That’s me! At least, as described by Danny Westneat in his column today in the Seattle Times: “This story starts at the rear.” Danny writes about my “power-of-the-Internet moment”, in which “the horse’s ass guy could influence national politics” by breaking the story former FEMA director Mike Brown blames for his downfall (as well as incalculable suffering in the Gulf.)
Yes… I’m “an aggressively liberal, smart, foul-mouthed irritant”… but what I’m not, is a liar. And that’s essentially what Brown’s attorney Andy Lester called me in a guest column on Accuracy in Media (AIM), echoing his client’s congressional testimony that I made false and defamatory statements.
I suppose both Brown and Lester thought they were being clever — in a lawyerly sort of way — by dismissively referencing my irreverently named blog and simply saying the story was false, without further explanation. In fact, the heart of the story the MSM picked up from my original post on HorsesAss.org (and in my diary on Daily Kos), is undisputed… that Brown’s emergency management experience prior to joining FEMA consisted almost entirely of a decade serving as the Commissioner of Judges and Stewards for the International Arabian Horse Association.
I further alleged that Brown resigned from the IAHA under pressure, in the face of mounting litigation and financial disarray, an assertion that was not only corroborated by contemporaneous accounts in horse breeding trade journals and newsletters, but which has been repeatedly substantiated through investigations and interviews conducted by the MSM, most recently in a very thorough background piece in the Arizona Republic:
Brown’s actions led to a flurry of lawsuits, a five-year suspension from the group for Boggs and Brown’s resignation in 2000 from the Colorado-based association.
In a four-year span, Brown, a lawyer, amassed association legal fees exceeding $1.5 million and initiated a controversial legal defense fund for himself, which ultimately led to his resignation. The 45,000-member horse group, now called the Arabian Horse Association, was involved in at least seven lawsuits during Brown’s tenure.
But of course, the circumstances surrounding Brown’s resignation from the IAHA are immaterial to the fact that his was a patronage appointment that put an unqualified crony in charge of coordinating the federal government’s disaster relief operations… and with disastrous results. Mike Brown simply was not qualified to run FEMA — an opinion not simply drawn from his razor thin resume or his incompetent job performance in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, but from his stunningly inept effort to shift the blame during his congressional testimony.
Brown claimed that it was “ironic” that the story started with a blog named “HorsesAss.org”, and it certainly was. For who’d have thought that the “horse’s ass guy” would have more credibility than the director of a top federal agency?
[Cross-posted to Daily Kos]
I have a bumper sticker i made that is getting a lot of positive comments. Maybe you would like one?
WE GOT TO BAGHDAD FASTER THAN NEW ORLEANS
Top 300? Wow….that’s incredible. Congrats!
Congratulations Rocco!
Feeling relevant now?
Hey Ass-
What part of Rocco’s slogan is WRONG?
Fuck the facts.
Kill the messenger.
That’s what I say.
I haven’t the time to waste on you rugrat, but we were discussing RELEVANCE.
Some of the fog is clearing now. Is “horse whisperer” either Boggs or Gullan?
I don’t believe in “fundamentalists”, I think it’s a misnomer. “Literalists” would be a better term I think. Literalists are believers, not thinkers. It’s not only subtilties that are lost on them, so are facts.
Goldy—
ME ME ME ME ME!!!
I guess you feel the need to be your biggest fan…..and I suppose the temptation is to bask in a little recognition when for so long you have been blown off as a “fringe lunatic LEFTIST PINHEAD”. SO go ahead my friend. Enjoy your well-earned fame. I sincerely admire you for sticking your neck out there everyday and allowing assholes like me to challenge and insult you!
Any other dirt on Brownie you care to share?
cynical@9
Don’t flatter yourself. You don’t “Challenge” anyone.
You sure love to fling insults tho!
So, do you want one of my bumper stickers or not?
You rocko Rocco!
Hey Ass-
Again…What part of Rocco’s slogan is WRONG?
Sure Rocco…. mail it to
#4 Irrelevant Street
Stuck on Stupid Seattle, WA 98199
(btw, that’s Bagdad Jim’s district)
Still waiting, your Royal Assness.
Hey Seattle Kossacks-
Let’s recommend Goldy’s diary.
Maybe we can get it into the “Top 10”!
BTW Goldy, mucho kudos.
Come on, you’re no right-winger. You’re sense of humor is too sharp!
So ASS, do YOU live in Magnolia? Figures. Pampered little snotty wifey.
Oh and btw, yourroyalassness, just where was my congressman wrong about Iraq?
Never mind…you’re just going to duck THAT question, TOO.
Sorry, Sweetcheeks – I don’t live in Seattle at all – THANK GOD!
Hey Goldy,
Again, I want to congratulate you for breaking this story. Sure, it is nice to “pull aside the curtain” on a Bush administration that is more interested in political power than in effectively leading the country.
There is a more important issue, though. There can be no question that the egg you placed on the faces of BushCo led to a reaction (even an overreaction) within a few days after the story breaking. So, I thank you for saving a few lives and reducing human suffering in N.O.
And thanks, also, to your reader who initially emailed you with the realization that Brown was killing people.
So, I thank you for saving a few lives and reducing human suffering in N.O. -Comment by dj— 9/30/05 @ 11:22 am
Good grief, you’re going to make readers toss their lunch.
rujax–
You seem to fancy yourself as the Master Debater….or is it Masterbater???
Stop you bad habit of gratifying yourself 10 times per day before your vision is TOTALLY gone. See your opthomologist IMMEDIATELY and be honest about your bad habit….
Oh, and wash your hands in front of the Doctor before shaking your Docs hand!!!
He’ll be pretty grossed out after hearing about your favorite hobby if you don’t!
Thanks for the advice, Cyn…personal experience?
Is THAT “why the coke bottle lenses”?
Andy Lester’s article is about as shallow on facts as anything I have read about Brown. I could pick that sucker apart just by following the crumb trail he left behind. He must be a real good friend of Brown to put his neck out like that.
ProudAss @ 20
“Good grief, you’re going to make readers toss their lunch.”
Indeed! Just thinking about the conditions in the Convention Center some 5 days after the hurricane hit is enough to make one barf….
RUJAX @22
MY VISION IS 20-15!!!
I WILL CONTINUE TO TYPE IN ALL CAPS BECAUSE OF YOUR VISION AFFLICTION. I GO OUTTA MY WAY TO HELP CRIPPLES LIKE YOU!!!
PERHAPS GOLDY WILL START A ‘VIGIL’ FOR YOU RUJAX.
OUR THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS ARE ALL WITH YOU RUJAX AS YOU DESPERATELY TRY TO STOP SLAPPIN’ THE SALAMI!!
I AM WILLING TO GIVE UP MY EVENING GLASS OF PINOT NOIR UNTIL RUJAX IS FREE FROM HIS SELF-GRATIFICATION DEMON!!!
Didn’t Lester’s anme come up in Arizona Republic story?
Please stop and stick to the subject. Try reading the Lester article! I am tired of wading through your crap to find something good to read.
Ohhhhhhhhhh poor Jimmy–
Apparently Jimmy does know how to scroll thru stuff that offends his fragile psyche!
Seems like Lester and Brownie are quite the team!
Indeed! Just thinking about the conditions in the Convention Center some 5 days after the hurricane hit is enough to make one barf…. -Comment by dj— 9/30/05 @ 11:34 am
Right.. a poorly prepared convention center in the corrupt city of NO, controlled by DEM Mayor Nagin, in the sorry state of LA controlled by incompetant DEM Governor Crying Kathleen what-ever-her-name-is.
@ 25
There goes Ms Chickenhawk again with the sexual innuendos. “Slappin’ the salami”.
He is one sexually frustrated Republican, as most are.
Move out of your mother’s basement, you chump. That will be a big first step in the right direction to relieve your sexual frustrations.
You fucking coward.
I think poor GarbledBS is frustrated with his/her continued impotency against… everything!
Let’s hold a vigil!
Punk ass bitch you are cynical. Act like a school yard bully. I eat those for lunch. Scrolling past your posts is like walking through a trailer park with too many dogs.
Goldy,
You know what the real problem is for these Yellow Elephants? They’re just jealous that the minnow doesn’t report on any REAL news stories over there on the (un)SP blog.
Quite frankly, the rest of these right wing nut-jobs are probably bored of the 24/7 make believe news cycle on Fox and (un)SP.
While they hate the fact that you are 100% correct on Mike “Drownie, you’re doing a heck of a job” Brown, they can’t resist reading the truth.
What a bunch of losers that are destroying democracy, liberty and freedom in America.
Conservatism — the new McCarthyism.
Horse @ 26,
I hadn’t read all that one yet.
@ 32
Not everything, just fucking Republicans who are bent on destroying America.
That definitely includes you. You unpatriotic moron.
@ 32
You mean a vigil like the ones you retards held for Terri Schiavo?
Perhaps congress will illegally pass another law that affects just one person, and maybe, just maybe, Bush will cut yet another extended vacation and rush back to the White House to sign the legislation into law.
You mean vigil like that? You fucking moron.
25-
Jealous.
Dems ALWAYS have more fun!
Oh, that was from Jimmy!
Ah yes, celebrate your collective murder of a woman.
WTG Garbled – what a victory that was for you!
@ 39
Who was charged for murder in the Terri Schiavo case?
Don’t show your stupidity or attempt to be clever.
I see by the way you throw around FALSE accusations you are clearly demonstrating your lack of intelligence or ability to debate the issue.
You claimed murder. I challenged your accusation.
You, like everyone else who support the Culture of Corruption, dodge the direct questions.
Typical.
Day One of poor ol” Rujax’ vigil to get herroyalassness to answer two simple questions:
1) Just where was my Congressman, the Honorable Jim McDermott wrong about Iraq?
2) What part of the new (and fabulous) HA Superstar Rocco Capetto”s bumper sticker “WE GOT TO BAGHDAD FASTER THAN NEW ORLEANS” is incorrect.
Ol’ Rujax…tired and nearly blind fron his obsessive onanism…and shamelessly aping his idol…Goldy…just wants an answer before he passes over into the great wankerworld in the sky.
The effort to destroy this blog sure has been inspiring of late. Those who feel that it is necessary to post here as a way to make the commentary untenable are doing a fine job of dragging others into the fray. That old Dune adage comes up when i read all the senseless and self-aggrandizing insults: Fear is the mind killer, the little death that brings total obliteration.
Flaming insensitivity is such a useful tactic is it not? Insulting and denigrating others works, as proven by the current federal administration, and thus those who have a deep and passionate commitment to the faith based realities of their heroes will use those same tactics to silence any discussion or discourse whatsoever. It is truly a shame in this world that so many seem to derive such pleasure from this dysphemism.
RUJAX
I HEARD THAT IF YOU DO WHAT CYNICAL SAYS YOU DO YOU WILL GO BLIND. SO I HOPE YOU DO IT UNTIL YOU NEED GLASSES.
So, by your superior logical reasoning, Grasping Balls & Shunned… a murder that does NOT have a perpetrator of that murder CHARGED, just simply didn’t happen.
Right.
YO-Ho-Ho.
Good work Goldy on exposing the incompetent Brownie. However, I am still worried that Pennington is running FEMA for the Pacific Northwest and he might be just as incompetent as Brownie based on the story you published a few weeks ago. Does anyone know if Pennington is qualified to take care of an emergency here or are we just as likely to get the New Orleans treatment from our FEMA leader?
@ 45
Do you even know what the word “murder” means? You DOLT!
Nice try with your Republican double speak logic. . .but that bullshit doesn’t work with me, you’d better get prepared before you think you’re going to serve up that shit to me. I’ll slap right back in your face.
Gotta let go of the balls first, sweetcheeks.
Good Question @ 47
Congrats fellow Kossacks…Goldy’s number four (with a bullet) on the “Recommended” diaries.
Local guy makes good!
Don’t get hung on my balls, just answer the direct question.
What is it with you conservatives that when confronted you always and without fail go to the sexual innuendo card?
Geez, just answer the simple question.
Is the truth too hard for of a concept to deal with in your reality?
Ass,
Right.. a poorly prepared convention center in the corrupt city of NO, controlled by DEM Mayor Nagin, in the sorry state of LA controlled by incompetant DEM Governor Crying Kathleen what-ever-her-name-is.
Sure, blame the local officials for knowing that the feds would roll over and play dead for a week.
ASS
Is this a stall tactic so you can look up the definition of murder?
The simple question… what is murder…
To kill (another human) unlawfully.
To kill brutally or inhumanly.
To put an end to; destroy
“in your reality?”
Very cute with your new age, hippy dippy nonsense, sweetcheeks.
@ 55
What was unlawful in the Terri Schiavo case according to Florida state law?
Y’all know George W. Bush’s positon on Roe v. Wade?
Hell, he doesn’t care how people get out of New Orleans.
@ 56
Since you can’t answer the question I’ll do it for you. Nothing.
What is acceptable about starving a woman then celebrating her death as a victory?
@ 58
So where is the crime?
Since you can’t answer the question I’ll do it for you. Nothing.
Answer the question.
What is the crime was committed?
Right, no crime if no one was charged hence no murder.
Tell that to the families of unsolved murer victims.
You truly are an ass.
What crime was committed, ASS, in the Terri Schiavo case?
No you are lying, ASS, I never said or infered that no charge means no crime. You are lying your way out, but as I said earlier I’ll slap this in your face.
The DA of Florida was injected into this case after Terri’s death. What crime was committed?
Nice and typical change of subject ASS… you oh so self righteously claimed if no one is charged there is no murder. Fess up, you aspire an ASS defense attorney, right?
Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being.
What was unlawful in the Terri Schiavo case?
Who was charged for murder in the Terri Schiavo case? -Comment by GBS— 9/30/05 @ 12:17 pm
This is why I cannot stand to debate you fucking lying bitches on the right anymore.
You fucking lie at every turn when confronted with the truth, and you never, ever answer a direct question.
There was no CRIME in the Terri Schiavo case, hence no charges you moron.
Grow up.
how convenient … you missed a bit:
To kill brutally or inhumanly.
To put an end to; destroy
A life was put to an end by the inhuman manner of starvation….
And that’s why I love to argue idiots, when they cant further their own spew they degrade into filth.
You win the ‘oh so predictable & typical award’ for the next 5 seconds! Congratulations!
That’s all the my life’s energy I’m going to waste on an unpatriotic, lying sack of shit , Bush Crime Family supporter for today.
I’ll teabag you later since your so infatuated with my balls.
@ 71
Do your homework. You’re wrong and you’re boring.
Right.
We get how patriotic you are and how much you love your country. You denigrate your country at every opportunity while waving the free flag you picked up off a grave somewhere.
Got it.
Do you claim to love your mother/children while you insult them/beat tehm, too?
And if THIS is all your “life’s energy” (snicker) you are sadder than I ever imagined.
Fuck you bitch. I wore this country’s uniform for 10 years. I was on the ground in Libya in 1986, Operation El Dorado Canyon and I spent 12 days in Panama in December of 1990.
It’s losers like you and Ms Chickenhawk and Kirby, John, Cheney, Medvid, Rush et al who thank God there are men like me who have the courage to serve this country.
And for my brothers in arms who died in Panama, Fuck your flag comment.
Hey yourroyalassness…
Stop hittin’ the sauce for a minute and answer MY questions!!!!!
You can have your sloppy seconds Rujax. I’m done with this cunt.
Rightie trolls can’t answer questions.
All they have is
Lie
Repeat
Insult
Change the subject
Whine
Ignore
Change the subject (again!)
lie some more…
(etc.)
Right.
We get how patriotic you are and how much you love your country. You denigrate your country at every opportunity while waving the free flag you picked up off a grave somewhere.
Got it.
Do you claim to love your mother/children while you insult them/beat them, too?
Fuck you bitch. I wore this country’s uniform for 10 years. I was on the ground in Libya in 1986, Operation El Dorado Canyon and I spent 12 days in Panama in December of 1990.
It’s losers like you and Ms Chickenhawk and Kirby, John, Cheney, Medvid, Rush et al who thank God there are men like me who have the courage to serve this country.
And for my brothers in arms who died in Panama, Fuck your flag comment.
What did your hubby do for our country, ASS?
Had other priorities other than military service?
You are ASSuming again, sweet cheeks…
And oh, by the way, ANYONE can google some dates- whoop de do.
I do have a stepson in Iraq at the moment.
He doesn’t want the gratitude of country haters/wife beaters/mother insulters.
Look at the time stamps bicth, nobody would google that info so fast.
LOL. that’s your defense???
Right.
Don’t forget to give your pup a smooch right before you kick it, sweet cheeks
I have lots of info handy to grab on a moments notice too, sweet cheeks.
You haven’t impressed me yet.
Anyways, Good luck to your step son, I hope he comes home alive and in one piece.
You totally side stepped the issues. You intentionally went off topic and interjected your insults about me, my family and my service to our country.
Typical for a republican. Typical for a Democrat not to degrade your step son’s service.
Good luck with your immorality problem.
Another typical rightie tactic:
Insult veterans and willingly risk the lives of our soldiers while saying that the other side “hates the troops”
I never said “hate the troops”
READ windie.
I accused, and rightly so, of claiming to love the country while constantly denigrating it.
It is no different than a pal claiming to love his spouse, then hurling insults about that spouse.
YOU DON’T DO IT. It’s disgusting and it sure is not love.
Continue your play,(And for God’s sake, learn to play NICE) children… the grown ups have grown up things to do.
Later.
That’s a promise.
There goes ProudAdd spitting on soldiers again.
Why the hell do you hate America so mush, ProudAss? Why do you hate the soldiers?
ASS@91
What a surprise, you do exactly what you acuse those to the left of you of doing… Like THATS new.
And you bastards accuse us of hating the troops all the time. You’ve changed it into ‘hating the nation’, but its the same scheme, and the same inconsistancy on your part.
@53 Sure, blame the local officials for knowing that the feds would roll over and play dead for a week.
The levees broke on August 30. The bus evacuation to the Astrodome began on August 31. Which week are you talking about?
Oops, the first levee breach was actually on the 29th, not the 30th. However, initially it was thought that they would be quickly patched with sandbags and it was not known that the whole city would eventually be flooded. So it was actually 2 days, not one. But still not nearly a week.
Way to go, Goldy. The article is actually pretty positive, and the fact remains that you’re telling the truth and Brownie isn’t.
Mazeltov!
Proud Jackass… did you have anything constructive to say or were you just here to argue on some unrelated subject to the post? You see, this is where you fuck up. If you can’t bring up any valid points about the subject matter, you change the subject. If you do have a point to make and are proven wrong or errored, you change the subject. And the subject change is usually associated with a variety of insults about how un-patriotic we all are. The problem there is IF we were actually listening to that we would be just that un-patriotic.
Windie is dead on when she points out the strategy:
Lie
Repeat
Insult
Change the subject
Whine
Ignore
Change the subject (again!)
lie some more…
(etc.)
Answer these questions honestly:
Do you think Mike Brown was qualified for the job of FEMA Director?
if not then…
Do you think Goldy’s report on Brown was not factual and why?
If you think Mike Brown WAS qualified, why?
It might be hard to answer those questions without using the standard talking points about Nagin and Blanco etc.. but just try. Nagin, Blanco and NOLA are another subject completely under this subject. But right now, that is the question. Can you do it? Honestly and sincerely without the flame etc.. I am actually interested and I think others here might be as well. We are all pretty convinced but you now have a chance to change our minds. And please, just the facts.
GBS – @ Obsessively all over the place
Maybe the verb “murder” works better.
http://dict.die.net/murder/
v 1: kill intentionally and with premeditation; “The mafia boss ordered his enemies murdered” [syn: slay, hit, dispatch, bump off, polish off, remove]
Now, revise the sentence from:
Ah yes, celebrate your collective murder of a woman.
To:
Ah yes, celebrate your collective murderING of a woman.
Now, the word has nothing to do with legality. It was legal to kill that woman in Florida, (wag the finger), but no one will ever be able to say it was right. People go to jail in many states for doing the same thing to animals. Just like slavery in the early years, killing the unborn, senile and any who cannot buy their own lawyer will become illegal once our society matures.
remember us little people when you hit your 100th radio station in syndication, Goldy!
@ 98
Terri didn’t want to live as a vegetable. Her husband kept his promise.
Regardless of Hannity’s vigil, congress’ illegal legislation, Bush cutting off vacation to sign such important legislation, or Bill “insider trading” Frist’s diagnosis that Terri responds to visual stimuli, the right to die is a private matter.
Not a matter for Big Government to intrude into our personal affairs. Terri’s parents were passionate about their cause and I admire them for that. But, it’s up to the spouse to decide these issues. That’s part of the legal contract about getting married.
No matter what lies Fox spun about her husband, he did the correct and honorable thing.
The radical right wing crowd, did not.
All your ranting about slavery, abortion, affording a lawyer, or being senile having ZERO relevance in this matter.
Deal with the truth. You yum, yum.
NoBrains @ 98 “It was legal to kill that woman in Florida, (wag the finger), but no one will ever be able to say it was right.”
No one killed Shiavo. She died when she sufferred a heart attack over ten years ago. Her body was kept alive through medical intervention for over a decade.
Finally her wishes not to have her body kept alive artificially was granted and her body stopped running.
That is all there was to it. But I know Republicans have no use for people living and dying according their own wishes. You need to fight for any right from these Neo-Con fascists.
@ 98
Of course, the radical, unhinged right listens to people like Bill Bennett who said on his radio show that if we were to “abort every black child in this country our crime rate would go down.”
Now, how can you be proud to be a conservative?
Windie & Donnageddon:
Thank you from the bottom of my heart. I consider it a personal honor and a great privilage to have served our nation. When I look back on it, it’s people like you that made every struggle, each sacrafice completely worthwhile.
Sincerely,
GBS
NoWonder—
Maybe we should just humor the LEFTIST PINHEADS and call people like Teddy “Swimmer” Kennedy a killer….instead of a murderer.
I’m sure that will make them feel a lot better…..we need to be very cautious about their fragility. As you can see, they “SNAP” quite easily.
GBS @ 103
‘Her husband kept his promise.’
That was not established, and she could not testify. Her husband actually said something to the contrary when he was suing the hospital. When there is any question the benefit of doubt should be life. As in the death penalty controversy.
‘…the right to die is a private matter’
If she grabbed the feeding tube and yanked it out I would agree. It is not private if someone else yanks it out so she can starve and dehydrate to death. Beyond the dispute over killing her, even PETA should have been outraged over the method.
‘All your ranting about slavery, abortion, affording a lawyer, or being senile having ZERO relevance in this matter.’
Except for the ability to kill someone without their consent. The relevance is “personhood”, and if someone is a person they have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
GBS @ 105
‘…how can you be proud to be a conservative?’
Even lefties have defended Bennet based on review of the whole quote AND the context. If one uses your method of review Goldy could be made to look worse than Bennett. Having said that, it was a stupid thing to say. He was not interpreting the referenced studies correctly.
Mr. Cynical @ 107
As you can see, they “SNAP” quite easily.
What a nice way to put it. You are too kind.
Donnageddon @ 104
‘She died when she sufferred a heart attack over ten years ago. Her body was kept alive through medical intervention for over a decade.’
That does not bode well for anyone who is kept alive by medical intervention.(Kidney dialysis, pacemakers, medication, etc.) You are saying that those folks are not persons, and that anyone can kill them. The problem for right-to-die, and abortion for that matter, is that you get backed into a corner such that many who are living cannot have personhood, and can therefore be legally killed by anyone.
NoWonder @ 111:
Is there a dictionary in your house? Can you look up these words for me:
“V-O-L-I-T-I-O-N”
“C-O-N-S-E-N-T”
Here’s a two word biggie:
“F-R-E-E W-I-L-L”
Read them, understand them, grok them.
That is the dividing line. If I am sound of mind, but in a wheelchair, using a pacemaker, taking medications that keep me alive, and receiving dialysis, it is MY decision as to whether my quality of life is being impacted to the point where I don’t want to continue.
If you are no longer capable of independent cognition (another big word), or self-awareness, your ability to CONSENT to continue life-giving measures comes into doubt.
Perhaps you know all this, and were trying to be clever. In which case, I will ask that you try again.
“. . .is that you get backed into a corner such that many who are living cannot have personhood, and can therefore be legally killed by anyone.”
And that is the problem with the current ‘culture of life crowd’. Without a definition of personhood you seriously are going to lump someone with a pacemaker with someone who is brain dead.
If you want to discuss personhood, you probably should start with a definition there. You seem to have one that you are refering to, but I really don’t know what your definition is.
Hey Cynical and NoWonderbreath
SEE 100 if the proudass can’t answer them maybe you can wihtout a poem or something like that.
If you can’t answer on the subject matter then what is your purpose here. Get with the program. Your game plan is getting old.
Give us something real to talk about besides the standard GOP talking points. Be REAL. Tell us what YOU think.
Jimmy @ 114
‘If you can’t answer on the subject matter then what is your purpose here.’
Wake up. The tangential comments blamed on the righties started with the following:
GBS @ 37
‘You mean a vigil like the ones you retards held for Terri Schiavo?’
Well, it looks like you brought up the vigil. So just answer the questions alright.
Or should I say ass brought up the vigil. But you keep repeating it so…. anwer the questions.
topic, topic, topic. Mike Brown???
I guess my point is this:
If you are going to completely stray off topic over a post that contrast or compares and argue over that then this is just short attention span theater. Mike Brown is a dickhead and everone knows it but throw in any comparison to the B-admin response (such as terri s or anything else) and you guys go off in another direction. It totally degrades your responses in the threads and makes you irrellivant to the post (and has the same effect to those who play along). I could be guilty as charged but I do see the error in doing so. Either way, I think it is wise to bring back the focus of the topic to the subject at hand. Comparison is not an excuse to change the subject. It is just a matter of showing similar actions or situations where inconsistancies exist. Both can play that game and I encourage it as long as it is relevent to the topic.
Get a grip, jimmy, who cares.
Cynical@107
We may snap sometimes (being honest leads to honest outrage sometimes), but at least we don’t run crying away from threads where we’ve been made a fool of.
No, we leave that to the damn cowardly rightie trolls.
windie–
Once again, you foolishly make way way TOO MUCH about posting on a Blog.
Nothing is worth perforated colon dude!!!
I’m certain your REM sleep must also be impacted by your anger towards things that are posted here.
Lighten up….enjoy life and the bantering.
bill @ 113
‘If you want to discuss personhood, you probably should start with a definition there.’
The true problem is that there is no agreement on what constitutes a person. Even Roe v. Wade admitted as such. The problem then becomes – should we err on the side of life or death? The erring should be to the higher right, i.e. life versus liberty or pursuit of happiness.
The worn out example to illustrate involves seeing a lump in the road at night that has the shape of a drunk passed out in the road wearing an overcoat. Is it OK to run it over if you are not sure it is a person? No, one should err on the side of life. If there is doubt, assume it is a person.
jsa on beacon hill @ 112
‘If you are no longer capable of independent cognition (another big word), or self-awareness..’
There is no way to determine that if the person cannot communicate.
I have not yet heard of a good example of how to determine someone is not a person that does not condemn many others to the same fate. And if the being is not a person then anyone can kill it.
NoWonder @ 124:
Back in high school debate class we called this Argumentum ad ignorantium, or an attempt to appeal to the unknowable if your Latin isn’t so hot.
Since I can’t prove that NoWonder has never killed anyone, I shall hereafter refer to him as “The Serial Murderer NoWonder”.
Thanks for playing. Pick up your consolation prize backstage.
jsa on beacon hill @ 125
‘..attempt to appeal to the unknowable…’
Are you saying that if you do not know, assume?
I am saying that if you do not know, err to the higher right.
Well ass, we do and if you don’t get lost.
You have no credibility here and I think everyone could now agree.
Fool.
Care to answer the questions @ 100?
cynical@122
I think we dealt with this one already. You’re the person who shows symptoms of psychotic rage, and then runs off crying when things don’t go his way.
Coward.
Crying????
Tears of laughter perhaps!!!
Yer a funny little fucker BreakingWind!
@130 poor poor mr. irrelevant.
Your combination of infantility and geekiness knows no bounds!
I know I’m wasting my time arguing with you like that, when its been shown that the real antidote to your nonsense if the facts… But, this is fun too~
Keep trying to flame, tho’. I appreciate the fact that you make the lefties look smart and restrained in comparison. its a HUGE help to us.
Minutes after the Bush “Cabinet Meeting” held days after Katrina hit New Orleans the statement they made was….(gist of statement)…we found the Homeland Security/FEMA preparedness plan’s flaw; we never took into condiseration that the first responders would be incapacitated after a catastrophic event…
That comment disappeared as quickly as it was stated so the blame – again – could be deflected from this administration and their unqualified staff.
Damn goldy, you got yourself quite a nasty troll investation over here. Guess they must be getting nervous their idols might be in trouble, that’s when they seem to crawl out of the woodwork the worst.
Heh.
The Bush-dolt and his ‘Pube masters worked SO HARD to steal all three branches of govt. – and they really didn’t get much done !!
Country bankrupt = no more tax cuts.
Bush weaker & dumber every day = ‘Pube agenda derailed.
Discount Army led by airheads = crisis in enlistment.
Starved FEMA = two swift, brutal kicks below the bible belt.
Arrogance & ignorance = no international deals or friends.
Feeble, incompetent cabinet = approval rating dropping daily.
fleischer, rove, delay, ashcrack, powell, etc. = bye bye.
Rabid desire to destroy democracy = govt. size grows by 1 million people.
Saudi Prince cock in Bush’s mouth = SUV clowns crying as their precious tax cut is pumped into their silly gas-tanks.
Fatty foods & mental retardation = no gains on the Supreme Court.
Thinly disguised bigots = no progress with Black voters.
so many failures, so many conservative buffoons & god-lickers …
I’m totally delighted, totally !! Can’t believe it – but they actually succeeded in inserting their own heads into their own rectums. Other than the smell – I really don’t see much damage !
If this is the best they can do when in total control — we don’t have much to worry about.
9/11 handed them a golden goose – and they killed it !!! hahahaha wow
I always knew their dopeyness would defeat them eventually – but I had no idea how quickly and completely they’d crash.
Normal people always have to remember that the ‘conservative’ disease is self-defeating. They can’t help but fail.
When we return to power (sooner rather than later, apparently) we won’t have much trouble sending them to the back of the bus for another 50 years, just like last time.
God is definitely a Democrat !! No doubt about that. We always win.
Look at the last three oafs they’ve given us: a Gimp, a Wimp, and a Simp.
Now we have three more years to watch them roast like swine on a spit, and we don’t have to take responsibility for anything that happens. We can piss on their heads any time we want. Can his ratings actually go negative? Will he start drinking again?
I don’t know – but it’s all good.
Hey axle-grease-on-your-rod: Posting the same crap in multiple places, hmmm…, it would be acceptable if it was pithy. If God was a Democrat, you’d been aborted long ago!!! Thank God He isn’t, huh? Unfortunately for you the post is a simp, the writing style is a gimp, so I suppose you’d be the wimp?
Axle-grease-on-your-rod: I suppose the three oafs you are speaking about is Screech Dean, Botox Kerry, and Stiffman Gore? But you also have Nancy Too Much $un Pelosi, Teddy The Killer Kennedy, Robert Three Sheets to the Wind Byrd, Joseph The Plagiarizer Biden, and Patrick I leak Secrets Leahy. Then in the BullPen, you have Madeline HalfBright, Samuel Stuff Papers in the Crotch Berger, Hilary HealthCare Card Queen Clinton, and Harry Lets Do Gambling Reid. The Prosecution Rests.
hee-hee
gotcha !
Nowonder, the problem with that is that you are saying essetially that anything that is potentially human must be accorded full human rights. And that is probably correct right up until youve got a potential person who’s theoretical rights smack into an actual persons real rights.
I would agree, so long as there are no real person who’s rights might be violated, the courts should always err on the side of that potential persons theoretical rights.
The problem is, the court can never actually rule as to an actual definition of personhood. That problem, on the edge cases (embriyos and those who are brain dead) is entirely religious in nature, at least what has been presented anywhere so far. I cant help but feel such a ruling would violate the establishment clause.
If you dont have anything more than ‘my god said. . .’ then it is unconstitutional and unamerican to try to alter the law. Lately, the religious right has been taking the arguement to that point and no further; their religion says they should not do something therefore the law should prevent anyone from doing so.
I mean look at the religious rights position on anti gay laws, their religions say homosexuality is wrong, so they try to pass a law making it illegal. If your only justification is your religion, you should be thinking twice before you try drafting laws.
And if the being is not a person then anyone can kill it. Let me just say, if you shot my dog, I would probably be found justified when I put you into the hospital. No, personhood is not the only thing that makes a killing immoral.
bill @ 138
‘…saying essetially that anything that is potentially human must be accorded full human rights.’
Yes, if we do not know for sure, any error should give the benefit of doubt to life. For the death penalty there is much debate about “what if the person is not guilty?” The error should be to keep them alive bcause we do not know for certain they are guilty.
‘…probably correct right up until youve got a potential person who’s theoretical rights smack into an actual persons real rights.’
If the right we are talking about is the “real” person’s right to life, then that would take precedence. My point is that a) if we do not know whether some “thing” is a person or not any error should be towards life, or the higher right. The rights of the “real” person that should bow to the right to life are lower rights such as liberty and pursuit of happiness.
‘The problem is, the court can never actually rule as to an actual definition of personhood.’
It is the obligation of the court to err on the side of the higher right. If, in the future, a definition of what constitutes a person can be decided with great confidence based on scientific advances it will be clearer. In the mean time the courts should be consistent with common-sense philosophy reagrding higher rights.
‘That problem, on the edge cases (embriyos and those who are brain dead) is entirely religious in nature,…’
That may be true in an absolute sense, in that there is no scientific definition or indicator light that conveys personhood. The problem is the same, if we do not know, the error should be towards the higher right.
‘If your only justification is your religion, you should be thinking twice before you try drafting laws.’
Agreed. That is why the most successful “pro-life” politics is focussed on the philosophical aspects regarding personhood and the hierarchy of “rights”. The irony comes when the similar examples from slavery and the death penalty apply directly to abortion, and so many of the playes jump sides.
I am not really up on the homosexual campaigns on either side. I will say that the “anti-gay” forces are not all religious. There is quite a segment of the population that see moral issues based on common sense, as well as some other historical events.
‘No, personhood is not the only thing that makes a killing immoral.’
If the unborn child, or comotose adult is not a person, anyone can kill “it”. It is not an animal, property, or anything beyond a “blob of flesh”. That is one of the problems with current law. The child is only a child or even a “potential” person if the mother wants him or her. One persons whim cannot make another either a person or not. Even the philosophical aspects break down.
Nowonder, when did we obtain a heirarchy of rights? While there may be a common sense application or some moral application that sets up a heirarchy, but the entire constitution applys. An individuals right to say not having military boarded in their house applys equally as their right to be free from illegal search or any right to not be imprisoned without a trial.
Similarly the right to life is equal to the right to privacy, since neither is directly mentioned in the constitution and each person has a right to both.
So the issue becomes who’s right trumps. I am afraid we will have to just agree to disagree. You are saying that there is a heirarchy of rights and the more important one should always trump. I say there is no more important one, legally. I think you are adding something to the constitution that just is not there, there is no heirarchy.
There is quite a segment of the population that see moral issues based on common sense, as well as some other historical events. ‘Common sense’ is not a legal arguement, nor is historical events. ‘Common sense’ and historical precedence in the mid 1800’s said that blacks should remain slaves.
One persons whim cannot make another either a person or not. You missed the point of the dog example. It is immoral to shoot someone else’s dog. It is not if the dog is a stray. I would suggest it would be immoral to fail to shoot your own dog if it is suffering and there is no possiblity of relief.
Morality can never be broken down into one sentence catch phrases. Currently too many people keep trying to find a single ‘X is always right’ phrase and in every attempt to do that, it falls down on the special cases. The special cases have to be decided on a case by case basis depending on the situation of the individual. In all honesty, I dont believe you can ever say X is the right thing for all brain dead individuals, it depends on the case and the family. Same for embryo’s.
bill @ 140
‘Nowonder, when did we obtain a heirarchy of rights?’
The order of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is not in random order.
‘I say there is no more important one, legally.’
I would agree that in the case of abortion the legal aspects have been muddled. In general, however, there is different treatment for killing someone if it is self-defense. Just because something, like slavery for example, is legal does not make it right. Again, just because something is legal does not make it right.
‘Similarly the right to life is equal to the right to privacy’
To say this is to equate violating someone’s privacy with the taking of their life. We can make laws regarding violating the privacy of others, yet I do not think most people would agree that that person has the right to kill the violator. If there was only one flaw in Roe v. Wade it is that they punted on this comparison, and dodged the personhood issue because they did not “know” for certain. They erred to the lower right.
‘You missed the point of the dog example. It is immoral to shoot someone else’s dog.’
Only because that dog is the property of another. Other than that, it is no more moral to shoot a stray.
‘I would suggest it would be immoral to fail to shoot your own dog if it is suffering and there is no possiblity of relief.’
I do not equate animals with people. If it is done in a humane way I agree that the dog should be put down.
‘I dont believe you can ever say X is the right thing for all brain dead individuals, it depends on the case and the family. Same for embryo’s.’
Agreed, yet my main point is that any error should be to the benefit of life. I think that if there was a way to get permission from either the “brain dead” person or embryo we could agree. The problem I have is that to be consistent we have to remove a persons rights and declare them non-persons otherwise. And as I said before, if “it” is not a person then anyone can kill it. There is no moral difference between a family pulling the plug when they do not know for certain the wishes, and a complete stranger ending their plight with a bullet.
The basic issue is still – If we do not know whether an “it” is a person or not, we should err to the higher right. Until then we kill based on an assumtion or perhaps bad historical or legal precedence.
I am not sure I am following your logic again. If you agree that each case must be, can only be decided on a case by case basis, then why would you ever pre decide these cases by refusing specific choices in some cases?
Also, if an animal non-person in some situations must be destroyed for their own benefit, why do you refuse that same compassion for a potential person with human genes?
Which is the more compassionate decision?
I would disagree also about the dog example. It is illegal to shoot someones dog because it is property. It is immoral to do so because the dog is presumably loved.
“There is no moral difference between a family pulling the plug when they do not know for certain the wishes, and a complete stranger ending their plight with a bullet.”
I cant begin to say how strongly I would disagree with that. You make it sound like disposing of an inconvienient trinket. I have never heard of or know of anyone who lightly made that type of decision.
Anyone who is contemplating life support of someone with no hope of recovery is probaby considering what a person with the personality of their loved one may want, anything they may have ever said about life extension, any possiblity of future quality of life, and at the same time are grieving over that loss. Women contemplating abortion are considering all that along with whether or not they can care for a child.
As I said, automatically saying ending life is always wrong is simplistic and quite possibly is the government requiring the suffering and torture of one who can not refuse. Futher, what if you did express your wishes to your spouse (while watching a movie you turn to your spouse and say “if I am ever like that make sure they pull the plug”) and when you are no longer able to say what you want, do you really want your brother to contest what your spouse says you said?
bill @ 142
First, HA is a strange place to have this kind of discussion. I am not sure why, but this back and forth is not being disrupted at all. Thanks you for the exchange.
‘…can only be decided on a case by case basis…’
If the personhood of a human cannot be ascertained the hard and fast rule should be: do not kill. This rule gets complicated with suicide, or when there are explicit instructions to “not resuscitate”. I am not an expert in this field, yet know there are many who address suicide and terminally ill issues under the same basic philosophy.
‘…why do you refuse that same compassion for a potential person with human genes?’
The main reason is that a human person is different than other animals. The compassion you refer to differs based on many things and who is making the decision. Perfectly valid compassion arguments can be extended to all kinds of people who are living. And should make the decision as to when it is to a person’s benefit?
‘It is immoral to do so because the dog is presumably loved.’
The ability to give love or receive love in the future is actually one of the defining aspects of personhood. It surely cannot be used to provide reasoning to save a dog if it is not at least valid for humans.
‘You make it sound like disposing of an inconvienient trinket. I have never heard of or know of anyone who lightly made that type of decision.’
The problem we have here is that legally the life disposed is just a trinket. Referring to someone as “dead already”, or just a “blob of flesh” is a primary argument. If some “thing” is not a person with the right to life, it is nothing. I think the difficulty in any of the decision related to end-of-life or abortion is due to realization that it may be wrong, even if legal.
‘Women contemplating abortion are considering all that along with whether or not they can care for a child.’
I am not saying that any of these decisions is easy or without tremendous grief and anguish. All I am really saying is that if the thing being killed is a person it is wrong. And, if we do not know if it is a person we should err to the side of life. The woman’s ability to care for a child is not a good example because it trades a life for liberty and pursuit of happiness. If that was reason enough to end a life we would not limit that choice to only the preborn, but extend it through childhood.
‘…automatically saying ending life is always wrong is simplistic…’
I do not think we can pick and choose where the line should be without condemning innocents to death, even if unintended. The personhood philosophy can be consistently applied, while the current mish-mash cannot.
‘…do you really want your brother to contest what your spouse says you said?’
In the case you are referring to the spouse actually testified in the malpractice case she had not expressed any such wish. Beyond that, the personhood or doubt about personhood is relevent. The other important issue is the dog issue, as in did she have the capacity to love or receive love?
Again, thanks for the discussion.
Life is a continuum – there is no ‘conception’ and no ‘abortion’ – it’s all connected.