June 27, 2005
Luke, I am your father...
One of my blog sons, Brian B., tells me there is a new satire blog he's involved in--The Constitution Death Pool. Personally I'm betting on October 5th, 2034 as the official date for the Constitution's demise. Anyhow, go check it out.
Do I have any more blog children? A couple that I know of, but hey, Rusty gets around.........
Posted by: Rusty at
06:16 PM
| Comments (45)
| Add Comment
Post contains 69 words, total size 1 kb.
1
CHIMPY is on the loose again...
Posted by: BUSH LIES - SOLDIERS DIE at June 27, 2005 06:32 PM (FV4oJ)
2
CHIMPY IS the Dark Side - your impersonal Jesus, distracting you from his oversea killing field, done in the name of his false God. Bless Him, Luke's Father, for he has sinned. His Kingdom lost, America double-crossed as in hell forever.
Posted by: BUSH LIES - SOLDIERS DIE at June 27, 2005 06:41 PM (FV4oJ)
3
You guys are both retarded; the Constitution died 4/8/1913. [ratification of the 17th Amendment, which effectively eliminated the 10th Amendment]
Posted by: Leopold Stotch at June 27, 2005 06:46 PM (tt834)
4
False Jesus CHIMPY keeps lying and soldiers keep dying:
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Guerrillas Shoot Down US Helicopter
Bombings in Baghdad
Bush Presses Blair for More Troops
Guerrillas using a shoulder-held missile launcher, probably an SA-16, shot down a US Apache helicopter Monday north of Baghdad, killing both servicemen aboard. AP reports, ' "Witness Mohammed Naji told Associated Press Television News he saw two helicopters flying toward Mishahda when "a rocket hit one of them and destroyed it completely in the air" . . . Heavy gunfire was heard at the time of the crash and shots also were heard afterward, the AP reporter said. ' If this is the future of the guerrilla war, US casualties will rise dramatically.
In another attack on Monday, guerrillas detonated a massive bomb aiming at a US military convoy in Baghdad during the early evening, but missed. It went off between the al-Bida'a Cinema and the Sunni al-Samarra'i Mosque, killing at least four Iraqi by-standers and wounding 16 others. AP says people were shopping in the New Baghdad area "before the curfew." There's a night-time curfew in Baghdad?
Posted by: BUSH LIES - SOLDIERS DIE at June 27, 2005 07:00 PM (FV4oJ)
5
King Phallus Monkeykeeper Steel-Teeth/Concrete-Jaws CHENEY lies even worse to support his HELLIBACON empire.
Dick Cheney should confront reality
Gen. Abizaid's testimony confirmed the Iraq insurgency is far from its 'last throes.' Still, the vice president shows persistent disdain for that truth.
The Roanoke Times
Dick Cheney, meet reality.
The vice president's long-overdue introduction to reality came courtesy of Gen. John P. Abizaid's testimony Thursday before the Senate Armed Services Committee that directly contradicted Cheney's rosy assessment of an Iraq insurgency in its "last throes." Abizaid made it clear that the insurgency was every bit as strong as it was six months ago and that foreign fighters were still joining the battle. A few days before, Abizaid told the Houston Chronicle that the United States was in for an indefinite fight that would "cost in blood and treasure."
Posted by: BUSH LIES - SOLDIERS DIE at June 27, 2005 07:04 PM (FV4oJ)
6
Torture-monger C H I M P Y and Monkeykeeper C H E N E Y
TORTURE PRISONERS and KILL THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE
USA Reported to Have Confirmed Torture
Le Nouvel Observateur
Sunday 26 June 2005
According to a UN official, the United States has acknowledged cases of torture inflicted on prisoners in Afghanistan, in Iraq and at Guantánamo.
The United States has acknowledged to the UN that there are cases of torture inflicted on prisoners in Afghanistan and in Iraq, as well as on the American base at Guantánamo, a member of the UN's Committee against Torture pronounced Friday, June 24.
According to this official - who wished to remain anonymous - in a report handed over to the Committee, Washington acknowledged that the abusive treatment inflicted on prisoners at the hands of American forces could be considered torture in the sense of the International Convention against Torture.
The United States' Mission to the United Nations in Geneva could not be reached Friday evening to comment on this information.
Up until now, the United States has always maintained that the abusive treatment inflicted on prisoners at the hands of its Armed Forces could not be considered torture under American law.
Posted by: BUSH LIES - SOLDIERS DIE at June 27, 2005 07:08 PM (FV4oJ)
7
C H I M P Y is YOUR FALSE JESUS torturing and killing in YOUR NAME - wrapping GUNS and BOMBS in BURNING AMERICAN FLAGS to KILL
Posted by: BUSH LIES - SOLDIERS DIE at June 27, 2005 07:10 PM (FV4oJ)
8
YOUR TORTURING PSYCHO CHIMPY and HIS HANDIWORK
http://cryptome.org/bush-fist.htm
WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: BUSH LIES - SOLDIERS DIE at June 27, 2005 07:16 PM (FV4oJ)
9
http://www.obleek.com/iraq/index.html
C H I M P Y the FALSE SHEPHERD leads people to DIE from IRON RAIN
Posted by: BUSH LIES - SOLDIERS DIE at June 27, 2005 07:18 PM (FV4oJ)
10
CHIMPY's PLAN:
Articulating The Unspeakable: The Strategy Of Genocide:
The USA must begin dealing with Muslims as a people with a unique culture and religion, worthy of the respect and humanity which the USA says it has for all peoples. The Islam of the Qur'an is a righteous religion, supporting a unique form of culture and civilization. Let's make peace with its people.
By Casey Butler
06/27/05 "ICH" - - The real tragedy of the "War on Terror" is the religious ignorance of the secular Western nations who are waging it.
Or is it ignorance? Could the most experienced and, one assumes, most efficient intelligence agencies in the world have really failed to read the Holy Book used by the 'enemies' they are 'rooting out' today?
Please consider the following Islamic truism from the Qur'an:
"Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter"
Over the last two years the American administration's successive justifications for pre-emptive war have been peeled away like the outer garments of Gypsy Rose Lee. We are finally getting down to the brass tacks of the neo-conservative vision for resolving the thorny issue of Fundamentalist "Islamic Terrorism."
Why is George Bush so dedicated to the idea that perpetual war is the only solution to extreme Fundamentalist Islamic Terrorism?
Conservatives credit Bush with the altruistic motive of "spreading democracy" by force into lands that have traditionally been tyrannized, tyrannized by tyrants which the USA has traditionally supported. Into lands being ruled by tyranny in order to maintain 'stability' in the region for economic exploitation by the USA. By spreading democracy, it is said, 'primitive' Middle Eastern culture will be brought quickly into the present, and self-sustainable stability will result at some unidentifiable point in the future.
Liberals, on the other hand, accuse Bush of ruthlessly and opportunistically attempting to establish an economic world empire through American hegemony disguised as the liberation of Middle Eastern nations. Liberals point out Bush's backing by the commercial and corporate interests whose ventures and holdings are at risk because they conflict with the culture and religion of the Middle East.
To put all views into perspective, one only has to imagine another terrorist attack in America on the scale of September 11th, 2001. It might be a nuclear attack, a biological weapons attack, or even a suicide bomber detonating him or herself in a busy shopping mall.
Should such an attack happen, Americans will again unite in a non-partisanship of shared terror as we are once again forced to evaluate the real truth of our policies towards others. Another attack will make the views currently propagated by both sides suddenly extinct - moot, in fact, as, in reality, they are now.
The true strategy of the war on terror is simply stated: The Armed Forces of the United States are battling terror by attempting to liquidate, terminate, eliminate, waste, take out, whack, button - whatever terminology you prefer - Fundamentalist Muslims 'of color' who obey the words of the Prophet Mohammed recorded in the Holy Qur'an.
The correct word for it is 'genocide'.
An unbelievable assertion? Please allow me to expound a bit.
Following the events of September 11th, during the weeks and months that led to the decisions for pre-emptive war by the United States, great pains were taken to assure the American people that "Islam is a peaceful religion". Islamic religious leaders and mullahs were paraded before the cameras, invited to the White House, and praised by the President in an effort to head off any kind of general feeling of revenge against Muslims that might arise in the American hinterland.
The problem is that the opinions expressed by moderate Islamic religious leaders and mullahs, and many Islamic scholars, do not accurately reflect the message that Muslim Fundamentalists believe the Prophet Mohammed received from God and recorded in the Qur'an.
Internationally, Americans are perceived as an arrogant people, and I am no exception. I'm not one to point fingers at others because I didn't get around to reading the Qur'an until fairly recently. I've now read it through twice and I am surprised at what I found.
If the Old Testament is considered inspired, the Qur'an is certainly inspired. It describes itself as the Word of God for Arabic-speaking peoples, and would not exist without the Jewish Torah and Gospels of Jesus, of which it is a continuance - ie. further 'revelation' in Arabic.
Today it is crucial that all of us know what the Qur'an says, especially those in our 'secular' government who are responsible for implementing policy supposedly representing the will of "we, the people".
When people are desperate and oppressed they tend to turn to their religion more earnestly than they do when when they're happy and comfortable.
When people become victims of poverty or war, natural disasters or oppression, etc... they will turn to their religion for relief.
In the case of Muslims, the Qur'an defines a religion based on the worship of the same God shared by Christians and Jews. So when Muslims experience poverty or oppression, invasion and occupation, as Christians and Jews might turn to the Gospels or the Torah in the same situation, many Muslims turn to the Qur'an.
Why would Islamic leaders say unequivocally that Islam is peaceful when the Qur'an says it is not? Well, why do many Christian leaders say that war against Islam is justified when Jesus Christ said killing is never justified?
Those who propagate religion make it compatible with their own opinions and circumstances, treating original religious truths as non-expedient for their own modern existence, modifying many and even completely annulling some.
Islam, within the borders of its mandate, is peaceful. Muslims are commanded to treat with respect other belief systems under their regional control, during conditions of peace.
When a region under Islam is challenged, when it is invaded, occupied, or oppressed, Islam is not a peaceful religion. In fact, in those cases, Muslims are admonished, nay, obligated, by the Qur'an to fight in self-defense, using "every stratagem of war", until they are no longer oppressed and occupied.
Below, I am presenting verses from the Qur'an you may be familiar with. They are regularly used by people who try to present Islam as a dangerous religion, a religion out to conquer the world by whatever means necessary, violence included.
I am presenting these same verses, but I'm asking you to reasonably think through what they really mean to Muslims and the rest of the world today.
To begin with, please consider the ramifications of the following verses from the Qur'an for the American troops now stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq, and those who oppose them:
"Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.
"And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.
"But if they cease, Allah is Oftforgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression." [Surah 2.190-193]
These verses are presented "out of context". However, they are also substantiated throughout the Qur'an as Islam's legitimate and divine right to self-defense when the structure of Islamic law, especially the institution of care and support of the poor and needy, are threatened from the 'outside'.
These verses are divine instructions. Unlike the recruiting problems the USA faces today, these words guarantee there will never be a shortage of Muslim fighters as long the Qur'an exists.
Further, note that it is every Muslim's duty to harbor fighters for the faith:
"Those who believed, and adopted exile, and fought for the Faith, with their property and their persons, in the cause of Allah, as well as those who gave (them) asylum and aid, these are (all) friends and protectors, one of another. As to those who believed but came not into exile, ye owe no duty of protection to them until they come into exile; but if they seek your aid in religion, it is your duty to help them, except against a people with whom ye have a treaty of mutual alliance. And (remember) Allah seeth all that ye do.
"The Unbelievers are protectors, one of another: Unless ye do this, (protect each other), there would be tumult and oppression on earth, and great mischief.
"Those who believe, and adopt exile, and fight for the Faith, in the cause of Allah as well as those who give (them) asylum and aid, these are (all) in very truth the Believers: for them is the forgiveness of sins and a provision most generous." [Surah 8.72-8.74]
Who can be designated a fighter for the Islamic faith? Any Muslim wishing to fight:
"Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not. They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: "Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members."
"Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter.
"Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein." [Surah 2.216-217]
Whether you are religious or not, please consider the information in these verses.
These words are, and always will be, in the Qur'an. Nothing will eliminate them except the elimination of the people whose faith is based on them... The genocide of the people whose faith is in these words.
The words cannot be changed. The Prophet Mohammed was the last Prophet of Islam. According to the Qur'an, only the coming of the Judgment Day will fulfill the words of God recorded in the Qur'an, or the return of Jesus Christ. Hearing these words of the Qur'an ought to put into context the words of our President, George W. Bush, when he said: "Bring 'em on!".
The Bush administration's decision to invade and occupy Muslim nations in perpetuity, while intentionally keeping knowledge of the Qur'anic doctrine of self-defense from the American people, is the USA's politically correct, long-term, 'final solution' for "Islamic terrorism."
American and British troops are being used as the flypaper to attract terrorist flies to the slaughter - but there's a 'slight' problem.
As outlined recently, the Bush administration is looking to fight the "terrorists" on their own turf, and fight them outside of the USA. The big flaw in this thinking is that, while Muslim extremists like Osama bin Laden and his group have defined the world itself as the battlefield in which Islam must be defended by any means, the great majority of mainstream Muslims have always interpreted the doctrine of self-defense as nationalistic or regional.
By invading across international borders, Bush has put his stamp of approval on the Al-Queda view that Islamic fighters were justified to strike across international borders in defense of Islam.
Thus the USA's pre-emptive invasions, meant to attract 'international terrorists' to fight it in Islamic nations instead of on American soil, are in fact legitimizing the extremist Fundamentalist doctrine of its supposed enemy.
The result is that the majority of mainstream Muslims who would formerly have resisted violently defending themselves across international borders, are now religiously beholden to fighting the United States according to the Qur'an. They are obligated to fight with the full backing of God as they know Him. They also the backing of the real international terrorist networks the USA initially set out to eradicate.
Intentionally or not, perpetual war - genocide by war - is an American strategy borne of religious ignorance.
Despite all the military might being brought to bear on Muslim nations, the real international terrorist networks are still capable of attacks on American soil.
War is war. Causing death and destruction to force your opponent to submit is the object of war.
The object of the War on Terror is the eradication of Muslim Fundamentalists who obey the Qur'an's admonitions to defend Islam. Ironically, the more Fundamentalist Muslims the USA eradicates, the more fundamentalists it also creates... The more people from the ranks of Moderate Muslims who will turn to the Qur'an instead of their compromising leaders in order to make sense of the evil happening to their brothers and sisters around them.
This is the foreseeable future that our administration is promoting today: perpetual war - perpetual terror.
What can we do? Whether liberals or conservatives are in power, Democrats or Republicans, using the overwhelming force of the U.S. Military against Muslim innocents in their own land is executing the same cyclic strategy of genocide.
The USA is like a giant locomotive switched onto the wrong track. In its decision for war following 9/11, it blasted through the warning barrier reading: "Danger! Track Ends, Mountain Ahead!". Continuing to expedite this war, the locomotive's engineers are stoking the fire furiously, building up steam... planning to tunnel through a mountain using the forward motion of a derailed locomotive.
The only way to end this war, is to withdraw all Western troops from all Muslim nations, alter U.S. policy to oppose tyranny in those countries, and peacefully support home-grown movements for democracy. The USA must begin dealing with Muslims as a people with a unique culture and religion, worthy of the respect and humanity which the USA says it has for all peoples. The Islam of the Qur'an is a righteous religion, supporting a unique form of culture and civilization. Let's make peace with its people.
Until that day, our policy in this war is a policy of genocide, not only against the Muslim freedom fighters fighting for the cause of God, but also against the brave Coalition troops we've sent to die in our place, who are also fighting for the cause of God.
If any cause is going to unite America, it will be the cause of no war at all from now on.
"Casey Butler is the author of the award-winning, anti-war geography game series World Empire. Today he spends most of his time working towards understanding religious scriptures. He can be reached at jogger@xmission.com ."
Copyright: Casey Butler
Posted by: BUSH LIES - SOLDIERS DIE at June 27, 2005 08:24 PM (FV4oJ)
11
Yawn !
you enjoying your kool-aid ?
Posted by: Jonathan at June 27, 2005 09:43 PM (wdVtc)
12
Will someone PLEASE rid us of this moron?
Posted by: Oyster at June 27, 2005 09:49 PM (YudAC)
13
dear lord, please ban this idiot permanently. Apparently tonight he isn't intoxicated and misspelling everything, which is a small mercy.
He is ruining this blog, he even posted his demented shit in the thread to help the girl who needs an operation to live.
if Greg. who at least makes intelligent debate can get banned why can't this testicle leech?
How much "BUSSSH IS A MMCC CHIMMPY WHO BATHES IN YUOR KIDS BLOODDDDDD" do we have to endure, before he's gone?
Posted by: dave at June 27, 2005 09:55 PM (fsJ2z)
14
Do I have any more blog children? A couple that I know of, but hey, Rusty gets around.........
Whenever someone says "who's your daddy", I usually yell "Rusty!!!!"...does that count?
Posted by: Feisty at June 27, 2005 10:00 PM (QBrm4)
15
someone let the air out that old windbag, please???...he's giving me a freakin headache reading all that drivel he posts.....and i thought Charles Manson could babble on like an idiot....B.L.S.D. makes him look intelligent
Posted by: THANOS35 at June 27, 2005 11:21 PM (kDAye)
16
What are you afraid of, goofbag Thanatophoric35? The truth?
Alcohol screws everything up and makes typing difficult, Dave.
BUSH is SIMIAN, a heartless boll weevil who sends people to die.
Posted by: BUSH LIES - SOLDIERS DIE at June 28, 2005 02:11 AM (FV4oJ)
17
THE BUSH CULT
by Paul Levy
It is a shattering experience to see through our imaginary projections and recognize that someone we thought was leading and protecting us does not have our best interest at heart. People who support Mr. George Bush resist and turn away from the irrefutable and readily available evidence that Bush is anything but a good leader, as if they are in denial with a capital D. Bush is saying one thing and doing totally the opposite, and many people are simply in denial of this and look away. It is truly as if people who support Bush are not only in denial, but are actually refusing to look and hence, blind to what to most of the world is very obvious. It is as if people who support Bush are under a hypnotic spell, and are suffering from a form of collective brainwashing. People who support Bush in his pathology are exhibiting nothing other than the groupthink of cultic behavior.
Followers of a cult unquestioningly give their power away to their leader?s version of reality. People in a cult have dis-connected from their discerning wisdom, which is the ability to discriminate between the opposites, between truth and lies, between good and evil. In a cult, any sort of reflection of the leader?s unconscious shadow is not only not allowed, but is severely punished. The cult leader is typically insulated from people who disagree with him, not even wanting to come in contact and have any connection with people who have a different point of view. People in a cult exhibit complete and total denial with regard to any evidence that contradicts the agreed upon belief of the cult. This perfectly describes people who are following Bush as their leader. People who follow Bush are completely in denial about his truly criminal behavior.
People who belong to a cult always get hooked through their unconscious fear and blind spot. The cult members? relationship with each other is based on mutual unconsciousness, as they reciprocally reinforce each other?s denial and illusion. In a cult, there is always some form of mind-control, such as the Bush Administration?s control and manipulation of the media. ?Staying on message? is the typical communication style within a cult. The cult leader plays with people?s fears so as to gain their trust and control them, which is a process that is not based on love but on power over others.
There are always aspects of a cult that are kept hidden and secret, which is the mechanism that keeps its hierarchical power in place. In a cult, this inequality of power ensures that a form of abuse always gets unconsciously acted out. In a cult, the members identify with only one side of an inherently two-sided polarity, projecting out the marginalized shadow. Hence, people who disagree with the cult are seen to have fallen under the spell of the Devil. Members of a cult are convinced of the rightness of their point of view, which they consider non-negotiable. Hence, there is no room for the open dialogue and debate which is at the core of a true democracy. Cults will even suppress and distort science to serve their ends, just like the Bush Administration is doing for partisan political ends. And the cult leader is (arche)typically either identified with God or feels he has a special relationship with God. Cult leaders and their followers see themselves as agents of apocalyptic, end-time scenarios, which is one of the more disturbing aspects of Bush and his supporters from the religious right.
At their root, cults are based on a mass, collective unconsciousness which feeds and reinforces itself. The cult is of the nature of an infinitely-perpetuating negative feedback loop, fueled by its members? (?the elect?) unwillingness and resistance to self-reflect, look in the mirror and see what they are doing. Because it is so insular and unable to integrate any reflections from the outside, a cult always becomes self-destructive and ultimately destroys itself. This is why it is an extremely dangerous situation if Bush and his cultic followers take over our country, as it will create endless, unnecessary suffering for all of us. Bush might not just take down our country but our very planet as well. Another name for cults is collective psychosis.
It is profoundly important for us, as citizens of this country to recognize the nature of the collective madness that is expressing itself through Mr. Bush and Company. People who are following Bush have become entranced and have fallen asleep. What the great psychiatrist Jung would call a psychic epidemic pervades our country and world right now. If our country gives our power away to and elects a madman such as George Bush for another four years, we would in one sense be like the Germans during World War II, who, to quote Jung, ?follow a mediumistic Fuhrer [which means leader] over the housetops with a sleep-walkers assurance, only to land in the street with a broken back.?
Paul Levy is a spiritually-informed political activist. He can be reached at paul@awakeninthedream.com. Please visit his website at www.awakeninthedream.com, where his article ?The Madness of George Bush: A Reflection of Our Collective Psychosis? is available. Please feel free to pass this article along to a friend if you feel so inspired.
© 2004 Paul Levy
Posted by: BUSH LIES - SOLDIERS DIE at June 28, 2005 02:16 AM (FV4oJ)
18
(I tried to warn you.. but you would not listen...)
CHRIST WOULD NOT SUPPORT BUSH
by Paul Levy
One of the most interesting aspects of George Bush being president is that he is a born-again Christian and recognized leader of the religious right. Like any fundamentalist group, the religious right are identified with only one side of the polarity (the light), and split off from their own shadow, projecting it outside of themselves. Interestingly, Jung refers to projecting the shadow as ?the lie.? People who project the darkness inevitably dream up someone into materialization who they experience as being the embodiment of the ?Devil,? whose inner meaning is both ?the adversary? and ?the liar.? People who disagree with the fundamentalist are seen as agents of the Devil, who need to be destroyed. By projecting the shadow, however, the fundamentalist becomes possessed by the very thing they are trying to destroy. Fighting the Devil is radically different than loving God.
Just like we can interpret our dreams symbolically, and we can interpret our life as a dream, we can contemplate any and all events in this universe as we would a dream being dreamed by a deeper, dreaming part of ourselves. Certain events in world history are uniquely illuminating to contemplate in this way, such as, for example, the Christ event. Seen symbolically, as if it were a dream, the Christ event is an unmediated expression of a deeper process going on inside the psyche of humankind that both literally, as well as symbolically, got dreamed up into materialization in, through and as this very universe of ours. In the life of Christ it is as if an archetypal, transcendental dynamic ?irrupted? into and out of this universe, incarnating itself in linear time so as to become visible and actualized. Through the Christ event, which is a higher-dimensional out-pouring of an atemporal process that exists outside of space/time itself, our true nature is being symbolically reflected and revealed, but only for those who have eyes to see.
The language of dreams is symbols; the secret of the Christ event is revealed by viewing it symbolically. Christ himself expresses this very point in the apocryphal (literally, secret book) Acts of John. Christ shows John a "cross of light," saying "this is not the cross of wood which you will see when you go down from here; neither am I he that is on the cross." The great psychiatrist C. G. Jung understood very well that Christ was a symbol of our wholeness which he called the archetype of the ?Self.? As Jung points out, there is "a visible split between the historical event down below on earth, as perceived by the senses, and its ideal, visionary reflection on high, the cross appearing on the one hand as a wooden instrument of torture and on the other as a glorious symbol."
"Christ," to quote Jung "is merely the projection [ie- a dreamed up phenomenon] of an entirely human mystery [in that he?s reflecting something back that?s deep inside of our soul]." Jung continues, "the real mystery does not behave mysteriously or secretively, it speaks a different language. It adumbrates itself by a variety of images which all indicate its true nature." The different language is dreamspeak, whose articulation is symbolic, not literal. Symbols are very different than signs (ex, "one way, do not enter"), whose meaning is literal, known and can be conveyed in words. A symbol is an expression or emanation of a deeper mystery, as it points to something beyond itself. When we decode and get in resonance with a symbol, it becomes a doorway into and actualizes this deeper state that it itself is a manifestation of. Symbols are psychic energy transformers which reflect and effect a change in consciousness itself.
Like any symbol, the Christ event expresses and constellates analogous psychic processes in the beholder. The Gospel of Phillip says "Some indeed see him and realize that they are seeing themselves." This is why Christ says in the apocryphal Acts of John, "A mirror am I to you that know me?.if you understand me, you shall be in your understanding as I am?.behold what you are, I have shown you?behold what is thine through me."
Christ is giving a mystic transmission of true "gnosis," of a knowing that is not separate from its object of knowledge. He is reflecting back how to view life symbolically and perceive experience as a reflective mirror, which provides and evokes a deeper sense of meaning. This is why, after this experience, John, "held fast this one thing," in himself, "that the Lord contrived all things symbolically and by a dispensation toward men, for their conversion and salvation."
To quote Jung, "For the believing Christian, Christ is everything, but certainly not a symbol, which is an expression for something unknown or net yet knowable. And yet he is a symbol by his very nature. Christ would never have made the impression he did on his followers if he had not expressed something that was alive and at work in their unconscious."
A symbol brings together, reconciles and unites contraries or opposites. Christ on the cross is a living, breathing symbol, a true ?coincidentia oppositorum? (a co-incidence, or conjunction of opposites). To quote Jung ?The life of Christ is just what it had to be if it is the life of a god and a man at the same time. It is a symbolum.? Seen as a symbol, Christ brings together and unites the heterogeneous natures of God and humankind in one being. Here in the figure of Christ on the cross we have God himself in all his infinitude, bounded and limited to the max, nailed to the third dimension of space and time. Here in the figure of Christ we have God himself feeling totally human and completely alienated from God, which is to say, from himself. This is perfectly expressed by Christ?s cry ?My God, why have thou forsaken me.? This moment of the utmost distance from God, paradoxically, was at the same time an experience of the greatest divinity.
Just like Christ is a symbol of the Self, the cross is a symbol for Christ. Jung continues "even for the knower of divine secrets the act of crucifixion is a mystery, a symbol that expresses a parallel psychic event in the beholder." The cross is symbolic of what Jung would call ?holding the tension of the opposites.? When we identify with only one side of a two-sided polarity, splitting-off from and projecting out the other side, we will develop a symptom, a ?dis-ease? in the core of our being, and will create nothing but suffering and destruction, and in the ultimate sense, death. To hold the tension of the opposites, however, is to be able to embrace and contain both the dark and light parts of our nature simultaneously without dissociating and projecting the shadow outside of ourselves. To hold this tension is truly a crucifixion for the ego, a genuine ?agonia,? but it activates a deeper process inside the core of our being, which is to say that it constellates life in the deepest sense. To be holding the tension of the opposites is to be genuinely ?imitating Christ,? as to be holding this creative tension without splitting-off from our darkness is to be living our lives as fully and authentically as Christ lived his. Out of this creative tension emerges what Jung calls a ?reconciling symbol.? This is a living symbol which both transcends and unites the opposites in a greater totality. We experience this as grace, as it is an expansion of consciousness and thereby something we could not think of by ourselves, but occurs to us with the force of a revelation, as if it comes from God. Christ himself is an example of such a symbol.
Instead of holding the tension of the opposites, George Bush, on the other hand, is an embodiment of someone who is completely dissociated from and has split-off and projected out his darker half. Like anyone who is fanatically identified with only one side of a polarity, George Bush has to dream up his darker side ?out there,? in this case on the world stage, to do battle with. To quote Jung ?The psychological rule says that when an inner situation is not made conscious, it happens outside, as fate. That is to say, when the individual remains undivided [not in touch with both the light AND the dark parts of themselves] and does not become conscious of his inner opposite, the world must perforce act out the conflict and be torn into opposing halves.?
Jung points out, ?It is perfectly possible, psychologically, for the unconscious or an archetype to take complete possession of a man and to determine his fate down to the smallest detail.? People who become so seized by an archetype could be said to be the embodiment of the archetype in human form. They become the instrument through which the archetype becomes both visible and actualized. Jung conjectures that Christ himself is an example of such a situation. To quote Jung ?Since the life of Christ is archetypal to a high degree, it represents to just that degree the life of the archetype.? Christ is symbolic of the archetype of the Self, which is the God within, or we could say our divine wholeness (?holiness?).
When the archetypal dimension is activated and accessed to such a degree, the environment will even synchronistically reflect back this state of identification with the archetype. When someone becomes possessed by an archetype, to quote Jung ?the archetype fulfils itself not only psychically in the individual, but objectively outside the individual.? This state of embodying the archetype is a situation where the inner process expresses itself synchronistically through the medium of the outside world, as the boundary between the inner and outer has dissolved.
Like Christ, George Bush has become possessed by the archetype of the Self. By being so unconsciously taken over by the more powerful archetype, Bush?s inner dissociation becomes visible as the boundary dissolves between his inner process and the outer world. Because of the position of power that he finds himself in, Bush?s inner conflict externalizes itself as he is able to play it out on the world stage.
Just like a photograph has a negative, Christ is the image of our divine wholeness (holiness), while Bush is the complete and polar opposite, or ?negative? of this image. In Bush?s case, unlike Christ, who was consciously channeling the positive aspects of the archetype of the Self, Bush is unconsciously possessed by the negative aspect of this archetype, which is to say that he is incarnating the archetype destructively, creating trauma and suffering for anyone in his sphere of influence, which in this case is the whole world. Becoming unconsciously ?seized? by an archetype like this always results in total self-destruction. Interestingly enough, the word ?seized? is related to the word ?rapture.?
To say Christ is a symbol is in no way to devalue him or take something away. On the contrary, to say the Christ event is symbolic is to say that it points to something greater than itself, that it is an actual portal into a deeper dimension of our being. If this universe is viewed in its dreamlike nature, it becomes clear that phenomenon such as the Christ event are configured in a way so as to reveal and activate something deep in our nature. To be truly ?born-again? is to recognize that this 3-D universe of ours is embedded in and an emanation of a higher-dimensional synchronistic matrix that is both literally, as well as symbolically, arranging events in this waking dreamscape of ours so as to reflect and effect certain archetypal processes that are happening deep inside the dreamer, which is us.
For the linear and literal-minded such as George Bush and the religious right, to see the Christ event symbolically is considered blasphemous and heretical. For example, a book written in 1835 implying that the Christ event could be viewed symbolically was reviewed as "the most pestilential book ever vomited out of the bowels of hell." Speaking of the apocryphal Acts of John, Pope Leo the Great condemned it as "a hotbed of manifest perversity," which "should not only be forbidden, but entirely destroyed and burned with fire."
Why is the mere suggestion to see the Christ event symbolically evoking such a violent reaction? What Christ is saying is both psycho-activating and liberating to contemplate, which is threatening to those who are attached to being in a position of power. To quote Jung ?The story of the Temptation clearly reveals the nature of the psychic power with which Jesus came into collision: it was the power-intoxicated devil.? What Christ is saying is particularly threatening to those in power, as Christ?s teachings are totally egalitarian. People like George Bush, who have become corrupted, attached and addicted to power, are particularly threatened by Christ?s teachings. Because he is addicted to power, Bush is trying to conquer and dominate the universe instead of being in relationship to it. As if talking about our current times, Jung comments ?The reigning prince of this world shuns the light of knowledge like the plague.?
What Christ is saying is threatening to those who interpret the Bible literally, such as Bush and the religious right. Interpreting the Bible literally is the very opposite of the way Christ himself wanted us to view his incarnation. Interpreting the Bible literally protects us from having to look in the mirror (whose inner meaning is ?shadow holder?) and deal with our own darkness. Interpreting the Bible literally ensures that we can project out and locate the evil ?out there,? thereby shielding ourselves from coming to terms with the evil in our own hearts. As Jung points out, when people such as Bush project the shadow ?this negligence [in dealing with their own darkness] is the best means of making him an instrument of evil.?
Seeing symbolically, whose inner meaning is that which unites, is the antonym and antidote to ?diabolos,? whose inner meaning is that which separates and divides. To see the Christ event symbolically would be to recognize, to quote Jung, that ?as we take the Christ projection [reflection] back into ourselves, each one of us is Christ." Jung continues, "the self, or Christ, is present in everybody a priori, but as a rule in an unconscious condition to begin with." Jung points out that everything unconscious, such as our divinity, once it was activated, always gets projected out and approaches us from outside, which is to say it gets dreamed up into actual incarnation. Jung goes on, that the self, or Christ, "is only real when it happens, and it can happen only when you withdraw your projections from an outward historical or metaphysical Christ, and thus wake up the Christ within?.an act of introjection is needed, i.e., the realization that the self (i.e, Christ) lives in you and not in an external figure separated and different from yourself."
The literal interpretation of the Christ event that Bush and the followers of the religious right believe in is a deluded and distorted interpretation of what Christ was actually teaching. Christ himself would be appalled at Bush?s perversion of his teachings. When we contemplate George Bush through the lens of Christ?s teachings themselves, it becomes clear that Bush, with all his pious vows of compassion, is actually ?missing the mark,? which is the inner meaning of the word ?sin.? Like Jung says ?Our blight is ideologies- they are the long-expected AntiChrist.?
Is George Bush the incarnation of evil? Or is he the highest level bodhisattva playing a very unpopular role, spurring on the greatest numbers to unfathomable heights of awakening? This is analogous to the dilemma that confronts quantum physics- is it a wave or a particle? Like quantum physics points out, it all depends on how we observe it. Like a symbol that contains and unites both of the opposites, George Bush is simultaneously both the instrument of the darkest evil co-joined with being the bringer of the light, which is the inner meaning of ?Lucifer.?
Ours is a situation of open-ended potentiality, with the question becoming, how do we want to dream it? The choice is truly ours. Do we go belly-up as we get drafted into endless wars, to quote Jung, allowing ourselves ?to be driven to the slaughterhouse by [our] leading psychopaths like hypnotized sheep?? Or do we access the highest level of our creativity and power as we connect with each other and unite (which revealingly, is the inner meaning of the word ?symbol?) in lucid awareness? Never before in all of human history has consciousness itself played such a crucial role in how our universe will manifest.
Like Christ, George Bush has been collaboratively dreamed up into incarnation by all six billion of us. Seen symbolically, the way Christ himself would instruct us to see it, George Bush is a living, breathing embodied reflection that unites the contradictory natures of God and the Devil in one being. This vision is a true ?coincidentia oppositorum,? which is the reconciling symbol that emerges out of holding the tension of the opposites. To quote Kazantzakis, author of the Last Temptation of Christ ?Someone came. Surely it was God, God??or was it the devil? Who can tell them apart? They exchange faces: God sometimes has become all darkness, the devil all light, and the mind of man is left in a muddle.?
Recognizing that this dreamlike universe of ours is a living, breathing symbol that is speaking symbolically allows it to resume its revelatory function. Speaking of Christ, Jung says ?the image of the God-man lives in everybody and has been incarnated (projected) in the man Jesus, to make itself visible, so that people could realize him as their own interior homo, their self.? Seen as a dreaming process, in an analogous way, we have all collaboratively dreamed up George Bush into actual incarnation so as to see and potentially integrate this dissociated, unconscious and asleep part of ourselves that he is a reflection of.
George Bush is a living, breathing symbol of this dark, ignorant, traumatized, afraid and pathological part of ourselves. When we recognize that George Bush is a mirrored reflection of a sick part of ourselves, compassion spontaneously arises, as we are embracing the darkest part of ourselves. George Bush challenges us to come to terms with the deepest evil inside of ourselves. To quote Mahatma Gandhi ?The only devils in the world are those running around in our own hearts- that is where the battle should be fought.?
Viewed as the symbol that it is, the Christ event is revealing that this state of co-joining, interpenetration, and union between God and humankind has already happened, has already been accomplished in the pleroma (the eternal fullness of the collective unconscious), and simply needs to be recognized to be made real in time. This is why Jung says, "Although (God) is already born in the pleroma, his birth in time can only be accomplished when it is perceived, recognized and declared by man."
In other words, the process of the incarnation of God through, in and as humanity is seemingly playing itself out in linear, sequential time in our world, yet in the atemporal, higher-dimensional reality in which our universe is contained, this process of divine incarnation through, in and as humanity has already been accomplished. We simply need to recognize what is symbolically being revealed. Like Christ himself says ?The Kingdom is spread all over earth and people just don?t see it.?
Paul Levy is a spiritually-informed political activist. He can be reached at paul@awakeninthedream.com. Please visit his website at www.awakeninthedream.com, where his article ?The Madness of George Bush: A Reflection of Our Collective Psychosis? is available. Please feel free to pass this article along to a friend if you feel so inspired.
© 2005 Paul Levy www.awakeninthedream.com
Posted by: BUSH LIES - SOLDIERS DIE at June 28, 2005 02:18 AM (FV4oJ)
19
CHIMPY's EVIL UNLEASHED!
Shedding Light On Evil
by Paul Levy
Whether we see evil in the terrorists or in George W. Bush, I simply cannot imagine anyone would dispute that the face of evil has emerged in this world of ours. There is something about looking at evil, however, that is very different than when we passively witness something that we remain unaffected by. No one can see evil and stay untouched. To quote the great doctor of the soul, C. G. Jung, who to my mind has the deepest insight into the nature of evil of anyone I?ve encountered, ?The sight of evil kindles evil in the soul- there is no getting away from this fact?..the wickedness of others becomes our own wickedness because it kindles something evil in our own hearts.? In dealing with evil we have to recognize that it is not something we can see and remain separate from, as if we are safely in the audience, out of harm?s way. When we see evil, something inside of us gets ignited and set aflame.
At the sight of evil, to quote Jung, ?Indignation leaps up, angry cries of ?Justice!? pursue the murderer, and they are louder, more impassioned and more charged with hate the more fiercely burns the fire of evil that has been lit in our souls.? When we see evil, if we react with moral indignation, cocksure of our own innocence and righteousness, this itself is an expression that we ourselves have become infected by evil and have become a conduit for evil to act itself out through us. To quote Jung, ?True, we are innocent, we are the victims, robbed, betrayed, outraged; and yet for all that, or precisely because of it, the flame of evil glowers in our moral indignation.?
When we see evil it triggers a resonant darkness inside of us, as if we have secretly recognized a part of ourselves. It is important to recognize that we could not look at the face of evil and see it unless we had that very same evil in ourselves. We wouldn?t be able to recognize it otherwise.
It is then a question of whether we can integrate what has gotten triggered in us, or do we inwardly dissociate from our own darkness, imagining it to be separate from ourselves, and project the evil ?out there? onto some ?other.? Projecting the shadow like this, to quote Jung, ?strengthens the opponent?s position in the most effective way, because the projection carries the fear which we involuntarily and secretly feel for our own evil over to the other side and considerably increases the formidableness of his threat.? The nature of this world is such that if we project out our own darkness, the world will shape-shift and provide convincing evidence that the evil really does exist out there, which simply confirms to us our delusion in a never ending, self-generating feedback loop.
To the extent that any of us have withdrawn our projection of the shadow ?out there? we have begun, to quote Jung, ?the only struggle that is really worthwhile: the fight against the overwhelming power-drive of the shadow.? For as Jung points out, every person ?harbours within himself a dangerous shadow and adversary who is involved as an invisible helper in the dark machinations of the political monster. It is in the nature of political bodies always to see the evil in the opposite group, just as the individual has an ineradicable tendency to get rid of everything he does not know and does not want to know about himself by foisting it off on somebody else.? Both the individual as well as the body politic have a tendency to project the evil outside of themselves. An individual projecting the shadow outside of themselves actually feeds into, supports and helps to create the shadow projection of the greater body politic.
We are all complicit in what our country is doing in Iraq. We all share in the guilt. The bombs dropping on innocent civilians have our names on them. We are not separate but interconnected and interdependent beings, all part of the greater world community. To quote Jung, ?Since no man lives within his own psychic sphere like a snail in its shell, separated from everybody else, but is connected with his fellow-men by his unconscious humanity, no crime can ever be what it appears to our consciousness to be: an isolated psychic happening.? This collective guilt, what Jung calls ?guilt by contagion? belongs to everyone, there is no getting away from it. To again quote Jung, ?the murder has been suffered by everyone, and everyone has committed it??we have all made this collective psychic murder possible?.in this way we are unavoidably drawn into the uncleanness of evil; no matter what our conscious attitude may be. No one can escape this.?
The evil that is playing out on the world stage is something all six billion of us are mutually creating and ?dreaming up? together. This is to say the evil that is incarnating in our world is something we are not separate from but are all playing roles in and collaborating with. To quote Edmund Burke, ?Evil can only happen when good people do nothing.? By being a ?dreamed up phenomenon,? the evil that is appearing in our world is a full-bodied reflection, in living, breathing color of the evil inside of ourselves. It is as if an inner process happening deep within the collective unconscious of all of humanity has gotten externalized and projected outside of ourselves, which is to say that it has gotten ?dreamed up? into materialization. If the evil that is manifesting prompts enough of us, however, to recognize that it is a mirrored reflection of a part of ourselves and we self-reflect, we can collaboratively metabolize the evil in such a way that it catapults us into a collective expansion of consciousness.
Jung says it is only those among us who are self-reflective who have ?the realization of the immense and overwhelming power of evil, and of the fact that mankind is capable of becoming merely the instrument [italics mine].? The realization of our potential susceptibility to self-deception that could lead to unwitting acts of evil serves as a psychic immunization, so to speak, and creates true humility which itself is a safeguard against evil. This is why, to quote Jung, ?The true leaders of mankind are always those who are capable of self-reflection.? Jung points out that ?only relatively few individuals can be expected to be capable of such an achievement, and they are not the political but the moral leaders of mankind.? Compared to the moral leaders of humanity, Jung points out that the ?so called [political] leaders are the inevitable symptoms of a mass movement.? When there is a mass unconsciousness, such as there is in our country right now, the political leaders literally get ?dreamed up? to be the embodied outer reflection of this collective inner unconsciousness.
If we refuse to look at our own darkness and continue to try and destroy the evil we perceive to be outside of ourselves, we fall prey to it and unwittingly become an agent of evil. If we fight evil in our habitual way, which is to try and murder it, we ourselves become a murderer. (Interestingly, one of the inner meanings of the word ?Satan? is ?murderer?) By fighting evil we become possessed by it. Is this the meaning of Christ?s teaching ?resist not evil?? It is like in wrestling with the devil, the devil penetrates into our body, pulsates through our very cells and incarnates itself in, through and as us.
To deal with evil as it manifests in the world we have to be able to look at and embrace the evil inside of ourselves. To quote Gandhi, ?The only devils in the world are those running around in our own hearts- that is where the battle should be fought.? If we refuse to look at the evil inside of our own heart, however, our refusal itself just feeds the evil. If we look away and allow evil to get acted out, thinking that we are innocent, we are unconsciously colluding with evil. To quote Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, ?One who passively accepts evil [by allowing it to happen] is as much involved in it as the one who perpetuates it.?
The evil that is playing out in the world today is a deeper, archetypal energy that has been re-enacted many times throughout human history. Yet what is unique about our current situation, to quote Jung, ?is not that present-day man is capable of greater evil than the man of antiquity or the primitive. He merely has incomparably more effective means with which to realize his propensity to evil. As his consciousness has broadened and differentiated, so his moral nature has lagged behind. That is the great problem before us today: Reason alone no longer suffices.? It has become clear that our rationality alone cannot resolve our world crisis, something else is needed. It is like we are at an event horizon in the process of the expansion of consciousness itself. To quote Jung, ?we need the illumination of a holy and whole-making spirit- a spirit that can be anything rather than our reason.?
We are living in an extremely dangerous time, but it is also a time of great opportunity. To quote Jung, ?We are living in what the Greeks called the Kairos- the right moment- for a ?metamorphosis of the gods,? of the fundamental principles and symbols. This peculiarity of our time, which is certainly not of our conscious choosing, is the expression of the unconscious man within us who is changing. Coming generations will have to take account of this momentous transformation if humanity is not to destroy itself through the might of its own technology and science.? The unleashing of atomic energy, Jung continues, ??.has given the human race the power to annihilate itself completely. The situation is about the same as if a small boy of six had been given a bag of dynamite for a birthday present??the danger that threatens us now is of such dimensions as to make this last European catastrophe [World War II] seem like a curtain-raiser.?
To quote Jung, ?For, as long as Satan is not integrated, the world is not healed and man is not saved. But Satan represents evil, and how can evil be integrated? There is only one possibility: to assimilate it, that is to say, raise it to the level of consciousness??[this is a state] in which the devil no longer has an autonomous existence but rejoins the profound unity of the psyche. Then the opus magnum [the ?great work? of alchemy] is finished: the human soul is completely integrated.?
Evil can?t stand to be seen, though, for once it is seen and made conscious it loses its omnipotence and autonomy, as it can no longer act itself out through us. Our task, as Jung reminds us, is ?making the darkness conscious.? As each of us recognizes and integrates our own darker halves, we liberate the energy that was bound up in the compulsion to unconsciously act out and dream up our darker side in the outside world. Instead, this archetypal energy of the shadow gets assimilated into the wholeness of our personality and becomes available for the expression of creativity and love.
We need to understand the nature of the ?beast? we are dealing with when we are confronted with evil. The fact that the way we are dealing with evil is itself the very thing that propagates evil is showing us something. Evil is revealing something to us. This is why Jung refers to Satan as ?the godfather of man as a spiritual being,? by which he means that Satan can activate in humankind a process of spiritual awakening that would have been impossible without his intervention. Similarly, Jung points out that Lucifer was ?necessary and indeed indispensable for the unfolding and completion of the divine drama.? Interestingly, one of the inner meanings of the word ?Satan? is the ?shadow of the Lord.? As Jung points out, ?We like to imagine that God is all light, but St. John of the Cross has the truly psychological notion of the darkness and the seeming remoteness of God as an effect of the divine presence.? In other words, shadows are an expression that light is nearby.
Whether the evil that is wreaking havoc on our planet right now will destroy us or further the evolution of our species and awaken us to deeper levels of our being is totally up to us. The key is if enough of us become the aforementioned moral leaders of humanity and look in the mirror (whose inner meaning is ?shadow holder?), self-reflect and recognize our complicity with the darkness that is playing out in our world. Self-reflection is the very best service we can do for the divine and the highest way for us to love God. Self-reflection is a true retrieval of our soul- it has an integrating effect, as it is a gathering together and a re-collecting of what had previously been projected out, divided and separated by the dis-integrating effect of evil (the inner meaning of the word ?diabolos? is that which separates and divides). To quote Jung, ?Self-reflection or- what comes to the same thing- the urge to individuation gathers together what is scattered and multifarious, and exalts it to the original form of the One, the Primordial Man. In this way our existence as separate beings, our former ego nature, is abolished, the circle of consciousness is widened, and because the paradoxes have been made conscious the sources of conflict are dried up.?
Jung recognized that whenever evil appeared in an individual?s personal process, some deeper good always came out of the experience that wouldn?t have emerged without the manifestation of evil. Could the same thing be true on a collective scale? Could the evil that is coming out of hiding in the shadows and becoming visible for all who have eyes to see be the harbinger of a deeper process of collective realization that is becoming available to us because of its emergence? Jung openly wonders whether ?in this very power of evil God might not have placed some special purpose which it is most important for us to know.?
With the appearance of evil it is like we are invited and even prodded to participate in an evolutionary quantum leap in and of consciousness itself. A doorway has opened up for us to collectively snap out of our imagined identities as ?separate beings? and realize that we are all interconnected, on the same side and part of a greater whole.
The inner meaning of the word apocalypse is ?something hidden being revealed.? We are experiencing the revelation of the hidden God, the deus absconditus, the dark side of God. Will we not recognize what the ?shadow of the Lord? is revealing to us and continue to unconsciously act it out and destroy ourselves? Or will the evil propel enough of us over the edge to self-reflection, precipitating a mass spiritual awakening unimaginable until this moment in history? Evil is a true quantum phenomenon, in that it contains both of these possibilities in potential, and how it will manifest depends on how we interact with it. Fighting the devil is radically different than loving God. The choice is truly ours.
Posted by: BUSH LIES - SOLDIERS DIE at June 28, 2005 02:22 AM (FV4oJ)
20
He is now grand master of the church of paul levy and jung.
please don't let him read l ron hubbard next ... please !!!
Posted by: Jonathan at June 28, 2005 03:05 AM (wdVtc)
21
Dianetics - the power of CHIMP over Reality
Posted by: BUSH LIES - SOLDIERS DIE at June 28, 2005 03:42 AM (FV4oJ)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at June 28, 2005 05:55 AM (+S1Ft)
23
BUSH LIES!! you are one disgusting young ferret, desert-dwelling loser who has no sense of common decency. How much drivel can you expect me to put up with? Either sober, drunk or on drugs - you are a disgrace to the blogging scene and a thug - go back to your cave and wait for your "CHIMPY" in your nightmares. GO AWAY!
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at June 28, 2005 06:02 AM (ScqM8)
24
Jaysus on a Pony, and I thought having my comments spammed by "Texas Hold*m" bots was bad!
BL-SD is just trying to bring about a worldwide modern Caliphate and railing against the people who took down his hero Saddam is, at the moment, his only outlet.
Posted by: Darleen at June 28, 2005 08:36 AM (FgfaV)
25
OMG! Is that blog (TIWWWB) for real?
Posted by: Oyster at June 28, 2005 08:47 AM (fl6E1)
26
Leopold Stotch:'You guys are both retarded; the Constitution died 4/8/1913. [ratification of the 17th Amendment, which effectively eliminated the 10th Amendment]'
Leo,
I'd point to the 16th amendment, authorizing an income tax, as the day our Constitution died. It was never actually ratified. Two people have recently beaten tax evasion charges because the government couldn't prove that the 16th amendment was actually ratified.
'For years, those who have asked for the exact details of the laws underwhich the government takes half our lives have been rebuffed, dmismissed, insulted, harassed, and attacked, everything but answered. Only with the Holocaust does the mere asking of a question draw greater scorn and abuse by those in power. We The People have asked to see the actual bills of ratification of the necessary 3/4 states on the 16th amendment, which reversed the prior Constitutional ban on income taxes. The government refuses, insisting that we simply assume that Secretary of State Philander Knox would not lie about ratification in his letter to Congress (even though Knox scrupulously avoided using the word "ratified" and simply declared the amendment to be "in effect"). The government insists that we assume the laws are what we are told they are, even though (as has now happened in two trials) nobody can actually locate the law in question. ' M. Rivero
Posted by: greg at June 28, 2005 08:58 AM (/+dAV)
27
No, it was the 19th Amendmnet.......
Pause.
Smirk.
Wink.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at June 28, 2005 09:25 AM (JQjhA)
28
Bush Lies: 'There's a night-time curfew in Baghdad?'
Yes, the city is under Martial Law. Oh, the joys of liberation!
Posted by: greg at June 28, 2005 09:26 AM (/+dAV)
29
Deus absconditus, this chimpy guy sounds interesting.
I think we have to clarify whether a mortal wound equals the date of death, or if we're projecting a date that liberals will actually run in the streets with torches, raping, pillaging and plundering, condoned by the justices.
Posted by: tee bee at June 28, 2005 09:26 AM (q1JHF)
30
Oh.
BANNED!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at June 28, 2005 09:27 AM (JQjhA)
31
Rusty, the 19th amendment. Women's sufferage?
Posted by: greg at June 28, 2005 09:52 AM (/+dAV)
32
yea, B.L.S.D. i can tell you are most def. in need of some counseling for that alchol problem you got there...better lay off that moonshine, boy, youll go blind....freakin goofball....and you talk of truth, sheesh, yea, youre telling the truth but its about what crazy idiots extremists like you and a few others who come here and post long rambling, meaningless drivel filled posts....you related to Fidel Castro or maybe Hugo Chavez?? they both like to ramble on while saying nothing, just like YOU....get a life and try and not watch so many X-File episodes, youll be more fit, mentally that is....
Posted by: THANOS35 at June 28, 2005 09:54 AM (kDAye)
33
oh, yea greg, during times of war Martial Law would and should be imposed in a country such as Iraq...there are still TERRORISTS running loose...no, i do not in any way consider those fighting against the American and coalition troops, insurgents or as fat ass Mikey Moore likes to call them, Minute Men...they are TERRORISTS, pure and simple....these curfews are more for the average Iraqi citizens safety and well being as it is for the American soldiers who are conducting the sweeps and patrols...would you be running around on the streets at 2am if you knew that gangs of violent people want to abduct, murder or perhaps sell you into slavery????...if you do, than you got problems and you better hope that an American patrol gets its hands on you first before the terrorists do as they have no respect for whatever religion you are.....im sure, if you have a good reason for being out that time of nite, the patrols have ways to get info, and no, i dont mean beating it out of you as i sense you would say that....i mean in getting in touv=ch with the authorties or a HQ...Curfews are the best way to weed out the criminal element from the innocent just doing an errand or a job...so in a way, yea, it is freedom for the average Iraqi citizen...freedom from the terrorists who really want to impose a brutal regime that will make the imposed curfew look like nothing more than a slight inconveniance...its just like when the State Troopers or local County or town police set up a DWI stop...yea, its a pain, but compared to being run over and killed by some drunk driving asshole, ill gladly put up with it, and in fact i support such actions...it gets those who break the laws off the roads and in jail where they cant ruin the day for some innocents...look at it the same way in Iraq
Posted by: THANOS35 at June 28, 2005 10:27 AM (kDAye)
34
Thanos35;'im sure, if you have a good reason for being out that time of nite, the patrols have ways to get info, and no, i dont mean beating it out of you as i sense you would say that.'
Thanos,
If you're out past the curfew, they shoot you dead. HELLO! Anybody home?
Posted by: greg at June 28, 2005 10:42 AM (/+dAV)
35
Rusty or Greg...do you have some links you'd recommend on the whole tax amendment thing you mentioned? Carlos...you heard of this?
Posted by: osamabeenhiding at June 28, 2005 10:55 AM (huFN9)
36
do you know that for sure greg???....youre saying that the American troops shoot you on sight without giving you a warning first????....youre presuming alot right there and youre supposing that our troops are shooting without prevocation and are killing innocents...this is war and thay have to have ways to tell one another apart...passwords or some other sort of way...yea, im sure if you shoot at them they will fire back in self defense, but if youre strolling down the street they are going to have you identify youreself or risk being shot on.....see, by you saying that they will just shoot you offhand, you are making it easier for me to see as one who would go out and shout from the rooftop that the American troops are shooting at every Iraqi without reason...thank you for telling me the truth about you, greg...yea, you REALLY support the American troops, dont ya??....fool
Posted by: THANOS35 at June 28, 2005 10:55 AM (kDAye)
37
Thanos,
Under Martial Law, if you're out past the curfew, you get shot. Do you not understand Martial Law?
Posted by: greg at June 28, 2005 11:13 AM (/+dAV)
38
Osama,
It's quite true about the 16th amendment not being ratified. The IRS has repeatedly failed to respond to inquiries on the subject. They have also quietly withdrawn tax evasion charges against those who invoke a 'there was no ratification defense'.
I won't provide links because I don't want to piss Rusty off. But google, 16th amendment ratification.
Posted by: greg at June 28, 2005 11:39 AM (/+dAV)
39
Aight. But tell me this...since I haven't researched it yet, how come this isn't HUGE news? I would imagine if everyone knew this everyone would be hoarding and the "gubbamint" would be freaking.
Posted by: osamabeenvotin' at June 28, 2005 12:31 PM (huFN9)
40
and greg, youre still not getting what i said....youre are supposing that the US troops will shoot ANYONE, ANYONE at all without having them identify themselves first....just because they have imposed a curfew doesnt mean that they have imposed a Shoot on sight order...think a little.....youd love it to read about an American patrol shooting an Iraqi citizen trying to get over to their familys house and he wasnt given a warning first before he/she was shot, wouldnt ya??...so you could continue screaming youre Anti-American drivel....maybe the Chinese or Russians would shoot first without warning first, but American troops, being under attack by the MSM as being brutal, would attempt to identify the person/persons first before opening fire....youre as funny and as goofy as B.L.S.D. go sit in the corner now
Posted by: THANOS35 at June 28, 2005 12:44 PM (kDAye)
41
Osama:'Aight. But tell me this...since I haven't researched it yet, how come this isn't HUGE news? '
Are you joking? Don't you understand how the country works? The MSM has become a branch of the US government.
Posted by: greg at June 28, 2005 12:52 PM (/+dAV)
42
OMMFG!!!!....greg, you should have an HBO comedy special!!!..youre one funny mfer, lemme tell ya.....another George Carlin is born right here on The Jawa Report.....pardon me while i wipe Coca-Cola off my keyboards after reading that post from greg
Posted by: THANOS35 at June 28, 2005 01:10 PM (kDAye)
43
Hi Greg,
I might not be a rocket scientist, but one would assume one way to not get shot in times that martial law is enacted, is to obey what it demands.
I don't believe that it's secret that the curfew is in place either, and from the footage they ran most curfew violators are given a nice set of flexi-cuffs and sent back for questioning.
Posted by: dave at June 28, 2005 01:25 PM (fsJ2z)
44
thank you dave....greg was assuming that ANY and ALL violaters of the curfew would be shot on sight, which is something i think he would like to see happen, as it would give himself and the MSM more to scream and rant about.....
Posted by: THANOS35 at June 28, 2005 02:05 PM (kDAye)
45
The wacko bush lies has completely lost control. Rusty?
Posted by: The main man's daughter at June 29, 2005 11:42 PM (CBNGy)
See-Dubya: slowin' it down
I'll be out of pocket for a couple days, after which both my posting and my internet access will be much diminished for a couple weeks. (I'll be delivering arms to the Khmer Rouge in Southern California.) But I have a few ideas for posts in the meantime and you haven't heard the last of me yet.
BTW, Rusty says I don't have to put "See-Dubya" in the title of my posts, like I started doing over at Patterico's to keep me separate from the other guest bloggers. Well, I don't want Rusty stuck with the fallout from my ramblings--especially the anti-drug stuff, since that'll get him kicked out of the South Park Republican club! Anyway, I'll stop doing it, because many people who link to my posts and many commenters continue to attribute my stuff to Rusty anyway.
Y'all have a good one, and thanks for checking in.
--See Dubya
Posted by: seedubya at
05:23 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 159 words, total size 1 kb.
1
HARDWORKING CHIMPY!!!!!!!!!
The Fantastical World Of Studley McMuffin
By Sheila Samples
06/27/05 "ICH" - - Is there a single psychologist or phychiatrist in this country -- in any country -- who would be willing to put his or her credibility on the line and say that George W. Bush is not a bloodthirsty lunatic, a liar and a fool?
I thought not.
I am finding it more and more difficult to hear what he is saying. Each time Bush opens his mouth, he seems to be attempting to channel a loon, but unfortunately, its weird cries are all but drowned out by the maniacal barking of a hyena. That would be fine if he were out in the Texas boonies with the rest of the loons and hyenas rather than illegally occupying the chair reserved for our elected head of state -- arguably the most powerful man in the world.
How long are we going to allow this war criminal to keep killing innocent men, women and children while wiping his brow and complaining how much work -- hard work -- it is? How long, America? Until they're all dead under the weight of our liberation?
In his Saturday radio address, Bush boasted that he and his puppet Iraqi Prime Minister Jaafari not only "discussed" their strong partnership but reveled in the dramatic progress all his hard work in Iraq has made over the past year. A mouse in the corner might confide that Bush told Jaafari, "Do as I say or die, punk." A mouse might say that the progress of which Bush is so proud was nothing more than his chortling over his success at ravaging a nation and its people in order to turn over all its resources to Dick Cheney's Halliburton and a few other lucky US corporate contractors.
Do you listen to him, America? Do you hear him? Do you believe him when he says that the blood of your children, mingled with the blood of Iraqi children, is but a "grim reminder that the enemies of freedom in Iraq are ruthless killers with no regard for human life"? Well, I believe him. Was ever there a more grim reminder of a ruthless killer with no regard for human life than his smirking self?
Tuesday, Bush says, is the first anniversary of the "moment" Iraqis reclaimed their free and sovereign nation. Hoo-boy. If we are to believe him -- in a single instant -- Iraqi people were free, and they had the purple fingers to prove it. Just another "mission accomplished" moment, eh, Scoob? How many more of these bloody photo-op moments are we going to take -- can we take -- in the name of all that is decent? How many, before we finally grab rails, sacks of feathers and buckets of tar, and take off in a dead run for Pennsylvania Avenue?
Just wondering...
Bush says he will give a major speech Tuesday evening on what he calls his "two-track strategy for victory." He will tell us yet once again about his important mission and his firm resolve to perform fantastical, historical, hysterical feats.
Will Bush be The President, addressing such a vital matter while surrounded by the somber trappings of the oval office? Doubtful, because the last time Bush tried that, he became so diminished he disappeared beneath the desk. Karl Rove had to drag in a ladder just so Bush could climb back up in the chair.
Will Bush be the Commander-in-Chief, speaking to us from the dignified podium of Congress? Yeah, like that's going to happen, given the gloomy, increasingly pissed-off mood of Congress. You never know when the "moos" will turn to Boos...
Or will Bush once again be the courageous and fearless Studley McMuffin, all decked out in an Air Force flight jacket, giving yet another campaign speech from a raised platform before a hand-picked military audience with orders to screech "Hoo-AHHHH!" each time Bush stops to take a breath, or when tasered by Karl Rove and Donald Rumsfeld from off-camera -- whichever comes first?
I just report. You decide.
Bush will say the "military track" of his strategy is to defeat the terrorists. He will tell us once again that democracy is on the march and is "taking root" everywhere. Soon, it will cover all of Iraq, sweeping across that nation like Johnson Grass across the west Texas plains.
His "political track," he says, is "to continue helping Iraqis build the institutions of a stable democracy." What the hell does that mean? How can Iraqis build anything? Bush has taken their oil, their money, their businesses, their jobs, their water and electricity and their humanity from them. He has kicked down their doors and dragged their men off to prison while imposing curfews on the women, children and elderly who remain.
Bush will tell us his mission is difficult, and we can "expect more tough fighting in the weeks and months ahead." But, as always, he is resolved and confident. His will remains unbroken -- unbreakable. Even as grieving parents in Iraq and the United States bury the body parts of their children, they can be proud of Bush for working so hard to defy, and defeat, evil throughout the world and replace it with the freedoms of corporate democracy.
Oh, America, how long will we sit and listen to the jangled loon-and-hyena cacophony gushing out of this destructive administration -- the robotic cheers erupting from a condemned military?
We have work to do. Stopping the world of Studley McMuffin and kicking off the "ruthless killers with no regard for human life" who are in control of us will be work. Hard, hard work.
But we must be up and about our country's business, no matter how hard it is. Our country's business is life; therefore, we have no choice. The alternative is not -- nor should it ever be -- an option on our table.
Sheila Samples is an Oklahoma freelance writer and a former civilian US Army Public Information Officer. She is a regular contributor for a variety of Internet sites. Contact her at: rsamples@sirinet.net
Posted by: BUSH LIES - SOLDIERS DIE at June 27, 2005 08:33 PM (FV4oJ)
2
GEORGE BUSH IS A MALIGNANT NARCISSIST
by Paul Levy
Psychologically speaking, Mr. George W. Bush is what is called a ?malignant narcissist.? A narcissist is someone who has become hypnotized and entranced by their own inflated self-image. They have become so self-absorbed that not only are they not in genuine relation with others, but they relate to others (including the environment) as objects to satisfy their own need for self-aggrandizement. A ?malignant? narcissist, however, is a narcissist who reacts sadistically to others who don't support and enable their narcissism. For example, instead of self-reflecting and taking in critical feedback, the Bush administration reacts with ruthless contempt for anyone who disagrees with them. Like a mean and cruel-spirited malignant narcissist, Bush and Co. deny the accusation and try to destroy the messenger. Ultimately, a malignant narcissist wants to annihilate anyone who in any way threatens their illusory self-image and self-serving agenda.
Malignant narcissists can be very charismatic, and are very adept at charming and manipulating others. They are clever at camouflaging their malevolent agenda, even to themselves, and can appear to be very normal, regular, and seemingly loving people. To quote the great doctor of the soul, psychiatrist C. G. Jung ?only a very small fraction of so-called psychopaths land in the asylum. The overwhelming majority of them constitute that part of the population which is alleged to be ?normal.?? And, I might add, that many of these so-called seemingly ?normal? psychopaths are drawn to positions of power. Malignant narcissists are very skilled at entrancing others, at putting other?s under their spell. They are master hypnotists. They are like ?black magicians,? in that they are very talented at hooking others through their fear by using ?mind-control? techniques such as lying and propaganda to control them.
The narcissism of a leader such as Bush resonates with the narcissism inherent in his supporters, who identify with Bush?s seeming certainty and lack of doubt (it never occurs to them that, to quote John Kerry ?You can be certain and wrong.?). This creates a very dangerous and pathological situation called ?group narcissism,? in which a large group of people have dis-connected from their critical faculties and entrusted their power to their narcissistic leader. This is a perversely symbiotic, co-dependent relationship in which all members of the group are colluding with and enabling each other?s narcissism. For example, George Bush, in his utter narcissism thinks that God speaks through him. Instead of being seen as deluded, his supporters reflect back to him that they, too, think that God speaks through him. This, of course, just reinforces Bush?s narcissistic delusion. Seeing Bush as God?s instrument concurrently fulfills in the Bush supporters their adolescent fantasy of having someone who is playing the role of the divine leader to protect them. This mutually interdependent and reciprocally reinforcing delusion is what is called a ?collective psychosis.?
By playing with people?s fear, Bush is hypnotizing people to give their power away to him. Unfortunately, by doing this he has hypnotized himself as well, which is to say he is deceiving himself in the process of his deceiving of others. Malignant narcissists are pathological liars. They are very adept at both lying and then believing their own lies. The conviction they carry in this act of self-deception can easily ?entrance? people. To quote Jung ?Nothing has such a convincing effect as a lie one invents and believes oneself, or an evil deed or intention whose righteousness one regards as self-evident.? A malignant narcissist plays with people?s fears so as to gain their trust and control them, which is based on the abuse of power over others that is the signature of a true dictator.
At their core, a malignant narcissist?s desire is to dominate and have power over others. The perverse enjoyment of complete domination over another person(s), which involves transforming a person into an object (a ?thing?), in which their freedom is taken away, is the very essence of the sadistic drive. Their sadism is a way of transforming their feelings of powerlessness and impotence into an experience of omnipotence.
A malignant narcissist is the incarnation of the separate, alienated self spinning out of control to a pathological degree. They are unconsciously identified with and will protect at any cost an imaginary ?separate self? that is alien from the rest of the universe. Paradoxically, at the same time that they experience themselves as separate from others, the malignant narcissist lives in a state of ?unconscious fusion? with others. To a malignant narcissist, other people don?t truly exist as autonomous beings. Other people only exist as disposable pawns to feed and support their narcissistic, masturbatory fantasies. A malignant narcissist hasn?t developed a sense of their own authentic self, which is why they are unable to be in genuine relationship with others. Psychologically, malignant narcissism is a very primitive and un-evolved state, one which is totally lacking in eros (relatedness).
Because they don?t relate to other people as independent and separate from their own inflated, narcissist self, the malignant narcissist doesn?t respect other people?s boundaries. Their self-serving, narcissistic illogic allows them to justify, even in the name of God, transgressing other?s boundaries, be them an individual?s civil liberties, or another nation?s sovereignty. Interestingly enough, etymologically, the word ?evil? is related to the word ?transgress.?
Malignant narcissists are not conscious of the interconnectedness between themselves and others. They are unable to feel empathy for others and have an overwhelming lack of genuine compassion (so much for compassionate conservatism). Concerned about nothing other than themselves, malignant narcissists are indifferent to other people?s suffering, all the while, though, professing their compassion. Malignant narcissists are unable to genuinely mourn, for they are ultimately only concerned with themselves. They will show grief, however, just like they will try and appear compassionate, if it is politically correct to do so and, hence, to their advantage, as they are master manipulators. They are a true ?wolf in sheep?s clothing.?
Malignant narcissists are unconsciously possessed by the power-drive of the archetypal shadow. Being possessed by an archetype means that the malignant narcissists have lost their freedom, as a more powerful transpersonal, archetypal force has so unconsciously taken them over that it compulsively acts itself out through them. They themselves are being used and manipulated like puppets on a string by the more powerful archetypal force. Becoming possessed by an archetype like this, to quote Jung, ?turns a man into a flat collective figure, a mask behind which he can no longer develop as a human being, but becomes increasingly stunted.? Jung continues ?Since nobody is capable of recognizing just where and how much he himself is possessed and unconscious, he simply projects his own condition upon his neighbor, and thus it becomes a sacred duty to have the biggest guns and the most poisonous gas.?
Malignant narcissists can seem confident and self-assured, but are, in reality, covering deep insecurities and fears through an inflated self-image. Intense feelings of revenge, fury and rage verging on insanity manifests when their fear is exposed, and their narcissism threatened. At the core of their process is self-hatred, as malignant narcissists split-off and dissociate from a part of themselves. As Jung points out, ?a habitual dissociation is one of the signs of a psychopathic disposition.? Jung talks about this condition by saying it may even result in ?a splitting of the personality, a condition in which quite literally one hand no longer knows what the other is doing?..Ignorance of one?s other side creates great insecurity. One does not really know who one is; one feels inferior somewhere and yet does not wish to know where the inferiority lies, with the result that a new inferiority is added to the original one.? A malignant narcissist falls into an infinite regression of being in denial about being in denial and hiding from their own lies. A malignant narcissist such as Bush is continually in a state of hiding from himself.
Malignant narcissists have contempt for and flagrantly violate the rule of law, which, in their inflation, they believe themselves to be above. ?International law?? Bush arrogantly smirked in December 2003, ?I better call my lawyer.? Malignant narcissists, like a true bully, abuse their power simply because they can. They can endlessly ?talk? about taking responsibility, but they never genuinely face up to and become accountable for their actions.
Malignant narcissists are unwilling and unable to experience their sense of shame, guilt or sin, as their narcissism doesn?t allow these feelings. This inability to consciously feel their ?negative? feelings is at the root of the dynamic in which they dissociate from their own darkness, blaming and ?projecting the shadow? out there onto some ?other.? This splitting-off and projecting out their own evil results in always having a potential enemy around every corner, which is why malignant narcissists tend towards paranoia. Malignant narcissists continually ?need? an enemy and will even create new ones to ensure that they don?t have to look at the evil within their own hearts. They react with aversion to the reflection of their own evil, going so far as to want to exterminate evil from the world. Or as George Bush would say ?to rid the world of evil-doers.? Ridding the world of evil is an act that can never be attained, however, as by ?projecting the shadow,? malignant narcissists themselves become the very evil-doer that they see out there and are trying to destroy. George Bush has become possessed by the very thing he?s fighting against.
Caught in the vicious cycle of the repetition compulsion of the traumatized soul, malignant narcissists create more of the very evil that they are fighting against, as is evidenced by the way George Bush is fighting terrorism. He has become a terrorist in the way he has reacted to terrorism. In essence, Bush is at war with and trying to destroy his own shadow, which is not only a battle that can never be won, but is a form of insanity. And he?s acting it out on the world stage.
Thai intellectual and social critic Sulak Sivaraksa likens Bush to two other malignant narcissists, Hitler and Stalin, pointing out that Bush's "axis of Evil," Hitler's "Final Solution," and Stalin's "pogrom of peasants" were actually analogous attempts "to perfect the world by destroying the [projected] impurities." Interestingly enough, another modern day malignant narcissist is none other than Saddam Hussein.
If left in power, malignant narcissists ultimately destroy themselves and everyone around them. Malignant narcissists are what are called ?necrophiles,? in that their impulses are perversely directed against life, the spontaneity of which they are afraid of, and towards death and destruction, which they are secretly attracted to. To quote the psychologist Eric Fromm, this ?severe mental sickness?.represents the quintessence of evil; it is as the same time the most severe pathology and the root of the most vicious destructiveness and inhumanity.? The ?force? used by malignant narcissists to achieve their ends, to use Simone Weil?s definition, has the capacity to turn a man into a corpse- literally. To quote Eric Fromm ?Just as sexuality can create life, force can destroy it. All force is, in the last analysis, based on the power to kill. I may not kill a person but only deprive him of his freedom; I may want only to humiliate him?...behind all these actions stands my capacity to kill and my willingness to kill.? Malignant narcissists have a sadistic ?willingness to kill? so as to protect their own self-serving delusions, which makes them particularly dangerous, as they will literally stop at nothing to hold onto the position of power they find themselves in. Malignant narcissists are murderers who are criminally insane.
Malignant narcissism is a deadly illness that deserves our genuine compassion. However, it is an extremely dangerous situation if the malignant narcissist, like George Bush, is in a position of power where he can create endless, unnecessary suffering and destruction. If we fall under Bush?s spell and elect him to be our leader for another four years, we would be in a situation similar to the Germans in WWII, who, to quote Jung ?allowed themselves to be driven to the slaughterhouse by their leading psychopaths like hypnotized sheep.? It is time to wake up from our spell. We need to do everything and anything in our power to remove George Bush from office, for God?s sake, as well as our own.
Posted by: BUSH LIES - SOLDIERS DIE at June 28, 2005 02:19 AM (FV4oJ)
3
still chugging your kool - aid huh ?
Posted by: Jonathan at June 28, 2005 03:02 AM (wdVtc)
4
CHIMPY Koolaid rots teeth and eats away at the mind
Posted by: BUSH LIES - SOLDIERS DIE at June 28, 2005 03:43 AM (FV4oJ)
Do-it Yourself Fatwah Festival
Have an interesting link? Want me to issue a fatwa against you? Send a trackback here. Ok, so it's not an Instalanche, but it might get you a little notice. Plus, remember that part of the secret of Goolge hits is to have incoming links. A trackback sent here shows up as a link to you. Win-win.
Plus, I just don't have time to link any one today. So check out the fatwas below.
Posted by: Rusty at
12:31 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
Post contains 82 words, total size 1 kb.
1
YBP: it appears you may be over quota on your email.
Posted by: Howie at June 27, 2005 12:15 PM (D3+20)
2
Thanks, Howie. I'll take care of it.
The hate mail really builds up.
:>)
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 27, 2005 01:16 PM (x+5JB)
3
More of the same. Who cares?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050627/pl_afp/pakistanusafghanistan_050627142105
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 27, 2005 01:22 PM (x+5JB)
4
How about Morgan Spurlock's conclusion already scripted for his '30 days' as a Muslim :
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2005/06/morgan_spurlock.html
http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110006868
Conclusion:
"No, the producers told me. "Morgan wants the show to demonstrate to America that we are Islamophobic and that 9/11's biggest victims are Muslims."
Also check out the caliber of the people associated with instruction of 'Islam' in the show.
Posted by: dave at June 27, 2005 01:36 PM (fsJ2z)
5
Dave: I read Debbie Schlussel's post and had to comment myself. Thanks to the Internet, this kind of propaganda can be countered somewhat before it hits the general public. It's really shameful what they call a "documentary" anymore. Michael Moore's entire staff is in on this one. And CAIR? Sheesh. Greg ought to lap this one up with a big spoon.
Posted by: Oyster at June 27, 2005 02:27 PM (fl6E1)
6
What do you think about this, vets?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050627/ap_on_re_us/unearned_medal
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 27, 2005 02:31 PM (x+5JB)
7
Quote of the day.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. '
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Posted by: greg at June 27, 2005 03:28 PM (/+dAV)
8
Oyster,
I was pretty disappointed to read that they're scripted to reach the conclusion of the point he wants to make. After watching the 'life on minimum wage' show I thought it was well presented and hit home. However it brings into question now, how much was scripted for the agenda ? were the emergency room visits scripted to show an agenda? etc.
Now he's saying the real victims in 9/11 were the Muslims? outrageous - I am sure he will not say that on the show however, that will be just the conclusion he wants you to reach.
Posted by: dave at June 27, 2005 03:46 PM (fsJ2z)
9
Rumsfeld pointed out, on Fox News, that "insurgencies tend to go on five, six, eight, 10, 12 years."
Which is it Rummy? 5, 6, 8, 10, 12 or more years? Can the Iraqis fight their own damn war or must we stay another 12 plus years?
Posted by: greg at June 27, 2005 03:50 PM (/+dAV)
10
US acknowledges torture at Guantanamo; in Iraq, Afghanistan - UN
06.24.2005, 11:37 AM
‘GENEVA (AFX) - Washington has, for the first time, acknowledged to the United Nations that prisoners have been tortured at US detention centres in Guantanamo Bay, as well as Afghanistan and Iraq, a UN source said.
The acknowledgement was made in a report submitted to the UN Committee against Torture, said a member of the ten-person panel, speaking on on condition of anonymity.
'They are no longer trying to duck this and have respected their obligation to inform the UN,' the Committee member said.
'They they will have to explain themselves (to the Committee). Nothing should be kept in the dark,' he said.
UN sources said this is the first time the world body has received such a frank statement on torture from US authorities.Â’
http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/afx/2005/06/24/afx2110388.html
OK, no more bullshitting. We have now acknowledged that we have tortured people in Guantanamo and in Afghanistan and in Iraq.
Posted by: greg at June 27, 2005 04:49 PM (/+dAV)
11
Nice tee-shirt banner add. If I see someone wearing that should I take it to understand the he or she would like to be tasered, dragged to my basement and beaten? Not tortured of course- just some light beatings that wont result in death- unless I get a little carried away. Would be happy to do so to any nitwit idiotic enough to wear one. Of course if they have taken the time to make sure it was color co-ordinated with thier WWJD braclet, I might let them walk on by.
Posted by: Max at June 27, 2005 05:36 PM (HFKAk)
12
just follow my link below ... have composed a Rove "apology", etc.
Posted by: Jonathan at June 27, 2005 05:40 PM (wdVtc)
13
Maxwell, young man, where do you get off talking like that - threatening people who wear T-shirts. You are an uncultured urban ruffian who needs to learn some manners.
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at June 28, 2005 07:18 AM (ScqM8)
14
Venom:'In the meantime, everyone can do their bit to make the U.S. a safer place by enrolling in UConn for a degree in homeland security:'
Venom,
I'm already schooled in the wonders of duct tape.
Posted by: greg at June 28, 2005 08:09 AM (/+dAV)
15
Dave & Oyster...Morgan Spurlock has nothing on the scripted radio and TV "news" that our taxpayer dollars paid for, courtesy of our current administration. I guess FOX wasn't good enough for Bushie?
Posted by: osamabeenhiding at June 28, 2005 11:12 AM (huFN9)
16
osama,
how is that again? I hear nothing on the news but futility in Iraq, Gitmo torture, Abu Gharab references, Downing street Memo etc.
Posted by: dave at June 28, 2005 03:05 PM (fsJ2z)
17
Dave...exactly. FOX news ain't cuttin' it for Bushie. That's why there has been govt. funded (by our tax dollars) to create what is essentially propaganda. Did you not hear about this? There were "newscasts" which weren't news promoting Bush's agenda where the speaker would sign off as "so and so reporting..." and they also paid off a big radio guy as well as a few others to promote Bush. It's no moon-bat claim either, Bush actually publicly disapproved what was going on later, but I think he had to rather than let it get blown up worse.
Posted by: osamabeenhiding at June 29, 2005 12:34 PM (huFN9)
90 students abducted by Maoists in Nepal
h/t World Mag Blog.
The children were taken from a remote mountain village about 300 kilometers (185 miles) from Kathmandu, according to the Royal Nepalese Army (RNA) in a statement released late Sunday.They were abducted on Wednesday from Nepal Rashtriya Secondary School in Amrahi village of Gulmi district and taken in the direction of the village of Darling.
Their current condition and whereabouts are unknown. But according to The Associated Press, there are no army or police bases near the village.
The Maoists have not responded to the army accusations, but rebels have regularly seized students in areas where they maintain control.
Last year, rebel leader Baburam Bhattarai took exception to the word "abduction," saying the children are taken for cultural campaigns and indoctrination sessions, and usually sent home in a few days.
But in this instance they have been missing for five days.
Nepal has been in the grips of a violent Maoist insurgency since February 1996. It has worsened since King Gyanendra seized absolute power in February promising to quell the insurgency.
Posted by Suzanne
Posted by: Suzanne at
12:18 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 193 words, total size 1 kb.
1
So here's where Libs pipe in how Israel and Americans used terrorism during their own fights for independence, so it's not fair to judge these maoists too harshly.
Posted by: Carlos at June 27, 2005 02:40 PM (8e/V4)
2
Kidnapping of children from schools has always been a favorite tactic of communist terrorists. It gives them a new crop of trainees to indoctrinate, and forces the parents of the children to cooperate with demands for food and other aid. This trend was started in Africa in the 1970's with children being trained and indoctrinated in the ways of communist terrorism, then used as child soldiers. The children will probably be sent to Chinese training camps in Tibet where they will learn how to be good little terrorists, and the MSM, the UN, and the world will not take notice.
the biggest difference between now and thirty years ago is that the Islamofascists have replaced the Soviets as our primary enemy, but the Chinese are still doing their part as always, and now we are financing our enemies through cheap imports and oil.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 27, 2005 02:46 PM (0yYS2)
3
Ignoramus Maximus,
CHIMPY your hero has killed thousands and thousands. The world bristles as his abduction of 25 million iraqis continues.
Posted by: BUSH LIES - SOLDIERS DIE at June 27, 2005 07:42 PM (FV4oJ)
4
A novel in one part: something to sleep on.
You wake up to find someone standing over you, and you'll want to scream, but you can't. You'll try to struggle, but again, you can't. You are tied and taped. Your eyes will bulge as the panic sets in and you will lose your last hope as your bladder involuntarily empties itself, and you wish you could black out, but it's not over yet.
Next, you are dragged on the floor for a trip to the kitchen, where the knives are. Got a butcher knife? Don't worry, your visitor does, and it's razor sharp.
Your visitor hums to himself while he methodically prepares his tools; the tune sounds upbeat, maybe foreign. You have never felt this utterly helpless, and you think that if you could only work the tape off your mouth you could talk to your visitor and convince him to let you go, but the tape holds. You feel so completely alone. You really wish you were alone.
He leaves the room for a while, and the house is quiet. Maybe he's gone? It's hard to tell from where you lie on the floor. No. He comes back, and he has a large black duffel bag and he pulls from it a roll of plastic and spreads on the floor. The stress of being tied up and watching a stranger prepare these horrible things is too much, and your blood pressure spikes. You feel sick and wish that he would either let you go or kill you now, but you're not that lucky.
You don't know why a complete stranger is doing this to you. You've never hurt anyone, and you give money to charities and volunteer to help people. It must be a joke. That's it. A friend is playing a joke on you. A sick joke, that has to be it. THAT MUST BE IT!!!
Your visitor turns toward you and pulls off his shoes. You didn't expect that. He then pulls something from the bag and spreads it on the floor, but it's small, hard to identify. He is out of your field of vision and you can't make out what he's doing, but he mutters and shuffles around for a moment then is silent. He stands before you and puts on his shoes, gathers something into the bag, and lifts you up into a sitting position. You can now see that there is someone else in the room. He has something on a tripod. It's a camcorder. What the hell is going on? This has to be a joke. Dear God it has to be...
Your visitor is behind you, and you hear him speak softly to the cameraman, who nods at him and seems to point to camera more directly at your face. The ringing in your ears almost causes you to miss his words, in English; "In the name of the most compassionate and merciful..." and suddenly there is a tearing pain in the side of your neck, moving across. You feel warmth running down your back, arm, and chest. Instead of your own raspy breath you hear a sick gurgling sound.
Blackness. It was all a shame really. After all, you tried so hard to be a good dhimmi, and they still cut your head off anyway.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 27, 2005 10:41 PM (0yYS2)
5
So Improbulus, you finally joined the zarq brigade?
Posted by: BUSH LIES - SOLDIERS DIE at June 28, 2005 02:06 AM (FV4oJ)
6
Knifus Sharpenus,
In all reality..Dude, you don't need a Dell, you need psychiatric help.
Posted by: BUSH LIES - SOLDIERS DIE at June 28, 2005 03:20 AM (FV4oJ)
7
BUSH LIES LOSERUS... it is about time I heard something rational out of your rotten little mouth. Mr. Improbulus is a sick young man with violent fantasies. For ONCE I agree with you.
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at June 28, 2005 07:20 AM (ScqM8)
8
LMAO! that was a funny read.
Posted by: Carlos at June 28, 2005 08:58 AM (8e/V4)
9
that is what will happen to people like B.L.S.D and DowningStreetMemo first as they seem to think its so funny and just a fantasy....I.M. is trying to let you see what happens to those who ignore the Islamicgoons as nothing but a made up boogey man ...they are real and will gladly cut ALL our throats given the chance and i sure as hell aint giving them the shot...better read what I.M. posted carefully and think about it, that is if you can think
Posted by: THANOS35 at June 28, 2005 11:05 AM (kDAye)
10
Thanks Carlos.
Don't bother Thanos. Pearls before swine, as it were.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 28, 2005 06:13 PM (0yYS2)
BTK Describes Gruesome Murders on Live TV: Outrageous
I was watching TV this morning as I got ready to leave for work. On all three cable news stations they had the same thing. The BTK killer was describing in gruesome detail how he had systematically tortured and murdered his victims.
Am I the only one appalled that Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC chose to air this live and unedited?
I'm obviously not squeamish about this sort of thing, as showing images of our enemies murdering people in Iraq is kind of what made us famous, but there is something sick about seeing this on TV. At least my posts always warn the readers away from graphic images. And I do those posts as anti-terrorist propaganda.
What possible motivation could the news networks have other than a kind of sick voyeurism? Has American culture sunk so low that we now find the graphic details of murders to be acceptable content for the news?
BTK killer confesses to murders is news. The details of those murders, is not.
Ok, no more posts from me today, I promise.
Posted by: Rusty at
11:09 AM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 193 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I'm not sure how I feel about your above statement.
People that I know that have never seen a beheading video on the Internet believe that the beheading is done with a sword, with a swift chop. They have no clue it is often done with a smaller knife, using a sawing action.
Sometimes people need to see the 'underbelly' in order to see the brutality of people's actions. After all the above comparison belittles the suffering of the victim, but it's pretty much how it is potrayed to the populace via the MSM.
Posted by: dave at June 27, 2005 11:15 AM (fsJ2z)
2
It only depends on who has been murdered and who did the murdering. If it's jihadis beheading innocents, that's not news. If it's terrorists slamming jets into buildings and watching people jumping into the abyss to escape the fire, that's not news.
But, hearing the gory details of brutal murders more than a decade ago? Now, that's a made for television movie, nonstop wall to wall coverage, and preemption of regular programming.
What a country! What a media.
Posted by: lawhawk at June 27, 2005 11:51 AM (AcoYr)
3
LawHawk: 'Zactly!
Posted by: Oyster at June 27, 2005 12:01 PM (fl6E1)
4
"BTK killer confesses to murders is news. The details of those murders, is not."
[places hand over mouth, pretends to cough:]
BULL-shit! BULL-shit!
[stops coughing]
Rusty, if you had not received any significant gains in traffic after you first linked the Nick Berg video, would you have continued to post such things? Your warnings notwithstanding, you know perfectly well that high traffic counts with the torture/decapitation stuff is due precisely to some or other level of sick voyeurism (I plead 'occasionally guilty'). Those who don't want to see it don't click your links - those that do . . .
It seems to me you don't have a real strong leg to stand on here.
"Has American culture sunk so low that we now find the graphic details of murders to be acceptable content for the news?"
Aren't you an official Google News Source now?
Still love ya, though, mah brutha. Hope you don't mind my twistin' yer titties.
Posted by: ccwbass at June 27, 2005 01:14 PM (G0Gk2)
5
ccwbass: Haven't you heard? Google prefers uruknet and jihad unspun over Rusty.
Posted by: Oyster at June 27, 2005 02:30 PM (fl6E1)
6
" "It only depends on who has been murdered and who did the murdering. If it's jihadis beheading innocents, that's not news. If it's terrorists slamming jets into buildings and watching people jumping into the abyss to escape the fire, that's not news. "
That is the answer. Very well said.
Posted by: Rod Stanton at June 27, 2005 02:39 PM (Z6yVb)
7
Is BTK a muslim by any chance?
No? Imagine my surprise!
Posted by: greg at June 27, 2005 03:52 PM (/+dAV)
8
I can't really comment Greg, seeing that I must have missed the post that claimed Muslims are the only people in the world doing the murdering.
Posted by: dave at June 27, 2005 04:31 PM (fsJ2z)
9
I didn't see it but I wish I had. I'm sure the channels that showed it thought it over and figured that it was important to let the info air and I don't hold anything against them for that. We all want to know how serial killers think and act and why plus what makes them do the things they do. I watched a special on Dalmer and he was very open about what he did and all he wanted to know was why - why was he that way - why was he not stopped sooner - why he wasn't caught earlier and went into detail of carrying around in his car one of his first victims in sections in a trash bag and how even when the police stopped him, they never even asked what was in the bags. Eventually he buried the parts in his grandmother's yard.
I think the news channels did the right thing and I wish I had seen it; I think it's important to find out what goes on in the brain of a seriel killer and how he felt towards his " projects."
Come on by my site sometime and say HI.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at June 27, 2005 05:53 PM (PEKrh)
10
How many people has CHIMPY killed? 151 in Texas, 1700 other Americans and 9,000 Iraqis. BTK is small fry.
Posted by: BUSH LIES - SOLDIERS DIE at June 27, 2005 06:43 PM (FV4oJ)
11
Greg is the only one who posts here that has a brain !!!!!! Holy shit you people are ignorant!!!!!
Posted by: Queen of Dissent at June 28, 2005 06:57 AM (qApFB)
12
Sorry - BushLies - Soldiers Die has his/her head screwed on too - didn't see that one. Gotta get outta here!!!!! Hey Osama, wait for me man .........
Posted by: Queen of Dissent at June 28, 2005 06:59 AM (qApFB)
13
>>>"Is BTK a muslim by any chance?"
No, he is a white male, and was thought to be a CHRISTIAN, which explains the extensive and detailed coverage his murders get. There's no danger of inflaming the mindless white masses in such cases. Must.... maintain.....ooooorrderrrr!!!!
Posted by: Carlos at June 28, 2005 09:06 AM (8e/V4)
Is that a RINO in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?
The first edition of the RINO Sightings festival is up. Fatwas forthcoming.......
For those that care, I'm around. I've been chained to my computer in the fetal position by my editor and he's threatened to turn the air way up and begin playing Christina Aguilera's Genie in a Bottle at 20 decibels above legal if I don't crank out 5 pages a day. Torture indeed.
Posted by: Rusty at
10:57 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 95 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Cool dude, you're getting it done. Im impressed. I must be a killer to write a book. Kudos to you.
Posted by: Jane at June 28, 2005 08:22 AM (6krEN)
2
Cool dude, you're getting it done. Im impressed. It must be a killer to write a book. Kudos to you.
Posted by: Jane at June 28, 2005 08:22 AM (6krEN)
3
kind of like stuttering when you press the post button twice
Posted by: Jane at June 28, 2005 08:24 AM (6krEN)
Interview With Ed Klein
Rusty dropped me an email this am and asked if see dubya or I could get this up this am. I will past in a few parts of Rustys email as well as the kinks he sent.
From: John Hawkins
This is John Hawkins from Right Wing News & Conservative Grapevine and
I've done an interview with Ed Klein, author of "The Truth About Hillary:
What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She'll Go to Become President".
This is a blockbuster interview that covers: Bill Clinton's affairs,
whether Hillary had an affair, Hillary's role in the Clinton White House, her
"anti-military" views, and Ed Klein's reaction to the less than
enthusiastic conservative support for his book among other things. We also had some controversial "off the record" comments that were put back on the
record. What was said there alone is worth the read.
Here are some short excerpts from the interview to give you an idea of
what it was like:
** Ed Klein On Hillary's threats against the network to get his book
blackballed **
"For instance, because of my book, Hillary and her war machine have
called every major television network in the United States and suggested to
them that if they have Ed Klein on to discuss his book, they can forget
about Hillary being a guest on their network.
As a result, the entire mainstream media – NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN and
MSNBC – have blanked me out. This is my 5th best seller in a row.
I’ve been on all of those networks for all my books up ‘til this
one book. IÂ’ve been a constant guest on the Today show, the Good
Morning America show, you know, the Chris Matthews show, etc. Suddenly
IÂ’m anathema and the reason I am is because the Clintons, Hillary in
particular, have threatened all these mainstream media outlets."
** Tell us what you really think about Hillary, Ed **
"All IÂ’ve done is find a lot of new things and important things to
reinforce what everybody really knows about her, which is that she is a
congenital liar, as Bill Safire has called her –- and an ultra-liberal
and a militant feminist."
** Ed Klein on the conservative reaction to his book **
"...I just assumed that, you know, the conservatives would rally to my
support – and, as you say, I’ve had some problems in that area."
You can read the entire interview at the following address:
Posted by: Howie at
10:35 AM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
Post contains 425 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Just finished Klein's book. Couple things I didn't know. Bill is screwing around even more now, Hillary is a major Lezbo and that her staff is made up of Dykus Majoris but most of it was re-hashing stuff I have known. That Hillary has no soul, is a proven liar, criminal, cheat, backstabber and a hater of men.
Posted by: Filthy Allah at June 27, 2005 11:34 AM (yBHNA)
2
This flies in the face of MSM's celebrating Kitty Kelly and her vilification of the entire Bush family. While I think that such books are simply glorified tabloids, I also think they have every right to publish them as long as they're not libelous. I also hate to see anyone from the Republican Party stoop to such levels as speculation about someone's sexual preference, but I can almost understand the entire book being published as a tit-for-tat tactic.
Hillary also has every right to be outraged, but instead goes even further in using strong arm tactics to silence dialog.
I won't read the book simply because I already have an opinion about Hillary and don't need any reinforcement. I've been watching her for far too long.
Posted by: Oyster at June 27, 2005 11:38 AM (fl6E1)
3
The beauty of it all is that the MSM, still doing business as usual in their role as the propaganda arm of the dhimmicrats, believe that as long as they don't report it, it isn't news. They have apparently never heard of this little thing called "the internet". It's like watching a turtle try to catch a mongoose.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 27, 2005 12:12 PM (0yYS2)
4
That book looks like a load of horse shit, just like KK's book. Filthy, why would you waste your time reading such crap?
Filthy said, "...has no soul, is a proven liar, criminal, cheat, backstabber and a hater of men." Well geesh, welcome to politics as usual! There are nasty books out there about anyone powerful...it's the American way!
IM, which "internets" do you use the most? Hehehe...
Posted by: osamabinchimpin' at June 27, 2005 02:18 PM (CYGDF)
5
Fighting City Hall is hard.
Posted by: Rod Stanton at June 27, 2005 02:43 PM (Z6yVb)
6
Uh, Rod?
That would be the Internets
Internet 1
and
Internet 2
Can ya count that high?
Posted by: West at June 27, 2005 04:18 PM (Xcwmf)
7
Just out of curiosity I listened to Klein get interviewed by Franken, and Joe Conason. If this guy is what we base our beliefs on, we're screwed, he was caught in so many lies and mis-statements in a twenty minute interview, it made me long for the dats when a conservative was willing to tell the truth, like Goldwater used to. Of course there are those that would refer to Goldwater as a RINO in this day and age, tells me just how frigging stupid conservatives have become
Posted by: Aging Veteran at June 27, 2005 11:23 PM (aHbua)
8
The book was good train reading, what can I say.
I gave it to a lib that I ride into the city with. He made me promise to watch Moores trashy film in exchange.
I knew Hillary was evil, I didn't need a book to convince me. Sometimes I, the choir, like to be preached to-
Posted by: Filthy Allah at June 28, 2005 05:43 AM (xdqZV)
9
Filthy reads books with no pictures! Imagine my surprise.
He secretly fantasizes about having a three way with Scott Biao and Hillary.
Posted by: greg at June 28, 2005 09:19 AM (/+dAV)
10
Filthy...even Bill O'Rilley says he won't have that author on his show. Some are also saying that if this book is an attempt to smear her out of running for 2008, it might have the opposite effect if all that crap slinging makes her look like a victim. So far I've heard conservatives and libs alike saying the book is just a personal attack and the sources, etc. don't add up.
Posted by: osamabeenhiding at June 28, 2005 11:20 AM (huFN9)
11
Filthy...read this instead: http://www.nti.org/
Some pretty scary nuke shit.
Posted by: osamabeenvotin' at June 28, 2005 11:23 AM (huFN9)
12
How Dare you foul the name of Baio by using it with the degenerate word Hillary!
No Habbab Kabbab for you! COme back...Ome
YEAR!
Posted by: Filthy Allah at June 28, 2005 02:20 PM (yBHNA)
13
Pissant liberals read all the Venomous Anti bush books, why can't filthy read a little slander without getting the libbie pimps in a lather?
By the way swine dropping, it has 6 pages of pictures. Thank Allah they are not scratch n Sniff. I no wish to smell the hairy parts of a bull dyke.
Posted by: Filthy Allah at June 28, 2005 02:21 PM (yBHNA)
14
OBC wrote:
"Some are also saying that if this book is an attempt to smear her out of running for 2008, it might have the opposite effect if all that crap slinging makes her look like a victim."
Of perhaps that's the intended result. I won't even browse it because it wouldn't have anything new or relevant for me, as I already loathe her as much as is humanly possibly without cloning myself. I doubt if there's anything untrue in the book either.
I know most conservatives are cool toward it, partially because it's a "gotcha" book, and we're really not into that. Most books conservatives buy are generally more positive in tone, as compared to the libs who loves the "gotchas", which in itself speaks volumes (no pun intended) about the different groups.
The effect it will have though is to energize her base out of sheer indignity that someone would dare smear Her Majesty like that. She is probably the most politically savvy woman of the last century, and I wouldn't put it past her to try to garner support by playing the victim. She is a slime mold passing as human.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 28, 2005 06:21 PM (0yYS2)
15
IM, all I know is that I can't think of anyone in the running or rumored to be running for 2008 that impress me. I think you said something about Condi Rice, but I don't trust her either. I also have a hard time believing that Americans would vote for a black woman no matter how good a leader she is, etc. What do you think?
Posted by: osamabeenhiding at June 29, 2005 12:53 PM (huFN9)
16
No surprise about the Hillary camp strongarming the MSM. Don't forget Kerry's camp threatened affiliates who contemplated showing some tv special connected with the Swiftboat Vets (can't remember the name of it now, heatwave is making my brain melt). To paraphrase, "If they show it, they'd better hope we don't win."
I haven't read the book and don't intend to. I'm objecting to the double standard at play...Kitty Kelley's book was hot s**t, the networks couldn't get her on air fast enough.
Posted by: BorgQueen at June 29, 2005 07:37 PM (AxlwF)
See Dubya: FBIanetics
Ever wonder what was in Church of Scientology founder L.Ron Hubbard's FBI file?
So did the folks at The Smoking Gun. So they filed a FOIA request and got to see it.
Their conclusion? Nut. Fraud. Paranoid.
But just like with my John Kerry post below, I'm probably not breaking new ground with most of you.
Posted by: seedubya at
04:02 AM
| Comments (23)
| Add Comment
Post contains 62 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Yessireebob, let's see what kind of FBI files are kept on Race-baiter Chicken Beater/BABBLA, desert-dwelling scum BUSH LIES, Blood-in-the-streets Improbulus, and yes, the KING OF KINGS LOSER BUSH.
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at June 27, 2005 05:58 AM (ScqM8)
2
Your mangy dogs ate bars of soap, followed by boxes of crayons, then blew bubbles out their asses while taking technicolor dumps on your stouffer TV dinner tables.
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at June 27, 2005 06:11 AM (ScqM8)
3
DST, I mean this with all sincerity - get help.
Posted by: Oyster at June 27, 2005 06:28 AM (YudAC)
4
Rather that's DSM.
Posted by: Oyster at June 27, 2005 06:28 AM (YudAC)
5
I think DSM is already seeking help from the Scienctologists.
Posted by: Fersboo at June 27, 2005 06:44 AM (x0fj6)
6
I Like DSM. Keep up the good work, DSM, I am quite sure everyone who reads your work just can't wait to join your political party.
Posted by: West at June 27, 2005 09:58 AM (Xcwmf)
7
Gee, someone who invents their own religion, complete with extraterrestrial enemies and magical power, a nut? Naaahhhhhhh...
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 27, 2005 10:19 AM (0yYS2)
8
I made the mistake of walking into their Washington DC temple and gave them my phone number. They had no brochures and they were very secretive and wouldn't answer my questions cause they basically want you to sign up for "courses" (it costs big bucks). They wouldn't stop calling for for 6 months. So read a book on scientology by an ex-insider and learned that L Ron Hubbard was a complete nutjob. It's a cult.
Posted by: Carlos at June 27, 2005 10:34 AM (8e/V4)
9
Former MI5 Agent Says 9/11 An Inside Job
Attack Was 'Coup de'tat,' Buildings Were Demolished By Controlled Demolitions
“Former MI5 agent David Shayler, who previously blew the whistle on the British government paying Al Qaeda $200,000 to carry out political assassinations, has gone on the record with his conviction that 9/11 was an inside job meant to bring about a permanent state of emergency in America and pave the way for the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and ultimately Iran and Syria.
David Shayler joins a spate of recent credible whistleblowers who share the same sentiments about the real story behind 9/11. Former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds publicly questioned the unexplained collapse of WTC Building 7 earlier this month. In addition, a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Reagan, Paul Craig Roberts, shared his concerns last week when he said the Bush Administration were making the same mistakes as the Nazis when they invaded Russia in the dead of Winter. Roberts seriously doubts the official explanation behind 9/11.”
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/former_mi5_agent_911_was_inside_job.htm
Gosh! Golly! Where do all of these moonbats come from? All of these people are saying 9-11 was an inside job. When will it stop?
Posted by: greg at June 27, 2005 10:43 AM (/+dAV)
10
Greg, isn't this what got you banned the first time? You have a self-destructive streak in you, don't you? You'd make a great suicide bomber.
Posted by: Oyster at June 27, 2005 11:42 AM (fl6E1)
11
Greg,
It wasn't a surprise to read in the article submitted by you, elements of anti-semitism.
In the article the Agent also believes that Israel bombed their embassy, and framed two "innocent" Palestinians.
Replace 'convictions' with 'opinion' it carries even little more credibility, he has no inside knowledge, left the intelligence community long before September 11th, so what makes his opinion significant? NOTHING.
Another moonbat? most definitely.
Posted by: dave at June 27, 2005 11:55 AM (fsJ2z)
12
I was reading about the whole Israel mess yesterday, and was reminded that Britain was absolutely dead set against the creation of Israel and actually sided with Arab terrorists in the beginning, and that many people in Britain, some quite influential, never stopped taking their side. Many British sided with the Nazis throughout WW2, as did many French, and the Nazis allied themselves with the Arabs in order to have access to Arab oil fields. Thus, much of the anti-semitism of the 20th century can be attributed to a need to get close to Arab oil.
It's ironic that everyone keeps accusing the US of conducting war for oil, when it would be much simpler to sacrifice the Jews to the hatred of Arabs and fascists for the sake of peace and oil simultaneously, when in reality America stands on principle and sides with Israel while trying to liberate the Arabs from the religion of hate. Fascism, Islam, anti-Americanism, and anti-Semitism are part and parcel of each other.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 27, 2005 12:22 PM (0yYS2)
13
Scientoliogy Under The Electron Microscope:
_______(Igor, turn up the power!!!)_______
1.....[skepdic.com/dianetic.html].....
Oh, this is "toooo sweeeeet"
2.....[www.skeptictank.org/hs/opthet3.htm].....
"A despotic alien from outerspace named Lord Xenu was the head of a "Galactic Federation" which had a population problem, according to L. Ron Hubbard(www.nots.org/), the Scientology crime syndicate's drug addicted creator (www.cosvm.info/pinks.htm)."
Oh, LOOK, L.Ron is a "war hero, too" just like uncle John:
3......[www.lermanet.com/L_Ron_Hubbard/whataguy.htm].....
well, no, actually in a head-to-head uncle John has the edge.
Nice! Lots of material here.
4.....[www.xenu.net/].....
Does this "Cool Aide" taste funny to you?
5.....[www.whyaretheydead.net/].....
Reader's Digest says: "Scientology: Anatomy of a Frightening Cult"
6.....[www.lermanet.com/scientologynews/ReadersDigest.htm].....
and, see refs to major news commentaries at bottom of that web page!!!!!
Next to last, and also not least, this list form quackwatch.com:
7.....[www.quackwatch.org/search/webglimpse.cgi?ARCHID_1=1&ARCHID_16=16&ARCHID_10=10&ARCHID%3D11=11&query=scientology&whole=checkbox&rankby=AGE&errors=0&age=&maxfiles=50&maxlines=30&maxchars=10000&cache=yes].....
Poor Tommy Cruise, he doesn't know the crowd he's in with,....or does he?
8.....[www.scientology-kills.org/celebrities/cruise.htm].....
"When I began making inquiries into the dealings of the church and Tom's links with it, a flurry of legal threats were made to me personally as well as to a number of associates who have helped me with my research into Tom's association with the Scientologists. At one stage, the church traced my home address and unlisted phone number. There was an overriding impression given by the tone of the letters that I should not continue my inquiries under any circumstances."
Posted by: A Bugger's Life at June 27, 2005 12:50 PM (UkAhT)
14
To: Improbulus Maximus, who says (quite correctly):
"Many British sided with the Nazis throughout WW2, as did many French, and the Nazis allied themselves with the Arabs..."
The Brits' role in attempting to prevent Israel from existing, while truly despicable(there were some very good ones, though), may now be ancient history. But the Arabs? Here's what an honest and very brave Muslim has to say about the Arab Nazi connection:
(www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/index.htm)
From what Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi says, it crystal clear that all the whiners who say Iraq is irrelevant to the war on terror are themselves irrelevant to civilization.
Posted by: yonason at June 27, 2005 01:17 PM (UkAhT)
15
Oyster:'Greg, isn't this what got you banned the first time?'
Yes, but if I call them moonbats, all is fine.
Posted by: greg at June 27, 2005 01:35 PM (/+dAV)
16
The thing those Arabs who got recruited for the Nazi military didn't realize is that as soon as the Nazi's were able to realize victory they would have been next in line for the gas chambers.
Posted by: Oyster at June 27, 2005 02:55 PM (fl6E1)
17
Does that mean the Nazi's were physic?
Posted by: greyrooster at June 27, 2005 06:45 PM (CBNGy)
18
True Oyster, so true.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 27, 2005 10:44 PM (0yYS2)
19
D.S.M. is as funny as B.L.S.D....must both be followers of either Hubbard of good ole Uncle Charlie Manson....both as crazy as hell
Posted by: THANOS35 at June 27, 2005 11:38 PM (kDAye)
20
Thanatophoric,
Hubbard is a cult leader like CHIMPY, while Charles Manson gives you instructions on what to do with the 60% of America that sees through CHIMPY
Posted by: BUSH LIES - SOLDIERS DIE at June 28, 2005 03:47 AM (FV4oJ)
21
Improbulus:'was reminded that Britain was absolutely dead set against the creation of Israel and actually sided with Arab terrorists in the beginning'
Improbulus,
Arab terrorists?. WRONG. Read a history book that isn't written by a Jew. It was the Jews who were the terrorists. Look up the Zionist terrorist, Jabotinsky. They taught the Palis well.
Posted by: greg at June 28, 2005 08:18 AM (/+dAV)
22
poor B.L.S.D., i knew him well...i shant shed a tear for him though....sucker
Posted by: THANOS35 at June 28, 2005 01:07 PM (kDAye)
23
Ah, so it was Jooooooooooooooooooooooooooos who flew the planes into the WTC then? It all becomes clear now.
Don't be silly, I know there were Jewish terrorists, in fact I know far more about history than you do I bet, which is why I can be far more objective about things. The main thing that concerns me is that it is Muslims, not Jews, who are killing and plotting to kill Americans. That's really all I need to know at this juncture, and anything else is just background noise.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 28, 2005 06:24 PM (0yYS2)
See-Dubya: These Rectums Dang Near Killed'im
We cultural conservative types take a lot of heat for being uptight. My buddy Dawn Eden, for example, got smeared (along with religous conservatives in general) by the enlightened progressives at Pandagon as a sex-hater; and this bit of uninformed, deceptive bile from the Nation's Katha Pollitt says we just hate women:
...right-wing Christians increasingly reveal their condescending view of women as moral children who need to be kept in line sexually by fear.
Yes, grown-up people actually believe that stuff.
So we're condescending? The funny thing is how often leftists like Pollitt turn out to be exactly the sort of shrill, uptight moral scolds that they make us out to be. Exhibit A is the recent Larry Summers fiasco at Harvard, where a university president was nearly fired for suggesting a controversial hypothesis about the differences in men and women, and only escaped after a 50 million dollar ransom to the aggrieved constituency. Academic freedom is alive and well there at Cambridge Community College, where academics are free to say exactly what the leftist and feminist pressure groups allow them to say.
Exhibit B just arrives from Australia. Douglas Wood, in a press conference about his ordeal as a captive of Iraqi insurgents until he was freed, referred to his barbaric captors as "assholes". Aussie blogger Tim Blair tells us that didn't sit too well with Andrew Jaspan, editor of a Melbourne paper called the Age, who said:
"I was, I have to say, shocked by Douglas WoodÂ’s use of the a---hole word, if I can put it like that, which I just thought was coarse and very ill-thought through and I think demeans the man and is one of the reasons why people are slightly sceptical of his motives and everything else."The issue really is largely, speaking as I understand it, he was treated well there. He says he was fed every day, and as such to turn around and use that kind of language I think is just insensitive."
Insensitive? Insensitive? You mincing, useless Ayyyy-hole! He was fed well! Well, shut your sensitive mouths about Guantanamo Bay by all means, for those poor lost lambs are fed better than our own troops!
Criticize the coarse language of a rock star, a rapper, or a comedian and you're a philistine and a prude. But call those terrorists (who just kidnapped you and held you for months and forced you at gunpoint into making propaganda films for their murderous nihilistic cause) "assholes"* and you're coarse and insensitive.
There is a time and place for foul language. Primetime TV isn't it, and I'm insulted when Janet Jackson thinks she can just flap her Bedazzler'ed mammary at me when I'm trying to watch a football game, or some cosmically insignificant Cristal-addled rock star decides to drop the ol' f-bomb in an awards show. But Mr. Wood, on the other hand, has earned full leave to call those murdering bastards whatever he wants, whenever he wants. (His fellow kidnap victim, a Swede, has gone even further in expressing his displeasure and offered a $50,000 reward for the death of the kidnappers.)
There's a great scene in Aliens where the Marines are defending themselves deep inside a base overrun by unseen, creeping, face-sucking beasts, and orders come down from above that due to the risk of accidentally setting off the base's reactor, they can't fire their weapons.
"What are we supposed to use?" one Marine pipes up. "Harsh language?"
If the candyass bluenose sensitivity police like Jaspan have their way, then no. Not even that.
*Counting the number of hyphens--or are those dashes, Jeff?-- in Jaspan's quote, it is possible that Wood actually said "arsehole" instead of the more American "asshole". Both terms refer to the type of posterior orifice in which Mr. Jaspan's head is irretrievably impacted in ostrichlike oblivion.
Posted by: seedubya at
03:25 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 651 words, total size 4 kb.
1
BUUSH IS A SIIMIAN BUNGGHOL
Posted by: BUSH LIES - SOLDIERS DIE at June 27, 2005 03:55 AM (FV4oJ)
2
Yeah, we heard you, big fella.
Posted by: See-Dub at June 27, 2005 04:04 AM (GQ7mI)
3
BUSH LIES is a loser and even more a monkey, fool!
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at June 27, 2005 05:59 AM (ScqM8)
4
Another good exposé. The "insensitive" language remark is quite telling of this man's agenda. I can't imagine how he feels about Fabrizio Quattrocchi's "insensitivity". After all, they fed him first too, right?
Posted by: Oyster at June 27, 2005 06:47 AM (YudAC)
5
I can definitely confirm that the term used was "arsehole", as is only fitting for an Australian audience.
Posted by: lemmy at June 27, 2005 07:12 AM (vq3or)
6
I believe Miserable Mandy Pandagon has her own sexual issues, no one can project that much lies and hatred, and also admiringly brag about strap-ons, without being a failure in a significant area of life.
Posted by: Darleen at June 27, 2005 08:49 AM (FgfaV)
7
Cartoon of the day.
http://www.bushwatch.net/mojotoons.htm
Posted by: greg at June 27, 2005 09:38 AM (/+dAV)
8
Guys, and you will know to whom this is addressed, if you don't want to be seen as simpletons then I suggest you add something substantive to the dialogue. Your childish idiocy might fly at kos, but we are adults here, and we expect people to act like adults. You don't have to agree with us, but if you disagree, and you are free to, by the way, please state your case as befits civilized adults. Don't be an arsehole.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 27, 2005 10:25 AM (0yYS2)
9
Well, I have to agree that the use of the "____hole" term was totally inappropriate.
But, since I can't think of a more appropriate term to descripe these antisocial, homicidal, sociopathathic dregs of humanity, I guess it will have to do.
I mean, how "sensitive" would you be to someone who degraded, starved and tortured you, all the while knowing that in the end they would cut off your head for cheering aljezeeeeerah audiances around the globe?
No, "____hole" just doesn't come close to covey my contempt for these walking-dead, but it's a start.
See (www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/index.htm) for more information on these Islamofascist "____hole" scum.
Posted by: yonason at June 27, 2005 01:42 PM (UkAhT)
June 26, 2005
Helping Isabel
Charlotte Observer/The State
For now, Isabel Jurado walks and runs, plays and laughs like most 3-year-old girls.But only for now — because if she doesn't get medical help, her world likely will go silent, speechless and immobile in a matter of years.
A day after her third birthday on May 22, doctors first diagnosed Isabel with a rare, 1-in-70,000 disorder called Sanfilippo syndrome, or MPS III.
She needs a stem-cell transplant to block the advancing disease. Duke Medical Center's pediatric bone marrow division has performed more transplants for MPS children than any other hospital in the country.
The problem is the Duke division is not a network provider for the Jurados' insurance company, and the operation and treatment could cost more than $1 million.
So as Isabel's parents, Jimmy and Leslie, negotiate with their insurer, their friends and relatives — and strangers — are coming to the rescue, unwilling to wait for bureaucratic decisions.
A website (including a blog authored by Isabel's mom) has been set up at HelpIsabel.com. There is donation information here including Paypal (click on the handprint graphic near the bottom of that page.)
There are some events in the Rock Hill, S.C. area for those of you up that way and there may be some other fundraising events later this year elsewhere in S.C.
Originally written by Jeff Quinton
Posted by: Chris Short at
11:01 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 228 words, total size 2 kb.
1
BBUSH spendss bilions on killling IRaqis and we mustnb beg forr heallth care
Posted by: BUSH LIES - SOLDIERS DIE at June 27, 2005 12:41 AM (FV4oJ)
2
Godddanm lIAR CCHIMPY likee blood annd body baags for yyour kidds
Posted by: BUSH LIES - SOLDIERS DIE at June 27, 2005 01:13 AM (FV4oJ)
3
Every time I see one of your posts, I think of Edgar from MIB 1. BLAH!!!!!WHERE DO YOU KEEP YOUR DEAD!!!!
Posted by: REMF at June 27, 2005 02:05 AM (3ejvo)
4
no Dead heree - BBUSSH CH IMPY keeps sendingg them to Arlinngton
Posted by: BUSH LIES - SOLDIERS DIE at June 27, 2005 02:48 AM (FV4oJ)
5
YOU HEARTLESS BASTARD BUSH LIES - where do you get off insulting some poor kid's desperate situation? You should be ashamed of yourself you greedy punk.
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at June 27, 2005 06:01 AM (ScqM8)
6
Oh shut up, DSM. If you think you can score some points by putting "bush lies" down, you've seriously underestimated us. You're both idiots.
Posted by: Oyster at June 27, 2005 07:25 AM (YudAC)
7
It's nice to see everyone here cares so much.
Posted by: Chris Short at June 27, 2005 07:51 AM (0OCQY)
8
What a cute kid, I will be making a donation this week. According to the site, they are in need of $700K. If the word goes out wide enough in the blogosphere, I am sure they will get it.
Posted by: Defense Guy at June 27, 2005 08:44 AM (jPCiN)
Dhimmicracy Rejoices in Iranian Elections
By Demosophist
I was willing to give this guy the benefit of the doubt, but is there anything more damning to be said about an intelligence analyst like Larry Johnson than that he's eager to take "elections" in a totalitarian society at face value just to "prove" the neocons wrong?
Because, you know... if Persians really are longing to be free, as some fairly reliable polls have suggested, then won't he feel silly? And could one's self esteem really abide feeling silly about selling freedom short?
Are "liberals" going nuts, or something? (ed. They aren't really liberal, you know, in the classic sense. Yeah, I know. Slushy reactionaries is more like it.)
(Cross-posted by Demosophist to Demosophia and Anticipatory Retaliation)
Posted by: Demosophist at
09:18 PM
| Comments (21)
| Add Comment
Post contains 130 words, total size 1 kb.
1
IIRAN eleectiions are ffreee of DIEBOLLD and BBUSH
Posted by: BUSH LIES - SOLDIERS DIE at June 26, 2005 09:23 PM (FV4oJ)
2
More cowbell!
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 26, 2005 10:06 PM (0yYS2)
3
Listen up young man, BUSH LIES: you're too felon-like to vote so screw Diebold and your garbage.
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at June 27, 2005 06:03 AM (ScqM8)
4
Do you think the Iranian elections might have had any number of dead people voting or that there could have possibly been voter intimidation or disenfranchisement? NAH! Of course not.
It's hard to imagine that you're "forced" to vote and make a decision between the guy who would have you stoned to death or simply cut your hand off. I know it would be a tough decision for me.
This is the only way these kooks can justify their ideas. To shout, "See?! They WANT to be oppressed! We're just fighting for their right to be treated like animals." Please.
Posted by: Oyster at June 27, 2005 07:05 AM (YudAC)
5
Johnson's writing has seemed almost rabid. He ties everything to Bush.
He was supposed to be an analyst - how did he ever manage to provide neutral information when he was working.
As far as the elections in Iran go - There was a campaign to boycott all voting. It seems to have worked. That's why a 'not as bad as the Mullah's candidate' hard liner won the election. There is also some doubt as to whether the numbers portrayed as voting is correct. Than heavens Carter wasn't there to give the elections his approval.
Posted by: davod at June 27, 2005 08:18 AM (lcNQc)
6
Johnson's writing has a rabid feel to it. Everything is the Neocons and Bush's fault.
Wasn't Johnson an analyst before he retired. How on earth did he manage to provide neutral analyse.
There was a boycott of the elections by the opposition parties. It appears to have worked. No good complaining about the result if you boycotted the election. The election was rigged from the start so I have no problem with the boycott.
There is some doubt as to whether the vote numbers provided by the government are correct.
Posted by: davod at June 27, 2005 08:24 AM (lcNQc)
7
The only thing left at this point is for Jimmah Cahtah to rush over and certify the fraud. That would be the cherry on top for sure.
I wouldn't worry too much about Iran, because the people of Iran have had it with Islamofascism, and will sort things out pretty soon, possibly by the end of the year. I only hope the mullahs get the same treatment they've been dishing out for so long. In spades.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 27, 2005 10:29 AM (0yYS2)
8
Well, your exalted status as a mindless nitwit remains intact. Despite your claim to the contrary I did not "rejoice" in the outcome of the Iranian election. Nor did I insist it was fair or free of fraud. However, with the events in Ohio and Florida we are living in a bit of a glass house when it comes to tossing stones about electoral fraud.
Remember genius, it was Daniel Pipes, Michael Ledeen, and Ken Timmerman who have been insisting the "Iranians love us" and it is just a small, radical clerical faction that hates us. Pipes and Ledeen peddled similar nonsense relative to Iraq. My point is simple, before we invade another country let's make sure we understand the tarpit we're jumping into. I'm not sure we can handle anymore "successes" like Iraq.
And while I'm at it, you must be a yellow elephant. Otherwise, instead of being a tough talking blogger you'd get off your cowardly ass and enlist to go fight in this cause you so desperately believe in. Put your blood where your mouth is boy.
Posted by: Larry Johnson at June 27, 2005 10:58 AM (iRpAk)
9
(flicking light switch on and off)
Fight, fight, fight, fight, fight! Fight for your readers' love!
Posted by: Venom at June 27, 2005 12:08 PM (dbxVM)
10
Again, Larry pipes up with generalizations gleaned from sporadic, unproven issues, carefully omits anything more blatantly obvious that detracts from his argument and completely ignores history. Then he jumps on the ill-fated, illogical "why-aren't-you-enlisted" argument. Larry must be an arse .... er, donkey.
Posted by: Oyster at June 27, 2005 12:21 PM (fl6E1)
11
Why don't you put your blood where your mouth is you yellow donkey dhimmicrat? Don't site there just typing while your Muslim brothers are dying, become a suicide bomber and die like the fanatical fascist you are!
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 27, 2005 12:26 PM (0yYS2)
12
Larry,
Bitch slap um!
Posted by: greg at June 27, 2005 01:38 PM (/+dAV)
13
Greg, you promised to behave. If you have something constructive to add, please do so. I know you're smarter than these morons, so why do you take company with them?
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 27, 2005 02:48 PM (0yYS2)
14
"Nor did I insist it was fair or free of fraud. However, with the events in Ohio and Florida we are living in a bit of a glass house when it comes to tossing stones about electoral fraud."
Why mention it to support your case, if you know it's fraudulent? And what electoral fraud in Florida? There were a lot of accusations by a highly partisan commission, but no one was even indicted. Moreover nearly all of the recounts showed that Bush one "fair and square." The fact that you're still whining about this, and using it to justify overlooking the flaws in an election held in a patently totalitarian state is like a red alert signal to anyone who'd take your analysis straight up.
Remember genius, it was Daniel Pipes, Michael Ledeen, and Ken Timmerman who have been insisting the "Iranians love us" and it is just a small, radical clerical faction that hates us. Pipes and Ledeen peddled similar nonsense relative to Iraq. My point is simple, before we invade another country let's make sure we understand the tarpit we're jumping into. I'm not sure we can handle anymore "successes" like Iraq.
That's something of an hysterical revision. Ledeen, Kristol and most of the neocons said repeatedly that the reconstruction would be for more difficult than the actual invasion, though they did say that some elements of the population would give us support (which they have). Pipes has always been a pessimist about the odds of genuine democracy in Iraq. He feels we should aim for a benevolent autocracy there. And speaking of the wages of being a liberator, I wouldn't be surprised to find that there are more pro-American Iraqis than Frenchmen (just for effect).
Regarding Iran, you'll have to show me a quote where Ledeen and Pipes say most Iranians love us. All of the statements I know about are a good deal more measured than that, unless they're just trying to make a comparative point (i.e. campared to the French the Liberians love us, etc.). Here's something he said recently about the Iranian people that seems pretty levelheaded:
"The Iranian people have been standing for their own liberty for many years, as demonstrated by the terrible record of carnage they have suffered at the hands of the regime. Hundreds of democracy advocates are being tortured in Iran's prisons. Tens of thousands have been killed in the past six years, beginning with the mass murders of protesters in 1989. Public executions are commonplace, and women are routinely executed by stoning."
So, what's your problem with that? Huh?
In a recent poll taken in mid-June, 2005 commissioned by the Iran Institute for Democracy 74% of Iranians said they felt the presence of US forces in the Middle East make a democratic regime change in Iran more likely. That doesn't say they love us. It says we give them hope and ambition. Not quite the same thing, and I'm sure most of that 74% are scared to death right now, and I don't imagine your words bolster them much either.
[Incidentally, someone turned off html for this blog so here's the URL for the above reference:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44729
]
Interestingly a poll taken earlier showed a similar 70% opposed their own country's nuclear ambitions.
Frankly, I think Ledeen has it about right. "Faster, please."
"I'm not sure we can handle anymore "successes" like Iraq.
And while I'm at it, you must be a yellow elephant. Otherwise, instead of being a tough talking blogger you'd get off your cowardly ass and enlist to go fight in this cause you so desperately believe in. Put your blood where your mouth is boy."
What the deuce does this tu quocque argument have to do with anything? And how utterly sophomoric to suggest that someone "put their blood where their mouth is" when no mission has even been defined. As though everyone on this blog wouldn't be doing precisely that if they'd been asked, and funded. The Bush administration certainly ought to be asking more Americans to sacrifice something for this cause, including me and especially you... and I've been pretty consistent about that. In a war effort people give what's asked of them. If nothing is asked one might be forgiven for thinking there's no real threat.
Forgiven, but not excused.
Posted by: Demosophist at June 27, 2005 05:03 PM (FstXq)
15
I find it ironic that people who hide behind others are so quick to harangue others into putting themselves in harm's way. Dhimmis are cowards for the most part, and the few that aren't are certainly rare.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 27, 2005 07:53 PM (0yYS2)
16
Why does everyone assume we will "Invade" Iran, just because Iraq was invaded? there are other military actions that don't involved invading a country.
If there was any action again Iran, one would hope it would be against their military infrastructure, and nuclear facilities.
Posted by: dave at June 28, 2005 02:10 AM (fsJ2z)
17
Dave: http://www.traprockpeace.org/scott_ritter_23june05.html
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at June 28, 2005 08:34 AM (ScqM8)
18
Sorry about the spelling errors in my comment above. I've a bad cold and was a bit distracted, and don't have access to the editing function.
No, I don't think the US is going to invade Iran... mainly because all we need to do is sit tight in the area and be prepared to do so if it comes to that. But Bush has promised support to the pro-democracy movement there, so you can bet we have clandestine organizers who are funneling resources to the right people. At some point they could become a genuine insurgency, and that would be something to see.
The whole point of maintaining a credible use of force is that you only have to actually use it on a few rare occasions. If, however, you're perceived as using force only very reluctantly you have to prove your will on every occasion. Sort of ironic.
Posted by: Demosophist at June 28, 2005 09:12 AM (FstXq)
19
There will be no need to invade Iran, because the people of Iran are in open revolt already. There are frequent riots and demonstrations, and now that the mullahs have installed an ultra-hardliner in office, it will only add fuel to the fire. There are over 50 million people under the age of 30 in Iran, and they've had it with old men in robes telling them what to do. They want to drink Coke™ and wear blue jeans and go on dates to the movies, all without some religious fanatics with clubs attacking them for holding hands in public.
Of course, none of this is reported by the MSM, or even very many blogs, because the MSM doesn't want it to happen, and the bloggers are mostly distracted by other events, but it is happening, and it will take the whole world by surprise when it goes down. I just hope they have enough rope for all the mullahs.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 28, 2005 09:26 AM (0yYS2)
20
DSM:
Scott Ritter, is that who you use to convince me? at best he is inept, at worse a traitor - I was half expecting for his name to show up on Saddams payroll.
Take this gem:
"Ritter said Iran has a nuclear energy program, not a nuclear weapons program as the administration would like Americans to believe."
Iran has refused to stop production of it's heavy water plant, even rejecting offers to convert it to a light water plant, their purchase of centrifuges, development of laser enrichment facilities and their continual attempts at developing long range missles such as the Shahab 4? peaceful? no signs point to peaceful.
Posted by: dave at June 28, 2005 02:15 PM (fsJ2z)
21
"Of course, none of this is reported by the MSM, or even very many blogs, because the MSM doesn't want it to happen, and the bloggers are mostly distracted by other events, but it is happening, and it will take the whole world by surprise when it goes down. I just hope they have enough rope for all the mullahs."
You do have proof of this, right?
Posted by: Venom at June 29, 2005 12:34 PM (dbxVM)
Happy 83rd Birthday Shorty Healy
Well I worked my tail off last week. IÂ’m so mentally exhausted. I had a few ideas saved up for today but have decided to put them on the back burner for a few days until I get some time to rest up. I had intended to replace those with some story about how Grandpa has taught me so much.
A little background on this. I live in the sticks. The kind of place where. If you donÂ’t waive when you meet people on the road they will be upset with you. Grandpa is a WWII vet of the 251st Station Hospital. He served in the Philippines, Marshall Islands, and New Guinea. I had intended to write some kind of story about how hard he worked me and how much his teaching means to me as a gift for his birthday. However events of the day gave me a thought that maybe the following story is just as good.
Today my son and I left to go to GrandpaÂ’s birthday party. We got about two miles up the road and there was a lone woman walking north carrying a stick and a small sack. I had a minute or two where I was not sure if I should turn back or not. I make it a point to try and help people by giving rides when I can because I know just how it feels to be walking and have people in king cab pickups drive right on by and never give you a second look. Not even offer you a place in the bed of the truck. Usually I get turned down but sometimes I end up helping out and have never regretted even one single ride I have given.
So I turned around and sure enough this poor woman had been walking since 6:30 in the morning. She had a lapse in judgement and went with some “friends”. Somewhere along the line she had decided that these people were so bad she had to get away even if she had to walk. Her phone had gone dead on her and she was just about in tears telling me how exhausted and hot she was. She also told me she had been praying to God for quite a ways hoping that someone, anyone would give her a ride. So when I asked she readily accepted.
Turns out she lives quite a distance from where we were and it was quite out of my way. So I took the time and got her well over half way home. I dropped her at HardeeÂ’s and gave her a twenty-dollar bill. I told her to take her time and get some food and rest until she felt able to continue on her journey home. Kristal (IÂ’m really not sure how she spells her name) was very grateful and gave me a big hug and a kiss on the cheek as I left her there and continued on my way. Yes I was still able to make the party in time. IÂ’m sure I will get that $20 and my time back tenfold. I left her my phone number at work and told her if she needs to talk just give me a call. Again with tears streaming she thanked me over and over.
Some times rewards are very slow in coming. I have faith that all these 50 to 60 hour weeks will pay off. I also have faith that for helping this lost woman I will be rewarded. I also have faith that this exercise in blogging, while the rewards may not be apparent to me now, will at least teach me a few things. There may be days when it seems like there is every reason to quit. Just like my job. ItÂ’s tough and there were times when I thought I should just throw in the towel.
It is the same with my support for the war as it stands now. There will be days when it seems we have fouled the whole thing up. There will be days when it may seem that we need to pack it up and go home. But I really believe that in the long run. And it may be quite a long run. The values that we as Americans hold so dear will win out over all the mistakes we make. We are all being tested to see if we still really hold those values. In the long run it will be quite obvious that we were right to hang in there. But the rest of the world is watching us to see if we really mean it. So hang on people, we may not see it now but I have every reason to think it may work out.
IÂ’ll leave you with a few questions.
I wonder how many Christians will pass Kristal on the road today and “tsk tsk” as they speed by on their way to wherever they are going? I hope that at least one other person will help her, Christian or not.
I wonder how many of the 1700+ brave man and women who have given their lives for this conflict were Democrats.
I wonder how many times I will read the words “leftard” and “Bushbrain” this week. Probably many.
I wonder how many times one of our soldiers this week will make a mistake and alienate an Iraqi for life. I hope itÂ’s very few.
I wonder how many times one of our soldiers this week will demonstrate the values I just described above and win a life long friend of the American people. I hope many, many times.
IÂ’ll be pretty scarce most of the week but will try and come up with a little post for WTW so tune in andÂ….
All of you have a good one.
See Dubya thanks for the advice. IÂ’m not sure what IÂ’ll fall into while blogging but your advice is appreciated.
Posted by: Howie at
05:42 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1004 words, total size 5 kb.
1
Rusty you are to generouave a risde to DSM and she was psying on you the whole time like some kind off agent
Posted by: BUSH LIES - SOLDIERS DIE at June 26, 2005 06:28 PM (FV4oJ)
2
If you do someone a favour, forget about it. If someone does you a favour, don't forget it.
Posted by: IM at June 26, 2005 06:54 PM (a9tRx)
3
What a surprising, refreshing and wonderful post. God bless you, Sandcrawler.
Posted by: Cao at June 26, 2005 07:26 PM (RyucI)
4
I mean Howie.
Posted by: Cao at June 26, 2005 07:27 PM (RyucI)
5
aRROoSTER MC GOBLIN would lynich her if she weere not witE
Posted by: BUSH LIES - SOLDIERS DIE at June 26, 2005 07:41 PM (FV4oJ)
6
Klaniooostyer waas dropped onm his heed as a bbarby anddd nowo cathechs hhs heemerooids wiith fissh hoks
Posted by: BUSH LIES - SOLDIERS DIE at June 26, 2005 08:10 PM (FV4oJ)
7
rooSTR IS BABBLER
Posted by: BUSH LIES - SOLDIERS DIE at June 26, 2005 08:19 PM (FV4oJ)
8
BLSD,
You have all the charm and wit of a used cumrag. That is most likely where your dad left the best part of you.
Posted by: dave at June 26, 2005 09:02 PM (fsJ2z)
9
ddave ur a sccumbag
Posted by: BUSH LIES - SOLDIERS DIE at June 26, 2005 09:24 PM (FV4oJ)
10
But I'm still a trwason, right?
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 26, 2005 10:02 PM (0yYS2)
11
yes
Posted by: BUSH LIES - SOLDIERS DIE at June 26, 2005 11:19 PM (FV4oJ)
12
Great post, Howie. And glad the advice was helpful.
I've got to disagree about picking up hitchhikers, though. Too risky. It sounds like that turned out for the best, though.
Posted by: See-Dubya at June 27, 2005 12:23 AM (GQ7mI)
13
Rusty never picked me up, you BUSH LIES twerp. Spies?! PAranoid desert-dwelling loser.
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at June 27, 2005 06:05 AM (ScqM8)
14
I too worry about you picking up people. Have long since given up warning. seems as if it always turns out good for you. good post. enjoy reading site.
Posted by: linda j at June 27, 2005 06:54 AM (yitK9)
15
Bless you for your goodwill, Howie. I've occasionally picked someone up and helped. And I never regret it.
"There will be days when it seems we have fouled the whole thing up." You know, whenever I feel doubt, I just go and read one of Bill Whittle's essays or something from Victor Davis Hanson.
Posted by: Oyster at June 27, 2005 07:14 AM (YudAC)
16
Nice job Howie. I think people are less inclined to pick up hitchhikers these days because of the sensationalized stories we have all heard where the 'person in need' turns out to be a modern day road agent. Which is a shame, that those who would do evil will ruin the chances of those in actual need of getting help.
Posted by: Defense Guy at June 27, 2005 08:58 AM (jPCiN)
17
Good stuff, Howie. Be careful, though--there are a lot of kooks people out there. You don't want to leave your wife husbandless!
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 27, 2005 10:01 AM (x+5JB)
See-Dubya: Yet Another Kerry Cambodia Story Surfaces
One of the strangest episodes of the 2004 election was John Kerry’s insistence that he had gone on a covert mission to Cambodia in 1968 or 1969. At one point he showed a reporter a moldy old “lucky hat”, squirreled away in a secret compartment of his briefcase, which he said was given to him by a CIA agent on the (one of the?) mission(s?). But he kept changing the facts of the story; at one point he just went “near” the Cambodian border, it wasn’t at Christmas, there were three or four trips, etc., etc. Much of the story began to sound like a politically convenient fabrication, and the constant revisions and defensiveness about the details undermined Kerry's credibility for many voters—especially vis-a-vis the accusations of the Swift Vets for Truth.
“No s---, See-Dub, thanks for the enlightenment,” I can hear you lovely readers saying. Fine. We are revisiting this because I just found another version of Kerry’s story. It’s a little late to the game, sure, but I’m all about getting to the bottom of mysteries rather than just about scoring political points.
First, some context for this new stuff. In 1988, dashing young Senator Kerry convened a Senate subcommittee to look at the drug problem, especially as it related to Latin America and the Caribbean. The hearings went on for a long time and thousands of pages of testimony were taken before the final report was issued. Anyway, one of the witnesses was a guy named Franklin Camper, who ran a paramilitary training camp in Alabama and trained, well, mercenaries and foreign terrorists. He testified about goings-on in NoriegaÂ’s Panama. As his testimony wrapped up, Kerry sort of gave a retrospective and then said the following:
And youÂ’ve referred to Vietnam. This Senator is also painfully aware of the trafficking that took place at that period of time, of the Golden Triangle, as it was referred to, and of the use of heroin, poppy, and so forth to buy weapons, transfer information, deal with the Khmer Rouge, among others.And I personally went on one clandestine joint CIA mission into Cambodia in which we delivered weapons. So, I am very familiar with it.
Source: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics and International Operations of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, part IV. 100th Congress. July 14, 1988. p.319.
Much analysis and commentary on this after the jump.
more...
Posted by: seedubya at
02:49 AM
| Comments (43)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1275 words, total size 8 kb.
1
Wild-ass BUSH would have bombed all southeast Asia thinking it was North Korea had his Generals not intervened. Perhaps BUSH LIES would have popped up claiming a stupid desert-dweller "Hamburglar Bin Laden" story too - loser. Kerry is not in the Oval Office, but BUSH is. Check this how BUSH works so hard to get people in AUSTRALIA to hate us!
"AMERICAN students are quitting Queensland universities in the face of hate attacks by Australians angry at US President George W. Bush and the war in Iraq."
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,15734656-421,00.html
Now that's leadership!
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at June 26, 2005 03:07 AM (ScqM8)
2
Hugh Hewitt was talking about this during the campaign. Kerry made the same claim to a U.S. News and World Report journalist in 2000. E.g. see Hewitt's article here:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/476jwkqo.asp
Posted by: Patterico at June 26, 2005 04:22 AM (qm0bN)
3
Kerry is a lot of things, but I'm pretty sure "dashing" was never one of them. ;-)
To me there was always something uneasy or "wrong" about Kerry. He's like that one guy at the office who tells an off-color joke that anyone else could tell and get a big laugh, but coming from him, it's kinda creepy. Know what I mean?
Posted by: Oyster at June 26, 2005 05:53 AM (YudAC)
4
Klanster and Hamster-enemus have defiled this site with their putrid thoughts. One is an unreconstructed some-strike-first racist, the other prays for days when blood pours through the streets like Jerusalem during the Crusades.
You, young men, have lost your right to judge anybody. If Mohammedeans judged Christians by the vile acts of Gacy, BTK and Milosevic, everyone in America would be mad as they are of America's B U S H.
To racists and psychotic bloodthirsty weirdos, you to read the Bible and learn to control your demons. BUSH is not a real Christian.
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at June 26, 2005 06:02 AM (ScqM8)
5
I have been under the impression that a moooslim would be offended if you called them a Mohammedean. Not that I give a shit about their precious feelings, but since you appear to be some strange breed of liberal, I would think that you would more sensitive to that kind of thing. You're off topic and off your meds.
Posted by: REMF at June 26, 2005 07:47 AM (3ejvo)
6
Wait a minute - am I "klanster"? I'm curious. I find it amusing how you apply names like that. Have a hard time managing your disdain do you?
"If Mohammedeans judged Christians by the vile acts of Gacy, BTK and Milosevic,..."
??? DST, you give them far too much credit. They judge all of us, Christian and non-Christian alike, by far less. To them we are simply pork eating sons of apes and if they're feeling especially charitable, they'll let us pay a tax and bow to them rather than saw our heads off.
And putrid thoughts? Controlling demons? Dude! Have a look in the mirror. You're lashing out blindly here.
Pray tell, do you wear a big, red, rubber nose that honks when you squeeze it?
Posted by: Oyster at June 26, 2005 07:52 AM (YudAC)
7
Take it easy on him Oyster, he can't help it, he's "special". Just give him something shiny and he's fine, but nothing that he can swallow or anything with sharp edges.
Posted by: Hamster Enemus at June 26, 2005 10:19 AM (0yYS2)
8
On the tape of a February 1972 conversation with evangelist Billy Graham – made public in February 2002 – Nixon complained that a number of major news publications were "dominated" by Jews, and Graham responded, "The stranglehold has got to be broken, or the country’s going to go down the drain."
Nixon: "You believe that?"
Graham: "Yes, sir."
Nixon: "So do I. I canÂ’t ever say that, but I believe it."
Graham: "No, but if you get elected a second time, then we might be able to do something."
Graham was crucified for making these remarks and all he did was speak the truth.
Posted by: greg at June 26, 2005 10:45 AM (/+dAV)
9
Did you get that at one of the wild ass conspiracy sites you visit greg? I don't believe it, so if you've got the goods, show em por favor.
Posted by: Defense Guy at June 26, 2005 11:16 AM (lVjfM)
10
I'm pathetic.
Posted by: Dr. Krusty Shicklegruber at June 26, 2005 11:56 AM (qMxTg)
11
My question is, if everyone is so critical of Kerry's comments about Vietnam...how come you guys don't say a peep about Bush? At least Kerry WENT! He could have done the Bush route of pussy rich boys and their daddies doing everything they can do to avoid going, but he didn't. I also don't believe Rove's "Swift False Accusation Veterans for Truth" crap either. Who gives a fuck about Kerry! This isn't 2004...stick to Hillary, guys.
Posted by: osamabeenthere at June 26, 2005 11:57 AM (CYGDF)
12
On another topic, let the titties live free!!!--->
Ashcroft gone, Justice statues disrobe
- - - - - - - - - - - -
June 24, 2005  | Washington -- With barely a word about it, workers at the Justice Department Friday removed the blue drapes that have famously covered two scantily clad statues for the past 3 1/2 years.
Spirit of Justice, with her one breast exposed and her arms raised, and the bare-chested male Majesty of Law basked in the late afternoon light of Justice's ceremonial Great Hall.
The drapes, installed in 2002 at a cost of $8,000, allowed then-Attorney General John Ashcroft to speak in the Great Hall without fear of a breast showing up behind him in television or newspaper pictures. They also provoked jokes about and criticism of the deeply religious Ashcroft.
The 12-foot, 6-inch aluminum statues were installed shortly after the building opened in the 1930s.
With a change in leadership at Justice, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales faced the question: Would they stay or would they go?
He regularly deflected the question, saying he had weightier issues before him.
Paul R. Corts, the assistant attorney general for administration, recommended the drapes be removed and Gonzales signed off on it, spokesman Kevin Madden said, while refusing to allow The Associated Press to photograph the statues Friday.
In the past, snagging a photo of the attorney general in front of the statues has been somewhat of a sport for photographers.
When former Attorney General Edwin Meese released a report on pornography in the 1980s, photographers dived to the floor to capture the image of him raising the report in the air, with the partially nude female statue behind him.
The first attorney general to use the blue drapery was Republican Richard Thornburgh, attorney general under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. He had the drapery put up only for a few occasions when he was appearing in the Great Hall, rather than permanently installed as it was under Ashcroft.
Most news conferences now are held in a state-of-the-art conference room, although the Great Hall still hosts speeches and other special events.
Posted by: osamabinchimpin' at June 26, 2005 11:59 AM (CYGDF)
13
All green of skin. 800 centuries ago, their bodily fluids include the birth of half-breeds.For the fudemental truth is self-determination of the cosmos.For dark is the suede that mows like a harvest!
Posted by: Downs syndrome street mo'fo at June 26, 2005 12:49 PM (aLiCo)
14
Yeah, Osama. I agree. A bit prudish.
"Human", in another thread, is busy calling me a racist and we have Greg here reverting back to his old tricks of anti-semitism and conspiracy mongering. I thought he said he would behave. Human, if you happen to show up in this thread, meet Greg. He's a proper target for your name calling.
Who's the "Mars Attacks" fan?
Posted by: Oyster at June 26, 2005 02:17 PM (YudAC)
15
Ack ack ACK ack!
Posted by: Martian Overlord at June 26, 2005 02:42 PM (0yYS2)
16
>>>""AMERICAN students are quitting Queensland universities in the face of hate attacks by Australians angry at US President George W. Bush and the war in Iraq."
Down Syndrome,
that's no different than our universities here in America. So what's new. What's telling about this is that Leftists aren't able to separate their hate of American students from their hate for "Bush." Lefties personalize their politics. You'll see that in all Left-leaning countries, such as in Europe. Whereas in the middle east, Arabs hate "America" but they treat Americans just fine. No, Australia isn't Left-leaning, but their universities are, thus their mistreatment of innocent students.
Posted by: Carlos at June 26, 2005 02:44 PM (8e/V4)
17
Hey, I'm Australian and I go to a major Australian university (Melbourne University, Victoria) and I reset the implication that there's pervasive anti-americanism in the country. First in the general populace there is extremely strong support for the US alliance. We went to war with you guys in Iraq with absolute bipartisan support and much less heated protests than across Europe. Something which hurt the opposition in the Oct 2004 elections was the perception that they weren't going to be close enough to the US diplomatically because they felt we should focus more on Asia. Among the general population there is a broad respect for Americans.
Having said that, we do have a radical left fringe which is most visible on uni campuses. They don't represent all that much of the population but like radical leftys the world over they're vocal. They are far from representative of majority opinion, though.
There also is probably some cultural misunderstanding too. Australian's tend to be fairly blunt and expect others to be as thick skinned as they are. I've never heard the term (I think it must be Qld specific) but "sepo" sounds just like the sort of larrican nickname Australians would give someone to tease them in a relatively good natured way. I'm not saying that there wouldn't be people who could be genuinely nasty, but I'd be astonished if it were a significantly large group.
There's a significant number of american exchange students in my lectures, clubs and tutes and I've become reasonably good friends with 3 or 4 of them. All of them had great, positive experiences here and (to my knowledge) didn't experience any significant "racist" attacks.
Just thought I'd try and clear the air somewhat.
Posted by Jeremy at June 25, 2005 05:29 PM at http://www.michaeltotten.com/
Posted by: Carlos at June 26, 2005 02:48 PM (8e/V4)
18
Bunch of lying weasel liberal anti US pricks. There's not problem with Australia. Pure exaggerated bullshit. Just like Kerry a lair. Nothing more.
Australia rules and will be Americas friend forever.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 26, 2005 04:05 PM (CBNGy)
19
Heard Kerry's lies so much no longer can spell the word. He was/is a traitor. Same as Hanoi Jane.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 26, 2005 04:07 PM (CBNGy)
20
Uncloth those classical statues, but burn the Robert Maplethorpe trash.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 26, 2005 04:08 PM (3ZhKY)
21
I see Osamabeenwhatever is back to misrepresentation with his "at least Kerry went" to Vietnam crap.
Osama doesn't want you to know that the one truthful thing that Mary Mapes discovered was that George Bush had volunteered to go to Vietnam when his Air National Guard sent a squadron of F102's there. He was turned down in favor of pilots with more seniority. Of course, Mapes didn't report this - instead reporting the forged memos.
As for Downing Street Memo above, hey dude I sure we can pass the hat for you to be able to afford your anti-psychotic prescriptions again.
Posted by: SPQR at June 26, 2005 05:52 PM (xauGB)
22
Hate to leave but here comes Scott, Mark and Charlie. Headed for Hooter's for chicken wings and beer. At least we know where the hell we're going. Even if the sheriff has to bring us home. Only in America. God, I love this country.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 26, 2005 06:06 PM (/rKIG)
23
Arooosta KKK hamwort YOu are a treason racistic horriblus .
DSM you old hag i'm not your son so go and cut out mor coupons
Posted by: BUSH LIES - SOLDIERS DIE at June 26, 2005 06:22 PM (FV4oJ)
24
"I see Osamabeenwhatever is back to misrepresentation with his "at least Kerry went" to Vietnam crap."
Oh yeah, I forgot Kerry didn't go...must be a lib conspiracy theory. That holds about as much water as W wanting to have his rich boy ass shot down while flying drunk. I suppose he wanted to go SOOOO bad that he had to have daddy pull all those strings to get him into the National Guard, huh? Give me a fucking break! You know you are full of shit for thinking Bush wanted to go...it was hard as hell to get into the National Guard during those times and in Texas (and other states) it was common for people with $ power and influence to get their sons into the NG so they wouldn't be grunts. We all know when push comes to shove the fucking poor people die for rich people's wars and you disgrace our intelligence with lies of W having as much balls as his dad in the military. W is a like a big butch dyke...all walk and talk but no testicles...just a big fat hairy camel-toe photo op pussy who is trying to be John Wayne.
Misrepresentation, my ass...SPQR, you are the one spouting bullshit.
Posted by: osamabinchimpin' at June 26, 2005 07:29 PM (CYGDF)
25
BUSH is a thuhg isn a three piece suuit ROVWE IS SATTAN
Posted by: BUSH LIES - SOLDIERS DIE at June 26, 2005 07:42 PM (FV4oJ)
26
BUSH LIES, if I didn't know any better I could almost be convinced you're a rightwing plant trying to make Lefties look like clowns.
Posted by: Carlos at June 26, 2005 08:04 PM (8e/V4)
27
Good golly, Miss Bush Lies, spell much? What a 'tard. Is school out or something?
Posted by: laddy at June 26, 2005 08:11 PM (2OGNl)
28
llike geyyklansteer everyione ddrinks and he iss rreally BAABLER
Posted by: BUSH LIES - SOLDIERS DIE at June 26, 2005 08:16 PM (FV4oJ)
29
Don't blow his cover Carlos, but BLSD is Karl Rove in disguise, and DSM is Cheney, and greg is Condi. They're just fannin' the flames to keep the faithful focused on victory.
Great work guys, we won't tell anyone who you are. 
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 26, 2005 10:06 PM (0yYS2)
30
Fascinating!!
I was in the Navy from '66-'70 (by-the-way, is-the-hyphen-game-piecework-or-flat-rate?))
Drug use by servicemen was sadly very high then. You couldn't tell everyone who used it, but there was always someone you could spot. There was the odd ship's-news report of a captain's-mast for marijuana use. New shipmates would bring back startlingly many reports of Heroin use back from Nam. And we even had some DEA agents, "bust" someone on our ship once.
Where did they get the drugs? I doubt they sent them through the FPO. It appears that in the above excerpt, Kerry tells us. It was a local operation where drugs were purchased with guns. Someone with no conscience, and access to a lot of guns, could probably make a lot of money, if he didn't get caught.
Speaking of "no conscience," that is one personality trait that contributes to someone being diagnosed with "narcissistic personality dissorder." Another trait, is "pathological lying," which the sufferer persists in without regard for being caught, and even when it's obvious to others he's pitching the buffalo-chips.
Kerry seems to have both those traits (check out links below for examples of those and more), as you can see from this pathetically comic hunting yarn he spun (Cuz dem common folks jess eats dis stuff up):
The "16-pt buck" out on the Cape:
powerlineblog.com/archives/008080.php
And running the Boston Marathon for which there's no record of him entering (also, he "doesn't remember" his course time, or the year he ran):
michellemalkin.com/archives/000637.htm
And his "taking off"and "performing acrobatics" in an Israeli fighter jet, having NEVER flown a jet before:
www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38343
I understand he may also have a blue oxe named "babe."
To make sense of his Combodia yarn, and all his other "I'm a man of uncommon skill and versitility" BS, here is a little Psychology lesson, and supplemental illustration, from DrSanity which may shed some light on the man and the fantasy world he lives in:
drsanity.blogspot.com/2004/09/lesson-in-narcississtic-rage.html
drsanity.blogspot.com/2004/09/wah-wah-wah.html
Oh, and no, I didn't mean to imply that Kerry could have been involved in drug trafficking. I suppose it's possible, but I don't think it would have been long before his secret got out. He may be good at fooling himself and the rationally-challenged with those wild fantasms of his, but he would have to be much better at keeping secrets than he is. Also, he doesn't seem to know pot from petunias. Just look at how he describes drugs as "heroin, poppy, and so forth." Oh, yeah, he's an expert, all right. Even my teenage son knows more than that! (hmmm, maybe I should look into that?)
So, my point is that the number of his falsehoods, and their assordid details, are secondary to the fact that the leader of the world's only super-power has to be at least teathered to, if not grounded in reality. But someone let go of Mr. K's string so long ago that he's well beyond the solar system by now.
What the Reps have to do is get the information out there in a way that gives voters the tools they need to make the intelligent decisions the Dems don't think they are capable of. That's one area I would like to see them inprove: A LOT!
Here's a satirical Kerrycature of him that I think captures his essence better than any analysis I've seen:
www.strangecosmos.com/content/item/104087.html
I am in awe of this writer's skill.
Posted by: yonason at June 26, 2005 11:35 PM (quuZp)
31
Learn to spell BUSH LIES and stop smoking so much weed or whatever you're doing.
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at June 27, 2005 06:06 AM (ScqM8)
32
Defense Guy seems to think I made up the Billy Graham/Nixon conversation.
Here are the first 4 references returned by google (Graham Nixon semitism). There are hundreds of them:
http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASUS_12/4048_12.asp
http://www.counterpunch.org/vestgraham.html
http://www.cincypost.com/2002/jun/21/billy062102.html
http://www.cpa.org.au/garchve5/1118aei.html
Posted by: greg at June 27, 2005 08:18 AM (/+dAV)
33
I take it back greg. I just found it difficult to believe, as Graham is always portrayed as someone who never had a bad word to say about anyone. What a shame.
Posted by: Defense Guy at June 27, 2005 09:11 AM (jPCiN)
34
There's nothing shameful about it. His comments were spot on.
Posted by: greg at June 27, 2005 09:16 AM (/+dAV)
35
It's VERY shameful, greg. I heard about that conversation years ago and it disgusts me as much now as it did then.
Posted by: Oyster at June 27, 2005 10:23 AM (fl6E1)
36
It's never shameful to speak the truth.
Posted by: greg at June 27, 2005 10:45 AM (/+dAV)
37
Why hate the Jews? The way I see it, all this hatred of Jews is simply petty jealousy. Jews are hated for their ability to succeed where others fail. Why are they so successful? Who cares! Whether it's because they're "God's chosen people" or because they understand the rule of "survival of the fittest", the fact remains that they are wildly successful, and rather than hate them, it would better serve society to emulate them. Whether one grows tomatoes or builds rockets, if the competition is doing something that works, it doesn't make sense to do the opposite, but this is what society keeps attempting, to its detriment.
The Jews have been subjected to more attempts to exteminate them as a viable group for two thousand years now than any other people in history. Far greater effort has been expended to do away with them, with little success I might add, than on any other group, many of whom fell easily to the conqueror's sword. I would say it would serve to take a hint from history; those who seek to destroy the Jews are themselves brought down instead, because hatred is not a positive, constructive basis for a plan of action, but rather negative and destructive. Blind, causeless hatred is a dragon's egg brooded over by a chicken; once hatched and fledged, it will turn and rend its surrogate mother, for it knows no love, even for those who nurtured it.
Save your hate not for those whose only crime is to do well for themselves, but for those who seek to do harm to others, and those we have in great multitudes and wondrous diversity.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 27, 2005 11:10 AM (0yYS2)
38
No one expressed hatred for the Jews. This is just candid talk about the influence that Jews have in our country.
Posted by: greg at June 27, 2005 11:17 AM (/+dAV)
39
"because hatred is not a positive, constructive basis for a plan of action, but rather negative and destructive."
That's why if you keep your cool in a fight and take advantage of someone blowing up, you can exploit their weaknesses and kick the crap out of them. Isn't it funny that most people who pick a fight, lose? Anyway, a bit off subject...you're right on, IM. I have a Jewish friend that told me something pretty funny a while back. I think I made some comment on how there are so many intelligently famous Jews and he told me something someone else told him: "The reason Jewish people are so smart is because the Rabbi's who are the smartest people in their communities are allowed to have tons of kids, thus spreading the intelligence...but with Catholics, it is the inverse....breeding out the intelligence by not letting the smartest people in the community procreate!" We both had a laugh at that one...usually there is a little truth to every joke though and you can see where someone would come up with that kind of a statement!
Posted by: osamabinchimpin' at June 27, 2005 11:26 AM (CYGDF)
40
You can't get out of it so easily Greg, we all know how you feel about the Jews. You have consistantly come off as anti-Jewish, anti-war, and sympathetic to the enemy. You may not see it like that, but we mostly do, I believe.
You also come off as pretty much anti-everything that makes America great, and you even called us "stupid proles" once, giving yourself away as a fan of Marx. You claim to be a Democrat, and for the Little Man™, which means that you should support union labor, right? Well, you admitted to hiring some illegal Mexicans to do some work in your house, and paid them less than the going wage that an American would have expected. Your hypocrisy is astounding, but not surprising.
You must admit to yourself that you hate your mother country, your fellow citizens, and the very system which allows to the liberty to do so. You're not fooling anyone but yourself.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 27, 2005 11:28 AM (0yYS2)
41
I never claimed to be a democrat. I claim to be a Catholic Libertarian.
I love this country more than you do. You often invoke the image of fighting in the streets here in America. I think you're right. You and I will both be fighting, exept will be on the same side. Just like me, you are a marked man, you and your 10,000 rounds.
Posted by: greg at June 27, 2005 11:32 AM (/+dAV)
42
except we'll be
Posted by: greg at June 27, 2005 11:37 AM (/+dAV)
43
I made a nice, long response to that last post, but I guess the internet ate it. Let me summarize it with one word to each line, except for the last one.
"I never claimed to be a democrat. I claim to be a Catholic Libertarian."
Riiiiiigght...
"I love this country more than you do."
Sure.
"You often invoke the image of fighting in the streets here in America. I think you're right."
Yep.
"You and I will both be fighting, exept will be on the same side."
Hopefully.
"Just like me, you are a marked man, you and your 10,000 rounds."
My markings: "CAUTION: EXTREMELY UNSTABLE BIOHAZARD. EXTREMELY REACTIVE-DO NOT AGITATE. EXTREMELY DANGEROUS UNDER PRESSURE. CANNOT BE DILUTED. CANNOT BE MADE SAFE TO ROUGH HANDLING. DO NOT EXPOSE TO UNCONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT. MAY CAUSE SEVER BLEEDING, HEMMORAGING, TISSUE, BONE AND NERVE DAMAGE. HIGH RISK OF DEATH OR DISMEMBERMENT."
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 28, 2005 09:44 AM (0yYS2)
June 25, 2005
Michael Moore's Minutemen Murder Civilians in Iraq (images/video)
No comment. Video can be found here (see June 25th update). Graphic images below.
No, wait, I will comment.
These are the people we are fighting in Iraq. See the face of those the Left calls 'the resistance' or the media call 'insurgents'. When they capture any one, evenn civilians, thought working with the Iraqi government they murder them. If we pull out, they will have won.
WARNING: GRAPHIC IMAGES BELOW. more...
Posted by: Rusty at
06:21 PM
| Comments (43)
| Add Comment
Post contains 233 words, total size 3 kb.
1
"If we pull out, they will have won."
Indeed. Which is almost certainly why those on the far left continually beat the drum for pulling out, while those on the not-quite-so-far left, being more politically adept than the extreme left, merely demand a timetable for our pullout.
In either case, they are militarily naive.
Posted by: Russ at June 25, 2005 07:36 PM (zShs1)
2
after you liberate a country, you have to stick around and help rebuild and bring order back into the civilians daily lives....its like going to a party at youre friends house, you go in and make a huge mess and than cut and run and leave it for youre friends to clean up....not quite the same but you get my drift.....yes, wars make a mess, but after its over, you help rebuild, dont just pull out and leave the citizens to try and get every thing in order...and in Iraq, there are terrorists and quite a few of Saddams buddies still running around who would just take over the goverment after the US and coalition troops are gone and youre right back were you started from....a repressive regime as bad if not worse than when Saddam and his evil sons were in charge....imagine if the Allies had just left Germany after WWII was over...yea, Hitler was dead, but many of his followers were still on the run, they would have probally just put themselves back in power as there wouldnt have been any one there to keep them out...its just plain old common sense
Posted by: THANOS35 at June 25, 2005 07:53 PM (kDAye)
3
"In either case, they are militarily naive."
I disagree; they know exactly what the outcome of an early pullout would be, and that's exactly what they want.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 25, 2005 08:35 PM (0yYS2)
4
It will take years for the rest of iraq to overcome the fear of the former rulers. Too pull out now would just leave the country to them. Also it would be the final straw as we have left the Curds and Shia in the south holding the bag before. If we hope to have any credibility in the future we must not falter.
Posted by: Howie at June 25, 2005 08:49 PM (D3+20)
5
There are a few of us left who don't subscribe to
either withdrawal or a timetable. We just need a little
encouragement from our friends on the right to keep on
fighting the good fight.
Posted by: Char at June 25, 2005 09:49 PM (57zn9)
6
This takes me back to the presidential debates last fall. President Bush was talking about the human sacrifice that the Iraqis were making. To me, Kerry dismissed the idea of this sacrifice as insignificant and almost laughed about it. No one in these two families are laughing Mr. Kerry.
Here are two more ordinary men whose motivation was probably first and foremost to support their families. No doubt they knew the risk they were taking. IÂ’m sure they were encouraged by the fact that by taking these jobs, they were helping bring Iraq back to a normal state where families would be safe to walk the streets.
ItÂ’s too bad their killers will be encouraged to continue these senseless murders by favorable comments from movie studios, celebrities, US news media and even members of Congress and the Senate.
I think Syria needs to be held responsible for the non-Iraqis who are doing most of this barbaric killing. Next time a car bomb goes off in Iraq, a cruse missile should be launched at a military target in Syria. This line in the sand between Iraq and Syria stinks like the Yalu River and the DMZ. Perhaps the Syrians can be coerced into policing the boarder and not being partners in this crime.
Our only options are not limited to leaving in a year or Iraq-ization (made up word). We could try to win this war decisively.
I drove past a “Support the troops, Bring them home rally today in Lake Forest Park (just N of Seattle). All peace now type people, one of whom is a member of my Parish. Do they really want us to just hand over these brave people to this gang of thugs?
What is wrong with Victory and Freedom and Justice for all?
Posted by: Brad at June 25, 2005 10:40 PM (pO1tP)
7
Brad, "handing them over?" America can't even hand over Haifa Street!
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at June 25, 2005 11:02 PM (ScqM8)
8
Your solution Downing Street?
Posted by: Brad at June 25, 2005 11:05 PM (pO1tP)
9
For those of you who don't know, Haifa Street is right outside the BUSH ZONE of Central Bagdad. Then there is pleasant "Route Irish", the gentle thoroughfare between the BUSH ZONE and Saddam International Airport. Yeah, secure Route Irish, where Calipari was gunned down dead! If BUSH wanted to sell you the title to NY's Coop City, would you buy it?
Silly Rooster, pass the ketchup and cook me more food, you wanker!
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at June 25, 2005 11:09 PM (ScqM8)
10
Ya, but..Your solution?
Posted by: Brad at June 25, 2005 11:11 PM (pO1tP)
11
Strange Young Man Brad,
First, pass the food that Rooster is so greedy and possessive over, then we can discuss the issue..
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at June 25, 2005 11:17 PM (ScqM8)
12
Just as I thought, bitchin and complaining is a lazy occupation.
Get off your ass after mass tomorrow morning and mow the lawn. Your parents found that copy of Jihad Boy under your mattress and they are pissed off.
Posted by: Brad at June 25, 2005 11:32 PM (pO1tP)
13
Bradley Dear,
I've lost my appetite with such foulmouthed chicanery from young chickenhawks like you. Rooster can keep his grubby food and feed it to his dog. Respect your elders, dammit! - you wouldn't be saying such garbage if Johnson was in the White House.
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at June 25, 2005 11:49 PM (ScqM8)
14
I have 3 kids to put to bed and have fewer and few elders. I suspect you are not one of them. Say good night to your partner downing street and say a prayer for the troops and people of Iraq.
BTW, I saw LBJ at the Boy Scout Jamboree in Valley Forge PA. My Dad was stationed at an Army hospital in Phoenixville Pa. I was too young to be a Boy Scout. I remember going with my dad who was a Major and an ENT surgeon. His team was asked to come and provide medical assistance to the scouts if needed, I donÂ’t remember seeing LBJ, but I do hear my dad tell me I saw him each Christmas when we see our super 8 movies after dinner.
BTW: Are my brother and sister and I the only Army brats who are saluting the camera in almost every movie scene?
Downing Street, yÂ’all got nothing to add but criticism
Posted by: Brad at June 26, 2005 12:07 AM (pO1tP)
15
Bradley Dearest,
You have ok manners and you stay away from the Klanster.
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at June 26, 2005 12:27 AM (ScqM8)
16
Like so many critics, I still donÂ’t know what the opponents want. Spell it out for us.
I maintain that victory is possible if we stem the flow of foreign “fighters” or as I would call them “ cold blooded murders”.
These men charged with bringing order to this country (Our Soldiers, Marines and Sailors) donÂ’t need to be kicked in he ass while they are doing our bidding.
You canÂ’t possible support the Sunni or foreign killers unless you are a cold blooded killing unit like them. CanÂ’t you get behind a plan that will ensure the 2nd democracy in the Middle East?
Re the Klansman: He is pulling your tail to get a response. I would feel safer as a black man in his hands than a Jew in the hands of some of the Tin Foil posters on this blog.
Not much mention of that, guess the word Klan just rolls off the lips easier.
Posted by: Brad at June 26, 2005 01:02 AM (pO1tP)
17
One plan is to realize there are 25 million people in Iraq. Many of them are very pissed off and they give not a rat's ass who the top dog is, as long as the basics of life are available. That means not getting blown up by car bombs or being shot. Under BUSH's illegal war, all hell has broken loose and shown no sign of letting up. After Fallujah, winning hearts and minds is friggin' gone. Pull American troops out and let them create their own government.
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at June 26, 2005 01:54 AM (ScqM8)
18
Klansman is a psycho who thinks all Islam is coming to get him. His racism is atrocious and his false patriotism is appalling to all who live in America. His dog eats a whole set of 72 crayons and takes a giant technicolor dump on his kitchen floor. His breath stinks worse than fermented pig farmer's sweaty socks after a sewage-grease wrestling match with a rabid 1000-pound sow.
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at June 26, 2005 02:00 AM (ScqM8)
19
The war was not illegal under the terms of
the original cease fire agreement of '91.
Have you heard of any nation taking this up
with the U.N. security coucil? No.
Not that the liberal media would tell you
about it if anyone tried and failed.
Spend some time absorbing alternative sources
of info "Downing Street Memo" before making a
fool out of yourself.
Posted by: Anthony Jagers at June 26, 2005 03:58 AM (EyLEO)
20
Try me Jagers,
How was the war legal under the terms of the 1991 Ceasefire Agreement, smart young man? You must be a legal eagle who says torture is quaint too. I may be an old redneck sick of politicians, but my eyes still work. Show us all the source you claim makes BUSH's invasion legal. Tell it to the 1700 AMERICAN families who lost their child there too.
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at June 26, 2005 04:51 AM (ScqM8)
21
Guys, you're wasting your time arguing with this Downing Street person. He's consumed with bitterness. I guess he thinks if he says the same thing over and over one of us will eventually somnambulate over to the other side, mesmerized by his clever words and superior intelligence. I have to admit I find his William S. Burroughs style vomitings clever, but that's all they are; adjectives he found in his thesuarus used to show his distaste. It eats him up to think that someone else may have come to a different conclusion than he has about the nature of things. You know, like we actually think for ourselves. Boy, we've got nerve, don't we? He sees us as nothing more than recalcitrant children he has been charged with chastising. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
Posted by: Oyster at June 26, 2005 06:38 AM (YudAC)
22
Tuck Bradley and Co
No one invited America into Iraq. They never went in there to free any one but to steal rape and control Iraq and their resources.
The same lame doc excuses you make now was made about Vietnam and has been recycled over and over again by that bunch of NEOCONS leading America to there downfall.
Mark my words "when the time come, America would do what they do best. When the going gets tough, tuck tail and run".
Those two men paid the price for treachery as sad as it looks they where nothing but traitors.
And while your at it would you call carpet BOMBING AND TOTAL DISTRUCTION OF COMMUNITIES AND IRAQ BY THE AMERICANS A BLESSING?
Look Bradley, America chose the route of oppression intimidation and domination, and as long as such mentality persist, there will always be wars and resistance will follow.
Posted by: human at June 26, 2005 07:25 AM (+idcX)
23
I believe that should be lame "duck" and it's their, not there. Use an "s" when you want to denote plurality. Your use of the word "persist" as an intransitive verb must have an "s" on the end. Also, put a period after treachery, followed by one or two spaces, then capitalize the "A" in "an". Oh yeah, use a comma after "looks". You're, not your. Let's just throw in a couple more commas because I like them.
This is my point; why should I take the advice of someone who didn't pay enough attention in school to learn how to spell, but thinks s/he knows everything else?
The use of caps was especially intimidating. Ow.
Posted by: Oyster at June 26, 2005 10:02 AM (YudAC)
24
Oyster said,
"This is my point; why should I take the advice of someone who didn't pay enough attention in school to learn how to spell, but thinks s/he knows everything else?"
BUT BUSH HAS WHAT IT TAKES TO BRAINWASH YOU. OR ARE YOU JUST ANOTHER RASIST REDNECK?
What have you under YoUr BeD??? WhiTe bEd shEEt and a wooden CroSs ever ReaDy tObE ToucHeD?
How many other languages do you speak? It does not occur to you that English may not be my first language. Or do you still think the world begins and ends in the USA????
What ever prejudice and ignorance you embrace, it does not and will not change truth. The USA is on a fast TRACK TO SELF DISTRUCTION.
Just Like the USSR WAS IN Afghanistan. Your want to play the colonial game? You should have done it in the early part of the last century.
Peace to all mankind
oooooops I forgot to do a spellcheck
Posted by: human at June 26, 2005 10:50 AM (+idcX)
25
Hilarious!
Downing Street Memo single handedly pins down an entire neocon squadron with suppressive fire.
Posted by: greg at June 26, 2005 10:51 AM (/+dAV)
26
Downing Street, you talk like this is 2 years ago. Were not discussing whether to go into Iraq or not. Mindlessly repeating “Bush Lied soldiers died” is not an answer to today’s situation in Iraq.
You want to pull our troops out and just leave the Iraqis to themselves? Your short post about removing the troops NOW seems to indicate there would be almost no human consequences. Yours is the strategy for the next Pol Pot.
Shit Greg, this guy has nothing to offer but pulling out and allowing what he feels is a mistake in policy to lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands or millions.
Sometimes it takes sacrifice and courage to be a real humanitarian
Posted by: Brad at June 26, 2005 11:19 AM (pO1tP)
27
"Peace to all mankind"
Nice thought, but what is the plan for attaining this goal? Is it to leave oppression and tyranny in place and just smile that we have freedom? We did that, and the madness in the countries of those that are 'peacefully oppressed' came to visit. Did you forget?
Posted by: Defense Guy at June 26, 2005 11:53 AM (lVjfM)
28
You know what really cracks me up...we are all arguing about something which most of us have not seen. We are basing our facts upon what other people report or write. So since you'll never find unbiased broadcasting or newspapers/magazines, our "reality" about our leaders and the war are fundamentally skewed or flawed. How many of us know Bush? How many of us have been over there fighting in this war to see what's really going down?
I guess there are some numbers which are hard to disprove, like the dead soldier count and dead Iraqi civilian count, which pretty much sinks the whole "liberation" claim. I just find it interesting that we went to war because...9/11: Osama is still not caught. Osama fucking hated Saddam, but now there are all sorts of claims that they were in cahoots together, despite the hijackers being almost all Saudis, no Iraqis. I guess our oil reserve wasn't large enough to attack Saudi Arabia? Maybe if our economy wasn't in a debt bubble we could take a swipe from our credit cards and direct it to where the attackers are from?
Then there's the whole WMD...sorry guys, but they didn't find squat and there are plenty military reports to back that up. The only weapons found were the ones WE sold Saddam so he could butt-fuck Iran. No nukes, no "mushroom clouds"...so now that Bush has failed to find WMD, it's all about "liberating" Iraq and wholesome democracy (anarchy) being spread. What a fucking crock of shit. Yeah, we can't pull out of there. If we did it would be insane...there are no easy solutions to this mess.
I will say this though: our current administration is a bunch of self-serving, dishonest, moralistic hypocrites who deserve prison time for what they have done and how they have lied to us all. The polls are showing that Americans are catching on and can't be duped for 8 years. I read everyone's posts in here and I know you are good, honest, well intentioned people, and I agree with most of you about most things, except Bush. It will be a sad day when those of you who believe in him realize how you've been betrayed from the start.
Posted by: osamabinchimpin' at June 26, 2005 12:27 PM (CYGDF)
29
>>>"Michael Moore's Minutemen Murder Civilians in Iraq"
Michael Moore was loving it when the insurgents were killing GIs, calling them "minutemen" and "the Revolution". But he's been strangely silent about these freedom fighters since they turned their sights on fellow Iraqis. Leftists are so fucking stupid.
Posted by: Carlos at June 26, 2005 01:28 PM (8e/V4)
30
I'm amazed at the all consuming hatred some have for Bush.As a Canadian I think the man is principled and focused - more so than the previous two presidents.
What I find strange in the anti war argument is the absense of chronology about when Islamic terrorism began and the lack of recognition for needed foreign policy change arising from the collapse of Communism, and hence the ability to abandon real politik diplomacy. Now policy can pursue freedom and democracy for the first time in a century or more because the US is the only superpower. But this window may extend only another 5 -10 years until Chindia assumes much greater power. 9 -11 was transforming and prompted the preemptive/preventive response that bothers many. To expect support from other countries which didn't experience a 9- 11 is delusionary especially given the weak economic and moral state of Europe along with its anti- Americanism. Not to mention the UN where anti- democratic members outnumber democracies.
I'll ask the Bush haters for their solution to the terrorism problem - but don't argue that its the fault of the West. Note that most major countries - ex the US- were invaded at some point but the emerged as sovereign nations many with a civil society. The Palestinians are a counterpoint: they have received enough aid to create a prosperous state in my opinion but instead they chose victimhood and corruption - so blame the West? Finally will the Bush haters elect to await the next terror attack or do they have a plan for protection ?
Posted by: doggerel at June 26, 2005 01:31 PM (LZ+JT)
31
Re
owning Street Memo
You ain't no old redneck! You're just trying to benefit from our popularity by claiming to be one. Your young protege Greg is sucking up to you by giving you some unmerited credit.
Because Greg thinks you make sense is a sure indicator that you are barking at the mooooonnnn! HaHa!
But anyway, back to the original claim. You are an imposter of a redneck, or Greg would hate you. You need to read what Greg said about us rednecks in some previous posts.
Well, I guess I might have convinced Greg to love us rednecks, but I doubt it. Most likely he sees you for what you really are.
owning Street Memo
You ain't no old redneck! You're just trying to benefit from our popularity by claiming to be one. Your young protege Greg is sucking up to you by giving you some unmerited credit.
Because Greg thinks you make sense is a sure indicator that you are barking at the mooooonnnn! HaHa!
But anyway, back to the original claim. You are an imposter of a redneck, or Greg would hate you. You need to read what Greg said about us rednecks in some previous posts.
Well, I guess I might have convinced Greg to love us rednecks, but I doubt it. Most likely he sees you for what you really are.Posted by: jesusland joe at June 26, 2005 02:47 PM (DDXXI)
32
I see Brad is years ahead of Downing street memo. I have a feeling who and what downing street is. He wouldn't be worth a shit in a game of chance where realistic thinking rules the table. Probably not worth a shit at anything else either.
Just remember crybaby downing street memo. If I say anything not factural. Let us know. I know the truth hurts but recognition of it is the starting point of accepting realilty. Something you have failed to do.
Who is robbing who. Who are the muggers? Who are the crack dealers? Who are the murderers on Americas streets? What race represents 95% of the murderers and rapists in Angola prison?
Who is bombing innocent civilians in Iraq?
I'll tell you who it isnt. Not the nazis, not the KKK, not the average white man. The constant stupidity of pointing to them at every opportunity is nothing but stupidity. Read the papers. Listen to the news. Study the figures. Quit being an asshole and wake up. Face the truth. There is a 1000 more whites attacked, raped, robbed, murdered by blacks than blacks by the KKK. Stupid bunch of liberal idiots. Address the real problems in our society.
If you don't believe the Muslims wish to take over our civilization in the name of their religion you are a fool.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 26, 2005 04:32 PM (CBNGy)
33
IT never ceases to amaze that people still talk about punishing the Saudi's, these are probably the same pussies that waste a gallon of gas driving to Starbucks in their SUV every morning and cry when they see gas has gone up four cents.
Don't mistake your roll: You're a Saudi lapdog, they'll move the gas prices up, and you'll keep pumping.
Just keep driving your gas-guzzling SUV and keep preaching to us about your hardline against the Saudi's!
Posted by: dave at June 26, 2005 06:04 PM (fsJ2z)
34
Arrrooooosta Racis' ol chap 'ol buddy of none you are scroungy enoug to marrry Downing Hag and you fight with every breath
Posted by: BUSH LIES - SOLDIERS DIE at June 26, 2005 06:25 PM (FV4oJ)
35
rOOSTETR IS BBABLER=
Posted by: BUSH LIES - SOLDIERS DIE at June 26, 2005 08:20 PM (FV4oJ)
36
Screw you little punk BUSH LIES, Klanman Rooster is so grubby he gave his dog the mange.
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at June 27, 2005 06:08 AM (ScqM8)
37
dave
The US imports around 70% of it's oil from Canada. The problem with SA has more to do with our trading partners than with us.
Posted by: Defense Guy at June 27, 2005 09:14 AM (jPCiN)
38
Guys, listen to me, these idiots keep posting here for the sole purpose of disruption. They are trolls, and must be ignored, because they have nothing substantive to add to the discussion. Every time we reply to their idiocy, they have succeeded in the mission, so the best thing to do is let them die of neglect. I will no long reply in any manner to anything they post, nor will I even read it. If we let them continue, they will kill this blog because people will start leaving, and they will move on to the next blog. They are a plague of locusts, and they feed on attention. Let them starve.
Posted by: Imrpobulus Maximus at June 27, 2005 11:18 AM (0yYS2)
39
DG,
According to the American Petroleum Institute, the U.S imports 15% of it's oil imports from Canada, and 14% from Saudi -- which makes Saudi still play a huge role.
http://api-ec.api.org/filelibrary/Imports305.pdf
Posted by: dave at June 27, 2005 12:32 PM (fsJ2z)
40
Dave, I'd sooner punish our corporations (the ones that don't have the USA's best interests) than the Saudis. You know damn well we could have cars and trucks on alternative fuels by now if it wasn't for the oil industry's firm grip on our economy's nut-sack. I also don't have a SUV or truck, so don't peg me on that...though I do agree that if people bitch about high prices maybe they shouldn't be taking the hummer around the block to buy BLSD's "McChimpy Bin Hamburglers". Gayrooster: your racism always amazes me. How about this...if your dumb ass forefathers were so lazy that they couldn't do their own work and had to import slaves, it's lovely karma that you have to deal with the aftereffects. I hope you wrong the right brother and get your ass kicked.
Posted by: osamabinchimpin' at June 27, 2005 03:09 PM (CYGDF)
41
Our fathers, who art in Arabia,
hallowed be thy Oil.
Thy shiekdom come,
thy oil rigs be one, in Iraq
as it is in Syria.
Give us this day our daily gas,
and forgive us our poor MPG's,
as we forgive those whose MPG's are worse.
And lead us not into hydrogen fuel cells,
but deliver us from Anwar drilling.
For thine is the shiekdom, the horsepower,
and the smog,
Forever and ever...
Amen.
Posted by: greg at June 27, 2005 04:07 PM (/+dAV)
42
Osamabinchimpin: Your cowardly ways will not stop the truth. If you feel you must kiss your (BROTHERS) ass same as you kiss the muslims ass for security. Go ahead. They will bomb you, rob you, murder you whether you continue to suck up to them or not. Kissing asses will not protect your car during the next riot. They will burn yours along with the rest.
Some of us are not afraid of getting our asses kicked for telling the truth.
I never owned any slaves. Nor would I. Just keep reminding me of how terrible a person I am because my great, great, great, great grandfather may or may not have owned some. If he did I know who he bought them from and you can bet they weren't white. Slaves were caught and captured by other blacks and by your muslim friends. Once again, a liberal attempt to circumnavigate the truth and blame the white man. Bullshit! pure Bullshit!
It is not so much that I hate anyone. It's that I am sick and tired for being blamed for the problems of other races who are jealous of mine. I'm proud of being a white American. We have done more for the world than the rest combined.
But the chicken hearted would rather hide in the in the corner and kiss ass than tell it like it is.
Not my way, not my nature. You do the suck ass for protection thing for me.
Please note you and other ass kissers haven't one time been able to refuted to statement I have made. If you're not proud of who you are then you are nothing.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 27, 2005 06:35 PM (CBNGy)
43
GayprideweekendRooster:
"Your cowardly ways will not stop the truth."
Say what? You're the fucking coward, old man...racism like yours is a lame attempt to be a real man with principals and good values.
"If you feel you must kiss your (BROTHERS) ass same as you kiss the muslims ass for security. Go ahead."
Oh yeah, hoping your racist ass gets kicked by a brother is kissing ass. Hahaha... Oh yeah, and was any of my post about Muslims? Noooooo... Do I kiss anyone's ass? Nooooo... Do I like terrorists? Noooooo... Nothing like a little distraction when you feel threatened, huh? I doesn't work. You're still a fucking racist pig.
"They will bomb you, rob you, murder you whether you continue to suck up to them or not. Kissing asses will not protect your car during the next riot. They will burn yours along with the rest."
Oh yeah, the bombs are going off now. The streets are in mayhem! Save me! Oh I wish I had been a KKK hick or a neo-nazi punk! They were right! Boohoo! Oh, and all kidding aside, the only person who ever tried to rob me was a white guy, and I broke his fucking nose.
"Some of us are not afraid of getting our asses kicked for telling the truth."
Sounds to me like you're going to get your ass kicked for telling lies.
"I never owned any slaves. Nor would I. Just keep reminding me of how terrible a person I am because my great, great, great, great grandfather may or may not have owned some."
Well, my great grandparents had slaves on a plantation in Virginia and I don't think I'm a terrible person just because I'm related to someone I never met. But if your KKK ass is going to bitch about black people it's like walking out into the street without looking, getting hit by a car and blaming the driver. I suppose your sink has lots of unwashed dishes in it, no?
"If he did I know who he bought them from and you can bet they weren't white."
Oh yeah, I forgot the blacks were very successful business men selling themselves back then. Hahaha...you are so full of it.
"Slaves were caught and captured by other blacks and by your muslim friends. Once again, a liberal attempt to circumnavigate the truth and blame the white man. Bullshit! pure Bullshit!"
Are you accusing me of something I never said? I think so. I'm also not a liberal, you cunt. I know what you just said already and never said the contrary. Almost no race is not guilty of enslaving themselves or other races.
"It is not so much that I hate anyone. It's that I am sick and tired for being blamed for the problems of other races who are jealous of mine."
You shouldn't be blamed unless you are personally responsible for oppression or promoting oppression. You're pretty dumb to think they are all jealous of your white ass and red neck. I suppose you're also dumb enough to think terrorist's only reason for hating us is because they are jealous of "our freedoms". What a crock of shit.
"I'm proud of being a white American. We have done more for the world than the rest combined."
Feeling ethnocentric today, are we?
"But the chicken hearted would rather hide in the in the corner and kiss ass than tell it like it is."
Or the ignorant and racist cowards would like to play tough and use fear and lies to keep the thruth from being known. When you have so many lies, "it's hard work"!
"Not my way, not my nature. You do the suck ass for protection thing for me.
Please note you and other ass kissers haven't one time been able to refuted to statement I have made."
What the hell are you talking about? I respond to all of your shrunken testicle statements. You make no sense old man...take your meds.
"If you're not proud of who you are then you are nothing."
You're worse than nothing if you're proud of the KKK.
Posted by: osamabeenvotin' at June 28, 2005 11:54 AM (huFN9)
Washingtonienne: Who dat?
****EXCLUSIVE****MUST CREDIT JAWA REPORT*******
Who is Jessica Cutler, the Washingtonienne? No one, that's who. Surprised to find that Kevin Aylward is still following the story. Yawn.
If you must know a little about her and her relationship to Ana Marie 'Wonkette' Cox, check out Aylward's post. I'm sure he'll have more sordid details in the next installment.
When the story first broke the South Parkosphere (that's the South Park Republican blogosphere) had quite a fun time with this. I did, at least. There's just something intrinsically funny about a blogger who gets famous from linking to another blogger who's actual claim to fame is that she had anal sex with a Captial Hill staffer.
The real story goes something like this:
Girl writes blog: nobody notices.
Girl links other blogs: nobody notices.
Girl links blog of Capital Hill staffer, complete with sordid details of ass-sex for money: every one notices.
Girl continues writing blog, a lot more butt-sex references: MSM falls over self loving girl's blog, put her up as poster-child of blogosphere.
Nick Denton buys girl's blog: girl now hires interns to write for her.
Capital Hill whore poses for Playboy, gets book deal: a lot of Google hits for South Parkosphere because they all link to pics.
The rest of the story will read something like this:
World forgets whore, blogger still considered legitimate media voice: rumors of VH1 Surreal Life deal for forgotten whore, rumors of New York Times deal for blogger who got famous for linking to whore's story.
Yeah, that about summarizes it.
Posted by: Rusty at
05:30 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 264 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I'd say that about covers it.
Now if you don't mind, I must step away from TJR and read "The Confessions of a Witty, Hot Abercrombie Sex Kitten from New York."
Posted by: j.d. at June 25, 2005 06:39 PM (9/aPS)
2
Butt sex? do you think that, even though she is a she, Barney Frank could close his eyes and pretend?
Posted by: Mr. K at June 25, 2005 06:40 PM (U9RSK)
3
And to think I've never even heard of her until now. Heh.
Posted by: Feisty at June 25, 2005 07:11 PM (QBrm4)
4
Pretty much sums it up although, to be fair, Wonkette was already on the map when she broke this. Indeed, she was on the map from Day 1 because of the Gawker media empire and play-alongs from all the biggies from InstaPundit on down. That's why she was able to get so much attention for the Washingtienne thing.
Posted by: James Joyner at June 26, 2005 07:25 AM (duCq5)
5
But what about our pyramid scheme to sleep my way to the top of the blogosphere Rusty?
How quickly you sell us whore bloggers out and forget...I thought you wanted a piece of the action for 30%?
Posted by: Wittysexkitten at June 26, 2005 10:05 AM (W1YFb)
6
To: James Joyner
Thanks for your comment (giving Wonkette a smidgeon of her due). I was brought to this blog by a link. Don't think I'll be coming back. From what I can tell, Dr. Rusty wouldn't know fair it hit him in the face. It seems to be a attribute missing quite commonly on some blogs.
Posted by: bg at June 26, 2005 12:31 PM (+Xc4A)
7
This news is not worthy of your site, Rusty. Tramps, Republican (e.g., "unfunnyslutalleycat") or Democtrat, are partly responsible for the moral decay of this country.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 26, 2005 03:50 PM (3ZhKY)
8
When I get as crazy and foul mouthed as the liberal hate America set. YBP always brings me back.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 26, 2005 04:41 PM (CBNGy)
9
No! Not the slut word! My virgin eyes. How uncouth of you middleagedbaldingalcoholicfrycook! Don't you know ladies read this blog?
Posted by: Wittysexkitten at June 26, 2005 09:02 PM (kmD2M)
51% of Democrats Believe America Responsible for 9/11
When Reliapundit sent me an e-mail telling me 51% of Democrats thought the U.S. might be partially to blame for 9/11 I thought it had to be a mistake. Nope.
Remember the list of 'wrongdoings' given by Osama bin Laden were things like supporting Israel against nihilistic terrorism, trying to prevent warlords in Somalia from committing genocide, and being too infidelish on holy Saudi Arabian Soil. The irony of ironies, though, is the complaint by UBL and co. that Clinton had been busy bombing poor Iraqi and starving them to death with sanctions.
Maybe al Jazeera and Noam Chomsky have a larger following among Democrats than I thought?
More over at The Astute Blogger.
Blogs for Bush, too.
Posted by: Rusty at
04:51 PM
| Comments (23)
| Add Comment
Post contains 134 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Rusty, why are you surprised. If democrats make up 33% of the populations and 51% of them are liberal conspiracists, then that means 16% of the population is certifiable. Which I think we knew already. That is the hard core left which thinks GITMO is a Nazi camp.
Posted by: AJStrata at June 25, 2005 05:57 PM (67DAA)
2
While we're at it, why not blame ourselves for Pearl Harbor, Leon Klinghoffer, and the '72 Munich Olympics. Throw in Mt. Vesuvius and the tsunami for good measure.
Posted by: the wolf at June 25, 2005 06:54 PM (8xWZI)
3
blame...motivation.... same word right?
typical.
if i walk into a store and steal some candy and the owner sees me and guns me down, it would be fair to say that stealing the candy "motivated" the owner to kill me, however i don't think i would be to blame for getting killed.
it's really elementary logic, which why it doesn't surprise me that you guys can't figure that out.
and to prove your point about how the 'left' doesn't refer to Sudan you link to a progressive blog showing the tragedy of Sudan.
and whatever happens in sudan or iraq or wherever else, of course, by no means excuses the torture at Gitmo. again elementary logic.
Posted by: common sense at June 25, 2005 07:55 PM (oPQ5C)
4
There are times when I have to remind myself of that old saying, "never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
And then I think "never" is an awfully long time.
Posted by: Russ at June 25, 2005 07:56 PM (zShs1)
5
Would these policies that set the attackers off be the 8 years of DNC/Clinton policies? And should Bush return to those policies even though they piss the al Queda types off? And why should those policies matter if Bush & Co supposedly did 9/11?
Posted by: Charles at June 25, 2005 09:18 PM (bVc80)
6
Common sense, who ironically lacks same, said:
"blame...motivation.... same word right?"
No. See dear, words mean things, and different words usually, but not always, mean different things. Motivation is part of the chain, or to put it more properly in 3 dimensional terms since we don't live in a one dimensional world, (well, most of us don't), the web of cause and effect. Event A has effect X, effect X causes person Z to behave in Y manner, for example.
Blame, on the other hand, is a word used to describe culpability, or guilt, which comes after event A, etc.. In other words, moron A gave aid and comfort to terrorist B who was motivated to murder people by twisted idology C. Moron A was motivated to aid terrorist B by his own twisted ideology. In this scenario, both moron A and terrorist B are to blame.
"typical."
Ironic you should use that word.
"if i walk into a store and steal some candy and the owner sees me and guns me down, it would be fair to say that stealing the candy "motivated" the owner to kill me, however i don't think i would be to blame for getting killed."
So your demise, which stemmed from the consequences of your actions, i.e. stealing candy, cannot be blamed on you? Who then, the petty, bourgeois capitalist running-dog shopkeeper?
"it's really elementary logic,"
Yes, elementary as in childish, and logic as in circular.
"which why it doesn't surprise me that you guys can't figure that out."
Yeah, living in the real world tends to impair one's reasoning like that.
"and to prove your point about how the 'left' doesn't refer to Sudan you link to a progressive blog showing the tragedy of Sudan."
Progressive blog? Not.
"and whatever happens in sudan or iraq or wherever else, of course, by no means excuses the torture at Gitmo."
Ah yes, the "torture" at Gitmo. Can't forget to mention that, since its invocation automatically justifies every act from the Crucifixion to Stalin's purges and beyond. Just like the Bush National Guard documents, and now the Downing Street Memo; another urban legend. You have no silver bullet, but it's funny to watch you pretend.
"again elementary logic."
Again, smashingly funny, especially coming from someone who can't even remember to capitalize words that begin sentences. You guys can't argue for shyte. Please grow up, learn the arts of logic and rhetoric, and don't come back until you've mastered capitalization and punctuation. Say, oh, about ten years? I don't mind pointing out how someone is wrong, I just hate to have to edit and proofread their posts.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 25, 2005 10:31 PM (0yYS2)
7
America had nothing to do with provoking the living hell out of the Mideasterners? The towers fell down in NYC in free fall without any of the super strong columns left standing? Come on, fools! Do you need Greg to beat you over the head with a goddamn sledgehammer?
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at June 25, 2005 10:51 PM (ScqM8)
8
CAUTION !!!!! HARD LEFT AHEAD !!!!!
Let me see if I have this RIGHT:
.......Saudis fund Al Qaeda.
Left say Saudis bad
Left say nice to Saudis bad.
Left say Bush nice to Saudis.
Left say Bush bad.
.......Bush fighting Al Qaeda.
Left say fighting make Al Qaeda angry.
Left say angry Al Qaeda hate US.
Left say fight Al Qaeda wrong.
Left say nice to Al Qaeda (=Saudi surrogates) make Al Qaeda happy
Left say happy Al Qaeda love US.
Left say Bush bad to Al Qaeda.
Left say Bush mean, not understand.
Left "understand" nice only solution.
Therefore the problem, by extension, must be that Bush isn't being nice ENOUGH to the Saudis?
So, I guess that means Bush is wrong because he's right, because he's mean because he's nice?
There you have it, folks: the Left has spoken: "Vote for a Democrat, because good is bad, and bad is better, and were the worst which makes us the best."
(Founding Fathers must be rolling over in their graves.)
Posted by: SayWhat?! at June 26, 2005 02:19 AM (vuEOV)
9
Yes, young Say What,
Take it from your Founding Mother - the left has no clue and the right is even worse. BUSH sucks and payback is the rattlesnake in your toilet.
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at June 26, 2005 02:57 AM (ScqM8)
10
AJStrata has it right. About 15% of the population is effectively insane when it comes to evaluating foreign policy. And by insane I don't mean wrong, I mean wildly self-destructive. I've derived that number as an approximation of many previous polls; this one just adds some more support.
(There's a smaller number of right-wing loonies who are just as bad, but they account for less than 1% of the population as far as I can tell.)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at June 26, 2005 07:25 AM (+S1Ft)
11
This percentage will continue to grow and will define Bush's legacy.
Posted by: greg at June 26, 2005 10:55 AM (/+dAV)
12
The evidence of insider (US) activity in connection with 09/01/2001 is overwhelming.
Posted by: bg at June 26, 2005 12:34 PM (+Xc4A)
13
The minute you all realize that Rove is trying to make you hate fellow Americans, a majority of which don't support this war or Bush anymore, you will realize who the real terrorist mastermind is. Oh, and "Say What"...don't be fucking loon. Liberals are not your enemy, and are not a bunch of conspiracy freak George Orwell loving Fascists communist whatevers...both left and right have shit-head fanatics. You real enemy is Saudi Arabia and our dependence on their oil plus all their money invested in our economy. If you want to disprove your theory of double speak up is down bullshit, just call me a liberal because I hate the Saudis and think we should have bombed the fuck out of the royal family instead of Iraqi civilians.
Posted by: osamabinchimpin' at June 26, 2005 12:39 PM (CYGDF)
14
I guess the one redeeming datum here is that even 27% of Republicans smelled something funny back in late September 2001. Just a shame they didn't stick with their gut.
Posted by: Rotwang at June 26, 2005 04:21 PM (2YAvh)
15
Nothing like letting the fucktards out for a walk, eh? But it's time for meds now, nitey-nite kiddies, the adults need to talk.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 26, 2005 04:45 PM (0yYS2)
16
Echoes in the Tower Of Babel...
Maximus, your command of the written english language is adequate, as is your grasp of the meanings of the words 'motivation' & 'blame'. The latter I must assume, because your fledgling attempt at logic falls short of acceptable and fails to clarify the basic differences in these words.
In addition, you comment only on CS's shortcomings, making no connection between these words and their relevant use in the context of the above poll and subsequent comments. This may make your point a tad confusing to others. You are without a doubt, intelligent and and have a good sense of humor, but should leave logic to those (myself not included) who spend their lives pursuing it's finer points.
That said, I think that Common Sense's post is a failed experiment in logic, causation and justification (would I be wrong to throw sarchasm on that pile?). Though certainty escapes me.
As stated:
"if i walk into a store and steal some candy and the owner sees me and guns me down, it would be fair to say that stealing the candy "motivated" the owner to kill me, however i don't think i would be to blame for getting killed."
Let me see if I can make some sense of this mess. In this cock 'n bull fantasy 'I' plays the part of the good ol' USA. The middle east is played by 'a store'. The role of the US' mid-east foreign policy & subsequent actions in that theater is played by 'steal some candy'. 'The owner' is played by terrorists(including but not limited to Al Qaeda). And finally 'me, .... getting killed' is played by the morning of 9/11.
If I understand your example correctly, you (speaking for yourself as well as the democrats that answered the above poll) mean to say:
Terrorists observed US policy in action in the middle east and were 'motivated' to kill Americans. However, Americans are not to blame.
Or another way, Al Qaeda was 'motivated' by our government to fly hi-jacked planes into the WTC, but our government is not to blame.
Whether I am correct in interpreting your meaning or not I fail to see the relevance of this statement to the poll and it's poster's comments in any way.
"blame...motivation.... same word right?"
CS, here I see that you take issue with Dr. Rusty's great leap from 'might ...have motivated' to 'partially to blame for'. Perhaps you'll find comfort in knowing that his words are a watered down version of Reliapundit's Friday post.
Sarchasm doesn't translate well to written word unless very obvious or in sufficient context. In your case, it would seem that Maximus took your statement literally and thought you quite foolish:
"No. See dear, words mean things, and different words usually, but not always, mean different things."
I find it strange that Maxi picked on you and made no mention of Reliapundit or Dr. Rusty. Especially since they were the ones who closed the gap (with their respective statements) in an attempt to make 'motivated' and 'blame' synonomus in the first place.
Better said, they are stretching the meaning intended to be conveyed by the usage of 'motivated' in this context beyond it's accepted borders, then paraphrasing this stretched meaning into new statements of their choosing.
Unfortunately, this happens every day, everywhere.
Let's have a look into it, shall we?
If all usage of all words is (analagous to) the world, then 'motivation' and 'blame' are at the same baseball game, but as fans of different teams.
One can be 'motivated' to 'act' by other actions or circumstances. In any case the 'blame' for the results or consequnces of an 'action' should always be (but often are not) put on the one who 'acted'.
Only sentient beings can 'act', so 'blame' for consequences thereof can never be shifted to 'motivating' entities, persons or circumstances.
Think of a murder trial. The murderer ('actor') is to 'blame'. On occasion there are 'mitigating circumstances' in which case the the murderer is still to 'blame', but some leniency is often granted in punishment. If the murderer is not of sound mind 'blame' is accepted in stead by counsel and alternatives to conventional punsihment are carried out.
The idea being that there is no point in punishing someone who does not understand why they are being punished, or what punishment is, or what crime they committed, or what a crime even is. Even so, the 'blame' still falls on that insane person. In none of the above cases is the blame shifted to the 'motivating' factor(s) or person(s).
Please keep in mind that when placing 'blame' one can NOT consider WHY an 'action' was undertaken, only whether an 'action' and it's result can be attributed the person or persons in question.
The 'why' part is the 'motive'. 'Motives' cause 'agents' to 'act'. 'Actions' of 'agents' have results or consequences. Only the 'agent(s)' of a given 'action' can be 'blamed' for said 'action' and it's result(s).
I hope this clearly shows how debate over the interpretation of this year old Kew poll is moot. An understanding of the proper usage of these two words obviates the meaninglessness of this line of dicussion, as the arguments are extrapolated from misrepresentations of the words and their intended usage in the context of this case.
What I'm sayin is you can't get 'blaming' from 'motivated by', no matter how you stretch it or bend it, no matter what kind of verbal Yoga you think you know. And if you don't have 'blaming', what the @#%**$ are the polarized armies arguing about here anyway?
By all means continue to spout off needlessly as I have just done. It IS fun. But it accomplishes even less than the divisive partisan-politic-'you got cooties'-name-games that plague ALL media with ever increasing frequency. At least the games get folks' blood boiling which makes for some entertaining reading.
So, what did we learn today kiddies?
That words mean what they mean, not what we want them to mean, not what we try and force them to mean and not what we pretend that they mean while hoping that no one will notice and call 'bullshit'.
Hopefully this sheds some light on the uses and abuses of our language in these linguistically dark times. There is much here that begs for further clarification, but this one needs to be pinched off.
I await a second movement, til then fare thee well.
All comments welcome.
Posted by: Pud at June 26, 2005 05:43 PM (NQEyj)
17
rrosterf is bbalerr
Posted by: BUSH LIES - SOLDIERS DIE at June 26, 2005 08:53 PM (FV4oJ)
18
BABBLER
Posted by: BUSH LIES - SOLDIERS DIE at June 26, 2005 09:25 PM (FV4oJ)
19
Holy shit, MOTIVATION is not the same thing as CAUSE you fucking know-nothing twits!!!! claiming the US 'motivated' psychopaths isn't blaming the US at all, can't you rubes understand that?
Posted by: Obviously at June 26, 2005 11:25 PM (Pz/Jk)
20
So your demise, which stemmed from the consequences of your actions, i.e. stealing candy, cannot be blamed on you? Who then, the petty, bourgeois capitalist running-dog shopkeeper?
obviously yes! nice attempt at a red herring.
Posted by: obviously at June 26, 2005 11:28 PM (Pz/Jk)
21
"The irony of ironies, though, is the complaint by UBL and co. that Clinton had been busy bombing poor Iraqi and starving them to death with sanctions."
Looks like you agree with the 51% about what motivated UBL. Wow, you must really hate America.
Posted by: obviously at June 26, 2005 11:30 PM (Pz/Jk)
22
what I find interesting is that 17% of REPUBLICANS "blame america" for 9/11. who'd have thought that were possible!???
Posted by: gee whiz at June 27, 2005 12:09 PM (Pz/Jk)
23
By far the most surprising part of this poll is that 44% of independents believe the U.S. was partially responsible for 9-11.
Posted by: Jeff at June 27, 2005 04:05 PM (vszWU)
Roy Hallums Vigil Images
KG from California Mafia attended a vigil held in honor of American hostage in Iraq Roy Hallums. If you missed the last post then you'll be happy to know that new evidence suggests that Roy Hallums is still alive in Iraq.
You can see more images from the vigil here.
Posted by: Rusty at
04:36 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 58 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Greetings Rusty. Enjoying your vacation??
Posted by: Howie at June 25, 2005 04:48 PM (D3+20)
2
Ha, some vacation. Sitting in front of a computer, trying to draw relevant conclusions on problems that seem trivial in a time of war.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at June 25, 2005 04:54 PM (JQjhA)
3
Well I'm approaching 55 hrs this week and still not quite done. Bummer. Freaking Murphy.
Posted by: Howie at June 25, 2005 04:59 PM (D3+20)
Liberals Decide to Show Their A$$
Last night a handful of us conservative bloggers were spinning trying to confirm or deny an Arianna Huffinton story that said that Vice President Cheney was rushed to a Vail, Colorado hospital for heart problems.
Apparently, that story was poppycock. But, that's not stopping those darn liberals from saying that the White House isn't telling the truth and wishing death on the Vice President.
Despite the only facts in the case that Arianna Huffington could muster are highly speculative and also despite the fact that the VP was on a scheduled visit there these liberals still think the White House is lying.
This is a significant problem in liberalism today; throw out logic and only listen to stories that can be so easily dispelled that you have to attack others to maintain the fraction of an ounce of credibility the story had.
Fact of the matter is I think Arianna Huffington blew it on one of her first attempts to cover or create news. This could be a trend in the future for her (the next memogate starts at The Huffington Post?) and I wouldn't be surprised if she kept to her word despite the obvious fallacies in her story.
One thing is for sure, don't expect an actual apology.
UPDATE 1332 MDT: The Huffmeister has removed the comments from her site. That's really good and bad. It's good because it shows a higher moral ground than what I was expecting. It's bad because those peaceful liberals won't be able to spit their venom there anymore.
Have no fear. I have the entire page saved to my hard drive the last comment that I captured is timestamped at 1355.
UPDATE by Rusty: Yeah, it's kinda late, but Jeff Quinton wanted me to let y'all that he's following this too.
Posted by: Chris Short at
11:10 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 311 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I don't take the HP seriously whatsoever. Since day one they have been thieves, ie, hotlinking to others pictures. They should just call themselves the DU Lite.
Posted by: William Teach at June 25, 2005 12:44 PM (IRsCk)
2
The reason Memogate was a thing is because it was CBS News. If it had been the Rocky Mountain Bugler or something, it would have been a much smaller story.
At this point, Adrianna can print that she thinks the White House was built on an Indian burial ground and that the First Lady is possessed by a malevolent spirit if she wants to. Nobody would care.
Hell, given her readership, I'm not even sure anybody would notice.
Posted by: Jeff Harrell at June 25, 2005 02:06 PM (KZlQC)
3
LOL. I wonder if someone was here at The Jawa Report before commenting at THP. A guy named Mike called her blog "DU Lite." 
Posted by: William Teach at June 25, 2005 03:53 PM (HxpPK)
4
Of course, by deleting comments that show leftards for what they really are, they allow themselved plausible deniability in '06 when every little detail will be dragged under the campaign trail microscope. If they were sincerely objective, like Rusty is, then they would let all comments stand, because isn't deletion censorship?
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 25, 2005 04:10 PM (0yYS2)
5
think these people are the kind who watched every single episode of The X-Files and beleived it all????
Posted by: THANOS35 at June 25, 2005 08:00 PM (kDAye)
6
No bet Thanos, no bet. They LIVE the X-Files, black helicopters and all.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 25, 2005 10:24 PM (0yYS2)
7
These are the type of people a liken to the French Revolution:
Demand justice, equality, democracy, etc, etc...
Then, when you're in power, you start lopping the heads off of everyone who opposes you.
Hypocrites.
Posted by: Zuke at June 26, 2005 03:05 AM (wcj6N)
8
"Then, when you're in power, you start lopping the heads off of everyone who opposes you."
They not only murder those who oppose them, but also those who possess something they want. Most revolutions have a singular economic effect in that they tend to concentrate wealth in the hands of a very few individuals. This feature as much as any other illustrates plainly why the socio-fascist leftards must not be allowed to gain further power. Mark my word, we will be fighting them in the streets within five years at this pace. Buy guns, buy ammo, and be prepared to fight.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 26, 2005 04:49 PM (0yYS2)
9
ppiigfat ppoiuyrtkus fuk u
Posted by: BUSH LIES - SOLDIERS DIE at June 26, 2005 08:54 PM (FV4oJ)
Irish Prison Reform
With worldwide attention being directed toward the prison at Guantanamo Bay, the hardships endured by prisoners in other countries are ignored. Take for example the reforms currently underway in Ireland which are destined to increase prisoner punishment.
From News.com.au:
PRISONERS in Irish jails will no longer be permitted to hire servants or order in private supplies of food and alcohol under new draft rules published today by the justice ministry.Think about it. No pizza, no beer, and no chambermaid -- it's inhumane! It's barbaric! Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, where are you?[ ... ]
The new rules will remove outdated references to penal servitude and imprisonment with hard labour.
On the flip-side, for those on the inside at least, a provision that prisoners can use private furniture and bedding and employ an assistant to perform housekeeping tasks is also going.
They will also no longer be permitted to order in private food or alcoholic drinks.
Regulations governing prison life, such as accommodation, visiting rights, discipline, health and education, have been revamped. In addition, compulsory drug tests will be allowed.
Companion post with prison maid pic at Interested-Participant.
Posted by: Mike Pechar at
07:42 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 190 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Oh this one's rich! Great job finding that one, Mike.
Posted by: Oyster at June 25, 2005 08:56 AM (YudAC)
2
Wow I had no idea although that's not that unusual.
Posted by: Howie at June 25, 2005 10:29 AM (D3+20)
3
a frickin MAID!!???!!!???.....you gotta be kidding me....thats prison???....thats supposed to deter someone from a life of crime????.....fuckin A...think ill go to Ireland and rob someone and i wont have to ever worry about anything again till the day i die....no wonder the majority of criminals commit another crime after they are released from prison....were is the fear of being in prison???....its supposed to be hard labor and uncomfortable and dismall so you wont want to go back there and so you wont want to commit another crime....this is so sad...the criminals have it better in prison than the average citizens do....un-frickin real
Posted by: THANOS35 at June 25, 2005 08:08 PM (kDAye)
4
Thanos35,
You silly pup! In jail, you would refuse condoms.
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at June 25, 2005 11:28 PM (ScqM8)
See Dubya: The Streets of Laredo
I should be in bed but I found this post entitled Nunc Dimittis, through the Anchoress. If you know someone in the clergy, remember what a tough job they have and tell them you appreciate their sacrifices.
Posted by: seedubya at
05:20 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 126 words, total size 1 kb.
1
why do americans pretend to be Irish? isnt it bad enough being americans?
Posted by: graham at June 25, 2005 10:58 AM (air6p)
2
Good poem really.
Posted by: Howie at June 25, 2005 11:52 AM (D3+20)
3
Hey, I thought this was going to be about the Marty Robbins song!
Interesting poem, and a very sad post by the former seminarian.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 25, 2005 03:31 PM (Sw5iY)
4
I'd love to do a post about the Marty Robbins/Eddy Arnold/Johnny Cash/Willie Nelson/Sons of the Pioneers (I think) song someday; I just couldn't help thinking of it when I read the account of the dying heroin addict.
While looking for the name of the songwriter I learned that the original old Irish song was about a mack daddy player--or in Ireland a McDaddy-- who was dying of mercury poisoning from his syphilis treatments. Maynard rewrote it for the American west in about 1876 and that's the version I know, since Marty and Eddy recorded it that way.
Posted by: See-Dubya at June 25, 2005 04:17 PM (GQ7mI)
5
Nothing beats the Pioneer's version of "Cool Water"--even Frankie Laine's (a close second).
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 25, 2005 05:28 PM (Sw5iY)
330kb generated in CPU 0.7621, elapsed 0.9265 seconds.
137 queries taking 0.8385 seconds, 610 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
137 queries taking 0.8385 seconds, 610 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
