengers are different then crew. I filled in the blanks by assuming that you were talking about what you were writing about and not what you were apparently thinking about at the time.
"Yes, my fault to assume you think logically."
No, your fault for not proofing your posts better and making sure that you're saying what you want to say rather then what you think you said.
"Please read the rest of what I said in that paragraph. I said no army can stand up to the majority of the country's populace."
Yes. And all the mass graves are filled with, amongst others, the people who spoke out against or acted against Saddam. Some of them did try. And the died for it.
Bill Myers,
"Brian Peter has crossed the line into troll territory. I'd suggest you refrain from providing him with any further satisfaction."
I don't think he's a troll, but I won't keep going in circles with him. I just have a different reasoning.
Brian, on this topic, is a bit like a perverse reflection of Bush. I've been very careful to point out that there are several options and outcomes for Iraq. I've not once claimed that a predicted outcome of mine will be the only outcome and that there is no possible way for others' ideas about what may happen to come to pass.
The closest I've come to anything like that is expressing what points I feel may have more moral weight. And I'll cop to that being a personal thing rather then a factual thing. Still, Mulligan and I did that way back over whether or not we should go into Africa or not and walked away just fine with each other because neither of us mistook POV for hard facts.
It seems that Brian doesn't want to separate those two things.
Brian talks like Bush. His view IS the way the world works, the way all things will happen and no one else can make a prediction that is not simply repeating his predictions or they are 100% wrong. And he doesn't need any other facts other then his facts to back up his one and only way the world will ever work and has worked before.
I'd meet him halfway on some of this easy since it is POV. I realize that, since we're playing in the prediction business with this conversation, neither of us will be proven right for years or decades to come. Hell, we could both be proven wrong by the passage of time. He doesn't seem the type to want to acknowledge that fact. No real point in going around in circles with that mindset and with no end in sight.
You know what? I just spent three hours of shift dealing with a crazy person who was off his meds and peeing on himself. While at lock-up, another officer brought a guy in who, unknown to the officer, seems to have swallowed some of what would have been evidence against him (crack) and starting freaking out six ways from Sunday. They both started some reeaallllyyy out there rants.
Even after all that, I can read Mike's posts and he still doesn't seem to come off that sane.
To claim that hate crime = genocide is a wrong argument in my opinion. might even call it ridiculous, but I don't think that should be considered a personal insult against Mike. There is always something unpleasant about someone's opinion not only being challenged, but rejected completely. But this is sometimes inevitable in an argument, even if it remains civil. We could walk away from that by agreeing to disagree.
It could also be said to Mike's merit that his belief on this issue is because he cares so much about racism. Something I can relate to. I also had arguments about similar subjects with people I consider good friends.
The bigger problem in that argument was labeling anybody who disagreed with Mike's equation as racist. This was personal, and should come to an end if we can end this argument.
The hostility and insults that have also taken over the arguments on both sides should also come to an end.
------------
I agree with what Jerry said about Brian in his last post. I know where Brian is coming from, but he's too certain, too ready to claim historical certainty.
Mike-"I'm not sorry for hammering the point that the only virtue of denying "ANY racially motivated murder" matches the plain wording of "Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]" in the definition of genocide is sheltering racism."
In this post, Mike, you point out the problem with your position. "ANY" singles an act out, IE, makes one of something. Unless someone murdered the very last person of a group, a single murder cannot be genocide. Now, personally there are few people in the world I look at lower than some of these sect-ist(because the only race involved is human) unthinking, God, I can't even think of a simple phrase to describe how low these people are. The problem here is semantics. ONE murder cannot be genocide. What the Nazis did at the camps--THAT was attempted genocide. One backward thinking worm with a gun, no matter how ambitious, cannot commit genocide. Hell, if if God forbid he kiled twenty, then that's serial killing, not genocide. The problem isn't the the killing in the definition, it's the scope. Genocide you kill the entire population. Hate crimes, you kill individuals. I'd almost say that genocide IS a massive hate crime, but that doesn't necessarily follow then that all hate crimes are genocide.
Now, you might take this and once again lump me with the Bills, but you know what? Aren't too many people in the world finer to be lumped with.
For Mike, the fact that he has earned justifiable "ridicule" is far far more important than anything else.
...
It's hard to call it a clash of personalities when your opponent doesn't have one. Or at least, one worth having.
Bill Mulligan, you cannot name a single virtue in denying "ANY racially motivated murder" matches the plain wording of "Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]." That isn't personality. That's spinelessness.
See, this is where I find your argument to be at its weakest. Your point here seems to be that we messed it up in the past and all we will ever be able to do is mess it up. With Bush and crew fully in charge, we WERE messing it up. We now have a chance to undo some of that and maybe do a few things right as we get out of there.
Oh, did a presidential election take place in your fantasy world, Jerry? Why, that must solve everything.
Unless someone murdered the very last person of a group, a single murder cannot be genocide.
So you're saying two murders qualify for genocide, then. "Zed, we won't scare the macacas unless we kill two of them."
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
It must be comforting for you, Jerry, and the Bills, to know that macacas only mourn their dead in two or more.
Sean Scullion, try not to let the door hit you in the Tim McVie when you leave a room.
Jerry C, Sean Scullion, Bill Mulligan -- I have a suggestion. Let Mike have the last word on the genocide "debate" and on anything else he's angry about.
Mike has accused us of being bad people and it is natural to want to defend ourselves. But I feel confident that a willingness to walk away from this will speak louder than any insults or accusations that can be thrown our way.
Posted by: Sean Scullion at November 15, 2006 08:00 AM
Now, you might take this and once again lump me with the Bills, but you know what? Aren't too many people in the world finer to be lumped with.
Right back atcha, amigo. :)
Sean: hey, you tried. As have others.
Mike is either a deeply troubled young man or exactly and precisely as creepily obnoxious as he comes off. One possibility to be treated with contempt, the other with pity.
At least he has put the lie to the old adage about how if you repeat something loud enough and long enough people will come to believe it. Apparently there needs to be some additional qualifiers added to this; what you say can't be too stupid and/or presented in a way that reminds one of a petulant child stomping its feet and holding its breath when mommy won't buy him candy at Wal-Mart.
Well, if nothing else, Mike has shown that the central theme of my movie, that extremists of any ilk aren't a good thing, is fairly true. Now I just have to finish the stupid thing and sell it. The script, not Mike. Don't think I could get too much for him. Brian's not there yet, as I see it, although the fact that both my son and my brother, and I once had a friend name Brian Peters, might be coloring my views.
Jerry, just curious, since that guy swallowed the evidence, can he be held anyway? (No, I'm not going to go swallowing evidence, now.)
To what are you clowns referring to?
You cannot name a single virtue in denying "ANY racially motivated murder" matches the plain wording of "Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]" -- and that's somehow my flaw?
In the spirit of reconciliation, I would like to remind you all that everyone -- and I mean everyone -- is welcome to join the nascent political party I've decided to name "The Guy Party."
Our platform consists of porn, football, beer, and snacks. I will be our presidential candidate in 2008. Knuckles will be my running mate. Den, Rex Hondo, and Roger Tang will be offered high-level cabinet positions. And Craig J. Ries will be Secretary of Making Sure We Don't Choke on Pretzels.
This party will have something for everybody, including women! Yes, while us guys sit around in the family room, watching football and porn while eating, drinking, and burping, the women will have the rest of the house within which to congregate and complain about us with each other.
"The Guy Party: we like porn and we're pitching a big tent."
:)
Not so fast, pinko. I throw my hat into the ring for President of the Zombie Apocalypse Party, formerly The Association of People Who Don't Understand the Concept of the Word Acronym (SPECTRE).
Our planks:
1- GUN CONTROL- Everyone has to own a gun. What are you gonna do when there are zombies around and all you have is your hand with some skin on it?
2- FOOD- Everyone has to have a 1 year supply of food. Ramen noodles will be supplied to the poor. After that you'll have to get your own (See #1 above)
3- EVERYTHING ELSE- Who cares? Zombies! Big picture here, people! Nobody's getting nominated to the Supreme Court anyway, so what differenece does it make. Jeeze.
You say "But Bill, isn't it actually highly unlikely that zombies will walk the earth?" First off; you are so naive. Secondly, this is all good advice in the event of all manner of scenarios: collapse of the global economy, nuclear war in the middle east, Willie Nelson caught washing hair in the nation's water supply.
Yes, while us guys sit around in the family room, watching football and porn...
So porn is a sharing moment with Guys for you?
I wasn't serious about your circle-jerks, Bill Myers. I only brought it up in the first place because of your public undressing of people who disagree with you.
Isn't your time with erotica better shared with the person who really should be your partner? Don't you get tired of living the lie?
Is the National Anthem going to be changed to the song from Men In Tights? Because you know you gotta be a man to wear tights!
Wait a second. No one wants to see me in tights. That's the whole reason I'm not a superhero.
So you're saying two murders qualify for genocide, then.
Your powers of logic are incredible.
Unfortunately, they work on a different plane of existance from the rest of us.
Actually, soon-to-be-President Mulligan, that last scenario of yours is most frightening. I hear Willie Nelson is on the Head and Shoulders 10 most reviled list.
But, can I trade in my gun for a new pommel for my broadsword? Nothing in life is finer than cleaving the undead in twain with a fine piece of Scottish metal. Besides, once you run out of bullets, what are you going to do, throw the gun at the zombies like some bad guy from the black-and-white Superman TV show? Whereas with a broadsword, you can have a oomplete ballet of undead carnage. Think about it, people! (And none of these epees or katanas, we need REAL blades!)
Don't ask me how I know there's nothing finer than cleaving the undead. I've been sworn to secrecy by both the church and my wife.
"Jerry C, Sean Scullion, Bill Mulligan -- I have a suggestion. Let Mike have the last word on the genocide "debate" and on anything else he's angry about.
Mike has accused us of being bad people and it is natural to want to defend ourselves. But I feel confident that a willingness to walk away from this will speak louder than any insults or accusations that can be thrown our way."
At other times it would have been important to counter his argument because of the risk that others will be influenced by it. It is important to correct misconceptions, and some really dangerous misconceptions become easily widespread. But in this case I doubt there is even one other person, on these boards or elsewhere, who accepts Mike's argument.
It is done.
"You cannot name a single virtue in denying "ANY racially motivated murder" matches the plain wording of "Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]"
I believe I did. I actually answered in much more detail than the argument deserves. If you choose to ignore it, that's your business.
-----------
About the porn, I have ambiguous feelings about it. I've heard arguments for and against it, and I haven't decided yet. If you can refer me to sources for further research that would be helpful. (I'm kidding, of course. I can get my own porn).
[I recently listen to a flaming feminist presentation about chauvinism in Sci-Fi].
About the zombies, I think zombism is a valid life style choice. Don't knoock it till you've tried it. They have their own reach tradition, which we should respect.
Micha,
"To claim that hate crime = genocide is a wrong argument in my opinion. might even call it ridiculous, but I don't think that should be considered a personal insult against Mike. There is always something unpleasant about someone's opinion not only being challenged, but rejected completely."
It's not Mike's opinion that I'm rejecting. It's Mike. This is neither his first dance here nor the first time that he went full speed over the cliff of insanity.
Sean,
"Jerry, just curious, since that guy swallowed the evidence, can he be held anyway? (No, I'm not going to go swallowing evidence, now.)"
Yes, that's what stomach pumps and lab technicians are for. :)
Plus, this guy was brought in for trespassing on his former girlfriends yard and harassing her. They didn't bust him for drugs. We're guessing that he had some on him and, rather then get tagged with yet another narcotics arrest, he gulped it when he saw the cops pulling up and he knew that his escape options were limited. Dumbass should have chucked it onto the roof.
What's with all the hate against the living-challenged? They're really just a misunderstood culture. I'm sure if we were to sit down with them, discuss our mutual goals, we could come to some kind of mutually agreeaaharhaahrhaharhrhghghgh.........
According to the Zombie Handbook (the book I will forever hate myself for not writing) the single best thing to have would be a tire iron. Good for beaning zombies, good for breaking into shelters, good for opening cans of food.
Sean O'Scullion, while the broadsword is undeniably effective, I think it's overkill. Against a horde of zombies the arm will eventually tire. A katana is much better for one handed decapitations.
About the zombies, I think zombism is a valid life style choice. Don't knoock it till you've tried it. They have their own reach tradition, which we should respect.
Believe it or not, that's sort of part of the premise of the sequel to our recently concluded movie THE FOREVER DEAD. I'm about 2/3 of the way done on the script and it's getting to the point where I'll have to make painful cuts to get in all the stuff I want.
Posted by: Jerry C at November 15, 2006 12:11 PM
Dumbass should have chucked it onto the roof.
I will remember that for next time.
Bill Mulligan,
I want in on your party. However, your planks are ok in concept, but flawed. I suggest you go out and find Max Brooks to be your Secretary of Planning & Preparation. Barring that, get your hands on his book, The Zombie Survival Guide. Or, as I've read it cover to cover several times, just give me the job. What does it pay?
Let me show you the skill of Zombie Outbreak forethought.
Sean,
"But, can I trade in my gun for a new pommel for my broadsword?"
No. But you may have both as well as a mace.
The gun is a good weapon for when your immediate situation has gone completely South, but you don't want to use it for just any encounter. The rapport of the weapon will be heard by other zombies in the area and, if you were only dealing with one or two zombies, you may find yourself quickly overrun with hordes of zombies that that you would have never encountered otherwise.
The broadsword is great for quick dispatches of small numbers in open areas. The size and weight guarantees that the head will be cut off or, if you miss the neck, that the skull will be split. It's only two drawbacks when dealing with more then one zombie come in the weight and momentum throwing you off balance if you miss (thus, setting you up for an attack by the other zombie(s) you face) and fighting in confined spaces.
The confined spaces, especially when you're with others, is the greater of the two problems. You may not be able to swing your sword or at least do so without hitting members of your party. Thus, I give you your mace. Small, but long enough to give you a reach advantage over the zombies and weighted on the striking end. You can swing from the side, from above or even upwards with enough force to crush a skull. In low, tight environments, the mace can even be swung in the same manner as a hammer towards a nail. The nail here being a zombies forehead.
And you don't have to reload it.
"Don't ask me how I know there's nothing finer than cleaving the undead. I've been sworn to secrecy by both the church and my wife."
Ah..... The Order. I understand.
Going alllll the way back to PAD's original post:With a smartening-up Bush and a newly energized Democratic majority, let's see if the government finally gets on the right track.
Well, here we are a few days later; the Republicans have just nominated an unimpressive Senator to head the party and brought back Trent freaking Lott as minority whip. On the other side of the isle, Nancy Pelosi seems to want her leadership staffed with un-indicted co-conspirators and impeached judges. As one person has pointed out, it looks like we are in for a 2 year dumb-off between the two parties.
One ray of light--looking at some sites both conservative and liberal, it looks like the bases of both parties are very unhappy and not afraid to say so. There will always be those who will defend their party under any circumstances, trading thinking for blind obedience, but it's good to see that not everyone is swallowing the Kool-Aid.
"...a tire iron. Good for beaning zombies..."
Yea, but do you know how hard it is to get one of those things out of a Zombie's skull if you catch them wrong? Plus, you run into other problems if you don't go for decapitation.
I've found that zombies that used to be hard left libs tend to have a skull so thick that you have to hit it three or four times to crack it. The only thing worse then them are the zombies that used to be hard right, repeate the party line republicans. You can crush their skull in two places before hitting their tiny, atrophied little brains.
That's why I have hopes that the last election means that the moderate middle is once again growing and thinking. When Z-Day comes, it'll be easier to hit the target.
"Republicans have just nominated an unimpressive Senator to head the party and brought back Trent freaking Lott as minority whip."
Yeah, saw it on MSNBC while I was typing the zombie posts. I figured I'd just ignore it and keep typing on the slightly more intelligent topic.
Gonna be a fun two years.
Gonna be a fun two years.
Somewhere, in a small Catholic church, a writer for the Daily Show is lighting a candle.
I heard on the radio the other day that Rush Limbough was saying on his show that he hoped that the new Congressional leaders would call him and discuss policy and issues and such. Of course, my first thought was "sure he wants them to call him...he's not going to have anything to talk about for 2 years if he gets cut off from DC."
Now, it seems like Rush has nothing to worry about. In about 8 months (remember that for the over/under...I've got 8 months...let's call it June) the first big Democratic scandal over something will come out. So someone tell Rush he just has to limp along till June.
Oh, and uh...brains and stuff.....yeah, brains.....everyone just put down the guns/broadswords/katanas/tire irons, and we'll get along just fine....
Now, it seems like Rush has nothing to worry about.
He never did (unless there's another drug scandal in his future). Those kinds of folks do best when they can bitch about the way things are without taking any blame. That's why I was so surprised that Air America didn't take off (Well, the fact that the shows were terrible didn't help).
So....now the big question: zombies; fast or slow?
I would not be surprised if his ratings have been down these last few years and experience an upturn now. On the other hand, Keith Olberman's ratings ahve been growing lately and it will be interesting to see if they continue.
O'Rielly has been the smartest one, casting himself (truthfully or not) as a populist willing to take on both sides.
Of course, if Limabaugh and the rest have gotten to like the feeling of being invited to big DC parties and being considered as movers and shalers, then yeah, this must have come as a blow. But if ratings and viewership still matter they should be happy.
Unless someone murdered the very last person of a group, a single murder cannot be genocide.So you're saying two murders qualify for genocide, then.
Your powers of logic are incredible.
"Single murder" is your wording and is not an ambiguous term.
If we can't go by what you say, what good are you disagreeing with anyone, Sean Scullion?
Micha,
To claim that hate crime = genocide is a wrong argument in my opinion. might even call it ridiculous, but I don't think that should be considered a personal insult against Mike. There is always something unpleasant about someone's opinion not only being challenged, but rejected completely.It's not Mike's opinion that I'm rejecting. It's Mike.
Except, I'm not asking you to take my word for anything.
They are plainly worded phrases that match. The only virtue in denying they match is to shelter racism, macaca.
You repeatedly characterize me as having gone "full speed over the cliff of insanity," but you never refer to anything I've said. Are you so needy that you insist on settling disagreements by your word alone? Is that how it works in your fantasy world?
If we can't go by what you say, what good are you disagreeing with anyone, Sean Scullion?
I'm sorry Craig, I can't imagine anyone being stupid enough to step in and try and muddy the interpretation of "single murder" other than the person trying to defend his statement. But there you are.
"So....now the big question: zombies; fast or slow?"
I've always found this to be a false argument. You can do both and very easily explain it.
Say you have an outbreak that takes out a city the size of New York. Patient zero appears on day one and by day seven you have 65% of the population infected. These zombies were alive within the last seven days. These are your zombies that are every bit as quick and strong as humans. By day ten, 85% of the population has been infected. You still have fast zombies, but the first wave are slowing down due to the various processes that follow the infection' attack on the mind and body. By day fourteen, you are dealing with 95% infection. Most of your zombies are the slow and weaker then an average human type with only a hand full of runners in there. By day twenty-one, you have the moaning, shambling mob.
I've always thought that this would be a more realistic zombie scenario. It would take time for the body to degenerate after infection. This also gives you a mix of scares with an interesting mix of threats. You start out with just a few fast zombies. They're dangerous even in their lower numbers. By the end of a month, you now have zombies in overwhelming numbers that are not so fast, so strong or so powerful that it's stupidly unrealistic for a handful of humans to be able to survive in the minds of viewers/readers. However, you still have a threat to your heroes in the sheer numbers of zombies that they now have to face.
Slow or fast? Jerry's got an interesting approach. I think there's a sequal to 28 days later, called 28 weeks later, being made. Maybe we'll see some of that in it?
The Walking Dead uses a cold/temperature approach, with colder zombies moving slower, to the point where if it gets to freezing, they stop alltogether. Also interesting, although the zombies there, in addition to being living-challenged, are pigment challenged as well.
Zombies eat brains. I don't have one. So they got nothin'.
I say, bring it on, you candy-ass Zombie losers! I'll PWN you.
"Somewhere, in a small Catholic church, a writer for the Daily Show is lighting a candle."
The Church of the Sacred Irony
"Believe it or not, that's sort of part of the premise of the sequel to our recently concluded movie THE FOREVER DEAD. I'm about 2/3 of the way done on the script and it's getting to the point where I'll have to make painful cuts to get in all the stuff I want."
Are you serious? I wasn't sure, beceause we were discussing the serious threat of Zombies, and you started talking about movies.
If you are serious, I'd like to hear more about it.
"So....now the big question: zombies; fast or slow?"
It depends on the brand of coffee they drink.
"If we can't go by what you say, what good are you disagreeing with anyone, Sean Scullion?"
Mike, did you start quiting and arguing with yourself? I'm not sure.
"Except, I'm not asking you to take my word for anything.
"ANY racially motivated murder" is Bill Mulligan's choice of words
"Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]" is from Lemkin's definition
They are plainly worded phrases that match."
Context, Mike.
I say, bring it on, you candy-ass Zombie losers! I'll PWN you.
You'll pawn them? Well, ok, but don't expect to get much.
Even though I've been in 3 zombie movies (SECOND DEATH, THE FOREVER DEAD, Z-13, for those keeping score) and all 3 had fast zombies, I'm still partial to the slow movers. They make for a great allegory to death itself--it ain't fast but it gets you in the end.
Of course it can be argued that only the Romero and Fulci movies (and a few others) feature "true" zombies. In Romero's world, any death results in a zombie, even a natural death. The recent DAWN OF THE DEAD has the more current genre rule of only those dying from a zombie bite coming back. In that scenario you can go from alive to zombie with nary a blink, while in the Romero world you may spend a bit of time dead and rotting, hence the slow shuffle.
It's easier to see how the Romero World fell apart so fast, since any death anywhere creates it's own little zombie epidemic. It's a little more difficult to rationalize how quikly it all goes to hell in the newer zombie movies.
(28 DAYS LATER is in a category of its own. The monsters are not really zombies at all, though close enough for government work, but their mode of infection is so virulent that it's easy to see how things got so bad).
"I think there's a sequal to 28 days later, called 28 weeks later, being made. Maybe we'll see some of that in it?"
We kind of saw that at the very end of 28 Days Later with the infected starving to death and unable to lift themselves off of the ground. Besides, I never saw that as a real zombie movie. The victims didn't die as much as they flew into an insane rage created by a man-made infection. Zombie-like, but not really zombie.
"...with colder zombies moving slower, to the point where if it gets to freezing, they stop alltogether."
You really should track down the Max Brooks (Mel's son) book I mentioned to Bill above. And his new one, World War Z, seems pretty good so far. I've only just started that one as I got it the other day as a birthday gift.
And, Bill, you still haven't said what the job pays. I need to know. I may be easy (just ask my wife), but I ain't cheap.
"Zombies eat brains. I don't have one. So they got nothin'."
Actually, zombies eat everything. They seem to really like guts more then anything else. Go rent Land of the Dead or one of the other Romero films. The others, like the Fulci films, may be harder to find.
My, my.... Mulligan has a GIN-U-WINE listing on IMDB. I must now go sulk and hate you for your success. ;-(
Sulk/hate is over now. That's pretty cool, Bill. :)
"Single murder" is your wording and is not an ambiguous term.
Wow, you're so talented, Mike, that not only do you assume somebody else made my post, not only that, but then you say that I'm stupid because you did it.
But then, I wasn't trying to muddy anything.
I was just pointing out how much of an idiot you are. Apparently I didn't do it in plain enough English for you, because you were the moron with the grudge dumb enough to attribute what I said to somebody else.
Again, that wonderful power of logic you have, in action...
My, my.... Mulligan has a GIN-U-WINE listing on IMDB. I must now go sulk and hate you for your success. ;-(
Wha wha what??
(pause while I check this out)
Well boy howdy! And I guess I should have a second listing real soon! (I have to ask Christine, the director how this works--is the one movie there becasue it has an offical DVD release? THE FOREVER DEAD actually had 5 theatrical showings (and a guy in Sweden of all places wants to show it there. I would SO love to hear it dubbed. "Looooky doooky her der fer be zooooomby")
You know, if any of you are ever anywhere near Sanford NC I'll bet I could make sure you got in a zombie movie. It's not like there isn't one being made almost every weekend. And i'll be in most of them if I have my way.
Are you serious? I wasn't sure, beceause we were discussing the serious threat of Zombies, and you started talking about movies.
If you are serious, I'd like to hear more about it.
Well you can read all about THE FOREVER DEAD at Christine Parker's blog http://blog.myspace.com/adrenalin_productions
Go to the archives and read it from the beginning. It's a better story than the movie itself, frankly.
the sequel is something I'm trying very hard to do a good job on, a zombie movie that actualy has something to say. But I'll be sending it out to anyone who wants to read it when I finish and you can tell me whether or not I pulled it off. Thee movies take too long to shoot to bother doing one that has to overcome a bad script.
If we can't go by what you say, what good are you disagreeing with anyone, Sean Scullion?Mike, did you start quiting and arguing with yourself? I'm not sure.
Well, let me rephrase, then.
[Sean Scullion] Unless someone murdered the very last person of a group, a single murder cannot be genocide.So you're saying two murders qualify for genocide, then.
[not Sean Scullion] Your powers of logic are incredible.
"Single murder" is still not ambiguous.
What aren't you sure of, Micha?
I was just pointing out how much of an idiot you are. Apparently I didn't do it in plain enough English for you, because you were the moron with the grudge dumb enough to attribute what I said to somebody else.
If Sean Scullion had responded with "Your powers of logic are incredible" he would have been making a defensive non-reply. It would have been wrong, but it still would have made sense.
Instead, you made a defensive non-reply for him. This is not only wrong, but it makes no observable sense. Overestimating intelligence is a mistake more commonly made when addressing stupid people. I overrestimated your intelligence.
Again, "single murder" is not ambiguous. It was Sean Scullion's disqualification for genocide. That means, according to him, two murders can qualify for genocide. What is your problem, Craig?
Except, I'm not asking you to take my word for anything.
- "ANY racially motivated murder" is Bill Mulligan's choice of words
- "Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]" is from Lemkin's definition
They are plainly worded phrases that match.
Context, Mike.
There is no ambiguity. What context is missing?
You repeatedly characterize me as having gone "full speed over the cliff of insanity," but you never refer to anything I've said. Are you so needy that you insist on settling disagreements by your word alone?
I'll take your inability to reply as an admission of your neediness, Jerry. Pitiful.
"Your powers of logic are incredible."
While I agree with this, I DIDN'T WRITE IT. Craig was the one who observed this. In the immortal words of John Whorfin, I hates to be mistaken for a somebody else.
Anytime I can work John Whorfin into a conversation, I'm happy. No, Mike didn't make me happy. Craig made me happy by lighting another little fire under Mike. Funny. Someone who's so concerned about the accuracy of a definition can't be accurate as to who said what when he could, I don't know, go up the thread a few posts to see it.
"They are plainly worded phrases that match." Yes, you semantic whiz kid, the phrases match. However, in the case of genocide, there is more ADDED to the phrase.
Hey, Bill, you ever need someone to help with one of your movies, I'm nowhere near either Carolina in the morning, or any other time, but I writes a mean horror story, I does. That and the fact that I'm an editor(got Premiere Pro rendering a project as I type this) you know, maybe I could help. And a buddy of mine is a make-up artist, and a FINER one you won't find, if he does say so himself. But he is pretty good.
Great. Now I have to go buy Mulligan's movie from Amazon. Wait...Zombies from the Amazon...I'm seeing a movie, here!
"Except, I'm not asking you to take my word for anything.
"ANY racially motivated murder" is Bill Mulligan's choice of words
"Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]" is from Lemkin's definition
They are plainly worded phrases that match.
Context, Mike.
There is no ambiguity. What context is missing?"
The context of Bill's full argument and the context of the definition and phenomenon of genocide. Phrases derive meaning from context.
And just for you. The Britannica's definition of Genocide. Note the context of the part you like to quote.
the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, religious, political, or ethnic group. The word, from the Greek genos, meaning "race," "nation," or "tribe," and the Latin cide, meaning "killing," was coined after events in Europe in 1933-45 called for a legal concept to describe the deliberate destruction of large groups. Despite many historical incidents of genocide and the modern case of the massacre of Armenians by the Turks at the outbreak of World War I, there had been no attempt until after World War II to construct a legal framework through which the international community could deal with cases of mass extermination of peoples.
In 1946, under the impact of revelations at the Nürnberg and other war-crimes trials, the General Assembly of the United Nations affirmed that "genocide is a crime under international law which the civilized world condemns, and for the commission of which principals and accomplices are punishable." In 1948 the General Assembly approved the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which went into effect in 1951.
The fact that under the convention genocide is a crime whether it is committed in time of peace or of war distinguishes it from the "crimes against humanity," defined by the International Military Tribunal at Nürnberg as acts committed in connection with crimes against peace, or war crimes. Under the terms of the convention, "genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such: (a) killing members of the group, (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." Conspiracy, incitement, attempt, and complicity in genocide are also made punishable. Perpetrators may be punished whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials, or private individuals. They may be tried by a competent tribunal of the state in which the act was committed or by an international penal tribunal whose jurisdiction has been accepted by the contracting parties.
One of the results of the convention has been the establishment of the principle that genocide, even if perpetrated by a government in its own territory, is not an internal matter ("a matter essentially within the domestic jurisdiction") but a matter of international concern. Any contracting state may call upon the United Nations to intervene and to take such action as it considers appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide. See also Nürnberg trials.
Copyright © 1994-2001 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
And also the definition from the Oxford Compendium, 9th edition
genocide // n.
the mass extermination of human beings, esp. of a particular race or nation.
[Greek genos ‘race’ + -cide]
Sean, if you'd been here Sunday you would have loved it. Z-13, a low low budget movie was shooting in Greensborough and my buddy Mike (another good makeup artist) went up there to help out and be zombies. Very nice group of young filmmakers, some real talent on display.
Anyway, the thing it, the set. The set! An abandoned textile mill, in post apocalyptic condition. Paint peeling from the ceiling like spanish moss, nothing but empty space about the size of a few football fields inside. Unbe-freaking-lievable. Enough windows that we didn't need any lighting--at the magic hour it looked like something from a Spielberg movie. And lots of creepy rooms and spiral staircases to who knows where.
This place makes you want towrite a movie just so you can film there. So if you have a good idea for a horror movie set in a giant empty factory please send it my way.
Hey, what kind of stuff do you do on Premiere?
Instead, you made a defensive non-reply for him.
Sorry, wrong again. It was actually very offensive (unless you think being called an idiot is a compliment?) on behalf of only myself.
This is not only wrong, but it makes no observable sense
Oh, it's very much right, because it makes perfect sense, and it's made by *gasp* my own observations of your posts on this forum.
"Well you can read all about THE FOREVER DEAD at Christine Parker's blog http://blog.myspace.com/adrenalin_productions
Go to the archives and read it from the beginning. It's a better story than the movie itself, frankly.
the sequel is something I'm trying very hard to do a good job on, a zombie movie that actualy has something to say. But I'll be sending it out to anyone who wants to read it when I finish and you can tell me whether or not I pulled it off. Thee movies take too long to shoot to bother doing one that has to overcome a bad script."
Thanks Bill. I'll be happy to help you with your script anyway I can. I am better with helping others develop ideas than with helping myself.
Have you considered trying to combine the horror movie zombie tradition with the Voodoo zombie tradition?
Bill--DROOLING ALL OVER MY F#%^ING KEYBOARD OVER THAT SET.
Anyway, the biggest thing I've done in Premiere is a video for Carfax Abbey, a Philly Goth group that has had major personnel changes so they can't use any of the live stuff in the video, but there's still enough there that I could just insert new with the new people and not change it overmuch. Right now, tho, just working on a Danny Phantom set for my son.
Empty factory...I want the empty factory...
Micha...you are obviously a much more patient person than I am. Maybe it's just that after teaching high school all day I have a hard time dealing with a grown man who acts worse than an adolescent but Mike is SO not worth the effort, at least judging from what he's brought to the table thus far.
Sean--if you can only buy 1 zombie movie this year wait until December when Forever Comes out--it's got 6 times as much me to make fun of.
Anyway--Here's my top 10 list of zombie movies
1- Night Of The Living Dead
2- Dawn of the Dead
3- Day of the Dead
4- Land of the Dead
Romero's films of course. The standards.
5- Zombie- Lucio Fulci was part genius/part hack and Zombie has all of his flaws and charms. A ripping good yarn and it has the single most gruesome injury to the eye ever. Not for all tastes.
6- Dead Alive- The goriest movie ever made, it ended the career of a promissing young filmmaker named Peter Jackson. We can only wonder what he might have gone on to do.
7- The Beyond- Fulci's greatest movie. It makes no damn sense whatsoever. If you watch it with the idea that it's the dream of someone on serious acid it works much better.
8- Return of the Living Dead-- The only good funny-fast moving zombie movie. The best party movie that has zombies.
9- Re-Animator- In the hands of most this would have been crap but Stuart Gordon makes it work. Unrelenting.
10- Shock Waves- Peter Cushing and underwater zombies. Ultra low budget, so be forgiving. Why hasn't THIS one been re-made?
11- Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things- About halfway through a TERRIBLE movie about hippy actors the film takes a sharp turn and turns into a pretty damn good zombie movie.
12- Pet Semetary- One of the better Stephen King adaptations, it works mostly because of the unflinching use of children in peril. I saw it when my ex-wife and I were trying to adopt a child and it killed me.
13- Shaun of the Dead- Funny, moving and actually a pretty good horror movie to boot. So quotable. Looking forward to HOT FUZZ from the same team.
14- Wild Zero- Insane Japanese combination of Rock and Roll and Zombies. I only have a Japanese language version so that may explain why it makes no sense but I doubt it. Still great though.
15- Cemetary Man-- Little seen but very neat italian zombie movie. Beautifully shot.
Bill--DROOLING ALL OVER MY F#%^ING KEYBOARD OVER THAT SET.
Yeah and they rent it out for only $100 a day.
"Micha...you are obviously a much more patient person than I am. Maybe it's just that after teaching high school all day I have a hard time dealing with a grown man who acts worse than an adolescent but Mike is SO not worth the effort, at least judging from what he's brought to the table thus far."
I'm like Michel J. Fox's character in Back to the Future. I'm incapable of walking away from an argument. I should really join a support group: AA (Argumentatives Anonymous).
But the truth is that this argument doésn't require much effort. And I doubt that that it will have any effect, positive or negative. Many years from now, many threads from now, the two dreaded 'matching' quotations will reappear, like the villains of a horror movie. It's gorry, it's repetative, it's tastless, but we still enjoy it.
Back to politics for a moment--Joe Conason, who I can't imagine anyone...well, ok, maybe one person...would be crazy enough to consider a right winger, has some interstesting things to say about Nancy Peolesi's choice for the number 2 spot: http://nyobserver.com/20061120/20061120_Joe_Conason_politics_joeconason.asp
And if anyone thought the new congress would bring a fresh outlook to their jobs, here's Mr Murtha himself: Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) told a group of Democratic moderates on Tuesday that an ethics and lobbying reform bill being pushed by party leaders was “total crap,” but said that he would work to enact the legislation because Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) supports it.
(from Roll Call)
The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
George Orwell, Animal farm
Most of you think I'm nuts for supporting the war. I remember the first Gulf War. I remember the TV coverage: the bombs going off, the battleships firing ordinance and the what not. I also remember the reason we were there. OIL. I am not stupid enough to believe Iraq was a threat to us at that time. The real threat was to our oil supply. The first Gulf War can actually be used to trace the origins of Al-qaeda. bin Laden believed that his people and not foreigners should drive out Saddam. Christians in the holiest of holy, outraged him and those who supported him. Anyway, our 'alliance' fought the war and won.(350,000 of our own troops were there)We had Saddam's army cut off from Baghdad. Our generals were told to back off and his army survived, somewhat. The fear at the time was that any removal of Saddam would create a power vacuum that an Iranian supported leader would fill.(Saddam was the same kind of muslim as the Saudis. I forget which is which.) UN inspectors went and so forth. At the same time this was going, our government began to support local rebellions, the true reason for the no fly zones. For whatever reason, the support was withdrawn. 9/11 happens and Bush and company start planning for Iraq as well as Afghanistan. Iraq was on the plate from day one I believe. A good excuse was all that was needed. For Bush, I do believe it was personal. Why else does he have a trophy, i.e. Saddam's weapon? While, it's true Saddam was no threat to us, he was a threat to those we support. Notice I do not call them allies. Where did a majority of the hijackers come from? Of course, the main reason again, OIL. This is where national security acutally plays a part. Our country is the biggest user of oil. The loss of any oil from say Saudi, Iraq, Iran and so on would cripple our country. Would you believe Afghanistan also plays a part? After that war, plans to build a pipeline there became a reality.
While I support the war, I cannot support how it is being ran. There is part of the problem. Why do they call it running the war? It's not a Wal-Mart. Anyhow, this war will not be won unless we let the Iraqis take the lead. They are relying on us too much, yet, we cannot pull out. We are in a major s***hole and the diarrhea is flowing freely. We debate the politics, but still nobody has a plan. We have plenty of ideas, I am in favor of Murtha's. It needs some tweaking, though. A complete pull-out is out of the question. Anybody remember the footage of Soviet troops firing flares to keep Stingers off their helicopters after their Afghan trip? That could be us if change does not begin soon.
15- Cemetary Man-- Little seen but very neat italian zombie movie. Beautifully shot.
Seconded.
Came out about a month ago on DVD. Get it if you can.
"You repeatedly characterize me as having gone "full speed over the cliff of insanity," but you never refer to anything I've said. Are you so needy that you insist on settling disagreements by your word alone?
I'll take your inability to reply as an admission of your neediness, Jerry. Pitiful."
So, Mike wants proof of where and when he has shown that he very easily takes fast trips over his own short cliff of dementia and insanity? Fine, I can do that. One last time, Mad Mikey.
First, there's this old classic from the first debate I remembered Mike from. He not only displayed his asinine levels of cutting and pasting out of context remarks to make up arguments so that his limited abilities could possibly come off as seeming to debate well, but he also threw out this little nugget that told me that he was well and truly screwed in the head. Not to mention oddly creepy.
"Posted by Mike at June 12, 2005 08:56 PM
Dude, I was just like replying to Craig's post, and you're all like, "Why are you replying to Craig post in a way I don't like?" and I'm like "???" and you're like, "If you don't know why you're replying to Craig post in a way I don't like, why do you keep doing it?"
David, what's your problem?
Sometimes I see these couples in their 50s in public, where the guy will hold the back of his wife's neck like he's steering her by the neck. Is there a lucky woman whose neck fits the back of your hand when you go out?"
Turns out that this was about the same time that he kept posting a link to an article about why some dim bulb used to be a NeoCon and then quit being one without really knowing way. That should have gone a long way in showing he was nuts. Beyond it not backing the point he claimed it did (and he kept linking it over and over and over and over again), he couldn't even seem to figure out what it was he was trying to say with it. It was almost like arguing with two different people. He would claim it proved something when arguing with one poster and then argue that it proved something opposite when debating a different poster. Early signs of the dementia.
I could remember roughly where that was because it involved the whole X-Ray thing. I'm not going to dig through a year's worth of other postings to drag out all his other weirdness and that one does help show that he's displayed levels of insanity or just plan creepy weirdness long before now. I did notice as well that he really liked to use one phrase at that time over and over again towards people who disagreed with his points.
"-- like a prostitute knifing a guy for stopping her pimp from beating her."
He seemed rather fixated on knives, pimps and hookers at that point in his life. Hopefully, he sought help..
Oh, wait. He hasn't. Flash forward about a year plus…
"Posted by Mike at November 11, 2006 09:33 AM
"Like how a group of defensive white guys deny "ANY racially motivated murder" matches the plain wording of "Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]" in the definition of genocide, you needy closet eichmann?
Yeah, Mary Matalin worked for George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove. Your devotion to the republicans is more like a hooker's devotion to the pimp who beats her. Who the hell knows what keeps you hanging on?
Ewww, Mike goes all sexual weird on us.
You heard it here, folks: beatings are sexual. Still taking your sex education from Rush Limbaugh, Bill Mulligan?
To quote John Malkovich's Lennie Small: "Thtop thqueaming! I jutht wanna pet you! Thtop thqueaming!""
Still obsessing over pimps, hookers and beatings. Mike still needs to get that help. Hell, Mike may just need a girl. Oh, and by girl, I mean woman of legally adult age. I point that out because he's jumped into some of the last two weeks' posts' jokes about women and such by bringing up teenage girls and Buffy. Again, either his dementia makes it impossible for him to understand when an actual woman is being discussed and what one is or his repressed pedophilia is showing.
On to the insanity of Mike and Genocide.
In Principal Poopypants, Bill Mulligan said that he doesn't care for hate crime laws. He never said people should never be punished for killing minorities or people not of their own race or sexual preference. Several people also said that they saw no point in using hate crime laws as ADDITIONAL punishment for a crime. As I pointed out, murder often gets you the death penalty. Can't do much more to a person after that.
Mike then spent the better part of two weeks, TWO FREAKING WEEKS, of obsessive insanety in a syphilis induced dementia and screeching on about how we're all Nazi's, racists and deniers of the Holocaust because… Well… Several of us don't agree with the need for hate crime laws. Again, Mike's point about what is and is not genocide started with his demented attempts to prove that disagreeing with the need for hate crime legislation equals denying the existence of the Holocaust or of genocide itself.
Can you say, "dementia?" I knew you could.
Yet another fast drive off his short cliff. He thinks CNN gives a flying wang about his insanity.
"Posted by Mike at November 11, 2006 10:22 PM
The only basis you have to call me screwed up is because I caught you sheltering racism. If you don't want to cop to what you were caught doing, why wouldn't you call me screwed up? If you want to try and out me, I'm ready to start a national debate on cnn if you are."
Most of the truly demented crazies we get often go on about how they'll expose whatever it is that they're believing in their dementia by telling the President, the Governor or Larry King. Yeah, they tend to gravitate towards Larry. But we get a lot of guys telling us that, no lie, they'll see us when they're exposing us on CNN. It must have something to do with the meds.
Does Mike's dementia and insanity stop at just thinking that he's going to get us all on CNN for his own, personal debate show? No. It extends into paranoid dementia.
"Posted by Mike at November 11, 2006 10:48 PM
I don't think cnn will turn down a story on an internet stalking threat. Take another look at Jerry's post:
He's thrown out enough certain phrases that I was pretty sure that I knew who the guy was several weeks ago. A few things he's said in the last week made me even more sure of his I.D.
Intimidation and race privilege. You won't be answering for your inconsistencies to just me anymore."
Now, you may ask yourselves what started this and how it can be viewed as crazy, demented or paranoid. Simple. Mike tends to post in lots of places ranging from his own blogspot to this one and a fair host of places in-between. This means that he has a history of comments elsewhere that some may have seen and that you can use to get a better idea of if he's just yanking our chains or he really is nuts. I pointed out that I think I know who he is and that he really is just that goofy.
Not the first time that has been done here. Others have pointed out that random posters here are so and so from Byrne's board or some other place. No one has ever reacted by being so dementedly paranoid that they declared that this expression of belief of identity was intimidation and race privilege. It might have been funny had it stopped there. It didn't.
Mike takes an even greater plunge into dementia and paranoia by declaring that we must want to kill him.
" Posted by Mike at November 11, 2006 11:26 PM
When the basis of you calling me a screwball with brain damage is you getting caught denying "ANY racially motivated murder" matches the plain wording of "Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]" in the definition of genocide, it does.
After taking it upon yourself to diagnose me as brain damaged, maybe you will take it upon yourself to remove me from the gene pool. To do that you would of course need to, as you say, I.D. me."
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you a demented paranoid. His name is Mike.
"Posted by Mike at November 12, 2006 08:41 AM
Mike, if you're doing this for the fun of upsetting people, you've succeeded. Please stop.
If on the other hand you truly believe what you're writing, then I fear you may be suffering from mental illness.
So if I catch a group of defensive white guys (who frequent sites where the year's dead are subject to ridicule and humiliation) denying "ANY racially motivated murder" matches the plain wording of "Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]" in the definition of genocide, I'm mentally ill?"
No, Mike, you're not seen as mentally ill just because you believe some demented idea that you came here and valiantly exposed a bunch of race haters, Nazis and genocide deniers. You're perceived as mentally ill because… well… Just about everything that comes out of one of your posts pretty much gives that indication. You can't even function as normal for more then three posts before you're off in your own demented fantasy world and expressing to or about us.
You are, Mad Mikey, quite clearly and disturbingly insane. I now re-shroud you for all further posts and threads. Post on, Mad Mikey, but I am well and truly done with you.
Awwww...I was kind of looking forward to being on CNN...you know, if he'd said MSNBC it might have been plausable.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 15, 2006 11:19 PM
Awwww...I was kind of looking forward to being on CNN...you know, if he'd said MSNBC it might have been plausable.
Keep it up, Mulligan, and I'll expose your mendacity on my cable access show, The Tinfoil Hat Hour!
Yes, you semantic whiz kid, the phrases match.
Well, then what has been your problem all this time?
And just for you. The Britannica's definition of Genocide. Note the context of the part you like to quote.Under the terms of the convention, "genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such: (a) killing members of the group
The text you cite makes my point.
genocide // n.
the mass extermination of human beings, esp. of a particular race or nation.
[Greek genos ‘race’ + -cide]
When language evolves, yes, sometimes the meanings of words expand.
genocide:
- The systematic killing of substantial numbers of people on the basis of ethnicity, religion, political opinion, social status, or other particularity.
- Acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.
The varying definitions of a word do not supplant each other. There is nothing in Lemkin's plainly-worded definition, which came first, that excludes the Oxford definition.
If Sean Scullion had responded with "Your powers of logic are incredible" he would have been making a defensive non-reply. It would have been wrong, but it still would have made sense.
Instead, you made a defensive non-reply for him. This is not only wrong, but it makes no observable sense.
Oh, it's very much right, because it makes perfect sense, and it's made by *gasp* my own observations of your posts on this forum.
Then why did Sean Scullion -- who will agree he is no friend of mine -- just admit that "ANY racially motivated murder" matches the plain wording of "Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]" in the definition of genocide?
And Mary Matalin doesn't call her husband "Serpentor," she calls him "Serpent Head." Put down the GI Joe before you hurt yourself.Yeaaaaaahhhhhh....um, I'm not Mary Matalin. Thanks for playing.
Yeah, Mary Matalin worked for George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove. Your devotion to the republicans is more like a hooker's devotion to the pimp who beats her. Who the hell knows what keeps you hanging on?
Ewww, Mike goes all sexual weird on us.
You heard it here, folks: beatings are sexual. Still taking your sex education from Rush Limbaugh, Bill Mulligan?
To quote John Malkovich's Lennie Small: "Thtop thqueaming! I jutht wanna pet you! Thtop thqueaming!"
Still obsessing over pimps, hookers and beatings. Mike still needs to get that help.
As opposed to, say, zombies?
Even a beating a hooker takes rarely results in the struggle for survival of the human race, or even the consumption of a single brain. Compared to hookers, zombies are just plain fucked up.
In Principal Poopypants, Bill Mulligan said that he doesn't care for hate crime laws. He never said people should never be punished for killing minorities or people not of their own race or sexual preference. Several people also said that they saw no point in using hate crime laws as ADDITIONAL punishment for a crime. As I pointed out, murder often gets you the death penalty. Can't do much more to a person after that.
Mike then spent the better part of two weeks, TWO FREAKING WEEKS, of obsessive insanety in a syphilis induced dementia and screeching on about how we're all Nazi's, racists and deniers of the Holocaust because… Well… Several of us don't agree with the need for hate crime laws. Again, Mike's point about what is and is not genocide started with his demented attempts to prove that disagreeing with the need for hate crime legislation equals denying the existence of the Holocaust or of genocide itself.
Can you say, "dementia?" I knew you could.
If my assertions have no basis in reality, then why the hell did Sean Scullion just admit that "ANY racially motivated murder" matches the plain wording of "Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]" in the definition of genocide?
Most of the truly demented crazies we get often go on about how they'll expose whatever it is that they're believing in their dementia by telling the President...
Straw man.
I point that out because he's jumped into some of the last two weeks' posts' jokes about women and such by bringing up teenage girls and Buffy.
No, Bill Myers, leader of the Closeted-Guy Party, introduced her as the epitome of sexual attraction.
When I called Bill Myers an eichamnn for denying the plainly-worded definition of genocide, it was after Bill Mulligan had called me the same for citing the definition in the first place.
If you're afraid to cite Peter's entries my posts appear in, I'm just going to dismiss all of my other quotes you pull out of context as similarly justified as the quotes I've addressed here.
Posted by: gene tullis at November 15, 2006 09:56 PM
Most of you think I'm nuts for supporting the war.
I don't. I disagree with you, but I'm not so arrogant as to believe that means you're nuts. For one thing, you've put the war in historical context and done it well. Although, given your acknowledgement that the war was about oil, and a personal grudge for George W. Bush, I am curious: where do you see the benefit for the nation as a whole? Wouldn't it have made more sense to find more stable sources of oil in the near term, and alternative energy sources in the long term?
Posted by: gene tullis at November 15, 2006 09:56 PM
Our country is the biggest user of oil. The loss of any oil from say Saudi, Iraq, Iran and so on would cripple our country.
A minor quibble: we don't get any of our oil from Iran. After the hostage crisis, we severed all diplomatic and economic ties with that country.
Posted by: gene tullis at November 15, 2006 09:56 PM
While I support the war, I cannot support how it is being ran.
I wholeheartedly agree with you.
Posted by: gene tullis at November 15, 2006 09:56 PM
Anyhow, this war will not be won unless we let the Iraqis take the lead. They are relying on us too much, yet, we cannot pull out.
One of the more cogent arguments for a swift U.S. withdrawal is that the Iraqis will never learn to provide for their own security in this post-Saddam era until we eliminate a convenient crutch: us. While I cannot dismiss the argument out-of-hand, I don't agree with it. If we leave too soon, I think the current Iraqi government will crumble.
Posted by: gene tullis at November 15, 2006 09:56 PM
We debate the politics, but still nobody has a plan.
Agreed. I hope the "Iraq Study Group" convened by the president will provide some actual, y'know, concrete ideas about how to proceed. I'm not filled with confidence, though. And while I voted nearly straight Democrat in the most recent election, I'm not thrilled with their failure to come up with an alternative other than "get out now."
Wow, I go to sleep for the day and come back to find out I've been pegged for a cabinet position, and apparently have to start planning for some level of zombie disaster. Well, hopefully the secretary of defense is up to the task, whoever that may end up being.
Proud as I am of my Scottish heritage, I have to agree that in a massive, clusterfuck zombie battle, a claymore would be a poor choice of weapon, particularly when minimizing human casualties is an absolute necessity. The traditional combination of Katana and Wakizashi (sp?) offers effectiveness and utility, with a long blade for outdoor fighting, and shorter blade for indoor/close-quarters battles.
Also, if we do make it into the White House in '08, we see to it that jobs are created by starting a large-scale manufacturing effort to see to it that combat-ready melee weapons are readily available for every able-bodied, still-breathing adult.
Another thing our administration should look into. Tower shields and gladiuses (gladii?). History shows that one of the most effective tactics against a largely disorganized, on-foot enemy (even a larger force) is the Roman shield wall.
However, as they say, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The Department of Homeland Security should definitely start keeping a much closer eye on biotech companies and religious wackycrazies of all stripes, while making nice with genuinely holy people, purveyors of white magic, and the guys from GhostHunters.
-Rex Hondo-
Also, if I may recommend, the Guy Party (if we gain the White House), in the spirit of bi-partisanship, should tap Bill Mulligan to head up a committee to look into potentially zombie-making government projects, assess the danger, and safely shut them down. Emphasis on the word "safely." We don't want to shut down a couple of potentially zombie-making projects only to end up making zombies because vat A ends up mixing with test tube Z when we toss them in the landfill.
(Hell, this administration sounds almost like the plot of a movie already. Just let me know when y'all are ready to start filming.)
-Rex Hondo-
"History shows that one of the most effective tactics against a largely disorganized, on-foot enemy (even a larger force) is the Roman shield wall."
That could be a problem with zombies. They don't die (duh) in the crush that the wall creates as do humans. You may be stepping on and over them while they are still biting at your troops.
Results? More zombies. Some who may not even turn until later that night while sleeping in their cots. Cots that are right next to all the other soldiers' cots. There goes a huge chunk (down a bunch of throats) of your troops.
Ahh.. But that's where the gladius comes in. It wasn't the crush that necessarily felled so many opponents, it was the small, fast blades licking out from between and over the shields that they couldn't avoid because of the crush. Of course, it would be harder to achieve decapitations, being more suited to disembowling thrusts and the like. But, if the shield wall manages to hold, it should keep the undead away from their intended victims and distracted long enough for a heavy attack of some sort to hit them in the flank or rear.
Of course, this is all dependent on having sufficient troops and materiel to pull off particular maneuvers. Which is why we can all thank our lucky stars Z-Day didn't occur on Rummy's watch. :P
-Rex Hondo-
Rex Hondo, with your knowledge of ancient warfare tactics, you would be perfect for Secretary of Defense. The job's yours in '08.
As for giving Bill Mulligan a cabinet post, I don't think that will be a problem. When The Guy Party wins in '08 (not if, but when), and Mulligan's party loses, I think he'll be begging us to join our party. Don't let him fool you -- he loves porn as much as the next guy.
As for preventing Zombie disasters -- well, OF COURSE that would be a priority. We need to proactively eliminate everything that would distract us from football and porn.
You see? We can reach out to the other side of the aisle, co-opt their positions, and grind them under. THAT'S bi-partisanship.
the plural of gladius is gladii. But I don't think the roman legion is suited to deal with zombies. The thursts of the spears and gladii are not effective enough to destroy the zombies, and the shields are not strong or big enough to protect from the crushing weight of relentless zombies.
No, the answer lies with medieval tactics.
Knights with armor (maybe the thick cloth used the protect against dog bites), long lances, swords, maces, flails -- all useful, combined with the speed and manurevability of the horse, and its own crushing weight. Also does not require large numbers. Although it begs the question of zombie horses.
The castle is of course a very useful defensive tool.
If you prefer infantry, the long lances and halberds of the swiss mercenaries are similar to the Roman legion, but probably better suited for zombies.
You should also consider using bows and slings to slow down the zombies.
[finally a realistic sane discussion].
I personaly prefer Bill Mulligan's security first policy over Bill Myers'focus on internal economic issue. But I think his platform will have populist appeal so long as he finds a way not to antagonize the women voters.
You can also use the Anglo Saxon shield wall + axes, which will also appeal to conservative WASPs
The best part among many great parts of The Zombie Handbook was the telling of historical zombie outbreaks. Had I the budget to make it look non-cheesy I'd LOVE to do a period piece that explained the disappearance of the Roanoke colony as the result of a zombie outbreak.
Max Brooks cites several cases where the Romans effectively disposed of far larger numbers of zombies with minimal loss of life to their own men. True, the gladius and spear are not ideally suited to the fight but it's the organization of the Roman Legion that makes the difference. The pilum would probably not kill many but a zombie with a weighted pilum lodged in their body would be slowed down. And while the gladius was more for stabbing than cutting I don't think the average Roman soldier would have too much trouble severing a rotting neck with one.
The Roman battle against Boudicca could provide a clue for how we could best fight off a zombie horde. Keeping in mind all the advantages they have (not tiring, feel no pain, never panic, admirable clarity of purpose) we still have the one advantage that can turn the tide--intelligence. Using natural barriers and cars arranged with a narrowing opening we could allow the zombies to herd themselves into a smaller and smaller area with our soldiers at the end. It would be a long fight but as long as the defenses were not accidentally breached it should work (unless we're talking about a whole city of the dead here).
Hey, here's a free tip--why do people in zombie movies always go off into battle with no better armor than a flannel shirt? Me, I'd be wrapping duct tape around my arms, legs, etc. No it isn't hammered steel but it's harder to bite through than my skin. For that matter, if I knew I was going up against Dracula, Lord of Vampires, I'd spend a few minutes with a sharpie drawing crucifixes all over any part of my body I'm fond of and drinking holy water like a long distance runner.
Bill Myers--sorry it's my fault you got called an eichamnn. I'd be even sorrier if it was an actual word.
"While, it's true Saddam was no threat to us, he was a threat to those we support."
Yes, he could have used his non-existent WMDs at just about any time on them.
"Notice I do not call them allies."
Well, I'd thought you were referring to Israel, who is an ally. So now I don't know what you're talking about.
"Where did a majority of the hijackers come from?"
Saudi Arabia, so now you've *really* lost me. The majority of hijackers were Saudis, and were members of bin Laden's terrorist group, except we didn't attack Saudi Arabia in response, we attacked Iraq, a country whose leader despised bin Laden, and we knocked that leader out of commission while slaughtering thousands upon thousands of his citizens, with the result being an abundance of brand new recruits for bin Laden where he didn't have any before. So whatever point it is you're trying to make, I'm not following it.
PAD
Good points all. This is why, when Secretary of Defense, I will heed the advice of my advisers and generals.
I can certainly see a need for many contingency plans for dealing with a variety of zombie scenarios. Are they metaphysically or scientifically created? (Or, God help us, a combination of the two) If metaphysical, is there an animating force like an artifact or altar that can be found and targeted. Is is a shambling, rotting mass of mindless hunger, or is there a directing intelligence, like a vampire, lich, or mad priest that can likewise be targeted? If scientific in nature, can a counteragent be developed?
As Bill Mulligan said, our intellect can be our greatest asset, if we just use it.
-Rex Hondo, Super Macho Zombie-Hunting Cowboy Cop-
Most of you think I'm nuts for supporting the war.I don't. I disagree with you, but I'm not so arrogant as to believe that means you're nuts. For one thing, you've put the war in historical context and done it well. Although, given your acknowledgement that the war was about oil, and a personal grudge for George W. Bush, I am curious: where do you see the benefit for the nation as a whole?
Uh, yeah, Gene, you're not nuts, just wrong. It's arrogant to say your nuts. But wrong? Not so arrogant.
This is where national security acutally plays a part. Our country is the biggest user of oil. The loss of any oil from say Saudi, Iraq, Iran and so on would cripple our country.A minor quibble: we don't get any of our oil from Iran. After the hostage crisis, we severed all diplomatic and economic ties with that country.
How minor a quibble is it when Iran's oil sells on the global market just like any other country's? We aren't paying a subsidy for oil to compensate for the benefit of Iran's supply on the market.
Thanks for establishing we invaded Iraq to secure our oil supply, Gene. While eminent domain is still controversial within the US, there is no eminent domain between nations. Oil wasn't sold as justification for invading, and it isn't being sold as a justification for continuing the occupation. No soldier is writing home of his duty to secure the nation's oil supply.
Super Macho Zombie-Hunting Cowboy Cop
There's your next horror movie: Village People of the Damned.
Not going to get into how Mikey twisted my words' meaning like some kinda quasi-Colbert protoHannity.
Just a question for Rex--when you're secretary of defense, can I be secretary of degate?
Gene, Bill: IS there a good way to wean the Iraqis off our help? From what I hear, weaning is often a messy process.
There's your next horror movie: Village People of the Damned.
But could it possibly be as scary as Can't Stop The Music?
Peter, you got the point perfectly. Saudi Arabia is not an ally to us. They rely on us to keep power.
Another history lesson. Why do the Saudis not crack down on the the extremists in there own country? They were the ones that helped liberate Saudi Arabia during WWI. You can also look at how succesful the British were in the 20s of creating an Iraqi democracy to see history repeating itself.
Flash Fact: Did you know our Navy protects oil shipments to China?
Posted by: gene tullis at November 16, 2006 09:40 AM
Why do the Saudis not crack down on the the extremists in there own country?
Because the Saudis are worried that the extremists could easily foment an uprising that could threaten the Saudi royal family's hold on power. By tolerating the extremists, they are protecting their grip on power.
Posted by: Sean Scullion at November 16, 2006 09:23 AM
Just a question for Rex--when you're secretary of defense, can I be secretary of degate?
WHAT? Rex, here I bring you into my political party and offer you a sweet position and what do you do? You try to take over! Now Sean Scullion's asking YOU for cabinet positions!!!
There's trouble in paradise, folks...
Sigh... I have the "Yes" radio button checked at the "Remember me?" prompt. That's why I keep showing up as a "Zombie Slayer." Hopefully I've fixed it so I can just go back to being Bill Myers.
Whoops, sorry if I've overstepped my bounds as (potential) Secretary of Defense. Just got a little caught up in preparing for the zombie hordes. Believe me, I will stay out of decisions concerning porn and football (especially football), except where they directly impact national security. :P
-Rex Hondo-
Rex, I'm disappointed. You had Scullion in your camp. You should've gone for the power grab. It's what politicos DO, man.
Ahh, but I figured that was one of the draws of the Guy Party. We're not necessarily politicos. That, and it's not in anybody's best interests to get bogged down in political infighting when we could be having our heads munched on by the walking undead at any time. To say nothing of the threats of demonic invasion, alien infestation, or android armies controlled by paranoid supercomputers. The threats to the American freedom to choose one's own porn and sports are legion. You can have the spotlight. I'm content to do my duty to protect this great nation from threats from beyonds it's borders, and even from beyond it's plane of existence. (Cue Music)
Besides, you're much more electable than I am. Much better to let you get us all into the White House and then be the power behind the throne. ;)
-Rex Hondo-
Rex Hondo, it will be an honor serving with you.
Now if we could just come up with some campaign funding...
Well, I'll have to sleep on it. Try not to start the revolution without me!
-Rex Hondo-
"The Roman battle against Boudicca could provide a clue for how we could best fight off a zombie horde. Keeping in mind all the advantages they have (not tiring, feel no pain, never panic, admirable clarity of purpose) we still have the one advantage that can turn the tide--intelligence. Using natural barriers and cars arranged with a narrowing opening we could allow the zombies to herd themselves into a smaller and smaller area with our soldiers at the end. It would be a long fight but as long as the defenses were not accidentally breached it should work (unless we're talking about a whole city of the dead here)."
The important thing is that you have a plan. That's why you're the candidate.
Folks, I don't know whether Peter is reading every post in this off-the-rails thread anymore... and if he is, I don't know what he's thinking...
But the fact that he has let us talk about porn & football, zombies, and all other sorts of weird shit that's way the hell off topic... well... that just solidifies my belief that this is the best blog on the freakin' planet.
Peter -- thanks for letting us have so much fun in what is, after all, your personal "playground."
In the true tradition of America, this blog is populated by people who would have gotten kicked out of any DECENT blog years ago. Thanks PAD!
What was it Groucho Marx said about belonging to any club that's have him as a member? :P
-Rex Hondo-
Joe Conason, who I can't imagine anyone...well, ok, maybe one person...would be crazy enough to consider a right winger, has some interstesting things to say about Nancy Peolesi's choice for the number 2 spot
The reason no one would confuse Conason for right wing is because he is to the far left in the media. He's criticising a politician who traded favors for things he could bring back to his constituants. So what else is new?
After promising to "drain the swamp," she immediately adopted one of the swamp’s hungriest alligators as her pet.
Until he won deserved gratitude last year by speaking out against the war...
Conason points out that Murtha thrived in the republican-dominated house.
Well, guess what? Unless Pelosi picks someone completely untried, she has no option to fill the majority leader slot with someone for whom that isn't true.
With Conason, it's about the intolerance of corruption.
With you, it's about weighing a penny of democratic lapses the same as a dollar of republican corruption.
Not going to get into how Mikey twisted my words' meaning like some kinda quasi-Colbert protoHannity.
Yes, you semantic whiz kid, the phrases match. However, in the case of genocide, there is more ADDED to the phrase.
Hey, Bill...
You said they match, and then you started talking to Bill. So what's your problem? The definition of genocide gave no exceptions to "Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]."
Yawn.
Well, luckily for the future of the Democratic Party, they were smart enough to vote down Murtha--big time. Either he lied about having enough votes when he spoke to Chris Mathews yesterday or they were appalled by his performance and all switched at once. It wasn't even close.
Pelosi still has a chance to salvage some respect out of this. It's obvious that she does not have the ability to impose her will on members. (From the Washington Post--For the most part, lawmakers, Hill aides and some outside advisers -- even some close to her -- say they are at a loss to explain why Pelosi has held a grudge for so long, because she clearly has the upper hand as leader of the House Democrats. They suggest that part of what rankles her is that Hoyer is not beholden to her and feels no compulsion to publicly agree with her on every issue. This, allies say, she sees as a sign of disloyalty. Yikes!)
The Jewish Daily Forward points out that During the campaign, Pelosi and her party pledged to implement any recommendations of the 9/11 commission which have yet to be enacted. Well, the commission argued that “members should serve indefinitely on the intelligence committees, without set terms, thereby letting them accumulate expertise.” But Pelosi’s people have been citing term limits as a main reason for trying to block Democratic Rep. Jane Harman, an initial supporter of the Iraq war, from becoming chairman of the House Intelligence Committee...Before this is over, Pelosi will have to come up with a different reason for dumping Harman or appear to betray a pretty black-and-white campaign promise.
Replacing Harmon with Alcee Hastings is appalling for reason obvious to anyone not a Pelosi loyalist. I'm not suggesting she appoint a republican and if she is psychologically unable to work with anyone she considers disloyal...well, that would eliminate a majority of the members of her party who defied her today. But still, SOME one of the remaining 86 members would be a better pick than Hastings.
I know some Republicans are bummed that the Democrats dodged a bullet today but really, the country can't afford two years of watching the Party in charge self destruct. You have to put the needs of the country first. Hoping for disaster just so "your guys" can get back in is, at the very least, dishonorable.
They suggest that part of what rankles her is that Hoyer is not beholden to her and feels no compulsion to publicly agree with her on every issue. This, allies say, she sees as a sign of disloyalty.Yikes!
...
During the campaign, Pelosi and her party pledged to implement any recommendations of the 9/11 commission which have yet to be enacted. Well, the commission argued that “members should serve indefinitely on the intelligence committees, without set terms, thereby letting them accumulate expertise.” But Pelosi’s people have been citing term limits as a main reason for trying to block Democratic Rep. Jane Harman, an initial supporter of the Iraq war, from becoming chairman of the House Intelligence Committee...
She submitted John Murtha, a retired Marine colonel who opposes the war, to house majority leader, and she casually cited term limits on a guy she doesn't like. It isn't like she's resorted to incendiary accusations a member of her own party sired a black baby to discredit them.
Again, with you a penny of democratic lapses weighs the same as a dollar of republican corruption. It's like your denial of the plainly-worded definition of genocide -- what's important to you is sheltering white patriarchal privilege.
I know some Republicans are bummed that the Democrats dodged a bullet today but really, the country can't afford two years of watching the Party in charge self destruct. You have to put the needs of the country first. Hoping for disaster just so "your guys" can get back in is, at the very least, dishonorable.
I suppose for you there is no virtue in the end of a disasterous rule if it's by the republicans.
After 9-11, the democrats rubber-stamped the Iraq invasion. That wasn't hoping for disaster. They were supporting a republican president who, it has since been revealed, lied to them.
After four years of republicans sheltering Bush's incompetence, voters have placed the democrats in charge to provide some checks. It's your hope for another disasterous rule that's dishonorable.
I also suppose since the democrats are the "Party in charge" with only the law-making branch, you won't be bothering to sing the merits of a republican candidate in the next presidential election.
Mike, what history are you looking at? The Iraq Resolution (which did not authorize the invasion, just gave full authority to the president to use whatever means he decided were needed, IF Hussein did not give up his WMDs and abide by UN resolutions...a minor distinction, to be sure, but far from the authorization of war some claim it was) had 133 votes AGAINST it. Hardly a rubber stamp approval, with only 81 Dems voting for it, and 126 against. And even if every single Dem had voted against it, it still would have passed, 215-214.
Zombie Bobb, your puny logic is no match for Mike's single...er...mindedness. Though at least you probably figured out that Jane Harmen is a woman, not "a guy".
Luckily for the Democratic party and the country as a whole, Mike's apparent blindness to the possibility that any choice by a Democrat might be a poor one was not shared by the majority of party members. They saw the "no matter what we do it's better than something they did so, by definition, it must be ok" philosophy for the 4th grade mentality it is. No big surprise, for all their flaws, most of these folks are grownups.
Some bloggers, not so much.
The right wing fanatics at The New York Times had this to say:
Nancy Pelosi has managed to severely scar her leadership even before taking up the gavel as the new speaker of the House. First, she played politics with the leadership of the House Intelligence Committee to settle an old score and a new debt. And then she put herself in a lose-lose position by trying to force a badly tarnished ally, Representative John Murtha, on the incoming Democratic Congress as majority leader. The party caucus put a decisive end to that gambit yesterday, giving the No. 2 job to Steny Hoyer, a longtime Pelosi rival.
But Ms. Pelosi’s damage to herself was already done. The well-known shortcomings of Mr. Murtha were broadcast for all to see — from his quid-pro-quo addiction to moneyed lobbyists to the grainy government tape of his involvement in the Abscam scandal a generation ago. The resurrected tape — feasted upon by Pelosi enemies — shows how Mr. Murtha narrowly survived as an unindicted co-conspirator, admittedly tempted but finally rebuffing a bribe offer: “I’m not interested — at this point.”
Mr. Murtha would have been a farcical presence in a leadership promising the cleanest Congress in history. Ms. Pelosi should have been first to realize this, having made such a fiery campaign sword of her vows to end Capitol corruption. Instead, she acted like some old-time precinct boss and lost the first test before her peers.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 17, 2006 03:15 PM
No big surprise, for all their flaws, most of these folks are grownups.
Some bloggers, not so much.
Bill, I am sick of you taking these cheap shots at me!
And my cat is angry at you as well (you know damn well what I mean, even though pretty much no one else does).
Yeah, well you can tell your cat that MY cat put me in the hospital for a week and almost cost me a foot. I don't scare easily.
What did you do to your cat that forced it to retaliate like that???
Isn't it obvious? He told his cat that it wasn't, um, awesome, so it retaliated. You kan't mess with cats.
I have a theory about Mike that can put an end to all the fighting.
He is a misunderstood genius. A comedic genius that is. He's like Borat, Andy Kaufman, Eric Cartman, he uses the persona of 'Mike' to say outragous ridiculous things. Borat meets abbot and Costelo's Who's on first, if you will. An ongoing misunderstanding that no matter how much you try, you can't get out of. The greatest part of his act is that he never brakes character. Briliant. He'll probably deny this claim, blaiming it on a neo-nazi conspiracy.
It's a theory, of course. Less than a theory even. But ever since I came up with it, my life has become more amusing. I actually look forward for the next post. Every mention of the exact definition of genocide is like a running gag. Bravo.
Micha, I have another theory for ya, one that's been floating around in my head for a while now. Looking at all the other people's words in Mike's posts, the answer is obvious. As a kid, he ate too much...paste.
I really think someone should just take Pelosi aside and tell her that the Democrats are in, don't screw this up. Put it much more diplomatically, though.
Back on the zombie front--this is the kind of headline you have to be on the watch for. From the drudgereport:
US cemetery worker, 80, charged over grave-rage incident
This is how they try to break it too us gently. Start stocking up on bottled water and peanut butter.
I have a theory about Mike that can put an end to all the fighting.
It would acvtually make for a funny book--"I was an Internet Jerk" The "victims" of the scam would be so happy to find out he wasn't serious they'd probably give permission to reprint all their posts. I'd probablt buy lots of copies to give away to my friends who would read it and tell me "Boy, he really had you going."
I know some Republicans are bummed that the Democrats dodged a bullet today but really, the country can't afford two years of watching the Party in charge self destruct. You have to put the needs of the country first. Hoping for disaster just so "your guys" can get back in is, at the very least, dishonorable.I suppose for you there is no virtue in the end of a disasterous rule if it's by the republicans.
After 9-11, the democrats rubber-stamped the Iraq invasion.That wasn't hoping for disaster.
The Iraq Resolution... had 133 votes AGAINST it.
Well, unlike Bill Mulligan, I'm not going to deny something plainly observable. Thank you for correcting me by actually citing something verifiable.
The democrats compare even more favorably to republicans than I have been arguing.
Luckily for the Democratic party and the country as a whole, Mike's apparent blindness to the possibility that any choice by a Democrat might be a poor one was not shared by the majority of party members. They saw the "no matter what we do it's better than something they did so, by definition, it must be ok" philosophy for the 4th grade mentality it is.
What are you talking about, Bill Mulligan? Bobb just made the point democrats compare even more favorably to republicans than I have been arguing.
The right wing fanatics at The New York Times had this to say:
Mr. Murtha would have been a farcical presence in a leadership promising the cleanest Congress in history.
And yet, "the cleanest Congress in history" still would have been plausible.
Though at least you probably figured out that Jane Harmen is a woman, not "a guy".
I could not concentrate on what that old man was saying.
He's like Borat, Andy Kaufman, Eric Cartman, he uses the persona of 'Mike' to say outragous ridiculous things.The "victims" of the scam would be so happy to find out he wasn't serious they'd probably give permission to reprint all their posts.
As Borat, Sacha Cohen films people nodding along with the sexist and racist things he says. As Ali G, he films politicians addressing him as someone who leads the youth market who believes the ridiculous things he says.
Y'all (except for Sean Scullion) are simply denying "ANY racially motivated murder" matches the plain wording of "Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]" in the definition of genocide. The only virtue of this denial is to shelter racism. There is no declaration of "just kidding!" that will make this untrue.
Hmmm, on second thought, even if he IS just putting on a show it isn't funny enough to be worth the trouble.
Maybe it's like with Andy Kaufman--he has to keep the joke going for a REALLY long time to make it work. Well, good luck to him. At this point it's the only option he has. To heavily paraphrase Alexandre Dumas, I don't know if Mike's an idiot or a joker but since the latter usually have to take an occasional rest it's looking more and more like the former.
Y'all (except for Sean Scullion) are simply denying "ANY racially motivated murder" matches the plain wording of "Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]" in the definition of genocide. The only virtue of this denial is to shelter racism. There is no declaration of "just kidding!" that will make this untrue.Maybe it's like with Andy Kaufman--he has to keep the joke going for a REALLY long time to make it work. Well, good luck to him. At this point it's the only option he has. To heavily paraphrase Alexandre Dumas, I don't know if Mike's an idiot or a joker but since the latter usually have to take an occasional rest it's looking more and more like the former.
You aren't very smart, are you?
Now he isn't even trying.
Well, at least the 3 Billy Goats Gruff appreciate the distraction we've provided.
Bill, instead of a book, it would make a REALLY good film. Such a shame we don't know anyone who, y'know, makes movies.
I don't know Sean, there isn't anything terribly cinematic about a lonely guy typing furiously in his one room apartment surrounded by empty pizza boxes and his dog-eared copy of "Of Mice and Men".
Hey--just for giggles, want to read a blast from the past?
Jeffrey, I think I know how distressing it is to have your feelings invalidated. You've got people working, laboring to minimize your feelings. But when you express any distress, your feelings aren't invalide anymore, but justification to dismiss you. It's the kind of inconsistency that can clobber someone who is otherwise well-meaning.
My point is, if you're going to be a troll, you're going to have to do a better job. I'm sorry, but I've been watching you since I've gotten here, and you just aren't doing that well. I've been kicked off of communities before, and now no one even notices I'm a troll at all. Maybe I can help.
You are a strict personality, among a pool of more casual personalities. I am not a casual personality, so I think I can give you some feedback. It's ok, we all need feedback sometime. We can't read people's minds and see how they take what we present.
Tactically, I've found it helps to encompass your entire point in a single sentence. I'm