A July Fourth Declaration

It is clear that the American Constitution is in grave danger. It is time to make the defense of the Constitution a national theme for all candidates in this year's electoral contests.

The threat to the Constitution from President Bush, his administration, and an accomplice Republican Congress is all too obvious. In clear violation of established law and centuries-old political precedent, they have wiretapped American citizens; imprisoned citizens without warrants, charges, or means of redress; sanctioned and abetted the torture of foreign nationals; ignored clear Congressional legislative intent with the likes of 750 signing statements; disabled Congressional oversight of their actions; undertaken an assault on the press' right to publish the truth; and suppressed dissent and public-minded information disclosure within the Executive branch itself.

This abuse and overreach of Presidential power directly challenges the "checks and balances" at the core of our constitutional design. It proposes a government fundamentally different from that declared by the Founding Fathers.

The administration aggressively defends its actions on the grounds of national security and "unitary" executive power. It argues that we are in a state of war, of indefinite duration, which gives the Commander in Chief extraordinary autonomous powers. It argues, too, that the President has final control over all employees of the Executive branch – including those with no military function – and extending to the control of information they are permitted to provide to the public. As the Decider, President Bush decides what the public can or cannot know.

Simply put, to accept these arguments would be to accept the end of our democracy.

Central to the defense of this nation is defense of its constitutional values as well as its physical security. To sacrifice the Constitution in the name of "national defense" would be a grave mistake, for it destroys the very nation worthy of defense in the first place. This country has faced perils no less than today's – including those vanquished in a Civil War and World War II – without abandoning that conviction. To abandon it now would disgrace us before those who fought and sacrificed and gave us the gift of this nation.

Nor does prudence recommend this course. As we have relearned in recent years -- in instances as diverse as the Iraq War, the response to Hurricane Katrina, and Medicare reform -- a President who can suppress "unwanted" information breeds dangerous incompetence, and a government that acts on bad information becomes a bad government.

The actions of the Executive branch have a real and powerful impact on our lives. We simply cannot afford a "unitary executive" who silences independent voices, lets politics determine science, threatens our first amendment rights, withholds critical information from even enforcement personnel, and elevates personal loyalty to him above the duty to inform the public.

The American people's most powerful weapon in defending the Constitution is their vote in Presidential elections. But we cannot afford to wait until 2008. The danger to our Constitution is clear and present. Hence our call to all patriots to put the issue before the public in this November's elections and ask of all candidates, "Do you accept or condemn the President's assault on our Constitution?"

Some will object that using an election to defend the Constitution threatens to debase it to an instrument of partisan politics. The objection is misplaced. In fact, an electoral contest over Constitutional first principles will not debase those principles, but elevate the discourse, meaning, and substance of the contests themselves. There is no better use of parties, elections, and our votes.

Some will shrink from defending the Constitution out of fear that the public is not interested in such a discussion or lacks a real commitment to constitutional government--that it's a losing issue. They should have more faith in the American people. Given a clear choice, Americans will choose defenders of the Constitution over those who would destroy it. But the choice must be put clearly before them.

Declare our current crisis, and invite those who would serve as our elected representatives to defend the Constitution against our current President and an accomplice Republican Party.

Comments (427)

1. we are a young country, and it's becoming more and more obvious that the so-called "conservative" world view simply isn't working.

   Posted by darladoon at 07/03/2006 @ 11:19am

2. Darla, that "philosophy" is in retreat world wide. patience.

   Posted by johannesrolf at 07/03/2006 @ 11:23am

3. It's worth remembering that when the president is inaugurated he makes only one promise, explicitly. It is not to defend the flag. It is not even to defend the country. The founders singled out one thing that the president must defend: the Constitution. Its seems clear that GWB has not taken this oath to heart.

   US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

   Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

   Posted by RSOU at 07/03/2006 @ 12:22pm

4. RSOU. good point.

   Posted by johannesrolf at 07/03/2006 @ 12:25pm

5. well, the anectdotal attributed to Duby below, if it was verifable, would in and of itself then be sufficient to impeach

   "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

   Posted by leftofcenter at 07/03/2006 @ 12:32pm

6. we are always told that the american revolution liberated us from king George the tyrant. Not so. King George was very much constrained by Parliament. in fact the policies that the colonies rebelled against were all passed by that parliament. I would wager that King George the III was more constrained by parliament than Bush is by our do nothing congress.

   Posted by johannesrolf at 07/03/2006 @ 1:01pm

7. While the Religious Right are by no means the majority in the U.S. they nonetheless command the support and voice of their like-minded protagonist, G. W. Bush, and his bully pulpit in the White House.

   They have created a divisive, poisonous atmosphere like none we've ever seen in our country or the world since the days of the demonic dictator, Adolf Hitler who also, by the way, claimed to be Christian. These odious, tolerance-for-none bigots and racists have a stranglehold on our government and have made no secrets of their cherished goal of establishing a Totalitarian-Theocratic State in America. Their relentless and withering attacks on our Constitutional liberties such as the No Knock law was recently endorsed by a Right Wing, increasingly partisan, activist cortege of anti-U.S. Constitution judges who legislate laws straight from the bench. The No Knock law essentially repealed the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure of private homes and property without a court-ordered warrant.

   It is no wonder then that so many throughout the rest of the civilized nations see the growing threats to world peace and a belief that Bush's "plenary" executive powers have preempted all other domestic and international laws and treaties agreed to by our once-friendly allies.

   War Forever and democracy forced at the end of a gun barrel, threats against the free press and freedom of expression are all under devastating attack by the Bush/Cheney regime and his like-minded, punishment-only rule of law which he and his Religious Right and corrupt Republican acolytes believe have been bestowed upon G. W. Bush by God Almighty. Nothing can penetrate or dissuade this dogmatic,intransigent mindset.

   The above analysis is predicated on Bush's own philosophy which he described in his first choice and the most qualified person in America for a seat on the United States Supreme Court, Harriet Miers.

   Here is exactly how he put it: Harriet Miers, was "the best person I could find for the job." Further, Bush vouched for her judicial qualifications stating "I know her. I know her heart. I know what she believes," and added "I know her well enough to be able to say that she's not going to change, that 20 years from now she'll be the same person with the same philosophy that she is today." He added, "I'm interested in finding somebody who shares my philosophy today and will have that same philosophy 20 years from now."

   I have no reason to doubt for one minute that Bush's "philosophy" is the same today as it was before he was installed via judicial fiat in December 2000.

   The corrupt, corrosive Republican Party has elevated and promoted avarice, intolerance, xenophobia and total hostility for the freedoms and liberties contained in our U.S. Constitution as national priorities and the defining tenets of the Bush administration over the past five years. Taking away, not expanding civil liberties and freedoms, define this administration which is nearing the acme of G. W. Bush's reach for absolute power and control. He's almost there, now that he has launched a blitzkrieg of anti-free press propaganda, the intent of which is to muzzle open discussion of his disastrous policies, both domestic and international, well in advance of this November's election.

   Over five years ago former Chinese president Jiang Zemin on meeting G. W. Bush for the first time described him as "Logically unsound, confused, unprincipled and unwise To the Extreme!" How well that description and that truth still fits Bush today.

   Sadly, our country and the rest of the civilized world must endure this totally depraved individual and his equally unprincipled, corrupt sycophants in the Republican-controlled congress -- unless of course, the American people pour out to the polls in November and boot out the entire cesspool and end the Bush rule of tyranny.

   Posted by richard38 at 07/03/2006 @ 2:54pm

8. .

   KVH DECLARES CONTEMPT FOR THE TRUTH

   She writes,

   It is clear that the American Constitution is in grave danger.

   The Constitution and our right to our convictions, our opinions, our vote, our firearms, our property, have never been more secure. They are not in danger. In danger on this July 3, is our country.

   The threat flows from two sources. One is a foreign culture that considers democracy, religious toleration, free speech, and open inquiry inimical. The ideas and the spirit of the American Constitution undermine its tenets and its future. Which is why America has been attacked abroad, her ships, her embassies, her citizens, and her key cities, and OBL has promised worse yet.

   The other danger comes from within the West, from opponents of this country thoughout the Cold War. They ever deemed herj, not the Soviet Union, the aggressor, the war monger, the strangler of liberties, the chief threat to the peace of the world.

   Now those scoundrels have found a second career, this time free of the communist stigma, but still slandering the US as a belicose giant greedy to topple the liberties of the weak and poor, and not just in the third world, but here at home. They opposed the effort to eject Saddam Hussein, they hoped his forces would defeat America's and they yet seek the victory of the Iraqi insurgency even as it mass murders and machine-guns voters.

   They detest United States as much today as during the Cold War. They despise her for being capitalist and wealthy and successful; all the more so because their own Soviet utopia proved tyrannical and incompetent. They do not want US ideals to prevail in the world. They loathe the PNAC and its efforts on behalf of US interests in the future. They want those to fail. They are desperate for a withdrawal from Iraq, and dread the possibility that the US succeeds and the administration is vindicated.

   Vanden Heuvel and Navasky are typical of that rottenness. They are true ideologues, even as they recoil at the word. Navasky to this hour refuses to admit that the Rosenbergs and Alger Hiss were traitors. They want to shackle American security services at the moment when the country has never been so exposed to direct, physical danger. In their frustration, hate, stupidity and malice they are indifferent to her danger.

   They pose as democrats and human rights proponents on this 4 of July. But whether in the days of the Cold War or the War against Terror, they support those who despise the freedom and the rights of the individuals.

   .

   Posted by nacl at 07/03/2006 @ 2:57pm

9. could happen Rich

   Posted by johannesrolf at 07/03/2006 @ 2:59pm

10. DD & JR

    A TRUE conservative view IS that of the Founding Fathers. Please do not associate intellectual decendants of the Founding Fathers with todays brand of conservatives (Bush, DeLay, writers like Horowitz, etc.) A true conservative will submit that the Rule of Law, The Rights of the Individual, Private Property, and a Common American Identity are the cornerstones of the Founding Fathers philosophies. George Bush has done almost as much damage to these tenents as any socialist would. (Yeah, thats right JR I'm back, finished up early :))

    CT

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/03/2006 @ 3:02pm

11. NACL,

    Your first "threat" has existed since the founding of this country. Apparently not much of a threat.

    Your second "threat" has existed for over half a century. Also, apparently not much of a threat.

    So while these things get all twisted up into "libruls" in that nasty little nest under your cranium, do yourself a favor and cool it on the "the left hates America" bullshit. We and you can co-exist because of the broadmindedness of our founding fathers. If you are really that scared of us, then all I can say is...

    ...BOO!

    It's okay little feller. You can come out now. Big ol' meanie lefty was just playin'.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/03/2006 @ 3:12pm

12. NACL

    "All right. You've covered your ass, now."

    Time to go fishing.

    Posted by nathanhale at 07/03/2006 @ 3:16pm

13. They want to shackle American security services at the moment when the country has never been so exposed to direct, physical danger.

    Posted by NACL 07/03/2006 @ 2:57pm | ignore this person

    How do you sleep at night saltboy?

    I mean, this is worse than the second world war, right? This is worse than living under the constant and permanant threat of having your teeth melted to your eye sockets via nuclear anhilation from the USSR right? This is worse than the civil war, right?

    I'm with you salt boy....the terrorists have won they've terrified me so much that I just want Uncle Sam and good old King George to do whatever it takes to keep my lilly white pansy ass safe from the big, bad evil terrorists! To hell with checks and balances, I'm too "terrified" for that shit!

    Posted by freedomplease at 07/03/2006 @ 3:20pm

14. NACL,

    I just saw (again) the Gettysburg episode of Ken Burn's "Civil War" yesterday.

    If you want to know about threats to our country, watch that. Then you will realize that your post was pretty much a good rendition of what Chicken Little might say.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 07/03/2006 @ 3:44pm

15. KVH,

    If you want to make it an issue, why don't you run?

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 07/03/2006 @ 3:45pm

16. Chip, I would go easy with the "founding fathers" check this:

    http://www.creators.com/opinion_show.cfm?columnsName=nso

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/03/2006 @ 4:17pm

17. Will ck it out, JR

    again, have a good 4th

    CT

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/03/2006 @ 4:22pm

18. in a way, nacl's posts are quite terrifying. it's almost as if one has to embrace a kind of paranoia, perpetual warfare, distrust of the 'other', etc, etc....really scary stuff.

    Posted by darladoon at 07/03/2006 @ 5:18pm

19. The Founding Fathers and the Constitution

    By the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, slavery in the United States was a grim reality. In the census of 1790, there were slaves counted in nearly every state, with only Massachusetts and the "districts" of Vermont and Maine, being the only exceptions. In the entire country 3.8 million people were counted, 700,000 of them, or 18 percent, were slaves. In South Carolina, 43 percent of the population was slave. In Maryland 32 percent, and in North Carolina 26 percent. Virginia, with the largest slave population of almost 300,000, had 39 percent of its population made up of slaves.

    In the Articles of Confederation, the nation's first constitution, there is not mention of slavery. The states were represented in Congress by state, with each state picking its own representatives, so population, which became critical in the future House of Representatives, was not relevant. Also, because fugitive slaves, and the abolition movement, were almost unheard of as late as the 1780s, there is no mention of this issue in the Articles. The closest thing to be found is the Fugitive Clause in Article 4, but even that is more geared toward convicts.

    There was no great movement in America to abolish slavery in the 1780's, then the Constitutional Convention met. To be sure, there were opponents of slavery, on a philosophical level, but the abolition movement did not appear until the 1830's, when the American Anti-Slavery Society was founded with William Lloyd Garrison writing the organization's nascent statement of principles. Prior to the Convention in 1787, many "Founding Fathers" expressed opinions that condemned slavery.

    John Jay, great supporter of the Constitution after its creation and an author of The Federalist wrote in 1786, "It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honour of the States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused."

    Oliver Ellsworth, one of the signers of the Constitution wrote, a few months after the Convention adjourned, "All good men wish the entire abolition of slavery, as soon as it can take place with safety to the public, and for the lasting good of the present wretched race of slaves."

    Patrick Henry, the great Virginian patriot, refused to attend the Convention because he "smelt a rat," was outspoken on the issue, despite his citizenship in a slave state. In 1773, he wrote, "I believe a time will come when an opportunity will be offered to abolish this lamentable evil. Everything we do is to improve it, if it happens in our day; if not, let us transmit to our descendants, together with our slaves, a pity for their unhappy lot and an abhorrence of slavery."

    Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, which, famously, declares that "all men are created equal," wrote, "There must doubtless be an unhappy influence on the manners of our people produced by the existence of slavery among us. The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. Our children see this, and learn to imitate it; for man is an imitative animal. This quality is the germ of all education in him." Alas, like many Southerners, Jefferson held slaves, as many as 223 at some points in his life. His family sold his slaves after his death, in an effort to relieve the debt he left his estate in.

    In a letter to the Marquis de Lafayette, George Washington wrote, "[Y]our late purchase of an estate in the colony of Cayenne, with a view to emancipating the slaves on it, is a generous and noble proof of your humanity. Would to God a like spirit would diffuse itself generally into the minds of the people of this country; but I despair of seeing it." Washington and his wife held over 300 slaves. He wrote in his will that he'd wished to free his slaves, but that because of intermarriage between his and Martha's slaves, he feared the break-up of families should only his slaves be freed. He directed that his slaves be freed upon her death. His will provided for the continued care of all slaves, paid for from his estate.

    The great American scientist and publisher Benjamin Franklin held several slaves during his lifetime. He willed one of them be freed upon his death, but Franklin outlived him. In 1789, he said, "Slavery is such an atrocious debasement of human nature, that its very extirpation, if not performed with solicitous care, may sometimes open a source of serious evils."

    Other examples of anti-slavery messages abound from the late 1700's. They illustrate the feelings of some, but those feelings cannot be seen in the product of their works at creating a government. Despite the freedoms demanded in the Declaration and the freedoms reserved in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, slavery was not only tolerated in the Constitution, but it was codified.

    The Constitution has often been called a living tribute to the art of compromise. In the slavery question, this can be seen most clearly. The Convention had representatives from every corner of the United States, including, of course, the South, where slavery was most pronounced. Slavery, in fact, was the backbone of the primary industry of the South, and it was accepted as a given that agriculture in the South without slave labor was not possible. Though slaves were not cheap by any measure, they were cheaper than hiring someone to do the same work. The cultivation of rice, cotton, and tobacco required slaves to work the fields from dawn to dusk. If the nation did not guarantee the continuation of slavery to the South, it was questioned whether they would form their own nation.

    Slavery is seen in the Constitution in a few key places. The first is in the Enumeration Clause, where representatives are apportioned. Each state is given a number of representatives based on its population - in that population, slaves, called "other persons," are counted as three-fifths of a whole person. This compromise was hard-fought, with Northerners wishing that slaves, legally property, but uncounted, much as mules and horses are uncounted. Southerners, however, well aware of the high proportion of slaves to the total population in their states, wanted them counted as whole persons despite their legal status. The three-fifths number was a ratio used by the Congress in contemporary legislation and was agreed upon with little debate.

    In Article 1, Section 9, Congress is limited, expressly, from prohibiting the "Importation" of slaves, before 1808. The slave trade was a bone of contention for many, with some who supported slavery abhorring the slave trade. The 1808 date, a compromise of 20 years, allowed the slave trade to continue, but placed a date-certain on its survival. Congress eventually passed a law outlawing the slave trade that became effective on January 1, 1808.

    The Fugitive Slave Clause is the last mention. In it, a problem that slave states had with extradition of escaped slaves was resolved. The laws of one state, the clause says, cannot excuse a person from "Service or Labour" in another state. The clause expressly requires that the state in which an escapee is found deliver the slave to the state he escaped from "on Claim of the Party."

    It has been said that the seeds of the Civil War, which was fought, despite revisionist theory to the contrary, over the issue of slavery, were sown in the compromises of the Constitution on the issue. This is probably true. Slavery, which was started in violence in the kidnaping, shipment, and commerce of human chattel, needed violence to bring it to an end. After the devastation of the Revolutionary War and the unrest in the U.S. under the Articles, a time of peace and recovery was needed to strengthen the nation to a point where it could survive a civil war. The greatest tragedy is that in the nearly 100 years between the start of the Revolutionary War and the end of the Civil War, millions of slaves served, suffered, and died so that the nation could prosper.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/03/2006 @ 5:19pm

20. They opposed the effort to eject Saddam Hussein, they hoped his forces would defeat America's and they yet seek the victory of the Iraqi insurgency even as it mass murders and machine-guns voters. They detest United States as much today as during the Cold War. They despise her for being capitalist and wealthy and successful; all the more so because their own Soviet utopia proved tyrannical and incompetent. They do not want US ideals to prevail in the world. They loathe the PNAC and its efforts on behalf of US interests in the future. They want those to fail. They are desperate for a withdrawal from Iraq, and dread the possibility that the US succeeds and the administration is vindicated. Posted by NACL 07/03/2006 @ 2:57pm | ignore this person

    NaCl DISTORTS FACTS, SIMPLIFIES WORLD EVENTS

    Yes, we opposed the efforts of this administration and the PNAC to wage a taxpayer-funded war against a dictator created and supported by the same people under previous adminstrations that will further enrich the same corporations that were doing business with him during the 1990s and whose consequences would be borne by the opppressed citizenry. We alone correctly predicted this very insurgency that you decry and has taken the administration and the PNAC completely by surprise.

    We do not detest the US, we detest the corporations that rape and plunder the resources of the rest of the world while wrapping themselves in the American flag. We detest the amoral politicians who wage war in our names and support repressive regimes for their own personal profit and the enrichment of their political benfactors. We detest the fact that we become the targets of hijacked airliners in retaliation for their crimes.

    And we detest the moronic flag-waving dittoheads who not only choose to believe the lies of the administration and PNAC (its easier than thinking) but who promote this ridiculous agenda and distort complex world events into oversimplified Us vs. Them, Good Guys vs. Bad Guys scenarios.

    Posted by bjkron at 07/03/2006 @ 5:26pm

21. As I leave for the far East I decided to post one last time for a while...and re-post my earlier version..as the 4th of July is important to me.

    NACL and Ponti,

    Most threatening to my country and freedom, is the inability of some of my neighbors to recognize a threat to us as a whole society..our very way of life. It rattles the mind to see 40% of your fellow country men espouse the thought that the greatest evil in the world is, neither communisim or jihadism by paradise bound EDUCATED lunatics...rather the threat they worry about is Bush...

    My father, a WW2 generation, told me, that what made America invicible, was when the guy in New Jersey, Kansas, North Dakota, California, every state,..came to the same conclusion at roughly the same time..that their very way of life was threatened. At THAT moment Germany and Japan were finished. Before 1 B-25 or M-1 came off the line.

    Today, when a threat has been leveled against us..roughtly 1/2 -1/3 the country actually debates..

    1. Is there a threat, since if the conservatives believe so, then there is none.

    2. Are we the threat?

    3. What will the our "allies, (from the root words,..ALL LIES,BTW), think is a threat

    4. What will the world think

    Enough, already.

    What happened to acting in your own self intetest? Our own TV comentators afraid to back their own country, all the while worrying about objectivity, only to print stories that your enemy could only dream about....

    I am flabergasted..I un-ignored today my entire list and read what was posted....I re-ignored immediately..I, mean, the number of 1-2 line posts by Will..all nonsense, Zero paranoia,..forget Plunger and Reese..Darloon,..Johannes, you, sir, are an exception,and on and on and on. I will not be missed here as it should be, as I am an irritant to the main body here and never taken seriously. So be it and expected.

    I am discouraged and am taking a hiatus. Plus, I am off to China and the far East for a while....gotta take some heat off the old mellon and do a little free enterprise...and spread ,truth, justice and the American way...BTW, is it true the people left out ..The American Way"...from the New Superman movie? Christ, you all should habve seen the people interviewed today upon their swearing in as new US citizens.....it would have shocked the regulars on this site including KVH...all 3rd worlders, praising the opportunitys here...and not a European face in the bunch,...anyway...flew right in the face of the opinions posted here ad nauseum..

    I want to say NACL, I enjoy your posts and Ponti, I admire your tenascity..but your are a positive charge in a beaker of negative ions.....

    Johannes,...

    I am not sure, but I believe now that Brazil has been defeated, the Germans are the odds on favorite. Nicht war?

    Happy 4th to all here....

    And on to the last..

    JR,

    .."we are always told that the american revolution liberated us from king George the tyrant.".... Not so.

    Ah, NO...we were liberated form TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION, which to many of us,,still exists.....

    ..."These odious, tolerance-for-none bigots and racists have a stranglehold on our government and have made no secrets of their cherished goal of establishing a Totalitarian-Theocratic State in America."

    Ah, sounds like the warning bells most are ringing about IRAN...

    The jihadist fit this more than the guy down the street who goes to church on Sunday and questions the moral shifts that have occured so fast in this country..

    NACL AND JR,

    I would love to get together with the both of you and have a drink amid calm conversation and not one line pimps..it would be fun to experience you two in the same bar table......

    Again, Happy 4th...gone for a while........

    Posted by john maasch at 07/03/2006 @ 6:18pm

22. Maasch, ain't gonna happen. You? Ok, NACL notafuckingchance

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/03/2006 @ 6:23pm

23. if maasch's people are so clear about how to engage this so-called "threat", than why is the republican party in shambles? why do many of them want rumsfeld's head? why are many of their congressmen and women up for re-election in deep doo-doo?

    and is there anyone on this forum who thinks that democrats do not recognize radical islam as a threat? christ maasch is an idiot, good riddance you imbecile! have fun standing out like a typical american in the far east! don't forget: chew lots of gum, wear a sweatshirt with the name of an american university or nfl football team on it, and yell at people that don't speak english!

    Posted by darladoon at 07/03/2006 @ 6:49pm

24. Why is it so difficult for right wingers to understand that folks on the left agree that we have a terrible enemy in Al Qaeda and Islamic fundamentalist terrorism in general and that we must use wiretaps, eavesdropping, etc. to find out what the bad guys are up to? Is this so difficult to understand? We also believe that we can fight and defeat this enemy without acting like criminals ourselves; however, this does NOT mean we don't see the urgency of this struggle.

    Why should we accept violations of our Constitution? Isn't the unitary president concept something like the monarchy we fought so hard to be liberated from?

    Posted by Fishbite at 07/03/2006 @ 6:57pm

25. Radical islam is a far greater threat to american interests and american client, or puppet states. Bin Laden does not want to overthrow the american gov't, but he does want to overthrow the Saudi family dictatorship.

    as far as america is concerned the threat has been overstated, 9/11 notwithstanding. They simply do not have the means to be a threat.

    I repeat, we managed a far greater threat, the soviets, for 50 years, without losing our rights here at home, the redbaiting of the 50s excepted. those soviets still have those nukes, though they are no longer targeted on american cities.

    the misadministration is lying when it hypes this minor threat as the threat to end all threats. it is doing so to enrich themselves and their sponsors, and to grab more power. they will regret the latter when the opposition party comes to power.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/03/2006 @ 7:01pm

26. I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. - James Madison

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/03/2006 @ 7:34pm

27. Perhaps others are familiar with Barbara O'Brien and her blog [mahablog.com]. She has posted some very insightful things of late including an article about political culture, from which I will now cut and paste liberally:

    Here's the big-picture hypothesis: American political culture is so sick and contaminated that it no longer supports the processes of democratic politics and government.

    This is not to say that democracy in America has already failed. Sheer inertia has kept the rituals of democracy and the processes of government lumbering along. It takes either a long time or a lot of force to stop a really big mass that's been in motion for a while.

    But a political culture utterly inhospitable to rational political discussion, as ours has become, cannot support democratic decision making. And a political culture in which large factions of people do not agree on matters of political legitimacy or appropriate distribution and use of power is cruisin' for a bruisin'.

    How America's political culture became contaminated is too big a topic to explain fully in a blog post. But very basically, I blame two factors that have been interacting for the past fifty years or so. One is the rise and dominance of mass media. The other is a radical right-wing political coalition that has used mass media and other institutions to dominate the nation's political discourse and, eventually, take control of two out of three branches of our federal government. And they're working hard to take over the third. Although it's never been perfect, once upon a time American political culture supported democratic processes. But now many of our civic institutions are controlled by right-wing extremists who do not respect our traditional political culture or the values of democracy. Although they pay lip service to the ideals of democracy, what drives them is the acquisition of power and the implementation of their extremist agenda by any means necessary. If rules must be broken and democratic processes subverted to achieve their goals -- so be it.

    And, increasingly, political legitimacy is whatever the Right decides is legitimate. The Right does not recognize opposing points of view as, say honest disagreements about policy. The Right considers opposition to its point of view to be illegitimate and even treasonous. The current outcry from the Right about yesterday's Hamdan decision provides a perfect example of this.

    Paul Krugman recognized what was happening and wrote about it in the introduction to his book The Great Unraveling. He explained that, throughout history, reasonable people accustomed to political and social stability have failed to recognize the danger of emerging radical movements -- until the stability is lost. Ironically, Krugman says he came to understand this from reading Henry Kissinger's Ph.D. thesis. As Krugman explained in a Buzzflash interview,

    … reasonable people can't bring themselves to see that they're actually facing a threat from a radical movement. Kissinger talked about the time of the French Revolution, and pretty obviously he also was thinking about the 1930s. He argued that, when you have a revolutionary power, somebody who really wants to tear apart the system -- doesn't believe in any of the rules -- reasonable people who've been accustomed to stability just say, "Oh, you know, they may say that, but they don't really mean it." And, "This is just tactical, and let's not get too excited." Anyone who claims that these guys really are as radical as their own statements suggest is, you know, "shrill." Kissinger suggests they'd be considered alarmists. And those who say, "Don't worry. It's not a big deal,"are considered sane and reasonable.

    Well, that's exactly what's been happening. For four years now, some of us have been saying, whether or not you think they're bad guys, they're certainly radical. They don't play by the rules. You can't take anything that you've regarded as normal from previous U.S. political experience as applying to Bush and the people around him. They will say things and do things that would not previously have made any sense -- you know, would have been previously considered out of bounds. And for all of that period, the critics have been told: "Oh, you know, you're overreacting, and there's something wrong with you."

    The ascension of the radical Right occurred over many years, and their takeover of government -- a slow-motion coup d'état -- happened gradually enough that most of us didn't comprehend what was happening. America has been challenged by radicalism before, and always it has come back to the center soon enough. (And by "center" I mean the real center, where liberalism and conservatism balance, not the false "center" of today that would have been considered extreme conservatism in saner times.) I do not believe the coup is a fait accompli; the Right is not yet so secure it its power that it has dropped all pretense of honoring democratic political process. They're still going through the motions, in other words. But this time I do not believe America will come back to the center unless a whole lot of us grab hold and pull at it. Hard.

    Posted by Fishbite at 07/03/2006 @ 8:15pm

28. Nation that continues to accept less.

    We have to only go back to civil rights legislation; this was to bring all citizens to our voting booths free from decimation.

    Since that time, we continue to set back and let these elected officials feed us there propaganda that the represent the majority of there constituents

    No president since the 1960s (prior election is irrelevant) has come to office and matter of fact, no congress person has come to there office with 50% +1 to federal office with majority of eligible voters.

    Posted by rickgriffin at 07/03/2006 @ 8:25pm

29. so what's yer point, Rick?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/03/2006 @ 9:32pm

30. DARLADOON 07/03/2006 @ 5:18pm

    NACL is harmless. Picture him/her as a deskbound curmudgeon with an insult dictionary and a mastery of the right-wing interpretation of history. Read the posts for a few more weeks and see if you don't agree. I personally have come to almost enjoy them. If you're in the mood for a Shakespeare-quality putdown, try replying sometime and tell him he's full of it. You won't be disappointed.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 07/03/2006 @ 9:45pm

31. if you'll not that economist article is from 2003. the economist has turned strongly against the president, and has indeed signalled the need for a democratic shift in 2006 and 2008.

    and your criticism of o'brien is mean-spirited and shallow: a divorced woman? so what? what does that mean? she's a failure? lvliberty, you are a prick. a small prick.

    Posted by darladoon at 07/03/2006 @ 10:09pm

32. FYI: Yep, hsuB lied (surprize) about not knowing who leaked classified info when he's the one that told vp to do the deed. Posted this on another thread too. The earthquakes you feel are our forefathers turning in their graves.

    Just in time for the 4th of July-- let the fire works begin:

    Bush Directed Cheney To Counter War Critic

    By Murray Waas, National Journal © National Journal Group Inc.

    Monday, July 3, 2006

    President Bush told the special prosecutor in the CIA leak case that he directed Vice President Dick Cheney to personally lead an effort to counter allegations made by former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV that his administration had misrepresented intelligence information to make the case to go to war with Iraq, according to people familiar with the president's statement.

    Bush also told federal prosecutors during his June 24, 2004, interview in the Oval Office that he had directed Cheney, as part of that broader effort, to disclose highly classified intelligence information that would not only defend his administration but also discredit Wilson, the sources said.

    ...............................

    One senior government official familiar with the discussions between Bush and Cheney -- but who does not have firsthand knowledge of Bush's interview with prosecutors -- said that Bush told the vice president to "Get it out," or "Let's get this out," regarding information that administration officials believed would rebut Wilson's allegations and would discredit him.

    A person with direct knowledge of Bush's interview refused to confirm that Bush used those words, but said that the first official's account was generally consistent with what Bush had told Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.

    Libby, in language strikingly similar to Bush's words, testified to the federal grand jury in the leak case that Cheney had told him to "get all the facts out" that would defend the administration and discredit Wilson. Portions of Libby's grand jury testimony were an exhibit in a recent court filing by Fitzgerald.

    ...................................

    http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0703nj1.htm

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/03/2006 @ 10:11pm

33. and they think liberals play hard ball? ha! generally, we are quite timid.

    but a president that instructs his VP to publicly smear a critic?

    anyone paying attention to the mexican elections? looks like the US has stolen another one. exit polls show overwhelming victory for obrador. but, guess what, "too close to call" says the ruling party. gee, how did that happen?

    Posted by darladoon at 07/03/2006 @ 10:16pm

34. Johannesrolf, to direct attention to a fact. The fact shall be the point. What one does with it is anyone's guess.

    CORRECTION

    Nation that continues to accept less.

    We have to only go back to civil rights legislation; this was to bring all citizens to our voting booths free from discrimination.

    Since that time, we continue to set back and let these elected officials feed us there propaganda that the represent the majority of there constituents

    No president since the 1960s (prior election is irrelevant) has come to office and matter of fact, no congress person has come to there office with 50% +1 to federal office with majority of eligible voters.

    Posted by rickgriffin at 07/03/2006 @ 10:27pm

35. Posted by DARLADOON 07/03/2006 @ 10:16pm

    Worse than that-- he got on the tube and lied his ass off. Remember he alluded to firing any person responsible for leaking classified info or outing Plame. He was lying like he does it all the time! Didn't skip a beat. The whole time knowing-- it's him, he's the asshole that did it!

    Now the question is-- will the msm show him lying his ass off while running his testimony saying he told vp to do it-- like they did Bill C.?

    ps. Darla-- I agree, LuvLying is a prick. He's rarely ever honest. Always has an angle and could care less about inocents, kids dying. He's crossed over to the dark side, lives in the dark ages. Gives repubs the bad name.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 07/03/2006 @ 10:33pm

36. There is no, I repeat no evidence of a liberal shift in the American voter

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 07/03/2006 @ 10:04pm

    and there won't be.... until november

    what is it you evangelics like to say, the only poll that matters is the election? The the only way you can defend that statement is if you only look at the last election.

    but november is coming closer... and closer.

    and the people don't like what you conservatives are doing

    Posted by Will C. at 07/03/2006 @ 10:35pm

37. this is gonna be fun

    Posted by Will C. at 07/03/2006 @ 10:35pm

38. Gives repubs the bad name.

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/03/2006 @ 10:33pm

    a bad name eh?

    we can work with that

    :)

    Posted by Will C. at 07/03/2006 @ 10:37pm

39. Zero, I am sadden with your inference to my brothers and sisters that have signed up to protect your freedoms, you say. (how about a 4th of July resolution to withdraw the occupying army of rapists, murderers, torturers, and brutes from Iraq before they can kill, maim, or terrorize any more of those poor, miserable people.). When we signed up for you. We lost the right to question, but it's up to you at home to protect us from those that will send us based upon false claims.

    Posted by rickgriffin at 07/03/2006 @ 10:51pm

40. I publish a copy of the Declaration of Independence on hand made paper -- these are out of print, but here are two very interesting edits of the document -- Declaration of Independence [tree.org] and a tighter edit! [tree.org] In addition, some of my radical articles are published here -- Short Articles [tree.org]

    Posted by treehappy at 07/03/2006 @ 10:52pm

41. Zero, I am sadden with your inference to my brothers and sisters that have signed up to protect your freedoms, you say.

    Posted by RICKGRIFFIN 07/03/2006 @ 10:51pm

    You didn't sign up to protect zero's freedoms. You signed up to support and defend the constitution of the United States of America.

    unless you took a different oath than I did

    Posted by Will C. at 07/03/2006 @ 11:01pm

42. a divorced woman? the Economist? lib, you're clutching at straws. pathetic.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/03/2006 @ 11:02pm

43. rick--

    even if you went on sound claims, what's the difference if you torture and rape innocent people?

    Posted by darladoon at 07/03/2006 @ 11:02pm

44. Rick, the"we were only following orders" does not work anymore, see Nuremberg trials.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/03/2006 @ 11:03pm

45. When deciding how far to push the civil liberties barrier we must weigh the loss of liberty against the threat. Larry Johnson does an excellent job of this in a new essay. It is a "Truthout Perspective" so all the neo-cons will dismiss it outright. But please take a moment to read through his comparison of the Soviet threat compared to the jihadist threat. Example= Soviet Air Force vs Al-Qaida's Air Force.

    http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/070306A.shtml

    He ends with these words of wisdom " If we go to war and in the process lose our humanity and savage those principles that made America a City on a Hill, a light of freedom to the world, then the victory on the battlefield is hollow and of no value. Bush and his political allies may be ignorant of history and incapable of understanding the threats we have faced and survived in the past, but as we commemorate the Fourth of July we must remember. We must not forget that we have confronted and survived more devastating threats and fearsome terrors. We have faced enemies far more lethal and far more capable and triumphed. We must not surrender to fear."

    -------

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/03/2006 @ 11:33pm

46. Lvlib(s), still shopping with the commies? Did you buy lots of Chinese Communist fireworks to celebrate the 4th?

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/03/2006 @ 11:34pm

47. WILL C, freedom is the constitution of the United States of America with its Bill of Rights.

    DARLADOON even if you went on sound claims, what's the difference if you torture and rape innocent people? Darladoon if you have to ask that question you never served in battle.

    Posted by rickgriffin at 07/03/2006 @ 11:37pm

48. Cerberus was a republican?

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/03/2006 @ 11:46pm

49. WILL C, freedom is the constitution of the United States of America with its Bill of Rights.

    Posted by RICKGRIFFIN 07/03/2006 @ 11:37pm

    but the US Constitution only holds juristiction over the 50 states, the US territories and possessions

    freedom does exist outside of those boundries

    Posted by Will C. at 07/03/2006 @ 11:49pm

50. And I hate to keep on pointing out these small but relevant truths to you

    Posted by Will C. at 07/03/2006 @ 11:51pm

51. but if I must

    Posted by Will C. at 07/03/2006 @ 11:53pm

52. Will C, just the point. Its the duty of its citizens to hold there elected officials accountable for there votes to send the men and women to battle when there is no threat to the United State of American.

    Posted by rickgriffin at 07/03/2006 @ 11:57pm

53. Posted by RICKGRIFFIN 07/03/2006 @ 11:57pm

    I agree one hundred percent.

    And I'd appreciate it if you would stop presenting the execution of your duty as a citizen of this country as some sort of charity work.

    Posted by Will C. at 07/04/2006 @ 12:00am

54. Amongst George's other offences, the Declaration charges, "He has abdicated Government here … He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people." On the same day, George III wrote "Nothing important happened today" in his diary.

    Posted by conshame at 07/04/2006 @ 12:12am

55. Will C,charity work is in the eye of the beholder.

    Posted by rickgriffin at 07/04/2006 @ 12:12am

56. Will C,charity work is in the eye of the beholder.

    Posted by RICKGRIFFIN 07/04/2006 @ 12:12am

    The decision to enter into a peace time army was yours alone. As it was mine. As it was anyones who makde that decision.

    There is not one man, woman or child that owes you any gratitude.

    and your attempt at fishing for it brings dishonor to the uniform you put on.

    Posted by Will C. at 07/04/2006 @ 12:18am

57. Will C, My duty of Service was 1967-1968. Well could say more. I just leave it there.

    Posted by rickgriffin at 07/04/2006 @ 12:32am

58. Will C, My duty of Service was 1967-1968. Well could say more. I just leave it there.

    Posted by RICKGRIFFIN 07/04/2006 @ 12:32am

    no... please say more

    you presented the idea that you signed up to protect zero's freedoms

    here's your opportunity to lay out for all of us how your time in the military during those years did just that

    Posted by Will C. at 07/04/2006 @ 12:38am

59. Will C, Let do better than that you post you discharge and I post my.

    Posted by rickgriffin at 07/04/2006 @ 12:41am

60. Happy 4th of July to the right (wrong) and the left!

    Little Fox news blast from the past for the memory challenged among us (you know who you are)! Something to think about as we celebrate our wonderful country and our independence from kingly rule!

    http://www.wtflmao.com/media989.htm

    Enjoy, and may the diety of your choice bless America!

    ND

    Posted by New Dawn at 07/04/2006 @ 12:42am

61. Will C, You post you discharge that you where in the service and I post my DD214

    Posted by rickgriffin at 07/04/2006 @ 12:43am

62. Posted by RICKGRIFFIN 07/04/2006 @ 12:41am

    I'm in the inactive ready reserve

    I've never been discharged

    Posted by Will C. at 07/04/2006 @ 12:43am

63. I don't mean this in a bad way, but do you guys realize that there is only a handful of you making the same kinds of posts on all the articles? Why don't you all just get together, pat each other on the back, and make fun of people like NACL? (not that he doesn't deserve it...)

    Posted by arete1 at 07/04/2006 @ 01:45am

64. My current wife's parents are on the religious right (Father is some political figure). She explained to me that the extreme right has planned a 'take-over' of our government for many years. I heard the entire plan in detail over 5 years ago, and now I am watching it come true! It's very alarming! It's not over folks... She tells me that they are trying to find a way to stop presidential elections or at the least have an extremist elected. This is in part to stack the Supreme Court with Alito's and finally dismantle the Democratic Party. They are dead serious, and now Americans are starting to notice. I heard the term Unitary Executive many years ago! I hope our system is able to defend against this attack on our democracy.

    Posted by tdekeyser1 at 07/04/2006 @ 02:18am

65. another one who drinks the far left conspiracy juice

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 07/04/2006 @ 03:08am |

    THE LIBERALS ARE INDOCTRIATING OUR YOUTH!!!

    THE LIBERALS ARE CONTROLLING THE MEDIA!!!

    THE LIBERALS WANT TO TAKE AWAY YOUR GUNS!!!!

    THE LIBERALS WANT YOUR CHILDREN TO BE GAY!!!

    THE LIBERALS PERSECUTE CHRISTIANS!!!!

    AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Posted by Will C. at 07/04/2006 @ 03:22am

66. what a retard

    Posted by Will C. at 07/04/2006 @ 03:22am

67. Compared to anyone on the left you could name,,,anytime, anywhere. They aren't the best, but they are more reasoned and more logical than any leftist/liberal/progressive/anarchist/socialist (don't want to leave anyone out).

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 07/04/2006 @ 12:07am

    Than any leftist/liberal/progressive? Really, any one, anywhere? What hyperbolic claptrap.

    Hannity - the king of shouting down and talking over opposition; Limbaugh - the hypocritical, lying drug addict; and MAnn Coulter, easily the most hateful human being I've seen in a good long while.

    She supports burning those with different political views alive, doesn't she, Liberty? And you support her. Hmmm...

    Golly, pal, if I didn't know you better, I might think you were a bloodthirsty, hateful fraud of a false prophet. But cheer up, maybe you'll get lucky on Tuesday and accidentally burn a liberal with a firework!

    Pray for good aim, because as usual, you are way off-target here, in admiring in any way, any of the three aforementioned individuals.

    Posted by New Dawn at 07/04/2006 @ 03:27am

68. Posted by NEW DAWN 07/04/2006 @ 03:27am

    The dude can't stand up for more than ten minutes

    if he's going to hurt someone, it'll have to be from the seated position

    (unless it's done within the first ten minutes)

    Posted by Will C. at 07/04/2006 @ 03:30am

69. Whee, sparklers and snakes - gotta love California fireworks laws...

    Nowe, if I can just figure out how to blame the ban on Bush, we'll all get to see the righties have a gasm...

    Happy 4th, All!

    Posted by New Dawn at 07/04/2006 @ 03:30am

70. The dude can't stand up for more than ten minutes

    if he's going to hurt someone, it'll have to be from the seated position

    (unless it's done within the first ten minutes)

    Posted by WILL C. 07/04/2006 @ 03:30am

    Can't stay up, eh? Maybe he can work a deal on some of Rush's illegal Viagra?

    Posted by New Dawn at 07/04/2006 @ 03:30am

71. Didja see the Faux News video I posted earlier, Will?

    It would be interesting to see the rightward spin on it, if they bothered to view their own network's video...

    (but they know that since I posted it they probably won't like it)

    Posted by New Dawn at 07/04/2006 @ 03:32am

72. Posted by NEW DAWN 07/04/2006 @ 03:30am

    I hear oxycontin makes you fly

    Posted by Will C. at 07/04/2006 @ 03:32am

73. Posted by NEW DAWN 07/04/2006 @ 03:32am

    when i cut and pasted your link it gave me some site that wasn't fox

    Posted by Will C. at 07/04/2006 @ 03:33am

74. The video is.

    Posted by New Dawn at 07/04/2006 @ 03:35am

75. Whoa - major embarassment...

    My mistake...

    Check it out - I'm a conspiracy nut! LOL BWAHAHHAAAA

    Thought the whole thing was a Fox report! Jumped the gun and stuck my feet in my mouth - too funny!

    Posted by New Dawn at 07/04/2006 @ 03:37am

76. Bring it on, boys - I'll eat that crow!

    hee hee hee

    Posted by New Dawn at 07/04/2006 @ 03:37am

77. I must be so wrapped up in loathing that news station that I was seeking any excuse to discredit it, much like my loathing for Bush!

    (that's irony, fellas)

    (subliminal message - see "Outfoxed")

    Posted by New Dawn at 07/04/2006 @ 03:41am

78. Bring it on, boys - I'll eat that crow!

    hee hee hee

    Posted by NEW DAWN 07/04/2006 @ 03:37am

    You just did something that FOX will never do

    admit a mistake

    (Gary Condit is still waiting for his apology)

    Posted by Will C. at 07/04/2006 @ 03:50am

79. Frei, it's appalling that you would compare Michael Moore to Ann Coulter. name one instance where Moore put forth the vile hate speech that is the stock and trade of that ghoul Coulter.

    You are far from the reasonable facade that you present. You are a doctrinaire apparatchik, yuck!

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 09:37am

80. lib:" Why don't you go down to join your buddy's Fidel and Hugo. They also run great leftist propaganda enterprises.

    Lib, why don't you croak, why don't you go to hell? amazing how you small minds ALWAYS come around to that, sliming your opponents.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 09:39am

81. DARLA:"we are a young country,"

    Actually no. Germany and Italy are actually much younger countries, becoming nations around the time of our civil war. All the countries in the middle east are much younger, dating from 1918.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 11:39am

82. johan--

    just because germany and italy are younger does not make us not young.

    my point was, as people relating to a certain geographical space, we are young.

    Posted by darladoon at 07/04/2006 @ 11:46am

83. I think it is misleading to characterize the secession of the colonies as a revolution in the classic sense of say the french revolution or the russian revolution. It was nothing of the kind. The people in charge of the local gov't were the same as after.. oppressed citizens such as slaves and indians and others were not relieved of their chains.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 11:59am

84. NACL Is so misguided!

    He states this: "They do not want US ideals to prevail in the world."

    Exactly what "ideals" are we talking about? I would suggest that the "ideals" that this Administration is pushing are NOT the same ones that come to mind when most Americans hear that particular talking point.

    Then also: "They loathe the PNAC and its efforts on behalf of US interests in the future."

    I would suggest that the "US interest" they are referring to, are in NO WAY of any particular benefit to most Americans. The policy they are pursuing are on the behalf of the huge multi-national corporations. It is geo-political corporate warfare~! It NO longer benefits Americans in any meaningful way~!

    What NACL and other people do is confuse these types of things. What's good for GM, EXXON, AT&T, Halliburton, Boeing, etc. is not neccessarily good for Americans. Maybe 50 years ago it was, but no longer. Good old "Made in USA" has no meaningful benefit to Americans. We are being sold a bill of goods. It is sad that the majority of Americans do not see it. When they do finally wake up and see what is happening it may be too late~!

    Posted by mbought at 07/04/2006 @ 12:06pm

85. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 07/03/2006 @ 10:04pm

    So there we have it. A divorced woman with no credentials and her inheritance to fund her opinions plus the most partisan columnist in America and it is established by the left as "fact" that conservatism is dead and dying.

    ---------------------------------

    The ad hominem attack.

    Ad hominem is fallacious when applied to deduction, and not the evidence (or premise) of an argument. Evidence may be doubted or rejected based on the source for reasons of credibility, but to doubt or reject a deduction based on the source is the ad hominem fallacy. [en.wikipedia.org]

    When I went to school and took the basics of rhetoric it was well understood that discrediting someone is not a valid way of debating premise and deduction.

    And yet, ad nauseum, if one partakes much in conservative banter in the modern setting it is clear from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity et. all that discrediting the likes of Ted Kennedy is all that is needed to discredit all liberal arguments.

    How is it that our education system has failed so miserably that ad hominem attacks are credible?

    The Federalists Papers, Common Sense and many important documents that founded this country were written anonymously because, rightly so, the arguments and ideas should stand on their own merits independent of author. The idea here being the other end of the ad hominem spectrum: I'm a celebrity and wish to have my ideas taken soley on their merits and not because my name is attached.

    And so it is that America has fallen. No longer are ideas debatable as ideas, but ideas are debated as meritable if and only if the character of the promoter is somehow Puritanical?

    No one, not Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter, will ever be given respect in the world of rhetoric if they use ad hominem attacks. You'd have to be crazy to believe some how discrediting a person is related to the merits of a premise or idea.

    Yet we find ourselves in the "Swift Boat Veterans for Collaborative Character Assassination Because We Didn't Like What Somebody Said" Era. Have we no shame as a country for 1.) promoting them and 2.) consuming them?

    Conservatives first and foremost dismiss all things liberal because of ad hominem attacks, an intellectual bankrupt stategy.

    America needs a strong dose of rhetorical education. America needs to understand the mechanics of argument. Then I imagine most of the conservative media that is out there today would go out of business without the ad hominem attack and new true conservative thinkers could be heard.

    Posted by mybrid at 07/04/2006 @ 12:12pm

86. My, very good indeed.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 12:54pm

87. Posted by MYBRID 07/04/2006 @ 12:12am

    what you are arguing for requires an educated population

    we are dealing with swine

    (who are waging a war against education)

    Posted by Will C. at 07/04/2006 @ 1:02pm

88. DARLA:"we are a young country,"

    Actually no. Germany and Italy are actually much younger countries, becoming nations around the time of our civil war. All the countries in the middle east are much younger, dating from 1918.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/04/2006 @ 11:39am

    You're conflating country with nation. A country is a geographic region distiguished by it's people or culture. The countries of the Middle East are among the oldest in the world. That's why their language is more highly developed. Many more adjectives for one thing. The US is among the youngest countries in the world.

    The Bush Presidency is beneficial in one respect. It is encouraging the development of more adjectives.

    Posted by fromredbird at 07/04/2006 @ 1:07pm

89. NACL: "They loathe the PNAC and its efforts on behalf of US interests in the future."

    I would suggest that the "US interest" they are referring to, are in NO WAY of any particular benefit to most Americans. The policy they are pursuing are on the behalf of the huge multi-national corporations. It is geo-political corporate warfare~! It NO longer benefits Americans in any meaningful way~!

    Posted by MBOUGHT 07/04/2006 @ 12:06am

    What PNAC advocates (for false reasons) is more beneficial to israel than to US corporations. But only in the manner that Hitler thought the invasion of the Soviet Union would be beneficial to Germany. By NACL popping up with his PNAC sensitivities he may be showing his real ideological home address.

    Posted by fromredbird at 07/04/2006 @ 1:15pm

90. Birdy, this is somewhat disingenious, in common usage these are the same.

    however here are my dictionary definitions:

    country: a nation with its own government occupying a particular territory.

    Nation: a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.

    as you can see, there is considerable overlap in those two definitions.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 1:16pm

91. Frei you didn't take up my challenge, coward.

    Oh and I"LL decide whom to ignore.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 1:17pm

92. and you haven't seen my worst.Frei.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 1:18pm

93. Birdy,The countries of the Middle East are among the oldest in the world.

    you are way off here. Iraq for instance hasn't been a country in 5000 years, and it wasn't called Iraq. same with Israel or Jordan, or any of them. even arab nationalism is a very recent arrival.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 1:22pm

94. Frei, you may however ignore ME.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 1:25pm

95. I think it is misleading to characterize the secession of the colonies as a revolution in the classic sense of say the french revolution or the russian revolution. It was nothing of the kind. The people in charge of the local gov't were the same as after.. oppressed citizens such as slaves and indians and others were not relieved of their chains.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/04/2006 @ 11:59am

    Thank God it wasn't like the French or Russian revolutions. The Americans were fortunate in that respect. The slaves remained slaves but they didn't end up being beheaded by their own revolution.

    There is no compelling requirement that the American revolution have had a virgin birth to qualify as a revolution. It introduced a revolutionary state of affairs in government that was an advance over the English constitutional monarchy.

    It's faint consolation but the American Constitution put in place a system and ideal that resulted in the freeing of the slaves less than a century later. It's regrettable that it didn't happen immediately on the founding but the main point is that concepts like a relatively extensive bill of rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, and a broadened franchise which soon became broader were revolutionary at the time.

    Posted by fromredbird at 07/04/2006 @ 1:31pm

96. there are many facets of self-identification. geography, language, culture, cuisine, dress, race, etc.

    indeed, many of the people who inhabit large swaths of where the west calls 'the middle east' have been there for 5000 years. the fossil record tells us this.

    based on this, we can claim that they are indeed much "older" than we are: their language is more nuanced; their customs more ingrained and sophisticated; their cuisine more nuanced; and on and on and on....

    americans, though originally from the 'middle east' and africa, are still quite young in these regards....

    Posted by darladoon at 07/04/2006 @ 1:31pm

97. Birdy you don't see the difference between word and deed of the "founding fathers"? Is that speech by Douglas lost on you?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 1:41pm

98. Birdy:" It's regrettable that it didn't happen immediately

    No, it's not regrettable, it's tragic.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 1:43pm

99. Darla and Birdy, I notice you do not respond to my dictionary definitions. I think you owe me that.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 1:45pm

100. darla, it's not the fossil record, that is really dumb. fossils come from VERY VERY prehistoric times. the cultures of the mideast have left real records, writing for example. what am I dealing with here, grade school students? sorry

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 1:47pm

101. Birdy,:"and a broadened franchise

     this was definitely not part of the constitution, which did NOT broaden the franchise.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 1:51pm

102. I guess it's true that various dictionaries also conflate the terms. I identify nation with politics and country with people and location. For example, American Indian tribes when they formed confederacies were referred to as nations and they had no necessarily fixed territory. It was the political compact that garnered the term "nation".

     The concept of nation in the Middle East is completely foreign. It was historically a caliphal community with provincial governates. Nations in Europe arose based on culture and race. This concept was alien to Islam which envisioned a community differentiated by belief. That leapt over geographic, racial, and cultural delineations.

     The fact that the West imposed artificial national boundaries on the Middle East at a time of their relative historic weakness is irrelevant to their right to the lands which they have occupied for thousands of years. The artificial creation of israel, for example, doesn't justify seizing by violence land owned by legal deed and tradition by Palestinians. There is something called ethics.

     After bemoaning the way in which Indians were treated in America in this same thread I hope you are not now going to rationalize israel by saying "we did it to the Indians", as you have in the past.

     Posted by fromredbird at 07/04/2006 @ 1:52pm

103. Birdy,After bemoaning the way in which Indians were treated in America in this same thread I hope you are not now going to rationalize israel by saying "we did it to the Indians", as you have in the past.

     this is a calumny. I said no such thing, not now, not in the past. you are having trouble sticking to the point.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 1:56pm

104. "their right to the lands which they have occupied for thousands of years."

     Jews have occupied the Palestine area for thousands of years as well

     I am not here to discuss Israel. you are changing the subject. shame on you.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 1:57pm

105. Birdy, you must also remember that the Ottoman empire was not a muslim empire. muslims accounted for only one fourth of this multi ethnic, multicultural and multireligious empire. That in my opinion is why this empire was as long lived as it was, by far the longest empire in the region.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 2:00pm

106. Birdy you don't see the difference between word and deed of the "founding fathers"? Is that speech by Douglas lost on you?

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/04/2006 @ 1:41pm

     I'm quite aware of it. That's irrelevant to the fact that the American founding was revolutionary. What the ****? Do you rule out calling anything revolutionary unless there are guillotines and Leninist execution squads? The American revolution didn't kill enough people? Those other "revolutions" went down the shit chute a long time ago if you haven't noticed while the American revolution continues to progress.

     Posted by fromredbird at 07/04/2006 @ 2:01pm

107. Birdy:" seizing by violence land owned by legal deed and tradition by Palestinians.

     much of this land was PURCHASED. Israel was not created by violence on their part, they were attacked.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 2:03pm

108. Birdy:":Do you rule out calling anything revolutionary unless there are guillotines and Leninist execution squads? The American revolution didn't kill enough people

     you're foaming at the mouth here. I said no such thing.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 2:04pm

109. let's just put it this way. it was no revolution for a great part of the population, blacks and indians among others.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 2:06pm

110. I will be happy to discuss this and any other issue later. it's nearing kick off time. best wishes.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 2:10pm

111. Frei, no, not a chance. she has made plenty of public statements, as has Michael Moore. you are not responding to my challenge, coward.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 2:11pm

112. Frei, I leave that to others, and they have availed themselves of that opportunity. you defense of Ann Coulter is unforgivable. your trying to equate her with Michael Moore is mendacious. I ask you again: show me a Michael Moore quote that even approaches the hate speech Coulter casually puts forth. I think a more apt comparison rhetorically would Charles Manson. Rhetorically. I have not read Michael Moore's books, but I have seen his films. I do read newspapers and if any hate speech by Moore has escaped my notice I call on you to remedy that.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 2:19pm

113. Frei:"And you wouldn't call me coward to my face JR. Nor would you if I had the task of keeping you safe.

     this is incoherent.

     think of the epithet as a rhetorical one, a gentle collegial one.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 2:22pm

114. Nor would you if I had the task of keeping you safe.

     Posted by FREIHEIT 07/04/2006 @ 2:17pm

     do you have the task of keeping him safe?

     Posted by Will C. at 07/04/2006 @ 2:23pm

115. Birdy,:"and a broadened franchise

     this was definitely not part of the constitution, which did NOT broaden the franchise.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/04/2006 @ 1:51pm

     I didn't say it was. I said: "concepts like a relatively extensive bill of rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, and a broadened franchise which soon became broader were revolutionary at the time." Please don't put words in my mouth. The American revolution led to an extensive broadening of the franchise over that of England, first eliminating property ownership requirements and continuing from there.

     Posted by fromredbird at 07/04/2006 @ 2:25pm

116. Frei:" I am a faithful reader of your posts.

     that is very kind, and that kindness is the reason I hold you in some affection, which is why I am occasionally outraged at some of your posts. I expect better from you, which is not something I can say of many of my rhetorical "adversaries"

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 2:26pm

117. Birdy,After bemoaning the way in which Indians were treated in America in this same thread I hope you are not now going to rationalize israel by saying "we did it to the Indians", as you have in the past.

     this is a calumny. I said no such thing, not now, not in the past. you are having trouble sticking to the point.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/04/2006 @ 1:56pm

     Even the great American democracy could not have been created without the annihilation of the Indians. There are cases in which the overall, final good justifies harsh and cruel acts that are committed in the course of history.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/21/2005 @ 11:51pm

     many populations were displaced, do they all have a right of return, or are the palestinians somehow special?

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/22/2005 @ 10:34pm

     White man talk with forked tongue?

     Posted by fromredbird at 07/04/2006 @ 2:27pm

118. Birdy:"The American revolution led to an extensive broadening of the franchise over that of England, first eliminating property ownership requirements and continuing from there.

     this was NOT in the constitution. the franchise was not broadened until considerable time later. for blacks 200 years later. No, the franchise was unaffected by the secession of the colonies.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 2:29pm

119. Birdy, 2005? pshaw.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 2:30pm

120. Birdy:":Do you rule out calling anything revolutionary unless there are guillotines and Leninist execution squads? The American revolution didn't kill enough people

     you're foaming at the mouth here. I said no such thing.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/04/2006 @ 2:04pm

     You said the American revolution wasn't a real revolution as in France and Russia. Go ahead and elaborate if you want clarify the statement.

     Posted by fromredbird at 07/04/2006 @ 2:30pm

121. I do however stand by those statements. they were not in this thread though.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 2:30pm

122. Birdy, you must also remember that the Ottoman empire was not a muslim empire. muslims accounted for only one fourth of this multi ethnic, multicultural and multireligious empire. That in my opinion is why this empire was as long lived as it was, by far the longest empire in the region.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/04/2006 @ 2:00pm

     One fourth? Would you like to document that?

     Posted by fromredbird at 07/04/2006 @ 2:32pm

123. "You said the American revolution wasn't a real revolution as in France and Russia"

     I believe I was quite specific in my original post.

     in both russian and french revolution the lower classes were freed from oppression. word and deed matched for a time.

     violence was present in the american rebellion. Tories for instance were subject to considerable attacks both before during and after.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 2:34pm

124. Birdy, One fourth? Would you like to document that?

     yes I can and I will, after the game.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 2:36pm

125. darla, it's not the fossil record, that is really dumb. fossils come from VERY VERY prehistoric times. the cultures of the mideast have left real records, writing for example. what am I dealing with here, grade school students? sorry

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/04/2006 @ 1:47pm

     You should be sorry for referring to such an innocuous statement as "dumb". Try to control yourself. This is just a discussion of the definitional accuracy of the terms "nation" and "country".

     Posted by fromredbird at 07/04/2006 @ 2:37pm

126. Nor would you if I had the task of keeping you safe.

     Posted by FREIHEIT 07/04/2006 @ 2:17pm

     do you have the task of keeping him safe?

     Posted by WILL C. 07/04/2006 @ 2:23pm

     I guess not

     Posted by Will C. at 07/04/2006 @ 2:39pm

127. Birdy:"The American revolution led to an extensive broadening of the franchise over that of England, first eliminating property ownership requirements and continuing from there.

     this was NOT in the constitution. the franchise was not broadened until considerable time later. for blacks 200 years later. No, the franchise was unaffected by the secession of the colonies.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/04/2006 @ 2:29pm

     Do you have the word "Constitution" stuck in your mouth or what? Please don't try to stick it in mine. Go back and read what I said. If you want to have an argument over what I didn't say then carry it on with yourself.

     Posted by fromredbird at 07/04/2006 @ 2:40pm

128. sorry was confusing another post i wrote about fossils....

     no need to address your dictionary definitions. they are obvious. how can we contest/dispute?

     this whole thing has seen too much extrapolation. i only meant to say we are a young country, who would dispute that? not me. not anyone i know, unless they have the time to piece apart trite comments....

     Posted by darladoon at 07/04/2006 @ 2:40pm

129. Darla, pardon me for disagreeing.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 2:43pm

130. Birdy here is your statement:

     I said: "concepts like a relatively extensive bill of rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, and a broadened franchise which soon became broader were revolutionary at the time."

     the franchise was unchanged at the time of secession and writing of the constitution, in which it was not addressed. in other words, no one had the right to vote who did not have it under england's rule.

     here is that citation about the religious make up of the Ottoman empire:

     L. Carl Brown, INTERNATIONAL POLITICS AND THE MIDDLE EAST, "Old rules, dangerous game" Princeton University Press. highly recommended.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 2:48pm

131. Birdy,After bemoaning the way in which Indians were treated in America in this same thread I hope you are not now going to rationalize israel by saying "we did it to the Indians", as you have in the past.

     this is a calumny. I said no such thing, not now, not in the past. you are having trouble sticking to the point.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/04/2006 @ 1:56pm

     Even the great American democracy could not have been created without the annihilation of the Indians. There are cases in which the overall, final good justifies harsh and cruel acts that are committed in the course of history.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/21/2005 @ 11:51pm

     many populations were displaced, do they all have a right of return, or are the palestinians somehow special?

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/22/2005 @ 10:34pm

     White man talk with forked tongue?

     Posted by FROMREDBIRD 07/04/2006 @ 2:27pm

     I do however stand by those statements. they were not in this thread though.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/04/2006 @ 2:30pm

     So, I guess you're not concerned about the treatment of the American Indians as you implied earlier in this thread? Or, are you only not concerned if it might require you to be concerned about the continuing brutal treatment of the Palestinians which is occurring right now? Gaza right now looks like the nazi German army tearing through Eastern Europe.

     Posted by fromredbird at 07/04/2006 @ 2:49pm

132. As a political entity, we are one of the oldest on earth.

     As a cultural entity, we are still a little wet behind the ears

     (that whole freedom fries argument didn't exactly demonstrate intellect and wisdom)

     Posted by Will C. at 07/04/2006 @ 2:52pm

133. But then look at the guys making it

     Posted by Will C. at 07/04/2006 @ 2:52pm

134. Birdy, are you changing the subject again? pathetic.

     incidentally I share your concern for the situation in Gaza. I consider it a spreading of the Iraq war. but do stop trying to put me in a small box of your choosing. stick to the subject.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 2:55pm

135. Birdy here is your statement:

     I said: "concepts like a relatively extensive bill of rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, and a broadened franchise which soon became broader were revolutionary at the time."

     the franchise was unchanged at the time of secession and writing of the constitution, in which it was not addressed. in other words, no one had the right to vote who did not have it under england's rule.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/04/2006 @ 2:48pm

     I think it is very clear what I am saying. I never said it was in the Constitution. Broadening of the franchise was a concept under intense discussion at the time of the revolution and it was very promptly broadened after it's success. That was undoubtedly an impetus to the broadening of the franchise in England many years later.

     The survival of slavery for many years does not make the American form of government worthless. It only makes it more valuable.

     Posted by fromredbird at 07/04/2006 @ 2:58pm

136. As a means of eliminating slavery, that is. Which caused the slave states to secede from the Nation created by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. If the Constitution was responsible for slavery they would have stayed in the USA.

     Posted by fromredbird at 07/04/2006 @ 3:01pm

137. Even the great American democracy could not have been created without the annihilation of the Indians. There are cases in which the overall, final good justifies harsh and cruel acts that are committed in the course of history.

     as I am rereading this, I don't believe it is an accurate quote. the second part of the statement is not one I would make now, nor then

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 3:01pm

138. "There are cases in which the overall, final good justifies harsh and cruel acts that are committed in the course of history."

     this is saying the end justifies the means. that is something I have never subscribed to. I challenge you to prove that I wrote this, what over a year ago?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 3:02pm

139. That should wrap it up. Everyone have a good Independence Day.

     Posted by fromredbird at 07/04/2006 @ 3:03pm

140. it was very promptly broadened after it's success.

     this is just not true.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 3:04pm

141. "The first movements toward universal suffrage (or manhood suffrage) occurred in the early 19th century, and focused on removing property requirements for voting".

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 3:05pm

142. Last one.

     You said that. I copied them right out of your posts. Don't try to say that I made them up.

     Someone has to say things like that when they're trying to rationalize israel. Don't do it to yourself.

     Posted by fromredbird at 07/04/2006 @ 3:06pm

143. The survival of slavery for many years does not make the American form of government worthless.

     I never said this. you erect a straw man and then knock it down. shameful debating.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 3:06pm

144. Johannesrolf, I can't because I cannot associate Ann Coulter with any hate speech. Because she is against your worldview doesn't make it hate speech. (By the way, I don't think Ward Churchill was practicing hate speech either.)

     Neither Moore or Coulter are guilty of hate speech Johannesrolf. That's why I can't address this to your satisfaction.

     Posted by FREIHEIT 07/04/2006 @ 2:27pm

     Oh, dear Christ, Frei... I know you're smarter than this.

     Coulter paints the opposition, any and all opposition, with nothing but contempt and clear hate, for anyone paying the remotest amount of attention. She waves the broadest of brushes, coloring all she disapproves of as expendable, even other humans. She is the worst example of an Amercian, to many of her fellow Americans, and certainly to the world at large. You don't make a lot of friends when you say things like:

     "Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment."

     "Liberals hate America, they hate "flag- wavers," they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam (post 9/11). Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do. They don't have the energy. If they had that much energy, they'd have indoor plumbing by now."

     "Why not go to war just for oil? We need oil. What do Hollywood celebrities imagine fuels their private jets? How do they think their cocaine is delivered to them?"

     "They spent the night in jail, where their progressive views on gay marriage served them well."

     "To be sure, conservative radio talk show hosts have a built-in audience unavailable to liberals: People driving cars to some sort of job."

     "Liberals Love America Like O.J. Loved Nicole"

     VESTER: "You say you'd rather not talk to liberals at all?" COULTER: "I think a baseball bat is the most effective way these days."

     "There are a lot of bad Republicans; there are no good Democrats."

     "When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."

     "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."

     "Being nice to people is, in fact, one of the incidental tenets of Christianity (as opposed to other religions whose tenets are more along the lines of 'kill everyone who doesn't smell bad and doesn't answer to the name Mohammed')."

     "To The People Of Islam: Just think: If we'd invaded your countries, killed your leaders and converted you to Christianity YOU'D ALL BE OPENING CHRISTMAS PRESENTS RIGHT ABOUT NOW! Merry Christmas."

     "I think our motto should be, post-9-11, 'raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences.'"

     "I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East and sending liberals to Guantanamo."

     "Would that it were so! ... That the American military were targeting journalists."

     "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building."

     "[Canadians] better hope the United States does not roll over one night and crush them. They are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent."

     "The ethic of conservation is the explicit abnegation of man's dominion over the Earth. The lower species are here for our use. God said so: Go forth, be fruitful, multiply, and rape the planet--it's yours. That's our job: drilling, mining and stripping. Sweaters are the anti-Biblical view. Big gas-guzzling cars with phones and CD players and wet bars -- that's the Biblical view."

     "If those kids had been carrying guns they would have gunned down this one [teenage] gunman. ... Don't pray. Learn to use guns."

     Your defense of this woman, Frei, even passively, is indefensible. And you can't defend any comparison between Coulter's statements of this nature and Moore's, because of the latter, there are none.

     Stop that.

     Posted by New Dawn at 07/04/2006 @ 3:14pm

145. yes, moore, although outrageous at times, is still quite timid. coulter, on the other hand, is probably the most disgusting person i have ever seen or heard.

     Posted by darladoon at 07/04/2006 @ 3:21pm

146. Posted by NEW DAWN 07/04/2006 @ 3:14pm

     Holy shit!

     Ha Ha Ha Ha

     she is one sick and twisted individual...

     A wonderful example of evangelic (hamster) conservatism

     Posted by Will C. at 07/04/2006 @ 3:21pm

147. I don't follow the annster much..

     but DAMN!

     :)

     Posted by Will C. at 07/04/2006 @ 3:22pm

148. thanks Dawn, you got my back.

     Frei that's pretty weak on your part.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 3:52pm

149. Birdy, I challenge you to prove I made that statement. you have been less than honest in your argument, so I will repeat, I did not make the second part of that statement.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 3:54pm

150. KVH---Given a clear choice the American people will choose those who will defend the nation and the Constitution. The far left is justly seen as appeasers, cut and runners, and anti-military. The Democrats have a choice to make---they can be taken over by the far left which has always meant doom come election time or they can revert back to the Scoop Jackson/ Joseph Lieberman wing of the party where the military is not a bad word and appeasers are ignored. I think the best way to put it is this: it just ain't safe enough out there for the far left to have any real power----maybe one day, but not yet.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 07/04/2006 @ 4:23pm

151. All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. - Thomas Jefferson

     I submit to this forum, tyranny's foot is already in the door. Let your voice be heard loud and often.

     Posted by maggiesboy at 07/04/2006 @ 5:19pm

152. Lennie, The far left is justly seen as appeasers, cut and runners, and anti-military.

     this is crap. we are against aggressive war, against insane policies of disaster, and for a military that used to defend the country

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 5:34pm

153. Lennie, you are a slime, you come in here flinging excrement, but guess what, it sticks to you. you have no concept of reasoned discussion having been sliced and diced too many times to mention.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 5:37pm

154. Birdy, you are another one of those who will not admit that they are wrong, wriggling this way and that, dragging in new subject after new subject. but it doesn't matter. I have the facts, and I know how to make a coherent argument. and that is why I'm still standing while you slink away.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 5:43pm

155. Frei, that was pretty lame the way you backed away from Coulter. here's what a Reagan repub had to say.

     "Ann Coulter does not speak for me," writes B. Jay Cooper, former deputy press secretary to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and communications director of the Republican National Committee under four chairmen, in an op-ed that is making the rounds of editorial pages in "red state" markets.

     To me, Ann Coulter's exercise of her right to free speech is the political equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater. She crosses the line of decency. To me, individuals who engage in name-calling and hate speech to get attention, sell books, increase speaking fees and feather their own nests, are speaking for themselves, not any political party.

     still want to defend that harridan?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 5:49pm

156. Posted by LEN MOSSE 07/04/2006 @ 4:23pm

     I can reframe the debate too. What about the choice between:

     A. a currupt bunch of greedy incompetent chronic lying scumbags with policies of and for torture, war mongers, haters of individual rights and the poor, lovers of corporations and the rich, destroyers of the constitution they swore to defend, etc.

     and

     B. strength through intelligence, civil rights, equity, better education, affordable and universal health care-- hold corporate price gouging accountable, equal justice, openess and honesty, stop the war via a real UN coalition, etc.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 07/04/2006 @ 5:50pm

157. Posted by LEN MOSSE 07/04/2006 @ 4:23pm

     Who are we appeasing again?

     the iraqi's?

     But according to you hamsters we have liberated them.

     Yet it seems as though you will never set them free.

     Posted by Will C. at 07/04/2006 @ 5:58pm

158. Hersh article on resistance to Bush by military leaders, who I imagine are all appeasers, cut and runners and anti military.

     http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060710fa_fact

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 7:02pm

159. gov't announces closing of CIA unit whose mission was the capture of Bin Laden.

     sounds like treason to me. Now that he knows the CIA is no longer after him, he'll come out of his cave.

     this has got to be the stupidest myth, that Bin Laden, a very wealthy man by all accounts, is hiding in some cave. I mean really? there are no safe houses for an islamic radical in the land of islamic radicals Pakistan?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 7:08pm

160. it should be noted that they are not only resistant to bush, but also to each other.

     great article, old news though.......that article's a few days old now.

     Posted by darladoon at 07/04/2006 @ 7:09pm

161. well excuuuse me.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 7:17pm

162. Frei, please allow me to revisit our discussion one more time. when I called you a coward, this was strictly within the context of the challenge that I made to you. I would never call you or anyone a coward in the opposite of courage sense of the word. an accusation made many times by Tories in these pages, incidentally. ist das klar? you are of course correct in saying that I use any kind of invective too freely. perhaps not as often as the rabid lib or others, but too much.

     Germany über alles, but not über Italy. the germans let their guard down in the last minute of overtime, not marking an italian at the edge of the penalty box, who passed to the scorer of the winning goal. I think they were already counting their penalty kicks, while the italians found a way to win. the second goal, a half a minute later was just icing on the cake, as the match was lost by germany already. I believe Italy will play france for the title, and they will win.

     the good thing about sport is that it can mean everything before and during the contest, and then mean absolutely nothing, the second after. unlike politics for instance.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 7:47pm

163. KVH is advocating well. I good re-reading of On Liberty by John Stuart Mill, especially Chapter Two, might be refreshing and encouraging right now.

     PS: Oh come now, NACL, how illogical are you attempting to be? ... or blind!

     Posted by delonix at 07/04/2006 @ 7:49pm

164. a satirist?! anne coulter?! oh god, don't make me fall backwards on my chair! that's the most pathetic thing i've heard in weeks, years maybe!

     just a few weeks ago she had the audacity to compare herself, even worse, consider herself the mark twain of her generation. if twain were around today to hear that, he wouldn't stop puking his guts out. he'd probably sue the f**king douche bag.

     she's about as far from being an intellectual as the bush administration is to open government.

     her writing is vapid, debased, elementary garbage.

     harry belafonte may not be articulate, nor sheehan, but they're within the bounds of international opinion about the US being a threat to world peace.

     and chavez is making bush look like the buffoon he is. sending cheap oil and gas to the united states, giving free laser eye surgery to those who can't afford in the US, free medical supplies to new orleans. he's a fine man.

     Posted by darladoon at 07/04/2006 @ 8:06pm

165. Ann Coulter is a satirist and pundit. It is amazing to me how threatened and indignant many of you get about her. And how many of you haven'te even read ONE of her books.

     Posted by FREIHEIT 07/04/2006 @ 7:53pm

     so your suggesting that the list of quotes new dawn posted are supposed to be funny?

     for instance... this one

     "Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment."

     is she suggesting that the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, the freedom of the press and the freedom to peacibly assemble are human vices or perhaps human follies and worthy of ridicule

     as a student of the annster hamster, perhaps you could enlighten us.

     Posted by Will C. at 07/04/2006 @ 8:11pm

166. twain was a genius. most of what he said went right over people's heads. he could insult you and you wouldn't even know it.

     coulter, on the other hand, spews fire. it's obvious where she stands. she has no literary capability whatsoever--she's about as horrific as tom clancy, maybe worse!

     Posted by darladoon at 07/04/2006 @ 8:17pm

167. SHE compared herself to mark twain, dude.

     and she IS a fucking douche bag! scary, evil ass douche bag! the entire world should turn their backs on her....

     Posted by darladoon at 07/04/2006 @ 8:18pm

168. But "f**king douche bag"? Go look in a mirror and think about who's using hate speech...

     Posted by FREIHEIT 07/04/2006 @ 8:14pm

     really darla

     I never realized you had it in for douche bags.

     to compare them to ann coulter

     what did douche bags ever do to you?

     Posted by Will C. at 07/04/2006 @ 8:25pm

169. Well I have to admit I do have 3 bumper stickers on my truck. The one on my windshield is pretty straightforward: "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"- Gandhi. But the other two may cause a second take if taken seriously-- 'One Nation Under Surveillance" and "I Wasn't Using My Civil Liberties Anyway". As satire goes the Colbert Report--is satire, Coulter by comparison is simply an outlet for what the rabid neocons foaming at the mouth can't say out loud but brings them such joy to hear. Every time she spews bile, neocons all over the country hearts race and they sing out w/smiles on their faces-- "YES-- THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!!!" Then immediately spin around to look who's around underneath the rock with them and say-- "Did I just say that out loud? Er, I was just kidding, really…"

     Posted by hsuBfools at 07/04/2006 @ 8:37pm

170. and at least colbert has the wisdom to disguise himself.

     on the other hand, coulter is exactly what she is. and why would ANYONE want to be that?

     Posted by darladoon at 07/04/2006 @ 8:41pm

171. Johannes--- "this is crap. we are against aggressive war, against insane policies of disaster, and for a military that used to defend the country"

     Yes Johannes but when your country called what did you do? That's right you evaded the draft. You are the same guy who said he didn't want any of that "military culture". So when push comes to shove you are anti military. Your life makes my point for me. You talk a tough game when it suits your agenda, but when the shit hits the fan you are no where to be found. You call me a slime because I disagree with your political agenda. Fine. Coming from a piece of shit like you that's a compliment. When my family has been called we showed up. Bye the way---hurray for Italy---I hope that ruined your day.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 07/04/2006 @ 8:50pm

172. i think most of us who dislike military force would rather have a strictly defensive function for it.

     that's all, mosse. so you can cut the crap. alright?

     Posted by darladoon at 07/04/2006 @ 8:53pm

173. and at least colbert has the wisdom to disguise himself.

     Posted by DARLADOON 07/04/2006 @ 8:41pm

     And this is how schtoopid conservatives are.

     colbert puts on the personna of a conservative, yet his humor routinely mocks conservatives.

     the conservatives are so schtoopid that they really thought he was a conservative making fun of liberals and invited him to the white house correspondents dinner

     the rest is history

     Posted by Will C. at 07/04/2006 @ 8:54pm

174. Yes Johannes but when your country called what did you do?

     Posted by LEN MOSSE 07/04/2006 @ 8:50pm

     he shopped, went on vacation, took a plane ride...

     that was what ol gee dubya wanted us to do?

     wasn't it?

     Posted by Will C. at 07/04/2006 @ 8:57pm

175. Not that it matters, Darladoon, but have you read ONE book by Ann Coulter? Which one?

     Posted by FREIHEIT 07/04/2006 @ 8:56pm

     yes... tom sawyer

     Posted by Will C. at 07/04/2006 @ 8:59pm

176. Mossie, you are nothing but a stateside wannabe warrior, national guard, pathetic, far far away from any shot fired in anger.

     by the way when did I ever talk tough? you are a buffoon.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 9:10pm

177. Darla---"and chavez is making bush look like the buffoon he is. sending cheap oil and gas to the united states, giving free laser eye surgery to those who can't afford in the US, free medical supplies to new orleans. he's a fine man."

     Chávez is a deeply disputed personality, both in Venezuela and abroad. Critics state that Chávez is a dangerous militarist and authoritarian revolutionary who poses a fundamental threat to Venezuelan democracy.

     With respect to domestic policies, critics report that both poverty and unemployment figures under Chávez have not seen significant improvement, and that corruption and crime are rampant. They also cite a failing infrastructure and public hospitals lacking even basic medicine and hygenic supplies. They question the motives behind the Bolivarian Missions' regular cash and in-kind payments to the millions of poor Venezuelans enrolling in their social programs. Criticism from Chávez supporters arise from reports that Chávez is not fulfilling his major campaign pledges with respect to labor and land reform.

     Critics have also charged that the Chávez government has engaged in extensive electoral fraud, especially during the 2000 and 2004 elections and the recent constitutional referendum. Human rights organizations Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have documented numerous human rights violations under Chávez.

     Abroad, some sources in the Western mainstream news media have reported that Chávez is a confrontational ideologue who willingly harbors, funds, and trains terrorists in Venezuela and insurgents abroad.

     Yea---I guess you would think that Chavez is a nice man

     Posted by Len Mosse at 07/04/2006 @ 9:12pm

178. Frei, there is a big difference what Belafonte said, and snide physical threats with baseball bats. you are doing yourself no good with this pathetic defense of the in defensible.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 9:12pm

179. Mossie, you are nothing but a stateside wannabe warrior, national guard, pathetic, far far away from any shot fired in anger.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/04/2006 @ 9:10pm

     when his country called, Len joined the national guard?

     Hey... that's what ol Gee Dubya did.

     :)

     Posted by Will C. at 07/04/2006 @ 9:14pm

180. no Wiill, I partied, toked up a storm, went to woodstock, shtupped downtown chicks, starred in an educational TV show, acted in cafe theaters in the east village, led bicycle tours, dropped acid, listened to a lot of music, went to the Fillmore East etc.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 9:14pm

181. Frei, you may wallow in coulter's filth all you like, and come out stinking, but don't call that reading a book. not when I'm reading Schiller and Camus.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 9:17pm

182. Frei, you may wallow in coulter's filth all you like, and come out stinking, but don't call that reading a book. not when I'm reading Schiller and Camus.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 9:17pm

183. Mossie you are sad and pathetic. I enjoyed that soccer game very much, and wasn't a bit bothered by the fact that germany, a country in which I resided for a little over ten years, lost. what a small mind you possess.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 9:18pm

184. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/04/2006 @ 9:14pm

     sounds like a fun way to evade the draft

     :)

     Posted by Will C. at 07/04/2006 @ 9:19pm

185. Johannes---now you call the National Guard pathetic--the same Guard that is serving valiantly today in Iraq--this from a guy who evaded the draft. You make my point everytime you type a message on this board---the far left is anti military and you are its poster child. By the way Johannes---How does it feel that some other guy went to Vietnam in your place and probably took a bullet? How does it feel to be a coward?

     Posted by Len Mosse at 07/04/2006 @ 9:20pm

186. Oh Will, I left out bussing down to Washington to demonstrate for an end to the war in front of the pentagon.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 9:20pm

187. Posted by LEN MOSSE 07/04/2006 @ 9:20pm

     so len

     were you in Vietnam or in the national guard

     Posted by Will C. at 07/04/2006 @ 9:21pm

188. Oh Will, I left out bussing down to Washington to demonstrate for an end to the war in front of the pentagon.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/04/2006 @ 9:20pm

     you mean the end of the police action

     Posted by Will C. at 07/04/2006 @ 9:23pm

189. Frei:"But I suppose I'm supposed to understand and agree with you.

     no, you're supposed to present a cogent argument. I'm still waiting.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 9:23pm

190. Will===I was too young for Vietnam. I was not drafted.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 07/04/2006 @ 9:24pm

191. Posted by LEN MOSSE 07/04/2006 @ 9:24pm

     then what are you calling JR a coward for

     I didn't see ol gee dubya taking a bullet for anyone during that time

     Posted by Will C. at 07/04/2006 @ 9:26pm

192. i think he did a few shooters though \

     many... many shooters

     Posted by Will C. at 07/04/2006 @ 9:26pm

193. When my family has been called we showed up.

     you showed up,in peacetime, a few weekends to play soldier, hahahahahah

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 9:27pm

194. I said my family---My uncles, my father, my father in law--all served in combat. When I was in the Guard I did not face combat. I am thankful for that. But I served. You on the other hand are just an old hippy druggie who ran when the chips were down.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 07/04/2006 @ 9:31pm

195. Mossie, I am glad you're enjoying this so much. me too, I did not call you a slime because we disagree, I called you a slime 'cause you come here sliming everyone in sight. and I don't denigrate the guardsmen in Iraq. I denigrate you, you phony peacetime weekend warrior. you were to young during the vietnam war, well you are still too young, with your jejeune attacks on others.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 9:31pm

196. it must be tough to have such an illustrious military family and be such a nonentity, Moussie

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 9:32pm

197. You on the other hand are just an old hippy druggie who ran when the chips were down.

     Posted by LEN MOSSE 07/04/2006 @ 9:31pm

     no... that was nixon

     Posted by Will C. at 07/04/2006 @ 9:32pm

198. PS, I did not run, I walked away from the induction center, having proved to them my superior intelligence. kind of like I'm walking away from you right now.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 9:34pm

199. Going to watch fireworks---will talk later---- Of course I know that Johannes won't be watching firworks--I heard every 4th of July when they go off he flys a white flag.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 07/04/2006 @ 9:34pm

200. How does it feel that some other guy went to Vietnam in your place and probably took a bullet?

     why not ask Cheney the same question?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 9:35pm

201. I heard every 4th of July when they go off he flys a white flag.

     Posted by LEN MOSSE 07/04/2006 @ 9:34pm

     Ha Ha Ha Ha

     len... that's the bed sheet he lays on the ground before he sits down to watch the fireworks.

     I do the same thing

     Posted by Will C. at 07/04/2006 @ 9:37pm

202. Moussie, Moussie, stick to the sliming, you don't have the intelligence for humor. oh but I guess that was sliming.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 9:37pm

203. will, thanks but you needn't bother.Queen Elizabeth was said to dance a dozen galliards every day before breakfast, I can demolish twits like that a dozen before breakfast.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 9:40pm

204. osted by LEN MOSSE 07/04/2006 @ 8:50bm

     My family was military 4-5 generations. An older brother of mine went to Vietnam: Paratrooper Ranger, Master Sergeant, 3 tours. I was finishing high school ready to join even though I was against the war. My brother off for r&r visiting from Germany via Hawaii, hears that I planning on joining, pulls me aside away from earshot of anyone at the home coming, gabs me by the throat up the wall and says to me low and straight, "I'm getting out and if you go in-- it will give them something to drag me back in again-- and I'd rather finish it here and now. I will beat you so bad they can't take you-- or you can go to college. Your choice." I had 50 pounds on him, football, boxed, top fighter in the gang-- for a second I thought I could take him. I went to college. A year later he bought a stingray corvette, came by midterm, I withdrew from college and we went touring cross-country. He had a box of metals that he gave away to me my little brother and sister, some said Laos, Cambodia, N.Vietnam (?), silver star, bronzes. He rarely would talk about all the shit he dealt with, but when he did I understood-- I'm alive because of him and the millions of other guys and gals like him. I have no illusions that we need a military. But ‘it' has great power and when it's abused-- all hell is created for everyone, us and who ever ‘they' are. We, as a nation, have to be deadly sure we're unleashing hell on those that have started it here. You don't want to start this shit ‘cause of BS-- like hsuB has done. hsuB may have dodged the draft, but he's in for worse when he checks out, down and in--no r&r for him, ever (no wonder he does so much vacation time now, must know).

     Posted by hsuBfools at 07/04/2006 @ 9:41pm

205. nice story, Fooly. it's very easy to call others cowards when you have never faced war. it is very easy to send others into battle when you have never faced war.

     the valor of relatives does not wear off unto you. in my day it was courageous to oppose the draft, and to march for peace. hell it was courageous to have long hair in a military town like Colorado springs.they all wanted to beat you up.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 9:50pm

206. Ok, point being-- you don't have to go-- to know.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 07/04/2006 @ 9:51pm

207. Fools;'the valor of relatives does not wear off unto you."

     this was not meant for you, it was a generic you, if anyone it was meant for Moussie. I'm sorry it came across that way, sincerely. I appreciate your post

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 9:55pm

208. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/04/2006 @ 9:50pm

     We all have our stories, ideas, opinios. Not calling anyone but the hsuB admin cowardly.

     I know that war is a bad thing. Really a last resort. And not because I went or because I stayed.

     However I cannot deny nothing rubbed off because of my brother's experience in Vietnam.

     What I know is that my mom had a nervous breakdown because of it. We always wondered if a military car was going to stop at our house and let us know my brother died. I always wondered if I did something wrong over here if that would cause him to die there, weird! Thousand times worse for my mom I'm sure, the paranoia. What I know is that I couldn't get really near my brother for a few years after he got back. He was very different, almost didn't recognize him. No one could wake him up because he'd break your neck. I know his bed sheets were dirty for months even though my mother washed them every day, because of his sweating this redish-brown crap from his pores.

     No, never mentioned I was the brave one concerning any war. I only know what I witnessed first hand. My brother told me not to go and I listened. Doesn't make me, brave-- but it is an experiance. I'm sure it colors the way I see the military and going to war.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 07/04/2006 @ 10:21pm

209. Birdy, I challenge you to prove I made that statement. you have been less than honest in your argument, so I will repeat, I did not make the second part of that statement.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/04/2006 @ 3:54pm

     Birdy, you are another one of those who will not admit that they are wrong, wriggling this way and that, dragging in new subject after new subject. but it doesn't matter. I have the facts, and I know how to make a coherent argument. and that is why I'm still standing while you slink away.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/04/2006 @ 5:43pm

     Oh, that is lame in the extreme and typical of your methods when the subject of israel comes up. I'll also stand up to anything that I've posted anywhere on the internet rather than trying to lie my way out of it. Those comments were copied directly from your posts.

     You are also the one who started in with the "middle easterners have never been a country" line. That's just a rebroadcast of your repugnant pro-zionist propaganda that the Palestinians don't have a right to the lands that they have deeds to.

     I went out to have lunch at a friend's house and I'll be going out for fireworks, too. That's hardly "slinking away". Or, do you think I have some obligation to cancel a lunch date to discredit you every time you start peddling every lie that the state of israel has propounded to rationalize it's nazi-like theft of Palestine? Like this:

     Birdy:" seizing by violence land owned by legal deed and tradition by Palestinians.

     much of this land was PURCHASED. Israel was not created by violence on their part, they were attacked.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/04/2006 @ 2:03pm

     Yeah, bank robbers get "attacked", too, for some inexplicable reason. Jews owned about 7% of Palestine. Some of the ownership was fraudulent- they bribed Turkish officials to issue phony ownership documents and much public land had been simply given to them by the British military occupation authorities. The UN then "awarded" them 57%. It was then expanded by military force to 79% and it's still continuing.

     I say, let honest people see the truth. Keep up with the lies about israel and the truth will just come out more:

     Benny Morris, Haaretz interview:

     http://www.logosjournal.com/morris.pdf

     truncated version in Haaretz: http://tinyurl.com/cffjw

     Commentary on Benny Morris:

     http://hnn.us/articles/3166.html

     A couple of interesting libertarian perspectives:

     http://www.blancmange.net/tmh/articles/halbrook.html

     http://www.mises.org/journals/lar/pdfs/3_3/3_3_4.pdf

     Also interesting: myths of the 1967 war:

     http://www.ussliberty.com/orenbook.htm

     It all comes down to this:

     "There are people who control spacious territories teeming with manifest and hidden resources. They dominate the intersections of world routes. Their lands were the cradles of human civilizations and religions. These people have one faith, one language, one history and the same aspirations. No natural barriers can isolate these people from one another ... if, per chance, this nation were to be unified into one state, it would then take the fate of the world into its hands and would separate Europe from the rest of the world. Taking these considerations seriously, a foreign body should be planted in the heart of this nation to prevent the convergence of its wings in such a way that it could exhaust its powers in never-ending wars. It could also serve as a springboard for the West to gain its coveted objects."

     - 1902 - Sir Campbell Bannerman, Prime Minister of Britain [1905-08]

     And, he might have added, "Always blame the Arabs for everything."

     Posted by fromredbird at 07/04/2006 @ 10:30pm

210. The survival of slavery for many years does not make the American form of government worthless.

     I never said this. you erect a straw man and then knock it down. shameful debating.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/04/2006 @ 3:06pm

     I never said or implied that you said that. You are once again putting words in my mouth, something that you do often. It's a waste of time to attempt to carry on a discussion with someone who does that.

     Posted by fromredbird at 07/04/2006 @ 10:33pm

211. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/04/2006 @ 9:55pm

     I get it. Just some miscommunimecationallyness. no prob.

     Mousie is a jerk. heheheh

     Hey--there's bombing outside, I'm under attack...aaahhh. My animals are going crazzzzy.

     Happy 4th!

     Posted by hsuBfools at 07/04/2006 @ 10:39pm

212. I just finished marching 6 4th of July parades with the American Legion and I might be a little tired, but NACL has totally lost it!!! I can't imagine how she(he) can say that we are not losing our rights!!

     They can enter your house at any time with no warning or warrant and without you being present-Patriot Act, they rounded up thousands of Arab looking men after 911 and threw them into prison for months throughout the US-Patriot Act, they used tax payer dollars and a federal plane to hunt down and bring back the democrats who were fighting an illegal(still to my mind) redistricting, our personal medical records, phone records, library records are in DOD files and FBI files (this includes the Catholic Church and Quakers) and "our Rights are in fact the strongest they have ever been"? I do not feel secure that my rights will be here next year. Everyone thought their rights would be there before Hitler came in, too. People that dissented ended up in the same infamous camps Jews, Gypsies, and others were sent to. Never underestimate the importance of dissent!!! I have a copy of the Constitution in my car, here by my computer, and two other copies in other parts of my house.

     Have you ever read the Constitution? Have you read the Declaration of Independence? Have you read the Magna Carte?

     The Constitution was written at a time of Enlightenment by people who understood the likes of Aristotle and Plato,well all the Ancient knowledge and thought of Greece and Rome and Europe. Many of our founders also had ancestors who suffered in the English Civil Wars and/or the 30 Years War. They had seen what Religion run amok can do. They had just finished a long war, where more often than not they were almost losing it, and if they didn't succeed they were going to be executed. They chose what they chose to put into the Constitution not just because they thought it sounded good. They put in what they did because they ran into those problems and wanted to protect against running into them again. The Constitution is based on Spartan's Constitution with a lot of checks and balances and all those checks and balances are being eroded. The 2nd Amendment! There are nine other Amendments in the Bills of Rights and the additional 25+ besides and all they want to do is use the Constitution as a political game spreading hate and division.

     There is a Flag Code of Honor (Flag Ettiquette) make that a Law with teeth. It does not belong in the Constitution. Gay Marriage? They tried to Amend morals into the Constitution with Prohibition and then we had to waste another Amendment to repeal Prohibition. The Constitution is not the place to preach one bunches morals over the many. It makes sure we can all vote (and that's another thing right there),who we can and should vote for, when and how long they are in office (as a term) and it lets us be safe from power hungry tyrants who want to grab power over the backs of the citizens. Several Founding members did Free their slaves, because they saw the incongruity of slavery. It took others longer. The Constitution allowed us not be beheaded (Charles I) or tortured because we're the wrong Religion(Salem Witch Hunts,Inquisition,The Religion Wars), have Press to keep us informed and educated (FOX?), not be thrown into prison on the whim of the ruler (governement), etc. It spreads hope not fear and hate.

     The most important thing to this Country is the Constitution! Not only does the President take an oath before God to defend the Constitution__ all of Congress, and our soldiers take that same oath. My Senator is the only one who read the Patriot Act and was the only one to vote against it. I know there are some in Washington who do defend the Constitution and that gives me hope!!!!

     Posted by Yorktown at 07/04/2006 @ 11:11pm

213. By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer Tue Jul 4, 1:35 PM ET

     WASHINGTON - President Bush's stalwart foreign friends are fading fast.

     Most of the leaders who defied criticism at home to stand with him on Iraq and win his friendship are no longer players on the world stage, or are on their way out. And it was a small band of brothers to begin with.

     British Prime Minister Tony Blair has said he'll step down before the next national election and is coming under increasing pressure from his own party to do it sooner. Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi paid a farewell visit to the United States last week. He is leaving office in September.

     Italy's Silvio Berlusconi resigned in early May after his party's election losses. Spain's Jose Maria Aznar was earlier forced out of office, the first casualty of supporting Bush on Iraq.

     "It can be a little lonely at the top. And to have stalwart friends like Koizumi or John Howard in Australia or Prime Minister Blair matters a lot," said Michael Green, a former Bush national security aide.

     Newer leaders, particularly those in Europe, have seen the political penalties paid by those who stood too close to Bush -- and have been more reluctant to embrace him so openly. One exception is German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has visited the White House twice this year. She and Bush seemed to hit it off, even though they had some differences. Bush, en route to a summit of world leaders in Russia this month, will stop to see the old East Germany where Merkel grew up.

     Goodwill that flowed to the United States right after the Sept. 11 attacks has long been offset by growing opposition to the war in Iraq and to Bush's foreign policy leadership, polls show.

     UUuuuhhhmmm, Britain and Japan soon to be gone, now Germany friendship... uuuuhhhmmm, history...war...totalitarianism...unitary exec...uuuhhhhmmmmmm....shrinking...friends...civil liberties....

     Posted by hsuBfools at 07/04/2006 @ 11:37pm

214. Fools, I wrote that apology before I read your reply. I looked at that sentence and I realized it could be misconstrued, and it was. it was my clumsy expression, and you know I am sorry. again I found your story touching.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 11:53pm

215. Frei, I finally figured it out, what with the defending Coulter and branding every Manhattan resident a Saddam lover, you're an Ann Coulter wannabe. you think she is a humorist and you were trying to emulate her. I'm amazed I did not see it before.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2006 @ 11:55pm

216. Birdy, you are hysterical. you are the one who dragged Israel into the discussion, so you could try to score points. I will not discuss Israel with you, I've been through that movie before.

     those statements you ascribe to me, I did not make. that doesn't even sound like me, syntax wise, you see my english retains a touch of the germanic.

     you showed great ignorance where the voting was concerned, I showed how changes in suffrage had to wait 50 years for men. you also showed ignorance on the ottoman empire, again I corrected you.

     you are a pitiful discussion partner, dragging in all kinds of subjects. I was trying to inject some reality into the discussion of the founding fathers and the constitution, and the so called american revolution.

     It is a pretty document, but was and is a promise only. it took another 200 years for blacks to win their rights, if indeed they have won them.

     you are a narrow minded prig where Israel is concerned, and your ignorance is only exceeded by your doctrinaire views on that subject.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 12:06am

217. let me think of an analogy to respond to your question.

     you see, for me to read a book by anne coulter would be like a true northern california hippie wearing a fur coat, or i dunno, driving a hummer, or eating bacon. we just don't do it. we jewish intellectual polyamorous hippie feminist types don't really see the point in reading something by anne coulter. adrienne rich, barb ehrenreich, susan sontag, these are the women we read.

     anne coulter is either one of two things:

     1. mentally ill 2. pretending she's mentally ill

     if she's #2, then she's also mentally ill.

     Posted by darladoon at 07/05/2006 @ 01:34am

218. Fireproof the flag

     Shred the Constitution

     That'll work.

     Posted by proudlib at 07/05/2006 @ 01:47am

219. The threat flows from two sources. One is a foreign culture that considers democracy, religious toleration, free speech, and open inquiry inimical. - NACL

     You mean like China, which holds the mortgage for Bush's war in Iraq and his tax cuts for the top 1 percent?

     Posted by proudlib at 07/05/2006 @ 01:59am

220. JOHANNESROLF: those statements you ascribe to me, I did not make. that doesn't even sound like me, syntax wise, you see my english retains a touch of the germanic.

     Liar. I made copies. Because they were so atrocious.

     you showed great ignorance where the voting was concerned, I showed how changes in suffrage had to wait 50 years for men. you also showed ignorance on the ottoman empire, again I corrected you.

     You didn't "correct" anything. I said the American revolution led to a broadened voting franchise. Now you say changes in suffrage had to wait 50 years. What you're saying is only minimally different from what I said and what you said is incorrect anyway. Another lie.

     re: the Ottoman Empire: I stated no opposition to your claim that only 25% of it's subjects were Muslim, I merely asked for documentation. Posting the title of a book and stating that it's a great book isn't documentation of anything. You didn't "correct" anything. There was nothing to "correct" and if there had been you wouldn't have with what you provided. You've simply spun up another lie afterwards about the exchange that took place.

     you are a pitiful discussion partner, dragging in all kinds of subjects.

     Once again, you're the one that brought in your repeated saw that the Arabs and Muslims never had "real countries". You're partial to the idea because in your peculiar thinking that gives the "West" the right to give Arab land to Jews. Another lie. You repeatedly accuse me of what you yourself do, buttress it by ascribing to me words, phrases and ideas that I never expressed, and top it off by claiming, "I showed you". A foolish spectacle and, yes- a lie.

     I was trying to inject some reality into the discussion of the founding fathers and the constitution, and the so called american revolution.

     It is a pretty document, but was and is a promise only. it took another 200 years for blacks to win their rights, if indeed they have won them.

     Which has nothing to do with whether or not it is a revolutionary document and provided the eventual means for blacks to win their rights. I guess if you had been running the American revolution you would have accomplished a lot more. My reading on the era hasn't revealed any shortage of blockheads running around so I doubt that your opinions would have made a significant difference.

     you are a narrow minded prig where Israel is concerned, and your ignorance is only exceeded by your doctrinaire views on that subject.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/05/2006 @ 12:06am

     And, I have a hell of a bad habit of posting facts about it which seems to irritate you. I'll try to do it more often.

     Posted by fromredbird at 07/05/2006 @ 02:36am

221. Birdy, when one party accuses the other of lying, instead of merely ignorance, there is little hope for discussion. I have always been evenhanded when discussing Israel, a subject which you dragged into a discussion about the american revolution. your understanding of the middle east seems to be confined to ignorant Israel bashing. you have tried to spring this on me several times. no matter. you say you copied my statements, hahahahah. you have nothing, and that's the way it's going to stay. read that book I cited, while it most likely not change your closed mind, it will at least provide you with facts in your anti Israel crusade.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 07:45am

222. Oh, and you are still mistaken about voting rights and the constitution and the better named secession from England. they remained unchanged for fifty years, not like you claim" promptly". someday when you learn to discuss one subject at a time you will be an honest discussion partner, until then I consign you to the ignore purgatory, where right wing nutcases such as Rio and NACL reside.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 07:49am

223. hey Fryhate, what's this with Susan Sontag? you beatify Ann Coulter but excoriate Susan Sontag? the latter was a thinker and a writer. Coulter is just a hate prattler. do you have a blonde Coulter wig in the closet, which you break out when nobody's home to prance in front of a mirror and mouth hate speech?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 07:52am

224. Fryhate, Coulter makes repellent public statements. I will not read a"book" by such a loathsome opportunist. that does not disqualify me in discussing these outrageous, calculated, statements. Why would I want to submit myself to this mindless filth? I pity you, that you have nothing better to do than defend such a bottomdweller and bottomfeeder.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 07:57am

225. As my subscription to your magazine nears expiration, I have no intent to renew it. In addition I plan to canvass my friends and family who receive "The Nation" to do likewise.

     My reason for this is your persistence in featuring on your web-edition pages a pristinely Rovian advertisement against the preservation of Net Neutrality, the status quo condition that has kept the internet a last vital refuge of free speech in the electronic medium. This add used to be linked as "Save the Internet" or "Hands off the internet", but I noticed this morning that this has been changed to "See the future of the Internet". However, the add is still the same, is still vague and disingenuous, and is still the work of a consortium of telecommunications giants and right-wing lobbying groups - many of which are associated with the Bush administration via recent conspiracies against the First Amendment.

     Ironically, links to this add are today prominently featured twice on a page sporting editor Katrina Vanden Hueval's jeremiad regarding the erosion of our constitution and civil rights. Funny stuff!

     Your clique of pundits likes to brag that "nobody owns The Nation", but apparently you care nothing about corporate ownership of the internet. Hopefully, if you persist in aiding this attack on free speech, the day will soon come that "nobody buys The Nation".

     Posted by KenDuerksen at 07/05/2006 @ 08:07am

226. By BASSEM MROUE, Associated Press Writer Wed Jul 5, 4:33 AM ET BAGHDAD, Iraq - The Iraqi government's list of the 41 most wanted fugitives suggests that former members of Saddam Hussein's regime form the backbone of the insurgency despite attention paid to the role of religious extremists such as al-Qaida in Iraq.

     this is what I, and others, have said all along.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 08:09am

227. Ken, I share your uneasiness about that ad, and I have said so in this forum. however the Nation, over 100 years old, will survive this, surely.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 08:11am

228. military culture? an oxymoron to be sure.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 08:14am

229. JR,

     Can't seem to pick up the link you gave me regarding the FF's. Got another or a summary?

     CT

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/05/2006 @ 08:23am

230. Chip, I'm sorry, I don't recall what FFs you are referring to. please refresh my memory.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 08:29am

231. Founding Fathers

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/05/2006 @ 08:50am

232. http://www.creators.com/opinion_show.cfm?columnsName=nso

     It's a column by Norman Solomon, to be found on Creator's syndicate.

     that beginning of US history is thickly encrusted with myth. I think it's beneficial to strip away the myths and try to see that period in our history clearly. let me know what you think.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 09:01am

233. It's too bad that Katrina didn't think about the constitution in 2000 when she was so busy helping Ralph Nader spread his big lie that there were no differences between Al Gore and Bush the thief. Those efforts made it possible for Bush to steal the 2000 election in Florida and end democracy in America. Katrina has only herself to blame for the disaster our country is now in.

     Posted by Gore2008 at 07/05/2006 @ 09:18am

234. It's too bad that Katrina didn't think about the constitution in 2000 when she was so busy helping Ralph Nader spread his big lie that there were no differences between Al Gore and Bush the thief. Those efforts made it possible for Bush to steal the 2000 election in Florida and end democracy in America. Katrina has only herself to blame for the disaster our country is now in.

     Posted by Gore2008 at 07/05/2006 @ 09:19am

235. It's too bad that Katrina didn't think about the constitution in 2000 when she was so busy helping Ralph Nader spread his big lie that there were no differences between Al Gore and Bush the thief. Those efforts made it possible for Bush to steal the 2000 election in Florida and end democracy in America. Katrina has only herself to blame for the disaster our country is now in.

     Posted by Gore2008 at 07/05/2006 @ 09:19am

236. It's too bad that Katrina didn't think about the constitution in 2000 when she was so busy helping Ralph Nader spread his big lie that there were no differences between Al Gore and Bush the thief. Those efforts made it possible for Bush to steal the 2000 election in Florida and end democracy in America. Katrina has only herself to blame for the disaster our country is now in.

     Posted by Gore2008 at 07/05/2006 @ 09:19am

237. It's too bad that Katrina didn't think about the constitution in 2000 when she was so busy helping Ralph Nader spread his big lie that there were no differences between Al Gore and Bush the thief. Those efforts made it possible for Bush to steal the 2000 election in Florida and end democracy in America. Katrina has only herself to blame for the disaster our country is now in.

     Posted by Gore2008 at 07/05/2006 @ 09:19am

238. It's too bad that Katrina didn't think about the constitution in 2000 when she was so busy helping Ralph Nader spread his big lie that there were no differences between Al Gore and Bush the thief. Those efforts made it possible for Bush to steal the 2000 election in Florida and end democracy in America. Katrina has only herself to blame for the disaster our country is now in.

     Posted by Gore2008 at 07/05/2006 @ 09:19am

239. It's too bad that Katrina didn't think about the constitution in 2000 when she was so busy helping Ralph Nader spread his big lie that there were no differences between Al Gore and Bush the thief. Those efforts made it possible for Bush to steal the 2000 election in Florida and end democracy in America. Katrina has only herself to blame for the disaster our country is now in.

     Posted by Gore2008 at 07/05/2006 @ 09:25am

240. SENATOR GRAHAM CALLS FOR ACTION AGAINST AMERICANS WHO DISAGREE WITH BUSH

     NAT PARRY, CONSORTIUM NEWS - Sen. Lindsey Graham suggested to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales a new target for the administration's domestic operations -- Fifth Columnists, supposedly disloyal Americans who sympathize and collaborate with the enemy. "The administration has not only the right, but the duty, in my opinion, to pursue Fifth Column movements," Graham, R-S.C., told Gonzales during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Feb. 6.

     "I stand by this President's ability, inherent to being Commander in Chief, to find out about Fifth Column movements, and I don't think you need a warrant to do that," Graham added, volunteering to work with the administration to draft guidelines for how best to neutralize this alleged threat. "Senator," a smiling Gonzales responded, "the President already said we'd be happy to listen to your ideas."

     http://uncapitalist.com/blog/?itemid=1329

     Posted by plunger at 07/05/2006 @ 09:37am

241. 2008, I share your enthusiasm for Gore in 2008, I think the country owes him one.

     Nader, while well intentioned, like his supporters, made use of his right to run for public office. I do not fault him for that. what I do fault him for, is that he shirked the hard work of building a third party alternative for the long run. he did not do this spade work before or after the election.

     the green party in germany, for instance, took 20 years to get meaningful representation in parliament.

     for Bush's ascendance more blame rests with those who voted for him, and those who stood helplessly by, while that election was stolen, with the invaluable help of the supreme court.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 09:41am

242. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/7/3/18173/38643

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 10:03am

243. Fry, humor old boy, humor.

     you might try reading one of Sontag's books, much more elevating than Coulter. unlike that pretender Sontag is a real intellectual.

     as far as coulter goes, I never criticized her books, which I have not and will not read. I criticized her public statements, of which she has made many. I must assume that you were defending those. I don't accuse you of hate, merely of defending it.

     I AM full of hate, I hate aggressive wars, I hate torture, I hate being lied to by the so called pres, and I hate all their apologists. I don't hate you, but I think it only fair that you be the subject of some rough humor, the kind you were dealing out.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 10:33am

244. Fryhate:"or do you hate Ann because she's too close to the truth about liberals?"

     I wouldn't clutch Coulter's coat tails so hard, Frei

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 10:35am

245. These are some funny posts, especially FRANKGITS, and i am very sincere.

     Posted by CPT at 07/05/2006 @ 10:36am

246. Fry, my hate is out in the open for all to see. yours is more hidden, like Mackie's Messer

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 10:37am

247. Wouldnt you think Joe Lieberman would steal more votes from the Republicans than from the Democrats? Suppose he ran Independent, and campaigns saying, either vote for me or votge for my Republican opponent and we'll be alright, just dont vote for my Democrat opponent.

     Ralph Nader was in Florida, campaigning in West Plam Beach - during the final 2 months of 2000. Why? Ralph Nader took his message of Al Gore is only a hairs difference to George Bush, which he knew was a lie, but he told his lie to people in the closest swing districts. Why didnt he campaign outside the close swing district, and avoid the danger of helping George Bush? Oh, but there you go, you see, Ralph Nader was right to go into those swing districts and lie, Ralph Nader would have been wrong to only campaign outside the close swing districts that decided the 2000 race - during the closing weeks of the 2000 campaign.

     I see - so Ralph Nader built something, is that correct? Has George Bush been only slightly worse than Al Gore? Ralph Nader is smart enough to know that is a campaign lie. Ralph Nader intentionally tried to help George Bush. Supposedly, Ralph Nader was after a certain percentage of the popular vote, so he could get 43$ million in matching funds, which were going to run tv commercials in 2004 that would educate Americans - do you remember that?

     Posted by conshame at 07/05/2006 @ 10:37am

248. It's high-time that someone articulated what I've been thinking for all of these dark years since Bush's first inaguration. It has been so disheartening for me and like-minded people to be branded as "traitors" simply because we choose to exercise our right to free speech when we oppose the unconstitutional and criminal behaviors of this administration. Perhaps this is the rallying-cry that Democrats need going into the mid-term election.

     Posted by Stinker at 07/05/2006 @ 10:44am

249. "I see - so Ralph Nader built something, is that correct?"

     are you referring to my post, Con? if so I urge you to reread it, and you will find us in agreement, mostly.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 10:54am

250. I have never heard Al Franken utter the kind of disgusting hatef illed diatribes that are Coulter's stock in trade. have you?

     you see when you mention those folks in the same breath you are suggesting an equivalence. this has been described as giving Judas equal play with Christ.

     the biggest problem with our media has been that in the professed fairness, they have given the lie equal time with the truth. See John Kerry vs Bush or Gore vs Bush.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 10:59am

251. Last I heard, Naderites wanted to tear down the Green Party.

     Posted by conshame at 07/05/2006 @ 11:16am

252. Ann Coulter is a satirist and pundit. It is amazing to me how threatened and indignant many of you get about her. And how many of you haven'te even read ONE of her books.

     Yet Ann's critics are the same folks who nod approvingly when Harry Belefonte and Mother Sheehan call the US the greatest threat to peace in the world while sitting in the office of Hugo Chavez...

     But I suppose I'm supposed to understand and agree with you. Can't do that.

     Posted by FREIHEIT 07/04/2006 @ 7:53pm

     Now, you've crossed over the line into abject bullshit, Frei. You're being just... just... shameless and revolting in your endorsement of this woman. Just so you don't have to take back something you said or admit a mistake. Johanne is right - that's very cowardly. Real men admit mistakes - I did, early on in this thread.

     I have read Coulter's books, am one of her critics, and I think Harry Belafonte is an idiot, and Sheehan old news.

     I see now why you don't decry her broad-brushing of others - you do it yourself. Nice try painting everyone who disagrees with Coulter's clear hate speech as supporters of Chavez.

     What a disingenuous, misdirecting bucket of horseshit - you are one of the most dishonest debaters here when you try to pull that shit, Frei.

     You have no argument - being a "satirist and pundit" doesn't excuse... Why bother - if you believe what you typed above, you're either scum, or stupid.

     And I was trying so hard to be patient with you.

     Posted by New Dawn at 07/05/2006 @ 11:23am

253. "That's only because you agree with Frankin, JR."

     Dude, what makes you say that? I have never said that. it's just if you wanna compare him in any way with A. C. you have to come forth with the goods, er quotes.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 11:30am

254. Very possibly so Con. I was using them as an example. of course germany does not have the rigid two party system we do, so it was easier for the greens.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 11:31am

255. This post is in response to NACL…as someone I would say is not paying close enough attention to real life here in the US.

     To point to threats outside our borders is to ignore what is happening to life here at home. A convenient ploy if you are a member of the administration….but a gross oversight if you are not since our constitution speaks to us and is symbol of who we are, regardless of what others outside our borders think.

     That constitution has weathered a lot of strife during that time: from the political storms of the fight for independence to the social and economic disorder during the Civil War. It survived through the political and foreign policy issues of expansion, multiple World Wars, war in SE Asia and yet whether politically motivated, caused by economic issues or caused by an act which necessitated action, our freedoms remained regardless of the trouble.

     We even had the political battles that go along with the selection of 43 presidents and all of those congressional ballets to boot. Yet the documents that this country was founded on came through by and large unscathed….pretty darned impressive for the progressive (at the time) thoughts of a rebel group who just wanted to rid themselves of a tyrant.

     Tyrants tend to control with an iron hand though shrouded in benevolent paternalism. They quell dissenters and those who are not supportive surrounding themselves with "yes men" (and women) because they can not stand to hear that they are wrong. They encourage class distinctions so that the economic issues keep tension in the lower classes.

     Another key point I believe is that our founding fathers, most notably Madison and Jefferson saw freedom as the end…not merely the means. Consequently the constitution is focused on providing freedoms within the structure of law, clearly NOT an "end justifies the means" philosophy. World History has shown that tyranny can be the result when the ideology is "the ends justifying the means" AND a "dictator" has power. Just look at Mussolini, Hitler, Pol Pot, Kambanda or even Hussein. It was this exact same "perfect storm" that caused our founding fathers to fight for our freedom against King George III.

     Fast forward now to 2006 and I agree with KVH that today the issue for all Americans is that the United States Constitution is being threatened by tyranny here at home. Our freedoms are under attack by a seemingly would be dictator surrounded by loyalists. As Americans, we can not be complacent. We need to keep a vigilant eye on how our freedoms are being treated and the effect we see in our life.

     I understand that freedom means a lot of things and it changes from person to person. As we grow from childhood to adult, we add freedoms every day. So for Americans, our freedoms vary.

     Forget about what those outside our borders say….for the life of any American, "freedom" may actually mean being able to:

     …live the American Dream until your elected officials decide to use fear to control the populace …complete international travel until politics causes reprisal because you are American …pursue the job of your choice unless the color of your skin gets in the way …voice dissent and exercise your free speech until someone starts to call you unpatriotic …marry your true love until you are told you are the wrong gender …exercise your right to vote your conscience until you discover that the machine has reversed your choice …vote for the candidate who ends up with the most votes only to see your vote discarded as the courts declare the losing opponent the winner …get the medical attention your kids and family need from the neighborhood doctor until you can no longer afford health insurance …choose freely from a wide variety of phone service providers until you see them pass your confidential call information to others …use your telephone freely calling whomever and wherever you like until your phone is tapped …worship the God of your choice until benevolence turns to hypocrisy and greed …work your whole life maximizing your savings in the corporate retirement fund, planning on an early retirement until the corporate officers pull an "Enron". ….turn 50 looking forward to an early retirement in 5 years until you are downsized as the plant moves to China. …be a third generation miner loving the job and enduring the hardships until ignored safety standards cause an explosion and collapse of the mine around you …confidently voice your dissent with policy and government actions until you are "swift-boated" by the wing nuts. …trust elected officials until they stop telling the truth …expect and enjoy a free and honest press until the media is quieted by political threats …elect a congress to representative all Americans until corporate America buys them …pay taxes to support the military until the government uses the money to pay off political loyalty …serve with pride in the National Guard or reserves until your "week end" warrior activity turns into a 3 year stint in Iraq and you lose the battle with an IED …celebrate the love and life of children until one comes home in a flag draped coffin

     These are the issues we face….internally caused attacks on our freedoms. If we are not free at home….how can we defeat an enemy abroad?

     At this particular point in our history, we need to pay attention to the modern day tyrants who in the name of democracy and freedom actually are taking our freedoms away. You see to me, Freedom becomes just a word when someone takes it away.

     "If you are not outraged…you are not paying attention.

     Posted by AzPackster at 07/05/2006 @ 11:33am

256. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist?

     how did this creep into the discussion? you might say one man's pundit is another man's hatemonger

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 11:34am

257. Birdy, when one party accuses the other of lying, instead of merely ignorance, there is little hope for discussion. I have always been evenhanded when discussing Israel . . .

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/05/2006 @ 07:45am

     Evenhanded? Another lie. You buttress your pro-israel propaganda by referencing Daniel Pipe's organization Middle East Forum [meforum.org]. He's a notorious and vicious zionist. I have copies of that post, too, by the way. Here's some information about the source of your pro-israel arguments [tinyurl.com].

     I consign you to the ignore purgatory, where right wing nutcases such as Rio and NACL reside.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/05/2006 @ 07:49am

     Yes, it's time to for you to run away when the facts start flying. Before you go why don't you explain why the "right wing nutcases" here usually make admiring comments about your pro-israel diatribes?

     Posted by fromredbird at 07/05/2006 @ 11:40am

258. you are delusional, Birdy

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 11:46am

259. For all our Patriots by Proxy, please read the words of a true patriot, Thomas Paine:

     "He who is the author of a war lets loose the whole contagion of hell and opens a vein that bleeds a nation to death"

     "That there are men in all countries who get their living by war, and by keeping up the quarrels of nations, is as shocking as it is true; but when those who are concerned in the government of a country, make it their study to sow discord, and cultivate prejudices between nations, it becomes the more unpardonable."

     "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

     Posted by Dr. J at 07/05/2006 @ 11:46am

260. As a young man joining the Army, I recited the oath of enlistment that every soldier affirms: "I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same." It's an oath every American should take, for without that Constitution we're serfs, not citizens.

     It's no accident that those who would reshape our country as a tyranny of plutocrats used 9/11 as an opportunity to nullify the Bill of Rights and assert the absolute supremacy of the maximum leader their wealth and media control gives them power to select. We've seen this before. President Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts declaring traitors anyone "opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States" making it illegal to "write, print, utter, or publish" anything critical of the president or Congress. President Lincoln suspended civil law in territories where he feared resistance to the North's military power, and when peace democrats began criticizing Lincoln's violation of the Constitution, he suspended habeas corpus throughout the nation and had 13,000 arrested under military authority. Roosevelt authorized the forced relocation and imprisonment of Japanese Americans by Executive Order 9066. Most internee property was confiscated and disposed of without any compensation. Now we have the Patriot Act, Guantanamo, Extraordinary Renditions, etc., with the president claiming "commander in chief" authority to do as he pleases to anyone for any time period for any reason or none.

     With each surge of governmental intrusion on our civil liberties, a backlash has developed to correct the abuse, but I don't see much backlash developing today, despite extraordinary damage to our civil liberties since 9/11. If Bush and this rubber-stamp GOP Congress remain intact through 2008 there will be little of the Bill of Rights remaining, so the first order of business must be breaking this monopoly of power. But more than that, we need to make sure our elected representatives know that we understand the over-arching importance of defending our Constitutional liberties and will punish any candidate who does not make defense of the Constitution their first order of business.

     Posted by rgarret3 at 07/05/2006 @ 12:01pm

261. frei--

     typical right wing debater: bait and switch, bait and switch. you're like a jack abramoff or tom delay trial lawyer: just keep changing the subject, deflect, cast doubt on anything unrelated to the case. all you righties are like this. you can't seem to stay on any meaningful thread for very long.

     you're so delusional, that you've spent about 12-15 posts attempting (unsuccessfully) to defend anne 'how many awful things can i say today' coulter. a vicious woman who liberals don't detest because she's right---nothing could be further from the truth! we detest her because she has horrible taste! what the fuck is she wearing a cocktail dress, in times square, at 7:00 in the morning? besides a high class slut for the RNC, i don't know any.

     Posted by darladoon at 07/05/2006 @ 12:02pm

262. Posted by AZPACKSTER 07/05/2006 @ 11:33am

     Stellar post.

     Posted by New Dawn at 07/05/2006 @ 12:08pm

263. Yes, it's time to for you to run away when the facts start flying. Before you go why don't you explain why the "right wing nutcases" here usually make admiring comments about your pro-israel diatribes?

     Posted by FROMREDBIRD 07/05/2006 @ 11:40am | ignore this person

     you are delusional, Birdy

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/05/2006 @ 11:46am

     Yeah, right, delusional. Has anyone ever heard of lvliberty1/Love Liberty, also known as Love Jesus-wrote-the-old-testament Liberty?

     JR,

     I know you put me on your ignore list, but I appreciate your excellent defense of Israel to the mindless and seemingly racist attack by Redbird.

     Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 12/23/2005 @ 1:32pm

     You're in good company, "JR". Effusive praise from the guy who loves to call Muslims "animals". Your arguments are equally as sound as his.

     Posted by fromredbird at 07/05/2006 @ 12:13pm

264. guilt by association, Birdy? I prefer gelt by association.

     check your rearview mirror, you're foaming at the mouth.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 12:28pm

265. I don't often agree with lovelib, but I do agree with this:

     to the mindless ... attack by Redbird.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 12:31pm

266. Daniel Pipes and LOVE LIBERTY/lvliberty1? Don't be surprised if you're judged by the company you keep, in this case on the issue of the continuing israeli genicide against the Palestinians.

     Posted by fromredbird at 07/05/2006 @ 12:33pm

267. Birdy: "are you only not concerned if it might require you to be concerned about the continuing brutal treatment of the Palestinians which is occurring right now? Gaza right now looks like the nazi German army tearing through Eastern Europe."

     "incidentally I share your concern for the situation in Gaza. I consider it a spreading of the Iraq war." Moi

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 12:41pm

268. cause you're too busy goosestepping with Coulter, Frei?

     you are wise to back away from your defense of that creep. you would have been wiser not to attempt whitewashing her.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 12:44pm

269. I have to believe that every moment of attention that Coulter gets means at least a few more people leave the GOP out of disgust. Let 'er rip, Ann.

     Conshame,

     Your posts on Gore/Nader are not terribly clear to me. I lived in FL in '00, voted for Nader, and have no regrets. As for "Naderites" trying to dismantle the Green Party, I think your anger against Gore's loss (and let's be clear--Gore lost because he was an incompetent, unlikeable, unbelievable candidate) is leading to a distorted view of those of us who are pleading for a viable, liberal party to vote for. Nader ran as a Green in '00 and did as well as could be expected. He left the Greens in '04 and saw his popularity dwindle. Many of us are supporters of Greens first and foremost and are willing to sacrifice short terms gains for the hope of a long term presence in American political culture. Might be pie-in-the-sky thinking, but it is no more absurd than thinking we will ever see the Dems offer up a liberal for our consideration.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/05/2006 @ 12:52pm

270. Frei, no I'm not, and I resent the allegation and I repudiate the alligator.

     you and La Coulter may say anything you like, and you will be raked over the coals for it. again you're holding the lie up as an equal to the truth.

     would you have defended Goebbels under the same rubrick of opposing views?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 12:52pm

271. she is a nasty piece of work, her rhetoric owes much to John Gotti, give it up Frei, before you make a complete fool of yourself.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 12:55pm

272. Anybody shedding any tears over Kenny Boy? While I have never supported the death penalty, I always support when nature offers its own form of justice. If only it could have acted a decade earlier.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/05/2006 @ 12:56pm

273. Bush is next. he will die of a brain tumor.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 12:57pm

274. Birdy: "are you only not concerned if it might require you to be concerned about the continuing brutal treatment of the Palestinians which is occurring right now? Gaza right now looks like the nazi German army tearing through Eastern Europe."

     "incidentally I share your concern for the situation in Gaza. I consider it a spreading of the Iraq war." Moi

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/05/2006 @ 12:41am

     the right of return is an absurdity. as I have pointed out, many populations were displaced, do they all have a right of return, or are the palestinians somehow special?

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/22/2005 @ 10:34pm

     I'm sure the Palestinians really appreciate your "concern" but it's pretty clear that if israel decides to just force them all out of Gaza by means of brutal violence you will promptly adopt the hypocritical position that they have no right to return to their homes because they "lost".

     The fact that displacement of civilian populations is a violation of the Geneva Conventions doesn't perturb you in the least. The main Geneva Conventions resulted from the nazi's brutal occupation of European countries, in case it's a new concept to you.

     That's probably something else that you'll call "delusional".

     Posted by fromredbird at 07/05/2006 @ 12:58pm

275. this is a medical diagnosis, done long distance, like Frist's diagnosis of Ms Schiavo.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 12:59pm

276. New Dawn, Good grief, I clearly hit a nerve here just mentioning Coulter. It's like saying to a hard right crowd that Ward Churchill deserves to be heard (he does, in fact we need more of him to get some perspective on those who think he is credible). do you think the people calling him a "TRAITOR" are objective? And that was my point. Sorry you are incapable of objectivity and dissolved into insulting me.

     Your post was very telling, in a bad way. Unlike you, I don't think Belefonte is an idiot. I believe he is wrong and ignorant, but that doesn't make him an idiot. And how can you refer to Sheehan as "yesterday's news"?! Are all the accusations of her being the left's highest profile useful idiot true? Y'all done with her?

     Wow, my statement was along this line: Ann Coulter is a pundit. Like other pundits she's an influencer, but has very little real power.

     Forgive me for not goose stepping along with your world view. Sheesh!

     Posted by FREIHEIT 07/05/2006 @ 12:42am

     And the myopic, singleminded whitewashing and misdirecting continues...

     "Sorry you are incapable of objectivity and dissolved into insulting me."

     I am neither incapable of objectivity (especially where it regards Coulter - where is your vilifying of her lack of objectivity?) nor have I dissolved (did you mean devolved?) into insulting you. I pointed out conclusions any idiot could make about someone defending Coulter.

     I think anyone calling anyone a "traitor" these days is mostly just foaming-at-the-mouth partisan rhetoric (much like just about everything Coulter says).

     "Are all the accusations of her being the left's highest profile useful idiot true? Y'all done with her?"

     Sheehan has never been my useful anything. And I'm not part of any "y'all". I think for myself.

     "Wow, my statement was along this line: Ann Coulter is a pundit. Like other pundits she's an influencer, but has very little real power."

     No, your initial statement was that Ann Culter does not practice hate speech (go back and look it up - damn that written record!) Your concurrent statements were avoiding, at all costs, any acknowledgment that she regularly practices hate speech.

     No one asked you to "goose-step" to "my" worldview. But hey, nice Nazi reference there, Frei - more misdirecting and subject-muddying.

     Just admit that pundit or not, she practices hate speech as the norm.

     You aren't fooling anyone with your misdirections, and attempting to paint me as radical (left or otherwise), or supportive of Belafonte, Sheehan, or Chavez, is just plain disingenuous and weak. Anyone who's read my posts here knows I am none of those things.

     Your posts are also very telling "in a bad way". God forbid you should ever, ever admit you may have spoken too soon, too harshly, or made an error in judgment.

     Posted by New Dawn at 07/05/2006 @ 12:59pm

277. I don't often agree with lovelib, but I do agree with this:

     to the mindless ... attack by Redbird.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/05/2006 @ 12:31am

     There you go. All kissy-kissy again with LOVE LIBERTY. It's wonderful how genocide can bring two people together.

     Posted by fromredbird at 07/05/2006 @ 1:01pm

278. LvLiberty There is no, I repeat, no evidence that your side represents a majority of the electorate. Your side represents a force that continues to win because better than half of the electorate has thrown in the towel on what the two "mainstream" parties call political representation. There are no debates inside either party that move outside of "mainstream" presumption, which is always about the investor classes first and everyone else as a second or even third thought.

     As for those "liberals" who are now concerned about Bush because he and his faction have released political passions that previously only targeted the working poor, those poor sods are still dazedly wondering why the "democratic" party continues to ignore them and take their support for granted. It's the old "game is the same but the name is changed" and you can see a lot of those folks posting here. It's a damn round of the "Gypsy Twist", and the true believers fall for it every two years.

     Posted by JRJunior at 07/05/2006 @ 1:01pm

279. Birdbrain, whom are posting this drivel for? not me, I laugh at you.

     my stance is well known here. I have received many kudos for my writing, something I have rarely noticed for you. you are incoherently raving bit please go on, yawn

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 1:02pm

280. And thinking about mass deaths and sleezebags, any predictions on what tragedy this country will have to endure while our good president is vacating DC this August?

     I'm hopeful for one surprise: a million Mexicans simultaneously jumping the border, machetes and scythes in hand, offering to help clear brush in Crawford.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/05/2006 @ 1:03pm

281. ...but...

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 1:03pm

282. Tj,I'm hopeful for one surprise: a million Mexicans simultaneously jumping the border, machetes and scythes in hand, offering to help clear brush in Crawford.

     is this your version of the Zimmermann telegram?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 1:04pm

283. Bush is next. he will die of a brain tumor.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/05/2006 @ 12:57am

     What a teeny tiny tumor that would require. Such darkness today. Must be the post-fireworks blues.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/05/2006 @ 1:04pm

284. Frei, you're losing it.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 1:06pm

285. Tj, no more Mr. Niceguy

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 1:07pm

286. In fact it would require quite a large tumor. Because as we know, Bush's brain is Karl Rove.

     Posted by MyParadigm at 07/05/2006 @ 1:08pm

287. Birdbrain, whom are posting this drivel for? not me, I laugh at you.

     my stance is well known here. I have received many kudos for my writing, something I have rarely noticed for you. you are incoherently raving bit please go on, yawn

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/05/2006 @ 1:02pm

     I admit that neo-fascists like LOVE Liberty have never effusively praised anything I've posted. That's supposed to embarrass me?

     Face it. You can't stand up to the facts of your own statements. Or dodge by changing the subject.

     Posted by fromredbird at 07/05/2006 @ 1:09pm

288. JR, Sorry this is so long, but you asked! :)

     Had a chance to read Solomon's column. I have to say that it sounded very much like what has passed for history over the past 12 or 15 years. Not that what he says isn't true in the literal sense. But there was so much more to those men, to what they tried to accomplish. Lets pick it apart.

     Proceeding from the false assumption that everyone thinks the FF's were Gods, Solomon goes on to point out for the umpteenth time Jefferson's "hypocricy" at owning slaves. I think its time to acknowledge that people, even great people, must live within the times they are born in: He was a plantation owner: Its how the business is run. 30 years from now when you join a clean air environmental group are you going to allow them to brand you a hypocrite because you had to drive a car to work? Solomon also omits the fact that Jefferson declared that his slaves were to be free at his death. That this wish was not carried out should not be laid on him. The next fact always used to blast these guys is the "notorious" 3/5th compromise when putting together the Constitution. Jefferson understood that slavery would not last forever, but the bottom line was to get the damn document signed which would not have been accomplished without the compromise. It was a representation issue.

     They are accused of being rich. Of "feathering their own nests" So what? Washington used his wealth to acquire large tracts of land. So did I, just to a smaller degree thats all.

     To the Howard Zinn's and Paretti's of the world US History will always be nothing but a history of exploitation, of hypocricy, of "the big bad white man". A serious study will show much more, and will describe the darker points in the context of the whole, not just an attempt to make us look bad.

     Solomon needs some more objective sources to be taken seriously, at least by me. And to the Zinn's and Paretti's, I say, go live anywhere else and see if you find it any better. At no point in the past have the right group of men come together, in just the right place, at just the right moment of history, to create what we have. That they took advantage of their situation a little is, in the larger context, immaterial.

     Chip

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/05/2006 @ 1:12pm

289. Chip,

     I'm interfering just a little bit to quibble with the end of your post. The "I say, go live anywhere else and see if you find it any better" is such playground stuff. Not the point at all. You can't rationally observe that Solomon sets up a false situation by believing that we have knee-jerk worship services for the founding fathers and then set up a false situation where you, essentially, worship the government they created. They were flawed men as were their creations--this is true for everyone. You might not like or agree with Zinn, but the effort is to look harshly at the past for the purpose of shaping a better future. A failure to do this--or a very convoluted combination of rational and irrational study such as you promote--does no justice to what our founding fathers began.

     This is what you understand, to your credit, yet fail to understand when it comes to those on the left. The late 18th century was our beginning. Those who eye this period and what has happened since critically are the ones who will be the last to leave this hallowed place; they care enough to want even better than what we are already blessed with. Those who are satisfied are the ones that this country would do well to put on a ship heading back to the Old Country.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/05/2006 @ 1:24pm

290. Every active duty member or veteran of the armed forces, every federal employee, every federal appointee, every member of congress every naturalized citizen and especially the President is bound by oath before God to support and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic. That oath contains absolutely no qualifiers. It says not word to the effect that "protecting the American people" superceeds it. The Constitution contains no provision for its suspension, interpretation or nullification by the executive. Nothing in even a lay reading of the Constitution can be remotely interpreted to countenance the existence of a "unitary execuive". Period.

     Posted by sulphurdunn at 07/05/2006 @ 1:27pm

291. Yeah, Chip.

     Why behave in public when you're living on a playgound? How surprising to hear you assume that most dissenters in the US would prefer to live their than Ghana or Laos. What a delicious proclamation. But when you have dozens of the world's countries gasping for air beneath your boot, any and every time you engage in a comparative analysis, chances are, you're going to want to be in the boot and not under it. The US was founded on bullshit and is the greatest bullshitter the world has ever seen. And not only do its citizens believe in bullshit, why, they adopt, endorse and cultivate their very own.

     You make some good points, and yes, no one is perfect, but please, try to do more than just comment on facades. There's much more than just the pretty exterior to make mention of...

     Posted by chimichenga at 07/05/2006 @ 1:36pm

292. Chipper, your points are fine. I read Solomon inthe context of my statement that the american revolution was not a revolution but a secession. unlike the french and the russian revolution the oppressed, blacks and indians here, serfs and peasants over there, were not relieved of their chains. this is an important point on independence day.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 1:46pm

293. Dunn, good post, but surely lost on the Tories.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 1:47pm

294. Aw, Birdbrain, done already?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 2:17pm

295. Patriotism & The Fourth of July

     by Howard Zinn; July 03, 2006

     In celebration of the 4th of July there will be many speeches about the young people who "died for their country." Let's be honest about war. Those who gave their lives did not die for their country, as they were led to believe but for their government. The distinction between country and government is at the heart of the Declaration of Independence, which will be referred to again and again on July 4, but without attention to its meaning.

     According to the Declaration of Independence--the fundamental document of democracy--governments are artificial creations, established by the people, "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," and charged by the people to ensure the equal right of all to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Furthermore, as the Declaration says, "whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it."

     It is the country that is primary--the people, the ideals of the sanctity of human life and the promotion of liberty. When a government recklessly expends the lives of its young for crass motives of profit and power, always claiming that its motives are pure and moral ("Operation Just Cause" was the invasion of Panama and "Operation Iraqi Freedom" in the present instance), it is violating its promise to the country. War is almost always a breaking of that promise. It does not enable the pursuit of happiness but brings despair and grief.

     Mark Twain, having been called a "traitor" for criticizing the U.S. invasion of the Philippines, derided what he called "monarchical patriotism." He said: "The gospel of the monarchical patriotism is: ‘The King can do no wrong.' We have adopted it with all its servility, with an unimportant change in the wording: ‘Our country, right or wrong!' We have thrown away the most valuable asset we had--the individual's right to oppose both flag and country when he believed them to be in the wrong. We have thrown it away; and with it, all that was really respectable about that grotesque and laughable word, Patriotism."

     If patriotism in the best sense (not in the monarchical sense) is loyalty to the principles of democracy, then who was the true patriot, Theodore Roosevelt, who applauded a massacre by American soldiers of 600 Filipino men, women, and children on a remote Philippine island, or Mark Twain, who denounced it?

     Today, U.S. soldiers are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan are not dying for their country, they are dying for their government. They are dying for Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld. And yes, they are dying for the greed of the oil cartels, for the expansion of the American empire, for the political ambitions of the President. They are dying to cover up the theft of the nation's wealth to pay for the machines of death. As of July 4, 2006, more than 2,500 US soldiers have been killed in Iraq, more than 8,500 maimed or injured.

     With the war in Iraq long delcared a "Mission Accomplished," shall we revel in American military power and--against the history of modern empires--insist that the American empire will be beneficent?

     Our own history shows something different. It begins with what was called, in our high school history classes, "westward expansion"--a euphemism for the annihilation or expulsion of the Indian tribes inhabiting the continent, all in the name of "progress" and "civilization." It continues with the expansion of American power into the Caribbean at the turn of the century, then into the Philippines, and then repeated Marine invasions of Central America and long military occupations of Haiti and the Dominican Republic. After World War II, Henry Luce, owner of Time, LIFE, and Fortune, spoke of "the American Century," in which this country would organize the world "as we see fit." Indeed, the expansion of American power continued, too often supporting military dictatorships in Asia, Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, because they were friendly to American corporations and the American government.

     The record does not justify confidence in Bush's boast that the United States will bring democracy to Iraq. Should Americans welcome the expansion of the nation's power, with the anger this has generated among so many people in the world? Should we welcome the huge growth of the military budget at the expense of health, education, the needs of children, one fifth of whom grow up in poverty?

     Instead of being feared for our military prowess, we should want to be respected for our dedication to human rights. I suggest that a patriotic American who cares for her or his country might act on behalf of a different vision.

     Should we not begin to redefine patriotism? We need to expand it beyond that narrow nationalism that has caused so much death and suffering. If national boundaries should not be obstacles to trade--some call it "globalization"--should they also not be obstacles to compassion and generosity?

     Should we not begin to consider all children, everywhere, as our own? In that case, war, which in our time is always an assault on children, would be unacceptable as a solution to the problems of the world. Human ingenuity would have to search for other ways.

     Posted by chimichenga at 07/05/2006 @ 2:49pm

296. To TJ,

     I'll be the first to agree that looking at the past is the way to secure the future. As an historian thats' the first lesson I learned. But there appears to be a difference between the self-examination of the 60's, a healthy thing, and the self-flagellation of the 90's and this decade. The school systems (the public systems anyway) seem to be intent on creating a generation of hand wringing, guilt laden children who may only view the accomplishments of the past as obtained on the broken backs of blacks, Indians, and women. This is as much bullshit from the left as a John Wayne movie is from the right, and it is this politicized, agenda driven study of history that I object to. The FF's, representing as they do the "originators" of the nation, are naturally convenient whipping boys here.

     CT

     CT

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/05/2006 @ 2:59pm

297. I agree with Craig Washington:

     "I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag"

     Posted by John Earl at 07/05/2006 @ 3:08pm

298. The school systems (the public systems anyway) seem to be intent on creating a generation of hand wringing, guilt laden children ...

     Chip, it sounds like you don't have school age children. I do, and I live in a VERY liberal college town, and you can take it from me that the public schools are into the three R's like never before. These kids do twice the work I did, I swear. Yeah, I'm sure that pity-the-natives stuff is in some of their textbooks, but they don't need help with Social Studies, so I wouldn't have seen it. Besides, that's all boring sissy stuff anyway, as you'll recall, which is something that never changes.

     You're welcome to your opinion of the public schools but I think it's a crock. My kids are gonna come out ready to whup Chinese butt.

     Posted by MyParadigm at 07/05/2006 @ 3:21pm

299. Chimi, I'm going to read up on this Zinn fellow. I believe that's the first copy/paste I've seen from you, and it was worth reading. I can see why the wingers don't like him.

     Posted by MyParadigm at 07/05/2006 @ 3:25pm

300. Good Point JR, although remember in the end both the Russian and French revolutions were abject failures, in my view. Also, the tendency, for whatever reason, to free slaves or serfs happened for both the US and Russians in the middle part of the 19th century, and its assoc. with revolution coincidental, ie, had the Russian Rev. occurred in the 18th century their making emancipation part of their independence might not have been anymore prevalent then ours was

     CT

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/05/2006 @ 3:28pm

301. To Myparadigm,

     Actually, I'm glad to hear that. I'm in Md, a very politcally correct state. My kid is now almost 19, and the instruction I speak of is 2 years past. I pulled some copies of the 1997 curriculum guide for teachers in Md. It was pretty bad then.

     CT

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/05/2006 @ 3:32pm

302. Chip, a chinese leader was asked about the success or failure of the french revolution, he answered it's too soon to tell. my point would be compared to it not happening?

     I also had an argument with Redbird about voting, which was not addressed in the american "revolution". universal male, white suffrage did not come until 50 years later, the founding fathers were dead set against it.

     suffrage did not come for blacks until 200 years later, it was not easily granted, but fought for with the sacrifice of human life, see Medgar Evers and in the broader sense Martin Luther King.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 3:44pm

303. Gore lost because he was an incompetent, unlikeable, unbelievable

     George Bush is (only, at most, very very very slightly, ever so - microscopically - you'd never know the difference - but technically speaking) more incompetent, more unlikeable, more unbelievable.

     Is Ralph Nader competent? Competent at helping fascists. Is Ralph Nader likeable? Thanks for calling me a Republican guy. Is Ralph Nader believable? "Theres no difference, no difference, no difference" - Is Ralph Nader a believable liar?

     Posted by LiberalPride at 07/05/2006 @ 3:54pm

304. LL

     The use of the phrase "...conservative accomplishment in US politics." qualified as my laugh of the day. What would these be I wondered? The penning of legislation by the corporations the laws are meant to control? The blurring of church and state via "faith-based funding" with tax dollars? The use of artifical "terror alerts" to keep the proles in line? (See False Alerts) The deliberate campaign of misinformation to wage war in Iraq? The rationalization of torture for prisoners of War?

     Yes, what a bright and shining light you folks have brought to government. Oooops, that light is the glow given off by the burning of our freedoms and liberties...my bad!

     Posted by leftofcenter at 07/05/2006 @ 3:58pm

305. JR

     Sufferage for minorities will always be in the eye of the beholder I guess. I've read stories of blacks who made their way against all odds right after the Civil War. For them the emancipation was the best thing that ever happened to them. For guys like Randall Robinson, who spoke and wrote in this decade of the White Man's "debt", emancipation will never come: he's too angry, I guess.

     When I get to China I'll ask what they think of the Rev now.

     Chip

     And womens sufferage? I doubt you'd find many women, let alone men, who favored or cared about it. Again, you must consider how people thought about things THEN, not now.

     Chip

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/05/2006 @ 4:11pm

306. but nader was mostly right about there being no difference between gore and bush. he wasn't talking about specific differences; he was talking about them both being beholden to huge corporate interests: which they both were (and continue to be).

     gore was (or is) the same as clinton. sure, he would have taxed the hell out of the rich, wouldn't have invaded iraq, would have advocated more industrial regulation, and what not, but taken as a whole, but the republican party would have kept gore in serious check throughout his term.

     nader on the other hand, would have stirred the stew significantly. so significantly, that he might have been assassinated. who knows?

     Posted by darladoon at 07/05/2006 @ 4:40pm

307. Posted by LIBERALPRIDE 07/05/2006 @ 3:54pm

     If that whining, defensive post is an example of "liberal pride", then I have no idea who I am anymore. I thought I was liberal. If a proud liberal can get all bunched up about St. Gore, then I'm off to the deep, left end. I never said I was crazy about Nader; I indicated that I support Greens. When Nader left them, so did my interest in him. So attack Nader all you want if it makes you believe that Gore ran a good campaign and presented ideas that any proud liberal would cheer for. I for one will always put my unabashed liberal values before my support for a half-assed, noncommittal neo-liberal like Al.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/05/2006 @ 4:42pm

308. world socialism? if so, what's the problem?

     most western countries are relatively socialist anyways. is there a problem with this?

     Posted by darladoon at 07/05/2006 @ 4:42pm

309. Chip, when I'm talking about suffrage I mean VOTING not suffering

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 4:49pm

310. Fry, socialism and freedom are NOT antithetical, as you so snidely imply

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 4:50pm

311. jr, yes I know??

     (musta said something off kilter)

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/05/2006 @ 4:51pm

312. Chip,Sufferage for minorities will always be in the eye of the beholder

     this is nonsense. you either have the right to vote or not.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 4:52pm

313. Went to a ballgame yesterday. Heard a country rendition of America the Beautiful before the first pitch. Then heard a tone-deaf version of the national anthem by a female army officer. Then throughout the game, they played tape of military personnel from across the globe wishing us a Happy 4th. The 7th inning stretch brought our glorious army officer back to the field for a botched version of God Bless America.

     And I think to myself...what connections to baseball and the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence are our soldiers supposed to have? I know that historically baseball might have been created by soldiers, but still, it's a flippin' game most often played by 12-year olds. And the Declaration of Independence is a celebration of ideals, ideals that are at least as much a part of any citizen's daily life as they are in the work of our military. I celebrate the spirit of the Dec of Ind with my every activity. And the boys and girls in Iraq? What are they doing specifically that reflects the words of Jefferson?

     Makes me hate baseball...and that would hurt me as much as anything could. So much for my pursuit of happiness undisturbed by the numbing drumbeat of martial thinking.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/05/2006 @ 4:52pm

314. I believe some women wanted the right to vote along with other rights. they got the vote in 1920, 100 years after men sans property.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 4:54pm

315. JR,

     Italy v. France. Who you got?

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/05/2006 @ 4:56pm

316. yes, most likely. I would have to go with Italy. they have not been scored on, except for an own goal against the US. germany played well, except for the last two minutes, when they lost concentration. I think they were counting their penalty kicks in advance. that first goal was the dagger, the second just for emphasis. final should be fun.3rd place game, a bit less so, I imagine.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 5:04pm

317. TJ. here in new york they play God Bless America during the seventh inning stretch. gross.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 5:05pm

318. Hard for me to imagine either team losing. Thank goodness the final is on a weekend so I can watch.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/05/2006 @ 5:07pm

319. one of them will have to lose. I think Italy will win.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 5:12pm

320. Fry, if you have something to say about socialism and freedoms, do so. driveby remarks add NOTHING to the discussion, as much fun as they seem to be for you.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 5:23pm

321. which societies are you referring to? My hunch here is that you do not know the difference between socialism and communism.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 5:43pm

322. Here, I'll list those successes:

     always the trickster. hey if you want to discuss by yourself go ahead, why I should bother with you I don't know.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 5:47pm

323. hey Fry, piss or get off the pot.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 6:11pm

324. never mind. you are not worth my time.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 6:11pm

325. The "Good" IS the enemy of the "Better," and fortunately we have The Nation and this site to assist us in our reflection(s) upon what might yet be...peace AND justice.

     Posted by lewwelge at 07/05/2006 @ 6:18pm

326. Posted by FREIHEIT 07/05/2006 @ 6:07pm

     So, which society has come closest to being an exercise in pure socialism?

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/05/2006 @ 6:19pm

327. Fry, you can play coy with someone else.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 6:23pm

328. i would say that england, canada, norway, and spain, are all excellent example of countries with relatively socialist policies, and have relatively robust economies.

     at a minimum, health care and education are insured by the state.

     Posted by darladoon at 07/05/2006 @ 6:34pm

329. Just trying to learn: which one has gotten closer than the others...you know, second to the American public school system.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/05/2006 @ 6:35pm

330. Darla, you can add France, germany and the US. among many others.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 6:40pm

331. sorry, not the united states.

     Posted by darladoon at 07/05/2006 @ 6:55pm

332. and france does not quite have a robust economy. germany does, but its unemployment high. they do have a ballooning problem there.....BUT they do pay for unemployment.

     Posted by darladoon at 07/05/2006 @ 6:56pm

333. Darla, in germany for instance much more is guaranteed by the state. six week vacations for instance, pensions are paid to everyone by the state, daycare is paid for. and many many more. ever get the feeling you're being cheated?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 6:57pm

334. Darla, there are many socialist aspects here. unemployment insurance, disability, workman's comp, medicare, medicaid, and many more. the economies of western europe while not without their problems are healthy and thriving. the Euro for instance has been higher and higher vs the dollar. taxes are higher, but they get something, a lot, for their taxes.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 7:00pm

335. Darla unemployment is high here too, the official numbers don't count the longterm unemployed, which they do count there. I'm not saying it's higher here than there.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 7:02pm

336. According to data obtained from World Bank Indicators, national growth rate in France during 1997-2003 was 0.4% slightly less than that of high-income countries' group as a whole.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 7:05pm

337. Darla, you are making statements that are unsupported. please get the facts before you post. I use google.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 7:06pm

338. 6 week vacations are common all over europe. so is daycare. i know all of this.

     i signalled out spain, norway, canada, etc, because not only are they socialist countries, but they are also socially progressive (gay friendly, for instance). what i mean is tax dollars going towards progressive social causes (pot for AIDS patients, operations for transsexuals, etc).

     yes, germany and france are great, but not the best.

     now, the united states only pays for unemployment until you run out. that depends on how much you made before. in europe, your unemployment doesn't run out. you can also get your rent covered if you are ill, for instance. even if you're depressed (see: france).

     the united states is not a socialist country, man. no way. until ALL education and health care are free, then it's a no go.

     Posted by darladoon at 07/05/2006 @ 7:08pm

339. I did not make such a blanket statement, thank you. the things I listed are considered socialist policies.

     yes, germany and france are great, but not the best.

     I don't know what you mean by this? not the best at what?

     the countries of the EU are all different in detail, but it is probably safe to say that they all have more socialist policies than we do. it would help if you were more specific.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 7:21pm

340. i signalled out spain, norway, canada, etc, because not only are they socialist countries, but they are also socially progressive (gay friendly, for instance). what i mean is tax dollars going towards progressive social causes (pot for AIDS patients, operations for transsexuals, etc).

     this true for many other european countries.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 7:23pm

341. TJ, I have been expanding my ignores, ahh that feels better, the threads are sleeker, and I am less annoyed. when I feel like a good scrap I can always reinstate them.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 7:25pm

342. Darla, and france does not quite have a robust economy. germany does,

     you are guessing here.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 7:29pm

343. freiheit-

     oh really? gee i never thought of that. i thought taxes were just for the king.

     of course it's not "free", but the costs are distributed evenly, instead of the burden falling on those who simply cannot afford it. that's what matters. its' called 'compassion'. something the united states doesn't understand.

     the european countries that are gay friendly: holland, denmark, spain and norway (?).

     pot friendly: holland, denmark, and now canada over here. i'll be in vancouver in august, smoking out in a cafe there.

     Posted by darladoon at 07/05/2006 @ 7:30pm

344. i said, "relatively robust"

     meaning: they're in the top 10 worldwide. that's pretty good, dude.

     try somalia dude

     Posted by darladoon at 07/05/2006 @ 7:30pm

345. Ah, Vancouver, a beauuutiful city, and be sure to look up my good friend B.C. Bud. I like to go to the Amsterdam Cafe, which has a smoking room. no sales there, but they will be happy to direct you. be sure to buy something at the cafe, to help them keep going. the new prime minister hates this shit and is doing what he can to stamp it out. you can report back. the US is also pressuring them to crack down. Vancouver also has a wonderful Chinatown for good eats.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 7:41pm

346. they're in the top 10 worldwide.

     in what respect?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 7:42pm

347. gdp

     Posted by darladoon at 07/05/2006 @ 7:43pm

348. GDP is only one of many ways to measure an economy.

     "With a GDP of $1.6 trillion, France is the fourth-largest Western industrialized economy."

     now what was it you said about france?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2006 @ 8:32pm

349. Freiheit -

     While I must say I've enjoyed the brief respite from the undeniably hostile feelings that arise in me towards anyone who would support Ann Coulter, I've re-read your posts on this day several times now, and see that you have abandoned entirely our argument (it was more argument than discussion, to be frank) about whether Ann Coulter practices hate speech or not.

     You've moved on to viable arguments you can credibly argue; Israel and the like - which is a credit to you - I knew you were more intelligent than where you took this thread earlier. For instance, I wouldn't even try to touch you on the Israel-Palestine argument without in-depth research first - you clearly know the history and more relevant facts than I do. Funny that I think we'd agree that Israel is too big for its britches and that the Palestinians are people, too... You think that, too, right? But you treated me like some dirty partisan scumbag not worth finishing the line of discourse about Coulter with.

     I'm disappointed, Frei, and find that frustrating, at best. No sarcasm in that statement at all, I swear.

     But I've yet failed to see any acquiesence on your part to the fact that Ann Coulter does indeed do exactly as I claimed - practice hate speech (I also listed several direct and relevant quotes, straight from her horse-faced mouth). Now, I've looked over the thread since, and it appears that you've just abandoned the argument, which to me, seems unlike you. You're pretty pit-bullish about digging in and hanging on and fighting out most things you write. Let's call it having the courage of your convictions. I'm cool with that.

     But I've really made no threats to ignore you (like you'd care), nor have I devolved (it is "devolved", not "dissolved") into baseless attacks with you yet (we'll see what happens). I will be more than happy to re-post anything I've posted, or debate the finer nuances and details thereof, if you'd like.

     But I would prefer that we just resolve the question at hand without all of the drama. I trust that you would as well.

     Will you now, so that we may continue to be civil towards one another (like you'd care), admittedly for my benefit (and of course, the benefit of this board and your own integrity), admit that Ann Coulter practices hate speech?

     Or will you continue to argue that since she is a "pundit" (she's more than that, and you know it), that therefore hate speech doesn't really matter, and then continue insinuating that other pundits do the same?

     If so, I'll even let you run with that. If you wish to remain (and expose yourself) as a partisan (even if only against democrats and liberals and never necessarily against Republicans or conservatives), I'd understand and again call it the courage of maintaining your convictions, if nothing else.

     But to anyone really paying attention, Coulter volunteers examples of hate speech freely with every breath - the research is easy, and I posted dozens of examples. Your task is more difficult:

     You claim that others do it by virtue of their "punditness"...

     so pony up.

     Please provide concrete examples and links to said speech from the liberal pundits of your choice.

     Frei, I hereby promise in my heart that I will not look upon your admission of this as any kind of petty political victory on my part, because, truth be told - and known by anyone who reads my posts - I'm pretty apolitical, if left-leaning. I will look at this admission as only an honest acknowledgment of the clear facts to anyone who's listened to the woman and has any sense of civility or God forbid, Christian decency.

     You misspoke earlier in defending this woman, Frei, no matter what else we may ever agree or disagree on. She shouldn't be representing anyone, and you should say so and move on and I will respect f\you for it - not for "goose-stepping" to "AnotherNewDawn's worldview", but sinply for acknowledging that this woman practices hate-speech. What's it going to hurt you to speak truthfully?

     Does Ann Coulter represent you, Frei, or say things "you wish you could say"?

     Or not?

     Posted by New Dawn at 07/05/2006 @ 9:49pm

350. . . . the main point is that concepts like a relatively extensive bill of rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, and a broadened franchise which soon became broader were revolutionary at the time.

     Posted by FROMREDBIRD 07/04/2006 @ 1:31pm

     Birdy,:"and a broadened franchise

     this was definitely not part of the constitution, which did NOT broaden the franchise.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/04/2006 @ 1:51pm

     I didn't say it was. I said: "concepts like a relatively extensive bill of rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, and a broadened franchise which soon became broader were revolutionary at the time." Please don't put words in my mouth. The American revolution led to an extensive broadening of the franchise over that of England, first eliminating property ownership requirements and continuing from there.

     Posted by FROMREDBIRD 07/04/2006 @ 2:25pm

     this was NOT in the constitution. the franchise was not broadened until considerable time later. for blacks 200 years later. No, the franchise was unaffected by the secession of the colonies.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/04/2006 @ 2:29pm

     the franchise was unchanged at the time of secession and writing of the constitution, in which it was not addressed. in other words, no one had the right to vote who did not have it under england's rule.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/04/2006 @ 2:48pm

     you showed great ignorance where the voting was concerned, I showed how changes in suffrage had to wait 50 years for men. you also showed ignorance on the ottoman empire, again I corrected you.

     you are a pitiful discussion partner, dragging in all kinds of subjects. I was trying to inject some reality into the discussion of the founding fathers and the constitution, and the so called american revolution.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/05/2006 @ 12:06am

     I also had an argument with Redbird about voting, which was not addressed in the american "revolution". universal male, white suffrage did not come until 50 years later, the founding fathers were dead set against it.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/05/2006 @ 3:44pm

     The original 13 colonies and the year that property requirements were eliminated for the right to vote: New Hampshire 1784, US Constitution established 1787, Georgia 1789, Pennsylvania 1790, Delaware 1792, Maryland 1801, Connecticut 1817, Massachusetts 1821, New York 1821, New Jersey 1844, Virginia 1850, North Carolina 1854, Rhode Island ?, South Carolina ?

     repeat: and a broadened franchise which soon became broader were revolutionary at the time

     This is why it was revolutionary:

     Before 1831, only those men who were landowners, or landowners first sons (the heir) had the right to vote in the UK. This meant that only about 5% of the UK population had the right to vote, and this left any second sons, and anyone who didn't own any land, disenfranchised in the UK. The eldest sons were allowed to vote, and had a system by which they could vote whilst away from home in University and also at home. Effectively, the eldest sons were allowed two votes, whilst most of the proletariat, and all women were not allowed to vote at all. By 1911 the vote privilege had been extended to most men. However, the voting registration was very convoluted, and required a solicitor, so only 63% of males were registered to vote. Added to this, were many exclusions, which included: Male domestic servants; sons living at home; paupers ‘on the parish' claiming benefits; soldiers in barracks; people who did not pay rates.

     The people who could be voted for were equally as undemocratic, in that the ‘seats' that these politicians stood for election for, were unfairly distributed between cities and rural areas.

     http://users.bathspa.ac.uk/110556/html/history_of_voting.html

     In addition to the comparatively less democratic distribution of seats in England it should also be mentioned that the property requirements in America were much less onerous in terms of the number of people who could vote. America had a much greater percentage of freeholders and the acreage required was not set unattainably high. In some cases only a lot in the town was required. In other cases cleared land was specified- the idea being to develop the local economy.

     JOHANNESROLF, your "argument" is one that you invented out of whole cloth and flows from a willingness to shoot off your mouth quite freely when you don't know what the F*** you're talking about. When you're caught out you then try to remedy that by twisting the original subject into a different shape, pretending that someone said something they didn't, and supplementing that effort by calling someone who does know what they're talking about insulting names. In short, you're ignorant, childish, churlish, and boring. What you seem to consider significant ideas are pure pablum.

     Posted by fromredbird at 07/05/2006 @ 11:47pm

351. TJ, I have been expanding my ignores, ahh that feels better, the threads are sleeker, and I am less annoyed. when I feel like a good scrap I can always reinstate them.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/05/2006 @ 7:25pm

     Stop showing up at the "scrap" without any guns and I'll stop laughing at you.

     Posted by fromredbird at 07/05/2006 @ 11:51pm

352. (Majored in Political Science and actually studied in the DDR in the late-70's.)

     Posted by FREIHEIT 07/05/2006 @ 6:07pm

     Oh freibaby!

     you sold out to the commies a long time ago.

     Fellas, we have a died to the bone leftist here. And he calls himself freiheit.

     Funny isn't it.

     But then his east german commie buddies called themselves... Demokratische.

     that was funny too

     I see you learned to lie at an early age freibaby.

     Posted by Will C. at 07/06/2006 @ 12:56am

353. perhaps that's why you find the annster hamster so appealing.

     Posted by Will C. at 07/06/2006 @ 01:05am

354. The military protected me during WWII, since then it has just attacked countries that never attacked us and brutalized people all over the world. Yes it is an army of rapists, torturers and murderers. ALL armies are. That is what happens to people when you send them to other countries, tell them that, "..those people aren't like us you know, hardly human, go kill them " What , exactly, would 'winning' this war entail? What the hell did Iraq ever do to us? Who are we fighting? They are not insurgents, they are resistance fighters. I can't think of any country in the world that we could attack that wouldn't fight us back. So we occupy then and won't leave until they stop fighting to get us to leave? Have we all gone through the looking glass? We are being ruled by the Red Queen. This is not a football game where we root for the home team to win. This is an unlawful , brutal , uncalled for attack on a sovereign country. We should not win, we should get out and leave them alone. Just like we would want an army who invaded our country to get out and leave us alone.

     Posted by bansidh at 07/06/2006 @ 05:48am

355. Dawn, nice skewering, but I think you are barking up the wrong tree. I seriously doubt Fryhate will come up with anything since he is not serious. he thinks himself a sort of witty gadfly.he is a drive by poster. but maybe you'll have better luck than I did.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2006 @ 08:24am

356. Bird, The original 13 colonies and the year that property requirements were eliminated for the right to vote: New Hampshire 1784, US Constitution established 1787, Georgia 1789, Pennsylvania 1790, Delaware 1792, Maryland 1801, Connecticut 1817, Massachusetts 1821, New York 1821, New Jersey 1844, Virginia 1850, North Carolina 1854, Rhode Island ?, South Carolina ?

     more than half of those original states got property less suffrage around 1820, which was my point. my further point was that the constitution and secession did not create this right to vote. I am correct in this and you aren't.Rhode Island by the way held out until 1888. game set and match Johannesrolf

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2006 @ 08:34am

357. bird:"The American revolution led to an extensive broadening of the franchise over that of England,

     it did not. until 50 years later. also your point that the secession and constitution led to english changes is also wrong. see link

     http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/struggle_democra cy/getting_vote.htm

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2006 @ 08:39am

358. Bird, this discussion could have taken place in a civilized fashion, were it not for the fact that you hysterically dragged Israel in and unleashed your revanchist vitriol. it seems you read ONE book about the mid east and Israel,by a discredited author, and then shut off your brain. when you turn it back on i am ready.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2006 @ 09:04am

359. Bansidh, very well put, and poignant. thank you. I would certainly like to hear more from you.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2006 @ 09:19am

360. Bird, The original 13 colonies and the year that property requirements were eliminated for the right to vote: New Hampshire 1784, US Constitution established 1787, Georgia 1789, Pennsylvania 1790, Delaware 1792, Maryland 1801, Connecticut 1817, Massachusetts 1821, New York 1821, New Jersey 1844, Virginia 1850, North Carolina 1854, Rhode Island ?, South Carolina ?

     more than half of those original states got property less suffrage around 1820, which was my point. my further point was that the constitution and secession did not create this right to vote. I am correct in this and you aren't.Rhode Island by the way held out until 1888. game set and match Johannesrolf

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/06/2006 @ 08:34am

     No, these were your "points":

     no one had the right to vote who did not have it under england's rule

     you showed great ignorance where the voting was concerned, I showed how changes in suffrage had to wait 50 years for men

     The timeline entirely validates what I said:

     "The American revolution led to an extensive broadening of the franchise over that of England, first eliminating property ownership requirements and continuing from there."

     You're making yourself the fool to seize on the fact that some took longer than others to maintain that what I said was incorrect. You are also again, for what, the fourth time, reintroducing the fiction that I said the Constitution brought these changes about. This is like carrying on a conversation with a four-year-old. "game set and match". That's laughable juvenility. It's usually easy to tell that someone has tied themselves to a pig in a poke by the number of times they proclaim "victory".

     bird:"The American revolution led to an extensive broadening of the franchise over that of England,

     it did not. until 50 years later. also your point that the secession and constitution led to english changes is also wrong. see link

     http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/struggle_democra cy/getting_vote.htm

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/06/2006 @ 08:39am

     Gee, there's that "Constitution" thing again. You're an extraordinary specimen of a wriggling creature, a new species even- Joahannesrepetitus?

     You also made a poor choice in the material you chose to back up your point [tinyurl.com] (whatever the hell the point was if anything other than a childish outburst of pure vanity) in the above link. From the second paragraph discussing the broadening of the franchise in England:

     However, the issue of parliamentary reform reached a wider audience, particularly after the French Revolution. Influenced by works such as Thomas Paine's Rights of Man (1791-2), radical reformers demanded that all men be given the right to vote.

     Not only do you not understand basic history on this issue you don't even read your own references. You've gotten so clumsy trying to extricate yourself from the gross errors that your insulting boorishness led you into that you proved my point for me. Thanks- and I've got better things to do now. After I finish laughing.

     Posted by fromredbird at 07/06/2006 @ 09:43am

361. Bird, this discussion could have taken place in a civilized fashion, were it not for the fact that you hysterically dragged Israel in and unleashed your revanchist vitriol. it seems you read ONE book about the mid east and Israel,by a discredited author, and then shut off your brain. when you turn it back on i am ready.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/06/2006 @ 09:04am

     There's that insulting boorishness again. It's like an evolutional artifact and dies hard. The discussion could have taken place in a civilized manner? Sure it could have if you wouldn't call other people's posts "dumb" and "ignorant". This is all the more important since you're the one displaying most of the ignorance. You can really dish it out but you can't take it.

     Posted by fromredbird at 07/06/2006 @ 09:48am

362. particularly after the French Revolution.

     they said nothing about the secession, did they?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2006 @ 09:48am

363. particularly after the French Revolution.

     they said nothing about the secession, did they?

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/06/2006 @ 09:48am

     Stop grasping. Just go over the edge of the liferaft quietly, please.

     Do you have any familiarity at all with the name Thomas Paine?

     Posted by fromredbird at 07/06/2006 @ 09:50am

364. you don't even read your own references.

     However, the issue of parliamentary reform reached a wider audience, particularly after the French Revolution. Influenced by works such as Thomas Paine's Rights of Man (1791-2), radical reformers demanded that all men be given the right to vote.

     nothing about the constitution or the american "revolution" bingo. note the expression radical reformers. that sure weren't the "founding fathers" was they? (fractured english for emphasis)

     the day that I can't mop the floor with the likes of you, I will quit writing.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2006 @ 09:53am

365. However, the issue of parliamentary reform reached a wider audience, particularly after the French Revolution. Influenced by works such as Thomas Paine's Rights of Man (1791-2), radical reformers demanded that all men be given the right to vote.

     you are a clumsy one, aren't you, reposting a confirmation of my argument. thanks, though

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2006 @ 09:55am

366. Thomas Paine's Rights of Man (1791-2),

     AFTER the constitution and secession.

     In 1791-92, he wrote The Rights of Man in response to criticism of the French Revolution.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2006 @ 09:58am

367. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/06/2006 @ 09:53am

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/06/2006 @ 09:55am

     You're just making an even greater fool of yourself. Be my guest and good day.

     Posted by fromredbird at 07/06/2006 @ 10:00am

368. The Bush admonistration has blatently disregarded our constitution and Bill of Rights and spat this fact in our faces. He has adapted for himself a godlike presence that cannot be challenged by anyone. This goes down his chain of command and Americans are at the mercy of this super-ego individual. Each time congress comes close to calling him to answer one for his crimes against our constitution he inacts a new law to cover it. But for a pathetic few, his republican congress jingles around in his pockets like so much loose change. His right wing supreme court is in the same ball game. Katrina Vanden Heuvel's observations are 100% correct in that this congress must be voted out. Personally, I would go for impeachment and ousting, if nothing more than to set the example for any president who attempts to claim for himself sole power over our nation will not be tolerated. This is the most serious issue ever to face our country and only we, the people can correct it.

     Posted by uglyduckling at 07/06/2006 @ 10:05am

369. yeah right.

     I would like to apologize to the readers of this thread for the personal nature this discussion has taken. I would like to say: he started it" but I won't. I'll leave it with my regrets.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2006 @ 10:06am

370. From today's headlines:

     U.S., Allies Seek Punitive Action Against N. Korea

     The term someone mentioned earlier, "Red Queen", is exceedingly accurate. First, it's against the Red Queen's unwritten law for Iran to engage in nuclear research that they are given the right to under international treaties. Now it's against the Red Queen's unwritten laws to test a missile. Only the "good" people in the Red Queen's Western Kingdom can do that. And do they ever do a hell of a lot of it, too. This story will have a bad ending.

     Posted by fromredbird at 07/06/2006 @ 10:08am

371. I would like to apologize to the readers of this thread for the personal nature this discussion has taken. I would like to say: he started it" but I won't. I'll leave it with my regrets.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/06/2006 @ 10:06am

     Apology accepted.

     Posted by fromredbird at 07/06/2006 @ 10:11am

372. not you.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2006 @ 10:12am

373. Apology accepted Johann. By the way, I've considered myself the "king of contrition" for quite some time, noting how I usually have to get it wrong once to get it right (Dewey-esque "trial and error," n'est-ce pas)?

     Wouldn't you wrestlers, like the guys in Oliver Stone's "Born on the 4th of July," agree that strong personalities, like other successful sole or group systems, vigorously contest, and this reflects intra-species competitiveness which is evolutionarily beneficial for we homo sapiens? I think so.

     You're equably forgiven by the way. I think we all are.

     Posted by lewwelge at 07/06/2006 @ 10:47am

374. Think for a moment. Do you imagine there are Americans out there who might consider Bansidh is practicing hate speech? Is there a liberal pundit out there who has written the same?

     But I have all control over my feelings regarding what I'm sure could be considered "hate speech". So do you. So do we all.

     I think you are confusing speech you hate with hate speech. If I understand you correctly, you want me to cite "hate speech" from a liberal pundit? I can't. I can't cite examples of Coulter's hate speech either.

     Here's my unsolicited advice: And TJ nailed this spot on earlier, LET EVERYONE HEAR ANN COULTER! If you are so convinced she is practicing hate speech (she's not in my opinion), where is your conviction that everyone else will see it too and be equally put off? Can't you see that through her hatred you attribute to her opinions - if indeed true and to you it is - Coulter is her own worst enemy?!

     Posted by FREIHEIT 07/06/2006 @ 11:00am

     While I find your reponse genuine and well-thought-out, Frei, I cannot help but feel that you continue to have dodged my question, and further, that you have reframed the debate again in order to avoid doing so.

     You post, "I think you are confusing speech you hate with hate speech. If I understand you correctly, you want me to cite "hate speech" from a liberal pundit? I can't. I can't cite examples of Coulter's hate speech either."

     I think you are selling me short and charging me with intellectual ignorance, if not outright dishonesty. The only thing this has to do with "speech I hate" is because I do hate "hate-speech". You imply that I am being petty and just taking Coulter personally, that I am being flighty and flipping out over something you said about Coulter on a blog board - nah, I'm just enjoying my blog-hobby,and this is the topic du jour - this isn't the biggest event of my day or most important line of thought in my mind, by any means.

     I also never once debated whether Ann Coulter is her own worst enemy or not (she is), nor that she should be silenced in any way, Frei. You've got me confused with someone else - I never advocate silencing anyone (though I do wish some people would voluntarily shut the fuck up).

     Bansidh and Johannes are bloggers on a board. I do not agree with Ban's assessment of all armies, nor Johanne's general opinions about the U.S. army or war in general, and I feel both make generalizations and have washed the entire military institution with accusations that often apply to only a few. No offense intended to them, but I don't think either of them is relevant to our discussion, however. I am not debating Johanne or Bandish. I was debating you.

     I also do not care if there are other "Americans out there who might consider Bandish is practicing hate speech" - Bandish is not who we were discussing, nor is he a mass-marketed pundit, at any rate, which is what we were discussing.

     I reiterate that Ann Coulter is hateful and you continue to excuse and support her words as though they are not.

     For you to say you still cannot cite examples of hate-speech from her smacks of willful blindness, or again, a simple unwillingnes to retract your defense because you are too afraid to be honest and back down on something you shouldn't have said - I honestly believe that you think this board will see it some sign of weakness and vilify you for it.

     For you to twist the fact that you can't find liberal pundits with similar commentary, into claiming that's because we have differing definitions of hate speech, is disingenuous at best - you can't find it because no liberal pundits come close to this kind of speech with this kind of regularity or venom.

     Here's another example of Coulter's hate:

     RE: The Jersey Girls "These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."

     Note: the Jersey Girls are four women whose husbands died in the September 11, 2001 attacks. They were instrumental in lobbying for the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

     So, let me understand this. You think saying things like that isn't hateful? How can you even say that widows are enjoying their husband's deaths? Not hateful?? Okay, how about just fucking sick and cruel?

     Here's another:

     Saying that her only regret with Timothy McVeigh is that he didn't hit the NYT building isn't hateful? Coulter is saying she would have been perfectly fine with it if McVeigh had murdered 168 people (including 19 children) at the NYT building, and you don't find that hateful?

     What is advocating the murder of innocents and those who disagree with you - love speech?

     I respect you, Frei, I really do, but you are disgusting the fuck out of me right now. How can you not acknowledge that that is hate speech? It's just gross to say otherwise.

     I give up.

     Posted by New Dawn at 07/06/2006 @ 11:48am

375. Better yet - how about you cite one example of what you do consider "hate speech".

     Just one. From anyone.

     Posted by New Dawn at 07/06/2006 @ 11:52am

376. Fryhat, humor my dear boy, humor.

     as far as B.s statement, I am forced to agree. remember my relations lived through the soviet conquest of "my" country, with mass rapes by the soviet soldiers, the numbers are indeed staggering as a recent book has illuminated. you americans have no way of understanding this , since you have not faced a war on your soil and an occupation thereof.

     you have a way of sidestepping any criticism by attacking the messenger, as boorish as he, in my case, may be.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2006 @ 11:57am

377. Dawn, my feelings about armies are more complex than you seem to give me credit for. I have spoken about all members of my family, blood and otherwise, have been military.

     I know my grandfather never participated in atrocities the german army perpetrated, especially in Russia. I can elaborate why I know this if you like.

     I just don't worship army "culture", an oxymoron if ever there was one, the way many do around here. you saw the mauling I endured from Moussie, naw he didn't lay a glove on me.

     I appreciate your reasoned and firm dialogue with Frei.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2006 @ 12:07pm

378. Johanne -

     Didn't mean to draw you into any argument of any kind - hated to even reference you, but Frei had already done so - I've read all of your posts on war and the military, just don't always agree in every detail.

     I too have military family, and support our soldiers, army, navy, air force, and marines. But I, like you, don't worship that "culture" nor do I always support the men giving our troops their marching orders.

     I agree with you far more often than I disagree.

     Peace, friend.

     ND

     Posted by New Dawn at 07/06/2006 @ 12:21pm

379. thanks New Dawn

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2006 @ 12:24pm

380. nice parsing, Fry. look over the Coulter quotes again, you can tick off the ones you approve of and the ones you don't. but that is sophistry. you compared pundits, but have yet to come up with a single hate quote from any of the liberal ones. and that's where the rhetorical dishonesty lies. you can always take the comparison back. your ruminating on why Coulter provokes such strong feelings also is a way of changing the debate to more favorable terms for you.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2006 @ 12:28pm

381. Coulter on Muslims:

     "I think our motto should be post-9-11, 'raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences.'"

     Racist hate speech.

     Period.

     Posted by New Dawn at 07/06/2006 @ 12:34pm

382. New Dawn,

     There is no such thing as Hate Speech: There is only Free Speech, however one feels about it.

     CT

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/06/2006 @ 12:43pm

383. Yeah, okay, Chip - whatever helps you sleep at night.

     I'm guessing you agree with Coulter's "raghead" remark.

     I will not engage someone so divorced from reality.

     Posted by New Dawn at 07/06/2006 @ 12:45pm

384. JR,

     As a student of WWII history, I would be appreciative of any info you feel comfortable sharing about your grandfather, his unit,campaigns experiences, etc. Not now, but when you have time..

     CT

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/06/2006 @ 12:48pm

385. No, New Dawn, I do not appreciate her remark-I simply acknowledge her right to say it. You either have free speech or you don't, this "being offended" stuff is a lot of crap, and I will accept no laws which retard that most fundamental right.

     Chip

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/06/2006 @ 12:51pm

386. Fryhat, that's how they pronounce Freiheit in Texas,

     "I do think they are ALL birds of a feather." that's the dishonest part, as it is unsupported

     "Want to wager I could google up a liberal pundit saying something like Cheney should be killed",

     that's what we have been asking you to do, but you only TALK a good game.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2006 @ 12:52pm

387. Fry, "even predict that Bush will die of a brain tumor?"

     I ain't no pundit, just an insufferable boor. by the way that statement was a prayer.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2006 @ 12:54pm

388. Chip, I did not see anyone wanting to censor La Coulter, just excoriate her. free speech goes a long way, and it even includes the NY Times.

     I have a story I will share with you, entre nous.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2006 @ 12:56pm

389. I think there is a difference along the lines of what Freiheit is indicating. Coulter has only one goal: to draw attention to herself. Her insincerity is obvious. Psychoanalysis time: she learned that negative attention is better than no attention at all and that even the most cruel statements will bring allies into your fold, no matter how devolved those allies might be. What is she really asking for? As ugly as her writing style and ideas are (yes I've read a morsel or two, but my stomach can't handle much since my gall bladder was removed last year), she has no power.

     And power is what is necessary to turn hateful speech into hate speech. Look at the KKK. Ugly ideas, to be sure. And their speech was bonafide hate speech. But today? I'm not so sure. Maybe still tucked away in those areas of the country still untouched by the least civilizing influence there are people who are genuinely at risk because of the confluence of the KKK's speech and power. But mostly they are just buffoons, like Coulter.

     I don't know the legal or official definition of hate speech and, as Pontificus reminds me, I'm lazy and will not look it up. But it seems to me that it has to include a real threat, like sexual harrassment includes the sense that someone actually has the potential power to force another to do what he/she does not want to do. Coulter, Limbaugh, any of the nimrods on Fox News--they are stupid, stupid humans and ignorance flies from their pores. But they don't scare me and I don't think they should scare anyone.

     Hell, look at Coulter for crying out loud. The woman could be taken out by a slightly peeved kitten.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/06/2006 @ 12:56pm

390. No, New Dawn, I do not appreciate her remark-I simply acknowledge her right to say it. You either have free speech or you don't, this "being offended" stuff is a lot of crap, and I will accept no laws which retard that most fundamental right.

     Chip

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON 07/06/2006 @ 12:51am

     C'mon, Chip - you're mixing arguments - I am not against free speech, and anyone who's read my posts knows that. I didn't say there should be a law against Coulter's type of speech, but it is hateful and offensive, and there's no denying that.

     However, though I support free speech, including Coulter's right to spit her hate, that sure as hell doesn't mean I have to like it or endorse it, nor am I required to NOT be offended by it.

     Hate is hate, and anything liberal or Democrat, Coulter hates - and has said so herself, and anyone who's read her books or listened to her knows that, including Frei.

     Or maybe there is, for you, at least.

     You don't find "raghead" offensive?

     Posted by New Dawn at 07/06/2006 @ 12:59pm

391. The woman could be taken for a slightly peeved kitten.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2006 @ 1:01pm

392. "or maybe there is a distinction, for you, at least"

     Posted by New Dawn at 07/06/2006 @ 1:01pm

393. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 07/06/2006 @ 12:56am

     Per Wikipedia:

     Hate speech is a controversial term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a group of people based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. The term covers written as well as oral communication. It is also sometimes called antilocution and is the first point on Allport's scale which measures prejudice in a society.

     I would offer that "hateful" speech begs a broader definition, as in Coulter's case, it is also targeted against liberals and the Democrats as a whole.

     Posted by New Dawn at 07/06/2006 @ 1:03pm

394. Like yelling fire in a theatre, eh?

     Posted by New Dawn at 07/06/2006 @ 1:07pm

395. Fryhat:" I could

     you can't

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2006 @ 1:09pm

396. "Only Plunger and Rese would appreciate the amount of documented quotes I could copy and paste attributed to liberal pundits that rational people could argue as hate speech..."

     You've been asked to do so half a dozen times, Frei.

     Not saying anything... I'm just saying...

     Posted by New Dawn at 07/06/2006 @ 1:11pm

397. very funny

     http://deanfriedman.cf.huffingtonpost.com/

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2006 @ 1:11pm

398. Frei -

     Is calling someone a "raghead" hate speech?

     Posted by New Dawn at 07/06/2006 @ 1:11pm

399. Ah, fuck it.

     Never mind.

     How about that World Cup?

     (I couldn't possibly care less about soccer, so I'll be going now)

     Posted by New Dawn at 07/06/2006 @ 1:13pm

400. Fryhat, if you could you would. you compared Coulter to Michael Moore. go on, don't be coy, give us a little citation.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2006 @ 1:13pm

401. Dawn, Itoldyouso. but don't go before clicking on the link I provided.

     there is always time for a smile and a chuckle.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2006 @ 1:14pm

402. I could, no you can't, I could, no you can't, I could, no you can't. hahahahahaha

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2006 @ 1:19pm

403. Coulter stinks so badly, that defending her, that whiff clings to you Fry.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2006 @ 1:20pm

404. don't flatter yourself Fry, I did not see anyone attacking free speech.

     one more quick point. when I utter some hateful thing here, and I have, and perhaps will again, it is very different from something Coulter utters, simply because she has a far bigger soapbox to stand on, like Fox for instance. so context is everything.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2006 @ 1:39pm

405. actually germany blew it, losing concentration in the last minutes. the player with the assist of the first and decisive goal, was unmarked for too long, I could not believe my eyes. the two teams played equally well for two hours. I'm going with Italy. let's make this a personal contest betwixt us two.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2006 @ 1:44pm

406. Your points are well taken, New Dawn.

     You know, I don't know whether I find epithets offensive or not. I certainly don't think of people in terms of the baser epithets that have been attached to them. Try to judge them by their actions, you know. If a Moslem beats a kid or rapes his wife or some other similar thing, then he's a son-of-a-bitch in my book, and I'd tell him so. But is he a raghead to me just because he's Moslem? No. And if someone else calls him a raghead for that reason alone, then he's just ignorant...like Coulter.

     Chip

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/06/2006 @ 1:45pm

407. On Tuesday, July 4, 2006 I read an article from another news source that really points to the real issue. Oath of office that our Congress take to `defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic' they make this freely in witness to `God' and the people of the U.S. My question is; is failure to honor this oath an act of deceit, treason, or do these individuals take some other oath that subverts our Constitution and Bill of Rights?

     Posted by ray300 at 07/06/2006 @ 1:51pm

408. Chip -

     You say ignorant, I say racist scumbag, and definitely full of hate.

     Thank you for your respectful discourse with me.

     And Frei -

     I have never argued against "free speech". Your argument was, and remains, disingenuous.

     As Johanne noted, it is the stink of defending Coulter that will cling to you henceforth, not your, or anyone else's, defense of "free speech".

     Posted by New Dawn at 07/06/2006 @ 1:52pm

409. No, distasteful to be sure, but not any worst than calling republicans nazis. Is it?

     Posted by FREIHEIT 07/06/2006 @ 1:13pm

     It isn't worse - it's largely the same. And I find that repugnant, too.

     Posted by New Dawn at 07/06/2006 @ 1:53pm

410. Your welcome, New Dawn. Anytime. :)

     CT

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/06/2006 @ 2:07pm

411. Your welcome, New Dawn. Anytime. :)

     CT

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/06/2006 @ 2:08pm

412. Never even heard of Ted Rall.

     _________________________________

     very funny

     http://deanfriedman.cf.huffingtonpost.com/

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/06/2006 @ 1:11pm

     FREAKING HILARIOUS, JOHANNE. I miss her, too, but then, I like chunky chicks.

     Whoops - was that hateful against chunky chicks? My bad.

     Posted by New Dawn at 07/06/2006 @ 2:08pm

413. Fry, "Would I stink defending Ted Rall?"

     again I challenge you to cite Ted Rall making the kind of remarks that are the stock in trade of Coulter.

     you know you can pick any name, and you have.but you have to prove it. which New Dawn certainly did.

     my black friend used to call me Yo. so it was Yo, Yo.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2006 @ 2:20pm

414. In the grand scheme of things, does Ann Coulter really matter that much? Honestly, why do we care what she or any other pundit says? It's not like she or her cohorts are great thinkers or anything: they're just a bunch of talking heads.

     Posted by Gertrude at 07/06/2006 @ 2:26pm

415. Gertrude, yes and no. no she does not matter. yes, because a comparison was made, unfairly, and THAT started the discussion.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2006 @ 2:28pm

416. that's what we have been asking you to do, but you only TALK a good game.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/06/2006 @ 12:52am

     it's nice to see that their are talk the talk conservatives over on the left side of hamsterland.

     must be a side effect of the ever expanding commie hamster fringe

     (with a dash of evangelic thrown in for good measure)

     Posted by Will C. at 07/06/2006 @ 9:53pm

417. and I love the cute and cuddly little hamsters

     (they are so cute... aren't they)

     Ha Ha Ha Ha

     Posted by Will C. at 07/06/2006 @ 9:58pm

418. Freiheit, this is a message in two parts. it will be my last message to you, as a matter of fact this will be my last message in this forum.

     first let me thank you for calling my attention to the fact that I have too much time. I do, and I will spend it elsewhere. the second part is that I want to express to you my condolences. you spent the better part of the day defending Ann Coulter.

     I have had many bad jobs in my life, I'm almost 60. I once literally crawled through shit to get a video, a client asked me to make. but that was nothing like what you did today. I feel truly sorry for you. if this had been your last day on earth, that you chose to spend it like that. my heart goes out to you. I have one last bit of advice: run as fast as you can the other way so that will never happen to you again. I wish you well.

     I thank all of my readers, I LOVE YA to all the liberals and hearty FUCK YOU to the Tories. nicht auf wiedersehen, but so long.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2006 @ 10:19pm

419. please don't do that johannesrolf!!!!!!!!

     take a break if u need to. a long one if u need to.

     but don't do that!

     i would miss you and your posts.....you add a lot to this place.

     Posted by loveloki at 07/07/2006 @ 12:11am

420. i miss eric too. what was his name? malcontent3? was that it?

     Posted by loveloki at 07/07/2006 @ 12:12am

421. since we're putting up the lovely ann quotes, let's not forget about this little gem of hers:

     "I think [women] should be armed but should not [be allowed to] vote. No, they all have to give up their vote, not just, you know, the lady clapping and me. The problem with women voting -- and your Communists will back me up on this -- is that, you know, women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it. And when they take these polls, it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care." -- Ann Coulter, Politically Incorrect, Feb. 26, 2001

     and, just to add my two bits about her psychology: that really is her that comes here and constantly changes her name and posts "the great ann coulter" all of the time. she is jealous of kvh because she still has a soul. so, while she's sitting at home all alone most of the time, she blogs here at the nation. she is obsessed with katrina over the soul thing.

     oh and did i mention that she is putrid? and bilious with hatred?

     Posted by loveloki at 07/07/2006 @ 12:23am

422. Group hug time!

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/07/2006 @ 1:55pm

423. Freiheit,

     I liked your post. I like most of your posts. It's hard to tell what will touch another's nerve and apparently you unwittingly touched one of JR's. My reading of this was that it was a misinterpretation that is too common in this still relatively new method of correspondence between strangers. I think you and I are in the same sentence of the same paragraph on the same page when it comes to Ms. Coulter. This puts me at odds with JR, I guess, who chose to take issue only with you. Go figure.

     I think that your posts can be tough for others to take because you clearly disagree with us lefties on some issues based on interpretation and others on the actual substance, while your views are similar to ours in other cases. I know people like you, I like them, and I understand/admire the consistency in their viewpoints even if when I am certain they are wrong. It's a much simpler task to take on OKSPORTSGUY, CPT, LL, and others who are consistently wrong than to deal with those who take a third approach to the world. I believe that a detachment from the binary, bipolar bluster of our donkey v. elephant approach to our country is the best method to finding solutions that will propel us forward. Others are far too attached to one party or the other for more taste; limited thinking is "in" this season.

     Anyways, I don't know if the "shit" was directed at me or just a frustrated response. Doesn't matter. You're interesting and that's all that it takes for me to read rather than scroll past your posts.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/07/2006 @ 2:27pm

424. Freiheit, et al, I cannot let you think that you in any way caused my withdrawal. this was strictly me.

     let me first thank you for that generous tribute, this means so very much to me. as does that of Loveloki, and others. allow me to provide some background. I returned yesterday from a memorial for an old friend and colleague, was drunk and felt my mortality keenly, and surprisingly yours as well. I really wish I could be your friend, and not only you.

     we all share in this discussion and yesterday's episode seemed to me particularly fruitless all around. I feel that I have cast perhaps too large a shadow here, and felt somewhat compulsive. I have profited from my association with most everyone here, but I need some time to concentrate on writing of a different sort.

     I will keep reading here and will be back sometime by "popular demand". in closing I will post a story I wrote yesterday, off topic, maybe, maybe not. please feel free to respond.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/07/2006 @ 3:12pm

425. Subject: my grandfather's story

     My grandfather went into WW1 as a buck private, and came out a lieutenant with an iron cross. He then joined the police. After the Nazi takeover, which he deplored, there came a time when all police officers had to be party members. He quit the police and returned to the army, where there was as yet no such requirement.

     I believe he was a captain at that time. He was assigned to the army telephone service. When the war started his unit was always second at the front, laying the communication links to headquarters, so he went to Poland, France, and Russia, where hecame within sight of the Kremlin, and then retreat. He did not get caught in the cauldron that was Stalingrad, because he was elsewhere, laying those phone wires, or rather ordering someone else to lay those wires.

     By this time he was a colonel, on his way to general. As a staff officer he had his own trusty valet, to take care of his uniform and boots. That man was with him for the duration. As part of occupying forces he was in command of several towns both in Poland and in France.

     When he was in East Prussia, where he had a summer house and the soviets were on the outskirts, he was faced with the decision of retuning to his house to retrieve his life's savings, in the form of a very valuable stamp collection, easy to transport, always gains in value, unlike money.

     Remember he went through TWO complete currency devaluations, where everyone lost everything saved. He was faced with the soviets on one end of town, his family at the other end, and his fortune in the middle. He chose to make sure his family got out in the chaos of retreat. Life savings and house gone.

     Near the end of the war, he was up for general. The war ended before that, fortunately. All officers were put in prison after the war, duration depending on rank. I believe he served a year, or two. Before that he was injured when a shell went through the "jeep" he was riding in, injuring his leg. shrapnel pieces remained in his leg.

     Some time after his release from prison, there was a discovery in Poland. In the Katyn forest, mass graves of hundreds of murdered polish officers were discovered. The soviets, who discovered those mass graves blamed the germans. My grandfather, who commanded an occupied village near there, was hauled before a war crimes court, and charged.

     Somehow this story made the news papers and the mayor of a town in France my grandfather has commanded under occupation of France, found out about this trial. He personally travelled to germany to testify on my grandfather's behalf., saying it was impossible for this man to have committed or ordered this horrendous crime. In addition former prisoners of war, testified on his behalf. He was acquitted.

     In the 60s definite proof was found that the soviets killed those Polish officers, while they had occupied Poland, after that country was partitioned between Russia and Germany. I remember my grandfather getting care packages of coffee and other unobtainables from former prisoners of his for many years. This included british soldiers, while Britain too endured rationing.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 07/07/2006 @ 3:16pm

426. JR,

     Freaky week. I attended a funeral this morning for a longtime co-worker, the dearest, sweetest old country man you could ever meet. Tanya Tucker and Vince Gill (if my country ears were tuned correctly) through the speaker system, mentions of "Calvary" and "fishing with the angels above" being tossed about without a single bit of metaphor in mind, and funeral fashion so casual that I felt conspicuous in my black tie and jacket. Completely out of my element, yet so reminiscent of the little country Lutheran church that I attended so faithfully as a child and such a beautiful service in its absolute assurance that death is so much better than life.

     I am sure that everyone at the funeral was a really good person. The deceased was such a good man that I would have to trust that anyone else who can recognize such goodness has to be a reasonable person. And yet I know by the nodding heads during the eulogies that we would have plenty to get heated up about if certain topics were tossed out for debate.

     It seems like most of us take breaks (breaths) on this site. I have to sometimes when that liberal elitist in me starts to think that errors in a post are not just innocent, but are symbolic of a truly evil soul and my keyboard becomes my own WMD attacking all idiots who visit this site.

     Please continue to post here. Your passion and knowledge are important.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/07/2006 @ 3:36pm

427. Yes, defense of the Constitution is commendable. Where was the outrage when the Patriot Acts I and II were passed by not only Republicans but by Democrats as well. Then, they passed it not only once but twice. The first time was when our Constitution was broken at its core and no one realy seemed to noticablly care. We Democrats have been so easily manipulated and distracted by any side issue with which the Republicans wish to divert us.

     Posted by hokesimpson at 07/10/2006 @ 07:33am