March 06, 2006
Michael Hearts Cindy - The Musical
Reality seems to be setting in for erstwhile Peace Movement golden girl Cindy Sheehan. As predicted by many, "Mother Sheehan" is being dropped, even by her former supporters.
Jennifer Hunter at the Chicago Sun-Times had seen enough after the State of the Union: more...
Posted by: Bluto at
10:02 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 460 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Will it be a broadway musical or will it be a movie? i hope it looses millions of $$$$ for them
Posted by: sandpiper at March 06, 2006 03:09 PM (Zy1Y5)
2
Cindy Sheehan was arrested again in a New York protest today.
Posted by: Robert Savage at March 06, 2006 03:58 PM (CnDtU)
3
put your head in the sand and hope she gos
away but she won't go, nor will the
movement toward peace stop. look for news someplace other than foxnews
Posted by: wayne at March 06, 2006 06:44 PM (Mpp8f)
4
She is an absolute clown and buffoon. Keep it up Cindy!
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 06, 2006 06:56 PM (8e/V4)
5
Wayne, when you say "movement toward peace" do you mean like sharting, or what?
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 06, 2006 07:33 PM (RHG+K)
6
Heh. These idiots don't even realize that morons like Our Lady of the Ditch are part and parcel of radical extremist movements, and so they must continually struggle against their own.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 07, 2006 05:20 AM (0yYS2)
7
"put your head in the sand and hope she gos
away but she won't go, nor will the
movement toward peace stop. look for news someplace other than foxnews"
You first. Look someplace other than CommonDreams or DU.
Regarding her leaving? She's comedy fodder, dude, no one wants her gone. She's a frigging laugh riot.
Posted by: JimK at March 07, 2006 12:43 PM (coT/J)
8
If me sheehan insisits of getting arrested all the time then why don they give her a personalized cell
Posted by: sandpiper at March 11, 2006 02:15 PM (qMAo+)
Who is more anti-American: Yale or Harvard?
Yale. Hands down. After all, Monty Burns did go to Yale (class of 1914).
Posted by: Rusty at
08:02 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.
1
And ESPN joined the fun this morning by running a puff piece on an Islamic High School girl's basketball team and all the trials and tribulations they have gone through. Ugh!
Posted by: jesusland joe at March 06, 2006 08:25 AM (rUyw4)
2
It depends upon how many liberals they have teaching or rather brainwashing the kids
Posted by: sandpiper at March 06, 2006 09:36 AM (UwJcR)
3
That whole article was great. I also read the link he gave to the bathroom policies at Yale. UNC is trying desperately to emulate Yale and other elite institutions in that respect. I'd give myself some linky love on my own thoughts about the bathroom crap (forgive the pun) at my own place but, alas, munu hates my blog.
I'll be reading more of Taylor's stuff.
Posted by: Oyster at March 06, 2006 11:00 AM (n/nt4)
4
My question is; why would anyone in their right mind send their child to a place like Yale? Or Harvard for that matter? Both are pathetic.
Posted by: jesusland joe at March 06, 2006 11:31 AM (rUyw4)
5
JJ
How do girls play basketball dressed in burkas????
When was the last time Harvard or Yale had a decent football team ... or basketball????
Posted by: hondo at March 06, 2006 12:31 PM (fyKFC)
6
How about UC Berkeley?
Posted by: sandpiper at March 11, 2006 02:17 PM (qMAo+)
March 04, 2006
Fear And Loathing In The Alternate Universe
Nice thread from the DU.
Sooper Special Short Bus Quote (expletives not deleted, they're not my expletives, I use asterisks. Here, anyway.):
To the conservative fuck wads that are lurking here. First off let me say you are all cowards. Michelle Malkin is a racist bitch. Rush is a coward who did not serve in the military neither did that limp-dicked Sean Hannity. You people are the most pathetic excuses for human beings and you will have your day to answer for the atrocities and lies that you have perpetrated. You are all cowards. The entire planet despises your disgusting ilk and you will pay. I understand that as most of your parents were indeed siblings your inability to be decent human beings who contribute to society rests in your defective genes. Now you may return to your hate and racism. I once had a "Bad Cat" who would not behave. I put him down because he was diseased and I didn't give it a second thought. You inbred sacks of shit, return to your basements or holes or wherever you crawled from.
Improbulus Maximus, target acquired, return fire.
stein hoist Beth, who stein hoisted someone else.
Posted by: Vinnie at
07:07 PM
| Comments (23)
| Add Comment
Post contains 211 words, total size 1 kb.
1
The funniest part of the entire bost is that he calls Michelle Malkin a racist then goes on a hate filled rant that would make a klansman blush.
Posted by: Sirglubb at March 04, 2006 07:19 PM (DBjkO)
2
Besides showing vulgar bumper-sticker creativity in name-calling, what's his point?
Posted by: Mike at March 04, 2006 07:27 PM (vBRTz)
3
I once had a “Bad Cat” who would not behave, I put him down because he was diseased and I didn’t give it a second thought.
report him to peta, include this comment thread, and his e-mail, watch the left feed on their own.
Posted by: wickedpinto at March 04, 2006 07:27 PM (QTv8u)
4
You have to wonder if this person can actually function in the real world. If this person is not under the care of a mental health professional, he certainly should be. But his rant does make me wonder if mental institutions allow inmates to use computers.
Posted by: Don Miguel at March 04, 2006 08:06 PM (UAn5X)
5
I just got through mentioning that particular person on that thread. He/she/it was particularly nasty in every post. It must be miserable to be so ... well, miserable.
Posted by: Oyster at March 04, 2006 08:39 PM (YudAC)
6
Herrrre Kitty Kitty Kitty....I've got something for you.
Posted by: Cookie at March 04, 2006 08:54 PM (Ffvoi)
7
Aren't Liberals so eloquent, this one's proficiency of grammar is most enlightening.
Perhap's he uses 'Hustler' magazine as his dictionary.
Posted by: Ken at March 04, 2006 09:09 PM (nrPPn)
8
Let me guess, someone was just told that he needs to get a job because his allowance has been canceled.
Strange, I don't hate him or others like him. Doesn't mean that I don't think that many of these people are dangerous. Come to think of it, perhaps he's bitter because one of us just:
- Fired him.
- Successfully sued him for keying our car.
- Counciled him on his ethics.
- Treated him for BDS.
- Told him to get off his ass and start working instead of looking for handouts.
- Explained that he's not getting a raise because he does crappy work.
- Told him that she only dates real men.
Take your pick.
Posted by: Fred Fry at March 04, 2006 09:44 PM (HJnrm)
9
I love this leftist liberal, at least you know where you stand and when the Muslims come for him he will fight instead of giving up.
I wonder, did he eat the cat after killing it???
The Texican,
Freedom, the only choice at any cost.
Posted by: The Texican at March 04, 2006 10:25 PM (2hBg0)
10
I'm about as scared of him as I would be a piss ant. These people are oh, so bad, on the internet, but they have nothing. He keeps a cat. Now that inspires fear. What a little dopehead he is.
Posted by: jesusland joe at March 04, 2006 10:31 PM (rUyw4)
11
Texican,
That little bastard wouldn't fight the Muslims or anybody else, either. He's probably about 5'6" tall and weighs 135, and sits in front of a computer in his mommy's basement 24/7 waiting on his unemployment check to come in. He needs his little ass kicked.
Posted by: jesusland joe at March 04, 2006 10:37 PM (rUyw4)
12
There were 119 posts on DU when I followed the link to that site. Jara Sang's posts were by far th most offensiveand not at all typical. I do not thimk, that they are indicative of a widely held beliefs on the "left". Did anyone else read ALL of the 119 pos ? Most congratulated him on his new baby, I think the second most common comments were thanking him for his service.
Posted by: john ryan at March 04, 2006 10:55 PM (TcoRJ)
13
The most striking thing to me about the thread, john ryan (and you're correct, there were some friendly/neutral posts) is that the moderator felt so threatened by The Sad Little Pony's words that he was compelled to lockdown the thread.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 04, 2006 11:09 PM (RHG+K)
14
Well Vinnie, enough profundity has already been expounded upon the topic that I have little to say at the moment, except that I wish one of the little sacks-O-crap would try to make me pay as this waste of flesh promises. It shouldn't be long now, but dammit, it's like waiting for Christmas when you know you're gonna get the Red Rider BB gun. Maybe I'll get drunk later on and have another go at it, since I always write better when I'm buzzed.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 05, 2006 06:24 AM (0yYS2)
15
Ryan, I read every word.
Right, Bluto. And they tombstoned his profile.
What this indicates to me is all these people seem to only have information they get from the NYT or network news. Only two said they knew someone in the service over there. One was married to someone in Iraq and one had a friend. They either read military blogs and dismiss them or they don't read them at all. Or they've been careful not to associate with military family members to get first hand information they won't agree with. They were all too eager to ask questions of someone on the DU board who they seemed to hope might tell them what they want to hear, not what the facts are on the ground.
Did you read Jara Sang's last post? More vitriol. Quite a vocabulary it has.
I just spent an hour read DU stuff in which Sad Little Pony had comments and it appears he's been a pillar of common sense in a sea of loonies for some time now.
Posted by: Oyster at March 05, 2006 06:53 AM (YudAC)
16
read the whole thing too, and was surprised when i came to the end, which was the end since it'd been locked. locked? why?
my favorite bit was how pony couldn't possibly actually know the truth, since he'd only been there and experienced it. and if he did know the truth, he was lying about it anyway, since he wasn't saying a thing they wanted to so obviously hear.
Posted by: catbat at March 05, 2006 09:03 AM (8kJqM)
17
Ya know, I think they may have left their guard down a bit. Could it be they "put him down" because it was a pain in the ass and made up the whole thing about being diseased? Freudian slips can be very telling.
Posted by: RicardoVerde at March 05, 2006 11:40 AM (b+HIl)
18
I don't even waste words on the morons any more, but I would like to waste some bullets on them, though I'd try to get as many twofers and threefers as I could.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 05, 2006 12:24 PM (0yYS2)
19
Why bother?
Posted by: hondo at March 05, 2006 12:46 PM (fyKFC)
20
Why waste time analyzing or even posting what this schizophrenic has to say?
Posted by: Malsivaeb at March 05, 2006 01:01 PM (Y2ILH)
21
Sorry excuse for a human, I do take offense to his term "coward".....unlike him I have faced the barrel numerous times and not ONCE quivered in fear, Served my country on foreign soil, protecting this POS rights. I think that the conclusion that he's very dimunitive and hiding in basements is a accurate one, might I add one more assessment?....his vagina is showing!
White Knight
Posted by: White Knight at March 05, 2006 06:14 PM (XLU8R)
22
WK, an insult from a snivelling piece of shit such as one of the libtards at the DU is like a growl from a scrawny, mangy dog, except to be treated with less regard; they're all wind and crap.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 05, 2006 08:48 PM (0yYS2)
23
But I bet this clown bends over backwards to understand the terrorist point of view though. Simply amazing how upside down their world is.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 05, 2006 11:55 PM (xpnBq)
America's Worst President Jumps the Shark
Actually President Peanut might have done that a few years back, but he hasn't left much doubt about it now.
From The New York Sun:
President Carter personally called Secretary of State Rice to try to convince her to reverse her U.N. ambassador's position on changes to the U.N. Human Rights Commission, the former president recalled yesterday in a talk in which he also criticized President Bush's Christian bona fides and misstated past American policies on Israel.The UN Human Rights Commission has become a joke, whose sole function appears to be passing resolutions condemning Israel for alleged human rights violations. more...Mr. Carter said he made a personal promise to ambassadors from Egypt, Pakistan, and Cuba on the U.N. change issue that was undermined by America's ambassador, John Bolton. "My hope is that when the vote is taken," he told the Council on Foreign Relations, "the other members will outvote the United States."
Posted by: Bluto at
12:06 AM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
Post contains 249 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I CONFESS HERE PUBLICLY THAT I AM AN IDIOT WHO DOESN'T COMPREHEND HOW TO MAKE A TOPICAL POST. PITY ME!
Posted by: Sam Thornton at March 04, 2006 02:47 AM (2C+Np)
2
Ironically enough when this off-topic troll's post is deleted, it'll kvetch about us cutting off it's right to free speech...
Posted by: Cybrludite at March 04, 2006 02:59 AM (XFoEH)
3
Carter is an angry, self-righteous bitter man. Its obvious the hard Left loves him as a former President more than when he was in office. The guy is in love with tyrants. Human rights go to hell. I think I despise him more than Clinton.
Posted by: Javapuke at March 04, 2006 04:46 AM (p2CuJ)
4
It seems that yes, liberals really are as stupid as they appear.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 04, 2006 05:20 AM (0yYS2)
5
Carter has become a megalomaniac. Now he's making "personal" promises. What the ...?
Posted by: Oyster at March 04, 2006 06:36 AM (YudAC)
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at March 04, 2006 07:03 AM (DdRjH)
7
More from this whimpering idiot why dont this peanut just stop trying to prove he is what he,ll never be A REAL MAN
Posted by: sandpiper at March 04, 2006 08:38 AM (oN6hw)
8
I used to respect Carter as a human being, even if I thought he was a terrible president. Now I just think he's a complete moron.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 04, 2006 09:49 AM (8e/V4)
9
Here is a direct quote from President Peanut's Library web page, "The toll of patient diplomacy was great, but President Carter's actions brought freedom for the hostages with America's honor preserved." In fact it was not until Ronald Reagan took office that the hostages were released.
http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/hostages.phtml
Posted by: Angel Elf at March 04, 2006 01:59 PM (eXq5/)
10
I almost cannot put into words the amount of disdain I have for this man.
Posted by: CP at March 04, 2006 03:46 PM (9lWEl)
11
I have words with which to clothe my disgust for President Peanut, but I won't waste them on the likes of him, though I will suffice to say that I take comfort in the fact that he will be dead soon, along with his good buddy Fidel, and upon both occasions, I shall dance.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 04, 2006 03:52 PM (0yYS2)
12
Angel Elf, good find. Did you happen to notice that the page was just updated February 09, 2006? How much does anyone want to bet that the last four words of what Angel quoted was part of either that update or one at least recently?
Posted by: Oyster at March 04, 2006 05:05 PM (YudAC)
13
Oyster! You have an eye for detail! Should be a researcher - or at least a teacher.
Posted by: hondo at March 04, 2006 07:48 PM (fyKFC)
14
I'm normally pretty lazy, but one has to stay on one's toes around this place. ;-) Anyway, you wouldn't want me teaching. I'd rely heavily on the use of duct tape.
Posted by: Oyster at March 04, 2006 08:31 PM (YudAC)
15
It takes a pretty incompetent president to cause a) a lot of his (former) followers to become known as 'Reagan Democrats' and b) nearly lose the bid for renomination to Ted Kennedy in 1980. Many forget that Carter was so unpopular in his own party that Kennedy was seen as the only hope of retaining the presidency. Kennedy was headed to the likely nomination had it not been for a rambling, incoherrent interview on TV (I want to say it was '60 Minutes') like he pretty much always does now. It takes a really unbelieveable amount of ineptitude on one man's part for them to try and abandon a sitting president and head of the party.
Many of today's liberals are probably too young to remember how really, really bad he was. I'll give him credit for doing his part for the Reagan Revolution by losing. To bad he didn't just go away quietly like Ford and Bush 1 did.
Absolutely incredible that his library is trying to take credit for the hostage release. Everyone knows Reagan's people effectively took office right after the election. The last thing Iran wanted to deal with was a newly-elected strongly pro-military president. The only reason the hostages were kept for over a year was because the Iranian government knew Carter would never do anything. More typical liberal revisionism.
Posted by: slug at March 04, 2006 10:15 PM (ijjIa)
16
Oyster that's funnier than you know. I do teach and tape has been fuckin' deployed. Key was, I didn't bring it but I did know how best to dispense it. Clearly a success too.....
Posted by: forest hunter at March 05, 2006 02:29 AM (Fq6zR)
17
lol, forest hunter, I can only imagine! My dad babysat my son for me one afternoon when he was about three. I came home and found him tied to a tree in the front yard and my dad happily whistling away in the garage working on a project.
I think a little duct tape could be in order for Jimmah.
Posted by: Oyster at March 05, 2006 01:38 PM (YudAC)
18
Carter was a jerk in the whitehouse and he still is a jerk butt his time a real stupid jerk
Posted by: sandpiper at March 05, 2006 02:13 PM (stdEd)
March 03, 2006
DU Shouts Down Marine Vet back from Iraq, Calls him Liar
It would be funny, if it wasn't simultaneoudly sad and pathetic. My favorite response to a returning Marine who is telling the DU that they've been fed propaganda?
Because He's Still in the Military He can't talk until he's out, at which point maybe he'll talk about torture, civilian killing, chemical weapons use, looting, corruption, imperialism, bigotry, abuse, intimidation, snipers, urban warfare, propaganda, etc... It ain't going to happen now, he'd be court-martialed. My only question is why'd he join in the 1st place? Was he aware of the illegitamacy of this fake war when he joined? Of course, that can't be answered either.
Posted by: Rusty at
02:47 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
Post contains 126 words, total size 1 kb.
1
This is typical of the Liberal leftist...
As an American and a veteran i am sick of these leftist treasonist bastards...
www.jimgoism.blogspot.com
Posted by: jimgoism at March 03, 2006 03:39 PM (jvG2F)
2
SOP for the left. Screw them. I'm not out to change their minds, and I don't give a damn what they believe. But I do care what my nextdoor neighbor believes and others like that - so that's who I and friends talk to - and this is what really pisses off the left!
Posted by: hondo at March 03, 2006 05:14 PM (fyKFC)
3
The Zogby poll company is run by two Arabs, and is paid by a peacenik company to conduct the poll to show Iraq is lost. The truth as the active duty Marine put it, is not what the MSM wants to hear, or print.
The MSM has treason in their hearts, and minds, and should be shot for it. Right after a fair trial.
Posted by: Leatherneck at March 03, 2006 05:37 PM (D2g/j)
4
Now, now...We all know they don't support the war, but they support the troops!
Posted by: dave at March 03, 2006 07:25 PM (CcXvt)
5
funniest article this month, without a doubt.
The best part is how many people asked about "atrocities" and "burns by WP Chemical weapons" by contractors/soldiers.
Don't you know your "Baby killer" soldiers, are just crazy emotionless killin` machines?
I guess we can put a "tombstone" on this whole "we support the troops" nonsense, right about now.
Posted by: dave at March 03, 2006 07:36 PM (CcXvt)
6
Maxie's right, Liberal traitors should be rounded up and deported to North Korea.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 03, 2006 07:46 PM (8e/V4)
7
Thanks for posting this Rusty.
I e-mailed you the story since what I usually read on DUmmie Funnies is hysterical... This was simply tragic.
More people must read that thread.
Posted by: Son Of The Godfather at March 03, 2006 08:32 PM (t8BiH)
8
We saw the same shit coming from the parents of these functionless targets throughout the VietNam War. We didn't hang'em for treason then and now they've multiplied.
Posted by: forest hunter at March 04, 2006 01:44 AM (Fq6zR)
9
Wow!! That was a fascinating look into the natural habitat of the moonbats. That is one brave Marine!
Posted by: nuthin2seehere at March 04, 2006 02:53 AM (blNMI)
10
Well I advocate shooting, but deporting would suffice.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 04, 2006 05:44 AM (0yYS2)
11
DIRTY ROTTEN LIBERAL LEFTIST SCUM THEY DESERVE TO HAVE A ROTTEN TOMATO HIT THEM IN THEIR FACE
Posted by: sandpiper at March 04, 2006 08:43 AM (oN6hw)
12
I certainly don't think people (of any political persuasion) should be quick to flaunt their prejudices... and I think any time someone who has actually been there can offer an unvarnished picture we should pay attention.
Having said that, credibility is important.
I don't know if the Marine's credibility, judgment, or information is out of whack, but early on he was asked about the readiness of Iraqi battalions.
He said
I'd say that about half of the Iraqi Battalions are ready to operate independently.
That flat out contradicts formal testimony of senior military commanders. Here's what AP reported last week:
In a briefing for reporters at the Pentagon, Lt. Gen. Gene Renuart disclosed that the number of battalions at Level 1 had dropped from one to zero, while the number at Level 2 had grown from 36 last September to 53 now. The number at Level 3 fell from 52 to 45, in part because some were upgraded to Level 2.
Level 1 is defined as fully independent.
Level 2 is defined as battalions capable of taking the lead in combat against the insurgents, with some U.S. help.
Level 3 is defined as battalions fighting alongside U.S. forces but not ready to take the lead in planning and execution of missions.
If the Marine were more precise, then I would have more confidence in his reporting.
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 04, 2006 04:41 PM (ordBV)
13
That Jara Sang person on DU is particularly vile. Lord, I hope it's not a teacher.
------------------------
background, he probably answered that question out of turn and offered an opinion he shouldn't have or he simply over-generalized. Frankly, I'm pretty sure he couldn't care less about your confidence (or that of his vile detractors at DU) in his reporting any more than I do. Since you seem to have a problem with it, why don't you hop on over there and ask him how he can offer such an opinion? Or did you glaze over the part where he then admitted his "view over there was pretty mypoic[sic]" having only been in Fallujah and elsewhere in Anbar? All his replies sounded like simple honest answers from a guy just returned. He didn't flavor it with politics and was called names and accused of outright lying. I think he stayed pretty cool in spite of it. He didn't even gently chide a single person as I'm sure he could have. And you are a little too quick to dismiss him. At the risk of getting a little snarky myself, you're beginning to live up to your name.
(Rusty: What the hell is a fruitcake error? I'll keep trying to submit until my comment appears.)
Posted by: Oyster at March 04, 2006 08:14 PM (YudAC)
14
Sweetheart....
you will excuse me if I find it ironic that a woman with the handle "oyster" chooses to mock my nick (a sardonic reference to a Rose Garden statement).
But to your point about the commentary attributed to a recently returned Marine... I *did* see his comment about the myopic view. That sounded credible. In fact, that is exactly what I would have expected from a grunt on the ground. I don't know enough about the guy to say whether he is legit or a plant, reading from a script, opining about matters he has no knowledge of, or simply regurgitating what he read in Stars and Stripes. That is why I limited my comment to what I did. I also spelled out the different definitions for levels of preparedness because it makes sense that he may have heard the 50% number and either confused Level 1 and 2, or simply not appreciated there were levels. Again, completely reasonable and in no way qualifying him as a liar, shill, or plant. In other words, I'm not questioning his integrity, just whether he is a reliable reporter for anything beyond what he actually personally witnessed.
As near as I figure, the site you guys are talking about is a parody of some other blogosphere... and I confess I have no idea where DU is... which surprised me because I know an awful lot of places.
The problem I had following the red letter text was they clearly munged up the attributions and got carried away with extra commentary so you lose the thread of the narrative.
I would have liked to see the interaction about the 85% comment... as you know Jason over at Gen Why had an awful lot to say about the Zogby poll. Unfortunately, when I asked him about the surprising finding that *more* of the troops polled believe Saddam was involved in 9/11 than even the folks from the WaPo poll a couple years back the best he could do was cite a Hewitt interview with Zogby.
I find that polling result intriguing because, as you probably recall when President Bush and Prime Minister Blair were asked if they believed that Saddam was involved in 9/11 they stood shoulder to shoulder in the same room at the same time in the same press conference and gave the same answer ... which was "No."
That Zogby poll result is concerning to me because, if true, it means one of the following:
Either
1) The majority of troops STILL believe Iraq was involved in 9/11
or
2) The majority of troops believe that retaliating against Iraq was a rational response to 9/11
or
3) Both
Let me put some real numbers to this to demonstrate why that is a problem. About 2,986 people were killed by terrorists on 9/11. So far, about 2,310 Americans have been killed in Iraq since we invaded in March 2003. At the present mortality rate, we will pass the 2,986 number shortly before Christmas (somewhere between 12/14 and 12/21). That means that our Christmas gift to ourself this year is going to be the loss of MORE men and women in Iraq than we lost on 9/11. As you know, people don't die just for one or two news cycles. That's a gift that will keep on giving.
No one who is sane questions the importance of protecting the US from international terrorists. What people like me have been saying since BEFORE we invaded is that pouring valuable resources into Iraq will NOT do that.
If people are making that sacrifice under the mistaken notion that there is some relationship between the two, we have a serious problem. It means we are going to keep making that mistake for a looooong time.
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 04, 2006 10:06 PM (gw6yg)
15
I apologize for the snarky remark. What I find difficult about you is that you use select facts more to halt discourse than promote it. Supplying facts is very important in a discussion, but it isn't the whereall and endall. If one sees their argument as just a collection of selected facts and data, they have to also assume that any other direction or course taken previously would have produced better or more favorable results and we just don't have that luxury.
At the rate Saddam was killing people, and if that trend had continued, the 2986 x 2 number you use may easily have been a drop in a bucket. The civilian count in Iraq, as well, doesn't come close nor can it even be compared to the genocidal manner in which they were killed by Saddam's regime.
Some argue whether Saddam was adverse to fighting a proxy war or whether he would have gleefully supplied support to those who could have claimed a much larger civilian count even within our own borders. Again, we don't know that, but there was every indication that it was well within the realm of possibility.
In the beginning there was a level of confusion as to exactly why certain countries with UN veto power were so opposed to the war. We found out why later. Saddam was using under-the-table Oil For Food contracts to buy support for lifting sanctions, not just to build new palaces. And there was an undeniable trend that showed this was the direction things were going. Just what might have happened once these sanctions were lifted? That's the $64,000 question. I'm not accusing individual governments, but their representatives in the UN were the problem.
As far as the Zogby poll goes; you'll never hear me quoting results of polls or putting much stock in them at all unless I see the actual questions asked and I know the specifics of the sample group. The only information they provide is the number of soldiers asked. The rest they say is classified for security purposes and contend that it was random and we'll just have to take their word for it. Locations, yes, should be classified, but what about rank? What about political persuasions? What about security level status? So in that regard I won't comment. Polls are often just a tool of convenience. Both sides use them much too freely to bolster their arguments. Sometimes they're quite scientific, sometimes agenda driven.
I will say though that the 85% number may not be problematic at all when one considers things like Salman Pak or what level of the Iraqi government welcomed al Qaeda members (whom we know were in and out of Iraq prior to 9/11) and to what degree. Did Saddam himself have explicit knowledge of and give direct support to the 9/11 plot? Another $64,000 question. If you want to narrow the argument to that fine point, and you firmly belive he didn't play a role then by all means argue away. But the whole picture isn't that simple. You can't narrow this down to a few facts when the whole picture is so complex.
And thanks for the "sweetheart". I know you didn't mean it that way, but I really am a sweetheart.
Posted by: Oyster at March 05, 2006 08:18 AM (YudAC)
16
Ma'am,
Let me first say I appreciate and accept the apology. You raise several points, which I will address. However, for the sake of clarity let me focus on one or two now and leave the rest for later when I can give them the detailed response they deserve.
To be fair, let me start at the beginning, with your second and third points:
What I find difficult about you is that you use select facts more to halt discourse than promote it. Supplying facts is very important in a discussion, but it isn't the whereall and endall.
If one sees their argument as just a collection of selected facts and data, they have to also assume that any other direction or course taken previously would have produced better or more favorable results and we just don't have that luxury
I do think facts matter. I think there is merit to living in the "reality based" world. Facts, like pain, are important indicators of a problem. Ignoring facts, like ignoring pain, can turn an acute problem into a chronic problem. Sometimes it can destroy you.
I do agree with you that facts are much more than rhetorical devices to end debate. I also agree with you that cherry picking facts is intellectually dishonest and calls to mind Twain's comment about lies, damned lies and statistics. I also agree with you that a discussion is more than the facts. There are assumptions, biases, hopes, predictions, empathy, feelings,needs, requests and exploration.
So on your first point I think we are basically in agreement and recognize that facts are part of the stone soup we call discourse.
On your second point, I think we diverge. If my contention was 20/20 hindsight ... I would have more sympathy for that position in this particular case. I mean anyone can look at a trainwreck after the fact and say how it should have been handled. Lessons learned have value and that sort of commentary is important, to a point. That point being how well you apply those lessons learned to the next train ride.
However, my point here -- and I am talking not just about the invasion of Iraq, but also about the radical shift in policy it represents -- is that the critique about the facts, the policy, the assumptions, and the predictions were all stated before we invaded.
For now, I will just sum up the basic reasons why I rejected the notion of invading Iraq as a "test case" for the National Security Strategy released in 2002 (aka the "Bush Doctrine").
It discounted the economic impact of protracted war.
It disdained diplomatic alliances that are critical in a nuclear age.
It disregarded intelligence that did not support the policy.
It discarded historical lessons learned at a heavy price.
and
It disrespected the professional opinion of seasoned military professionals with command experience.
Instead, the policy was predicated solely on the fanciful notion that might alone would be sufficient to prevail. The resulting "shock and awe" would light up the darkness and change the face of the world. Those who argued otherwise were ignored, dismissed, forced out, resigned, or hunted down and intimidated into silence. We are now left with the bitter fruits of that harvest and have to nourish our future crops with the poisoned waters from that well of deceit. The damage we have done to ourselves in the process is more than anything terrorists could have hoped for.
I will stop here merely to say I do not accept, but I am willing to discuss, the position that we had to invade Iraq because "we just don't have the luxury" of waiting for a smoking gun in the shape of a mushroom cloud over New York. I realize that is twisting your quote a bit out of context, but I think it fairly reflects the spirit of your comments. I don't say it to put words in your mouth, but to crystallize a basic point of disagreement. I focus on that point because I do not think policy should ever be decided by panic or fear.
Thank you for your continued interest and attention.
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 05, 2006 11:06 AM (gw6yg)
17
Sure, more people will die in war by Christmas than in 9/11, but 290,000 men made the ultimate sacrifice by 1945 for the deaths of some 2,300 at Pearl Harbor in 1941.
One casualty is too many..... but avenging the deaths of those who were needlessly killed is not wrong. That whole region needs to be weeded of terrorists mercilessly, and if you have a problem with that, it's comparible to saying 'Not all Japs and Germans supported the Axis Powers and what they stood for, so lets just target Nazi and Jap leadership.'
Ignorant fools.... get with it or face someday living in what USED to be the USA
Posted by: Carloso at March 22, 2006 06:57 PM (3mpfi)
March 02, 2006
Ranting HS Teacher Hires Ward Churchill's ACLU Lawyer
The Colorado high school teacher who was caught on tape by a student while indoctrinating his students with vile, raidcal leftist dogma has hired an attorney from the ACLU. Not just any lawyer either, but the same one who represents Ward Churchill, the man who called 9/11 victims "little Eichmanns".
more...
Posted by: Bluto at
09:35 PM
| Comments (43)
| Add Comment
Post contains 169 words, total size 1 kb.
1
The irony is that next week he had a whole lesson plan lined up where he gets his students to simply accept that a cartoon of mohammed wearing a bomb turban is a celebration of free speech.
Posted by: Mason at March 02, 2006 10:26 PM (T/kas)
2
Oh the irony! That he even needs a lawyer for this merely proves his point.
Posted by: Natasha at March 02, 2006 10:46 PM (i6py+)
3
What point, Natasha? That it's oppressive for a geography teacher to be expected to teach geography instead of pitching into lunatic rants during class?
That's it's not evil for an authority figure who controls his pupils grades to indoctrinate his students?
If you got pulled over by a cop and he launched into a rant about liberals would you argue with him or agree with him, hoping to get off with a warning?
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 02, 2006 10:51 PM (RHG+K)
4
Fire him for incompetence and be done with it. I've been fired for far less.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 02, 2006 11:04 PM (8e/V4)
5
I guess that's a no brainer, pun no, no pun intended or unintended or was that unattended?
Posted by: the other forest hunter at March 02, 2006 11:52 PM (Fq6zR)
6
I love cases like this! They strengthen the growing push and acceptance of school choice, vouchers, private education, and home schooling.
This is a very common practice in parts of the country in public schools. Its been going on for over 30 years - AND - if it was successful Hillary would be president today in an landslide. IT HAS NOT BEEN SUCCESSFUL so don't go crazy and lose your cool over this. It has actually been backfiring very slowly over the same time span.
This particular case involves a leftist teacher as opposed to a liberal teacher - there is a difference - yeah - I know what everyone here is gonna say - but a lib is sly about it and stradles the line, while a leftist jumps head first across ... use the leftist fuckup to get to the liberal - its easier and more effective.
This is not about free speech (though they will try), and it is not about teaching - it is classic attempted specific viewpoint political indoctrination of children in a forced mandatory environment - or as I prefer - intellectual pedophilia.
Posted by: hondo at March 02, 2006 11:56 PM (fyKFC)
7
JC
Its not incompetence or anything like that - going that route will always fail - and it gives the libs tons of wiggle room to ease away from this.
See it for what it is - insidious politizing of children in a governmental environment requiring forced presence and participation.
Posted by: hondo at March 03, 2006 12:13 AM (fyKFC)
8
Interesting, er, Geography they teach these days. No wonder kids can't read maps anymore.
Posted by: nuthin2seehere at March 03, 2006 01:59 AM (blNMI)
9
I use sites like this to teach English to my students. It's great because, one it's real. Two, I don't have to think of a thing. They like the perspective of reality versus TV and MSM.
Posted by: forest hunter at March 03, 2006 02:41 AM (Fq6zR)
10
Natasha is a rightwing wackjob. When she's nnot donating time to the RNC, she dreams of licking the lint out of Karl Rove's fat, sweaty belly button.
But then. You already knew that.
Posted by: jenni at March 03, 2006 03:44 AM (FXug0)
11
I was taking some courses a the local community college a couple of years ago, and there was one adjunct law teacher -a practicing lawyer, no less- who was prone to go off on rants about various Constitutional issues, and of course, she was always wrong, in which I found great entertainment by pointing out in fine detail, before the whole class, exactly how she was wrong, and kicking her ass in every argument. I was shocked to get an A in the course, because I figured she's retaliate against me, but I think she knew it wasn't the best idea to try.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 03, 2006 05:31 AM (0yYS2)
12
I listened to the whole rant in an audio file and the thing is, most of these kids didn't listen to Bush's speech nor did they listen to what Condi Rice had said, both of which Bennish was purportedly "quoting" from. The problem was that he wasn't quoting. He was twisting what they said, using his own words, and adding his own crap to further his rant.
The World Trade Center was a "military" target? Tobacco fields in the Carolinas are no different than coca fields in Columbia? Whoah, Nellie!
Posted by: Oyster at March 03, 2006 06:10 AM (YudAC)
13
Did you notice that he kept referring to "co-co" fields rather than "co-ca" fields? While listening to him, I wondered if the 10th graders in the class knew the difference. But then I thought, of course they do after all the consumer drug education they have had by that age!
Posted by: Babs at March 03, 2006 08:42 AM (iZZlp)
14
>>>The problem was that he wasn't quoting. He was twisting what they said, using his own words, and adding his own crap to further his rant.
It's pretty funny hearing stuff after it's passed through the BDS filters.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 03, 2006 09:35 AM (8e/V4)
15
Oh the irony! That he even needs a lawyer for this merely proves his point.
The fact he hired Ward Churchill's lawyer, the guy who claimed those killed on September 11th were "little eichmann's" and that the duty of Soldiers was to "Frag their Officers" pretty much proves a different point, however?
I'm guessing you do not have Children, due to the fact you are not upset about this, when a teacher states his opinion, it comes with a lot more weight, due to their normal teaching role of providing facts.
It is as much a parents responsibility to provide critical thinking about ones Government, and politics as it is to teach your child about sex and drugs. I would say the same about any teacher providing his political views on a child.
Posted by: dave at March 03, 2006 10:23 AM (CcXvt)
16
Such a teacher who dares be so incredibly POLITICALLY INCORRECT must be silenced! He should not be allowed to teach our children for us!
If we allow EVIL LEFTISTS to teach evolutionary "science" and speak their left wing thoughts out loud, to our children in school, who shall be left to expose them to the other side of such arguments? Well certainly not we ourselves. It is the duty of THE STATE to teach our children proper values. That is why we must make absolutely certain that our children hear only politically correct views at school.
Or we could teach our children how to use their critical intellect. We could help our children to develop the ability, to think for themselves, rather than merely accept what they are taught to believe.
Of course this would take hands on parenting. We would have to actually get involved ourselves instead of leaving our children's education solely the responsibility of state run schools.
Too many so called conservative parents, wrongly think that "getting involved" means policing educational facilities, in order to "weed out" teachers who don't think right. Apparently such also believe that education and mental conditioning are one in the same. They are not.
Teach your children to 'question everything' tossed at them as fact. Teach them to weigh the evidence, considering all viewpoints, so they may then form a rational and well considered opinion. Teach your children to think for themselves!
This is something rarely done by parents, on either the left or the right these days, because both alike are terrified that their children will later not agree with them. Clearly such people, left and right, have no faith in the intelligence of their own offspring. Both alike are devoted to indoctrinating their children rather than teaching them how to think for themselves.
Posted by: Natasha at March 03, 2006 11:33 AM (i6py+)
17
So Natasha, if an Earth Science teacher decides to tell his class that AIDS should really be called "God's Just Burning Vengeance Disease*" because "...gay people brought this plague upon us by their sins..." you'd be okay with that? I mean, surely the kiddies need to be exposed to all ideologies in order to learn "how to think for themselves"?
*From The National Lampoon circa 1988.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 03, 2006 11:49 AM (RHG+K)
18
Natasha:
It's not about "left" or "right" I would be equally mad at any teacher that gave his opinion, as a fact.
Nowhere during reading the transcript of this recording did I hear him encourage his students to read material that documented his allegations, or to challenge his point of view, nor did he differentiate his opinions from facts.
There is a place for encouraging children to be critical of foreign policy, and the Government: it's called "home"
You do not need to be "politically correct" if you were teaching Geography as instructed, instead of comparing the sitting U.S president to Hitler, or pushing the opinion that Israel is a terrorist state.
Posted by: dave at March 03, 2006 11:58 AM (CcXvt)
19
As if such is not being pounded into children's heads already bluto?
Could you actually bring yourself to read what I wrote instead of just scanning it and triggering? The answer to your leading question is already in my above post.
Posted by: Natasha at March 03, 2006 12:04 PM (i6py+)
20
Dave do you presume that I approve of the actions of this teacher?
If so why do you?
Posted by: Natasha at March 03, 2006 12:09 PM (i6py+)
21
Natasha,
if it's not a parent's duty to ensure their children aren't indoctrinated by maggot-infested moonbats, I don't know what is.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 03, 2006 12:16 PM (8e/V4)
22
I don't know Natasha, could it be:
Oh the irony! That he even needs a lawyer for this merely proves his point.
Posted by: Natasha at March 2, 2006 10:46 PM
Proves his point?
Did I misread your intent?
Posted by: dave at March 03, 2006 12:18 PM (CcXvt)
23
Dave
Yes you did Dave.
Posted by: Natasha at March 03, 2006 12:36 PM (i6py+)
24
How so? his point is that Bush = Hitler.
perhaps you can explain what you meant?
Posted by: dave at March 03, 2006 12:39 PM (CcXvt)
25
jesusland carlos wrote, "if it's not a parent's duty to ensure their children aren't indoctrinated by maggot-infested moonbats, I don't know what is."
How far would you be willing to go in rooting out those who try to indoctrinate your children carlos?
Would you merely pick and choose which indoctrinators are OK?
Would you merely pick and choose where your children can be indoctrinated?
Are you sure that you are not really saying that brainwashing, conditioning, indoctrination, what ever you wish to call it, is OK as long it is the of the correct kind?
I beleive that much more than the supposed "best way" to protect our children from being indoctrinated, the only way which we really and truly can protect them from brainwasing, is to teach our children to think for themselves.
Posted by: Natasha at March 03, 2006 12:50 PM (i6py+)
26
Natasha, no, the answer isn't in your post. But if you can document a teacher telling children that AIDS is "God's Just Burning Vengeance Disease" (or something similar) email me with it at dreadpundit@hotmail.com so that I can expose the bastard(s).
Methinks your phony outrage is reserved only for ideologues who conflict with your own beliefs, i.e., your are intellectually dishonest.
And btw, belated kudos to hondo for creating the term "intellectual pedophilia" - brilliant!
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 03, 2006 12:55 PM (RHG+K)
27
Dave wrote, "How so? his point is that Bush = Hitler. perhaps you can explain what you meant?"
Please read my last post before this one, and think about what I may really be saying Dave. Maybe then we discus this. Or we can just argue like a couple of idiots, each presuming we already know the other's position and how wrong they must be. I can tell you right now I don't want to merely argue though.
I have work to do right now though, and so I will be away for a while. Please think about this 'with me' Dave. Maybe we can both learn something from each other. : )
Posted by: Natasha at March 03, 2006 01:03 PM (i6py+)
28
"intellectual pedophilia"
agreed, brilliant. You better copyright that one asap.
Natasha,
yes, as a parent I reserve the right to choose what kind of indoctrination my children will receive. Moonbats will raise my children over my dead body.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 03, 2006 01:04 PM (8e/V4)
29
Bluto your belligerence prevents us from communicating, and it also undermines your both your position and your credibility.
Posted by: Natasha at March 03, 2006 01:07 PM (i6py+)
30
Bluto your belligerence prevents us from communicating, and it also undermines both your position and your credibility.
Posted by: Natasha at March 03, 2006 01:07 PM (i6py+)
31
Natasha:
It's probably due to the fact this happens a lot here: People post their "true" knee-jerk reaction immediately, then follow up with a sympathizing, patronizing post with thinly veiled messages that attempt to belittle republicans. It's the kind of game you can see everyday in people's *cough* dailykos diaries, where they fake outrage and then post about their "victory" on their echo chamber @ dailykos.com
Posted by: dave at March 03, 2006 01:08 PM (CcXvt)
32
Yes a lot of baiting goes on, and so does a great deal of mere punditry, rather than honest communication. The tactics you describe, so very well I might add, are employed by so called liberals and so called conservatives alike though. It really is horribly wrong I agree.
Such is extremely counterproductive, being founded upon mere partisan bias, coming from both extremes. Of course we buy right into it when we presume such chicanery is the sole domain of "the others" though.
I have never posted at dailykos myself. It just does not appeal to me. I have dropped by a couple of times and read though, and so I know they practice political correctness every bit as hypocritically as do some so called conservatives right here jawa.
I am not at all pleased with such bullshit, and as a Republican I am extremely offended by the neocons, because they are among the worst offenders.
I really have to get going. Oh my god now I am late!
Posted by: Natasha at March 03, 2006 01:35 PM (i6py+)
33
"maggot-infested moonbats"
Uh-oh. SOMEONE's a happy ditto-head. That's Rush's pet phrase from today's show. I'm just waiting to hear Sean do his own unique "Chihuahua-with-a-chew-toy" rant on this.
I think EVERYBODY in America slept through the SOTU, which was just more canned on-the-stump boilerplate about "evil-doers," so I can't really fault Bennish for paraphrasing. Otherwise, he doesn't seem to have said anything that isn't at least arguable, if not demonstrably true.
No doubt he and his high-powered attorney will make a fuss. With luck, maybe they can spearhead legislation to impose content guidelines and uniform performance-testing requirements on parents who home-school.
Some good may yet come from this.
Posted by: Rotwang at March 03, 2006 02:22 PM (kQLcs)
34
>>>as a Republican I am extremely offended by the neocons, because they are among the worst offenders.
If you're a Republican I'm an astronaut.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 03, 2006 02:35 PM (8e/V4)
35
>>>maybe they can spearhead legislation to impose content guidelines and uniform performance-testing requirements on parents who home-school.
Why? Homeschooled children perform better academically at every level than children at public screwls. Fact.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 03, 2006 02:37 PM (8e/V4)
36
JC
Notice the fear some have of home-schooling - include vouchers and other alternatives. To the lib/left, possession of the classroom (elementary & seconday) is as important as possession of the courts.
All this is just a very obvious example of using public schools as a mandatory captured audience to proselytize a very specific political view-point.
The left is ham-handed at it - the liberals more coy & cute - but neither are truly effective.
Posted by: hondo at March 03, 2006 04:29 PM (fyKFC)
37
I see Natasha is at it again. Totally missing the point that this was a geography class. Geography! Not "Mao's Little Red Book 101". These were 10th graders in a public high school where pushing one-sided political viewpoints is not supposed to be going on. The schools say so themselves. Too bad they're only willing to enforce it at whim.
Nobody here even remotely implied they would prefer Bennish, or other teachers, adopt a far right-wing agenda and start preaching it through lies and distortions in their high school geography classes. But don't let that stop you, Natasha, from your thinly veiled accusations and belittling.
"Too many so called conservative parents, wrongly think that "getting involved" means policing educational facilities, in order to "weed out" teachers who don't think right." Well it certainly seems to be a no brainer for liberal parents. The schools themselves have been careful to keep conservative teachers a distinct minority. What are they afraid of?
Now don't you have a conspiracy to promulgate somewhere, Natasha?
Posted by: Oyster at March 03, 2006 07:32 PM (YudAC)
38
Looks like it takes one to know one especialy when it come to these reptiles at the ACLU and these leftists teachers
Posted by: sandpiper at March 03, 2006 08:45 PM (oN6hw)
39
"Uh-oh. SOMEONE's a happy ditto-head. That's Rush's pet phrase from today's show. I'm just waiting to hear Sean do his own unique "Chihuahua-with-a-chew-toy" rant on this.
I think EVERYBODY in America slept through the SOTU, which was just more canned on-the-stump boilerplate about "evil-doers," so I can't really fault Bennish for paraphrasing. Otherwise, he doesn't seem to have said anything that isn't at least arguable, if not demonstrably true."
The term ditto-head when Rush first coined it, heralded the lock step conformity of neocon political correctness, and yet no one has more unfailingly railed against political correctness than he himself.
Bush's war on terror has ignited global chaos, and his gift of freedom to Iraq comes with the added bonus of civil war. I can only hope that he is less successful in his efforts to make our homeland safe.
A mighty fortress is his skull. - The Colbert Report
Posted by: Natasha at March 04, 2006 02:59 AM (i6py+)
40
"I am not going to rise to the bait being trolled by those who wish to divert the topic of this thread."
Oh wait ... who said that?
Posted by: Oyster at March 04, 2006 07:18 AM (YudAC)
41
There is no such thing as neocon political correctness. Political correctness is a Leftwing invention. Harriett Myers and Portgate are pretty good evidence of that. Virtually all of Rush's callers disagreed with him on both counts. So much for dittohead "political correctness."
Rush Limbaugh hands you Lefties your ass on a plate 5 days a week. Been doing it for years. Which is why you hate him so much. Your hatred is the sincerest form of flattery. But it's as effective against him as the beat of a mosquito's wing is to a hurricane. All you can do in response is thrash about and gnash your teeth in frustration. Natasha is a good example. He ain't going nowhere.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 04, 2006 10:53 AM (8e/V4)
42
Ha Ha ha ha
Thanks Oyster
Posted by: hondo at March 04, 2006 10:54 AM (fyKFC)
43
"Rush Limbaugh hands you Lefties your ass on a plate 5 days a week."
I would suggest that those who actually believe that should watch The Colbert Report, but the idiots would probably think Steve is one of them.
Posted by: Natasha at March 04, 2006 03:47 PM (i6py+)
March 01, 2006
Am I a bigot?
Merriam-Webster:
bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudicesSince both "obstinate" and "intolerant" are subjectives, it's really hard to tell just who a bigot is.
For instance, isn't obsinately insisting that all religions produce equal amounts of violence and oppression then a form of bigotry? And, isn't intolerance for criticizing a certain religion of peace then a form of bigotry? And isn't it prejudging when one assumes--contrary to all statistical evidence--that cultures produce equal hostility towards liberty?
If such is the case, then we are all bigots now. Malkin has more.
Posted by: Rusty at
09:11 AM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
Post contains 105 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Nah, we all just have obnoxiously bigoted attitudes, remember?
Posted by: Vinnie at March 01, 2006 10:01 AM (f289O)
2
Rusty takes adolescent pleasure in pretzel logic and sophistry, but Vinnie just acts adolescent.
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 01, 2006 10:09 AM (SVPNF)
3
"Pretzel logic". Er, how so? Declarative statements don't make an argument.
Posted by: Rusty at March 01, 2006 10:20 AM (JQjhA)
4
Liberalism's greatest hypocrisy is that it demands "tolerance" for everyone and everything, but in fact it's intolerant of intolerant beliefs. Such self-contradiction compares favorably with "There are no absolutes in life," which of course is itself an absolute statement. Thus there's a real double-standard with liberalism's "tolerance," which has limits after all. But it goes even further: liberals demand tolerance, but in their actions they've shown they're intolerant of anyone who simply disagrees, no matter how peacefully.
As I've become more libertarianism than conservative, I've recognized that "the right to free speech" is best used to OFFEND people. Is your position so weak that you must use coercion (especially government force, i.e. laws and jails) to subdue your critics? One of my favorite Thomas Jefferson quotes is, "It is error alone that needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." Libel and slander have remedies in courts, but otherwise, let people say what they want. Foolishness and idiocy tend to become apparent.
Like I wrote in my satire on what if Christians and Jews went on rampages (thanks for linking before, Rusty), Christ told Peter to put away his sword, because at any time he could have summoned entire legions of angels to defeat the Romans. Is Mohammed of such little power that his reputation (as shady as it is) must be defended by earthly violence? Never mind Allah, who always seems to take a back seat.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at March 01, 2006 10:54 AM (CzL/Y)
5
That was pathetic.
obstinate: perversely adhering to an opinion, purpose, or course in spite of reason, arguments, or persuasion
So your obstinate hypothetical is completely useless as it fails to show that it meets this definition. In fact, it looks like a prejudice.
intolerant: a. unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters b. unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights : BIGOTED
You obviously have the right to say what you want, we just think you sound like an idiot. By definition then, it is not intolerance.
Thirdly, who gives a damn about whether or not "cultures produce equal hostility to liberty"? We aren't talking about picking a government to represent us, we're talking about picking a company to run large sections of our ports. I don't give a damn if it is an American company, I still want to see a 45 day commission to check the security of the company.
That isn't prejudging, that is deciding that our national security counts no matter what company it is.
Posted by: Sean Sirrine at March 01, 2006 11:12 AM (5/A71)
6
Like the saying goes, Rusty. I don't think you're a bigot, I think you just hate everyone. :OD
Posted by: Vonski at March 01, 2006 12:27 PM (Srmrz)
7
Rusty,
You are engaging in ridiculous session of acrobatic semantics here.
No doubt you felt it profound after you blew some weed.
Posted by: Greg at March 01, 2006 12:29 PM (q5wwn)
8
Background, you can knock off the superior intellectual seriousness anytime. Vinnie was just engaging in a little levity.
Posted by: Oyster at March 01, 2006 01:12 PM (zCI3+)
9
I don't feel like this is just a semantic argument, I feel like it is a heuristics argument and what that reveals hidden assumptions embedded in the structure of our language.
When language conflates reasonable suspicion with unreasonable suspicion, the words used in the language have to be examined. Carefully.
So, when some suggest that it is unreasonable to put Muslim companies under higher scrutiny, they are basing that on...er...what exactly? An underlying assumptiveness that "all people are the same, regardless of religious ideologies".
A common statistical inference error is called the "ecological fallacy". This fallacy results when one applies a generality to the specific. For instance, it would be an ecological fallacy to claim that because most Muslims support Palestinian terrorists, that we can know what the feelings of a specific Muslim is on Palestinian terrorism.
However, just because it is an ecological fallacy come to a condlusion, it does not make it unreasonable to put that person under heightened scrutiny. The fact remains that an individual Muslim is much more likely to support Palestinian terrorism than, say, the individual Jew.
We must operate in the real world, and in the real world there is a much higher chance that acts of terror will come from Muslims than any other religious faction. So, my fears over the UAE are not unreasonable, rather they are quite reasonable. The opposite seems much more true to me: those who claim there is no difference between a British company and a UAE company are the ones functioning under an unreasonable assumption, not me. One based on plattitudes and slogans--the ABC After School Special view of the world.
This does not mean that I would ultimately be against the Dubai ports deal--just that it will take more convincing since I have a reasonable suspicion.
I am very open to the notion that we MUST take the deal in order to secure some sort of cooperation from Dubai in a current war. But, that is just weighing one need against another.
Posted by: Rusty at March 01, 2006 02:07 PM (JQjhA)
10
I dug it Rusty. In spite of some above comments I feel I'm deeper now and that's what matters. Heh.
Posted by: Javapuke at March 01, 2006 02:12 PM (+l8ZI)
11
I don't have a problem with anyone who has reservations about this ports deal. I understand perfectly why some do and any reservations I have (which may not be to the same degree) are for the very same reasons. What does bother me are those who scream bloody murder over it with not only a lack of facts or information, but they're armed with misinformation as well. They're also using their ignorance to bludgeon others who are trying to gain a better understanding of it and come to their own conclusion. This is not to say that I think Rusty is one of those people. I think he has some valid points. He's also been very diplomatic about it, laying out a concise and reasoned argument with facts pertaining directly to why he is opposed. That's more than I can say for some here.
Posted by: Oyster at March 01, 2006 03:04 PM (zCI3+)
12
Whatever happen to sticks, and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me?
The ports deal will be a problem when the information of what comes in, and what is going out will be worth it's weight in gold.
Posted by: Leatherneck at March 01, 2006 09:01 PM (D2g/j)
13
Rusty:"And isn't it prejudging when one assumes--contrary to all statistical evidence--that cultures produce equal hostility towards liberty?"
It may be. If so, allow me to be "a bigot".
Hostility towards liberty is primarily coming from your beloved King George and his ziocon cadre of greedy goons.
Watch the money.
(Dubais, or not to buy, that is the question!)
Posted by: Greg at March 01, 2006 09:43 PM (q5wwn)
14
Yeah, Rusty, all those radical Muslims don't want to deny you free speech and free expression, they just want to deny you the right to speak or express yourself on Islam. Heck, you have all those other religions you can slander, but we will kill you if you tell the truth about Islam. Makes sense, doesn't it?
Clearly King George is in on the plot, and all the Zioconistas and their allies in the corporate media who wish to take over the World and turn everything into a Wal-Mart parking lot.
Posted by: jesusland joe at March 01, 2006 10:08 PM (rUyw4)
15
INVESTORS from the United Arab Emirates helped fund the $23 million Neil Bush raised for Ignite!, the learning systems company that holds lucrative No Child Left Behind Act contracts in Florida and Texas.
http://www.watchermagazine.com/?p=3839
Watch the money, honey.
Posted by: Greg at March 02, 2006 12:42 PM (q5wwn)
103kb generated in CPU 1.3384, elapsed 1.3448 seconds.
123 queries taking 1.2985 seconds, 376 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
123 queries taking 1.2985 seconds, 376 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
