Mr. President: Peter David from www.peterdavid.net. In the past you have repeatedly criticized “activist judges” who have been, in your opinion, playing fast and loose with the Constitution in order to further their own agendas. Yet you, who twice took an oath to protect the Constitution, signed into law a historic curtailing of habeas corpus that many are decrying as blatantly unconstitutional. Would it therefore be reasonable to accuse you of being an “activist president?”
PAD
UPDATE FROM GLENN, 9/26: Apparently, Betty The Crow News is collecting questions for their reporter to ask Tony Snow. Feel free to click here and cross-polinate.
• 
Hello, Mr. President. Just a few questions for you:
You recently said that you believe the uptick in violence in Iraq was in part an attempt by the insurgents to influence the upcoming midterm elections. Do you therefore believe that the violence will decrease after the midterms? In what specific way do you believe the insurgents are trying to influence our democracy? Do you believe that someone who votes Democrat is playing into the hands of the insurgency?
When parts of the National Intelligence Estimate were leaked, revealing that invading Iraq had very likely made the War on Terror more difficult, you implied that said leak was politically timed, being released suspiciously close to Election Day. What do you say to the fact that the verdict in Saddam Hussein’s trial is scheduled to be announced on November 5th – a mere two days before midterms?
Considering the sacrifices our soldiers are making in Iraq and Afghanistan, would it not be reasonable to ask the citizenry to sacrifice a little and repeal some of your tax cuts in order to pay for more body armor, ballistic glass, and pay raises for our men?
One of the stated goals of our work in Afghanistan is to move that county from a fundamentalist Islamic state where repressive religious edicts dictated everyday life to a more secular form of law in the American model. Does it concern you that powerful fundamentalist Christian political groups are trying to write their particular interpretation of religion into law? Why do you have James Dobson and Jerry Falwell vet your nominations to judgeships?
Do you realistically see the Homeland Security Advisory System ever going below Yellow?
Your predecessor suggested the creation of a Department of Homeland Security before he left office. What took you so long to create it and why don’t you ever give him credit for the idea?
Do you believe that the Romans tortured Jesus or merely subjected him to “robust techniques”? Was Jesus crucified or was he “subjected to a stress position that regrettably led to organ failure”?
Why the hëll does Donald Rumsfeld still have a job?
One of the stated goals of our work in Afghanistan is to move that county from a fundamentalist Islamic state where repressive religious edicts dictated everyday life to a more secular form of law in the American model.
What progress is being made in that area? Why is the Taliban retaking more sections of Afghanistan? And why is much of the Afghani army seem to be helping Taliban and al-Quaeda factions?
And, yes, why DOES Rumsfeld’s lack of planning mean he still has a job?
Here’s a question:
“Is there anything that you & your administration cannot connect to terrorism???”
“By showing interviews which make the Vice President appear ill-informed about popular culture, Mr. Cohen is only aiding the terrorists in their propaganda campaign to make America seem weak. The President is calling on all Americans who oppose terror to avoid Borat in person, on TV, and on the big screen.”
full story here:
http://datelinehollywood.com/archives/2006/10/22/borat-lands-interview-with-dìçk-cheney/
I read the Dateline Hollywood story referenced in Michael Brunner’s post. I was appalled to read that John McCain is trying to blame Bill Clinton and other Democrats for Borat’s brilliant prank. With that bit of tinfoil-hat nonsense, McCain has lost any chance in hëll of getting my vote should he be the Republican nominee for president. I always knew the man was a conservative, but that never bothered me because I believed he was principled. I was clearly wrong.
I mean, for God’s sake, does anyone think Sacha Baron Cohen wouldn’t have pulled this stunt on the veep were he a Democrat?
Great. If things go the way everyone is predicting, we’ll have a choice between shrill Hillary and shill McCain. Another election down the çráppër unless something changes drastically. I fervently hope that something will indeed head off that outcome.
Uhmmm….
You do know that the Dateline Hollywood site is kind of like the Onion’s site?
You do know that the Dateline Hollywood site is kind of like the Onion’s site?
You mean the article that said E! TO COUNT DOWN 101 SEXIEST CELEBRITY VÃGÍNÃS is also a fake??? Ðámņ.
Well, at least McCain might get Bill’s vote now!
(Don’t feel bad, Bill, it’s not like that story was TOO out there to believe!)
You do know that the Dateline Hollywood site is kind of like the Onion’s site
Didn’t realize that. Have to take another look at it tomorrow.
Posted by: Jerry C at October 24, 2006 11:06 PM
Uhmmm….
You do know that the Dateline Hollywood site is kind of like the Onion’s site?
I do now.
In my defense, it’s not my fault that I’m a complete idiot. I was born that way.
Yeah, it’s a wonder Journalism didn’t cast its net over you.
Geeze, Bill Myers, for a nice guy you sure do manage to make a few enemies on this blog…
Of course, they usually tend to be of a certain, um, quality, let us charitably say, so you shouldn’t feel too bad about it…
Good grief, Mike…just let. It. Go.
Bill Myers just wrote a check with his mouth that his butt can’t cash. I didn’t invent that problem any more than I invented the rain or the sky.
Posted by: Mike at October 25, 2006 10:07 AM
Bill Myers just wrote a check with his mouth that his butt can’t cash. I didn’t invent that problem any more than I invented the rain or the sky.
How do you figure? Here’s what’s transpired so far:
You likened Bush supporters to a hypothetical høøkër who stabs a man for trying to stop her pimp from beating her. I challenged you to substantiate that analogy.
You responded in part by asserting that Bush had traded away “middle-class saving, by cutting taxes for the rich during wartime.” I pointed out that the Tax Reform Act of 2001 included tax breaks that benefit the middle class, such as an increase in the Child Tax Credit, and increased benefits for the poor in the form of increases
in the Earned Income Credit.
You then made the following remark about the Child Tax Credit: “Oh, I guess you were saying families earning $18,000 a year are middle class. It’s worse than I thought. You sure you still want to nominate yourself as the poster boy for logic?” I responded by pointing out that income doesn’t become a factor unless you are: a married couple filing jointly with a combined Adjusted Gross Income of $110,000 or more; single, head of household, or qualifying widow(er) with an AGI of at least $75,000; or a married person filing separately from his/her spouse with an AGI of at least $55,000.
Rather than being contrite about how badly you put your foot in your mouth, you decided that my bringing the Earned Income Credit into the discussion was a non-sequitur because you were referring to the middle class, and not the poor. Apparently, you forgot that you said this in an earlier post: “Who’s being incendiary, the guy liquidating middle-class savings to give to the rich, or the guy driving the point home that poor people who support him are being cheated?”
You then accused me of “starting something” with you and even had the temerity to whine about me responding to a post in which you mentioned my name but didn’t address me directly. You apparently believe you have an inherent right to decide who can respond to you and in what manner. You do not. This is Peter’s blog and he, and only he, can decide what does or doesn’t fly here. He has chosen not to intervene, so you’re on your own.
If you look at my initial response to you, it was blunt but by no means did it lack civility. I criticized your analogy for it’s inflammatory nature and lack of substance. That obviously hurt your feelings. Given how emotionally sensitive you are, maybe you need to reconsider posting in forums like this.
Finally, Mike, I am one person amongst billions on this planet. The amount of attention you are devoting to me is becoming somewhat… creepy. Are you sure you can’t find something else to do? I was all set to let you have the last word (I let you take a couple of shots without responding) but you keep dogging me. I hate to keep smacking you down like this, as I can tell that it makes you feel bad, but you keep coming back for more.
Oh, one other thing, Mike: I failed to look at the headlines in the sidebar alongside the satirical story about Borat spoofing Cheney. If you merely read the Borat story, it’s not so hard to believe. Sacha Baron Cohen, under the guise of his Ali G character, once got an interview with former Secretary of State James Baker. The idea that as Borat he could get access to Cheney isn’t that much of a stretch.
Still, I’ve already admitted that I feel pretty silly about missing the satirical nature of the article and the site. Unlike you, I am strong enough to laugh at myself and admit my goofs — which I did before you came running afterwards like a little kid shouting, “You screwed up, you’re a stinky head!”
Bill Myers just wrote a check with his mouth that his butt can’t cash.
And now there are visions of Mr. T dancing in my head…
To be fair, most people wouldn’t know that site is a spoof site if they didn’t get linked to REALLY goofy story. It got me and a friend in one go.
I first came across them because of a coworker who hated Jeopardy. Someone emailed him a story about Ken Jennings freaking out and punching Trebek after losing on Jeopardy. The article looked real and didn’t overplay the concept. It wasn’t until I started poking around that I found the site and saw some of the really out there stories and felt dumb.
Would I have been taken in by the Borat spoofing Cheney piece had I not known of the site before? Yeah. It wasn’t all that far fetched when you look at some of the interview spoof coups that Cohen has pulled on politicians from all over, including the U.S., before. The ludicrous over reaction of politicians right before a major election is, sadly, all to easy to believe even if they write up something as overly stupid as what’s in the piece. Was it really any more stupid then what has been said since the Foley story broke?
I also can’t knock Michael or Bill for not catching the sidebar stuff. I don’t read that stuff half the time either. It’s usually filled with ads and links to garbage I have no interest in.
Posted by: Jerry C at October 25, 2006 01:12 PM
To be fair, most people wouldn’t know that site is a spoof site if they didn’t get linked to REALLY goofy story. It got me and a friend in one go.
So the fact that I am a total idiot is a separate issue, then?
I live in a glass house. I got rid of my stones a loooonnnnggggg time ago.
🙂
What you said was:
You:
For which I was contrite:
You:
I claimed no such privilege:
Asking you what your problem is is an attempt to override Peter’s authority? There’s no defense against your relentless Lennie-like personal agenda.
Face it Billy, you just like the fixed game, and you reserve it as a privilege. Now you got caught, and your ášš can’t cash the check your mouth has written.
Lennie-like? hmmm, IIRC wasn’t that X-Ray’s favorite, bizarre phrase….?
Mike, like all trolls, you enjoy conflict for its own sake. I don’t. You win. Enjoy.
Hmmmm, “lennie-like”…the insistence that he’s winning while everyone else rolls their eyes…the pithy “Oh yeah?” comebacks…the inability to quit while behind…it DOES sound like the old X-Rayorino we know and love…but I doubt it. He’s got consonants, for one thing. And I think he is genuinely to the left of X-Ray, though my liberal friends would probably rather not claim him. Amazing how the politics don’t matter when the craziness is there–they all end up sounding the same.
Bill just had the misfortune of being the first to set off his cerebral smoke alarm. Could have been anyone.
Probably true enough Bill. Just the only other place I’ve ever heard that odd phrase.
And, yes, crazy does seem to be a tribe of it’s own, outside normal politics. I suppose it’s fortunate they seem to remove themselves from any serious discussion, without any help from anyone. (Despite what their persicution complexes will tell them…)
Not everyone believed what Bush was saying about the WMDs when this mess started. I didn’t believe him for one minute.
Crickets were chirping for three hours after Bill Myer’s post, and you couldn’t even be bothered to read it before following it.
Which is fine, except you persist in trying to summarize what I’m saying while demonstrating you aren’t even reading what’s going on. No, there is no defense against your relentless Lennie-like personal agenda.
your relentless Lennie-like personal agenda.
Ok, we get it, you’ve read Of Mice And Men. Yay you. Try mixing it up. Maybe our inability to not respond to your jackassery is indicative of our “Ahab-like obsession” or you could describe your attempts to counter our evil as “Beowulf-like heroism”. Something like that. Or just go back to the rhymes. “Billy” rhymes with “hypocrisy”, remember that kneeslapper? Go to http://www.rhymer.com/ if you have trouble. I discovered that “Mike” rhymes with “psych”, “snake-like” “third Reich” “Northern Pike”. Endless hours of gut busting mirth.
Please tell me this is performance art. Otherwise you’re in danger of having even other trolls looking at their monitors and muttering “Jeeze, get a life.”
I think the silence, Mike, was the sound of people hoping you were shutting up. But that was wishful thinking, huh?
No, Mike is not X-Ray. He was around back before X-Ray. We actually had a mini debate at one point on whether or not he was really Dee.
He had loose screws, debate-wise, then and he has them now. He has followed his old pattern as well.
1) Cut and paste out the butt until he out-of-contexts stuff to death.
2) Start going on about “lennie-like” whatever over and over again.
3) Next he’ll shift to talking about our control freak nature in debates, point out that we walk our women by holding the back of their necks, show them the backof our hands or some such strange garbage.
Like I said, he had a screw loose then and he seems to still have a screw loose now.
I’m really suprised you debated him this long before giving up.
And tell me what virtue breaking that silence has, except invite me to continue? One virtue. One.
…catch someone in a self-serving inconsistency, like including a prediction in a list of transgressions. Which is, yes, officially chickenshit, in every religion, and aetheism too.
Mikey,
Just pointing out your pattern. You copy and paste, you start repeating the phrase “there is no defense against your relentless Lennie-like personal agenda” over and over again and then you go someplace strange or creepy. It’s why I don’t debate you in any serious threads that you pop up in anymore. I can’t help it if you’re just so much more predictable the sun rising every morning and setting every evening.
You know, we had a pretty amusing thread going on here, until y’all permitted this “Mike” jackhole to start dictating your responses.
The shroud exists for a reason, mes amis…
Yeah, yeah, I know Jonathon, I know. Some of us just have to learn the hard way.
Jerry C–too, too funny. And I’d almost forgotten about Dee!
What makes these folks come back after months away? Got kicked out of wherever they’ve been? Medications stopped working?
Did you predict this: You are so stupid, you don’t even know what it is to be smart or that there even is such a thing.
When I tell someone here that there is no defense against their Lennie-like relentless, it’s preceded by something they’ve said that demonstrates the same point with them. Do a search for the word and tell me where I’ve misapplied the phrase.
I remember the post you are trying to misremember. It’s not what you’re saying it was, but yes, it was creepy.
We take for granted that holding people to principles we fail to live by ourselves, but we never hear why it’s bad. I’ve come to understand that hypocrisy is bad because it’s only good for sheltering our predatory appetites behind the pretense virtue. I mean, has anyone else heard a more true and succinct explanation why hypocrisy is bad?
People aren’t computers. Logic is formed linearly, but we experience the truth non-linearly. To arrive at that kind of truth — that holding people to principles we fail to live by ourselves is bad because it’s only good for sheltering our predatory appetites, for example — when no tells it to you, you have to navigate a lot of creepy thoughts. That’s what it takes.
Look at it this way:
I learn when I come here and embarrass myself. What does Bill get for coming here and getting his stupid all over everyone?
If you require clarification, that line should be: We take for granted that holding people to principles we fail to live by ourselves it’s bad, but we never hear why.
Oh, gøddámņ.
Mr. President,
You rushed into the war in Iraq without adequate preparation, and against the advice of people who know more about such things than you do; you stood on the deck of an aircraft carrier in front of a banner which read “mission accomplished” _long_ before the mission had been accomplished (and it still hasn’t been); you’ve given us no indication that you have any long-term strategy in mind with regard to how long American forces will be in Iraq; you seem to have forgotten all about making the capture of Osama bin Laden- the _actual_ architect of 9-11- your primary focus; and you’ve been one of the most divisive presidents in history, despite your claim you’re a uniter and not a divider. My question, then, is this:
What on Earth is wrong with you?!
Rick
Mr. President, over here!
Rex Hondo, Olympian Horse’s Úš Quarterly. Mister President, two questions, if I may:
Who did, indeed, put the “Bomp” in the “Bomp-ba-bomp-ba-bomp?”
Also, can you either confirm or deny reports that Vice President Chaney can only acheive an orgasm by strangling a puppy?