1) Outraged conservatives who think they’re going to bother me when they announce that they’re going to stop reading my books can forget it. I don’t worry about whether saying what I think is going to cost me money because I don’t put a dollar value on speaking the truth as I see it.
2) I will henceforth be treating some of the more belligerent conservatives in the spirit they’re treating me. Specifically, there seems to be this belief that liberals should just shut up even though they don’t like the way things are. So any conservative postings that I don’t like, I will shut up for them, thus enabling me to practice on their behalf what they preach on mine. Particularly postings that consist mainly of insults pertaining to race, color, creed and national origin.
Back to the snow.
PAD
• 
Michael Cravens writes:It’s fun to debate, but seriously, it’s an exercise in futility.
Not at all. I don’t post here much, but I read this blog several times a day. Many of the people here on both sides are articulate and well-informed.
And when carefully thought-out arguments are made, I certainly consider them, regardless of political persuasion.
But when obviously intelligent people start rationalizing, rather than presenting a well thought-out argument, it’s a pretty strong alert that that emotions are taking over. If I’m agreeing with said rationalizations, it’s a sign to me that I’d better think things through a bit more clearly first.
Take gay-marriage. Can’t say I strongly opposed it, but I never really liked the concept. After reading arguments for both sides here, I realized I was agreeing with the “shouldn’t be allowed” crowd. But why? How would it weaken my marriage with my wife? I didn’t have a problem with gays, so why gay marriage?
So that sparked a lot of good conversation in our household, at the end of which I (actually we) concluded that, to be consistent, I had to support gay marriage.
Not trying to start a gay-marriage debate, I’m just making the point that these discussions are not a waste of time by any means. I’m sure that for every person posting here, there are ten reading this.
People who engage in juvenile ranting and posturing (you don’t seem to be quite capable of comprehending who you are, but everyone else does) have little effect other than to mildly annoy readers, after which the posts are generally skipped over anyway.
But civil, well-written thoughts are read and listened to.
Luigi, I am apolitical, largely due to the face that I have NEVER, EVER seen intelligent debate or discourse when it comes to politics. This blog is no exception. It’s never anything but “Bush sucks” “Clinton sucked” “You suck for following Bush or Clinton,” etc. The day that I can see somebody express a rational, intelligent comment on anything political [and that is a blanket statement meant to cover EVERYBODY on this blog, including the author]is the day that I might actually take an interest in politics. That is MY opinion on all things political.
Please note that I am not posting this to seem rude or insulting. It’s just my view that politics turns nice people into idiots.
Bill (me) says:
(of course, if the whole world thinks you’re an idiot there is a pretty good possibility that, in fact, you are one.)
Karen replies:
“And what does the world think of Bush? Outside of half the US of A.”
The whole world? Overstate it much? You were careful to point out that only half the USA voted for Bush (which, BTW, is different from “thinking he’s an idiot”) but for other countries it seems to be all or nothing.
But, for the record, it seems to be true that much of the world (with some exceptions–India, interestingly, for one) is less than thrilled with the man. Of course, by probably the same margin or worse, many of those citizens also think that Israel is really calling the shots and US policy is all some big Jewish conspiracy. So world opinion should be taken with a grain of salt.
“Half the USA” didn’t vote for BushJr. Only half the people who actually voted (or were allowed to vote) did. Which wasn’t much more than half of the people who were registered to vote. And everybody I’ve talked to who voted for BushJr. (I’m the only one I know who didn’t) only voted for him
My first reaction when I read this post was, “why does this even needed to be a post?” I would think that editing would be a given since the site is owned by PAD. I post here with the knowledge that it might be edited or deleted all together. I think of it as a right that PAD allows us to post here and that same right can be taken away as the owner sees fit.
Now with that said – I don’t always agree with the political views shared on this site (more nots than do-s as it were), but I am certainly not going to stop reading any of PAD’s work (as I read most everything thing he does) because of a difference in political views.
That is just plain stupid.
Maybe I am missing something but I will say it again.
That is just plain stupid.
This country is set up to where we are all guaranteed the right to form our own opinion and political views. Why should I let one’s political views dictate what FICTION I enjoy. Is it the thought that by not buying said material that it will make some statement to force PAD to not write what he wants to write on HIS site? To me that is infringing on said owner’s rights. Will I protest if my opinion is censored or deleted off this site? Of course not – 1. it is not a public domain and 2. I do not own this domain in which it is “published.”
What would be wrong is if money is taken out of PAD’s pocket(which would also be taken out of his children’s pocket) because of him expressing his political views.
If you don’t like PAD’s views and he writes a book on the 8 year term of the current president then don’t buy it. But don’t let his political views stop you from supporting his phenomenal material (such as Fallen Angel, The New Frontier Novel Series, Hulk, Sir Apropos Series, Madrox, or the Knight Life series and its upcoming sequels. Not to mention the new fantasy novel “Darkness of the Light” coming soon from TOR (which I heard PAD read an excerpt at the 2004 DragonCon panel and it sounds extraordinary).
One bright spot if this picks up steam causing PAD to lost lots of money, Keith DeCandido is there to pick up any extra college bills for his kids. 🙂 At least I read that somewhere… 😉
because they were afraid to change leaders in the middle of a war. How convenient.
Which would be something I, along with I’m sure many other people, predicted would happen 4 years ago.
Granted, it doesn’t take a Nostradamus to come up with that, but the truth is rather hard for conservatives to accept.
I’m rather liberal. I don’t go to Chuck Dixon’s board, who seems rather conservative to me, and rant about what Chuck posts. I don’t organize boycotts or threaten to stop reading Chuck’s work. I respect him.
Say, you got a web address for that?
Luigi Novi wrote…
Novafan didn
Peter I think you and every other liberal (myself included) need to get over the fact that Bush won the election because there is nothing we can do to alter that fact. What our focus needs to be on is the fact that every two years a third of the House and Senate are up for election. As Democrats our focus should be not in complaining about Bush, as that is a done deal, but rather focus on 2006 being the year that we regain control of Congress. After 2006 comes and goes then we can worry about the presidential election 2008.
In a previous post I probably should have said that liberals were able to read with strong comprehension, unlike some conservatives who read with blinders on, supplied by Fox or Rush or some conservative dunk tank.
LesterCarthan posted: What our focus needs to be on is the fact that every two years a third of the House and Senate are up for election.
Actually, that’s the entire House and 1/3 of the Senate. House terms run two years, so every Representative’s seat is theoretically up for grabs every two years, assuming they draw an opponent.
Senate terms run six years and are staggered so that 1/3 of the seats are up for grabs every two years (again, assuming that each candidate draws an opponent).
In a previous post I probably should have said that liberals were able to read with strong comprehension, unlike some conservatives who read with blinders on, supplied by Fox or Rush or some conservative dunk tank.
Nice way to keep this discourse civil. Of course, as a conservative, my reading comprehension skills are so weak that I have no idea I was just told that I am a mindless idiot who has to be programmed by Rush and Fox News.
I know a few of you will find this hard to believe, but conservatives can be well read and get their information from a broad list of sources. The fact that we still disagree with you does not make us stupid or brainwashed, it just means we have studied the data and come to a different conclusion. And that is life. Most of the political/social issues on this site (such as the war on Iraq, abortion, or gay marriage) are not simple math equations. They are based on a lot of presuppositions that everyone brings to the table. I may think PAD is very out to lunch in his opinion about Bush, but that does not mean PAD is not well read, intelligent, or a good person to have lunch with. It simply means that the perspective we use to approach issues is so different, we see two different things.
That leads to a key question: Who is right? I happen to believe there IS an objective reality, so it is possible for one of us to be right and the other wrong. But I also am humble enough to know that I may be the one who is wrong. So I while it is quite frustrating to read what I consider lies about Bush or other conservatives on this site, I am given the opportunity to look at things through another set of eyes to see if perhaps I might be wrong and need to change my understanding of the truth.
Bottom line, I appreciate PAD and his site, and even respect him, even if I think he is totally wrong on some issues. I do wish that those who disagree with others on this site would be a little more civil about it.
Iowa Jim
Ok, what just happened? Let me repost this the way it should have appeared:
[sarcasm on] Nice way to keep this discourse civil. Of course, as a conservative, my reading comprehension skills are so weak that I have no idea I was just told that I am a mindless idiot who has to be programmed by Rush and Fox News. [sarcasm off]
I put a around the sarcasm comment on my first try, and it disappeared!
Iowa Jim
Peter I think you and every other liberal (myself included) need to get over the fact that Bush won the election because there is nothing we can do to alter that fact.
Well, that is where a baseless and pointless waste of taxpayer money that leads to an impeachment comes in.
So, yes, we learned the hard way 5 years or so ago that there is something you can do about it: impeach Bush.
After all, it’s only fair.
I am not really partial to reading your politics on you site. So for the most part I don
This is PETER’s webpage. This is also America. We’re supposed to have Freedom of Speech here. Peter can post whatever he wants to post. If you disagree with Peter’s views, post your own views on your own webpage. If you try to censor Peter, or anyone else, then you open yourself up for censorship. It works both ways. How would we learn anything at all – including what we choose to believe and stand for – if we close our eyes and ears to opposing viewpoints?
Peter’s personal beliefs about God, politics, or otherwise have no bearing on his talents and abilities as a writer. I have followed his work for years, and I choose to read Peter’s work because he has a PASSION for the material he writes about, and he LOVES what he writes about. LOVE is the secret ingredient in all he produces, and Peter is clearly a GOOD MAN at heart. I love him and his family, and I love this website. That’s not to say that I agree with everything that is expressed, but I RESPECT the fact that this is PETER’S webpage, and this is the United States of America.
I say, God Bless Peter David, and God Bless his right to express himself. I might not agree with all he says, but I – for one – defend his right to Freedom of Speech.
I am a conservative Peter David fan. I will neither stop reading the blog nor stop reading Peter David novels.
Because, unlike the rabid, crazy, Ann-Coulter-ish conservatives, I can separate my political ideology from my personally-enjoyed reading material and the people who write it.
I never heard of Ann Coulter until recently in the Fahrenheit 9/11 “debunking” called Fahren-HYPE 9/11 (clever, huh?). Then I saw her on the cover of her book at a discount store. I think she’s pretty hot for a trannie, don’t you?
Oh, and read Joshua Dysart and Brad Rader’s “TEX” from Atomic Basement
Chuck Dixon’s website is at Dixonverse.
Chuck Dixon’s website and message board is at: http://www.dixonverse.net/ It’s less a blog and more a message board, but Chuck frequently posts, and sometimes about political subjects. Gail Simone also visits there, as well as Beau Smith, and there are others.
Oh, and as for Aretha…I stand corrected, but come on…can you really imagine that song sung by anyone else but Aretha? 😉
Bunch: Luigi, I am apolitical, largely due to the face that I have NEVER, EVER seen intelligent debate or discourse when it comes to politics. This blog is no exception. It’s never anything but “Bush sucks” “Clinton sucked” “You suck for following Bush or Clinton,” etc.
Luigi Novi: Untrue. The vast majority of the political posts here are made with intelligent arguments. Posts that consist of nothing but invective and venom tend to be the minority. If you think there
You know, saying that one refuses to buy Peter David novels because of his political ideology would make almost as much sense as my saying I’d never buy anything with Keith R. A. DeCandido’s name on it because he and I once (okay, more than once) had huge arguments on a Spider-Man mailing list about the Ben Reilly character.
One thing (Peter’s political beliefs, Keith’s bias against clones) has no bearing on the other (my enjoyment of both men’s writing). Why would I give up something I love because I happen to disagree with the person creating it?
Luigi Novi wrote…
So you admit that it was a personal comment that was uncalled for, but stand by it anyway?
Upon further thought, I think that it was called for. The guy’s an idiot, he said something that indicated exactly what an idiot he is, and I said so. I’ve got nothing against anyone who can be bothered to make a case for their arguments, but I’ve got zero tolerance for Novafan. On the reverse side of things, I have an equal amount of respect for Bladestar, who’s just as stupid, but has the unfortunate distinction of being on my “team.”
PAD, I lean toward conservative, not going to stop reading your work based on your views. I also want you to get your views out there, keep going with the impeach, war crimes, freedom clock, Day or Mourning and so on. The more Americans hear this type of talk I think the more likely they will want to distance themselves from it and vote correctly next time out as well.
Ok liberals, scream from the highest tree top, go tell it on the mountain, go forth and spread your word to everyone….please!
Yeah, that seems fair. I’ve never posted to this place but I’ve been reading for…Hëll, how long has it been…
I’m finding that these kind of announcements are having to go up with more regularity. What I admire most is your wording of this particular grief, and keeping it to the “belligerent” faction that would censor *you*. Other places aren’t that civil about things, deleting text they disagree with wholesale or pointing and saying “What an idiot; get ‘im, guys.”
I’m between comic shops for now, but last I checked Madrox is still getting a bound collection; is that still a go?
Nick Soapdish and Michael Cravens.
Thank you for the web address to Chuck Dixon’s blog, guys. I really appreciate it.
Someone posted that Calhoun looks very much like Bush to him. Well, if Calhoun would indeed be like Bush, I don`t think NF would be my favourite book series.
No way would Calhoun be in favour of invading a country using dubious intelligence as an excuse. No way would he “free” a country but after the dictator is gone, it is obvious that the invader has little idea how to rebuild what had been destroyed. Calhoun would not be in favour of Guantanamo Bay or Belmarsh prison, for that matter. The list goes on…
No, Calhoun is certainly willing and able to bend, occasionally also break rules when he thinks it is the right thing to do. But he has his limits and he knows best, also because of his personal history, that you can`t (or better, shouldn`t) preach about freedom and rights when you don`t practise them yourself.
I don`t have the time to read all of these postings and anyway, this discussion isn`t new to me either. Some people have an amazing logic: I am sure also PAD doesn`t mind reading about different opinions. One of my friends is a Bush supporter which I am certainly not but the result were some interesting discussions. Not that there is a chance that I or he will change attitudes but nevertheless, we had exchanges that made us think.
Coming into a home (and this is PAD`s domain), be hostile, even abusive and complain later that PAD “can`t take it and therefore shouldn`t talk about politics” is not something I would accept either.
I expected this to happen after PAD, not so long ago, posted how tolerant he will be at accepting postings here. I welcome it because I have better things to do than wading through insulting postings of all kinds. It is really not so difficult to disagree without becoming abusive.
“R-E-S-P-E-C-T” sung by someone else? I don’t have to imagine it. Maureen McGovern did it in the movie “Airplane”. She made it uniquely her own, I think.
No way would Calhoun be in favour of invading a country using dubious intelligence as an excuse.
But that is exactly the problem. You believe that Bush used bad intelligence as an excuse. I have yet to see one shred of credible evidence that Bush did so. Clearly, in hindsight, our intelligence was wrong in many areas. But unless there is proof that Bush knew it at the time, your point is merely changing the starting values to get the result that you want.
No way would he “free” a country but after the dictator is gone, it is obvious that the invader has little idea how to rebuild what had been destroyed.
Did you read “Stone & Anvil”? Calhoun left his planet after it was liberated and did not stay long term to restore order. He left that to his brother and others. Obviously, he was fighting to free his own people, not invade to liberate. But there is some reason for comparison none the less.
Calhoun would not be in favour of Guantanamo Bay or Belmarsh prison, for that matter. The list goes on…
Neither is Bush in favor of the torture and atrocities that have happened. He is in favor of stopping terrorism. Somewhere there is a line that should not be crossed. Clearly it was, but also clearly it was more of the exception rather than the rule (unless you don’t want terrorists to be held at all in the first place).
It is obvious that if Calhoun had the facts as many on the “Left” portray them, he would not have invaded Iraq. But that is not the issue. I don’t think Bush would have either if the facts were as the “Left” portrays them. The question is if there was reason to believe what the “Right” accused, would Calhoun have invaded. I think the answer is a qualified yes — he would have, but in a little more original way! But that is just my thoughts on the matter.
Iowa Jim
Calhoun would have convinced the Iraqis to overthrow Saddam themselves with a little creative effort on the side. Or his intuition would have told him that Iraq didn’t have WMDs and he would have gone after North Korea instead, despite endless harping by Shelby. But Calhoun has always been the Bond “everything works out for me” type. You can be sure he wouldn’t have ended up looking like an idiot over something like WMDs, nor had over 1,000 of his command die.
But then… maybe he did? Perhaps that’s the mysterious incident he regrets so much? In that case, he would still be unlike Bush- he recognizes and regrets his mistakes.
Jim (going to take a while to get used to Iowa Jim, rather than Jim in Iowa…unless there’re 2 of you now…maybe the Jim Clone era has started?)
The issue is that Bush issued an order to invade, and was pretty much proven wrong on many of his major invasion justifications. No WMDs, no huge amounts of terror cells, no plans that indicated that Saddam was going to sell or give WMDs to terrorists, and pretty much no evidence that Saddam had the capability to produce or use WMDs anywhere. Bush was wrong there.
And now we’re learning that he was wrong on his plans for how the war would go. He thought that we’d have millions of Iraqi’s lining up to fight with us, and that resistance would be light and intermittant. He’s been wrong on both counts.
Now, winning the election goes a long way to supporting the idea that more voting Americans than not don’t care that he was wrong there. Which doesn’t change the fact that the C in C of the most destructive military in the world issued orders to launch an attack on information that was wrong. Did he know it at the time? Probably not, because his administration is not one that searches for the truth, but dictates what they want the truth to be, and then sifts through information until they get the support they need. It’s how he works. I know….I’m just 4 (or 5, depending on who you count) places removed from the President here in my Federal job. Granted, there are hundreds of miles and thousands of people I’d need to go through to cover those 4 (or 5) people, but I *know* things.
All kidding aside, I do think that this administration is more concerned with advancing an agenda than with dealing with facts. Mostly, this is based on my belief that a smart C in C does not launch a ground war against a country that may retaliate with gas, biological, or nuclear weapons. The potential devastation to our military would be too great a cost. So, to my mind, Bush just giving the order to invade tells me that he knew, or had very little reason to suspect, that Saddam did not have the capacity to use WMDs against our troops there.
Because despite what others may think my opinion is, I don’t think our president is an idiot, and only an idiot would attack an enemy that has the capacity to kill thousands of US troops at the touch of a button.
I forget the title of the book (I call it Space Cowboy/Sherrif Calhoun, because I can never remember it), but my favorite Calhoun tactic was against the desparado that Calhoun realized he couldn’t beat in a shoot-out. His solution was, let’s say, to take full advantage of his “terrain.”
And no, it did not involve building some kind of rudimentary lathe….
I am a big believer in the concept that a country should find its own destiny. It is different if a country asks for help and is attacked as it was the case with Kuwait but I am very much against the idea that the USA seems to see its destiny in being the world policeman, that it decides who to invade or not and if most of the world disagrees, so what?
German unification happened not because someone invaded. Apartheit in South Africa is at least officially gone not because of violent intervention. It took time and patience but eventually, it happened. And the consequence is, although there is still a lot of work to be done, the countries are stable and moving in the right direction.
The idea of invading a country “for its own good”, get rid of grown political structures and then try to introduce western style democracy in a country that has its own values, culture and social structures isn`t something that should be done. Afghanistan is still unstable and it is unlikely that all troops will leave in the forseeable future. If people think that after the elections everything will be fine, they are mistaken. I am not optimistic and that means, also this is a long term commitment for many years to come. And then there is talk about Iran…
Calhoun and Xenex is the example that it is indeed first of all the inhabitants who should form their own destiny. But I am sure, if the Federation would have OFFERED help (which they wouldn`t because of the Prime Directive and Xenex is a very poor, unimportant planet anyway), they might have welcomed it to do so WITH the cooperation of the Xenexians.
Calhoun was one man, not a one man army. He did his job, if you want to call it that, and left a relatively stable Xenex behind.
Concerning weapons of mass destruction, I remember the presentation of the so-called evidence in British parliament and found it very dubious indeed. I wasn`t convinced. Maybe the future will reveal one day if Bush and Blair actually lied but it had been revealed that dossiers had been polished so that the threat looked worse than it did at the beginning. (Like “Saddam can fire WMDs within 45 minutes”, something like that) At the very least, Bush was too much in a hurry and the quality of intelligence suffered accordingly.
To be fair, I don`t know how far it is known in the USA that recently also genuine photos of British soldiers mistreating prisoners, here civilians, emerged. Some of them are disgusting. I want to believe that they are really the exception of the rule also in the USA, I really hope so! I am afraid, the people at the very top who might ordered these atrocities might never be punished.
No, I don`t think Calhoun would have invaded Iraq. It is more likely, he would have supported or even founded a resistance movment.
Jeff Lawson said I think what amuses me the most is that Novafan apparently lacks the three brain cells required to come up with the concept of a boycott.
and Upon further thought, I think that it was called for. The guy’s an idiot, he said something that indicated exactly what an idiot he is, and I said so. I’ve got nothing against anyone who can be bothered to make a case for their arguments, but I’ve got zero tolerance for Novafan. On the reverse side of things, I have an equal amount of respect for Bladestar, who’s just as stupid, but has the unfortunate distinction of being on my “team.”
Apparently, Jeff Lawson, you’re so stupid you didn’t even see my little smiley on the end of my post.
Who’s the idiot now?
Stand by, I’ll be shadowing every single post of yours on this board from now on you jerk. I’ve dealt with attacks on this board before but that one steals the cake.
Again, I say stand by.
btw, thanks Luigi for the nice comments
Novafan
As a matter of fact I did see the end of your post. The smiley could mean anything – in this case it appeared (still does) to be a rude and malicious one.
If it was not, you have my wholehearted apologies – I’m the first to admit I can make mistakes. In the future, though, try to remember one of the cardinal rules of the internet: sarcasm doesn’t translate well. Be very careful when using it.
I’m perfectly content to live in mutual ignorance if that’s what you wish.
I forgot to add some advice that I think you could benefit from (not that you give to šhìŧš about my advice, but here it is nonetheless).
Stop posting under “Novafan” and start fresh, under your real name. Don’t be as inflammatory as you’ve been in the past, contribute to discussions when possible. I think you’ll find that people, including myself, respect you a lot more.
Jeff Lawson said Mostly though, seeing the way some of the people here and elsewhere treat each other over the issues is just downright depressing.
Do the words “practise what you preach” mean anything to you?
Alright, alright, I’ll bite. It’s bad enough I was the instigator, I’m not going to make things worse by perpetuating the conflict.
I apologize for insulting you, it was contradictory to the way I feel people should act online. I caved too easily to the annoyances I was feeling. In the future, I shall endeavour to be a better role model.
Jeff,
You cave very easily, Bush would love you…
Have fun on his team!
PAD: You go, guy!
Bladestar wrote…
You cave very easily, Bush would love you…
I wouldn’t say I caved – my opinion of Novafan and many of his comments here remains unchanged.
However, I am man enough to admit that my comments were unproductive and contradictory to what I was saying earlier.
Neither is Bush in favor of the torture and atrocities that have happened.
Really? Maybe then he should have somebody else as Attorney General than a man who called the Geneva Conventions “quaint”?
and only an idiot would attack an enemy that has the capacity to kill thousands of US troops at the touch of a button.
Well, it’s a question that conservatives have never bothered to answer, that’s for sure.
Maybe they just won’t like the answer that they know they’ll find: that Bush was lying out the ášš and deserves to be removed from office.
Or that he put our troops in harms way to such a degree that it defies all logic: why not just stick ’em out in New Mexico and drop atomic bombs on them instead? Again, rather deserving of impeachment.
All comic book writers and artists that I can think of (except Chuck Dixon) have wacky far-left beliefs. I don’t know what the cause of this is, but I’m not going to throw away my Hulk and Fallen Angel comics just because PAD talks šhìŧ sometimes.
and only an idiot would attack an enemy that has the capacity to kill thousands of US troops at the touch of a button.
Well, it’s a question that conservatives have never bothered to answer, that’s for sure.
If you believe they could use those same weapons on American soil as planes were used on 9/11, yes, you would send in troops to take out those WMD’s, even if it meant some of them might be killed. You don’t go to war unless you are willing to sacrifice some of your own men to protect the nation.
You also ignore the propoganda Bush’s administration and the Pentagon engaged in before the war started. They did everything they could to warn the Iraqi leaders and soldiers to not use WMD’s. So Bush did not blindly send men in without consideration of the risk involved to the troops.
Iowa Jim
So, to my mind, Bush just giving the order to invade tells me that he knew, or had very little reason to suspect, that Saddam did not have the capacity to use WMDs against our troops there.
Your argument does make some sense. But there are other scenarios that could also apply. Bush may have believed Saddam had the materials for WMD’s but had not yet put together the delivery system for it. Thus, it would be safe to invade the country (and in fact would argue for the urgency of not waiting), but also be a reason to invade in that those raw materials could be turned over to other terrorists. Obviously, not being 5 people removed from Bush, I am just speculating, but my suggestion would fit the known facts as well as would yours.
In addition, your portrayal of Bush, though I would disagree, would fit the facts. I think he is a little more principled than you suggest, but fully admit that he is a politician, and more importantly, a human. To suggest he is ruthlessly lieing and deliberately deceiving does not fit the actual facts. Your suggestion could, and if true, would scare me. The one reason I come down on my side is that the second hand testimony of Republicans friends I have who knew Bush in Texas and who believe he is more principled and intelligent than many give him credit for being.
At the end of the day, I have to go with what Bush does. In most ways, Bush follows through on the issues I support, and there is no evidence of his deliberately deceiving us. So I continue to support him while continuing to hold him accountable.
Iowa Jim
(No, I am not a clone. “Jim in Iowa” sounded too much like a call in radio name, and since I only have called a radio show once in my life, and it was not a political show that I called, and since I wanted something shorter, I decided to change my name.)
John Rearden Wrote
All comic book writers and artists that I can think of (except Chuck Dixon) have wacky far-left beliefs. I don’t know what the cause of this is, but I’m not going to throw away my Hulk and Fallen Angel comics just because PAD talks šhìŧ sometimes.
Have your heard of the writer/artist John Byrne? I’m not saying he’s not wacky, just not far left wacky.
Bush may have believed Saddam had the materials for WMD’s but had not yet put together the delivery system for it.
Which means, either way, he did not have WMD taht were a PRESENT AND IMMEDIATE THREAT.
Maybe you’re just missing the obvious here, Jim, but Bush sold this war on the fact that Saddam had WMD and he was ready to use them.
I’ve said it before and I say it again: I was naive enough to believe Bush’s bûllšhìŧ. I fully believe that when our troops got to Baghdad, Saddam would let loose, killing everybody.
It didn’t happen. So Bush is so full of šhìŧ that you could squeeze his head and it’ll come out his years.
And the people in this country are so dámņ stupid that they reward him for lying to us all with another four years.
and there is no evidence of his deliberately deceiving us
Too bad you’re too blind to see otherwise.
And, good gods, what the hëll is this world coming to?
Some nutbags in Russia want to outlaw Jewish organizations?
Are these relatives of the Nazis that we forgot to round up and have hung with the rest of them during the Nuremburg Trials?
Man, humanity makes me sick…
“Russian Lawmakers Targets Jewish Groups
Mon Jan 24, 3:11 PM ET
Europe – AP
By STEVE GUTTERMAN, Associated Press Writer
MOSCOW – A group of nationalist Russian lawmakers called Monday for a sweeping investigation aimed at outlawing all Jewish organizations and punishing officials who support them, accusing Jews of fomenting ethnic hatred and saying they provoke anti-Semitism.
In a letter dated Jan. 13, about 20 members of the lower house of parliament, the State Duma, asked Prosecutor General Vladimir Ustinov to investigate their claims and to launch proceedings “on the prohibition in our country of all religious and ethnic Jewish organizations as extremist.”
The letter, faxed in part to The Associated Press by the office of lawmaker Alexander Krutov, said, “The negative assessments by Russian patriots of the qualities and actions against non-Jews that are typical of Jews correspond to the truth … The statements and publications against Jews that have incriminated patriots are self-defense, which is not always stylistically correct but is justified in essence.”
The stunning call to ban all Jewish groups raised concerns of persistent anti-Semitism in Russia.
Jewish leaders have praised President Vladimir Putin (news – web sites)’s government for encouraging religious tolerance, but rights groups accuse the authorities of failing to prosecute the perpetrators of anti-Semitic and racial violence.
Russia’s chief rabbi, Berel Lazar, said lawmakers were looking for support “by playing the anti-Semitic card.”
The prosecutor general’s office could not immediately be reached for comment on the letter, which the Interfax news agency said was signed by lawmakers from the nationalist Rodina and Liberal Democratic parties as well as the Communist Party.
Krutov, a Rodina member, is deputy chief of the Duma’s Committee on Information Policy.
With Putin planning to join events this week commemorating the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camp by Soviet troops, Russia’s Holocaust Foundation head Alla Gerber said it was “horrible that as we’re marking the 60th anniversary of this tragic and great day … we can speak of the danger of fascism in the countries that defeated fascism.”
While the Russian state itself is no longer anti-Semitic, there are “anti-Semitic campaigns that are led by all sorts of organizations,” she said.
“The economic situation is ripe for this. An enemy is needed, and the enemy is well-known, traditional,” Gerber said.
Echoing anti-Semitic tracts of the Czarist era, the letter’s authors accuse Jews of working against the interests of the countries where they live and of monopolizing power worldwide. They say the United States “has become an instrument for achieving the global aims of Judaism.”
“It is possible to say that the entire democratic world today is under the monetary and political control of international Judaism, which high-profile bankers are openly proud of,” the letter says.
Along with outlawing Jewish organizations, the lawmakers call for the prosecution of “individuals responsible for providing these groups with state and municipal property, privileges and state financing.”
Calhoun “Bush-ish”? Yeah, Right.
What about The Redeemers?
Aren’t they part of the Religious Right?
If Calhoun was more “Bush-ish” he wouldn’t be happy out there in Thallonian space. No, he would have disregarded common sense and went
charging after, say, The Dogs of War, or for that matter, The Dominion or The Borg, and gotten a lot of people killed while trying to promote “democracy” to societies that have never had a clue what freedom is.
Furthermore, if Calhoun were more like Bush, he wouldn’t ever be a part of Starfleet, The Federation and it’s “Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations” credo. M’k’n’zy has found his place because IDIC applies even to someone like him. Bush’s friends are worried about SpongeBob and Tinky-Winky.
Michael Cravens posted: Oh, and as for Aretha…I stand corrected, but come on…can you really imagine that song sung by anyone else but Aretha? 😉
Well, yeah, that was more or less Otis’ point, too. I believe his exact quote on the matter, after he first heard Aretha’s rendition, was (said with the utmost of admiration and respect), “that girl done stole my song.”
In other news, is this a proper saying or is it “getting goaded” or something. What the hëll kind of metaphor is that anyway? “getting your goat”. What the hëll are they doing to my goat anyway?
http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-get1.htm
http://www.word-detective.com/back-j2.html#goat