According to the Seattle Times’ David Postman, former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich thinks Republicans need to nationalize the 2006 midterm elections. And Gingrich has a great idea for a campaign theme:
America is in World War III and President Bush should say so.
World War III? Um… and that’s a good thing?
How hypocritical of liberals to complain of surveillance when they are big brother.
Man I hope Newt The Hoot ends up being the GOP candidate in 08! PLEASE!
I can just see it now. We could run commercials talking about how Newt The Hoot’s own people censured him for ethics problems, something unheard of when rethugs are in charge and then there’s the little problem of his intern. Oh yes, he had an affair with his intern while his wife was in the hospital struggling with cancer. He dumped her for the intern and all this was happening while he was going after President Clinton for having an affair with an intern.
This guy is as slime ridden as they come and we could run PeeWee Herman against him and win.
Godlstein,
We are in WWIII. That you do not realize it illustrates even more why your party should never ever be trusted with national security.
Can you please mock our efforts to defend ourselves on your radio show too? Oh, and make sure to take a dig at the strategic defense initiative too and throw out the favorite liberal line “Ronnie Ray Gun”. Because with successful North Korean ICM’s just a few years away, I am sure the voters will definitely NOT want a missile shield!!!
I think Left Turn @ 2 got a couple of Newt’s wives and dumpings confused, and I assume one of our Republican friends will be along soon to clarify the record … but yes, he does leave a slime trail wherever he goes.
Word to the wise: If Newt ever runs for President, VOTE FOR KODOS!
@2,
Well, then we would get to Jim McDermott and his illegal wiretapping. I wish you democrats would make up our mind. Are you for or against wiretapping? Or is it that you are for wiretapping politcal opponents, just not the terrorists?
“This guy is as slime ridden as they come and we could run PeeWee Herman against him and win” – Left Turn
Are you saying Goldstein is running for office?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....123198.htm
Here’s more on PBJ wingnut’s favorite candidate.
The average American family pays 30-40% of their annual income in taxes [FICA, both sides, FED, STATE, local, property, gas, direct, and indirect]. This is not enough! They must pay more! [Karl Marx, Hillary Clinton, Roger Rabbit]
Here’s a nice list of NewtTheHoot’s accomplishments including adultry, draft-dodging, deadbeatdad, divorce, etc.
http://www.realchange.org/gingrich.htm
What a singularly select observation of the notion of “big brother.” Oh, and how did you know about it? Oh yeah, that’s right. Nobody kept it a SECRET. Let’s tap a few million more phones, shall we?
Homeland Security agents took to Ohio streets the past week, arresting 154 undocumented immigrants.
The agents from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement offices in Boston, Philadelphia, Buffalo and Detroit came heavily armed and loaded with files and warrants for deportation.
They took in immigrants from 30 countries and every continent save Antarctica. Among those arrested, 82 were from Mexico, followed by 19 from El Salvador and seven from Mauritania.
The men and women had been caught entering the country illegally and were ordered to court but never showed or had been ordered deported but never left, authorities said. Twenty had been charged with crimes. One was a reputed member of the Mexican street gang MS13. […………………………………Could be less illegal aliens voting Democrat in Ohio!! Unless, of course, no ID required and they vote Democrat anyway!!]
PBJ: “We are in WWIII. That you do not realize it illustrates even more why your party should never ever be trusted with national security.”
What an ignorant idiot! How dare you trivialize WW2 with such unbelievable ignorance! At least in WW2 we were slow to enter . . . we seem to be starting WW3.
RPKKK: can’t you come up with something new? Does every thread have to be a redux of the last thread? Gawd, get somebody to read you something new!
PBJ
We are not in WWIII, at least not yet. We’ll see what happens if (and more likely, when) Bushco uses Hezbollah’s declaration of “all-out war” with Israel as a convenient pretext to attack Iran. Then, we might be looking at something that could escalate into something like WWIII. As it stands right now, the Iraqi escapade is little more (in my view, anyway) than an imperialist war of acquisition (of control of strategic resources).
3
“Can you please mock our efforts to defend ourselves on your radio show too?”
Yes, absolutely! because you are making a botch of it.
“Oh, and make sure to take a dig at the strategic defense initiative too and throw out the favorite liberal line ‘Ronnie Ray Gun’.”
Thanks for the reminder — Goldy SHOULD make fun of SDI, because it doesn’t work. The only time those interceptor missiles ever hit anything was in carefully controlled experiments, and even then they miss three-fourths of the time. They would be hopeless against a real-world attack, in which multiple incoming enemy ICBMS are shrouded by decoys and electronic jamming.
“Because with successful North Korean ICM’s just a few years away, I am sure the voters will definitely NOT want a missile shield!!!”
Anybody who knows ANYTHING about military history knows that defensive fortifications don’t work. There’s always a way to get around them.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....01135.html
Liberals feign outrage about wiretapping of terrorists, but when it comes to intercepting private conversations of their political opponents, they have no such outrage.
Here is what happened to their wirtapping hero, Democrat Congressman Jim McDermott:
“A three-judge panel of the appeals court ruled in March that McDermott violated federal law by turning over the tape recording of a 1996 call involving then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.
The 2-1 opinion upheld a lower court ruling that McDermott violated the rights of Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, who was heard on the 1996 call. Boehner was then a Gingrich lieutenant and is now House majority leader.
The appeals court upheld a lower court ruling ordering McDermott to pay Boehner about $700,000 for leaking the taped conversation. The figure includes $60,000 in damages and more than $600,000 in legal costs.”
@12,13
You liberals are in denial. Just like ther terorrists weren’t out to kill us, until 911 happened. It is now likle the days leading up to WWII in which liberals refused to see what was right in front of them.
Apparently it will take a nuclear destruction of an American city to convince liberals. Can America afford to wait until that happens?
Oh PBJ, short on the info as usual. THEY ARE GRANTING HIM AN APPEAL. Learn to tell the whole story, babydoll.
3 (continued)
While I’m MOCKING the military stupidity of the Bushies (and ignorant trolls like pbj who shill for them), I may as well mention that NK’s so-called ICBM — which so far hasn’t gotten off the launch pad without blowing up — is just a political ploy. If Kim Il Jong wants to nuke Seattle, he doesn’t need his non-functioning missile to do it. All he has to do is sneak a nuclear bomb into the port in a cargo container.
Dumbfuck wingnuts like pbj criticize Democrats for not wanting to waste billions on a missile shield that doesn’t work — and never will work — but they’re strangely silent about criticizing Bush and the GOP Congress for REPEATEDLY VOTING AGAINST HOMELAND SECURITY FUNDING to inspect incoming cargo containers:
Nov. 14, 2001: Senate Democrats propose $15 billion for homeland security; the White House warns against “permanent spending on other projects that have nothing to do with stimulus and that will only expand the size of government.”
Dec. 4, 2001: Senate Appropriations Committee votes 29-0 in favor of $13.1 billion for homeland security; the next day, Bush threatens to veto it.
Dec. 6, 2001: Senate Republicans reduce homeland security funding by $4.6 billion.
Dec. 19, 2001: Under pressure from White House, House-Senate conferees eliminate another $200 million of funding for airport security, port security, nuclear facility security, and postal security.
June 7, 2002: Senate votes 71-22 for $8.3 billion of homeland security funding; the next day, Bush’s advisors recommend a veto.
July 19, 2002: Under White House pressure, homeland security funding is further reduced by cutting money for food security, cyber security, nuclear security, airport security, port security, drinking water security, coordination of police and fire radios, and lab testing to detect chem-bio weapons.
Aug. 13, 2002: Bush decides not to spend $2.5 billion appropriated for homeland security on the grounds of “fiscal responsibility.”
Jan. 16, 2003: White House reacts to Democratic efforts to increase homeland security funding by stating, “The Administration strongly opposes amendments to add new extraneous spending.” Later that day, Senate Republicans vote against funds for smallpox vaccine.
Jan. 23, 2003: Senate Republicans cut security funding for the FBI, FEMA, INS, TSA, Coast Guard, and National Nuclear Security Administration.
Feb. 3, 2003: Bush submits a 2004 budget cutting homeland security funding by nearly 2 percent.
Feb. 14, 2003: Senate Democrats request money for smallpox vaccine, police and fire radios, and public transportation security; no Republicans support it.
March 21-25, 2003: Republicans defeat 7 amendments to bolster homeland security.
April 2, 2003: Senate Republicans reject Democratic amendment to provide $1 billion for port security.
April 3, 2003: Republicans reject protection of commercial airliners from shoulder-fired missiles and four other pro-homeland security amendments.
June 2003: House Republicans reject Democratic proposal to raise $1 billion for homeland security by reducing tax cuts for 200,000 millionaires by an average of $5,000 each (from $88,000 to $83,000).
Truth is, Republicans don’t give a rap about the safety or well-being of the American people — Katrina proved that. The missile shield serves only one purpose: To shovel mountains of money into the pockets of defense contractors. You know — TAXPAYER MONEY, the stuff that comes from TAXES, righties like pbj are always complaining about paying TAXES right? Well, pbj, how do you like paying taxes for something that doesn’t work, and never will work, while your government won’t even spend peanuts to keep North Korea or Al Qaeda from sneaking a nuke into our port in a cargo container?
Democrats want 100% inspection of cargo containers. Republicans think the current 1% – 2% inspection rate is just fine, if not a waste of money. If you think this is INSANE, then you absolutely should not vote for Dave REICHERT, because he will RUBBERSTAMP the Bushies’ insanity. The Eight District (and all our districts) need congressional representatives who have enough brains to realize the real threat to our lives doesn’t come from North Korean missiles that blow up in flight and have an accuracy of plus or minus a thousand miles, but from not knowing what’s in the cargo containers that are offloaded every day in the heart of Seattle’s downtown. That sure isn’t RubberStampReichert! It’s time for a change in the 8th C.D. — we need some real national security, not the hot air coming from Republican blowhards.
And pbj needs to go soak his head in a bucket of pig urine to clear his mind so he can see the GOP is actually the Party of National Insecurity.
5
McDermott didn’t wiretap anybody, nor did he order or authorize any wiretapping.
@15,
“Thanks for the reminder – Goldy SHOULD make fun of SDI, because it doesn’t work. The only time those interceptor missiles ever hit anything was in carefully controlled experiments, and even then they miss three-fourths of the time. They would be hopeless against a real-world attack, in which multiple incoming enemy ICBMS are shrouded by decoys and electronic jamming.
“Because with successful North Korean ICM’s just a few years away, I am sure the voters will definitely NOT want a missile shield!!!”
Anybody who knows ANYTHING about military history knows that defensive fortifications don’t work. There’s always a way to get around them. “
Yeah we heard from liberals in the past who talked about what could and could not be accomplished.
In 1920, a New York Times editorial ridiculed Robert Goddard and his claim that a rocket would work in space:
That Professor Goddard, with his “chair” in Clark College and the countenancing of the Smithsonian Institution, does not know the relation of action to reaction, and of the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react – to say that would be absurd. Of course he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools.
In 1969, days before Apollo 11’s landing on the moon, the newspaper published a tongue-in-cheek correction:
Further investigation and experimentation have confirmed the findings of Isaac Newton in the 17th century, and it is now definitely established that a rocket can function in a vacuum as well as in an atmosphere. The Times regrets the error.
If we went by what liberals “knew” wouldn’t work, we’d never have spaceflight, airplanes, electricity or the internet.
Hey Rabbit, you make a great liberal slogan for elections “Defending America never works so we won’t bother trying.”
It accurately reflects the liberal position.
Hey Skagit,
It has been up and down the court system for years. And McDermott had his ass handed to him. Wanna bet his appeal is denied? We all know how serial killers get years of appeals too. In the end they get justice delivered to them as well.
http://www.joel.net/EBONICS/translator.asp Here is a great website to “communicate” with inner city Democrats. “When in Rome…………….When in Detroit”.
Democrats NEVER pay their own legal bills. Has Baghdad Jim set up a “legal defense fund” to beg for money?
5
It should also be pointed out the Republican conspirators were accidentally overheard talking on a cell phone by a third party who was monitoring a police scanner. These devices are legal and lots of people have them, including news reporters, ambulance drivers, and hobbyists. Nobody set out to deliberately eavesdrop on the Republicans (who, it turned out, were plotting unethical, if not outright criminal, actions).
There’s a big difference between accidentally overhearing an incriminating conversation, and ordering warrantless surveillance that violates citizens’ constitutional rights and federal law (and keeping it secret from congressional oversight committees and lying to the American people about it).
As Justice Holmes wrote, “Even a dog knows the difference between being stepped on and kicked.”
So why don’t you?
5 (continued)
Even dogs are smarter than pbj.
5 (continued)
It shows in pbj’s posts, too.
9
Left turn – It would be nice your site also provided citations for their comments. Until they do so then it is only opinion.
8
“The average American family pays 30-40% of their annual income in taxes”
Actually, they pay more, when you factor in the cost of Republican waste, fraud, and abuse that’s paid for with borrowing, inflation, high interest rates, and unemployment.
@25,
It should be pointed out that the eavesdroppers were members of the Democrat party, so it unlikely that their story of “accidentally” hearing the conversation is beleivable. Even if true, they should have turned off the scanner as liberals are the first ones to call for evidence to be thrown out of court if it is gathered illegally.
However in this case, they recorded the conversation and then passed the illegal wiretap to Democra Jim McDermott, who promptly gave it to their media lapdog, the New York Times. McDemott KNEW the conversation could not have been obtained legally. He is a congressman., He should have asked to see the warrant that the eavesdroppers got to do the wiretap. These were not law enforemenct officials, but rather party activists who clearly were intent on fulfilling a partisan mission.
14
Dr. E (Are you really a Doctor?) Yes we are in WWIII and have been since 9/11/ (and before). This is a war of the extremist Muslim religion against the rest of the world much as the muslims tried to do a 1000 years ago.
You have a choice – accept the the Muslim religion as your religion or you will be killed. To me the choice is simple as I like my freedom.
17
I think you need to do a bit of reading into the history of WWII, especially considering the number of documents that have been declassified in recent years that seem to indicate that the commonly accepted narrative of 1941 may not, in fact, be wholly accurate.
You might also want to do a bit of reading into recent scholarly research into the events of 9/11, most of which similarly indicates that the commonly accepted narrative is almost wholly implausible.
pbj @ 16 apparently missed this part of the article he cited: “In granting McDermott’s request for a new hearing, the appeals court vacated the earlier judgment.”
In granting McDermott’s petition for rehearing, a majority of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals opined that the previous 2-1 decision was at the very least a questionable judgment.
As pbj presumably knows, McDermott was never accused of wiretapping. And at this point, he has the high ground.
Those with deeper interest in the case (and its First Amendment implications) might be well advised to purchse tickets online now for former President Bill Clinton’s joint appearance with Jim at Benaroya Hall, July 31.
Thanks, pbj, for the reminder us.
16
“Liberals feign outrage about wiretapping of terrorists”
We don’t feign anything. Our outrage is actual. This has nothing to do with wiretapping terrorists — the government is authorized to wiretap terrorists, can get court orders after the fact, and we think the government SHOULD wiretap terrorists.
Our outrage, which is real not feigned, is directed at the illegal and unconstitutional wiretapping of American citizens who have broken no laws, are not suspected of breaking any laws, and have no connections to terrorism. This wiretapping serves only one purpose: To keep harass critics, whistleblowers, and political opponents. Republicans have a long and sorry history of that sort of thing. It’s against the fucking law, dolt!
I’ll tell you what, if I catch some guy in jeans and shades mucking around in my burrow, and he can’t show me a badge or a court order, he’s a dead fucker.
Just kidding, ha-ha! (click-click)
The bankruptcy of the modern day Democrat party that drove out good honest patriotic Americans is best expressed by a Democrat himself, Zell Miller:
“Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrat’s manic obsession to bring down our Commander in Chief.
What has happened to the party I’ve spent my life working in?
I can remember when Democrats believed that it was the duty of America to fight for freedom over tyranny.
It was Democratic President Harry Truman who pushed the Red Army out of Iran, who came to the aid of Greece when Communists threatened to overthrow it, who stared down the Soviet blockade of West Berlin by flying in supplies and saving the city.
Time after time in our history, in the face of great danger, Democrats and Republicans worked together to ensure that freedom would not falter. But not today.
Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today’s Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator.
And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators.
Tell that to the one-half of Europe that was freed because Franklin Roosevelt led an army of liberators, not occupiers.
Tell that to the lower half of the Korean Peninsula that is free because Dwight Eisenhower commanded an army of liberators, not occupiers.
Tell that to the half a billion men, women and children who are free today from the Baltics to the Crimea, from Poland to Siberia, because Ronald Reagan rebuilt a military of liberators, not occupiers.
Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier. And, our soldiers don’t just give freedom abroad, they preserve it for us here at home.
For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest.
It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag.
No one should dare to even think about being the Commander in Chief of this country if he doesn’t believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home.
But don’t waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution.
They don’t believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.
It is not their patriotism — it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking. They claimed Carter’s pacifism would lead to peace.
They were wrong.
They claimed Reagan’s defense buildup would lead to war.
They were wrong.
And, no pair has been more wrong, more loudly, more often than the two Senators from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.
Together, Kennedy/Kerry have opposed the very weapons system that won the Cold War and that is now winning the War on Terror.
Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security but Americans need to know the facts.
The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40 percent of the bombs in the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom.
The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein’s command post in Iraq.
The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down Khadifi’s Libyan MIGs over the Gulf of Sidra. The modernized F-14D, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora.
The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War. The F-15 Eagles, that Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation’s Capital and this very city after 9/11.
I could go on and on and on: against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein’s scud missiles over Israel; against the Aegis air-defense cruiser; against the Strategic Defense Initiative; against the Trident missile; against, against, against.
This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces?
U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?”
31
You’re not dealing with a factual full deck of cards. If this is, in fact, WWIII, where are the declarations of war, and which countries have declared them? And how exactly are you able to prove that the “extremist Muslim religion” (whatever that might mean) is in fact at war against the “rest of the world”? That’s quite a tall order, and goes against factual indications that a lot of these fundamentalist muslim factions have more immediate issues with secular, moderate, and pro-Western Muslim governments in there midst. Don’t forget that there are plenty of non-Arab countries that are predominantly Muslim.
By the way, you present a classic false choice here:
“You have a choice – accept the the Muslim religion as your religion or you will be killed.”
You don’t need an advanced degree (yes, I have several) to understand the transparent, logical fallacy in that statement — a freshman-level logic course would teach you that.
And tell me, by the way, how exactly is Bushco protecting your “freedom” by trampling all over the Bill of Rights and treating the Constitution like a roll of toilet paper?
35
News flash: Zell Miller is not a Democrat. He’s a Republican wingnut that used to hang a “D” after his name. But, you’re partly right: the Democratic Party is bankrupt insofar as they don’t just kick idiots like Miller and Liebermann out of the party for their right-wing positions.
32
E:
Are you prepared to offer valid citations as to “that the commonly accepted narrative of 1941 may not, in fact, be wholly accurate.” Exactly what are you referring to?
Also – please provide additional citations as to the “‘scholarly’ research into the events of 9/11, most of which similarly indicates that the commonly accepted narrative is almost wholly implausible.”
Until you do that then you are ‘implausible’
Your “outrage” is staged. Not surprising really, as Hollywood is a major contributor to Democrats efforts to destroy this nation.
The wiretaps are only for call between people in the US who are talking to KNOWN terrorists. Say if Bin Laden rings up Roger Rabbit to ask him about ferry security procedures and how to get around them. That is what they were wiretapping.
But apparently, revealing that program to our enemy was not enough for the Democrats. They also had to inform AQ of our program to track their finances as well so they could evade them.
@36,
“And tell me, by the way, how exactly is Bushco protecting your “freedom” by trampling all over the Bill of Rights and treating the Constitution like a roll of toilet paper?
Since you claim to have several “advanced degrees”, you will actually provide some evidence to support your claim. Goldstein still has his radio program, no Gestapo has arrested him. You are still able to post your Anti-AMerican bile all over the internet. Please enlighten us all EXACTLY how the constitution if “being trampled”. And then tell me exactly how many constitutional rights, how many social welfare program dead men enjoy. Because if we totally abandoned defending our nation against its enemies that is what you will have.
And a lot of dead women and children as well. Oh, but then liberals think all the 911 victims are “Little Eichmans”, I forogt.
And please Roger Rabbit, tell us all how the liberals are “supporting the troops” by blocking the ships at the port of Olympia carrying the protective equipment they need in Iraq??? Please tell us . This ought to be rich…
Now, why is it that the Washington State Democratic Party is stalking Mike McGavick? Everywhere he goes, there they are with their little yellow shirts on and a videographer in tow – taping everything McGavick says and does????????
21
““Defending America never works so we won’t bother trying.” It accurately reflects the liberal position. Commentby pbj— 7/16/06@ 1:44 pm
It absolutely does not reflect my position. I’ve always been for a strong defense. But I see no sense in wasting vast sums of taxpayer dollars on technologies or strategies that don’t work, or weapons that aren’t needed. The invention of gunpowder instantly rendered all of Europe’s castles useless. The tank rumbled over trenches. The French drained their economy to build the Maginot Line, so the Germans went around it. Hitler’s Atlantic Wall was breached in a day. Anti-aircraft guns and SAM missiles were never very effective to defend against air attacks.
Instead of spewing platitudes, why don’t you try doing a little research? Oh, because that’s too much work, and you’d be in danger of learning something, that’s why. The fact is, we don’t have a missile shield. The sysem’s chances of hitting ICBMs fired in anger are essentially zero. Even in carefully controlled experiments designed to make the technology look good, they miss most of the time. How can you have any confidence in the system when the Air Force repeatedly postpones tests because engineers need several more weeks or months to tinker with it? When an enemy launches against you, you’ve got only fifteen minutes.
SDI is a defensive fortification. If it ever works, somebody will figure out a way around it, and probably very quickly. Through all of history, defenses have always been overcome. Only offensive weapons and tactics win wars.
ummmmm, It’s been said many times that the best defense is a GREAT offense………
30
McDermott is not a lawyer. Recording conversations is legal in some jurisdictions. This is the sort of issues that law professors cogitate on, law students debate, and courts disagree with each other about. How was McDermott supposed to know what he could or couldn’t do, when even legal professionals can’t agree?
31
“Yes we are in WWIII and have been since 9/11/” Commentby sillyguy— 7/16/06@ 2:00 pm
Bullshit. We’re in a war with a stateless organization of a few thousand individuals who have no navy, no air force, no ICBMs, and whose fighters are equipped only slightly better than the Michigan Militia.
38
Sure: Robert Stinett and others have argued that the commonly accepted narrative of the Pearl Harbor attacks is inaccurate, partly based on documents declassified in the 1990s, some of which (like the McCollum memo of 1940) suggest that the US government intended to provoke the Japanese into military action against the US, so that the US could then declare war on Japan (and hence eventually against Germany, after Germany would declare war on the US).
Re 9/11: David Ray Griffin has written 2 excellent and thoroughly researched books that essentially debunk virtually all of this administrations official conspiracy theory.
31
“You have a choice – accept the the Muslim religion as your religion or you will be killed. To me the choice is simple as I like my freedom.” Commentby sillyguy— 7/16/06@ 2:00 pm
A generation ago, the idiots like you who sent me to Vietnam said, “If we don’t stop them there, they’ll be in San Francisco!” The Far Right hasn’t gotten any smarter since then. Not even a teeny bit.
31
P.S., don’t forget to look under your bed tonight, to make sure there’s no commies or Muslims lurking under there!
(pause)
Freak.
36
Dr. E — pbj isn’t remotely prepared to study freshman logic. He needs to finish seventh grade first.
39
How are we “destroying” this nation? By insisting that its Constitution be respected, and its laws obeyed? By opposing stupidity, corruption, and incompetence? What have you fucking idiots on the right done right so far? Name one thing.
42,
“It absolutely does not reflect my position. I’ve always been for a strong defense. But I see no sense in wasting vast sums of taxpayer dollars on technologies or strategies that don’t work, or weapons that aren’t needed. “
First of all, the missile defense has had successful tests, despite the liberal media efforts to suppress that information. Yes it has ahd failures. But in the early days of the space program there were failures as well. Should they have abandoned the space program back then too?
As for being able to evade it, I doubt the North Koreans are that sophisticated in their technology. As you pointed out earlier, their recent missile launches failed. However, even a failure is a chance for learning (except if you are a Democrat pres candidate apparently). And I have no doubt the North Koreans and examining why it failed and intened to address the issue. Or do you think they will just give up developing their missile capabilities?
Defense alone isn’t what is being advocated. But rather than having NO defense, the SDI program offers us an option for dealing with rogue nuclear nations such as North Korea. Democrats certainly would throw a fit if the President invaded North Korea. Sure they talk tough and all pre-war just as they did in Iraq. But when teh going gets tough, Demcrats today want to bug out and run away. You cannot to that without emboldening your enemy as Israel is learning this very day.
The old policy of Mutually Assured Destruction only works with regimes who care about being destroyed. With “martyr” nations such as Iran, telling them that they too will be nuked will not stop them from launing on us.
And Democrats can sit out in Elliot bay and go through every cargo container they choose. But it makes no difference as a once a nuke is in your port, the explosion will take out all of downtown and leave it a radioactive wasteland.
So, yes, we should be continuing the SDI research and if feasible, deploy the anti missile batteries to protect ourselves and our allies. Does it have problems? Sure. The first space shots were failures, but we learned from them and overcame. And given the choice of shooting down a potential rogue state nuke or having to return fire after our cities are nuked, it is certainly the destruction of the rogue launched missile that avoids deaths on both sides.
“Sure: Robert Stinett and others have argued that the commonly accepted narrative of the Pearl Harbor attacks is inaccurate, partly based on documents declassified in the 1990s, some of which (like the McCollum memo of 1940) suggest that the US government intended to provoke the Japanese into military action against the US, so that the US could then declare war on Japan (and hence eventually against Germany, after Germany would declare war on the US).”
Dr E how could you??? You of course realize that you just tarred and feather DEMCRAT Franklin Delano Roosevelt as a warmonger don’t you?
Any liberals still backing the “Dr E ” fellow now? Or do you all agree FDR was a warmonger intent on falsely dragging us into that quagmire known as WWII?
C’mon now libs. You can’t have it both ways here. Is Dr E right?
43,
ummmmm, It’s been said many times that the best defense is a GREAT offense………
Really? Then you support President Bush going after the terrorists in Afghanistan?
40
“And please Roger Rabbit, tell us all how the liberals are “supporting the troops” by blocking the ships at the port of Olympia carrying the protective equipment they need in Iraq??? Please tell us . This ought to be rich… ” Commentby pbj— 7/16/06@ 2:21 pm
“The liberals” AREN’T blocking the ships at the port of Olympia. There are millions of people in this country who consider themselves politically “liberal.” They hold down jobs, raise families, pay taxes, and serve in the military.
About 20 anti-war protesters picketed the Olympia terminal. They didn’t block anything — they waved signs and shouted slogans. They may, or may not, call themselves “liberals” but they acted as individuals and speak for no one but themselves. They don’t represent the 50 million-plus who voted for Kerry.
People like Cheney, Bush, Wolfowitz, Limbaugh, and most Republicans in Congress didn’t support the military when it was their turn to serve. They dodged it. They don’t support the troops when they vote against combat pay, money for combat equipment, or veterans benefits. It’s disgraceful that private citizens have to go out and raise money to get these helmet upgrades to our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. That’s the government’s responsibility, and the Republican government is failing the soldiers miserably. I did contribute $99 to Operation Helmet. Did you? If not, you’re nothing but a loudmouth, a patriot in name only, blowing smoke out of his ass.
All hat, no cattle. Empty suit. A flat tire where the rubber meets the road. That’s you.
#22 PBJ Hey Skagit, Wanna bet his appeal is denied? Commentby pbj— 7/16/06@
I’m doing you a favor by providing it to you via your own news source. This is very telling about just how unread and behind in your current events knowledge you are.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,201095,00.html
Appeals Court Agrees to Hear Congressman Phone Call Case June 27, 2006
It’s a standard rightwing tactic to tar “liberals” by slapping the label on tiny groups of protesters or eco-terrorists who are no more representative of Democrats or liberals than they are of Republicans. It’s a form of lying.
45,
Bullshit. We’re in a war with a stateless organization of a few thousand individuals who have no navy, no air force, no ICBMs, and whose fighters are equipped only slightly better than the Michigan Militia.
Hmm. I didn’t know the Mighigan Militia had katusha rockets that could travel over 70 miles. You are a fool if you cannot realize the obvious use of these people as proxies by nation states to acheive their objectives. The Michigan Militia cannot simple go to Radio Shack and purchase the parts to make a rada guided missile such as was used by Hizbollah to hit the Israeli warship. By playing the game of waiting for an official naiton state to declare war, you play right into their hands. Of course they aren’t stupid enough to outright declare war. They know they would incur the wrath of a superpower. Instead they fund and equip their proxies. How stupid can you be Rabbit?
On the other hand, saying “all Republicans are criminals” and holding up people like Duke Cunningham and Jack Abramoff as examples isn’t the same thing, because it appears ALL Republicans ARE criminals.
At least, a heckuva lot of ’em are … the prison bus makes regular stops at Capitol Hill and the White House.
17
Terrorism has been around for … how long? Thousands of years. You got a magic pill to rid the world of terrorists, pbj?
By the way, how’s your military adventure in the Middle East going today?
53
Please note that, by citing Stinett (as you requested), I have simply provided a citation, not impugned anyone. I’ll let Stinett speak for himself, not for me.
PBJ: EVERYTHING you post is either a like, an omission, a spin or just plain stupid. How do you dare show such ignorance post after post after post . . .
Dr. E., you have my sympathy. Trying to use reason with an ignorant dolt is impossible.
38
Are you prepared to offer valid citations as to “that the commonly accepted narrative of 1941 may not, in fact, be wholly accurate.” Exactly what are you referring to?
Commentby sillyguy— 7/16/06@ 2:11 pm
Don’t you dare, Dr. E. This is another ignorant turd who doesn’t know his ass from his cerebellum. Make him do his own damn work. Anybody that would call themselves ‘sillyguy” failed first grade.
53
The historical narratives that find their way into popular media rarely, if ever, are completely accurate. We see the Civil War and WWI with greater clarity than the combatants did. There is much fog that still surrounds Vietnam, but a little of it has lifted here and there as documents get declassified and memoirs are written. There probably are still untold stories of WWII out there which eventually will cause us to revise our understandings of that conflict. What we do know for sure about terrorism is:
Clinton recognized the danger, did something about it, and tried to warn his successor;
Those warnings were ignored;
The Bush administration is still startingly complacent about homeland security.
This is WW3 and true freedom-loving Americans are at war with right wing taliban wannabes. Liberals should arm. RR is right. When they come calling on me they won’t like what they get.
65
Speaking of sillyguy, I wonder if his idea of amending the state constitution to require revotes of disputed elections will ever get off the ground? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.....hopter.JPG
Hey — ya gotta hand it to that guy, at least he had vision. He figured if birds could fly by flapping their wings, it should work for him too. He didn’t do the power-to-weight calculations, but by proving this particular technology didn’t work, he helped pave the way for those who eventually found the successful technology.
67
Reminds me of a newspaper cartoon I saw years ago. Guy looks out window and sees a missile parked in the driveway across the street. Punch line says, “Oh my God! The Joneses have The Bomb!”
57
Does that not seem to be the way of everyone on this blog? To slap labels on tiny groups and then extrapolate that label to everyone with whom you disagree.
68
Ha Ha – Your attempt a humor is lacking as everyone has already heard your jokes.
55,
“And please Roger Rabbit, tell us all how the liberals are “supporting the troops” by blocking the ships at the port of Olympia carrying the protective equipment they need in Iraq??? Please tell us . This ought to be rich… ” Commentby pbj— 7/16/06@ 2:21 pm
“The liberals” AREN’T blocking the ships at the port of Olympia. There are millions of people in this country who consider themselves politically “liberal.” They hold down jobs, raise families, pay taxes, and serve in the military.
About 20 anti-war protesters picketed the Olympia terminal. They didn’t block anything – they waved signs and shouted slogans. They may, or may not, call themselves “liberals” but they acted as individuals and speak for no one but themselves. They don’t represent the 50 million-plus who voted for Kerry.
People like Cheney, Bush, Wolfowitz, Limbaugh, and most Republicans in Congress didn’t support the military when it was their turn to serve. They dodged it. They don’t support the troops when they vote against combat pay, money for combat equipment, or veterans benefits. It’s disgraceful that private citizens have to go out and raise money to get these helmet upgrades to our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. That’s the government’s responsibility, and the Republican government is failing the soldiers miserably. I did contribute $99 to Operation Helmet. Did you? If not, you’re nothing but a loudmouth, a patriot in name only, blowing smoke out of his ass.
All hat, no cattle. Empty suit. A flat tire where the rubber meets the road. That’s you.
Those people are the idealogical fellow travellers of the Kerry voters. If they could all be there obstructing the ships, trying to take you $99 bicycle helmets, to the troops they would.
You have thrown out your $99 contribution for months now Roger Rabbit. It makes me think you only did it for political purposes. People who give from their heart don’t feel the need to trot out their monetary contributions as some sort of political weapon. Usually they are simply satisfied to quietly be supportive.
$99 won’t buy a damned bicycle helmet, let alone one that would stop an AK47 round.
In fact most Republicans in Congress DID serve. That old liberal lie has been kicked aournd so many times like it has become a “stalin truth”.
In fact, of the current congress, 15.5% of Republicans have served while only 9.6% of Democrats have served.
http://www.whoserved.com/congress.asp
For service in Vietnam, Republicans 2.6%, Democrats 1.7%.
For service in Korea, Republicans .4%, Democrats .4%.
For service in WWII, Republicans .9%, Democrats .6%.
Presidents:
George W Bush – Military Service: Texas Air National Guard 1968 – 1973
Bill Clinton – Did notserve. Avoided the draft. Protested his country of foreign soil during time of war.
President George H. W. Bush
Military Service: Navy 1943 – 1945
Combat Service: World War II
* Was the youngest Naval Aviator at the time at age 18
* Flew combat missions in the Pacific during World War II
* Awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, Air Medal (x3) and the Presidential Unit Citation
President Ronald Reagan
Military Service: Army Reserve 1935 – 1941
Air Force 1941 – 1945
* Initially commissioned as a reserve cavalry officer in the Army in 1935
* Assigned to the First Motion Picture Unit in the United States Army Air Force after the attack on Pearl Harbor in which he made training and education films
President Jimmy Carter
Military Service: Navy 1946 – 1953
* Graduated from the United States Naval Academy in 1946
* served on submarines in the Atlantic and Pacific fleets
* selected to serve in the nuclear submarine program
President Gerald Ford
Military Service: Navy 1942 – 1946
Combat Service: World War II
* Served as an officer on the USS Monterey in the Pacific during World War II
President Richard Nixon
Military Service: Navy 1942 – 1945
Combat Service: World War II
* Served in the Pacific during World War II
President Lyndon B. Johnson
Military Service: Navy 1942
Navy Reserve 1948 – 1964
Combat Service: World War II
* Served as an observer for bombing missions in the South Pacific during World War II
* Awarded the Silver Star Medal by General Douglas MacArthur
President John F. Kennedy
Military Service: Navy 1941 – 1945
Combat Service: World War II
* Commanded the Navy patrol boat PT-109 during World War II
* Survived after his patrol boat was rammed by Japanese destroyer and sunk in the Pacific Ocean
* Awarded the Navy and Marine Corps Medal for heroism after swimming three miles to an island while carrying one of his crew
Franklind Delano Roosevelt took us into WWII, according to DR E, he was a warmonger. NO military experience, yet he sent thousands of young Americans off to die in his war.
Woodrow Wilson. Refused to serve. Yet he sent thousands off to die in a war that was essentially about the offended pride of European Royalty.
And for the record Roger Rabbit, I served my country in active duty. Did you?
66
Your point shows the delusions of a Rabbit. Do you have citations to back up your points?
62
Look, your entire argument hinges on the acceptance of the official government version of the events of 9/11. I would be willing to accept this version of events if I could be convinced by all the available evidence that the administration’s narrative (or conspiracy theory, if you like, and I don’t use the term pejoratively) is, in fact, true. Although I’m willing to concede the possibility that this version of events (as embodied, for instance, by the 9/11 Commission’s report) is true and acccurate either in whole or in part, there are far too many omissions, obfuscations, and too much contrary factual evidence. These “defects” cast sufficient doubt on the theory for me to view it is reliable, and thus I have to reject it on purely intellectual grounds.
Since I can’t accept the thesis of your argument, I cannot accept its conclusions, even though certain elements may be valid (e.g. the real and present danger of terrorism, both muslim and otherwise).
74
Then we have to agree to disagree but please preface your future comments about Muslim terror attacks with the point that you believe they had nothing to do nor instigated the 9/11 attacks.
ERRATA
Whoops! “is true and accurate” above should read “might be true and accurate”.
The historical narratives that find their way into popular media rarely, if ever, are completely accurate.
Oh I agree with you about that sentence. For example, the liberal boogeyman Joeseph McCarthy is always trotted out when liberal need a cliche for unwarrented accusations. However, what liberals will not tell you about and what they will refuse to mention in the classroom is project Venona. This secret project (the New York Times apparently hadn’t gotten their first) decoded Soviet transmissions and did prove that the Rosenburgs were spies.
Other findings:
According to the Venona decryptions, Stalin’s agents included:
* Lauchlin Currie, senior White House aide to FDR, who alerted the NKVD (Soviet intelligence) to FBI investigations of its top agents.
* Martha Dodd, licentious daughter of the American ambassador to Berlin, whose passionate affair with the first secretary of the Russian embassy included passing confidential diplomatic correspondence to Moscow.
* Alger Hiss, chief of the State Department’s Office of Special Political Affairs, who accompanied Roosevelt to Yalta in 1945 and chaired the founding conference of the UN. This senior assistant to the secretary of state gave Soviet military intelligence diplomatic cables concerning Axis threats to Soviet security.
* Laurence Duggan, head of the State Department’s Division of American Republics and the secretary of state’s personal adviser for Latin America, who gave the NKVD Anglo-American plans for the invasion of Italy.
* Michael Straight, a family friend and protege of President and Mrs. Roosevelt who was recruited into the NKVD by Soviet spy Anthony Blunt while attending Cambridge University.
* Harry Dexter White, assistant secretary of the Treasury, U.S. director of the IMF, senior adviser to the American delegation at the founding conference of the UN, who facilitated employment for Soviet sources in his department.
* Harold Glasser, vice-chairman of the War Production Board and assistant director of the Treasury’s Office of International Finance, who gave the NKVD a State Department analysis of Soviet war losses.
* Gregory Silvermaster, a Treasury economist whose spy network provided Moscow with prodigious amounts of War Production Board data on arms, aircraft, and shipping production.
* Victor Perlo, chief of the Aviation Section of the War Production Board whose spy ring supplied the Soviets with aircraft production figures and included a Senate staff director.
* Judith Coplon, Justice Department analyst who alerted Moscow to FBI counterintelligence operations.
* Duncan Lee, descendant of Robert E. Lee and senior aide to OSS chief William J. Donovan, who became the NKVD’s senior source in American intelligence; he divulged secret OSS operations in Europe and China.
* William Weisband, NSA linguist who informed Moscow that the Venona Project had deciphered its messages.
So when liberals trot out Joseph McCarthy, just remember it is all part of the “big lie” began under Stalin. To this day liberals still reapt that same lie.
(And “ERRATA” should read “ERRATUM” of course.)
@67,
This is WW3 and true freedom-loving Americans are at war with right wing taliban wannabes. Liberals should arm. RR is right. When they come calling on me they won’t like what they get.
As demonstrated by Project Venona, liberals tried to defeat America from within during the cold war too. Bring it on liberals. You won’t like what you get.
79
Whoa, whoa, whoa… since when are Communism and Liberalism synonymous? Got any sources to back up that suggestion?
72
“Franklind Delano Roosevelt took us into WWII, according to DR E, he was a warmonger.”
I neither said nor implied any such thing. Show me where I did.
PBJ: “Say if Bin Laden rings up Roger Rabbit to ask him about ferry security procedures and how to get around them. That is what they were wiretapping.”
Why bother? Who’s Bin Laden. I thought you rethugs didn’t “think much about him anymore.” That’s what your president say, anyway.
80,
Certainly the administration of FDR can be considered liberal. As he kept so many communists on the payroll, it proves the point.
Your referral to ‘toilet paper’ is an insult to your intelligence!
Commentby sillyguy— 7/16/06@
Sillyguy and PeanutButter&Jelly have no intelligence to insult. That’s why we’ve resorted to ad hominems. Good try, Dr. E. Unfortunately, these patients are brain dead.
It seems to me that progressives will probably always have trouble in bringing hard-core conservatives into an actual debate. Since Conservatism progresses, in part, from the idea that there are certain immutable truths, the extent to which any topic (e.g. the “Global War on Terror”) can be subsumed into any of these truths renders most logical debate over those topics virtually impossible.
Oh I am sure there are plenty of minute differences between communists and liberals. But in the context of their common desire to undermine American national security they are synonymous. That is the only aspect of importance today.
83
“Certainly the administration of FDR can be considered liberal. As he kept so many communists on the payroll, it proves the point.”
That’s a patently illogical statement, which both fails to prove your point as well as fails to address my question. What other evidence have you got?
84 – oh, I forgot to include smeg (smggccccc) in that little obituary.
50,
“How are we “destroying” this nation? By insisting that its Constitution be respected, and its laws obeyed? By opposing stupidity, corruption, and incompetence? What have you fucking idiots on the right done right so far? Name one thing.< .i>
Well let’s see. How about we start with disclosing our methods of tracking terrorist communications and finances so the enemy can evade them. Blocking shipments of vital protective equipment at the Port of Olympia. Celebrating Professor Ward Churchill on campuses all over this nation for having called the 911 victims “Little Eichmans”. The KELO decision by the liberal memebrs of the Supreme Court that basically allows rich developers to use bogus eminent domain “blight” arguments to steal people’s property.
Want me to go on?
Skagit – would you to offer some substance to the conversation?
70
Does that not seem to be the way of everyone on this blog? To slap labels on tiny groups and then extrapolate that label to everyone with whom you disagree.
Commentby sillyguy— 7/16/06@ 3:12 pm
NO, IT ISN’T. Puddin’head, RuFuK, Faux Redneck and RPKKK are trashers. They dont’ even try to make sense.
You guys: smegcccc, peabut&jel, and oooh, sillyguy are the FOOLS.
There’s a difference.
81,
“Franklind Delano Roosevelt took us into WWII, according to DR E, he was a warmonger.”
I neither said nor implied any such thing. Show me where I did.
Typical liberal. Relizes he just put his foot in his mouth then tries to take it out.
In post 46, you wrote:
“Sure: Robert Stinett and others have argued that the commonly accepted narrative of the Pearl Harbor attacks is inaccurate, partly based on documents declassified in the 1990s, some of which (like the McCollum memo of 1940) suggest that the US government intended to provoke the Japanese into military action against the US, so that the US could then declare war on Japan (and hence eventually against Germany, after Germany would declare war on the US).”
Clearly you are citing evidence that the instead of us being innocently attacked in WWII, Roosevelt intended to provoke the Japanese in order to get us into the war.
And since you are so intellectual Dr “e”, here is a definition for you:
war·mon·ger Audio pronunciation of “warmonger” ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wôrmnggr, -mng-)
n.
One who advocates or attempts to stir up war.
Ergo, Dr E advances the theory that FDR was indeed a warmonger.
The italics are on overdrive here.
86
Thanks for the reply. Let’s see:
“Oh I am sure there are plenty of minute differences between communists and liberals”
Such as? Or are you just making stuff up?
“But in the context of their common desire to undermine American national security they are synonymous.”
Fallacious reasoning. You have made a generalized assertion about two groups of people, with no evidence to support your assertion. We’ll ignore this point and move to the next one:
“That [national security] is the only aspect of importance today.”
Again, a fallacious argument.
My questions above still stand.
Examples of Skagit substantive remarks:
“Why bother? Who’s Bin Laden. I thought you rethugs didn’t “think much about him anymore.” That’s what your president say, anyway”
“Sillyguy and PeanutButter&Jelly have no intelligence to insult. That’s why we’ve resorted to ad hominems. Good try, Dr. E. Unfortunately, these patients are brain dead.”
“84 – oh, I forgot to include smeg (smggccccc) in that little obituary.”
Skagit – we were discussing FDR and Terrorists – why are you off topic again?
82,
”
PBJ: “Say if Bin Laden rings up Roger Rabbit to ask him about ferry security procedures and how to get around them. That is what they were wiretapping.”
Why bother? Who’s Bin Laden. I thought you rethugs didn’t “think much about him anymore.” That’s what your president say, anyway.
”
Maybe you are right. I mean, DNC Chairman Howard Dean doesn;t even think that Bin Laden is guilty of 911 anyway. So why do you liberals always ask “Where is Bin Laden”? You don’t seem to think he is actually guilty.
75
“. . . please preface your future comments about Muslim terror attacks with the point that you believe they had nothing to do nor instigated the 9/11 attacks.
Commentby sillyguy— 7/16/06@ 3:12 pm
First of all, your statement does not make sense.
Ssecond, just like the pompous ass you are, you dare dictate that the professor is supposed to “preface” her remarks to the FOOL! ROFLMAO!
Lucy in the sky with diamonds………
“It seems to me that progressives will probably always have trouble in bringing hard-core conservatives into an actual debate. Since Conservatism progresses, in part, from the idea that there are certain immutable truths, the extent to which any topic (e.g. the “Global War on Terror”) can be subsumed into any of these truths renders most logical debate over those topics virtually impossible.”
You mean like the truth that flying planes filled with people is ALWAYS wrong. Yup. You are indeed correct on that one. If “into the debate” means into surrendering our sovereignty to terrorists, then you are more correct than you realize. There ARE certain immutable truths. And liberals or progressives (liberals afraid to be called such) have their OWN immutable truths:
1) America is a force for evil in the world. If there is a problem in the world, America is the cause.
2) Global warming is America’s fault, As punishment, all her industries must be destroyed and the American economy destroyed so Americans live like third world inhabitants scrubbing it the dirst for a living. America must be brought to its knees.
Skagit – would you to offer some substance to the conversation?
Commentby sillyguy— 7/16/06@ 3:48 pm
OMG! HE WANTS SUBSTANCE! Dr. E’s been trying and trying and trying . . . to no avail. Why start now?
“Ergo, Dr E advances the theory that FDR was indeed a warmonger.”
Jesus Christ, pbj, are you able to think logically at all? Yes, I am citing a source whose opinion runs contrary to the commonly accepted narrative of Pearl Harbor. Providing a citation is not “advancing a theory”. Citing a source is simply the acknowledgement of someone else’s work. One can cite a source that runs contrary to one’s thesis, surely you must know that. How on earth could that be the act of advancing a theory, especially if the thrust of the citation is not theoretical?
“My questions above still stand.”
Actually is was a single question. And I answered it for you. Finally, you are no Dr or I am the pope. On the internet, one can be anything they choose. I do not believe for a microsecond you are any sort of DR.
Provide evidence to support your assertion you are, in fact a Dr.
Examples of Skagit substantive remarks:
“Why bother? Who’s Bin Laden. I thought you rethugs didn’t “think much about him anymore.” That’s what your president say, anyway”
“Sillyguy and PeanutButter&Jelly have no intelligence to insult. That’s why we’ve resorted to ad hominems. Good try, Dr. E. Unfortunately, these patients are brain dead.”
“84 – oh, I forgot to include smeg (smggccccc) in that little obituary.”
Skagit – we were discussing FDR and Terrorists – why are you off topic again?
Commentby sillyguy— 7/16/06@ 3:51 pm
All provable. Simply reread your posts.
italics stopped.
100
You appear to be very insubstantive this afternoon. Perhaps your byline should be ‘Caspar’. :-)
let’s try that again
Man, I wish Goldy had a preview on this . . .
“You mean like the truth that flying planes filled with people is ALWAYS wrong.” Et cetera.
What the hell does that mean?
Skagit – Would tou care to join the discussion rather than being part of the Peanut Gallery? If not then you should leave.
Oh well – time to enjoy the afternoon sun with a walk with the dogs! All- Please enjoy the conversation.
Why bother? Who’s Bin Laden. I thought you rethugs didn’t “think much about him anymore.” That’s what your president say, anyway.
”
Maybe you are right. I mean, DNC Chairman Howard Dean doesn;t even think that Bin Laden is guilty of 911 anyway. So why do you liberals always ask “Where is Bin Laden”? You don’t seem to think he is actually guilty.
Reread. I didn’t ask where he was. Nor did I comment on his guilt. See, so much for substance. See, Dr. E. you are wasting your time. Just keep throwing shit at ’em cause that’s what they understand.
Skagit – Would tou care to join the discussion rather than being part of the Peanut Gallery? If not then you should leave.
Commentby sillyguy— 7/16/06@ 4:05 pm
Make me. I love throwing peanuts to the clowns. After all, it seems to be the only way to communicate with fools.
PeaButt&Jl – i think you turne on the italics at 89 . . . you might have to turn them off.
Here you (faux) Dr E,
Thomas (2001) explains:
The term “liberal” today is almost synonymous with “Socialist.” Their “core beliefs” are that all men are their “brother’s keeper.” That no individual has the right to live for his own sake and must put the betterment of others before that of themselves and their loved ones, hoping (in vain) that others will put theirs ahead of their own. They adhere to the old altruistic maxim: “From each according to his ability, and to each according to his need.” This means that “need” becomes a demand on the earnings of those who can, and will earn for themselves for the benefit of those who can’t, or won’t do so.
So what you earn, even the property that you have paid for with the fruits of your work, literally the “sweat of your brow,” does not belong to you, but to any lazy moocher that demands a “share.” That is a “collectivist” theme. Socialism, Communism, Nazism, and many other such “isms” that demand a “share” of the earnings of the producers of this nation are all “collectivist” themes. Collectivism is the “root term” to describe all these “”isms.” The liberals determine their success by how many people are on welfare and dependent on the government for their daily bread.
I think Bush and co. Think they are in WW3 and if we don’t get the
(insert dirty word here) out of there they are going to be right.
PBJ -TURN THE DAMN ITALICS OFF!
Actually, I’m pretty much bored of this entire non-debate. All I’m getting are incomplete versions of prefabricated, right-wing talking points. I could get the whole versions, if I wanted them, from Fox “News”, or almost anywhere on the AM talk radio circuit. You know, the whole “liberals hate America” bollocks and blah blah blah — it’s all a crock of scapegoatism horseshit.
testing
testing again
pbj @ 89:
Well let’s see. How about we start with disclosing our methods of tracking terrorist communications and finances so the enemy can evade them.
Funny, I always thought conservatives were skeptical of government power. It’s OK for everything to be secret now?
Blocking shipments of vital protective equipment at the Port of Olympia.
God forbid that private citizens would protest activities by their government that they don’t like. Coming up, pbj will explain to us how in fomenting a guerilla war against the established, legal colonial government of the British colonies in the New World, our Founding Fathers were terrorists.
Celebrating Professor Ward Churchill on campuses all over this nation for having called the 911 victims “Little Eichmans”.
Who? What? Ward whatshisname? He sits on the DNC, doesn’t he? Oh, wait, he doesn’t. So he’s got a commitee position in the House? The Senate? No. Damn. This one is tough. Let me guess… Let me guess….So he’s at least like, a big-city mayor, an alderman? Precinct captain?
Oh, that’s right. He’s a tenured professor at the University of Colorado. A major force in the Gigantic Left-Wing Conspiracy.
I, for one, WANT college professors to say outrageous things. The worst disservice that any educator past the fifth grade can do to their students is to shove a bunch of bland platitudes into their heads to swallow without comment. If I was in Professor Churchill’s class, as a commited leftie, I would cheerfully go toe-to-toe with him and ask how working in a given building automatically makes one deserving of attack. Generally, my professors had a pretty good sense of humor for my arguments back in college. It made the class a lot more entertaining than a bunch of people taking notes and not wanting to raise attention.
The KELO decision by the liberal memebrs of the Supreme Court that basically allows rich developers to use bogus eminent domain “blight” arguments to steal people’s property.
Did you read that decision? Probably not. What the court really said was that managing property and eminent domain decisions was a state issue. The court could find no cause for federal intervention into a state property issue. Those are your choices: allow states to do stupid things to their own people, or federalize property management.
In Washington, the constitution explicitly forbids expropriation of privately held land for such purposes (Article I, Section 16). If you don’t live in Washington and feel the Supreme Court’s thinking sucks, go rewrite your state’s constitution. It’s not hard. While reasonable people disagree about whether flags should be burned, gays should be married, prayers should be said in school, and other things you guys waste time arguing about, 99% of people polled do not think that large property developers should be able to use state power to sieze land for private gain.
I don’t mind conservatives. Really. Some of my best friends, blah blah.
The problem is, you guys are so fucking bad at it!
Good lord. Now I KNOW you are no PhD. God help us if this nation lets you infect any hyoung minds.
You stated ““that the commonly accepted narrative of 1941 may not, in fact, be wholly accurate.” ”
Then you gave your citation to support your argument. So to suggest the narrative of 1941 is not entirely accurate implies an alternate explanation. Based upon the evidence you provided, which is a summary of one man’s opinion on some documents BTW, “suggest that the US government intended to provoke the Japanese into military action against the US, so that the US could then declare war on Japan (and hence eventually against Germany, after Germany would declare war on the US).”
If you had intended merely to say that the narrative is not accurate, then why didn’t you provided citations for alternate theories?
No, you intended, by ommission to infer that FDR was a warmonger. And since that makes “progressives” look bad in the eyes of other “progressives” you now want to argue the point.
You hop online expecting everyone here to give you a nice pat on the back for making a citation as if you are a junior high student who wrote his first research paper or something.
Now, if you care to update your thesis with sources that present alternate narratives to 1941 other than FDR intentionally provoking the Japanese, feel free.
Oh, and FDR never served in the military – even though he sent thousands to die. Before his illness he had plenty of opportunity but had other things to do. Oh, and for the ignorant liberal that will retort “FDR was Assistant Secretary of the Navy!”. That isn’t a military position, it is a civilian one. But there was ONE former Assistant naval Secretary who DID fight. He was a Republican. His name was Teddy Roosevelt!!!
113
Who the hell is Ray Thomas? He sure as hell has no idea of what the terms he quotes (Socialism, etc.) actually mean. Here, let me prove it to you, by rewriting a couple of sentences:
And I could go on, but it wouldn’t matter. I could also substitute “brake drum” or “underarm deodorant” or just about any other term, and the entire article would make exactly as much sense (i.e. zero), since the author gives absolutely no proof whatsoever to substantiate his points.
“If you had intended merely to say that the narrative is not accurate, then why didn’t you provided citations for alternate theories?”
Well what the hell, pbj? Are we speaking the same language? I did precisely that: provide citations (one, but there are others) for authors who have other theories.
“No, you intended, by ommission to infer that FDR was a warmonger. And since that makes “progressives” look bad in the eyes of other “progressives” you now want to argue the point.”
I made and make no such inference; on the contrary, you are the one again making a fallacious argument by pretending to know what I “intend”.
Fuck it. I give up. It’s not worth trying to argue this with you any further.
jsa on commercial drive,
>>Well let’s see. How about we start with disclosing our methods of tracking terrorist communications and finances so the >>enemy can evade them.
>>Funny, I always thought conservatives were skeptical of government power. It’s OK for everything to be secret now?
— In time OF WAR – YES!!! FDR has an office of censorship. He jailed US citizens for the crime of being of Japanese ancestry. Yet liberals lionize FDR for his “greatness”.
>>Blocking shipments of vital protective equipment at the Port of Olympia.
>>God forbid that private citizens would protest activities by their government that they don’t like. Coming up, pbj will explain >>to us how in fomenting a guerilla war against the established, legal colonial government of the British colonies in the New >>World, our Founding Fathers were terrorists.
Just as there is a difference between free speech and yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded theater, there is a difference between protesting and damaging government property in an effort to obstruct our war effort. We call the latter treason. I do not know of any anti-war protest where the protestors have been arrested simply for talking. You do not have a right to destroy government property. That is not protected speech. That is a crime.
>>Celebrating Professor Ward Churchill on campuses all over this nation for having called the 911 victims “Little Eichmans”.
>>Who? What? Ward whatshisname? He sits on the DNC, doesn’t he? Oh, wait, he doesn’t. So he’s got a commitee position in the House? The Senate? No. Damn. This one is tough. Let me guess… Let me guess….So he’s at least like, a big-city mayor, an alderman? Precinct captain?
>>Oh, that’s right. He’s a tenured professor at the University of Colorado. A major force in the Gigantic Left-Wing Conspiracy.
>>I, for one, WANT college professors to say outrageous things. The worst disservice that any educator past the fifth grade can do to their students is to shove a bunch of bland platitudes into their heads to swallow without comment. If I was in Professor Churchill’s class, as a commited leftie, I would cheerfully go toe-to-toe with him and ask how working in a given building automatically makes one deserving of attack. Generally, my professors had a pretty good sense of humor for my arguments back in college. It made the class a lot more entertaining than a bunch of people taking notes and not wanting to raise attention.
Well, Michael Moore certainly held a seat of honor at the 2004 Democrat National Convention. And Ward Churchill’s outrageous statements regarding the 911 victims has not received one one millionth of the national attention in the liberal media that Ann Coutler received about her remarks.
I am sure the the instructors in Nazi Germany thought they were teaching “cutting edge” thoery too when the were “educating” their youth about the superiority of the “master race”.
Apparently in your world, what a professor teaches needn’t be bothered with such boring things as facts.
>>The KELO decision by the liberal memebrs of the Supreme Court that basically allows rich developers to use bogus eminent domain “blight” arguments to steal people’s property.
>>Did you read that decision? Probably not. What the court really said was that managing property and eminent domain decisions was a state issue. The court could find no cause for federal intervention into a state property issue. Those are your choices: allow states to do stupid things to their own people, or federalize property management.
>>In Washington, the constitution explicitly forbids expropriation of privately held land for such purposes (Article I, Section 16). If you don’t live in Washington and feel the Supreme Court’s thinking sucks, go rewrite your state’s constitution. It’s not hard. While reasonable people disagree about whether flags should be burned, gays should be married, prayers should be said in school, and other things you guys waste time arguing about, 99% of people polled do not think that large property developers should be able to use state power to sieze land for private gain.
Actually I did. It is for the same reason that liberals wanted civil rights to be federally enforced that conservatives want property rights to be federally enforced. Some places don’t quite follow the letter of the law. Liberals always like to cite the Washington State Constitution and say it protecks us, so no need to worry. Well unfortunately, you need to tell that to Lovie Nichols.
Source: http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....son26.html :
“Whatever the efforts of our state representatives to protect us from the abuse of eminent domain, they are already too late for Lovie Nichols of Bremerton. When the city condemned 22 homes there in 1996 ostensibly to make way for a sewer-plant extension, all of the owners settled with the city except for Nichols, an elderly widow who refused to vacate her home of 55 years.
She received an eviction notice, but she was not told at the time that the city had sold her property out from under her as part of an 11-acre land deal with a local car dealer. Nichols finally was forced to move out of her home after the Washington State Supreme Court declined to review her case.”
>>Fuck it. I give up. It’s not worth trying to argue this with you any further.
So, the “Dr” gets challenged, and like all liberals without evidence, must just give up. That is really the theme of liberals isn’t it? Give up the WOT, give up your money, give up the debate.
“The worst disservice that any educator past the fifth grade can do to their students is to shove a bunch of bland platitudes into their heads to swallow without comment.”
For the most part, that’s true (for educators who are in the position to spout bland platitudes).
Oh, and on the Lovie Nichols case, they never did use her land for the intended purpose of the sewer. Instead, they turned around and sold it to a car dealer. I would have though, being African American, here is a great case for liberals to come to the rescue (ACLU, NAACP, etc). I would HAVE CHEERED THEM ON! But the saga of Lovie Nichols will forever be the shame of liberals in the Puget Sound.
We are ALL Lovie Nichols in waiting. I don’t know where that poor woman is today, but an injustice was done to her and no liberal stepped in to help her out. That was a big eye opener for me. It proved that liberals are all rhetoric and NO action. Even their well recited Civil rights “triumphs” were largely passed due to Republicans, in SPITE of opposition by Southern Democrats such as today’s much heralded Sen Robert KKK Byrd who filibustered the bill in 1964. He also wrote in a Dec 11,1945 letter to Sen Theodore Bilbo, D- Miss. that he would never fight in the military “with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours degraded by race mongrels ”
“
124
Listen, pbj, “challenge” me with facts, or with opinions that are supported by facts and I’ll be happy to respond. Instead, you’ve been showering us with platitudes, talking points, and fallacious statements.
Okay, here’s the deal. This is what historians do (bearing in mind I am not a historian, but do hold a doctoral degree, whether you might like it or not): they examine a body of information, which comes in a variety of forms (documentary, anectodal (on occasion), etc.), which concerns a given topic. From these various and diverse sources they attempt to construct a meaningful interpretation that best represents some aspect of the topic under consideration. On occasion, evidence arises that may run contrary and/or cast doubts upon previous interpretations of that topic, which then warrants revisiting and reevaluating the topic.
This subsequent interpretation may run at odds to previous, widely accepted interpretations, and may cause considerable consternation among those who have accepted earlier interpretations—indeed, the more one considers a particular interpretation to be accurate or “true”, the more disturbing this new take on the historical topic may be. Such is the case with the narrative of Pearl Harbor that most of us learned in school, and such is also the case with the generally accepted narrative of 9/11.
Now, when someone like me points out that there are opposing views to previous historical consensus (and consensus probably isn’t really the right term) that does not mean that I have to agree with those views. Maybe I do, maybe not, but having to agree with such views in order to speak of their existence is certainly not an a priori criterion. Surely, that can’t be that hard to understand.
Like it or not, it does an absolute disservice to the advancement of the body of historical scholarship to outright deny that previously held interpretations might be inaccurate or even downright wrong. That, however is what most conservatives tend to do when presented with this type of controversial information. And, I might add, quite a lot of liberals are guilty of the same.
Like it or not, it does an absolute disservice to the advancement of the body of historical scholarship to outright deny that previously held interpretations might be inaccurate or even downright wrong.
Oh, I don’t deny that may indeed be the case. For example, in the case of Joseph Mccarthy and the so called “Red Scare”, the Venona project files clearly debunk most of the liberal dogma regarding the period. Or as you put it, previously held interpretations.
However, in evaluating such reinterpretations, one must always be suspicious of the motives of those doing the interpretation and be willing to examine source documents to see if the conclusions follow from the source documents presented.
Or do you propose such revisions are always infalliable?
“Okay, here’s the deal. This is what historians do (bearing in mind I am not a historian, but do hold a doctoral degree, whether you might like it or not): they examine a body of information, which comes in a variety of forms (documentary, anectodal (on occasion), etc.), which concerns a given topic. From these various and diverse sources they attempt to construct a meaningful interpretation that best represents some aspect of the topic under consideration.”
Is that your way of stating that they have an opinion?
PeaButtJell: So, the “Dr” gets challenged, and like all liberals without evidence, must just give up. That is really the theme of liberals isn’t it? Give up the WOT, give up your money, give up the debate.
Really smart people know when to quit. Your assenine circular talking-point debate merely uses up bandwidth and nothing else.
BTA, would you please turn off the italics. You’re an idiot.
PeaButtJel: So, the “Dr” gets challenged, and like all liberals without evidence, must just give up. That is really the theme of liberals isn’t it? Give up the WOT, give up your money, give up the debate.
Oh. So the world really is flat. . . I get ya.
PeaButtJel: Like it or not, it does an absolute disservice to the advancement of the body of historical scholarship to outright deny that previously held interpretations might be inaccurate or even downright wrong.
This is the quote I meant to cite so a redux here:
Oh, so the world really is flat . . . I get ya.
“Or do you propose such revisions are always infalliable?”
No body of scholarship is ever infallible. And, I more or less agree with you in examining source documents, something I almost always try to do; it’s just that I am not inherently suspicious of the emergence of contraversial viewpoints, since I am not inherently suspicious of academics and intellectuals. Such debate is, in some ways, the nature of the beast, if it’s functioning properly. The peer-review process is usally a pretty effective in keeping things from getting out of hand in the scholarly arena.
And, @ 129, it’s not my way of “stating an opinion”, but how I think historians tend to work, in general, having known more than a few of them over the years.
Let’s try switching off italics, shall we?
Now, can we talk?
PBJ left them on . . . and I’m guessing he’s going to have to turn them off. I’ve tried several times and way. Sorry. PBJ left them on up at 89)
Thank you pbj for your delusional vacuous arguments. Everyone can now see how looney tune the Republican party has become.
You must be a true believer because I can’t believe anyone would pay you for this spew.
Nope. Italics are still on.
I’m short on time today, so I’ll give a drive-by response to your comments:
1) In time of war, yes. Fine. Yes. FDR had an office of military censorship. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus.
We knew when the civil war started that eventually, Atlanta would be burned to the ground and the war would end. We knew when WWII started that eventually Hitler and Tojo would be beaten, and the war would end.
When does the war on terrorism end? If Osama bin-Laden is killed or captured, is the war on terror over? Nope. I don’t think so either. If we have another five years with no attacks on US soil, is the war over? No, it means that Homeland Security might be doing something right (or we’re lucky, or however you choose to interpret it). The war on terror ends when the Powers That Be say it ends. Power does not relinquish power easily or voluntarily. This is true of Liberal power, Conservative power, Statist power or any other sort of power. We will be stuck with these “National Security” laws for the next 50 years, even when all the current batch of terrorists have died of old age. Still think this is a good idea?
3) Michael Moore makes movies and writes books. Ann Coulter is a multimedia phenomenon with speaking gigs on at least two networks, a newspaper column, a slew of books, etc. Both get a lot of flack from their detractors, most of it richly deserved. (I personally think Moore doesn’t know what he’s talking about 80% of the time. If I admit to sometimes liking his brand of bullshit, it’s a guilty pleasure next to chocolate and cigarettes. Left-wing demagogues are no better than right-wing ones. Worse, they should know better). Churchill got a lot of press considering what he is, namely, a cranky left-wing college professor. If everything a prof said that didn’t make sense was widely covered, there would be no room in the papers for proper news.
I award you negative 50 points for invoking the Nazis in this thread. I assure you as a member of the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy that Dr. Churchill does not receive his instructions from on high. This is a good thing. If we Liberals had an organized hierarchy, controlled the media, had an iron grip on the doctrine in academia, and we still lost elections early and often, I’d say it would be time to concede defeat and go home.
4) Hooo boy! Property rights should be federalized? Does the Fed get to step in every time someone objects to an eminent domain decision? Maybe on planet Wingnut where Government Is Inherently Evil does adding more road blocks into every government project make sense. Out here in the real world where schools, roads, and, yes, sewage treatment plants need to be built, that’s patent nonsense. Yes, private property matters. Property rights and what flows from them are one of the cornerstones of the ability to create wealth in the United States and most other developed nations. However, property accrued by the state does not automatically stay in the state’s hands forever. When I was a young ‘un and the I-90 tunnel was being built, the houses on top of Mt. Baker were bought by WSDOT while the tunnel was being built. After the tunnel was completed, the houses, some of which had been damaged by settling, were sold back into the private sector. Was this an illegal taking? By your reasoning, it would seem to be.
pbj, Outstanding posts. The libs here will hate you forever. Best Regards, JCH
Goldy wants to make light of the present situation in the Middle East.
Maybe Israel needs to try a prisoner exchange to end this thing after all. How about exchanging David Goldstein and Barbara Feinstein for the two Israelis being held by Hezbollah, and George Soros for the Israeli being held by Hamas?
I am sure this sort of arrangement would be acceptable to the Israelis.
PBJ, from the 90’s above-
I am an avowed liberal. I am also from New York. My brother saw the second plane hit the towers and called my sister-in-law to get his kids out of school as there were military jets circling Manhattan. I have been in hockey rinks where the jerseys of fallen firefighters and policemen are posted in places of honor.
I believe that the initial Bush resopnse, supporting the Northern Alliance, and taking down the Taliban in Afganistan was brilliant. I also believe Bush I knew what he was doing when he demolished the Iraqis in Kuwait and left them isolatedin Bagdad.
Where Bush II went off the tracks was in Iraq. It was unjustified. THe link to Saudi Arabia (funds and killers on 9/11) is stronger than the link to Iraq. There are no WMD. Spare me the talking points. North Korea is a greater threat.
How much stronger would our position be if we stayed with Afganistan, and there was a strong democratic country there. And we probably would have Bin Ladin. Saddam would still be isolated and no real threat. Our military would be much stronger and not as stretched.
Sorry pal but this liberal believes Bush II is a misrable failure, and I’m not alone.
RP-KKK: PeaButtJel is gone. He went back to Steffy’s place. You know, the blog that censors you. He couldn’t handle the heat here.
LYNCHED ANYBODY ELSE SINCE WE LAST TALKED?
So now the Dems have resorted to stalking Mike McGavick at every event. They are paying some partisan Dem to follow McGavick to every single event and hauling around a video camera to record every single thing McGavick says. If the sitch were reveresed, the Dems would claim that McGavick is stalking Maria.
RPK @ 139:
pbj, Outstanding posts. The libs here will hate you forever. Best Regards, JCH
The libs will hate him forever? Uh, no. We’re not like that.
Mostly, I just wish he would use his private-sector medical insurance, which he has earned by being a producer, and get his medication adjusted. Whether his current dosage is currently too high or too low, I can’t say. The fact that the current quantity is incorrect seems incontrovertible based on the twisted assumptions needed to work through his flow of illogic.
Living in the 8th @ 143
“They are paying some partisan Dem to follow McGavick to every single event and hauling around a video camera to record every single thing McGavick says.”
Paranoid much, asshole?
They are following him to every public event, dipshit. Do you know what the word public means?
dj, the public part is fairly implied to most people. Don’t you think? And is it ever possible for you to post something that doesn’t include four-letter words?
Should McGavick be stalking Maria similarly?
Living in the 8th,
“public part is fairly implied to most people. Don’t you think?”
It would seem that you failed to account for the public nature of McGavick’s events when you made your stupid-ass comment above.
“And is it ever possible for you to post something that doesn’t include four-letter words?”
Oh…fuck, yes. I do it all the time. But, if you don’t like my four-letter word bearing posts, the go the fuck away, or don’t read my posts! As Goldy (you know, the guy who owns this blog, but allows public posting on it) says, this is an “edgy” forum. If you cannot handle it, leave, jackass!
“Should McGavick be stalking Maria similarly?”
See…here is where your wingnuttery fails you. If an event is public then we can’t really call it “stalking,” can we? The very nature of an event being “public” is that McGavick has inviting anyone and everyone (a.k.a. the public) to attend. It is then just called “showing up and taping a public event,” not stalking.
If someone is trying to video tape McGavick in situations where he has a reasonable expectation of privacy (i.e. through the windows of private events, while he is taking a shit–even in a public building–or through the fence of a Club Med whist on vacation), then you would have a point.
And, no, I have no problems whatsoever with Wingnuts showing up and taping Cantwell. I mean, isn’t this (in part) what the press routinely does for a living?
I liked how Newt justified his WWIII statement by citing the idiot band of ignorant wannabes in Miami that the administration touted as their great cature as evidence backing his claim. If those guys are “the enemy,” we have nothing to worry about.
You see, when a Republican can’t control who is in his audience and speak only to a pre-selected group of stooges, it’s the Democrats’ fault.
Before the era of bloggers, a politician could get away with telling one group one thing, and another group another thing. That’s because the news media couldn’t attend every event, and when they did it would sometimes get relegated to the back pages, or only a few sound bites would appear. Newt seems to be stuck in that era – he thinks he can make jingoistic comments to Republican fund-raisers without fear of being quoted elsewhere, and then try to appear more “reasonable” when speaking on national television. If someone did point out the inconsistencies, he would simply claim he was mis-quoted.
But the situation has changed a bit over the past couple of years. The proliferation of blogs has meant that it is unlikely that a politician can say something, anywhere, without it being quoted (published) online. And because there are so many bloggers, they tend to have a long collective memory.
Now even creditialed journalists, like Postman, have blogs so they can discuss in detail what they wanted to say, but which was deleted due to space or “editorial” concerns. So the average journalist with a press pass will be able to record a lot more of what goes on than they did before.
Finally, bloggers can continue the discussion for a long time. While the MSM will quickly tire of political parties or candidates trading charges or counter-charges, the bloggers can sift through the information over time, and sort it out, and publish the results. Politicians who thought that five years was enough time for the public to forget something will find their mis-deeds published online for an indefinate length of time.
So if Newt Gingrich dares to try the “family values” line again, or run for President, voters can quickly find multiple web sites which discuss the details of how he informed his wife he wanted a divorce while she was in the hospital recovering from a third cancer surgery, about how he divorced her because she wasn’t “young enough or pretty enough” to be the wife of a future president, about how he divorced her so he could marry a younger aid with whom he was having an affair, only to divorce that second wife when he was caught having an adulterous affair with a Congressional intern, all while acting quite outraged about Bill Clinton’s dalience with Monica Lewinsky, and about how he was forced to give up his leadership position over ethics charges, and about how he conspired to violate the “negotiated settlement” of the ethics charges so he could stay in power.
So if Newt or Reichart of McGarvey are concerned that somebody is recording their comments at public functions, then perhaps they should be careful what they say. Of course, Reichart has gone a long way towards avoiding attending any function which is not carefully controlled, or even open to the public or the press. I wonder why?