Patterico's Pontifications

2/3/2006

Rounding Up the Lefties

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:29 am

This is a round up the reaction of the leftists who answered (or refused to answer) the questions posed to them in this post:

Can I get a clear statement from you that you consider the terrorists to be a bigger threat, and a bigger enemy, than George W. Bush? Nobody is asking you to say you like Bush or his policies. We just want to know whom you consider to be a bigger threat.

. . . .

What do you say, lefties? Who is the bigger enemy? Osama bin Laden? Or George W. Bush?

I encouraged all lefties who visit this site to weigh in. How did your favorite lefty vote?

The details are in the extended entry:

There were a few clearly sensible folks who had no trouble giving the right answer, in unmistakable language:

Psyberian:

President George W. Bush is less of a threat to America than terrorists are.

aphrael:

Osama Bin Laden is a much bigger threat to the country than President Bush.

steve:

Terrorists are an infinitely greater threat than Bush.

One commenter evidently saw the soundbites coming, and answered the question correctly, using snarky language:

biwah:

Bush costing us many lives through his incompetence does not put him on par with sworn enemies of the United States. He is a drunk driver to OBL’s serial killer.

Then there were the nuanced folks. They noticed that I actually asked two questions: 1) who is the bigger threat, and 2) who is the bigger enemy? And they saw a difference:

Njori:

To call Osama bin Laden a greater enemy than George Bush, I would have to consider Bush an enemy. I do not. Bush is, however, a greater threat.

Adam:

I have absolutely no qualms about stating that OBL is the bigger enemy. . . . I don’t spend much time worrying about OBL, but I do spend a considerable amount of time worrying about our President’s actions. That doesn’t make him an ‘enemy’ or ‘evil’, but it makes him a bigger problem, threat, or whatever word you want to use.

Sounding a similar note, this lefty distinguished between threats to lives and safety, and threats to freedom:

Geek, Esq.:

In terms of threats to American lives and safety, of course terrorists are a bigger threat.

However, the state is and will always remain the greatest threat to individual liberty. Clinton was a bigger threat in that regard than was McVeigh, and Bush is a bigger threat in that regard than is bin Laden.

Is Bush worse than bin Laden? Of course not.

It’s hard to classify one response, which seems to argue that terrorists are worse, but largely because Bush won’t be around forever:

jmaharry:

It’s a stupid, leading question. . . . Terrorists are the bigger threat, because of their vile intent, inherent insanity and entrenched, long term nature. . . .

Notably, in five years Bush (his people & policies) have led to many more dead and wounded than terrorists in the same span of time. . . . His actions have also, ironically, created conditions that have actually increased the number of terrorists world wide.

Fortunately, his term is finite. Unfortunately, it looks like the terrorists are here to stay.

Some lefties just can’t say that Bush is worse than bin Laden:

actus:

I don’t know how to balance the high-probability (almost certain) low-damage (in terms of money) threat that Bush represents to my interests against the very low-probability high damage threat that terrorists do.

Heh. There’s lots more dancing around from actus in the comment thread. In a similar vein:

m.croche:

As to Patterico’s silly “challenge”: If he wants me to write something, he should pay me. Otherwise, I am not at his beck and call.

What a lame dodge. Still, I am playing along. I have sent croche a penny for his thoughts, via Paypal.

The folks in the previous category should be ignored in debate among rational people, as should those in the last, wackiest category: those who actually say, without qualification, that Bush is worse than the terrorists:

Asinistra:

[W]e see George W. Bush as the real enemy rather than the terrorists.

blubonnet:

Is George W. Bush a bigger threat than the terrorists? The terrorist were like a cut on the body of America, he’s turned it into a abcess gone gangrene, requiring amputation.

All in all, if you consider lives of all human beings, besides Americans, worthy of regard, can you (?), the number of deaths from the war on terror, he’s definately caused more deaths…Bush. Iraq…did not attack us.

Let me know if I missed anyone, or if you think I inadvertently mischaracterized anyone’s response. I will add further lefty responses if they come in.

132 Responses to “Rounding Up the Lefties”

  1. I hope in the future there are more excercises in jingoistic PC like this. 9/11, never forget!

    actus (85218a)

  2. It’s so jingoistic to ask you to make a moral determination. God forbid.

    Angry Clam (fa7fff)

  3. It’s so jingoistic to ask you to make a moral determination. God forbid.

    I thought it was about threats, not morals.

    actus (85218a)

  4. actually i was caught off guard by the roundup. luckily i try to speak in soundbites 24/7…just in case.

    biwah (f5ca22)

  5. jingoistic PC

    I like the term, but methinks it’s used in the wrong context.
    I agree that PC is jingoistic, but it’s the left’s jingoism.
    Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 10th edition states,
    Jingoism:extreme chauvinism or nationalism marked esp. by a belligerent foreign policy
    If you think of the left as their own nation (or reality as the case may be), this fits exactly.
    Extreme nationalism as only the proper people are worth anything and belligerent foreign policy fits perfectly if you include anybody who doesn’t think as they think as “foreign”.

    Thanks actus, I appreciate it.

    Veeshir (dfa2bf)

  6. belligerent foreign policy fits perfectly if you include anybody who doesn’t think as they think as “foreign”.

    You should also look up what ‘fits perfectly’ means.

    actus (85218a)

  7. Background, by jingo,

    The following comes from http://www.goatview.com/october 21.htm

    First, the word jingo came from the Basque word Jainko, meaning God, so the expression “by Jingo!” is the same as “by God!” Brewer’s states that this term started to be used when Basque soldiers were imported by Edward I (1239-1307) to fight in Wales.

    Between that time and the Russo-Turkish War (1877-78), the adjective “jingo” was used to describe a rather vulgar person (someone who would say “by Jingo”).

    Jingoism means extreme nationalism characterized by shows of excessive patriotism, usually associated with going to war. This word came about when England was considering involvement in the Russo-TurkishWar. A music hall song of that time proclaimed:

    “We don’t want to fight: but if we do, by Jingo,
    We’ve got the ships, we’ve got the men, and got the money, too!”

    Black Jack (d8da01)

  8. Black Jack? I used to know a blogger named Black Jack, he doesn’t post on his blog anymore, just on other people’s.

    Veeshir (dfa2bf)

  9. V, it ain’t me, but thanks for the info.

    I’d like to have a look. Got directions to
    his old site, or to one on which he’s currently active?

    Also, I messed up the link. Type it in and close the space between the month and day.

    Black Jack (d8da01)

  10. If this is a poll to determine the rate of mental illness in the left wing you will be surprised at the high number you get. I’d say somewhere is the vacinity of 99% are ready for the rubber room hotel. Actually their leadership (Dusty Harry, Drunk Ted, Hanoi John, Plastic face Peloshi, Leaky Leahy, and Babbling Boxer) have became the joke of the world and provide most of the humor available today. Cartoonist and comedians are having a field day. They’ll hate to see them go as much as the people in Europe hated to see Slick Willie out of office. He provided almost 100% of their comedy strips.

    scrapiron (71415b)

  11. scrapiron:

    You know, you sound like a crazy leftist, just with everything reversed. :)

    Adam (40d1a3)

  12. Actually their leadership (Dusty Harry, Drunk Ted, Hanoi John, Plastic face Peloshi, Leaky Leahy, and Babbling Boxer)have became the joke of the world and provide most of the humor available today.

    I’d wager that, all combined, they run a modest second to our illustrious president, perhaps third behind the GOP congress. And it’s not for lack of caricature-able looks.

    But then, conservatives don’t put much stock in world opinion – or is that dismissiveness more a matter of convenience?

    biwah (f5ca22)

  13. Adam –

    I agree, a Pogo moment.

    http://www.bartleby.com/59/3/wehavemetthe.html

    jim (6482d8)

  14. By their words and acts ye shall know them,

    Tony Blankley offers his assessment of the Democrat Party in today’s WaPo… His conclusion, after watching the Democrats during President Bush’s State of the Union address:

    “Somehow the Democratic Party — for 180 years the most electorally successful political party on the planet — has now almost completely mutated into a party too loathsome to be seen in public, and too nihilistic to be trusted with control of even a single branch of government.”

    Black Jack (d8da01)

  15. Tony Blankley offers his assessment of the Democrat Party in today’s WaPo

    Liberal media does it again.

    actus (ebc508)

  16. Black Jack, I thought I was messing with Blackjack of The Hole Card as he is not posting very much lately.

    Sorry for the personal correspondance here Patterico.

    But then, conservatives don’t put much stock in world opinion
    Finally, you’ve figured it out.
    I would even go farther, many of the immigrants to our nation have moved here because they actively disliked the opinions of their former countries.
    My mother’s side of the family moved here from Italy in the 20s, they didn’t like fascism. Remember that at the time, much of the “Enlightened” opinion was in favor of appeasing fascist dictators.

    Personally, I couldn’t care less what a bunch of socialists (EUnuchs), commies (China, Cuba), budding dictators (Venezuala, Russia), other assorted dictators (Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia) and theocrats (Iran) think of us.
    Actually, I mis-wrote, I do care what they think of us, I am always a little depressed when any of that crew’s rulers agree with us.

    Veeshir (dfa2bf)

  17. Thank you for not comparing us nuanced folks to John Kerry.

    Geek, Esq. (5dd2be)

  18. But then, conservatives don’t put much stock in world opinion – or is that dismissiveness more a matter of convenience?

    I think the problem is the liberal compulsion to label conservative disagreement as “dismissal,” “arrogance,” “unilateralism,” “ignoring other opinions,” etc.

    Disagreeing is not any of those things, sadly some people seem to have forgotten that.

    Chaos (27ce18)

  19. If you didn’t like Patterico’s question, try this one:

    Who’s more dangerous to American freedom and liberty, the KKK, or the ACLU?

    Black Jack (d8da01)

  20. Black Jack – what’s the argument under which the ACLU represents a danger to freedom and liberty?

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  21. Chaos, if I recall, Bush ran on a campaign of disdain for any negative effect on America’s credibility abroad. To even breach the subject was jeered by conservatives as a weak-kneed approach that would give quarter to the Axis of Evil. Throughout the campaign, the approximate text of the talking point was “we will not give other countries veto power over American policy”, or something to that effect. Of course, no one was proposing any such thing, and nobody was suggesting that our European allies were angels thesmelves. It was a typical Rovian distortion, Kerry could not have played the fool any better.

    I don’t think I have the time or stamina to go nine rounds on this debate, but think it illustrates the typical conservative reduction of substance to semantics. For which I give them a certain respect – the Dems are visibly agitated by, and jealous of, that ability.

    biwah (f5ca22)

  22. aphrael,

    ACLU=civil rights=weak on terrorism=we all die=no liberty

    biwah (f5ca22)

  23. Black Jack:

    That’s perfect. If you asked who was more loathesome, the KKK would be an obvious answer (as OBL was in Paterrico’s original question). But, obviously, the KKK has almost no power, very little following, and even if it wanted to, it could hardly do much damage (something that was not the case 100 years ago, however). Currently, the ACLU has much more power. I would argue that, generally, they use that power to fight for just causes, but I’m sure you would disagree (and I respect that opinion). This is the same as my “nuanced” view of President Bush. He has a lot of power, and I think he has made many poor choices for how to use that power (I’m sure you would disagree).

    If you think that the ACLU is more “evil” or more of an “enemy” than the KKK, then you are as irrational as the people who claim that Bush is more evil than OBL. However, if your opinion is simply that the ACLU, in today’s world, is more dangerous than the KKK, that’s something we can respectfully disagree on.

    Adam (40d1a3)

  24. ACLU=civil rights=weak on terrorism=we all die=no liberty

    Freedom=Slavery.

    actus (ebc508)

  25. Chaos, if I recall, Bush ran on a campaign of disdain for any negative effect on America’s credibility abroad. To even breach the subject was jeered by conservatives as a weak-kneed approach that would give quarter to the Axis of Evil. Throughout the campaign, the approximate text of the talking point was “we will not give other countries veto power over American policy”, or something to that effect. Of course, no one was proposing any such thing, and nobody was suggesting that our European allies were angels thesmelves. It was a typical Rovian distortion, Kerry could not have played the fool any better.

    Oh really? I wonder what ‘without United Nations approval’ means, as the United Nations is precisely a collection of sovereign nations.

    I don’t think I have the time or stamina to go nine rounds on this debate, but think it illustrates the typical conservative reduction of substance to semantics. For which I give them a certain respect – the Dems are visibly agitated by, and jealous of, that ability.

    I don’t think it is. I think it’s just another example of a liberal unwilling to debate the issues and instead trying to make the personal conduct of the conservative the issue, whether it be for allegedly arguing in bad faith, or being “‘close-minded,’ or whatever.

    Chaos (27ce18)

  26. This has nothing to do with the subject at hand, but I was wondering if anyone else had seen the reprint of Sheehan’s letter “to her fellow Americans” that was on Michael Moore’s website yesterday and now appears on the Opinion page of the L.A. Times today. I find it curious that the Times finds it necessary to troll Michael Moore’s website to find material for its editorial pages.

    Jackie Warner (41f17a)

  27. aphrael,

    I found the following on a Blogad: Roger Baldwin, founder of the ACLU said, “I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class…” He also said, “Communism is the goal”

    Perhaps this site will provide the requested information: http://www.stoptheaclu.com or at least get your research started off on the right track.

    I have leave now, to install a new French Door, but I’ll be back.

    Black Jack (d8da01)

  28. The Jackster asked:

    Who’s more dangerous to American freedom and liberty, the KKK, or the ACLU?

    Fortunately, the KKK exists only as a small fringe element and as the middle initials Sean Hannity gives to the senior senator from West Virginia; it is dangerous only to the occasional individual, and while repugnant, is no threat to American freedom and liberty.

    The ACLU, on the other hand, certainly is a threat to American liberty. While I assume that they are essentially well-intentioned, their intentions spring from the same mindset which believes that President Bush and the government’s actions in the War against Islamic Fascism are a greater threat than Islamists. And thus they chanpion causes which are potentially harmful to our freedom and liberty, in a way the Klan could never do.

    Dana (3e4784)

  29. Black Jack wrote:

    I have leave now, to install a new French Door, but I’ll be back.

    Damned Kerry-loving liberal.

    Dana (3e4784)

  30. Who is more of a threat, a genuinely malevolent mouse or a nervous gorilla?

    Njorl (ede043)

  31. Heh

    Scott (57c0cc)

  32. A quick survey of the things currently on the Stop the ACLU blog which relate to the ACLU:

    * ACLU wants transgendered prisoners to be able to receive hormone therapy. Arguably, they’re acting to promote the liberty of felons.

    * ACLU wants access to the TALON database. Arguably, they’re acting to help preserve the liberty of people who are placed in that database in error.

    * The ACLU is protecting the idiot Phelps’ right to protest at funerals. They’re acting to preserve liberty.

    * The ACLU is trying to discover what the details are of the “domestic spying program”. If the domestic spying program constitutes warrantless searches of people who are not connected to al Qaeda, then they are acting to preserve liberty.

    * The ACLU is protecting the right of a student to not say the pledge of allegiance, a right which has been recognized by the Supreme Court. Acting to protect liberty.

    Some of these actions may be unwise. Some of them are certainly politically incorrect. But to characterize them as being a threat to our freedom and liberty strikes me as being bizarre.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  33. I have sent croche a penny for his thoughts, via Paypal.

    I think you paid too much.

    Steverino (d11021)

  34. Aphrael, your point about Fred Phelps’s liberty is well taken, but the rest of your examples are not. The ACLU is not protecting students’ “liberty” not to recite the Pledge, a liberty that does not need protecting. It is protecting the “liberty” of rabid atheists to shove their God-free version of the Pledge down everyone’s throats. The TALON database and the FISA issues relate to privacy, not liberty.

    Add to that the ACLU’s staunch support of the “collective” (read: nonexistent) rights interpretation of the Second Amendment to the detriment of gun owners’ liberty, its eagerness to use a tortured interpretation of the Establishment Clause to defeat parents’ liberty in choosing their kids’ education, and their frivolous lawsuit to prevent a gubernatorial recall, and I’d say the ACLU is more anti-liberty than pro-liberty, on balance.

    Xrlq (6c76c4)

  35. Hey, Patterico, just thought I’d come by and drop off a few more lefty heads for you to hang on your Wackiest -of-All Wall of Shame (Blubonnet and I look don’t look very festive hanging there all alone):

    “America has entered one of its periods of historical madness, but this is the worst I can remember: worse than McCarthyism, worse than the Bay of Pigs and in the long term potentially more disastrous than the Vietnam War.

    “The reaction to 9/11 is beyond anything Osama bin Laden could have hoped for in his nastiest dreams. As in McCarthy times, the freedoms that have made America the envy of the world are being systematically eroded.”
    –John LeCarre, author

    “And I would say that we have courted disaster in Iraq, in North Korea, in Iran.  Generally with regard to domestic crises like Katrina… we haven’t done very well on anything like that in a long time.  And if something comes along that is truly serious, truly serious, something like a nuclear weapon going off in a major American city, or something like a major pandemic, you are going to see the ineptitude of this government in a way that will take you back to the Declaration of Independence. … Read in there [Declaration of Independence] what they say about the necessity of the people to throw off tyranny or to throw off ineptitude or to throw off that which is not doing what the people want it to do.  And you’re talking about the potential for, I think, real dangerous times if we don’t get our act together. ”
    –Col. Larry Wilkerson, former aid to Colin Powell

    “What Patrick Henry once called ‘the lamp of experience’ needs to be brought into the shadowy space in which we have all been living since Sept. 11. My tentative conclusion is that the light it sheds exposes the ghosts and goblins of our traumatized imaginations. …. History suggests that we have faced greater challenges and triumphed, and that overreaction is a greater danger than complacency.”
     –Joseph J. Ellis, Professor of History, Mount Holyoke College

    “Terrorists like Al Qaeda deliberately stage attacks which are designed to instill fear in the population far beyond what is warranted by the actual threat-level posed by the terrorists. That’s the defining tactic and objective of terrorists. Fortunately for the terrorists, in the United States, Al Qaeda has a powerful ally in this goal: the Bush Administration, which for four years has, along with Al Qeada, worked ceaselessly to instill in Americans an overarching and excessive fear of terrorism.”
    –Glenn Greenwald, lifelong George W. Bush golfing buddy

    Wow, into a second week and a third thread on this thing. Those boxers must be in a hell of a bunch, buddy.

    Asinitra (92f20e)

  36. XRLQ – my examples were taken from the stop-the-aclu web page.

    With respect to TALON and FISA, I think it’s at least a debatable point whether liberty is involved; I believe the ACLU’s argument is that it is possible in both cases for the power of the state to infringe on liberty. Reasonable people can (and do) disagree; but their motivations in those cases are to protect liberty.

    With respect to the pledge case, the article on the stop-the-aclu website does not refer to the Newdow lawsuit, but rather to this:

    A student is ending his fight with the Palm Beach County School Board over being told he must stand during the Pledge of Allegiance, but the battle isn’t over for Cameron Frazier.

    Frazier is aiming instead at eliminating the state law that requires local school officials to make students stand.

    I would take this as being an example of the ACLU protecting what it believes to be the student’s liberty to not stand during the pledge of allegiance. That seems sufficiently similar to my mind to the flag salute in question in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette; I don’t see how you can describe the ACLU’s action in this case as being opposed to liberty. (Your point about Newdow’s lawsuit is, however, well taken).

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  37. Hey,

    If we’re going to give Teddy names I prefer “Splash”

    Specter (466680)

  38. biwah — you might recall the Global Test ™ that Kerry proposed. Essentially a French and Kofi Annan veto over US actions. Bush offered an alternative of the US not waiting around to get hit with another 9/11; but acting on it’s own.

    Considering how in-bed with Iran so many of our putative allies are, this seems sensible. Europeans were perfectly happy to see the main economic rival the US hit with terrorism.

    I find Actus’s comments puzzling. Why SHOULDN’T we never forget 9/11? Oh yeah, forgot. The people who were brutally murdered by crazed Muslim terrorists were just “little Eichmans” and somehow deserved it. Just back office people and other “drones,” along with airline workers and travellers, no one tragically hip.

    Who’s the enemy of Western Civilization?

    OBL and his insane, fanatical followers.

    Seen in London protesting cartoons in Denmark:

    “ANNIHILATE THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM
    AS MUSLIMS WE ARE PREPARED TO FIGHT
    BBC BRITISH BROADCASTING CRUSADERS
    BBC GO TO HELL!
    BE PREPARED FOR THE REAL HOLOCAUST [real is underlined]
    BEHEAD THE ONE WHO INSULTS THE PROPHET.
    BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM
    BUTCHER THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM
    EUROPE YOU WILL PAY. DEMOLITION IS ON THE WAY
    EUROPE YOU WILL PAY. YOUR 9/11 IS ON IT’S WAY
    EUROPE YOU WILL PAY. YOUR EXTERMINATION IS ON IT’S WAY
    EUROPE YOU’LL COME CRAWLING WHEN THE MUJAHIDEEN COME ROARING
    EXTERMINATE THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM
    EXTERMINATE THOSE WHO SLANDER ISLAM
    FREE SPEECH GO TO HELL
    FREEDOM GO TO HELL
    FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION GO TO HELL
    JIHAD AGAINST EUROPEAN CRUSADERS
    MASSACRE THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM
    SLAY THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM”

    And many more. This is the face of the enemy. It’s the same face seen in Klan rallies, or lynchings, or at Nuremburg. Meanwhile Le Carre (a notorious anti-Israeli verging on anti-Semitism and bin Laden romanticizer btw) feels that Bush is the threat not Ahmad-nutjob and the insane nation of Iran with nukes.

    I’m shocked the LA Times didn’t run some of the OTHER words of “Mother Sheehan” when she told Hugo Chavez that the US was a “cancer upon the world” and looked forward to the “destruction of US imperialism” and dismantling of the “zionist war machine” etc.

    Look this is nothing new. The Left is the new inheritors of the German-American Bund, Lindbergh and the Duke of Windsor’s pro-Hitler agitating, or Joe Kennedy’s Hitler worship. OF COURSE we question your patriotism. You can’t even put aside dislike to hatred of GWB to recognize the real menace. Churchill was no prize either, but he could at least recognize ultimate evil.

    Jim Rockford (e09923)

  39. Oh yeah, Asinistra, Glenn Greenwald is a raging right-winger. Anyone who visits his blog can see that.

    Patterico (929da9)

  40. Asinistra, brilliant, once again!!!

    911 was Santa Claus’s delivery for the neo-con’s.
    They now get all they ever hoped for. It’s a war-monger/war profiteer’s dream-come-true!!! To be able to wield power at their every whim, torture, what ever their hearts’ desire. Power rushes galore.

    Those terrorists sure were smart to think of using the date September eleven, same as our emergency phone number. Wow, they thought of everything.

    So, Asinistra, do you think these guys around here are going to tell us, “we’re with the terrorists” ??? Gheesh.

    blubonnet (dc52ec)

  41. Hey, Lefties,
    Make some trips over to Dana’a site too. I need some help trying to explain our perspective.

    http://commonsensepoliticalthought.com

    Asinistra, your eloquent logic is welcome there for sure. I’m getting rather boisterous. Maybe your bright and reasonable nature will be more effective than mine.

    blubonnet (dc52ec)

  42. Here is a better question,
    How many lefty’s, Bush haters, Cindy apologists and/or Democraps served their country? What is the ratio of bleeding heart, US hating liberals to conservatives in service to this country?
    Or we could ask;
    Why, if we have it SO wrong in the US, do these people persists in staying here? (personally I think it’s because no where else in the world, could you produce little, respect nothing and still talk crap about your host country…. except maybe in France.)

    paul (464e99)

  43. Just a minor statistical note for those so fearsome of Bush’s foreign policy:
    in 2005 approx 160,000 Americans were killed by Americans as crime victims, not inservice to their country.
    On the coming fourth of July, the number of highway deaths will equal the death toll in Iraq.
    While I would not want one of MY TWO SONS serving in the Navy to be the next ones blown up in Iraq, I would hope that Lefty Loonies can keep it all in perspective. (Something which I fear is genetically impossible but I can dream.)

    paul (464e99)

  44. There it is! I have a suggestion Patterico. I’ve been wondering what a good rabid-right test for the conservatives here would be and Paul furnished it. I wish you would post this simple question to your conservative readers:

    Do liberals and Democrats hate America?

    Anyone who truly believes that is too far “out there” for me to waste my time on. It would also be interesting too see what you and the Angry Clam say about that (although I believe I have a good idea).

    Psyberian (1cf529)

  45. Some do. Most don’t.

    Patterico (929da9)

  46. “Do liberals and Democrats hate America?”

    That’s a good question Psy, but it strikes me as a better question for Lefties and Dems. Conservatives have noted the open public expression of hatred from many Lefties for some time now. We know some Lefties and Dems hate GWB, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, well the list is long but you get the point.

    So, since we see the Left’s collective hate on display virtually every day, your question is best reserved for Liberals and Dems. Let the haters express themselves, as if they needed an invitation.

    However, a similar, but somewhat flippant, question for Conservatives would be: What do you think most Liberals and Dems hate more, America, or themselves?

    Black Jack (d8da01)

  47. Do liberals and Democrats hate America?

    Most don’t, but some do.

    Many beliefs and policy positions of libs and Dems nearer the center of the political spectrum can be traced back to, say, FDR, Hubert Humphrey, and MLK of “I have a dream.”

    Much of the today’s Hard Left hearkens back to Henry Wallace, the MLK speeches of ’67/’68, and Angela Davis. They are a mainstream part of the Dem coalition.

    The Bolsheviks hated Czarist Russia, but liked their New-Soviet-Man vision of Russia just fine. At least at first. There may be an analogy with the Hard Left and America-as-it-is.

    AMac (b6037f)

  48. Much of the today’s Hard Left hearkens back to Henry Wallace, the MLK speeches of ‘67/’68, and Angela Davis. They are a mainstream part of the Dem coalition.

    I don’t think you find mainstream dems saying things like LBJ or Humphrey used to say. Or rising to political prominence the way Truman did, going after war profiteers. That’s called extremists by the wingnuts on TV.

    actus (85218a)

  49. Some do. Most don’t.

    I realize that this is your blog and all, but your response makes me wish I’d been as flippant with your question.

    Psyberian (1cf529)

  50. I don’t think that most Democrats hate America. Most of the left people that I know who I think I can say with fair certainty do hate America also consider the Democratic Party right-wing, and thus also worthy of hate.

    I do think that the case can be made for some Democrats who rail against various things they see as problems with American society have confused issues with identity.

    For example, I would feel fairly comfortable saying that Ramsey Clark hates America. Whether he’s still in the Democratic orbit or has decamped for places further left, I do not know, although it would surprise me to learn that he, say, voted for John Kerry.

    Angry Clam (a7c6b1)

  51. Do liberals and Democrats hate America?

    I hate a lot of things in America, but I don’t confuse them with America.

    actus (85218a)

  52. Do lefties hate America? How absurd! We hate policies that cause innocent people to die. We hate lying. We hate to see rich people awarded more wealth from the government, and poor folks dying from lack of essentials like proper medical care. We hate to see the fat cats get welfare from the government. We hate to see the fat cats protected legally by having offshore postal addresses from paying taxes. We hate crimes against humanity. We hate torture, especially when the torturee is only a possible criminal, without access to a court. We hate that children are being blown up in Iraq. We hate that white phosphorous (virtual napalm) is melting people’s bodies (often children) that were merely in the way. We hate that our country is using depleted uranium causing birth defects and cancer in much higher degrees.We hate that this country that we love is being run by criminals. We hate that despite the enormous documentation of stolen elections, the criminals are still in power. We hate that naive’ people blindly think we should give him “unitary power” (king) despite his lawlessness already evident. We hate that our beloved country is now one of the most hated worldwide, in fact protests in the millions occur around the world against the scoundrel in the oval office and his cohorts.
    We hate that despite all these horrors that still there are all of you out there that think it’s fine. Instead of basking in your patariotism, try basking in humanitarianism.

    Oh, and all the vitriol displayed during the Clinton years, were we so foolish to ask if you hated America? No! You guys thought it was worse that he got a BJ and lied about that, than lying about a war. Where is your humanity?

    blubonnet (dc52ec)

  53. Hey, Blu, I lost your address; where do I send the check?

    Dana (a90377)

  54. “We hate to see the fat cats protected legally by having offshore postal addresses from paying taxes.”

    I’m not going to address your other stupidities, but just so you know, if you’re an American citizen, you have to pay American income taxes on all income, regardless of where you reside or where you earned the income. An offshore address, job, or bank account doesn’t get you out of that.

    Angry Clam (a7c6b1)

  55. An offshore address, job, or bank account doesn’t get you out of that.

    It does get you out of reporting requirements.

    actus (85218a)

  56. It does get you out of reporting requirements.

    Only if you’re willing to break the law.

    Ann (cc9923)

  57. Only if you’re willing to break the law.

    Right. My understanding is that now the only barrier is your honesty, as opposed to the bank itself doing the reporting.

    actus (85218a)

  58. I’m not going to address your other stupidities, but just so you know, if you’re an American citizen, you have to pay American income taxes on all income, regardless of where you reside or where you earned the income. An offshore address, job, or bank account doesn’t get you out of that.

    Thanks a lot, Clam. There went my plans to convert myself into a Nevada corporation.

    Xrlq (839872)

  59. Did I say “Nevada” corporation?! I meant “multinational” corporation. I’m planning to redomesticate to multinational just as soon as I file the right papers with the multinational Secretary of State who can allow me to do business in every country without following the rules of any.

    Xrlq (839872)

  60. Most Democrats do not hate America. The majority of those posting on the Democratic Underground and Kos certainly do.

    More to the point, they fail to make the distinction between despising a man and despising the country he represents. To them, Bush=America, and they are unable to seperate their pathological hatred of the man from the nation he represents in the course of his job. In addition, they are the kind of people who would rather deflate the football than play the game by the rules when they lose. Having lost two consecutive elections, they have chosen to distance themselves so far from the process that they’ve lost touch with reality, to an extent that it will be very difficult to bring them back. Rather than debate issues on their merits, they would prefer to equate Bush with Hitler, and our NSA with the Gestapo. The fact they are unable to engage in civil discourse is a message, to me, at least, that they’re not worthy of joining in the discussion at all. I choose to go about my business as if they were not there.

    otcconan (a42e7a)

  61. I wouldn’t say libs & Dems hate America, largely because I think the word “hate” has been misused almost to the point of having no meaning anymore. What I do is among most of the libs & Dems who post here and elsewhere, as well as IRL, is a contempt for any who hold more traditional views. You think “under God” is ok in the Pledge of Allegiance? How parochial of you! You don’t believe Diebold stole the 2000 and 2004 elections for George Bush? You’re obviously uninformed! You think lying about large and small things, nuancing your sound bites repeatedly is “wrong” and a sign of greater duplicity? It depends on what the meaning of “lying” is!

    In short, most libs & Dems (I think) don’t hate America, but tend to have an Orwellian view of what things like “freedom,” “speech,” “rights,” and “liberty” mean.

    sharon (fecb65)

  62. ! You think lying about large and small things, nuancing your sound bites repeatedly is wrong and a sign of greater duplicity? It depends on what the meaning of lying is!

    Wait, there’s no problem with nuance?

    actus (85218a)

  63. By hating the environmental devastation causing serious health problems, by hating knowing that an unnecessesary war we started is melting innocent bodies with white phosphorous,and depleted uranium causing birth defects and cancer on innocents(children’s often), by our being furious that the president is cutting combat pay for troops, and giving them insufficient medical care since he’s given so much money to his rich friends, hating that they trash anyone that exposes thier criminal behavior (there are pages of them) by saying that our economy is good, when it’s only good for those already wealthy.

    WHO HATES AMERICA? If you are okay with all these horrid realities and still respect that bastard and his criminal cohorts, you not only care little about our country, but nothing about humanity worldwide. The issue of whether we love our country is so irrelevant in the face of all these other issues.

    Oh, and your ignorance about the elections just shows your ignorance, and does not discount this other criminal act against the United States by the government/huge corporations/media/military industrial complex consortium, that has pulled hiest of monumental proportions so enormous people aren’t even seeing it, the elections being just the tip of the iceberg. Thank God there is more of us that are seeing it now and less of you.

    blubonnet (dc52ec)

  64. Busy weekend around the old sleeper cell, folks. Before kickoff we’ll be rolling out the carpets and kneeling to Mecca of course. Then there’s the call to Osama AND Howard Dean with our weekly report. Bureaucracy is such a bitch (can’t we just call Howard and he call Osama? Lame Dems!) Anyway before all that, I wanted to get a few things in.

    Paul! Yo, I did your homework for you and this is amazing:

    • Representative Jack Murtha (D-PA) – distinguished 37-year career in the U.S. Marine Corps, Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts, retired from the Marine Corps Reserve as a colonel in 1990. (1)
    • Representative Richard Gephardt, former House Minority Leader – Missouri Air National Guard, 1965-71. (1, 2)
    • Representative David Bonior – Staff Sgt., United States Air Force 1968-72 (1, 2)
    • Former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle – 1st Lt., U.S. Air Force SAC 1969-72 (1, 2)
    • Former Vice President Al Gore – enlisted August 1969; sent to Vietnam January 1971 as an army journalist, assigned to the 20th Engineer Brigade headquartered at Bien Hoa, an airbase twenty miles northeast of Saigon. More facts about Gore’s Service
    • Former Senator Bob Kerrey… Democrat… Lt. j.g., U.S. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam (1, 2)
    • Senator Daniel Inouye, US Army 1943-’47; Medal of Honor, World War Two (1, 2)
    • Senator John Kerry, Lt., U.S. Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, and three awards of the Purple Heart for his service in combat (1)
    • Representative Charles Rangel, Staff Sgt., U.S. Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea (1, 2)
    • Former Senator Max Cleland, Captain, U.S. Army 1965-68; Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam (1, 2)
    • Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) – U.S. Army, 1951-1953. (1)
    • Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) – Lt., U.S. Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74. (1, 2)
    • Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) – U.S. Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91 (1)
    • Senator Fritz Hollings (D-SC) – served as a U.S. Army officer in World War II, receiving the Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons. (1)
    • Al Franken–multiple trips to Iraq to entertain troops
    • Representative Leonard Boswell (D-IA) – Lt. Col., U.S. Army 1956-76; two tours in Vietnam, two Distinguished Flying Crosses as a helicopter pilot, two Bronze Stars, and the Soldier’s Medal. (1, 2)
    • Former Representative “Pete” Peterson, Air Force Captain, POW, Ambassador to Viet Nam, and recipient of the Purple Heart, the Silver Star and the Legion of Merit. (1, 2)
    • Rep. Mike Thompson, D-CA: Staff sergeant/platoon leader with the 173rd Airborne Brigade, U.S. Army; was wounded and received a Purple Heart. (1, 2)
    • Bill McBride, Democratic Candidate for Florida Governor – volunteered and served as a U.S. Marine in Vietnam; awarded Bronze Star with a combat “V.” (1)
    • Gray Davis, former California Governor, Army Captain in Vietnam; received Bronze Star. (1)
    • Pete Stark, D-CA, served in the Air Force 1955-57
    • Wesley Clark, Democratic Presidential Candidate – lengthy military career.
    • Former President Jimmy Carter, graduate US Naval Academy
    • Former Presidential Candidate George McGovern, decorated fighter pilot

    PLUS: 10 of the 12 Iraq War veterans running for Congress in 2006 are Democrats. Can you believe this? Totally insane, huh?

    Then…oh, Paul, again. You brainiac. I see where you’ve taken a cue from that prick Brit Hume to explain how American deaths in Iraq aren’t all that bad when you look at actuarial tables and compare them, say, to choking on a pork chop, I guess. You and Brit are on to somehing special there, buddy. So how about this?

    2984 American deaths due to terrorist attack divided by 4 years since 9/11=746 American deaths due to terrorism, per annum, which compares very favorably to:
    1398 deaths per annum due to asbestos
    784.000 deaths per annum due to prescription drug misuse
    762 deaths per year due to gun accidents

    Iraq! Iran! The NRA!

    Asinistra (a7ab42)

  65. It is simply human nature that people are eager to believe ill of people and institutions that they hate and unwilling to see ill in people and institutions that they admire, so when someone is eager to believe any slanderous accusation about America (committed genocide against the Indians, the Cold War was all about empirialism, the Iraq war is all about oil, etc.) and quick to defend all enemies of America, no matter how repugnant (Castro, Chavez, Saddam, the Mullahs, North Vietnam), then yes, I think that the most reasonable explanation is that they hate America.

    To the extent that his behavior is characteristic of leftists (and in my experience it is characteristic of many) then I’d say that leftists hate America. And if they don’t hate and despise America, they should. As I argued here, if they believe all the horrendous things they beleive about America they ought to despise it. I would.

    Doc Rampage (47be8d)

  66. Wow, Doc Rampage, get yourself a Doc. Delusional dementia taken hold. You’re a good German. You’re a lousy American though, to accept these horrors, and not be pained that this is the face of America. I shouldn’t have to defend my love of country. I just don’t recognize it. The honor has been defaced by unAmerican acts, by neo-cons.

    blubonnet (dc52ec)

  67. Miss Margarine,

    You’re one to talk about needing a Doc…lol

    Specter (466680)

  68. Shout out to Asinistra.
    Thanks for doing my home work for me. The Al Franken entry is a wee dubious, but the rest stand as fact. By the by, I asked for a ratio….LOL, please, I’m sure you have more to do than vetting my diatribes. Good work though, and when I get back from the 5 Stand tomorrow, I’ll see what I can come up with!.
    In closing, I have yet to see any of those distinguished DEMOCRAT vets give Chavez a big hug. I just wish they’d get over the loss to Bush and help run the country, not run it into the ground.

    Paul (464e99)

  69. P.S. (to Asinistra) here is the info I was talking about (from CRS report)
    There are 153 Members of the 108th Congress who have had some form of military
    service, some 14 fewer than in the 107th Congress. The House has 117 veterans: 69
    Republicans and 48 Democrats, including one woman, who is a Republican. In the
    Senate, 35 Members are veterans: 19 Republicans and 16 Democrats.
    LUV,
    Brainiac (or Brits Boyfriend) LOL

    Paul (464e99)

  70. blubonnet, I don’t “accept these horrors and not be pained that this is the face of America”. You have missed the point of my argument. The point is, and I’ll try to write more slowly this time, that the very fact that leftists believe these ill-supported slanders shows that they have a predisposition to believe the worst of America.

    I see this all the time. I point out that the North Vietnamese murdered and imprisoned a million people after they took over South Vietnam and some leftists immediately leaps to defending their actions. Some idiot, with no credentials other than the fact that he was given a diversity professorship (without a PhD) writes a completely unsubstianted accusation that the US had a policy of giving diseased blankets to Indians, and the same leftist is immediately condemning the US. No attempt to make excuses for the country he loves or to understand the situation that led to such actions like he did for his country’s enemy; the U.S. is just too evil to make excuses for. No suggestion that we ask for evidence before believing the slander because this is just the kind of thing the evil U.S. would do. Such is is not the behavior of a man who loves the U.S.

    Oh, and by the way: I’m not German. I don’t know why you thought I was.

    Doc Rampage (f06a6e)

  71. I’d prefer not to believe these things. But, I have to. To speak out against it, keeps me from being complicit as an American in it. There are crimes against humaity going on that we as a nation are behind. If you want to see the unsanitized news, go to FSTV, there are videos you can see online. Documentaries, where the films speak for themselves. Democracy Now is the news there.

    blubonnet (dc52ec)

  72. If you want to see the unsanitized news, go to FSTV, there are videos you can see online. Documentaries, where the films speak for themselves. Democracy Now is the news there.

    Here we go again. “Unsatitized news” according to whom? Anyone care to guess who funds these sites?

    FSTV and the “documentaries” they post all have a particular slant which is, not surprisingly, anti-American. Both the contributors and the participants also have a, not surprisingly, anti-American slant. No paper, book or video presentation is critiqued or subjected to critical peer review or analysis. In short, not a single disenting viewpoint on any subject seems to be allowed. Hardly what I would term an objective attempt to get to the truth on these subjects.

    I will cite the Fallujah “expose” as an example of slanted, inaccurate and just plain wrong information masquerading as “American crimes against humanity”. Demonstrably false at virtually every level of analysis. There is no military expert viewpoint; there is no medical expert viewpoint; and there is no legal expert viewpoint.

    Dr David R Griffin’s “analysis” supposedly debunking the 9/11 Commission report is another perfect example. Anyone with some basic knowledge of the subjects he covers in both his book and his FSTV video can spot his factually errors quite easily. And I don’t mean insignificant factual errors, I mean basic errors in logical inference and significant factual errors. A perfect example is his almost totally wrong analysis of the technical aspects of the air traffic control system. But it’s posted on the internet so it must be true?

    No, you don’t “have to” believe what you see on these sites because they too have an agenda and it is arguably not to inform you but to convert you.

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  73. Doc, I agree in general terms. Unfortunately even a PhD doesn’t immunize one from opining on subjects outside of one’s expertise as my example above suggests.

    Dr David R Griffin has both a PhD and a ThD, neither of which qualifies him to analyse the technical nature of the air traffic control system or the engineering of the WTC and the Pentagon. Yet he is not in the least reluctant to do both resulting in an error-filled “analysis” of how the 9/11 Commission covered up the “real” events of the 9/11 attacks.

    The demonstrable fact that his factual analysis is severly lacking, however, is the least of his problems, given that his most egregious errors are in his logical “reasoning”. Both of which, of course, seem to be characteristic of the “conspiracy theorists” on the fringe of the left on many of these sites.

    Normally I would expect more of a PhD and certainly of a ThD, but it seems that no conspiracy theory, no matter how thinly supported by facts and logic, is beyond the bounds of our national “discourse” these days, especially if it casts America or Bush in a bad light.

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  74. Well, I’ve asked Blu previously, on my somewhat less well trafficked site, why these things are given so little credibility by the mainstream media. After all, it’s not like The New York Times and CBS News have any particular reason to want to cover up things which would potentially be harmful to the Bush Administration!

    Dana (a90377)

  75. Well, Harry, I ‘m sure you have not seen David Ray Griffin’s lecture. You don’t have to have a Doctorate to acknowledge the inconsitsstencies in the government story. David Ray Griffin never claimed that his degree gave him the credibility to be a physicist. Actually, there are plenty of physicists that acknowledge the impossibility of the tower collapse at the implosive way and speed at which it went down. I’m talking about building 7. There are at least 40 pieces of evidence that cast doubt on the government story. Half of the NY city population believe the government was complicit in it. There is so much more I could tell you, but here in this space, I won’t. There are so many other books and material out now from objective people. There was a new one just recently by a group of professionals challenging the government story. People are recognizing what took place. It’s not an obscure conspiracy theory anymore. I’ll get back to you on some of the organizations that are on it.

    Most people do no realize that the right wing corporate powers were allowed media consolidation during the 80s and more so during the Clinton era. The fairness doctrine was thrown to the wayside. The radio waves are virtually all owned by the right wing corporate multi-network fat cats. So, as far as fair and balanced goes, what you get on “equal” time on left and right perspective is right wing vs farther right wing. By throwing in an occasional actual left wing perspective, the stations like FOX refer to those networks as “liberal”. You don’t know the half of it. Basically, the war profiteering companies that keep the networks afloat and flush, are the ones deciding what “left” and “right” views are. It of course is anything they want it to be. Then, a network that won’t be controlled by huge corporations profiting off of the war, and are soley dependent on donations, not an easy road, they are not getting rich, but have a higher principle in getting the truth out.

    blubonnet (dc52ec)

  76. This is ridiculous. There is not, and there could never be, a conspiracy on the scale of that required for the US government to have been responsible for and covered up the 9/11 attacks. I understand the emotional appeal of conspiracies, but they just don’t exist. Maybe, those of you on the left who beleive the US government is responsible for 9/11, and those of you on the right who think there’s a media conspiracy to supress any information that is favorable to president Bush can all get together and write a screenplay for an Oliver Stone movie or something. Now, that would be really entertaining!

    Adam (40d1a3)

  77. One more thing. I would argue that whether or not you believe in large scale conspiracies (on both the right or the left) is a better measure of rationality than Patterico’s original question.

    Adam (40d1a3)

  78. As expected, a common sheep like response! Have the guts to do some of your own pursuit on it. You’ll find more on it being valid that the government is hiding the truth and that the government rhetorics is hiding its foreknowledge and alot more.

    Do you know who Sibel Edmonds is? She was an FBI whistleblower. She presented the case to Congress, and a legal gag order was put on Congress. Here’s a link:
    http://www.smirkingchimp.com/viewtopic.php?topic=50194&forum=3&start=0

    Here’s one of the plethora of links out there on the subject of 911 inconsistencies with the official story:
    http://www.physics911.ca/Main_Page

    The question is: do you have the guts to look, and do you have the guts to admit it? Has anyone ever heard of “Operation Northwoods”? Our government has been doing nefarious things for decades off and on. If you were to look at information from ex-CIA agents, they expose things, some of them are out there telling it like it is.

    blubonnet (dc52ec)

  79. When I lived in the Middle East, I was constantly being told by friends and neighbors that whatever recent calamity that had occurred, be it terrorist attack or natural disaster, had been caused by some combination of Mossad and/or CIA secret ops (an idea not discouraged by the government run press). In a way, it always made me wish that they were right, because it would have made me feel that much safer knowing that the CIA was an unstoppable juggernaut, capable of arranging just about anything. In a similar vein, I sometimes wish we had a government and intelligence services that were competent enough to carry out these alleged conspiracies. It would definitely give me less to worry about when it came to rogue countries like Iran and North Korea.

    Adam (40d1a3)

  80. Blu, I have come to the conclusion that President Bush must be the most loved man in the country. According to you, not only did he put together a conspiracy in which hundreds of people had to have been involved, including nineteen Arabs who willingly went to their deaths for him, but of all of the conspirators who survived and had knowledge and evidence of this, any one of whom could have become richer than George Soros for bringing the information to the front, and every last one of them has kept this amazing secret.

    Dana (71415b)

  81. Dana:

    It’s like the DaVinci Code, only better.

    Adam (40d1a3)

  82. Adam: Does that mean I have to pay for it, or can I wait until it comes out on VH1?

    Dana (dd8e7e)

  83. Ohh, I think downloading a pirate copy would be way better.

    Adam (40d1a3)

  84. Dana,
    Cute comment. I do not claim to understand it. I just know that there are so many inconsistencies, with the official story and those that are studying it from many professioanlal perspectives, I just know it doesn’t all add up if you listen to the government. Did you read the letter of Sibel Edmonds in which I provided a link, up there a ways? How about the other link? Aren’t you even curious? There’s many many more organization/websites addressing these questions. Some of course have lack of credibiiity. The very fact that so many people find it impossible is a pretty insulating fact for them to more easily get away with it.

    blubonnet (dc52ec)

  85. Dana,

    It’s not that he’s loved – it’s that he has “The Force” and is able to control the minds of weaker willed individuals. Geez…everyone knows that.

    Get a grip blu – and please go see someone soon about your problem….

    Specter (466680)

  86. Specter:

    I always assumed that it was more Borg-like. You know, one mind, able to control the collective right wing conspiracy movement. Plus, we all know that republicans aren’t really human.

    Adam (1a1d06)

  87. I’ve read all the links and watched all the videos, including Dr Griffin’s lecture. I stand solidly by my analysis and comments.

    bb, I’m truly sorry you’ve chosen to believe this stuff but it’s predominantly the skin of a fact stuffed with nonsense.

    I don’t care how many PhDs, ThDs, or even MDs come up with horse hockey like this. It’s still nonsense. Dr Griffin spent a fair amount of time during his lecture talking about the aviation “facts” of 9/11. As a professional pilot and instructor with 36 years of experience in military and civilian aviation I can tell you unequivocally that he didn’t do his homework and doesn’t know what he’s talking about. His basic problem is that he doesn’t know what he doesn’t know.

    Furthermore, Dr (Philosophy and Theology) Griffin’s basic “logical” assumption is that when the 9/11 Commission was unable to find evidence it was simply because they didn’t look, because they didn’t want to find evidence. Aside from the fact that he couldn’t possibly know their motives, this example of circular reasoning is typical of his “analysis” of the 9/11 Commission’s report.

    Is there any sense whatsoever to the allegation that counselor Richard Ben-Veniste, congressman Lee Hamilton, counselor Jamie Gorelick, or senator Bob Kerrey, all democrats, would conspire to hide Bush’s or the government’s involvement in the 9/11 attacks?

    My son, a fine young civil engineer, was treated to a lecture from one of the structural designers of the WTC who arguably understands completely the structural design of the late WTC buildings as well as their vulnerabilities. He was quite able and willing to explain the mechanics of the collapse in detail. It is simply factually incorrect to allege that there is no suitable explanation for the collapse of the WTC buildings and the manner in which they fell.

    As Dana and Adam have also correctly noted, the very idea that a conspiracy of this magnitude, which had to have involved literally hundreds of people, could be contained, simply doesn’t pass any conceivable test involving common sense.

    But simply because we don’t agree with your assessment of the “analysis” presented by people with questionable expertise and clear agendas, we’re treated to ad hominem comments such as …

    As expected, a common sheep like response! Have the guts to do some of your own pursuit on it. You’ll find more on it being valid that the government is hiding the truth and that the government rhetorics is hiding its foreknowledge and alot more.

    As I have asked before, is it remotely possible that you are the one who doesn’t understand the facts? Is it possible that you are the one deceived by these “charlatans of conspiracy”?

    When I find a site that presents arguments pro and con, true research by people who know what they’re talking about, research papers subject to true peer review and criticism, and even a means by which to present alternative viewpoints and to question the assumptions and assertions presented, then I just might give them some level of credence. Until then, we’re just mud wrestling.

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  88. The very fact that so many people find it impossible is a pretty insulating fact for them to more easily get away with it.

    There is no valid logical inference to be gained from the fact that “so many people” believe anything. The truth is the truth whether anyone at all believes it or not.

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  89. So, do you guys know who Sibel Edmonds even is?
    I didn’t think so. She is an ex FBI. She approached the Congress, exposing the irregularities of the government story, and then was put, as was Congress under gag order. There is so much stuff you guys are oblivious to. You are mentally obedient to the government. Thinking independently is one thing you should not be willing to let go of. You think I need help.

    blubonnet (dc52ec)

  90. To Blubonnet:

    You said:

    “There is so much stuff
    you guys are oblivious to.
    You are mentally obedient
    to the government.”

    At least we’re all mentally obedient to the American government. You, however, are mentally obedient to the government of Planet Claire.

    Justice Frankfurter (2dcd84)

  91. You guys really ought to understand that the most profitable industries out there are actually running the show. Our goven=rnment is bought and paid for them. There is an ex CIA agent that knows what less than benevolent things our government is capable of. I asked if you knew what Operations Northwoods was. You didn’t. Well, go to this site of an ex-CIA and realize that those many that are signed on with the US government in this Iraq project, pretty much call the shots and also control what you find out about, because they pay the news networks. Just to get an idea of how controlled the news is:

    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corporate_Media/CorpMedia_ThreatDemocracy.html

    Wander around on that site and remember it is owned by an ex-CIA agent.

    blubonnet (dc52ec)

  92. an ex-CIA agent.

    Operative words. Do you know what kind of pensions ex-CIA people get? Not very big. He has to make money somehow. It’s refreshing that people like that make their money selling conspiracy theories to gullible people.

    You have yet to come near the question of why hundreds of current government employees, many of whom hate Bush, have not come forward with evidence that would surely have W standing in a cage in the middle of the room and being addressed as “the defendant.” If there was truly evidence, that would stand up to a grand jury scruitiny, that the President was complicit in the 9/11 attacks, it is doubtful that, out of the hundreds of people necessary to pull such a stunt, nobody would go to the MSM. Through the NSA debate, we’ve observed just exactly how loyal some of these people are, and exactly how willing they are to hand over government secrets to the MSM. If there was really a huge gov’t conspiracy to bring down the towers, we’d have known about it the day after it happened.

    otcconan (013bef)

  93. Well, one of my liberal (as so far left whacko liberal who blames the Jews for everything liberal) e-mail friends also claims to be a former CIA agent, who resigned in 1983 or 1984 because he didn’t like the secrecy walls the Reagan Administration put in place to keep Congress from finding out about aid to the Contras.

    This former double nought spy has claimed that al Qaeda launched the first World Trade Center bombing (in 1993) as a goodbye present for “Poppy” (the first President Bush) and the second (for which al Qaeda began planninhg and placing agents in 1999) as a welcoming present for the current President Bush, and that it would have been called off had Abdul al-Gore won the 2000 election. This former double nought spy has also blamed the first President Bush for the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Iraq, because Saddam Hussein would simply have called it off if President Bush had told him not to do it.

    And this former double nought spy has even said that the reason Muslims don’t believe in intermarriage is because the Jews didn’t believe in it first, and the Muslims were simply reacting to the hatred they received from the Jews.

    So, if I have a somewhat skeptical view of credentials when someone claims to have formerly been with the CIA, that’s why.

    Dana (3e4784)

  94. blu,

    I have never seen someone so paranoid-delusional as you are. Everything is a conspiracy. And we from the right are watching you right now. Quick – check under the bed….no….the closet. Better take apart your phone, computer, TV…well basically everything because there are “bugs” everywhere. And didn’t you know that the sites you quote were actually funded by Rove to make you look even less credible….

    Specter (466680)

  95. You overpaid m.croche for his thoughts. You should be getting change back, but in what socialistic currency is up for debate.

    PCD (86a06e)

  96. I’m curious how it is that all of a sudden the CIA and its “ex-agents” have such credibility with the left.

    Given the propensity of the CIA to act in the unseemly ways “documented” by this ex-agent, can you be really, really, really, really be sure that this isn’t just another CIA mind game designed to make the left look silly?

    Given the veracity of the information we received from John Kerry’s Winter Soldier “investigation” of war crimes in Viet Nam in the 70s, from the VVAW, I am immediately suspicious. Given also that the preponderance of the VVAW were either never in the theater or were, shall we say less than honest about their role, how sure are you that this “ex-agent” was ever an “agent” at all, let alone knows anything at all about the subjects upon which he is writing and commenting? Of course we can assume that his motives are pure, he has no broader agenda, and no axe to grind. In short, he gets a free pass.

    One more recent example. In the first Fallujah “expose” we heard from a young enlisted soldier who was presented as if he observed the military operations first hand. He also presented himself as an expert in the deployment of white phosphorous and chemical weapons. Upon closer examination it seems that his information was second hand, that he was not present, and that he really knows very little about the employment of military munitions. But of course now he’s an ex-soldier with a web site so it must have all been true after all.

    So what?

    Harry Arthur (40c0a6)

  97. ROTFLMAO, Felix.

    Ok, we have Godwin’s law — now do we have the B-52s law, that is, the conversation is essentially over once someone makes a reference to Planet Claire, even if it is indeed spot on?

    TNugent (6128b4)

  98. I should have listened to Patterico

    I started out treating the guy as a rational interlocutor, and then he comes out saying that 9/11 was a conspiracy involving the US government and generally acting like a paranoid wacko. I could have saved myself the effort because no one has ever ch…

    Doc Rampage (59ce3a)

  99. After reading blubonnet’s comments, I’ve changed my mind. The left does hate America. You’d have to to willingly believe every nefarious crackpot notion he’s presented in this argument.

    sharon (a02134)

  100. For the record:

    The terrorists are a worse enemy and bigger threat to American security than George W. Bush.

    Now, Patterico, could I get you on the record saying that the terrorists are a worse enemy or bigger threat than the ACLU, Howard Dean or liberals in general? Or would you lose too much of your readership?

    Tom (f35e9a)

  101. For God’s sake, who has credibility to you? George Bush, the guy that lied us into a war, that is making money personally along with Cheney off of the war?

    There was an article recently I read that was in Yahoo News. From the University of Minnesota the multitude of irregularities of the official government story of 911 brought into focus. So, the mainstream is starting to take up this, which I’ve been accused of pulling out of MoonPostPress.
    If one had the guts to study the points made, one would realize the case against the official government story is substantial. But then it would be too frightening to present it online. One might be accused of being…..(eek) a conspiracy theorist.

    You think I’m naive, but you just take every thing the government says at face value.

    I should not have to defend my patriotism. If I didn’t care about my country, I wouldn’t be here discussing what is going on in our name as Americans.

    I’m surprised you have never heard of the fact that the CIA for our government have been involved in all sorts of nefarious activities through history. Deception, being common. Why not google up Operation Northwoods? You think I’m nuts, well, I’m sorry, I think you guys are…excuse me for saying this…but in the leftie sites…you are sheeple. I’ll be a moonbat here, and you’d be a sheeple there.

    Yes, I love my country, but I’m more than a little dissapointed in my government right now. They really appear to be more mafioso than anything else. Arrests are happening all over the place in Washington DC.

    You do realize by now of course at this point in time that Bush lied us into a war? Well, with that little respect for our troops and life in general, what else do you think he is capable of? He really is quite mentally unstable. Any psycology professional or psychiatrist will tell you that.

    blubonnet (dc52ec)

  102. My favorite lefty wrote:

    You do realize by now of course at this point in time that Bush lied us into a war?

    I’ve got to ask: how did he do that?

    George Bush is not a producer of intelligence, but a consumer of it. For him to have lied (meaning: knowingly said something false) about the presence of WMD, he would have had to have known there were no WMD in Iraq.

    Now, for that to have been the case, the producers of intelligence, the CIA and other agencies, would have had to have known the truth, that there were no WMD.

    Well, the CIA is a fairly large organization, and at least some of the people therein aren’t conservatives, some of them just don’t like George Bush. A lot of people in the CIA would have known that the WMD claim was a lie, yet none of them came out and said so.

    Of course, the intelligence producers and the government leaders who are the consumers in the United Kingdom, in France, in Germany, in Russia, would all have to have supported the lie; they all said that there were WMD in Iraq, even though some of those countries opposed the invasion, none of them came out and said that their intelligence agencies claimed there were no WMD.

    Think of all of the people who would have put their careers and even their freedom (given that some could go to jail for knowingly having lied) on the line, just to cover for George Bush wanting to tell a huge lie, to invade Iraq.

    President Bush must be the most loved man in the world, for all of those people to have put their careers, their fortunes and their honor on the line, for a lie that they would have known to be exposed as soon as no WMD were found.

    Dana (3e4784)

  103. Dana, There are dozens of officials that have come out and and made statements that Bush and gang knowingly lied. Do I need to remind you once again as to why you didn’t hear of it? One of the few shows on PBS that still expose the naked truth, did an expose’ last week. It was that show the neo-cons hate. The violation being telling on them, but phrased as “liberally biased”. It was on NOW. But, there are dozens of them. Usually, they lose their job or get trashed in the media. There is now an organization specifically for whistleblowers to provide assistance, be it legal or whatever, because of the persistant pattern of this Bush cabal. I couldn’t even begin to list all those violated by the abusers in chief here.

    blubonnet (dc52ec)

  104. Blu wrote:

    Dana, There are dozens of officials that have come out and and made statements that Bush and gang knowingly lied. Do I need to remind you once again as to why you didn’t hear of it? One of the few shows on PBS that still expose the naked truth, did an expose’ last week. It was that show the neo-cons hate. The violation being telling on them, but phrased as “liberally biased”. It was on NOW. But, there are dozens of them. Usually, they lose their job or get trashed in the media. There is now an organization specifically for whistleblowers to provide assistance, be it legal or whatever, because of the persistant pattern of this Bush cabal. I couldn’t even begin to list all those violated by the abusers in chief here.

    Oh, go ahead, sure you can!

    Blu, I check The Lost Kos most days, I occasionally check Oliver Willis, sites which are more than slightly hostile to President Bush, yet they, too, have remained curiously silent about the “dozens of officials that have come out and and made statements that Bush and gang knowingly lied.” It’s kind of difficult for me to picture Mr Willis or Mr Zúniga burying such information.

    Blu, the Democrats want desperately to pick up seats in the 2006 elections, yet you have pretty much said that they are sitting there, doing nothing, with information which, if true, would have President Bush impeached, removed from office, and then jailed. According to you, the Democrats are acting against their own interests to protect President Bush and the Republicans.

    Why would they do that?

    Dana (3e4784)

  105. Tom, I can’t speak for Pat, but in all honesty, …

    Harry Arthur (40c0a6)

  106. bb, you asert that George Bush, the guy that lied us into a war, … is making money personally along with Cheney off of the war?

    Care to expound on this some more? I’m curious how it is that Bush and Cheney are “personally making money off the war”. I’m not trying to be deliberately obtuse or confrontational, just trying to get at the facts.

    I’d really appreciate one or more examples of the reason for this allegation.

    Harry Arthur (40c0a6)

  107. bb, Arrests are happening all over the place in Washington DC.

    I live in Northern Virginia across the Potomac from Washington DC. I read the local papers, WaPo and WaTimes. I haven’t heard about this. Care to enlighten us with some details?

    You do realize by now of course at this point in time that Bush lied us into a war?

    No, I don’t realize this. I realize that Bush was wrong about WMDs as far as we know currently. To have lied is a different subject entirely. I think we’re stuck here on what it means “to lie”.

    Well, with that little respect for our troops and life in general, what else do you think he is capable of?

    I honestly disagree that we can possibly know this. Disrespect for life in general?

    He really is quite mentally unstable. Any psycology professional or psychiatrist will tell you that.

    Oh, really? I don’t believe this is a fundamental truth on which “any” mental health professional would agree. I’m wondering, might we have the benefit of a few examples of Bush’s mental instability?

    bb, you can reasonably disagree with Bush’s policies and actions but these comments are so far over the top that you do any cogent argument you might make a diservice.

    Harry Arthur (40c0a6)

  108. Harry, I don’t follow.

    Tom (f15f49)

  109. Tom, The terrorists are a worse enemy and bigger threat to American security than George W. Bush.

    Now, Patterico, could I get you on the record saying that the terrorists are a worse enemy or bigger threat than the ACLU, Howard Dean or liberals in general?

    I was contemplating a snarkily ambivilent answer and thought better of it.

    Since we’re “all” agreed that the larger threat is OBL, perhaps the scope of the question ought now to be whether the “ACLU, Howard Dean or liberals in general” are more dangerous to the survival of the republic than GW Bush.

    I would argue that the ACLU and Howard Dean certainly are and that “liberals in general”, to the extent that they are the “loyal opposition”, are not. I would also argue that the far left are certainly more of a threat to the existance of the republic and the protection of our freedoms than is GW Bush. IMHO of course.

    Perhaps this is a subject for another thread?

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  110. Mr Arthur asked:

    He really is quite mentally unstable. Any psycology professional or psychiatrist will tell you that. (Blu)

    Oh, really? I don’t believe this is a fundamental truth on which “any” mental health professional would agree. I’m wondering, might we have the benefit of a few examples of Bush’s mental instability?

    Why, that’s simple, Mr Arthur: he’s not a flaming leftist, so, by the far leftist logic, he must be “quite mentally unstable.”

    I’m surprised you didn’t know that!

    Dana (3e4784)

  111. :-)

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  112. I would argue that the ACLU and Howard Dean certainly are [more dangerous to the survival of the republic than Dubya] and that “liberals in general”, to the extent that they are the “loyal opposition”, are not. I would also argue that the far left are certainly more of a threat to the existance of the republic and the protection of our freedoms than is GW Bush. IMHO of course.

    Harry Arthur, I respect your humble opinion and as a subtext to this conversation, I’d like to say that IMHO, the far left and the far right tend to meet in the middle at the juncture of fascism and totalitarianism. Having said that, I do not view either the ACLU or Howard Dean as emblematic of the far left, nor do I view Bush as particularly far right. I would like to know what is it exactly about the ACLU and Howard Dean respectively that you find so threatening to the survival of the republic?

    First, let us agree that the republic, as we know and appreciate it, amount to a series of fundamental American values, if you will. When it comes to the values of the republic, a great place to start is Exhibit A, the Bill of Rights. We probably disagree on the right to privacy, but without delving into that, can we agree that when it comes to freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, the right tends to want to limitl, control and/or alter said freedoms, while the left tends to take a more constructionist approach. Do I sound crazy? Consider the separation of powers, or the limits of executive powers.

    I would argue that George Bush, in his willingness to sacrifice American civil liberties via the Patriot Act, as well as his “above the rule of law” approach to homeland security, poses a greater threat to undoing the institution of separation of powers, and thus the values of the republic, than do Dean or the ACLU, who seek to preserve the individual freedoms that Bush attacks. (Additionally, Dean, as you may or may not know, believes in states’ rights when it comes to gun control, recognizing that Vermont needs different laws than, say, NYC–but this is not really here nor there, other than to demonstrate consistency on his part.)

    So I’m not seeing the “threat” that is posed by Dean or the ACLU here, certainly not one that is “worse,” so to speak, than the one posed by an administration that believes itself to have absolute power in conducting the war on terror. But you evidently feel otherwise, so please elaborate.

    Tom (eb6b88)

  113. First of all let me remind you that not everyone who dislikes Bush is therefore a “lefty”. In the world of Bush land, of course, you are either ‘agin me or fur me” and everyone who dissents is branded a lefty or liberal including Bob Barr and Pat Buchanan and members of Bush One’s administration. Nothing other than absolute and total loyalty to the Supreme Leader will do.

    There is no question Bush is a far greater threat than Osama. Osama Bin Ladin killed 3000 people and tries to kill more. That is horrible.. ( ya! I know Ann Coulter says people like me are “barely able to contain our joy at it all” or words to that effect.. and you believe her..)

    Three thousand is a lot of dead folks. Too bad when Bush received that PDB about Osama Determined to Strike in USA he went on vacation. Hey! a guy’s gotta to have some time off. Keeps ones mind sharp.. Osama was a destroyer but Bush, however, has taken the entire nation down the road of mass destruction. He has arrogantly followed policies resulting in over 2000 US troops killed and over 16,000 wounded and over 30,000 Iraqis killed because he led us into a war with “cherry picked’ info. Its an ideal war for the terrorists since it is a vast recruiting and training ground for future militants all over the world and one which we cannot win. Its draining our resources, destroying our military and allowing Hamas to win in Palestine and a crackpot to come to power in Iran. Could Osama have done all that? Only in his wildest dreams.

    We have lost the respect and confidence of most of the world because of his arrogant, ignorant behavior and those of his criminal administration.
    The dollar is in decline as our economic base erodes because of his massive deficit creating policies. Does anyone really believe he will cut the deficit in half with his constant tax cutting and his increased spending? And where are those Conservatives who told us we won the Cold war by spending the Soviets into bankruptcy. Dont the economic rules apply to us?

    He is undermining civil liberties here at home. The very ones true Conservatives were once so concerned about. He has brought shame and discredit on the entire conservative movement that used to worry so much about the growth of the Imperial Presidency and the erosion of states rights. Now they welcome it and if someone can be picked off the streets and held indefinitely without charges, or access to the courts, hell, its no big deal and besides, not to worry, soon the courts will be part of the New Republican party anyway. ( Heres a thought. Wouldn’t it be funny if Hillery Clinton won the next election and declared all members of the Republican party “enemy combatants?” .

    He has engaged in political tactics aimed at deliberate division and uses or has his surrogates use deliberately divisive tactics and language to create fear and hate among the citizens and ride the results to power.
    He is shamelessly ignorant as to what is going on around him and has filled this administration with incompetent cronies whose abilities can be seen in the continuing and increasing flood of illegals over the boarder and the amazingly incompetent response to Katrina. From now on whenever anybody says ” you’re doing a heck of a job —-” get your resume ready.
    He is an international buffoon whose verbal gaffs fill volumes and will be laughed at for years.
    His only talents are his good looks and great speaking voice and ability to shift blame. Those talents, combined with a ruthless cadre of loyalists who care not a wit about facts but rely on faith in the leader, and who willingly engage in the most blatant of deceptions, combined with a lame press and a gutless opposition have allowed this liar extraordinaire and his neo fascist party to become a far more dangerous threat to the stability and health of this country than Osama ever dreamed of being. In fact the real reason Osama has not hit us again is probably due the fact that they want him to continue exactly what he is doing. In a perverse way I think short term we are actually safer with him in office for that reason and since most people think short term that explains his popularity.
    So who is the biggest threat to the US..hell its not even close. G Bush hands down.

    Charlie (8ea405)

  114. Hey Pat I hope you draw attention to my post like you did for the others. I dont want to be “left” out so to speak. Do I win a prize for candor?

    Charlie (8ea405)

  115. Charlie, applause, eloquent and dead on!!!!!!!!!!

    blubonnet (dc52ec)

  116. Oh for cryin’ out loud! You guys lost this one. you get another chance in ’08 to field somebody better. In the mean time your time would be better spent in trying to defend your country DESPITE Mr. Bush, instead of getting in bed with the ACLU who can twist the Constitution around so that Pedophiles (NAMBLA) are accorded the same rights as poltical dissent. I sure am glad you whack-jobs weren’t around during WWII, christ, we might be speaking German or Japanese. Yeesh grown up.

    paul (464e99)

  117. I’m still waiting for the plan from the loyal opposition. “Bush is evil incarnate” is not a plan. What is your suggestion for alternatives? Particularly with regard to the war in Iraq? What is your plan for the PRK? For Iran? For NSA monitoring of foreign-originated calls? The budget? Social Security? The military? und so weiter …

    Basically, for everything, since Bush has pretty much screwed up everything we do? An honest cogent plan will actually win elections.

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  118. Harry, not every bad idea must be answered by better one. Sometimes, the only response need be, “Stop! Cease and desist, you fool!” Illegal surveillence and Bush’s idea of Social Security reform are prime examples of such bad ideas (and, in the case of the latter, bad numbers). You want an alternative? How ’bout not [Cheney]ing things up instead?

    Tom (f35e9a)

  119. Harry, I didn’t respond a while back when you asked about how Bush and Cheney are making money off of the war. I can’t believe you didnt know this. Look up Carlyle Group. Also, Cheney is making over $21,000.oo daily on average from his stock in Halliburton. Also, just look up and find all the business connections the bin Ladens have had in their decades long friendship with the Bush family. Also, Osama worked for the CIA (our CIA) at one time. Tangled web they’ve woven. Bush Sr. of course was in the CIA. Who knows what the heck is going on between all of them? They are war profiteering vampires. Please look it up. It really is quite fascinating. I would hope you have enough of an open mind (uh oh…sigh) to consider that some sources might be credible and others are of a Disney nature. Remember how Eisenhower warned us of the perils of the military industrial complex. As Jim Hightower says. We don’t worry about the corporations lobbying the government anymore. They are the government. (shiver)

    blubonnet (b48357)

  120. Harry and Paul you are quite right and we need to defend the country inspite of Mr Bush. The opposition does need a plan….but I think a simple acknowledgement that Bush is a threat to world peace and a threat to the USA is a good start.

    Charlie (8ea405)

  121. not every bad idea must be answered by better one. Sometimes, the only response need be, “Stop! Cease and desist, you fool!”

    Of course it must, if only to establish the fact that this is a “foolishly bad idea”. But assuming your assertion is correct, I would ask: and then do … what, exactly? Stopping implies either standing still or going in another direction. Which to you prefer and why?

    Illegal surveillence …

    Didn’t you just love Daschle and Harman over the weekend on Meet the Press? This is a terrible, illegal program that violates the 4th amendment, right? Absolutely, opine D & H. So, should we stop what we’re doing? Absolutely not! It’s working both opine in unison.

    Perhaps you can enlighten me as to why we should not immediately stop an “illegal” program that violates the constitution. And passing a law that makes it legal simply means that we’ve now added an unconstitutional law to an unconstitutional act so I would argue that is not a reasonable alternative.

    At this point, the NSA program is neither legal nor illegal. That is simply your assertion. Reasonable people are still in the disagreement stage on this subject.

    As for SS, let’s talk again in say 10 years or so when there is no longer a SS surplus to mask the deficit and the SSA begins to redeem bonds. Perhaps you will have changed your mind by then. The demographics are the real “bad numbers”.

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  122. I would hope you have enough of an open mind (uh oh…sigh)[cute] to consider that some sources might be credible and others are of a Disney nature.

    Somehow I think we’d disagree on who the Disney characters might be. I’ve already discussed a few, some of whom even have advanced degrees. Of course that doesn’t for a minute imply that their assertions aren’t “Mickey Mouse”.

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  123. Okay, Harry, I guess those engineers, physicists, and NASA professionals have less credibility than you, after all Bush is such a good Christian. He cares about the poor. He makes sure there is equal opportunity for everyone, at least if you join the military, then you’ll be equally neglected and lied to by the administration. Your faith is in the abusers. It’s kind of like telling a co-dependent that his/her spouse is cheating on them, and that the slapping around done to them is not okay, but the co-dependent/abused keeps saying…”well, he/she means well”, and, “oh, it was just a mistake”, and “he/she just had a bad day”. Sorry, but unless you are in his millionaire/billionaire club, your well being is of no concern to these neo-con fascists.

    blubonnet (dc52ec)

  124. Harry there is another issue here. If the wiretapping without warrents was not illegal why did Bush say that such taps were illegal in April of 2004?? and that he was protecting the Constitution by getting warrents?
    ….all at the very moment he was doing exactly what he said would undermine the Constitution??? Was he ignorant of the facts? Was he lying? You tell me..

    Charlie (8ea405)

  125. Charlie, I believe if you look at the context of his remarks and the question that was asked that he was talking about domestic-to-domestic wiretaps, about which no one is in disagreement. The disagreement is when one side of the “tap” (for lack of a more descriptive term for what we’re actually doing) is foreign and one is domestic and the foreign side is identifiable as an AQ-related number.

    You’re welcome to your opinion, as we all are. My point was not to state unequivocably that the “taps” were legal but that at this point we don’t know enough to “know” that they were or weren’t.

    I’m willing to let the details sort themselves out. Until then I suspect we’ll have to agree to disagree with respect to their characterization. I do think that Daschle and Harman were stradling the fence, though. Either they are illegal and unconstitutional and should be stopped, or not. I don’t believe you can have it both ways. Apparently many of the “guardians of our freedoms” in congress would like to have it both ways, though, as I’ve not heard any of them suggest that we stop the practice immediately.

    blu, take a deep breath and relax. Your “argument” is an “appeal to authority” logical fallacy, except that your “authorities” aren’t. I’m also totally confused about this obsession you seem to have with Christianity. As I tried to point out above, my personal beliefs have really nothing to do with whether my argument is valid. I really would like to concentrate on facts and a logical thought process here without continuing to have to respond to personal epithets. I just simply disagree with your “experts”.

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  126. Harry you may believe something which some spinner has told you but your thoughts on what he said are simply wrong. Bush clearly interrupts himself and says this..

    “Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, ANY TIME you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so. It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

    Harry do you read the word “anytime”?? Anytime means anytime…You dont need an “expert” to understand what he meant or to understand there were no qualifications given when he said this as his spinners claim. Read it for yourself and just be honest..

    .. Yes people can argue that the taps were legal or not and they can point out that others may have done the same. My only point is to point out that Bush lied and if he says that a court order is necessary to protect the Constitution then, by HIS OWN WORDS he must be not protecting the Constitution…something he swore to do.

    Does this make sense to you? Does it matter?

    Now please explain to me how this is an appeal to authority or taken out of context when I can produce the tape showing him saying those very words and the entire speech is printed on the White House website??
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html
    I just dont get it. Why are his supporters so damn willing to stretch the truth to support him???

    As far as my “obsession with Christianity” I am not trying to convert anyone..merely pointing out that the teachings of Bush are contrary to those of Christ. There are a lot of people that call themselves Christians so I attempt to talk to them in the words of someone they respect from a source they believe in. Whats wrong with that?

    Charlie (8ea405)

  127. Charlie, fair enough. I believe Bush was making a talking point and did not consider the NSA program in his point. How could he have done so without revealing a secret program? I certainly see your point nonetheless and don’t feel you’re being unreasonable to make it.

    Please note, however, that the last paragraph of my post was directed to blu, not to you. I was responding to her post and yours at the same time in a single post.

    I took your comments about “what would Jesus do” and how he would be received by many to have been made in good faith. I don’t agree but I also don’t think it was obsessive.

    If you take a gander up thread you’ll note that blu has tried to paint me in a certain way based on blu’s preconceived notion about what I might as an evangelical believe and has continued to revisit the point with respect to Bush. I just honestly think it is not important to the argument I was making about conspiracy theorist sites.

    I was simply attempting to suggest that the comments blu made were non-sequitur regarding whatever faith I might espouse since my faith has no bearing on whether any argument I might make is factual or logical or even makes sense. None at all. Whether I am arguing consistently with my beliefs might be a different subject.

    blu’s beef with me is that I simply disagree with the “experts” often cited, because I don’t accept either their facts or their arguments. blu does, and that’s fine but not because my objections have been refuted logically and factually but simply because there are a fair number of people with advanced degrees that are in agreement. Therefore, I suggested that blu’s posting were based on “appeals to authority” as opposed to a logical and factual thought process.

    Your citation, on the other hand, as well as your argument was factual and logical. I have no problem with either. Nor do I have a problem with your interpretation of Bush’s arguably all inclusive statement.

    I would also agree that if he actually thought about his denial and realized that he was making a factually incorrect statement that was a lie. My assertion is simply that he either didn’t consider the NSA program in his thinking or intentionally lied to protect a secret. You can legitimately consider that spin. I’m fine with that and I don’t consider it unfair of you to make that argument.

    Harry Arthur (7f96b4)

  128. Harry .. Nice post to me..appreciate the remarks and the tone.

    Charlie (8ea405)

  129. Harry, I personally do not think that using all of your analyltical thought process could possibly bring you to the conclusion that Christianity, at least the variety traditional modern churches present, show a viable argument for substantiating it. That is however another subject. See, I respect that your religion is precious enough to you, to basically leave it alone. I do not want to argue that. Been there, done that, as they say.

    On the subject of logical explanations about the irregularities of the official 911 story, I having read a great deal on it, have adequate knowledge to judge for myself. However, I recognize that my perspective is not worth much to you all, therefore, the many scholars, and physicists, and engineers, etc. do hold more credibility than I. I doubt you’ve looked much at all the evedence that far exceeds the mere problems with the tower story.

    Yes, we have a criminal cabal running this country!

    blubonnet (b48357)

  130. Harry, I forgot to mention, about Christianity and Bush, I just meant to say that I believe it is a ruse of his, a manipulation which apparently was effective.

    blubonnet (dc52ec)

  131. Harry the real problem goes beyond the simple matter of a false statement about a wiretap and court orders. There is a pattern of deception and a manipulative attitude in this administration which is contrary to democratic ways. For example, instead of a debate on the issue of war and an honest discussion of the facts, cherry picked evidence was used and a fake attempt at avoiding war was played out to manipulate the people into supporting these shortsighted policies. In Bushworld people areincapable of understanding things so they are to be manipulated instead. Bush willingness to lie is evident in the completely false accounts he has given about the lead up to the war the most blatent being that the war was unavoidable because Sadam would not let inspectors in. They actually left just before the war began at Bush insistance so that is an outright lie.
    The list of his half truths and deceptions is endless and this is why we are so divided today. We were not told the truth about the situation but as the saying goes “there are none so blind as those who will not see” This arrogant administration relies on deception, photo ops, fear and hate for all those it terms “liberals” ( anyone who opposes the Imperial One) to create a blind willingness to follow the President no matter how disasterous his policies may be. That is why you cant reason with them.
    This country is in grave danger from so many areas it is freightening. But the most freightening is the willingness of so many to turn a blind eye to what has to be the worst administration in history.

    Charlie (8ea405)

  132. “But the most freightening is the willingness of so many to turn a blind eye to what has to be the worst administration in history.”

    I’m confused; were you referring to Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton?

    btf0309 (c30fe5)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4614 secs.