Patterico's Pontifications

5/18/2008

Ron George: My God, I Am Courageous!

Filed under: Buffoons,Constitutional Law,Court Decisions — Patterico @ 11:27 am



The L.A. Times has a puff-piece interview with Ron George, the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court and the swing vote in the gay marriage decision:

[A]s he read the legal arguments, the 68-year-old moderate Republican was drawn by memory to a long ago trip he made with his European immigrant parents through the American South. There, the signs warning “No Negro” or “No colored” left “quite an indelible impression on me,” he recalled in a wide-ranging interview Friday.

“I think,” he concluded, “there are times when doing the right thing means not playing it safe.”

Oh, that quote says it all. The overwhelming sense of self-satisfaction . . . it just drips from off of your computer screen.

It could be Anthony Kennedy, basking in the glow of a reporter’s adulation and his own sense of his own courage.

What it doesn’t sound like, is a judge reading the text of a document and making a decision about what it means.

561 Responses to “Ron George: My God, I Am Courageous!”

  1. I got into a heated fight (for which I have since apologized to my hosts), two nights ago, at a party where a liberal local legislator told us his governmental philosophy. He said, essentially, “Damn my constituency, I am their representative. I will pass the law and “educate them” [his words] why it is right. If they don’t like it, they can vote me out of office”. The conversation went downhill when I asked “Where is the re-education camp?”

    nk (954dd7)

  2. yeah, i read some of that article and basically came away thinking, a dodering good hearted old fool who wants to be well thought of in his retirement. the problem is, thats not why he was hired.

    james conrad (7cd809)

  3. “I think,” he concluded, “there are times when doing the right thing means not playing it safe.”

    Feh. This is beyond smug, this is pathetic.

    This slogan would neatly fit right into the pre-packaged litany of feel-&-do goodisms we promote in public schools as a way to encourage students to be honest and to say no to drugs, gang banging, tagging, drinking, huffing, and all the other assorted extra-curricular activities that are available.

    From our Chief Justice of California, I would have expected more sound reasoning and efforts at an interpretation that effects millions of individuals and our culture at large.

    Dana (8e52e5)

  4. A classical demonstration of the concept of Judicial Activism, and why someone else needs to be dis-barred.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  5. “I think,” he concluded, “there are times when doing the right thing means not playing it safe.”

    However, “doing the right thing”, also means doing the thing right, which is most always the safest way. History will now be the “judge” of Chief Justice Ron George and whether his decision was “courageous” or foolish. Airline passengers should be thankful that Ron George is not an airline pilot.

    C. Norris (3703b2)

  6. The conversation went downhill when I asked “Where is the re-education camp?”

    Good for you, nk.

    C. Norris (3703b2)

  7. “He said, essentially, “Damn my constituency, I am their representative. I will pass the law and “educate them” [his words] why it is right. If they don’t like it, they can vote me out of office”. The conversation went downhill when I asked “Where is the re-education camp?””

    On another thread people were talking about dubya’s incredible unpopularity.

    stef (de7003)

  8. nk…
    Though I agree with your response to the boorish attitude of your local pol, is it not correct that his basic attitude of doing what he thinks is correct public policy, and then attempting to educate his constituency as to the correctness of that policy, and then saying “If you don’t like what I do, vote me out” not the proper proceedure in a Republic, as ours is constituted?

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  9. Its ironic that according to George, the only other case that caused him as much anguish as his decision on gay marriage was the push for the A.G. to prosecute the Hillside Strangler. Apparently his ruling to overturn California’s parental consent law regarding abortion wasn’t too much of a struggle.

    Dana (8e52e5)

  10. On another thread people were talking about dubya’s incredible unpopularity.

    And your point is?

    Paul (cf2458)

  11. Of a more broader reach is the ruling’s making sexual orientation a suspect class like race.

    This could be the groundwork for invalidating any forthcoming constitutional amendments enacted by the voters.

    Alta Bob (d1f437)

  12. “And your point is?”

    I think the discussion there touched on this topic, of whether our elected leaders should be concerned with what we wanted, or what they thought was right.

    stef (8bb588)

  13. I doubt that. They would have a HELL of a time justifying anything that calls unconstitutional something that modifies the constitution…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  14. “I think,” he concluded, “there are times when doing the right thing means not playing it safe.”

    Sounds like most of the time the smug judge plays it safe and doesn’t do the right thing.

    Perfect Sense (b6ec8c)

  15. I’d suggest starting the recall petitions, but given the sorry state of Republican politics in CA, would the replacements be any better?

    M. Scott Eiland (b66190)

  16. I’m coming up on 68 years old and honestly have never seen one of the signs in real life. I’ve seen radical blacks like MLK and the racist that follow his line (all for money) come up with them, but just where did they get them, and who posted them. Some were there but you would have had to look hard to find them.

    Scrapiron (d671ab)

  17. Of a more broader reach is the ruling’s making sexual orientation a suspect class like race.

    I think that’s unquestionably true. The potential reach of that ruling is quite broad.

    This could be the groundwork for invalidating any forthcoming constitutional amendments enacted by the voters.

    I think that’s unquestionably false. There’s no real justification for an argument that an amendment to the state constitution violates the state constitution.

    You could argue that an amendment to the state constitution violates the federal constitution, but the ruling only made sexual orientation a suspect class under the state constitution. The rules for what is and is not a suspect class under the federal constitution are different, and there is no good reason to believe that sexual orientation would be considered suspect under the federal constitution.

    aphrael (db0b5a)

  18. #11, I also have a problem with homosexuals being declared a “suspect class”. As I read it, homosexuals do not fit the description of any “suspect class”

    http://banap.net/spip.php?article11

    As homosexuals are not have distinguishing physical traits as in visual with women/men or a person of color, it would seem that is not applicable.

    Also they hold the same rights as any other group of citizens, yes, including the right to marry. Just not someone of the same gender. But no state in the union has a law that says a gay man cannot marry a woman, straight or gay.

    So how can the ruling give them “suspect class” status? Seems this, and the fact that the judge ruled by his own personal standards, and from what I have read, using the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as a guide, not the California constitution, that this case is subject to be overturned in a higher court.

    As it is physically and clinical possible to prove you are male or female, black or white, how would one go about proving, in a court of law, that they are gay and there for fit the ‘suspect class’ when it comes to discrimination or failure to have equal rights under the law.

    If you are a 6’4″ man and walk into court in a pink tutu, does that constitute “proof” of homosexuality?

    retire05 (874fe5)

  19. retire05 at 18:

    Also they hold the same rights as any other group of citizens, yes, including the right to marry. Just not someone of the same gender. But no state in the union has a law that says a gay man cannot marry a woman, straight or gay.

    Yes, and the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and poor alike to sleep under the bridge.

    Myself, I think the court went off the rails with this decision. But the ban on same-sex marriage is discriminatory. (All law is discriminatory.) The question is whether the discrimination is constitutionally permissible.

    Paul S. (289d5e)

  20. I suspect the last words of Justice Ron George in this temporal plane of existence will echo those of Vespasian on his deathbed:

    “Puto deus fio” (“I think I’m turning into a god.”)

    Hell’s bells, why should judges bother with mundane legal details when they know they can get away with issuing god-like rulings?

    MarkJ (7fa185)

  21. Paul S., by that same standard, it is discrimination to forbid me to marry my mother. Or if my religion dictates, to marry my sister.

    You are right, all laws are discriminatory. It is discrimination against minors to forbid them to purchase alcohol.

    Correct me if I am wrong, but could it not be argued (between us) that laws are designed for the common good and the advancement of a society? What “common good” can be found by allowing a gay man to marry another man other than to grant special priviledge to a segment of our society. How does that advance the “common good”?
    If gays are given “special class” distinction, and are then granted affirmative action rights, how does one go about proving they are gay? Is the mere claim of homosexuality now legal proof?

    If a white male is declined entry to a university because that slot was designated to another student under affirmative action, could that white male then claim he is homosexual and therefore be considered under affirmative action? And if that white male sues under affirmative action to garner the slot allowed for a “minority” how does he prove to a court of law he is gay?

    retire05 (874fe5)

  22. Retire05, at 18: the rules, under the interpretation of a given state’s constitution for what constitutes a suspect class under that state’s constitution, are different from the rules in other states, and from the rules for what constitutes a suspect class under the federal constitution.

    I don’t know which rules the link you cite is talking about, but it seems unlikely to me that they are the rules used when interpreting California’s constitution; I suspect they’re either looking to federal rules or to the Massachussets rules.

    The California supreme court laid out the rules starting on page 96 of the opinion:

    “For a statutory classification to be considered ‘suspect’ for equal protection purposes, generally three requirements must be met. The defining characteristic must (1) be based upon an ‘immutable trait’; (2) ‘bear[] no relation to [a person’s] ability to perform or contribute to society’; and (3) be associated with a ‘stigma of inferiority and second class citizenship,’ manifested by the group’s history of legal and social disabilities”.

    aphrael (db0b5a)

  23. Another Drew #8,

    I think that’s too reductionist. He should remain responsive to his constituency and to their needs. “Vote me out” is not constructive. “Educate me” (instead of “I will educate you”) is better.

    nk (954dd7)

  24. aphrael

    (1) be based upon an ‘immutable trait’;

    Race and Gender I can perceive.

    As an employer how do I discern ‘gayness’?

    Can I ask “Are you queer?” That oughta go over big.

    Buckshot (62b062)

  25. NK, I think the stance that legislator has is exactly what a legislator in a republic should so: exercise his best judgment as to what is best, then explain to his electorate, and if he can’t convince them he was right, he gets unelected next time around.

    But he was a legislator. George is a judge, and judges aren’t supposed to decide what the best policy is.

    kishnevi (4055ab)

  26. Just because this slug wears a robe doesn’t make him a judge. In his case it only makes him one of the crowd of idiots. Never respect a judge or the court system again. They are 99% slimey slugs on a drive to enrich themselves or boost their own ego’s.

    Scrapiron (d671ab)

  27. Can I ask “Are you queer?” That oughta go over big.

    “Well, your refferances were all excellent, and I have to tell you, I’ve quite impressed with you degrees. I just have one final question… How gay are you?”

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  28. “I’ve seen radical blacks like MLK”

    Nice one dude.

    “As an employer how do I discern ‘gayness’?”

    As the person handing out marriage license, you discern it by the person wanting to be in a same sex marriage. As an employer, you’d discern it the same way a discriminator would.

    stef (394243)

  29. As a Los Angeles County trial juror, I’ve sworn to:

    –Consider only the evidence allowed at trial.

    –Disclose if I were acquainted or related to classes of people involved in the trial, like law enforcement officers.

    –Not undertake any independent investigation of the case.

    –Not discuss the case with any other person during the trial.

    –Disregard any personal knowledge I may have about the matters on trial.

    –Apply the law only in the manner explained by the trial judge.

    It appears that Justice George fell below the standard of conduct required of a humble trial juror. With Justice George, it’s all about his feelings. Naturally, the LA Times thinks that’s just fine.

    Mike (81e4d2)

  30. Having lived in Montgomery, Ala from 1967 to 1970 I can way, without hesitation, that there were many signs warning blacks away from certain businesses. But I guess I am too “bitter” to understand the connection between racism of the 1960s and gay marriage in California in 2008…

    db (03417d)

  31. kishnevi #25…
    Thank you, for being more eloquent than this humble servant in expressing my position.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  32. #22 aphrael:

    I don’t know which rules the link you cite is talking about, but it seems unlikely to me that they are the rules used when interpreting California’s constitution;

    It doesn’t particularly matter which rules retire05 is referring to, as the opinion you cite also refers to an “immutable trait” as an indicia of suspect class; and homosexuality would seem to fail that test. From the link retire05 cites,

    Another way to see this is that there is no free entry into and egress this group.

    would seem a reasonable definition of a group defined by an immutable trait, and on its face, homosexuality would fail to identify a suspect class on that basis even if we are eventually able to identify a subgroup of individuals who carry a genetic marker identifying them as “gay.”

    After all, anybody of mind to do so can engage in homosexual behavior, regardles of whether or not they are “genetically programmed” to be gay or not.

    EW1(SG) (84e813)

  33. kishnevi # 25,

    Are you sure? In a system of balance of powers and checks and balances should there not be legislators who are windvanes, doing what their constituencies want, and judges to keep them in check?

    My problem is that I like the decision. It’s de minimis either way. There will likely be four thousand same-sex marriages. Three thousand of them between women. Society can say. “It doesn’t matter a gnat’s ass to us. Eight thousand people cannot hurt us and if we hurt them it is acceptable losses”. Why don’t do the kinder thing?

    nk (d7f5f5)

  34. Why don’t *we* do the kinder thing?

    nk (d7f5f5)

  35. nk, i like the decision too. it isn’t just doing the kinder thing, it’s doing the thing that maximizes individual freedom and civil rights for all. it’s the only position which is consistent with a general philosophy of maximum individual freedom for ourselves.

    assistant devil's advocate (b0266c)

  36. But I don’t believe in natural rights, ada. Man is the measure of all things. In all that he may do and all that he may not do.

    nk (d7f5f5)

  37. “immutable trait”
    As I understand it, that means a trait [skin color, gender] that is unchangable. Since there is no known test, DNA or otherwise, that can determine the sexual preferences of someone, how can gays fall into that class?
    There are men who have had children with women, women who have had children by men, and then later have gay relationships. That means that their homosexuality was NOT immutable.

    And if we give special priviledges to gays because of their emotional/sexual preferences, then do we not have to do it for all segments of society? Does this not open the door for polygamy if a person claims (without proof) that their emotional/sexual perferences are to be married to 2, 5, 20 people of the opposite sex, or even the same sex?

    The slippery slope, to me, here is that legalizing gay marriage opens up Pandora’s Box to a whole avenue of claims of discrimination based on not what is visable to the eye, such as race, but to the behavior of a person.

    A person’s DNA can tell us their race and gender. DNA cannot tell us if that person was gay or straight. So what basis would be used to determine if the person was, in fact, gay? As I asked before, is the person’s claim that they are gay legal proof? I can claim I am 6’2″. It doesn’t make it true. If I claim that I am discriminated against because I am only 4’8″, I would have to prove to the court, in any discrimination suit that I was in fact, 4’8″.

    What I find odd is the very group that demands the government stay out of their bedrooms, is demanding that the entire nation know what they do in their bedrooms and give them special consideration because of it.

    All gays currently have the legal right to marry. To make an exception for them in who they marry seems to be unconstitional to me.

    retire05 (874fe5)

  38. Is religion considered a “suspect class”?

    aunursa (9e17b1)

  39. Is it time for another “recall the Chief Justice” campaign? I say “Yes”.

    Kneave Riggall (6a79ca)

  40. It isn’t marriage!!!.

    Hazy (c36902)

  41. “Patrick Frey: My God, I am ticked!”

    Alan Kellogg (1f03df)

  42. Well, now we know. The California Supreme Court worked backwards from the desired result. Too bad they made me read 121 pages of crap. Why not just say that our Black Robed Masters have spoken and you gotta take it? Maybe a recall petition can be voted on in November along with the state constitutional amendment? Hmmmm?

    Proud Floridian (53e754)

  43. A recall petition is a good way to sink the amendment. Better to just fix the constitution in November, then not retain them the next time they’re up for re-election. That’s how CA got rid of Bird et al. if memory serves.

    Xrlq (8374fb)

  44. “is it not correct that his basic attitude of doing what he thinks is correct public policy, and then attempting to educate his constituency as to the correctness of that policy”

    No. Legislators represent their constituencies. Only self-flattering meglomania would lead them to believe that they are qualified to “educate” anyone.

    Federal Dog (1404a2)

  45. And if we give special priviledges to gays because of their emotional/sexual preferences, then do we not have to do it for all segments of society? Does this not open the door for polygamy if a person claims (without proof) that their emotional/sexual perferences are to be married to 2, 5, 20 people of the opposite sex, or even the same sex?

    How about for straight people?

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  46. You guys are like vultures. All the meat on Rev. Wright’s corpse has been devoured, but hey, luckily enough there’s a new gay marriage guy to swarm! Do any of you know anything about Ron George or his career, with all your calls for special elections and special petitions? Or are we going to judge a man and an entire career based on one thing again?

    Levi (76ef55)

  47. And if we give special priviledges to gays because of their emotional/sexual preferences, then do we not have to do it for all segments of society? Does this not open the door for polygamy if a person claims (without proof) that their emotional/sexual perferences are to be married to 2, 5, 20 people of the opposite sex, or even the same sex?

    Hmm.

    I can’t think of any legitimate reason why we would prevent gays from having their marriages, aside from the fact that we traditionally haven’t. It’s not as though straight marriage = solid family or anything like that. Polygamy, incest, bestiality marriage… all those has extremely persuasive policy reasons for prohibiting them. (if you don’t know why polygamy is objectively bad then you aren’t paying attention to the world).

    I think that’s a pretty big difference.

    Not that I think this judge had any right permitting something the voters disagreed with. I do wish the full faith and credit clause were weak enough that different states could follow different views on all sorts of matters. That way, we’d get to see first hand if gay marriage is good or bad.

    In my view, gay men are so much more likely to have HIV that marriage is an extremely good thing to permit gays to do. Any influence towards having a lower quantity of sexual partners is a good thing, straight or gay, but especially for gays where AIDS is concerned.

    Jem (4cdfb7)

  48. Levi, do you really think it’s so bad to judge Wright on his horrid statements (do you really think this is a right wing tendency)? This judge is admitting to not being an impartial arbiter of law. That’s like a teacher admitting she flunks kids she doesn’t like or a cop admitting he only tickets people for offenses that bother him.

    This judge broke his oath. No one is pretending he is fundamentally evil (and even a cursory reading of this thread shows that). He would probably make a much better legislator than judge, though.

    So you really think it’s a bad thing for voters to be interested in their options… elections and petitions and the like? They just had their vote overruled due to the political views of a judge! I agree with the judge on the policy, but that’s reprehensible.

    Jem (4cdfb7)

  49. The slippery slope, to me, here is that legalizing gay marriage opens up Pandora’s Box to a whole avenue of claims of discrimination based on not what is visable to the eye, such as race, but to the behavior of a person.

    That wouldn’t happen. The government isn’t just going to start handing out marriage licenses for everyone, okay? That’s just a stupid thing to get hung up on. Beastiality, pedophelia, and polygamy are all still going to be illegal, no matter what happens on the gay marriage issue. Can you just trust my word on this one? There’s not a horde of lawyers waiting over the horizon that’s going to come in and ruin your world by abridging every sex law on the books, don’t be so paranoid.

    Additionally, people have historically been discriminated against for their behavior, you talk about it as if it’s some new concept. Wasn’t this country founded in part because of European political and religious persecution? Those aren’t immutable characteristics, ask Joe Lieberman. Speaking of Joe Lieberman, Hitler killed lots of Jews, you can’t always necessarily tell a Jew when you see one, can you?

    Levi (76ef55)

  50. Levi, do you really think it’s so bad to judge Wright on his horrid statements

    It’s bad to judge Obama on Rev. Wright’s ‘horrid’ statements.

    (do you really think this is a right wing tendency)?

    Yes. It’s the stock Republican response to criticism or any of your many, paranoid, imaginary threats.

    This judge is admitting to not being an impartial arbiter of law. That’s like a teacher admitting she flunks kids she doesn’t like or a cop admitting he only tickets people for offenses that bother him.

    Where did he do that? What did he say?

    This judge broke his oath. No one is pretending he is fundamentally evil (and even a cursory reading of this thread shows that). He would probably make a much better legislator than judge, though.

    This whole thread is predicated on this notion that he’s some self-important oaf corruptly and injudiciously wielding his power to create some some of utopia in his own image, will of the people be damned! A few of you have ventured into the territory of what makes something an immutable characteristic or what should qualify a group as a suspect class, but mostly, it’s a bunch of people screaming ‘ACTIVIST JUDGE!’ in sticking with the GOP tradition of character assassination to crush dissent.

    So you really think it’s a bad thing for voters to be interested in their options… elections and petitions and the like? They just had their vote overruled due to the political views of a judge! I agree with the judge on the policy, but that’s reprehensible.

    That’s what judges are supposed to do. That’s one of two possible outcomes, side with the people, side against the people. And yes, sometimes the people need to be sided against. This is one of those cases.

    Funny how this becomes an argument you use, given the low approval ratings of your President and every one of his bone-headed policy failures. By your logic, shouldn’t we be out of Iraq by now? Are you telling me, after years of hearing Republicans and conservatives lavish Bush with praise for ignoring polling and the will of the majority of Americans, that the overriding objective in American politics is to do everything according to the will of the people?

    Levi (76ef55)

  51. It’s bad to judge Obama on Rev. Wright’s ‘horrid’ statements.

    Because 20 years of voluntary association and praise are meaningless…

    Rob Crawford (6c262f)

  52. That’s what judges are supposed to do.

    Really? Judges are supposed to ignore the law and decide cases based on their personal preferences?

    Rob Crawford (6c262f)

  53. Because 20 years of voluntary association and praise are meaningless…

    Yup. Obama’s not Rev. Wright. Black people don’t share a hive mind.

    Levi (76ef55)

  54. Really? Judges are supposed to ignore the law and decide cases based on their personal preferences?

    Is that what I said?

    Levi (76ef55)

  55. “I think,” he concluded, “there are times when doing the right thing means not playing it safe.”
    You are a disgrace to your profession. And to have the nerve to sound like a hero. You did not do the right thing. You betrayed the confidence reposed upon you by that office to defend the truth and enforce justice. You have sold the soul of the judiciary. I hope you live long to see the repercussions of this singular blunder. And for God’s sake stop equating racial equality with a dysfunctional way of life. This is to me the greatest insult to the black struggle. It’s like putting great men who died for what they believed, men like MLK in the same category with gay activists. It’s crazy. How many of these gay activists are prepared to die for their cause and even if they did, what place will they occupy in history? This man should apologise for this insult.

    love2008 (d2a57f)

  56. I hope you live long to see the repercussions of this singular blunder.

    What are these repercussions, homophobe?

    Levi (76ef55)

  57. the extent to which a legislator should be an instrument of the will of his constituents was addressed by edmund burke in his speech to the electors of bristol.

    the hysteria on this thread relating to gay marriage makes me laugh. where does irrational fear come from? you can’t all have had a homosexual experience in your youth at the scout camp or the swimming pool that you feel conflicted about to this day because you enjoyed it at the time, could you?

    how do you make irrational fear go away? i’m told that fear of flying can be conquered by getting on a plane, in a series of small steps. fear of gays could conceivably be conquered by attending a gay pride parade and watching it from a safe distance, like the roof of a nearby building. rx from dr. ada. the season is coming up!

    assistant devil's advocate (486023)

  58. db: Having lived in Montgomery, Ala from 1967 to 1970 I can way, without hesitation, that there were many signs warning blacks away from certain businesses. But I guess I am too “bitter” to understand the connection between racism of the 1960s and gay marriage in California in 2008…

    Well, I guess I must have missed the many “No Queers Allowed” signs during my last visit to Mission Viejo.

    gajim (e39b35)

  59. XRLQ: a recall petition would, however, be a way for those who don’t oppose gay marriage as a policy matter (and thus are either opposed to the amendment or conflicted about it). but *do* oppose what they believe to be judicial overreach (and thus are displeased with this decision), to voice their displeasure.

    aphrael (db0b5a)

  60. What are these repercussions, homophobe?

    Classic Levi. And here I was worried he’d changed…

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  61. Can you just trust my word on this one?

    Thanks. Ruined a monitor with that one.

    JD (75f5c3)

  62. given the low approval ratings of your President

    President Bush is your President too, Levi. And, if poll numbers mean anything, the Dems controlling Congress are even worse than the President.

    JD (75f5c3)

  63. What are these repercussions, homophobe?

    Disagree with Levi on this issue and you are a homophobe. You are also racist and sexist, in case you have forgotten. Just sayin’

    JD (75f5c3)

  64. Chief Justice George is demonstrating the old proverb that a fish rots from the head. Rose Byrd also did a good job of that in her day. Of course Rose ultimately got ridden out of town (or at least the California Supreme Court) on a rail. George deserves the same fate for his “courageous” stand.

    These questions are ultimately political ones–which need to be decided by legislators rather than by judges. Legislators do “nuance” better, because they engage in some vigorous horsetrading, negotiation and debate. It’s true that some statutes look like a godawful mess when it’s all said and done, but I’d rather have the end result of the decisions and positions of 100 plus legislators than that of 7 justices. The not so magnificent 7 may believe that they are wise men and women who can tell the rest of us what’s good for us–but that’s not the job they were selected to do.

    Mike Myers (31af82)

  65. Yup. Obama’s not Rev. Wright. Black people don’t share a hive mind.

    I didn’t say they did. But if you spend 20 years of Sundays listening to someone, if you tout them as your spiritual advisor, cite them (approvingly) in speeches and books, and give them important positions in your presidential campaign, it’s safe to say you agree with the fellow on quite a few matters.

    For most people, Wright’s comments would have been too much long, long ago. Hell, could you imagine if McCain’s church of 20 years had given awards to David Duke? How long do you think “but McCain isn’t his preacher” would last in the force of that firestorm?

    Is that what I said?

    Yeah:

    That’s what judges are supposed to do. That’s one of two possible outcomes, side with the people, side against the people. And yes, sometimes the people need to be sided against. This is one of those cases.

    The word missing from your statement there is law. Judges are supposed to make their decisions based on the law, not “for” or “against” the people.

    Rob Crawford (04f50f)

  66. President Bush is your President too, Levi.

    You know what I mean. You guys picked him, I didn’t.

    And, if poll numbers mean anything, the Dems controlling Congress are even worse than the President.

    If you’re ready to take your substantial share of the responsibility for those low poll numbers, we can talk about it. You know, since Republicans controlled the Congress for the past 12 years, and since the current Republican minority is the most obstructionist in the history of this country?

    Levi (76ef55)

  67. What do I have to do with San Fran Nan’s poll numbers? Most obstructionist minority in the history of the country? That should be pretty easy to demonstrate. Filibustering more than past Congress? Bottling up committees? Asserting such a remarkable fact requires more than your word, which has proven to be lacking previously.

    JD (75f5c3)

  68. Levi, homophobia is a non existant condition adopted by gay rights activists in the mid 1980’s on the classic principal that the best defense is a good offense. A similar ploy was the substitution of “sexual orientation” for “sexual preference.” That propaganda effort is now bearing fruit.

    Bar Sinister (3dac6e)

  69. I didn’t say they did.

    Of course you did, that’s how this story works. You’re about to do it again at the end of this paragraph.

    But if you spend 20 years of Sundays listening to someone, if you tout them as your spiritual advisor, cite them (approvingly) in speeches and books,

    Do you even know what you’re talking about here? Which of Wright’s controversial statements or assertions has Obama cited in his speeches and books?

    and give them important positions in your presidential campaign,

    The guy that leads the prayer before the announcement of candidacy isn’t ‘important,’ in any sense of the word.

    it’s safe to say you agree with the fellow on quite a few matters.

    See?

    These ‘few matters,’ I’m sure, are all the terrible ones, right? About HIV and God Damn America and rich white people, right? Those are the only things uttered by Rev. Wright that you and your friends seem to be aware of, like he’s spent every minute of his life hating white people and plotting their destruction, and that’s the only thing he’s been talking about for decades now, is that a fair assessment?

    And of course, ‘it’s safe to say’ that Obama agrees with all of those terrible things, which amount to everything that Republicans think they know about Rev. Wright. I haven’t seen anyone on the right commending Wright for his charity work or his military service, so these ‘few matters’ you worry that Obama probably agrees with must be all of the racist, paranoid ‘matters,’ right?

    For most people, Wright’s comments would have been too much long, long ago. Hell, could you imagine if McCain’s church of 20 years had given awards to David Duke? How long do you think “but McCain isn’t his preacher” would last in the force of that firestorm?

    These comparisons are meaningless. Rev. Wright isn’t anything like David Duke or the KKK.

    Additionally, as a white atheist, I’m more comfortable with Wright’s brand of religion informing and shaping public policy than the dominant G.O.P. brand that is currently infecting and corroding the government.

    Levi (76ef55)

  70. What do I have to do with San Fran Nan’s poll numbers?

    Congressional poll numbers don’t reset with new leadership like the President does, I mean are you serious? The Republicans held Congress for more than a decade, people didn’t exactly ‘approve’ of them, either?

    Most obstructionist minority in the history of the country? That should be pretty easy to demonstrate. Filibustering more than past Congress? Bottling up committees? Asserting such a remarkable fact requires more than your word, which has proven to be lacking previously.

    http://www.ourfuture.org/obstruction

    Made all the more ironic by all the massive hissy-fits the Republicans had about Democratic filibusters back in 2005.

    This is the stated objective of your party’s leadership, by the way. Do I have to teach you everything about the people you so blindly support?

    Levi (76ef55)

  71. The Republicans held Congress for more than a decade, people didn’t exactly ‘approve’ of them, either?

    No, they didn’t…

    But the current poll numbers for a Speaker Pelosi/Sen Majority Leader Reid run Congress are far lower than they ever were for That Republican-run Congress.

    But such minor details as numbers and facts have never stopped you before.

    The guy that leads the prayer before the announcement of candidacy isn’t ‘important,’ in any sense of the word.

    it’s safe to say you agree with the fellow on quite a few matters.

    See?

    Yes, I see. Rev. Wright didn’t merely lead prayers, he had a named, prominant position on Obama’s staff up until that whole “Chicken come home to roost, God Damn America” kerfuffle…

    And besides that point, the rest of Rob Crawford’s #64 holds true – The numerous citations in books and speeches by Sen Obama and the 20+ years of church attendance (either in person or by listening to recordings of the servcies when away attending college) tends to suggest you agree with the man on many issues.

    I know that I would certainly not do any of the above for someone withwhom I disagreed.

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  72. …and then saying “If you don’t like what I do, vote me out” [is this] not the proper procedure in a Republic, as ours is constituted?

    Yes, as long as he expressed his intent to essentially do as he pleased while campaigning before the election. If he did not, its a deceit. And, with California’s criminal assembly and senate district map, such attitude is impossible for the voters to “vote him (or her) out”.

    A republic is not well governed by those with contempt for whom they represent.

    C. Norris (00b723)

  73. Levi spit: Do any of you know anything about Ron George or his career, with all your calls for special elections and special petitions? Or are we going to judge a man and an entire career based on one thing again?

    I’m sorry, Leev — are we talking about Rev. Wright, Ron George, or John Hagee?

    L.N. Smithee (b048eb)

  74. No, they didn’t…

    But the current poll numbers for a SpeakerPelosi/Sen Majority Leader Reid run Congress are far lower than they ever were for That Republican-run Congress.

    But such minor details as numbers and facts have never stopped you before.

    The Republican Congress handed off something just under 30% by way of approval ratings when the Dems took Congress. It’s now lower by around 10-15 points. Have I disputed that? No. I’ve suggested that the dip could be due the record-breaking and government-halting obstructionism of the Republican minority, but I don’t approve of Congress, either, I don’t know anyone who could. What are the problems with numbers and facts that you assure me I’m having?

    Yes, I see. Rev. Wright didn’t merely lead prayers, he had a named, prominant position on Obama’s staff up until that whole “Chicken come home to roost, God Damn America” kerfuffle…

    Ooooh, so that’s an important position, too? How prominent? What was he doing? Which policy initiatives was he outlining? Which statements did he make to the public?

    How important can a position be if you’re entirely unable to describe what a person in that position was or is supposed to be doing?

    And besides that point, the rest of Rob Crawford’s #64 holds true – The numerous citations in books and speeches by Sen Obama and the 20+ years of church attendance (either in person or by listening to recordings of the servcies when away attending college) tends to suggest you agree with the man on many issues.

    I know that I would certainly not do any of the above for someone withwhom I disagreed.

    But you can’t just refer to all of his citations in generalities. What is Obama citing? Do you even know? Is he citing Rev. Wright’s lectures on AIDS? Or is he citing Rev. Wright catchphrases like ‘God Damn America’ and ‘rich white people?’

    Don’t pretend like you’ve made any effort to find out about which parts of which sermons Obama quoted in his speeches and books. To you, Rev. Wright is incapable of being anything other than a vicious racist, so anything that Obama quotes from his is viciously racist, but that’s just not reality. If you’re plugged into Hannity and Limbaugh as dependently as you so obviously are, it may be reality, but the rest of us know better.

    Levi (76ef55)

  75. I’m sorry, Leev — are we talking about Rev. Wright, Ron George, or John Hagee?

    You’re talking about them, I’m talking about you.

    Levi (76ef55)

  76. Levi spewed: The government isn’t just going to start handing out marriage licenses for everyone, okay? That’s just a stupid thing to get hung up on. Beastiality, pedophelia, and polygamy are all still going to be illegal, no matter what happens on the gay marriage issue. Can you just trust my word on this one?

    If you had been around in 1948, you would have similarly insulted a person who said, “They’re letting a white woman (actually a Mexican-American woman considered white because she wasn’t black or Asian) and a black man get married? What’s next? Letting men marry men and women marry women?”

    And, we now know, you would have been wrong.

    Trust your word, Levi? That’s the funniest thing I’ve heard all day, and it’ll take a humdinger to top it.

    L.N. Smithee (0931d2)

  77. Levi – Linking to a group of Left liberals that state what you believe does not make it the truth. Our troops would be home from Iraq if it weren’t for those dastardly Republicans? Good Allah, your stoopidity, it should be painful.

    JD (5f0e11)

  78. It is for us, JD…

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  79. Your link asserts that the mere threat of a filibuster, a routine and ordinary part of the Senate for legislation, is obstructionist. The threat. And they act as though threats are “unprecedented”. Go find a new talking point, one that is not laughable on its face, and come back.

    JD (5f0e11)

  80. If you had been around in 1948, you would have similarly insulted a person who said, “They’re letting a white woman (actually a Mexican-American woman considered white because she wasn’t black or Asian) and a black man get married? What’s next? Letting men marry men and women marry women?”

    And, we now know, you would have been wrong.

    I wouldn’t have made that argument in 1948. I would have said, “Yes, we should let blacks marry whites, and further, we should let men marry men and women marry women.”

    So to defend your paltry ‘slippery slope’ argument against gay marriage you have to pretend like you’d know what I’d say in a different time, with different circumstances, against a different argument. Yeah, you’re not reaching here.

    As if you weren’t already reaching with the polygamist stuff, the child-rape, and the beastiality stuff.

    Levi (76ef55)

  81. The depth and breadth of the mendacity at Levi’s link is remarkable. You will feel your IQ slowly slipping away just clicking on the link. This is the first time that I have seen that group linked to as a source for “facts”.

    JD (75f5c3)

  82. Levi wrote before sticking out his tongue like a eight-year-old: You’re talking about them, I’m talking about you.

    You can’t change the subject that easily. What did you know about John Hagee before the DNC rushed to find a counterweight to Rev. G.D. America? You’re a hypocrite.

    L.N. Smithee (0931d2)

  83. Levi would not recognize a point if it sat on his lap and called him Daddy.

    JD (75f5c3)

  84. I don’t know what else you guys could want from me. I showed you a graph that shows both the previous record for filibusters and the current record for filibusters, which is continually being re-set by today’s Republican party with months and months left.

    Do you dumbasses know how to read? 62 is a bigger number than 61. That proves me right, right there, all by itself. Literally, the current Republican minority, as of Dec. 18, is the most obstructionist minority in the history of the government. And again, that’s with more than a year to go.

    So find me what is factually wrong about what I said. You don’t like my liberal sources? Fine. Go and find some Republican sources that say they’re not the most obstructionist.

    Levi (76ef55)

  85. The threat of a filibuster as compared to an actual filibuster is not the same thing. And, your link to a completely unbiased source with no partisan agenda does not even contend that it is the most obstructionist in history, just the most obstructionist in recent years.

    Your liberal sources to not state facts, they state their version of the facts. Look, Levi. When you make an assertion, couched as a fact, it is not our job to prove it, it is your job to support it. You do not get to lie, and then change the burden of proof to the other side and say prove me wrong. Your assertion, your burden of proof. This is just you being a good soldier for Soros’ CFAP.

    JD (75f5c3)

  86. Your link asserts that the mere threat of a filibuster, a routine and ordinary part of the Senate for legislation, is obstructionist. The threat. And they act as though threats are “unprecedented”. Go find a new talking point, one that is not laughable on its face, and come back.

    Do you know what unprecedented means? It means that something has never been done before. Like setting records in Congress for grinding the wheels of government to a halt. What Republicans are doing right now is the public policy equivalent of some ball player shattering the home run record before the all-star break.

    What’s more, this isn’t being done because of any specific policy disagreements but because Republicans exist in the government only to make Democrats look like bumbling idiots. They’re pretty good at, and they certainly do get some help from the Democrats themselves, but it shows how insincere and reckless these goofballs are when they get into power.

    Levi (76ef55)

  87. Even if you accept everything Levi claimed as truth, he would have you believe that they would have surrendered in Iraq, provided socialist national healthcare, and all the world would be puppies, kitties, and kites but not for the evil Rethuglikkkans. Levi, even your own party cannot pass “Surrender in Iraq NOW” out of the House, where filibusters are not in play. I also like how veto threats are troublesome at Levi’s link. Actually, none of his mendoucheity is new, he just got a new talking point.

    JD (75f5c3)

  88. Levi – You do understand the difference between the threat of a veto and an actual veto, no? I guess assuming a working grasp of the English language is something I should not have done.

    JD (75f5c3)

  89. The threat of a filibuster as compared to an actual filibuster is not the same thing. And, your link to a completely unbiased source with no partisan agenda does not even contend that it is the most obstructionist in history, just the most obstructionist in recent years.

    No, it is, effectively, especially with the veto power of the President on the minority party’s side and with the majority under the naive and disjointed ‘leadership’ of Harry Reid, who’s got to be one of the least capable politicians in the history of the country.

    Your liberal sources to not state facts, they state their version of the facts. Look, Levi. When you make an assertion, couched as a fact, it is not our job to prove it, it is your job to support it. You do not get to lie, and then change the burden of proof to the other side and say prove me wrong. Your assertion, your burden of proof. This is just you being a good soldier for Soros’ CFAP.

    I gave you a fucking graph. I didn’t read the article, it’s outdated, and I know plenty about the topic. I wanted to give you guys a picture, something unambiguous and easy to interpret, and you’ve screwed the pooch, as usual. There’s no refutations, there’s no counter-punch to my argument, you’re not finding your own numbers, you’re just complaining about my ‘liberal’ source.

    What, you want me to find a conservative source that has those numbers? No such thing exists. You’re all too busy going on about Rev. Wright and how faggy us liberals are to talk about anything even half-way interesting or relevant, like how the G.O.P. has basically locked out the government since being told by the American people that they didn’t want them running things anymore.

    Levi (76ef55)

  90. Then they should be kind enough to go back and research the “threats” of filibusters in all of the prior Congresses, and not compare actual filibusters to actual filibusters + the threat of same. That is dishonest. You know that, but since you agree with them, you overlook it.

    “faggy” = Who, specifically, ever typed that word here? If you cannot support this, you will have shown yourself, again, to be a liar.

    The simple fact is, going back to the topic at hand, is that a freaking Supreme Court opinion was issued based on feelings rather than the law. And you are fine with that, because you agree with them.

    JD (75f5c3)

  91. Even if you accept everything Levi claimed as truth, he would have you believe that they would have surrendered in Iraq, provided socialist national healthcare, and all the world would be puppies, kitties, and kites but not for the evil Rethuglikkkans. Levi, even your own party cannot pass “Surrender in Iraq NOW” out of the House, where filibusters are not in play. I also like how veto threats are troublesome at Levi’s link. Actually, none of his mendoucheity is new, he just got a new talking point.

    I’m making no such point. I’m merely suggesting that the reason for the low approval ratings in Congress has a lot more to do with the recent history of Republican failures and their ongoing willingness to disrupt the government than it does with some primal hatred all Americans feel towards ‘San Fran Nan.’

    Levi (76ef55)

  92. Levi – Your link makes that exact point. If you are going to link to a hyper-partisan site to support your position, maybe you ought to read what you are linking to. Or don’t whine when people point out what you are linking to.

    Who hates her? Not me. I just do not like her policies, or her desires to conduct foreign affairs by herself, like meeting with Syria. Hate her, nope. Try again.

    JD (75f5c3)

  93. I apologize to everyone for engaging this aggressively ignorant troll. I know better, but every time it drops by to call names and lie, I respond. Personally, I think it is important to not let his kind of mendouceity go unanswered, but do apologize to everyone for allowing him to derail this thread from the topic.

    JD (75f5c3)

  94. I denounce myself. Racists. Sexists. Homophobes.

    JD (75f5c3)

  95. Then they should be kind enough to go back and research the “threats” of filibusters in all of the prior Congresses, and not compare actual filibusters to actual filibusters + the threat of same. That is dishonest. You know that, but since you agree with them, you overlook it.

    The filibuster threats, in the current political landscape (that is, a slim Democratic majority and a Republican President with veto power), do everything a filibuster does. The difference is that there just isn’t a filibuster. The reasons for the threat/filibuster and the consequences of the threat/filibuster are identical.

    Now I would love it if Harry Reid developed some tact and actually forced these Republicans to stand up and filibuster against things like more benefits, downtime, and higher pay for soldiers, but he’s a moron that the Republicans literally have eating out of their hands.

    “faggy” = Who, specifically, ever typed that word here? If you cannot support this, you will have shown yourself, again, to be a liar.

    All Republicans thing all Democrats are fags.

    The simple fact is, going back to the topic at hand, is that a freaking Supreme Court opinion was issued based on feelings rather than the law. And you are fine with that, because you agree with them.

    So this 100+ page decision that covers all sorts legal documents and decades of case precedent, you’ve familiarized yourself with all of this already and feel qualified to dismiss all of it as ‘opinion based on feelings?’

    Might I ask you for some specific examples, where you can dissect these justices’ legal arguments (they’ve given you paragraph after paragraph, come on! Give it a try!) to the point that it’s obvious that they’re just making shit up out of nothing to make themselves feel good?

    Levi (76ef55)

  96. Levi – Your link makes that exact point. If you are going to link to a hyper-partisan site to support your position, maybe you ought to read what you are linking to. Or don’t whine when people point out what you are linking to.

    That graph links to the website of the Senate, do you realize this yet? Whatever you have to say about me being a stupid and the stupid liberals that I link to is rendered irrelevant because those are the Senate’s numbers.

    Levi (76ef55)

  97. All Republicans thing all Democrats are fags.

    That’s not my experience at all.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  98. The filibuster threats, in the current political landscape (that is, a slim Democratic majority and a Republican President with veto power), do everything a filibuster does. The difference is that there just isn’t a filibuster.

    You should try reading your own words before typing.

    I want all veto threats counted when the Senate was a complete split down the middle. And all of those years when the Republicans had a bare majority. Absent that, you are lying. Aggressively lying.

    All Republicans thing all Democrats are fags.

    You are a liar. There is not better way to describe you.

    The SC Justice said it was based on his convictions, not the law. Was he lying? I was just taking him at his word. Because he is courageous.

    Levi – Your mendoucheity is only exceeded by your partisanship.

    JD (75f5c3)

  99. aphrael – That thing is the extreme polar opposite of you. There are people like that on my side of the aisle, to be sure. This one is particularly vile.

    JD (75f5c3)

  100. That’s not my experience at all.

    All the Republicans that matter think all Democrats are fags, or at the very least, try to push that portrayal into the national media and the minds of ignorant, uninformed voters. They’re doing it to Obama, they did it to Kerry, they did it to Gore, they tried it with Clinton, and they did it to Dukakis. It’s why Republicans win elections.

    Levi (76ef55)

  101. You should try reading your own words before typing.

    I want all veto threats counted when the Senate was a complete split down the middle. And all of those years when the Republicans had a bare majority. Absent that, you are lying. Aggressively lying.

    You don’t get it. When Republicans had a bare majority, they still had the President. It’s a whole different situation, there’s no 60-vote thresholds, you don’t have to worry about the Dems creating a potentially embarrassing veto situation for the President, you’re not operating under the idea that if you can’t get your way, no one will get theirs, because you can get your way, because you’ve got the President on your side.

    The SC Justice said it was based on his convictions, not the law. Was he lying? I was just taking him at his word. Because he is courageous.

    So I guess he just spent weeks writing that 100+ page decision for no reason, huh? You have a quote of him specifically saying he based his decision on ‘not the law?’ Basing a judicial decision on your convictions shouldn’t be a problem if respect for the rule of law is among your convictions, does it? If you have that quote, it would be pretty amazing, I suggest you produce it!

    Levi (76ef55)

  102. All the Republicans that matter think all Democrats are fags, or at the very least, try to push that portrayal into the national media and the minds of ignorant, uninformed voters.

    A demonstrable lie, previously, and now Levi is doubling down. Poor form.

    So actual definitions of words are malleable for Levi, depending on who is in office. He is comparing apples to transmissions.

    Levi – Do you even read the subject post before dropping your turds?

    JD (75f5c3)

  103. levi, i don’t think you’ve embarrassed yourself enough yet and your posts are making me giggle, so, for the bonus round, why don’t you tell us what republicans think of the sexual orientation of jews?

    assistant devil's advocate (486023)

  104. A demonstrable lie, previously, and now Levi is doubling down. Poor form.

    Like I said, there are basically only a handful of Republicans that matter, the rest of you are little more than their eager brainwashing victims. I’d count among these influential and indicative figures Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Karl Rove, all who work fastidiously to maintain the ‘liberals are weak fags, conservatives are strong tough guys’ myth that infects the national media’s election year narratives.

    I’m tripling down, I guess?

    So actual definitions of words are malleable for Levi, depending on who is in office. He is comparing apples to transmissions.

    I know the difference between doing something and threatening to do something, yes. I also know that in the United States Congress, which is governed by all sorts of rules and protocols and shares power with other branches, different operational circumstances are at play depending on which parties control which parts of the government.
    Thus, a situation can occur where the threat of a filibuster accomplishes the same thing as a filibuster. This is true for any situation where the majority in the Senate can’t reliably get 60 votes and they are facing an opposition President’s veto pen.

    This isn’t being malleable, I’m not moving goalposts or arguing semantics, this is me understanding how our government works and having to explain it to a dumbass.

    Levi (76ef55)

  105. I think that would be called “throwing good money after bad”. Either way, Levi, lying in service of your narrative is the way you operate. Nice of you to make that so abundantly clear.

    So, we await the threat of veto totals from the years preceding this Congress, with a special emphasis on the Congresses that were even more closely divided. Until then, you are aggressively lying.

    JD (75f5c3)

  106. So, we await the threat of veto totals from the years preceding this Congress, with a special emphasis on the Congresses that were even more closely divided. Until then, you are aggressively lying.

    What the fuck are you talking about? Threat of veto totals? What the fuck is that supposed to mean?

    Also, how much more closely divided can you get between having a 49-49 split with 1 left-leaning independent and 1 Lieberman? You realize that this is by definition as close as it can possibly get?

    Levi (76ef55)

  107. All Republicans thing all Democrats are fags.

    I swear to stop commenting, and Levi goes away. I come back, and he re-appears. I’m feeling responsible for his crap.

    Again, I’m done till Levi is permenately gone.

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  108. Measure apples and apples. Not too difficult. YOUR LINK uses the nebulous “threat of filibuster” and combines that with actual filibusters, to make the claim that Republicans have filibustered at record levels. That is your source, and I have showed how it is a fundamentally dishonest way to measure this, given the fact that they do not apply the “threat of filibuster” standard to every other Congress, even when they are closely divided. In other words, you are lying. You got called on it. Yet you continue to lie.

    But, in service of the Soros narrative, you are content to compare apples to quantum physics. Look the power sharing with Sen. Daschle, or does your history only go back a year or two?

    JD (75f5c3)

  109. Don’t do it, Scott. Point out his mendoucheity. Do not let the likes of him dictate where you spend your time.

    JD (75f5c3)

  110. “That’s one of two possible outcomes, side with the people, side against the people. And yes, sometimes the people need to be sided against. This is one of those cases.”

    They didn’t side with the people. Thy sided with their feelings.

    davod (5bdbd3)

  111. Levi, evading an obvious point that reveals his intellectual dishonesty, wrote:

    I wouldn’t have made that argument in 1948. I would have said, “Yes, we should let blacks marry whites, and further, we should let men marry men and women marry women.”

    So to defend your paltry ’slippery slope’ argument against gay marriage you have to pretend like you’d know what I’d say in a different time, with different circumstances, against a different argument. Yeah, you’re not reaching here.

    *Sigh*…Focus, Leev, focus.

    Let me make this simple enough for you to understand (and I hope I can do that without permanently lowering my IQ): You stated with your usual level of confidence that Justice Boy George’s wide-ranging decision wouldn’t lead to other breakdowns of societal norms:

    The government isn’t just going to start handing out marriage licenses for everyone, okay? That’s just a stupid thing to get hung up on. Beastiality (sic), pedophelia (sic), and polygamy are all still going to be illegal, no matter what happens on the gay marriage issue. Can you just trust my word on this one? There’s not a horde of lawyers waiting over the horizon that’s going to come in and ruin your world by abridging every sex law on the books, don’t be so paranoid.

    If you want to be consistent and logical (HA! I forgot for a moment I was talking to YOU!), it makes perfect sense to assume that someone who would say George’s opinion in In re Marriage Cases could not possibly lead to further extra-legislative liberalization of marriage statutes would have said the same in 1948, when the issue was not marriage of people of the same sex, but people of the opposite sex.

    But, as we now know, George styled his wide-ranging, overreaching, outcome-based decision on the Perez vs. Sharp case and his unfounded legal judgment that homosexuality is as immutable as ethnicity. Such a viewpoint is doubly ridiculous when you consider that the courts are willing to accept that gender is NOT immutable, and that one can make a legally-binding declaration that his or her biology has nothing at all to do with whether s/he is male or female!

    Sodomy would not be decriminalized in California for another twenty-one years after Perez! Who was the driving force behind that legislation? Gavin Newsom’s predecessor in S.F. City Hall, Willie Brown, then a member of the State Assembly. Since then, LGBT CA legislators like former actress Sheila Kuehl, former L.A. councilwoman Jackie Goldberg, former S.F. Supervisors Mark Leno & Carole Migden (who are running against each other, so one of them has gotta go) have stealthily engineered and passed laws designed to make sure public school instruction teaches Kindergarten kids that if their parents believe gay isn’t OK, they’re either wrong, stupid, hateful, or a combination of all three. The teachers’ unions (who are in full force behind the radical gay agenda even if all individual members are not), cooperate in policies designed to maximize activism of students declaring they aren’t straight, strategize ways to prevent parents from knowing they are teaching children about gay sex, and enforce gag orders on all students or teachers who dare disagree. In an indirect way, even Ronald Reagan has a share in the lead-up to this decision when you consider that he set the tone throughout the nation in endorsing no-fault divorce as Governor. The unintended consequence of no-fault was to truly make marriage “a piece of paper,” a contract that could be ripped into shreds at any time for any reason by either party. All of that happened after 1969 courtesy of the Jesse Unruh political machine that brought us the Browns (Willie & Jerry), Speaker Pelosi, Senators Feinstein & Boxer, and just about any other Democrat of prominence in California going back forty years.

    So in this post-miscegenation, post-sodomy law, post-traditional marriage atmosphere in which we exist that no reasonable person could have foretold, when you declare that you would have boldly asserted before the halfway point of the previous century that there should be same-sex marriage in California, I can’t take that seriously, especially considering the source. Once again, consistency and logic dictates that should the day come when a California judge looks to In re Marriage Cases as a beacon to allow plural, minor, or interspecies marriage, someone with your current point of view will say, “Had I been around in 2008, I would have said, ‘Yes, we should let men marry men and women marry women, and we should allow polygamy, child marriage, and the sacred union of love between a man and his sheep.’”

    L.N. Smithee (a0b21b)

  112. LN – Clearly you are a homophobic racist.

    JD (5f0e11)

  113. So in this post-miscegenation, post-sodomy law, post-traditional marriage atmosphere in which we exist that no reasonable person could have foretold, when you declare that you would have boldly asserted before the halfway point of the previous century that there should be same-sex marriage in California, I can’t take that seriously, especially considering the source.

    Slow down there buddy, it was your stupid fucking hypothetical. I didn’t realize I was supposed to pretend to be someone alive in 1948 and compose my response based on what a circa 1948 American thinks about gays. I thought this was one of those time-traveling hypothetical situations, where I get to take my body and my mind and my experiences back with me.

    So yeah, if I was born in Germany in 1910, I probably would have been a Nazi. If I had been born in the South in the 1820’s, I would have been a slave-owner. If you think I’d be a homophobe in 1948 because everyone else was a homophobe in 1948, yes, I guess that would be true. I’ve done all these ‘what if?’ thought experiments before, are you done here? What do you think you’ve proven?

    Additionally, I’d be willing to bet millions of dollars that polygamy, incest, and bestiality are all still illegal in 50 years. You wanna take that bet?

    Levi (76ef55)

  114. Nazi slave owning racist. Just because one is asked to consider a hypothetical does not mean that you must cast aside morals, ethics, or human decency. I am certain that I would not be a Nazi, slave owner, or homophobe in any time period.

    JD (5f0e11)

  115. Levi wrote: Additionally, I’d be willing to bet millions of dollars that polygamy, incest, and bestiality are all still illegal in 50 years. You wanna take that bet?

    You’re on. In fact, I’ll up the ante. I’ll bet billions of dollars.

    Have your butler call mine.

    L.N. Smithee (ecc5a5)

  116. Levi:

    The next comment of yours I see with any variant of the word “fuck” in it gets deleted.

    I’m tired of it.

    Patterico (cb443b)

  117. You’re on. In fact, I’ll up the ante. I’ll bet billions of dollars.

    Have your butler call mine.

    The bet is off if your party gets us all killed between now and then.

    Levi (76ef55)

  118. The next comment of yours I see with any variant of the word “fuck” in it gets deleted.

    I’m tired of it.

    Woah! Sorry buddy! What else can’t I say, just so I know?

    Levi (76ef55)

  119. I’ll know it when I see it.

    Patterico (cb443b)

  120. Patterico: with comments like #120, are you sure you’re not angling for the Supreme Court? 😛

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  121. Levi wrote: The bet is off if your party gets us all killed between now and then.

    Well, I should think so. As they say, “You can’t take it with you.” But are you suggesting that maybe your man Obama isn’t going to win in a landslide, fulfill his destiny as the Abe Lincoln of the 21st Century, and usher in an age of permanent Democrat majority?

    What changed your mind?

    L.N. Smithee (b048eb)

  122. Well, I should think so. As they say, “You can’t take it with you.” But are you suggesting that maybe your man Obama isn’t going to win in a landslide, fulfill his destiny as the Abe Lincoln of the 21st Century, and usher in an age of permanent Democrat majority?

    What changed your mind?

    I still think he’ll crush John McCain, but I don’t underestimate you bozos like all of my supposed liberal allies do. You could run O.J. Simpson against Jesus H. Christ and have a legitimate shot given your party’s enormous media influence.

    I can see it now, “Jesus lived in the Middle East, where terrorists are! Doesn’t this mean that Jesus could be a terrorist? Vote for O.J.!”

    Levi (76ef55)

  123. how exactly is our side going to get everyone killed? I am curious. Plus, the explanation is likely to be hysterical.

    JD (5f0e11)

  124. “enormous media influence”

    You have interesting ideas. Where could I sign up for your newsletter?

    JD (5f0e11)

  125. Levi wrote: You could run O.J. Simpson against Jesus H. Christ and have a legitimate shot given your party’s enormous media influence.

    “Jesus H. Christ?”

    Is the reason we don’t use his middle name because it’s “Hussein?”

    L.N. Smithee (a0b21b)

  126. LN – It is racist for you to even note that Baracky’s middle name is Hussein.

    JD (5f0e11)

  127. You have interesting ideas. Where could I sign up for your newsletter?

    How do you think your party survives? On all of its successful policy initiatives? On its glorious foreign policy victories? Because the leader of the party is some brilliantly crafty wordsmith?

    You don’t think it helps that you’ve got Rush Limbaughs and Bill O’Reillys disseminating talking points and propaganda across various media outlets 24/7?

    Levi (76ef55)

  128. JD – I think somewhere, there is someone who pays Levi every time he uses a question mark.

    L.N. Smithee (ecc5a5)

  129. Self-Correction: In post 112, I referred to a “post-miscegenation” era. I meant a post-anti-miscegenation era. Many of my married best friends owe a debt of gratitude to Perez v. Sharp and Loving v. Virginia. Personally, I haven’t been able to take advantage of the ruling…yet.

    P.S. Only ladies need apply. 😉

    L.N. Smithee (b048eb)

  130. Levi – If the right wing media is so vast, you should gladly be willing to trade the nightly network news, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, NY Times, LA Times, WaPo, etc …for the leviathan that is Fox and Rush. Right?

    JD (5f0e11)

  131. I very rarely comment or even look INTO the comments, but checking the comments here, I saw several outrageous personal insults by a commenter named Levi.

    This is your show, of course, but permit me to recommend that you drop the banhammer on Levi. (Not because Levi disagrees with most folks here, but because of the abusive conduct.)

    Mitch (890cbf)

  132. JD: this is one of the fundamental disconnects between leftist and conservatives.

    From the perspective of a leftist, all of the outlets you listed lean conservative: they accept pretty much without question the neoliberal economic worldview.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  133. I very rarely comment or even look INTO the comments, but checking the comments here, I saw several outrageous personal insults by a commenter named Levi.

    This is your show, of course, but permit me to recommend that you drop the banhammer on Levi. (Not because Levi disagrees with most folks here, but because of the abusive conduct.)

    We’re going to start by removing the f-bombs, and move on from there.

    Levi, being polite really doesn’t hurt.

    Patterico (cb443b)

  134. aphrael – You will have to define those terms for me, because if they are espousing my views, for example on taxes, I have never seen it.

    Homophobe 😉

    JD (5f0e11)

  135. I very rarely comment or even look INTO the comments, but checking the comments here, I saw several outrageous personal insults by a commenter named Levi.

    This is your show, of course, but permit me to recommend that you drop the banhammer on Levi. (Not because Levi disagrees with most folks here, but because of the abusive conduct.)

    Why don’t you try to highlight and address whatever I said that offended you, instead of running to the teacher right off the bat? This ‘abusive conduct’ you speak of, for example, what do you mean by that?

    Levi (76ef55)

  136. All Republicans think Dems are faggy. Hell, you failed to even show that Rove believes that, much less all Republicans.

    JD (5f0e11)

  137. #56
    What are these repercussions, homophobe?
    Let me paint one picture for you. Gays represent a minority of this country. A very small minority. If the liberals are going to make a head way this year in the elections, they need to tone down on that kind of nonsense argument about pleasing the underdogs. The wish of a minority group does not and will not represent the wish of the people of America. This is one of the reasons the conservatives will overwhelmingly support the republicans. The issue of legalising gay marriage is a very personal matter. A matter of faith and spiritual conviction. No matter your argument, the conservatives, especially the evangelicals, and the catholics will never support a party that says its okay for people of the same sex to be married. The people that hold that view are still in the majority. During the fall, that will be one of the most important issues they will have in mind as they go to vote. That is one of the repercussions Levi.

    love2008 (d2a57f)

  138. That is one of the repercussions Levi.

    And thanks for picking the most boring one to tell me about first.

    Come on, you sound like a religious nut, tell me the oceans are going to boil and people are going to turn into salt or something.

    Levi (76ef55)

  139. Levi: I’m a died-in-the-wool liberal who has never voted for a Republican presidential candidate (although i have voted for conservatives, including Tom McClintock, for other offices), and who voted for Sen. Obama in the primary.

    I found the following comments to be abusive conduct, and they weren’t even directed at me:

    Comment #46: “You guys are like vultures.”

    Comment #56: “What are these repurcussions, homophobe?”

    Comment #84: “Do you dumbasses know how to read?”

    Comment #89: “I gave you a ****ing graph.” “You’re all too busy going on about … how faggy us liberals are”

    Comment #96: “All republicans thing all Democrats are fags”

    Comment #107: “What the **** are you talking about?”

    Comment #114: your stupid ****ing hypothetical”

    Not a one of them constitutes polite discourse. And, I might add, all of them make it more difficult to find common ground with conservatives and/or persuade them on individual issues. So: they’re impolite and unconstructive.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  140. Yes Levi, this nation is full of religious nuts like me. sorry man. Homophobes still rule. ( And not that we are homophobes, or anything. We just dont think its right.)

    love2008 (d2a57f)

  141. Hey Retard Boy! How are you today?

    Why don’t you try to highlight and address whatever I said that offended you, instead of running to the teacher right off the bat?

    Whats a-matter, Retard Boy, afraid you’ll have to stay after school?

    Paul (cf2458)

  142. Don’t quit while you are ahead, Levi. You have overtly insulted all Republicans, anyone that disagrees with you, and now people of faith.

    JD (5f0e11)

  143. And thanks for picking the most boring one to tell me about first.

    WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

    You didn’t pick the one I wanted to talk about!

    WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-HHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!

    Paul (cf2458)

  144. Don’t quit while you are ahead, Levi. You have overtly insulted all Republicans, anyone that disagrees with you, and now people of faith.

    Heck, JD, he even offended some on his own side.

    Paul (cf2458)

  145. Come on, you sound like a religious nut, tell me the oceans are going to boil and people are going to turn into salt or something.

    Boiling oceans? People tranformed into salt? Nah, Retard Boy, that would be the Global Warming crowd. Y’know…your side.

    “Don’t pay any attention to that polar bear behind the curtain!”

    Paul (cf2458)

  146. All Republicans think Dems are faggy. Hell, you failed to even show that Rove believes that, much less all Republicans.

    It’s the first rule of Republican electoral success: Call the liberal a fag. It’s a very effective tactic to employ to woo the conservative base, which would be you, I guess, and it’s succeeded since Dukakis.

    Maybe you don’t always use the word fag, but the objective of all this gossipy character ‘anaylsis’ is the same, to portray Democrats as weak, effeminate losers that can’t stand up for themselves or the country. And it isn’t based on policy positions, but rather on how much people spent on a haircut, or how terrible a bowling score someone got, or a picture of somebody windsurfing, or how someone awkwardly fits into a tank.

    Our media is dominated by narratives, and Republicans have been feeding them (and you) this same narrative for years: Republicans are unquestionably strong tough guys because they have a ranch and wear cowboy hats and they strut around on aircraft carriers, and liberals are pathetic weenies because they do their hair and suck at bowling and know what arugula is and like to windsurf.

    This stuff dominates the airwaves because Republicans can’t talk about reality without getting blown out of the water. There’s a lot of stupid people in this country, that can’t figure out that they’re being lied to, but really like thinking they’re winners and that the country is always kicking ass, and that’s what Karl Rove has pinned his electoral strategy on. Ann Coulter can go up and call John Edwards a fag, receive a round of applause and never have to apologize because that’s her job in this political climate, to say what the rest of you wish you could say.

    Levi (76ef55)

  147. Nah, Retard Boy, that would be the Global Warming crowd.

    Let’s stay polite on our side as well.

    Listen to aphrael, Levi.

    Patterico (cb443b)

  148. Tripling down just wasn’t enough, huh?

    JD (5f0e11)

  149. Levi: I’m a died-in-the-wool liberal who has never voted for a Republican presidential candidate (although i have voted for conservatives, including Tom McClintock, for other offices), and who voted for Sen. Obama in the primary.

    I found the following comments to be abusive conduct, and they weren’t even directed at me:

    Comment #46: “You guys are like vultures.”

    Comment #56: “What are these repurcussions, homophobe?”

    Comment #84: “Do you dumbasses know how to read?”

    Comment #89: “I gave you a ****ing graph.” “You’re all too busy going on about … how faggy us liberals are”

    Comment #96: “All republicans thing all Democrats are fags”

    Comment #107: “What the **** are you talking about?”

    Comment #114: your stupid ****ing hypothetical”

    Not a one of them constitutes polite discourse. And, I might add, all of them make it more difficult to find common ground with conservatives and/or persuade them on individual issues. So: they’re impolite and unconstructive.

    Sometimes you gotta call a homophobe a homophobe, what can I say? You want to pull punches, go ahead, pal. This country is crumbling apart while these yokels try to scoot away from their responsibility for putting it in that condition, so why should I treat them politely? People that insist on not learning from their own mistakes (GEORGE BUSH) are incapable of discourse. Common ground? Ask around, these guys still think the war in Iraq is some glorious accomplishment. I just got into it with them a few weeks ago about all the WMD they think we’ve found. I have to be polite to that?

    I know that when I started posting here I was inundated with insults before I said anything even remotely controversial, and I waited for someone to use the f-word before I did. I make my points, I respond when pressed, and yeah, I’m going to pepper some insults in there, where appropriate.
    Welcome to the internet.

    Levi (76ef55)

  150. Listen I like Levi. I think he is a really down to earth, straight talking liberal. His language may not always be nice but I think we all understand that deep down, he doesnt really mean it. Hey, so far we ve had up to what, 150 comments on this blog so far and its largely because Levi gives us all a heck of a time on our PCs. More power to you Levi. Go on, let it out!

    love2008 (d2a57f)

  151. I know that when I started posting here I was inundated with insults before I said anything even remotely controversial . . .

    Levi, the first two sentences you wrote on this blog were these:

    I don’t get it, Republicans. What’s so bad about saying “God Damn America?”

    Not controversial to you, perhaps — but to rational people, it’s pretty provocative.

    Patterico (cb443b)

  152. Nice story, Retard Boy.

    Too bad it isn’t true.

    For example…

    I know that when I started posting here I was inundated with insults

    …where “insult” means “having the logical fallacies and inaccuracies of my statements pointed out.”

    WAAAAAAH!

    before I said anything even remotely controversial, and I waited for someone to use the f-word before I did.

    Hah!

    This from a commneter that once bragged, “I love cursing.” Admit it: you couldn’t hold it back. You love cursing so much that our esteemed host had to threaten you with comment deletion to get you to tone it down.

    Retard.

    Paul (cf2458)

  153. Levi, the first two sentences you wrote on this blog were these:

    I don’t get it, Republicans. What’s so bad about saying “God Damn America?”

    Not controversial to you, perhaps — but to rational people, it’s pretty provocative.

    So the measure of rationality with you is whether or not someone flies off the handle in outrage over a candidate’s preacher saying ‘God Damn America?’

    But hey, what do I know, I’m just some dumb kid that thought rational politics was about nerdy stuff like foreign policy and social issues, here I come to find out it’s about how hard each of us hyperventilates when we hear the words, “God Damn America.”

    If I had a fit about Mike Huckabee joking about pointing a gun at Obama, would that be rational politics?

    Levi (76ef55)

  154. #153
    Nice story, Retard Boy.

    Hey Paul, two wrongs dont make a right. I dont see how calling anyone retard boy is funny. I have seen you demonstrate more class than that.

    love2008 (d2a57f)

  155. God Damn America
    America is a mean country
    This is the first time I was proud of America as an adult
    Launching his political career at a terrorists house
    Socialist
    These are all good and rational ideas in Levi’s world.

    FWIW – You were not inundated with mocking until you demonstrated that you were a deserving target and dishonest.

    JD (5f0e11)

  156. It’s the first rule of Republican electoral success: Call the liberal a fag. It’s a very effective tactic to employ to woo the conservative base, which would be you, I guess, and it’s succeeded since Dukakis.

    Really now. I would LOVE to see a transcript where Reagan called Dukakis “faggy” a “fag” or pretty much anything at all.

    See Reagan actually treated people (all people, including and especially those who disagreed with him) with decency and respect. Even people in congress who hated his policies tended to speak well of him…

    You have nothing to add to any debate. You make a claim, and when called to provide some sort of support, you throw out what must be the first link that comes up on google, usually without even reading it to find out if it supports your claim.

    When called on TAHT failure, you throw an insult, toss an f-bomb or two, and demand WE prove YOU wrong. When links/proof is provided, you refuse to accept it as even remotely valid, and move the goal-posts some more.

    Seriously, what world do you exist in that makes you think you even come close to influencing anyone to come to your way of thinking?

    Aphrael is one of the most liberal people that frequents here, and HE doesn’t like the way you talk to us.

    Aphrael, I know it was covered at some point, but if you’re a gal, sorry for the “he”. Mea culpa…

    So the measure of rationality with you is whether or not someone flies off the handle in outrage over a candidate’s preacher saying ‘God Damn America?

    This may appear to be a strange concept to you, young Levi, but most people who have any esteem for this country find it insulting to have that line said so soon after 9-11. Ok, we find it insulting any time, but especially after 9-11.

    Again, this may seem strange to you, but some of us like a country where we have freedom to do/say mostly whatever we like.

    We’ve never suggested that Rev Wright Shouldn’t be allowed to say whatever he pleases (assuming he stays withing some VERY wide boundaries), it’s just that we think he should ALSO have to deal with any negative repurcussions that come from them. Like a negative impact on his young religious convert (for lack of a better term for someone he ushered in from the heathen world of non-christianity) and said young one’s bid for the Highest elected office in the Land.

    Obama spent 20+ years listening to sermons given by Rev. Wright. He either attended, or listened to them on tape while away at college. That length of time, and one has to ask “if he disagreed, he would have left… So why didn’t he leave?”

    But again, you only hold people to “guilt by association” when someone has a passing political affiliation with a republican. You somehow place Hagee into a worse catagory than Wright. This baffles me, but is hardly surprising. You seem to live in a world constructed entirely out of lies, exagerations, and hypocracy.

    Those three things are your meat. Your bread and butter. They are the very core of your being…

    Wrapped around that ccore, you lying, snivelling little jerk, is vulgarity and blatant disrespect for anyoen who would dare disagree with you, or challenge your carefully crafted world-view.

    I know it was crafted with the greated of care, because a world built on lies and ignorance is like a house of cards – the slightest mistake, and it all comes tumbling down.

    I hope that never happens to you, Levi. COnsidering the alacrity and potency with which you fly into a rage whenever pressed on any topic, were you to have the utter falsehood fo your whole world made blindingly apparent such that you could not avoid dealing with such an event…

    Well, you would likely kill the nearest three people in a murderous rage. People like you go off and plant freaking bombs at college professor’s houses…

    So, with that last bit in mind, I shall no longer refer to you as “Levi”. Nor “Retard”, “Moron”, “Dolt”, or any other of the countless words I use for you.

    To me, for the rest of your time here, I shall call you:

    Teddy K.

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  157. You love cursing so much that our esteemed host had to threaten you with comment deletion to get you to tone it down.

    Retard.

    OK, don’t make me threaten you with the same.

    Patterico (cb443b)

  158. To me, for the rest of your time here, I shall call you:

    Teddy K.

    Comment by Scott Jacobs — 5/19/2008 @ 7:02 pm

    Scotty, thought you left already. You want me to read all that?

    Levi (76ef55)

  159. OK, don’t make me threaten you with the same.

    I get the point. Consider it dropped and closed. But…

    Patrick, you really need to read your archives.

    That’s considerably mild compared to what he’s called me..and others.

    Also, I don’t curse on your blog.

    Paul (cf2458)

  160. Paul, that’s not dropping it. Just call the wee lad “Teddy K”, and join me in a laugh. 🙂

    Scotty, thought you left already. You want me to read all that?

    I kno, you dear, sweet, mis-understood child… Such big words… I know… There there…

    It’s ok Teddy K. It’ll be alright…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  161. That’s considerably mild compared to what he’s called me..and others.

    I’m sure it is.

    I have been out of pocket for about a month while I conducted a three-defendant murder trial.

    I’m now out of it — and I was taking care of my sick child today and had a chance to read some comments as they went up, which I usually can’t do.

    I am making an attempt at monitoring things. My first rule is Levi stops cursing. The rest of it will come as I watch.

    Patterico (cb443b)

  162. You want me to read all that?

    This from a commneter that boasted about the length and content of his comments while looking down his nose at other commneters, yet implies that a post from one of those same commenters is too long.

    Paul (cf2458)

  163. I have been out of pocket for about a month while I conducted a three-defendant murder trial.

    I knew that. Which is why I suggested you need to catch up on what you missed…when you have time, of course.

    Paul (cf2458)

  164. I have been out of pocket for about a month while I conducted a three-defendant murder trial.

    Didja win???

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  165. They were all found guilty.

    Patterico (cb443b)

  166. I knew that. Which is why I suggested you need to catch up on what you missed…when you have time, of course.

    I have better things to do with my time. I will monitor things going forward.

    Patterico (cb443b)

  167. Scott, no worries: ‘he’ is the correct pronoun. And I wouldn’t be offended by a wrong one, anyhow; if nobody can know if you are a dog on the internet, how can anyone be expected to know your gender? 🙂

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  168. They were all found guilty.

    Good work making the people’s case.

    Paul (cf2458)

  169. Levi: I have no problem calling an individual who has demonstrated himself to be a homophobe a homophobe. I *do* have a problem making generalizations about people and then applying those generalizatins to specific individuals.

    I know that when I started posting here I was inundated with insults before I said anything even remotely controversial

    I don’t remember when you started posting here. But I’ve been posting here on and off for five years (I first found the site during the recall), and have been hit with insults twice. Once, the person responsible apologized. 🙂

    My point is this: I suspect that your demeanor, word choice, and argumentation style have a tendency to attract insults, and it’s possible that changing those might reduce the number of insults you receive.

    I have to be polite to that?

    You don’t have to do anything. But you would be wise to be polite. We as a society will get to a better place faster if we talk to each other civilly and calmly about how to get there. 🙂

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  170. Patterico, I understand your desire to keep your blog and your job distinct, but: congratulations on the successful prosecution.

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  171. And I wouldn’t be offended by a wrong one, anyhow; if nobody can know if you are a dog on the internet, how can anyone be expected to know your gender?

    If 4chan has taught me nothing else, it is that there are no women on the internet. At all. Ever. If you see a chick on the ‘net, either it’s not a chick, or that’s not the internet… 🙂

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  172. Well, thanks. My point wasn’t to talk about that, but to explain why I have been so quiet. Now can’t we all get along?

    Patterico (cb443b)

  173. So what is the conclusion? What have we all learned?

    love2008 (d2a57f)

  174. No. There is no reason to get along with the likes of Levi. None.

    Congrats, Patterico. They are lucky to have you out there. I still think you need a Patterico Mbile version for the Treo-ites out here – hint, hint.

    JD (5f0e11)

  175. love2008 – I do not think we learned anything that we did not already know.

    JD (5f0e11)

  176. #175
    No. There is no reason to get along with the likes of Levi. None.
    No JD, I think we can. Yes we can! (Where did I hear that first?….)

    love2008 (d2a57f)

  177. I have been uniformly appalled by the California Supreme Court over the last decade. There was a time when that court was held in high national regard, but those days were permanently ended, so it seems, by Jerry Brown’s appointment of result-oriented, doctrinaire liberals like Rose Bird, followed by years of appointment of a succession of loose cannons who think nothing of inventing legal doctrines out of whole cloth, and have abandoned any pretense of institutional stability or collegiality. Even a conservative loose cannon, of which there are a couple, can still be dangerous.

    My own experiences before the court have been frightening, because there’s no way to predict what kinds of wacky things will come out of that crew. Even when I win, it’s usually for unnerving reasons.

    VG

    Voiceguy in L.A. (e5b52a)

  178. “I have been out of pocket for about a month while I conducted a three-defendant murder trial.”

    I always appreciate it when things are put in a correct perspective and what matters is made significantly clear.

    Considering the importance and significance of the above in light of an inflammatory ranter dropping F-bombs and screaming homophobe to fellow commenters…well, I guess it goes without saying.

    Dana (8e52e5)

  179. I kno, you dear, sweet, mis-understood child… Such big words… I know… There there…

    It’s ok Teddy K. It’ll be alright…

    Yeah I guess I did misunderstand. I thought you were hyping some sort of exodus?

    I don’t want to delay you…

    Levi (76ef55)

  180. Nahhhh…

    Patterico’s put you on notice. That makes me happy enough…

    Don’t cry Teddy K. Don’t cry, tiny dancer…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  181. Dana: in one of the other threads, JD has taken to jokingly calling me a homophobe. I like it, for all sorts of reasons, and am half tempted to end every comment I make here with it.

    Homophobe. 🙂

    aphrael (db0b5a)

  182. Oh, too good to even be a racist now?

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  183. aphrael, I got absolutely exhausted wading through the comments once they starting morphing away from the original thread of the post and my mind got fuzzy from dropping Fbombs and horrible homophobes rampantly running through the gray matter.

    Quite seriously, I was again reminded by our host’s comment of how many people like him, and others here, have committed their time and lives to serving the public and protecting us and the freedoms we as a society know. Its jarring. And nicely so.

    Dana (8e52e5)

  184. p.s. oh yeah, homophobe right back at ya!

    Dana (8e52e5)

  185. No Republican thought Michael Dukakis was a “fag.” A wimp, yes. A wuss, yup. Weak? Affirmative. But not gay.

    And not just because of his infamous ride in the tank that made him look like he was having a seventh birthday party at Six Flags. It was his tepid response to CNN’s Bernard Shaw’s hypothetical question of whether he would want the death penalty for the person who killed his wife.

    L.N. Smithee (700c1f)

  186. Not just killed… RAPED and killed.

    Someone did that to my wife? I’d find a way to kill them twice.

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  187. Levi wrote: There’s a lot of stupid people in this country, that can’t figure out that they’re being lied to, but really like thinking they’re winners and that the country is always kicking ass, and that’s what Karl Rove has pinned his electoral strategy on.

    Since I learned who Karl Rove was back in 2000, I have been saying for the record that he is more lucky than he was ever good. Bush won both elections despite Rove, not because of him. Rove’s legacy is Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid. That’s like losing on Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?

    Talk about stupid people — all this seething vilification of Karl Rove by the left is wasted energy. If Obama wins and has a veto-proof majority with which to ram through his red-genda, your side will have Rove to thank for ensuring the discontent of conservatives, who were deceived when Bush first ran, ignored after he was inaugurated, and insulted when they refused to have amnesty and Harriet Miers crammed down their throats.

    Ann Coulter can go up and call John Edwards a fag, receive a round of applause and never have to apologize because that’s her job in this political climate, to say what the rest of you wish you could say.

    You weren’t paying attention. Patterico, Michelle Malkin, Ed Morrissey, Red State, Rick Moran, and many other prominent right side bloggers were and still are pissed at Coulter for her inexcusable “joke” about Edwards and her tortured, implausible explanations of why it was a) funny and b) not offensive.

    You need to see a doctor about your jerking knee.

    L.N. Smithee (700c1f)

  188. Levi: I have no problem calling an individual who has demonstrated himself to be a homophobe a homophobe. I *do* have a problem making generalizations about people and then applying those generalizatins to specific individuals.

    My point is this: I suspect that your demeanor, word choice, and argumentation style have a tendency to attract insults, and it’s possible that changing those might reduce the number of insults you receive.

    Republicans often lament that they’re not ‘allowed’ to say certain things about black people without being labeled as racists, even as they insist their intent is only to discuss race relations.

    I believe something similar is what is happening here. I don’t know how else to say this, especially considering that I’m seemingly on the precipice of being banned, but I believe the big problem in this country, the primary problem, bigger than Iran and the environment and terrorism combined, is stupid Republicans.

    I do feel superior, morally and intellectually, to every Republican here, and across this country. Could any liberal expect to feel anything less, given how obviously retarded the man they’ve chosen to lead them has proven himself to be? I mean did you guys see what he said about giving up golf because he didn’t want ‘some mom’ seeing him playing during the Iraq war? That’s a leader? That’s a smart guy? This man is supposed to transmogrify the Middle East? And this is just the most bone-headed thing he’s said this week. Why would I not be deathly afraid of any political movement that worships and reveres as brilliant a President so transparently in-over-his-head as George Bush?

    I’m told over and over again that George Bush isn’t running again, that I’m living in the past, yadda yadda yadda, but George Bush is still the issue. That someone like that could get elected and re-elected exposes a glaring deficit in reasoning, judgment, and critical thinking among the constituencies of their party that they’re loathe to acknowledge, most of them pretend that there isn’t even a problem. Which is a problem for the rest of us, significant majorities at this point, if we’re at all interested in maintaining our quality of life, or simply just not getting lots and lots of people killed.

    Republicans, I am not impressed, there is nothing impressive about you. As long as I’ve been a politically aware adult, all I’ve seen from your leadership is colossal mistake after colossal mistake, followed closely by a flurry of loud, nonsensical excuses by their supporters, you guys.

    And you guys really are what the problem is. There will always be Dick Cheneys and Karl Roves manipulating and scheming their way into positions of power. Your whole job as an American citizen is to not let yourself be manipulated, and you’ve blown it. Because, well, let’s just say you’re all playing with the same deck. That’s millions of you. Sharing 52 cards.

    Okay I’m just calling you stupid again. Sorry in advance?

    You don’t have to do anything. But you would be wise to be polite. We as a society will get to a better place faster if we talk to each other civilly and calmly about how to get there. :

    )

    That doesn’t do us any good. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are polite, and those two have got to be some of the most politically impotent ‘leaders’ in Washington. I don’t want to reach across the aisle, I don’t want bipartisanship, Republicans deserve to be locked out of government for at least a good long while. We’re not going anywhere unless it’s on their terms, don’t you see? They’re an impediment, an immovable wall. If you haven’t come around after 8 years of Bush and 5 years of the most mismanaged and misguided war in our country’s history than you’re in this until the end, you know what I mean?

    Levi (76ef55)

  189. I keep checking back and still see the struggling 5th grader with the potty mouth, Levi, threadjacking

    and yet no one has a good answer on how the heck “sexual orientation” is “immutable” and thus worthy of a “suspect class.”

    Darleen (187edc)

  190. I believe the big problem in this country, the primary problem, bigger than Iran and the environment and terrorism combined, is stupid Republicans.

    I do feel superior, morally and intellectually, to every Republican here, and across this country.

    Now why would I want to ban such an excellent example of smug leftism?

    Patterico (cb443b)

  191. As long as I’ve been a politically aware adult . . .

    Judging from the tone of your comments, I’m wagering this hasn’t been a lengthy period of time. What, two years?

    Patterico (cb443b)

  192. What scares me is that he thinks he is a politically aware adult…that he “feels” superior, morally and intellectually, does explain it all…

    It’s all about “feelings” and not facts….

    Which explains how he backs CSC Judges making decisions based upons “feelings” and not the law…

    reff (e20e4c)

  193. Levi drooled: I mean did you guys see what he said about giving up golf because he didn’t want ’some mom’ seeing him playing during the Iraq war? That’s a leader? That’s a smart guy? This man is supposed to transmogrify the Middle East? And this is just the most bone-headed thing he’s said this week. Why would I not be deathly afraid of any political movement that worships and reveres as brilliant a President so transparently in-over-his-head as George Bush?

    First of all, I would like to see you make a case that Republicans in general and conservatives in particular “worships and reveres” Bush as “brilliant.” Did it occur to you that some of the people that are responsible for his near-historic low approval rating are Republicans? Your idea that everyone right of center admires every move he’s made as POTUS is an excellent example of leftist media bias and its unwitting victims.

    A further example is your take on the golf comment. Talk about mountains from molehills. Here is the ENTIRE exchange in the interview with Politico.com’s Mike Smith:

    Q Mr. President, you haven’t been golfing in recent years. Is that related to Iraq?

    THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it really is. I don’t want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the Commander-in-Chief playing golf. I feel I owe it to the families to be as — to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal.

    Q Mr. President, was there a particular moment or incident that brought you to that decision, or how did you come to that?

    THE PRESIDENT: No, I remember when de Mello, who was at the U.N., got killed in Baghdad as a result of these murderers taking this good man’s life. And I was playing golf — I think I was in central Texas — and they pulled me off the golf course and I said, it’s just not worth it anymore to do.

    That’s IT. You’re working yourself into a lather over THAT, Leev. “Bone-headed?” It’s not a policy statement. You would have not have noticed he wasn’t on the links if Smith hadn’t asked him about it. In fact, if he WAS playing golf during the war, you would have wet your pants over that!

    Before that tempest in a teacup, it was Bush’s accurate remarks in his Knesset speech. An all-star lineup of Democrats gleefully provided sound bites decrying the President’s “political” remarks supposedly about Barack Obama. Never mind that Bush never said he was talking about one particular person — he was talking about “appeasers,” and when you think “appeasement,” YOU THINK OBAMA!

    Why would you get so incensed with someone over these two statements? Because you are easily manipulated, Levi. Because people like Keith Blowhardmann and others can’t stand to talk anymore about the growing racial discord in the Democratic Party, and they are trying to refocus attention on President Bush, providing new reasons every day to gnash their teeth about him, and redirecting the venom toward John McCain. Plus, it’s good business for them, too.

    I used to be fooled by the MSM about Ronald Reagan until a few years after my high school graduation. It was common for us to suggest that we would never be able to have a ten-year reunion due to nuclear holocaust. Then, the Iron Curtain crumbled. The hands on the Doomsday Clock ran counter-clockwise. And leftists around the nation who had espoused unilateral disarmament — including the ones in media boardrooms — were agape, shocked at being proven dead wrong by a “dottering old man.”

    I was man enough to admit I been manipulated and was wrong. If Obama turns out to be the man you think he is, I’ll admit being wrong about that, too. Unfortunately, I don’t think that will happen. I lived through Jimmy “Malaise” Carter, and know what guys like that can do to this country. Obama doesn’t golf, he plays basketball. But so far, it looks like he has more in common with Neville Chamberlain than Wilt Chamberlain.

    L.N. Smithee (700c1f)

  194. The telling thing is that many people who don’t give a damn about keeping marriage hetero, DO give a damn about written constitutions and judges not playing God.

    Had the Supremes decided 4-3 the other way — on the basis of it not being a constitutional question — the initiative that is now going to pass hands-down would like have failed. Ironically, the Court will have put back the cause of gay marriage by a decade or more (until proponents can repeal the upcoming constitutional amendment).

    You would think that courts had learned the futility of this kind of anti-democratic high-handedness from Roe (still not secure 35 years later). But apparently not. When are those retention elections again?

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  195. Sorry, I missed the thread hijacking. I guess this where I’m supposed to call Levi a dumbass or something. Not because he favors gay marriage, but because he thinks it’s OK for justices to make up stuff and baldly claim that they found it in the Constitution.

    Not that the dissents did NOT say that they felt that gay marriage should not be allowed. They said that it was an usurpation of the people’s right to self-government for judges to issue diktats. If the question had been on whether they favored gay marriage the vote would have been at least 6-1.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  196. Judging from the tone of your comments, I’m wagering this hasn’t been a lengthy period of time. What, two years?

    You’re allowing two years too many…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  197. I do feel superior, morally and intellectually, to every Republican here, and across this country.

    Thank you, Levi (#189). That was brilliant.

    Now, maybe you could appreciate why we think feelings, such as yours, have no place in judicial findings.

    JD (75f5c3)

  198. I do feel superior, morally and intellectually, to every Republican here, and across this country.

    And that is the underlying raison d’etre of America’s Left … the ultimate Nannystater mentality that sez, “I know what’s best for you and I’m going to dictate it to you, whether you like it or not.”

    No wonder some of the biggest apologists for Islamists are in the Left.

    Mullah-envy.

    Darleen (187edc)

  199. and yet no one has a good answer on how the heck “sexual orientation” is “immutable” and thus worthy of a “suspect class.”

    People don’t choose to be gay, they don’t have to teach themselves to be attracted to and aroused by their own sex, any more than you or I had to choose or learn to be attracted to and aroused by the opposite sex.

    Now I don’t know what sort of ‘proof’ you will need to start believing that, but it’s rather impossible to conduct any sort of conclusive experiment that tracks either the gradual process or the exact moment when a kid ‘becomes’ gay. But gay people are born to and raised by straight parents all the time, and straight people are born to and raised by gay parents all the time. If sexual orientation isn’t immutable, that it’s some sort of learned behavior or considered choice, than why aren’t gay couples exclusively cranking out gay kids?

    So what makes sense? To me, what makes sense is that gays are exactly like straights in how and why we become attracted to whatever we’re attracted to, gays choose one sex, straights choose the other, and bisexuals choose both.

    Or, you can believe that at 8 or 12 or 15, a kid consciously makes the decision that he or she likes wieners or boobies, respectively, and is okay with taking on that burden and stigma in the most socially awkward time in any kid’s life, just as they’re entering adolescence and going into high school, when most of us are just trying to ‘fit in.’ That doesn’t make sense to me, does that make sense to you? Do you think that you or I could ‘turn gay’ if we tried?

    Levi (76ef55)

  200. People don’t choose to be gay

    SOME people don’t choose to be gay.

    And that “gayness” is only detectable by behavior and self-reporting. There is no objective measure of sexual orientation … ie dna.

    The vast majority of people are born XX or XY, yet in CA you’ll find people trying to craft laws and policies based on the belief that one’s gender is fungible. Indeed, to teach in school such concepts as Mom and Dad is to be a slave to gender binary.

    Darleen (187edc)

  201. If sexual orientation isn’t immutable, that it’s some sort of learned behavior or considered choice, than why aren’t gay couples exclusively cranking out gay kids?

    Just….wow.

    Ahem.

    Pablo (99243e)

  202. btw Levi

    Whether or not someone feels they are gay, and how early, is irrelevant to this discussion.

    Darleen (187edc)

  203. “And that “gayness” is only detectable by behavior and self-reporting. There is no objective measure of sexual orientation … ie dna.”

    Like religion.

    stef (1d0ada)

  204. Pablo #202,

    Heh!

    I have been trying hard to ignore Levi but for someone who talks about f***ing so much he does seem to know awful little about it.

    nk (d7f5f5)

  205. Since I learned who Karl Rove was back in 2000, I have been saying for the record that he is more lucky than he was ever good. Bush won both elections despite Rove, not because of him. Rove’s legacy is Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid. That’s like losing on Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?

    I whole-heartedly agree that to get somebody like George W. Bush elected to the Presidency in this country requires a tremendous amount of luck, but give him credit, he did it. He knew exactly what you guys wanted to see, what you wanted to hear, he read the conservative base like a book.

    Karl Rove didn’t bring us Pelosi or Reid, either, that was failed Republican policy and war fatigue.

    Talk about stupid people — all this seething vilification of Karl Rove by the left is wasted energy. If Obama wins and has a veto-proof majority with which to ram through his red-genda, your side will have Rove to thank for ensuring the discontent of conservatives, who were deceived when Bush first ran, ignored after he was inaugurated, and insulted when they refused to have amnesty and Harriet Miers crammed down their throats.

    It’s interesting how you name Miers and amnesty as the two things that Bush did that ‘insulted’ you. You’re not insulted that we got tricked into a stupid, objective-less war, or the obvious lack of planning for said war? Or that the American President instituted a policy of torture, in all of our names? Or that he broke federal law to spy on whomever he wanted with no oversight?

    Really? Harriet Miers is more of an affront to you than Bush’s war that has killed thousands of Americans?

    You weren’t paying attention. Patterico, Michelle Malkin, Ed Morrissey, Red State, Rick Moran, and many other prominent right side bloggers were and still are pissed at Coulter for her inexcusable “joke” about Edwards and her tortured, implausible explanations of why it was a) funny and b) not offensive.

    You need to see a doctor about your jerking knee.

    Yeah, and between you guys you really curtailed her career, right? I’m watching the clip right now, and people, conservative people, are laughing and clapping along, and at the end of the day, her stock goes up, specifically for saying things like that. Her influence and prominence go one way with the conservative base. We’re all supposed to want to ride Rev. Wright out of the country on a rail because he was quoting an ambassador, but Ann Coulter gets to unapologetically talk about how much fun the 9-11 widows are having since their husbands got killed? You’re telling me that’s not a double standard?

    Levi (76ef55)

  206. Yeah, and between you guys you really curtailed her career, right?

    Rev. Wright seems to be ok for himself these days, Teddy K…

    Though I suppose that isn’t a fair comparison. It’s not like the man has done anything offensive, like accuse “whitey” of creating a deadly virus in order to eradicate all blacks…

    Oh, wait…

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  207. you guys you really curtailed her career, right?

    You don’t believe in the free market. Or democracy.

    We get that.

    Darleen (187edc)

  208. And that “gayness” is only detectable by behavior and self-reporting. There is no objective measure of sexual orientation … ie dna.

    Why can’t self-reporting be an objective measure? Why would somebody lie about such a thing?

    The vast majority of people are born XX or XY, yet in CA you’ll find people trying to craft laws and policies based on the belief that one’s gender is fungible. Indeed, to teach in school such concepts as Mom and Dad is to be a slave to gender binary.

    What does that have to do with gayness being immutable?

    Levi (76ef55)

  209. Judging from the tone of your comments, I’m wagering this hasn’t been a lengthy period of time. What, two years?

    Since early 2004, when this war we all got duped into supporting started turning into a nightmare. I’ve been watching like a hawk ever since.

    Levi (76ef55)

  210. People like Levi just like making up new definitions. I am interested in the gay couples reproducing of which he speaks.

    If it is immutable, why do people change teams?

    Levi does us a service. He is a glorious reminder of how the Left thinks of those that do not agree with them.

    JD (75f5c3)

  211. LEVI KNEW BETTER THAN EVERY INTELLIGENCE AGENCY ON THE ENTIRE FREAKING PLANET AND YOU ARE EVIL STOOOPID IMMORAL AND INFERIOR TO LEVI FOR NOT BELIVING EVERYTHING HE TYPES AND SAYS EVEN WHEN HE IS LYING OR JUST MAKING SHIT UP

    JD (75f5c3)

  212. We’re all supposed to want to ride Rev. Wright out of the country on a rail because he was quoting an ambassador, but Ann Coulter gets to unapologetically talk about how much fun the 9-11 widows are having since their husbands got killed? You’re telling me that’s not a double standard?

    Whom are you criticizing? I criticized Coulter harshly on that issue (and on about a dozen other issues), and I was not the only one to do so.

    Patterico (cb443b)

  213. Since early 2004, when this war we all got duped into supporting started turning into a nightmare. I’ve been watching like a hawk ever since.

    But surely you haven’t been an adult that entire time.

    I seriously doubt that you can legally drink.

    This guess is based on the tone of your comments.

    Patterico (cb443b)

  214. “I am interested in the gay couples reproducing of which he speaks.”

    I’ve heard of people using insemination and donors, a lot like some hetero couples.

    stef (8a983a)

  215. I seriously doubt that you can legally drink.

    This guess is based on the tone of your comments.

    There’s the zinger…

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  216. First of all, I would like to see you make a case that Republicans in general and conservatives in particular “worships and reveres” Bush as “brilliant.” Did it occur to you that some of the people that are responsible for his near-historic low approval rating are Republicans? Your idea that everyone right of center admires every move he’s made as POTUS is an excellent example of leftist media bias and its unwitting victims.

    You can’t fool me, the first four years of Bush’s Presidency featured nothing but fawning conservatives all over the airwaves talking about how Reagan-esque Bush was, and how heroic Bush was. You guys did re-elect him, did you not? That’s not a resounding endorsement?

    Immediately after the ’04 election was the Terri Schaivo thing, that was the first time I noticed conservatives ‘criticizing’ Bush in meaningful numbers. And like I said in my other response to you, having a big fit on the internet about amnesty and Harriet Miers is pretty comical, given all of the very serious damage he’s done to our economy, our military, and our international standing, none of which any of you seem all that worried about to this day.

    A further example is your take on the golf comment. Talk about mountains from molehills. Here is the ENTIRE exchange in the interview with Politico.com’s Mike Smith:

    Q Mr. President, you haven’t been golfing in recent years. Is that related to Iraq?

    THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it really is. I don’t want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the Commander-in-Chief playing golf. I feel I owe it to the families to be as — to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal.

    Q Mr. President, was there a particular moment or incident that brought you to that decision, or how did you come to that?

    THE PRESIDENT: No, I remember when de Mello, who was at the U.N., got killed in Baghdad as a result of these murderers taking this good man’s life. And I was playing golf — I think I was in central Texas — and they pulled me off the golf course and I said, it’s just not worth it anymore to do.

    That’s IT. You’re working yourself into a lather over THAT, Leev. “Bone-headed?” It’s not a policy statement. You would have not have noticed he wasn’t on the links if Smith hadn’t asked him about it. In fact, if he WAS playing golf during the war, you would have wet your pants over that!

    I can’t believe I have to explain to you why this is a stupid thing to say. Why don’t we round up a group of gold star mothers, put George Bush in the room, and have him tell them all that he stopped playing golf to be in solidarity with them. Is there anything more unsympathetic or condescending you could say to a group of people? And what’s hilarious, is that he didn’t even come up with the idea, he had to be told. Further, he’s said in the past he quit golf and running (and took up biking) because of his knee problems, and further still, there’s video of him playing golf a full two months after he claimed to have given it up (after being told he should, of course.)

    So what we have here is an entirely hollow gesture that Bush didn’t even think of and didn’t actually follow through with. And no, it’s not a statement of policy, but doesn’t this fall under the umbrella of ‘character issues?’ That this President thinks he’s sacrificing by giving up golf, that he thinks that that’s something that might comfort parents that have lost a son or daughter in his war, speaks directly to what kind of a person George Bush is; a self-absorbed, silver spoon-fed, lying idiot.

    Before that tempest in a teacup, it was Bush’s accurate remarks in his Knesset speech. An all-star lineup of Democrats gleefully provided sound bites decrying the President’s “political” remarks supposedly about Barack Obama. Never mind that Bush never said he was talking about one particular person — he was talking about “appeasers,” and when you think “appeasement,” YOU THINK OBAMA!

    Well who was he talking about then?

    I’m not interested in playing stupid little games, I know exactly who he was talking about, Republicans have been throwing stuff like that at liberals for years. You want to stop being naive, now?

    Why would you get so incensed with someone over these two statements? Because you are easily manipulated, Levi. Because people like Keith Blowhardmann and others can’t stand to talk anymore about the growing racial discord in the Democratic Party, and they are trying to refocus attention on President Bush, providing new reasons every day to gnash their teeth about him, and redirecting the venom toward John McCain. Plus, it’s good business for them, too.

    What racial discord? The rest of that stuff is uninteresting, let’s talk about this ‘racial discord.’

    I used to be fooled by the MSM about Ronald Reagan until a few years after my high school graduation. It was common for us to suggest that we would never be able to have a ten-year reunion due to nuclear holocaust. Then, the Iron Curtain crumbled. The hands on the Doomsday Clock ran counter-clockwise. And leftists around the nation who had espoused unilateral disarmament — including the ones in media boardrooms — were agape, shocked at being proven dead wrong by a “dottering old man.”

    Yeah, yeah, Reagan was a god among men, big deal. I couldn’t care less about Reagan or how you came to embrace conservatism. What is your point here? Are you trying to assure me that someday, I too will see the light?

    I was man enough to admit I been manipulated and was wrong. If Obama turns out to be the man you think he is, I’ll admit being wrong about that, too. Unfortunately, I don’t think that will happen.

    And you’re the guy that got duped last time, so why should I care what you think?

    I lived through Jimmy “Malaise” Carter, and know what guys like that can do to this country. Obama doesn’t golf, he plays basketball. But so far, it looks like he has more in common with Neville Chamberlain than Wilt Chamberlain.

    So if Bush wasn’t talking about Obama when he was talking about appeasers, why are you comparing him to Neville Chamberlain all of a sudden?

    Would you have been doing that 2 weeks ago? You know, before Bush made that speech?

    You are a cog in a machine.

    Levi (76ef55)

  217. And what’s hilarious, is that he didn’t even come up with the idea, he had to be told.

    Looks to me like he came up with the idea. Maybe you’re not so good at reading.

    Patterico (cb443b)

  218. Maybe if the Dems had not run alore and Kerry, Bush would have never been elected, TWICE !

    very serious damage he’s done to our economy, our military, and our international standing, none of which any of you seem all that worried about to this day.

    Please define these for us, o moral better.

    BTW, we get it. You do not like us, respect us, or want us to be able to participate in governing. Now who is the fascist?

    JD (75f5c3)

  219. Maybe you’re not so good at reading

    He would first have to try reading to determine whether or not he was good at it.

    JD (75f5c3)

  220. …given all of the very serious damage he’s done to our economy, our military, and our international standing, none of which any of you seem all that worried about to this day.

    Not terribly, no. But that’s only because I like to look at what the actual states of those things are and not the incessant screeching about failed policies that never actually address what those failures are. As an example, I’m having trouble getting excited about todays #1 issue, the recession. But do feel free to lose your mind over it. Free country and all…

    Pablo (99243e)

  221. So if Bush wasn’t talking about Obama when he was talking about appeasers, why are you comparing him to Neville Chamberlain all of a sudden?

    Would you have been doing that 2 weeks ago? You know, before Bush made that speech?

    Why? Because Obama put himself in the middle of …no, I take that back…Obama created the controversy. Had he not reacted as he did, no one would be talking about the Bush Knesset speech. A stupid rookie mistake on O!’s part.

    Pablo (99243e)

  222. Whom are you criticizing? I criticized Coulter harshly on that issue (and on about a dozen other issues), and I was not the only one to do so.

    Republicans. There’s no consistency. We have to listen for weeks, to the exclusion of all other issues, about how Rev. Wright is spewing hate speech and is being so horribly offensive when he talks about 9-11, but Ann Coulter gets to write about the widows from that attack enjoying their husbands’ deaths and she gets a little slap on the wrist from a few bloggers. She’s still reaching millions of conservatives, she’s still selling millions of books, she’s still getting invited to do shows and conferences. Isn’t what she said more offensive than what Rev. Wright said? If you’re offended by Rev. Wright’s ‘chickens coming home to roost’ comment, shouldn’t you be substantially more offended by Coulter specifically saying about individual victims of the tragedy that they’re having a great time?

    For what it’s worth, I don’t care at all about what these two people have to say, they’re free to do what they want. The issue here is the double standard, that Republicans can gin up all this hatred and fear and paranoia over Rev. Wright and largely turn a blind eye to Ann Coulter.

    Levi (76ef55)

  223. Looks to me like he came up with the idea. Maybe you’re not so good at reading.

    Yeah, you’re right.

    Still, it’s a hollow, insulting non-gesture that he couldn’t follow through with anyway.

    Levi (76ef55)

  224. Levi likes comparing apples to Volkswagens.

    And he likes arguing with those caricatures dancing around in his head.

    JD (75f5c3)

  225. The issue here is the double standard, that Democrats can gin up all this hatred and fear and paranoia over Coulter and largely turn a blind eye to Rev. Wright.

    Ah, but that particular double standard doesn’t bother you, I suspect.

    In any event, I’m consistent here. I have more than a dozen posts harshly criticizing her. So you’d be well advised to take your whining about this particular issue elsewhere. As far as Coulter goes, you’re preaching to the choir here.

    Patterico (cb443b)

  226. Yeah, you’re right.

    Still,

    But I will continue on with the narrative, facts be damned.

    JD (75f5c3)

  227. Patterico – Don’t be silly. Wright is a distraction, a smoke screen, a right wing example of guilt by association. And even if he was important, he didn’t really say anything that wasn’t true.

    JD (75f5c3)

  228. Not terribly, no. But that’s only because I like to look at what the actual states of those things are and not the incessant screeching about failed policies that never actually address what those failures are.

    Why don’t we try this, you tell me something that you think Bush has ‘accomplished’ during his administration, and I’ll tell why it’s a total failure.

    As an example, I’m having trouble getting excited about todays #1 issue, the recession. But do feel free to lose your mind over it. Free country and all…

    So we’re not in a recession, according to the textbook definition, good for you. I don’t pretend to be an economics expert, but I know that oil is the cornerstone of the American economy, and that skyrocketing prices, increasing demand, and diminishing supply are things to worry about. And Bush hasn’t taken us even one step closer to any sort of solution or alternative.

    I also know it’s not deft economic policy to spend 500 billion dollars mediating an ancient religious war, but again, I’m no economics expert.

    Levi (76ef55)

  229. Why don’t we try this, you tell me something that you think Bush has ‘accomplished’ during his administration, and I’ll tell why it’s a total failure.

    OK, how about record revenues? And Saddam Hussein rotting in a hole in the ground.

    Pablo (99243e)

  230. And Bush hasn’t taken us even one step closer to any sort of solution or alternative.

    That is demonstrably false.

    Pablo (99243e)

  231. The issue here is the double standard, that Republicans can gin up all this hatred and fear and paranoia over Rev. Wright and largely turn a blind eye to Ann Coulter.

    Which Presidential candidate is it that has a long history of worshiping at Ann Coulter’s altar?

    Pablo (99243e)

  232. I don’t pretend to be an economics expert, but I know that oil is the cornerstone of the American economy, and that skyrocketing prices, increasing demand, and diminishing supply are things to worry about

    You are also quit ignorant about policy, since the EPA has again denied permission to build a new refinery, and congress agian vote to forbid drilling in ANWAR.

    So that diminishing supply? Thank your democrats.

    Well, I would have you do so, Tiny Dancer, if you were able to process facts.

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  233. again, I’m no economics expert.

    You did not have to tell us that, Levi. You have demonstrated that repeatedly.

    JD (75f5c3)

  234. So if Bush wasn’t talking about Obama when he was talking about appeasers, why are you comparing him to Neville Chamberlain all of a sudden?

    Would you have been doing that 2 weeks ago? You know, before Bush made that speech?

    I’m on record as having done that, several times in the past couple of months.

    For those of you who want to…you know…actually vet a candidate who refuses to answer even WRITTEN questions about his belief system, please read Stanley Kurtz’ article at National Review Online today.

    cfbleachers (4040c7)

  235. “OK, how about record revenues? ”

    And record population numbers too!

    stef (8a38ef)

  236. It is racist of you to point that out, cfbleachers.

    JD (75f5c3)

  237. The issue here is the double standard, that Democrats can gin up all this hatred and fear and paranoia over Coulter and largely turn a blind eye to Rev. Wright.

    Ah, but that particular double standard doesn’t bother you, I suspect.

    Well, the thing is, Rev. Wright isn’t really a problem. He’s got his little slice of church in Chicago with a few thousand congregants, who any of us only know about because opportunistic Republicans dragged him into the media spotlight. Coulter seeks out the spotlight, and is usually eagerly provided with a platform.

    That’s a significant difference. You have to scrape through Obama’s past to even find this guy, then wildly distort everything he’s said, then pretend to be outraged and insulted by it. In other words, Rev. Wright is manufactured by right wing leadership to help them win elections. Coulter is also manufactured by the right wing, and so are Limbaugh and Hannity and Hagee and Falwell and Robertson, for that matter, but in a different way. They’re chosen by the rank-and-file to be their leaders, their voices, the people they take their cues from. They are the opinion-makers of the right wing, elected and endorsed by their ever-increasing numbers of listeners and readers.

    In any event, I’m consistent here. I have more than a dozen posts harshly criticizing her. So you’d be well advised to take your whining about this particular issue elsewhere. As far as Coulter goes, you’re preaching to the choir here.

    I don’t know what you’ve said or have to say about Rev. Wright, so I couldn’t judge you on how consistent you are, but I guess it’s good to know that some Republicans can’t stand her, either.

    Levi (76ef55)

  238. #192 Patterico:

    Judging from the tone of your comments, I’m wagering this hasn’t been a lengthy period of time. What, two years?

    Judging from the content of his comments, I am still waiting for him to become aware… but I may be waiting in vain, so I’ll not hold my breath.

    EW1(SG) (84e813)

  239. You have to scrape through Obama’s past to even find this guy,

    Right. You’d have to do something completely over the top like read his books, or ask him where he goes to church.

    Pablo (99243e)

  240. To me, the difference is that Coulter is not connected with McCain as closely as Obama is with Wright. Wright is an issue in this election because of the crazy things that he has said, which a) don’t need to be distorted to be appalling (the government created AIDS?), and b) may well have been dragged into the spotlight by opportunistic Democrats (i.e. Hillary and her supporters).

    As appalling as Coulter often is, she is not an issue in this campaign. But Wright is, thanks to Obama’s connection to the man.

    Patterico (cb443b)

  241. Oh, and Smithee? You need to spend some time on your own blog. Please?

    EW1(SG) (84e813)

  242. Well, the thing is, Rev. Wright isn’t really a problem. He’s got his little slice of church in Chicago with a few thousand congregants, who any of us only know about because opportunistic Republicans dragged him into the media spotlight…. You have to scrape through Obama’s past to even find this guy, then wildly distort everything he’s said, then pretend to be outraged and insulted by it. In other words, Rev. Wright is manufactured by right wing leadership to help them win elections.

    This is buckets full of teh stooopid.

    JD (75f5c3)

  243. OK, how about record revenues?

    What does that mean? Record revenues for what? What did George Bush do to create these record revenues? Are they sustainable?

    And Saddam Hussein rotting in a hole in the ground.

    That’s not an accomplishment. If you think that makes this war worth it…. well here is where the insults to your intelligence would be.

    Levi (76ef55)

  244. I suppose the L.A.SLIMES would want this doofus judge in the U.S. SUPREUM COURT would they consitering like the SACRAMENTO ZOMBEE and the SAN FRANCISCO EXPLIOTER and CHRONIC its very very liberal left-wing and full of lies not worth linning a birdscage with

    krazy kagu (73f19c)

  245. In other words, Rev. Wright is manufactured by right wing leadership to help them win elections.

    Riiiiight.

    Yesterday we saw a very different vision of America. I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened over the spectacle that we saw yesterday. I have been a member of Trinity United Church of Christ since 1992. I’ve known Reverend Wright for almost 20 years. The person that I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago. His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate, and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church.

    They certainly don’t portray accurately my values and beliefs. And if Reverend Wright thinks that that’s political posturing, as he put it, then he doesn’t know me very well. And based on his remarks yesterday, well, I may not know him as well as I thought either.

    BECAUSE OF TEH REICHWINGNUTS!!!

    Pablo (99243e)

  246. And Saddam Hussein rotting in a hole in the ground.

    That’s not an accomplishment.

    JD (75f5c3)

  247. Even Baracky will not stand behind Rev. Wright’s words, throwing him under the back of the bus with his Grandmother. But, as predicted, Levi has no problems with Wright’s words.

    JD (75f5c3)

  248. Record revenues for what?

    For the federal government, Einstein. And if this is Bush’s economy, then those are his revenues. Hell, it’s his administration collecting them through his tax policy, so how can it be anything other than his accomplishment? Now, you were going to tell me why the accomplishments I mentioned were total failures. You can’t just tell me that they’re not accomplishments because you’re stuck. Tell me how Bush failed to change the regime in Iraq. Tell me how that’s a total failure. But whatever you do, don’t check in with Nancy Pelosi first. That bitch is a traitor to your cause.

    Pablo (99243e)

  249. That is demonstrably false.

    Gimme a break buddy. A hundred, token, politically-motivated baby steps don’t constitute even one step. A few million bucks here and there doesn’t cut it, we should be spending hundreds of billions on this stuff, not on pointless wars.

    Levi (76ef55)

  250. we should be spending hundreds of billions on this stuff, not on pointless wars.

    You realize that, annually, we spend less than 1% of our GDP on the wars, right?

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  251. Silly, Scott. Don’t go getting all facty on him. You might confuse him.

    JD (75f5c3)

  252. Gimme a break buddy. A hundred, token, politically-motivated baby steps don’t constitute even one step. A few million bucks here and there doesn’t cut it, we should be spending hundreds of billions on this stuff, not on pointless wars.

    Not enough, in my estimation = absolutely nothing.

    Since 2001, we have spent nearly $10 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable alternative energy sources. Tonight, the President announced the Advanced Energy Initiative, which provides for a 22% increase in clean-energy research at the Department of Energy (DOE). The Initiative will accelerate our breakthroughs in two vital areas; how we power our homes and businesses; and how we power our automobiles.

    Nothing, I tell you! Nothing!

    Because it’s the government’s job to completely overhaul the country’s energy infrastructure into a form that has yet to be invented.

    Brilliant stuff, Levi.

    Pablo (99243e)

  253. You were going to tell me how this is a total failure, Levi.

    Pablo (99243e)

  254. BECAUSE I SAY SO DAMMIT YOU RETHUGLICANS THINK YOU ARE ALL CUTE AND SMART BY POINTING OUT FACTS WHEN I KNOW IN MY GUT THAT YOU ARE WRONG DANGEROUS AND IMMORAL AND I AM A SUPERIOR PERSON TO YOU IN ALL WAYS MEASURABLE !!!!!!!!!!!

    JD (75f5c3)


  255. Senate votes to extend ‘green’ energy tax breaks

    The tax incentives ensure the protection of $20 billion in renewable energy investments and up to 100,000 jobs, Ensign said. The benefits will be enjoyed in states like Nevada that have a wealth of natural resources that can be tapped for energy.

    Whose tax breaks are those, anyway?

    Pablo (99243e)

  256. Hey, if medical “science” can’t cure mental illnesses like the one Levi suffers from, how can any science cure the ills of the Evil White America?

    PCD (5c49b0)

  257. To me, the difference is that Coulter is not connected with McCain as closely as Obama is with Wright.

    But she is connected to the Republican base. In our little analogy, if Rev. Wright is Ann Coulter, then Obama is the millions of conservative voters that have been reading her columns and books, attending her speeches, and watching her on TV for the past 10 years. Now would I be in the wrong to just assume that her millions of fans agree with everything she’s ever said? Mitt Romney was real excited to get to introduce her back at CPAC, so should I walk around pretending that Romney thinks John Edwards is a faggot?

    Of course not, just as it’s wrong to assume that everyone that has ever heard Rev. Wright preach agrees with everything he ever said. The crazy thing is that Obama can go on TV and repeatedly insist he disagrees with Rev. Wright, and you guys just don’t believe him. I mean I know you’ve distanced yourself from Coulter, I believe you, what’s so hard about you taking that step from Obama?

    Wright is an issue in this election because of the crazy things that he has said, which a) don’t need to be distorted to be appalling (the government created AIDS

    Wright is an issue because Republicans have nothing else to run on. On every issue, even stuff like the economy and terrorism, Democrats are more trusted than Republicans, so here comes the ‘character issues,’ a fancy way of saying, ‘Let’s just make up a bunch of stuff about this guy we’re running against.’

    Anyway, I do agree that the AIDS thing is crazy, but that’s it. And I’m not offended or insulted by it, Kanye West raps about that stuff, I’ve heard other people toss that out there, you just disagree and move on. ‘God Damn America’ isn’t a big deal, ‘rich white people’ isn’t a big deal (it’s undeniably true), ‘chickens coming home to roost’ isn’t a big deal, none of these things offend me, none of them should offend you, and it shouldn’t matter anyway, because he’s not running for President.

    I know this is the part when I get all the talking points, about judgment and 20 years and marriage and baptizing and black liberation theology and rah, rah, rah, but please, spare me.

    and b) may well have been dragged into the spotlight by opportunistic Democrats (i.e. Hillary and her supporters).

    Yes, Hillary Clinton is opportunistic. She explicitly said, “This is what the Republicans will be doing in November.” She tried to win the primary with it, you guys will try to win the general election with it.

    As appalling as Coulter often is, she is not an issue in this campaign. But Wright is, thanks to Obama’s connection to the man.

    I disagree. Coulter is an issue, it goes back to what I was saying earlier about Republicans being… well, uh, less smart?

    Levi (76ef55)

  258. But she is connected to the Republican base.

    She sells words, period. She has no connection to any candidates for anything. She is an entertainer.

    In our little analogy, if Rev. Wright is Ann Coulter, then Obama is the millions of conservative voters that have been reading her columns and books, attending her speeches, and watching her on TV for the past 10 years.

    Except that they’re not running for President. Do you mean to tell us that if an avowed Coulter devotee were in the race, you and your ideological brethren wouldn’t be screaming about it from the rooftops? You may be that stupid, but I’m not.

    Pablo (99243e)

  259. For the federal government, Einstein. And if this is Bush’s economy, then those are his revenues. Hell, it’s his administration collecting them through his tax policy, so how can it be anything other than his accomplishment?

    What does that mean though? What good does that do
    for the country? He’s got record revenues to spent in Iraq? That sucks.

    Now, you were going to tell me why the accomplishments I mentioned were total failures. You can’t just tell me that they’re not accomplishments because you’re stuck. Tell me how Bush failed to change the regime in Iraq. Tell me how that’s a total failure.

    Removing Saddam Hussein has done nothing for our country but cause problems. There was a way to take out Saddam efficiently that would have been to our benefit, but President Bush was not the man to do it. It’s hard to fathom how his removal of Saddam could have gone worse, on every decision, at every fork in the road, he seemed to take the absolute worst path. 4,000 dead American soldiers and 500 billion dollars (and trillions more projected) to kill probably the most impotent guy in the region. You think that’s an accomplishment?

    But whatever you do, don’t check in with Nancy Pelosi first. That bitch is a traitor to your cause.

    Yeah I don’t like her, either?

    Levi (76ef55)

  260. But she is connected to the Republican base.

    Which is why she’s anti-McCain, and Pro-Hillary…

    You’re a funny little man, Teddy K, oh Tiny Dancer…

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  261. Except that they’re not running for President. Do you mean to tell us that if an avowed Coulter devotee were in the race, you and your ideological brethren wouldn’t be screaming about it from the rooftops? You may be that stupid, but I’m not.

    Pablo, he knows his argument makes no sense. Adding logic logs to his little erector set of fallacies will not make it collapse, it just gives him a base to add on further non-sequitors.

    Jeremiah Wright is not an isolated voice of hatred and bile toward America in Sen. Obama’s life…he is a CONTINUATION of those voices.

    Nothing…nothing…that Jeremiah Wright says, is fundamentally different from what “Frank” Marshall Davis says. Or Louis Farrakhan. Or Father Pfleger. Or Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dorhn.

    It is that “sameness” of message of theirs (as well as Levi’s) that they ALL wish to disguise as being owned…lock, stock and barrel by Sen. Obama.

    They are terrified that they may not be able to get away with running a candidate as a centrist, who really is a hard leftist. They don’t want him vetted…so when you do…they call you names. You are paranoid, you are seeking “distractions”, you are “swift-boating”…all because you want a candidate for the Presidency of the United States to …you know…actually tell us what his belief systems are and what his real worldview is.

    When the inconsistencies crop up…they scream and yell and throw a tantrum…

    cfbleachers (4040c7)

  262. Except that they’re not running for President.

    But their minds and voting patterns are being shaped by her, and others, which is something Republican candidates must not only be aware of, but also exploit for electoral success.

    In this regard, she is infinitely more influential on Republican campaigns, Republican political discourse, and implemented Republican political policy than Rev. Wright could ever hope to be on Obama and Democrats.

    Do you mean to tell us that if an avowed Coulter devotee were in the race, you and your ideological brethren wouldn’t be screaming about it from the rooftops? You may be that stupid, but I’m not.

    No, it’s unnecessary. McCain could be Ann Coulter’s number one fan, I would still argue against McCain on his policy ideas, as most of my ideological brethren would.

    We are not you.

    Levi (76ef55)

  263. #261 cfbleachers:

    you are “swift-boating”…all because you want a candidate for the Presidency of the United States to …you know…actually tell us what his belief systems are and what his real worldview is.

    The derogation of that term annoys me.

    Seems to me that an honest man would want to be “swift-boated.”

    But that may just be the sailor in me.

    EW1(SG) (84e813)

  264. Which is why she’s anti-McCain, and Pro-Hillary…

    You’re a funny little man, Teddy K, oh Tiny Dancer…

    Catch up buddy, I’m not talking about her connections to candidates, I’m talking about her connection to her conservative fans. Last I checked, the conservative base wasn’t particularly fond of McCain, either.

    Levi (76ef55)

  265. But their minds and voting patterns are being shaped by her, and others, which is something Republican candidates must not only be aware of, but also exploit for electoral success.

    Uh, no. We are not you.

    Pablo (99243e)

  266. Yeah I don’t like her, either?

    Ever since the stupid facts got her….

    Pablo (99243e)

  267. Uh, no. We are not you.

    Who does shape them then?

    Levi (76ef55)

  268. They don’t want him vetted…so when you do

    Oh please buddy, what have you ‘found out’ from your vetting process? That Obama’s some crazy racist Communist, right? Or that he might be. All gleaned from 2 minutes on YouTube watching his preacher and taking him out of context.

    I’m still waiting for the lesson on how string theory provides context, by the way. How long are you going to make me wait?

    Levi (76ef55)

  269. congratulations to patterico on the successful murder prosecution.

    assistant devil's advocate (e0faac)

  270. EW1(SG),

    Would you settle for “the electoral hopes of all Democrat candidates being torpedoed for lack of honor, lack of honesty, lack of duty and patriotism to the US, and the giving of aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war”?

    PCD (5c49b0)

  271. That Obama’s some crazy racist Communist, right?

    Well, judging him on some of his comments, he does hold white people in distain…

    And his policies sure aren’t “free market”…

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  272. “the electoral hopes of all Democrat candidates being torpedoed for lack of honor, lack of honesty, lack of duty and patriotism to the US, and the giving of aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war”

    Dick Cheney got 5 deferments, Bush spent the 60’s and 70’s as a drunk.

    They’re more honorable than the guy that volunteered to go to Vietnam?

    Levi (76ef55)

  273. #267:

    Who does shape them then?

    Me. Yep, it’s me. They’re just putty in my hands.

    Pretty soon, The Capitalist Manifesto will be required reading in all elementary schools!

    Bwa-ha-ha!!!!!!!!!!!

    #270 PCD:

    Would you settle for…

    Hmm, that would be a start…

    EW1(SG) (84e813)

  274. Well, judging him on some of his comments, he does hold white people in distain…

    What comments?

    You know he’s half-white, don’t you? Like, his mother, his birth-mother, was a white lady?

    And his policies sure aren’t “free market”…

    So we’re running for President now to protect ‘the free market?’ What about the good of the country?

    Levi (76ef55)

  275. Dick Cheney got 5 deferments, Bush spent the 60’s and 70’s as a drunk.

    And Clinton spend Vietnam dodging the draft, and at least part of it in Moscow…

    Your point, Tiny Dancer?

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  276. #268:

    That Obama’s some crazy racist Communist, right?

    Yep, exactly.

    Oh, and just a reminder “Levi,” we really aren’t laughing with you.

    We are laughing at you.

    EW1(SG) (84e813)

  277. Had the Supremes decided 4-3 the other way — on the basis of it not being a constitutional question — the initiative that is now going to pass hands-down would like have failed.

    Which means there’s some group of people who are perfectly happy to make gay couples pay the price for their anger at the judiciary – people who wouldn’t have voted to prohibit gay marriage but now will do so because they’re angry about this decision.

    I think gay couples, and their friends and family, are perfectly justified in resenting that.

    The constitutional amendment should be decided on the merits of the idea of banning gay marriage, not on the merits of the court’s decision legitimating it.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  278. Scott Jacobs, at 271: there’s a vast ocean of space between communism and pure free markets; communism presumes the de jure elimination of property and therefore of markets (albeit, it also entails their replacement with under the table black markets). A regulated market, even a heavily regulated one, is by definition not communism.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  279. They’re more honorable than the guy that volunteered to go to Vietnam?

    Like hell he did. He asked for a deferment to go study in France. It was turned down. Then, instead of waiting to be drafted, he volunteered for the Navy which, at the time, was not involved in a jungle guerilla war. But by the time he got out of OCS, it was. The Navy, by then, was sending patrol boats up the Mekong and he was put on one of them. So he got his ticket punched, with his self-awarded Purple Hearts, Bronze Star, and Silver Star, so he could get out in three months. Three months, Levi. My poor boy colleague did eighteen. His words: “I went.”

    nk (d7f5f5)

  280. there’s a vast ocean of space between communism and pure free markets; communism presumes the de jure elimination of property and therefore of markets (albeit, it also entails their replacement with under the table black markets). A regulated market, even a heavily regulated one, is by definition not communism.

    True enough… But when you want to decide just how much profit is too much profit, and then tax away all that excess (in effect seizing assets for the use of The State), then you cross a line…

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  281. And Clinton spend Vietnam dodging the draft, and at least part of it in Moscow…

    Your point, Tiny Dancer?

    It’s pathetic to talk about the guy that went to Vietnam the way that you guys do. I don’t care what any of these men did during the 60’s or 70’s, I can understand why someone would choose go, and I can understand why someone would not want to go.

    But to sit back and start rattling off ridiculous accusations about one of the guys that did go, when you claim to have the utmost respect for servicemen and veterans and the troops and all that, well it’s yet another double standard. For your side, McCain is unquestionably a war hero, and his service is beyond reproach, but Kerry is a coward that shot kids and purposefully wounded himself, a fictional storyline carefully crafted and eagerly consumed by the Republican base.

    You’ll venerate all the troops, right up until one of them threatens your hold on power, then it’s all subversive this, baby-killer that. You guys are a joke.

    Levi (76ef55)

  282. The Navy, by then, was sending patrol boats up the Mekong and he was put on one of them. So he got his ticket punched, with his self-awarded Purple Hearts, Bronze Star, and Silver Star, so he could get out in three months. Three months, Levi. My poor boy colleague did eighteen. His words: “I went.”

    It should be noted that even “Patrol boat” duty was considered the cake of all cake jobs. Army guys would FIST FIGHT over who got to ride in a boat.

    They were a golden ticket, and people act like he was playing the part of Rambo or something…

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  283. Maybe Communist is not the right descriptor. Socialist leaning. proponent of redistribution. Nanny-statist.

    JD (5f0e11)

  284. Yep, exactly.

    The President is supposed to be asking things of the citizenry. There’s nothing wrong with telling people not to drive SUVs and to turn down the heat. You’re calling him a communist for that?

    You prefer George Bush’s style of leadership? “You wanna help with the war effort? Keep spending!”

    Yes, I believe he took that line from FDR!

    Oh, and just a reminder “Levi,” we really aren’t laughing with you.

    We are laughing at you.

    Good one! JD should get a kick out of that!

    Levi (76ef55)

  285. #272:

    They’re more honorable than the guy that volunteered to go to Vietnam?

    Yep.

    EW1(SG) (84e813)

  286. For your side, McCain is unquestionably a war hero, and his service is beyond reproach,

    That’s because McCain doesn’t have this huge questionmark over his service…

    You’ll venerate all the troops, right up until one of them threatens your hold on power, then it’s all subversive this, baby-killer that. You guys are a joke.

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

    *snort*

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

    You’re PRICELESS Tiny Dancer. Totally priceless!!! There is ONE party that can lay claim to those who call troops “Baby Killers” or “Mercenaries” or speak poorly of those who currently serve, or who spit on those returning from Vietnam.

    No my dear, sweet little boy… It isn’t the Republican Party…

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  287. The swift-boat thing is a joke, fellas. The Rev. Wright distraction of 2004.

    History will not judge you people kindly.

    Levi (76ef55)

  288. There’s nothing wrong with telling people not to drive SUVs and to turn down the heat. You’re calling him a communist for that?

    They also can’t eat what/when they want.

    All to MAYBE make other people happy…

    The only way his “telling” would have any effect is if he FORCED us, and i’d ask if you doubted that he’d make the attempt, but you’re a tad bit short of rationality, oh Tiny Dancer…

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  289. Maybe Communist is not the right descriptor. Socialist leaning. proponent of redistribution. Nanny-statist.

    Those would all be better, yes.

    My undergraduate degree was in political science, with an emphasis on the politics of eastern europe; for me, ‘communist’ is a technical term. 🙂

    But even if it weren’t … there’s a big jump between even confiscatory taxes on “excess profit” and the totalitarian systems of the Soviet bloc; “communist” calls to mind the latter, and when the term is used for the former, I find it problematic. They’re not the same thing, iether in terms of their effect on the population or in terms of their ideological roots.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  290. The swift-boat thing is a joke, fellas. The Rev. Wright distraction of 2004.

    History will not judge you people kindly.

    LMMFAO

    Seriously… You’re joking, right?

    I swear Levi, you are a study in self-parody.

    Kerry got nailed by his “swift boat” tales because he is a liar, a fraud, and a pansy-assed coward. He was the Beauchamp of Vietnam.

    Though I suppose pointing out factual errors in his public accounts of his daring exploits would be futile.

    If the man had nothing at all to hide over his service, his full records would have been released to the public, not a pair of his buddies with the agreement they never get published…

    But thanks for playing, sweety… Mwuah.

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  291. there’s a big jump between even confiscatory taxes on “excess profit” and the totalitarian systems of the Soviet bloc

    Would restricking what and how much we can eat, what and how much we can drive, and control over the thermostat count? 🙂

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  292. You’re PRICELESS Tiny Dancer. Totally priceless!!! There is ONE party that can lay claim to those who call troops “Baby Killers” or “Mercenaries” or speak poorly of those who currently serve, or who spit on those returning from Vietnam.

    I remember, very specifically, Republicans talking about how Kerry shot some kid in the back. I also remember Republicans mangling his Congressional testimony, insisting he said that he had killed and tortured and maimed and burned people, when he was actually relaying things that others had told him.

    No my dear, sweet little boy… It isn’t the Republican Party…

    Vietnam doesn’t matter, your party is misusing and abusing the troops right now. So don’t get all high and mighty, start calling me ‘boy,’ like you have any sort of credibility, because what is happening now is a disaster of your own design, and you don’t even seem to care.

    Levi (76ef55)

  293. Would restricking what and how much we can eat, what and how much we can drive, and control over the thermostat count? 🙂

    Did you give me the wrong link?

    Where’s the one that quotes Obama talking about restricting things?

    Levi (76ef55)

  294. Would restricking what and how much we can eat, what and how much we can drive, and control over the thermostat count?

    Likely, yes. But I don’t think a legislative program to do that could get through Congress. Nor do I think Sen. Obama would want such a legislative program.

    I took that remark as being a rhetorical exhortation: we as a people should pay attention to the resources we are using and consume fewer of them, and/or we as a people should expect other nations to be irritated and resentful of us.

    That’s a debatable proposition, but it doesn’t imply a call for legislation.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  295. My personal favorite was the Christmas in Cambodia listening to Nixon on the radio before Nixon was ever elected.

    Aphrael – Baracky’s punitive windfall profit penalty is prett heavy handed for even the government, no?

    JD (5f0e11)

  296. “I think gay couples, and their friends and family, are perfectly justified in resenting that.”
    aphrael #277…
    You are correct in the thrust of your comment; they will, unfortunately, pay a price for the anger of others on the process, not the merits.
    But, it was the Homesexual Rights community that chose this course of action. If, instead, they had gone the initiative route for a law or Con Amend to overturn the previous initiative, they might have gotten that support within the populace that you posit is there.
    One has to be careful what, and where, you choose to do battle. The old un-intended consequences thing again.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  297. 278 aphrael:

    A regulated market, even a heavily regulated one, is by definition not communism.

    Your statement is just barely correct, as the converse is most certainly not true: communism is, by definition, a heavily regulated market.

    #271:

    now to protect ‘the free market?’ What about the good of the country?

    The free market is the “good of the country,” and a founding principle of this nation.

    #281:

    but Kerry is a coward that shot kids and purposefully wounded himself,

    as testified to by honorable veterans that were there.

    #283:

    The President is supposed to be asking things of the citizenry. There’s nothing wrong with telling people not to drive SUVs and to turn down the heat. You’re calling him a communist for that?

    No, he isn’t; and yes.

    EW1(SG) (84e813)

  298. 272, Levi, you are really deranged. Your Democrat party can’t help itself to keep from slandering the troop, and to keep from slandering good people.

    Senator Kennedy is a chronic alcoholic. I don’t see you talking about him legislating while drunk or that he KILLED Mary Jo Kopechne while DRIVING DRUNK.

    Levi, your twerp, Kerry, fragged himself while fooling around with a grenade launcher, then demanded a Purple Heart for it. You laud him. Next you will be demanding PHs for CIA personnel who leak reports critical of Bush that hurt the US and may even get US Citizens and Troops hurt or killed. You really ought to be shipped to a country like Zimbabwe where you can practice your politics with a like minded fellow, Robert Mugabe.

    PCD (5c49b0)

  299. Oh, Levi, how about I start calling you “Spoiled Rotten Child who thinks he knows everything”?

    PCD (5c49b0)

  300. Is not a “highly regulated” market, where the means of production are in private hands, not Fascism?
    The Communists just nationalize the means.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  301. Your Democrat party can’t help itself to keep from slandering the troop

    The Democratic Party is slandering the troops? Link?

    As far as I can tell, while individual politicians may have slandered the troops, the party itself has not, and the party leaders have generally not done so.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  302. A regulated market, even a heavily regulated one, is by definition not communism.

    Your statement is just barely correct, as the converse is most certainly not true: communism is, by definition, a heavily regulated market.

    I’m not sure I agree. Communism may in practice end up being a heavily regulated market; but by definition it’s the absence of personal property and therefore the absence of a market.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  303. #293:

    Where’s the one that quotes Obama talking about restricting things?

    If you’re asking about the link I supplied, that would be the blockquote in a 24 pixel high font smack dab in the middle of the page.

    #294 aphrael:

    That’s a debatable proposition, but it doesn’t imply a call for legislation.

    On the contrary, I perceive as a promise of a call for legislation, which is why I find it troubling: since the original rhetoric is more suitable to a priest or something than a serious political candidate for upholding and defending our Constitution.

    EW1(SG) (84e813)

  304. Levi, you are really deranged. Your Democrat party can’t help itself to keep from slandering the troop, and to keep from slandering good people.

    Oh yeah, we hate the troops. That’s why we want to bring them home for longer breaks, give them pay raises, and increase their benefits. All things which Republicans have stopped. Because Republicans love the troops, and you have the car magnets to prove it.

    Levi (76ef55)

  305. I remember, very specifically, Republicans talking about how Kerry shot some kid in the back.

    Yeah… But only after he spoke about it proudly…

    Which is ironic, considering his latter claims of witnessing atrocities…

    For what it’s worth, I’d have shot the guy too, but he was an enemy soldier who had, at least as Kerry tells it, tried to blow up his boat.

    But I guess it’s only ok for Kerry, and I’m a bad person, right?

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  306. If you’re asking about the link I supplied, that would be the blockquote in a 24 pixel high font smack dab in the middle of the page.

    Oh yeah, I definitely see it now! It says ‘restriction’ all over the place, doesn’t it?

    Levi (76ef55)

  307. The Democratic Party is slandering the troops? Link?

    Rep Pete Stark had a couple of classy ones during a floor debate a short time back… S-CHIP debate, I think it was?

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  308. Oh yeah, I definitely see it now! It says ‘restriction’ all over the place, doesn’t it?

    You were out sick when they taught reading comprehention in school, weren’t you honey…

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  309. Scott Jacobs: Rep. Stark is the Democratic Party?

    It’s just as unfair to hold the entire Democratic party accountable for the actions of its extremist members as it is to hold the entire Republican party accountable for the actions of its extremist members.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  310. #302 aphrael:

    I’m not sure I agree. Communism may in practice end up being a heavily regulated market; but by definition it’s the absence of personal property and therefore the absence of a market.

    “In practice” is the only thing we have to go by in the real world. And not only has the practice of communism led to the usurpation of all private property rights in the real world, it has required draconian measures resulting in the death of tens of millions of real people in the last 100 years alone…and I’ve been alive for half that time so it isn’t like its a distant past.

    EW1(SG) (84e813)

  311. Ah, Aph, sorry. Didn’t fully read your post. No, the party itself has not done so, but a LARGE number of those who are a PART of it do so continously…

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  312. #302 aphrael:

    and therefore the absence of a market.

    Let me also make the observation that the only time a market doesn’t exist, is when there is only one person involved.

    And even then, only if that person is pretty close to self-enlightenment.

    EW1(SG) (84e813)

  313. Rep Pete Stark had a couple of classy ones during a floor debate a short time back… S-CHIP debate, I think it was?

    Whatever he could have said, I’m sure it wasn’t as bad as, you know, sending the military into a death trap with no planning and no exit strategy.

    Levi (76ef55)

  314. “In practice” is the only thing we have to go by in the real world.

    Not when we’re talking about definitions. 🙂

    it has required draconian measures resulting in the death of tens of millions of real people in the last 100 years alone.

    I don’t dispute that. My point is not to endorse communism as a means of political and economic organization; I’d have to be insane to do that. My point is to encourage precision in the use of terms.

    This is a pretty serious problem: by eliding the distinction between communism and run-of-the-mill socialism, we devalue the horror associated with the word, and make it banal … thereby making the return of that horror more likely.

    It’s the same dynamic as that by which ‘fascist’ is devalued through overuse.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  315. sending the military into a death trap with no planning and no exit strategy.

    Care to substantiate this demonstrably false assertion ?

    JD (75f5c3)

  316. You were out sick when they taught reading comprehention in school, weren’t you honey…

    We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK,” Obama said.

    Okay, show me where he said ‘restrict,’ or where he hints that he wants to ‘restrict.’

    Levi (76ef55)

  317. It’s just as unfair to hold the entire Democratic party accountable for the actions of its extremist members as it is to hold the entire Republican party accountable for the actions of its extremist members.

    Yeah, but since that happens anyways…

    *cough*Coulter*coughcough*

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  318. Care to substantiate this demonstrably false assertion ?

    Maybe if someone else wants to talk to me about it.

    Levi (76ef55)

  319. I am with aphrael on this one, despite his being a died-in-the-wool-Leftist. Communism is a reach. Socialist, is far more accurate.

    JD (75f5c3)

  320. Let me also make the observation that the only time a market doesn’t exist, is when there is only one person involved.

    Absolutely. That’s one of the fundamental flaws of communism: it seeks to eliminate something which, by human nature, cannot be eliminated. It therefore needs a monstrously oppresive apparatus to do so.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  321. We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK,” Obama said.

    How else would he decrease the amounts we could drive or eat if not restricting it?

    It is a demonstrable lie regardless of who calls you on it, Levi.

    JD (75f5c3)

  322. It therefore needs a monstrously oppresive apparatus to do so.

    Or a citizenry content to let the government provide for them.

    JD (75f5c3)

  323. JD: his comment doesn’t actually call for decreasing the amounts we drive or eat.

    It merely observes that our behavior triggers a reaction in other countries, and that that reaction is predictable.

    Does it imply that we should decrease the amounts we drive, eat, and heat? Yes. But that could be done by voluntary action as a response to exhortations from the bully pulpit, and it seemed to me that that’s what Sen. Obama was trying to do.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  324. How else would he decrease the amounts we could drive or eat if not restricting it?

    What’s to stop citizens from doing it themselves? We can choose to eat less, we can choose to not drive SUVs, we can choose to not crank the heat.

    Did that seriously not even occur to you?

    Levi (76ef55)

  325. #304:

    Oh yeah, we hate the troops.

    Yes, you do. And we hate you back.

    EW1(SG) (84e813)

  326. Care to substantiate this demonstrably false assertion ?

    Maybe if someone else wants to talk to me about it.

    Shorter Levi… “I can’t”

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  327. How about we just tell all of those international busy-bodies to GTH?

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  328. Yes, you do. And we hate you back.

    Whatever buddy. Have fun in Iraq, you know, ‘protecting’ me.

    Levi (76ef55)

  329. Care to substantiate this demonstrably false assertion ?

    Maybe if someone else wants to talk to me about it.

    Shorter Levi… “I can’t”

    Oh I can, I just hate ‘talking’ to that idiot.

    Levi (76ef55)

  330. Oh I can, I just hate ‘talking’ to that idiot

    .
    Funny, he puts up talking with a drooling moron like yourself… You could at least pay him the courticy of answering his challenge…

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  331. #314 aphrael:

    My point is to encourage precision in the use of terms.

    As is mine.

    Political theory does not exist in a vacuum, nor is there any real distiction between socialism and communism: once the state has acquired control of the means of production, the only real distinction is found when speaking of a hereditary monarchy or something.

    In all other instances, the human rights of those unlucky enough not to be members of the ruling class are forfeit.

    (It might be academic to classify socialists and communists in a taxonomy as political historian Parkinson (of Parkin’s Law fame) in Left Luggage, but in real terms there isn’t any great distinction: witness the living conditions of communist Soviet Russians viz the conditions prevailing in socialist Demokratic Germany.)

    EW1(SG) (84e813)

  332. How about we just tell all of those international busy-bodies to GTH?

    Well, we could certainly do that. But it is to some degree important to maintain good relations with our fellows, even if only out of self-interest: we’re going to want to get them to do things for us, and it will be easier to achieve that if they don’t start out pissed off at us.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  333. You do not “talk” to anyone, Levi. You yell, cajole, cuss, filibuster, blather, and otherwise carry on. But talking, or conversing, you do not do. Again …

    sending the military into a death trap with no planning and no exit strategy.

    Care to substantiate this demonstrably false assertion ?

    JD (75f5c3)

  334. but in real terms there isn’t any great distinction: witness the living conditions of communist Soviet Russians viz the conditions prevailing in socialist Demokratic Germany

    But there was a huge difference in the living conditions of Soviet Russia as opposed to those living in socialist East Germany, and an even bigger difference in the living conditions of socialist East Germany and Democratic-Socialist West Germany.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  335. aphrael – You are right that there are other means available to effectuate the change he references. However, he states it in the manner that we cannot, therefore, I took that his Administration would address same, since this is what this socialist-leaning Dem is prone to do. I let my assumptions get ahead of me.

    Still waiting for Levi to prove his lies.

    JD (75f5c3)

  336. But it is to some degree important to maintain good relations with our fellows, even if only out of self-interest

    Good relations is one thing… Doing only what other countries approve of is quite another.

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  337. Funny, he puts up talking with a drooling moron like yourself… You could at least pay him the courticy of answering his challenge…

    That kid needs to learn how to debate. He just says I’m making demonstrably false assertions and asks me to substantiate it, without telling me what’s demonstrably false about it.

    I have plenty of other people to talk to here that actually take the time to try and tell me how and why I’m wrong, and I’m more interested in talking to them than this dude, who just wants me to keep talking at him, apparently. I made a point, he should make a counterpoint, and I will counter that. Insisting something is demonstrably false without even putting forth the effort to, you know, DEMONSTRATE how FALSE I am, well what’s the point?

    And I don’t think I need any substantiation for my assertion other than just looking at the current situation we’re in in Iraq. I mean we got Saddam, but now there’s all sorts of groups taking potshots at us and we’re in the middle of this ancient holy war, all at great cost, with great inefficiency, which is an obvious manifestation of the lack of planning, foresight, review of consequences, contingency preparation, and developing an exit strategy for the war by the Bush administration.

    Is that substantiation enough?

    Levi (76ef55)

  338. It is not anyone’s job to outline your lies for you, Levi. You asserted that our President had no plans for the war, no exit strategy, and tossed them into a deathtrap. There were plans for the war, there is an exit strategy, and he did not just cavalierly throw them into a deathtrap. Three breath taking lies in one statement of yours.

    JD (75f5c3)

  339. You are right that there are other means available to effectuate the change he references. However, he states it in the manner that we cannot, therefore, I took that his Administration would address same, since this is what this socialist-leaning Dem is prone to do.I let my assumptions get ahead of me.

    This right here is more reflective of what I say is wrong with Republicans than anything else I’ve ever seen. ‘I let my assumptions get ahead of me.’ I’m gonna remember that forever. Why don’t you just say, ‘I have no critical thinking skills and have been brainwashed to always arrive at the same conclusion.’

    Because that’s what you mean, if you ‘let your assumptions get ahead of you.’

    Levi (76ef55)

  340. Are we not the “United States of America” because we refused to seek, or acceed to, the wishes of our “betters”?
    What has changed since 1775?
    Are we now a society of “sitzpinklers”?

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  341. Aphrael,

    I could start a list of Democrats who slander the troops starting with Dick Durbin, Hillary Clinton, Charles Rangel, Nancy Pelosi, but maybe the list of Democrats who don’t would be much shorter. Being that the bulk of Democrat thought on the troops is a slander, why don’t you prove that they do love the troops?

    Oh, this is for the spoiled rotten little child, Levi, too. Pulling the troops home and demobilizing them so you can spend more on Social Programs is not loving the troops, it is Socialist dismantling of the Military, and stupidity. If that does happen under Pres. Obama, I would hope you and Levi feel the AlQaeda attacks before innocent Americans to.

    PCD (5c49b0)

  342. No, that is not enough, Levi. You asserted there were no plans. You did not state that the plans were lacking, you stated they did not exist. You stated we had no strategy, not that we had a strategy you did not agree with. You stated he put our military into a deathtrap, which is just a childish assertion on its face. You need to spend some time away from the Soros sites. Maybe leave your basement every now and then.

    JD (75f5c3)

  343. This right here is more reflective of what I say is wrong with Republicans than anything else I’ve ever seen

    !!

    It seems to me that Democrats and Republicans are equally capable of letting their assumptions run away with them. I respect JD for his willingness to admit it.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  344. Being that the bulk of Democrat thought on the troops is a slander, why don’t you prove that they do love the troops?

    Again, these aren’t opposites: there’s a fair space between “love the troops” and “the bulk of thought on the troops is slander.”

    There are certainly Democrats who make ridiculous slanderous assertions (like the one who claimed that troops were brainwashed into going to Iraq, etc). But for the most part, during this conflict, Democrats have been able to oppose the war without demonizing the soldiers who are serving the American public by fighting it.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  345. Levi @ 339 – I was not speaking to you. I was speaking to the rational, aphrael. I would never say that to you, because you reacted in a manner entirely consistent with your inability to discuss things in a rational or civil manner. You could learn lots from some of the folks around here, but you choose not to. Sad. You are a sad, little man.

    JD (75f5c3)

  346. It is not anyone’s job to outline your lies for you, Levi. You asserted that our President had no plans for the war, no exit strategy, and tossed them into a deathtrap. There were plans for the war, there is an exit strategy, and he did not just cavalierly throw them into a deathtrap. Three breath taking lies in one statement of yours.

    I didn’t see anything that resembled ‘planning’ by the Bush administration. The looting, the insurgency, the Sunni-Shiite business, IEDs, a weak Iraqi government, Iranian influence, etc., all of these things seem to have caught ol’ Georgie off-guard. The entire ‘war planning’ session was probably devoted to discussing the aircraft carrier photo op and torture, those seem to be the only things that were at all well-organized.

    The rest of it, they just figured they’d be greeted as liberators, and that was that.

    Levi (76ef55)

  347. Are we not the “United States of America” because we refused to seek, or acceed to, the wishes of our “betters”?
    What has changed since 1775?
    Are we now a society of “sitzpinklers”?

    Who said anything about our ‘betters’?

    Note that even in 1776, we were concerned about “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind”. We should still be concerned. That does not mean that the opinions of mankind should govern our actions; but it does mean that we should consider them, and choose to dissent from them deliberately, if we wish, rather than ignoring them entirely.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  348. Being that the bulk of Democrat thought on the troops is a slander, why don’t you prove that they do love the troops?

    What do you want me to do? Throw a magnet on my car?

    Oh, this is for the spoiled rotten little child, Levi, too. Pulling the troops home and demobilizing them so you can spend more on Social Programs is not loving the troops, it is Socialist dismantling of the Military, and stupidity. If that does happen under Pres. Obama, I would hope you and Levi feel the AlQaeda attacks before innocent Americans to.

    Yeah, that’s exactly what I want to do! Dismantle the military and hand the government over to welfare queens!

    Levi (76ef55)

  349. I didn’t see anything that resembled ‘planning’ by the Bush administration.

    BS. You think we moved hundreds of thousands of people, equipment, and food in preparation for a war without planning? You are talking about individual and specific events, with the underlying assumption that you could have and would have planned to prevent that. No plans in war survive the first bullet, but from your basement, I suppose you know better than the literally thousands of men and women in the US Armed Forces that planned and planned and planned for this war.

    That something may “seem” that way to you, does not make them facts. It makes them your opinion, flawed as it may be.

    The entire ‘war planning’ session was probably devoted to discussing the aircraft carrier photo op and torture, those seem to be the only things that were at all well-organized.

    This quote quite nicely demonstrates how demonstrably and patently un-serious you are about this topic.

    JD (75f5c3)

  350. aphrael, just so that we all can get on the same page (those of us interested in serious discussion and not mud hurling), I merely pointed out the consistent pattern of very strong, hard left voices holding positions of honor in Sen. Obama’s life.

    This has been a lifelong progression, consistent, unbending, and certainly worth exploration.

    If he is a hard leftist, I’m ok with that. I wouldn’t vote for him, but I would respect an honest display much more than a shrouded masquerade.

    It was Levi who, as usual, took to the extreme ends of the logical progression and then built a strawman out of it.

    “He’s some CRAZY CUCKOO COMMUNIST”. Sen. Obama is comfortable with the Marxist inspired wavelength. He is at ease with fellow travelers who hold very strong anti-capitalism worldviews.

    He (and Michelle) appear to be much less comfortable within the confines of traditional middle America thought patterns. They see the “middle America” as an angry, slothful, hedonistic, mean, gun and religion clinging place.

    The thoughts of “Frank” Marshall Davis…a mentor, advisor, “inner circle” member of Sen. Obama’s life journey…are hardly different from the thought patterns of Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Ayers & Dorhn, Rev. Meeks, Rev. Otis Moss, Father Pfleger, and his radical professors.

    His worldview has been shaped…as has all of ours…by those whose thoughts we value, we bring into our inner circle, whom we adopt as mentors and advisors.

    To hide “Frank” and to hide Wright and to feign a now faux “distance” from them…simply doesn’t compute. It is completely inconsistent with his entire lifelong pathway.

    Hard leftism comes in a variety of flavors, but it has a familiar core. I see all the signs of hard leftism and they don’t comport with the words he chooses for mass consumption, but does comport with the words, deeds and actions when he is out of camera shot.

    cfbleachers (4040c7)

  351. It seems to me that Democrats and Republicans are equally capable of letting their assumptions run away with them. I respect JD for his willingness to admit it.

    When the Democrats come close to broaching the hysterically assumptive gossip-mongering of Republicans over Rev. Wright, you’ll have a point. Until then….

    Levi (76ef55)

  352. Yes, but Mr. Jefferson was speaking as to George’s lack of respect for the opinions of mankind, not ours.

    “betters” is an acronym for the international busy-bodys referrenced earlier, and the faint-hearted elites that seem to infest society here.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  353. Yes, but Mr. Jefferson was speaking as to George’s lack of respect for the opinions of mankind, not ours.

    Not so!

    The full quote is: “When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    That is: because we think it’s important to have respect for the opinions of mankind, we are explaining why we believe it is necessary to dissolve our political bonds.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  354. Levi, given all the facts that we have in the case of Rev. Wright, that’s a silly comment. However, the Democrats passed whatever point you think you have made, a long time ago. Witness your own silliness in 347 where you keep repeating nonsensical myths.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  355. BS. You think we moved hundreds of thousands of people, equipment, and food in preparation for a war without planning? You are talking about individual and specific events, with the underlying assumption that you could have and would have planned to prevent that. No plans in war survive the first bullet, but from your basement, I suppose you know better than the literally thousands of men and women in the US Armed Forces that planned and planned and planned for this war.

    You’re not talking about a warplan, you’re talking about the military deploying, and doing what they were trained to do. The military has plans to move tanks around and to get its soldiers where they need to be, obviously.

    What I’m talking about is the guidance and leadership of people like Rumsfeld and Bush, who stupidly disbanded the Iraqi army, didn’t secure any of the hundreds of scattered munitions dumps that were eventually used against, insisted on capping how many troops they would deploy for political purposes stateside, charged a bunch of unexperienced yes-men with heading up the transition government, and were wrong about virtually every shred of ‘intelligence’ they used to justify the invasion.

    The objective of the war has shifted dozens of times and is absolutely unclear right now, and there’s no end in sight, we just started year 6. Yes, I know the military can deploy. But the people that deployed them had a responsibility to to prepare them for that deployment, with clear objectives, the proper resources and manpower, contingencies, help from the provisional government, and an exit strategy, and they failed to meet any of those.

    That something may “seem” that way to you, does not make them facts. It makes them your opinion, flawed as it may be.

    Okay.

    This quote quite nicely demonstrates how demonstrably and patently un-serious you are about this topic.

    The Iraq war is one of the most defining events in my life, I take it very seriously, thanks.

    Levi (76ef55)

  356. The Iraq war is one of the most defining events in my life, I take it very seriously, thanks.

    If that is the case would you pleae, oh Tiny Dancer, please act like it?

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  357. You’re not talking about a warplan, you’re talking about the military deploying, and doing what they were trained to do.

    BS, again. Do you think they just showed up in Iraq, and took control of the country in a remarkably short period of time, despite the dire predictions of tens if not hundreds of thousands of casualties.

    Again, you are discussing specific decisions. You disagree with their course of action. Fine, we know that. But simply because they made different choices than you does not mean there was no plan. Again, your whole premise is a demonstrable lie.

    There is no end in sight? Not if Baracky gets his way. AQ sure as hell is not having much fun with the current lack of a plan.

    How has it defined you?

    JD (75f5c3)

  358. and were wrong about virtually every shred of ‘intelligence’ they used to justify the invasion.

    I have printed it several times previously. The intelligence was EXACTLY the same as the intelligence from the Clinton Administration’s own mouths. This is a canard.

    I can print it again…or we can go back and find all the quotes. The CLINTON administration said that Saddam was a clear and present danger. The CLINTON administration said that regime change was necessary. The CLINTON administration said that he was likely to pass off weapons to terrorists and aid and abet their global transportation of terrorism.

    The CLINTON administration went on TV with five pound bag and said, if filled with anthrax could wipe out Washington DC.

    Nothing…and I mean…NOTHING from that day to this…suggests that such intelligence was faulty.

    Saddam had intent, motive, opportunity and capacity.

    And nobody…given that intelligence…nobody…could have made a persuasive argument that he was not a danger. Overwhelmingly, the DEMOCRATS voted that he, indeed…was a danger.

    Putting the Iraq regime change solely at the feet of the Republicans is a cowardly lie. The coverage of the resurgence vs. the insurgence has been one cowardly lie after another. Distortions of proportion and fact.

    Nobody wants war, but let’s not lie about where the intelligence came from, who saw it, who believed it and who voted on it.

    cfbleachers (4040c7)

  359. If that is the case would you pleae, oh Tiny Dancer, please act like it?

    And how would I do that? By sitting back and sniping at you about how un-serious you are?

    Levi (76ef55)

  360. I take it very seriously, thanks.

    No, you do not, except for as a cudgel to try to take partisan pot shots at the President. If you were serious about it, you would not claim that there were no plans, or that the President spent more time planning a press conference on an aircraft carrier than he did with the war. If you took it seriously you would not claim that we are losing. If you took it seriously, you would not claim that torture was more a part of the planning than the military actions. You are a reactionary leftist, a shrill harpy for the Dems. We get that, and I do not mind it. But at least start from a basis of truth. Again, if you have to make shit up to make a point, maybe you ought to reconsider your point. However, in your case, it seems you just choose to lie some more. Sad.

    JD (75f5c3)

  361. Levi, you do not take the Iraq war seriously. If you did, you would not continually repeat myths and lies you’ve been spanked on so often in the past.

    Frankly, you’ve shown no evidence of taking anything seriously as you behave the same on every single topic on which you commnent. Continual and pervasive ignorance.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  362. BS, again. Do you think they just showed up in Iraq, and took control of the country in a remarkably short period of time, despite the dire predictions of tens if not hundreds of thousands of casualties.

    The U.S. military can do that stuff by themselves. What they can’t do is govern during an occupation, particularly when they’re occupying a bunch of super-poor Muslims that speak some crazy language and have a crazy culture that they can’t relate to.

    Again, you are discussing specific decisions. You disagree with their course of action. Fine, we know that. But simply because they made different choices than you does not mean there was no plan. Again, your whole premise is a demonstrable lie.

    So what was the plan? And what I mean by that, is the administration’s plan, you know, for occupying and rebuilding Iraq and transforming the broader Middle East into a Democratic oasis? I remember them talking about it taking no longer than six weeks, and that it would pay for itself, and we’d be getting flowers thrown at us, but that’s not a plan, that’s a wish.

    You tell me what their brilliant plan was, buddy.

    There is no end in sight? Not if Baracky gets his way. AQ sure as hell is not having much fun with the current lack of a plan.

    We’re not fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq… The military calls them ‘undiminished.’ So on the contrary, I think Al-Qaeda is loving this.

    How has it defined you?

    Because this is the craziest thing that I’ve ever seen happen. An insanely expensive and deadly pointless war of aggression for no reason that sees us spying on our citizens and torturing people with no charges, and you guys keep cheering it all on. I never thought I’d see the day.

    Levi (76ef55)

  363. Levi, what you have “seen” are your own fabrications. Nothing more.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  364. torturing people

    Please give the number.

    It has been published, so this shouldn’t be hard for you.

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  365. Nobody wants war, but let’s not lie about where the intelligence came from, who saw it, who believed it and who voted on it.

    Blah, blah, blah.

    Someone pulled the trigger on the faulty intelligence, and his name was George Bush. Period.

    Levi (76ef55)

  366. Please give the number.

    It has been published, so this shouldn’t be hard for you.

    3, right? Is that the right answer? We waterboarded 3 guys?

    Levi (76ef55)

  367. The Iraq war is one of the most defining events in my life, I take it very seriously, thanks.

    Then you ought to pay attention to it. There’s a democratically elected Iraqi government with it’s security forces taking control of the last bastions of various failed resistances.

    It’s over, and we won the war against Saddam. Then we and the Iraqis won the war against the various factions that wished to wreak havoc upon Iraq. al-Qaeda lost, al Sadr lost, Iran lost and the Democrats lost.

    You should be happy, though I know you’re not. I can’t wait for the general election debates.

    Pablo (99243e)

  368. 3, right? Is that the right answer? We waterboarded 3 guys?

    Waterboarded? I thought you said we tortured them?

    Pablo (99243e)

  369. Levi, you do not take the Iraq war seriously. If you did, you would not continually repeat myths and lies you’ve been spanked on so often in the past.

    Frankly, you’ve shown no evidence of taking anything seriously as you behave the same on every single topic on which you commnent. Continual and pervasive ignorance.

    How ’bout you ante up and start refuting some of the things that I said then?

    You wanna talk about how stupid it was to disband the Iraq military? Or how Abu Graihb undercuts America’s long-revered moral authority?

    I’ll let you pick, but you’ve gotta play ball. Hanging back and interjecting when I’m talking to someone else with a bunch of stupid, dismissive insults doesn’t impress me.

    Levi (76ef55)

  370. Someone pulled the trigger on the faulty intelligence, and his name was George Bush. Period.

    So all those votes from Democrats don’t count?

    And, you can blah, blah, blah all you like about the intelligence coming from the Republicans…but that’s a lie. YOU brought up that lie. Now you can face it like a man, or scurry like a mouse…but you can’t do both.

    cfbleachers (4040c7)

  371. We’re not fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq… The military calls them ‘undiminished.’ So on the contrary, I think Al-Qaeda is loving this.

    Well, they do likes them some martyrdom. But aside from that, you’re…oh, what’s the word?…wrong.

    Pablo (99243e)

  372. Or how Abu Graihb undercuts America’s long-revered moral authority?

    Long revered by whom? Al Qaeda? Sadr? Hamas? Hezbollah? The Taliban? Saddam?

    Are you even remotely suggesting that their behavior before OR AFTER would be somehow different than it has been?

    Anyone who says they see us differently as a nation is a liar or a fool.

    cfbleachers (4040c7)

  373. super-poor Muslims that speak some crazy language and have a crazy culture that they can’t relate to.

    You really do care about those brown people, don’t you?

    So what was the plan? President Bush has talked on this topic no less than, random guess, 100 times since 2003. That you fail to look back and see what his stated objectives were is simply further evidence of your lack of seriousness when it comes to this topic.

    As evidenced by …

    We’re not fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq… The military calls them ‘undiminished.’ So on the contrary, I think Al-Qaeda is loving this.

    Even loonwaffle Speaker Pelosi thinks the surge is working.

    Followed shortly by …

    Because this is the craziest thing that I’ve ever seen happen. An insanely expensive and deadly pointless war of aggression for no reason that sees us spying on our citizens and torturing people with no charges, and you guys keep cheering it all on. I never thought I’d see the day.

    JD (75f5c3)

  374. According to Woodward, the media reports of smiling Iraqis leading inspectors around, opening up buildings and saying, “See, there’s nothing here,” infuriated Bush, who then would read intelligence reports showing the Iraqis were moving and concealing things.

    He was told the “things” the Iraqis were moving and concealing were probably WMD. Finding that “less than convincing,” Bush asked for a more detailed briefing by CIA Deputy Director John E. McLaughlin, which took place on Dec. 21 , 2002.

    McLaughlin’s version used communications intercepts, satellite photos, diagrams and other intelligence.

    “Nice try,” Bush said when the CIA official was finished. “I don’t think this quite – it’s not something that Joe Public would understand or would gain a lot of confidence from.”

    He then turned to Tenet, McLaughlin’s boss, and said, “I’ve been told all this intelligence about having WMD, and this is the best we’ve got?”

    “It’s a slam-dunk case,” Tenet replied, throwing his arms in the air.

    Bush pressed him again. “George, how confident are you?”

    “Don’t worry, it’s a slam dunk,” Tenet repeated.

    Pablo (99243e)

  375. Then you ought to pay attention to it. There’s a democratically elected Iraqi government with it’s security forces taking control of the last bastions of various failed resistances.

    I’ve been hearing that for years, and in the interim, we’ve spent billions and lost thousands of soldiers to death and disfigurement. Why should I believe you now? How do you know another Golden Mosque bombing isn’t right around the corner?

    It’s over, and we won the war against Saddam. Then we and the Iraqis won the war against the various factions that wished to wreak havoc upon Iraq. al-Qaeda lost, al Sadr lost, Iran lost and the Democrats lost.

    If we won, then what did we gain?

    Don’t winners usually get a prize? All I see is a failed-state that absorbs cash.

    You should be happy, though I know you’re not. I can’t wait for the general election debates.

    Happy about what? About Osama bin Laden getting away? About all the innocent Iraqis that were killed in the crossfire between our guys and our enemies? About the 3 trillion dollars this thing is expected to cost? About 4,000 dead Americans?

    You’re happy about these things?

    Levi (76ef55)

  376. How do you know another Golden Mosque bombing isn’t right around the corner?

    It is just too damn hard to do the right thing sometimes, isn’t it Levi? We should pull all of our troops from Germany and Japan while we are at it.

    JD (75f5c3)

  377. So all those votes from Democrats don’t count?

    They count. Screw them. I’m not voting for Hillary. But this is a Republican rodeo and you know it. Al Gore wouldn’t have invaded, George Bush did.

    (Al Gore wouldn’t have let Osama take down the twin towers, either.)

    And, you can blah, blah, blah all you like about the intelligence coming from the Republicans…but that’s a lie. YOU brought up that lie. Now you can face it like a man, or scurry like a mouse…but you can’t do both.

    I said it came from Republicans?

    Levi (76ef55)

  378. Or how Abu Graihb undercuts America’s long-revered moral authority?

    Yeah, cause making guys strip and make a pyramid is torture…

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  379. Al Gore wouldn’t have invaded, George Bush did.

    But the Dems would have invaded Afghanistan, right?

    (Al Gore wouldn’t have let Osama take down the twin towers, either.)

    So now you are accusing a sitting President of allowing a terrorist to kill over 3000 innocent American civilians. You are a vile and disgusting person, and seem hellbent on proving that to as many people as possible.

    JD (75f5c3)

  380. Levi, your claims get farther from reality each week. Truly loongy stuff. Now Al Gore is a psychic? Because that would be the only way that Al Gore could have prevented the 9/11 WTC attack.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  381. Long revered by whom? Al Qaeda? Sadr? Hamas? Hezbollah? The Taliban? Saddam?

    Are you even remotely suggesting that their behavior before OR AFTER would be somehow different than it has been?

    Anyone who says they see us differently as a nation is a liar or a fool.

    Long revered by lots of people, our allies, the impoverished, the oppressed, the subjugated, there were probably some Muslims somewhere that had a good opinion of us. Isn’t Reagan the one that was talking about America being a beacon of hope for the people of the world, ‘a city on the hill?’ You think he meant by that institutionalized torture?

    I’m not suggesting that these Muslim crazies that hate our guts would be playing nice if they didn’t have the Abu-Graihb photos, but systematic, American torture isn’t what this country is about, and it sends the wrong message, to EVERYONE in the world.

    Levi (76ef55)

  382. Why should I believe you now?

    I don’t care if you believe me. Your grasp of a given situation bears little resemblance to the facts of the matter. But if you’re going to argue from ignorance, that’s a fact that belongs up front in the discussion. The facts are out there. You can seek them out or ignore them. I suspect you’ll do the latter.

    If we won, then what did we gain?

    Saddam Hussein rotting in a hole in the ground, and a country that was once a malignant dictatorship is now a representative democracy, the first of its kind in one of the most historically despotic regions on Earth.

    I’m happy we won. You’re not. I get that. Why don’t you?

    Pablo (99243e)

  383. Long revered by lots of people, our allies, the impoverished, the oppressed, the subjugated, there were probably some Muslims somewhere that had a good opinion of us.

    There’s a lot more of them now. They’re called Iraqis.

    Pablo (99243e)

  384. It is just too damn hard to do the right thing sometimes, isn’t it Levi? We should pull all of our troops from Germany and Japan while we are at it.

    Germany and Japan (and Korea, before you go there) are different situations in about a million different ways that totally render your comparison meaningless. You want to compare Iraq to past wars, try comparing it to the Soviet-Afghan war, or British colonialism, or the Crusades.

    Don’t like the way those ones turn out, do ya?

    Levi (76ef55)

  385. Levi, “systematic, American torture” – your fantasy, not reality.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  386. Yeah, cause making guys strip and make a pyramid is torture…

    What would you call it then? A group activity?

    Tell me, if someone rounded you up, threw you in a jail cell with no charges, and periodically stripped you naked and forced you to make a pyramid with other naked male prisoners, you wouldn’t consider that torture?

    I can only imagine that wouldn’t be torture for…. a masochistic gay man?

    You got something you want to get off your chest, Scott?

    Levi (76ef55)

  387. Try hazing, Levi. Torture actually hurts, causes damage, etc…

    Pablo (99243e)

  388. I can only imagine that wouldn’t be torture for…. a masochistic gay man?

    You got something you want to get off your chest, Scott?

    From the guy who said “All republicans think all democrats are fags”, that’s the most wonderful line I have ever read…

    Thanks, Teddy K…

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  389. I don’t care if you believe me. Your grasp of a given situation bears little resemblance to the facts of the matter. But if you’re going to argue from ignorance, that’s a fact that belongs up front in the discussion. The facts are out there. You can seek them out or ignore them. I suspect you’ll do the latter.

    Arguing from ignorance? Whatever, buddy. I’m not the one talking about the war in the past tense, like it’s over, like we won. How many American soldiers have died this month in the war that we’ve already ‘won?’

    Saddam Hussein rotting in a hole in the ground, and a country that was once a malignant dictatorship is now a representative democracy, the first of its kind in one of the most historically despotic regions on Earth.

    Yes, I know those things have happened, but what have we gained by them happening? Why should I care that Saddam is dead? Am I supposed to feel more safe because of that? I don’t. Why should I care? What impact does it have on me, on my country?

    Levi (76ef55)

  390. Levi would redefine torture to make it meaningless as a word. Feel uncomfortable? TORTURE! A littly chilly? TORTURE! Take some kind of personal offense? TORTURE!

    But, lest we let him get away with this one, it bears repeating, and remembering.

    (Al Gore wouldn’t have let Osama take down the twin towers, either.)

    Every time you see his name attached to a comment, know that this is the type of idea that resides in its fevered mind.

    JD (75f5c3)

  391. Yes, I know those things have happened, but what have we gained by them happening?

    So helping people is only good if you gain from it, eh?

    Somehow, I’m not shocked you feel that way Tiny Dancer…

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  392. From the guy who said “All republicans think all democrats are fags”, that’s the most wonderful line I have ever read…

    Thanks, Teddy K…

    DODGER. I know I make funny jokes, but focus on the meat, please.

    I’ll ask again, if what happened in these Abu Graihb pictures happened to you, what would you call it? Abuse? Sexual harassment? Gymnastics? What?

    Levi (76ef55)

  393. Levi, the abuse from guards at Abu Ghraib was not “systematic, American torture”.

    Its just another of your use of your own fantasies and misrepresentations.

    This is your problem, Levi. You substitute your own invented world for reality and think the resulting bizarre opinions that flow from you are profound. But they simply are not.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  394. Try hazing, Levi. Torture actually hurts, causes damage, etc…

    Hazing? Are you serious?

    Levi (76ef55)

  395. what would you call it?

    Not torture, that’s for sure.

    And considering we’re dealing with people who videotape beheadings of civillian contractors and post that video on the internet, if they stripped me nude and made me take part in a human pyramid, I’d probably call it “Thank Christ they aren’t sawing my head off”…

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  396. How many American soldiers have died this month in the war that we’ve already ‘won?’

    14. And only 3 of whom died in anything that resembles combat. A year ago? 126.

    Oh, and don’t miss the surrender.

    Pablo (99243e)

  397. That didn’t happen in Leviland, Pablo, so it didn’t happen.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  398. Hazing? Are you serious?

    Yes, hazing. Are you literate?

    Pablo (99243e)

  399. Pablo – It is immune and impervious to facts.

    JD (75f5c3)

  400. So helping people is only good if you gain from it, eh?

    Somehow, I’m not shocked you feel that way Tiny Dancer…

    Who are we helping? Our invasion has directly resulted in the death of thousands of Iraqis. The exact number, no one knows, because hey, we just care about helping people so much, we don’t even try to keep track of how many people we’ve inadvertently killed.

    Levi (76ef55)

  401. Our invasion has directly resulted in the death of thousands of Iraqis.

    Radicals have killed thousands of Iraqis. Their deaths are the fault of those who killed them. The deaths of the radicals we’re responsible for, and I’m OK with that. That you would so easily confuse our responsibilities with those of the likes of Zarqawi says volumes about you.

    Pablo (99243e)

  402. Not torture, that’s for sure.

    And considering we’re dealing with people who videotape beheadings of civillian contractors and post that video on the internet, if they stripped me nude and made me take part in a human pyramid, I’d probably call it “Thank Christ they aren’t sawing my head off”…

    That’s what I thought. You can’t call it ‘torture,’ but you can’t think of another word for it.

    Do you think ‘hazing’ fits, like this other dude?

    Levi (76ef55)

  403. He really is a sad, pathetic little person, Levi is.

    JD (75f5c3)

  404. Levi – President Bush allowed Osama to murder thousands of Americans on 9/11?

    I love Trooothers.

    JD (75f5c3)

  405. Radicals have killed thousands of Iraqis. Their deaths are the fault of those who killed them. The deaths of the radicals we’re responsible for, and I’m OK with that. That you would so easily confuse our responsibilities with those of the likes of Zarqawi says volumes about you.

    It doesn’t work like that. The radicals wouldn’t have killed thousands of Iraqis had we not invaded. Many of the radicals wouldn’t have been in the country had we not invaded. Lots of the radicals wouldn’t have even existed if we had not invaded.

    What we’ve done in Iraq is basically challenge a bunch of criminals to a gun fight in a croweded playground. The Iraqi people don’t have anything to do with the American war on terror, but George Bush decided we needed to use their backyards, streets, parks, houses, and buildings as the battlefield. We picked the time and place, issued the challenge, and we therefore have responsibility for every casualty.

    Levi (76ef55)

  406. What we’ve done in Iraq is basically challenge a bunch of criminals to a gun fight in a croweded playground.

    Close.

    It’s more akin to the cops showing up at that playground, and the criminals poppingout from behind the slider and opening fire on anything that moves.

    You blame the cops for the actions of murderers…

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  407. Levi – President Bush allowed Osama to murder thousands of Americans on 9/11?

    I didn’t say he blew up the towers, I’m saying his glaring stupidity, incompetence, and disinterest in governing left us open to attack. We just stopped the LAX bombing plot, the Cole had been just recently been attacked, and there were evidence that Al-Qaeda was getting ready to attack us, like that memo that Bush totally ignored.

    He dropped the ball on the Iraq war, he dropped the ball on New Orleans, and yes, he dropped the ball on counter-terrorism in 2001. Like Bill Maher says, we were lucky to have Lincoln during the Civil War, we were lucky to have FDR during WWII, and our luck just ran out with Bush and 9-11. It wouldn’t have happened under a Gore administration, under a McCain administration, hell, it wouldn’t have happened under Buchanan or Nader administrations. We got 9-11 because we elected an idiot.

    Levi (76ef55)

  408. (Al Gore wouldn’t have let Osama take down the twin towers, either.)

    Most of the 9/11 hijackers were in the US before Bush took office, under a program (“Visa Express”) started by the Clinton administration.

    Not that I’d expect the facts to matter to you, but there they are.

    Rob Crawford (04f50f)

  409. It doesn’t work like that. The radicals wouldn’t have killed thousands of Iraqis had we not invaded. Many of the radicals wouldn’t have been in the country had we not invaded.

    Well, yes it does. You blame killings on the killers. You don’t seem to care to do that. You’d rather rail at BOOOSH!!! Because you’re patently unserious.

    Lots of the radicals wouldn’t have even existed if we had not invaded.

    Lots of the radicals don’t exist because we killed them. I’m OK with that. You’re not. I get that. Why don’t you?

    Pablo (99243e)

  410. I’m not suggesting that these Muslim crazies that hate our guts would be playing nice if they didn’t have the Abu-Graihb photos, but systematic, American torture isn’t what this country is about

    Now, see, there you go again, waving your ignorance around for everyone to see. Abu Ghraib was NOT the result of policy; it was a handful of idiots with insufficient supervision. It was uncovered, investigated, and the guilty tried and (when convicted) punished by the military you think was put in a bad light by it.

    Personally, I accept there are bad people, and believe it’s what you do when they get out of line is more important than any illusion of perfection. That another soldier reported the abuses and that those responsible were held to answer — to the level of punishing a general for failing to maintain discipline — that’s the story of Abu Ghraib.

    (Contrast with the UN’s “peace keepers”; reports of them committing rape and/or taking part in slavery rings are common, yet the disciplinary process is neither open nor harsh, and often the matter is “solved” by shuffling some staff around.)

    Rob Crawford (04f50f)

  411. Saddam Hussein rotting in a hole in the ground, and a country that was once a malignant dictatorship is now a representative democracy, the first of its kind in one of the most historically despotic regions on Earth.

    Yes, I know those things have happened, but what have we gained by them happening? Why should I care that Saddam is dead?

    Someone once said, “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” But he was just some crazy right-wing fanatic. I hear he even increased federal tax revenues by cutting tax rates!

    Rob Crawford (04f50f)

  412. Germany and Japan (and Korea, before you go there) are different situations in about a million different ways that totally render your comparison meaningless. You want to compare Iraq to past wars, try comparing it to the Soviet-Afghan war, or British colonialism, or the Crusades.

    Why?

    (And British colonialism wasn’t that bad of a deal for the colonies. Even setting aside South Africa as a rotten egg, they gave us the US, Canada, Australia, Hong Kong, and changed India from a hash of small, constantly warring states to one largely modern and free state and one largely archaic and not free. Net gain for the world, IMHO.)

    Rob Crawford (04f50f)

  413. Levi

    The systemic problems arose during a CLINTON/GORE administration. The dishes were piled in the sink, they just toppled after the original chefs left.

    You can blame President Bush for not CURING the problems in the first few months in office, but not for creating them.

    And you can blame him for the prosecution of the war, but not the intelligence, the votes in both houses, and the run up to the war…those are shared equally with the Democrats.

    As for what good came out of deposing Saddam, those woodchippers, rape rooms and corpses of gassed Kurds might be a good starting point.

    How many Iraqi’s had to die before you would think it was worthy to remove him? I mean, as a personal benefit…those people aren’t worth much.

    I’m just glad you weren’t counting ovens during the Holocaust. If there weren’t “enough” people being tortured and dying…I guess there simply wouldn’t be any “benefit” for you to have us put a stop to it.

    Maybe we can have their gold fillings filed down and have them sent to you, would you pay for shipping and handling?

    cfbleachers (e6f785)

  414. Close.

    It’s more akin to the cops showing up at that playground, and the criminals poppingout from behind the slider and opening fire on anything that moves.

    You blame the cops for the actions of murderers…

    You’re ruining my perfectly good analogy.

    The cops challenge the criminals to fight in the playground, that’s the whole point. Think of your own analogy. That’s effectively what our invasion was, an open call to any crazy radical to come and try to kill some Americans, how did Bush put it? ‘Bring them on.’ I’ve heard conservatives refer to it as ‘the flypaper strategy.’ Which sounds cute, but minimizes the destructive fact that we’re attracting the craziest, most dangerous people in the world to do battle from house to house and from street to street in Iraq, which guarantees an enormous amount of collateral damage for the Iraqis.

    Come on man. Take some responsibility. We invaded, we’re occupying, we’re responsible for these civilians.

    Levi (76ef55)

  415. The radicals wouldn’t have killed thousands of Iraqis had we not invaded.

    You’re right. Saddam, his sons, and the “government” they ran would have.

    Rob Crawford (04f50f)

  416. Well, yes it does. You blame killings on the killers. You don’t seem to care to do that. You’d rather rail at BOOOSH!!! Because you’re patently unserious.

    Do you know what negligence is?

    If the Boy Scouts hire a child-raping cannibal, then all the Boy Scouts get raped and eaten, are we only gonna blame the child-raping cannibal, or do the guys that hired him have some culpability, too?

    Levi (76ef55)

  417. I didn’t say he blew up the towers, I’m saying his glaring stupidity, incompetence, and disinterest in governing left us open to attack.

    Again, 9/11 hijackers were in the US before Bush took office.

    He dropped the ball on the Iraq war, he dropped the ball on New Orleans, and yes, he dropped the ball on counter-terrorism in 2001.

    No, No, and, No.

    Have you ever really looked into what happened with New Orleans? Or have you simply accepted the common wisdom? Bush didn’t spend the levee boards funds on travel, fountains, and PR campaigns. Bush didn’t abandon the disaster plans already in place. Bush didn’t refuse help when it was offered.

    The reality is that the federal New Orleans relief effort was unprecedented both in its scale and its speed; the problems happened long before the federal government was able (or expected) to get involved. I’ve driven from Baton Rouge to New Orleans, and across the Lake Pontchartrain bridge; the city’s buses could have been evacuating people and could have made multiple trips. Why didn’t that happen? Who made that decision?

    Rob Crawford (04f50f)

  418. We invaded, we’re occupying, we’re responsible for these civilians.

    Nope. We’re not the ones intentionally targeting civilians, and when we accidentally kill civilians, we do our best to make amends.

    When our servicemen commit crimes and intentionally kill civilians, they’re tried and punished (if convicted). When the jihadis commit crimes and intentionally kill civilians, they’re promoted.

    Rob Crawford (04f50f)

  419. Now, see, there you go again, waving your ignorance around for everyone to see. Abu Ghraib was NOT the result of policy; it was a handful of idiots with insufficient supervision. It was uncovered, investigated, and the guilty tried and (when convicted) punished by the military you think was put in a bad light by it.

    Even though we’ve got the President and his cabinet signing off on torture methods, and even though we’ve got all sorts of pathetic legal arguments crafted by DoJ lawyers, you don’t see any connection between those discussions and what happened to Abu Graihb? Why are they preparing legal justifications, why are they discussing methods and how and when they’re used, if they’re not going to, you know, torture people?

    And what’s really more important here is the perception. It sure looks like systematic torture, doesn’t it? You think the Iraqis see those pictures and know that it was only a handful of soldiers?

    Levi (76ef55)

  420. Germany and Japan (and Korea, before you go there) are different situations in about a million different ways that totally render your comparison meaningless. You want to compare Iraq to past wars, try comparing it to the Soviet-Afghan war, or British colonialism, or the Crusades.

    Why?

    For starters, Germany and Japan attacked us.

    Levi (76ef55)

  421. aphrael @ #354…
    OK, I’m wrong about G-III.
    However, I do not think I’m incorrect in the basic thrust of my opinion, in that Mr. Jerfferson was not asking for the permission of mankind to undertake the actions outlined in the DofI; but, that he was informing them as to why these actions have/will been taken.
    Thusly, in today’s world, when a course of action is dictated by the neccessity of our survival, we can/should inform that world why we are taking such action, but we never need the prior approval of others – if the American People thought otherwise, John Kerry would be President.

    Another Drew (a28ef4)

  422. Come on man. Take some responsibility. We invaded, we’re occupying, we’re responsible for these civilians.

    I forgot, what do you think of Afghanistan again?

    cfbleachers (e6f785)

  423. The systemic problems arose during a CLINTON/GORE administration. The dishes were piled in the sink, they just toppled after the original chefs left.

    What’s the leftover Clinton problem that prevented Bush from acting on that August Al-Qaeda PDB?

    You can blame President Bush for not CURING the problems in the first few months in office, but not for creating them.

    Whatever problems you’re referring to that Clinton and Gore created, that memo still made its way to his Bush’s desk.

    And you can blame him for the prosecution of the war, but not the intelligence, the votes in both houses, and the run up to the war…those are shared equally with the Democrats.

    Sure.

    As for what good came out of deposing Saddam, those woodchippers, rape rooms and corpses of gassed Kurds might be a good starting point.

    Replaced with beheadings and kidnappings and mass graves and open war in the streets.

    THIS IS NOT IMPROVEMENT.

    How many Iraqi’s had to die before you would think it was worthy to remove him? I mean, as a personal benefit…those people aren’t worth much.

    I’m just glad you weren’t counting ovens during the Holocaust. If there weren’t “enough” people being tortured and dying…I guess there simply wouldn’t be any “benefit” for you to have us put a stop to it.

    Maybe we can have their gold fillings filed down and have them sent to you, would you pay for shipping and handling?

    Don’t even pretend like you or George Bush care about Iraqis. You can’t even spare them the dignity of counting up their war dead. More have no doubt died since our invasion than Saddam killed gassing the Kurds.

    But again, we can never know, because you refuse to count. So spare me the lecture about how inhumane I am, okay?

    Levi (76ef55)

  424. For starters, Germany and Japan attacked us.

    Right. Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl harbor?

    Pablo (99243e)

  425. Don’t even pretend like you or George Bush care about Iraqis.

    If we didn’t, we’d just use the Democrat plan. When the going gets tough, run away and leave them to slaughter.

    Pablo (99243e)

  426. #335 aphrael:

    But there was a huge difference in the living conditions of Soviet Russia as opposed to those living in socialist East Germany, and an even bigger difference in the living conditions of socialist East Germany and Democratic-Socialist West Germany.

    Not really. Wives of East German diplomatic personnel queued up in Western supermarkets to buy white bread just as the Russians did. Germany was arguably a much wealthier country than Russia prior to the War, so the the standard of living in East Germany had to fall quite a bit to become comparable to that of the Russians, but fall it did. So much so that while you could compare standards between various states in the Soviet bloc, attempts to compare them with Western states is meaningless.

    And there was still that pesky business with the Polizei showing up unannounced in the middle of the night …

    EW1(SG) (84e813)

  427. BTW, today is the anniversary of Roemer v. Evans.

    nk (d7f5f5)

  428. Exactly, Pablo.
    Just think what the Levi’s of the world would have said, if after toppling Saddam, we had just withdrawn back to Kuwait, and watched the slaughter commence as old rivalries and debts were repaid in blood, and did nothing (sort of like what the Clinton’s did in Ruwanda from a seat 8,000 miles away)?

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  429. I am always interested in what should have been done about the PDB in August. What actionable intelligence was in there, and how did it differ from the OBL assessment for the last 15 years? I am sure Levi will educate us, right after he explains how President Bush allowed thousands to be murdered. I would also love to know how algore would have prevented this attack.

    JD (5f0e11)

  430. I have the answer:

    A law is passed that the US Immediately Withdraws from the Middle East. For which any Democrat Office holder, Daily Kos commenter, Soros funded 527 worker, George Soros, Keith Olberman, the editors and staffs of the NYTimes, LATimes, Washington Post, Levi, stef, and Leviticus all will be killed on sight with impunity if ANY US CITIZEN or SOLDIER is killed by Iran, N. Korea, or AlQaeda.

    PCD (5c49b0)

  431. #430 JD:

    I would also love to know how algore would have prevented this attack.

    I think that assertion has to be the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. I mean, that’s dumber than stating a triangle has four sides…

    EW1(SG) (84e813)

  432. JD, Al Gore’s psychic abilities would have discerned the exact names of the hijackers’ fake ID’s and then when airport security let them onto aircraft anyway since Al Gore’s knowledge would obviously not suffice for Fourth Amendment purposes, Al Gore’s super abilities from his Krypton heritage would have allowed him to personally intercept each aircraft in flight. Not only saving the inhabitants of the WTC and the Pentagon who were killed but also saving the passengers of all four aircraft.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  433. Al Gore has been misunderstood this entire time. He was preaching Global WARNING…the prevention of unprovoked attacks via his invention, the Internet tracking C02 emissions from hijacked planes before they slam into unsuspecting civilian buildings.

    This is done in coordination with a Magic 8 ball, tarot cards and palm readings of Ex-Weathermen (Bill Ayers and Al Roker).

    cfbleachers (e6f785)

  434. It doesn’t work like that. The radicals wouldn’t have killed thousands of Iraqis had we not invaded.

    Nope, Saddam would have. Just as he did before we invaded.

    Patterico (cb443b)

  435. Levi’s utter ignorance of any history not explicitly mentioned on Keith Olbermann’s show is getting quite old.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  436. #258 aphrael

    The constitutional amendment should be decided on the merits of the idea of banning gay marriage, not on the merits of the court’s decision legitimating it.

    Nope. I believe (and this is why I’ll be voting FOR the amendment) that the voters, either pro or anti SSM should pass the measure resoundingly …as a repudiation of the ilk of dishonest judges who vote their feelings and agendas instead of ruling on the law.

    Then I’ll happily work to have the amendment repealed by a vote of the people.

    First things first though.

    Darleen (187edc)

  437. sorry, that should be #278

    Darleen (187edc)

  438. Darleen: so you’re saying a voter should vote to enact a policy (a) which he disagrees with and (b) which will have a harmful effect on people who are guilty of nothing, simply because he’s pissed at the court?

    That strikes me as being more than a little nihilistic.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  439. I vote for “petulant”…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  440. which will have a harmful effect on people

    Excuse me? What harm? Substantiate that assertion, please.

    Darleen (187edc)

  441. I vote for “code-wording”.

    nk (d7f5f5)

  442. BTW aphrael, if you understand the history of the initiative movement in California, then “judge nullification” by voting for an amendment specifically to repudiate their diktat should not be surprising.

    Sorry, but I want to make judges who engage in mullah-envy pay.

    Darleen (187edc)

  443. As soon as the initiative passes, marriages becomes invalid.

    How are their community assets split when the marriages become invalid?

    Isn’t it a harm to even have to deal with the issue?

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  444. aphrael

    Mayor “look over here!” Newsom performed something like 4000 marriages that were later invalidated.

    I don’t recall any “harm” resulting from that invalidation, do you?

    There is, IMO, greater harm in not strenuously opposing judges annointing themselves dictators of Proper Social Policy.

    for our own good, of course.

    Darleen (187edc)

  445. aphrael, this is the harm caused by the poor strategy of the activists.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  446. We don’t like the method the surgeon used so we’re going to put your infected appendix back in and try to find a doctor who’ll do it right the next time, aphrael. Don’t worry. We’ll do the right thing by you.

    Ok?

    “It should be done democratically” is coding. If they thought it was the right thing to do, what does it matter how it was done?

    Be honest about it, guys. Say that you don’t like same-sex marriage and you’re going to fight until you can’t fight it no more.

    nk (d7f5f5)

  447. nk, because it does matter how things are done in a democracy. That’s how we figure out that it is one.

    The destruction of constitutional government in favor of a tyranny of the political elites, regardless of whether or not “its for our own good”, is still a tyranny.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  448. If they thought it was the right thing to do, what does it matter how it was done?

    Oh goody. There are so many right things I can now get done because I can just brush aside all that annoying “persuade my neighbor” nonsense!

    Che!

    Darleen (187edc)

  449. Persuade your neighbor? That’s what I saided. What’s your opinion? Be honest about it.

    nk (d7f5f5)

  450. BTW, nk, regardless of your insinuation, I don’t care whether or not there is same-sex marriage. And I do strongly care about my objection to the California Supreme court forcing it against the wishes of the state’s electorate.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  451. darleen’s gonna vote for the amendment, then work to repeal it? that doesn’t make any sense at all.

    i am proud to be one of the very few people in my area who voted against oregon’s gay marriage ban.

    assistant devil's advocate (a5a5a8)

  452. I didn’t think I was insinuating, SPQR. I thought I was being pretty straight. Say whether same-sex marriage should be allowed. Not whether “if the people say so”. Nuance is for Democrats.

    nk (d7f5f5)

  453. Surprise, surprise.

    Another Drew (758608)

  454. A law is passed that the US Immediately Withdraws from the Middle East. For which any Democrat Office holder, Daily Kos commenter, Soros funded 527 worker, George Soros, Keith Olberman, the editors and staffs of the NYTimes, LATimes, Washington Post, Levi, stef, and Leviticus all will be killed on sight with impunity if ANY US CITIZEN or SOLDIER is killed by Iran, N. Korea, or AlQaeda.

    I’d support that law as long as Republicans relinquished every office they held.

    I don’t wanna be dragging a bunch of dead weight if my life is on the line.

    Levi (76ef55)

  455. Levi,

    Have you no sense of how ridiculous you make yourself seem? Step back boy. Think before you hit that “Submit Comment” button.

    nk (d7f5f5)

  456. I think that assertion has to be the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. I mean, that’s dumber than stating a triangle has four sides…

    You know what I think is stupid? Assuming that because George Bush failed to do something, everybody else in the world would have failed to do it, too, had they been President. I’m not sure that this has registered with you yet, but George Bush is an idiot.

    You’re not surprised that a man like this could drop the ball? That’s never even cropped up in the ol’ skull? I know it was shocking back when it happened, and I know we were all just looking to rally behind somebody, but come on. We’re seven years out now, that’s seven years of failure and disappointment and instance after instance of public displays of mass stupidity. The smoke has cleared, the country’s headed in the wrong direction, let’s wake up. This moron was asleep on watch.

    I know there’s some McCain fans around here, you don’t think there’s even a slight chance that he could have prevented 9-11? I mean I will even grant that he seems more capable and more interested in work than George Bush. You realize he was on vacation the entire month of August, back in 2001, don’t you? You don’t think it would have been helpful to have the President, you know, in Washington, checking into his memos? With access to all of his advisers and department heads and stuff?

    Wake up people. Just because Bush couldn’t do it doesn’t mean the rest of us couldn’t. Bush probably doesn’t know how to sharpen a pencil. Or his ass from a hole in the Ground Zero.

    Levi (76ef55)

  457. Have you no sense of how ridiculous you make yourself seem? Step back boy. Think before you hit that “Submit Comment” button.

    You don’t expect me to have a few conditions if I’m willing to bet my life that I could do better than Republicans?

    Levi (76ef55)

  458. Levi, we know you think that George Bush is an idiot. That has the significance of the neighbor’s 10 year old opinion. Because you both base your opinion’s upon about equal knowledge of the world.

    What is so hilarious is how you “prove” that George Bush is an idiot – because all you really prove is your own utter incompetence to hold an opinion on the matter.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  459. What is so hilarious is how you “prove” that George Bush is an idiot

    You need proof? Every time he opens his mouth isn’t enough proof for you?

    Levi (76ef55)

  460. Levi, go back to your fantasies about Al Gore in red tights and cape saving the US from the 9/11 hijackers.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  461. Levi

    I don’t know what universe you live in with the 9/11 Truoooother stuff, but I’m glad it’s not mine.

    In mine, gravity works and sometimes stuff happens because that’s just the way it is.

    you are indecent and pitiful.

    Darleen (187edc)

  462. I don’t know what universe you live in with the 9/11 Truoooother stuff, but I’m glad it’s not mine.

    In mine, gravity works and sometimes stuff happens because that’s just the way it is.

    you are indecent and pitiful.

    I didn’t say Bush blew up the buildings, or that he knew it was going to happen. I believe he was shocked. When he was reading that book and got told about it, he looked like a kid that hadn’t done his homework all year that just got told by the teacher that they were taking a pop quiz for 90% of your grade.

    All I’m saying is that he’s a shitty watchdog. Did you even read what I wrote?

    Levi (76ef55)

  463. Yes, Levi, you said that. But you demonstrated just how utterly ignorant and worthless your opinion was by claiming that Al Gore would have prevented it.

    That showed that no matter how stupid you think George Bush has shown himself, you’ve failed to overreach his intelligence.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  464. Yes, Levi, you said that. But you demonstrated just how utterly ignorant and worthless your opinion was by claiming that Al Gore would have prevented it.

    I don’t only think Al Gore would have been able to prevent it, I think Clinton would have, and Obama would have, and McCain would have. Hell, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee would have. Tom Tancredo probably could have.

    It’s not like 9-11 was our destiny, we just had the wrong man for the job; a lazy dumbass.

    Levi (76ef55)

  465. Levi incredibly wrote: I don’t only think Al Gore would have been able to prevent it, I think Clinton would have, and Obama would have, and McCain would have. Hell, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee would have. Tom Tancredo probably could have.

    It’s not like 9-11 was our destiny, we just had the wrong man for the job; a lazy dumbass.

    Uh huh. I guess we’re talking about the same “lazy dumbass” who prevented further Al Qaeda attacks by waterboarding and breaking Khalid Sheik Muhammad.

    Oh, you’re against us doing that, aren’t you, Leev?

    I guess that makes YOU the dumbass.

    L.N. Smithee (02f5a7)

  466. Levi wrote: So if Bush wasn’t talking about Obama when he was talking about appeasers, why are you comparing him to Neville Chamberlain all of a sudden?

    If the umbrella fits, wear it! (That’ll go over his head, folks!)

    Would you have been doing that 2 weeks ago? You know, before Bush made that speech?

    I’ve been doing it since Obama said he would meet the state terrorist thugs without preconditions. Y’know, back before he denied saying it. Doggone that newfangled videotape!

    L.N. Smithee (02f5a7)

  467. Levi droned: You can’t fool me, the first four years of Bush’s Presidency featured nothing but fawning conservatives all over the airwaves talking about how Reagan-esque Bush was, and how heroic Bush was.

    Before the historic low ratings for Bush, there were historic highs. When the Taliban were run out of power, and Saddam fled Baghdad with his tail between his legs, there were even Dems who feared his popularity. But he’s never been a true fiscal conservative. You must have been trying to find your local Air America stations instead of listening to the “fawners” when the drug prescription benefit and the Ted Kennedy co-authored education bill came up.

    You guys did re-elect him, did you not? That’s not a resounding endorsement?

    Please! He was running against John Freakin’ Kerry!

    I can’t believe I have to explain to you why this is a stupid thing to say. Why don’t we round up a group of gold star mothers, put George Bush in the room, and have him tell them all that he stopped playing golf to be in solidarity with them. Is there anything more unsympathetic or condescending you could say to a group of people?

    Earth to Uranus: He didn’t say it to any Gold Star mothers, dimwit. Mike Smith asked him if the lack of golf was about Iraq, and Bush told him. And speaking of Gold Star mothers; in case you forgot, Cindy Sheehan, who disgraces her son’s name every time she protests a war he willingly and proudly fought in, had nothing but nice things to say about President Bush immediately after she and her then-husband met him, and he expressed his condolences.

    Yeah, yeah, Reagan was a god among men, big deal. I couldn’t care less about Reagan or how you came to embrace conservatism. What is your point here? Are you trying to assure me that someday, I too will see the light?

    I’m writing for those who may be reading. I’m not sure light can make it down the hole you keep digging for yourself.

    One last thing: I can assure you George W. Bush knows there are 50 states in the Union — not 58. But you want Mr. 58 States to replace the “idiot.”

    Is it any wonder you feel so superior?

    L.N. Smithee (02f5a7)

  468. her then-husband

    I so don’t blame that man…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  469. L.N. Smithee stunningly bloviated:

    Uh huh. I guess we’re talking about the same “lazy dumbass” who prevented further Al Qaeda attacks by waterboarding and breaking Khalid Sheik Muhammad.

    Really? It’s my contention that Barack Obama singlehandedly prevented nine more September 11-style attacks, simply by running for President. I read about it somewhere. You can’t prove that I’m wrong! Bwa ha ha!

    DW5000 (1a2fa5)

  470. I didn’t say Bush blew up the buildings, or that he knew it was going to happen.

    You said he allowed it to happen.

    You realize he was on vacation the entire month of August, back in 2001, don’t you? You don’t think it would have been helpful to have the President, you know, in Washington, checking into his memos? With access to all of his advisers and department heads and stuff?

    Yes, Levi. The President was cut off from the rest of the world for an entire month. No access to TV, staff, internet, newspapers, the constant media horde. Nothing. You really are childish.

    I don’t only think Al Gore would have been able to prevent it, I think Clinton would have, and Obama would have, and McCain would have. Hell, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee would have. Tom Tancredo probably could have.

    How? Be clear on this.

    JD (75f5c3)

  471. DW – Beside the fact that Darrell Waltrip would be pissed at the way you are using his name, the differences between LN’s scenario and yours is that LN’s scenario actually did happen in the real world, and yours could only happen in fevered minds like yours and Levi’s.

    JD (75f5c3)

  472. 455, Levi, it is only the GOP that has kept your skin whole since 9/11, even though you are one of those idiot “Troothers”.

    PCD (5c49b0)

  473. DW5000 wins the Internet today…

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  474. JD, get your sarcasm detector checked. I think it’s on the fritz…

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  475. Sometime back we were discussing the need for photo ID and, if I recall correctly, we strayed in to the subject of some people being too stupid or ill informed to vote. Levi fills that bill and proves it above. So does stef, and aphrael is getting close to that territory.

    PCD (5c49b0)

  476. PCD – aphrael is one of the most honest and kind liberals you will ever come across. Putting him in the same classification as Levi and stef is ridiculous.

    JD (75f5c3)

  477. JD,

    He swims in the septic tank with other lovers of the party of the government. I can’t recall where he’s rebuked Levi, Leviticus, or stef for straying into the realm of Troothers or Kos inspired insanity.

    PCD (5c49b0)

  478. Then you should read more carefully. He’s done it several times.

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  479. Levi, in #466, you again demonstrate that George Bush is smarter than you, and that you live in a fantasyland.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  480. PCD

    Aphrael is a joy to hold a discussion with and his points are almost always lucid, well constructed, genuine and insightful.

    He doesn’t simply spew venom and spout platitudes. Quite the contrary. And he has taken Levi to task for making “the other side” of any debate less attractive by being gratuitously insulting and venal.

    Honestly, he is one of the best commenters here, even though we are almost always on opposite sides of most debates.

    cfbleachers (4040c7)

  481. ” I can’t recall where he’s rebuked Levi, Leviticus, or stef for straying into the realm of Troothers or Kos inspired insanity.”

    – PCD

    I demand better opposition.

    If I’m going to be falsely accused, I’d at least like it to be in an original, interesting manner. No more of this “HIM IS A TROOFER!!!” bullshit…

    Leviticus (b5b939)

  482. Leviticus, hehe.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  483. Uh huh. I guess we’re talking about the same “lazy dumbass” who prevented further Al Qaeda attacks by waterboarding and breaking Khalid Sheik Muhammad.

    I don’t get how logical, thinking people can jump at the chance to praise Bush for all the terrorism he’s stopped after 9-11 without applying harsh scrutiny to his actions prior to
    9-11. Again, I think it has more to do with the collective terror we felt at that moment, and our propensity to sort of unquestioningly rally behind our leader, but that’s no longer necessary. Think, people!

    Bush presided over the deadliest terrorist attack in history, why does he get a pass for that? If Obama wins and the new Yankee Stadium is bombed and 2,000 more people die, will he get a pass? Does every President get one horrifically monumental terror attack before scrutiny is applied?

    Are you really so uncreative as to believe that the same fate would have befallen us no matter who was in office? You don’t think Ronald Reagan would have sniffed out the plot? You don’t think a hypothetical third Clinton term could have done the same, having just broken up the LAX Y2K plot? You don’t have to agree with me that George Bush is a lazy dumbass, but certainly you would grant there are people that are smarter than him, and with a better work ethic? (Bush is the most vacationed President in history, during a time of war, no less).

    It wouldn’t have taken much to prevent 9-11, we had lots of pieces of the puzzle, but our President didn’t prioritize terrorism as something his administration should be concerned about. Plus, that brush back at the ranch ain’t gonna clear itself!

    Oh, you’re against us doing that, aren’t you, Leev?

    I guess that makes YOU the dumbass.

    There’s more than one way to make an omelet. That’s kind of the point of America; we’re supposed to solve our problems within the confines of laws that ensconce our values, like equality, respect for human rights, due process, stuff like that. Anybody can just torture people, and that’s exactly what every country, state, kingdom, and empire did before the United States came along. We’re supposed to be different, ‘the city on the hill.’ We’ve broken up terrorist conspiracies without torture before 9-11 and since 9-11, and we probably could have done it in the case that you cite, too, assuming the Bush administration isn’t lying about that scenario to bolster their stats.

    Levi (76ef55)

  484. Before the historic low ratings for Bush, there were historic highs. When the Taliban were run out of power, and Saddam fled Baghdad with his tail between his legs, there were even Dems who feared his popularity. But he’s never been a true fiscal conservative. You must have been trying to find your local Air America stations instead of listening to the “fawners” when the drug prescription benefit and the Ted Kennedy co-authored education bill came up.

    Obviously, I can’t comment on how each of you individually viewed the man four years ago, but I’ve primarily been a consumer of conservative media for the past five years, and I got the gist of it. I don’t think it’s all that unfair, for convenience, to extrapolate based on the most public and vocal voices of the Republican media outlets. You’re certainly allowed to do the same thing to me and liberal outlets. We have to have some knowledge about where each of us is coming from if we’re going to be able to communicate.

    Please! He was running against John Freakin’ Kerry!

    Would have been better.

    Earth to Uranus: He didn’t say it to any Gold Star mothers, dimwit. Mike Smith asked him if the lack of golf was about Iraq, and Bush told him. And speaking of Gold Star mothers; in case you forgot, Cindy Sheehan, who disgraces her son’s name every time she protests a war he willingly and proudly fought in, had nothing but nice things to say about President Bush immediately after she and her then-husband met him, and he expressed his condolences.

    He said it to some gold star mothers that might have been watching him, or reading the transcript of the interview, didn’t he? I’d like to hear what some gold star mothers would have to say about Bush’s ‘sacrifice,’ and the fact he didn’t even follow through on it by golfing a few months later. Know any?

    I’m writing for those who may be reading. I’m not sure light can make it down the hole you keep digging for yourself.

    One last thing: I can assure you George W. Bush knows there are 50 states in the Union — not 58. But you want Mr. 58 States to replace the “idiot.”

    Is it any wonder you feel so superior?

    Please… I would love to play the ‘Who’s a bigger idiot between Barrack Obama and George Bush?’ game. You are barking up the wrong tree, fella.

    Levi (76ef55)

  485. 455, Levi, it is only the GOP that has kept your skin whole since 9/11, even though you are one of those idiot “Troothers”.

    What constitutes a ‘troother?’ Do you even know?

    Levi (76ef55)

  486. Levi, you really don’t even know what forest the tree is in, much less be able to accuse another of barking up the wrong one.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  487. The reality is quite clear, Levi, to feed your bizarre little fantasy about how dumb George Bush is, you’ve invented in your head this fantasy about how the President has the role of personally going into the field and performing counter-terrorism investigations personally and only George Bush, of all our Presidents, was so dumb as to not realize this.

    Grow up, Levi.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  488. Levi, you really don’t even know what forest the tree is in, much less be able to accuse another of barking up the wrong one.

    And you have not ever had anything interesting or compelling to say as long as you’ve been ‘responding’ to me, if that’s what you could even call it.

    Levi (76ef55)

  489. Levi, that’s it, blame others for your own incoherence.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  490. cfbleachers & PCD, here is a thread where aphrael schools Levi and Levi is entirely oblivious to aphrael’s lesson in adulthood.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  491. Levi:

    Karl Rove didn’t bring us Pelosi or Reid, either, that was failed Republican policy and war fatigue.

    It’s fair to blame the Republicans for losing both houses to the Democrats. But if Pelosi and Reid were the best the Democrats could do, that’s not the Republicans’ fault. We don’t get to pick your leaders. You’d have far more sensible ones if we did.

    Patterico:

    To me, the difference is that Coulter is not connected with McCain as closely as Obama is with Wright.

    Quite an understatement, that. Coulter infamously promised to campaign for Hillary, as the supposedly less liberal Democrat, if she and McCain got their party’s respective nominations. Does anyone seriously think Rev. Wright would be out campaigning for McCain or any other Republican if Hillary had gotten her party’s nod?

    Xrlq (b71926)

  492. 487, Levi, a “Troother”, like you believes Bush enabled, if not ordered, 9/11 to happen.

    I personally think all “Troothers” should be barred from voting because of mental incompetance.

    PCD (5c49b0)

  493. It’s fair to blame the Republicans for losing both houses to the Democrats. But if Pelosi and Reid were the best the Democrats could do, that’s not the Republicans’ fault. We don’t get to pick your leaders. You’d have far more sensible ones if we did.

    Look, I don’t know what’s wrong with the Democrats in Congress. Pelosi and Reid aren’t the best the Democrats can do, believe me. It doesn’t make sense to hand out leadership positions based on whose turn it is, which seems to be the only reason these two made it, because I certainly haven’t been inspired or impressed by anything they’ve done. Pelosi goes up there right after the election and promises that impeachment is ‘off the table?’ What kind of political leadership is that? You would never hear a Republican say something like that.

    In terms of political awareness and savvy, the Democrats are like a bunch of chickens running around with their heads cut off while the Republicans are a well-designed and well-maintained slaughterhouse, and before you start taking that as a compliment, let me reiterate that that is the only thing that I think they are good at, or have any interest in doing as governors.

    Levi (76ef55)

  494. 487, Levi, a “Troother”, like you believes Bush enabled, if not ordered, 9/11 to happen.

    I personally think all “Troothers” should be barred from voting because of mental incompetance.

    Yeah right. Find me someone else’s definition, from anywhere in the internet, of what a ‘troother’ is, and you will see that it doesn’t encompass my argument, which is once again, that the President was grossly negligent in his duty of protecting the country from terrorist.

    You’re changing the definition so you can dismiss me without arguing with me. I’ll ask generally once again, wouldn’t Reagan have prevented 9-11?

    Levi (76ef55)

  495. Reagan? Isn’t that the guy who gave AIDS to Nicaragua and Ollie North had to run around to find money for the contraceptives?

    nk (d7f5f5)

  496. Reagan? Isn’t that the guy who gave AIDS to Nicaragua and Ollie North had to run around to find money for the contraceptives?

    Yeah, sure, whatever you want.

    Now, don’t you think he would have been a bit more on top of things than George Bush if they had swapped Presidencies?

    Levi (76ef55)

  497. which is once again, that the President was grossly negligent in his duty of protecting the country from terrorist.

    Except for earlier, where you said that President Bush ALLOWED it to happen. Funny how you do not even pay attention to your own words.

    wouldn’t Reagan have prevented 9-11?

    Based on what? Exactly what information did President Bush possess that was specific and actionable, that would have led a smarter man such as yourself to take action?

    JD (75f5c3)

  498. There is nothing like a Troother for a good bit of afternoon humor. Thanks, Levi.

    JD (75f5c3)

  499. Now, don’t you think he would have been a bit more on top of things than George Bush if they had swapped Presidencies?

    It wouldn’t have happened, or at the least, while in Iraq, Iran would not be assisting the insurgents.

    Immadinnerjacket showed rare good sense when he cowered before Ronnie and freed the hostages basicly within moments of Reagan being sworn in.

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  500. 496, Reagan would have taken Bin Laden from the Somalis, and Reagan would not have hired a nut like Jaime Gorelick, nor allowed her to compartmentalize information as she did in the Twin Tower bombing for which Bin Laden was a co-conspirator.

    PCD (5c49b0)

  501. Scott – Every time I get my irony meter fixed, Levi starts posting again. I suspect he holds stock in http://www.ironymeter.com

    JD (75f5c3)

  502. Change yoru setting. That isn’t irony Levi posts…

    It’s generic stupidity…

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  503. Levi – I am very serious. What specific information that President Bush had should have led him to take what specific actions that would have resulted in this attack being prevented? I know the concept of actionable intelligence makes about as much sense as Mandarin Chinese to you, but give it a try.

    JD (75f5c3)

  504. Scott J – Unintended irony tends to set it off. I cannot calibrate unintended irony away.

    JD (75f5c3)

  505. Except for earlier, where you said that President Bush ALLOWED it to happen. Funny how you do not even pay attention to your own words.

    You can get all worked up about the words that I use if you want, but we all know what a real ‘TROOTHER’ is, someone that thinks that Bush was in on it, that he planted the explosives or shot missiles at the tower or whatever. That stuff is stupid and obviously not true.

    If a bunch of kids drown in the pool because the lifeguard is over talking to the cute girl at the concession stand, he allowed, or enabled, or set the conditions for, whatever you want to call it, those drownings, undeniably, right? It’s not like he planned it out, it’s not like he wanted it to happen, but he was negligent, and he wasn’t being responsible, and he wasn’t doing his job, and so it happened.

    That’s what I’m saying about George Bush. Remember, you’re the guy that ‘lets his assumptions get ahead of him,’ you think you might be doing that here? Someone else called me a ‘troother,’ so you started doing it, isn’t that exactly what happened with that Obama quote a few hundred comments ago?

    Based on what? Exactly what information did President Bush possess that was specific and actionable, that would have led a smarter man such as yourself to take action?

    If he had spent an hour on that memo, talking to his Transportation and FAA and FBI guys, who knows? But he wasn’t even in Washington, and he apparently didn’t think it meant anything. Well, I guess it did.

    Now, I know you don’t like this argument, but there are others. George Tenet and Richard Clarke had more information than Bush had, and they were trying all summer to get a principles meeting together on the issue of terrorism (hard to do when Bush is on vacation), which they only got around to at the beginning of Sept. The first meeting that Bush’s cabinet held on terrorism was the week before 9-11, Sept. 4th. Too little, too late, as we’d all soon find out.

    What you have to get through your head is that events and outcomes aren’t inevitable regardless of who the President is. Do you think any random President could have guided us through WWII, or the Civil War? To put it in terms that you should enjoy, don’t you think someone could have done a better job handling the Iranian hostage crisis and the energy shortage than Jimmy Carter?

    Think!

    Levi (76ef55)

  506. To put it in terms that you should enjoy, don’t you think someone could have done a better job handling the Iranian hostage crisis and the energy shortage than Jimmy Carter?

    Any amoeba.

    nk (d7f5f5)

  507. Any amoeba.

    So you’re with me then?

    Levi (76ef55)

  508. If he had spent an hour on that memo, talking to his Transportation and FAA and FBI guys, who knows?

    Who knows what? Do you know? If not, how can you determine what would have happened?

    Instead of just repeating what that Bush was negligent, why don’t you tell us what he should have done and how it would have prevented the 9/11 attacks.

    Pablo (99243e)

  509. 510, Pablo, levi can’t. He’s the living example of “If Ifs and Buts were candies and nuts, we’d all have a merry Christmas.”

    PCD (5c49b0)

  510. For the sake of the argument, I will stipulate that you are not a Trooother, just someone that thinks President Bush ALLOWED 9/11 to happen. Feel better, Levi?

    You did not claim negligence, you said he allowed it to happen. Very different standards. What was he doing prior to 9/11? Likely he was still listening to people like you howl about how he stole an election, and was in the process of trying to form, establish, and organize an Administration.

    Again, I ask. What specific actionable intelligence did President Bush have and what should he have done?

    If he had spent an hour on that memo, talking to his Transportation and FAA and FBI guys, who knows? But he wasn’t even in Washington, and he apparently didn’t think it meant anything. Well, I guess it did.

    That is not an answer, it is a screed. What specific words on the PDF were specific and actionable. Hell, what words on that PDF were even new information?

    This “vacation” meme of yours shows how incredibly un-serious you are.

    No, you missed nk’s point entirely? You have yet to identify one single solitary thing that would have led to action. There was no actionable intelligence that suggested this. Period. All you have is a retrospect-o-scope, hindsight, and a festering case of BDS.

    JD (75f5c3)

  511. Levi writes: “If he had spent an hour on that memo, talking to his Transportation and FAA and FBI guys, who knows? But he wasn’t even in Washington, and he apparently didn’t think it meant anything. Well, I guess it did.

    Now, I know you don’t like this argument, but there are others. George Tenet and Richard Clarke had more information than Bush had, and they were trying all summer to get a principles meeting together on the issue of terrorism (hard to do when Bush is on vacation), which they only got around to at the beginning of Sept. The first meeting that Bush’s cabinet held on terrorism was the week before 9-11, Sept. 4th. Too little, too late, as we’d all soon find out. ”

    This is more fraud on Levi’s part. None of those people had any information about the 9/11 plot itself. None had any proposals that would have addressed the plot itself. None had any changes to security procedures that would have addressed the plot itself. None had any knowledge of the details of the plots methods and targets sufficient to actually respond once the plot itself was in action.

    Levi – you are a complete fraud.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  512. Who knows what? Do you know? If not, how can you determine what would have happened?

    Instead of just repeating what that Bush was negligent, why don’t you tell us what he should have done and how it would have prevented the 9/11 attacks.

    There’s enough in that PDB, all by itself, to do something, you don’t think so? he has the entire federal government at his disposal, he’s got spies and terrorism experts and transportation officials, and they all had their little bits of information about the plot, it’s not hard to simply warn airports in major U.S. cities that there may be Middle Eastern hijackers looking to snag a plane. Apparently, it didn’t even pique his curiosity.

    But more than that, he should have been holding meetings about terrorism throughout his first year, he shouldn’t have taken such a long vacation while his administration was still settling in, and he shouldn’t have ignored and demoted Richard Clarke. All of these things add up, Bush couldn’t have known any more about the state of terrorism than any random Joe on the street.

    Levi (76ef55)

  513. You did not claim negligence, you said he allowed it to happen.

    And…. goodbye forever!

    Levi (76ef55)

  514. If my aunt had nuts she would be my uncle, Levi.

    JD (75f5c3)

  515. There’s enough in that PDB, all by itself, to do something, you don’t think so?

    Nope. Nothing specific. Nothing actionable. Only your assertion.

    Levi – Why does it bother you so that I use your freaking words? algore would not have allowed 9/11 to happen. Your assertion. And to support your assertion, you offer as proof, your assertion. Great command of the English language. Incredibly persuasive form of argument.

    JD (75f5c3)

  516. Gee, if only Levi would be gone forever.

    PCD (5c49b0)

  517. Levi, this is yet another example of how your opinions are based on nothing but your own fantasies. It is why your opinions are utterly valueless.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  518. You still haven’t told us what he should have done to prevent the attacks, save for “…it’s not hard to simply warn airports in major U.S. cities that there may be Middle Eastern hijackers looking to snag a plane.”

    And what are the airports supposed to do with that? Refuse service to Arabs?

    The vacation canard is foolish. There is no vacationing from the job of POTUS. It follows you wherever you go.

    Pablo (99243e)

  519. This is more fraud on Levi’s part. None of those people had any information about the 9/11 plot itself. None had any proposals that would have addressed the plot itself. None had any changes to security procedures that would have addressed the plot itself. None had any knowledge of the details of the plots methods and targets sufficient to actually respond once the plot itself was in action.

    How do you think counter-terrorism works? It’s not like we have spies rummaging through the terrorists’ garbage hoping to find the whole plan written on a cocktail napkin, and only then do we bother to do anything. It requires constant struggle, daily briefings, frequent meetings with department heads and cabinet members, where things can be shared and discussed. Government officials and federal agents had a few pieces of evidence of the plot, but that doesn’t help if that information can’t work up the ladder, and it particularly doesn’t help if it does work up the ladder, only to be summarily ignored by the guy that’s supposedly in charge.

    I do not understand how you morons can say that memo doesn’t have any actionable intelligence. What are you waiting for? ‘Mr. President, the terrorists will get up at 6:30, go to McDonald’s, have an Egg McMuffin, go to the airport, hijack a plane, and fly into the WTC. Meet us around back if you want to arrest them yourself.’

    It doesn’t work like that. Someone says, ‘I think they might try to hijack a plane,’ and you go from there. Where are there planes? Airports, which conveniently already serve as defensive chokepoints. Who’s likely to hijack a plane? Middle Easterners. What are they going to do with the plane, where are they going to take it, what do they want? We don’t know, but let’s try to prevent the hijacking from happening in the first place.

    It’s not like it would have been expensive or hard to do, airports, local police, federal agents, airlines, especially in major cities, all had security protocols for an increased threat from terrorism. And you’re telling me there isn’t anything you can work with from ‘they might try to hijack a plane?’ Stupid, stupid, stupid.

    Levi (76ef55)

  520. If Obama is the President next year, and he doesn’t hold any Cabinet-level terrorism meetings for months, and he ignores Bush’s leftover counter-terrorism guys, and he ignores a similar PDB, and he takes a four week vacation to Chicago or Hawaii, and then some bomb goes off in a mall or a stadium and thousands of people die, you guys aren’t going to criticize him?

    Is that what you’re telling me?

    Levi (76ef55)

  521. Levi, you are the moron here, because you don’t know what actionable intelligence even means. Your silly handwaving – “you go from there” – is exactly what we are saying is your fundamental stupidity.

    President Bush was not going to personally travel to Mohammad Atta’s apartment and put his ear to the wall.

    You keep saying “stupid” about people’s actions when you have absolutely no idea how those people were to have acted differently.

    Your entire world view is based on the most juvenile of fantasies.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  522. only to be summarily ignored by the guy that’s supposedly in charge.

    And your evidence of this is ? Never mind. Another one of your baseless assertions.

    Mind game, Levi. “Might hijack airplane”

    Give us specific actions that would be acceptable, prior to 9/11, that you would have implemented based on this “actionable” information. Profiling?

    What is exactly new about terrorists desires to attack us, and that they might hijack an airplane? That would have been applicable 30 years ago, and would hold true in another 30 years from today.

    The vacation meme is really childish, but you seem to enjoy it.

    JD (75f5c3)

  523. The vacation canard is foolish. There is no vacationing from the job of POTUS. It follows you wherever you go.

    You can’t exactly have your finger on the pulse if you’re a thousand miles away from the capitol for four weeks. I know they’re always ‘working vacations,’ but D.C. is the political hub in this country, that’s where you’ve got to be if you really want to get your hands dirty.

    What kind of a deuchebag thinks they deserve a 4 week vacation after being on the job for 6 months?

    Levi (76ef55)

  524. The vacation meme is probably the most patently un-serious proposition that has spewed from the Levi.

    JD (75f5c3)

  525. It shows an utter lack of understanding of the daily job of the President.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  526. You can’t exactly have your finger on the pulse if you’re a thousand miles away from the capitol for four weeks. I know they’re always ‘working vacations,’ but D.C. is the political hub in this country, that’s where you’ve got to be if you really want to get your hands dirty.

    What kind of a deuchebag thinks they deserve a 4 week vacation after being on the job for 6 months?

    Because there is no power, newspapers, TV, internet, email, staff, cell phones, landlines, satellite phones, and entire media contingents anywhere but DC. I know this is your new little meme-du-jour, but you cannot really believe that any President of the US is ever really on vacation. In terms of the presidency, on vacation really just means not in DC. But, nuance like that is prolly too much for you.

    JD (75f5c3)

  527. SPQR – Let’s not go limiting the scope of things that Levi has an utter lack of understanding of. Granted, this little meme of his does a fine job of demonstrating his lack of understanding.

    JD (75f5c3)

  528. Government officials and federal agents had a few pieces of evidence of the plot, but that doesn’t help if that information can’t work up the ladder, and it particularly doesn’t help if it does work up the ladder, only to be summarily ignored by the guy that’s supposedly in charge.

    No, it doesn’t work when the agencies that are responsible for external intelligence collection (CIA) and internal security (FBI) are not allowed to communicate with each other. See Gorelick’s wall.

    You say summarily ignored, but you still haven’t pointed to actionable intelligence and the actions it should have spurred aside from some vague “telling airports to look out for Arabs” silliness.

    Pablo (99243e)

  529. Ok, Levi is a boundless idiot.

    There, can we move on?

    (This request is not paid for by George Soros)

    PCD (5c49b0)

  530. Levi, you are the moron here, because you don’t know what actionable intelligence even means. Your silly handwaving – “you go from there” – is exactly what we are saying is your fundamental stupidity.

    President Bush was not going to personally travel to Mohammad Atta’s apartment and put his ear to the wall.

    You keep saying “stupid” about people’s actions when you have absolutely no idea how those people were to have acted differently.

    Your entire world view is based on the most juvenile of fantasies.

    Okay, so why don’t you tell me, ‘actionable intelligence expert SPQR,’ what would have to have been described in that PDB, at a bare minimum, that you would have considered ‘actionable?’

    Levi (76ef55)

  531. Levi, apparently having slept off whatever made him a raving lunatic the previous night, wrote: I don’t get how logical, thinking people can jump at the chance to praise Bush for all the terrorism he’s stopped after 9-11 without applying harsh scrutiny to his actions prior to 9-11…You don’t think a hypothetical third Clinton term could have done the same, having just broken up the LAX Y2K plot?… We’ve broken up terrorist conspiracies without torture before 9-11 and since 9-11, and we probably could have done it in the case that you cite, too, assuming the Bush administration isn’t lying about that scenario to bolster their stats.

    First, thanks for finally admitting the man you call “dumbass” actually has done something to make the nation safer.

    Now, regarding “harsh scrutiny”: The body that supposedly was enlisted with doing that in retrospect — the “9/11 Commission” — is forever tainted by the presence of “blue ribbon” panelist Jamie Gorelick, the Clinton Administration architect of the policy by which vital information about suspected terrorists was withheld from intelligence agencies by the FBI (bka “The Gorelick Wall”).

    Bush Attorney General John Ashcroft, in his Commission testimony, said one frustrated FBI investigator saw the handwriting on the “wall” before the attacks, and expressed it in a prophetic memo:

    “Whatever has happened to this–someday someone will die–and wall or not–the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain ‘problems.’ “

    Now, your pattern dictates your response will be to question the integrity or intelligence of AG Ashcroft. Before you make that mistake, remember that before Bill Clinton’s testimony before the panel, Sandy Berger, his former National Security Advisor, went to the National Archives, stole classified documents related to the Clinton WH’s approach to ferreting out terrorism, hid them underneath a dumpster on the street for retrieval later, and even destroyed some of them.

    What were those secret papers? What did they reveal about Clinton’s actions regarding a terrorist threat? We will probably never know the entire answer to those questions, but one thing is for maddog sure: it could not possibly have been complimentary to the legacy and reputation of Bill Clinton as a guardian of the nation’s security. In disputes about which Admin is more responsible for dropping the ball, the side that admittedly made classified correspondence disappear has a greater burden of proof.

    You mention the LAX Y2K plot as if the Clinton Administration sniffed it out as part of an anti-terrorism program. The truth is less sexy. From the website about an episode of PBS’ Frontline about terrorists’ ease of movement into the USA:

    Dec. 14, 1999 – [Convicted bomb plotter Ahmed] Ressam says that on the morning of Dec. 14, he called Meskini and told him he would be in Seattle that evening. That afternoon, he took a ferry from Victoria, B.C., to Port Angeles, Wash., with more than 100 pounds of explosives stashed in the wheelbed of the trunk of his rental car. His accomplice, Dahoumane, did not travel with him.

    At Victoria, U.S. immigration pre-clearance agents were mildly suspicious of Ressam. They made him open his trunk, but saw nothing. He presented his fake Canadian passport, and the computer check turned up no previous convictions or warrants in the name of Benni Noris. Ressam drove his rental car, with its concealed bomb, onto the ferry heading for Washington state. Upon his arrival at Port Angeles, a U.S. customs agent became suspicious of his hesitant answers to her questions, and she asked for identification. Agents began searching the car. As they discovered the explosive materials — which they at first took to be drugs — in the trunk of the car, Ressam tried to run away. He was caught and arrested.

    BTW, it seems to have slipped your mind that it was early in Clinton’s first year that the first attempt to topple the WTC towers took place. The capture of those plotters was even more fortuitous; the lame-brain who drove one of the rental trucks carrying a fertilizer bomb into the towers’ underground garage returned to the truck rental office to get his $400 deposit! Guess who just happened to be there when he made an appointment to come on down – the FBI!

    There’s more than one way to make an omelet. That’s kind of the point of America; we’re supposed to solve our problems within the confines of laws that ensconce our values, like equality, respect for human rights, due process, stuff like that. Anybody can just torture people, and that’s exactly what every country, state, kingdom, and empire did before the United States came along. We’re supposed to be different, ‘the city on the hill.’ We’ve broken up terrorist conspiracies without torture before 9-11 and since 9-11, and we probably could have done it in the case that you cite, too, assuming the Bush administration isn’t lying about that scenario to bolster their stats.

    And if the Frank Churchs, the Jamie Gorelicks, the ACLUs, the Lynne Stewarts, the Jonathan Turleys, and the others who vow to fight to the death of all of us the right of terrorists to slip through the loopholes and hide behind the “walls” say we contain them within those confines…oh well. America was nice while it lasted, wasn’t it?

    L.N. Smithee (e1f2bf)

  532. Correction: “we contain them within those confines” should read “we CAN’T contain them within those confines.”

    L.N. Smithee (e1f2bf)

  533. You say summarily ignored, but you still haven’t pointed to actionable intelligence and the actions it should have spurred aside from some vague “telling airports to look out for Arabs” silliness.

    What’s vague about that? That might have worked! We have security checkpoints at airports for a reason.

    Levi (76ef55)

  534. LN – Levi has demonstrated that not only does he not know what actionable intelligence is, he has less intellectual curiosity than President Bush in actually learning something about it. Instead, we are given “That might have worked!”, which may be true, given the likely public outcry and lawsuits from CAIR for illegally profiling ARABS. It is a typing monkey, infected with end-stage BDS.

    JD (75f5c3)

  535. Levi, similar vague warnings had been circulated among airport security for years. You are in fantasyland again.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  536. Not to mention that people ridiculed the administration post-9/11 when they started passing around warnings that were based on more specific information than Levi seems to think is worthy of warning.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  537. So, when that PDB came across the President’s desk, which contained no substantively different information than any other PDB in the last 30 years or so, President Bush should have locked down every airport in America immediately, began pulling in suspected terrorist for interrogation, and acting in such a manner that you would have been screaming at the top of your lungs about Bush turning America into a police state. Forgive me for doubting your sincerity.

    JD (75f5c3)

  538. SPQR – BUT IT MIGHT HAVE WORKED BECAUSE LEVI THOUGHT THIS OUT AND IF ONLY WE HAD LOOKED OUT FOR THOSE MEAN ARABS ON 9/10 THEN WE WOULD HAVE ALL BEEN SAFE AND THAT BIG MEAN DUMMIE IN THE WHITE HOUSE COULD HAVE GONE ON VACATION AND NOT ALLOWED 3000+ AMERICANS TO GET SLAUGHTERED BUT ALGORE WOULD HAVE SAVED US BECAUSE IF HE READ THAT PDB HE WOULD HAVE ARRESTED EVERY ARAB IN THE WORLD AND PUT A STOP TO IT BECAUSE HE IS NOT A BIG MEAN DUMMIE LIKE PRESIDENT BUSH

    JD (75f5c3)

  539. JD, frankly, your parody does not work because you wrote Levi’s arguments more coherently than he’s presented them.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  540. JD wrote: So, when that PDB came across the President’s desk, which contained no substantively different information than any other PDB in the last 30 years or so, President Bush should have locked down every airport in America immediately, began pulling in suspected terrorist for interrogation, and acting in such a manner that you would have been screaming at the top of your lungs about Bush turning America into a police state. Forgive me for doubting your sincerity.

    Preeeeeecisely.

    L.N. Smithee (b048eb)

  541. JD wrote: LN – Levi has demonstrated that not only does he not know what actionable intelligence is, he has less intellectual curiosity than President Bush in actually learning something about it. Instead, we are given “That might have worked!”, which may be true, given the likely public outcry and lawsuits from CAIR for illegally profiling ARABS.

    Can you imagine what Levi might have written about, say, Michelle Malkin if she made such a suggestion?

    L.N. Smithee (b048eb)

  542. Oh, this is easy, really. Bush should have had Mohammed Atta, Hani Hanjour, Ziad Jarrah, et al arrested. Duh.

    Pablo (99243e)

  543. First, thanks for finally admitting the man you call “dumbass” actually has done something to make the nation safer.

    Woah, woah, woah. Slow down. I didn’t say that. Even if Bush has been stopping all sorts of terrorist plots (I don’t think he has been) and we’re ‘safer’ because of that, those gains in safety are erased and then some by the losses caused by things like the Iraq war and the new American torture doctrine.

    Now, regarding “harsh scrutiny”: The body that supposedly was enlisted with doing that in retrospect — the “9/11 Commission” — is forever tainted by the presence of “blue ribbon” panelist Jamie Gorelick, the Clinton Administration architect of the policy by which vital information about suspected terrorists was withheld from intelligence agencies by the FBI (bka “The Gorelick Wall”).

    Bush Attorney General John Ashcroft, in his Commission testimony, said one frustrated FBI investigator saw the handwriting on the “wall” before the attacks, and expressed it in a prophetic memo:

    “Whatever has happened to this–someday someone will die–and wall or not–the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain ‘problems.’ “

    Now, your pattern dictates your response will be to question the integrity or intelligence of AG Ashcroft. Before you make that mistake, remember that before Bill Clinton’s testimony before the panel, Sandy Berger, his former National Security Advisor, went to the National Archives, stole classified documents related to the Clinton WH’s approach to ferreting out terrorism, hid them underneath a dumpster on the street for retrieval later, and even destroyed some of them.

    What were those secret papers? What did they reveal about Clinton’s actions regarding a terrorist threat? We will probably never know the entire answer to those questions, but one thing is for maddog sure: it could not possibly have been complimentary to the legacy and reputation of Bill Clinton as a guardian of the nation’s security. In disputes about which Admin is more responsible for dropping the ball, the side that admittedly made classified correspondence disappear has a greater burden of proof.

    I don’t dispute that there were communication problems between the various factions of government, but come on, the administration most responsible isn’t the one that’s presiding during the attack? That’s ridiculous. Why stop at Clinton? Didn’t Reagan send Rumsfeld over to Iraq to shake hands with Saddam back in the ’80s? We might as well blame Jimmy Carter.

    Further, even if there were all these problems caused by the Clinton administration, why wasn’t the Bush administration fixing them? Why were they not even discussing the problems? You really think it’s acceptable given modern geopolitics to not have a Cabinet-level meeting on terrorism until your eighth month in office? Again, if Obama goes 8 months without holding such a meeting, will you reserve criticism of him, too?

    You mention the LAX Y2K plot as if the Clinton Administration sniffed it out as part of an anti-terrorism program. The truth is less sexy.

    Yeah, you’re right.

    And if the Frank Churchs, the Jamie Gorelicks, the ACLUs, the Lynne Stewarts, the Jonathan Turleys, and the others who vow to fight to the death of all of us the right of terrorists to slip through the loopholes and hide behind the “walls” say we contain them within those confines…oh well. America was nice while it lasted, wasn’t it?

    Torture is a slippery slope, a real slippery slope, unlike the imaginary ones we were discussing in the gay marriage thread the other day. There’s no indication that Bush wants to shelve these torture rules any time soon, and the devastating consequences of being a nation with a government that tortures won’t manifest itself for years. Let’s allow that to infect the culture for a few decades, and allow our allies and enemies to see our repeated use of it in every engagement we deem it necessary, and yeah, we’ll all be America saying was nice while it lasted.

    Levi (76ef55)

  544. First, thanks for finally admitting the man you call “dumbass” actually has done something to make the nation safer.

    Woah, woah, woah. Slow down. I didn’t say that. Even if Bush has been stopping all sorts of terrorist plots (I don’t think he has been) and we’re ‘safer’ because of that, those gains in safety are erased and then some by the losses caused by things like the Iraq war and the new American torture doctrine.

    Now, regarding “harsh scrutiny”: The body that supposedly was enlisted with doing that in retrospect — the “9/11 Commission” — is forever tainted by the presence of “blue ribbon” panelist Jamie Gorelick, the Clinton Administration architect of the policy by which vital information about suspected terrorists was withheld from intelligence agencies by the FBI (bka “The Gorelick Wall”).

    Bush Attorney General John Ashcroft, in his Commission testimony, said one frustrated FBI investigator saw the handwriting on the “wall” before the attacks, and expressed it in a prophetic memo:

    “Whatever has happened to this–someday someone will die–and wall or not–the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain ‘problems.’ “

    Now, your pattern dictates your response will be to question the integrity or intelligence of AG Ashcroft. Before you make that mistake, remember that before Bill Clinton’s testimony before the panel, Sandy Berger, his former National Security Advisor, went to the National Archives, stole classified documents related to the Clinton WH’s approach to ferreting out terrorism, hid them underneath a dumpster on the street for retrieval later, and even destroyed some of them.

    What were those secret papers? What did they reveal about Clinton’s actions regarding a terrorist threat? We will probably never know the entire answer to those questions, but one thing is for maddog sure: it could not possibly have been complimentary to the legacy and reputation of Bill Clinton as a guardian of the nation’s security. In disputes about which Admin is more responsible for dropping the ball, the side that admittedly made classified correspondence disappear has a greater burden of proof.

    I don’t dispute that there were communication problems between the various factions of government, but come on, the administration most responsible isn’t the one that’s presiding during the attack? That’s ridiculous. Why stop at Clinton? Didn’t Reagan send Rumsfeld over to Iraq to shake hands with Saddam back in the ’80s? We might as well blame Jimmy Carter.

    Further, even if there were all these problems caused by the Clinton administration, why wasn’t the Bush administration fixing them? Why were they not even discussing the problems? You really think it’s acceptable given modern geopolitics to not have a Cabinet-level meeting on terrorism until your eighth month in office? Again, if Obama goes 8 months without holding such a meeting, will you reserve criticism of him, too?

    You mention the LAX Y2K plot as if the Clinton Administration sniffed it out as part of an anti-terrorism program. The truth is less sexy.

    Yeah, you’re right.

    And if the Frank Churchs, the Jamie Gorelicks, the ACLUs, the Lynne Stewarts, the Jonathan Turleys, and the others who vow to fight to the death of all of us the right of terrorists to slip through the loopholes and hide behind the “walls” say we contain them within those confines…oh well. America was nice while it lasted, wasn’t it?

    Torture is a slippery slope, a real slippery slope, unlike the imaginary ones we were discussing in the gay marriage thread the other day. There’s no indication that Bush wants to shelve these torture rules any time soon, and the devastating consequences of being a nation with a government that tortures won’t manifest itself for years. Let’s allow that to infect the culture for a few decades, and allow our allies and enemies to see our repeated use of it in every engagement we deem it necessary, and yeah, we’ll all be saying America was nice while it lasted.

    Levi (76ef55)

  545. Levi – We are still waiting to hear what actionable intelligence President Bush should have acted on, and what specifically you believe he should have done.

    Or is that too nuancy of a question?

    JD (5f0e11)

  546. Levi wrote: Even if Bush has been stopping all sorts of terrorist plots (I don’t think he has been) and we’re ’safer’ because of that, those gains in safety are erased and then some by the losses caused by things like the Iraq war and the new American torture doctrine.

    Uh huh. I see what you mean. Now, the decent, honorable, emotionally stable and religiously moderate folk who kidnap American journalists and behead them for the crime of refusing to convert to Islam will REALLY be pissed at us. I mean, who knows? They might do something KRAZY, like…like…I dunno, like hijack three airliners and crash them into skyscrapers and government agency headquarters all within minutes, killing thousands of innocent people!

    L.N. Smithee (ecc5a5)

  547. JD, there should have been a memo:

    ATTENTION AIRPORTS: BE ON THE LOOKOUT FOR ARABS. They might try to hijack planes.

    Thank you,
    The President

    Pablo (99243e)

  548. See guys, Al Gore would not have roughed up anybody to stop the 9/11 plot, he would have used his X Ray vision from the White House to see the plotters’ box cutters as they passed through security checkpoints, and he would have changed to his red tights and cape and personally taken the aircraft from the air with his Krypton birthright strength by flying there.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  549. #545 doth protest too much. Loud music, sleep deprivation and waterboarding three terrorists hardly equals sawing off heads, feeding people feet first through wood chippers and so on. It is the same old BS because our own troops endure the waterboarding. I personally don’t give a rat’s ass what happens to any terrorist. Yes, go ahead and close down hotel guantanamo and execute the terrorists without the habeus corpus they have no legal rights to in any case. Why the hell do bleeding hearts concern themselves with evildoers’ welfare in any case? They’re the same jackasses that praise the UN’s activities, consort with the likes of monkey-boy Hugo Chavez and pity the perpetual refugee scum of the Palistineans while bitching about neocons and Israel violating arab rights.
    Tell me why Sean Penn, Levi, fatasses propagandist Mikey Moore and Rosie O’Donnell and a whole host of other hate america amoebas don’t just move to that island paradise of Cuba or Venezuela?

    madmax333 (814c11)

  550. madmax333, because they don’t care about whether or not there is abuse of prisoners ( they’ve ignored it from socialist governments for decades ), they don’t care about any of the platitudes they mouth about justice ( ditto ).

    All they care about is finding an excuse to name call their political opponents. its all posturing and hypocrisy. Hasn’t Levi demonstrated the vacuousness rather brazenly?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  551. Uh huh. I see what you mean. Now, the decent, honorable, emotionally stable and religiously moderate folk who kidnap American journalists and behead them for the crime of refusing to convert to Islam will REALLY be pissed at us. I mean, who knows? They might do something KRAZY, like…like…I dunno, like hijack three airliners and crash them into skyscrapers and government agency headquarters all within minutes, killing thousands of innocent people!

    What are you suggesting, exactly? That we need to torture a couple of people to send a message? To show these guys we mean business?

    Well, why did the CIA destroy those tapes of their ‘enhanced interrogation’ instead of posting them on YouTube?

    What do we need Gitmo for? We should just keep ’em locked up in the basement of the White House, put some stockades and some whipping posts out on the front lawn, and then we can bring them up out and hordes of screaming College Republicans can throw cabbage at them.

    Why don’t we do that?

    Levi (76ef55)

  552. #552 SPQR:

    Hasn’t Levi demonstrated the vacuousness rather brazenly?

    Jeebers! Brazenly? His demonstration has been to “brazenly” like Mt Denali is to the dirt clod on my patio.

    EW1(SG) (84e813)

  553. Levi, we don’t do that because if we did, you’d file suit that it wasn’t locally-grown, organic cabbage.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  554. Cabbage? That is absolute torture. Worse than anything done at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. Good Allah, the mere idea of it is worse than President Bush inserting an Amendment to the Constitution that we will torture whoever we want for whatever reason we want.

    JD (75f5c3)

  555. Levi wrote: What are you suggesting, exactly? That we need to torture a couple of people to send a message? To show these guys we mean business?

    Well, why did the CIA destroy those tapes of their ‘enhanced interrogation’ instead of posting them on YouTube?

    What do we need Gitmo for? We should just keep ‘em locked up in the basement of the White House, put some stockades and some whipping posts out on the front lawn, and then we can bring them up out and hordes of screaming College Republicans can throw cabbage at them.

    Why don’t we do that?

    Holy false dichotomy, Batman!

    Waterboarding wasn’t performed on KSM “to send a message.” It was done to discover what other terrorist acts Al Qaeda had in the pipeline. And, once again, IT WORKED.

    If you ever have the opportunity to cross the Brooklyn Bridge, think about this: KSM being forced to gurgle water for a minute or so prevented hundreds or even thousands from drowning in NYC’s East River.

    To paraphrase the bumper sticker with GWB’s picture: “Saving Your Raspberries, Like It or Not.”

    L.N. Smithee (0931d2)

  556. Levi wrote: Well, why did the CIA destroy those tapes of their ‘enhanced interrogation’ instead of posting them on YouTube?

    Only they could say for sure, but I suspect the answer is who I mentioned above: Frank Churchs, the Jamie Gorelicks, the ACLUs, the Lynne Stewarts, the Jonathan Turleys…

    When it comes to matters of dealing with terrorism, I often find myself thinking the movie Independence Day, and the scene in Area 51 where the President has a conversation with an alien (thought to be dead, but who has awoken during an autopsy) who is speaking through a scientist he has slammed against a large picture window:

    The President has moved closer to the glass and is talking with the alien. The alien uses Okun like a ventriloquist’s dummy.

    PRESIDENT Why did you people come here?

    OKUN/ALIEN Air…water…your “sun.”

    PRESIDENT Where do your people come from? Where is your home?

    OKUN/ALIEN Here…now.

    (snip)

    PRESIDENT Can we negotiate a truce? is there room for co-existance? (no answer) Can there be peace between us?

    OKUN/ALIEN No peace.

    PRESIDENT What do you want us to do?

    OKUN/ALIEN Die

    .

    Despite that clarity about the intent of the invading alien forces, “David,” the Jeff Goldblum character, flies into a rage (well, as close as the milquetoast can manage) when he overhears that nuclear missiles are going to be fired at the hovering alien motherships. When he cannot dissaude the CIC, he gets drunk, mourning “the end of the world. But he’s not upset because of the possibility of extermination by the aliens, he’s blaming the President for risking “nuclear winter” in the process of saving the planet.

    There are some places in America where people would be shocked at David’s misplaced priorities. I, on the other hand, live in San Francisco, and know all about that mentality.

    L.N. Smithee (e1f2bf)

  557. LN – Despite your most excellent musings, I can guarantee that Levi will completely miss the point, and if he bothers to reply, will go on a rant about BDS and the evil Rethuglikkkans.

    JD (5f0e11)

  558. How often do you yourself Windsurf or do you just write about it?

    Can I ask though – how did you get this picked up and into google news?

    Very impressive that this blog is syndicated through Google and is it something that is just up to Google or you actively created?

    Obviously this is a popular blog with great data so well done on your seo success..

    Windsurfing greats you should write about next.

    martialarts dummy (eaf6ba)

  559. The first tool you need in your kit to get a gauge on what a Vintage Guitar is worth is to get the 2008 Official Vintage Guitar Magazine Price Guide.

    Vintage Electric Guitar (c64ba7)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2833 secs.